At the moment we're talking about Hydrogen as a method of storing and transporting energy.

... and your link specifically says "electrolysis" -- which is of course electricity.

When Mark suggested batteries might be a better use of that energy, you shot him down because it wasn't hydrogen.

LOL

I didn't shoot him down. I asked him what he meant and then assumed he was talking about batteries to store the electricity produced from the hydrogen going into the hydrogen cell and back into the "battery", as opposed to just burning the hydrogen in the engines we have in our cars right this very moment. Forgetting the new fangled cells!

Every time you do a conversion, energy is lost. Conversions are not 100% efficient.

It follows automatically that electricty -> hydrogen -> mechanical energy -> battery is three conversions, when electricity -> battery is one.

Storing power directly in batteries is more efficient than making hydrogen and converting the hydrogen to electricity to charge a battery.

Internal Combustion engines (on any fuel) are not terribly efficient. Toyota goes to great lengths to get to about 34%.

My entire point was to specifically show that solar and wind can be used to separate hydrogen from water!

Okay, great, we made some hydrogen. Are there better uses of that electricity?

... and you're critical of electricity as being a product of major corporations, but it is okay if it is from wind generation? (When the biggest single wind farm is owned by Florida Power and Light, and T. Boone Pickens is pushing wind -- Texas Oil Billionaire).

Wind power is fine.

T-bone is turning a new leaf. Takes money to build the infrastructure. Our government is too busy losing money and spending what's left on war. Doesn't help that "W" is in the oil business, either.

Either that, or he's investing money in these big corporate wind farms, and trying to convince the Government to "legislate" more favorable conditions, invest in infrastructure or somesuch.

I'm not opposed to a money-grab, especially if there are other good reasons.

If the goal is to find some source of electricity, then store it and transport it, hydrogen is one method.

I think I see what you mean now. Though water is Much easier to find and process than oil is. Much cleaner, too.

I refuse to believe your argument that the amount of energy exerted to transport and process petroleum into gasoline is less than the amount of electricity used to separate hydrogen from water. The electricity used could be created from solar and wind sources. Plenty of deserts and plains for solar panels. Plenty of mountains and sea shores for windmills.

I can see how you'd have a hard time believing it, since I did not make that argument.

That's okay, because I don't buy your argument that Oil is the only energy source worth fighting over.

If your goal is to stop the world dependence on Oil and reduce obscene corporate profits on Electricity, hydrogen may not be the answer.

Just deep six'ing oil would be good enough for now.

... and it would seem that you might be a little more open to anything that can convert wind, or hydro, or solar into power and use it efficiently.

LOL - The video that started this thread clearly shows solar being used to produce the electricity that is used to separate hydrogen from water.

Are we playing Twister?


.

I'm just trying to point out that Hydrogen is so frequently presented as the "magic bullet" and we invariably get this hydrogen powered car, and somebody (Jack Nicholson, Ed Begley, Jr., Daryl Hannah, etc.) is shown sticking his/her nose into the exhaust pipe because the emissions are "just water."

Solar is not without an environmental impact, cut down the sunlight reaching the ground and you change the ecology under the panels.

Nuclear should be low-impact, and it would be if we (at least in the U.S.) weren't afraid that reprocessed fuel would end up in terrorist bombs instead of back in the reactor and used again -- we're making 10 times the radioactive waste because the stuff gets used once.

People don't seem to want to live near big wind projects, and birds die when they hit the propellers.

Everything has some impact. That doesn't mean you don't do it. It just means that when something looks so wonderfully perfect, you need to make sure you look at the whole system -- the wonderfully clean hydrogen car and the source of that hydrogen as one example.

---

At the moment we're talking about Hydrogen as a method of storing and transporting energy.

... and your link specifically says "electrolysis" -- which is of course electricity.

When Mark suggested batteries might be a better use of that energy, you shot him down because it wasn't hydrogen.

LOL

I didn't shoot him down. I asked him what he meant and then assumed he was talking about batteries to store the electricity produced from the hydrogen going into the hydrogen cell and back into the "battery", as opposed to just burning the hydrogen in the engines we have in our cars right this very moment. Forgetting the new fangled cells!

Every time you do a conversion, energy is lost. Conversions are not 100% efficient.

It follows automatically that electricty -> hydrogen -> mechanical energy -> battery is three conversions, when electricity -> battery is one.

Storing power directly in batteries is more efficient than making hydrogen and converting the hydrogen to electricity to charge a battery.

Internal Combustion engines (on any fuel) are not terribly efficient. Toyota goes to great lengths to get to about 34%.

My entire point was to specifically show that solar and wind can be used to separate hydrogen from water!

Okay, great, we made some hydrogen. Are there better uses of that electricity?

... and you're critical of electricity as being a product of major corporations, but it is okay if it is from wind generation? (When the biggest single wind farm is owned by Florida Power and Light, and T. Boone Pickens is pushing wind -- Texas Oil Billionaire).

Wind power is fine.

T-bone is turning a new leaf. Takes money to build the infrastructure. Our government is too busy losing money and spending what's left on war. Doesn't help that "W" is in the oil business, either.

Either that, or he's investing money in these big corporate wind farms, and trying to convince the Government to "legislate" more favorable conditions, invest in infrastructure or somesuch.

I'm not opposed to a money-grab, especially if there are other good reasons.

If the goal is to find some source of electricity, then store it and transport it, hydrogen is one method.

I think I see what you mean now. Though water is Much easier to find and process than oil is. Much cleaner, too.

I refuse to believe your argument that the amount of energy exerted to transport and process petroleum into gasoline is less than the amount of electricity used to separate hydrogen from water. The electricity used could be created from solar and wind sources. Plenty of deserts and plains for solar panels. Plenty of mountains and sea shores for windmills.

I can see how you'd have a hard time believing it, since I did not make that argument.

That's okay, because I don't buy your argument that Oil is the only energy source worth fighting over.

If your goal is to stop the world dependence on Oil and reduce obscene corporate profits on Electricity, hydrogen may not be the answer.

Just deep six'ing oil would be good enough for now.

... and it would seem that you might be a little more open to anything that can convert wind, or hydro, or solar into power and use it efficiently.

LOL - The video that started this thread clearly shows solar being used to produce the electricity that is used to separate hydrogen from water.

Are we playing Twister?


.

I'm just trying to point out that Hydrogen is so frequently presented as the "magic bullet" and we invariably get this hydrogen powered car, and somebody (Jack Nicholson, Ed Begley, Jr., Daryl Hannah, etc.) is shown sticking his/her nose into the exhaust pipe because the emissions are "just water."

Solar is not without an environmental impact, cut down the sunlight reaching the ground and you change the ecology under the panels.

Nuclear should be low-impact, and it would be if we (at least in the U.S.) weren't afraid that reprocessed fuel would end up in terrorist bombs instead of back in the reactor and used again -- we're making 10 times the radioactive waste because the stuff gets used once.

People don't seem to want to live near big wind projects, and birds die when they hit the propellers.

Everything has some impact. That doesn't mean you don't do it. It just means that when something looks so wonderfully perfect, you need to make sure you look at the whole system -- the wonderfully clean hydrogen car and the source of that hydrogen as one example.

Don't worry about depleted uranium,

We dump that on our enemies and Rush says there are absolutely no health hazards!

:P

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Don't worry about depleted uranium,

We dump that on our enemies and Rush says there are absolutely no health hazards!

Which, of course, is simply a lie.

What I have said is this: "Can you even read? You, like many others, seem to want to cling for dear life to your erroneous and silly ideas about positions that I haven't taken.

"I never took the position that you stated. What I said, repeatedly, was that DU and DU dust are no more a health risk than many, many, many household chemicals that we deal with every day. Chemicals that are, and this is important, NOT INTENDED TO BE INGESTED. In fact, DU is FAR LESS dangerous than many of these chemicals that are under your sink or in your garage. Drink bleach, ammonia, rat poison, gasoline, detergent, pesticides, motor oil, et cetera ad infinitum and you could be dead within minutes. Do the same thing with DU, or DU dust, and it could take months or years to show any effects, and it might not show any, even then."

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Rush:

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=40885&filter=false#603584

*EDIT:

Ned Ludd: So we agree the current work being done to create a vehicle that uses hydrogen to power a hydrogen cell, converting the hydrogen back into electricity, is another wasted step? My point was simply that existing auto engines will run on hydrogen. No one need buy a new car with the hydrogen cell, no need for another energy conversion step.

