Nuclear Power: Yes or No?

omnicorp

Should we use Nuclear power as an alternative source of energy?
With a bit more research and safety guidance it could really work quite well.
How many people were killed in the Coal Mines of the 19th century?
And it's not that I don't like Hydroelectricity or Wind Power it's just that they aren't very efficient.

Now, I think I hear some angry members of greenpeace on my doorstep...

OfflerCrocGod

No

Yes.

Capt'n Midnight

omnicorp wrote:

Should we use Nuclear power as an alternative source of energy?
With a bit more research and safety guidance it could really work quite well.
How many people were killed in the Coal Mines of the 19th century?
And it's not that I don't like Hydroelectricity or Wind Power it's just that they aren't very efficient.

Now, I think I hear some angry members of greenpeace on my doorstep...

Please stop with the un-original threads.

No.

Find a list of nuclear power stations that are being build or have had funding approved. Next cross off those in countries that have a nuclear weapons program and need plutonium. Next cross off those countries that have large uranium deposits. Who is left ????? - now ask YOURSELF why.

Due to changes in waste regulations some of the computers in buy n' sell would be better described as Toxic waste, since you have to pay for them to be dumped in China, I mean recycled environmentally. Nuclear waste will be a problem without an acceptible solution and disposal will get worse.

Hydro - is efficient, the only reason it is not used more is that all the big rivers in this country are already in use. Hint - do a bit of reaearch before posting...

Wind power - if you had read my previous posts you would have seen me point out that it can be combined with pumped storage to give 24/7 electricity - also like hydro fuel costs are less than Nuclear.

Show one unbiased report that shows nuclear power is economic when you take into account waste and decomissionng costs.

Health and safety have improved a lot since the 19th century. Also coal is not due to run out untill 400 years after uranium at current rates. Also coal stations can be converted to run on waste / biomass, nuclear powerstations can't.

I can't remember the name of the Indian power station that is so radioactive that it's just sitting there, unusable.

Nuclear power can be safe - US nuclear subs have shown this to some extent. But those levels of safety make it uneconomic and there is still the waste problem.

suggest you find out more about the russian waste dump that exploded and the number of lives cut short buy it, and also the numbers of probable cancer victims of chyernobyl - compared to which modern coal mining seems relativley safe.

Keyzer

yes

the_syco

No

Maybe.

=-=

Answer me; how much coal gets burned every winter?

I'd say; alot. Now, which harms the ozone layer more? Coal power, or nuclear power? I'm asking this, as I don't know, but some on this board may.

=-=

Nuclear Energy is not perfect. It'll never be perfect. But, sadly, it's the only viable longterm solution at the moment.

Also, if you think Chyernobyl happened along time ago; look at Sellafield. It has failed numourous safty checks, and isn't enconomicly viable. and it nearer to Dublin than Belfast is.

=-=

What I'm saying is that another power source is needed. I'm not one of the tree-huggers, but I can see that wind and water power needs to be looked at. Alot of oppostion is against the wind-mills being built near them, but they're very quiet, and produce energy. And if you put them on the west coast, you'll get alot of wind.
As for water power; dams etc provide alot of power. They may not provide alot all the time, but they are fairly good.
Finally, some research should be done on wave power. If anyone has seen the waves after 3pm in Galway, you'll know what I mean, when I say they proberly also have alot of power.

=-=

I'm all for nuclear power for the time being, as there's not really anything else now, but its only good for a quick fix. It may provide longterm power, but only with substansile amounts of money to ensure its safe.
If, however, research is done in the other area's, Ireland would benifit greatly, due to its location, and we'd get get cheap renewable energy.

Capt'n Midnight

the_syco wrote:

Answer me; how much coal gets burned every winter?

I'd say; alot. Now, which harms the ozone layer more? Coal power, or nuclear power? I'm asking this, as I don't know, but some on this board may.

Insisting that buildings were more energy efficient, and banning SUV's would do more to reduce CO2 then nuclear power in the long term, 'cos we will run out of uranium before we run out of fossil fuels.

Nuclear Energy is not perfect. It'll never be perfect. But, sadly, it's the only viable longterm solution at the moment.

Fussion may be a long term solution - fission is not. [/quote]

Also, if you think Chyernobyl happened along time ago; look at Sellafield. It has failed numourous safty checks, and isn't enconomicly viable. and it nearer to Dublin than Belfast is.

aka sellafield, aka calder hall.
Renaming a station does not improve it's safety record .

