# Hydrogen economy -\> dead Earth? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 6, 2009, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hydrogen-economy-dead-earth/498951 "2009-06-06T21:09:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![EdwardLost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/bbe5ce/32.png) [@EdwardLost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EdwardLost)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2009, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hydrogen-economy-dead-earth/498951/21 "2009-06-08T03:26:09Z")
> [@Public\_Animal\_No.9](#): > > Sure. It was a respectable civilization, as long as you don’t mind losing 80% of your fellow humans, probably to hunger. Or don’t have any problems that would require you to move very far or very quickly. Or any one of the niceties that fossil fuels have given us. I don’t think we have a very good picture of what civilization was really like for the average person in the pre-fossil fuel days. For most people, it was hard work for your personal survival. There were certainly those who had it pretty good, and whose stories paint a very pastoral picture, but I most definitely would not want to go back to those times. > > I think we need to wean ourselves off fossil fuels, or at least find ways to capture the CO2 they generate, but I also think they’ve done far more good than harm. It’s just time to move on. > > Relative to a hydrogen economy, I’ve read a paper that suggests that excess H2 would rise into the stratosphere and participate in ozone-depleting reactions. Which would act much more quickly than any “boiling off” of H2 and depletion of terrestrial water. Unfortunately, I can’t find the cite, but it was published in a reputable journal in the past few years. Agreed. When cheap oil is gone we’ll still have civilization but life will be much harder and a lot less comfortable. And I don’t see how the planet will be able to sustain its current population. How the “downsizing” will occur is not pleasant to think about. As to what others have said about the impracticality of a hydrogen economy, I also agree. Hydrogen has good energy density and burns cleanly but the necessity of keeping it cold and pressurized seems like a deal-breaker. Better would be produce a STP liquid hydrocarbon fuel and concentrate on developing technology to burn it without polluting. ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2009, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hydrogen-economy-dead-earth/498951/22 "2009-07-13T19:58:47Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > I don’t exactly know what your plan to use deserts for solar energy production entails but you seem to have little experience in dealing with equipment in arid desert environments. Aeolien deserts like the norther Sahara are very erosive environments with large thermal swings, wind-blown grit that contaminates any unsealed lubricated joints, periodic monsoons that will swamp anything electrical, and very delicate microcosms that take years or decades to recover from damage. Next to littoral marine environments this is probably the most aggressive terrestrial environmental conditions for equipment to survive. The idea of covering the Sahara in photovoltaic panels is fraught with difficulty. Well, it’S no my plan, because I don’t own for a solar panel company/ power plant. It’s the plan of both the Club of Rome, who showed what a little part of the Sahara would need to be covered with solar panels to supply the energy needs of all of Europe (hint: it’s a small part, not the whole desert, so the delicate fauna and flora would not be harmed); as well as a dozen solar power companies which just today signed up for the Desertec project that aims to supply 15% of Europe’s energy in the next decade, by building solar power plants in 10 mediterrean countries - both European ones like Spain and Italy, as well as African ones. By distributing them over several countries, the risk of being held hostage due to political problems in one country - as happens in winters with natural gas from Russia - is reduced. The Club of Rome also suggest to couple the photovoltaic panels with pipes full water on the back, to double efficency. Photovoltaic panels operate best at mid-level temps. (around 25 C), but the desert can get hotter. Seawater from the nearby med. on the back would cool the panels, get hot in return, until boiling, be led back into the sea to condense, and presto: distilled drinking water for the natives. This also gives them an incentive to care about the plants, besides the jobs that would also be necessary. The latest solar power plant opened recently was in Spain, but many companies have built and operated solar power plants in the last 20 years in many areas of Europe (including Bavaria, which gets up to 8 hours of statistic average sun light). So these companies have experience with those corrosive conditions. How long do you think the average life-time of these solar panels are calculated at, compared to other power plants? The concrete and electronics of the nuclear power plants built in the 70s is decidly out of date today (and things weren’t projected to run as long). In the last 20 years, efficiency of solar panels has improved greatly. So even if solar panels last less than 30 years in the “corrosive” conditions of a desert, so what? They’ll be replaced with newer technology after 20 years, and have amortized by that time. Also, if deserts are such a terrible place to build stuff, why did you put Las Vegas in the middle of one? (This is idiotic because of the water necessary for all the people, and additonally the way drinking water is wasted on outdoor pools and unsuited plants). Or what about building nuclear plants right on the San Andreas fault? Putting solar panels where there’s a chance of being scratched, and covering them with a thick glass plate, doesn’t sound ridicoulous to me, compared to the above. ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2009, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hydrogen-economy-dead-earth/498951/23 "2009-07-13T20:21:28Z")
