The real danger of allowing GM and Ford to go bankrupt . . .

(Matthew Russotto) wrote in
:

> In article >,
> DTJ > wrote:
>>On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:06:01 -0500,
>>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>
>>>>> 2) An efficient method of transport
>>>>
>>>>That already exists for other gases including propane.
>>>
>>>That is true, but those methods do not work well for hydrogen.
>>>Hydrogen leaks from everything, and causes metals to become brittle.
>>
>>I have to believe that in spite of the fact that 90% of people drive
>>like morons, our ingenuity could come up with a method to transport
>>hydrogen if there were a potential profit.
>
> That's all you've got, a personal conviction that it can be done?
>
> What's the big advantage of hydrogen that gets people all excited over
> it, despite the fact that there's no reason to believe it's more
> practical than any of a number of more developed options?

The big advantage is it is simple to create from whatever handy energy
source.


--
Republican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick

Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time

In article > ,
Dave Lister > wrote:
(Matthew Russotto) wrote in
:
>
>> In article >,
>> DTJ > wrote:
>>>On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:06:01 -0500,
>>>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> 2) An efficient method of transport
>>>>>
>>>>>That already exists for other gases including propane.
>>>>
>>>>That is true, but those methods do not work well for hydrogen.
>>>>Hydrogen leaks from everything, and causes metals to become brittle.
>>>
>>>I have to believe that in spite of the fact that 90% of people drive
>>>like morons, our ingenuity could come up with a method to transport
>>>hydrogen if there were a potential profit.
>>
>> That's all you've got, a personal conviction that it can be done?
>>
>> What's the big advantage of hydrogen that gets people all excited over
>> it, despite the fact that there's no reason to believe it's more
>> practical than any of a number of more developed options?
>
>The big advantage is it is simple to create from whatever handy energy
>source.

So is methanol, and it's a heck of a lot easier to deal with.

Hydrogen isn't practical at the moment to create from "whatever handy
energy source"; rather, it is largely derived from natural gas. So
despite all the propaganda, it's pretty much a fossil-fuel. Just a
partially pre-burned one; a waste of energy.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

"Alan Baker" > wrote
> (Matthew Russotto) wrote:

(Boy, OE appears to have the sub-threads all messed up...)

Anyway, I wanted to mention that the latest Car & Driver
has an article on Honda's FCX hydrogen fuel-cell/electric motor car.
The FCX is about the size of a Civic Si, weighs about 3700 lbs,
has a 3.75kg fuel capacity (they look like two 40lb propane tanks)
that give it a 130-190 mile range.

It only costs about $200,000.

Floyd

(Matthew Russotto) wrote in news:h-
:

> In article > ,
> Dave Lister > wrote:
(Matthew Russotto) wrote in
:
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> DTJ > wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:06:01 -0500,
>>>>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> 2) An efficient method of transport
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That already exists for other gases including propane.
>>>>>
>>>>>That is true, but those methods do not work well for hydrogen.
>>>>>Hydrogen leaks from everything, and causes metals to become
brittle.
>>>>
>>>>I have to believe that in spite of the fact that 90% of people drive
>>>>like morons, our ingenuity could come up with a method to transport
>>>>hydrogen if there were a potential profit.
>>>
>>> That's all you've got, a personal conviction that it can be done?
>>>
>>> What's the big advantage of hydrogen that gets people all excited
over
>>> it, despite the fact that there's no reason to believe it's more
>>> practical than any of a number of more developed options?
>>
>>The big advantage is it is simple to create from whatever handy energy
>>source.
>
> So is methanol, and it's a heck of a lot easier to deal with.

Nowhere near as simple.

> Hydrogen isn't practical at the moment to create from "whatever handy
> energy source";

Of course it is. I can produce hydrogen wherever I have water and an
electric source.