Alot of oppostion is against the [object] being built near them,

NIMBY's - Not In My Back Yard - any big project will have this regardless.

Finally, some research should be done on wave power. If anyone has seen the waves after 3pm in Galway, you'll know what I mean, when I say they proberly also have alot of power.

the new UK system of putting underwater windmills in tidal races seems neatest and they can be raised above water for maintainance. Also in Ireland the tide varies by several hours around the coast so there will be power 24/7 if spread them out. And the windmills have smaller blades than turbines and move at a similar speed to the current so the demizens of the deep don't have swim any faster than normal to avoid the blades.

I'm all for nuclear power for the time being, as there's not really anything else now, but its only good for a quick fix. It may provide longterm power, but only with substansile amounts of money to ensure its safe.
If, however, research is done in the other area's, Ireland would benifit greatly, due to its location, and we'd get get cheap renewable energy.

Capital costs and build times are longer than most other power stations so they aren't a quick fix. If you planted willow in old bogs you could probably have the old peat stations back running on coppiced twigs before the nukes went online. Or just run them on domestic waste (thermal treatment with caustic soda - can't remmber if 350 degrees (C or F?) or 350 atm pressure will convert most things to Oil / gas / ash / water )

Don't forget the new oil terminal in Mayo - unlike nuclear you don't have to import.

On the other had yer man that devised Gaia lovelace? reckoned we should put nuclear and toxic waste into nature reserves to stop people going in - on the basis that the the wildlife would have half a chance..

omnicorp

No

wave power would be a VERY good idea.
But, with a bit more research and study in the matter, Nuclear energy could be a viable option for inland country.

bonkey

omnicorp wrote:

But, with a bit more research and study in the matter, Nuclear energy could be a viable option for inland country.

Nuclear fusion could be, but is not yet viable.
Nuclear fission is currently viable but - at best - will only ever be a short-to-mid-term* stopgap solution to make up for an lack of availability of fossil fuels.

jc

omnicorp

No

so, would you rather have nothing.
Coal ond Oil probably damage the envireoment more than Nuclear Energy.
(Not weapons, energy)

OfflerCrocGod

No

France makes 75% of its electricity from nuke power plants and exports a lot to the rest of Europe making it a nice tidy sum. It's not such a bad alternative if done the French way......not the English way.

Capt'n Midnight

omnicorp wrote:

so, would you rather have nothing.

Nothing works faster than anidin !
More efficient energy use would reduce the amount of power needed in the first place and is probably as cost effiecitve as building nuclear power stations.

Coal ond Oil probably damage the envireoment more than Nuclear Energy.
(Not weapons, energy)

You could dump the nuclear waste in the amazonian rainforest, this would stop people trying to farm there and thus protect the wild life. Ice ages only last 10's of thousands of years, far shorter than the half life of most low grade waste. The Irish sea is still the most radioactive in the world.

Moronic overgeneralistions don't make an argument.
Opinions are not facts.

Nuclear power / solar power also contribute to global warming ! - it's just they don't contribute as much to the green house effect. Even if there was negligable CO2 in the atmosphere, then overuse of energy by all 6/7 billion of us would still cause enviromental problems. cf. the crocs that live in florida, the only place warm enough for them is the effluent of a nuclear powerstation..

weehamster

I’m wondering. Does it not cost more money to decommission a nuclear plant compared to the initial cost of constructing it in the first place?

the_syco

No

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

France makes 75% of its electricity from nuke power plants and exports a lot to the rest of Europe making it a nice tidy sum. It's not such a bad alternative if done the French way......not the English way.

Whats the difference? Is it different standerds, or what?

Also, I think Spain gets alot of its energy from France, so France must do a failry good job of it.

Capt'n Midnight

weehamster wrote:

I’m wondering. Does it not cost more money to decommission a nuclear plant compared to the initial cost of constructing it in the first place?

Any idea on how much it costs to have security guards 24/7 on a toxic waste dump for the next 50,000 years ?
point being tomorrows enviromental laws will most probably be tougher and no amount of best practice will produce nuclear waste that is 100% totally acceptible..

omnicorp

No

hmm, but why should cost be an issue?
there'll be no cost if theres no planet.

weehamster

omnicorp wrote:

hmm, but why should cost be an issue?
there'll be no cost if theres no planet.

