the electricity produced is also much less than the fuel put into the generation
process. Producing hydrogen this way is very inefficient.

Pluto wrote:

the electricity produced is also much less than the fuel put into the generation
process. Producing hydrogen this way is very inefficient.

Bald face lie. Less than five percent of coals heating value gets to the
wheels of a vehicle via the electrolysis vector.

Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Pluto wrote:

the electricity produced is also much less than the fuel put into the generation
process. Producing hydrogen this way is very inefficient.

Bald face lie. Less than five percent of coals heating value gets to the
wheels of a vehicle via the electrolysis vector.It wasn't a lie, it was spot on.

I think you misread it, expecting it to say something else. He's correctly pointing
out that electrolytically generated hydrogen returns about 1/4 x 1/3 of the total
input power to a conventional thermal power station. Burn that fuel in an ICE like
BMW's V12 and you get about 1/4 x 1/4 x 1/3 of the input energy. About 2% in fact !

Graham

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Pluto wrote:

the electricity produced is also much less than the fuel put into the generation
process. Producing hydrogen this way is very inefficient.

Bald face lie. Less than five percent of coals heating value gets to the
wheels of a vehicle via the electrolysis vector.It wasn't a lie, it was spot on.

I think you misread it, expecting it to say something else. He's correctly pointing
out that electrolytically generated hydrogen returns about 1/4 x 1/3 of the total
input power to a conventional thermal power station. Burn that fuel in an ICE like
BMW's V12 and you get about 1/4 x 1/4 x 1/3 of the input energy. About 2% in fact !

Internal combustion engines and drive trains are notoriously
inefficient no matter what fuel you burn in them.

kT wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Pluto wrote:

the electricity produced is also much less than the fuel put into the generation
process. Producing hydrogen this way is very inefficient.

Bald face lie. Less than five percent of coals heating value gets to the
wheels of a vehicle via the electrolysis vector.It wasn't a lie, it was spot on.

I think you misread it, expecting it to say something else. He's correctly pointing
out that electrolytically generated hydrogen returns about 1/4 x 1/3 of the total
input power to a conventional thermal power station. Burn that fuel in an ICE like
BMW's V12 and you get about 1/4 x 1/4 x 1/3 of the input energy. About 2% in fact !

Internal combustion engines and drive trains are notoriously
inefficient no matter what fuel you burn in them.

It is improving a bit actually ( diesels for automobiles may hit 40% efficiency some time
soon ) but it makes no sense whatever to burn expensive hydrogen in them.

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
kT wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Pluto wrote:

the electricity produced is also much less than the fuel put into the generation
process. Producing hydrogen this way is very inefficient.

Bald face lie. Less than five percent of coals heating value gets to the
wheels of a vehicle via the electrolysis vector.It wasn't a lie, it was spot on.

I think you misread it, expecting it to say something else. He's correctly pointing
out that electrolytically generated hydrogen returns about 1/4 x 1/3 of the total
input power to a conventional thermal power station. Burn that fuel in an ICE like
BMW's V12 and you get about 1/4 x 1/4 x 1/3 of the input energy. About 2% in >> > fact
!

Internal combustion engines and drive trains are notoriously
inefficient no matter what fuel you burn in them.

It is improving a bit actually ( diesels for automobiles may hit 40% efficiency some time
soon ) but it makes no sense whatever to burn expensive hydrogen in them.

So burn cheap hydrogen.

Josh Hill wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
kT wrote:
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Pluto wrote:

the electricity produced is also much less than the fuel put into the generation
process. Producing hydrogen this way is very inefficient.

Bald face lie. Less than five percent of coals heating value gets to the
wheels of a vehicle via the electrolysis vector.It wasn't a lie, it was spot on.

I think you misread it, expecting it to say something else. He's correctly pointing
out that electrolytically generated hydrogen returns about 1/4 x 1/3 of the total
input power to a conventional thermal power station. Burn that fuel in an ICE like
BMW's V12 and you get about 1/4 x 1/4 x 1/3 of the input energy. About 2% in >> > fact
!

Internal combustion engines and drive trains are notoriously
inefficient no matter what fuel you burn in them.

It is improving a bit actually ( diesels for automobiles may hit 40% efficiency some time
soon ) but it makes no sense whatever to burn expensive hydrogen in them.

So burn cheap hydrogen.

You're being silly. There's no such thing.

Are you familiar with the phrase "let them eat cake" ?

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
Josh Hill wrote:

So burn cheap hydrogen.

You're being silly. There's no such thing.

Are you familiar with the phrase "let them eat cake" ?