We're powering jets with hydrogen, and between the lack of battery technology and the range and power of electric vehicles compared to petrol, hydrogen looks good for a while.

Yes electric vehicles would be nice but we're not ready at the moment. Transport vehicles and heavy equipment won't do well at this point in our technological tree.

I know sometimes I'm vague because I type fast and am busy. Forgive the misunderstandings. I know what your saying and hope you now understand my thoughts.


.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Don't worry about depleted uranium,

We dump that on our enemies and Rush says there are absolutely no health hazards!

:P

You're confusing DU with nuclear waste in the same way you're confusing Hydrogen with "Fuel."

"Depleted Uranium" is Uranium with all the "fun" isotopes removed -- U-235 can be used to generate power, while U-238 is just a typical heavy metal.

It is less toxic than some of the other heavy metals, and it is less radioactive than Uranium ore.

Of course, people hear "Uranium" and they get all scared about radiation, just like they hear "Hydrogen" and say "oooh! clean energy."

---

Don't worry about depleted uranium,

We dump that on our enemies and Rush says there are absolutely no health hazards!

:P

You're confusing DU with nuclear waste in the same way you're confusing Hydrogen with "Fuel."

"Depleted Uranium" is Uranium with all the "fun" isotopes removed -- U-235 can be used to generate power, while U-238 is just a typical heavy metal.

It is less toxic than some of the other heavy metals, and it is less radioactive than Uranium ore.

Of course, people hear "Uranium" and they get all scared about radiation, just like they hear "Hydrogen" and say "oooh! clean energy."

There are a few videos in that post that beg to differ on the DU rounds. Many of the victims are American military in these videos. You can hear it from them.

Whatever you want to call hydrogen, it can be put into a regular car engine with a modified carburetor to run that car.


.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Ned Ludd: So we agree the current work being done to create a vehicle that uses hydrogen to power a hydrogen cell, converting the hydrogen back into electricity, is another wasted step? My point was simply that existing auto engines will run on hydrogen. No one need buy a new car with the hydrogen cell, no need for another energy conversion step.

Existing cars will not run on hydrogen.

The fuel system is meant for liquid fuel, the injectors can't hold back the pressure or meter a gaseous fuel, the intake valves probably need the cooling they get from the evaporating gasoline.

It is possible to strip out the gasoline parts, and replace them with a hydrogen fuel system, and it's possible to replace the valves and rebuild a gas engine as needed to run on Hydrogen.

It is more difficult to relocate the fuel tank -- you have to be sure any leaks have a clear path up-and-out and don't end up someplace inconvenient, like a trunk full of an explosive mixture of Hydrogen and Air.

I don't see an economically practical way to convert an existing, finished Gasoline car to Hydrogen.

... we'll end up with new cars.

The bigger problem is infrastructure. If I own a car that runs on hydrogen, and I want to drive more than 1 tank of fuel away, there had better be a fueling station.

As far as I know, there are two Hydrogen stations in Southern California, and I think one more in the S.F. Bay Area.

I'd love a flex-fueled car (and I like Biofuel better than Hydrogen, frankly) but the closest fueling station is in San Diego -- about 100 miles away. At least I can fill that one up with gasoline, but what's the point.

CNG is probably the easiest alternative right now because many fleet CNG stations are open to the public as well -- you just have to look for them.

---

Don't worry about depleted uranium,

We dump that on our enemies and Rush says there are absolutely no health hazards!

:P

You're confusing DU with nuclear waste in the same way you're confusing Hydrogen with "Fuel."

"Depleted Uranium" is Uranium with all the "fun" isotopes removed -- U-235 can be used to generate power, while U-238 is just a typical heavy metal.

It is less toxic than some of the other heavy metals, and it is less radioactive than Uranium ore.

Of course, people hear "Uranium" and they get all scared about radiation, just like they hear "Hydrogen" and say "oooh! clean energy."

There are a few videos in that post that beg to differ on the DU rounds. Many of the victims are American military in these videos. You can hear it from them.

Whatever you want to call hydrogen, it can be put into a regular car engine with a modified carburetor to run that car.


.

The battlefield is a messy place. Lots of toxics that you don't want to be around -- enough so that picking any one toxin and saying "this did it!" is pretty hard to do.

My car can't use a modified carburetor because like most cars built in the last two decades, it does not have a carburetor.

Edit: you explain that you're too busy to type at length, and you think I have time to watch 40 minutes of video? Sorry.

---

Don't worry about depleted uranium,

We dump that on our enemies and Rush says there are absolutely no health hazards!

:P

You're confusing DU with nuclear waste in the same way you're confusing Hydrogen with "Fuel."

"Depleted Uranium" is Uranium with all the "fun" isotopes removed -- U-235 can be used to generate power, while U-238 is just a typical heavy metal.

It is less toxic than some of the other heavy metals, and it is less radioactive than Uranium ore.

Of course, people hear "Uranium" and they get all scared about radiation, just like they hear "Hydrogen" and say "oooh! clean energy."

There are a few videos in that post that beg to differ on the DU rounds. Many of the victims are American military in these videos. You can hear it from them.

Whatever you want to call hydrogen, it can be put into a regular car engine with a modified carburetor to run that car.


.

The battlefield is a messy place. Lots of toxics that you don't want to be around -- enough so that picking any one toxin and saying "this did it!" is pretty hard to do.

My car can't use a modified carburetor because like most cars built in the last two decades, it does not have a carburetor.

Edit: you explain that you're too busy to type at length, and you think I have time to watch 40 minutes of video? Sorry.

The symptoms match radiation sickness.

Your car has an intake manifold that a hydrogen carb could be placed on.

I watched those videos before the date posted. Times change. Sorry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_refinery


.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Your car has an intake manifold that a hydrogen carb could be placed on.

So, all I have to do is bolt one easy-to-install part onto the intake manifold?

I don't need anything else?

---

You spoke of infrastructure earlier,

Do you think it better to have all auto manufacturers retool their factories and power plant compartments to compensate for a new auto power plant which facilitates an extra wasted step in energy conversion? Or is it easier and smarter to have a new carb system and fuel storage compartment implemented?

Do you think the flowchart of a hydrogen manufacturing plant is more complex and uses more chemicals and energy than a oil refinery does?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_refinery

Of course an infrastructure needs to be set up for hydrogen distribution, but that's pretty standard ops for industrial revolutions. Isn't it?

The problem isn't that there aren't any stations yet. The problem is people saying it will never work because there are no stations.


.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Rush:

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=40885&filter=false#603584

Yep. Among others:

After a tank, or any other target is destroyed, SOP is to clear the area.

Yeah, because there are a lot more instantly deadly things that are often in a tank. Unexploded ordinance, for one.

And:

I think I was just like you before looking into it.

I have looked into it. I spent nearly 10 years as a U.S. Army Interrogator and am quite familiar with weapons systems, their pluses and minuses, and the uses thereof.

And:

What is the source of your data concerning Alpha, Beta, and Gamma radiation poisoning? I choose to believe the US Military Soldiers over paperwork in this matter.

Then I'm sure you have some evidence for causation? Because, rest assured, they certainly do not. I mean, most of the POL in a tank, would kill soldiers very quickly, in less quantities than DU would.

Gasoline, explosives, lubricants, et cetera are all generally quite poisonous, that's why soldiers don't eat them. Really, the DU is the least of their worries if they're going to start eating crap like that.

And:

Drink gasoline and you'll probably die. Same thing if you eat some high explosive from an anti-tank round. Same thing if you drink the crankcase oil. Inhaling diesel fumes. All of these things are substantially more deadly if ingested by humans than DU.

And:

I didn't say the stuff wasn't dangerous, I said it pales in comparison to the actual deadly poisons in a tank. I said it pales in comparison to being in a tank when some of it passes in one side and then out the other at ungodly speeds. I said that simple Iron poisons more people than DU ever has. I said that there are a LOT more dangerous things involved in using heavy armour than DU.

And:

However, in DU (and a really important part of DU is the term depleted) the levels are so low that you don't even need shielding to handle the stuff. Which is why it is sometimes used for civilian uses. Which is the exact same standard for HE propellant, gasoline, bleach, oil, iron pills and ammonia. Except that all of those will kill you very quickly if you ingest them, far far faster than the radiation from DU would.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

I choose to believe the people who are having trouble with their health after being exposed to DU rounds. I'd give examples but it's pretty ugly. Where do you get your data from on this, Rush?

In California Water Boarding is a sport.

Back to Jack and his car.


.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

I choose to believe the people who are having trouble with their health after being exposed to DU rounds.

