On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 23:09:31 +0000 (UTC), "Nigel Kerr"
<nigel.kerr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:uincu1tco0kmb14qoh45vlu3htgcdgehqm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 22:57:14 +0000 (UTC), "Nigel Kerr"
>> <nigel.kerr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Bob P" <ctcboater@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> >news:OcaFf.10620$NS6.4049@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> ...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>To understand how these water-fuel systems work, it helps to begin
by
>> >> >>realizing that ordinary water is actually a "battery" containing
vast
>> >> >>amounts of energy. Water is H2O - two parts hydrogen combined with
>one
>> >> > part oxygen. And, as President Bush says, hydrogen is an
excellent
>> >fuel.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>The amount of energy in the water molecule is thus vast, and has
>> >> > absolutely nothing to do with the amount of energy it takes to
break
>> >down that
>> >> >>molecule. This is an extremely im****tant point, as so many people
-
>even
>> >> >>scientists - are unclear on this concept. And yet if we can find
an
>> >> >>economical means to break down the water molecule, our energy
>problems
>> >are
>> >> >>over.
>> >> More B.S.
>> >> ...
>> >>
>> >> Oxygen and Hydrogen combined as water are both at close to their
lowest
>> >> energy state. That's why water is so stable. The energy it takes
to
>> >> separate water into it's components just coincidentally happens to
be
>> >> the energy generated by hydrogen burning or combining in a fuel
cell.
>> >>
>> >> This is High-school-chemistry-level stuff.
>> >>
>> >> In other words, the only separating process that's valid here is the
>> >> separation of a sucker's money from the sucker.
>> >
>> >How much does solar energy cost?
>>
>> From a solar electric cell? It's pretty expensive and not competitive
>> in most cir***stances -- maybe 21-25 cents per kW-hr. (Anyone's
>> welcome to correct me on these and the other figures in this post --
>> I'm not an expert and I've found that they vary from source to
>> source.)
>>
>> OTOH, there are economical, non-polluting sources of electricity, such
>> as wind (maybe 5 cents per kW-hr), so we /can/ generate economical
>> hydrogen from water -- the estimates I've seen are usually about the
>> same as or a bit more than the cost of gasoline -- the hydrogen is an
>> excellent bargain if you take into account the economic effects of
>> burning oil and gas. And the hydrogen will burn nicely in a modified
>> internal combustion engine -- no need to wait for economical fuel
>> cells which are still some years away, no contribution to global
>> warming, no energy dependence on countries like Iran that want to kill
>> us.
>>
>> As far as I can tell, the reasons we aren't doing it now are a) lack
>> of infrastructure -- we'd have to build hydrogen filling stations; b)
>> limited range -- hydrogen ICE vehicles demonstrated by Ford get
>> something like 125 miles on a tank; c) money and pressure from the oil
>> and gas companies and countries like Saudi Arabia. It doesn't help
>> that the White House is being run by former oilmen; President Bush's
>> largest campaign contributor was Kenneth Lay of Enron fame, Condoleeza
>> Rice had an oil tanker named after her, and Dick Cheney still hasn't
>> told us the members of his oil advisory task force. And while the
>> President's personal intentions may be good, at least twice now, when
>> he promised to address global warming in the debates and when he spoke
>> about oil addiction in the State of the Union Address, the White House
>> has nullified his promises after he made them.
>>
>> --
>> Josh
>>
>> "Reade him, therefore; and againe, and againe: And if then you doe not
>like him,
>> surely you are in some manifest danger, not to understand him." -
Heminge
>and Condell
>
>Josh
>I have only just seen your last 2 posts drop in there seems to be some
>delays between the groups
>alt.autos.kitcars,alt.bio.technology,alt.current-affairs.muslims,alt.religio
>n,alt.solar.thermal,alt.technology,alt.technology.misc.
Not your news server's fault -- I haven't had much time lately & can
only get to Usenet every few days . . .
>25c per kWh for a photo cell seems to be a lot of money surely there is a
>high initial cost but they run for a long time.
True, but they do degrade with time and once the payback exceeds 10
years, most people don't want to make the investment. Also, there's a
hidden subsidy in many cases, because the power company is expected to
buy your excess power and fill in the gaps when the sun isn't ****ning,
but that power is intermittent so they still have to invest in the
power lines and much of the peak capacity and operating personnel
they'd need if you didn't have a grid-tied solar panel. (I say "much"
because sunny peak demand days are the hottest, so to some extent
solar panels can reduce the power company's peak requirements.)
