It Cost Too Much
By James Messina


The reason we don’t have a vehicle that doesn’t not burn gasoline is because it costs too much. Certainly, the word vehicle here includes the airline industry, railroad, trucking, RV’s and all ships even the lawnmower, in essence all things that require a fossil fuel. “It-costs-too-much” does this statement somehow contradict the relevance here? These four words are like watching a man beat a horse to push a cart.
There is a hydrogen engine that uses fuel made from water but, it costs too much. The problem they say with hydrogen is, it takes more energy to divide the molecule hydrogen and oxygen then the energy of hydrogen itself. As far as simple physics that could be true. What about the oxygen? Do we just throw away pure 100% clean oxygen? There are hospitals that might need it along with millions of other walks of life.  Ironically the Swiss are making hydrogen for Ras al Khaimah, one of the states within the United Arab Emirates (http://www.lostweekend.tv/2007/09/solar_island_to_produce_hydrog.html)
Swiss Center for Electronics and Microtechnology, apparently for the Arabs who pay next to nothing for gasoline, this process does not cost too much. In this scenario  both the Swiss and the Arabs come out winners, although for the United States it costs too much. “Some of them have indeed fought the move to hydrogen. Lee R. Raymond, CEO of ExxonMobil, did not want his company involved with developing hydrogen as an alternative fuel. However, many visionary companies, such as Shell, BP and ChevronTexaco, see the remarkable possibilities of hydrogen as a clean fuel, and embrace the business opportunities that go along with the evolution to the hydrogen economy. As such, those “petroleum companies” are becoming “energy companies.”” (http://www.hydrogennow.org/Facts/FAQs.htm). The key word here is “embrace,” how taut is this embracement? For big oil it definitely costs too much.
For those who didn’t do that experiment in junior or high school class that makes hydrogen/oxygen electrolysis by a regular 12V battery that connects cables from the negative and positive posts into a body of water, the outcome, is bubbling up hydrogen and oxygen gases. In order harness both gases the equipment is a little more elaborate. Although they say that the electric energy used to divide these two gases is not feasible because more energy that goes into the electric side is higher then the hydrogen that is produced. Be is as it may, if an alterative was used such as solar, wind or tidal which free, what difference does it make, the proposal here is the harnessing and containing of oxygen and hydrogen.
Obviously foreign oil does not cost too much, we buy it. Obviously European countries that are setting up hydrogen stations along their roadways to run their hydrogen vehicles think it costs too much maybe that’s why they’re doing it. If someone said it costs too much the logical thing one would think is that they wouldn’t do what ever it was because it was “too” much. Aren’t the costs of being energy dependent, the devastation of carbon emissions from fossil fuels, the repercussions down to losing ones house and the disgrace facing our grand children high enough? Why does it take a 911 for Americans to come together join hands and do what we could to help? Why do they keep saying all these things will take decades to implement?

I have very real respect for anyone/in particular Sen.Obama for such pragmatism and thoughtful approaches to such real problems as energy acquisition, with honest regard for the environment. I have no reason to doubt him and plan to give him my support this fall. As a firm Independent, I have rarely considered voting for a Democrat for a Republican with the good feeling I have about voting for Sen Obama. He has given no real reasons to not give him the benefit of the doubt. Lack of a track record does not equate with bad intent or hypocracy.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):