The Focus is on hydrogen (BANKRUPTING THE SAUDIS ALERT)

The Daily Telegraph ^ | October 10, 2002 | Jesse Crosse

[MadIvan]

We should be working on fuel cells as a matter of defence priority. I don't really care about the Green arguments - I suspect they'll be against this as they are more interested in reducing us to primitivism rather than technological developments - but if we produce these vehicles, we yank the rug out from underneath the Saudis, Iranians and Iraqis. They'll be reduced to throwing rocks at low flying British and American bombers on another raid. The entire edifice of terror will lose its ability to finance itself.

How fitting that Ford, which revolutionised cars the first time with the creation of the Model T, is planning to do so again with this. And this revolution will help us be the eventual winners in the war on terror.

Regards, Ivan

[MadIvan]

Bump!

[paul544]

2010 sounds like such a long time, but I guess it isn't. They day I can flip off the arabs and their oil, is the day the world will be just a little better. Can't wait.

[Diogenesis]

You are correct. Cold fusion should be investigated, too.

In the UK in the 6/2/02 Times there was an article confirming the original findings.

The article was, of course, removed in the issues sent to the US.

REASON: The US State Dept and Sen Biden are determined,
with others, to keep the US dependent upon oil,
despite the Constitution and Congressional requirements
for encouraging inventors.

[MadIvan]

We all should be conserving petrol when we can - not just to save money, but to bankrupt the Saudis. Each penny we cause the price of crude to drop, is a sum that can't find its way into Al Qaeda's pockets.

Regards, Ivan

[MadIvan]

One thing we should also remember - one thing that helped the long post-World War II boom was cheap fuel. With the advent of a hydrogen based economy, cheap energy will be back in style. And this time the Arabs won't have a monopoly on it.

Regards, Ivan

[RandallFlagg]

Okay, I'm really confused...

It seems like these vehicles would solve a lot of the problems of pollution, gasoline consumption, arab oil dangers, etc. But when I read this thread and This thread, I start to wonder: Are they simply slowing the production and perfection of these type of vehicles until they can create new taxes that driving them would demand? A Hydrogen tax? A low-emmission tax? An Arab- Recompensation tax?!

OK, tin foil off....

[UKCajun]

What we have here is good old fashioned competition between technologies--hydrogen vs. fish and chip oil.

[MadIvan]

I'll go for hydrogen. I'd rather not be reduced to going to fish and chips shop, asking for my Plaice and Chips and for a fill up.

Regards, Ivan

[UKCajun]

Picture that!

[UKCajun]

How about BP Cooking oil on special in ASDA!

[dennisw]

You need electric power to make this hydrogen. So what are you going to burn to make it? Oil, gas, coal?

Are you hanging on hydro-electric or nukes to generate the electricty? Are you going to pave over half of New Mexico with photo-voltaic cells? Will you make it with wind turbines?

[MadIvan]

Use nuclear energy and coal - sources which do not require the Saudis.

Regards, Ivan

[Wonder Warthog]

"We should be working on fuel cells as a matter of defence priority."

Where do you get the idea the fuel cells are NOT being worked on?? All the major auto companies are working on them, as are many different US government agencies, including various ones in the DOD.

[OXENinFLA]

What ever happend to the Water engine?

[RandallFlagg]

I remember when the Humvee first rolled out. They said that the engine could burn gasoline, diesel, kerosene, even perfume or lighter fluid.

[dennisw]

My guess is when you burn coal to run hydrogen-powered autos you are utilizing 20% of the energy captured in coal.

One way or another you will waste the other 80%

[MadIvan]

And nuclear?

Regards, Ivan

[RandallFlagg]

What? You mean the idea of placing 2 electrodes in H2O, seeping the hydrogen from one of them and burning it in an engine? As soon as I get some extra $$$, I'll get right on it.
Actually, I've been thinking of that idea since I saw the electrolysis experiment in my 8th grade science class.

[dennisw]

The most primitive and efficient way to use coal is for heating. You can approach 85%-100% efficiency there. Uranium can never be used in such a basic way....cannot be used in a simple furnace or cook stove. Nuclear yields energy for man only via electricity generation.

With the starting point that "nuclear yields energy for man only via electricity generation" I would guess that nuke generated electricity will be 75% utilized by the time it's hydrogen finally powers an automobile. 25% will be lost from transmission lines, from generating the hydrogen, from filling fuel cells, then finally generating power in the automobile from the fuel cell.