> >
> > WRONG. Hydrogen is NOT a fuel source.
>
> Wrong what? I didn't say "Hydrogen is a fuel source". I said that
> hydrogen fuel cell technology is one way to power vehicles that does
not
> *require* petroleum.
>
> > It is made from other sources.
> > Currently 99 percent of it is made from TADA --- Petroleum, AKA LPG
and
> > Natural gas. NO other source to produce it from for lower cost in
large
> > enough quantities to even be useful. ALL other methods take more
energy
> > and money to produce the Hydrogen than the Hydrogen can ever return.
>
> Is it your contention, then, that billions of dollars are being spent
on
> research without viable plans for production and distribution of
> hydrogen by the expected to-market date of 2012?
>
> If you know otherwise, what's your source? I'd love to read about how
> all this exhaustive R&D that's going on that will be of no use at all
> (because you don't personally know how they plan to provide the fuel).
>
>
> --
> Joe

Yep that is my contention. Those BILLIONS are being spent for USELESS
research. The fact is that Hydrogen as a fuel has been done already. How
to store it, how to burn it. Already been done. What NONE of this
research has shown is HOW TO CREATE THE HYDROGEN in the first place for
low cost. Yes you could use solar power BUT the solar cells are about 5%
efficient and they take a LOT of energy to produce in the first place.
Plus in order to create useable power from them you need LOTS of space.
Hydro power to produce Hydrogen would work BUT how do you power the
homes that already use the electric from those units already? As far as
building more hydro, not likely since all the enviro nuts are calling
for smaller dams to be removed to restore the rivers to "natural" flow.
Thermal cracking using solar ovens, not a good option since they depend
on constant sunlight and the sun does go down. Wind power? Not likely
since it takes more land and too many people complain about the units.
Plus it tends to kill birds and that gets other folks riled up. Ask
Teddy Kennedy about why HE is against wind generators off the coast of
Mass.

The ONLY source of power that seems to fit the bill.... Clean, Quiet,
non polluting is ... Current generation NUCLEAR. BUT even though there
are enviro nuts who have even stated this as the only viable way I doubt
it will happen since everyone seems to think it is so dangerous. Oh and
before anyone starts talking about Russia or any other accidents, maybe
you had better look at the US Navy for the way current technology works
on nukes. Chernobyl was OLD and outdated the day it started, and used a
design that wouldn't EVER be used anywhere but in a backwards country
that they were at the time. Three mile island gets tossed out as well.
Even though it was a BIG media circus and we were told how bad it was.
There was NO RADIATION LOSS. The systems worked and the place shut down.
The problem was and still is that the anti nuke folks put out so many
outright lies about it and the mass media helps them so much that the
truth gets passed over.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----