Replies

Anything involving hydrogen is really wasteful. This probably even moreso. Plus, fuel cells cost hundreds of thousands of dollars for one big enough to run a car.

Not so, really. It makes an excellent motor fuel, with three and a half times the explosive capacity than gasoline, which is a hydro-carbon, after all... really a method for delivering Hydrogen stored in a carbon bond for storage at ambient temperature. In 1980, my friends and I were experimenting with metal hydrides, like Nickle, and came to the conclusion that it made an excellent way to store energy using non-peak grid resources.

The greenies love it for the same reasons I liked the clean air aspect, in a way, back before it became a fashion statement. It's exhaust is steam, which is ironic. The Global Warming minority is so worried about Carbon Dioxide as a Greenhouse Gas when water vapor is, by far, the most influential of the greenhouse "gases."

Makes a lot more sense than the ice-slinging, bird-killing windmills city folks want to deploy anywhere in rural areas where people like their peace and quiet.

Not so, really. It makes an excellent motor fuel, with three and a half times the explosive capacity than gasoline,

Just as soon as we can mine it from say, Jupiter. There's no source of hydrogen you can just pump out of the ground, like oh I don't know, oil. Other wise you have to go about breaking those pesky bonds between the hydrogen and oxygen or carbon and that takes LOTS of energy.

(insert “Aw Jeez, Not this crap again pic). Yes hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the universe. It just doesn’t happen to be in plentiful supply here on earth in a pure usable form.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1781558/posts

Hydrogen stored in a carbon bond for storage at ambient temperature. In 1980, my friends and I were experimenting with metal hydrides, like Nickle, and came to the conclusion that it made an excellent way to store energy using non-peak grid resources.

That makes more sense. Separating hydrogen from carbon should be a substantially different proposition, energy-wise, than separating hydrogen from oxygen.

It costs you some energy to get the carbon separated from the hydrogen, but you get a lot more back when you combine the hydrogen with oxygen in the combustion chamber.

If you're storing hydrogen bound to oxygen, then breaking that bond to get free hydrogen is costing you at least as much energy as you're going to get back in the combustion chamber, and that's assuming a 100% efficient method of breaking that bond.