Cause this is how this government thinks, I think

bonkey

Why should cost be an issue? Well, because the electricity has to be paid for.

If its commercially generated, then the consumer pays directly for the entire cost, plus profit. If its state-generated, the consumer pays a subsidised cost, and the rest gets paid by consumers through direct/indirect taxes, and through corporate tax...which is ultimately gained through the consumer contributing to corporate profit...

...so no matter which way you look at it, the consumer has to foot the bill, so the cost is always an issue. (Whether or not the current price is sustainable, too high, or too low is an entirely seperate issue).

As to alternatives? Well, the question answers itself....they weren't called alternative energy sources for nothing. Yes, they need development, which is why fission-based nuclear power can - and almost definitely will - be considered an attractive "next step" as we need to remove our dependancy on fossil-fuels, but there are, even then, alternatives.

Consider burning straightforward wood, or hemp. It might seem crazy, but if you do the math, I believe its been found to be possible to have a sustainable system which is carbon-dioxide neutral, because the growing plants will remove as much carbon-dioxide as the burned ones introduce. Note that this doesn't deal with straightforward thermal-emissions, nor that of any ancillary gases. However, as an alternative to burning coal or oil (and probably natural gas), it is an improvement if it can be done on a genuine commercial scale.

Wind, wave, and solar are all becoming more developed as technologies, and while they currently only supply a drop in the ocean, they can make up significant amounts if the technologies are advanced and adopted. (Interesting solar project...)

The best short-term win, however, is unquestionably to use energy more efficiently. Now, I know President Bush got lambasted for making such a comment in the US, but to be fair to the man, energy-efficiency must play a central role in future energy policy.

Someone posted a link some time ago, for example, to a study which found that if the cost of building a new power station (don't remember what type) was instead put into energy-efficiency improvements in households, the resultant energy-saving would outweigh the amount of extra power the new station would contribute! Now, obviously the Law of Diminishing Returns means that this level of improvement can only go on for so long, but even still....even if that report is overly optimistic, it is only a matter of time before proper and serious attention will be paid to achieving energy efficiency.

Just as with the issue of waste disposal and its three Rs, Reduce should be the first method - the method of choice - when dealing with the problem.

jc

OfflerCrocGod

No

the_syco wrote:

Whats the difference? Is it different standerds, or what?

Also, I think Spain gets alot of its energy from France, so France must do a failry good job of it.

As does Italy and the UK. They invested a lot into their tech the French did, it all happened soon after the Oil Crisis in the 70's they decided they didn't like being in the hands of the Saudis and so began designing and building modern Nuke power plants. Yes the french do a very good job of it. A lot of people in France itself didn't even know about their use of Nuke Power until the Goverment asked for comments about a new energy strategy for the future in 2001 ( 2000? ) and then the mainstream was exposed to the huge amount of energy produced by those little boiling atoms. Of course the consensus was that upgrading the old power plants was not worth it and that using Gas and Oil would be fine, of course the rising price of oil in the market may wake them back up and remind them why those plants are there in the first place!

The new Franco-German European Pressurised Water Reactor should be an impressive piece of equipment and should mean Europe leap-frogs the US in the technology stakes I look forwards to the day when the rest of the world is going to war over some oil-fields in the Middle-East and us in Europe will be warming ourselves over our electrical nuclear powered fires Vive La France!

omnicorp

No

I think wave power and Nuclear Power combo. for electricity would be best.
Low air pollution and reliable.
What are the possible faults?

Capt'n Midnight

omnicorp wrote:

I think wave power and Nuclear Power combo. for electricity would be best.
Low air pollution and reliable.
What are the possible faults?

And if I was to think the moon was made of green cheese, it would be just as valid an argument. (hint: give reasons why think this)

Nuclear Reliable ? - If a boiler exploded in a conventional plant they could probably start repairing it the next day and since most plants have more than one boiler/generator it would run along at reduced output until they finished the repairs. Here, we would be looking at a single reactor, any serious accident could shut it down till the radiation level fell off , any safety breach could have it shut down by the HSA, as I've pointed out there is a nuke power plant in India that can't be used because it's too radioactive.

Wave power - ideal here - the shannon estury has very high tides, and tidal times vary to balance load , but lots of engineering problems to solve, wave power generates less than wind power even though it is much more intrusive.

netwhizkid

No

Originally posted by Capt'n Midnight
'cos we will run out of uranium before we run out of fossil fuels.

