British scientists 'invent artificial petrol'...

[Tryst]

i said earlier in the thread that the amount the oil companies actually make per liter to the actual cost of fuel on the forecourt is not very much

So how did BP and Shell etc become such rich companies, having enough money to own entire governments? Don't say they don't own governments or we wouldn't be fighting wars in oil rich countries.

which brings me back to my point and why the thread was started why would they not want a cheaper renewable source if possible ?

why would they want to hide it as its themselves who would be selling it ?

saving themselves billions in future expolorations and ensuring their futures as oil becomes more and more scarce

You answered that yourself in the first sentence... Control. Renewable energy would be easier to make and therefore the average person with enough knowledge could do it. That takes control away from the oil companies.

Take hydrogen for example. If it were possible to create an engine that ran on tap water by electrolysis, oil companies would have to go into the water business to retain control of the resource. However, imagine the outcry if water was suddenly 1.35 UK Pounds per litre, take out a mortgage to have a bath.

[thered]

So how did BP and Shell etc become such rich companies, having enough money to own entire governments?

purely on volume sold our government makes more on the forecourt than the petrol companies

Don't say they don't own governments or we wouldn't be fighting wars in oil rich countries.

Not sure they own governments but they certainly contribute a great deal to the country with the money they earn and they certainly have sway and i agree that we seem to only start wars where there is oil

oil is power of that there is no doubt without it we would be defenceless and starved to death as a nation we do not have the resources or know how to feed 60,000,000 without it and as of yet it has no replacement

that is why we want to keep our hands on it

You answered that yourself in the first sentence... Control. Renewable energy would be easier to make and therefore the average person with enough knowledge could do it. That takes control away from the oil companies.

i meant control as in without oil we have nothing as a if we lost control and other coutries cut our supplies we are on our knees we need to make sure we have control of the oil to stay as a power as does the USA

Take hydrogen for example. If it were possible to create an engine that ran on tap water by electrolysis, oil companies would have to go into the water business to retain control of the resource. However, imagine the outcry if water was suddenly 1.35 UK Pounds per litre, take out a mortgage to have a bath.

this is what i am getting at in the first place something racin snake cant answer if BP could make hydrogen like the start of this thread more cheaply than the could produce petrol why would they not do it?

they would be stupid not too for a start people would use their cars more again so they would sell more litres and make more cash

and the price would be cheaper than what it is now

but no they would rather keep all these new fuel devices that make fuel super cheap a secret so that people cant afford to drive as far and use less fuel our fuel consumption as a nation is decreasing due to the rises at the pumps as people use their cars less

if BP or Shell can make fuel as suggested in this thread for 19p a litre or 60p a litre taxed as also suggested

they would roll it out tommorow because people would use more and save money, the economy would grow groceries would be cheaper and all other items in shops would all come down in price and all due to cheaper fuel

the government would still get the same in tax whether direct or indirect and the oil companies would use a similar mark up on the fuel as they did with oil

so why would they not use cheaper fuel?

only racin snake knows

[racin-snake]

[quote]If there's ever been a prime example of why you should rely on lab results and actual testing over someone on the internet this would be it.[quote]

wheres the money to come from ?

also i see you say that the consuming of 30 amps is some sort of problem when producing this HH0 GAS ?

most cars use more amperage than this for running eps and air con ...logic to loose one to gain another perhaps
all the posts that are so negative are just the same just worded in a more scientific manner
also all on the negatives and no positive

a bit weird that all the problems except deforming pistons
is more than probably fixed with the technology we have
and modifications can be done as its learnt like all motor vehicles have and will always have been designed

just one question i would like an answer to
simply put
in your honest opinion are these products worth the time investing in ?

in one word yes or no ?


i think so myself
also renewable energy needs a research boost
there is no room for pessimism now
the petro chemical industry's have surpassed themselves before not in the name of science but in the name of profit

in time the less pessimistic will prevail i think

but as you have you reminded us better in a lab than some privateer ......
in my thoughts yes your completely correct ...but who will fund this ?