--
Republican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick

Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time

Dave Lister wrote:
> (Matthew Russotto) wrote in news:h-
> :
>
> > In article > ,
> > Dave Lister > wrote:
> (Matthew Russotto) wrote in
> :
> >>
> >>> In article >,
> >>> DTJ > wrote:
> >>>>On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:06:01 -0500,
> >>>>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> 2) An efficient method of transport
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>That already exists for other gases including propane.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>That is true, but those methods do not work well for hydrogen.
> >>>>>Hydrogen leaks from everything, and causes metals to become
> brittle.
> >>>>
> >>>>I have to believe that in spite of the fact that 90% of people drive
> >>>>like morons, our ingenuity could come up with a method to transport
> >>>>hydrogen if there were a potential profit.
> >>>
> >>> That's all you've got, a personal conviction that it can be done?
> >>>
> >>> What's the big advantage of hydrogen that gets people all excited
> over
> >>> it, despite the fact that there's no reason to believe it's more
> >>> practical than any of a number of more developed options?
> >>
> >>The big advantage is it is simple to create from whatever handy energy
> >>source.
> >
> > So is methanol, and it's a heck of a lot easier to deal with.
>
> Nowhere near as simple.
>
> > Hydrogen isn't practical at the moment to create from "whatever handy
> > energy source";
>
> Of course it is. I can produce hydrogen wherever I have water and an
> electric source.
>

And that electricity comes from....?

By the time you convert electricity/water to hydrogen and then the
hydrogen back to electricity, you would have been better off just to
invest a little more into research into ultracapacitors or new battery
technologies to begin with.

nate

"N8N" > wrote in news:1118946704.217373.164360
@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

>
>
> Dave Lister wrote:
>> (Matthew Russotto) wrote in news:h-
>> :
>>
>> > In article > ,
>> > Dave Lister > wrote:
>> (Matthew Russotto) wrote in
>> :
>> >>
>> >>> In article >,
>> >>> DTJ > wrote:
>> >>>>On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:06:01 -0500,
>> >>>>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>>> 2) An efficient method of transport
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>That already exists for other gases including propane.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>That is true, but those methods do not work well for hydrogen.
>> >>>>>Hydrogen leaks from everything, and causes metals to become
>> brittle.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>I have to believe that in spite of the fact that 90% of people
drive
>> >>>>like morons, our ingenuity could come up with a method to
transport
>> >>>>hydrogen if there were a potential profit.
>> >>>
>> >>> That's all you've got, a personal conviction that it can be done?
>> >>>
>> >>> What's the big advantage of hydrogen that gets people all excited
>> over
>> >>> it, despite the fact that there's no reason to believe it's more
>> >>> practical than any of a number of more developed options?
>> >>
>> >>The big advantage is it is simple to create from whatever handy
energy
>> >>source.
>> >
>> > So is methanol, and it's a heck of a lot easier to deal with.
>>
>> Nowhere near as simple.
>>
>> > Hydrogen isn't practical at the moment to create from "whatever
handy
>> > energy source";
>>
>> Of course it is. I can produce hydrogen wherever I have water and an
>> electric source.
>>
>
> And that electricity comes from....?

From whatever you want. Coal, nuke, wind, solar, etc. The goal is to
deliver a fuel, not neccesarily to get it in a lossless way.

> By the time you convert electricity/water to hydrogen and then the
> hydrogen back to electricity, you would have been better off just to
> invest a little more into research into ultracapacitors or new battery
> technologies to begin with.

Battery technology has been going nowhere much for years now. Changes
are incremental.

--
Republican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick

Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time

Dave Lister wrote:
> "N8N" > wrote in news:1118946704.217373.164360
> @g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>>
>>Dave Lister wrote:
>>
(Matthew Russotto) wrote in news:h-
:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article > ,
>>>>Dave Lister > wrote:
>>>>
(Matthew Russotto) wrote in
:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article >,
>>>>>>DTJ > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:06:01 -0500,
>>>>>>>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>2) An efficient method of transport
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>That already exists for other gases including propane.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That is true, but those methods do not work well for hydrogen.
>>>>>>>>Hydrogen leaks from everything, and causes metals to become
>>>
>>>brittle.
>>>
>>>>>>>I have to believe that in spite of the fact that 90% of people
>
> drive
>
>>>>>>>like morons, our ingenuity could come up with a method to
>
> transport
>
>>>>>>>hydrogen if there were a potential profit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's all you've got, a personal conviction that it can be done?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What's the big advantage of hydrogen that gets people all excited
>>>
>>>over
>>>
>>>>>>it, despite the fact that there's no reason to believe it's more
>>>>>>practical than any of a number of more developed options?
>>>>>
>>>>>The big advantage is it is simple to create from whatever handy
>
> energy
>
>>>>>source.
>>>>
>>>>So is methanol, and it's a heck of a lot easier to deal with.
>>>
>>>Nowhere near as simple.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hydrogen isn't practical at the moment to create from "whatever
>
> handy
>
>>>>energy source";
>>>
>>>Of course it is. I can produce hydrogen wherever I have water and an
>>>electric source.
>>>
>>
>>And that electricity comes from....?
>
>
> From whatever you want. Coal, nuke, wind, solar, etc. The goal is to
> deliver a fuel, not neccesarily to get it in a lossless way.

