Skip to comments.
Novel sugar-to-hydrogen technology promises transportation fuel independence
Virginia Tech News ^
| 5/23/06
| Susan Trulove
Posted on 05/25/2007 9:24:25 AM PDT by HangnJudge
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-79 next last
Getting Closer....
Any process to stop the flow of money into the Islamists is OK with me
To: HangnJudge
Dang...there goes the price of sugar now...
2
posted on
05/25/2007 9:28:22 AM PDT
by
rlmorel
(Liberals: If the Truth would help them, they would use it.)
To: HangnJudge
I’m with you on that, btw. I was just being facetious...
3
posted on
05/25/2007 9:29:10 AM PDT
by
rlmorel
(Liberals: If the Truth would help them, they would use it.)
To: HangnJudge
So this means you drive around with some syrup in your tank, converting it to hydrogen as needed, rather than driving around with a big tank of hydrogen ready to explode? Sounds good.
Then you need another tank to convert cellulose into glucose and things will really be good - organic cars powered by termites and bacteria.
Mrs VS
To: HangnJudge
Now’s the time to go long on Dairy Queen stock?
5
posted on
05/25/2007 9:32:07 AM PDT
by
RSmithOpt
(Liberalism: Highway to Hell)
To: VeritatisSplendor
Then you need another tank to convert cellulose into glucose and things will really be good - organic cars powered by termites and bacteria.
This is being worked on. I know personally some people burning the midnight oil on this.
To: VeritatisSplendor
Who would have ever thoght sugar in the gas tank was a good thing?
7
posted on
05/25/2007 9:33:19 AM PDT
by
mylife
(The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
To: HangnJudge
One kg of starch will produce the same energy output as 1.12 kg (0.38 gallons) of gasoline This is the important line. You don't want to carry around 20 pounds of stuff to get the effect of 1 pound of gasoline. The next hurdle to clear will be how this compares to gas when measured in terms of energy output per dollar. My guess is that gas is still much cheaper; but, as the price of this system comes down, and the price of gas goes up, that threshold will be crossed quickly enough.
8
posted on
05/25/2007 9:33:40 AM PDT
by
Redcloak
(The 2nd Amendment isn't about sporting goods.)
To: HangnJudge
Well that certainly takes all the fun out of pouring sugar in someone’s gas tank...
9
posted on
05/25/2007 9:33:46 AM PDT
by
Philistone
(Your existence as a non-believer offends the Prophet(MPBUH).)
To: HangnJudge
We aren’t any closer to partial, much less complete hydrogen usage than we were ten years ago, however, I am in complete agreement, that massive drilling everywhere there is oil within our territory, building of refineries, and nuclear power production should be first and foremost on any list that has even a particle of chance to stop the terrorist money flood to our sworn enemies.
10
posted on
05/25/2007 9:34:37 AM PDT
by
wita
(truthspeaks@freerepublic.com)
To: HangnJudge
11
posted on
05/25/2007 9:34:39 AM PDT
by
Old Professer
(The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)
To: HangnJudge
This would be cool if it ever makes it to market.
12
posted on
05/25/2007 9:36:32 AM PDT
by
Moonman62
(The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
To: rlmorel
Dang...there goes the price of sugar now...
Hmmmm... who makes Domino Sugar?
To: HangnJudge
The Democrats will destroy the food supply of this country in the name of saving the environment.
To: HarmlessLovableFuzzball
Food is the new fuel, and not just for the human body.
To: HangnJudge
I see a lot of carbon and oxygen as a byproduct here, what kind of soupy, gloopy mess is going to be left in the tank after everything is “digested” and needs to be removed?
16
posted on
05/25/2007 9:42:53 AM PDT
by
Abathar
(Proudly catching hell for posting without reading the article since 2004)
To: wita
To: HangnJudge
South Florida is a mecca for sugar.
It is more subsidized then any crop.
To harvest it they light the entire field on fire choking the air for as far as you can’t see.
Then the burned ashes flow into your water both above and below ground.
Then take into account the phosphates they use to fertalize it and I just can’t see it as the panacea.
What I can’t figure out is how they get away with it other then the f-ing e.p.a. isn’t doing their job.
To: Red Badger
19
posted on
05/25/2007 9:44:24 AM PDT
by
Abathar
(Proudly catching hell for posting without reading the article since 2004)
To: HangnJudge
We are arming our enemies via a disgraceful energy policy. Putting those SOBS back in tents and back on camels and making them inconsequential (save for when they do something Really Dumb (TM)) should be the new Manhattan project. No further good will ever come from that part of the world.
The environment bs garbage may be helpful for getting the useful idiots to be useful for the right side for once.
20
posted on
05/25/2007 9:44:26 AM PDT
by
M203M4
(What I wanna see is a pro-war ("kill the bastards") Ron Paul. Pacifism is suicide.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-79 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson