Ahhh ... the dumbfuck quickly reverts to economics, because the dumbfuck is unable to understand simple physics.
Cryogenic hydrogen and oxygen have excellent energy densities.
Not to mention storage issues.
Cryogenic hydrogen and oxygen have excellent storage properties.
I just call them like I see them. Only a complete dumbfuck would use the pseudonym 'Pooh Bear' on usenet science newsgroups, and then attempt to argue physics with a condensed matter physicist.
Try applying the same thinking to crop fuels.
I understand a heck of alot more than 'simple physics' thank you ! You shouldn't make assumptions.
In anyevent it's economics that will determine use.
Not by volume. It's about a quarter of what oil derived fuels, ethanol, methanol and LPG/LNG can offer. Volumetric energy density is probably actually more important than by weight.
And also have to bleed off.
I recently left a car unused for 3 months. It stil had fulel init when I started using it again.
Well, " Thomas Lee Elifritz ", maybe I'm not impressed with you either. And what's that Peanuts cartoon doing here since you're so offended by imaginary characters ?
Is hydrogen really competitive with crop fuels ? I'd be surprised. But then again it has higher storage and distribution costs to add to that.
Graham
No you don't. You're a dumbfuck repeating dumbfuckisms you have heard from your dumbfuck friends.
No, it's climate change that will determine it's use, dumbfuck.
All of those fuels release carbon dioxide and noxious and poisonous exhaust gas products into the atmosphere, and toxic waste into the environment. Electrocatalytically manupulated cryogenic hydrogen and oxygen do not. Of course, you can't seem to grasp that piece of evidence, being the confirmed dumbfuck that you are.
It's within an order of magnitude easily by volume, nearly the same by mass. Mass determines almost everything from an engineering viewpoint. Certainly the extra volume won't effect trucking and transportation, it's primary use.
There are no insurmountable engineering problems associated with the use of cryogenic fuels for our primary transportation needs.
Sure you can, you're a dumbfuck.
Nor by science and engineering either, apparently.
It's not a peanuts cartoon, and I am not offended. See, you can't even get that right either. I am merely pointing out the obvious, that you are a complete dumbfuck, raised and educated by dumbfuck parents, repeating dumbfuck nonsense and spewing dumbfuck fantasies on science newsgroups.
Got any other great hydrogen dumbfuckisms for us?
Volumeric energy density overwhelmingly dominates in terrestral automotive apps.
Mass energy density is TOTALLY MEANINGLESS in terrestral automotive aps because...
(A) the CONTAINED energy density of hydrogen is MUCH LESS than gasoline, and ...
(B) Even if gasoline were to miraculously achieve the mass energy density of hydrogen, the consequences would be UTTERLY NEGLIGIBLE. Perhaps reducing a SUV's weight by 26 pounds.
Detailed analysis at
You don't really anything of substance to say do you except to keep reepeating the same one word.
Graham
Good Lord. Plpl breathe out CO2 as well. Maybe we should kill you to stop you exhaking CO2 ?
You think that the power stations required to do this don't " release carbon dioxide and noxious and poisonous exhaust gas products into the atmosphere, and toxic waste into the environment " ??????
You would appear to be blind !
No it *does not* at all. Theer was a clown here a while back making the case for hydrogen powered aircraft. Shame there's not even room for the fuel.
Of course it will.
Simply practical ones.
Graham
only the laws of thermodynamics for openers.
Why should I say anything else to a dumbfuck like you, logic, analysis, rationality and scientific methods are meaningless to you.
Hey, that's ok, we forgive you, you're a dumbfuck.
You can't appear to help yourself.
George Bush will think for you.
Please feel free to point out which laws of thermodynamics are violated by cryogenic hydrogen and oxygen, dumbfuck.
Your incessant use of that word places you seriously in the troll category.
Graham
I would be a terrible tragedy for us all if you were suddenly struck dumb and no longer were to supply us with such delightful dumbfuckisms!
Good Lord! Good Heavens! Carbon dioxide is just a little molecule!
Such a tiny effect such an eeensy teeensy little molecule has!
What an absolute freakin dumbfuck you are!
You've set a whole new standard for us.
The "ability to sell our own oil back to us". Wait. You can't be this stupid. This is not "our" oil. It belongs to oil companies. They found it, drilled for it, paid for it. It's not yours or mine.
Incidentally, in response tot hose who say there's not enough suitable feedstock for the various bio-fuels, I wonder if Asia and Africa can assist ?
Graham
Let them burn dirt, eh?
For that matter, we could just import it from Brazil, which is closer. But our bought-and-paid-for government has seen fit to bless agribusiness with a tariff on ethanol feedstocks, leaving us in the ridiculous position of importing oil and gas tax free from Middle Eastern countries that want to kill us while taxing low net carbon feedstock from our neighbors.
OTOH, one of the concerns I've seen raised, and given our history I'm afraid it's a valid one, is that the growth of energy crops could contribute to the destruction of tropical forests. IMO, any move to biofuels should include provisions to protect them, perhaps by paying them for the carbon sinks which we in the industrial world disproportionately use.
Josh Hill wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
No, you can't, we're already buying their biofuel. Besides, all we accomplish by using tax breaks for biofuels is that Brazilians will switch away from biofuel for use at home and start using more oil while they sell the biofuel to richer countries. In Sweden the idea is to shift to fuel made from local forests once the technology becomes available. Whether it'll work is another matter.
This is true, tropical forests are being chopped down to grow biofuels. There is no free lunch, unless someone comes up with a new miracle technology we'll have to move away from everyone using cars all the time. Cities where people walk,bike and use public transit are a lot nicer anyway IMHO. It's not just a matter of getting somewhere quick, it's a matter of having somewhere interesting to go.
Tropical forests aren't significant carbon sinks, just carbon storage.
If you're referring to hydrogen from wind, it's not, but I don't think that's the real question: the real question is /will/ it be reasonably price competitive with gasoline when one includes extrinsic costs? I think the answer is almost certainly yes, thanks to ongoing improvements in electrolyzers, fuel cells, storage technologies, and turbines. I'm not so much concerned with the ultimate cost of hydrogen from wind as I am with the prospect that greedy energy companies will make it from fossil fuel sources; at least as things now stand, "dirty" hydrogen is cheaper than hydrogen from clean sources.
Anyway, AFAIK, it's not really right to say that biofuels aren't price competitive either. Biodiesel costs a bit more than regular diesel and ethanol from Brazil costs less than gasoline. The figures I've seen say that domestically-produced cellulosic ethanol is projected to come in at $1.30/gallon with efficiency improvements pushing that down to
60 cents/gallon. The price of gasoline will likely come down some, of course, as refinery capacity increases and new supplies come on line, but I don't think that really matters, because in the long run it will go up again, and at a certain point the cost of fuel is no longer an important factor -- if it were, we Americans would be driving fuel-efficient cars.?
Depends on whether they increase the supply, doesn't it?
Agree about cities, but that ain't gonna happen -- people will choose to live as they want, and for many that means the suburbs -- and it won't be necessary, since those miracle technologies are on the way -- cellulosic ethanol from agricultural waste and switchgrass, plug-in hybrids, FCV's, you name it.
That's what a carbon sink is.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.