matt (hbergeronx) wrote,
matt
hbergeronx

  • Mood:

wrapping my brain around it

I'm trying to wrap my brain around Lieberman's energy platform. He's proposing that we will invest huge sums of money to utilize our coal resources to convert to a hydrogen economy. From what I can gather, coal is about 4-6% hydrogen by weight, and crude oil is about 12-16% hydrogen by weight. Naively, it would seem that coal is a poorer choice for sourcing hydrogen, but I have no idea if coal can be mined at a significantly lower cost and/or is available in greater supply. Is Alaskan oil or Midwestern coal a better source for hydrogen? Do we want a hydrogen economy? Note: I realize hydrogen would not be derived directly from fossil fuels such as coal or oil, but indirectly by combustion and hydrolysis. I just haven't sat down and thought about it yet.

I'm also intrigued that there is enough tidal energy available under the Golden Gate bridge to supply twice the electrical demand of San Francisco, and that the capital investment for this would work out to less than what SF currently pays for electricity over a six year depreciation period. Why hasn't this happened yet?

Opinions welcome.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 1 comment