What do you mean we "shall" find out? Haven't we been chlorinating the water supply for more than three generations?
If you want to worry about something, worry about all the thousands of complex chemicals that are being released into our environment every day. We don't require proof that they are safe in any significant way. We wait until they cause a problem and then ban them. There almost certainly are many effects from the huge number of combinations of exposure.
Heck, forget all that subtle stuff. Every major waterway in the Virginia/Maryland area is so polluted by PCBs (just one of many chemicals in the water) that they recommend you limit your intake of fish caught in them.
Actually, you're not a watermelon, rather a tomato; red and seedy all the way through. Disagree, sure, it's liars and complete morons who think they're something that I have a problem with.
Good Lord, do some research. I know thinking is beyond you, so that won't work.
You obviously don't know how to read an article. I didn't see anything in it that indicate an AAA cell was going to power a car? Not that I am trying to side with MT.
ntrations, and capable of explosive detonation over most of them, so the sa fety wonks get nervous about storing lots of energy as hydrogen gas or as l iquid hydrogen (which is more compact, even if the energy density it offers is appreciably poorer than liquid hydrocarbons).
readily disperse as it will do outdoors.
Wrong. Ever heard of fuel-air explosives?
Store a thousand tons of hydrogen in one place, have it get loose and you'v e got the makings of a kiloton bomb, quite enough to flatten a city block o r two.
Ware-housing liquified petroleum gas or just gasoline presents the same dan gers in terms of stored energy, but the fact that hydrogen gas forms explos ive mixtures with air over a much wider range of concentrations than regula r fuels is what makes it more worrying.
hydrogen is too dangerous to use, it seems reasonable that nuclear would b e too.
Chlorine added to water is a farce; purely a way to make the seller of the equipment and chemicals a LOT of money; does little else. 1) How many hundreds of gallons of water go to water lawn, trees, cars, etc? 2) how many OUNCES of water does it take to brush teeth? When the "shall we.." came out before the vote, there were a lot of arguments on "for" and on "against" and NOT ONE WORD on the economic farce. Controlled media,i would say..
Making hydrogen from electricity, to power vehicles, is insane.
For generating electricity from sunlight, photovoltaic cells make sense. But for generating fuel, algaes and bacteria are a better method because they cut out the additional inefficient steps (like splitting water, and then turning the hydrogen into something practical as a fuel).
Certainly there is lots of scope for research to improve efficiencies of algaes - we are not there yet. And it might be more efficient to figure out how the various enzymes and processes work, and then replicate it without the rest of the cell. But that's the way forward.
Methods /have/ been worked out for dealing with nuclear waste - and in particular, for generating electricity from atomic power without producing as much waste in the first place. The problem is that for most of the lifetime of atomic power, the primary goal has been to produce a particular type of waste - plutonium - with electricity as a nice side-effect. And now that the political climate around the world has reduced the "need" for plutonium, ignorant media, public, and politicians are too scared to make /good/ atomic power stations.
Solar power in deserts sounds like a great idea - until you remember that no one lives in deserts. And it sounds like a fine idea until you actually try to work out the costs - building and running a large solar power station is far from cheap. And then someone points out that it only generates electricity during the day - trying to store that energy until it is needed takes another massive bite out of your efficiency.
Sure, solar power has its place - but it has its limitations too.
That particular article sounds like someone has misunderstood the problem, and certainly exaggerating it. No industrial system will have disasters caused by a few milliseconds variation in the electricity.
But the general principle is well-known. For a lot of uses, it is important to have a stable supply of electrical power. Most renewable sources, such as wind, wave and solar power are incapable of providing that. This means that you need conventional power to cover the gap to the lowest dips in the renewable sources. And when you have peaks in the renewable sources, you have excess power (the conventional generators can't be turned off quickly), which is also a problem. The result is that for every MW of unstable power generation you add to the grid, you need another MW of conventional power generation to compensate for the variation.
(The exception to this is hydroelectric generation, which is much more controllable. But it needs an appropriate mountain and rainfall.)
With enough spread of the renewable sources of different kinds and different places (we're talking continents here), connected with smarter grids with very high tension DC lines, you could get a lot more use from variable renewable resources.
Alternatively, we need someone to invent gigafarad, megavolt capacitors!
Well, a PLC migh go down in a few hundred ms, and then the process is hosed. So controls will need UPS backups if the grid gets flakey. Actuators, too.
Flywheels are fair, in the seconds to minutes range. Pumped (air or water) is good but inefficient. Steal plants ramp slow, so the mid-range backup is diesels or gas turbines, and it's silly to have gigawatts of them sitting around, used 1% of the time.
Just wait until we have a majority of electric cars! Charged at night!
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.