[thered]

just one question i would like an answer to
simply put
in your honest opinion are these products worth the time investing in ?

in one word yes or no ?

yes of course it as any fuel other than fossil fuel is worth investing in heavily oil,gas and coal will not be around forever

the biggest investors into new fuel sources would probably be id imagine the oil and energy companies

because if they dont sort it out they wont have have anything left to make any money from

[chroma]

If there's ever been a prime example of why you should rely on lab results and actual testing over someone on the internet this would be it.

wheres the money to come from ?

Money for what? Hydrogen's been well understood for almost a century, its the simplest and most abundant element in existence. It needs no further research

also i see you say that the consuming of 30 amps is some sort of problem when producing this HH0 GAS ?

most cars use more amperage than this for running eps and air con ...logic to loose one to gain another perhaps
all the posts that are so negative are just the same just worded in a more scientific manner
also all on the negatives and no positive

my power steering is entirely hydraulic it draws 0 by way of electrical current, most cars operate in this manner, the downside is it lowers fuel economy from using a belt driven system. Similarly with air con its pump driven via the crankshaft.
This is all largely moot though as the point was entirely missed.

It takes MORE energy to manufacture low grade hydrogen than you YIELD FROM ITS USE
For high grade pure hydrogen it takes MUCH MORE energy than you net at the end.

Cant be any more plain that this, by making hydrogen your simply pissing up a rope.
Theres a stark difference between negatively curb stomping someone's idealistic pipe dream and applying cold hard realism and economics.
It's just a case of Pragmatism over Idealism in this case.

Further proof? just to really knock it home?

2litres of HHO per hour = 16,800 watts

1L HHO = 8400w to manufacture.

Weight of Hydrogen = 1.01 grams/mol
Weight of Oxygen = 15.9994 grams/mol
Avagadros Constant states that there are 6.022 * 10^23 molecules that occupy 22.47L of space assuming 1 atmosphere @ 25c.
HHO = H? + H? + O?
Hydrogens energy = 23,330 BTU /kg
Oxygens has no energy its a catalyst.

H? Litre weight = 2.02g / 22.47 = 0.08989764129951045838896306186026 kg
/3 = 0.0299kg (rounded)

O? Litre weight = 31.9988g / 22.47 = 1.4240676457498887405429461504228 kg
/3 = 0.4746kg (rounded)

H? + H? + O? = 0.0299 + 0.0299 (0.0599 kg/l for combustable fuel) + 0.4746 = 0.5346 kg/l Total gas value.

Only the combustible fuel goes towards the BTU of the gas.
so the BTU of 1L of HHO is 23,330 * 0.0599
1,397.467 BTU / L of HHO
1 Watt = 3.4BTU
so 411 Watts of energy can be generated from 1L of HHO
It only took 8400 Watts to produce the 1L of that in the first place.

We're really churning that lead into gold today huh?

I can't fathom how your unable to grasp this simple premise, it takes more energy to make hydrogen then you get from using it.
Its exactly the same as ALCHEMY, you cant turn lead into gold.

just one question i would like an answer to
simply put
in your honest opinion are these products worth the time investing in ?

in one word yes or no ?

no more than the quest to turn Pb 82 into Au 79 deserve time invested in them.
If people want to go ahead and live in dream land then as a private individual that's their right, what isn't right is asking for my taxes to chase a fantasy.
My taxes get squandered enough as it is.

[racin-snake]

mmmmm
most of that ime afraid didnt so much go over my head but it did show me your not entirely listening to the whole thing
your hydrolic power steering runs from your engine at a detriment of fuel used ..correct
also then another alternator would be just as much a fuel loss
dump one
also to re iterate a point
electric cars are short on range so then using hh0 as an on demand fuel is better ..also
using renewable energy is after a while self supporting appart from the fact of maintenance
unlike nuclear and coal power ? again i have to ask
your equations dont matter if the fuel is from a cheap sustainable source
ie sea or wind solar ect ect

