COMMENTS: 139
Is the Hydrogen Age Just Around the Corner?
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Environment headlines via email.
Hydrogen vehicles are not mere toys. More than 500 are on the road today. A BMW prototype with a hydrogen internal-combustion engine attained a top speed of 186 miles an hour. Mazda, Ford, Honda and GM are developing a variety of hydrogen-powered engines. Perhaps most exciting, Honda is now powering zero-emission vehicles with hydrogen derived from tap water in small stationary units that drivers can keep in their garages.
We believe the rapid pace of invention, testing and commercialization of fuel-cell technologies is a strong sign that we are entering the early stages of a hydrogen revolution. Instead of waiting half a century as critics suggest, the large-scale production of hydrogen fuel-cell cars could begin very soon. We have come to a crossroads where a single, courageous decision by a few world leaders could launch a new era of progress. That decision is, of course, to shift from our dependence on environmentally damaging fossil fuels to plentiful, renewable and clean-burning hydrogen fuel.
Not everyone sees the bright future of the hydrogen age. Some well-informed energy experts contend hydrogen will be viable only after 20 to 30 years of development. The respected environmental think tank Worldwatch Institute, cautions, "Despite recent public attention about the potential for a hydrogen economy, it could take decades to develop the infrastructure and vehicles required for a hydrogen-powered system." Joseph Romm, author of The Hype About Hydrogen, states that, "Hydrogen vehicles are unlikely to achieve even a 5 percent market share by 2030."
These predictions are needlessly pessimistic, based on common misconceptions about the cost, efficiency and technology of hydrogen. If we make hydrogen a national and international priority, as outlined below in a strategy for launching the hydrogen economy, we foresee the first affordable hydrogen fuel-cell cars coming to market starting between 2010 and 2012, and achieving 5 percent of the new car market share by 2020 or sooner.
Let's examine the critics' misconceptions about hydrogen.
Myth No. 1: A hydrogen industry needs to be built from scratch The production of hydrogen is already a large, mature industry, and the global hydrogen industry annually produces 50 million metric tons (50 billion kilograms) of hydrogen, worth about $150 billion. To put that into perspective, the current global output of pure hydrogen has the energy equivalence of 1.2 billion barrels of oil, or about a quarter of U.S. petroleum imports. The hydrogen industry is growing at 6 percent a year, thus doubling every 12 years. All this is happening without the incentives that would be provided by a growing fleet of hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles in need of fuel. If the hydrogen industry can expand so quickly "below the radar," it will have no problem expanding quickly enough to fuel the needs of hydrogen fuel-cell cars in the future.
Myth No. 2: Hydrogen is too dangerous for common use This myth begins with the hydrogen-filled German zeppelin, the Hindenburg, which blew up at Lakehurst, New Jersey, in 1937. Recently that event was revisited in a detailed analysis by National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) scientist Addison Bain. He found that it was not the hydrogen that originally combusted, but the dirigible's outer coating, a highly flammable material similar to that used in rocket propellants. In reality, the hydrogen industry has had an excellent safety record for decades. In 30 years, liquefied hydrogen shipments have logged 33 billion miles. During all this time, no product losses or fires were reported. Gasoline, our automotive fuel of choice, is 22 times more explosive and has a dismal safety record in comparison.
Hydrogen, while flammable, is generally more easily managed than hydrocarbon fuels. If hydrogen is ignited, it burns with a clear flame and only one-tenth the radiant heat of a hydrocarbon fire. The heat that is produced tends to dissipate much more rapidly than heat from gasoline or oil fires. The bottom line is that hydrogen-safety critics should turn their fire against gasoline, and agitate for the rapid adoption of hydrogen on safety grounds alone! Myth No. 3: Hydrogen can't be distributed via existing pipelines The transportation of hydrogen, one of the most frequently mentioned concerns of critics, is easily accomplished through pipelines. Creating a new pipeline network to move hydrogen is unnecessary; we can use the one already in existence. Some existing pipelines are already hydrogen-ready. The others can easily be modified with existing technologies by adding polymer-composite liners, similar to the process used to renovate old sewer pipes. Using existing pipelines creates no additional safety concerns. Already, hydrogen-refueling stations are appearing in California, Florida and British Columbia. Other regions are sure to follow.
Myth No. 4: There is no practical way to run cars on hydrogen Hydrogen fuel cells have been used for space flights since 1965 and they were used in a passenger vehicle as early as 1966 (GM's Electrovan). Today, fuel-cell vehicles are undergoing rigorous testing and are far advanced. As of mid-2003, manufacturers had dozens of fuel-cell buses and upwards of 100 fuel-cell cars on the road. Fuel cells are being tested for military vehicles on land and sea; submarines have used them for years. Heavy trucks, which spend up to half their engine run time idling because they have no auxiliary power source, are also beginning to use fuel cells. FedEx and UPS plan to introduce fuel-cell trucks by next year.
With such a massive wave of research and trial, fuel cells are sure to advance quickly, as each successful application benefits from its predecessors' experiences. As a whole, mass production will drive down the price of fuel cells.
Myth No. 5: Hydrogen is too expensive to compete with gasoline Despite decades of U.S. policies favouring the use of petroleum, hydrogen technologies are already close to economic viability. When we consider system-wide life-cycle costs, hydrogen is already a desirable alternative to fossil fuel. The factor of greenhouse gas emissions makes hydrogen overwhelmingly preferable to gasoline. Even when hydrogen fuel is produced from natural gas, on a per-mile-driven basis, fuel-cell cars generate as little as 30 percent of the carbon dioxide produced by gasoline-powered cars.
Cost is the bottom-line factor for many consumers contemplating the adoption of new technologies. Research shows that small hydrogen generators could be manufactured by the hundreds and installed at service stations supporting a few hundred fuel-cell-powered cars using natural gas as a raw material at a cost of $6 per million British thermal units (BTUs). These would deliver hydrogen to cars at $2.50 per kilogram, since one gallon of gas is the energy equivalent of one kilogram of hydrogen. That is equivalent to $2.50 per gallon gasoline, less than we are paying now. Moreover, as current trends continue, we believe the days of $2.50 per gallon gasoline will be very fond memories.
Once these myths are dispelled, we can clearly see the environmental advantages of hydrogen power as well as the promising economic benefits. "Hydrogen could become a strategic business sector and an engine of global economic growth within the decade and for the remainder of the 21st century." That's the assessment of Julian Gresser and James Cusumano (one of this article's co-authors) in a 2005 report, "Hydrogen and the New Energy Economy," published in The Futurist.
It is well known that at critical times in history, certain industries have made key technological breakthroughs that have become dynamic engines of broader economic growth. Famous examples of the convergence of critical technologies and rapid growth include: the canals and railroads of 18th- and 19th-century England and, more recently, the convergence of computer hardware, software and Internet technology in late-20th-century America. Due to the tremendous public benefits realized through the success of strategic technologies and industries, governments have usually played a pivotal role in accelerating these technologies' development. California has already taken the national lead in implementing a "Hydrogen Highway Network Action Plan" to build 150 to 200 hydrogen-refueling stations, approximately one every 20 miles on California's major highways.
Similarly, Florida's state government has launched an innovative program to promote hydrogen as a strategic growth sector. Working within a broad alliance among private companies, state and local governments, universities and environmental groups, the Florida Hydrogen Strategy initially focuses on fuels cells, hydrogen storage and power-grid optimization. The strategy offers tax refunds, investment tax credits, performance incentives and enterprise-bond financing. Internationally, Japan, Germany, Canada and Iceland have major hydrogen programs underway. Leaders of these nations understand that, in addition to laying the foundation for independence from oil and creating a key industrial sector, the rapid development of hydrogen will accelerate innovation in related sectors, such as biotechnology, solar photovoltaics, ultra-light materials and nano-materials.
Given the urgency of the energy and climate crises, we urge development of a broad political consensus around a strategy for transitioning to a hydrogen economy. This strategy would apply regulatory, financial and other market-driven incentives while drawing on the best available technology and talent. Under the leadership of a non-partisan National Hydrogen Task Force, political leaders in the U.S. and elsewhere should convene the nation's leading hydrogen scientists, engineers and inventors, along with top environmental lawyers, finance experts and specialists in public/private enterprises.
Their mission should be the development of a draft "Strategic Hydrogen Alliance Reform and Enterprise Act" (SHARE) that would create the statutory framework for accelerating the development of the hydrogen economy as quickly as possible, on par with the urgency that accompanies a state of war or a natural disaster.
The main stages of this transition plan for the U.S. are outlined below and include the following milestones:
Work would also begin on a national hydrogen infrastructure, including production facilities, pipelines and fueling stations built in metropolitan areas. The ultimate goal by 2020 would be the broad transition to clean and green hydrogen generated from non-fossil fuels -- wind, solar and possibly biological systems -- and minimum sales of a million hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles, equal to a 6 percent new-car market penetration. In parallel to these hydrogen milestones, the plan would require development of automobile engines that could function on a mix of plug-in technologies, renewable fuels such as ethanol or biodiesel and hydrogen fuel cells powered by electricity from the utility grid.
Phase I (2007-2010): Deploy existing technologies and capabilities to expedite fuel-cell research and development and vigorously market smaller fuel cells to homes and businesses, while the hydrogen car runs on a modified internal-combustion engine that is cost-effective today.
Phase II (2010-2015): Introduce multiple varieties of fuel-cell cars that run on hydrogen generated from natural gas or electrolyzed from water.
Phase III (2015-2020): Embrace widespread commercialization of fuel-cell vehicles that operate on hydrogen generated by renewable energy sources such as solar- and wind-powered electrolysis.
The path toward the hydrogen future is already being paved by private initiatives and government support in the U.S., the European Union and Japan. Like Gresser and Cusumano point out, "As hydrogen becomes a strategic economic driver for the United States and the major industrialized nations, it can serve this same function for many other countries, rich and poor." The size and risks of some hydrogen projects make it well-suited for international collaborations that can be pursued on the same grand scale as the Apollo Man-to-the-Moon Project in the U.S., the Marshall Plan in Europe and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control projects.
As new countries enter the hydrogen consortium, each one can develop a special expertise and role based on its unique resources and skills. The financial foundation of the Hydrogen Plan could be an International Hydrogen Innovation Fund, initially capitalized with $5 billion provided by national and international entities. The fund would be managed by an international team of successful technology, business and social entrepreneurs, with the goal of achieving superior rates of return for shareholders within five years for funding early-, middle- and late-stage projects.
