HYDROGEN FUEL TECHNOLOGY: Super-Efficient Electrolysis

In article , Sid9,
Liberal wrote:

* wrote:
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 22:18:41 -0500, Miles Long wrote:

[...]


Because the hydrogen molecule is so small, delivery to homes would
require prohibitively expensive pipelines to prevent leakage.

Who said anything about that?

Secondly,
it isn't in heavy enough production (due to cost) compared to natural
gas to replace natural gas.

Hydrogen is in heavy enough production to provide **the entire world
with gasoline**. Why not burn hydrogen to produce electricity?

Go take a college level course in Thermodynamics.
When finished come back and post here again

Alexa doesn't need any education, the aliens inside her head tell her
everything.


-=-=-=-=-

Official AFA-B Bully, Pest, Antagonist, Gubmint Disinformation
Agent, and "Dr. Green" Sockpuppet.

In article , Sid9,
Liberal wrote:

* wrote:
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 22:18:41 -0500, Miles Long wrote:

[...]


Because the hydrogen molecule is so small, delivery to homes would
require prohibitively expensive pipelines to prevent leakage.

Who said anything about that?

Secondly,
it isn't in heavy enough production (due to cost) compared to natural
gas to replace natural gas.

Hydrogen is in heavy enough production to provide **the entire world
with gasoline**. Why not burn hydrogen to produce electricity?

Go take a college level course in Thermodynamics.
When finished come back and post here again

Alexa doesn't need any education, the aliens inside her head tell her
everything.


-=-=-=-=-

Official AFA-B Bully, Pest, Antagonist, Gubmint Disinformation
Agent, and "Dr. Green" Sockpuppet.

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 22:10:27 -0600, "Carl R. Osterwald" wrote:

In article , Sid9,
Liberal wrote:

* wrote:
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 22:18:41 -0500, Miles Long wrote:

[...]


Because the hydrogen molecule is so small, delivery to homes would
require prohibitively expensive pipelines to prevent leakage.

Who said anything about that?

Secondly,
it isn't in heavy enough production (due to cost) compared to natural
gas to replace natural gas.

Hydrogen is in heavy enough production to provide **the entire world
with gasoline**. Why not burn hydrogen to produce electricity?

Go take a college level course in Thermodynamics.
When finished come back and post here again

Alexa doesn't need any education, the aliens inside her head tell her
everything.

snarf Do you suppose the auto industry has a vested interest in hydrogen
production for making gasoline, David? And do you suppose that's one of the
reasons dear old dad worked for GM?


-=-=-=-=-

Official AFA-B Bully, Pest, Antagonist, Gubmint Disinformation
Agent, and "Dr. Green" Sockpuppet.

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 22:10:27 -0600, "Carl R. Osterwald" wrote:

In article , Sid9,
Liberal wrote:

* wrote:
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 22:18:41 -0500, Miles Long wrote:

[...]


Because the hydrogen molecule is so small, delivery to homes would
require prohibitively expensive pipelines to prevent leakage.

Who said anything about that?

Secondly,
it isn't in heavy enough production (due to cost) compared to natural
gas to replace natural gas.

Hydrogen is in heavy enough production to provide **the entire world
with gasoline**. Why not burn hydrogen to produce electricity?

Go take a college level course in Thermodynamics.
When finished come back and post here again

Alexa doesn't need any education, the aliens inside her head tell her
everything.

snarf Do you suppose the auto industry has a vested interest in hydrogen
production for making gasoline, David? And do you suppose that's one of the
reasons dear old dad worked for GM?


-=-=-=-=-

Official AFA-B Bully, Pest, Antagonist, Gubmint Disinformation
Agent, and "Dr. Green" Sockpuppet.

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 07:47:39 -0600, "Carl R. Osterwald" wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 17:05:02 -0700, The_Sage wrote:

Reply to article by: *
Date written: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 17:22:29 GMT
m

Wow.
Sounds like perpetual motion!

That what all the disinformation agents say.

So everybody who disagrees with you is a "disinformation agent"? Wow! Sounds
like another gullible blind faith believer falling back on the ol' conspiracy
theory.

The oil industry is able to obtain enough hydrogen to manufacture gasoline
for the entire world. And hydrogen is a much more efficient fuel than
gasoline. Why are we still burning gasoline in cars?

Before making yourself appear to be a ignorant halfwit yet again, I
recommend learning just a few basic facts about petrochemicals.

The only other thing we need to learn about petrochemicals, other than they
are no longer needed for fuel production and haven't been needed for fuel
production for decades, is that the petrochemical business is a monopoly of
a few who are backing the defense contractors who now are running the US
government.

In article ,
wrote:

[on-topic ngs restored]

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:57:56 +0200, "Laura" wrote:

The oil industry isn't making gasoline *out of* hydrogen.

The oil industry is using massive amounts of hydrogen to manufacture
gasoline.

They use it to
slightly alter the oil molecules into different forms of fuel.

That's highly inefficient. We should be burning the hydrogen instead of
using it to make gasoline.


How many people have you managed to persuade via your usenet crusade
that your insane rantings are even slightly true?


-=-=-=-=-

Official AFA-B Bully, Pest, Antagonist, Gubmint Disinformation
Agent, and "Dr. Green" Sockpuppet.

In article ,
wrote:

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 07:07:41 -0700, House Widdershins
wrote:

X-No Archive:Yes On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 02:13:36 GMT, *
wrote:

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 17:05:02 -0700, The_Sage wrote:

Reply to article by: *
Date written: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 17:22:29 GMT
MsgID:mj5t809nqi26eufcmdmfrvepes2lm09q7n@4ax. com

Wow.
Sounds like perpetual motion!

That what all the disinformation agents say.

So everybody who disagrees with you is a "disinformation agent"? Wow!
Sounds
like another gullible blind faith believer falling back on the ol'
conspiracy
theory.

The oil industry is able to obtain enough hydrogen to manufacture gasoline
for the entire world. And hydrogen is a much more efficient fuel than
gasoline. Why are we still burning gasoline in cars?

Could it be that the handling of hydrogen is just a wee bit too
hazardous for the general consumption by the automotive
industry?

Those problems were resolved and hydrogen fueled cars were supposed to go
into production and be on the market by 2003. That never happened.

The question remains:

Why aren't we burning the hydrogen the oil companies are using to make
gasoline to generate electricity?

What about last week's question? What happened to it?


-=-=-=-=-

Official AFA-B Bully, Pest, Antagonist, Gubmint Disinformation
Agent, and "Dr. Green" Sockpuppet.

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 11:17:13 -0600, "Carl R. Osterwald" wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

[on-topic ngs restored]

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:57:56 +0200, "Laura" wrote:

The oil industry isn't making gasoline *out of* hydrogen.

The oil industry is using massive amounts of hydrogen to manufacture
gasoline.

They use it to
slightly alter the oil molecules into different forms of fuel.

That's highly inefficient. We should be burning the hydrogen instead of
using it to make gasoline.


How many people have you managed to persuade via your usenet crusade
that your insane rantings are even slightly true?

You obviously.


-=-=-=-=-

Official AFA-B Bully, Pest, Antagonist, Gubmint Disinformation
Agent, and "Dr. Green" Sockpuppet.

In article ,
wrote:

[on-topic ngs restored]

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 11:17:13 -0600, "Carl R. Osterwald" wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

[on-topic ngs restored]

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:57:56 +0200, "Laura" wrote:

The oil industry isn't making gasoline *out of* hydrogen.

The oil industry is using massive amounts of hydrogen to manufacture
gasoline.

They use it to
slightly alter the oil molecules into different forms of fuel.

That's highly inefficient. We should be burning the hydrogen instead of
using it to make gasoline.


How many people have you managed to persuade via your usenet crusade
that your insane rantings are even slightly true?

You obviously.

I'm convinced; you are insane.


-=-=-=-=-

Official AFA-B Bully, Pest, Antagonist, Gubmint Disinformation
Agent, and "Dr. Green" Sockpuppet.

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 11:23:13 -0600, "Carl R. Osterwald" wrote:

[...]

I'm convinced; you are insane.

You're not only wrong, but completely stupid then.