> [@EdwardLost](#): > > In a “hydrogen economy”, where we will crack water for hydrogen to burn or use in fuel cells, some of the hydrogen we produce will escape into the atmosphere and eventually into space. Will this eventually deplete Earth of water? Forget hydrogen from water. [Think urine](http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2009/July/02070902.asp). > [@](#): > > US researchers have developed an efficient way of producing hydrogen from urine - a feat that could not only fuel the cars of the future, but could also help clean up municipal wastewater. > > – snip – > > Urine’s major constituent is urea, which incorporates four hydrogen atoms per molecule - importantly, less tightly bonded than the hydrogen atoms in water molecules. Botte used electrolysis to break the molecule apart, developing an inexpensive new nickel-based electrode to selectively and efficiently oxidise the urea. To break the molecule down, a voltage of 0.37V needs to be applied across the cell - much less than the 1.23V needed to split water. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2009, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hydrogen-economy-dead-earth/498951/24 "2009-07-13T20:58:25Z")
> [@](#): > > Seawater from the nearby med. on the back would cool the panels, get hot in return, until boiling, be led back into the sea to condense, and presto: distilled drinking water for the natives. What are you doing with the salt? It sounds to me like it’s probably going to end up just caking up on the insides of the pipes, and you’re going to need some sort of ongoing procedure to keep it from doing so. ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2009, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hydrogen-economy-dead-earth/498951/25 "2009-07-13T21:13:16Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > What are you doing with the salt? It sounds to me like it’s probably going to end up just caking up on the insides of the pipes, and you’re going to need some sort of ongoing procedure to keep it from doing so. Well, I’m not the engineer in charge, but it’s a traditional way to earn money in mediterranean countries by producing salt in makign the water evaporate with the aid of the sun. Until some 30 years ago, Porta Roche in Yoguslavia had huge salt basins for that purpose (they have converted them to a yacht harbour today, because that brings in more money). So instead of some ongoing process, it would probably be easier to construct the pipes for easy access - some kind of panels with hinges, I don’t know - and clean the salt out once a month or whenever it’s thick enough. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hydrogen-economy-dead-earth/498951/26 "2009-07-14T06:22:36Z")
> [@constanze](#): > > Also, if deserts are such a terrible place to build stuff, why did you put Las Vegas in the middle of one? The placement and subsequent success of Las Vegas as a tourist destination had nothing to do with its viability as a habitable but rather its history as being a relatively lawless zone ripe for exploitation by organized crime and a weightstop for servicemen going West. > [@constanze](#): > > So instead of some ongoing process, it would probably be easier to construct the pipes for easy access - some kind of panels with hinges, I don’t know - and clean the salt out once a month or whenever it’s thick enough. And how do you clean caked on salt out of thousands of miles of pipe? By hand? Tuareg tribesmen recruited as plumbers, running around the desert with wire brushes? (Never mind the corrosive effects of concentrated salt water at elevated temperature on even the most corrosion resistant steel and copper alloys.) And then once you’ve removed the salt from the pipes, you have to store it somewhere, or haul it away. As for bringing the coolant to boiling temperatures by the method you describe, it is thermodynamically impossible. Sans some kind of heat pump cycle you aren’t going to be able to transfer heat from sun-heated panels at some maximum terrestrial temperature (say about 55 degrees C) to a medium that is at or near boiling, except by reducing the pressure within the pipe, which would have other impacts. By the way, the TALE on commercial photovoltaic systems is between seven and twelve years, which means that after this time (statistically speaking) the functional yield of the panel has decreased below a threshold of usefulness. So you’re talking about a giant array of panels that have to be maintained and regularly replaced, in the middle of an aeolien desert, to support diatomic hydrogen production by electrolysis, which then has to be kept chilled or stored in some matrix and transported to the end user. This sounds like a maintenance nightmare to me on the same order as the ill-advised Great Man-Made River in Libya. It is very easy to hand-wave away the engineering details of implementation, but it is in fact these unattended or unanticipated details that end up causing projects to go massively over schedule, exceed budget by an order of magnitude, or collapse in technical infeasibliity. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![The\_Scrivener](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@The\_Scrivener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Scrivener)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hydrogen-economy-dead-earth/498951/27 "2009-07-14T15:24:59Z")