The hydrogen economy is the only reliable long-term solution to the energy and climate crises confronting civilization. No other known technology option can safely produce clean energy to power transportation systems and other infrastructure at levels that can sustain current levels of global prosperity, let alone increase these levels to improve the lot of the world's poor. This great transition will be profitable and beneficial for all stakeholders. The hydrogen revolution is one of the greatest legacies our generation could pass on to our children and children's children.
Horace Mann, a pioneering 19th-century advocate of free public education in the U.S., said, "Be ashamed to die until you've won some great victory for humanity." All who join in this grand enterprise to bring about the birth of the hydrogen age will participate in one of humanity's greatest victories: the creation of a safe, clean and sustainable future.
This article is adapted from Freedom from Mid-East Oil, written by Jerry Brown (a founding professor at Florida International University), Rinaldo Brutoco (founder and president of the World Business Academy) and James Cusumano (former director of research and development at Exxon). Find out more: http://www.worldbusiness.org/freedom-from-mid-east-oil
Stay up to date with the latest Environment headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Dec 28, 2007 12:31 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The best option for powering cars and trucks is going to be the electric motor powered by batteries. There, you charge the batteries directly from the grid - and new battery technology is popping up right now. Example: New Nanowire Battery Holds 10 Times The Charge Of Existing Ones, Dec 2007. That means a laptop could go for 20 hours instead of two - and a car might even be able to go 500-1000 miles on a full charge instead of just 50-100.
What about the charging time? Imagine battery stations in place of gas stations - you pull up, a crane pulls out your battery, and you get a fresh one, all in a few minutes. The old battery is recharged and sent on to a new customer. Some financial details to work out, but that seems to be the best system.
Hydrogen fuel cell cars are just not a good idea, and the technology has lagged and lagged. There is the onboard fuel storage problem, for one, and the fuel cell membranes need platinum catalysts and still wear out quickly - do you want to replace your fuel cell engine every 10 to 40 thousand miles? Electric cars are far better - the electric motor is robust and has been in constant development for over a century. No pie-in-the-sky fuel cell engineering required.
That doesn't mean that solar- and wind-powered hydrogen generation doesn't have many uses, beside the grid-balancing one. Hydrogen is used to make ammonia fertilizer, for example, and can even be used to convert carbon dioxide to methane. However, it's almost certainly going to be an industrial activity - not a home one.
Another decent option for cars is the alcohol-electric hybrid or plug-in hybrid - essentially a Prius that runs on ethanol instead of gasoline (the first one was patented in 1903, before Standard Oil shut down the farm-based ethanol industry by promoting Prohibition). However, if you're going to use ethanol or biodiesel, you had better make sure that the agricultural system that produces it doesn't use any fossil fuels or petrochemicals - organic, fossil-fuel free biofuels are the only sustainable option in that area.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» a hydrogen fuel cell is a battery
Posted by: rafaeltoral
» RE: a hydrogen fuel cell is a battery
Posted by: CCox
» RE: a hydrogen fuel cell is a battery
Posted by: rafaeltoral
» RE: Another Energy Hoax : Hydrogen!
Posted by: mmckinl
» RE: Another Energy Hoax : Hydrogen!
Posted by: MyLeftFoot
» RE: Another Energy Hoax : Hydrogen!
Posted by: homega
Comments are closed-
Posted by: peter193710 on Dec 28, 2007 12:47 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
source and storage are not solved practically.
Peter Gluck
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I wish the author is right...
Posted by: dmmaze6
» RE: Hydrogen is a Hoax ...
Posted by: mmckinl
Comments are closed-
Posted by: xbj on Dec 28, 2007 1:18 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As long as there is an American nuclear armed satellite Zionist state called Israel in a hostile Mideast despite all the oil sheik dictators and murdering military Mushareff's we prop up elsewhere, the entire planet is in peril. Because an "Islamofascist" backpack nuke is a virtual certainity; it is only a matter of when. Whether it comes from a real terrorist, a patsy terrorist under orders from a fake leader like Bin Laden working for the BushCIA, or a duped patsy sacrificial mercenary, IT WILL COME. Let's face the truth; we EARNED it; it is our karma.
Why is this inevitable? Precisely because the CIA has done such a very good job of creating "Islamofascism" in the first place, and our own GOPNazis have done such a bang up tremendous job at creating Christofascism and fighting it "there"... into full fledged universal worldwide revolt.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The question is, will it come in time to get the US out of the Mideast, forever?
Posted by: donl51
» RE: The question is, will it come in time to get the US out of the Mideast, forever?
Posted by: xbj
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Pirate1 on Dec 28, 2007 1:54 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Hydrogen is a Hoax ...
Posted by: mmckinl
Comments are closed-
Posted by: improperly_sedated on Dec 28, 2007 3:32 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1 - Hydrogen is not an energy source, it is a storage medium. This means that the real question is whether or not it is a practical and efficient way of transmitting that energy from the power source, whatever that may be, to the wheels on our cars. This article, like most pro-hydrogen arguments, seems to imply that H2 is just sitting there like petroleum, waiting to have its energy released. If that were the case, maybe going to all this trouble to create the technology to use it would be worthwhile, but it is not the case. And incidentally, the existing hydrogen industry referred to in the article consists almost entirely of H2 derived from natural gas, not the electrolysis that would make it a potentially green technology.
2(a) - Hydrogen is difficult to store. H2 molecules are very very small, and seepage is a greater problem than with other gases. If stored in liquid form, losses to boil-off become an even greater problem than seepage. These are probably not insurmountable, but extreme measures would have to be taken. This would force us to choose between a very inefficient distribution system where large amounts of energy are lost into thin air, and a very expensive distribution system where every pipe and tank is costlier than what we are accustomed to.
2 (b) - Hydrogen is even more difficult to store in a compact and portable form. This either gives us an insufficient onboard fuel supply, or additional extreme measures compounded with the ones from part 2(a).
3 - Hydrogen is a greenhouse gas. Yes, you read that right. It's a greenhouse gas, it leaks like crazy, and it heads straight for the upper atmosphere when it gets loose.
I had more, but it's late, my brain is turning to jelly, and I'm going to bed. I'll check in tomorrow to see what the percentage of idiots is on this thread, but I'm not optimistic. Like a microcosm of our lemming civilization, I expect to find an illustration of just how doomed we really are.
(And did you notice the bios on the authors? Why would Exxon want us to adopt a new fuel whose main characteristic seems to be the requirement of an expensive, fixed distribution system? Wouldn't want us running our cars on batteries or alcohol. No, sir, that would not do.)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Straw Man Alert!
Posted by: Rod
» RE: Straw Man Alert!
Posted by: IanA
» RE: Straw Man Alert! : Hydrogen is a Hoax
Posted by: mmckinl
» RE: Straw Man Alert!
Posted by: improperly_sedated
» RE: Straw Man Alert!
Posted by: IanA
» RE: Straw Man Alert!
Posted by: TheLimit
» RE: Straw Man Alert!
Posted by: improperly_sedated
» RE: Straw Man Alert!
Posted by: heid
» RE: Straw Man Alert!
Posted by: undrgrndgirl
» RE: Straw Man Alert!
Posted by: ematter
Comments are closed-
Posted by: PaulK on Dec 28, 2007 5:17 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If hydrogen (or natural gas, for that matter) leaks out into an enclosed space, it builds up as it freely mixes with the ambient oxygen. Then a spark sets off a fueled-air bomb explosion.
Neither gasoline nor ethanol tends to explode in an accident, although they do burn fiercely. Electric batteries don't explode in an accident.
Hydrogen as a storage medium is nothing more than a direct competitor to the electric battery. Batteries work now. If I had a bit more money, I'd buy a Honda Civic Hybrid tomorrow and then pay a mechanic to switch it over to be a plug-in with extra batteries. With Toyota hybrids you can't see traffic in back of you with that deliberately funny but snobbish rear window. Otherwise Toyotas are good cars too.
The knock on batteries is that they don't recharge fast. No problem. Do with a real car what you would do with a toy race car -- put the old rechargeable batteries in the recharger and then put in a set of fresh batteries. Drive all you want!
So those are the basics. Hydrogen is another expensive, untested battery that explodes. Also, I'd rather ship my power across the country using high voltage DC wires from the wind fields than build hydrogen pipes, and I'd rather store massive amounts of electric power with pumped hydroelectric storage. Nice PR job, tho.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: More Straw Man Alert
Posted by: IanA
» nice, but where are we going to store all these spent batteries?
Posted by: rafaeltoral
» RE: nice, but where are we going to store all these spent batteries?
Posted by: mmckinl
» Hydrogen explosions.
Posted by: heid
» Right and gasoline in a gas tank is difficult to ignite
Posted by: PaulC
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line on Dec 28, 2007 5:42 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: What? Nothing but a Hoax...
Posted by: mmckinl
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kitten_thing on Dec 28, 2007 5:45 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This remarkable statement is a bald assertion of what engineers call "scalability", where small scale processes can be scaled up to be equally efficient large scale processes, with profitable economies of scale.
But no evidence for this whatsoever has been adduced, which would usually be a comprehensive study done as part of a larger feasibility study, and one would think that Exxon would have such figures ... embarrassing, perhaps?
As for the rest of the article, i found it bewildering how it skipped between natural gas extraction, fuel cells and electrolysis; conflating them as necessary to bolster arguments.
And as another critic noted, no mention of H2 storage?
Frankly, even putting aside the logical flaws, this article is just plain bad English.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Bad Logic : Yes it is Bad Loogic !
Posted by: mmckinl
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Smiggsy on Dec 28, 2007 6:07 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What I do agree is that it had more to with the petrochemical corps realizing they may lose their mighty power over all of us at the pump.
I suppose anything noble like cheap motive power & clean air for everyone just doesn't make enough money. I would be very suspect of the hydrogen cell car.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: What about electric cars..... The 300 mpg car is here!
Posted by: mmckinl
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kenkrug on Dec 28, 2007 6:12 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
However, it is not the magic bullet that will ween our transportation fleet from the fossil fuel teat. We need to aim higher.
The process of extracting 1 kg of hydrogen from water expends more energy than said 1 kg of hydrogen provides when consumed. The way the production technology works now, it does not save any energy on the macro-scale.
The better option is electric. The technology already exists, and it is much more efficient. And there are a dozen ways to generate electricity that don't involve extracting something from the earth and burning it.
Hydrogen is an excellent option for use in large trucks and buses, (along with high-power military vehicles), which require more power than existing electric technology can provide. And this should be pursued, exactly as the authors outline.
But for the rest of us, we need to think outside of the combustion chamber.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: thoughtcriminal is right...
