Big Dog's Boom Boom Room Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: tom pope who wrote (94437)	12/8/2007 2:21:13 PM
From: ChanceIs	Read Replies (1) of 206184

>>>Overall, there is about a 60% energy loss in this process.<<< You are going to do a lot of psychological damage through fantasy destruction to millions of witless Greens. I have always been disturbed by the notion that hydrogen is even being discussed. IOW I think it is laughable: 1) The energy balance isn't, hasn't, and never will be there. Ken Deffeyes in Beyond Oil relates that the Norwegians (?) (a north European country with beaucoup hydro (falling water) power) investigagted this throughly in the 1920s. There are severe limitations of the end to end energy efficiency. This isn't rocket science. If we threw $10 billion at it we might raise the process efficiency by 1% - special materials, configurations, etc. 2) The infrastructure to transport hydrogen isn't there. 3) Hydrogen usually requires special materials to use - platinum, etc. Inefficient capital allocation IMO for cars to have lots of precious metals. Also questionable energy utilization in the manufacture and transport of the basic materials. The only advantage to hydrogen that I see is that electricity comes out w/o any NOX gases. I never thought that NOX was especially bad as opposed to SO2 gas.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next