Posted on 02/08/2007 12:58:09 PM PST by aculeus
Nukes.
ALL LIES! We don't have hydrogen because of Bush & Cheney! Ok, I'm kidding. Interesteing science stuff
LOL. Yeppers.
Ethanol is a great fuel. It's current downfall is how it is made.
No matter how it is made, hydrogen is a bugger to store and transport.
Still doesn't give us a good supply of liquid fuel.
Well, yeah - that would solve the problem, all at once, like.
later bump
ANS shoul just about blow away anything off the "news" tonight..........ABCNNBCBSFOX.......
I didn't mean it in the obvious way! ;)
Perhaps none of these is THE solution. But I can think of at least 5 energy sources which are nowhere near fully exploited.:
(1) Oil (of which there is absolutely no shortage, merely a shortage of refining facilities to meet demand)
(2) Nuclear Power, the potential of which has only just begun to be realized.
(3) Coal
(4) Hydroelectric Generation (Rivers, Tides, Local Streams)
(5) Natural Gas, most of which is now wasted, or perhaps better said, allowed to escape, or is burned off.
Actually, Bush & co. have been in contact with a time traveler from the future who has explained to them how it and other things can easily and cheaply be done. Believe that? Good as globle warming I hear. Oh, he explained that too. Says, algorejr is a hopeless nut.
Nuke powered electrolysis with nuke powered compression.
I am no hydrogen advocate, but I want to know as much as I can.
He states that a kilogram of hydrogen has as much energy as a gallon of gasoline. So he should say that two and a half pounds of hydrogen has as much energy as seven pounds of gasoline. Let's compare lbs. to lbs. --not kilograms to gallons.
I would not rush out and buy GM stock based on all the money they've poured down the hydrogen hole but this article is awfully jumpy and not so well-argued.
Don't worry, I got it. Although the pun was funny.
Water vapor is present in the atmosphere in per cent levels, not the ppm of CO2. Adding any appreciable water vapor to the atmosphere by burning hydrogen would be quite a trick!
Yeah, but if we're to get rid of gasoline, an energy carrier the one thing we really need. We already have ways of generating large amounts of relatively cheap energy (fission). We don't have good ways of running cars with it, however. Hydrogen is not as good as gasoline, true, but it has the potential for much denser energy storage than chemical batteries.
Ethanol is a more practical fuel for vehicles than hydrogen is right now, but I think the problems with hydrogen are more likely to yield to technological advances. Give it ten years of serious effort, then we'll see.
;)
Can you hold a pound of pure hydrogen in your hands? In a tea cup?
Bad metric.
Don't forget Geo-Thermal.
lol & a bump
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.