Hi Greg, Thankyou for this input. Although I have a Diploma in
Physics I rue my ignorance in gaseous matters. Peter Bright Tasmania
--- In ClimateChangeAction@..., greg hopwood
<ghoppy9@...> wrote:
>
> I digress. IMO, hydrogen as motor fuel extracted via electrolysis of
hot brine from solar (thermal or PV), wind or geothermal electricity
sources is the only way many people will be able to continue using
private vehicles.
>
> Spliting hydrogen & oxygen from water requires a minmum of 1.7 volts
input, with a return of 1.23 volts.Thus 0.47 volts consumed. So can be
acheived through low voltage equipment if need be, or desired. Heat (of
the water) is a consequence rather than requirement of the process, but
does hasten the process considerably.
> While common knowledge, it's worth remembering water boils at 100
degrees C.
>
> Extracting petroleum and dieseline from crude oil via thermal cracking
requires heating to just below boiling point of 600 degrees C. This can
be acheived with gas burners [apparently new refineries are converting
to gas burners] but oil companies recieve electricity subsidies, so
prefer large electric resistors acting as thermal heater elements
instead. During California's 'power crisis' semi regular blackouts were
the norm, and the oil industry successfully lobbied the Californian
government to priorortise electicity supplies to refineries over all
other users.
>
> So the argument that hydrogen production requires huge volumes of
energy input is less so than for its contemporary rival (petrol/diesel).
And the argument that hydrogen production via water electrolysis is
dependent on reliable/guaranteed supplies of electricity, applies
equally [but in larger volumes] to the current generation of oil
refineries.
>
> Realisically Joe & Mary Blo won't be able to afford the $50,000+ base
model hydrogen fuel cell car.
> Current fuel cells contain platinum [which has gone from aprox $1,600
p/oz a few months ago to $2001 p/oz ATM]. Fuel cells will make perfect
replacements for petrol/diesel powered farm generators ect, but still
have poor power to weight ratio problems in transport applications [fuel
cell + batteries + electric motor = lots of weight]. I think converting
existing internal combustion engined vehicles to run on hydrogen just
like LPG/CNG conversions will be much more affordable. And negates
waiting a decade plus for the vehicle industry to tool up properly while
fuel cell vehicles to become mainstream.
> BMW and Mazda have both released internal combustion engined vehicles
which run on hydrogen or petrol interchangeably. BP and Shell already
both sell hydrogen (albeit yet on a small scale) for IC engined and fuel
cell powered vehicles.
>
> The way I see it hydrogen is the only clean, practicle and affordable
motor fuel option. And over time most of the [motorised] world will
adopt it through necessity.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Peter Bright hobart_elf@...
> To: ClimateChangeAction@...
> Sent: Sunday, 6 July, 2008 5:51:50 PM
> Subject: [ClimateChangeAction] Is solar hydrogen feasible?
>
>
> I thought solar hydrogen would be the best solution, but then I read
> this article again:
> http://www.thenewat lantis.com/ publications/ the-hydrogen- hoax
> <http://www.thenewat lantis.com/ publications/ the-hydrogen- hoax> I
> invite authoritive comment. Peter Bright Tasmania
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.
> www.yahoo7.com.au/mail
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]