Re: Viable hydrogen vehicle by 2010
From: K. Jones (shadetree1999_at_hotmailNODAMNSPAM.com)
Date: 09/29/04
- Next message: Dan Bloomquist: "Re: Honda H2 FCEV goes 157 miles without refuelling"
- Previous message: Dan Bloomquist: "Re: Endless Oil?"
- In reply to: Tkalbfus1: "Re: Viable hydrogen vehicle by 2010"
- Next in thread: charliew2: "Re: Viable hydrogen vehicle by 2010"
- Reply: charliew2: "Re: Viable hydrogen vehicle by 2010"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 12:03:53 -0400
"Tkalbfus1" <tkalbfus1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040928120242.07779.00000817@mb-m25.aol.com...
> >"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.
Convienence? Are you going to put a quart of gas in your toaster in the
morning?
Cost?
Noise?
Size?
>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?
Same reasons the majority of people *don't* want a powerplant in their homes
Nuclear, coal, gasoline or hyrodrgen.
> >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.
I can assure you this is not true.
By the way, where *IS* the bulk "waste heat" from *any* thermal generation
scheme
rejected? (Nuclear, coal, oil,)
> >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?
See reasons above. Going *additional* steps to hydrogen, increases the
inconvience, and the cost, dramatically.
> 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
Tom, you're getting more and more bizarre.
This conversation has become ludicrous and pointless.
I'm done feeding the troll.
Good day.
K. Jones
- Next message: Dan Bloomquist: "Re: Honda H2 FCEV goes 157 miles without refuelling"
- Previous message: Dan Bloomquist: "Re: Endless Oil?"
- In reply to: Tkalbfus1: "Re: Viable hydrogen vehicle by 2010"
- Next in thread: charliew2: "Re: Viable hydrogen vehicle by 2010"
- Reply: charliew2: "Re: Viable hydrogen vehicle by 2010"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
