As a Hebron, it is Normal for you to ignore prior postings by this poster, As such I have nothing to prove...
My systems work fine, The Communist Canadian System is 100% relient upon Americans inventing it and sharing the secrets with you...
That is a wrong assumption on your part...
I manufactur, YOU BUY...
GOOD LUCK, WE REQUIRE 100% of your money and Hefe Bushco will take it from you... (-;
Fuel is a way of storing and moving energy. Hydrogen of it's self is a very poor fuel source.
The production of hydrogen from sources other than hydrocarbons is a very energy intensive operation. Iceland has a large amount of energy they can capture compaired to their population. This makes the very energy intensive operation of hydrogen conversion economic for them.
In places that do not have access to the same cheap energy sources it becomes highly uneconomic to produce hydrogen. I have hope for technology in GE bacteria, but I'm not going to count that chicken till it hatches.
The people that will control the hydrogen supply will screw you over like those that currently control the oil supply...
Actually hydrogen is very economical to produce. First you have to do some research to discover what methods are already available to produce hydrogen. Then you have to de-brainwash yourself so that you are capable of thinking outside the box.
One method is to construct windmills in places where there is abundant wind and water. Use the electricity generated by the water to split water into hydrogen and oxygen.
The best part about burning hydrogen is that only heat and water are created.This is a regenerative resource ie. when you burn it you get back what you made it from.
Perhaps you would care to explain the relationship, or lack thereof, that my run down of the hydrogen cycle and the laws of thermodynamics have.
C.M. Burns
How about Coal Gasification 'til the Hydrogen technology catches up? WW-2 Germany fueled 50% or 80% (forgot which) of their needs that way and N.America has a 200 year supply.
-Its bio-degradable so a spill is not such a big deal.
-Proven technology and doesn't impinge a food source.
-Better performing in Jet Engines.
That & Nuclear would stop the need for dealing with those that hate us.
From a purely theoretical stance, hydrogen is not zero emmisions despite the conversion of hydrogen to water----unless the engine is also fueled with pure oxygen. Atmospheric air in a cumbustion chamber/cylinder produces NOX which is SMOG!
I knew what he meant, Dr C. I wanted him to state it for the record. I never said you get more energy back than you put into the equation.
We don't need to use hydrogen in a fuel cell, we can burn it in a regular gas converted engine. The major drawback is that it takes more space to store an energy equivalent amount of hydrogen than it does propane or methane or gasoline. But so what, the benefits to us all far outweigh this because we would have to overhaul our corrupt economic systems to reflect the fact that our fuel source was not finite. It is a regenerative resource and the amount of water split is the amount of water reproduced when the hydrogen is burnt. If we use windmills, wind being another regenerative resource, then the electrical energy used to split the water is also not finite.
The decrease in chemical pollution is as immense a benefit as the decrease in
mental pollution would be.
Unless hydrogen is utilized in a fuel cell, NOX is one of the resulting emmisions----=SMOG.
Smog is composed of more than NOx. The test results I have seen said that the air coming out of the tailpipe of a hydrogen burning vehicle is cleaner than the air going in to the engine.