Question: why do you persist in ignoring the reference I've posted
here many times, which says that cost-competitive hydrogen can be
produced from coal or natural gas?

I haven't seen anyone come forward
with a reference or argument that contradicts it.

Josh Hill wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
Josh Hill wrote:

So burn cheap hydrogen.

You're being silly. There's no such thing.

Are you familiar with the phrase "let them eat cake" ?

Question: why do you persist in ignoring the reference I've posted
here many times, which says that cost-competitive hydrogen can be
produced from coal or natural gas?

Natural gas is not plentiful. Not a great idea.

I haven't seen anyone come forward
with a reference or argument that contradicts it.

Maybe they simply don't believe you?

How are you going to sequester the CO2 anyway?

End of the Road for Hydrogen

With climate change on everyone's mind and rumours of an energy crisis,
what could be
better than a car which doesn't run on fossil fuels and has no emissions
except water?
BMW's new Hydrogen 7 fits the bill. This is the V-12 BMW 7 modified to run
on hydrogen.
It has a petrol tank as well; it also runs on petrol, which is handy if
you are far from
the UK's only hydrogen filling station - one of only six in the world. Of
course, if
hydrogen catches on there will be filling stations all over the country,
won't there?

Hydrogen cars sound ideal, but there are practical problems. First, the
hydrogen tank
takes eight minutes to fill and it takes up most of the boot space. Even
then, the
hydrogen tank provides a range of only 125 miles. To get enough hydrogen
into the fuel
tank it has to be chilled and liquefied. Gradually it warms up and boils
away, so if you
don't use the car over the weekend you'll find less in the tank. Park up
at the airport
while you take your three-week holiday and when you get back it'll be
nearly empty.

The fact that the hydrogen has to boil off for safety reasons may be why
hydrogen
vehicles are illegal in France. Even over here you are advised not to park
the vehicle
in an enclosed car park. You cannot see hydrogen, you cannot smell it and
it burns with
an invisible flame. Like petrol vapour, when mixed with air it is highly
explosive. At
least you can smell petrol!

Where does hydrogen come from? It is either extracted from natural gas or
electrolysed
by passing a current through water. Extracting hydrogen from natural gas
leaves carbon
dioxide, which must be captured - otherwise the process produces as much
CO2 emissions
as if you had just burnt the gas. Electrolysis produces no CO2, but it
does produce a
lot of waste heat so the energy content of the hydrogen is significantly
less than the
energy of the electricity used. Electricity itself comes from coal, gas or
nuclear, and
the electricity produced is also much less than the fuel put into the
generation
process. Producing hydrogen this way is very inefficient.

All these factors make it very doubtful that hydrogen will be the fuel of
the future. As
we approach Peak Oil and petrol becomes more and more expensive, economies
and cutting
back on our travel will be the only solution.
How will you change your lifestyle when petrol costs £5/litre? (That's
$36.95 per US
gallon.)

Anthony Day

http://www.planetsave.com/ps_mambo/The_News/Feature_Articles/End_of_the_Road

Dan Bloomquist wrote:


Pluto wrote:


the electricity produced is also much less than the fuel put into the generation
process. Producing hydrogen this way is very inefficient.

Bald face lie. Less than five percent of coals heating value gets to the
wheels of a vehicle via the electrolysis vector.


It wasn't a lie, it was spot on.

I think you misread it, expecting it to say something else. He's correctly pointing
out that electrolytically generated hydrogen returns about 1/4 x 1/3 of the total
input power to a conventional thermal power station. Burn that fuel in an ICE like
BMW's V12 and you get about 1/4 x 1/4 x 1/3 of the input energy. About 2% in fact !

On Jan 26, 11:32 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com
wrote:

Dan Bloomquist wrote:

Pluto wrote:

the electricity produced is also much less than the fuel put into the generation
process. Producing hydrogen this way is very inefficient.

Bald face lie. Less than five percent of coals heating value gets to the
wheels of a vehicle via the electrolysis vector.It wasn't a lie, it was spot on.

I think you misread it, expecting it to say something else. He's correctly pointing
out that electrolytically generated hydrogen returns about 1/4 x 1/3 of the total
input power to a conventional thermal power station. Burn that fuel in an ICE like
BMW's V12 and you get about 1/4 x 1/4 x 1/3 of the input energy. About 2% in fact !


Internal combustion engines and drive trains are notoriously
inefficient no matter what fuel you burn in them.

So burn cheap hydrogen.

Josh Hill wrote:

So burn cheap hydrogen.

You're being silly.