Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesdave
This could be compressed and marketed.
|
That is the sentence that is a death knell for hydrogen as a fuel. You have now defined a fuel that is thermodynamically inefficient.
We don't need a 'magic bullet' fuel. Somehow, what we need gets confused with 'magic bullet' solutions such as hydrogen. We need efficiency. We need solutions that maintain those efficiencies on much smaller scales.
For every 100 units of energy put in hydrogen, well less than 20 actually arrives to perform productive work.
There is no way around fundamental theories such as thermodynamics. No solution is found in political posturing - for hydrogen or for ethanol. Start instead by identifying the problem. GM remains a classic example of the problem. Technology of the late 1960s was overhead cams. Late 1980s - 70 Hp/liter engine. Late 1990s - hybrids. So what does GM have? No engines with overhead cams. Missing 70 Hp/liter engines meaning their products require more cylinders. And no hybrids.
So GM accountants promotes hydrogen as a 'magic bullet' solution. Top GM management are business school graduates - and not from where the product is developed. Problems and innovations get ignored. No wonder they promote 'magic bullet' solutions while ignoring something more fundamental - principles of thermodynamics.
In both energy and global warming, both share the same problem: doing more from less. It is called innovation. And innovation is routinely stifed when top management does not come from where the work gets done. Same naive management then promote 'magic bullets' such as hydrogen to replace petroleum. Total nonsense.
One need only look who was promoting hydrogen to know hydrogen was not a viable solution: Rick Wagoner of GM and Geroge Jr. That summarizes why problems are not being solved.