Posted by: IanA
» using the sun/wind to power electrolysis of water
Posted by: rafaeltoral
» RE:Solar Wind for hydrogen Only 20% efficient
Posted by: mmckinl
Comments are closed-
Posted by: astralman on Dec 28, 2007 6:38 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
2. life isn't about cars! increase public transportation, walk, bike, pogo, whatever.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: forget about cars
Posted by: IanA
» RE: forget about cars
Posted by: mmckinl
Comments are closed-
Posted by: craigandrew on Dec 28, 2007 7:09 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we wait for an industry solution, then we are accepting slavery. If we pursue individual solutions - including modifying our behavior - we solve the actual problem.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lc on Dec 28, 2007 7:25 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here is how it works: the added oxygen is like a furnace being supercharged with air to make steel. For every oxygen atom there are two hydrogen atoms that really add a bang to the explosion.
For Fun, I capture hydrogen bubbles by blowing the hose into a bottle of soapy water to make bubbles. Then I catch the bubbles with a spoon, put them in my palm and light them with a lighter. Big bang, no heat and no harm. I did this at an environmental fair and had children hold the hydrogen bubbles and light them in the palm of their hands. Freaked out the teachers but the kids loved it. I then backed the crowd about 20 feet away from me. I then stuck the lighter into the bottle (peanut butter, plastic just big enough to get my fingers and lighter in and only a couples inches of bubbles floating above the water) with a load of hydrogen bubbles and made a bang so loud that the authorities rushed over looking for a bomb. The second time I did it they made me stop. The only effect on me sticking my lighter into a bottle of hydrogen bubbles was the loud noise which made my hears ring for a long time.
Yes it takes electricity/energy produced by the alternator/generator but the little gas needed to run the generator to separate h2o into h and o is nothing compared to the added value a little o and h makes to the explosion process in the cylinders. Added plus: my engine runs cooler because the hydrogen is not a hot explosion like gasoline.
Anyone can use this technology now and the whole country could convert now without converting infrastructure. Hydrogen is not the silver bullet but it is one big shotgun blast at the oil industry while at the same time helping oil to continue.
BIG ADDED BONUS: My tail pipe emissions from a v8 Ford 1989 van are really bad and noticeable. When the h and o gas get to the engine a minute or so after startup the engine smooths out and runs better and the choking fumes can not be seen and smell is so little that you can actually breath next to the tail pipe whereas if I unhook the h/o hose, the tail pipe emissions will drive you 6 feet away.
I saw an old farmer make h from a battery in his barn to run his engine on a 60 Minutes documentary back in the early 70's and expected this technology the next year. It never happened because no business can make any money on it. Too much liability fear over hydrogen prevents insurance from installing and servicing the equipment.
IM
Belteshazzar
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Hydrogen is Fun- thermodynamics means it's a hoax
Posted by: IanA
» RE: Hydrogen is Fun- not a hoax
Posted by: lc
» RE: Hydrogen is Fun- thermodynamics means it's a hoax
Posted by: channing
» RE: Hydrogen is Fun for Big Oil ,Big Coal, Big Auto !
Posted by: mmckinl
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Lauren on Dec 28, 2007 8:15 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the complicated global warming debate, one thing is certain: For every scientist that says global warming is real, there is another that flatly denies a human impact. It is rather frightening how an influential global movement can be based upon something as unproven as global warming.
That is just dumb, making me think the Libertarian party is made up of businessmen who haven't got a clue about how to understand basic math or science. Wow, just wow.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» based on my own review of the literature
Posted by: undrgrndgirl
» No, the issue of climate change has been settled.
Posted by: PaulC
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN on Dec 28, 2007 8:42 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Big Auto, Big Oil and Big Coal love Hydrogen !
Posted by: mmckinl
» RE: Why hasn't anyone mentioned
Posted by: MyLeftFoot
Comments are closed-
Posted by: toppun on Dec 28, 2007 8:45 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The MDI Air Car - The World�s Cleanest Car.
are compatible with current ICE. Minimum infrastructure needed at refueling stations. Zero emissions. Lower pressures to achieve comparable energy density. Zero emissions from current technologies--compressors is one of the most reliable mechanical devices there is.
No matter the replacement technology the ability to store electrical energy to reduce peaking will be an essential part of the mix. No significant discussion here. Puzzling out mobility is only one part of a much larger problem of reducing carbon emissions to virtually zero. Hydrogen is not a primary energy source only a refined storage media--the problem of emissions is the greatest challenge and that is highest priority for research and development.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dareg on Dec 28, 2007 8:52 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Getting back to industrial/utility fuel cell power plants, there's no more a conservative market than utilities. A megawatt-scale fuel cell system was demonstrated in 1996-7 at Santa Clara, California. Now 10 years later, the commercial fuel cell product line is just breaking through with sales of mainly 250KW sized versions even though 2.5 - 3MW models are available.
These fuel cells use natural gas, biogas and/or alcohol fuels, a more generally available suite of fuels than would be hydrogen. So, there remains plenty of time-compliant issues remaining before hydrogen becomes a common energy source for the general population. The NASA and military space programs are the major end-users of commodity hydrogen, a good start.
As several previous commenters note, hydrogen is a difficult commodity to store, seal and tranfer because of its molecular structure and propensity to embrittle contacting materials over time. Projecting these characteristics to wide-scale implementation will require a massive capital investment in infrastucture, including safety and handling systems in addition to fuel cell mass production manufacturing capabilities.
Having said all this, I am optimistic that hydrogen systems, especially as hybrid (fuel cell/battery) propulsion systems, are perfected for vehicular applications. Unfortunately, the timeline will not likely follow the 15 to 20 year horizon envisioned in the article.
There's no free ride here; displacing oil is mandatory for our security (dependancy on foreign sources)and economic health. But remember, we will shift away from one energy form (oil) to another (coal), to generate the electricity or methane-based gases for hydrogen production; but it is a start.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: audiodef on Dec 28, 2007 9:32 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oil: Very Finite Supply.
Water (and thus hydrogen): Dude, most of the flippin' planet is covered with it, often miles deep.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Tonight! Oilslick vs. Hydro
Posted by: Cherenkovrad
» RE:Oilslick IS Hydro !
Posted by: mmckinl
Comments are closed-
Posted by: recj50 on Dec 28, 2007 9:55 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Why not have both hydrogen and electric
Posted by: Erik1968
Comments are closed-
Posted by: willymack on Dec 28, 2007 10:06 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Read the commentary from those who know!
Posted by: heid
Comments are closed-
Posted by: NoPCZone on Dec 28, 2007 10:31 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Not Titanic deck chairs.
Posted by: heid
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pauldd on Dec 28, 2007 10:58 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: H2 does not exist naturally
Posted by: IanA
» RE: There is a great solution:
Posted by: channing
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Cherenkovrad on Dec 28, 2007 11:00 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Then the gee whiz kids (all the people who watch Star Trek and drool over the latest techno-orgasm) line up to support the physically impossible just because they want the cool tech.
The problem is not oil vs. x fuel source, the problem is a finite earth with infinite desires. We currently have approximately 5 billion too many people on the planet due to the input of fossil sunlight i.e. oil, natural gas, coal. When those resources begin to tail off, which many have concluded is happening now, then we will see that the planet will not be able to support all those people. No amount of techno-fantasy will solve this problem. Tech is not energy. Tech cannot make land. It cannot make fresh water without increasing salinity elsewhere. It cannot restore a fished out ocean. It cannot stop the acidification of the oceans. Tech is the problem, not the solution.
As a species, we are doomed as long as we live in this land of corporate mediated techno-fantasy.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Techno-Fantasy Hydrogen Economy is Nothing but a Childish Dream
Posted by: pauldd
» RE: Techno-Fantasy Hydrogen Economy is Nothing but a Childish Dream
Posted by: Cherenkovrad
Comments are closed-
Posted by: GreyFlcn on Dec 28, 2007 11:34 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Almost all of which is created by stripping carbon atoms off of natural gas. Creating CO2 in the process.
Most of it's used for Oil Refining to seperate out the different fractions of oil, and seperately to remove impurities.
==Myth No. 2: The safety hazard of hydrogen isn't that bad because it doesn't readily explode==
While correct. Even if you put plain air inside a 10,000PSI tank, what you have is a bomb.
Much less a flammable gas.
==Myth No. 3: Hydrogen can't be distributed via existing pipelines==
Thats more like a fact than a myth.
Sure you could do comprehensive retrofits.
But thats not really "existing pipelines" if you've completely rebuilt the pipe.
==Myth No. 4: Because so much hype is being made, there's sure to be major economic progress==
You can't engineer your way around the laws of thermodynamics.
==Myth No. 5: Hydrogen is too expensive to compete with gasoline==
I wouldn't really say reformering hydrogen from natural gas is a step forward from existing Diesel cars, CNGs or Hybrids.
And it certainly can't compete at that price margin.
If you're talking electrolysis, we're talking $100/kg.
Then add in the fact that the fuel cell system itself is far too expensive.
And requires scarce raw materials like gold and platinum.
AND it also requires batteries. (Ironically most Hydrogen prototypes now are lithium ion hybrids)
_
Fact being, half of the FossilFuel/HydroCarbon business model is Hydrogen.
It's no suprise that this article comes from Exxon's former director of R&D.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: When you have a hammer
Posted by: TheLimit
Comments are closed-
Posted by: GreyFlcn on Dec 28, 2007 11:41 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Which ideally should stay a prototype
The BMW Hydrogen 7 puts more strain on the environment than a heavy diesel truck.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jeff Hoffman on Dec 28, 2007 1:14 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We need to insist that EVERYONE (this includes the rich and ruling class types) live near work and shopping. We should greatly expand public transit, which means major 24-hour subway systems in every city and large town, run public transit off local solar and wind power, and make bicycling much easier by removing private motor vehicles from enough streets to create sufficient bike routes.
There will be no magic technological fixes for environmental problems caused by humans consuming too much or consuming things we shouldn't be consuming. We need to give the Earth and all life on it equal consideration, and stop worshiping human death machines like cars.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: No Magical Solutions
Posted by: improperly_sedated
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mmckinl on Dec 28, 2007 1:49 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Using natural gas for hydrogen would drive up heating and electricity for consumers to multiples of what it is now.
Hydrogen from wind, solar or other renewable for electrolysis is only 20% efficient. The electricity generated would be more wisely used for the electrical grid.
Be Fore-Warned ! The Hydrogen Economy as currently envisioned is a ploy by the Auto and Hydrocarbon industries to maintain their iron grip on consumers pocketbooks.
Much cheaper and far more efficient battery electric vehicles are coming soon with batteries that last 10 years and ranges of over 100 miles at a 120 mile per gallon equivalence.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Hydrogen is a Hoax on the American People !
Posted by: IanA
» RE: Hydrogen is a Hoax on the American People ! Again !
Posted by: mmckinl
» RE: mmckinl,
Posted by: channing
» RE: not going to happen channing
Posted by: mmckinl
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sjk on Dec 28, 2007 3:23 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Auto and oil companies love to hype hydrogen because they know it's not going to be around for a long long time, so they don't have to worry about change in their lifetimes. This allows them to fight against government regulation by saying:"Hydrogen will solve all your problems, just wait for it -- if you regulate us, you'll stop development of the 'magic fuel'". BULL. We need to combine alternative fuels with significantly higher CAFE standards. Automakers will adapt and grow. Afterall, how many went out of business when seatbelts became mandatory.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Bull - Distribution
Posted by: IanA
» RE: Bull - Distribution
Posted by: mmckinl
» RE: Solar Deserts use the Sun to Produce Hydrogen, Desalinization, Electricity
Posted by: channing
» RE: Solar Deserts use the Sun to Produce Hydrogen, Desalinization, Electricity
Posted by: channing
Comments are closed-
Posted by: aethr on Dec 28, 2007 5:28 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The Honda FCX is available now.
Posted by: mmckinl
» RE: The Honda FCX is available now.
Posted by: richholland
Comments are closed-
Posted by: solar on Dec 28, 2007 5:53 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please, let's at least stop calling hydrogen an energy "source", it isn't a source at all and it isn't even as practical as oil because it does not exist in nature except in combination with other elements. It takes energy to extract the hydrogen, more energy that will be regained by recombining hydrogen with oxygen to produce electricity and water.
I've been a renewable energy advocate for decades, designed and built efficient homes and home energy systems, and I'm sick to death of hearing about hydrogen.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Hydrogen is NOT just another battery
Posted by: channing
» RE: Solar Panels are not Cheap ...
Posted by: mmckinl
» RE: Solar Panels are not Cheap ...
Posted by: IanA
» RE: Solar Panels are not Cheap ... Yes, They are Now!
Posted by: channing
Comments are closed-
Posted by: markh99 on Dec 28, 2007 6:59 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mreich on Dec 28, 2007 7:51 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am also wondering who is going to pay for the development of the hydrogen fuel infrastructure. Who has that kind of money? Could it be the American taxpayer? Nah...
Wait! I know who! Why, Exxon and BP of course! What are the odds that the same folks who control the fossil fuel will be controlling the hydrogen fuel? You know I'll just bet that the good folks at GM would be willing to help out too. They were instrumental in making sure that the antiquated electric trolleys in my hometown were replaced with modern gasoline powered buses. We could sure use their expertise.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: NoPCZone on Dec 28, 2007 9:17 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Long Emergency is coming and it looks like we are a society in deep denial.
"The hydrogen economy is a fantasy. It is not going to happen. We may be able to run a very few things on hydrogen - but we are not going to replace the entire US automobile fleet with hydrogen fuel cell cars.
Nor will we replace the current car fleet with electric cars or natural gas cars. We're just going to use cars a lot less. Fewer trips. Cars will be a diminished presence in our lives.
Not to mention the political problem that kicks in when car ownership and driving becomes incrementally a more elite activity. The mass motoring society worked because it was so profoundly democratic. Practically anybody in America could participate, from the lowliest shlub mopping the floor at Pizza Hut to Bill Gates. What happens when it is no longer so democratic? And what is the tipping point at which it becomes a matter of political resentment: 12 percent? 23 percent? 38 percent?
Wind power and solar electric will not produce significant amounts of power within the context of the way we live now.
Ethanol and bio-deisel are a joke. They require more energy to produce than they give back. You know how you get ethanol: you produce massive amounts of corn using huge oil and gas 'inputs' of fertilizer and pesticide and then you use a lot more energy to turn the corn into ethanol. It's a joke.
No combination of alternative fuel systems currently known will allow us to run what we are running, the way we're running it, or even a substantial fraction of it.
The future is therefore telling us very loudly that we will have to change the way we live in this country. The implications are clear: we will have to downscale and re-scale virtually everything we do.
The downscaling of America is a tremendous and inescapable project. It is the master ecological project of our time. We will have to do it whether we like it or not. We are not prepared."
James Howard Kunstler
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Wake The Flock Up, People
Posted by: mmckinl
» RE: Wake The Flock Up, People
Posted by: heid
» RE: Wake The Flock Up, People
Posted by: mmckinl
Comments are closed-
Posted by: channing on Dec 28, 2007 9:53 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here for 5 billion, here for 5 billion more.
Concentrated Solar Arrays located on 1/700th of the Earth's desert-footprint would produce 100% current demand. Desalinization and H2 production are by-products. Wind Islands, Geo-Thermal, and Wave/Tidal augment... Fossil Fuels are still available for Insurance and initial construction.
Desertec
A regional solution that ought to be taken forward to Solve Energy once and for all.
The Key is a Global High Tension Two-Way Grid that can Draw from as many Sources as it can Deliver to. Hydrogen Fluid Batteries, WindIslands, RoofTop Solar, GeoThermal, Wave and Tidal, as well as all fossil/nuclear fuels can input once the Grid is Built.
The Backbone of the Grid is Solar Deserts with a 24/7 fuel-delivery cycle that has longevity and sustainability without being exclusive. WindIslands plotted to hurricane-resistance, Tidal targeting volatility, Localized Wave, GeoThermal, Solar and WindFarms all supply the stability of supply/demand with hydrogen storing the difference.
Flexible Printed Solar Roofing and Nano Li-on Batteries are two new advancements, as are all electric autos, buses, trains and planes too.
In discussing anti-global warming solutions, the answer should be totally reversible for global-cooling consequences, and the impacts on global-calming, which Solar Deserts allows. If fossil-fuels were reintroduced to the correct regions at the right times in balance to the WindIslands and Solar Deserts Global Stability would be harvested and managed.
To: thoughtcriminal, rafaeltoral, ccox, mmckinl, Peter Gluck, Rod, IanA, improperly_sedated, TheLimit, PaulK, rafaeltoral, kitten_thing, Smiggsy, kenkrug, craigandrew, Ic, Lauren, AMERICAN VETERAN, toppun, dareg, audidef, Cherenkovrad, recj50, willymac, heid, NoPCZone, pauldd, Cherenkovrad, GreyFlcn, Jeff Hoffman, sjk, solar, aethr, markh99, mreich;
From: channing
Soo many good, good points i read upthread. Each of you raised a vital issue of relevance to the energy debate. The above mentioned Global Energy Solution satisfies each dilemma, if we begin to do it.
Forget "finite" anything, focus on the "abundant", especially those resources that do not infringe upon our bio-diverse Earth. We already Solved the Energy Crisis but for our Common Will to do it.
Hope we leave ourselves time to get it done!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Solar Deserts & "Abundance"
Posted by: mreich
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BlackbirdHighway on Dec 29, 2007 4:08 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the next ten years, there will be huge advances in battery technology that will make hydrogen energy storage obsolete. People don't realize that hydrogen is only energy storage, not an energy source. Sure there's lots of water, but that's not hydrogen, that's burned hydrogen. To use water, you have to "unburn" it. That takes lots of energy, much more energy than you get back out.
A modern Lithium Ion battery is about 99.9% efficient. Hydrogen will never come close, because of the laws of physics.
There is one thing that hydrogen fuel is good for, and that is getting millions of dollars in federal aid for research. That's why so many companies are working on hydrogen.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The 300mpg BEV , battery electric , is here !
Posted by: mmckinl
Comments are closed-
Posted by: xbj on Dec 29, 2007 5:15 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A LONG fucking way. But it's so much more fun to bomb babies, women, grandmothers, and rape little girls and shoot their families, and rape little boys in Abu Ghraib, isn't it?
Isn't it, Rumsfeld? Isn't it, Rice? isn't it, Cheney? Isn't it, Bush?
Isn't it, Exxon? isn't it, Amerika?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lc on Dec 29, 2007 5:56 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Interesting how you and a professor or two at the environmental fair challenged me the same way but they too could not grasp that it is not fuel but air enhancement that is going on. There is no denying my 25% mileage increase, hp boast and noticeable difference in tailpipe emissions. Those are observable facts you can see and hear when you pull the h/o hose from the air intake and let the engine run straight gasoline.
I know it sounds too simple to be true and if it were then why has it not been done already but I already explained the liability because I tried to sell the device. Liability insurance coverage is everythiung for any business and the hydrogen business is too frightening based on past history with the Hendenberg fire.
IM
Belteshazzar
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Hydrogen is Fun- not a hoax
Posted by: heid
» RE: Hydrogen is Fun- not a hoax
Posted by: lc
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rafey on Dec 29, 2007 10:06 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: A New System is required
Posted by: mmckinl
Comments are closed-
Posted by: GreyFlcn on Dec 29, 2007 12:54 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry, No.
You don't get to pick and choose which laws of physics you get to obey.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Urgelt on Dec 29, 2007 11:43 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's boil this down to its simplest elements.
It takes about twice as much energy to separate hydrogen and oxygen and store it as you can harvest from burning the hydrogen. Why? Inefficiencies. Heat loss in combustion, pressurization energy, leaks (hydrogen is the hardest thing in the world to confine).
How much energy hydrogen can provide on-board a vehicle is limited by storage technology. It's tough to store enough to make it comparable to gasoline. Very high pressures are required, and that poses difficulties.
Fuel cells are tricky, too. Thus far no design has the operations characteristics and durability that an automotive application demands. It's no good if they last two years or less and work in a narrow range of operating temperatures.
Now let's contrast all of that to a competing technology: batteries.
Batteries are, at this juncture, a lot better than fuel cells for durability and operating characteristics; 10 year life and growing, working in a much wider range of ambient temperatures. They're more efficient; it takes less energy to fill up a battery and use it than it takes to process and store hydrogen, so your energy cost per mile is about half. And perhaps most important, battery storage densities are rising. Fast.
What is the theoretical limit on how much electricity can be stored in a battery? Nobody knows. But it's going to be a lot higher than what you could stuff into a pressurized hydrogen storage tank. And it'll keep going up.
I suspect we'll discover that fuel cells will be an also-ran in the automotive energy sweepstakes.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lc on Dec 30, 2007 6:16 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is not so much the law is wrong as you guys are applying it wrongly. As a fuel alone, yes, the electric needed to separate h2o into H fuel does not make sense. But as an air intake additive, not much is needed to vastly improve gasoline combustion. H and O simply make gasoline combustion much more efficient resulting in tests that are show obvious improvements that can be measured. My mileage increase is measurable, power increase is noticeable and exhaust can be seen and smelled.
