Posted on 11/17/2007 12:44:57 AM PST by neverdem
”But both of those strategies require large amounts of energy themselves.”
Maybe initially we’d have to use oil to produce hydrogen, but after awhile couldn’t one use the hydrogen itself to power whatever it takes to produce the hydrogen? Say one is making hydrogen via electrolysis. Something would have to be used to boil the water to turn it into steam so it can turn the turbines to produce electricity in order to split the molecules of hydrogen and oxygen.
Lets say one takes some of that hydrogen and uses it along with solar energy to heat the water to turn the turbines. Since hydrogen when mixed with oxygen produces water one could capture almost 100% of the energy used to make the hydrogen and use again and again.
How about using hydrogen, solar power and wind power to make the electricity to split the molecules?
How about using hydrogen, solar power and wind power, geothermal, etc either coupled together or in different combinations?
It seems like those who are against hydrogen are always saying bit takes way too much energy to produce, so the hell with it. By way of conventional energy, yes, but why use conventional (oil, coal) means that cost so much when there are alternatives?
As an ex truck driver I can deal with black ice. However your average 4 wheeler, now thats a another story.
I believe it produced 7.1 million psi?
Carbon dioxide turned into hydrocarbon fuel
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/726555/posts
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.