> IMO hydrogen fuel is pointless unless you have a Fusion Power station to > make if nearly for free from seawater. Otherwise converting coal to > liquid fuel is more sensible. Or using shale gas. People doing it since > 1940s and it's getting better. IF you can electrolyse water with electricity at an "acceptable" cost and % efficiency then a suitable storage medium (which this carbazole process seems potentially as good as most) then you have gained the ability to distribute liquid electricity. Economies are different because eg transport costs and storage tanks are 6 x larger than with petrol. So distribution costs assume a far larger % of the "pump cost". Also, that assumes that the liquid is benign when transported. ie how do you trigger the Hydrogen release. Does eg pouring it on the ground do it, or shaking it in a tank, or heating it, or adding what catalyst at what %? Could be fun but may not be fuel. Once you can distribute energy from electricity using Hydrogen you cut added distribution CO2 emissions to about zero (and CO2 for generated electricity depends on whether nuclear, hydro, solar, wind, hydrocarbon (liquid o gas or solid) , ... Overall you may win. CO2 emissions as a proxy for hydrocarbon burning need to be greatly reduced regardless of what warming effects they may or may not have on the planet. AND you can never have enough stored hydrocarbon. It is far too valuable a feedstock resource to be pillaging the future's reserves for to "just" burn it for its energy content. . > I can see ZERO value in mainstream rechargeable cars electric cars > either, especially if there was an ideal battery. You can only have > "refills" at a sensible speed by battery swap, That assumes no major battery gains. Some LiIon variants now charge in under a minute (stand clear). Vanadium redox batteries used a charged liquid "electrolyte" which stores energy in the difference between a number of oxidation states. "Energy" can be pumped in and old electrolyte for charging pumped out in relatively small time. A list member is well experienced with these. He may wish to stick his head up, or not. > and even then the entire > Electricity Distribution grid would need upgraded. And? Everything costs money. I'm told that the US's infrastructure is largely worn out, or far more so than was intended when it was built, and that the repeatedly postponed day when major input is needed looms near. (Bridges, roads, ...) I DO NO KNOW the truth of this, but slipping a new power grid into the impossible bill may as well be done :-). FWIW everywhere I have been in China they are undergoing massive public works programs - roads, bridges, railways, ... on a scale almost unimaginable. AND everywhere I go in China there are seriously too-old factories littering the countryside - well past their 'use by' date. Seems that they both know the lesson and have failed to learn it. > I used to think bio-fuel was a good idea, but unless a digester is > making it from the WASTE vegetable matter of food crops (i.e. stems of > maize, rape, sunflower, banana etc) it only makes people starve and put > up food prices. Largely true. I have somewhere a stunningly sobering report that analyses "spare" land capacity in all European countries, plus efficiency of production of biofuels in each, and which then makes predictions as to what could be achieved using ALL "spare" land. Notionally it may achieve all energy needs in the medium term but the scale is vast and one can be sure that real results would be inferior to predicted. Some crops use seriously bad land to produce high energy density crops that are inedible but that have almost all by products useful for something. There is an Australian one (name somewhere) and there is an Indian & African tree (Moringa oleifera ) that is very widespread (no mistake) that has some food output but also is highly useful for about everything. Even can be used as a high quality water flocculant allowing "one or two 9's) water purification. > Obviously using up waste cooking oil etc in diesel > engines or aircraft turbines is good, but it can only be a small > percentage unless we eat a lot more deep fat fried food :( Yes. Marginal value. I know a man in Louisiana who seems competent and honest (and having had a part in advising those planning the Bay of Pigs affair because he was ordered to*, should not be held against him :-) ) who claims to be able to convert almost any food waste into quality hydrocarbon product at a viable price. Most such claimants are dreamers and/or snake oil purveyors. He doesn't seem to be either). * So older than young :-). Hydrogen as an energy transport medium and clean burning or conversion energy releaser seems highly attractive, once you work out how to do little things [tm] like transport IT economically. ie carrying Protons with an electron attached is easier than carrying just electrons, but not too much. Russell --=20 http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .