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?

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 01:47:40 +0000, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Natural gas is not plentiful. Not a great idea.

It's more plentiful than gas.

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.

And, what do you have in mind?

Josh Hill wrote:

So burn cheap hydrogen.

Where do you get it?

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.)

The simple fact of the matter is that gasoline and diesel engines will continue to be
used for motive power for many hundreds of years.

They're simply unbeatably convenient to use in so many applications. They will
increasingly be complemented by other methods of course.

Graham


When I was 20 years old I have seen small ICE for airplane models. Now I

Dan Bloomquist 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.

And, what do you have in mind?

The simple fact of the matter is that gasoline and diesel engines will continue to be
used for motive power for many hundreds of years.

They're simply unbeatably convenient to use in so many applications. They will
increasingly be complemented by other methods of course.

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

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

And, what do you have in mind?

The simple fact of the matter is that gasoline and diesel engines will continue to be
used for motive power for many hundreds of years.

They're simply unbeatably convenient to use in so many applications. They will
increasingly be complemented by other methods of course.

I think you're drastically overestimating their longevity. Carbon
limits are coming, oil supplies are dwindling,

they're dirty, noisy, and complex,

and they're showing signs of end-game obsolescence --
hybrids, increasingly complex systems, etc. Once the storage problem
is solved, electric motors will come into their own, and that doesn't
appear to be too far away.

Josh Hill wrote:

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

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

And, what do you have in mind?

The simple fact of the matter is that gasoline and diesel engines will continue to be
used for motive power for many hundreds of years.

They're simply unbeatably convenient to use in so many applications. They will
increasingly be complemented by other methods of course.

I think you're drastically overestimating their longevity. Carbon
limits are coming, oil supplies are dwindling,

Really ? Do tell more.

they're dirty, noisy, and complex,

They're not complex at all. Nor even particularly dirty.


and they're showing signs of end-game obsolescence --
hybrids, increasingly complex systems, etc. Once the storage problem
is solved, electric motors will come into their own, and that doesn't
appear to be too far away.

"Once the storage problem is solved" !!!!

Hmmm.....

Eeyore wrote:


The simple fact of the matter is that gasoline and diesel engines will
continue to be
used for motive power for many hundreds of years.

They're simply unbeatably convenient to use in so many applications.
They will
increasingly be complemented by other methods of course.

Graham


When I was 20 years old I have seen small ICE for airplane models. Now I
very often hear about battery powered airlane models. The same or
something similar can happen with cars....

I think...

Dude, if you don't know that we're running out of cheap oil...

How will you change your lifestyle when petrol costs £5/litre? (That's $36.95 per US
gallon.)

I'll buy a good PHEV with an electric range of 100km.

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

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

And, what do you have in mind?

The simple fact of the matter is that gasoline and diesel engines will continue to be
used for motive power for many hundreds of years.

They're simply unbeatably convenient to use in so many applications. They will
increasingly be complemented by other methods of course.

I think you're drastically overestimating their longevity. Carbon
limits are coming, oil supplies are dwindling,

Really ? Do tell more.

Dude, if you don't know that we're running out of cheap oil, you're on
another planet!

they're dirty, noisy, and complex,

They're not complex at all. Nor even particularly dirty.


and they're showing signs of end-game obsolescence --
hybrids, increasingly complex systems, etc. Once the storage problem
is solved, electric motors will come into their own, and that doesn't
appear to be too far away.

"Once the storage problem is solved" !!!!

Hmmm.....

Reminder: this is the twenty-/first/ century. We're already halfway
there.

Josh Hill wrote:

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

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

And, what do you have in mind?

The simple fact of the matter is that gasoline and diesel engines will continue to be
used for motive power for many hundreds of years.

They're simply unbeatably convenient to use in so many applications. They will
increasingly be complemented by other methods of course.

I think you're drastically overestimating their longevity. Carbon
limits are coming, oil supplies are dwindling,

Really ? Do tell more.

Dude, if you don't know that we're running out of cheap oil, you're on
another planet!

Where did I say cheap ?

they're dirty, noisy, and complex,

They're not complex at all. Nor even particularly dirty.


and they're showing signs of end-game obsolescence --
hybrids, increasingly complex systems, etc. Once the storage problem
is solved, electric motors will come into their own, and that doesn't
appear to be too far away.

"Once the storage problem is solved" !!!!

Hmmm.....

Reminder: this is the twenty-/first/ century. We're already halfway
there.

Hydrocarbon fuels are *very* lightweight and compact. A huge advantage.