Nuclear Evacuation Zones

[Mackay]

Japan was on the verge of making cars that run on water, using Hydrogen technologies...

 

[Icu4dzs]

Japan was on the verge of making cars that run on water, using Hydrogen technologies...

WE make cars that would run on hydrogen NOW. All we need is a minor modification of the current fuel intake system. The "inventing" was done in the 1930's by a farmer. The patents were bought up and the interesting coincidence is that at about the exact same time as the gas prices began to soar into the stratosphere, the patents on this technology expired. Hmmm, wonder how THAT happened? Certainly deflected our minds away from that issue for a time.

 

[patandchickens]

Dollars are still the most powerful ballot in the country and we have to make them count.

Really, IMO therein lies a lot of the *problem*. Although some aspects of more sensible energy policy can be voted for with your wallet (policy is probably not the right word, I mean the general shape of what energy sources are used, where and how), a lot of it boils down in some way shape or form to "use less", and that is actually sort of ANTI-votingwithyourwallet.

Obviously it is in power companies' best profitmaking interests to be as large as possible and have people demanding as much energy as possible, as long as demand does not exceed the company's ability to supply it (since when that happens it annoys the bejeebers out of everyone). So aside from the detail of trying to keep demand from outstripping generation capacity, they really have no practical incentive against the current system. High-demand customers drive large power companies, and large power companies drive the market as well as being a nontrivial lobby in Washington.

This is not such an airtight situation as to prevent any change, but it sure does make it walking uphill into a headwind.

WE make cars that would run on hydrogen NOW. All we need is a minor modification of the current fuel intake system. The "inventing" was done in the 1930's by a farmer. The patents were bought up and the interesting coincidence is that at about the exact same time as the gas prices began to soar into the stratosphere, the patents on this technology expired. Hmmm, wonder how THAT happened? Certainly deflected our minds away from that issue for a time.

Would you care to elaborate on this, as what you've said is

1) completely illogical (but perhaps there is a typo in there somewhere?)... expiry of patents allows everyone to FREELY use the technology if they care to -- bear in mind that patenting only certifies uniqueness NOT that something actually works!!!! -- so I cannot see how expiry of LEGITIMATELY wondrous patents could cause oil companies to want to hike prices.

and 2) From the 1930s farmer comment, I kind of have a feeling you are referring not to hydrogen-powered cars (which exist right now, in fact I've seen one on the road, but they require some power source to *produce* the hydrogen from water e.g. electricity from yer local nuclear power plant, and they have yet to become broadly commercial b/c without a widespread network of hydrogen refuelling stations they have limited appeal and with limited appeal there is no economic basis for a widespread network of filling stations), but rather may have in mind truly water-fuelled cars i.e. no other input of energy required, which exist only in Perpetual-motion-and-fairy-dust World.

(edited to add: also the city of Toronto has some hydrogen-fuelled buses in the public transit system at present. But again, this is *hydrogen* technology, which requires energy input (either electricity or consumable chemicals) to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen; it is NOT 'we can all run our cars for free on a jug o water' technology)

Of course if I'm misunderstanding I would welcome clarification.

Pat

 

[FarmerChick]

this is *hydrogen* technology, which requires energy input (either electricity or consumable chemicals) to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen; it is NOT 'we can all run our cars for free on a jug o water' technology)Pat

This had me cracking up for some reason....would it ever be so easy as to have a jug o' water be the miracle for all problems? Jug O' Water would be selling for $10 per gallon if it was to fuel cars --

 

[patandchickens]

Can you even IMAGINE what the world would be like, real fast, if there WERE a trivially-cheap or free source of limitless energy?

Be afraid, be very very afraid!

Pat

 

[FarmerChick]

very true

 

[FarmerJamie]

this is *hydrogen* technology, which requires energy input (either electricity or consumable chemicals) to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen; it is NOT 'we can all run our cars for free on a jug o water' technology)Pat

This had me cracking up for some reason....would it ever be so easy as to have a jug o' water be the miracle for all problems? Jug O' Water would be selling for $10 per gallon if it was to fuel cars --

FC, you got me laughing on that one! Isn't the high-priced bottled water about $5 gallon now anyways?

Then I read about all the fights over water rights in the Front Range in Colorado and realize how the $10/gallon might be a deal in the future.

 

[FarmerChick]

yea you are right
forget gas, water IS truly precious

I went to get a bottle of water from a vending machine somewhere and it said "insert $3" --I said, NOT ME!

