Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: John Jamieson

Chemical Batteries like lead acid, gel deep cycle and even the lithium have life times that are short by a cars lifetime definition. They are heavy; they are a problem in an accident; Disposal is a problem. Chemical storage is bay far the best way to store the energy for a car. What’s wrong with a nuclear power plant producing hydrogen to fuel our cars with, and hydrogen stations with “Spare” tanks that a re a universal size and shape (Vehicles could use one or more, i.e. bigger vehicles four or six, etc) We can then drive cross country, stopping for refills as we do now, and we can not pollute (Fusion reactors can eat the waste of Fission reactors, so no waste to bury.) no pollution, no oil from Saudis what’s the down side?


Oh, the oil companies stocks would drop like a stone and these reactors would be terrorist target.


167 posted on 09/04/2006 11:29:44 AM PDT by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: DelphiUser
Liquid Hydrogen is the densest form. It takes about two pounds to make the equivalent energy of one gallon of gas. Two pounds of hydrogen liquid occupy about 7 gallons of space, leak through most materials, cost about $50, boils off about 7% a day when stored in very heavy cryo tanks. Gaseous storage requires even heavier and larger tanks.


Other than that, it's an excellent fuel.
168 posted on 09/04/2006 11:49:29 AM PDT by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson