View Full Version : You think aliens are laughing at us for using
Carbon
09-02-2005, 01:48 PM
fossil fuels?
They are like "what? these people have never heard of hydrogen? the most abundant fuel source in the universe, hahahhahahah. suckers" ::a giant death ray obliterates earth::
frealls tho. I lnow hdrogen powered cars are availabe in limited production.
if not a fully H-powered car, why not an H enriched/assisted hybrid auto mobile?
Warewolf50
09-02-2005, 02:21 PM
Hmm seems like costs are still way to high for car makers to switch production to h powered cars, and actually there are some very great designs for h powered engines out there but the oil companys have bought up the patents on them and wont allow them to be made.
Rather
09-02-2005, 02:45 PM
Won't matter, we'll have already killed off the planet by the time we really do run out of fuel... the price will just keep going up and up before its all gone. Untill then, courage. :)
I trust humanity, I promsie... ;) :rofl:
Buy a hydrogen powered car. Where are you going to fill up?
Who is going to invest the billions of dollars to build hydrogen filling stations all over the country when their is no customer base?
Simply their is no customer base so no stations will be built but their won't be a customer base until stations are built.
The picture is simple ... oil is great for fuel since it doesn't take much effort to get it out of the ground compared to the amount of energy you get out of it. Hydrogen, however, likes to bond to things and it takes a lot of energy to break those bonds, at least it does now.
Apart from nuclear power nothing comes close to that energy expended / energy released ration right now. Hydrogen isn't the answer anytime soon.
The scary part is that oil is getting harder to pump out of the ground too. All that "sweet crude" is almost gone. It's taking more and more effort to get the oil that's left out. Also, our economy grows and depends on increasing supplies of oil every year. We may have already reached the point where we've pumped half of all the oil and if that's the case the future doesn't look bright.
Carbon
09-02-2005, 03:28 PM
Buy a hydrogen powered car. Where are you going to fill up?
Who is going to invest the billions of dollars to build hydrogen filling stations all over the country when their is no customer base?
Simply their is no customer base so no stations will be built but their won't be a customer base until stations are built.
people though stringing up wires for communications cross country was proposterous when the idea 1st came about. The widespread use of H isnt exactly an overnight sensation. But i belive there will come a time where there are no other options.
Apart from nuclear power nothing comes close to that energy expended / energy released ration right now. Hydrogen isn't the answer anytime soon
But, non-fossilbased fuels seem to be the ultimate solution. Granted all of us, if not many of us, will probably never see alternative fuels become widespread.
FooTemps
09-02-2005, 07:16 PM
You know, people have been saying Hydrogen is impractical since it has too high of switch over costs for years. But if companies just freakin agreed to switch at the same time, thus causing competition, the prices would drive down to something more acceptible and there would be a customer base.
It has nothing to do with "switchover costs", or even Big Oil "buying all the patents"...which is too funny a conspiricy every time I hear it...
It takes MORE energy to obtain Hydrogen, than what the Hydrogen produces. There are no Hydrogen pockets deep in the earth, waiting to be tapped by wells. There isn't enough in the atmosphere to suck up and store, and water just doesn't want to give it up very easily.
It may be clean burning, and I pray for the day that it is our main source of fuel, but right now there is NO practical, logical, or financially feasible way to use Hydrogen as commercial or industrial fuels.
teufelhunden
09-02-2005, 07:57 PM
It has nothing to do with "switchover costs", or even Big Oil "buying all the patents"...which is too funny a conspiricy every time I hear it...
It takes MORE energy to obtain Hydrogen, than what the Hydrogen produces. There are no Hydrogen pockets deep in the earth, waiting to be tapped by wells. There isn't enough in the atmosphere to suck up and store, and water just doesn't want to give it up very easily.
It may be clean burning, and I pray for the day that it is our main source of fuel, but right now there is NO practical, logical, or financially feasible way to use Hydrogen as commercial or industrial fuels.
Get C/D, by any chance? :)
lather
09-02-2005, 08:14 PM
Many CT power plants are being constructed to have the ability to use H2 as a fuel source. H2 power in the near future is a very real possibility.
It takes MORE energy to obtain Hydrogen, than what the Hydrogen produces. There are no Hydrogen pockets deep in the earth, waiting to be tapped by wells. There isn't enough in the atmosphere to suck up and store, and water just doesn't want to give it up very easily.