so you are so definite that these things are impossible
sustainable and CLEANER fuels are obtainable
i know this for a fact
your sums are futile if the source is cheap and sufficient to use
cars cannot carry batteries that are large enough for range due to weight ect
and most of the manufacturing process causes even more pollution
the idea if you would attempt to understand is
if the fuel ie electricity from these sustainable sources could be harnessed its universally beneficial and less polluting to make these fuels and will in many s opinion make it better and cheaper

your facts about wattage costs are irrelevant if the energy needed to produce the fuel is cheaper

your figures are also irrelevant if you take into consideration the fact that the carbon footprint is smaller for each individual vehicle

i just love your negativity ......not
i is nice to see how someone trying to debate cannot see the good and bad in a subject
all ego ime afraid ......not good science if the person is emotionally attached


ie missing the positives to explain the negatives .

to add to the turn here what if the lead was worth more than the gold ?

gold as in money inflates its price due to scarcity gold is scarcer than lead ?
and inflation beccomes higher when less money is in circulation ?

then if the energy source is not scarce the price is far cheaper ?


with electrical power the battery's are heavy they restrict range and have to be bigger and heavier to go
farther bringing into the fore the weight carried adds to the fuel used
so more range needs bigger loads more energy needed to double the range
as like space travel you cant take the amount you need with you

but if the initial battery plus reused deceleration reclamation and other inventions removing comfort non essentials
giving more owness on actual fuel and energy savings
saving the cost of producing the desired result an alternative to what we are using

solar and geothermal energy wind and sea all potential for making electricity makes it just a bit less scarce ...then it would be cheaper (see the thinking here)

come on.. i aint that deluded it cant be worth trying
even with chromas tax money ?

making many options and many other different ways to make these a reality
nothing like alchemy at all

mankind have found the way to split the atom and went to space ect
we can throw some thought at this at the very least


then combine say solar and battery and hho to get range and the benefits

[thered]

Money for what? Hydrogen's been well understood for almost a century, its the simplest and most abundant element in existence. It needs no further research

my power steering is entirely hydraulic it draws 0 by way of electrical current, most cars operate in this manner, the downside is it lowers fuel economy from using a belt driven system. Similarly with air con its pump driven via the crankshaft.
This is all largely moot though as the point was entirely missed.

It takes MORE energy to manufacture low grade hydrogen than you YIELD FROM ITS USE
For high grade pure hydrogen it takes MUCH MORE energy than you net at the end.

Cant be any more plain that this, by making hydrogen your simply pissing up a rope.
Theres a stark difference between negatively curb stomping someone's idealistic pipe dream and applying cold hard realism and economics.
It's just a case of Pragmatism over Idealism in this case.

Further proof? just to really knock it home?

1L HHO = 8400w to manufacture.

Weight of Hydrogen = 1.01 grams/mol
Weight of Oxygen = 15.9994 grams/mol
Avagadros Constant states that there are 6.022 * 10^23 molecules that occupy 22.47L of space assuming 1 atmosphere @ 25c.
HHO = H? + H? + O?
Hydrogens energy = 23,330 BTU /kg
Oxygens has no energy its a catalyst.

H? Litre weight = 2.02g / 22.47 = 0.08989764129951045838896306186026 kg
/3 = 0.0299kg (rounded)

O? Litre weight = 31.9988g / 22.47 = 1.4240676457498887405429461504228 kg
/3 = 0.4746kg (rounded)

H? + H? + O? = 0.0299 + 0.0299 (0.0599 kg/l for combustable fuel) + 0.4746 = 0.5346 kg/l Total gas value.

Only the combustible fuel goes towards the BTU of the gas.
so the BTU of 1L of HHO is 23,330 * 0.0599
1,397.467 BTU / L of HHO
1 Watt = 3.4BTU
so 411 Watts of energy can be generated from 1L of HHO
It only took 8400 Watts to produce the 1L of that in the first place.

We're really churning that lead into gold today huh?

