Re: [Amc-list] Hydrogen Power (was Holley Carb Questions .... )

[Wrambler242@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Well, That settles it....

We're all Screwed!

--
Mark Price
Morgantown, WV
1969 AMC Rambler, 4.0L, EFI, T-5
" I was different before people dared to be different" 

 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Sandwich Maker)
> " From: Tom Jennings <tomj@xxxxxxx>
> " 
> " The real, underlying fundamental problem is that our entire world is built 
> " upon "fuel" as in sticks gathered in the forest that fell there without any 
> " investment of energy or work on our part some time in the past -- in the form 
> " of fossil fuel. It's like spending a non-growth inheritance, or next month's 
> " rent money.
> 
> a hunter-gatherer fuel economy
> 
> " Every single other source of energy requires converting an existing source 
> " (sun, plants, whatever) into a transmissible or storable form.
> 
> a fuel farming economy
> 
> " There's no way around the no-free-lunch thing. Period. None.
> 
> yupper!  you cannot negotiate with the universe about the laws of
> physics.
> 
> " Corn-based alcohol is a scam for politicians and oil companies. If every 
> " square hectare of fertile soil in the US was converted to corn production, 
> " the resulting alcohol would meet no more than 15% of US energy needs. 
> 
> i'm not sure this is right - but there -is- a fundamental flaw in
> using near-food-grade produce as fuel.  adm [broker for 9/10 of the
> crop] has to be snickering all the way to the bank.
> 
> research is only just beginning on fuel crops.  more is needed.  and
> the issue of competition for food acreage could indeed be a serious
> problem.
> 
> " Corn-based alcohol is a storage method for solar energy plus the energy it 
> " takes to produce all the components, which it turns out, is very high.
> 
> see the food reference above.  goals are different; quality and safety
> are paramount for food; efficiency is not.
> 
> " Hydrogen bonds very tightly to many elements. It's extremely hard to break a 
> " chemical molecular bond. It takes a fixed and finite amount of energy, 
> " period. It's not reducable. Many cracking systems have other inefficiencies, 
> " and these can be improved, but it will always take more energy to split 
> " water -- or any other H2 compound -- than it produces. It's inarguable 
> " physics.
> 
> this is true of -every- compound.  it's called entropy.
> 
> " Draw your own conclusions. Mine are, reduction of unbelievably stupid energy 
> " consumption in the first place. We're incredibly stupid and wasteful as a 
> " race/culture (the overall human one). People have been tricked into 
> " thinking "conservation" means "giving up" but that's pure politics. 
> " Energy-neutrality would certainly mean a wholesale revolution in literally 
> " everyone's world.
> " 
> " I don't have much hope for this being fixed. There's too much stuff with a 
> " stake in the current infrastructure.
> 
> i sadly agree.  human nature is selfish and short-sighted, most
> especially as community sizes increase and it becomes easier and
> easier to leave the larger issues to 'someone else' - there are plenty
> of someone elses, right?
> 
> " On Friday 07 September 2007 20:15:07 Frank Swygert wrote:
> " > Using hydrogen in a fuel cell to create electricity is supposed to be much
> " > more efficient than burning the gas directly. That's why the fuel cell cars
> " > from GM.
> 
> so far, so good.  fuel cells can turn h2 into electricity extremely
> efficiently, as much as 80% or better.
> 
> only the h2 can be so used though - fuel cells that run on alcohol,
> natural gas, etc just throw the carbon and its energy away.  so do the
> refuelling stations that generate h2 from natural gas.  this is
> efficient?  non polluting?  energy reducing?
> 
> " > It would be easy to convert gas stations that way too -- just pump
> " > the chemical(s) instead of gasoline. So the existing infrastructure could
> " > be used, lessening costs impact.
> 
> this is snake oil, on someone's part.  you can't just pump h2 through
> gas pipelines.
> 1. the molecule is so small it'll whiz through cracks ch4 [natural
>    gas, mostly] won't even see.
> 2. h2 is absorbed directly into the steel, producing a metallurgical
>    phenomenon called 'hydrogen embrittlement'.  this is not a good
>    thing for pipelines.
> 
> you could pump water or something else and electrical power, and make
> the h2 at the refuelling station, but that's a loss; natural gas can
> transmit energy over long distance more efficiently than high tension
> power lines.  you'd be better off making the h2 [from water, not
> natural gas!] at the minehead and gasifying the coal or tar sands and
> pumping that.
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Andrew Hay                                  the genius nature
> internet rambler                            is to see what all have seen
> adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                       and think what none thought
> _______________________________________________
> Amc-list mailing list
> Amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.amc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/amc-list

_______________________________________________
Amc-list mailing list
Amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.amc-list.com/mailman/listinfo/amc-list