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

In article > ,
Dave Lister > wrote:

> Alan Baker > wrote in
> :
>
> > In article > ,
> > Dave Lister > wrote:
> >
> >> (Matthew Russotto) wrote in
> >> :
> >>
> >> > Let's see, in that category, we need
> >> >
> >> > 1) An efficient method of hydrogen production (not from fossil
> >> > fuels)
> >>
> >> Why? Coal would be a good short term source for the energy needed.
> >> Solar, nukes, wind and others longer term.
> >>
> >> > 2) An efficient method of transport
> >>
> >> That already exists for other gases including propane.
> >>
> >> > 3) Several efficient methods of storage (large scale and small
> >> > scale)
> >>
> >> Already there.
> >>
> >> > 4) An efficient and pollution-free means of using the hydrogen
> >>
> >> Hydrogen by definition is pollution free at the users end. Clearly
> >> the production pollution depends on where we get the energy.
> >
> > No, it's not. But used as fuel for a fuel cell, it is.
>
> Yes, it is if burned properly.

Describe this proper burning which doesn't produce any NOx...

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

In article > ,
Dave Lister > wrote:
(Matthew Russotto) wrote in
:
>
>> Let's see, in that category, we need
>>
>> 1) An efficient method of hydrogen production (not from fossil fuels)
>
>Why? Coal would be a good short term source for the energy needed. Solar,
>nukes, wind and others longer term.

Coal works, but it's high-polluting from the mine to gasification.
And of course it's fossil.

>> 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.

>> 3) Several efficient methods of storage (large scale and small scale)
>
>Already there.

Not that I've seen.

>> 4) An efficient and pollution-free means of using the hydrogen
>
>Hydrogen by definition is pollution free at the users end.

Not true; you need a practical mobile fuel cell. Not quite there yet.

>Clearly the
>production pollution depends on where we get the energy.
>
>> In other words, hydrogen requires completely new technology from start
>> to finish.
>
>Crapola.

Overstatement, perhaps; the technology isn't _completely_ new.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

Alan Baker > wrote in news:alangbaker-
:

> In article > ,
> Dave Lister > wrote:
>
>> Alan Baker > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > In article > ,
>> > Dave Lister > wrote:
>> >
>> >> (Matthew Russotto) wrote in
>> >> :
>> >>
>> >> > Let's see, in that category, we need
>> >> >
>> >> > 1) An efficient method of hydrogen production (not from fossil
>> >> > fuels)
>> >>
>> >> Why? Coal would be a good short term source for the energy needed.
>> >> Solar, nukes, wind and others longer term.
>> >>
>> >> > 2) An efficient method of transport
>> >>
>> >> That already exists for other gases including propane.
>> >>
>> >> > 3) Several efficient methods of storage (large scale and small
>> >> > scale)
>> >>
>> >> Already there.
>> >>
>> >> > 4) An efficient and pollution-free means of using the hydrogen
>> >>
>> >> Hydrogen by definition is pollution free at the users end. Clearly
>> >> the production pollution depends on where we get the energy.
>> >
>> > No, it's not. But used as fuel for a fuel cell, it is.
>>
>> Yes, it is if burned properly.
>
> Describe this proper burning which doesn't produce any NOx...

http://www.newsroom.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/display.cgi?id=182

--
Republican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick

Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time

(Matthew Russotto) wrote in
:


> Not true; you need a practical mobile fuel cell. Not quite there yet.

http://www.newsroom.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/display.cgi?id=182

--
Republican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick

Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time

In article > ,
Dave Lister > wrote:
(Matthew Russotto) wrote in
:
>
>
>> Not true; you need a practical mobile fuel cell. Not quite there yet.
>
>http://www.newsroom.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/display.cgi?id=182

Full of words like "research", "seeking to develop", "investigate",
etc.

Like I said, not quite there yet.

Anyway, this article is on reducing NOx formation by reducing
combustion temperatures. That necessarily reduces the efficiency of
the engine.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article > ,
Dave Lister > wrote:

> Alan Baker > wrote in news:alangbaker-
> :
>
> > In article > ,
> > Dave Lister > wrote:
> >
> >> Alan Baker > wrote in
> >> :
> >>
> >> > In article > ,
> >> > Dave Lister > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> (Matthew Russotto) wrote in
> >> >> :
> >> >>
> >> >> > Let's see, in that category, we need
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 1) An efficient method of hydrogen production (not from fossil
> >> >> > fuels)
> >> >>
> >> >> Why? Coal would be a good short term source for the energy needed.
> >> >> Solar, nukes, wind and others longer term.
> >> >>
> >> >> > 2) An efficient method of transport
> >> >>
> >> >> That already exists for other gases including propane.
> >> >>
> >> >> > 3) Several efficient methods of storage (large scale and small
> >> >> > scale)
> >> >>
> >> >> Already there.
> >> >>
> >> >> > 4) An efficient and pollution-free means of using the hydrogen
> >> >>
> >> >> Hydrogen by definition is pollution free at the users end. Clearly
> >> >> the production pollution depends on where we get the energy.
> >> >
> >> > No, it's not. But used as fuel for a fuel cell, it is.
> >>
> >> Yes, it is if burned properly.
> >
> > Describe this proper burning which doesn't produce any NOx...
>
> http://www.newsroom.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/display.cgi?id=182

Apparently you didn't read it:

"'The formation of NOx also occurs when you burn gasoline,' explains
Heffel. 'But in the case of hydrogen we have a wide flammability range
and, therefore, the engine can be tuned to have a lower combustion
temperature. This in turn results in lower NOx emissions.'"

"Lower NOx emissions", not *no* NOx emissions.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Alan Baker > wrote in news:alangbaker-
:

> In article > ,
> Dave Lister > wrote:
>
>> Alan Baker > wrote in news:alangbaker-
>> :
>>
>> > In article > ,
>> > Dave Lister > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Alan Baker > wrote in
>> >> :
>> >>
>> >> > In article > ,
>> >> > Dave Lister > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> (Matthew Russotto) wrote in
>> >> >> :
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Let's see, in that category, we need
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > 1) An efficient method of hydrogen production (not from
fossil
>> >> >> > fuels)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Why? Coal would be a good short term source for the energy
needed.
>> >> >> Solar, nukes, wind and others longer term.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > 2) An efficient method of transport
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That already exists for other gases including propane.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > 3) Several efficient methods of storage (large scale and
small
>> >> >> > scale)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Already there.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > 4) An efficient and pollution-free means of using the
hydrogen
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hydrogen by definition is pollution free at the users end.
Clearly
>> >> >> the production pollution depends on where we get the energy.
>> >> >
>> >> > No, it's not. But used as fuel for a fuel cell, it is.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, it is if burned properly.
>> >
>> > Describe this proper burning which doesn't produce any NOx...
>>
>> http://www.newsroom.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/display.cgi?id=182
>
> Apparently you didn't read it:
>
> "'The formation of NOx also occurs when you burn gasoline,' explains
> Heffel. 'But in the case of hydrogen we have a wide flammability range
> and, therefore, the engine can be tuned to have a lower combustion
> temperature. This in turn results in lower NOx emissions.'"
>
> "Lower NOx emissions", not *no* NOx emissions.

Apparently you didn't read it, where it says that the emissions can be
reduced to the normal background level.



--
Republican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick

Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time

"Alan Baker" > wrote
> "'The formation of NOx also occurs when you burn gasoline,' explains
> Heffel. 'But in the case of hydrogen we have a wide flammability range
> and, therefore, the engine can be tuned to have a lower combustion
> temperature. This in turn results in lower NOx emissions.'"

Lower combustion temp == lower efficiency. Sorry, you lose.

Floyd

"fbloogyudsr" > wrote in news:11b0t9to28meu75
@corp.supernews.com:

> "Alan Baker" > wrote
>> "'The formation of NOx also occurs when you burn gasoline,' explains
>> Heffel. 'But in the case of hydrogen we have a wide flammability range
>> and, therefore, the engine can be tuned to have a lower combustion
>> temperature. This in turn results in lower NOx emissions.'"
>
> Lower combustion temp == lower efficiency. Sorry, you lose.

"Lose"? I dont think so. These problems are minor.

--
Republican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick

Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time

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.