- Thread starter
- #21
I am talking about non-GHG energy for transportation. It has to be something that a vehicle can carry. And you yourself said you felt BEV's were untenable because of the recharge time (and you're certainly not alone. Hydrogen fuel cells satisfy all three criteria: no GHG emissions, portable and refuel in minutes. And if energy is being supplied without fuel costs (solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, OTEC, wave, tide, etc) the only hold up is the new infrastructure required. Fuel cells currently require rare metals in the platinum group but hopefully other functional materials can be found. Of course, the lower efficiency of the process as a whole will put the kabosh on fuel cells for years to come but the energetic cost of obtaining hydrogen is not a complete showstopper. Who ever thought fusion would break even, but it has.No matter by what process, the production of hydrogen necessarily involves more energy being put into the process, than what can be recovered by using that hydrogen as a fuel.
Bu8ild any kind of hydrogen-fueled power plant, and use all of the energy produced by that plant to produce more hydrogen, and the whole thing will operate at a net loss. You won't get any energy out of it, and you'll have to put more energy into it from some other source, to keep it going.
The concept that Crick is trying to sell here, in in the realm of perpetual motion.