Broadcaster wrote: (interesting comments)
I love your nuclear logo.
There are nuclear designs much safer than traditional designs, including "pebble bed" reactors, that cannot melt down, Fukushima style, even in the event of loss of all coolant. The fuel is made into spheres, not rods. If they over-heat, they expand in size; that naturally slows the reaction and keeps it below the point where they could melt. But there are also advanced designs that can use the "waste" of other nuclear reactors, as fuel.
Hydrogen and solar are both nifty. Energy available from the sun at the Earth's surface is impressive; about 1,000 watts per square meter. Anyone who's stood in the sun on a bright day knows: a lot of energy comes from it. One nifty solar design is simply a large parabolic mirror and a Stirling engine at the focal point. Unlike a steam engine, a Stirling engine doesn't use any water; just heat alone is enough to make it work. A parabolic mirror with a surface area of 10 sq. meters can generate several hundred degrees and a few kilowatts of energy with that very simple engine; easily enough to run a washing machine and other heavy appliances.
Electrolysis to generate hydrogen is relatively inefficient. Ideal would be direct generation of hydrogen from solar power (or wind). But as you've noted, hydrogen is ideal as a safe, clean fuel. Stored and available at night...that and other technologies could easily free us from the traditional fuels we must
The problem isn't a lack of alternative energy technologies. It's the disgraceful lack of investment
in alternate technologies, already developed. 56% of Republican governors in the U.S. don't believe that global warming is real. That's appalling ignorance. The evidence is everywhere. In my opinion, support for alternate energy sources should come from public funds, there should be heavy
investment, and support for fossil fuels should end, completely. As well as heavy taxes on fossils. That would put much of the financial burden on the fossil fuel industries, rather than on the public. They should be made to pay
for all the damage they're doing, which has been estimated to be already in the hundreds of billions a year...and headed toward trillions
The damage being done by continued fossil fuels use will inevitably eat up more and more of the global economy, like a tear in the hull of a sinking ship. Civilization as the Costa Concordia. Bad piloting made that ship sink, and the same will happen to civilization, if we don't avoid the reef we're now headed toward. That reef being the natural limits of the Earth. As for how such small creatures can really damage a planet...well ask termites what they can do a house. We're the termites...currently wrecking a beautiful home.
One example of the serious effects of fossil fuels. Climate scientists at NOAA have determined that the reason for the very serious drought in California - a year ago deemed to be the
driest period since 1895, and it's now close to four years running - is global warming
. A warmer Arctic has resulted in a big shift in the jet stream; that has created a standing high pressure area over California during the winter; which means little precipitation on that part of the world, just when they should be getting lots of rain; so...drought. And that's not going to change. It can only get worse. Ten straight years of severe drought in California and a very dire water shortage problem there won't surprise me. One just has to understand the mechanics of it. But there are similar problems all over the world now. It's a huge issue, not a small one.
Strong support for alternate energy would be the government doing its job properly; i.e. looking to the future and working to spare everyone the serious grief that's sure to come if they don't. Talk of "adaptation" makes me sigh. That's a much more foolish attitude than not
messing up the Paradise planet we inherited.