http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0731143916.htm

I remain somewhat skeptical. This doesn't quite 'read right' and I'll be more impressed when a second group replicates their result. For reasons I can not explain, this reminds me of Pons and Fleischmann and cold fusion. Still, might as well post it here.

Bob Wilson

After April 3, use e-mail to contact me:

Even if it works..... the world has to find a way to produce millions/billions of tons of hydrogen each year... theres no way to dig the stuff up or drill for it so you make it from water....and that takes energy.....like fossil fuels

We are still going to be using fossil fuels, nukes, etc... it just might be able to be more efficient in a centralized location rather in our own little ICE powerplants.

I agree but there is something about this announcement that just doesn't sound right. Now if next year I have fuel-cell batteries for my laptop using methanol or ammonia, well I'll be convienced but I'm not holding my breath.

Bob Wilson

After April 3, use e-mail to contact me:

Actually you can make hydrogen from petroleum, natural gas or ethanol, or isn't that what you meant? Electrolysis isn't the only way to make hydrogen. If the fuel cells and electric cars are enough more efficient, it might even be a net win over IC engines, even making it from petroleum...

http://www.trnmag.com/Stories/2004/0...en_022504.html

Benton 31jul08

(At the risk of replying to my own post...)

I was tempted to add to the previous post that if you can find a way to make electrolysis more efficient 'the world will beat a path to your door.'

Then these pop up --

MIT claims 24/7 solar power
http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.j...956&cid=NL_eet

MIT develops way to bank solar energy at home
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsO...080731?sp=true

What they're claiming is a 'green' catalyst (the current best is apparently very un-green (*)) that retains the good efficiency. The 24/7 reference is that they're saying build the solar array larger than needed for daytime consumption, and electrolyze with the excess, then run the H2 and O through a fuel cell at night to continue making the needed electricity.

I was looking into home NG for car refueling a couple days ago, my curiosity having been piqued by some conversations on another forum. Looks like it'd cost a minimum of $17k to modify a car for 'bi-fuel' -- $12k-$20k for the car mods, plus $4500-$10k for the NG compressor (plus labor). The $4500 unit is the size of a pay-phone and will compress short of a half GGE/hr -- 'Gallons of Gasoline Equivalent' per hour.

I wonder how much electricity the compressors consume? The $10k one (makes 0.9 GGE) is the size of a home air conditioner. I have the impression that lighter gases are harder to compress than heavier ones.

*: If something is 'un-green' what color is it?

Benton 31jul08

Yeah... I've seen some statements about trying to use methanol and such.... However I've seen a whole lot of stuff about fuel cells cite how they are so wonderful because they use "water for fuel" and produce water as a waste product....

Even if one uses methanol, ethanol, etc... you are still going to have a fossil fuel usage.... weather its in producing the fuel, fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides....

I have nothing against fuel cells... just against them being oversold as the answer to all the worlds problems. People tend to react to that kind of stuff by deciding they don't have to change their lives in any way or conserve because hey... the problem will go away when fuel cells come along... They've been working on fuel cells for years. I don't expect overnight success, we are going to be using oil for a while, we we'd better get to planning on some conservation.