Posted on 05/26/2004 9:48:04 AM PDT by Rebelbase
google isn't God.
Uh, that is exactly what this article is saying.
wonder if they'd add the system to my 'Vette for free? ... hehe (for testing purposes, of course!)
Reading all these comments leaves me kind of disillusioned. Just because liberals like environmentally friendly fuels, doesn't mean we cant like them too.
Isn't striving for better efficiency a conservative ideal? Isn't removing our dependancy on foreign oil a conservative ideal?
Internal combustion engines are only about 25% efficient. They are a mature technology that won't get much better than they already are.
Hydrogen fuels are a fledgling technology that will improve tremendously in the years to come. They are the future.
I get the feeling that some of you didn't pay any attention to the facts mentioned in the article above. Storing hydrogen in hydrides essentially makes the fuel no longer hydrogen until it is needed. If any of you are welders, you could make the comparison to acetylene. Acetylene is obtained from calcium carbide. Calcium carbide is a relativey safe and stable substance. Just add water and voila, you have acetylene gas.
Storing hydrogen in hydrides is akin to storing acetylene in calcium carbide.
Some of you stated that production of hydrogen just consolidates the source of pullution to the utility company. You obviuosly didn't read the section on solar and wind generation of electricity for electrolysis.
How often do you refill your gas tank? Twice a week? Why is it such a bad idea to be able to produce your own fuel in your garage for the one time cost of equipment which will get cheaper and cheaper? You could have a hydrogen generator in you garage that could harness the 1500 watts per square meter of sunlight that is constantly making hydrogen. Why is this such a loony idea?
If you ask me alternative fuels is an issue that is ripe to be stolen from the liberals, the same way they co-opted civil rights in the 60's. We could do a much better job.
My corrupted kitties link works fine, thank-you very much. :-)
Just thought you might like the original as well :)
Lots of kneejerk reaction on hydrogen threads, for and against.
That big fireball you see in the Hindenberg picture is mostly the paint burning. Hydrogen flames are invisible. Firefighters probe for suspected hydrogen flames with a broom to avoid walking right into them.
You think of Led Zepplin I? The humanity.
You beat me to it by a mile.
But I thought it was #2.
We can share the glory.
;o
Number 1 in B & W on the back cover. Number 2 in color on the front. Both solid and still strong.
Way off topic, this is why the first stage of the Saturn V rocket burned LOX and Kerosene ....
Oh, you silly things! Don't you know Sylvia Browne says cars will be powered by atomic batteries and will float on water?
http://www.sylvia.org/home/2000plus.cfm
The Hindenberg didn't explode because of the hydrogen gas, as it turns out. It burned because 2 of the ingredients used in the canvas dope for the outer skin, namely powdered aluminum and iron oxide, seem to be 2 of the 5 major components used in fuel for the space shuttle. The fireball you see in the photo was actually the skin of the airship burning, which was ignited, most likely by lightning. The hydrogen gas burned nearly invisible, well above the structure of the airship.
You vent it to the outside. It's not like O2 is a pollutant, or anything. Green plants make lots of it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.