[AT] energy

[Claudeprintequip at aol.com]

Hello again Steve, George and all,
 
I'm not an engineer or anything else.   I am simply  curious.  Does your 
statement then mean we
get more energy return from gasoline than the energy used in the  
manufacturing process?  I thought
when we changed anything from one form to another there was some energy  
loss.  Do we not use more
energy producing a gallon of gasoline than the gallon can  produce?  Also we 
create pollutants twice in
this process.   I have no idea what the comparative percentage of  energy 
return from manufacturing cost and resultant pollution would be  from  fuel cell 
versus gasoline.  I can't  believe a bunch of  modern engineers are really 
trying to get more energy back than the energy used  in the manufacturing process.
 
I'm not trying to be argumentative. I don't like giving up on the fuel  cell. 
 It doesn't produce any pollutants. There is secondary value to  be added 
back to fuel cell because of zero pollution. I don't know if there is a  way to 
determine the dollar value of this benefit or not either.    Nevertheless, it 
has definite and very desirable secondary value.
 
Kind regards,
Claude
Tontitown, Arkansas
 


Thanks,  George.  I think the analogy is solid.  It goes like
this:   alchemists were attempting something physically
impossible, and they could  have saved themselves vast
quantities of effort if only they knew.   Those trying to
split water into H2 and O2 using less energy input  than
they'll get back on recombination can also save themselves
the  effort by understanding the fundamentals.

Steve O.  





**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.      
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-campos-duffy/
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)