Why are we still working on hydrogen as a fuel? Check this out

BORON: A BETTER ENERGY CARRIER THAN HYDROGEN?
Graham Cowan


Summary:

http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html

Although they have a much taller first step, boron power systems promise to provide emission-free energy from smaller reservoirs than hydrogen can, using fireproof substances. Boria's high specific binding energy and the undemanding nature as cargoes of both it and elemental boron means they will convey energy lightly and compactly, even in small shipments.

If successfully demonstrated, boron-powered vehicles would show the ability to run on public roads without depending on special fuelling stations, since their ash could be sent away and boron could return by any ordinary freight carrier, even by mail. Operators could blast boron pellets with propane torch flames and show that they don't burn, demonstrating that fuel-fed fires during accidents were not possible. The demonstration vehicles could have fuel/ash reservoirs two or more times larger than would be safe on a hydrocarbon-burning vehicle, and since equal energy would require no more than 1.7 times the size, greater speed and range should be possible.

Despite the initially high cost of fuel boron, there seems to be no reason why a small demonstration fleet wouldn't form the nucleus of a quickly growing group of voluntary early adopters, on whose behalf plans for cheaper, larger-scale boron production would quickly be drawn up.

power issue, if Big Auto and Big Oil weren't being allowed to gum up the works with lobbying and predatorial business practices. ;-)

The first thing we need to do when we get the house and senate back is outlaw lobbyist. IMO

powered auto that is.

Hydrogen isn't an energy source, either-- it's an energy storage medium. You use energy to create Hydrogen.

On the other hand, using Boron for fuel would make Jamaica a major energy player on the world stage.

I'm signing up!

just wondering

If I go read it now, can I turn-in my book report and lose half a grade point?

edit to add: our purpose is not to argue it is to become better informed

1) Combustion of Boron requires high-temperatures with high-pressure Oxygen.
2) Boron corrodes combustion equipment
3) Boron needs to be de-oxidized. Article suggests using a nuclear reactor to do this on a large enough scale.
4) Combustion of Boron will produce Nitrogen Dioxide-- which is probably better than Carbon Monoxide anyway?

This Boron thing still sounds promising, I think.

But I can't find anyplace in the article which says we can recycle the consumed Boron ash. Maybe I missed it, since I'll admit that much of it was either over my head, or just more difficult than I had the patience to scrutinize more closely.