2006-07-12 21:38:10 · 20 answers · asked by angelkiss2000 2 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Other - Science
no
2006-07-12 21:41:26 · answer #1 · answered by Kreep 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I really don't think that hydrogen would be the best solution for the world's energy crisis. Especially not as a power source for cars. Hydrogen is just too unstable an element. Look at the Hindenburg. If hydrogen was to be put into cars miner fender benders would take out a whole city block. Although hydrogen is an efficient and environmentally friendly energy source, it is just too unsafe. That is why I don't think it will solve the world's crisis. It'll probably cause more problems.
2006-07-12 21:44:50 · answer #2 · answered by Random Person 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not just Hydrogen based energy but other renewable sources such as wind and Hydroelectric. The oil won't last forever and coal is fast running out. Nuclear is another option but highly controversial. If someone comes up with a stable fussion reactor then that will surely be the answer we all need for future clean renewable energy.
2006-07-12 21:50:32 · answer #3 · answered by i_b_moog 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Hydrogen is supported and pushed by George Bush because it can be made with fossil fuels (not just with clean renewables through electricity). He did this to look progressive and green while still supporting his special interests in the oil business. And we all know how much peace and understanding that has brought to the world. See the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car?" (or better yet, go to their website right now) and learn what happened to clean electric cars in California and how the fossil fuel industry continues to dominate and suppress sensible science policy in the USA. (Also look at ucsusa.org, the Union of Concerned Scientists)
2006-07-12 21:57:18 · answer #4 · answered by temp_rob3000 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Like it or not, nuclear fuel is here to stay, they don't have any thing else and we need it now.
Blair is going to build those plants whether you say yes or no.
With luck theirs about 20 years of fossil fuel left in the world.
and by that time we wont be able to afford it, only the rich.
and the only alternative is nuclear power at this moment in time.?
they simply wont invest enough in wind and wave power.
If hydrogen power uses more power to make it than it produces
then i cant see it as a viable answer to the situation
2006-07-19 16:55:37 · answer #5 · answered by Ronnie 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you don't mind me saying, I always think questions like this are strange. I have even heard people talk about hydrogen as an "inexaustable fuel" because it is in water.
Hydrogen gas is an un-natural sustitute energy form (ie it does not exist in nature on the earth's surface). It has to be created using energy (often to cleave the oxygen hydrogen bond in water)
It is not a "solution" as such, the debate is about energy
2006-07-12 22:13:26 · answer #6 · answered by andyoptic 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hydrogen in itself can be a great alternative to gasoline.
Two questions still remains though. How do you produce enough hydrogen for mass consumption and would the process not produce toxic pollutants? And how do you deliver/package the hydrogen fuel product so that it is safe, clean and easy to use for the general public.
Ok, so that's three questions.
2006-07-12 21:44:30 · answer #7 · answered by k² 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
as the future brings to us world powered by fuel cells I'd say it should be. but we have to take into consideration the process of preparation of hydrogen that involves removal of hydrogen from hydrocarbons... if they don't find a way of getting hydrogen from space, I'd say that we're stuck with hydrocarbons and so we're back to oil. world crises can't be solved like that... if it's not oil it'll just be something else...
2006-07-17 22:37:25 · answer #8 · answered by girasole_lunatico 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If it can be made into a widely available, and acceptable power source sure. They are probably still 20 or more years away from truely harnessing hydrogen power.
2006-07-12 21:50:51 · answer #9 · answered by Mitch D 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hydrogen is highly explosive and difficult to store. However when it is burned it produces water vapour alone and is therefore non-polluting.
But the big snag! It doesn't occur naturally (in any quantity) and has to be manufactured. The problem is that its production absorbs more energy than is released when it burns!
2006-07-12 22:11:59 · answer #10 · answered by clausiusminkowski 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would be a good substitute for oil and not as dangerous as nucliar power, although hydrogen is higly explosive, so you'd have to be carefull using it. The plus side is that it's not radioactive and it's clean energy
2006-07-12 21:43:20 · answer #11 · answered by WiseDragonGirl 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