SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Wharf Rat who wrote (186319)5/8/2006 6:39:41 PM
From: Hawkmoon  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
Hydrogen isn't a source of energy. It's a carrier.

Did I say that it wasn't? It all depends upon your definition.

Afterall, I can't burn crude oil in my vehicle. The hydro-carbon molecules have to broken down to the particular fraction that I require (gasoline or diesel). That takes heat and pressure, which requires energy.

And if the experts can be believed, the production of oil is not keeping pace with the demand from the global economy.

And if you had paid attention, I stated that development of nuclear power was a prerequisite for a hydrogen economy. So I'm wondering if we're talking past one another?

And what is nuclear energy, but a process of converting one form of energy into another one?

And minus the risky venture of mining frozen methane hydrates (which I don't recommend) from the ocean floors, nuclear is the only source of energy that can be readily converted into a form we can use (electricity and then into hydrogen).

As your own statistics showed, nuclear renders a 4:1 conversion efficiency as CURRENTLY stands. This ratio can go even higher in the proper regulatory environment, IMO.

But once hydrogen is produced, it has a GREATER EFFICIENCY of combustion to fossil fuels. Upwards of 80% efficiency to, I believe, 35% for gasoline.

And it's only emmission is water.. No carbon monoxides.. no carbon dioxide.. no methane..

Hawk