nuclear to fuel hydrogen economy, page-10

re: yellowcake Sorry to jump down your throat.

Didn't mean it ... just the paste article you posted was poorly written by someone who I believe chose to only present one side of the argument.

Tehcnical problems are impossible to get around.
Scientific laws will not change and in the end so many hurdles with Hydrogen, it is a waste of effort.

We all agree there is an energy crisis coming.

I reacted the same way when one of the anti peak oil people wrote something quoting world oil reserves were in fact 14,000 billion barrels. Seems the author of that article misplaced a decimal point in the interests of his argument. Didn't take much to blow him away ....

Hydrogen, it clean and green only if one usues solar or hydro to make it ..... but what is the point ?
Inefficient use of energy to start with.
As for the boiling off ..... 4% a week .... no container know to man will ever contain Hydrogen unless they find a new number on the periodic table to replace number one ... Hydrogen. Only possible solution is some form of energy barrier but since it requires 5,000 PSI to make Hydrogen liquid and useable as a source of energy ... would have to be a bloody powerful barrier if it can ever be invented ..... then the problem comes up what if it ever failed .... Hydrogen is so explosive in terms of total energy able to be released in a single blow ... well ....

The Zeplins ... it was gaseous form but a craft nearly 900 metres long took 84 seconds to burn from end to end .... sure the Germans tried saying it was the paint containing Aluminium .... and sure it might have been a factor .... but since the gaseous form was not under pressure to any great extent ... one can only imadgine the explosion of something under 5,000 PSI pressure as opposed to something under 10 PSI as the baloons were .....

Enough ....

new batteries ?
Do tell ?