To backtrack a bit here, does free H or H2 really escape the gravitational bonds of earth altogether to escape into space? Although it’s the element with the least mass, even hydrogen has some mass (and weight), so it’s affected by the earth’s gravity as is every other substance. Re. using seawater as a solar-panel coolant, it seems to me a more reliable way to go would be to use another fluid (such as an oil) for the coolant, and to use the excess heat to generate steam energy in an adjacent plant with large seawater tanks or pools… where it would be feasible to remove the caked salts periodically. ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hydrogen-economy-dead-earth/498951/28 "2009-07-14T15:42:56Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > The placement and subsequent success of Las Vegas as a tourist destination had nothing to do with its viability as a habitable but rather its history as being a relatively lawless zone ripe for exploitation by organized crime and a weightstop for servicemen going West. Oh, I know well that Las Vegas was built there because of the laws about gambling. However, why is the reasoning: “Building a city in the desert without water simply because the way the law is written” totally okay and makes sense, but “Building solar power plants in the desert where the sun shines to make energy” totally idiotic? If one is a good reason to keep a city running (and wasting water), then surely the other is a much better one? > [@](#): > > So you’re talking about a giant array of panels that have to be maintained and regularly replaced, in the middle of an aeolien desert, to support diatomic hydrogen production by electrolysis, which then has to be kept chilled or stored in some matrix and transported to the end user. This sounds like a maintenance nightmare to me on the same order as the ill-advised Great Man-Made River in Libya. I wasn’t talking about giant arrays, but small plants spread around. The total area is small, but the plants themselves are spread out. The primary reason for this is that it’s easier to get the capital to build one normal-sized plant, used the gains from that one (once it’s running ) to both pay back the investors and build a second one nearby, use the gains from that one to build a third one a bit away, etc… instead of collecting the capital for one super-sized array. > [@](#): > > It is very easy to hand-wave away the engineering details of implementation, I didn’t handwave anything. I said that I’m not an engineer. The Club of Rome has expert scientists on their panels; the companies that signed up for Desertec (and those that have build solar power plants in Spain and dry, corrosive areas in the past years) have engineers on their staff. But I guess all those people are just too dumb to know as much about the real problems of building solar plants as you and the rest of the anti-solar lobby. > [@](#): > > but it is in fact these unattended or unanticipated details that end up causing projects to go massively over schedule, exceed budget by an order of magnitude, or collapse in technical infeasibliity. If you mean that any big project has schedule problems and cost overruns - then you are against any big project, of any kind? Or is this another one of the double standards against solar power, that is applied selectivly? By the same token, no nuclear power plants should be built at all, because there will be cost overruns. Not that it will help anything, because facts don’t convince ideology, but [here](http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:DESERTEC-Map_large.jpg&filetimestamp=20090305173944)is a picture of the Sahara and the Desertec project. Note that the power plants will be distributed; note also that for sake of comparison, the biggest square represents the total energy amount of the whole Earth (from 2005). Even if the US is the biggest user of energy, and even if consumption has gone up since 2005, we can take that square and put it over the US Nevada desert in a map of same resolution, and still have lots of space left over. ---
**Author:** ![WarmNPrickly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d78d45/32.png) [@WarmNPrickly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WarmNPrickly)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hydrogen-economy-dead-earth/498951/29 "2009-07-14T15:57:37Z")
> [@constanze](#): > > I wasn’t talking about giant arrays, but small plants spread around. The total area is small, but the plants themselves are spread out. The primary reason for this is that it’s easier to get the capital to build one normal-sized plant, used the gains from that one (once it’s running ) to both pay back the investors and build a second one nearby, use the gains from that one to build a third one a bit away, etc… instead of collecting the capital for one super-sized array. How much power does one of your small plants produce? ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hydrogen-economy-dead-earth/498951/30 "2009-07-14T15:58:24Z")
