Re: RE Word Hydrogen vs Hybrid

[adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Sandwich Maker)]

" From: Todd Tomason <jayscore@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
" 
" The other proposal I've heard is to use electricity from nuclear power to 
" crack water.  This obviously has it's own problems, but at least it wouldn't 
" use oil.  

you don't need electricity to do this.  back in the '70s i read of a
proposed theoretical reactor that would use its heat and sulfuric acid
electrolyte to crack water - 'thermolysis'.  they estimated efficiency
above 50%, comparable to electric generation.

more recently, i stumbled across a site that was an encyclopedia of
nuclear reactor technologies, dozens of approaches and variants, and
quite a number were listed suitable for thermolysis...  too lazy to
track it down again.	;^/	[a real eye-opener though.  india's
hard at work on thorium reactors; they have ~50% of the world's known
thorium reserves]

how's montana fixed for water?  use that hot hydrogen to gasify their
coal and pipe it out.

also, all these designs  - thermolysis and electric - address safety
and waste/efficiency issues.  current american reactors are like
filling up your gas tank, then dumping it after only 20 miles and
refilling...  they are the curved-dash oldsmobiles of nuclear
engineering.  why are we trying to bury all that waste instead of
looking for a way to use it as fuel?

" On Friday 16 September 2005 16:51, Tom Jennings wrote:
" > On Fri, 16 Sep 2005, Bill Strobel wrote:
" > >  Hydrogen cars will not
" > > reduce our dependence on Middle East oil as current
" > > technology has us cracking oil and natural gas for the
" > > hydrogen.  Don't even fall for the myth of making
" > > hydrogen from water, the energy needed to do it is
" > > more than the work received from the resultant
" > > hydrogen.
" >
" > Thanks for pointing this out. The system cost of H2 is not less
" > than other systems (eg. oil --> gasoline).
" >
" > It's possible that some cheaper way to split water will be found,
" > but it's not that likely -- pure physics is the limiting problem
" > -- the oxygen::hydrogen atomic bond has a known and absolutely
" > invariant binding energy. Whether it's chemical or electrical, you
" > have to overcome that bond, it's a bunch of electron-volts per
" > molecule, and that's that.  Facks is facks.
" >
" > There's this idea that "conservation" means "giving up". It's
" > silly.  Using less is smart, not some commie plot to deprive us of
" > pleasure.
________________________________________________________________________
Andrew Hay                                  the genius nature
internet rambler                            is to see what all have seen

adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                       and think what none thought