With respect, I never suggested that it was. Clearly you do need to make the Hydrogen in the first place; but this can be done (as I said) using pollution-free renewable energy sources or nuclear power. The point is that unlike burning fossil fuels there is no release of Carbon Dioxide associated with Hydrogen fuel-cells. Biodiesel is clearly carbon neutral (assuming that the processing is done with carbon-free or carbon-neutral energy); oil from the ground is not.
>"For hydrogen, it comes from the production of electricity, which had to come from somewhere else, so why not use the original source directly, >instead of wasting 40% of the energy in producing electricity, and then 40% of the power in producing hydrogen?"
Because in order to make use the energy to power a vehicle it obviously needs to be stored on-board that vehicle. In terms of energy density -batteries are a very poor way to store electricity. That's why battery only cars generally have such limited ranges. Hydrogen on the other hand, is a much denser energy store. If I recall my freshman physics correctly it's less dense than gasoline, but it's quite close.
Hydrogen also has the advantage over batteries that the vehicle can be refueled with Hydrogen, much more quickly than you current battery technology will permit you recharge batteries.
Um no. You could always make Hydrogen by electrolyzing water with solar, wind (or nuclear) generated electricity. In that case you have either ZERO pollution, or with nuclear well contained waste to bury.
You get back the water you started with; and the consumption & generation of Oxygen remain in parity.
Re:Finally, Google expands into animals
on
Google Ant
·
· Score: 1
Are you thinking of General Magic's Magic Cap? Wikipedia
Thank God for the Open University. They are now making programming with the level of science in them, as the BBC used to back in the day. Sadly the really good, old OU programming is no longer being broadcast.
I watched on "UK History" (for US readers this is a sat/cable channel part owned by the BBC - 90% of the content being old BBC documentaries) an episode of "Horizon" (think "Nova") from 1986. It was about the Falkland's war; and how ship & weapon designers had learnt lessons from what went wrong. The explanations of the problems, and their solutions - was in far more detail than anything I've seen anyone make about the (first) Gulf war, for example.
I've also seen two OU programs about the same subject (Lanchester models); one from the mid 1990's, and one from the early 1980's. The newer programme was a superficial glimpse at the general principles - not mentioning the underlying mathematics at all; and actually doing a rather poor job of explaining anything. The 1980's one (despite being the same length), explained everything in great detail; and went on to show two Lanchester models actually "predicting" the results of the battle of Trafalgar, and (I think - I can't remember exactly) a WWII air battle.
Sadly it seems that no broadcaster credits their audience with any kind of intelligence any more.
I played with one, in the early 1990's at High School here in the UK; and I seem to remember that there were two discs. One with maps and data, and a second one with photographs of "typical" houses, (interiors and exteriors) - as well as landmarks, landscapes etc. I think it also had video BBC news reports.
Slashdot Mirror
It's really great that the US DoD are doing this; but it should be noted that the UK MOD have been doing exactly this for some time now...
See: https://github.com/dstl/
That is very true; and CO2 is a less effective greenhouse gas than CH4.
>"Hydrogen is not an energy source. Never ever."
With respect, I never suggested that it was. Clearly you do need to make the Hydrogen in the first place; but this can be done (as I said) using pollution-free renewable energy sources or nuclear power. The point is that unlike burning fossil fuels there is no release of Carbon Dioxide associated with Hydrogen fuel-cells. Biodiesel is clearly carbon neutral (assuming that the processing is done with carbon-free or carbon-neutral energy); oil from the ground is not.
>"For hydrogen, it comes from the production of electricity, which had to come from somewhere else, so why not use the original source directly,
>instead of wasting 40% of the energy in producing electricity, and then 40% of the power in producing hydrogen?"
Because in order to make use the energy to power a vehicle it obviously needs to be stored on-board that vehicle. In terms of energy density -batteries are a very poor way to store electricity. That's why battery only cars generally have such limited ranges. Hydrogen on the other hand, is a much denser energy store. If I recall my freshman physics correctly it's less dense than gasoline, but it's quite close.
Hydrogen also has the advantage over batteries that the vehicle can be refueled with Hydrogen, much more quickly than you current battery technology will permit you recharge batteries.
Um no. You could always make Hydrogen by electrolyzing water with solar, wind (or nuclear) generated electricity. In that case you have either ZERO pollution, or with nuclear well contained waste to bury. You get back the water you started with; and the consumption & generation of Oxygen remain in parity.
Are you thinking of General Magic's Magic Cap? Wikipedia
It seems to be the season for OS updates, doesn't it? :-)
Thank God for the Open University. They are now making programming with the level of science in them, as the BBC used to back in the day. Sadly the really good, old OU programming is no longer being broadcast.
I watched on "UK History" (for US readers this is a sat/cable channel part owned by the BBC - 90% of the content being old BBC documentaries) an episode of "Horizon" (think "Nova") from 1986. It was about the Falkland's war; and how ship & weapon designers had learnt lessons from what went wrong. The explanations of the problems, and their solutions - was in far more detail than anything I've seen anyone make about the (first) Gulf war, for example.
I've also seen two OU programs about the same subject (Lanchester models); one from the mid 1990's, and one from the early 1980's. The newer programme was a superficial glimpse at the general principles - not mentioning the underlying mathematics at all; and actually doing a rather poor job of explaining anything. The 1980's one (despite being the same length), explained everything in great detail; and went on to show two Lanchester models actually "predicting" the results of the battle of Trafalgar, and (I think - I can't remember exactly) a WWII air battle.
Sadly it seems that no broadcaster credits their audience with any kind of intelligence any more.
Sadly, even the BBC isn't making the level of inteligent documentaries that it used to. :-(
I played with one, in the early 1990's at High School here in the UK; and I seem to remember that there were two discs. One with maps and data, and a second one with photographs of "typical" houses, (interiors and exteriors) - as well as landmarks, landscapes etc. I think it also had video BBC news reports.