This is simple technology already available that anyone reading this can do with their own engines. This is not mechanical and requires nothing special or extraordinary. Just separate the water by electrolysis, capture the gas and run a hose directly into the air intake hose. You can pull the hose anytime and hear how the engine reacts. It is obvious the H and O are making a meaningful contribution and electricity used is negligible. 18 wheeler trucks are climbing steep grades in higher gears than otherwise (not having to grind it out in low gears) and their engines are running cooler by using h and o separation added to the air intake.
IM
Belteshazzar
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Missing the point
Posted by: mreich
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lc on Dec 30, 2007 9:02 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My own experience is 25% increase in mileage. Translated across the board, from a low of 10% to above 50% increase in mileage by adding H and O to the air intake, this simple technology could reduce gasoline consumption practically over night without changing anything and leaving in place the current oil infrastructure.
IM
Belteshazzar
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lc on Dec 30, 2007 9:12 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
IM
Beltshazzar
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Carburetors
Posted by: mreich
» RE: Carburetors
Posted by: lc
Comments are closed-
Posted by: alpanp on Dec 30, 2007 1:27 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Present gasoline engines need only a slight modification for a hydrolyzer that will run on tank of water. Does anyone know if this is for real? If so, it wouldn't surprize me that a multi-trillion dollar vested interest would fight it tooth and nail. (Stan Meyers was allegedly poisoned - his brother maintains the website and DIY links for experimenters).
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» My understanding just from bits and pieces that I heard
Posted by: PaulC
» ok I must be wrong here
Posted by: PaulC
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sculptor on Dec 30, 2007 2:18 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Truth number one) There is no cheap and abundent energy out there to produce the hydrogen needed by a hydrogen economy.
Truth number two) There is not practical way to store hydrogen in an automobile. As a liquid? No, venting hydrogen in public places is insane! In high pressure cylinders? No, they are heavy and hold very little.
Truth number three) Hydrogen gas is very explosive. If you've been around hydrogen at all you know this trivial little fact.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: richholland on Dec 30, 2007 8:44 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If energy was no profit vehicle the State could order to change the habits of the citizens.
How would corporate USA react if i.e. OBAMA would order to stop private use of SUVs, to order useage of electric public transportation etc..
Or to eat a little less meat, or to switch off the lights at daytime....
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: GreyFlcn on Dec 30, 2007 9:37 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Stan Meyer's works on his perpetual motion machine was fake.
You can't get more energy out of putting hydrogen atoms back together than what it took to split them apart in the first place.
Especially if you are using a combustion engine to put them back together.
So not only are you not getting any more energy than you put in.
But you're getting less than half of it back.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: GreyFlcn on Dec 30, 2007 9:42 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen4.png
Sorry, but you don't get to stop following the laws of thermodynamics, just because you want to.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 31, 2007 2:14 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
escape, they leave the Earth forever. The Earth's gravity is not
sufficient to hold hydrogen and helium in our atmosphere. It
takes giant planet gravity [Jupiter, Saturn] to hold hydrogen and
helium. That's why we don't have hydrogen and helium in our
atmosphere in noticeable quantities, and that's also why hydrogen
won't be a greenhouse gas of consequence.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: NumberSix on Dec 31, 2007 4:39 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1) Extremely pricey. More $1 meg each.
2) The fuel cells don't last. Means a new car about every year.
Dumb, dumb, dumb. Make mine electric, please!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: memetic on Jan 1, 2008 7:06 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Install a few solar panels and voila! zero emissions and energy INDEPENDENCE!
http://www.electrovaya.com/innovation/zev_tech.html#EV
• Up to 230 mile / 360 km range
• Lightweight, with excellent handling and acceleration
• Proprietary lithium battery,-five times the energy density of lead acid batteries at less than one-third of the weight.
• Unique battery design allows for hill climbing, and cold weather operation.
• Top speed (regulated) of 140 kph / 80 mph
• The pure battery ZEV features very low maintenance costs and operating costs at less than a cent per kilometer.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DeeOhGee on Jan 2, 2008 5:45 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.solar-reserve.com/technology.html
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bill bruford on Jan 3, 2008 12:04 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You can then inject the hydrogen directly in the cumbustion chamber. Thanks to the consumer protection agency they do not allow you to have the lithium isotopes in this converter so your only choice is the more expensive fuel cell.
Search united neuclear and see what this chemical company has been able to do.. Makes all the rest of this a moot point. Fuel cells is jusy another way to keep Detroit happy and lining pockets of the oil companies. Why do that when hydrogen is available today and my 3000 pound 55 Studebaker can drive 400 miles with 4-tanks of hydrogen??
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Rexaford2 on Jan 7, 2008 2:20 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hydrogen, as a fuel alternative, is the most environmentally-friendly when tapped in its purest form and generated from renewable resources. In fact, recently, two leading fuel cell manufacturing companies, Ballard Power Systems and Plug Power, released a joint report that confirms fuel cells can improve the environment. The report is readily available at Plug Power’s website at http://www.plugpower.com/news/documents/GHG%20FINAL.pdf.
Hydrogen’s versatility as an energy carrier, not an energy source, makes it accessible for use in different applications. Hydrogen applications exist well beyond cars. Hydrogen products currently in use are used to power cell phone towers and forklifts. In fact, Wal-Mart recently placed an order to purchase a series of fuel cell forklifts. In addition, news recently published on the Good Clean Tech blog discusses some of the emerging fuel cell technologies.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ceejay on Jan 7, 2008 3:50 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Dec 28, 2007 12:31 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The best option for powering cars and trucks is going to be the electric motor powered by batteries. There, you charge the batteries directly from the grid - and new battery technology is popping up right now. Example: New Nanowire Battery Holds 10 Times The Charge Of Existing Ones, Dec 2007. That means a laptop could go for 20 hours instead of two - and a car might even be able to go 500-1000 miles on a full charge instead of just 50-100.
What about the charging time? Imagine battery stations in place of gas stations - you pull up, a crane pulls out your battery, and you get a fresh one, all in a few minutes. The old battery is recharged and sent on to a new customer. Some financial details to work out, but that seems to be the best system.
Hydrogen fuel cell cars are just not a good idea, and the technology has lagged and lagged. There is the onboard fuel storage problem, for one, and the fuel cell membranes need platinum catalysts and still wear out quickly - do you want to replace your fuel cell engine every 10 to 40 thousand miles? Electric cars are far better - the electric motor is robust and has been in constant development for over a century. No pie-in-the-sky fuel cell engineering required.
That doesn't mean that solar- and wind-powered hydrogen generation doesn't have many uses, beside the grid-balancing one. Hydrogen is used to make ammonia fertilizer, for example, and can even be used to convert carbon dioxide to methane. However, it's almost certainly going to be an industrial activity - not a home one.
Another decent option for cars is the alcohol-electric hybrid or plug-in hybrid - essentially a Prius that runs on ethanol instead of gasoline (the first one was patented in 1903, before Standard Oil shut down the farm-based ethanol industry by promoting Prohibition). However, if you're going to use ethanol or biodiesel, you had better make sure that the agricultural system that produces it doesn't use any fossil fuels or petrochemicals - organic, fossil-fuel free biofuels are the only sustainable option in that area.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» a hydrogen fuel cell is a battery
Posted by: rafaeltoral
» RE: a hydrogen fuel cell is a battery
Posted by: CCox
» RE: a hydrogen fuel cell is a battery
Posted by: rafaeltoral
» RE: Another Energy Hoax : Hydrogen!
Posted by: mmckinl
» RE: Another Energy Hoax : Hydrogen!
Posted by: MyLeftFoot
» RE: Another Energy Hoax : Hydrogen!
Posted by: homega
Comments are closed-
Posted by: peter193710 on Dec 28, 2007 12:47 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
source and storage are not solved practically.
Peter Gluck
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I wish the author is right...
Posted by: dmmaze6
» RE: Hydrogen is a Hoax ...
Posted by: mmckinl
Comments are closed-
Posted by: xbj on Dec 28, 2007 1:18 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As long as there is an American nuclear armed satellite Zionist state called Israel in a hostile Mideast despite all the oil sheik dictators and murdering military Mushareff's we prop up elsewhere, the entire planet is in peril. Because an "Islamofascist" backpack nuke is a virtual certainity; it is only a matter of when. Whether it comes from a real terrorist, a patsy terrorist under orders from a fake leader like Bin Laden working for the BushCIA, or a duped patsy sacrificial mercenary, IT WILL COME. Let's face the truth; we EARNED it; it is our karma.
Why is this inevitable? Precisely because the CIA has done such a very good job of creating "Islamofascism" in the first place, and our own GOPNazis have done such a bang up tremendous job at creating Christofascism and fighting it "there"... into full fledged universal worldwide revolt.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The question is, will it come in time to get the US out of the Mideast, forever?
Posted by: donl51
» RE: The question is, will it come in time to get the US out of the Mideast, forever?
Posted by: xbj
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Pirate1 on Dec 28, 2007 1:54 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Hydrogen is a Hoax ...
Posted by: mmckinl
Comments are closed-
Posted by: improperly_sedated on Dec 28, 2007 3:32 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1 - Hydrogen is not an energy source, it is a storage medium. This means that the real question is whether or not it is a practical and efficient way of transmitting that energy from the power source, whatever that may be, to the wheels on our cars. This article, like most pro-hydrogen arguments, seems to imply that H2 is just sitting there like petroleum, waiting to have its energy released. If that were the case, maybe going to all this trouble to create the technology to use it would be worthwhile, but it is not the case. And incidentally, the existing hydrogen industry referred to in the article consists almost entirely of H2 derived from natural gas, not the electrolysis that would make it a potentially green technology.
2(a) - Hydrogen is difficult to store. H2 molecules are very very small, and seepage is a greater problem than with other gases. If stored in liquid form, losses to boil-off become an even greater problem than seepage. These are probably not insurmountable, but extreme measures would have to be taken. This would force us to choose between a very inefficient distribution system where large amounts of energy are lost into thin air, and a very expensive distribution system where every pipe and tank is costlier than what we are accustomed to.
2 (b) - Hydrogen is even more difficult to store in a compact and portable form. This either gives us an insufficient onboard fuel supply, or additional extreme measures compounded with the ones from part 2(a).
3 - Hydrogen is a greenhouse gas. Yes, you read that right. It's a greenhouse gas, it leaks like crazy, and it heads straight for the upper atmosphere when it gets loose.
