The main problem with wind and solar energy is that the power generation is at the wrong times…most energy is used at night, and there is no good way to store electicalpower. Suppose we were to use the electricity from solar arrays and windmills to electrolyze water, and thus generate hydrogen gas? The oxygen generated would stimulate plant growth and reduce the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The hydrogen could be piped around the country like natural gas is now.
If we spent a fraction of the military budget on this, we could free ourselves FOREVER of middle eastern oil…and remove ourseleves from the ENDLESS wars this region is always generating. 
Maybe that, but maybe more the fact that they are still not cost-competitive with traditional energy sources.
Anyway, is it true that power consumption is greater at night? I would have guessed the opposite. Most people are asleep for most of the night, most of the time, and most businesses are closed, so I would think electricity use would be lower. But I’m prepared to be surprised.
Is this true? I don’t mean that rhetorically; I’d really like to know.
Adding oxygen to the atmosphere does not decrease the carbon dioxide already present. Moreover, plants consume carbon dioxide, not oxygen — which in fact is a waste product to them. At best, they would be unaffected.
It will require energy both to electrolyze the water and then to pipe the hydrogen to remote places. Unfortunately, in the very first step you’ve already spent more energy to get the hydrogen than you’ll receive back when you burn it.
Solar power stills seems to me like the better bet, in the long run. But I hope an energy expert will come by to expand on all these points.
One can pick on a lot of your statements, but I’ll stick to this one:
This is a trifle glib. The capital outlay for a hydrogen economy not dependent on fossil fuels would be massive, and is not going to happen overnight. Not only the shift in electrical generation facilities, but the distribution system (it’s not as simple as just piping the stuff around), not to mention retooling of god knows how many industrial processes.
“Howstuffworks” actually has what appears to be a good basic article on the hydrogen economy:
In a free market economy, this isn’t going to happen until economics makes it profitable. At some point, the building of the required infrastructure becomes something that somebody thinks they can offset through the sale of hydrogen, either at higher levels of availability or at cheaper prices than other fuel sources. It may be getting somewhat retarded by the opening up of central Asian oil fields - there are indications that the Caspian sea fields may be huge, and there is obviously a Geopolitical shoe to drop as they become developed.
Of course, I’m being glib also. Adequately answering this question requires more space than the SDMB would be willing to host for it, and expertise I certainly do not possess.
It depends on the season. During summer time, it’s late afternoon as everyone comes home and tries to cool their homes down. Winter can often be in the morning as people warm their homes up. PJM keeps historical records on power comsumption and price for the DC/New Jersey area.
As for economics, when people say things are uneconomical compared to an existing process, it’s usually considering running the new process for the entire year. Consider that gas turbines only kick in when demand peaks yet still make a profit. While the normal price of electricity might be $10-$15 per megawatt, during peak demand it can go well over $1000 per megawatt. That would be the time for any more expensive process to make money.
If there is an actual cite with that PJM site, you’ll have to show it to me. Until then, I don’t believe it.
Power consumption is driven by industrial and commercial uses, not by residences. My utility executive wife tells me that power consumption generally peaks around 2 pm.
Yes, it is true that there is no good way to store large amounts of electricity. That’s been the fatal flaw for wind and solar in the northeast, where the need is probably greatest.
The natural gas piping system in the country has required large numbers of billions to install. (Quick FERC primer.) You would have to duplicate that decades-old investment at today’s higher prices and costs for an equivalent hydrogen flow. Note that it’s easier to pipe liquids than gases (see liquefied natural gas) but that it’s harder to liquefy hydrogen than natural gas.
Right now it appears to cost more in energy to produce hydrogen than that hydrogen will give back in energy. Wind and solar in theory are good ways to get around this unfortunate fact, but those technologies don’t yet exist in large enough arrays or in places where the transportation costs aren’t prohibitive to be a real factor.
That doesn’t mean that this is a technologically impossible in the long run, but enormous amounts of work and money will have to be sunk into overcoming the problems. Simplistic solutions will not work - and they also tend to have the effect of making the hydrogen economy look like a silly environmentalist’s notion rather than a legitimate forthcoming industry.
Or you could use the energy to pump water up a hill, only to release it at night through turbines. It doesn’t take any fancy technology to do that.
I believe this is done. Nuclear power plants run best at a constant rate so they are used as the “base” suppliers and then other types adjusted to meet demand. Some hydraulic stations will use surplus power at low demand times to pump water up and will later use it for generation at peak demand hours. Una can probably tell us more about this.
Pumped stored hydro power is still fairly uncommon, and I only know of and have been to one plant ever - near Widows Creek for TVA.
Oh, I found a link to it: Raccoon Mountain
http://www.tva.gov/sites/raccoonmt.htm
My understanding is that that installation has never paid for itself, and likely never will, even when externalities are factored in. I’m not sure offhand and away from my detailed files how much pumped stored hydro contributes to electricity production, but it’s quite a bit less than 1% IIRC. Raccoon Mountain can put out about 6GW for 22 hours, according to their PDF brouchure. However, it also takes 28 hours to fill, and we can assume that with the 1st and 2nd law being obeyed, barring the contribution of the natural water sources to fill it, it’s a net energy loser by a long shot.
Easier to pipe liquids than gases? True about some liquids but not natural gas.
I guess you are aware that cross country natural gas pipelines are normally for gas only. There is gathering pipelines that carry a mixture of natural gas, butane, ethane and propane from the field to a separations plant. There is places where natural gas is pumped through pipelines to a terminal, condensed to a liquid and then the liquefied natural gas is piped a short distance to be loaded on tankers for oversea shipping.