What makes ISOLATING hydrogen expensive is the energy cost. (You do not make hydrogen. It is the most abundant element in the universe. Yes, you probably know that anyway) If you consider "free energy" such as tidal forces - (something that's only just beginning to be harnessed - think 'wind turbines', but underwater) - wind, hydrothermal, solar and nuclear (all of these are "FREE" - even nuclear is nearly free - it's just that the initial setup costs are astronomical!) Using a source of energy such as natural gas or petroleum to isolate hydrogen is ridiculous. It's ridiculous to make hydrogen with electrical current from the grid too - because that's like using coal to make electricity to isolate hydrogen. I don't know what the loss factor is, but I'm guessing that for every 1000 watts of electrical energy you use at home, that energy started out as 1100 or 1500 watts - because of line and transformer losses - you end up with less than was generated in the first place. And perhaps there are better ways than electrolysis to split hydrogen from water - or maybe to remove oxygen from water so that you've got only hydrogen left... But however it's done - NO, there just ain't no way to get more energy from oxidizing hydrogen than it takes to break it from oxygen! That's just one of those basic laws of physics. Running your car on water is a bunch of HOOEY. It's hard to believe news reporters are so stupid that they could be duped into covering crap like that. Just like that stupid perpetual motion machine. Every system "looses" energy at every transition.
Back to where I was coming from, was that "free energy" is virtually impossible to use in an automobile of any technology. You cant drive around with a hydroelectric dam strapped to the bed of your truck. Nor would you be able to get under even the tallest overpasses with a wind turbine attached to it. Despite how excited everyone got back in the 50's about powering your car with a small nuclear reactor - its just not practical. But pure hydrogen is more energy concentrated than even gasoline - and it doesn't pollute. I don't know ANYONE that can synthesize gasoline. I sure wish I did! But even I can make alcohol with a bunch of barley and corn, rice or wheat. (barley contains that magic enzyme "amylase" that converts starches into sugar - sugar then feeds yeast that excrete alcohol). I can also isolate little small amounts of hydrogen with electricity or by dropping zinc into hydrochloric acid - (the latter being far more expensive but a whole lot faster) Maybe there's a better way to 'keep' hydrogen. Consider perhaps a molecule that holds huge groups or chains of hydrogen together just like carbon does in hydrocarbons. Maybe its possible to use electricity and hydrogen in some undiscovered way to turn hydrogen into a hydrogen based man-made 'hydrocarbon-like' molecule that could replace gasoline. When you think about it, is there ANY fuel that DOESN'T contain hydrogen or hydrocarbons of one form or another? Even FOOD contains hydrocarbons in the form of carbohydrates. Is there any fuel that does NOT contain hydrogen? I don't think so. Not unless it's plutonium or uranium..... -WaV On 6/21/08, Louise Power <power_lou...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > I keep hearing that it's more expensive to make hydrogen than the amount you > would save. How does your suggestion jibe with that?> > ot-h...@texascavers.com> --------------------------------------------------------------------- Give this to a friend: ot-subscr...@texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: ot-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: ot-h...@texascavers.com