No, the goal is to deliver *energy* to the wheels of a car with the
least loss possible; preferably also using the least amount of fossil
fuels as possible along the way.

>
>
>>By the time you convert electricity/water to hydrogen and then the
>>hydrogen back to electricity, you would have been better off just to
>>invest a little more into research into ultracapacitors or new battery
>>technologies to begin with.
>
>
> Battery technology has been going nowhere much for years now. Changes
> are incremental.
>

Still is happening faster than the improvements in the process of
cracking water apart...

I don't have the numbers handy; but I'd be willing to bet that it takes
as much or more fossil fuel to crack water for hydrogen than it does to
just dump it in the fuel tank of your car. Never mind that burning
gas/Diesel is well proven technology; H2 fuel cells are not, and a H2
powered IC engine offers no significant efficiency advantages over a
gas/Diesel engine.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Nate Nagel > wrote in
news:1118957668.dce53718f03322e0735fa07accce893c@t eranews:

> Dave Lister wrote:
>> "N8N" > wrote in news:1118946704.217373.164360
>> @g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Dave Lister wrote:
>>>
(Matthew Russotto) wrote in news:h-
:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article > ,
>>>>>Dave Lister > wrote:
>>>>>
(Matthew Russotto) wrote in
:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article >,
>>>>>>>DTJ > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:06:01 -0500,
>>>>>>>>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>2) An efficient method of transport
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>That already exists for other gases including propane.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>That is true, but those methods do not work well for hydrogen.
>>>>>>>>>Hydrogen leaks from everything, and causes metals to become
>>>>
>>>>brittle.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>I have to believe that in spite of the fact that 90% of people
>>
>> drive
>>
>>>>>>>>like morons, our ingenuity could come up with a method to
>>
>> transport
>>
>>>>>>>>hydrogen if there were a potential profit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That's all you've got, a personal conviction that it can be done?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What's the big advantage of hydrogen that gets people all excited
>>>>
>>>>over
>>>>
>>>>>>>it, despite the fact that there's no reason to believe it's more
>>>>>>>practical than any of a number of more developed options?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The big advantage is it is simple to create from whatever handy
>>
>> energy
>>
>>>>>>source.
>>>>>
>>>>>So is methanol, and it's a heck of a lot easier to deal with.
>>>>
>>>>Nowhere near as simple.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hydrogen isn't practical at the moment to create from "whatever
>>
>> handy
>>
>>>>>energy source";
>>>>
>>>>Of course it is. I can produce hydrogen wherever I have water and an
>>>>electric source.
>>>>
>>>
>>>And that electricity comes from....?
>>
>>
>> From whatever you want. Coal, nuke, wind, solar, etc. The goal is to
>> deliver a fuel, not neccesarily to get it in a lossless way.
>
> No, the goal is to deliver *energy* to the wheels of a car with the
> least loss possible; preferably also using the least amount of fossil
> fuels as possible along the way.

It may not be a car. It may be something else. In any case you state a
trite truth.

>> Battery technology has been going nowhere much for years now. Changes
>> are incremental.
>
> Still is happening faster than the improvements in the process of
> cracking water apart...

Not really, no. Battery tech is pretty much stalled at an efficiency far
below hydrogen burning.