They make the same mistakes about causality that all humans make--they're terrible at it. That's why studies are done, because what humans "feel" about causation that they cannot witness directly is nearly always wrong.

I'd give examples but it's pretty ugly. Where do you get your data from on this, Rush?

Give all the examples you wish. The point was that you directly misrepresented the position I have taken. Was that intentional?

As far as the data? Look around you. Eat a few pellets of DU and they'll pass harmlessly through your body. Drink the same weight of any number of standard household chemicals, and you'll likely be dead in minutes.

Yet you can buy those at WalMart, or even easier, get them out from under your kitchen sink, or your garage.

Armor piercing rounds aren't designed to beat the world's worst weapons systems and armor, they're designed to beat the best. You generally don't say "OK, boys, design me a weapon so that we can clean up against the Crinkled-up Tinfoil Armor Brigade," you do a cost/benefit analysis to determine what your best bet is. DU is that best bet right now, and it is what is in the inventory presently. They are being phased out as better materials come on-line.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

You spoke of infrastructure earlier,

Do you think it better to have all auto manufacturers retool their factories and power plant compartments to compensate for a new auto power plant which facilitates an extra wasted step in energy conversion? Or is it easier and smarter to have a new carb system and fuel storage compartment implemented?

Do you think the flowchart of a hydrogen manufacturing plant is more complex and uses more chemicals and energy than a oil refinery does?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_refinery

Of course an infrastructure needs to be set up for hydrogen distribution, but that's pretty standard ops for industrial revolutions. Isn't it?

The problem isn't that there aren't any stations yet. The problem is people saying it will never work because there are no stations.

The problem is that most anything follows from a false premise.

If your statement is that hydrogen is simpler therefore it must be more efficient, then that has to be proved experimentally.

Let me give you a thought experiment, to ponder for just a bit.

Picture a refrigerator in a small room. There is one door into the room (closed), the room is well insulated and there is no ventilation. There is a refrigerator in the room. It is plugged in and the refrigerator door is open.

Does the room get warmer, colder, or stay the same?

If you said "electricity is flowing into the room to run the 'fridge, so the room is gaining energy, and getting warmer" then you're right. The refrigerator isn't even relevant.

Same with cars: you look at the hydrogen car as being the solution, and I want to look at the entire system (starting with the production of energy, through transport, and finally use in the car) before I decide.

I don't care that much about the efficiency (or the lack of emissions) of the car any more than I care about the refrigerator.

---

You spoke of infrastructure earlier,

Do you think it better to have all auto manufacturers retool their factories and power plant compartments to compensate for a new auto power plant which facilitates an extra wasted step in energy conversion? Or is it easier and smarter to have a new carb system and fuel storage compartment implemented?

Do you think the flowchart of a hydrogen manufacturing plant is more complex and uses more chemicals and energy than a oil refinery does?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_refinery

Of course an infrastructure needs to be set up for hydrogen distribution, but that's pretty standard ops for industrial revolutions. Isn't it?

The problem isn't that there aren't any stations yet. The problem is people saying it will never work because there are no stations.

The problem is that most anything follows from a false premise.

If your statement is that hydrogen is simpler therefore it must be more efficient, then that has to be proved experimentally.

Let me give you a thought experiment, to ponder for just a bit.

Picture a refrigerator in a small room. There is one door into the room (closed), the room is well insulated and there is no ventilation. There is a refrigerator in the room. It is plugged in and the refrigerator door is open.

Does the room get warmer, colder, or stay the same?

If you said "electricity is flowing into the room to run the 'fridge, so the room is gaining energy, and getting warmer" then you're right. The refrigerator isn't even relevant.

Same with cars: you look at the hydrogen car as being the solution, and I want to look at the entire system (starting with the production of energy, through transport, and finally use in the car) before I decide.

I don't care that much about the efficiency (or the lack of emissions) of the car any more than I care about the refrigerator.

I understand your analogy. You must care about the efficiency and lack of emissions a little bit.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

The problem is that most anything follows from a false premise.

If your statement is that hydrogen is simpler therefore it must be more efficient, then that has to be proved experimentally.

Let me give you a thought experiment, to ponder for just a bit.

Picture a refrigerator in a small room. There is one door into the room (closed), the room is well insulated and there is no ventilation. There is a refrigerator in the room. It is plugged in and the refrigerator door is open.

