Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

100% RENEWABLE ENERGY IS FEASIBLE AND AFFORDABLE, ACCORDING TO STANFORD PROPOSAL
singularityhub.com ^

Posted on 03/09/2014 12:37:41 PM PDT by matt04

One of the greatest promises of the high-tech future, whether made explicitly or implicitly through shiny clean concept sketches, is that we will have efficient energy that doesn’t churn pollutants into the air and onto the streets.

But here in the present, politicians and even many clean energy advocates maintain that a world run on hydrogen and wind, water and solar power is not yet possible due to technical challenges like energy storage and cost.

Yet Stanford University researchers led by civil engineer Mark Jacobson have developed detailed plans for each state in the union that to move to 100 percent wind, water and solar power by 2050 using only technology that’s already available. The plan, presented recently at the AAAS conference in Chicago, also forms the basis for The Solutions Project nonprofit.

“The conclusion is that it’s technically and economically feasible,” Jacobson told Singularity Hub.

The plan doesn’t rely, like many others, on dramatic energy efficiency regimes. Nor does it include biofuels or nuclear power, whose green credentials are the source of much debate.

The proposal is straightforward: eliminate combustion as a source of energy, because it’s dirty and inefficient. All vehicles would be powered by electric batteries or by hydrogen, where the hydrogen is produced through electrolysis by using natural gas. High-temperature industrial processes would also use electricity or hydrogen combustion.

The rest would simply be a question of allowing existing fossil-fuel plants to age out and using renewable sources to power any new plants that come online. The energy sources in the road map include geothermal energy, concentrating solar power, off-shore and on-land wind turbines and some and tidal energy.

(Excerpt) Read more at singularityhub.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: batshirt; bullshirt; climatechange; energy; environmentalism; globalwarming; globalwarminghoax; horseshirt; stanford
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-74 next last
None of the these "green" technologies of today, like they propose using, even remotely comes close to producing the energy needed in the US. Sure, they may provide a small portion of the energy used, however the size needed even for that is massive.

In my area, one government agency covered the entire roof of their building with solar panels. Even on the best day, it can only proved maybe 10-15% of the energy needs. In CT, something like 50% of the power is generated at Millstone II and III, Vermont Yankee produces something like 1/3 of the energy needs of the state.

No way you can shut down these reactors and other coal and natural gas fired plants and replace them with wind and solar and not have massive blackouts.

1 posted on 03/09/2014 12:37:42 PM PDT by matt04
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: matt04

“The plan, presented recently at the AAAS conference in Chicago, also forms the basis for The Solutions Project nonprofit.”

Anything coming out of Chicago can only lead to leftist ideology or a criminal enterprise. But I repeat myself.


2 posted on 03/09/2014 12:43:38 PM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Insurgent Conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matt04
The energy used to build "green technology"
does not break even during it's lifetime.

3 posted on 03/09/2014 12:43:56 PM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 119:174 I long for Your salvation, YHvH, Your teaching is my delight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matt04

Yup. Easily affordable as long as costs “necessarily skyrocket” to meet the demand. Proof that the “won” doesn’t always lie.


4 posted on 03/09/2014 12:45:26 PM PDT by rktman (Ethnicity: Redneck. Race: Daytona 500)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matt04

Agree. The article. Is total bull Obama.

As for that “professor”’, in my classes, we call them poli-sci majors.


5 posted on 03/09/2014 12:46:00 PM PDT by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matt04

“Affordable”

Sure


6 posted on 03/09/2014 12:47:52 PM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matt04

The global warming debate is over. Deniers to be sent to reeducation centers.


7 posted on 03/09/2014 12:48:39 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matt04

If it were economically feasible and the lowest cost of production ($/kWh), the utility companies would be falling all over themselves to build out solar, wind, and any other technology which passes the economics test. Utilities face these choices constantly as they have to decide to fix/maintain existing capital equipment or replace it, depending upon which option has the lowest cost. Utility profits would go through the roof if the cost of fuel could be eliminated (recall the rush of orders when reactors were first offered on a commercial scale).


8 posted on 03/09/2014 12:48:51 PM PDT by sefarkas (Why vote Democrat Lite?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matt04
"None of the these "green" technologies of today, like they propose using, even remotely comes close to producing the energy needed in the US. Sure, they may provide a small portion of the energy used, however the size needed even for that is massive."