This is true for anything that we don't dig out of the ground. ie Nuclear power, coal, oil, natural gas.
Even growing wood takes more energy, it's just that trees use sunlight as the energy source without much work on our part.
Making H2 would at best, move the energy generation elsewhere. Think of the H2 as type of battery.
It's still useful, since you normall can't have a nuclear plant in your car, but you can have your H2 made by a Nuclear plant.
Personally, I think that if we applied the same ideas to alcohol, ie gasohol. we could use the existing infrastructure.
Even growing wood takes more energy, it's just that trees use sunlight as the energy source without much work on our part.If I recall correctly from science class, all energy on the earth had started out as energy from the sun. It's interesting to think that the gasoline in your car started off as energy absorbed by plants, and the animals that ate them, millions of years ago.
CoolHand
09-02-2005, 09:59 PM
This is true for anything that we don't dig out of the ground. ie Nuclear power, coal, oil, natural gas.
Even growing wood takes more energy, it's just that trees use sunlight as the energy source without much work on our part.
Making H2 would at best, move the energy generation elsewhere. Think of the H2 as type of battery.
It's still useful, since you normall can't have a nuclear plant in your car, but you can have your H2 made by a Nuclear plant.
Personally, I think that if we applied the same ideas to alcohol, ie gasohol. we could use the existing infrastructure.
Nuclear power is the only way that H2 will ever be viable. Otherwise, the coal used to fire the power plants that supply the power for electrolysis (the process that we use to break apart water to give H2 and O2 gasses) puts out way more crud than the gas that the cars are now burning. I guess if we totally run out of oil, it would be a stop gap, though not a very good one.
Ethanol isn't really viable either, as it takes something like 24 bushels of corn to get one gallon of ethyl alcohol. To satisfy the needs of the US economy, we would literally have to plant ever single growable acre (and then some) with corn to use for fuel. If we do that, what will we (and a good part of the rest of the world) eat?
Its not a simple question to answer. If it were, we would have fixed the problem long ago.
The fact of the matter is that we will need to invent a totally new form of energy production and storage in order to get away from fossil fuels. Right now there is no useful alternative.
Give it another 25 years, we'll be OK, I have faith in our nation's engineers. :ninja:
I fail to see the problem with sticking solar panels on roofs. Sure it wouldn't completly eliminate the need for power plants due to cloudy days, snow, no good way to store the energy, etc. But it would make a serious dent and when you consider the panels would replace roof shingles and save you money on the electric bill they would just about pay for themselves. Combine that with building more nuclear power plants and we could eliminate the use of fossil fuels in power plants.
Ethanol isn't really viable either, as it takes something like 24 bushels of corn to get one gallon of ethyl alcohol. To satisfy the needs of the US economy, we would literally have to plant ever single growable acre (and then some) with corn to use for fuel. If we do that, what will we (and a good part of the rest of the world) eat?
Ethanol from Corn may be marginal. But Ethanol from Sugar Cane is very viable, and currently doing very well in Brazil. They use the waste fibers to burn and run generators that power the distillation process.
Perhaps if we had a GM version of Sugar Cane that grows in Iowa. :)
If we are growing the fuel arn't we just depleting the soil and ultimatly just comming up with new ways to screw ourselves over?
What we need to do is use nuclear power and come up with an efficant way of just blasting the waste into space.
If we are growing the fuel arn't we just depleting the soil and ultimatly just comming up with new ways to screw ourselves over?
Plants gather only minor amounts of mineals from the soil, which is solved by doing proper crop rotation. The rest is from the air and water.
We've been an agricultural society for over 2000 years. We're pretty good at it now.
I fail to see the problem with sticking solar panels on roofs.They're just not that efficient. They only work well in direct sun light. They're expensive to manufacture too. Among other things I make solar charging systems for a living ... if they were a good alternative at the moment my roof would be covered in them (c:
wad04
09-03-2005, 12:05 AM
we'll never run out of oil, I bet you a million dollars. :)
think about it for a minute before you try and shut me down.
Head knight of Ni
09-03-2005, 12:36 AM
we'll never run out of oil, I bet you a million dollars. :)
think about it for a minute before you try and shut me down.
Well, quite obviously we'll kill ourselves off for the last reserves, so no we won't run out. Some people are converting to bio-desiel, you can get free fuel from Mcdonald's fryer vatts. And your exhaust smells like french fries.
They're just not that efficient. They only work well in direct sun light. They're expensive to manufacture too. Among other things I make solar charging systems for a living ... if they were a good alternative at the moment my roof would be covered in them (c:
A couple questions out of curiosity, not to argue with you.
If an average house got say six hours of sunlight on the roof how much power would that produce? Say the roof is about 40*60 and half the roof is getting sunlight at a time.
How much would it cost to install a system with say a 40ft * 60ft panel?
What's the average life of such a panel?
I ask because a roof probably costs around $6000 and must be replaced every 20 years or so. So is it possible that over time a panel would save you money based on not having to re-shingle your roof and the savings on your power bill?
we'll never run out of oil, I bet you a million dollars. :)
think about it for a minute before you try and shut me down.
It's impossible to extract all the oil from the ground. It's that simple.
TheDuelist
09-03-2005, 11:40 AM
I've been researching putting up a windmill on my property to cut down on energy costs in the long term. As of right now there isn't anything for my area that produces more that 1 Kw worth of energy at peak wind times so it would only provide minimal support but I'm hopeful something better will come about soon. Combine that with solar panels and we could see significant energy savings if the government would offer better incentives to add them to your home.
Will Wood
09-03-2005, 12:00 PM
Wind power isn't too bad of an option if you live in a windy area. Except for the fact that they are incredibly noisy and annoying.. if you don't mind the noise it's a great idea.
My cold fusion machine pw0ns you all.
It's impossible to extract all the oil from the ground. It's that simple.
We can also grow oil from plants, and use that to make bio-diesel, (or run it directly in a diesel.)
My wiener is solar-powered.
Jonneh
09-04-2005, 03:10 AM
My wiener is solar-powered.That doesn't make any kind of sense.
If you said it was man-powered, that would be true.
That doesn't make any kind of sense.
If you said it was man-powered, that would be true.
Are you... coming on to me?
Jonneh
09-04-2005, 04:29 AM
man power!
RevBrown
09-04-2005, 05:43 AM
Of course they are laughing at us. I figure Earth is the Alabama of the galaxy.
Maggot6
09-04-2005, 11:50 AM
I heard that until gas prices (canadian keep in mind) have to get like, $3.00 before hydrogen would be semi worth using, canadian gas is at around 1.30 now, so that will be a while....
I heard that until gas prices (canadian keep in mind) have to get like, $3.00 before hydrogen would be semi worth using, canadian gas is at around 1.30 now, so that will be a while....
No, to make hydrogen worth it we need to convert to nuclear power and figure out how store all the waste in such a manor it won't come back to haunt us for atleast seventy years or so. It's like electric cars. Sure you're not burning any gas in your car but where do you think that power is comming from when you plug it in every night?
Alpha
09-04-2005, 12:47 PM
Buy a hydrogen powered car. Where are you going to fill up?
Who is going to invest the billions of dollars to build hydrogen filling stations all over the country when their is no customer base?
Simply their is no customer base so no stations will be built but their won't be a customer base until stations are built.
Hydrogen is suprisingly simple to make. Take some water (preferably without too much extra crap), and run an electric current through it.
Now, everyone says "But alpha, it takes fossil fuels to produce hydrogen, so it doesn't matter"
WEll people are too stupid to realise, you make the first batch of hydrogen using fossil fuels, but look, you have a batch of hydrogen! So use that batch to make even more hydrogen! Problem solved.
WEll people are too stupid to realise, you make the first batch of hydrogen using fossil fuels, but look, you have a batch of hydrogen! So use that batch to make even more hydrogen! Problem solved.
Um, that won't work.
Um. It takes at least as much energy to seperate the hydrogen from Water, as you get from burning hydrogen... which makes water.
I'll leave the "too stupid to realize" comment for somebody else.
Jonneh
09-04-2005, 01:16 PM
slinky on escalator == perpetual energy!
slinky on escalator == perpetual energy!
WE MUST FIND A WAY TO GET THIS INFORMATION TO THE BIGWIGS IN WASHINGTON!
CoolHand
09-04-2005, 02:20 PM
. . . . . . WEll people are too stupid to realise, you make the first batch of hydrogen using fossil fuels, but look, you have a batch of hydrogen! So use that batch to make even more hydrogen! Problem solved.
It takes more energy to win the hydrogen than it contains once its free. This is the loss due to conversion. No process is 100% efficient. You would have to add more power back to the hydrogen you burn just to be able to create the same volume of hydrogen that you had when you started. That's a losing battle, and a pointless one at that.
If hydrogen is to ever be used it has to be won via more efficient method of extraction, or at least be powered by a cleaner and more efficient form of electrical generation.
Hydrogen powered cars, without a paradigm shift in electricity generation are just a cheap PR trick and a stopgap for smog. That's about all the good they will do.
Now, if we could find a way to harness fusion effectively. . . . . . . .
Will Wood
09-04-2005, 02:30 PM
slinky on escalator == perpetual energy!
Oh... I'm SOO trying this next time I go to the mall.
Will Wood
09-04-2005, 02:32 PM
I say we all become cavemen once again... that would solve all the problems.
I say we all become cavemen once again... that would solve all the problems.
Only their isn't enough wood left for everyone to burn. Some people are going to have to be sacrificed. I'll be the one who chooses the voulenteres :)
Alpha
09-04-2005, 05:38 PM
It takes more energy to win the hydrogen than it contains once its free. This is the loss due to conversion. No process is 100% efficient. You would have to add more power back to the hydrogen you burn just to be able to create the same volume of hydrogen that you had when you started. That's a losing battle, and a pointless one at that.
If hydrogen is to ever be used it has to be won via more efficient method of extraction, or at least be powered by a cleaner and more efficient form of electrical generation.
Hydrogen powered cars, without a paradigm shift in electricity generation are just a cheap PR trick and a stopgap for smog. That's about all the good they will do.
Now, if we could find a way to harness fusion effectively. . . . . . . .
It doesn't have to be 100% efficient. Juts a percent more then it takes to make it is all you need. After that the fossil fuel requirement will decrease exponentially.
What about tha giant dam I drive over every time I go to vegas? Or the huge windmills I pass when I drive my boat through Hull gut? Or that huge solar panel array I saw in the movie Sahara?
The problem is, we're not trying hard enough. There ARE easier ways to produce hydrogen.
There are better ways to utilize that hydrogen.
It will take a drastic situation for us to figure it out.
Meaning, gas prices SO high, that nobody can afford it (more then just 5 or 6 bucks a gallon). It will take a war or similar situation to produce adequate technology.
Look at the history of mankind. Take airplanes as an example. Nobody cared about airplanes, it was just a sport for rich french guys. Boom WW1, research and devlopment, then airplanes went higher faster. WW2, again. Most of the technology we're using in our aircraft is some 30-40 years old. We only replace an aircraft when they get so old they literally fall apart or are vulnerable to something new and crazy.
Same thing will happen with our transportation and fuel issues.
daviselk
09-04-2005, 06:24 PM
GM has hydro. cars... lol, look it up
CoolHand
09-04-2005, 08:44 PM
It doesn't have to be 100% efficient. Juts a percent more then it takes to make it is all you need. After that the fossil fuel requirement will decrease exponentially.
What about tha giant dam I drive over every time I go to vegas? Or the huge windmills I pass when I drive my boat through Hull gut? Or that huge solar panel array I saw in the movie Sahara?
The problem is, we're not trying hard enough. There ARE easier ways to produce hydrogen.
There are better ways to utilize that hydrogen.
It will take a drastic situation for us to figure it out.
Meaning, gas prices SO high, that nobody can afford it (more then just 5 or 6 bucks a gallon). It will take a war or similar situation to produce adequate technology.
Look at the history of mankind. Take airplanes as an example. Nobody cared about airplanes, it was just a sport for rich french guys. Boom WW1, research and devlopment, then airplanes went higher faster. WW2, again. Most of the technology we're using in our aircraft is some 30-40 years old. We only replace an aircraft when they get so old they literally fall apart or are vulnerable to something new and crazy.
Same thing will happen with our transportation and fuel issues.
You're just not getting it.
There really aren't easier ways to make hydrogen. You can:
A) Capture it from the air.
B) Break it off of water via electrolysis.
C) Process fossil fuels (coal gasification, steam stripping of methane, etc)
D) Break if off of fossil fuels and organics via chemical reactions.
Option A is basically pointless. There isn't enough floating around in the atmosphere to make it worth while, and the process is complex and expensive.
