How true is that America has managed to split Hydrogen? Isn't that worse than Uranium enrichment?
607478
A long time ago.  And we haven't dropped any H-bombs on anyone.  Are you confident that certain other governments would show the same restraint?
958392
Hydrogen bombs ARE nuclear bombs; they are a particular type of nuclear bomb and are powered by a fusion reaction.  By "nuclear bombs", I assume you meant fission (usually uranium-based) bombs, which are another type of nuclear bomb.\n\nBasically, fission bombs consist of unstable elements which constantly break down into lighter elements.  This breakdown releases heat and subatomic particles [radiation].  Being subjected to radiation also causes the breakdown rate to increase, so in large enough quantities, a chain reaction occurrs where millions of atoms split nearly instantaneously due to the high radiation from the neighbouring atoms disintegrating.  Large quantities of heat and radiation are released, causing a massive explosion and residual radiation which lasts for years.\n\nIf you meant to ask whether or not fusion bombs have replaced the less-powerful fission bombs, then the answer is a more complicated "yes-and-no"... yes, the fusion reaction is much more intense and releases much more energy than the fission reaction does.  Fusion describes the process whereby two atoms of a light element (hydrogen atoms, in this case) are bonded together to create a heavier element (helium, in the case of the hydrogen bomb).  However, these atoms do not spontaneously fuse - catalyzing the reaction requires an immense amount of energy.  Obviously the energy subsequently released is enormous - more than enough to fuel the fusion of more atoms - but to initially get the reaction started, a huge amount of energy is required.  The best way to do this, in the case of a hydrogen bomb, is a small fission bomb which generates the required energy for the fusion to begin.  Since a fission bomb is used to trigger the fusion bomb, it is still necessary to have engineers and scientists who study and build fission bombs, so it would be inaccurate to say that the fusion bomb has "replaced" the fission bomb.
1031342
Hydrogen will replace fossil fuels as we gain newer technology. At first it will be expensive to run a car on Hydrogen but as with anything else cost will decrease over time.  Hydrogen is a very dangerous element to use but we have an almost limitless supply of it in our water resources here on Earth.  The equation is rather simple.  2H2O yields 4H + 2O
502026
There's literally trillions of atoms per cubic\ninch of matter. When you multiply that number times\nthe amount of energy released per atom, that's what you get.\n  The fascinating thing is that the ratio of energy \nreleased to the weight of matter gets smaller as the size\nof the atom gets smaller. At a certain size, somewhere\naround mid range of the heaviest and lightest atoms, no\nenergy is released at all. And the smaller the atom you\nconsider after that actually requires energy to split.\nHowever, at this level of size energy is released by\nfusing(smashing together) atoms. The smaller the atom,\nthe greater the energy released to weight ratio becomes.\nThe smallest atom is that of hydrogen and when hydrogen\natoms are fused an enormous amount of energy is released.\nThus, the power of a hydrogen bomb.
911413
Nuclear fusion is what you are talking about.  Basically smaller atoms (hydrogen for example) are smashed together under high energy to form larger atoms (helium for example).  In the process, a small amount of energy is given off.  This is the process that powers the sun, and if we could harness it, it would make a great source of electricity.  Anyway they have experimental fusion reactors, they just take in more energy then they give out making using them as a power source pointless.  They're working on that though.  Someday hopefully they can make a fusion reactor that gives off more energy then it takes in.
1025413
Many organizations all chasing a pipe dream for the present for the sake of political correctness. They are developing vehicles which will have no pratical source of fuel or an infrastructure to store and deliver it. The only practical source of hydrogen is electrolosis which consume electric power. Given the existing emisions profile of US generating plants, producing the hydrogen will emit more pollutants than are saved with hydrogen fueld cars. How will we store and deliver it? The cart is being put before the horse!
683560
with that 200 billion dollars, if it had gone into AIDS research or cancer research, we would have found a cure, or a much better therapy.\nor even into alternative fuels research.  i seriously believe if that 200 bil had been invested into hydrogen and all that, the US won't be complaining at the pumps.
139798
I must disagree with gran. Most objections to the overpromotion of hydrogen have nothing to do with affluence or aversion to hiccups. Rather, the naysayers see hydrogen being touted as THE solution, with scant attention being paid to minor details like where the energy to generate hydrogen comes from. \nWith current technology, getting energy from hydrogen would merely be displaced combustion of fossil fuels or nuclear energy. It is either extracted from hydrogen bearing molecules like petroleum products or electrolyzed from water. Either way uses more energy than the combustion of hydrogen will repay, even in a relatively efficient fuel cell. Biological methods for hydrogen generation are being proposed but are unlikely to be economically scalable. Without a clean production technology, hydrogen is a net negative. However, hydrogen is intrinsically a clean fuel, and if clean production, transportation and storage can be arranged, it would improve our lives tremendously.\nOK, with that said, there are many organizations pursuing many alternative energy technologies. "Prepared" for oil depletion they are not. But they are working realistically along the many routes available to mitigate the shock of depletion. These include increased energy efficiency (note that the energy you don't use is equvalent to production of that energy with infinite efficiency!), expanded mass transit, and energy sources like biomass, wind, solar, tidal and hydro. Unfortunately, all of these sources have environmental impacts of their own, and some are "low quality" in the sense that the power intensity is low, requiring extensive investment in land and equipment. There are many opportunities for people with good ideas to help here. Google alternative energy and find many interesting sites.
