Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

GM, Daimler, Honda Betting on Hydrogen Fuel Cells
US News & World Report ^ | April 8, 2008

Posted on 04/08/2008 3:33:28 PM PDT by Dane

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-71 next last
To: Hardastarboard
FWIW, the flames shooting out of that picture of the Hindenburg were from the coating on the envelope. They coated the Hindenburg (& other dirigibles) with rocket fuel (iron oxide and aluminum powder, AKA thermite) to keep them from overheating in the sunlight.

Hydrogen flame is colourless.

21 posted on 04/08/2008 4:23:30 PM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

My understanding is that there has been a lot of advance in storing hydrogen in sponge like materials to which it weakly bonds in a hydride form and can be easily extracted in the vehicle using a catalyst.

In many ways it is like a ni-cad battery only instead of extracting electricty one extracts hydrogen, and then periodically re adds it.

The major problems are weight and size (currently about 3x as big as a gas tank and 6x as heavy), cost (metals used as the sponge may be expensive not to mention the catalyst), and safety.

The big push is for the tank to store about 50% of its weight in hydrogen. At that point you probably have something commercially feasible.


22 posted on 04/08/2008 4:24:07 PM PDT by Wisconsin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

We should be building more nuclear plants, not only does it create jobs, but will help the US get off OPEC oil, a win-win situation for America.


23 posted on 04/08/2008 4:24:33 PM PDT by Dane ("Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" Ronald Reagan, 1987)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

Liquid is so much better. Has anyone heard of a BLEVE?

Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor EXPLOSION!


24 posted on 04/08/2008 4:24:47 PM PDT by Cannoneer (Still fooling most of the people most of the time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MainFrame65
Which tank has more hydrogen in it? The GASOLINE tank, by more than 50 percent!

But which has more available BTU's in it?

I agree, hydrogen isn't going to save the day. It would be nice if it was easily stored though. I could be energy independent in less than a week : )

But like my mama used to say, if pigs had wings they could fly.

25 posted on 04/08/2008 4:27:53 PM PDT by LeGrande
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Wisconsin

Yes, new materials are being found all the time. If I can find this, it is an article from just yesterday. Yes, here we go.

http://www.energy-daily.com/reports/More_Solid_Than_Solid_A_Potential_Hydrogen_storage_Compound_999.html

In a new paper researchers at the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s Center for Neutron Research (NCNR) have demonstrated that a novel class of materials could enable a practical hydrogen fuel tank.

A research team from NIST, the University of Maryland and the California Institute of Technology studied metal-organic frameworks (MOFs). One of several classes of materials that can bind and release hydrogen under the right conditions, they have some distinct advantages over competitors.

In principle they could be engineered so that refueling is as easy as pumping gas at a service station is today, and MOFs don’t require the high temperatures (110 to 500 C) some other materials need to release hydrogen.

In particular, the team examined MOF-74, a porous crystalline powder developed at the University of California at Los Angeles. MOF-74 resembles a series of tightly packed straws comprised of mostly carbon atoms with columns of zinc ions running down the inside walls. A gram of the stuff has about the same surface area as two basketball courts.


26 posted on 04/08/2008 4:29:47 PM PDT by RightWhale (Clam down! avoid ataque de nervosa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Dane
But for the short term,
when possible
Use less car

The average American has
far more car capability than he needs

Consider much less energy intensive alternatives

My 2nd vehicle
Drove it in to work today

Piaggio BV 250
~80mpg
A lot more fun to drive than my '98 pickup but
not too useful in the rain and ice however


27 posted on 04/08/2008 4:31:06 PM PDT by HangnJudge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cannoneer

Yes, we know all about the B.L.E.V.E.
You, too can live half a mile from a natural gas storage facility.


28 posted on 04/08/2008 4:31:39 PM PDT by RightWhale (Clam down! avoid ataque de nervosa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande
I agree, hydrogen isn't going to save the day.

And in the early 20th century some said the Wright brothers would never fly.

29 posted on 04/08/2008 4:32:00 PM PDT by Dane ("Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" Ronald Reagan, 1987)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: MainFrame65

What happened to the fuel cells that were going to run on unleaded, or possibly ethanol?