Option B is the cleanest (given that the electricity used is also generated in a clean manner), but also the most expensive currently. Water is abundant, and goes back into circulation when the hydrogen is burned. The hang up here is providing the electricity. You cannot fire the power plants with hydrogen, as the energy output is less than what is required to create more hydrogen (thusly you would be burning all the hydrogen produced and then some just to run the plants to produce the hydrogen).
Option C is the cheapest, but produces CO2 as a byproduct, which is one of the gasses we are trying to curb by going to H2, not to mention the fact that they require fossil fuels to begin with.
Option D is in the same category as Option A, the volume required to make a difference simply isn't feasible to be created in this manner. Chemical reactions of the sort that liberate H2 are also dangerous (IE high energy).
The thing you aren't seeing is that you can't build a giant dam everywhere (in fact, pretty much every place that can have a big dam in it, has one), not to mention the enormous environmental impact of such a construction (IE the acres of land submerged verses the kW of power produced). Its a clean energy source, but I'd be willing to bet that ethanol from corn has a higher energy density (IE BTU's or kW per acre) than hydro-power does.
Wind is also not dense enough. We'd have to cover the entirety of the nation with windmills to provide the power we need, and that says nothing for growth.
Believe it or not, the nation's energy providers aren't out to spoil the environment. Nor are they there to retard development of cleaner energy sources (as so many want to believe). They are the ones doing the development work, because they know that's where we need to go. There is money to be made in clean fuels and clean energy. The oil companies know this, the big energy companies know this. They aren't fighting the transition, they are racing to be the first into it. Technology takes time, especially when it's a drastic departure from the status quo (which H2 power certainly is).
People that are way smarter than this whole board combined are working on the problem even as we bicker over it. Given enough time, they will figure it out.
Believe what you like, but if there really were easier ways to go to H2 (or some other miraculous clean fuel/energy source) it would have already been done.
Alpha
09-04-2005, 09:15 PM
I dont think you understand what I'm getting at. In one sentence:
Use existing clean, renewable, NON fossil fuel power sources to produce hydrogen through the electrolysis method.
If we can figure out how to take mud that is trapped thousands of feet under the earth and convert it into enough force to move a 2 ton vehicle across a continent, then we can figure out a way of producting hydrogen more efficiently then we are doing now.
I'd like to see some actual figures showing how much electrical energy and how much and what type of water it takes to produce a certain amount of hydrogen.
Then how much hydrogen can you produce from that of which you already have. Like an atomic explosion, I'm pretty sure you could take that hydrogen and keep producing more and more and more hydrogen.
EDIT: And if not, we should focus on nuclear energy. How to make it smaller, and safer, using less amounts of deadly radioactive isotopes.
A bunch of questions about putting a solar panel on a roofWell, standard rigid solar panels wouldn't be the answer for you for a few reasons, but if you're really interested in putting a solar panel on your roof then this is what you want:
www.uni-solar.com
I've used a couple of their panels before ... being flexible comes in handy for some applications. They work differently too so they have strengths and weaknesses compared to standard rigid solar panels. I'm sure you'll find answers on the web site.
I dont think you understand what I'm getting at.He understood you completely.
If we can figure out how to take mud that is trapped thousands of feet under the earth and convert it into enough force to move a 2 ton vehicle across a continent, then we can figure out a way of production hydrogen more efficiently then we are doing now.That "mud" is what's left of thousands of years of solar energy trapped by plants and animals. It's not a matter of figuring out how to do it, it's a matter of how much effort it takes to get at that energy. That "mud" is like finding that your great great grandmother stashed her life savings in the floorboards. Once it's gone though, it's gone and it doesn't look like we'll find anything that easy to get at again.
I'm pretty sure you could take that hydrogen and keep producing more and more and more hydrogen.Sure, go ahead. No, really, go ahead and do it. You'll be rich beyond the dreams of avarice (c:
CoolHand
09-04-2005, 11:46 PM
He understood you completely.
That "mud" is what's left of thousands of years of solar energy trapped by plants and animals. It's not a matter of figuring out how to do it, it's a matter of how much effort it takes to get at that energy. That "mud" is like finding that your great great grandmother stashed her life savings in the floorboards. Once it's gone though, it's gone and it doesn't look like we'll find anything that easy to get at again.
Sure, go ahead. No, really, go ahead and do it. You'll be rich beyond the dreams of avarice (c:
Exactly.
Can you use any and all methods of electrical energy to produce hydrogen?
