Re: 2nd blast draws scrutiny to altenative-energy firms



Greg Sandoval <g_sandoval@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 13/08/2011 2:25 PM, jimp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
eric gisse<jowr.pi.onspam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Which also underscores things like Hydrogen embrittlement, and how porous
materials are to it. Or the frighteningly wide explosive concentration
range.

All of which are ignored by the starry-eyed dreamers envisioning the family
car being powered by "free" solar produced hydrogen.

Almost any explosive can be made as stable as a wet firecracker if you
put your mind to it.

Sure if you are willing to throw enough money and material at the
problem, but there is no economically practical solution for this one.

And there is yet anonther ignored problem with running hydrogen in a real
engine; the flame temperature is much higher, which does wonders for the
engine itself, plus it generates huge amounts of oxides of nitrogen, AKA
smog.

Two words: Fuel cell.

What part of "running hydrogen in a real engine" did you fail to comprehend?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.