261005
Apparently groups in Sweden, Australia, and the UK are working on this. There are probably others as well. They are making progress. It does appear that this might allow the industrial scale separation of water into hydrogen and oxygen, and the reduction of atmospheric CO2. \n\n\nRecently, Jim Barber and So Iwata of Imperial College in London identified the actual crucial molecules that are used to split water by plants. This might lead to huge advances eventually. It is quite exciting.
32067
It seems to me that natural disasters take a pretty good toll each year.  Perhaps you need to read the newspaper more often or listen to the news.  It's really amazing the knowledge one can gain by doing these things on a regular basis.  You might be amazed at the number of wars that are in progress, at any given, time around this unfriendly earth of ours.  Yet, the earths population continues to grow.  During WWII, Russia alone lost over 20 million people, yet here we are 60 years later and their population is as robust as ever.  War might resolve population explosion over the short term, but it doesn't take human kind very long to pick up the slack.  The ecosystem on the other hand, does need some immediate TLC.  The Icelanders may have found just the solution to a big part of the problem.  It seems that Iceland has a very short term timetable to convert all of its vehicles to hydrogen power.  Now as I understand it, hydrogen is the mixture of nitrogen and water which causes combustion.  It supposedly is not much cheaper than oil, however it is cleaner. Much cleaner. The problems this could solve are unlimited.  Just think, we could tell the whole middle east to blow itself to hell and take it's filty oil with them.  Sorry, I digress.  In summary, perhaps it is best to let mother nature take over the population issues, frankly I enjoy being there to help correct the problem when mother nature goes too far.
601243
Nuclear, beyond any shadow of a doubt. \n\nThe US has appreciable Uranium reserves itself, and major Uranium producing nations such as Australia are already favored trading partners and stable western democracies.\n\nForget corn. It takes more oil to produce ethanol than the ethanol replaces. I. other words using corn for energy means we have to use MORE oil. We currently produce corn ethanol as an economic subsidy for corn growers. If we didn't make ethanol we would have to dump that corn in the ocean. But Corn ethanol is NOT a fuel source. See the first article below.\n\nHydrogen is iffy. We can only obtain hydrogen by splitting water using massive amounts of electricity. That electricity has to be obtained using normal power stations, usually coal. As a result hydrogen is like ethanol: it takes far more fossil fuel to produce than it actually replaces. That makes it a possible oil substitute but very unwise WRT greenhouse gas emissions unless coupled with lots of nuclear power stations.\n\nSolar and wind are never going to be major players. There simply isn't enough land available to make more than a minor contribution and because the supplies are erratic we would still need other power stations to make up the regular shortfalls. See the second article below.\n\nNucelar is the only real solution.
951077
Because they have pressure from American oil tycoons.  Look at your president!  We have capability to have cars run on hydrogen but because oil people don't like it, no one make it in great numbers.
85377
The Reagan administration supported enourmous research into cheap power from nuclear fusion.  Unfortunately, they found out we do not have the technology to control the process on earth.  In space no problem.  Reagan wanted to use the fusion reactor to make hydrogen for fuel.  All other hydrogen programs currently being discussed use fossil fuels at a tremendous waste of energy in the process.
1033515
You can burn it. \n\nYou can use it in a fuel cell (essentially a more complicated way of burning it that gives you electricity directly).\n\nYou cannot use it for nuclear power if it ordinary hydrogen, but if it is deuterium (hydrogen with a neutron as well as a proton in its nucleus) you can in theory fuse it to form helium - though this has not been achieved in a practical way yet (the Sun does it pretty well though).
780706
none, the 2 different bombs you are trying to get at are usually called atomic and hydrogen bombs\n\natomic (that was dropped over Japan 1946) is uncontrolled splitting (fission) of uranium whereas in the nuclear power reactors this is done slowly -- the reaction is controlled.\n\nhydrogen bomb was never tested over human population (only atoll Bikini) is a synthesis (fusion) of hydrogen into helium. This reaction produces the energy from the Sun and it is still in a research mode here on earth to get this reaction under control.\nIt would be much more effective source of energy than the nuclear one.
744587
Hydrogen powered autos is the way to go. The sun's energy can be used to separate Hydrogen from Oxygen, so you definitely have something environmentally friendly.
1168838
Well, aside from the incredible wealth of supporting evidence as to the existence of an atom (that is what you are really asking, right?) there are a couple of great historic events that prove we can split an atom. Furthermore, while you cannot see a single atom, everything that you do see is an aggregation of atoms. But, back to how we know, in August of 1945, the second world war was ended by dropping two bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. You see, at it's simplest, an atom bomb's power is derived from the chain reaction that occurs from the splitting of the atom. Lord knows, no one has ever seen what happens when an atom is split. So, how do we know that we can split an atom? I mean, it's not like the threat of splitting an atom over a major population center didn't hold the world in a cold war for the better part of a century. Wow dude. I mean seriously, wow.