Yes.
Can you then burn that hydrogen to produce electricity?
Yes.
Can you use that electricity to produce more hydrogen?
Yes.
Will you ever get more energy out of the system than you put in (like an atomic explosion)?
No. Never. Its not going to happen.
Can you burn every bit of hydrogen you ever make to generate electricity, and then augment that power with more electricity from other clean sources to produce the exact same amount of hydrogen that you had to start with?
Sure, but that's spending an awful lot of money to accomplish absolutely nothing.
Lets look at this mathematically:
You use wind to get A kW of electricity.
You use A to get X cf of H2.
You then burn X to generate Y kW of power (so now your power = Y+A)
Y+A != 2X, and it never will.
So, in order to get 2X, you need to have A+Y+B (B = additional power from some other source, be it wind or whatever).
Now, A+Y+B = 2X but A+B = ZX (Z being some number greater than 1, but less than 2 that represents the amount of H2 that A+B kW of power can generate). By burning that first batch of H2, you just slid the function along the axis. You don't get any exponents there, its a linear function.
See where this is going?
Burning the H2 to make more H2 is pointless. You will never have any left to use anywhere else, because it takes all of the energy that it can produce and then some to reproduce that same volume of H2 from water.
Now, using nuclear power or wind power or hydro power or fusion power or whatever to produce H2 is not pointless. That's the way it needs to be done, but we cannot do it with the current level of technology.
I'm not saying that H2 is a bad idea, or that we don't need to go that way, or even that its impossible, I'm just saying that your idea that once you get a little H2 that it will exponentially increase like an atomic reaction is highly flawed, and absolutely impossible.
If you don't get the explanation this time, you're never going to.
Jonneh
09-05-2005, 01:49 AM
Hay guys whut about all that nuclear power! Using the power of batman it can provide lots of clean energy! Energy that can be used to make hydrogen! Free Hydrogen for all!
Also the french are working on a fusion reactor, which will be awesome providing that containing and maintaining the reactor uses less energy than it produces.
NigelF
09-05-2005, 06:01 AM
Hay guys whut about all that nuclear power! Using the power of batman it can provide lots of clean energy! Energy that can be used to make hydrogen! Free Hydrogen for all!
Also the french are working on a fusion reactor, which will be awesome providing that containing and maintaining the reactor uses less energy than it produces.
One of the big reasons we've overlooked as to why hydrogen isnt a vialbe widespread option quite yet is fuel cell technology. We just havent advanced the technology to store hydrogen safely in large enough quantities for commuter vehicles. But that will come soon enough.
And I know that Daimler-Chrysler has buttloads invested in Hydrogen research and powerplants. I'll have to see if I can find out where they're at now, but a year or so ago I know that they had opened more than a few Hydrogen power plants through a paternership.
Also the french are working on a fusion reactor ... Sorry, but that just doesn't instill me with a whole lot of confidence. Have you ever driven a French car? They have heated rear windows so your hands don't get cold when you push them :D
when there is profit to be made out of an "alternative" energy source, then we'll see it widely available.
Sorry, but that just doesn't instill me with a whole lot of confidence. Have you ever driven a French car? They have heated rear windows so your hands don't get cold when you push them :D
Ever driven a ford truck? They have cupholders on the tailgate so you have a place to put your drink while pushing it.
Demobilized
09-05-2005, 11:25 PM
It would take solar fields the size of Vermont to power the entire United states. Not too bad considering putting panels on roofs of a city like NY would easily take care of it. The problem is we don't have an effictive way to store it, lead batteries just aren't going to cut it.
In Denmark wind power is the new fad, producing 20% of the countries energy, but here in the US no one will sacrifice their "view" in order to put turbines up.
Fission works well, but for some reason we refuse to go back to it. We have had our accidents granted, but 80% of France's power if nuclear. We are also looking into ways to recycle the plutonium after it is used to cut down on waste.
Fusion is been worked on to create plasma, but until now has yet to be effective. The facility is being built on the French and *insert country I forgot* border.
There are ways to answer the energy crisis, we will surive believe it or not.
octane2079
09-05-2005, 11:26 PM
Umm one thing we have been overlooking is that the production of hydrogen from electrical sources such as coal or other fossil fueled fire plants would require so much energy that our carbon outputs would more than double. So until we find a clean and efficient way to produce hydrogen it will not be a viable concept.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.