On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 11:18:39PM -0600, Cedric Chang wrote:
> >
> > On Jul 28, 2008, at 10:09 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 03:37:30PM +1200, Apptech wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hydrogen looks even worse when you factor in the
> >>> efficiency of the internal
> >>> combustion engine that moves the vehicle.
> >>
> >> Stirling engine?
> >> Fuel cell?
> >
> > Russell, I'm going to bed and will respond more fully tomorrow, but  
> > with
> > these two options, your fooling, right?
> >
> 
> Russell is not fooling around.  He always makes an effort to be  
> informative.  Thus it is tiring to see someone say "you are  
> fooling".  I interpret such a comment ( perhaps wrongly ) as an  
> attempt to belittle Russell.

Hi Cedric,

My intent wasn't to belittle Russell, instead my sleep deprived brain was
trying to be funny. Russell's posts are always interesting and he starts the
best threads! :)

Stirling engines might work out: use metal hydrides to store hydrogen for
the engine's working gas... not sure about the heat source.

Fuel cells are just too expensive. Their cost is going to have to come way
down in order to be used for transportation. If a long life fuel cell that
uses methane could be produced for ~$30,000USD I could see that being
successful.

Hydrogen has a place in storing energy (I'm thinking mostly about
spacecraft), but it is not a broad, universal solution.

Matthew
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist