Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Utterly hilarious. They are advocating the attempt to cut down on the false “greenhouse gas” (CO2) by switching it with increasing emissions of the one true greenhouse gas (H2O); not that more H2O will affect the “climate” to any degree at the volume that humans emit it, of course (especially considering the number of steam locomotives and steam-powered boats and ships that used to operate around the world).

And producing hydrogen by electrolysis? Right now, that’s a mere 4 percent of total H2 production, and using “alternative” methods that fail even with government intervention (which they advocate) would not even raise it to 5 percent.
1 posted on 11/30/2014 9:35:53 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last
To: Olog-hai; mikrofon; Charles Henrickson

I’ll be in the shower. Let me know when methane cars get here.


3 posted on 11/30/2014 9:39:39 AM PST by martin_fierro (Fartfegnugen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Olog-hai

Hindenburg


4 posted on 11/30/2014 9:41:23 AM PST by American in Israel (A wise man's heart directs him to the right, but the foolish mans heart directs him toward the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Olog-hai

Liberals are too stupid to even remotely grasp that hydrogen fuel is not an energy source (like oil, natural gas, solar, nuclear or wind) but a kind of battery, storing the energy from some other source as burnable hydrogen. They are too stupid to grasp this simple fact, so they think in terms of hydrogen as a solution to the problem of CO2 emissions. But since the problem itself is entirely fanciful, I guess it doesn’t matter that the proposed solution is non-existent.


5 posted on 11/30/2014 9:41:31 AM PST by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Olog-hai

Kind of reminds me of the miraculous plastic shopping bags, when they were introduced. The Environmentalists hailed them, for all of the trees they saved. 40 years on, the same crowd tells us that they are the bane of our existence.

I won’t live long enough to see it to the end, but this hydrogen car business certainly sounds like a similar scenario.

Thanks!


6 posted on 11/30/2014 9:42:28 AM PST by jttpwalsh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Olog-hai
Toyota had a hydrogen car at this year's New York Auto Show.I took a short spin in one (as a passenger) and it seemed to be an interesting vehicle.I'm no scientist...or engineer...so know nothing about the sources of the hydrogen or the infrastructure.
7 posted on 11/30/2014 9:46:00 AM PST by Gay State Conservative (Jimmy Carter;No Longer The Worst President In My Lifetime)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Olog-hai

This is one of W’s initiatives first stated in his inaugural address.. now coopted by the scum bags. Very dependent on cheap electricity.


8 posted on 11/30/2014 9:47:14 AM PST by Track9 (Coal Burner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Olog-hai

Just let me know when I can pump 22 gallons of distilled water into the tank and produce the hydrogen as needed.

Before that, I don’t see much future in it.


11 posted on 11/30/2014 9:51:32 AM PST by cripplecreek (You can't half ass conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Olog-hai

Hydrogen is explosive in concentrations from 5% to 95%.

BOOOOOOOOMMMMMMM!!!!!

Lose your car, lose your wife, lose your family, lose your life.

No thank you.


12 posted on 11/30/2014 9:51:36 AM PST by TruthInThoughtWordAndDeed (Yahuah Yahusha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Olog-hai

I saw a demonstration of a gydrogen semi teactor trailer. Amazing. The technology works. The problem is lack f fueling stations.


14 posted on 11/30/2014 9:52:14 AM PST by gunsequalfreedom (Conservative is not a label of convenience. It is a guide to your actions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Olog-hai

Good summary of the hollowness of this latest attempt at “greenness”. Thanks.


15 posted on 11/30/2014 9:52:50 AM PST by keat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Olog-hai
It's worse. Methane is probably the most economically available source of H2.

Water they suggest? Well, yes, but it takes more energy to break apart the molecule than is given off when combined. Last I heard, it was on the order of 8-1, and maybe it's down 2-1, but unless there's an actual need for it, like in outer space, spending two or more to get one back ain't worth it, including all the capital outlay and maintenance costs.

16 posted on 11/30/2014 9:53:29 AM PST by Calvin Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Olog-hai

Most - and I mean over 90% - of the water in the air comes from evaporation from oceans and lakes. The amount from human activity is insignificant. And that water goes back into lakes and oceans through precipitation. That is called the water cycle.


19 posted on 11/30/2014 9:58:46 AM PST by reg45 (Barack 0bama: Implementing class warfare by having no class.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Olog-hai

Yeah, and food stamps are only temporary.


26 posted on 11/30/2014 10:05:05 AM PST by P.O.E. (Pray for America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Olog-hai
Did I miss the cost per mile in this article? I have a Honda CRV tha ges around 23.5 mpg city only. (More on the Highways)

If I went 300 miles as this hydrogen cell is rated to go it would cost me: 300 mi/23.5 mpg= 12.76 gals times $3.20/gal= $40.83

40.83 /300 miles = $0.136per mile. Thirteen and a half cents per mile.

Anyone have any Idea on what the per mile cost is on one of these hydrogen fuel cell cars ? -Tom

28 posted on 11/30/2014 10:12:00 AM PST by Capt. Tom (Don't confuse U.S. citizens and Americans. They are not necessarily the same. -tom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Olog-hai

29 posted on 11/30/2014 10:15:00 AM PST by SWAMPSNIPER (The Second Amendment, a Matter of Fact, Not a Matter of Opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Olog-hai
Fill-er-up!

But where, that is the question (with apologies to both Shakespeare and Hamlet).

35 posted on 11/30/2014 10:39:07 AM PST by InterceptPoint (Remember Mississippi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Olog-hai

Fuel’s usefulness is primarily a matter of energy density. Hydrogen gas has a poor energy density.


39 posted on 11/30/2014 10:48:55 AM PST by Rodamala
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Olog-hai

At what pressure will the H2 tank be and what is the material, so as to prevent hydrogen blistering?

What can we expect to see when high-pressure H2 tank ruptures during collision?

How do they prevent H2 leakage? Car designers should talk with petroleum reformer designers.


47 posted on 11/30/2014 10:56:56 AM PST by 353FMG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Olog-hai
I have been an automotive engineer for a year less than a half century. If needed badly enough, I could modify a commercial automobile run on hydrogen, in my garage with available parts. What I can't do, is efficiently acquire hydrogen, or then store it safely and effectively in my automobile.

Hydrogen cannot be turned to liquid form at ambient temperatures. It can only be stored at very low cryogenic temperatures, or at vey high pressures. Even at 10,000 psi, which is unrealistic for reasonable cost, hydrogen occupies seven times the volume of gasoline (for the same amount of energy), NOT including the tanks. There is no known technology to make cryogenic hydrogen storage safe in a collision.

Making hydrogen from water consumes much more energy than it produces. Making it from hydrocarbons produces at least as much CO2 as it saves. Even when it is produced, the infrastructure to get it into your car does not exist. Even if it did, the cost of getting the infrastructure in place would cost trillions.

Besides all this, there is no catastrophic global warming.

54 posted on 11/30/2014 11:13:53 AM PST by norwaypinesavage (The Stone Age did not end because we ran out of stones)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Olog-hai

Of course, with Obola closing down all the coal-fired electrical plants to prevent man-caused climate disruption, the power needed to crack the water molecule in volume will be either prohibitively expensive or give the choice of hydrogen for vehicles or electricity for light and heat ... which is one reason this zany idea will fail.


57 posted on 11/30/2014 11:22:26 AM PST by PIF (They came for me and mine ... now it is your turn ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-22 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson