Talk:Researchers discover high temperature enables more efficient hydrogen generation

Original author- does the article say that less energy TOTAL is required to electrolicize water? Because you'd need a good deal of energy to heat the water to 800 degrees C anyway... This is just a way that you could clear up immidiate questions that people will have when reading this news story.


 * Hmmm... my intention in framing the article stub was simply to report on a scientific discovery, and not to frame the issue in terms of a practical process which had been designed in full. I suppose efficiency can mean many things in many contexts... I meant less electricity was used to produce the hydrogen. I realize that the new york times website requires registration, so perhaps you couldn't read the source. The Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory is a government nuclear research lab - so their sketch of a practical process would be to install extra gears in the heart of a nuclear power plant where one would have that heat already naturally present.  I suppose there are other ways to find that heat - geothermal or solar reflection...Rainbird 17:09, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * One thing I think is confusing about the way the article stub now reads, is that people know that water boils at 100degrees celsius - so the question in readers' minds would be how can water exist at 800degrees celsius? Of course, through creative technology, this is possible - I suppose through containing the water in a vessel of some sort and disallowing it to evaporate... I'm not a scientist, myself, so after only a brief reading of the New York Times article, I wasn't comfortable elaborating any further than I did.  Sometimes it takes reading what you've written again, in the morning to see where the text needs to be clarified.  As is traditional at a wiki, everybody is invited to help develop this article... please do - I'm rather new to the wikimedia websites and I'd appreciate watching the collaborative process   Rainbird 17:31, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK. now that I had a chance to read the news article I understand. The idea is to use the waste heat generated from a nuclear reactor to heat the water to that temperature, and then used some of the produced electricity to run electrolysis. Hmm... doesn't look too efficient. A nuclear reactor with the ability to run 300,000 window air conditioners could only produce the energy equivalent of 5 gallons of gasoline per second. Not very impressive.
 * A nuclear reactor could certainly power more than 300,000 window air conditioners. Cap'n Refsmmat 23:27, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just a question. Is it okay to date an article as Nov. 28 although it uses a source dated as Nov. 29? Tomos 06:27, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jeremy Desterhoft reference?
I can't find Jeremy Desterhoft on the internet, and he isn't mentioned in the artcles you link to, and the quote from him makes no sense. I'm failing this article. Of course, I could just change it, and approve the article, but I wanna make a point about the article stages and "test the system" so to speak. ;) --Regebro 19:11, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)