Not if we mine it on the moon.
Here is a lunar map.

We could mine our uranium & other minerals on the moon and ship our nuclear/household waste out there along with our criminals to special lunar jails. Hey its a win win situation, and you wont have the "nimby" factor to interfere either. we could also set up theme parks and hotels and make the dark side of the moon earths dump, and the front earths new holiday resort. It will happen especially with the launch of Virgin Galactica i see that as the next stepping stone.

Regards netwhizkid

Capt'n Midnight

netwhizkid wrote:

Not if we mine it on the moon.
Here is a lunar map.

Below are mercator projection maps of the moon's surface showing distribution and concentration of a few of the more common elements. In addition to the high amounts of water and iron, fair amounts of aluminum, calcium, silicon, titanium, and uranium appear on the moon. With this combination... not unlike the combination of elements found on earth's surface... it may be possible to find beautiful crystals on the moon. Perhaps even gem quality crystals, gorgeous beyond that of any earthly jewel, could be found strewn on the surface near crater ejecta.

yeah right - "fair amounts" that means it would be in low concentrations, check the amount of U in the average ton or ore down here..

Also whats with the crystals ? - not volcanic activity, no tectonic activity, no running water - so no heat / pressure / movement of stuff to the surface etc. so I would not reckon on big crystals (unless they are billions of years old or in an impact crater)

The EU may go it alone with the next fission reactor if the US/Japan insist on having it in Japan (major earthquake area)

omnicorp

No

i would like a UN project on Nuclear Fission.
Every one gets a go

aidan_walsh

And pray tell, Omnicorp, how would that work?

chump

No

I believe nuclear power could be harnessed safely (as it is to a certain extent in some countries) and will in the coming decades be used on a far more widespread basis. It is unfortunate a bad attitude towads it is the norm these days - purely the result of scaremongering. I don't think it's a contradiction to be "green" and into nuclear energy, as all energy harms the enviroment.

Nuclear waste can be treated and if managed safely could be put so far out of our way that it's not even a risk.

Let's hope that the efforts to make nuclear fusion feasible go well in the next few decades, because we are going to need nuclear energy and as rightly said fission isn't ideal - but it's something.

GreeBo

I'm confused by the people who are against Nuclear power because it affects the environment, but who are for tidal and wind energy.
If we fill our shores with turbines to harness the sea, damn our rivers for hyrdo and cap all our "mountains" with windmills are we not achieving the same thing?
i.e spoiling the environment?


Thermals is the way to go I think. Pretty expensive to begin with but then its "free heat" and less intrusive (once its finished)?
For 30k initial cost you can heat your house using heat exchangers (yeah you need a big back garden but still, its possible)

aidan_walsh

GreeBo wrote:

I'm confused by the people who are against Nuclear power because it effects the environment, but who are for tidal and wind energy.
If we fill our shores with turbines to harness the sea, damn our rivers for hyrdo and cap all our "mountains" with windmills are we not achieving the same thing?
i.e spoiling the environment?

Probably not nearly as much as had we dumped a couple of hundred tonnes of nuclear effluient in there...

omnicorp

No

how about we use BOTH. it seems that this isn't being done.

Capt'n Midnight

omnicorp wrote:

i would like a UN project on Nuclear Fission.
Every one gets a go

http://www.euronews.net/create_html.php?page=detail_europa&lng=1&option=0,europa

Six split over fusion

A chill has descended over the international nuclear fusion project, ITER. Six-party talks on where to build the 10 billion euro experiment are stalled. The Japanese want it on one of their northernmost islands and Tokyo has taken to using some strong language about the way the negotiations are going. A science ministry official said the EU's suggestion that it might go its own way and build ITER in southern France is "shameful". A European Commission spokesman responded calmly about the result of two days of intense bargaining:

'Our Cadarache proposal wasn't accepted but it wasn't discarded either, so we're cautiously optimistic', he said. EU sources said Japan saw it would not win the contest - hotly denied by Tokyo - and was holding out for compensation.

The U.S. and South Korea are on Japan's side, Russia and China with the EU. European industry and research ministers will try to break the logjam at a meeting a fortnight from now.

Since just about everyone who has the technology/money/inclination to work on fission is already in the ITER scheme, just what exactly what would the UN do ???

GreeBo

doodle_sketch wrote:

Probably not nearly as much as had we dumped a couple of hundred tonnes of nuclear effluient in there...

agreed, but I think people forget that these alternate energy sources also negatively affect the environment and that they are not a totally "clean" solution.

zotteken

In fact i believe Nuclear Power can be good. But i don't believe it's something that mankind should maintain. I would stop producing power with Nuclear Station as there's always kind of danger and you have to take in account the waste you have from it.

So for me, no to nuclear power

Cheers
Zotteken

michaelanthony

No

Go Wind Power. Tons of of cool wind turbines in Deutschland countryside

Capt'n Midnight

http://www.world-nuclear.org/factsheets/uranium.htm

Current situation
According to the summary of uranium resources published jointly by the Nuclear Energy Agency of the OECD and the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency, known reserves of uranium from conventional sources are slightly more than 3 million tonnes. Reactor requirements are fairly steady at about 60,000 tonnes per year. Thus there is about 50 years supply of uranium known at this stage to be available.

http://www.geog.ouc.bc.ca/conted/onlinecourses/geog_210/210_9_2.html

Coal is the world's most abundant fossil fuel. About 68 % of the world's proven coal reserves and 85 % of the estimated undiscovered coal deposits are located in three countries: U.S.A., former USSR and China. Identified world reserves of coal should last 220 years at current usage and 65 years if usage rises 2 % a year. The unidentified coal resources are projected to last about 900 years at the current rate
...
On average, a nuclear power plant produces about 20 metric tons of highly radioactive waste each year. This highly toxic waste can remain radioactive for more than 200,000 years. Today, the majority of this waste is being temporarily stored in barrels that have a functional lifespan of about 100 years.

Then there are the Alberta / Athabasca tar sands in Canada which have as much hydrocarbon as all the known reserves of conventional Oil and Gas

And then there are the methane hydrates covering the floors of the Oceans.

By comparison the only way to get Nuclear to last a fraction of this time would be to build breader reactors which convert natural Uranium into extremely radioactive and toxic Plutonium - it's so toxic that terrorists would not need any technology to build a dirty bomb all you need to do is burn it in a city centre cf. http://www.ieer.org/fctsheet/pu-props.html - Finely divided particles under about 1 millimeter diameter - spontaneously ignites at about 150 C or they could just use http://www.webelements.com/webelements/compounds/text/Pu/F6Pu1-13693066.html plutonium hexafluoride - Boiling point: 62°C

Ok this is extreme since not all the Pu will end up evenly spread out in lungs, but...
http://www.ccnr.org/max_plute_aecb.html

In principle, using AECB's regulatory limits,
how many ''civilians'' can be overdosed
....
100 grams can overdose one billion civilians

at a density of 19.8g/cm3 100g fits in a volume of 5.05ml

or in English a level teaspoon contains enough Plutonium to put one billion people over the current recomended lifetime limits.

omnicorp

No

wind power cannot possibly maintain a countries electrical needs.
It's not always going to be windy, like it's not always going to be sunny.
The only real viable option is wave power or nuclear power.

Capt'n Midnight

Wind power - is it the future of electricity generation?

omnicorp

No

no, inneficient, spoils the landscape, unreliable

Superman

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Wind power - is it the future of electricity generation?

I agree, I think wind power is the best, and as for obscuring the landscape. They can be put in the sea!

omnicorp

No

not efficient!
it isn't constantly windy.
If it's too windy they have to be turned off, not windy enoght, ditto.
they don't generate enought and they can only be put so far out to sea.
But wave power....

GreeBo

omnicorp wrote:

they can only be put so far out to sea.

not true, have a look around the Dutch countryside.
<edit>
or do you mean that we cant put them miles out in the sea?
</edit>

omnicorp

No

thats what I mean and they still spoil the view.

bonkey

omnicorp wrote:

not efficient!
it isn't constantly windy.
If it's too windy they have to be turned off, not windy enoght, ditto.
they don't generate enought and they can only be put so far out to sea.

Someone should tell Airtricity all of this quickly!! Clearly they have it wrong.....especially with that Arklow Bank.

As for the whole eyesore argument....just what exactly do you want? Clean, cheap, invisibly-generated power seems to be the minimum to keep you happy now. Whats next? It needs to be transported without ugly pylons, or the disruption caused by digging cables?

I suppose the massive coastal eyesores of wave-power facilities wouldn't be a problem, becasue as long as you didn't live on, or ever go to, the coast you'd never have to see them, right???