LOL

 

[Icu4dzs]

Dollars are still the most powerful ballot in the country and we have to make them count.

Really, IMO therein lies a lot of the *problem*. Although some aspects of more sensible energy policy can be voted for with your wallet (policy is probably not the right word, I mean the general shape of what energy sources are used, where and how), a lot of it boils down in some way shape or form to "use less", and that is actually sort of ANTI-votingwithyourwallet.

Absolutely right. Stop buying for a while and they will have to listen. But it takes a lot of folks to do it. You and I alone won't make a dent in their attitude.

it is in power companies' best profitmaking interests to be as large as possible and have people demanding as much energy as possible, as long as demand does not exceed the company's ability to supply it (since when that happens it annoys the bejeebers out of everyone). So aside from the detail of trying to keep demand from outstripping generation capacity, they really have no practical incentive against the current system. High-demand customers drive large power companies, and large power companies drive the market as well as being a nontrivial lobby in Washington.

This is not such an airtight situation as to prevent any change, but it sure does make it walking uphill into a headwind.

WE make cars that would run on hydrogen NOW. All we need is a minor modification of the current fuel intake system. The "inventing" was done in the 1930's by a farmer. The patents were bought up and the interesting coincidence is that at about the exact same time as the gas prices began to soar into the stratosphere, the patents on this technology expired. Hmmm, wonder how THAT happened? Certainly deflected our minds away from that issue for a time.

Would you care to elaborate on this, as what you've said is

1) completely illogical (but perhaps there is a typo in there somewhere?)... expiry of patents allows everyone to FREELY use the technology if they care to -- bear in mind that patenting only certifies uniqueness NOT that something actually works!!!! -- so I cannot see how expiry of LEGITIMATELY wondrous patents could cause oil companies to want to hike prices.

and 2) From the 1930s farmer comment, I kind of have a feeling you are referring not to hydrogen-powered cars (which exist right now, in fact I've seen one on the road, but they require some power source to *produce* the hydrogen from water e.g. electricity from yer local nuclear power plant, and they have yet to become broadly commercial b/c without a widespread network of hydrogen refuelling stations they have limited appeal and with limited appeal there is no economic basis for a widespread network of filling stations), but rather may have in mind truly water-fuelled cars i.e. no other input of energy required, which exist only in Perpetual-motion-and-fairy-dust World.

Two points. 1.) I merely noted the coincidence of the two events occuring simultaneously. 2/) Not illogical at all. The technology has existed for quite some time. Yes, OF COURSE it requires electricity. I certainly didn't imply that water is electrolyzed without the input of energy. The Hydrogen produced from electrolysis is what burns in the engine. A gent by the name of Stan Meyer built such a car and attempted to market it. (DIGRESSION) Funny how the "PTB"descended on old Stan like a school of pirhana and literally put him out of business. He also "died under strange circumstances" a little while later. He tried to get patents for his work and they were refused.

BUT, I stand by what I said. The engines in our current vehicles WILL work with the necessary modification as mentioned.

(edited to add: also the city of Toronto has some hydrogen-fuelled buses in the public transit system at present. But again, this is *hydrogen* technology, which requires energy input (either electricity or consumable chemicals) to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen; it is NOT 'we can all run our cars for free on a jug o water' technology)

Of course if I'm misunderstanding I would welcome clarification.

Pat

No you are not MISunderstanding. Perhaps I was not clear but hope you can understand it now. The current engines we ALL use will with a minor modification run on hydrogen gas produced by electrolysis caused by electricity. Yes, you have to have an external power source, but that is really quite "do-able" even with our current state of technology. The right battery configuration will do quite nicely.

A search engine study of "WATER AS FUEL" will yield a wealth of information on this. It would NOT require hydrogen filling stations.
The entire hydrogen scare was the result of the crash of the Hindenberg because its lift was caused by hydrogen, not helium.

Since the Navy's mishap investigation when it happened has been found to have arrived at an incorrect conclusion by a hydrogen engineer in the past few years. The truth has come out a few years ago citing the paint that covered the skin of the airship. When they let the two grounding cables down on landing, the static electrical charge rose up the two cables and ignited the paint which was made of an aluminum compound that has been used for rocket fuel...hence the entire burning only taking 34 seconds or so.
HYDROGEN is no more dangerous that the atomized state of gasoline mixed with air...it explodes...which it is meant to do. Hydrogen can be produced on board a car now with the use of electrolysis and off you go.

 

[CrownofThorns]

Also search for sterling engine.