3 ms·
I see what you're getting at, but I would argue that all attempts of "generating" energy are actually "transporting" energy from one storage to another. Take o
by _dark_matter_ 13y ago
I see what you're getting at, but I would argue that all attempts of "generating" energy are actually "transporting" energy from one storage to another.
Take oil, for example; it is just a method of storing energy. In the same way, the hydrogen atom is the stored energy. Any of the methods you mentioned - sunlight, wind, streams, temperature gradients, etc. - are all examples of that same stored energy. The game is in converting it for our consumption. We're never actually "generating" energy.
With that in mind, the single item with the highest "energy density" is the hydrogen atom. When we are capable of "transporting" it's stored energy to one of our storage mediums, we will have all the energy we need.
Seems like it's worth the risk.
- TrainedMonkey 13y agoI would argue that there is a large difference between transporting and transforming. It is easy to transport/store hydrogen in a pressurized cistern. It is also fairly easy to transform hydrogen just by burning it. Of course burning fossil fuels and releasing tons of CO2 is how we got into whole global warming business anyways, so we want a more efficient transformation technology. But wait, it get's more complicated. Compare transportation and storage of hydrogen versus electricity. Vast difference, requires radically different technologies, so let's not call all energy 'same'.
- Crito 13y agoBurning hydrogen itself is clean, producing only water vapor (which can be fairly trivially condensed, if necessary.) The problem is acquiring the hydrogen.
- TrainedMonkey 13y agoGood point, no carbon involved.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]