Re: Viable hydrogen vehicle by 2010

From: Tkalbfus1 (tkalbfus1_at_aol.com)
Date: 09/28/04 

Date: 28 Sep 2004 16:02:42 GMT

>"extraction of hydrogen gas" ??
>
>You're just not getting it.
>
>Making hydrogen for use as a fuel, is a waste of resources in virtually all
>applications.

The same could be said of electricity. Why don't all of our appliances have
power plants in them? You could, for instance, have a gasoline powered
refrigerator. Refrigerators operate on the principle of expanding gases cooling
down and absorbing the heat inside the refrigerator, the gases are then
compressed indie the radiator which radiates heat outside of the refrigerator
with a net effect of cooling the inside of the refrigerator. The gas pumps that
do this don't have to be run by electric motors. Am internal combustion engine
can provide the mechanical motion required to circulate the refrigerants
through their expansion and crontraction cycles. There is no need to resort to
an intermediate energy carrier such as electricity. A gasoline engine can run a
refrigerator directly using nothing but mechanical motion provided by fuel
combustion within its cylinders. Why do we have electric lamps when we can
provide illumination for our homes with gas or oil lamps. Isn't it more
efficient to use a primary source of energy rather than use an energy carrier
such as electricity or hydrogen. Electricity experiencies losses due to
resistance in the wires when traveling toward your home.
Why not just deliver the fuel that the power plant runs on directly to your
home so you can use it there, rather than have it power wasteful electric
generators so that it can heat the powerlines that deliver what remains of the
energy to your home?

>You use more fuel in making it, then you could ever recover.
>Much more efficient, ergo less fuels required, to use them directly.
>

The same could be said of electricity. a portion of the fuel a power plant
burns to generate electricity doesn't go into the production of electricity.
Some of that energy simply heats the turbine blades when steam pushes on those
blades. If 100% of the steams energy when to push the turbine blades, the
turbine blades would remain cold as it spun around.

>Converting fuel to hydrogen from is an un-necessary, wasteful step.
>

or paraphrased:
Converting fuel to electricity from is an un-necessary, wasteful step.

You tell me why we convert our energy sources into electricity before using
them in our appliances? If we wanted all that energy we wouldn't convert it
into electricity first would we?

Electricity is useful for fixed appliances that are connected by wire to a
distant power plant. Our appliances couldn't burn the powerplant's fuel with
the same efficiency that the power plant could, so a distant power plant powers
our appliances and keeps our homes lit, this overcomes the inefficiencies of
converting the energy to electricity first before using it.

Hydrogen is simply a way of using energy from power sources that otherwise
can't be used in cars. You can't use solar energy directly in cars, because
you'd want to drive your car at night, also the entire collection array to
power your car would be very heavy. You could power your car directly by wind,
but that would require a sail. Sail masts tend to be tall and may interfere
with powerlines and bridges as you travel down the road. Sailing through a
tunnel under the Hudson river would also be difficult. But a wind turbine can
be used to make hydrogen and that hydrogen can power your car, it also doesn't
produce greenhouse gases unlike your favorite petrochemical.

>What exactly would you do with this hydrogen once you've got it?
>Why would you do this?
>

Power cars with it in fuel cells.
Fuel cells do not produce greenhouse gases or poisonois gases such as
carbon-monoxide. Carbon-monoxide poisioning has killed a number of people who
have left their engines running in their garages without proper ventilation.

Fuel cells produce water vapor, inhaling water vapor won't kill you. Inhaling
water might, but that's in its liquid form. Most people are sensible enough to
get out of their homes before it starts flooding, and water isn't an invisible
ordorless gas that you can breath without knowing it, and carbon-monoxide is.

Tom

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Stupid "free energy" idea
    ... use up in require additional energy to the truck. ... Actually it is impossible to generate more power than you use. ... as by utilizing vehicle traffic on roadways. ... Energy sources useful for the generation of electricity include wind, ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • Re: Free electricity is not cheap
    ... He certainly did not know about fusion energy, this was not worked out until ... These "Teslas" are said to be under development by the Tesla company, ... "Free" Electricity ... hidden power of the Universe. ...
    (sci.physics.fusion)
  • Re: The Future Navy Will Be Nuclear
    ... when it comes down to it the sun is the only reliable power ... With catalysts created by an MIT chemist, sunlight can turn water into ... dominant source of energy. ... would yield fresh water as well as electricity. ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: Pragtical approach for Hydro-power development
    ... As you mentioned the option of NUCULAR energy, ... Quebec is the "BATTERY" of the Northeast of the ... construction of Quebec hydro power at James Bay, ... When Quebec began to nationalize its private electricity companies in ...
    (soc.culture.laos)
  • Re: (Andy Hewitt) Re: BT HomeHub + BBC iPlayer disconnects
    ... However, if the green energy is so much cheaper, then why are we being ... Running an existing power station provides power *NOW*, ... electricity when you need it. ... carbon trading if done as the business world asked for it ...
    (uk.comp.sys.mac)