|
|
Marc wrote:
Dan,
I have posted a link to the chemical equation. What are you asking for
exactly?
Marc
Posting a link to a chemical equation is insufficient. It would be more
useful to see:
Cost of technology
cost of input
cost of processing
cost of output
plus a comparison to existing methods (ie. the cost of coal)
they admit that they get 14% efficiency, and make a misleading statement.
"" It does, however, produce more energy in the form of hydrogen than
the energy input in the form of methane.""
Then it gets even more weird:
""It is important to note that the overall cost competitiveness of
hydrogen extends beyond hydrogen production to hydrogen compression,
storage, and distribution. The cost models are currently being expanded
to include these elements and involve some innovative hydrogen
distribution cost savings.""
I haven't seen any hard facts about this rather important part of the
equation.
It's also useful to talk about how the hydrogen is going to be used.
Transportation, electrical generating? Each of these has efficiencies
associated with them. If you take hydrogen from an admittedly
inefficient process, and then lose more through another energy
conversion, all of the sudden gasoline starts to sound good.
It's free too, it comes from the ground.
|
|