Face facts. You have to make some compromises no matter which tech you choose....so don't go knocking one option for its compromises without acknowledging the comparable flaws in your own silver bullet.

jc

Gordon

bonkey wrote:

As for the whole eyesore argument....just what exactly do you want? Clean, cheap, invisibly-generated power seems to be the minimum to keep you happy now.

Now there's a thought - mainlining into the Earth's core for plentiful "magma" heating.

Capt'n Midnight

Gordon wrote:

Now there's a thought - mainlining into the Earth's core for plentiful "magma" heating.

California gets a suprising amount of it's energy this way !

Find a hotspot, usually near a spa, and drill two very deep holes near each other. Detonate explosives at the bottom and you should get small cracks in the rock from one bore hole to the other. Pump cold water down one and hot water or steam comes up the other....

If you have ever a small temperature differential you can generate power using a stirling engine, in Hawaii they used the temperature difference between the seawater at near the surface and further down. We are near the continental shelf so that could be another option - but engineering would have to be impressive and we would not have the same thermal difference.

You could also use something like ether instead of water as it boils at a much lower termperature for an inefficient steam engine.

omnicorp

No

Wave Power could be located out to sea, out of sight.
Pylons could be gotten rid of by puttinf power lines underground although maintenence is problem.

bonkey

omnicorp wrote:

Wave Power could be located out to sea, out of sight.

How? You know the limits on wind-power? Or do you have this fanciful notion that we could (and could) build the things to be entirely unmanned and underwater?

Pylons could be gotten rid of by puttinf power lines underground although maintenence is problem.

Which brings back the whole question of cost, which despite your best wishes just won't go away.

jc

omnicorp

No

Capital cost, it wouldn't require the maintenence of fixing fallen lines and frozen lines.
I was thinking about them being far enough out to sea (above water) to not be visible.
And do you want wind turbines all over the country side?

Another thing is solar panels on houses.

aidan_walsh

We have a set of wind turbines behind us at college, and I have to say that I find absolutly nothing offensive about them. Personally, I can't see how anyone would.

omnicorp

No

disruptive.
I can barely stand many city buildings and Thank God we don't have huge skyscrapers!
They spoil the landscape.
There's some I see sometimes on a hill down in Kerry and they RUIN the landscape.

Typedef

OfflerCrocGod wrote:

France makes 75% of its electricity from nuke power plants and exports a lot to the rest of Europe making it a nice tidy sum.

Yes but, France also has it's own THORP like facilities, for spent fuel reprocessing.

In any case, I vote No, not because I fear the potential environmental catostrophy associated with Nuclear, since clearly fossil fuels _cause_ more damage, then all the Nuclear accidents (to date) combined, but, because Nuclear as a source of energy, is simply _another_ source of non-renewable fuel, which leads people 100 years from now, in the same situation as people are today, ie, facing an impending energy crisis, due to a dependance on non-renewable fuels and too little action to find alternatives, until society as a whole begins to feel the energy bite.

omnicorp

No

good point, how about wave power?

Typedef

Wave power _could_ be feasable, as a component of a renewable energy paradigm, but, you'd have to build an awful lot of wave power stations.

I'm no energy scientist, so, I can't adequately proport whether or not a combination of artificial hydro + natural hydro + wave+ wind + solar would satisfy the power requirements of Ireland, it's very doubtful though.

In fact, space based solar arrays beaming weak microwaves back to earth is the only real long term solution, however, the last NASA estimate I read for that sort of project ran to the 50 trillion mark (give or take) to setup over quite a long period of time.

Link
http://www.feasta.org/documents/wells/sitemap.html#two .

For the short term, finding a low energy means of creating hydrogen, is the name of the game. Right now, to my knowledge, it costs more in terms of energy, to create and store usable amount of hydrogen, then is extracted from it.

To create a quasi-feasable hydrogen cycle, we'd have to at least break even on that.. _and_ then the input energy would have to come from somewhere, like wind, wave, solar or yes Nuclear, but, until someone invents cold fusion, Nuclear is just a stop gap, to a decline in humans' ability to produce energy.

On hydrogen a recent promising contender was a simple way of deriving hydrogen from ethanol, which was fermented from some sort of widely grown crop, promising in that it give a _better_ means of deriving hydrogen for lower input costs, and essentially what we end up talking about is a hydrogen economy, with the best input=>output conversions in terms of energy IO, and storage costs in terms of energy. Nobody really knows if such a hydrogen economy can be attained.