Homestead mailing list

[Bill Jones <billj AT harborside.com>]

I'm still waiting to hear any reason whatsoever, other than the fact 
that Al Gore said so, for why fuel cells are the least bit better than 
the hydrogen internal combustion engine, first conceived (if not built) 
around 1900.  His failed administration spent millions developing a 
hybrid car, just like a Prias that runs on hydrogen, at Livermore Labs.  
Does anyone know about it but me?

This illustrates the main problem in electing people who majored in 
"government" in college (and not well at that), in that they don't know 
a damn thing.  The amount of energy you can get from one gram of 
hydrogen by combining it with oxygen hasn't changed and will not change, 
and there are Diesel engines with efficiencies of around 60% to put it 
to good use.  And the "wasted" energy isn't really wasted, since it's 
used to heat the car.

However the biggest scam is not the fuel cells themselves, but the 
on-board reformer.  This would allow you to continue to run on the usual 
hydrocarbon fuels, but don't ask where the carbon went. 

Nuclear reactors can produce hydrogen from waste heat, but if it became 
popular we could have hydrogen as the main product.  The reactor then 
does not require a steam engine and a generator, since all it does is 
heat up some chemicals.

Bill

Someone wrote:

>  
>
> > In my view our best hope is hydrogen fuel cells for
> > energy storage and solar / wind / nuclear to generate
> > it, at least so far
> >    
>
>