" 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