Posted on 06/20/2008 7:04:57 AM PDT by Red Badger
The real question isn’t what’s the net energy used, but what’s the net crude oil used.
If you get away from crude then you defund the terrorists. The energy can come from nuclear, hydroelectric, even solar when it becomes feasible.
You get back less, not the same..........
I think it runs to some kind of desire to feel important.
A God complex of sorts.
We cant build a freeking fence on the border but these pinheads think they can control the weather and “SAVE THE WORLD!”
from WIKI:
On Earth, silicon is the second most abundant element (after oxygen) in the crust,[1] making up 25.7% of the crust by mass.
In nuclear submarines we use electrolysis to split water molecules.
We use the resulting O2 to breath and we pump the Hydrogen overboard as a waste byproduct L0L!
Nukes provide abundant energy.
The initial concept is for at-home hydrogen stations using electrolysis to use electricity (from coal) to split housewater into hydrogen and oxygen.
The rich women and pansy men of Los Angeles will bitch that the extra water from cars is causing them to have way too many bad hair days due to increased humidity.
Yup! L0L
Very good point. Water vapor is the primary element involved in the Greehouse Effect. These idiots are going to kill us all!
“”Hydrogen, the most abundant element on Earth, is on the way.””
An utterly stupid statement targeting the ignorant. Yes, hydogen bonded to water is useless. Hydrogen bonded in a useable energy state to carbon, called hydrocarbons, is useful indeed and we call it petroleum and natural gas. As I recall, diatomic hydrogen blew up the Hindenburg and is highly explosive; not to mention there is no infrastructure to retail the stuff.
They are going to rob our pockets along the way.
I would love to have a hydrogen car. We just need to come up with a good way to make the hydrogen without using NG.
One other thing Red, hopefully you won’t be promoting tax funding to develop said energy portable source. Let the market pay for it, right?
Simple, do what I do: Don’t worry about trade-in, just drive till they are fit only for recycling. Who cares about cool? I love not having a car payment. :-)
“Glenn Beck said 200m to build 200 cars (there’s your limited production)”
economies of scale, my friend
I had heard they were going to build a Hydrogen Freeway in CA. Up and down the coast. That was very short lived. I would dig a car that didn’t use gas but what is the cost to produce the hydrogen at home?
Also, if I can not put my hockey bag and sticks in the car, what good is it? Now if they could develop a car that runs on the stink coming from my hockey equipment...
“not to mention there is no infrastructure to retail the stuff.”
heck if we can get a starbucks on every stinking street corner in the world we should be able to put a hydrogen station in there someplace.
Its not a matter of can’t. Its a matter of won’t.
According to www.npnweb.com there are slightly less than 169,000 gas stations in the US. How much would it cost to add a hydrogen pump to each station? Add economic incentive and the owners will add it themselves.
GM demo’d their at-home refueling station when they introduced their “Skate” concept platform for a hydrogen vehicle. Pretty cool, provided that you’re splitting that water with cheap (nuclear) and clean (nuclear) energy.
I believe this is false. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, but not on Earth. If it were, we would be a gas planet.
That said, hydrogen is a very abundant element on Earth, but it is not at all abundant beyond water molecules. And that H2O requires a great deal of energy to split, more than you can get from burning hydrogen.
And that tank of liquid gasoline in your car isn't?..........
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.