Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Oak Tree who wrote (160897)	7/14/2001 9:19:10 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

oak >>>> hydrogen, there is plenty of it in water ,it is easily made from water lots of ways. Well there is plenty in water, but the oxygen really likes it and does not give it up easily. So I guess I don't understand your easily. tom watson tosiwmee

To: Oak Tree who wrote (160897)	7/15/2001 9:59:58 AM
From: Bicycle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

I'm not claiming any expertise in either fuel cell or internal combustion power. I posted the widely accepted assumption that fuel cells produce less emissions, not that they converted chemical energy into mechanical work any more efficiently, although when one considers the heat discharged through exhaust pipes and radiators, questioning this seems appropriate. One common method of producing Hydrogen requires electricity. If this electricity is produced through nuclear fission or falling water, air pollution should be reduced. If it is produced through burning coal to generate steam or petroleum powered diesel engines to turn alternators, then I cannot see tremendous advantages. Sure, a centrally located, massive, electrical station could have less environmental impact than many tiny internal combustion engines in vehicles, but is the improvement worth the cost? Bye4Now, FD.