30 posted on 04/08/2008 4:38:33 PM PDT by mamelukesabre (Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: HangnJudge

If you like that, check this one out.

http://www.piaggiousa.com/pScooters/gallery.cfm?Cat=25


31 posted on 04/08/2008 4:47:33 PM PDT by mamelukesabre (Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Dane

Where is the hydrogen going to come from?

There is actually an excellent source, right down at your local coal mine. When finely crushed coal is fed into a coking plant, and all the volatiles driven off, nearly pure carbon black remains. If this carbon is then heated to about 1,000 degrees F., and superheated steam is injected into the bed, in the absence of oxygen, a form of the Fischer-Tropsch reaction takes place, generating free hydrogen and carbon monoxide. The carbon monoxide is separated and used as fuel to burn in the furnaces needed to keep the bed of carbon black at the optimum temperature, and the hydrogen is captured and compressed into the fuel tanks that will be then sold on the basis of weight, to refuel the hydrogen-powered vehicles, by the simple means of swapping out depleted tanks for fully charged ones.

Of course, one of the by-products of this process would be carbon dioxide, but remember, folks, CO2 is plant food, and part of a very necessary process by which life continues on this earth.

And doesn’t this just insure we have plenty of carrots for our supper?

Or we could just go directly to nuclear power, and use the power thus generated to hydrolyze water into its components of free hydrogen (which would be captured) and release the oxygen to the atmosphere, thus bypassing the production of CO2 altogether.

Can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs first. And with what we know of atomic power and its use in generation of electricity, a great deal more energy can be extracted from radioactive elements than is now utilized.

The world is NEVER going to run out of energy sources. That is why God made us so smart to begin with.


32 posted on 04/08/2008 4:49:20 PM PDT by alloysteel (Living at large as a toxic curiosity since 1962)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dane
And in the early 20th century some said the Wright brothers would never fly.

Hydrogen is not a source of energy (unless you are thinking fusion). At best it could be a good battery, but that would help : )

I have done that calculations and I think I can get more energy out of compressed air than I can out of compressing hydrogen and burning it (including the energy cost of making the hydrogen).

33 posted on 04/08/2008 4:55:22 PM PDT by LeGrande
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel

and all the volatiles driven off
~~~~~~~~~~~

You left out the part about what is done with these “volatiles”.


34 posted on 04/08/2008 4:57:44 PM PDT by mamelukesabre (Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande

Of course. We’re not looking at efficiency so much as getting more than a dozen miles down the road.


35 posted on 04/08/2008 5:02:14 PM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the Law of the Excluded Middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: mysterio

Check this out:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08099/871486-100.stm


36 posted on 04/08/2008 5:02:48 PM PDT by RS_Rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Dane

If not for the greens, nuclear would have already been the standard. I see two benefits to the global warming stupidity:

1. Greens and their fellow travelers are now willing to accept nuclear power

2. More private investment in non-muslim-enriching energy alternatives (high efficiency solar, wind, hydrogen fuel cells, advanced electrochemical cells, etc), spurred by targeted tax cuts or not

The cap and trade, emissions limitations, carbon credits, forced third-world income transfers, UN climate treaties, and so on need to be headed off at the pass, abducted, drowned, and buried before light.


37 posted on 04/08/2008 5:03:07 PM PDT by M203M4 (True Universal Suffrage: Pets of dead illegal-immigrant felons voting Democrat (twice))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
you can't get very far on a tank of compressed gas

Not to mention the danger of storing liquid hydrogen. Can you imagine a chain reaction of exploding cars, say, on the freeway into L.A.?

38 posted on 04/08/2008 5:03:40 PM PDT by Telepathic Intruder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Telepathic Intruder

That was covered above, or mentioned anyway. Adsorption is the preferred storage mode, like acetylene tanks only much better.


39 posted on 04/08/2008 5:08:25 PM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the Law of the Excluded Middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel

Another benefit of nuclear is the potential for cogeneration: there are efficient processes where power generation and desalination can be combined. I wonder if high-T electrolysis could be used as a form of “heat sink” at the same time? Or perhaps one could use periods of low electricity demand (like at night) to focus on running the high-T electrolysis tanks?


40 posted on 04/08/2008 5:15:52 PM PDT by M203M4 (True Universal Suffrage: Pets of dead illegal-immigrant felons voting Democrat (twice))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-71 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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