Above: Tesla sits below the Tesla Coil in his Colorado Spring Laboratory. The coil creates millions of volts of electricity with a frequency rate of 100,000 alterations per second.
Posted on 01/23/2005 6:45:16 AM PST by Blood of Tyrants
LOS ANGELES — Hydrogen-fueled cars have been hailed as the future of transportation — clean, safe and propelled by a power source whose only by-products are air and water.
[snip]
The problem, critics say, is that the technology that makes the fuel of the future generates just as much pollution as the gasoline-powered vehicles we drive right now.
[snip]
Extracting useful quantities of hydrogen from water requires a massive amount of energy — energy that typically comes from burning oil or coal.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Above: Tesla sits below the Tesla Coil in his Colorado Spring Laboratory. The coil creates millions of volts of electricity with a frequency rate of 100,000 alterations per second.
I'd rather the energy came from burning coil than imported oil from the Middle East even if it doesn't help with polution.
Nikola Tesla holding a gas-filled phosphor-coated light bulb which was illuminated without wires by an electromagnetic field from the "Tesla Coil".
But NOT turkeys, because turkeys cannot fly.
Congress has never properly done this as it applies to basic research. Instead, Congress has basic research done by tax dollars.
This applies to energy production in this way:
Right now, for most purposes, petroleum is the cheapest energy with other fossil fuels becoming economically efficient for various purposes. If basic research were protected, as the constitutions says it ought to be, then energy research would largely be private because everyone can see the "crossing points" where alternative energy sources become truly economically competitive with fossil fuels on the graphs of rising costs for fossil fuels plotted against cost of alternatives.
We shouldn't be needing public financing here. We wouldn't be wanting public financing if Congress acted To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.
the sky?
Not true. Ever hear of Electro Motive Force or induction? His theory was based on induction. You can run things without wires you just need a lot of EMF to drive a motor or light a lamp. In todays world each of our homes would such a large coil that it would fill a basement.
At the time Tesla was floating his theory the average house used about 40 amps, mostly lighting. Today you would need coils that fill the basement with wires. It would be like living above a microwave.
"Safest way is combine the hydrogen with carbon, then burn that compound."
Bingo! You win the prize!
The best transportation method for hydrogen is to connect it to carbon in a hyrdo-carbon. Oh, but that's what we are doing already! The more I look at hydrogen as a fuel, the more problems crop up. At least with hydrocarbons, the CO2 buildup can be remedied by planting plants.
The 19% of electricity generated from natural gas and oil should be replaced with coal and nuclear. The freed up natural gas could be used for heating buildings and the oil for gasoline. Additionally,a pipeline could be built to transport Alaskan natural gas to the lower 48 states supplemented with additional natural gas production brought on board from the Rockies. This could free up a significant amount of oil currently used for home heating. Where natural gas is not feasible for heating, the oil heat could be replaced with electricity from coal and nuclear. We could start drilling for oil on the North slope of Alaska. Then we can look on the conservation side. If we were serious we could reduce our imports by 6 million barrels a day leaving up primarily dependent on North American sources. The strategic petroleum reserve should be expanded over time to 1.5 billion barrels enough to to replace one million barrels for four years. We could also look to set up a national supplemental oil production capability of two million barrels a day. This would be subsidized by the government and be capable of pumping oil or converting oil from shale at $70 a barrel. This emergency oil could be dumped on the market at a loss to drive down the market price of oil when necessary.
Well this article should be a 'no, duh!'
The point of hydrogen fueled vehicles is not getting rid of emissions in the first instance, rather:
1. Even while we get lots of energy from fossil fuel, they let you distribute the emissions more evenly, rather than having them concentrated in heavily populated areas which become smog laden and possibly unhealthy.
2. When energy prices rise to the point that solar and wind become economically viable (which is when we'll have them, not sooner because of agitation by environmental wackos) or there is enough political will to have a standardized, well-vetted nuclear plant design and we build enough, hydrogen may be a good way of having mobile storage of energy for vehicles.
"Transportation over long distances can be done in existing natural gas pipeline infrastructure."
That isn't true, it would require an upgrade to the pipe.
LOL, by enviro standards a Duracell battery should be the perfect power source, no byproducts.
lol exactly!
Tax money spent on research is a miniscule part of the overall cost to our economy in terms of energy.
Think of how much tax money is spent subsidizing foreign oil production AND PROTECTION. HOW MUCH MILITARY TAX is spent because we do nothing otherwise?
Doesn't anyone know what a patent is anymore? Just because government grants research money does not give them exclusive patent right unless the researcher willingly gives it away! Or is it because it is a public benefit and "eminent domain" laws are stealing the good ideas "for future exploration"? If this is the case and socialism is seizing our inventive initiative then we are doomed as a nation.
Wrong. The only upgrade necessary would be to increase the size of the pumps.
There are two kinds of green wackos. The well-meaning genuinely concerned (or "useful idiots") and the bearers of the agenda.
The latter will keep the former misinformed enough to reject the truth about nuclear power, should they ever hear it.
It seems like this may be a religion to you. So I will only take on one of your beliefs. The earth conducts, but is resistive, not superconductive. The resistance is about 137 ohms, enough to lose a lot of energy in an earth transmission system. Question. If the earth could be used as a conductor, why does every electric company spend the money to use two conductors? One to deliver the electricity and one to return it? Answer, copper losses are less than the earths.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.