Merlyn writes, > Note that this actually IS the "nightmare" scenario whereby a hydrogen economy removes oxygen from the atmosphere.
> The water is split by the formation of SiO2 underground, leaving the oxygen innacessible and providing hydrogen for our use. Burn the hydrogen and you get more water, but with a net loss of usable oxygen. > Probably not a good idea for long-term energy production. That is a valid point, but a bit misleading in comparison with the alternatives. So let's all readjust out pointy caps and look at positive counter-measures, assuming we are talking about a future where science, not politics, reigns. Isn't is also true that this removal of O2 can be offset every time we make steel or aluminum, maybe even concrete, if we do those processes using electrolytic methods which return O2 to the air instead of using coal or methane? Which is one more reason to suspect that Lovelock is correct, in his long-term vision, and that a return to better-engineered nuclear energy is the best ecological solution for the planet, given all that we know now. Obviously LENR, ZPE extraction, or the hydrino could change things in a wonderful way, but given what we know for sure in 2005, there are fewer real choices. I don't see a huge problem with O2 removal, anyway, if H2 is the result because in comparison with burning coal, which both removes a lot more of it and gives you the poison CO2 to boot, you get 6 times more energy for every O2 removed. But also there is this somewhat beneficial solution - using the H2 to produce methane from CO2 already in the air... as has been done since the beginnings of herbivorous life, and particularly evident in its most 'sensual' realization... ta,da... bovine flatulence (Fred has mentioned this before): http://rucus.ru.ac.za/~wolfman/Essays/Cow.html Is there any reason, assuming we have all this cheap hydrogen coming form silicide wells, why Methanogensis cannot use CO2 extracted directly from air, for instance and use the H2 to make methane? Of course this is only **net neutral** in the long run, as the methane will be burned, but net neutral is a good thing, right? A least until we can go 100% nuclear (or some new energy technology). Bacteria in the stomachs of cows (and other ruminant animals) break down and ferment fodder during digestion, producing methane. There is no reason why this can't be bio-engineered to happen in factories near H2 wells. "The initial steps are performed either by facultative anaerobic bacteria (such as E. coli which convert formate to H2 and CO2) or by obligate anaerobes (Clostridium or Selenomonas which do similar conversions) (College, 1999)." "Methanogenic archaebacteria (a group separate from true bacteria) are obligate anaerobes that are very sensitive to oxygen and prefer environments without any other electron acceptors such as nitrogen (Beckmanm, 2000; College, 1999). They perform the final steps in the fermentation and they convert H2 and CO2 produced by the other organisms to methane by the following equation: 4 H2 + CO2 --> CH4 + 2 H2O + ATP or they can convert acetic acid to make methane as below: C2H4O2 --> CH4 + CO2 + ATP Now that is an interesting new spin on "cutting the cheese", right? Jones
