Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DM_Matt" data-source="post: 850979" data-attributes="member: 1213">Yes, hydrogen fuel cells and nuclear eergy are not good solutions individually.  Hydrogen feul cells are, and will probably always be, energy intensive to produce if they dont want to create greenhouse gasses (using electrolysis to extract the hydrogen from water rather than splitting it from hydrocarbons and reeasing the carbon into the atmosphere).  Thats where nuclear fission can come in:  It can provide the electricity for the production of the fuel cells.  The combination of fuel cells with nuclear energy thus in effect creates portable nuclear energy.  (BTW, this is sometihng that the Bush Administration is seeking to make happen)However, that does leave the problem of nuclear waste.  Also, nuclear fuel is harder to come by than one would expect:  the total known world reserves of Uranium would only last the world 10 yearts if they were powering everything.  Then again, no one except a handful of countries seeking nuclear weapons (Iran, Iraq, and possibly Libya) has been looking for new Uranium reserves for a couple decades now.Uranium can be recycled, and plutonium reactors and breeder reactors that extract plutonium from sea water can be made, but the problem is that all of these promote nuclear proliferation.  Recycling Uranium enriches it to weapons grade pretty fast, and plutonium in the form that is used in these other reactors is more or less already fissable.And Cedric, et al.  Cedric's initial comments were somewhat random and unrelated to the topic, and very well might produce a flame war and get it closed.  Everyone please refrain from discussing the reletive merits of state-run and privitized energy production.</blockquote>

Verification