A hamster on a wheel can also produce a miniscule amount of energy. The key is how efficient and practical the process is.

In fact, you can get a miniscule amount of energy out of a lemon by inserting two rods of different metals in it (try copper and zinc). This forms a batter.

Still, I would not suggest putting a series of hamster cages in the truck, or hauling a bushel of lemons wherever you go.

L. Ron

Seriously, though, I used to be a hydrogen supporter until I put some thought into the practical problems associated with it.

It can still have a use, but not as a general purpose fuel. Nuclear power plants are best when run continuously at close to full capacity. During times of low usage, you can simply go into hydrogen production mode. Hydrogen then becomes a type of battery. The power plant would then have a hydrogen geerator that would be tunred on during peak times.

For cars of the future, I think the first step is o make the primary drive system electric, like you have in train engines. In that way, the methodology for electrical generation is up to the user and application.

A small compact commuters car could be purely electrical and derive it’s power from Nuclear sources. A family car occassionally used for long hauls could have a gas tank and a conventional electric generator to extend range to eliminate charging cycles (or even a small LPG cylinder and a modern fuel cell for the same purpose). A constantly moving delivery van could have a hefty generator and large fuel tank and run more like a diesl electric locomotive.

In the end, however, fossil fuels would have their place. They are just too perfect for transportation.

I am not against using hydrogen for some purpose. But it is not a SOURCE of energy.

In honor of good wit, I am happy to set aside substance to another day and concede Match.

While it may be comforting to cling to standard models, innovation naturally proceeds from the curious, replacing model after model.

So, it is really never too early to write off anything other than absolute certainty.

I had fired chicken for lunch, so the “big oil” in me is REALLY talking.

It’s not the 18th century, but it’s close … De la Terre à la Lune (1865) … where Jules Verne wroe about a trip to the moon.

MIT scientists still and never will be able to overcome the laws of thermodynamics. Water is the end product of combustion, to go from that to hydrogen and back to water yields at best 0 energy, for a 100% efficient process.

If you are goingto use sunlight to make hydrogen,you might as well turn it into electricty or heat directly.

So, it is really never to early to write of Hydrogen.

Sonny did.

Just a thought.

Hydrogen is not a source of energy. All hydrogen is locked up and requires energy to unlock it. Water is the waste product of combustion of Hydrogen. That means all the energy that is released when you burn hydrogen needs to be put into water to make the hydrogen in the first place.

In short, you already have to have some other energy source to provide the energy, and hydrogen is only an energy transport mechanism.

Hydrogen is also extremely dangerous. One might reference the Hindenburg explosion, or the Challenger explosion to see it in action. Compared to the extreme explosiveness of hydrogen, gasoline or diesel is harmless.

Hydrogen also has a low energy density. Meaning for its volume, it provides a lot less energy. This means you have to take more along. If you take it in the form of a liquid that means cryogenic fuel tanks that have to be reinforced to survive collisions. This is completely impractical.

I wouldn’t invest in Hydrogen as the next energy source.

And, no, Atlanta cannot have water out of our beautiful Savannah River.

I personally don’t think Sonny will suspend the gas tax again. He might however, suspend the gas tax at marinas operating on lakes that have good bass fishing. Does that qualify as economic development and tax breaks under our current definition?

It’s all about physics and chemistry. You can only get so much energy out various forms of fuel. Solid and chemical fuels hold huge amounts of energy for their weight and volume, that they are pretty much the best for mobile applications. Since solid fuels do not flow, that only leaves liquid fuels for modern applications.

Batteries can store energy, but they will never be able to store as much energy as a gas tank. Plus, there is a significant charge time when you run out of power.

There are several options for weening us off of foreign energy though, and the most viable is coal liquefaction, and replacing the use of coal in electrical generation with nuclear.

America would then be 100% independent in its energy needs for at least 300 years.