Posted by J. Clarke on August 5, 2008, 6:35 am
Solar Flare wrote:
I see. You disagree with the nomenclature that the rest of the world
has been using for decades and so the rest of the world is wrong and
I've been thinking you were a loon for a long time. Now I'm sure of
it. Bored now. <plonk>
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Posted by Solar Flare on August 5, 2008, 1:49 pm
ROFLMFAO. You lost
Posted by News on August 5, 2008, 3:14 pm
OK this splits water into oxygen and hydrogen - not new. Then it is used to
run a fuel cell - not new. The fuel cell is a buffer.
What must be new is that is uses a small amount of electricity to split the
water. Is that so? If so, are there any figures released?
If it uses a small amount of electricity to split water then maybe this can
be used in autos. Produce oxygen and hydrogen overnight, or at work, and
run a fuel cell to power the car. If the electricity is so small to split
and make the gasses, then maybe a battery can do it, or a solar cell auto
This report is useless unless it at least gives some figures to real world
Posted by News on August 5, 2008, 3:54 pm
More information from reuters
"Nocera's catalyst is made from cobalt, phosphate and an electrode that
produces oxygen from water by using 90 percent less electricity than current
methods, which use the costly metal platinum."
So, getting better. 90% less electricity to do it. Still vague in real world
running cost predictions. Also, cheaper to make!!! More encouraging.
The PV cell on the roof and fule cell, may be only viable in the sunbelts.
Being a closed loop is good idea too. Reuters say 5 years to seeing it in
Posted by Eeyore on August 5, 2008, 10:28 pm
Complete bollocks. Trust journalists to fuck up.
Trust YOU not see the bleeding obvious mistake.