I can't fathom how your unable to grasp this simple premise, it takes more energy to make hydrogen then you get from using it.
Its exactly the same as ALCHEMY, you cant turn lead into gold.


no more than the quest to turn Pb 82 into Au 79 deserve time invested in them.
If people want to go ahead and live in dream land then as a private individual that's their right, what isn't right is asking for my taxes to chase a fantasy.
My taxes get squandered enough as it is.

i am not going to pretend i understand the equations but i know that its basic laws which most people know energy turns into other energy and loses some in between

its why all fuels are not efficiently turned into other energy they lose along the way

hydrogen has the potential to be the fuel of the future but only if another method is found to produce it but i believe it has to be explored because maybe not in my lifetime but in the life maybe of my grandkids may just see armageddon

because if the world does start getting short on resources and no alternatives are found we will all be at war and mad max will be real life

but it wont happen because then the oil companies will get the blue prints out from 1900 which they locked up when they could make free fuel and charge us all again

[thered]

electric cars are short on range so then using hh0 as an on demand fuel is better ..also
using renewable energy is after a while self supporting appart from the fact of maintenance
unlike nuclear and coal power ? again i have to ask
your equations dont matter if the fuel is from a cheap sustainable source
ie sea or wind solar ect ect

the thing with renewable is that it we would virtually have to cover every inch of the UK in solar and wind farms for it to work for all our homes

i am all for a new fuel source tbh who isnt the price at the minute the fact is we are not very close to doing it and we certainly were not in 1900 either

your facts about wattage costs are irrelevant if the fuel is cheaper

your figures are also irrelevant if you take into consideration the fact that the carbon footprint is smaller for each individual vehicle

things is though its not in the UK we have approx 13 million motors if all these were to charge of the grid we would need more power stations or bigger power stations using more coal more gas ect ect so what you gain with one you lose with the other

currently hydrogen or hho water cars or whatever you want to call them are all powered by electric all the cell does is make it a bit more efficient

we need to move away from fossil fuels and under current renewable sources is never going to give anywhere near enough to power this hungry fuel mad world

[chroma]

Im not seeing the cheap anywhere in here.
I develop a windfarm, i can make money by dumping it into the grid for consumption which might still wind up at a loss depending on the weather or i can certainly lose money by converting it to hydrogen which wont give anywhere near the same output.

The math is largely irrelevant, its there to allow an airtight verifiable argument that 8400W in equates to only 411W out.

That's all that matters! Your wasting close to 8000watts per LITRE and when your average Mileage turns out at 20Miles to the gallon in average real world terms based on experience from people running HHO set-ups your going to waste a LOT of energy just getting from A to B
Thats 36,000Watts of WASTE just to get 20 miles.

Theres no working around it to be done.
That's not pessimism its REALISM the science doesn't allow for it!
Its all well and good dreaming with your head in the clouds but its not solving anything.

The only viable mid term option for the massive quantity of wattage consumed right now to be anywhere near clean is Nuclear, but people are scared of the dragon, from magic they don't understand.
Wind provides nowhere near enough power on a reliable scale.
Hydro requires a LOT of land be consumed to form the dams.
Solar... if every house in Britain was to re-tile their roofs with solar panels running at 25% efficiency (this is woefully optimistic in realistic terms, output is nowhere near 25%) we wouldn't even have nearly enough power to run the country at a minimal level. Such set-up would run into Trillions to not even make a realistic dent in the usage of fossil fuels as a major source on the grid.
Then there's the high grade silicone manufacture that goes into them to begin with, ask china how polluting and environmentally unfriendly that turns out to be.
Then the battery backup arrays to go along side them.

Every single "Green" and "Renewable" energy source turns out to be nothing but a pipe dream that will cost more money than it will make over its lifetime.

Energy provision is a business, this is why "the big bad oil companies" arnt investing, its like betting on a 1 legged horse, its not a sound investment.
Theres no such thing as a free dinner.

[racin-snake]

money money money is all i see in this post
nowt about environment and nowt about real advances in any of the subjects mentioned anywhere also the nuclear dragon you seem to have missed out that i is the most deadly of them all if it goes tits up as we have seen TWICE in the recent past

if money is the only thing you care about then so be it but please dont accuse the other folk who do think different of having their heads in the clouds due to monetary mathematics
its not going to be valid when the mineral resources get scarce to the point filling your car is unfeasable due to cost
if everyone had as you say spent the billions replacing there roof tiles with solar panels/
the equasion you quote is a great saving as its permanent it will produce power for years not till the prices hike for natural gas ect go up
with no need for battery backup if its that little produced it can be used by the grid anyway

these company's in china and india produce goods anyway for the entertainment market using these chemicals and compounds so no loss there ?

still the same saving wind power is far from perfect but in fact USED today as is geothermal and wave and solar
so when your tank is empty and your bills run so high you cant afford to pay them
think that some savings are far better than ~~~~all
with as i have said less environmental impact
all the good things you seem to have misplaced in any of your posts
if researched the savings start now not in ten or twenty years
how long before we envelope the idea ?

if moneys your god then youd better start praying you have the the sacrifice in the bank to appease it

to just quote things as they stand now is not very realistic is it
same thing every time ..i say black you say white .. caress your ego much ?

[chroma]

Money frankly doesn't interest me, but it does make the world go round, there's no avoiding that. what's being proposed at present is an unsustainable business model.
It wont get investment because its all running at a loss.
No one in their right mind wants to run at a loss.
The only reason i included it was because you keep asking for people to fund a pipe dream and cant seem understand why businessmen and governments don't, usually falling back on some conspiracy theory. Rather than following it through to its logical conclusion.

You seem under the impression that everyone with money is somehow "evil" and "up to no good" or involved in some long-winded highly complicated conspiracy... rather than just investing where they'll see a return rather than a loss.

Its already approaching infeasible to fill a tank in a car with petrol, with it set to hit ?1.50 a litre, that still doesnt alter the cold hard fact that theres no saving to be made from electrolysis your converting more energy to less dense energy before use, like running a tap for an hour before having a glass of water and exclaiming that your saving water by doing so.
If that's not head in the clouds material then I don't know what is!
Using more material to get less end product isn't a saving, its wastage.

Solar panels only have around a 20yr lifespan in ideal conditions, that's far from permanent that's with proper maintenance. Even with a highly maintained solar cell it degrades in performance over time. Battery life's are far shorter and would need replaced every 5 or so years maximum, with the environmental costs involved with battery disposal.
So yeah, a few trillion ? every 20 years at the very least. From a government that at this point doesn't have a pot to piss in.
That boils down to a sizeable income tax hike just to sustain a system that's going to be largely ineffective.

Back to wind farms, currently running at around 3000? turbines? and spitting out 5000MW at peak wind conditions.

Thats a lot of space and maintenance when you think that Hunterston supplies around 1000Mw in a far smaller area, then there's Drax coal station kicking out 4000Mw
So theres 2 power stations kicking out the equivelent juice from 3000 wind turbines in a fraction of its footprint, and the UK relies on approximately 200 such stations using combinations of gas, coal, nuclear, hydro and thermal.
Combined demand in the UK sits at around 100GW of juice just to keep us from grinding to a halt.
Thats a lot of wind turbines and solar panels. more than there's room for in the UK, far more than can be feasibly maintained.

Cover the UK head to toe in panels and turbines and your not even producing enough to meed basic infrastructure power let alone consumer power on top.
But its ok cause we can waste 8000watts per litre from converting to hydrogen and everything will be fine.

Like I said PIPE DREAM, sheer pie in the sky, no basis in reality, lunacy.
How clearer can i be? research wont provide any magical answers because you simply cant convert lead into gold, no matter how badly you wish for it.

[racin-snake]

but at what impact environmentally are these stations causing i wonder ?

and how many trains and boats and equipment does it take to mine and transport this wind ?
and when did we have a devastating wind incident like say exon valdez or the recent Japanese scenario ?

also footprint ?
most if not all these wind farms could be situated in rural areas even farmland unlike the power stations they are free to run bar maintenance and parts nothing conveyor belted and shipped in and out no output that will have any environmental consequences like ash or other sometimes toxic materials not to mention c0 and other forms of pollutants also acidic elements in these efficient coal burning machines you condone

how much does any one of these power plants take to run for instance ?
wont be cheap will it ?
wages and fuel which in its self is expensive and shipping of fuel and parts maintenance ect ect
not to mention the energy loss just turning the turbine that you have ommited
what's the figures for that ?
all you failed to mention as your story or version wont t permit the cons just the pros

you must think were thick and easily baffled by your equations and theoretical claims ect
yet you claim me to be ridiculous for my claims
you cannot really think that this stuff will go unnoticed .... if you did then you underestimate me badly


and one other thing you seem to think due to peoples neivity and ignorance that nuclear fuel is demonised ?
not so my freind you know more than others fuel and management are costly and dangerous and the half life of the waste is centuries
heaven forbid one goes tits up here as it is impossible to reverse the radiation and devastation it would cause

trillions pale into insignificance if your country is fcuked and uninhabitable ..

so unfairly you claim the idea of maybe doing things a little cleaner and greener are worthless
not so !
pipe dream my arse
wind farms WORK geothermal energy WORKS and sea based farms and other wave technology will work too
many other alternatives work and await further development
just take your head out the sand and look

there is NO waste if you start with a thing that's free natural and non polluting

none of your ideas even come close to he actual facts ?
show the real facts not the ones you intend to hide behind your back

when are you gonna see that ...

wind is free ...the apparatus is the cost not the actual potential goods
also so is solar ....free but not the apparatus
the wattage you quote comes at a differential as coal and gas aint free they're in fact very expensive and dirty
never seen your maths there ? but did see how much wattage you get for your buck ?
but no intent to describe at what environmental cost
also transportation of oil, coal gas ect ect never been mentioned by you yet
please show the full story before your advertisement see how the others see it
all of the above may take up a geographical footprint
but so does Chernobyl as it is wasteland now uninhabitable

for every one of your facts there's a counter you don't provide

energy harnessed from natural renewable sources is a great thing
even if combined it makes say 25% of all consumption then it in my and many s interest to follow it up
sustainable energy whatever means it comes in is a good thing and as we as a race have found
we can perfect it on the way
every little bit helps

your pipe dream theory is a bit far fetched for me i think any saving of resources and environment take a huge president over your ideas by a long shot
if it weren't viable there would be NO wind farms .....

its not alchemy mate but common practical sense

wind =free geothermal =free solar =free

the apparatus is the cost not the energy just the means of harnessing it if the energy is static and free then the cost is in the harnessing the energy
just like coal and oil or in fact nuclear power all come at a cost to set up and maintain and so on
with the added detriment of pollution
no mention of this anywhere in your figures and information
ime also pretty aware that the function here is not to disagree with the subject ..but the poster

petty and misinformed you must be to think this way....

also the fist and founding post on this thread is as plain as the nose on your face chroma

[quote]'Early indications are that the micro-beads can be used in existing vehicles without engine modification. The materials are hydrogen-based, and so when used produce no carbon emissions at the point of use, in a similar way to electric vehicles.***8217;

A tankful of the artificial petrol, which has yet to be given a brand name, is expected to last 300 to 400 miles, in line with conventional fuel.

But AA president Edmund King warned: ***8216;The fact the hydrogen is cheaper now doesn***8217;t mean it always will be because the Government would soon get its hands on it and increase the tax.***8217;[quote]

the product is HYDROGEN BASED ! and did you read the last bit where it says "THE FACT THAT HYDROGEN IS CHEAPER NOW" in total contradiction to your math and your complete basis of your sums in all ways also not a mention of your chlorine gas and neurotoxin information anywhere
even to the point that we do not need your deforming pistons

to add [quotemy power steering is entirely hydraulic it draws 0 by way of electrical current, most cars operate in this manner, the downside is it lowers fuel economy from using a belt driven system. Similarly with air con its pump driven via the crankshaft.
This is all largely moot though as the point was entirely missed.[quote]
if this theory is to be used then another or a larger alternator would also be as you put it "moot" =moot1 ***8194; ***8194;
[moot] Show IPA
***8211;adjective
1.
open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful: a moot point.
2.
of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic.
3.
Chiefly Law . not actual; theoretical; hypothetical.

i dont think so ! it uses fuel and therefore a factor in amount of energy used so your point is futile
simply remove the power steering and ac making the current available

but must be a total load of shit cos chromas figures say DIFFERENT
and he cannot be wrong guys hes just ate a dictionary

[cablefreejunkie]

oil companys spend the most money on renewable energy,research and development
when the time is right there will be a very smooth transition to the next source of energy that we will use daily and pay huge amounts of tax on,and as was said i think by chroma earlier in the thread,lots of patents have been bought up and put in a shoebox by oil companys,hes absolutely spot on,its all out there,do a little research and see for yourselves

[thered]

Money frankly doesn't interest me, but it does make the world go round, there's no avoiding that. what's being proposed at present is an unsustainable business model.
It wont get investment because its all running at a loss.
No one in their right mind wants to run at a loss.
The only reason i included it was because you keep asking for people to fund a pipe dream and cant seem understand why businessmen and governments don't, usually falling back on some conspiracy theory. Rather than following it through to its logical conclusion.

You seem under the impression that everyone with money is somehow "evil" and "up to no good" or involved in some long-winded highly complicated conspiracy... rather than just investing where they'll see a return rather than a loss.

Its already approaching infeasible to fill a tank in a car with petrol, with it set to hit ?1.50 a litre, that still doesnt alter the cold hard fact that theres no saving to be made from electrolysis your converting more energy to less dense energy before use, like running a tap for an hour before having a glass of water and exclaiming that your saving water by doing so.
If that's not head in the clouds material then I don't know what is!
Using more material to get less end product isn't a saving, its wastage.

Solar panels only have around a 20yr lifespan in ideal conditions, that's far from permanent that's with proper maintenance. Even with a highly maintained solar cell it degrades in performance over time. Battery life's are far shorter and would need replaced every 5 or so years maximum, with the environmental costs involved with battery disposal.
So yeah, a few trillion ? every 20 years at the very least. From a government that at this point doesn't have a pot to piss in.
That boils down to a sizeable income tax hike just to sustain a system that's going to be largely ineffective.

Back to wind farms, currently running at around 3000? turbines? and spitting out 5000MW at peak wind conditions.

Thats a lot of space and maintenance when you think that Hunterston supplies around 1000Mw in a far smaller area, then there's Drax coal station kicking out 4000Mw
So theres 2 power stations kicking out the equivelent juice from 3000 wind turbines in a fraction of its footprint, and the UK relies on approximately 200 such stations using combinations of gas, coal, nuclear, hydro and thermal.
Combined demand in the UK sits at around 100GW of juice just to keep us from grinding to a halt.
Thats a lot of wind turbines and solar panels. more than there's room for in the UK, far more than can be feasibly maintained.

Cover the UK head to toe in panels and turbines and your not even producing enough to meed basic infrastructure power let alone consumer power on top.
But its ok cause we can waste 8000watts per litre from converting to hydrogen and everything will be fine.

Like I said PIPE DREAM, sheer pie in the sky, no basis in reality, lunacy.
How clearer can i be? research wont provide any magical answers because you simply cant convert lead into gold, no matter how badly you wish for it.

i agree with almost everything you said chroma apart from when you say that basically there is no point trying

we have to look for alternatives to fossil fuels we cant survive without energy and fuel the population is to big

nuclear is the obvious choice to make power on a big scale but the green heads are against it

even more so if we can tame nuclear fusion the gains are higher still

you are right about there being no such thing as a fee lunch but there are ways of using nature to make power

much of these are in infancy and some are not 100% reliable like wind. water howver is reliable though

the china hydro dam is expected to generate over 22,000 MW and operates at 94% efficiency, although it cost billions but it is expected to pay for itself in 10 years

we have plenty of water in and around the UK we also have tides we surely can find some solutions to our energy needs and water is sustainable and predictable and relaible

building these similar things would probably have an effect on wildlife around the coast but many would see it as better than nuclear

[racin-snake]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvQpR11XEb0]YouTube - H2OWeld HHO Gas: General Use Video[/ame]

look another use for HHO hydrogen based fuel
and not a gas mask in sight ......and everyone looks fine

one of many applications for this