Kevanf1 wrote:
On 02/05/06, James Knott
wrote: Kevanf1 wrote:
There are alternatives but one is branded a conspiracy theorist if you so much as hint at the oil companies perhaps keeping them quiet. There is no reason why we shouldn't have safe engines running on water. There is no need to have a tank of highly flammable hydrogen gas (from the split H20) as it can be split in small quantities and fed into the engine that way.
????
Splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen takes energy. Where does that energy come from? Remember, you can never exceed 100% efficiency and are unlikely to even reach it.
Solar power. Admittedly, solar panels take energy to make them but I don't think they break down fast. So, this would mean that the energy put into making them can be regained from the use of the sun over its lifetime. The solar energy is then used to split the water. It doesn't take much in the way of electrical power to produce the two gases after all.
Given the maximum 100% efficiency limit, you'd have to provide as much solar power as it takes to run the car. Can practical solar panels produce that much? If so, why not power the wheels directly and eliminate the losses in the hydrogen production and use? Then again, the car would be a tad slow at night, unless you had some practical way to store significant amounts of power.
Agreed about the 100% efficiency, that's a pipe dream and totally unobtainable. However, we can maximise clean energy resources and combine them. Solar power being just one which can be converted to other uses.
Personally, I'd love to have some solar voltaic panels put on my roof. It is feasible now but the price is prohibitive at the moment. Hopefully those prices will fall.
Using solar to supplement a home heating or electrical system is one thing. Using it as the sole source of power for a car is another.