Further they never can no matter what happens in the tech.

And the reason is Base Load Power plants have to be on 24/7 They have to produce electricity at a steady load the entire time.

How can that be done with wind, which does not blow all the time at a rate that is reliable, and solar, which does not have a power source for a large chunk of the 24 hour day due to cloud cover and the fact the Sun doesn't shine at night?

9 posted on 03/09/2014 12:52:04 PM PDT by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matt04

NatGas is a fossil fuel.


10 posted on 03/09/2014 12:52:14 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matt04

Maybe these Stanford cheerleaders are referring to the Renewable Grants they will now continue to get for shaking the green pom poms


11 posted on 03/09/2014 12:58:18 PM PDT by jcon40
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

Apparently it is only a eeeeevi polluting fossil fuel if burned to spin a turbine or engine to make electricity.


12 posted on 03/09/2014 12:59:05 PM PDT by matt04
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: matt04
eliminate combustion as a source of energy,......
where the hydrogen is produced through electrolysis by using natural gas.

How are you going to produce electrolysis if you don't combust the natural gas?

13 posted on 03/09/2014 12:59:33 PM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matt04
If you like your electricity you can keep your electricity.
14 posted on 03/09/2014 1:00:24 PM PDT by Kartographer ("We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

If you like you cheap, reliable electricity, you can keep your keep your cheap, reliable electricity.


15 posted on 03/09/2014 1:01:27 PM PDT by matt04
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: matt04

- It would take 25% of America’s land to build reliable solar power

- The Kennedys blocked wind power offshore in their Kennedy Compound area

- When I see both solar power and wind power on all of Nancy Pelosi’s non-union vineyards and non-union restaurants and non-union non-minimum wage offshore tunafish processing and canning factories (not financed with federal grants or loans) I will reconsider - wait - add all of Jeb and Bush’s properties and offshore in Florida and California and Texas…. wait - add Maine and…..


16 posted on 03/09/2014 1:03:32 PM PDT by devolve (- Tell Vladimir after my erection I have more FLEXIBILITY -- I need more SPACE - BHO Jr -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matt04

I presume they are counting on zero, if not negative, growth?


17 posted on 03/09/2014 1:09:05 PM PDT by raybbr (Obamacare needs a death panel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matt04

From the post above:

” . . . where the hydrogen is produced through electrolysis by using natural gas.”

Now if you follow the link, they claim the production of hydrogen will NOT involve natural gas.

Which is not a trivial distinction - without a lot (and I mean a whole lot) of hydrogen, dependence on renewables is a pipe-dream, for a bunch of reasons, not the least of which is the intermittent nature of wind and solar (note to greenies - the power grid will not tolerate interruptions, no matter how noble your intentions).

And if you’re going to generate a boatload of hydrogen by electrolysis, you’re going to have to transduce an incredible amount of energy. You might be able to do that if you ramp up nuclear, but even in the article, it’s clear they frown on that approach. And you might be able to do it by using the chemical energy in methane (natural gas), but how you do that without oxidizing the methane (that is, converting it to evil CO2) is beyond me.

Perhaps the fellow in question has some revolutionary approach to the generation of enormous amounts of energy, but without seeing some details, this stuff looks like unicorn power transmitted by rainbows


18 posted on 03/09/2014 1:10:15 PM PDT by Stosh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matt04

These satire sites are getting more and more clever.


19 posted on 03/09/2014 1:10:41 PM PDT by Straight Vermonter (Posting from deep behind the Maple Curtain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matt04
Yet Stanford University researchers led by civil engineer Mark Jacobson have developed detailed plans for each state in the union that to move to 100 percent wind, water and solar power by 2050 using only technology that’s already available.

Sounds good but not having read the proposal, I wonder how much redundancy and power reserve is included in this study. The big problem we have currently with these 'green' renewables is that they are very subject to interruption, generation is not co-located with usage and power transmission and storage is problematic.

An example as a thought experiment; A hurricane strikes East Coast Florida. Current plants are generally unaffected by weather and all that needs to be repaired are the transmission lines. In 2050, will the wind turbines still be standing? Will the solar cell arrays be replaceable with ready supplies?

20 posted on 03/09/2014 1:13:04 PM PDT by SES1066 (Quality, Speed or Economical - Any 2 of 3 except in government - 1 at best but never #3!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matt04
The energy sources in the road map include geothermal energy, concentrating solar power, off-shore and on-land wind turbines and some and tidal energy.

What about unicorns? The researchers forgot about harnessing the abundant energy of unicorns.

21 posted on 03/09/2014 1:14:01 PM PDT by Leaning Right (Why am I holding this lantern? I am looking for the next Reagan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matt04

An excellent opportunity for Obama to pour countless millions of taxpayer dollars down the toilet, as he did with electric cars.


22 posted on 03/09/2014 1:14:12 PM PDT by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matt04

So we are going to give up all forms of powered flight, including space flight? Given current technology, there is no way to put a heavy vehicle into the air without combustion.

And what happened to clean nuclear power? Are we going to transform our nuclear subs into battery powered boats? How about giant sails on our aircraft carriers?(But, of course, the aircraft would now need to be dirigibles.)

The proposal is more of a progressive political fantasy than a statement of serious science.


23 posted on 03/09/2014 1:14:54 PM PDT by Blennos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matt04

Developing “detailed plans” for each “state” regarding how alternate energy “might” work is easy.

Developing “detailed plans” that fully describe machines that would convert a low-energy-density variable fuel, like “wind”, into a reliable source of steady energy is not easy.

It seems most alternate energy enthusiasts are ignorant of the Laws of Mechanics that [fatally] limit the “output” of their-wind-turbines...


24 posted on 03/09/2014 1:20:17 PM PDT by pfony1 (Add just 6 GOP Senators and we "bury" Harry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matt04

I agree, we should be building more nukes not shutting any down. Solar is a different story, but utility-scale wind generation can already be done at cost that is on par with coal, nuke, hydro, and other conventional generation sources. The industry newsletter even carried a front-page article to that effect recently.

You wind-bashers out there should be aware, the Production Tax Credit (aka “Wind Subsidy” for those in Rio Lindo) is gone - it expired end of 2013 and has not been renewed. Nor should it be, and I doubt that it will be, despite moaning and groaning from the political classes. It’s not needed, and the industry knows it. But who’s going to turn away free money that goes directly to profit if it’s easy to get?

Cost-competitive solar is probably decades away and only then in areas with high insolation. Lumping wind and solar together is dumb - consider each energy source on it’s own merit. Wind doesn’t need subsidies, and solar shouldn’t be getting any.


25 posted on 03/09/2014 1:22:51 PM PDT by bigbob (The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly. Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matt04

Renewable energy, is that anything like a perpetual motion machine?


26 posted on 03/09/2014 1:23:43 PM PDT by Yogafist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matt04

Developing “detailed plans” for each “state” regarding how alternate energy “might” work is easy.

Developing “detailed plans” that fully describe machines that would convert a low-energy-density variable fuel, like “wind”, into a reliable source of steady energy is not easy.

It seems most alternate energy enthusiasts are ignorant of the Laws of Mechanics that [fatally] limit the “output” of their-wind-turbines...


27 posted on 03/09/2014 1:24:21 PM PDT by pfony1 (Add just 6 GOP Senators and we "bury" Harry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matt04

So instead of quitting their well paid tenured positions at the University and forming a profitable green energy startup based on their theories using their own money with no government subsidies whatsoever, these academics travel the world by filthy CO2 spewing jets, eat in fancy restaurants on government grants, publish papers, and go on lavish all-expenses paid speaking junkets to adoring fans about completely hypothetical business models they pull out of their collective backsides. Quite the lucrative scam.


28 posted on 03/09/2014 1:25:51 PM PDT by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matt04

They keep telling us that one day all the oil will be gone.

Lets follow their logic all the way thru.

The US drinks from this disappearing pool of oil, as does China and India.

We burn it in such a way, thanks to EPA regulations and catalytic converters on cars, etc etc that our air is much cleaner than the air in China and India.

In China, the air pollution is so bad the people have to wear masks.

If the oil will disappear no matter who burns it, then the less we cleanly burn of the total, the more China and India will be dirty burning instead.

So every time you see someone riding a bike in the US or carpooling, following their logic to the end, they are actually contributing to polluting the earth.

Save the Earth! Burn as much oil as possible before the Chinese do!


29 posted on 03/09/2014 1:28:04 PM PDT by icwhatudo (Low taxes and less spending in Sodom and Gomorrah is not my idea of a conservative victory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matt04

Eliminate combustion by burning hydrogen that is derived from natural gas.

Makes perfect sense. /s


30 posted on 03/09/2014 1:36:36 PM PDT by Fresh Wind (The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stosh

That struck me too.

Electrolysis is a process involving splitting the water molecule with electricity and capturing the hydrogen. By definition, when you burn the hydrogen you get back a good deal less energy than was in the electricity, much less what was in the original fuel burned to generate electricity.

IOW, natgas > electricity > hydrogen > work is a LOT less efficient than just burning the natgas to produce work.

I’ve run across claims that hydrogen can be produced at 80% efficiency by using steam to convert it. Still don’t see how this can possibly be either more efficient or less polluting than just burning the gas by the time you run through the whole process.

For hydrogen to be a truly “green” fuel, it would have to be produced by electrolysis of water using nuclear, hydro, wind or solar generated electricity. And of course greenies are generally opposed to nuclear and hydro.

I suppose on could use wind and solar to produce hydrogen, in which case the intermittent nature of the power source wouldn’t be so disastrous.

It is VERY hard to find apples to apples comparisons for energy efficiencies of these various processes. For instance, while hydrogen may be able to be produced at 80% efficiency from natgas. But for it be usable offsite, it would have to be compressed to 10,000 psi. I’ve worked enough with compressed air to know that pressurizing gases is not a low-energy process.

Electricity may be 100% efficient at driving auto wheels. But by the time you factor in the energy losses at the power plant, transmission and battery charging and discharging those efficiencies aren’t a great deal higher than just burning the dang fuel to drive the car instead of produce electricity.


31 posted on 03/09/2014 1:37:18 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: matt04

Our cars will all have to be made of something lightweight, sustainable, and grown in mass quantities. Hmmm, maybe Colorado is on to something...


32 posted on 03/09/2014 1:38:28 PM PDT by crusty old prospector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pfony1

Developing plans costs money. That’s what this is all about.

But that’s no problem because, in today’s economy, money is a renewable resource.


33 posted on 03/09/2014 1:39:17 PM PDT by Fresh Wind (The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: matt04

I am NOT a scientist. But I seem to remember something about the first law of thermodynamics which means that there is no perpetual motion machine, nor “renewable” energy.


34 posted on 03/09/2014 1:41:48 PM PDT by LS ('Castles made of sand, fall in the sea . . . eventually.' Hendrix)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fresh Wind
Eliminate combustion by burning hydrogen that is derived from natural gas.

Let's leave aside their ignorance that burning hydrogen IS combustion.

What they are trying to say is that hydrogen/oxygen combustion is non-polluting, which is true. Its "product of combustion" is water vapor.

The greenies will be able to pat themselves on the back for driving a non-polluting car. This will be true, but only by moving the pollution to the power plant. Unless the electricity to make the hydrogen is produced via a non-combustion process.

BTW, does anybody know if this "hydrogen combustion releases only water vapor in the exhaust" meme is actually true in the field? The reason I bring this up is I work a lot with ozone, which it produced by an electrical corona discharge field.

Run 02 through the field and pure O3 (ozone) and leftover O2 comes out.

Run dirty and humid air through it and you get all kinds of crap in addition to the ozone: nitrogen dioxide and other nitrous oxides, nitric acid, etc. This is almost universally ignored by people who pontificate about O3 production.

Does something similar happen when you combust hydrogen with air instead of oxygen?

35 posted on 03/09/2014 1:48:26 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: LS

Every form of energy on the earth today is solar in origin, with the exception of nuclear.

The sun’s energy drives the wind. It causes the hydrologic cycle to produce rain so we get hydro. Fossil fuels are the result of solar energy stored millions of years ago in plants. Corn ethanol and wood are the result of solar energy stored a lot more recently.

Every one of these resources is renewable, including fossil fuels. Most of them just take a lot longer to renew than is practical from a human perspective.


36 posted on 03/09/2014 1:52:41 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: matt04

Nuclear is renewable.
Things die, rot and form oil and ngas; thus, renewable.


37 posted on 03/09/2014 1:53:10 PM PDT by CincyRichieRich (Bloom right where you are.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matt04

And energy will only cost 1000 times more than it does today.


38 posted on 03/09/2014 2:02:42 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar

You got it right. Don’t forget the adoring female interns these Lefty professors tote along with them to tap the renewable energy source of sex.


39 posted on 03/09/2014 2:18:09 PM PDT by jonrick46 (The opium of Communists: other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: matt04

We are forced to use ethanol E85 in the government vehicles and they get around 13 MPG, when we use gas (rarely) the mileage is around 18-20 MPG.


40 posted on 03/09/2014 2:23:54 PM PDT by USAF80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Even nuclear energy is ultimately solar in nature.


41 posted on 03/09/2014 2:25:13 PM PDT by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: bigbob
the Production Tax Credit (aka “Wind Subsidy” for those in Rio Lindo) is gone - it expired end of 2013 and has not been renewed

Someday soon there will be a lot of new jobs created tearing those inefficient, bird killing monstrosities down.


42 posted on 03/09/2014 2:26:02 PM PDT by Iron Munro (Albert Einstein: The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Iron Munro

Perhaps they can rip the guts out of the generators and convert them into low income housing with spectacular views of Mojave and Altamont pass.


43 posted on 03/09/2014 2:29:25 PM PDT by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Blennos

Our current fleet of naval vessels will all have to be scrapped to accommodate alternate energy power plants. Nuke power plants come to mind.


44 posted on 03/09/2014 2:29:47 PM PDT by jonrick46 (The opium of Communists: other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Iron Munro
Well, part of it is down...


45 posted on 03/09/2014 2:30:24 PM PDT by matt04
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: matt04
The insanity continues with the utopianists.

Hydrogen Embrittlement

We are still technically remote from a hydrogen economy.
46 posted on 03/09/2014 2:31:54 PM PDT by PA Engineer (Liberate America from the Occupation Media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #47 Removed by Moderator

To: pfony1

>>It seems most alternate energy enthusiasts are ignorant of the Laws of Mechanics that [fatally] limit the “output” of their-wind-turbines...

The number of proponents of the above, who are also engineers who truly understand Thermodynamics and energy system, is vanishingly small from what I can tell.


48 posted on 03/09/2014 2:48:03 PM PDT by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: matt04
Steven Den Beste debunked this myth years ago.

I don't blog about that kind of thing anymore. I never enjoyed blogging about energy, anyway, because for too many people "alternate energy" is more about religion than about physics. They believe that if we are just creative enough, we can overcome fundamental physical limitations -- and it's not that easy.

In order for "alternate energy" to become feasible, it has to satisfy all of the following criteria:

  1. It has to be huge (in terms of both energy and power)
  2. It has to be reliable (not intermittent or unschedulable)
  3. It has to be concentrated (not diffuse)
  4. It has to be possible to utilize it efficiently
  5. The capital investment and operating cost to utilize it has to be comparable to existing energy sources (per gigawatt, and per terajoule).

If it fails to satisfy any of those, then it can't scale enough to make any difference. Solar power fails #3, and currently it also fails #5. (It also partially fails #2, but there are ways to work around that.)

The only sources of energy available to us now that satisfy all five are petroleum, coal, hydro, and nuclear.

My rule of thumb is that I'm not interested in any "alternate energy" until someone shows me how to scale it to produce at least 1% of our current energy usage. America right now uses about 3.6 terawatts average, so 1% of that is about 36 gigawatts average.

Show me a plan to produce 36 gigawatts (average, not peak) using solar power, at a price no more than 30% greater than coal generation of comparable capacity, which can be implemented at that scale in 10-15 years. Then I'll pay attention.

Since solar power installations can only produce power for about 10 hours per day on average, that means that peak power production would need to be in the range of about 85 gigawatts to reach that 1%.

Without that, it's just religion, like all the people fascinated with wind and with biomass. And even if it did reach 1%, that still leaves the other 99% of our energy production to petroleum, coal, hydro, and nuclear...

Thanks, but no thanks. My "conservatism" on this subject is due to my understanding of the laws of physics and the principles of engineering

49 posted on 03/09/2014 3:04:30 PM PDT by Gideon7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

I have been following fuel cell technology and its more of a chemical reaction than true combustion. The hydrogen molecules will only bond with oxygen molecules.


50 posted on 03/09/2014 3:09:36 PM PDT by USAF80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-74 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson