1
::::::::
Would someone please explain why we aren't using the need to put people to work, to create a new energy system for the US? Why aren't we going to build the infrastructure necessary to convert to hydrogen? There are several ways to to electrolyze water into to its component gases. One way would be to take the old oil cargo ships and place wind turbines on them and send them out into the ocean. They would be out of sight and able to pursue the most favorable winds. Other boats would shuttle the hydrogen gas back to shore(using hydrogen, of course). It is also possible to use solar power, geothermal, and many other methods to do the same thing. It would be best to have the government own and operate the system for the same reason we have public ownership of water. We can't afford the nonsense of the requirements of the private sector constantly having to drum up new ways of increasing profits.
Present auto engines could be modified to burn hydrogen. Anything presently using oil, propane, natural gas, or coal could be converted to using hydrogen. Hydrogen is no more dangerous to store than is gasoline and maybe less so.
We would be able reduce the pollutants contributing to global warming, acid rain, and fouling the environment to nearly zero.
We would be able to kick the oil cartel, oil and coal corporations, and the Middle East out of the business of fouling the political system with their money and machinations.
So, why aren't we going to embark on this program on a crisis basis such as the Marshall Plan or WWII? The answer is--the existing power structure won't benefit. Look who would lose out if we were to do this. They are not interested as long as there is money to be made in a crisis they can generate whenever it suits them. Look at what is happening, oil crisis--prices go up. Middle East crisis--prices go up. Hurricane--prices go up. Too much demand--prices go up. Peak oil production--prices go up. Tree frog shortage in Indonesia--prices go up(OK, I am just making a point). The idea is, whatever excuse that can be concocted, is then the basis for justifying their nonsense.
Don't even bother mentioning the nonsense of "clean coal" or nuclear as a means of dealing with our long range energy requirements. The problems associated with both are well known.
Ultimately, we probably won't do what I am suggesting. Why? Because it is against the accepted wisdom being that government not do such things. It is contrary to the conditioned response that only the private sector should provide such services. If that is true, shouldn't we be demanding that the water systems in this country be privately owned?
