Posted on 06/14/2022 4:38:00 AM PDT by MtnClimber
Painting the envelope with solid rocket fuel didn’t help much. However, I remember that the Space Shuttle had to have its hydrogen tank topped off constantly during the pre launch procedures, and could only stand fully fueled for a few hours at most.
Please stop confusing the Greenie Weenies with facts. They don’t care how much GREEN it costs as long as it’s GREEN. The GREEN they plan to spend will be coming from TAXPAYERS.
The only real advantage to hydrogen is it’s in almost limitless supply. Then when you burn it, the residue converts back to it’s original source.
I picture her saying that in a high, Donald Duck voice.
For the past several years now, the only GREEN they’re spending has been created from thin air. Taxpayer money is only covering the interest on monies loaned and barely.
If you want stored solar energy just use nuclear fission.
When they can synthesize the equivalent of gasoline, it will probably be one of the safest mobile energy sources available.
The only solution is a mixture of all sources...and that includes fossil fuels. The idea that WE can change climate is absurd. Mad scientists they are.
“In-law” Family lore
Did you know that the guy that took that newsreel was the only one of all the reporters in attendance that day that didn’t take a break and go to the bar?
Turns out my brother-in-law’s great-uncle was that guy and he maintained that everybody else missed the shot cuz he stayed out there and was filming while the rest of them were over at the hut/bar having a nip.
Interesting story.
I’ve often wondered why they don’t create fission plants far far underground, where if there were a catastrophe the waste matter would be sealed in much like the remnants of hydrogen bomb testing back in the 50s-80s were done underground. I don’t know the physics of power transmission so I think that might be the problem, that is, power needs to be generated locally because transmission becomes too difficult and expensive?
Why the shuttle had to refuel for boiloff, rocket has to weigh a specfic amount at launch. Any extra fuel and insulation becomes useless payload. Boiloff or leakage of hydrogen in a fixed envirment is less than 1% per day when dealing with metric tons of the stuff in a fuel bunker.
Electricity that is stored short term has a true cost of zero, solar, hydro, wind, nuclear, conventional spenddown it would otherwise never be available. Fuel Cells are just another form of advanced battery dont get stuck on the chemistry or the need for supercool density.
There is already fabulous way to store hydrogen that works well and is used every day. You synthesize organic molecules to make long chain hyrdocarbons and benzene rings and put it together into complexes of varying viscosities and volatility. It’s called petrochemicals otherwise known as fossil fuels. They are relatively safe, easy to store and transport and have very high energy density - higher actually than explosive compounds - which are burdened with carrying their own oxidizer.
And we already have industrial scale plants that can synthesize these kinds of chemicals from coal.
Just repeating what President Trump said...more than once.
That's a remarkably stupid plan.
Yes. The Hindenburg disaster is a powerful reminder that aluminum dust mixed with lacquer is rocket fuel.
Hydrogen is very difficult to store even as a compressed gas, and impossible over extended periods, because it can pass right through steel walls. And it’s so light that it requires a larger volume to store any significant amount as compared to gasoline or LNG. It’s not practical. Elon is using methane to power his Starship, which makes a lot more sense than hydrogen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.