I had more, but it's late, my brain is turning to jelly, and I'm going to bed. I'll check in tomorrow to see what the percentage of idiots is on this thread, but I'm not optimistic. Like a microcosm of our lemming civilization, I expect to find an illustration of just how doomed we really are.
(And did you notice the bios on the authors? Why would Exxon want us to adopt a new fuel whose main characteristic seems to be the requirement of an expensive, fixed distribution system? Wouldn't want us running our cars on batteries or alcohol. No, sir, that would not do.)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Straw Man Alert!
Posted by: Rod
» RE: Straw Man Alert!
Posted by: IanA
» RE: Straw Man Alert! : Hydrogen is a Hoax
Posted by: mmckinl
» RE: Straw Man Alert!
Posted by: improperly_sedated
» RE: Straw Man Alert!
Posted by: IanA
» RE: Straw Man Alert!
Posted by: TheLimit
» RE: Straw Man Alert!
Posted by: improperly_sedated
» RE: Straw Man Alert!
Posted by: heid
» RE: Straw Man Alert!
Posted by: undrgrndgirl
» RE: Straw Man Alert!
Posted by: ematter
Comments are closed-
Posted by: PaulK on Dec 28, 2007 5:17 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If hydrogen (or natural gas, for that matter) leaks out into an enclosed space, it builds up as it freely mixes with the ambient oxygen. Then a spark sets off a fueled-air bomb explosion.
Neither gasoline nor ethanol tends to explode in an accident, although they do burn fiercely. Electric batteries don't explode in an accident.
Hydrogen as a storage medium is nothing more than a direct competitor to the electric battery. Batteries work now. If I had a bit more money, I'd buy a Honda Civic Hybrid tomorrow and then pay a mechanic to switch it over to be a plug-in with extra batteries. With Toyota hybrids you can't see traffic in back of you with that deliberately funny but snobbish rear window. Otherwise Toyotas are good cars too.
The knock on batteries is that they don't recharge fast. No problem. Do with a real car what you would do with a toy race car -- put the old rechargeable batteries in the recharger and then put in a set of fresh batteries. Drive all you want!
So those are the basics. Hydrogen is another expensive, untested battery that explodes. Also, I'd rather ship my power across the country using high voltage DC wires from the wind fields than build hydrogen pipes, and I'd rather store massive amounts of electric power with pumped hydroelectric storage. Nice PR job, tho.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: More Straw Man Alert
Posted by: IanA
» nice, but where are we going to store all these spent batteries?
Posted by: rafaeltoral
» RE: nice, but where are we going to store all these spent batteries?
Posted by: mmckinl
» Hydrogen explosions.
Posted by: heid
» Right and gasoline in a gas tank is difficult to ignite
Posted by: PaulC
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line on Dec 28, 2007 5:42 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: What? Nothing but a Hoax...
Posted by: mmckinl
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kitten_thing on Dec 28, 2007 5:45 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This remarkable statement is a bald assertion of what engineers call "scalability", where small scale processes can be scaled up to be equally efficient large scale processes, with profitable economies of scale.
But no evidence for this whatsoever has been adduced, which would usually be a comprehensive study done as part of a larger feasibility study, and one would think that Exxon would have such figures ... embarrassing, perhaps?
As for the rest of the article, i found it bewildering how it skipped between natural gas extraction, fuel cells and electrolysis; conflating them as necessary to bolster arguments.
And as another critic noted, no mention of H2 storage?
Frankly, even putting aside the logical flaws, this article is just plain bad English.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Bad Logic : Yes it is Bad Loogic !
Posted by: mmckinl
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Smiggsy on Dec 28, 2007 6:07 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What I do agree is that it had more to with the petrochemical corps realizing they may lose their mighty power over all of us at the pump.
I suppose anything noble like cheap motive power & clean air for everyone just doesn't make enough money. I would be very suspect of the hydrogen cell car.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: What about electric cars..... The 300 mpg car is here!
Posted by: mmckinl
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kenkrug on Dec 28, 2007 6:12 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
However, it is not the magic bullet that will ween our transportation fleet from the fossil fuel teat. We need to aim higher.
The process of extracting 1 kg of hydrogen from water expends more energy than said 1 kg of hydrogen provides when consumed. The way the production technology works now, it does not save any energy on the macro-scale.
The better option is electric. The technology already exists, and it is much more efficient. And there are a dozen ways to generate electricity that don't involve extracting something from the earth and burning it.
Hydrogen is an excellent option for use in large trucks and buses, (along with high-power military vehicles), which require more power than existing electric technology can provide. And this should be pursued, exactly as the authors outline.
But for the rest of us, we need to think outside of the combustion chamber.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: thoughtcriminal is right...
Posted by: IanA
» using the sun/wind to power electrolysis of water
Posted by: rafaeltoral
» RE:Solar Wind for hydrogen Only 20% efficient
Posted by: mmckinl
Comments are closed-
Posted by: astralman on Dec 28, 2007 6:38 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
2. life isn't about cars! increase public transportation, walk, bike, pogo, whatever.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: forget about cars
Posted by: IanA
» RE: forget about cars
Posted by: mmckinl
Comments are closed-
Posted by: craigandrew on Dec 28, 2007 7:09 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we wait for an industry solution, then we are accepting slavery. If we pursue individual solutions - including modifying our behavior - we solve the actual problem.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lc on Dec 28, 2007 7:25 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here is how it works: the added oxygen is like a furnace being supercharged with air to make steel. For every oxygen atom there are two hydrogen atoms that really add a bang to the explosion.
For Fun, I capture hydrogen bubbles by blowing the hose into a bottle of soapy water to make bubbles. Then I catch the bubbles with a spoon, put them in my palm and light them with a lighter. Big bang, no heat and no harm. I did this at an environmental fair and had children hold the hydrogen bubbles and light them in the palm of their hands. Freaked out the teachers but the kids loved it. I then backed the crowd about 20 feet away from me. I then stuck the lighter into the bottle (peanut butter, plastic just big enough to get my fingers and lighter in and only a couples inches of bubbles floating above the water) with a load of hydrogen bubbles and made a bang so loud that the authorities rushed over looking for a bomb. The second time I did it they made me stop. The only effect on me sticking my lighter into a bottle of hydrogen bubbles was the loud noise which made my hears ring for a long time.
Yes it takes electricity/energy produced by the alternator/generator but the little gas needed to run the generator to separate h2o into h and o is nothing compared to the added value a little o and h makes to the explosion process in the cylinders. Added plus: my engine runs cooler because the hydrogen is not a hot explosion like gasoline.
Anyone can use this technology now and the whole country could convert now without converting infrastructure. Hydrogen is not the silver bullet but it is one big shotgun blast at the oil industry while at the same time helping oil to continue.
BIG ADDED BONUS: My tail pipe emissions from a v8 Ford 1989 van are really bad and noticeable. When the h and o gas get to the engine a minute or so after startup the engine smooths out and runs better and the choking fumes can not be seen and smell is so little that you can actually breath next to the tail pipe whereas if I unhook the h/o hose, the tail pipe emissions will drive you 6 feet away.
I saw an old farmer make h from a battery in his barn to run his engine on a 60 Minutes documentary back in the early 70's and expected this technology the next year. It never happened because no business can make any money on it. Too much liability fear over hydrogen prevents insurance from installing and servicing the equipment.
IM
Belteshazzar
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Hydrogen is Fun- thermodynamics means it's a hoax
Posted by: IanA
» RE: Hydrogen is Fun- not a hoax
Posted by: lc
» RE: Hydrogen is Fun- thermodynamics means it's a hoax
Posted by: channing
» RE: Hydrogen is Fun for Big Oil ,Big Coal, Big Auto !
Posted by: mmckinl
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Lauren on Dec 28, 2007 8:15 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the complicated global warming debate, one thing is certain: For every scientist that says global warming is real, there is another that flatly denies a human impact. It is rather frightening how an influential global movement can be based upon something as unproven as global warming.
That is just dumb, making me think the Libertarian party is made up of businessmen who haven't got a clue about how to understand basic math or science. Wow, just wow.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» based on my own review of the literature
Posted by: undrgrndgirl
» No, the issue of climate change has been settled.
Posted by: PaulC
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN on Dec 28, 2007 8:42 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Big Auto, Big Oil and Big Coal love Hydrogen !
Posted by: mmckinl
» RE: Why hasn't anyone mentioned
Posted by: MyLeftFoot
Comments are closed-
Posted by: toppun on Dec 28, 2007 8:45 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The MDI Air Car - The World�s Cleanest Car.
are compatible with current ICE. Minimum infrastructure needed at refueling stations. Zero emissions. Lower pressures to achieve comparable energy density. Zero emissions from current technologies--compressors is one of the most reliable mechanical devices there is.
No matter the replacement technology the ability to store electrical energy to reduce peaking will be an essential part of the mix. No significant discussion here. Puzzling out mobility is only one part of a much larger problem of reducing carbon emissions to virtually zero. Hydrogen is not a primary energy source only a refined storage media--the problem of emissions is the greatest challenge and that is highest priority for research and development.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dareg on Dec 28, 2007 8:52 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Getting back to industrial/utility fuel cell power plants, there's no more a conservative market than utilities. A megawatt-scale fuel cell system was demonstrated in 1996-7 at Santa Clara, California. Now 10 years later, the commercial fuel cell product line is just breaking through with sales of mainly 250KW sized versions even though 2.5 - 3MW models are available.
These fuel cells use natural gas, biogas and/or alcohol fuels, a more generally available suite of fuels than would be hydrogen. So, there remains plenty of time-compliant issues remaining before hydrogen becomes a common energy source for the general population. The NASA and military space programs are the major end-users of commodity hydrogen, a good start.
As several previous commenters note, hydrogen is a difficult commodity to store, seal and tranfer because of its molecular structure and propensity to embrittle contacting materials over time. Projecting these characteristics to wide-scale implementation will require a massive capital investment in infrastucture, including safety and handling systems in addition to fuel cell mass production manufacturing capabilities.
Having said all this, I am optimistic that hydrogen systems, especially as hybrid (fuel cell/battery) propulsion systems, are perfected for vehicular applications. Unfortunately, the timeline will not likely follow the 15 to 20 year horizon envisioned in the article.
There's no free ride here; displacing oil is mandatory for our security (dependancy on foreign sources)and economic health. But remember, we will shift away from one energy form (oil) to another (coal), to generate the electricity or methane-based gases for hydrogen production; but it is a start.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: audiodef on Dec 28, 2007 9:32 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oil: Very Finite Supply.
