Because hydrogen from water is not a rpimary energy source and is very expensive to produce.

The problem with hydrogen from petrolium is that the energy locked up in the carbon is wasted.

__________________
I also post at the following sites:
http://www.stop-microsoft.org http://www.heated-debates.com
Screen name: Aloone_Jonez
And http://www.silicontronics.com, same screen name as here.

 

no actually very contrary to what people on here like to gloat about if you read the wikipedia its 50-80 % efficient but don't tell the goverment that they will probably up the tax on petrol out of fear of loosing profit

__________________
I AM the exeption that disproves the rule in many ways but the rules still apply (unfortunately)

my site:www.simons-photography.com
http://rushdenrotaract.org.uk

 

Please expand a bit more. . .

__________________
I also post at the following sites:
http://www.stop-microsoft.org http://www.heated-debates.com
Screen name: Aloone_Jonez
And http://www.silicontronics.com, same screen name as here.

 

expand ? how do you mean ? I had a very reputable member of this board tell me out of his hat that we could never consider hydrogen as fuel by making it from eletrlysis because it was probably like 5-10 % efficient, well I checked and actually its 50-80 %.
if you look at documentries about hydrogen cars they tell you we will have to get the hydrogen from petrol (and this does polute cause it reales some bad gas in the process of breaking down the petrol) so really when you look at its all about money and making sure we don't get rid of petrol in a hurry

__________________
I AM the exeption that disproves the rule in many ways but the rules still apply (unfortunately)

my site:www.simons-photography.com
http://rushdenrotaract.org.uk

 

Looks like you checked one site?, well known for it's inaccuracies (as it's just what people post there) - try doing more checking, there is LOT'S of information out there, including many university investigations.

__________________
PIC programmer software, and PIC Tutorials at:
http://www.winpicprog.co.uk

 

ok so where can I start from ? I'd like to have many more sources of information but get fed up with looking through trashy adds all over the place

__________________
I AM the exeption that disproves the rule in many ways but the rules still apply (unfortunately)

my site:www.simons-photography.com
http://rushdenrotaract.org.uk

 

Why not do your own tests?.

__________________
PIC programmer software, and PIC Tutorials at:
http://www.winpicprog.co.uk

 

Which is good but then you have to consider the ineffiency in converting the hydrogen to mechanical energy.

Hydrogen fuel cells and an electric motor are the most efficient method but the technology is still pretty immature.

A combustion engine is extremely inefficient so we won't even go there.

Given that batteries are 80% efficient I think they clearly win.

Also, where do you get the electricity from to make the hydrogen?

You could use a green source like hydroelectric or wind power but it's probably better to store the energy in a battery than as hydrogen.

__________________
I also post at the following sites:
http://www.stop-microsoft.org http://www.heated-debates.com
Screen name: Aloone_Jonez
And http://www.silicontronics.com, same screen name as here.

 

yes it is better to store the energy in batteries directly but the original point being made was using hydrogen as roket fuel

__________________
I AM the exeption that disproves the rule in many ways but the rules still apply (unfortunately)

my site:www.simons-photography.com
http://rushdenrotaract.org.uk

 

Here's a link which talks about a development in lithium-ion battery technology which will give 10x capacity over the current technology.


Here's a link showing why nuclear waste on a rocket to the sun may not be such a good idea. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to be downwind of (or anywhere near for that matter) such a rocket if this happened. Talk about your "dirty bomb" ...

Jeff

__________________
Nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't have to do it himself - Weiler's Law

 

yes quite nuclear is a big NO NO for one simple reason above all others: HUMAN ERROR

__________________
I AM the exeption that disproves the rule in many ways but the rules still apply (unfortunately)

my site:www.simons-photography.com
http://rushdenrotaract.org.uk

 

just think if we did sent the stuff to the sun on a rocket.......and it hit the sun and the sun blew up und blew the sun out! we would be up sh its creak....lol jk

 

nah I don't think we can scratch the sun infact our little rocket would melt down before it bodily hit the sun, what if the suff got irradiated back to us ? but after seeing that video nukes on a rocket is a bad idea, please tell me how the heck did they fail to see 17 foot crack ? I'd hate to see a chenobil go off in the sky

__________________
I AM the exeption that disproves the rule in many ways but the rules still apply (unfortunately)

my site:www.simons-photography.com
http://rushdenrotaract.org.uk

 

How did this thread deteriorate so fast? Blow the sun out!! We humans could not even make the sun flicker. Let's get back to history rather than fantasy.

Mike.

 

ok..to get back to reality. isn't there some kinda way to make the waste not radioactive anymore? like combining it with other elements or useing it again? they are spliting uranium atoms right? and when they split they become putonium? is that how it works? or is that just a breeder reactor?