> [@The\_Scrivener](#): > > Re. using seawater as a solar-panel coolant, it seems to me a more reliable way to go would be to use another fluid (such as an oil) for the coolant, and to use the excess heat to generate steam energy in an adjacent plant with large seawater tanks or pools… where it would be feasible to remove the caked salts periodically. Again, I’m not an engineer, I caught the last segment of the Club of Rome suggestion on TV several months back, and they explained it abbreviated to lay people the basic principle. However, there is a solar (and wind)-powered desalination platform in front of the greek island of Iraklia, which is enviromentally friendly, got an award by the European union, and is very much beloved by the islanders. Before, the traditional desalination plants on the mainland use a lot of fuel, and then ship the drinking water in huge ships to the island. If the weather is bad, that water sits around for up to 5 days before the ships can go, in the heat of Greece summer, meaning it smells rather nasty once it reaches the island, and is severley rationed. With the new solar-powered platform, the islanders have clean, wonderful fresh tasting drinking water all the time; there’s enough to even water the gardens; the “exhausts” attracts fishes, which are in turn caught by the locals - win-win for everybody. If you want to read it about, here’s an [english PDF](http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/cooperation/interregional/ecochange/doc/stars_pres.pdf). (Page 15 ff) > [@](#): > > The system developed is environmental friendly and autonomous, meaning that the floating platform operates unmanned, that energy comes from renewable sources and that it does not have any adverse side effects. From an operational point of view, drinking water is produced from the seawater desalination unit with energy provided by a wind generator and photovoltaic system. The management system controls the operations and also handles safety issues. > It is the first wind powered floating desalination plant in the world, which is not only providing electricity (through a cable connecting with the land), but incorporates a seawater desalination plant and turns seawater to drinking water with the help of the wind and sun. > At the same time, the platform is an actual floating research laboratory, equipped with several sensors, data measurement instruments and logging units providing significant research data, where information regarding wind, water and operation related parameters is collected. (The research bit is both because the University of Aegean developed this, and to monitor possible enviromental side effects, which, however, didn’t turn up). > [@](#): > > The platform is able to produce over 70 m³/day, enough to cover the needs of approximately 300 people. Including maintenance, the payback time of the platform is only 3 years (the average is usually 10 years after investment.) After this period, the water production will be free of cost. The expected lifetime of the whole system is 20 years. Given the advantages it offers, there are plans for future developments of such a system on a bigger scale. ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hydrogen-economy-dead-earth/498951/31 "2009-07-14T16:05:20Z")
> [@WarmNPrickly](#): > > How much power does one of your small plants produce? It’s not one of mine. I don’t own a power plant company, or othewise I’d have exact figures to quote. Obviously, it depends on size. The biggest one currently running in Europe is [Andasol](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andasol_solar_power_station)in Spain. Andasol 1, already running, produces 50 MW max., the whole plant is projected to 150 MW. This equals 176 GigaWhr. per year. Constant output produced is 20 MW. Effiency is 25%. (according to the wiki; like I said, I’m no expert.) ---
**Author:** ![JerseyFrank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/bcef8e/32.png) [@JerseyFrank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JerseyFrank)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hydrogen-economy-dead-earth/498951/32 "2009-07-14T16:21:45Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > And then once you’ve removed the salt from the pipes, you have to store it somewhere, or haul it away. Sell it to McDonald’s! There’s sure to be a few sprouting up along the pipeline. ---
**Author:** ![WarmNPrickly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d78d45/32.png) [@WarmNPrickly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WarmNPrickly)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hydrogen-economy-dead-earth/498951/33 "2009-07-14T16:26:09Z")
In 2006 power consumption in the United States was 4,000,000,000 megawatt hours. [cite](http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epates.html) There are 8760 hours in a year so that comes out to 456621 megawatts. Divide that by 150MW to get the number of small plants you will need to power the united states. You will need about 3000 of these small plants using extremely optimistic numbers. Each one of these plants needs regular maintenenance and crews to monitor them. ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hydrogen-economy-dead-earth/498951/34 "2009-07-14T16:34:01Z")
> [@WarmNPrickly](#): > > In 2006 power consumption in the United States was 4,000,000,000 megawatt hours. [cite](http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epates.html) > > There are 8760 hours in a year so that comes out to 456621 megawatts. > > Divide that by 150MW to get the number of small plants you will need to power the united states. You will need about 3000 of these small plants using extremely optimistic numbers. Each one of these plants needs regular maintenenance and crews to monitor them. Only if you want to go 100% solar, instead of supplementing solar with existing and new wind energy, existing hydro power, new biomass plants etc. But of course, nobody is saying to go solar 100%. Did you look at the picture I linked to above? Besides, how many power plants are currently in use in the US? How many workers? How many workers would be free if you stop mining for coal and Uran for the coal and nuclear plants? How many workers in the processing plants for Uranium? And are you really interested in switching to solar, or do you simply want to apply the usual double standard? Is there anything that would convince you, some kind of milestone, that, once is reached, you say “Yes! Now all problems are solved, and we can switch to solar”, or are you simply opposed no matter what? I mean, in those discussions, the effiency of solar plants is a big issue, but nobody mentions the effiency of existing nuclear and coal plants. Double standard again, of course. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hydrogen-economy-dead-earth/498951/35 "2009-07-14T16:45:00Z")
> [@constanze](#): > > But I guess all those people are just too dumb to know as much about the real problems of building solar plants as you and the rest of the anti-solar lobby. Yes, that’s me. I sit around in a secret underground conference room with my cronies smoking cigars and plotting evil against the heroes of renewable power to keep the world population in the clutches of petroleum companies. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Alex\_Dubinsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dbc845/32.png) [@Alex\_Dubinsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alex_Dubinsky)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hydrogen-economy-dead-earth/498951/36 "2009-07-14T16:59:18Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > Yes, that’s me. I sit around in a secret underground conference room with my cronies smoking cigars and plotting evil against the heroes of renewable power to keep the world population in the clutches of petroleum companies. Don’t play yourself down. Your secret organization is actually fighting for keeping the fingerprint of Man’s engineering off of the stretches of wilderness that still remain on Earth. You’re an environmentalist! ---
**Author:** ![Brasil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a8b319/32.png) [@Brasil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brasil)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hydrogen-economy-dead-earth/498951/37 "2009-07-14T17:23:51Z")
We can expect that, before the end of the century, we will have mastered controlled nuclear fusion. A nuclear fusion plant in the ocean can extract hydrogen from sea water for use as fuel inland. The heavy hydrogen atoms can be used to fuel the plant. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hydrogen-economy-dead-earth/498951/38 "2009-07-14T17:35:19Z")
> [@beowulff](#): > > Everything I’ve read ([example](http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2000/D/200003484.html)) says that life as we know it on Earth has less than 500 Million years and probably only half of that, due to Solar warming, and CO2 depletion. There are ways to greatly extend our life here - Cecil addressed one in a recent column on moving Mars and Venus. > **[Could we move Mars or Venus into Earth’s orbit and live there?](https://www.straightdope.com/21343966/could-we-move-mars-or-venus-into-earth-s-orbit-and-live-there)** On a more practical level, however, it may be possible to expand huge reflective or translucent screens which orbit between the sun and earth, shielding us from increased brightness. IIRC shielding like that could give us another 1B or so years. ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hydrogen-economy-dead-earth/498951/39 "2009-07-14T17:38:01Z")
> [@Brasil](#): > > We can expect that, before the end of the century, we will have mastered controlled nuclear fusion. Based on what? I’m genuinly curious, because since the cold fusion (cheat) debacle, I haven’t heard of any progress in that direction. I assume you aren’t thinking of hot nuclear fusion, which happens in the sun, because that would require a lot of heat and pressure. So if we still don’t have any clue in which direction we need to go to make cold fusion work, I’m dubious. I’m not saying it’s impossible - a lot of things were invented at the end of the 20th century that people couldn’t have imagined at the beginning; although in almost all cases, at least the physics principle was known: just because semi-conductors weren’t foreseeable, the principle could be understood by scientists of that time. And of course it would be wonderful to have a small cold fusion reactor in every household to supply all energy free . I just don’t think it’s very likely. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2009, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hydrogen-economy-dead-earth/498951/40 "2009-07-14T17:51:31Z")
> [@Alex\_Dubinsky](#): > > Don’t play yourself down. Your secret organization is actually fighting for keeping the fingerprint of Man’s engineering off of the stretches of wilderness that still remain on Earth. You’re an environmentalist! Do I at least get to make statements such as, “Mr. Bond, you persist in defying my efforts to provide an amusing death for you.” Stranger [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hydrogen-economy-dead-earth/498951.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hydrogen-economy-dead-earth/498951.md?page=3)