"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
W K wrote:

Hence if you use H2 as a fuel and derive it from methane (which is the
best feedstock at present) you will need to burn hydrogen equivalent
to
1.7 kg of methane to do the same work as burning 1 kg of methane.

Where on earth do you get that from?

A knowledge of organic chemistry, something you were preening yourself
on a few moments ago.

No, not organic chemistry actually, get your branches right!
A few workings would allow me to figure out what you are on about.
I haven't looked up the reaction to be honest.

(and preen? you were talking "energy rich bonds" ... a very dodgy and old
fashioned concept)

Your approach might work if you could give precise H from methane yields
(real ones)

The cases I have given are best possible yields assuming that it is
possible to convert methane or octane to hydrogen with no loss of
hydrogen. This is of course impossible.

I'd have thought it was an equilibrium process anyway, so you'd still need
to know real live figures.

Congratulations on supporting the energy economy of the madhouse. A
hydrogen "economy" looks set to reduce the mpg of the average car from
35 to 14 mpg.

Perhaps you should have read my post to the end.
The whole idea of a hydrogen economy is for it not to be produced from
hydrocarbons out of the ground.

You can have whatever unworkable pipe-dream you wish.

No, read to the end ...
(and btw I was really just picking at the corners of your arguments, which
always seem like gut overreactions to any sort of attempt to make a car that
isnt a normal petrol one)

However you will
ahve to deal with reality from time to time. Even the most rabid
advocates of a hydrogen economy are not promising that it will be in
place within 25 years. And even then, they expect the hydrogen to be
derived from fossil fuel.

Which always looked like very long distance future pie in the sky.

Indeed, so why waste energy and money demonstrating that hydrogen
"works" where "works" means "is vastly inferior to and even worse for
the economy and environment than current fuels"?

Ah, so you did bother reading to the end.
I'll agree that H cars are not useful at the moment, but if you wait 25
years and have nothing ready you'll be in the ****.

If companies do no research (and these things will be tiny parts of their
budgets), they get left in the past quite quickly.

"W K" wrote in message
...

Ah, so you did bother reading to the end.
I'll agree that H cars are not useful at the moment, but if you wait 25
years and have nothing ready you'll be in the ****.

If companies do no research (and these things will be tiny parts of their
budgets), they get left in the past quite quickly.

25 years ago we were doing work on coal gasification, on the premise that
both oil and natural gas would have been used up by the late 1990s, and that
we would need to use the Fischer-Trosch process for road fuel. I still
prefer the idea of bio-diesel.
--
Terry Harper
http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/