[Mr-Firewood]

As a Hebron, it is Normal for you to ignore prior postings by this poster, As such I have nothing to prove...


My systems work fine, The Communist Canadian System is 100% relient upon Americans inventing it and sharing the secrets with you...


That is a wrong assumption on your part...


I manufactur, YOU BUY...


GOOD LUCK, WE REQUIRE 100% of your money and Hefe Bushco will take it from you... (-;

[Xort]

Fuel is a way of storing and moving energy. Hydrogen of it's self is a very poor fuel source.

The production of hydrogen from sources other than hydrocarbons is a very energy intensive operation. Iceland has a large amount of energy they can capture compaired to their population. This makes the very energy intensive operation of hydrogen conversion economic for them.

In places that do not have access to the same cheap energy sources it becomes highly uneconomic to produce hydrogen. I have hope for technology in GE bacteria, but I'm not going to count that chicken till it hatches.

[C.M. Burns]

Mr-Firewood wrote:

A funny Archeological Fact, Hydrogen Cars existed in Australia 450,000 years ago, but man is not smart enough to do it NOW...

You're right, that is funny. Is there even the slightest chance that you can provide some proof of this? Please, we're all dying to know.

[Ripcat]

The people that will control the hydrogen supply will screw you over like those that currently control the oil supply...

[Milton]

Actually hydrogen is very economical to produce. First you have to do some research to discover what methods are already available to produce hydrogen. Then you have to de-brainwash yourself so that you are capable of thinking outside the box.

One method is to construct windmills in places where there is abundant wind and water. Use the electricity generated by the water to split water into hydrogen and oxygen.

The best part about burning hydrogen is that only heat and water are created.This is a regenerative resource ie. when you burn it you get back what you made it from.

[C.M. Burns]

Milton wrote:

The best part about burning hydrogen is that only heat and water are created.This is a regenerative resource ie. when you burn it you get back what you made it from.

Oh, really? They've repealed the laws of thermodynamics?

[Milton]

Perhaps you would care to explain the relationship, or lack thereof, that my run down of the hydrogen cycle and the laws of thermodynamics have.

[sasquatch2]

C.M. Burns

Quote:

As I have mentioned elsewhere on this site, there are three huge problems with hydrogen. They are: the source, the production infrastructure and final distribution.

1) Sources
- natural gas. Not much hope there
- electrolysis - energy loss of 50-70%
- new organic processes (bacteria) could produce it
- 50M tonnes currently produced world wide, almost all from natural gas
- where are the 450 M tonnes needed for vehicles going to come from?
- billion$ needed to create production facilities

2) Transport
- liquefied H has 40% energy loss
- compressed has 20% energy loss
- pipelines are leaky,
- H makes metals brittle
- H-proof pipelines incredibly expensive to build
- one tanker-truckload could only fill ten cars

3) Distribution
- cost: $5 and $10 a gallon.
- a new Hydrogen filling station costs $2 million US
- a new H filling station project in London, UK cost $14 million US
- in the US there are currently about 30 H filling stations
- in the US there are more than 120,000 gas stations. The cost to add a hydrogen pump/storage at $100,000 each? $12,000,000,000 (remember a basic kitchen remodeling cost at least ten thousand).
- cost of H conversion for existing cars
- added cost of new H cars

It ain't gonna happen on a large scale and it is a waste of time and energy to devote anything more than research-level resources to devleop hydrogen fuel cell cars.

while C. M. and i differ on some matters on this we agree. any questions.
Hydrogen makes about as much sense as standing in a bucket and lifting on the bail to fly.

[netman]

How about Coal Gasification 'til the Hydrogen technology catches up? WW-2 Germany fueled 50% or 80% (forgot which) of their needs that way and N.America has a 200 year supply.
-Its bio-degradable so a spill is not such a big deal.
-Proven technology and doesn't impinge a food source.
-Better performing in Jet Engines.
That & Nuclear would stop the need for dealing with those that hate us.

[Dr Caleb]

Milton wrote:

Perhaps you would care to explain the relationship, or lack thereof, that my run down of the hydrogen cycle and the laws of thermodynamics have.

I think he means that when you burn Hydrogen, you don't get back all (100%)of what you put into it.

There is a large energy loss involved in the process. The laws of Thermodynamics say you cannot get back 100% of the energy put into a system - there will always be parasitic losses. Turning water to hydrogen, then using it in a fuel cell, you would be lucky to get back half what you put in. (still, better than petroleum based energy)

[sasquatch2]

From a purely theoretical stance, hydrogen is not zero emmisions despite the conversion of hydrogen to water----unless the engine is also fueled with pure oxygen. Atmospheric air in a cumbustion chamber/cylinder produces NOX which is SMOG!

[Milton]

I knew what he meant, Dr C. I wanted him to state it for the record. I never said you get more energy back than you put into the equation.

We don't need to use hydrogen in a fuel cell, we can burn it in a regular gas converted engine. The major drawback is that it takes more space to store an energy equivalent amount of hydrogen than it does propane or methane or gasoline. But so what, the benefits to us all far outweigh this because we would have to overhaul our corrupt economic systems to reflect the fact that our fuel source was not finite. It is a regenerative resource and the amount of water split is the amount of water reproduced when the hydrogen is burnt. If we use windmills, wind being another regenerative resource, then the electrical energy used to split the water is also not finite.

The decrease in chemical pollution is as immense a benefit as the decrease in
mental pollution would be.

[sasquatch2]

Unless hydrogen is utilized in a fuel cell, NOX is one of the resulting emmisions----=SMOG.

[Milton]

Smog is composed of more than NOx. The test results I have seen said that the air coming out of the tailpipe of a hydrogen burning vehicle is cleaner than the air going in to the engine.