Your reply continues to confuse "economic cost" with "already oxidized." Until you get your head around the difference, my PhD in physics trumps your alleged "masters degrees" in engineering.
No source of energy is free in any economic sense; primary or otherwise, but that isn't the point. All of the practically available hydrogen on earth is already oxidized. Therefore, it is not a source of energy in the same sense that hydrocarbon fuels are.
Get it?
Oh really ? what do we use to power the space shuttle ? what is the ONLY fuel with enough MJ/ kG to even make it into space ? huh ? HYDROGEN - Liquid
Had you read my post, instead of responding to nothingness, you would have seen my criticism of liquid and compressed hydrogen. The liquid hydrogen used in the space shuttle takes orders of magnitude more energy to produce than it provides.
FROM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
No one with an advanced degree in anything uses or quotes Wikipedia. But at any rate, energy density by mass is a ridiculous measure used by no one in any terrestrial application.
gee thats great - lets runs cars and planes on U238 !
It would be nice if we could, but anyone with an "advanced degree" would know that U238 is a nearly stable isotope with a half-life roughly 1/3 the age of the universe. It's U235 that is consumed in reactors. Duh.
the BOTTOM LINE is that I can produce hydrogen in my house and run my car on it for about 5$ / gal equivalent - with no pollution or gasoline
The BOTTOM LINE is that you don't have any "advanced degrees" and don't have the slightest clue as to what you're talking about. You can "produce hydrogen" in your home only because somebody else is already burning oil, coal or natural gas at a power plant somewhere else, and creating pollution and burning molecules with a net positive energy yield there. Your hydrogen isn't doing anything but consuming energy in your home.
Your statements betray a pathetic misunderstanding of basic science: You're saying, "What's the problem? I can just plug in a wire and generate all the electricity I need to in my own home." Sure. Good luck getting that one past your high school science teacher.
Learn a little science, and don't bother to post to me again until you do. I'm not having an argument with a twelve year-old with a chemistry set who refuses to learn anything, and I'm certainly not having a discussion with an "engineer" who thinks Wikipedia is anything but crap. All the H2 on earth is already oxidized. It's not a source of energy. Period.
once again, you can try and insult me and change the subject but it doesnt change the fact that Hydrogen WILL be the main fuel used for transport in the near future
of course it must be created and is a carrier - not a primary source of energy.
so is EtOH- the current boondoggle idiot idea from congress, which is not only tripling food prices, but also takes much more energy to produce that it consumes
here is another incorrect quote by you “The liquid hydrogen used in the space shuttle takes orders of magnitude more energy to produce than it provides.”
this is NONSENSE
It takes about 30% of the energy to liquefy hydrogen- and electrolyzers are about 70-75% efficient
and you have no comeback to my point about stoichiometric mixing of Ch4 and H2 - because you are too stuck in your little box to listen
HERE IS THE POINT : WE NEED ALTERNATIVE FUELS
FUELS THAT ARE BOTH PRIMARY AND SECONDARY
ETOH SUCKS AND SO DOES BIODIESEL
the ONLY ONE THAT WILL WORK LONG TERM IS H2
you will be long dead when the pioneers of today, includng myself, revolutionize the energy industry.
have fun trying to pooh pooh progress from your little box, and ignoring arguments and changing the subject to suit your little box, like a liberal
and have fun paying $10 a gallon for gas soon, as the democraps keep preventing us from drilling as well