Skip to comments.
Hydrogen Production Method Could Bolster Fuel Supplies
NY Times ^
| November 28, 2004
| MATTHEW L. WALD
Posted on 11/27/2004 10:23:36 PM PST by neverdem
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-86 next last
To: Jackson Brown
If you are really serious about energy independence we don't need hydrogen or nuclear. Hitler's scientists learned how to make gasoline from coal 60 years ago. It isn't exactly a new breakthrough. We could have all the gas we wanted somewhere around $2.50 a gallon, I would imagine. Which is probably why the Saudis don't want to see the price of their product go up too much more. The fact that this never, NEVER enters the discussion tells you how biased the authors of this rubbish are.
41
posted on
11/28/2004 4:43:53 AM PST
by
wastoute
To: fourdeuce82d; El Gato; JudyB1938; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Robert A. Cook, PE; lepton; LadyDoc; jb6; ...
FReepmail me if you want on or off my health and science ping list.
42
posted on
11/28/2004 7:28:40 AM PST
by
neverdem
(May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
To: neverdem
Hey, that'd make a great bumper sticker:
"Only the Sun can cause global warming.
Extinguish the Sun NOW!"
"Earth OUT OF the solar system!"
(Now THERE's a call for 'spaceship earth')!
"Solar power IS nuclear power!"
43
posted on
11/28/2004 8:09:53 AM PST
by
grey_whiskers
(The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
To: FredZarguna
Perhaps, you aren't clear, however, since you call hydrogen "an economical alternative to gasoline for vehicle fuels." Hydrogen, as the article makes clear, I make clearer, and you acknowledge IS NOT A FUEL.Ok, I'm being a little picky, but the orbiter for the space shuttle has three main engines which burn liquid hydrogen. In this sense, it IS a fuel although perhaps not a very reasonable one for most uses.
44
posted on
11/28/2004 8:16:26 AM PST
by
GummyIII
(America's number one energy crisis is Monday morning.)
To: neverdem
"This process, called electrolysis, now has a drawback: if the electricity comes from coal, which is the biggest source of power in this country, then the energy value of the ingredients - the amount of energy given off when the fuel is burned - is three and a half to four times larger than the energy value of the product. Also, carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions increase when the additional coal is burned."
That says it all.....
45
posted on
11/28/2004 8:20:14 AM PST
by
OregonRancher
(illigitimus non carborundum)
To: neverdem
Sounds about as practical as the wireless extension cord.
46
posted on
11/28/2004 8:44:48 AM PST
by
Old Professer
(The accidental trumps the purposeful in every endeavor attended by the incompetent.)
To: timestax
Let's just say that hydrogen and oxygen share a fatal attraction.
47
posted on
11/28/2004 8:46:32 AM PST
by
Old Professer
(The accidental trumps the purposeful in every endeavor attended by the incompetent.)
To: FredZarguna
They do have the undesirable trait of destabilizing L6.
48
posted on
11/28/2004 8:50:21 AM PST
by
Old Professer
(The accidental trumps the purposeful in every endeavor attended by the incompetent.)
To: All
The most efficient, and safe, hyrogen storage medium has already been found.
Its called->> Gasoline..
49
posted on
11/28/2004 8:57:51 AM PST
by
hosepipe
(This propaganda has been edited to included some fully orbed hyperbole....)
To: Ursus arctos horribilis
As an automotive battery is charged, it generates hydrogen gas, have a spark or high heat near the battery's vents, and the word is, "ka-boom" from an exploded battery. That depends on the rate of charge. A properly maintained battery produces very little hydrogen. The electrical energy goes into the electrolyte. Now if you are boiling your battery dry. . . . . . . .
50
posted on
11/28/2004 9:05:14 AM PST
by
Nov3
("This is the best election night in history." --DNC chair Terry McAuliffe Nov. 2,2004 8p.m.)
To: neverdem
I used to be a speed-reader but then I had a serious accident. I hit a bookmark doing 400 words a minute and I was laid up for a while. Now I read at a much safer pace and I count my blessings everyday that I am still able to read at all.
51
posted on
11/28/2004 9:09:23 AM PST
by
SamAdams76
(Red Sox Win The World Series...And Bush Wins Re-election Too!)
To: gibsosa
To: Bedford Forrest
53
posted on
11/28/2004 9:13:53 AM PST
by
neverdem
(May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
To: neverdem
Please put me on your H&S ping list. Thanks.
To: FredZarguna
Actually, it is the single, grossly-misunderstood word, "nuclear" that panics the illiterate and irrational masses.
IIRC, what is now called "Magnetic Resonance Imaging" ("MRI") was originally (and accurately) known as Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging". The simple use of the word, "Nuclear" caused the brainwashed populace to shun the technique -- until the name was changed...
Now tell me that our public schools are doing their job properly...
The idiocracy waould probably panic themselves into imagining they were dying of cancer if they learned that every cell in their bodies has a "nucleus"...
55
posted on
11/28/2004 9:18:21 AM PST
by
TXnMA
To: TXnMA
Just curious, what nuclear element does MRI use?
To: TXnMA
And then it hits me...it's the stuff they inject into you, eh?
To: FredZarguna
I don't think there's any doubt that using nuclear reactors to produce hydrogen is the only sensible solution, and I agree with you that nukes are political poison today.
However, later in this century, probably by 2040 or so, we're going to face a choice. Worldwide demand for oil will be far in excess of what can be produced as China and India continue to modernize. Even assuming we exploit tar sands, clean coal, etc., the worldwide demand for energy is going face a gap.
Stupid windmills and solar panels won't begin to make a dent. The only thing that possibly can is nuclear energy.
We will face that fight when the choice is between building new nuclear plants or entering a permanent depression. And I'm confident we'll make the right choice.
The only Hail Mary that would prevent that choice is a scientific breakthrough in fusion technology, but that's far more likely to be something perfected a couple centuries from now. Until then, it's nukes or nothing in terms of making up the energy gap.
58
posted on
11/28/2004 9:28:43 AM PST
by
Dog Gone
To: GummyIII
My point isn't to get into the semantics of "fuel" which some people seem to be hung up on. My point is that hydrogen technology is battery technology. On earth, we have energy stored in fossil fuels because solar energy was converted to binding energy by plants. This energy can be release when fossil fuels are burned. This isn't what we do with hydrogen, because there is no free hydrogen on earth. We have to manufacture free hydrogen: doing that takes energy. So when people call hydrogen an "energy source" they're being misleading (and, I would argue, often deliberately so). It isn't: it's a storage material for energy.
59
posted on
11/28/2004 9:44:21 AM PST
by
FredZarguna
(Free markets. Free Speech. Free Minds. But no Free Lunch.)
To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
And then it hits me...it's the stuff they inject into you, eh? Not exactly. The magnetic field interacts with the nuclei of the atoms of the materials which compose your body -- notably the nuclei of hydrogen atoms...
60
posted on
11/28/2004 9:51:42 AM PST
by
TXnMA
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-86 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