Re: Why settle for a measly 230 MPG when you could get 1560 MPG?
- From: nospam@xxxxxxxxxx (Paul Ciszek)
- Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 17:30:01 +0000 (UTC)
In article <MLmdnbwGPInvqKrVnZ2dnUVZ8uOdnZ2d@xxxxxx>,
Mike Dworetsky <platinum198@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
A fuel cell starts with hydrogen (a tank of it) and oxygen (in space, from a
tank; on Earth, from the air), as does a heat engine driven by a hydrogen
flame. Neither creates CO2 while working. The energy/carbon/efficiency
problem comes from the method used to produce the hydrogen. If it involves
electricity generated from a coal or gas fired generating plant, it is no
more carbon friendly than petrol.
Some fuel cells are able to use natural gas or even gasoline as a source
of hydrogen. How exactly they do this, and what happens to the carbon,
I have no idea.
--
Please reply to: | "One of the hardest parts of my job is to
pciszek at panix dot com | connect Iraq to the War on Terror."
Autoreply is disabled | -- G. W. Bush, 9/7/2006
.
- References:
- OT: Today are we lounging on deck chairs aboard the Titanic?
- From: dkomo
- Re: Why settle for a measly 230 MPG when you could get 1560 MPG?
- From: Vend
- Re: Why settle for a measly 230 MPG when you could get 1560 MPG?
- From: Paul Ciszek
- Re: Why settle for a measly 230 MPG when you could get 1560 MPG?
- From: Mike Dworetsky
- OT: Today are we lounging on deck chairs aboard the Titanic?
- Prev by Date: Re: Modern synthesis on Wikipedia - what is it ?
- Next by Date: Re: Why settle for a measly 230 MPG when you could get 1560 MPG?
- Previous by thread: Re: Why settle for a measly 230 MPG when you could get 1560 MPG?
- Next by thread: Re: Why settle for a measly 230 MPG when you could get 1560 MPG?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
