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

To: Ditto
You also don't know what the future price of the alternatives will be. That is why the article is wrong.

The people who think H2 will "solve" our energy problems don't understand that it takes more energy to produce H2 than is released when it is burned or used in a fuel cell.

I thought our energy problem was that we don't have enough and that its too expensive. The energy "lost" in making H2 doesn't fix the first problem and I don't see how it would reduce our costs. Maybe I'm missing something here.

H2 only makes sense (at least in the short term) in places where there is no infrastructure for refueling (like outer space)

I'll leave the safety problems to the engineers.

You seem to have me tagged as some kind of old man who refuses to believe that modern technology will ever work. Quite the opposite is true. I'm just realistic and have a better grasp on physics then most.

TANSTAAFL. Only when we've solved our energy problem and its cheap and plentiful enough to use the "extra" to make H2 will we start to see it used for transportation. If we built solar power satellites that could be the case in the next 40 years (I'm being optimistic).

I just hope I live long enough to see the dropping cost of H2 for my car intersect the rising cost of gasoline. I'm 37 years old. Please ping me when the market value of the energy output reaches that point.

147 posted on 05/09/2003 7:24:54 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies ]


To: Toddsterpatriot
The people who think H2 will "solve" our energy problems don't understand that it takes more energy to produce H2 than is released when it is burned or used in a fuel cell.

Frustration (pulling hair out) You really don't get it.

Look up "Pumped Storage" and tell me how electric utilities are so stupid for building them. But every utility that doesn't have one wishes they did.

I don't give a rat's ass what uninformed people think. The economics will drive the decision, and neither you or I nor anyone else knows enough at this time to rule H2 out or to declare it to be the future.

148 posted on 05/09/2003 7:47:05 AM PDT by Ditto (You are free to form your own opinions, but not your own facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies ]

To: Toddsterpatriot
...it takes more energy to produce H2 than is released when it is burned or used in a fuel cell.

When I was a child we cut up jar lids (I believe that they were zinc) and put pieces in a coke bottle. We poured sulphuric acid in the bottle to produce hydrogen to fill balloons. If you consider the effort to cut up the lids in addition to making the coke bottle and acid it probably wasn't energy efficient. I can't see too many people stopping along the highway to do this to refuel.

When someone discovers a more energy efficient method to manufacture hydrogen .... Well then maybe we will have more available energy.

151 posted on 05/09/2003 9:07:01 AM PDT by FreePaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies ]

To: Toddsterpatriot
Maybe I'm missing something here.

You are one of the few people that gets it.

When hydrogen becomes a more efficient way to power cars than gasoline, it will be used. If that was the case now, we would already be using it. That will be the case when oil is no longer the primary source of energy, and that will only happen when something else is cheaper than oil.

152 posted on 05/09/2003 12:58:33 PM PDT by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies ]

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