Also, there are in many cases more efficient ways to use that same
solar energy, such as solar thermal, so unless someone really needs it
or can benefit economically -- forex, if they're so far off the grid
that it would be more expensive to run a power line -- I don't think
solar electric panels make much sense right now.
>I know it would be nice not to be dependant on Iran I well understand
that,
>but in order to stop use of oil they will have to use something similar
or
>nuclear power which is staring up a lot of crap now.
Very true, but the way I look at it, it's still the best option, if
we're a bit smart. There's a new generation of nuclear plants which
are safer than the old ones, and it seems to me that if we located
them in remote areas -- deserts, large farms, forested areas that
could provide timber or be used as nature preserves and for recreation
-- we could avoid most of the personal and economic risks from
accidents and terrorism. We can use geological storage of the spent
fuel -- not ideal, but probably less harmful to the environment than
global warming. And while nuclear proliferation is a problem, it seems
to me that the current situation, in which our oil dollars are
funneled to the likes of Al Qaeda and the world is faced with a choice
between a nuclear-armed Iran and the economic consequences of
embargoing the second-largest oil producer, is even worse.
One thing we could consider doing would be offering to run subsidized
plants for third world countries. We could at the same time reduce the
risks of proliferation and help out those who are least equipped to
end their reliance on fossil fuel.
>Here in the UK we would have no chance with solar power and as for wind
not
>so many people like those noisy things about. I believe the next place
they
>are going the use wind turbines is out at sea.
I think wind farms should be used in isolated areas, just like nuclear
power plants. That of course is easier here than it is in the UK, but
the sea seems a good choice -- I imagine there's more than enough
wind!
Main problem with wind power is that it's intermittent, so it can't
really serve as a primary power source, though it would be great for
producing hydrogen.
>So for the UK all solar solutions would have to be taken care of abroad
>which is why I say Iraq or Iran etc.
That would I think be too far away to deliver solar power over
transmission lines. You could make hydrogen there, but I suspect there
are safer and more stable locations . . .
>Also much of Europe is being flooded with economic migrants just like you
>have from Mexico, but ours are from Iraq, Iran, and Eastern block
countries.
>So as far as Iran and Iraq etc goes if they had the stuff we would keep
>investing in their countries and hopefully keep their population over
there.
>Also if they don't have it they will continue to supply oil to third
world
>countries and maybe China who is using as much as they can get.
Thomas Friedman of the New York Times points out that the major oil
producing countries don't use oil money to develop their economies --
rather, the money sup****ts corrupt dictator****ps like the Saudi royal
family and Iran's ayatollahs who use it to buy the loyalty of their
people and suppress dissent.
China and the like would be a problem /unless/ the industrial world
refused to trade with countries that didn't adhere to strict carbon
emissions guidelines. Of course, we'd have to be willing to clean up
our own house first -- we currently spew a lot more carbon than they
do.
>I know what you mean with the water car about perpetual motion that was
my
>first reaction when I saw it over 10 years ago, but there are people who
>have spent a lot of time looking at this and still believe in it.
>It is very easy to just say it's impossible and they are all con men but
>many people have said this about stuff throughout history (yes and many
>times it was true but not all the time).
>http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2004/07/07/6900032_Earth2012_WaterCar/
>
>Until recently I was starting to believe the water car was just a myth
but
>now I see it was apparently true but how many car batteries they had in
the
>boot may never be known.
>
>Recent research in space has shown up large bodies of water entering the
>earth's atmosphere I have seen it on NASA video but where is it coming
from
>and why only to earth and not the moon?
>Also I am told water should va****ise in space when the sun hits it so how
is
>it getting here.
>So the only answer to me is it is from earth in the first place maybe
>escaping gas combining back into water then re-entering the atmosphere
but
>that has little to do with our subject just stating that there are
strange
>things about water even though we all take it for granted.
>
>Yes I know I am leaving my self open now for more smart arse comments
from
>others so go for it!
Heh, not really my style: each of us knows a lot less than what each
of us doesn't, and it seems to me that the only real sin is to refuse
to learn.
So I'll just say that it's impossible because it's not a matter of
technology -- it violates fundamental physical law. It would be like
having an animal that subsisted by eating itself. Engineers can make
machines that do amazing and improbable things, but those machines
work because they use of the laws of physics, not because they try to
violate them.
--
Josh
"Reade him, therefore; and againe, and againe: And if then you doe not
like him,
surely you are in some manifest danger, not to understand him." - Heminge
and Condell
|
