<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
<title>Autoblog - Comments for Fuel of the future: Hydrogen at the corner gas mart</title>
<link>http://www.autoblog.com/2007/04/30/fuel-of-the-future-hydrogen-at-the-corner-gas-mart/</link>
<description>Autoblog Comments for Fuel of the future: Hydrogen at the corner gas mart</description>

<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2008 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only.</copyright>
<generator>Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/</generator><item><title><![CDATA[Comments on Fuel of the future: Hydrogen at the corner gas mart]]></title><link>http://www.autoblog.com/2007/04/30/fuel-of-the-future-hydrogen-at-the-corner-gas-mart/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.autoblog.com/2007/04/30/fuel-of-the-future-hydrogen-at-the-corner-gas-mart/</guid><description><![CDATA[Chris, your statement was correct.  <br><br>The point is that no matter what new technology we come up with, we'll never be able to get more energy out of something than we put in, or else we'd turn that around and put it right back in and have a cycle giving us an infinite source of energy.  This would break the Law of Conservation of Energy... the high school physics bit Jim mentions.  <br><br>I think more what you meant, however, is that electrolysis is particularly inefficient - it takes on hell of a lot more energy to split water than we get from burning the resulting hydrogen.  A good argument for good old, non-CO2 producing nuclear power if I ever heard one.]]></description><dc:creator><![CDATA[Nick]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Apr 30th 2007 10:51PM</pubDate></item></channel></rss>