On 6/26/2010 12:57 PM, George wrote:
> On 6/26/2010 11:13 AM, Dan Abel wrote:
>> In >,
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/25/2010 8:27 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>>> I think that in the long run efficiency will be sacrificed for utility
>>>> and they'll just make and burn hydrogen, which eliminates all of the
>>>> shortcomings of battery electrics and with a suitable carburetor works
>>>> fine in conventional gasoline engines besides.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Where will we get the hydrogen from? The usual method is electrolysis of
>>> water. The oxygen-hydrogen bond is strong and takes energy we will get
>>> from where to break it?
>>
>> Where do you get "usual method is electrolysis of water"? I have never
>> heard anybody knowledgeable propose that. Even the theoretical
>> percentage of efficiency is low. And then where do you get the
>> electricity? Many methods don't have that high of efficiency.
>
>
> Currently that is pretty much the major way to produce hydrogen. And you
> did echo my comment about where would you get the electricity.
>
>>
>> Under the leadership of our former President, George Bush II, the US
>> Federal Government allocated billions of dollars in basic R&D grants for
>> the production of hydrogen. All of this money went to the oil and gas
>> companies, since the plan only involved the use of fossil fuels! Now,
>> present internal combustion engines work fine with any fossil fuel. A
>> gasoline engine can work fine, without modification, for CNG (compressed
>> natural gas) or LPG (propane). You'll need a new gas tank and fuel
>> injector. This is existing technology. I drove a propane forklift 40
>> years ago. You can even have a dual fuel car. In fact, natural gas
>> cars are in production in the US:
>>
> But none of this implies higher efficiency. It is just a lets burn up
> something else thing.

Nobody is suggesting that hydrogen is efficient, only that it's more
convenient than the alternatives.
>
>
>> http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-gx/
>>
>