...and then what, other planets?

You're acting like someone who believes it's a foregone conclusion that those developments will happen and will solve our problems.

We are already on other planets.


They already have, in the case of hydrogen. They are probably 25 years away on fusion. We have 300 years before you need to worry, so relax.

...and?

Show me some evidence that hydrogen has solved our problems.

When we need their resources, thousands of years from now, we will take them.

We don't have any problems right now.

We do have hydrogen powered cars waiting in the wings for the infrastructure to be built to support them, however.

See, Capitalism solves problems before we even have them!

Ever see the movie 'Independance day'? Remember what happened to those aliens?

You're making alot of assumptions there, foolish ones at that.

There are no hydrogen powered cars 'waiting in the wings'. There's no guarentee that there will be.

The back up your claim. In major cities of the mid-19th century, skies were filthy, soot was always in the air, water was foul.

By any metric, energy generation pollutes less now than then. Indeed, energy generation is far cleaner now than even 50 years ago. This is almost self evident.

If you claim otherwise, show some evidence. I doubt you'll find any to support such nonsensical revisionism.

Yes I did, but I can seperate fantasy from reality.

Honda, Toyota Ready To Market Hydrogen Vehicles
University, L.A. Mayor Given Vehicles To Demonstrate

POSTED: 9:54 a.m. EST December 3, 2002

IRVINE, Calif. -- These cars aren't just brand-new, they're almost impossibly clean.

Toyota and Honda have put their first market-ready, zero-emission, hydrogen-powered fuel-cell vehicles in the hands of consumers.



The University of California got the first two Toyotas, which have a range of 180 miles and a top speed of 96 mph. The university will lead an alliance helping Toyota refine and improve its nonpolluting car -- a midsize sport utility vehicle (pictured, right), that is based on the Highlander, according to Toyota's Web site.

In Los Angeles, Honda delivered its car to the mayor. The city is leasing five of them for "real-world" driving by city staffers.

Honda plans to lease about 30 fuel cell cars in California and Japan during the next two to three years. The company currently has no plans, however, for mass-market sales of fuel cell vehicles or sales to individuals.

In these cars, hydrogen gas feeds into fuel cells, where it's combined with oxygen. The chemical reaction forms water and generates electricity. The electricity, in turn, powers a motor that charges the car's batteries.
http://www.nbc6.net/automotive/1816615/detail.html


I'll bet you are feeling pretty foolish right now.

BMW is also on the mark when it comes to Hydrogen Powered vehicles....

take a look...

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/d...ews020599.html

BMW hydrogen car

GM Hywire hydrogen car

Daimler Chrysler hydrogen car

Honda hydrogen car

Toyota hydrogen car



Had enough yet?

Good for you, what's your point?

Aright, you got me. It appears that hydrogen powered cars are further along than I thought.

So, how about the process of extracting hydrogen? Can it be done without harming ecosystems? does it produce any toxic byproducts? How efficently can it be produced? In short, do the benefits outweigh the drawbacks?

And can all this be done before the oil either runs out or destroys the biosphere?

Ok I misunderstood you. Oil does burn cleaner than wood.

However we've offset the benefits of that by burning more of it.

Again, nonsense. Do you have any actual figures to back up your claims?

There are problems with the infrastructure of hydrogen. It will cost billions to set up hydrogen refueling stations everyplace. Arnold is putting them up in California, another example of Republicans doing, while Democrats just talk.

The byproduct of hydrogen burning is water vapor. Other energy must be used to create hydrogen, such as nuclear or oil, so it is still not pollution free.

Then until (and if) these problems are solved, does it not make sense to practice a measure of restraint in processing the planet, just to make sure that we make it to that point?

No, it makes no sense at all. We have 300 years of oil left, and we already have the solution ready. All we need is the infrastructure, and it can proceed.

There's more to it that the oil supply. There's also the pollution it causes. There's more than just the oil too. There's pollution caused by manufacturing. There's urban sprawl and loss of wildlife habitat (even Sixgun would agree with me on that one). There's all these factors attributed to greed and overpopulation. It makes no sense to me to keep going full steam ahead with them and expect everything to be alright.