> I agree with nearly all your observations Michael, but I take issue with
> the one above. You're right to be negative about hydrogen *IF* we use
> fossil fuels to create it, but there is a much better way. Massive
> solar cell arrays could generate electricity which could be used to
> split water into hydrogen and oxygen. The technology has been known for
> decades, in fact I've even done it in my garage. Works great, and solar
> power and silicon are literally as common as dirt.
>
> Let's get going, what say? :-)
>
> --
> Bill, W6WRT
> QSLs via LoTW
>
>
Given the current costs of solar technology and today's fuel
prices, massive solar deployment doesn't make economic
sense. You just can't ignore the economics. Just take a look
at the return on investment from a home solar system. It
costs 10 to 20K bucks to build a system that provides a few
KWH of electricity each day. Your lucky if you get a few
hundred bucks worth of electricity each year. As fossil fuel
prices increase and the cost of solar technology decreases,
the picture will change. Hopefully these changes will come
gradually enough that the transition off fossil fuels won't
involve massive economic chaos. That is the real question
mark.
73 de Mike, W4EF..........................................
_______________________________________________
RFI mailing list
RFI@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rfi
|