Dear Staff;

I have what I feel is a hard hitting story behind the truth behind alternative energy that is not being exploited today and the rationale as to why we dismiss it as a viable solution. I also have easy proposals for a solution of cheap energy production that would resolve the problem(s) facing us today.

Breech reactors cannot solve the problem. At the given multi Tera Watt demand per second, even if we were to harvest the world supply, there is only enough for perhaps five to seven years at current power demands.

Wind and Solar are just to large a footprint to come close to a solution at current demands.

Hydrogen power is only dismissed as a solution simply because of one thing. The current cost of hydrogen fuel cells is a function of the cost of the metal platinum.

A fuel cell today using the current cost of platinum is around one hundred dollars a Watt to construct based on the platinum content of the platinum. Platinum is a precious metal but there is more that enough on the planet to power ALL of our needs. If we were to put a moratorium on the hoarding and misuse of this metal in areas such as jewelry and focused its use on energy production, it would cost closer to a penny a watt and we would have a solution.

Recently, a saw a news program of an artist in London that cast a skull in pure platinum that sold for over 30 million dollars. This is criminal in my mind in that there was enough platinum in that skull to power the eastern seaboard using distilled water for 10 to 15 years. After that time, when the fuel cells become inoperable, the platinum in the cells is 100 % reclaimed and new cheap plastic containments for the cells are rebuilt and this goes on and on to infinity because Platinum is the only metal catalyst that does not oxidize.

The fuel cell is such a simple design to build and understand that an eight year old could build them. And since water is the only fuel that has to be broken down to its base (Hydrogen and Oxygen) their is little chance of running out of the fuel.

I truly feel if this could be explained or the subject articulated by someone like Al Gore, such that everyone could understand, their may be the appropriate pressure on the government to make changes.

I would be more than happy to provide all of the graphics that makes this topic easy enough to understand for the masses.

Platinum might be a precious metal but our atmosphere is even more precious in my opinion.

Please do not get me wrong, I am not seeking publicity, money or fame at all.
I just feel that if presented correctly, maybe we all might have a chance.

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely,

Matthew S. Bates

Hello
I completely agree with you! If you think about the energy necessary to build a solar panel (w'out talking about silicium speculation) the amount of energy is too large. The book "The Hydrogen Economy" written by Jeremy Rifkin support your argumentation.
We have to make efforts for "real" environmental-friendly" energy!
Here in Switzerland where i live they implemented a sistem of mirrors that reflect the rays of the sun towards water and the steam gives the energy. For more info you may check under the name of the company:[QUOTE] Ale Airlight Energy SA in Biasca, Switzerland.
best regards
Alan

The theory of Hydrogen has been around for many years and used in this country by some for 20 or more. But you seem to be over looking one vital point. There is a world wide freshwater crisis. States are suing each other over water shortages. Any given summer you can see boats resting in mud because of low lake levels. It will take over a trillion dollars in the near future for desalination plants just to keep up to the demands of the growing population at the current crisis level. The Colorado River is so drawn on that it is only a tinkle by the time it reaches the Pacific Ocean and there is a battle from it's beginning to it's end for more.

There are many other sources such as solar combined with wind, water driven turbines and thermal. The use of methane from decomposing garbage and the possibility of new developments. Hydrogen can be drawn from sources other that water. But is you still feel that using water to supply our energy needs is the answer than you should first ask yourself. What good is water related energy if you don't have enough to drink or water you crops. Are you willing to cut your throats so you can drive you car?

Actually when hydrogen is burned it recombines with Oxygen and turns back into water vapour.

Along with some population control, it is the perfect solution to the energy crisis.

The problem the governments have is that water is or can be free and you don't need a PEM cell to make it. They can not meter it which means no revenue for the government equivalent tax. Governments will need to solve that to maintain stability.

So, think about what would happen if everyone had fuel for free. The world as we know it would just about stop.

Country's that rely on coal and oil for their main exports would no longer be sustainable and would need economic assistance. Current world powers would change within the year and it would create a world wide crisis.

Every Person that relies on oil for a living (most of us in some way), would not be able to count on a Job and there would be massive unemployment that would leave the last depression looking like a picnic.

Investors in the stock markets would loose mega billions as the stock markets crashed and banks went broke.

The often unpaid for or yet to be paid for billions of dollars in power infrastructure would become redundant as people powered their homes for free.

