HYDROGEN IS THE ANSWER

you are plainly and simply completely wrong here is your first point While biomass still takes energy to produce yes it takes MORE ENERGY IN THE FORM OF GAS? DIESEL that it MAKES and the WASTE STREAM is MINIMAL compared to our gasoline consumption "so it is ever-abundant" No it is NOT there is VERY LITTLE in the WAY of WASTE BIOMASS Now you move on "Nuclear facilities are a tough candidate because of the potential danger and political contreversy surrounding them" you have no concept hwat you are talking about please explain fast breeder reactor technology to me and also the TOTAL amount of nuclear waste EVER generated to date, and finally HOW MANY PEOPLE have DIED due to NUKES in the USA? again, you have NO CLUE except that the ONLY opposition is by STUPID IDIOT DEMAGOGIC dcemocrats YOUR NEXT POINT "OK, so hydrogen is made with electricity. Where does the electricity come from? People could spend all day circling a hand crank like those Farraday flashlights..." you are an idiot and are not worth debating science with you probably dont even know what a kilowatt hour, Joule and Faraday are. FOOL! "If you want to use solar energy to convert water to hydrogen, keep in mind that it takes 1.3 kWh of electricity to produce 1 kWh of H energy." yes electrolyzers are about 70% efficient- WAY TO GO, SCIENCE GENIUS! "Laws of thermodynamics dictate we will always get less out of H than we put in. To create the kind of electricity we would need to replace natural resources it would take a massive amount of sunlight. So, anywhere other than CA or the Sahara is pretty screwed." Again, YOU ARE A MORON Why dont you tell me what the sun hours are exactly for Los Angeles New York Miami Fargo Anchorage Seattle Omaha and also tell me why GERMANY now has about 1/3 of its peak load from solar (not a very sunny place) as soon as you can even tell me what a sun hour is, then you can talk "Also, building solar plants big enough to replace the resource vacancy is about 50 times MORE costly than current plants." THis is nonsensical crap there is 1000W /m2 = 100W / sf you do the math , genius at 15% , PV makes 15 W/ ft2 or for 1000ft2 = 15,000 W DC = 15 kW DC the average house uses about 2 kW average load so I only need to put about 400-500 sf of panels to get rid of the electric bill on a house typically or on a business , 5,000-20,000 SF of panels so once again, you are COMPLETELY WRONG PG&E just signed a 20 year deal for a 900MW plant in the desert and the Luz solar plant has been very profitable since the 1970s (Mojave desert) YOU HAVE NOT THE SLIGHTEST CLUE WHAT YOURE TALKING ABOUT WITH SOLAR NOT THE SLIGHTEST Ok back to H2 "Also, hydrogen is simply not dense enough. It would take 237,000 litres of gas hydrogen or 60 gallons of liquid hydrogen to replace a 20 gallon gas tank. " This is your first real argument You can use high pressure compressed gas or liguid for planes It works fine you can also use hybrids with it Im not going to get into details in this debate, but the Germans (BMW) have a full line of H2 cars coming out this year. and H2 can be MIXED into the fuel stream for now Now you just lose it, becuase you dont have a clue "Also, you don't answer the impracticality of hydrogen. Why invest in an energy middle-man? Especially one that costs a boatload. All hydrogen does is transfer energy. It doesn't create energy, it is simply a fuel cell. We put energy we already have into a 'fuel' that provides diminsihing returns at staggeringly higher costs?" You are clueless, as proven by this statement "It doesn't create energy, it is simply a fuel cell" study a little and get back to me it is a CARRIER, or a CURRENCY a FUEL CELL is a GENERATOR that can use MULTIPLE FUELS , including H2 Give me your alternative that will possibly work, if not H2 Anything involving biological entities is not practical, or possible, period. I appreciate your efforts here but you need to learn alot more about it. SOLARMAN