First of all, I beg the readers not to please take it otherwise. All
I want just to share my ideas on this issue with all of you. By my
opinion, "WATER AS FUEL" is something not actually realistic as of
today, might be in future, when situations change around.
When I was a lower year university student (sometimes in the early
seventies), someone from USSR came and demonstrated a car's engine
running with water. In that time, it was considered, almost like a
miracle, and it was a real face to face technological demonstration.
However, until now that technology is in infancy. Why it is so? I
guess it was not viable, and so has not been flourished and
commercialized until now. It is not a new technology, in fact it is
one of the oldest technologies. Using the word "WATER" is actually a
misnomer. The role of water is not prevalent here. "FUEL CELL" is
what makes it happen. The fuel cell is like a dry or well cell that
we use to produce electricity calling it a battery. As all of you
know, chemical reaction produces electricity in the batteries.
Similarly, fuel cell breaks water molecules (H2O) into HH and O. HH
is collected and used in the engines that can be run with hydrogen,
similar to gasoline or diesel engines. Basically internal combustion
engines. Hydrogen engines are used in many sophisticated and research
works, including in the rockets, satellites or sky-labs, etc.
The trouble is that you invariably need electricity or similar other
energy to produce hydrogen from water, using the fuel cells. This is
not yet cost-effective or environmentally helpful. Until now, to
spend lot more to produce hydrogen, and the other energies that need
to be used to produce hydrogen, pollute the environment lot more than
what would be saved by using hydrogen engines.
So, fuel cell is still like the "ETHANOL SAGA" that is costing the
nations at least 3-folds compared to gasoline, and polluting at least
5-folds during its production, also compared to gasoline that would
pollute the environment. But why it is going on still? One
is "QUEST", two is "POLITICS", and three is "MULTINATIONAL COMPANY'S
PROFIT".
Should we not think all these together and engage our valuable
thoughts, money, and time? Innovation is always good, but to choose
something for public, for a nation, and for mother earth, I believe,
we must seriously brainstorm.
Thanks,
KR
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nagorik_Shokti/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nagorik_Shokti/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:Nagorik_Shokti-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:Nagorik_Shokti-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Nagorik_Shokti-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/