The Focus is on hydrogen (BANKRUPTING THE SAUDIS ALERT)

The Daily Telegraph ^ | October 10, 2002 | Jesse Crosse

[RightWhale]

We should be working on fuel cells as a matter of defence priority

We are. Hydrogen has many advantages. Building the support infrastructure will take time, and since we would replace a huge, expensive oil-based infrastructure it will be expensive. It's going to take years, decades to convert over whether it is a national defense priority or not. Not a quick solution, but inevitable.

[WileyC]

Arent we talking about 10000 psi tanks of H2 ?? Hydrogen gas has a huge explosive range.

Dude, he works for a fuel cell company. Fuel cells typical store hydrogen in a solid matrix. No high pressure, no large volumes of hydrogen and oxygen being mixed.

The downsides to fuel cells right now is longevity, reusability and operation efficiency, not combustability.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Bump for later! Thanks.

[Jack of all Trades]

I think the explosive power of an 8 oz. cup of gasoline has been compared to either 3 or 5 sticks of dynamite. Of course you have to create a combustible mixture with air then ignite it. Shell's website has some info I think.

[Nonstatist]

Pure compressed hydrogen was piped from a tanker into the Ford's boot-cramming, cylindrical fuel tank at a pressure of 5,000 pounds per square inch. Minutes later, we were on our way, carrying enough fuel to take the Focus 200 miles. Stringently tested 10,000psi tanks are in the offing and will double that range, so it almost seems as if the future has arrived sooner than expected.

This, from the article.. 10,000 psi tanks and an invisible flame (if ignited) ?!.

As mentioned earlier, H2 might not be too safe in an underground garage or tunnel, etc (nowhere for the gas to rise to).. I don't know , but these sound like reasonable safety issues that would have to be addressed,... right?

[Mo1]

TAKE BACK THE SENATE!

Click The Logo DONATE TODAY!!!. SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com Become A Monthly Donor
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[cinFLA]

One thing we should also remember - one thing that helped the long post-World War II boom was cheap fuel. With the advent of a hydrogen based economy, cheap energy will be back in style. And this time the Arabs won't have a monopoly on it.

Where are you proposing to get this "Cheap" H2? It does not grow on trees!

[cinFLA]

The most primitive and efficient way to use coal is for heating. You can approach 85%-100% efficiency there. Uranium can never be used in such a basic way....cannot be used in a simple furnace or cook stove. Nuclear yields energy for man only via electricity generation.

Actually, U can be used very efficiently in heating via warm water. Did a project on this in college.

[Tony in Hawaii]

Yes, and the huge flames you see on the Hindenburg footage are mainly from the Diesel fuel on board.

[cinFLA]

Use nuclear energy and coal - sources which do not require the Saudis.

Then it is NOT cheap energy as you previously posted.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Only problem is there are coal burning plants (making electricity) in the UK and no gasification plants making hydrogen for automobile fuel cells."

Yes, but no new technology needs to be developed for the gasification. A chemical company I worked for had a contract with the DOE (during the days of the Carter-induced "oil shortage"), gasifying coal, using combined-cycle gas turbine-steam turbine generators to generate electricity, and capturing the low-grade steam to use for process heat. Overall cycle efficiency of energy capture was on the order of 80% (note that is NOT electrical efficiency, but combined cycle efficiency including the use of the process heat). They could start building these plants tomorrow.

[XBob]

That is called a multi-fuel engine, which has been a standard military diesel engine since at least the 60's, perhaps even the 50's.

[RLK]

How much equipment does it take to generate a few milliwatts of electric via cold fusion?

------------------------------

The principle requirement is engineering creativity and brainpower. That's where we are lacking.

[dennisw]

Thanks. How about this one: 

Does it make more sense to extract the coal in our great western deposits and burn it in situ? To generate hydrogen there and somehow transport it to where it's needed?

Or to mine the coal and ship by rail (by barge?) to distant power and hydrogen generation plants?

[Wonder Warthog]

"Does it make more sense to extract the coal in our great western deposits and burn it in situ? To generate hydrogen there and somehow transport it to where it's needed?"

"Or to mine the coal and ship by rail (by barge?) to distant power and hydrogen generation plants?"

REAL hard questions. Gasifying in-situ takes a lot of water, which most western sites are pretty short of. I suspect it would come down to whether the decision was made to actually go for the total "hydrogen economy". I think then one could justify building pipelines to the coal sources, pipe water in and hydrogen out. But it would take a really good, complete economic analysis to chose between the two cases.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

One thing this post totally ignores is that Hydrogen fuel cells put huge amounts of hydroxil acid into the atmosphere - which is a far more serious "global warming" pollutant than CO2.

[WileyC]

Where are you proposing to get this "Cheap" H2? It does not grow on trees!

Maybe not, but there is a researcher who has convinced a microscopic organism (algae, I think?) to produce H2. If his research pans out, then all you need is nutrients (probably from the effluvia of any city) and sunlight.

[powderhorn]

And why wouldn't they profit. Who else has the capital, the engineers, the distribution network?

I don't have a problem with big oil getting in on the action. I'm just speculating that they may try to throw a wrench into the works to prevent others from getting in first.