Does the room get warmer, colder, or stay the same?

If you said "electricity is flowing into the room to run the 'fridge, so the room is gaining energy, and getting warmer" then you're right. The refrigerator isn't even relevant.

Same with cars: you look at the hydrogen car as being the solution, and I want to look at the entire system (starting with the production of energy, through transport, and finally use in the car) before I decide.

I don't care that much about the efficiency (or the lack of emissions) of the car any more than I care about the refrigerator.

I understand your analogy. You must care about the efficiency and lack of emissions a little bit.

Hmmmm. Not sure you did.

If any of the hydrogen used to power that incredibly green emits-only-water combustion engine comes from a non-green source, then you have to consider the pollution caused at the coal-burning power plant (or natural-gas burning, or neutron-burning) before you can consider the whole system to be green.

From there, I have no real preference how we get from that great big windmill generating power, to me getting across town in my car. It can run on compressed air and I'm happy.

If you compress polluted air and bleed off the pressure to run the car, is it still zero emissions?

---

The problem is that most anything follows from a false premise.

If your statement is that hydrogen is simpler therefore it must be more efficient, then that has to be proved experimentally.

Let me give you a thought experiment, to ponder for just a bit.

Picture a refrigerator in a small room. There is one door into the room (closed), the room is well insulated and there is no ventilation. There is a refrigerator in the room. It is plugged in and the refrigerator door is open.

Does the room get warmer, colder, or stay the same?

If you said "electricity is flowing into the room to run the 'fridge, so the room is gaining energy, and getting warmer" then you're right. The refrigerator isn't even relevant.

Same with cars: you look at the hydrogen car as being the solution, and I want to look at the entire system (starting with the production of energy, through transport, and finally use in the car) before I decide.

I don't care that much about the efficiency (or the lack of emissions) of the car any more than I care about the refrigerator.

I understand your analogy. You must care about the efficiency and lack of emissions a little bit.

Hmmmm. Not sure you did.

If any of the hydrogen used to power that incredibly green emits-only-water combustion engine comes from a non-green source, then you have to consider the pollution caused at the coal-burning power plant (or natural-gas burning, or neutron-burning) before you can consider the whole system to be green.

From there, I have no real preference how we get from that great big windmill generating power, to me getting across town in my car. It can run on compressed air and I'm happy.

If you compress polluted air and bleed off the pressure to run the car, is it still zero emissions?

I didn't say the entire system was green or was zero emissions, but it is FAR better than what we run today. I also mentioned that solar and wind could help generate the electricity.

Polluted air is all we have to compress now, thanks to petrol and corporations. This would still require electricity to compress the air, and you still wouldn't get the energy power that hydrogen would provide. So it would never do for commercial uses which is a huge part of the equation. Time for petrol burning to end before we end as a species and become petrol for the next "masters" of our planet ourselves. Think of your children and children's children.

Filibuster my logic? Broaden your scope and embrace hydrogen!

Or: PPO > SVO = More food for the hungry.


.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

I have read a couple of studies.

All the efficiencies I have listed are wellhead to wheels.

Best fuel efficiency of a diesel car 33% (gasoline is somewhat worse about 22%). Best for a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle is about 22%. Burning the hydrogen in an ICE reduces this to about 15%. Best battery car is about 66%.

Batteries only looks like the way to go for any vehicle that can make its daily rounds on batteries only (think commuter cars).

However batteries have range limitations and recharge time between runs. Vehicles that make longer trips will have to have a range extender of some sort.

Using electricity as a transport to recharge the vehicles will allow the choice of energy sources. I would suggest that there is no single energy source that is a magic bullet, but rather that we should be developing all energy sources that are real (solar, wind, hydro, tidal, deep ocean energy transfer, geothermal, fission, and fusion). I know that some of these have not been developed enough to determine their worth but they are at least plausible. Things that involve perpetual motion are not (sorry guys pouring water into your gas tank still won't work).

---

BOINC WIKI

Thanks for the data, though. Interesting.

Strange whenever hydrogen comes up in a topic people seem to have a built in mechanism that triggers the perpetual motion/zero-point argument.

Meanwhile Stan cruises his buggy in the after life:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6yRn4IAsrU

http://joecell.cloud.prohosting.com/


.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss