|
laughs
Victor, NY
|
There is no conspiracy regarding splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen, it's just plain chemistry. Hydrogen is very reactive and tends to combine with other elements. In order to separate out the hydrogen, you have to use energy to break it free. The energy required to split the water molecule is very high. Where does the energy come from and how much energy is used? This is the problem, not some conspiracy. Regarding Stanley Meyer, he was a fraud. He was sued by his own investors and lost in court for "gross and egregious fraud". He did not drive across country, that was just his own estimate of what he THOUGHT he could do. His patents are just variants of standard water electrolysis. His claims amount to a perpetual motion machine and viloate the first law of thermodynamics. According to the autopsy, he died of an aneurysm but the consipracy theorists say he was poisoned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Meyer Joe Sixpack wrote: <quoted text> I have to take issue with part of your statement. If is simple don't allow it to happen. How long have we known how to make hydrogen and oxygen from water? I'm sure that the process is well understood by would have displaced oil so it hasn't happened. A man named Stanley Myers drove from California to the east coast on less than 30 gallons of water. he was made an offer he couldn't refuse. Officially the story goes he died of food poisoning. But the circumstances don't really point that way. There is to much on the net for using water as an energy source for it to be false. Try an internet site at h2earth.org What we need is another program like the one that took us to the moon. Start thinking outside the box. As for something original let's try throwing away the box. The algae solution sounds interesting but how much land will it take? Ethanol sounded interesting but then we realized that we can't grow enough to make a difference. So let's get together and start with a clean slate and do something about our energy problems.
|
|
fTurkM
San Antonio, TX
|
It is still combustion based technology. New resources in energy solution need to point away from the traditional and move in radical new process. Pressurized air with water vapor emmisions is one idea that is being worked on in several off-shore companies. The big3 need to wake up and put into full scale below competitive pricing to take US dependancy under local control.
No matter the direction we take into our energy crisis solutions if we maintain status quo we have made no progress.
|
|
Joe Sixpack
Miami, FL
|
I say let's go for it. But unless the oil companies control it you won't get it.
|
|
Paul Bahre
Granby, CT
|
Well the German's did it during WWII. They supplied most of their petroleum need for the later 3rd of the war using synthetic fuels produced from biomass. If they could do it on a large scale over 50 years ago then why can't we do it now? One more thing. 1976 or so Honda came out with the CVCC car that looked like a hockey puck and got over 50mpg. The people who owned those cars really loved them. They had good acceleration and lasted a long time. If a car that was produced over 30 years ago could get 50mpg, without electrical motor assist then why are we settling for cars that get 35 to 44mpg now?
|
|
Paul Bahre
Granby, CT
|
One more thing this country needs to start building nuclear power plants. They are the cleanest forms of power generation available. France gets all it's power and supplies most of the EU from nuclear. If we got all our power from nuclear then the crude oil that is imported can be made into cheaper consumer products, ie gasoline for cars and oil to heat homes. Hell if we crank up nuclear and make it cheap enough then we could all heat our homes with electricity and we would be cutting out the mid east suppliers and could rely on our on oil production.
|
|
jspicer
Homewood, IL
|
laughs wrote: There is no conspiracy regarding splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen, it's just plain chemistry. Hydrogen is very reactive and tends to combine with other elements. In order to separate out the hydrogen, you have to use energy to break it free. The energy required to split the water molecule is very high. Where does the energy come from and how much energy is used? This is the problem, not some conspiracy. Regarding Stanley Meyer, he was a fraud. He was sued by his own investors and lost in court for "gross and egregious fraud". He did not drive across country, that was just his own estimate of what he THOUGHT he could do. His patents are just variants of standard water electrolysis. His claims amount to a perpetual motion machine and viloate the first law of thermodynamics. According to the autopsy, he died of an aneurysm but the consipracy theorists say he was poisoned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Meyer <quoted text> Although i dont disagree with you on the fact that it takes energy to make hydrogen im thinking that if we had some additional nuke reactors this would not be a problem in making additional hydrogen although many seem to think nuke power is this big evil thing the amount of waste is miniscule not to mention it could be used as power to other things because radioactivity is still some kind of energy and if we develop the technology then we could use not only nuke power but nuke waste to power additional things depending on how we developed the ways to pull the energy from the waste.
|
|
Mike
Ottawa, Canada
|
France uses nuclear power so that it can provide itself with a nuclear arsenal without having to rely on foreign sources. It does this at considerable cost over and above the cost for almost any of the alternatives. Most of the estimates for the costs for nuclear power plants do not factor in the costs associated with waste disposal and storage, nor with decommissioning and even the construction costs seems to always be underestimated.
There have been proposals to generate energy from the waste but it seems to have disappeared from sight. Uses included smaller ships where they were referred to as small 'n' nuclear propulsion and would have used some of the radioactive waste products to heat water, and in turn to spin a low pressure turbine.
This doesn't solve the major problem that these things always cost more than the proponents claim, and that there will always be accidents.
|
|
jspicer
Homewood, IL
|
"and that there will always be accidents"
Hmm...so all these current nuke plants that have been operating for 30 plus years they have all had accidents? I guess it was a govt plot to cover it up and keep us in the dark about it eh? The fact is no "greenhouse" gases, jobs, almost unlimited electricity not to mention the cost per Kwh is miniscule even with disposal factored in compared to oil, gas, coal, etc. Which btw you ought to factor in the environmental effects from those as well if you are going to count disposal costs from Nuke plants.
|
|
JJM
Paris, KY
|
I'm all for using recycling as a form of energy. But I am NOT for a company using proprietary methods that are exaplained by a company "CEO" who probably makes a million a year. That alone will do nothing more than create a different colored problem. What we need is a fuel that can be made at home. Everyone should be able to recycle for their own benefit. That creates a more fair and balanced society. But allowing the continued monopoly of the capitalistic rich to continue on the planet, it will continue to be raped by greed.
I dont buy the Green Algae Fuel. And I wont buy it.
|
|
|
Judge it!
Search the AMNY Forum:
22°F
New York Forum
