<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 9/11/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Billy Crook</b> <<a href="mailto:billycrook@gmail.com">billycrook@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
You can not get more energy out of a system than you put in to it.<br>There are NO exceptions, Get over it. The best you can hope for is<br>100% efficiency, and that would still only be a hope.<br></blockquote></div><br>
Only a hope, because 100% efficiency isn't possible. There's always some loss.<br><br>That isn't to say that the Kanzius (what's with pronouncing his name "Kansas", like the "i" isn't even there?) Process can't be more efficient than, say electrolysis at extracting H from water.
<br><br>It's been said before, but it bears repeating. Unless you're doing nuclear fusion, Hydrogen is not an energy SOURCE. It is a medium for storing or transmitting energy, which should not create any additional pollution to produce from some other energy source, nor to expend the stored energy. So once you've generated all that electricity, if demand drops (cooler temps so not as much AC needed), you can use excess power to extract Hydrogen from water. The inefficiency of converting the power to H might well be worth it, especially for nuke electricity, where the marginal cost of running the plant at maximum vs a lower level isn't all that much.
<br>