Making hydrogen from fossil fuels is just a profiteering concept from the
oil lobbies, which dominate US politics. The method generally espoused is by
running electricity through water, splitting it into hydrogen and oxygen --
simple as that. Plenty of water about. Where the electricity comes from is
more iffy. If it comes from coal-burning plants, there is a problem, carbon
and emissions-wise. Though one can argue that is is cheaper and simpler to
control and regulate stationary sources, like power plants. And anyway, coal
(or nuclear, or hydropower) is not a suitable fuel for vehicles, so
converting it to electricity (also not very suitable) and then into
hydrogen, is arguably appropriate. But converting petroleum directly into
hydrogen is laughably inefficient, and could only be considered by a
thoroughly corrupt and cynical administration with ties to oil interests.
Sound familiar?
on 6/23/05 12:23 PM, Barrie Robinson at barrie@look.ca wrote:
> It puzzles me this hydrogen thing. I presume one has to make the hydrogen
> in some oil/gas/coal plant as I know of no hydrogen deposits. The question
> is how efficient is this? We take oil/gas/coal and burn it to produce
> hydrogen - which we then burn. I cannot remember my university
> thermodynamics lectures but something in the order of a 30% loss would seem
> reasonable. Thus we are losing - not saving resources -or am I out to
> the proverbial lunch. Also we have not avoided pollution - just
> concentrated it at a few spots ( beware the "not in my back yard...."
> syndrome).
> Why the hell don't we just jack up license fees out of all proportion
> (pollution and resources consumption tax!) for those stupid 4x4s, SUVs, and
> personal trucks? But then I am biased because my Golf bears scars on
> every bumper from SUVs being driven by women (and very often men) who have
> to fight the wheel to manoeuvre in the shopping mall car park.
>
--
Max Heim
'66 MGB GHN3L76149
If you're near Mountain View, CA,
it's the primer red one with chrome wires
|