So, mining, electrical, oil and transport industries would be devastated along with every mouth they feed.

Hydrogen cannot be taxed reliably because not all water comes from a water meter so the government revenue stream from oil would dry up..

That is just so huge they wont think of it... Not yet anyway.. it is too simple and any one can do it if they knew how. They won’t/can’t promote this!

If anyone thinks you wouldn't be adversly affected, then think much harder.

I just woke up.. I will read this later and see if it makes enough sense

Point well made asgard2. There are two questions on this I have hoped to answer for years now.

First is concerning it's reforming into water. I am aware of this but I can't get an answer to how much. Do you emit as much as you use?

The other is concerning the recycling of the water used. How long does it take to get back into the water systems? In 2006 America alone used a little over 378 million gallons of gasoline a day. With the current water problem we have here taking that much from the daily supply of readily available water would cause some problems but if it took say two weeks we could be kicking on disasters door.

I agree with all you said, especially population control which could eventually destroy us regardless of the alternate energy decided on. So really the only qualms I have are the two above questions. Have you run across anything that would answer those for me?

Again, welcome.

Thanks for the welcome much appreciated

The answer is yes, because matter can neither be created or destroyed so it has to be equal.

The burning effect does not destroy on a quantum level, it is just the physical effect of a chemical change.

Precipitation is induced by many factors on a global scale. Where the rain will fall cannot be determined but this is a water planet, the likelihood is that, even we at 6.5 billion people using hydrogen will not have a great effect on the rainfall distribution patterns.

In fact, one could lightly surmise that if global warming is changing the weather pattern then lowing the carbon level of the planet by burning hydrogen instead of carbon based products, may lower the global temperatures enough to increase or return rainfall to the point it was previously (one can hope).

You folks ever looked at the Stan Meyer story ? He worked on hydrogen as fuel and was successfull it seems.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6yRn4IAsrU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8stApCmxYEM&feature=related

I would guess that the amount of water needed to make the hydrogen (if by electrolysis) is much less than the amount we use for other needs. Also possibly salt water can be used?

As for the hydrogen car, I have yet to hear in an understandable way where the original energy comes from.

The real issue as I understand it is how do you get the energy to make the hydrogen? Hydrogen is really an energy storage medium more than a raw fuel. Ultimately it would be the solar, wind, nuclear fission, nuclear (hydrogen) fusion power that would supply the energy that can make hydrogen (hopefully efficiently) via electrolysis.


Steve

I should first clarify that I am not having a problem with extracting hydrogen from water. The problem I currently have, and please note that it is my personal concerns and I could very easily be totally wrong, but my hesitation is in using fresh water not sea water. Because of hydrogen’s natural tendency to bond with oxygen the water molecule would be returned (it also bonds just as easily with nitrogen which makes it the perfect glue that joins atoms together on the molecular level).

But the time of return would create problems. I don’t know the estimated time for its return to the available supply but with the problems we are having now with the fresh water supply in the world and the rapidly growing demand any delay would be detrimental.

Just one example of the many worldwide issues that is now and has been playing out and growing worse can be seen just by looking at the Colorado River. It is drawn from so heavily along it course that L.A. not only sucks out the last trickle but is fighting for more.

So, even though the water would be returned there would be a substantial delay in that return from an already over taxed supply. To me this is like loaning a friend all your money. You’ll get it back in the future but you might starve to death before you do. And then there would also be the vast amount needed to keep the fuel tanks of every vehicle in the world at the consistent level we do now with gasoline.

With that said, we can get hydrogen from the oceans which have somewhere around 140 million billion tons, that is my preferred source. Hydrogen is now separated from natural gas by heating it with steam to around 1000 degrees C. Red hot coal hit with steam also releases hydrogen.

There is a form of bacteria called anaerobic that releases hydrogen when fermenting glucose into acetic acid. How useful or difficult this process is I don’t know. But an upside to this is that the hydrogen released by some of the bacteria in this method is used by other bacteria called methanogens to convert carbon dioxide to methane.

I've only listed a few here because truthfully I couldn't even begin to name all the sources of hydrogen.

The amount of energy needed in the separation of water into hydrogen and oxygen is not much. A small, structured pulse from a 12 volt battery is all it takes and the battery is recharged during normal driving. The power from hydro sources, geo-thermal, wind or solar could also be used in the extraction from water or any other separation process.

