On or around 19 Aug 2004 04:07:51 -0700,
[email protected] (Richard
Brookman) enlightened us thusly:
>There's a similar argument with hydrogen cells. "Look", say the
>e-****s, "it runs on water!" What they don't say is that it requires
>massive energy to separate the hydrogen from the water in the first
>place, and all that energy creates pollution for someone.
this is a point I'm fond of making. I found some figures a bit back for
transport energy usage in the USA, which suggest that to operate the
transport fleet on watre-derived hydrogen would require the electrical
output of something like 3000 sq. mi. of solar panels, windmills covering
the land area of 2 medium-sized states or one nuclear power station.
and that leaves out the amount of water you (temporarily) extract form the
environment, in a country (the US) which is already getting marginal on
water supply in some areas.
and you can't (directly) use sea-water, either, you'd have to desalinate it
first, using even more energy in the process.
the trouble with all the envirogeeks and the hydrogen fuel-cell bandwagon
(which the government are jumping onto as well, with doubtless equal lack of
forethought) is that many of them fail to appreciate the size of the problem
- road transport in this country uses millions of gallons of fuel PER DAY,
and unless you can contrive an enormous state-change in the way we operate,
you need to supply that sort of amount of alternative fuel.
--
Austin Shackles.
www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk my opinions are just that
Too Busy: Your mind is like a motorway. Sometimes it can be jammed by
too much traffic. Avoid the jams by never using your mind on a
Bank Holiday weekend.
from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.