Water (and thus hydrogen): Dude, most of the flippin' planet is covered with it, often miles deep.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Tonight! Oilslick vs. Hydro
Posted by: Cherenkovrad
» RE:Oilslick IS Hydro !
Posted by: mmckinl
Comments are closed-
Posted by: recj50 on Dec 28, 2007 9:55 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Why not have both hydrogen and electric
Posted by: Erik1968
Comments are closed-
Posted by: willymack on Dec 28, 2007 10:06 AM
Current rating: 2 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Read the commentary from those who know!
Posted by: heid
Comments are closed-
Posted by: NoPCZone on Dec 28, 2007 10:31 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Not Titanic deck chairs.
Posted by: heid
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pauldd on Dec 28, 2007 10:58 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: H2 does not exist naturally
Posted by: IanA
» RE: There is a great solution:
Posted by: channing
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Cherenkovrad on Dec 28, 2007 11:00 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Then the gee whiz kids (all the people who watch Star Trek and drool over the latest techno-orgasm) line up to support the physically impossible just because they want the cool tech.
The problem is not oil vs. x fuel source, the problem is a finite earth with infinite desires. We currently have approximately 5 billion too many people on the planet due to the input of fossil sunlight i.e. oil, natural gas, coal. When those resources begin to tail off, which many have concluded is happening now, then we will see that the planet will not be able to support all those people. No amount of techno-fantasy will solve this problem. Tech is not energy. Tech cannot make land. It cannot make fresh water without increasing salinity elsewhere. It cannot restore a fished out ocean. It cannot stop the acidification of the oceans. Tech is the problem, not the solution.
As a species, we are doomed as long as we live in this land of corporate mediated techno-fantasy.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Techno-Fantasy Hydrogen Economy is Nothing but a Childish Dream
Posted by: pauldd
» RE: Techno-Fantasy Hydrogen Economy is Nothing but a Childish Dream
Posted by: Cherenkovrad
Comments are closed-
Posted by: GreyFlcn on Dec 28, 2007 11:34 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Almost all of which is created by stripping carbon atoms off of natural gas. Creating CO2 in the process.
Most of it's used for Oil Refining to seperate out the different fractions of oil, and seperately to remove impurities.
==Myth No. 2: The safety hazard of hydrogen isn't that bad because it doesn't readily explode==
While correct. Even if you put plain air inside a 10,000PSI tank, what you have is a bomb.
Much less a flammable gas.
==Myth No. 3: Hydrogen can't be distributed via existing pipelines==
Thats more like a fact than a myth.
Sure you could do comprehensive retrofits.
But thats not really "existing pipelines" if you've completely rebuilt the pipe.
==Myth No. 4: Because so much hype is being made, there's sure to be major economic progress==
You can't engineer your way around the laws of thermodynamics.
==Myth No. 5: Hydrogen is too expensive to compete with gasoline==
I wouldn't really say reformering hydrogen from natural gas is a step forward from existing Diesel cars, CNGs or Hybrids.
And it certainly can't compete at that price margin.
If you're talking electrolysis, we're talking $100/kg.
Then add in the fact that the fuel cell system itself is far too expensive.
And requires scarce raw materials like gold and platinum.
AND it also requires batteries. (Ironically most Hydrogen prototypes now are lithium ion hybrids)
_
Fact being, half of the FossilFuel/HydroCarbon business model is Hydrogen.
It's no suprise that this article comes from Exxon's former director of R&D.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: When you have a hammer
Posted by: TheLimit
Comments are closed-
Posted by: GreyFlcn on Dec 28, 2007 11:41 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Which ideally should stay a prototype
The BMW Hydrogen 7 puts more strain on the environment than a heavy diesel truck.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jeff Hoffman on Dec 28, 2007 1:14 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We need to insist that EVERYONE (this includes the rich and ruling class types) live near work and shopping. We should greatly expand public transit, which means major 24-hour subway systems in every city and large town, run public transit off local solar and wind power, and make bicycling much easier by removing private motor vehicles from enough streets to create sufficient bike routes.
There will be no magic technological fixes for environmental problems caused by humans consuming too much or consuming things we shouldn't be consuming. We need to give the Earth and all life on it equal consideration, and stop worshiping human death machines like cars.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: No Magical Solutions
Posted by: improperly_sedated
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mmckinl on Dec 28, 2007 1:49 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Using natural gas for hydrogen would drive up heating and electricity for consumers to multiples of what it is now.
Hydrogen from wind, solar or other renewable for electrolysis is only 20% efficient. The electricity generated would be more wisely used for the electrical grid.
Be Fore-Warned ! The Hydrogen Economy as currently envisioned is a ploy by the Auto and Hydrocarbon industries to maintain their iron grip on consumers pocketbooks.
Much cheaper and far more efficient battery electric vehicles are coming soon with batteries that last 10 years and ranges of over 100 miles at a 120 mile per gallon equivalence.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Hydrogen is a Hoax on the American People !
Posted by: IanA
» RE: Hydrogen is a Hoax on the American People ! Again !
Posted by: mmckinl
» RE: mmckinl,
Posted by: channing
» RE: not going to happen channing
Posted by: mmckinl
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sjk on Dec 28, 2007 3:23 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Auto and oil companies love to hype hydrogen because they know it's not going to be around for a long long time, so they don't have to worry about change in their lifetimes. This allows them to fight against government regulation by saying:"Hydrogen will solve all your problems, just wait for it -- if you regulate us, you'll stop development of the 'magic fuel'". BULL. We need to combine alternative fuels with significantly higher CAFE standards. Automakers will adapt and grow. Afterall, how many went out of business when seatbelts became mandatory.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Bull - Distribution
Posted by: IanA
» RE: Bull - Distribution
Posted by: mmckinl
» RE: Solar Deserts use the Sun to Produce Hydrogen, Desalinization, Electricity
Posted by: channing
» RE: Solar Deserts use the Sun to Produce Hydrogen, Desalinization, Electricity
Posted by: channing
Comments are closed-
Posted by: aethr on Dec 28, 2007 5:28 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The Honda FCX is available now.
Posted by: mmckinl
» RE: The Honda FCX is available now.
Posted by: richholland
Comments are closed-
Posted by: solar on Dec 28, 2007 5:53 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please, let's at least stop calling hydrogen an energy "source", it isn't a source at all and it isn't even as practical as oil because it does not exist in nature except in combination with other elements. It takes energy to extract the hydrogen, more energy that will be regained by recombining hydrogen with oxygen to produce electricity and water.
I've been a renewable energy advocate for decades, designed and built efficient homes and home energy systems, and I'm sick to death of hearing about hydrogen.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Hydrogen is NOT just another battery
Posted by: channing
» RE: Solar Panels are not Cheap ...
Posted by: mmckinl
» RE: Solar Panels are not Cheap ...
Posted by: IanA
» RE: Solar Panels are not Cheap ... Yes, They are Now!
Posted by: channing
Comments are closed-
Posted by: markh99 on Dec 28, 2007 6:59 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mreich on Dec 28, 2007 7:51 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am also wondering who is going to pay for the development of the hydrogen fuel infrastructure. Who has that kind of money? Could it be the American taxpayer? Nah...
Wait! I know who! Why, Exxon and BP of course! What are the odds that the same folks who control the fossil fuel will be controlling the hydrogen fuel? You know I'll just bet that the good folks at GM would be willing to help out too. They were instrumental in making sure that the antiquated electric trolleys in my hometown were replaced with modern gasoline powered buses. We could sure use their expertise.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: NoPCZone on Dec 28, 2007 9:17 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Long Emergency is coming and it looks like we are a society in deep denial.
"The hydrogen economy is a fantasy. It is not going to happen. We may be able to run a very few things on hydrogen - but we are not going to replace the entire US automobile fleet with hydrogen fuel cell cars.
Nor will we replace the current car fleet with electric cars or natural gas cars. We're just going to use cars a lot less. Fewer trips. Cars will be a diminished presence in our lives.
Not to mention the political problem that kicks in when car ownership and driving becomes incrementally a more elite activity. The mass motoring society worked because it was so profoundly democratic. Practically anybody in America could participate, from the lowliest shlub mopping the floor at Pizza Hut to Bill Gates. What happens when it is no longer so democratic? And what is the tipping point at which it becomes a matter of political resentment: 12 percent? 23 percent? 38 percent?
Wind power and solar electric will not produce significant amounts of power within the context of the way we live now.
Ethanol and bio-deisel are a joke. They require more energy to produce than they give back. You know how you get ethanol: you produce massive amounts of corn using huge oil and gas 'inputs' of fertilizer and pesticide and then you use a lot more energy to turn the corn into ethanol. It's a joke.
No combination of alternative fuel systems currently known will allow us to run what we are running, the way we're running it, or even a substantial fraction of it.
The future is therefore telling us very loudly that we will have to change the way we live in this country. The implications are clear: we will have to downscale and re-scale virtually everything we do.
The downscaling of America is a tremendous and inescapable project. It is the master ecological project of our time. We will have to do it whether we like it or not. We are not prepared."
James Howard Kunstler
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Wake The Flock Up, People
Posted by: mmckinl
» RE: Wake The Flock Up, People
Posted by: heid
» RE: Wake The Flock Up, People
Posted by: mmckinl
Comments are closed-
Posted by: channing on Dec 28, 2007 9:53 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here for 5 billion, here for 5 billion more.
Concentrated Solar Arrays located on 1/700th of the Earth's desert-footprint would produce 100% current demand. Desalinization and H2 production are by-products. Wind Islands, Geo-Thermal, and Wave/Tidal augment... Fossil Fuels are still available for Insurance and initial construction.
Desertec
A regional solution that ought to be taken forward to Solve Energy once and for all.
The Key is a Global High Tension Two-Way Grid that can Draw from as many Sources as it can Deliver to. Hydrogen Fluid Batteries, WindIslands, RoofTop Solar, GeoThermal, Wave and Tidal, as well as all fossil/nuclear fuels can input once the Grid is Built.
The Backbone of the Grid is Solar Deserts with a 24/7 fuel-delivery cycle that has longevity and sustainability without being exclusive. WindIslands plotted to hurricane-resistance, Tidal targeting volatility, Localized Wave, GeoThermal, Solar and WindFarms all supply the stability of supply/demand with hydrogen storing the difference.
Flexible Printed Solar Roofing and Nano Li-on Batteries are two new advancements, as are all electric autos, buses, trains and planes too.
In discussing anti-global warming solutions, the answer should be totally reversible for global-cooling consequences, and the impacts on global-calming, which Solar Deserts allows. If fossil-fuels were reintroduced to the correct regions at the right times in balance to the WindIslands and Solar Deserts Global Stability would be harvested and managed.
To: thoughtcriminal, rafaeltoral, ccox, mmckinl, Peter Gluck, Rod, IanA, improperly_sedated, TheLimit, PaulK, rafaeltoral, kitten_thing, Smiggsy, kenkrug, craigandrew, Ic, Lauren, AMERICAN VETERAN, toppun, dareg, audidef, Cherenkovrad, recj50, willymac, heid, NoPCZone, pauldd, Cherenkovrad, GreyFlcn, Jeff Hoffman, sjk, solar, aethr, markh99, mreich;
From: channing
Soo many good, good points i read upthread. Each of you raised a vital issue of relevance to the energy debate. The above mentioned Global Energy Solution satisfies each dilemma, if we begin to do it.
Forget "finite" anything, focus on the "abundant", especially those resources that do not infringe upon our bio-diverse Earth. We already Solved the Energy Crisis but for our Common Will to do it.
Hope we leave ourselves time to get it done!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Solar Deserts & "Abundance"
Posted by: mreich
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BlackbirdHighway on Dec 29, 2007 4:08 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the next ten years, there will be huge advances in battery technology that will make hydrogen energy storage obsolete. People don't realize that hydrogen is only energy storage, not an energy source. Sure there's lots of water, but that's not hydrogen, that's burned hydrogen. To use water, you have to "unburn" it. That takes lots of energy, much more energy than you get back out.
A modern Lithium Ion battery is about 99.9% efficient. Hydrogen will never come close, because of the laws of physics.
There is one thing that hydrogen fuel is good for, and that is getting millions of dollars in federal aid for research. That's why so many companies are working on hydrogen.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The 300mpg BEV , battery electric , is here !
Posted by: mmckinl
Comments are closed-
Posted by: xbj on Dec 29, 2007 5:15 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A LONG fucking way. But it's so much more fun to bomb babies, women, grandmothers, and rape little girls and shoot their families, and rape little boys in Abu Ghraib, isn't it?
Isn't it, Rumsfeld? Isn't it, Rice? isn't it, Cheney? Isn't it, Bush?
Isn't it, Exxon? isn't it, Amerika?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lc on Dec 29, 2007 5:56 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Interesting how you and a professor or two at the environmental fair challenged me the same way but they too could not grasp that it is not fuel but air enhancement that is going on. There is no denying my 25% mileage increase, hp boast and noticeable difference in tailpipe emissions. Those are observable facts you can see and hear when you pull the h/o hose from the air intake and let the engine run straight gasoline.
I know it sounds too simple to be true and if it were then why has it not been done already but I already explained the liability because I tried to sell the device. Liability insurance coverage is everythiung for any business and the hydrogen business is too frightening based on past history with the Hendenberg fire.
IM
Belteshazzar
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Hydrogen is Fun- not a hoax
Posted by: heid
» RE: Hydrogen is Fun- not a hoax
Posted by: lc
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rafey on Dec 29, 2007 10:06 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: A New System is required
Posted by: mmckinl
Comments are closed-
Posted by: GreyFlcn on Dec 29, 2007 12:54 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry, No.
You don't get to pick and choose which laws of physics you get to obey.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Urgelt on Dec 29, 2007 11:43 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's boil this down to its simplest elements.
It takes about twice as much energy to separate hydrogen and oxygen and store it as you can harvest from burning the hydrogen. Why? Inefficiencies. Heat loss in combustion, pressurization energy, leaks (hydrogen is the hardest thing in the world to confine).
How much energy hydrogen can provide on-board a vehicle is limited by storage technology. It's tough to store enough to make it comparable to gasoline. Very high pressures are required, and that poses difficulties.
Fuel cells are tricky, too. Thus far no design has the operations characteristics and durability that an automotive application demands. It's no good if they last two years or less and work in a narrow range of operating temperatures.
Now let's contrast all of that to a competing technology: batteries.
Batteries are, at this juncture, a lot better than fuel cells for durability and operating characteristics; 10 year life and growing, working in a much wider range of ambient temperatures. They're more efficient; it takes less energy to fill up a battery and use it than it takes to process and store hydrogen, so your energy cost per mile is about half. And perhaps most important, battery storage densities are rising. Fast.
What is the theoretical limit on how much electricity can be stored in a battery? Nobody knows. But it's going to be a lot higher than what you could stuff into a pressurized hydrogen storage tank. And it'll keep going up.
I suspect we'll discover that fuel cells will be an also-ran in the automotive energy sweepstakes.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lc on Dec 30, 2007 6:16 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is not so much the law is wrong as you guys are applying it wrongly. As a fuel alone, yes, the electric needed to separate h2o into H fuel does not make sense. But as an air intake additive, not much is needed to vastly improve gasoline combustion. H and O simply make gasoline combustion much more efficient resulting in tests that are show obvious improvements that can be measured. My mileage increase is measurable, power increase is noticeable and exhaust can be seen and smelled.
This is simple technology already available that anyone reading this can do with their own engines. This is not mechanical and requires nothing special or extraordinary. Just separate the water by electrolysis, capture the gas and run a hose directly into the air intake hose. You can pull the hose anytime and hear how the engine reacts. It is obvious the H and O are making a meaningful contribution and electricity used is negligible. 18 wheeler trucks are climbing steep grades in higher gears than otherwise (not having to grind it out in low gears) and their engines are running cooler by using h and o separation added to the air intake.
IM
Belteshazzar
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Missing the point
Posted by: mreich
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lc on Dec 30, 2007 9:02 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My own experience is 25% increase in mileage. Translated across the board, from a low of 10% to above 50% increase in mileage by adding H and O to the air intake, this simple technology could reduce gasoline consumption practically over night without changing anything and leaving in place the current oil infrastructure.
IM
Belteshazzar
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lc on Dec 30, 2007 9:12 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
IM
Beltshazzar
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Carburetors
Posted by: mreich
» RE: Carburetors
Posted by: lc
Comments are closed-
Posted by: alpanp on Dec 30, 2007 1:27 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Present gasoline engines need only a slight modification for a hydrolyzer that will run on tank of water. Does anyone know if this is for real? If so, it wouldn't surprize me that a multi-trillion dollar vested interest would fight it tooth and nail. (Stan Meyers was allegedly poisoned - his brother maintains the website and DIY links for experimenters).
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» My understanding just from bits and pieces that I heard
Posted by: PaulC
» ok I must be wrong here
Posted by: PaulC
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sculptor on Dec 30, 2007 2:18 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Truth number one) There is no cheap and abundent energy out there to produce the hydrogen needed by a hydrogen economy.
Truth number two) There is not practical way to store hydrogen in an automobile. As a liquid? No, venting hydrogen in public places is insane! In high pressure cylinders? No, they are heavy and hold very little.
Truth number three) Hydrogen gas is very explosive. If you've been around hydrogen at all you know this trivial little fact.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: richholland on Dec 30, 2007 8:44 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If energy was no profit vehicle the State could order to change the habits of the citizens.
How would corporate USA react if i.e. OBAMA would order to stop private use of SUVs, to order useage of electric public transportation etc..
Or to eat a little less meat, or to switch off the lights at daytime....
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: GreyFlcn on Dec 30, 2007 9:37 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Stan Meyer's works on his perpetual motion machine was fake.
You can't get more energy out of putting hydrogen atoms back together than what it took to split them apart in the first place.
Especially if you are using a combustion engine to put them back together.
So not only are you not getting any more energy than you put in.
But you're getting less than half of it back.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: GreyFlcn on Dec 30, 2007 9:42 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen4.png
Sorry, but you don't get to stop following the laws of thermodynamics, just because you want to.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Dec 31, 2007 2:14 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
escape, they leave the Earth forever. The Earth's gravity is not
sufficient to hold hydrogen and helium in our atmosphere. It
takes giant planet gravity [Jupiter, Saturn] to hold hydrogen and
helium. That's why we don't have hydrogen and helium in our
atmosphere in noticeable quantities, and that's also why hydrogen
won't be a greenhouse gas of consequence.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: NumberSix on Dec 31, 2007 4:39 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1) Extremely pricey. More $1 meg each.
2) The fuel cells don't last. Means a new car about every year.
Dumb, dumb, dumb. Make mine electric, please!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: memetic on Jan 1, 2008 7:06 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Install a few solar panels and voila! zero emissions and energy INDEPENDENCE!
http://www.electrovaya.com/innovation/zev_tech.html#EV
• Up to 230 mile / 360 km range
• Lightweight, with excellent handling and acceleration
• Proprietary lithium battery,-five times the energy density of lead acid batteries at less than one-third of the weight.
• Unique battery design allows for hill climbing, and cold weather operation.
• Top speed (regulated) of 140 kph / 80 mph
• The pure battery ZEV features very low maintenance costs and operating costs at less than a cent per kilometer.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DeeOhGee on Jan 2, 2008 5:45 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.solar-reserve.com/technology.html
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bill bruford on Jan 3, 2008 12:04 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You can then inject the hydrogen directly in the cumbustion chamber. Thanks to the consumer protection agency they do not allow you to have the lithium isotopes in this converter so your only choice is the more expensive fuel cell.
Search united neuclear and see what this chemical company has been able to do.. Makes all the rest of this a moot point. Fuel cells is jusy another way to keep Detroit happy and lining pockets of the oil companies. Why do that when hydrogen is available today and my 3000 pound 55 Studebaker can drive 400 miles with 4-tanks of hydrogen??
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Rexaford2 on Jan 7, 2008 2:20 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hydrogen, as a fuel alternative, is the most environmentally-friendly when tapped in its purest form and generated from renewable resources. In fact, recently, two leading fuel cell manufacturing companies, Ballard Power Systems and Plug Power, released a joint report that confirms fuel cells can improve the environment. The report is readily available at Plug Power’s website at http://www.plugpower.com/news/documents/GHG%20FINAL.pdf.
Hydrogen’s versatility as an energy carrier, not an energy source, makes it accessible for use in different applications. Hydrogen applications exist well beyond cars. Hydrogen products currently in use are used to power cell phone towers and forklifts. In fact, Wal-Mart recently placed an order to purchase a series of fuel cell forklifts. In addition, news recently published on the Good Clean Tech blog discusses some of the emerging fuel cell technologies.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ceejay on Jan 7, 2008 3:50 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Trial Begins for Activist Who Fought to Protect Federal Lands from Drilling -- Join the Protest
California Carbon Trading Allows Timber Companies to Sell CO2 Credits for Their Worst Logging Practices
How to Answer the Dumb Things Climate Deniers Say




