That's all well and fine but it doesn't change what you stated, which I disagreed with by stating - "unless you can come up with a zero co2 emitting source for energy to produce hydrogen." So IF you have a "green" source of energy to "make" hydrogen then you could be correct but that is a big IF.Originally posted by: Harvey
Then you've failed dismally in your attempt to disagree with me.Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
And that's the part I was agreeing with you about. The part I disagreed with is your hydrogen comment. It's just as misleading as their claim.Originally posted by: Harvey
I was talking about the physics and chemistry of the fuel, and my point was only that their SwiftFuel is not "carbon neutral."Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
yes, their statement is off, but so is yours unless you can come up with a zero co2 emitting source for energy to produce hydrogen.Originally posted by: Harvey
Burning any fuel containing carbon produces carbon dioxide. A fuel that doesn't is hydrogen, which oxydizes hydrogen to produces only water vapor.
All things considered, their fuel may be a good idea, but in making that determination, I think it's important to have a true understanding of the advantages they claim. The rest is academic.
I agree with you that generating hydrogen is costly. It requires power. The laws of physics tell us that, even with a theoretical 100% efficient conversion system, you can only get back as much energy by burning it as it takes to separate it, and there is no 100% efficient conversion system so the process, itself will expend some energy.
It doesn't necessarily require energy from a source that generates CO2. For example, hydro-electric power wouldn't, but it's a bit inconvenient to carry the river and the dam with you in the trunk.
The same is true for rechargable electric cars. The power that is supposed to recharge the plug-in car has to come from somewhere... like your friendly local power plant that uses whatever technology they happen to use.
Getting back to what I said, SwiftFuel may be a good alternative to petroleum derived fuels. It may be cleaner. It may be cheaper. It may not compete with food-based fuels. My ONLY point was that, in the article, they claimed it's carbon neutral, and it isn't.
Don't sweat it. We disagree about enough that you don't have to force this issue.
But yes, we agree that it's misleading for them to claim carbon neutral.