Originally posted by lasersailor184 The problem is efficiency. Sure, hydrogen and salt water seem like cool sources. But then you realize that you need to SPEND more energy to get the energy, then what they give off.I don't think there will be any replacement for gasoline and oil until we find some sort of super Star Trek like energy.
Originally posted by Bingolong I dont know or see any reason we couldnt use a facility like the hoover dam to produce hydrogen by electrolysis, the electric is allrdy there and so is the water. Electricity could just be passed through water bye copper rods to produce and capture hydrogen? The gravity is used to produce the electricity.
Originally posted by Maverick Lets see, taking power from the area Hoover dam supplies. That leaves most of AZ, Nevada including Vegas and a large chunk of Southern California in the dark. Yeah that's realistic. Did you think the dam is just sitting there and the electricity was not already allocated?!?!?!:huh Why do you think they put up a nuke power plant (Palo Verde reactor) if Hoover dam's power wasn't already tapped out?Resources in the economy are not being left unallocated. You can't just say we'll use this or that and figure it won't impact the rest of the economy in a negative manner. It's already been born out with the corn / ethanol situation.
Originally posted by Maverick Oh and BTW there is no perpetual motion machine either.
Originally posted by Bingolong Okay how bout this?Plasma Gasificationhttp://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/873aae7bf86c0110vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html
Originally posted by Maverick It's interesting but still not perpetual motion. The costs involved will include the sorting and transportation of the raw "fuel" as well as the removal of the "waste" for even further processing to make it usable for something. Coupled with a number of other technologies it might make a dent in fuel usage but most power generation here is from coal, not petroleum.