I’m not saying hydrogen is not the best fuel I can think of because it is. There is an ample supply in its available sources and the means to extract it. And I am not saying by using it we reduce the amount available because hydrogen would release the needed energy then combine once again with oxygen or join other atoms into molecules. I’m just saying that in my personal opinion we should not now rush to use of fresh water.

Looks like we can agree that salt water would be a reasonable source of the hydrogen. A tradeoff is that might take some energy to transport the hydrogen to inland areas.

Just to keep the discussion interesting though, I would suggest that even fresh water might be useful. The amount of water per person needed to make the hydrogen is probably much less than what would be used to take a bath/shower in the morning, as an example.

I like the idea of electrolysis and hopefully it can be improved beyond the 25-40% efficiency I've seen quoted at the industrial scale.

Anerobic bacteria might be useful. They would still need the sugars or whatever that comes ultimately from solar energy / biomass. Still sounds like a good idea if this is done from agricultural waste and such.

Here's some more info we might consider:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production

You don’t need salt water, just a rain water tank in your back yard. You get 2.5x the distance on hydrogen that you do when you burn gasoline in your car. How much do you need?

Salt water will produce Chlorine gas in addition to hydrogen, not really a problem because it is broken down but it is poisonous if inhaled and it is not the preferred option for many reasons.

I believe Stanley Meyer was onto something but his design belongs to Nikola Tesla and closely resembles the Tesla Coil.

What was wrong with Stanley Meyer is that he wanted to make huge money out of it.

I am working on this (according to Tesla’s notes) using Stan’s output figures. I haven’t cracked it yet but sometimes I think I am close.

The problem is to simplify it to the point anyone can do it and therefore anyone can have it.

That means a design so simple and back to basics that people with be willing to try to build one without costing an arm and a leg.

If anyone achieves this, it will take humanity to the next level.

If there is a problem it will not be the rainfall patterns or lack of water, it will be the fact that humans are wasteful and electricity causes heat dissipation. If everyone can have power for free, then the environment may well still overheat.

Population control is still a big problem.

my take on this is why? (rhetorical) :?:

Everyone KNOW why...because THEIR answer is to DRILL ANWAR for a measly 1 million barrels a day...WHY is it measly Glenn Beck? HERE IS WHY!

According to nationmaster.com the USA consumes 20,730,000 barrels of OIL per day...THAT IS 20 MILLION 730 THOUSAND BARRELS PER DAY!...MORE THAN RUSSIA, CHINA, & INDIA COMBINED! (We suck down 25% of the world's OIL daily)

I would demonstrate with links, but I don't have a home computer...

But back to the issue for Beck, Limp-puke, and Hannity (or as Savage calls him...THE LEPRECHAUN)...DO YOU THINK AN EXTRA 1 MILLION BARRELS A DAY WILL LOWER GASOLINE BY SO MUCH AS A PENNY? :?:

Limbaugh's answer is WE CAN'T INNOVATE! So let's just keep up with the status-quo! Wage wars, kill and invade, and watch GASOLINE & DIESEL SKYROCKET UNTIL IT TAKES OUR ENTIRE PAYCHECK JUST TO MOVE!...RU$H, try taking pills or suck on Fentanyl patches like Beck does... then you can IMAGINE their isn't a MOB of ANGRY people INVADING your studio when GAS HITS $6 a GALLON!...Go back to your $24 Million Dollar MANSION paid for by Exxon-Mobil and Jim Chanos, and come up with some MORE fanciful lies...maybe West Palm Beach could use some Katrina Urban Renewal and wash YOUR house away! :mad:

Hannity will STILL be driving around in his ESCOLADE while the REST of us take bicycles to WORK!...What will you DO Sean when that ANGRY MOB tips over your vehicle on the streets when GAS HITS $8 A GALLON? :?:

And of course then there's Beck...the Court Jester of Conservative Radio...Glenn what will you do at your next MILLION DOLLAR BOOK SIGNING...when that ANGRY MOB carries you out to the curb where the TAR & FEATHERS are WAITING...when gasoline HITS $10 A GALLON? :wtf:

So do we NEED the Hydrogen Electrolysis Engine? OF COURSE!...Will we GET it?...NOT AS LONG AS THESE NEOCONS CAN PROFIT FROM PICKING OUR POCKETS!