Hydrogen economy not so good....simple explanation....

70% would be great, but right now the most efficient electrolysis
systems do not even reach 40%.

Ok, has anyone here actually toured a fusion facility? Or chatted with
the researchers working on it? Or taken classes on energy systems?
Right now fusion does exist and we can sustain it. The problem is
there is less that a 2% energy output from the amount of energy it
takes to create the reaction. On top of that, the facilities are huge.
I am a pretty optimistic guy and a huge fan of sci-fi, but at best we
have another 30 years before we see sustainable fusion with a decent
power density output. On top of that, probably another 15-20 years
before such plant will be affordable. And I would give it an
indefinite amount of time before we see a system smaller than a massive
building. So basically, fusion is out for the automotive
industry....at least in our life time. And while we are at it, rule
out ANYTHING fission in a vehicle...if people freak out about the
safety of hydrogen, do you really think anyone will even TOUCH the
subject of radioactive materials in a car crash??

And speaking of hydrogen and safety...it is no as bad as the hype will
have you believe. It is not as explosive as gasoline....yes it burns
clear and that is a problem, but they can use additives to give the
flames color. Most of the storage methods and built to such strict
codes that they CAN NOT explode. They may get punctured and result in
a flame shooting out, but it would not be any worse than the dangers
associated with burning gasoline.

All this aside, it does not change the fact that hydrogen may be a good
future resource, but it just not feasable in the near future. It takes
too much energy to produce it with current methods and most of the
systems that would convert hydrogen into energy and way to expensive
right now. (by the way, I think the MOST feasable hydrogen energy
system in the near future would be a piston-engine like the one
mercedes has, and make it a hybrid-electric...)

I think the most likely solution to fossil fuels in the near future is
bio-fuels. We already have vehicles that can run on bio-fuels and we
know it can be done. No, we can not create enough bio-fuel to
completely replace fossil fuels without creating a food shortage. But
we can creat enough to ease the need for fossil fuels while we try to
come up with a bulletproof solution....

and that is my 2 cents...


sno wrote:

I stated that there we currently can not make enough biofuel without
causing a severe food shortage...I only said that biofuels can lesson
the need to extend how long fossil fuels will last...

Dan Bloomquist wrote:

Hunter wrote:
....
I'm not so sure about that. Some have suggested that algae farming
could produce enough biofuel to replace fossil fuels without any
impact on food production. In fact, fertilizer can be a secondary
product from algae farming which would reduce or eliminate the
need for producing fertilizers from fossil fuels.

Anthony

"Anthony Matonak" <[Only registered users see links. ].comcast.net> wrote in message news:[Only registered users see links. ]. ..

With more than 1 billion tons of biomass each year in the U.S. we
could make more than 100 billion gallons of biofuel. If we use 140
billion gallons of gasoline now, with hybrids and telecomuting, we
could run our cars on biofuels.