> I don't have the numbers handy; but I'd be willing to bet that it
takes
> as much or more fossil fuel to crack water for hydrogen than it does
to
> just dump it in the fuel tank of your car. Never mind that burning
> gas/Diesel is well proven technology; H2 fuel cells are not, and a H2
> powered IC engine offers no significant efficiency advantages over a
> gas/Diesel engine.

Hard to dump coal, nukes, wind, water, and solar into the gas tank,
wouldn't you say?

The advantage is that it doesn't need to use gas/diesel. Do keep up.

--
Republican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick

Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time

> Battery technology has been going nowhere much for years now. Changes
> are incremental.
>

Besides which, what is easier to do . . . change hundreds of pounds of
batteries or refill a tank of hydrogen? -Dave

Dave Lister wrote:
> Nate Nagel > wrote in
> news:1118957668.dce53718f03322e0735fa07accce893c@t eranews:
>
>
>>Dave Lister wrote:
>>
>>>"N8N" > wrote in news:1118946704.217373.164360
:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dave Lister wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
(Matthew Russotto) wrote in news:h-
:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article > ,
>>>>>>Dave Lister > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
(Matthew Russotto) wrote in
:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In article >,
>>>>>>>>DTJ > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 10:06:01 -0500,
>>>>>>>>>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>2) An efficient method of transport
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>That already exists for other gases including propane.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>That is true, but those methods do not work well for hydrogen.
>>>>>>>>>>Hydrogen leaks from everything, and causes metals to become
>>>>>
>>>>>brittle.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I have to believe that in spite of the fact that 90% of people
>>>
>>>drive
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>like morons, our ingenuity could come up with a method to
>>>
>>>transport
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>hydrogen if there were a potential profit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That's all you've got, a personal conviction that it can be done?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What's the big advantage of hydrogen that gets people all excited
>>>>>
>>>>>over
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>it, despite the fact that there's no reason to believe it's more
>>>>>>>>practical than any of a number of more developed options?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The big advantage is it is simple to create from whatever handy
>>>
>>>energy
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>source.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So is methanol, and it's a heck of a lot easier to deal with.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nowhere near as simple.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Hydrogen isn't practical at the moment to create from "whatever
>>>
>>>handy
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>energy source";
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course it is. I can produce hydrogen wherever I have water and an
>>>>>electric source.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And that electricity comes from....?
>>>
>>>
>>>From whatever you want. Coal, nuke, wind, solar, etc. The goal is to
>>>deliver a fuel, not neccesarily to get it in a lossless way.
>>
>>No, the goal is to deliver *energy* to the wheels of a car with the
>>least loss possible; preferably also using the least amount of fossil
>>fuels as possible along the way.
>
>
> It may not be a car. It may be something else. In any case you state a
> trite truth.

A truth nonetheless...

>
>
>>>Battery technology has been going nowhere much for years now. Changes
>>>are incremental.
>>
>>Still is happening faster than the improvements in the process of
>>cracking water apart...
>
>
> Not really, no. Battery tech is pretty much stalled at an efficiency far
> below hydrogen burning.

However, there is no *theoretical* limit to the energy density of a
battery or ultracapacitor as there is for any physical fuel. Why we're
not dumping more resources there I don't honestly know.

>
>
>>I don't have the numbers handy; but I'd be willing to bet that it
>
> takes
>
>>as much or more fossil fuel to crack water for hydrogen than it does
>
> to
>
>>just dump it in the fuel tank of your car. Never mind that burning
>>gas/Diesel is well proven technology; H2 fuel cells are not, and a H2
>>powered IC engine offers no significant efficiency advantages over a
>>gas/Diesel engine.
>
>
> Hard to dump coal, nukes, wind, water, and solar into the gas tank,
> wouldn't you say?

Coal is also a fossil fuel. Nuclear power is politically a no-go. The
other three really don't have the potential to fill the void caused by a
discontinuance of the use of fossil fuels. And any electrical power
source used for cracking water could just as easly be used to recharge a
fully electric vehicle. Let's face it; electricity is a really neat,
clean, easy to move source of power compared to any fuel.

>
> The advantage is that it doesn't need to use gas/diesel. Do keep up.
>

That's an advantage?

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel