On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 21:04:54 +0200, you wrote: > >MM, > >The numbers are not wacky, but they are the best I could find. Most other >numbers show that it take more electricity than you get out.
First: *All* such conversions, from electricity to any sort of liquid or gaseous substance containing the energy (such as through the potential for combusion), will take more energy in than is ultimately stored. There is no known (within conventional definitions) process for perfectly efficient storage of energy. So: what's the big deal? You have x amount of electrical energy, and you end up with .8(x) (or whatever) of that energy stored in the form of Hydrogen ready for combustion, losing about .2(x) in this example. You gain the convenience of being able to wait for when you want to use the hydrogen, being able to transport it and trade it, and in a device where electricity may be less convenient. You may lose Hydrogen atoms or energy over that time (such as if the H2 is cooled for storage as liquid H2 in a BMW 740 iL and then over time it may start to build up pressure and need to be bled off a little) Second: Your figures are in power instead of energy. You have quoted kW instead of kWh. So, you're saying in effect that when you use electricity to make hydrogen, that you get more power out than you put in, and then you seem to be saying you meant energy and not power. In either case, I don't see the logic. I think we should be talking energy, not power, and whether we're discussing energy or power, both (I'm pretty sure) must obey some sort of conservation principles, whereby you will inevitably get out less than you put in, with the remainder as loss (waste). I am not as sure about Power as about Energy. >I am not saying that Hydrogen as such is a scam and that we could >not find it viable in the future. What I say is that it is at the moment used >as a diversion from more viable and "ready for use" alternatives. It is >also used to give politicians and the public a false sense of security. >In that sense it is a scam and a very dangerous one. > >In itself it is a very dangerous strategy to delay actions on viable >alternatives, in favor of possible unproven technologies. I have joked >about my Presidential energy plan, but you only have to do quite >simple calculations on it and you will be amazed. We're all upset at this use of H2 as a diversionary tactic, but I think we should be accurate and say that we support some effort to evaluate and use H2 as one of several possible helpful energy technologies, but that we do not support use of H2 as an issue to obfuscate and prevent efforts in other alternatives. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
