Newbie
Check this out
Enthusiast
Boy, that sure is a hope builder..... I'd love to both be environmentally friendly AND get off this "merry-go-round" of foreign energy sources. Don't get me wrong, Saudi-Arabi and else where has bills too and I don't like taking spoons out of peoples mouths, but I like monopolies evan less.
I'm curious to know if this "new" process is economically "do-able." Obviously they're getting more fuel from less (3X more per Murphy's link), but they're taking an additional step of adding hydrogen at a key point in the process which would come (according to Murphy's link) from a none existing "0-Carbon emitting" source such as solar or nuclear facilities that would require massive construction expenses and a mountain of red-tape for the Nuclear option for sure!!! Naturally that cost would be "rolled over" to the consumers.
The flip side is that it could benefit the economy by giving farmers a lot more options putting more dollars into their pockets to be spread around making us less dependant on government subsidies.
'96 C3500 Crew SRW, 228k, auto, 4:10, 265X75r16
'PolarFlo' FSD Cooler
1966? Covered Wagon 9'-10' Slide-In camper
'03 VW Golf TDi (Stock) - +40's mpg (avg)
"Any boy can be a Father... it takes a man to be a Daddy!"
Enthusiast
`Hope everyone reads about this before Shell or some other oil giant buys the process and burys it.Originally Posted by Murphy
1986 Canadian GMC 6.2L, LL4 Heavy Duty, duel tank, C25, 410 differential 428,000 odd Km.
1982 MB 300D T, Single Tank WVO, 323,3XX miles
Change alone is eternal, perpetual, immortal.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote