Tim Downie wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:
On Feb 2, 10:28 am, Gib Bogle wrote:
On 2/02/2011 11:08 p.m., harry wrote:

Why Jeremy is a nobber.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hype_about_Hydrogen
Yes, it's a half-baked idea.

I stopped reading after "nor will its use reduce global warming,
because of the cost and greenhouse gases generated during production"

Why? that is, in fact, entirely correct, unless you know a way (other
than nuclear of generating a lot of reliable electrictity from non
fossil sources.

Actually, although I'm not a wind turbine fan, surely this is one
possible reason to build the things. The reliability of supply is less
of an issue when you have the ability to store energy in the form of
hydrogen


So you reckon to design a plant that can take and use efficiently random
watts off a wind turbine?

Good luck!


In general though, I agree that chasing hydrogen as a cure for all our
ills is akin to joining a gym to get fit. In your heart, you know it's
just displacement activity to stop you doing any *real* exercise that
might be difficult or tiring.

Hydrogen is not an avaiable source of primary energy: It has to be made.
If you have to make it, why not make something more useful?


Tim