Its da' bomb!
Its da' bomb!
And there's this neat bridge in New York ....
We just blew a few billion $ on the bug-like irakis with less to show for it than the fraction of the sunk into fuel cells.
What's the energy density of metal hydride storage? I'd be concerned about volume (room for it) and mass (added weight)...
NOT
BUMP
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz......
No... Its a bomb.... get rear-ended and ... well, just think of a Ford Pinto combined with The Hindenberg.
All it takes is a simple electrolysis system and an extension cord to run to your neighbor's house.
Where's the Nitrous tank?
Hydrogen corvette, 0-60 in just under 30 minutes...
You know that someones got their hand in someones pocket in that big white house in DC. Propane works, it is an existing technology and it is proven...
They better check out the impact on homeowner's insurance rates.
Oxygen Material Safety Data Sheet
(excerpts)HEALTH HAZARD DATA
TOXICOLOGICAL PROPERTIES
Oxygen is nontoxic under usual conditions of use. Breathing pure oxygen at one atmosphere, however, may produce cough and chest pains within 8-24 hours. Concentrations of 60% may produce these symptoms in several days. At two atmospheres symptoms occur in 2-3 hours. Partial pressure of oxygen in excess of two atmospheres may produce a variety of central nervous system manifestations including tingling of fingers and toes, visual and hearing disturbances, abnormal sensations, impaired coordination, confusion, muscle twitching, and seizures resembling those of epilepsy. Severe hazards may be present when confusion and impaired judgment lead to operational errors. Infants exposed to oxygen levels in excess of 35-40% may suffer permanent visual impairment or blindess due to retrolental fibroplasia.FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARD DATA
SPECIAL FIRE FIGHTING PROCEDURES
Oxygen is nonflammable, but supports and VIGOROUSLY ACCELERATES COMBUSTION of flammables. To fight fires, Shut off sources of oxygen and fight like conventional fire.
UNUSUAL FIRE AND EXPLOSION HAZARDS
Oxygen is nonflammable, but supports and VIGOROUSLY ACCELERATES COMBUSTION of flammables. Some materials which are noncombustible in air will burn in the presence of oxygen.
Yeah, you can make your own hydrogen at home,
but whatcha gonna do with all that excess Oxygen you're gonna be left with?
sorry, but this looks fishy to me... the picture looks doctored and "united nuclear" appears no where on google news....
wonder if they'd add the system to my 'Vette for free? ... hehe (for testing purposes, of course!)
Reading all these comments leaves me kind of disillusioned. Just because liberals like environmentally friendly fuels, doesn't mean we cant like them too.
Isn't striving for better efficiency a conservative ideal? Isn't removing our dependancy on foreign oil a conservative ideal?
Internal combustion engines are only about 25% efficient. They are a mature technology that won't get much better than they already are.
Hydrogen fuels are a fledgling technology that will improve tremendously in the years to come. They are the future.
I get the feeling that some of you didn't pay any attention to the facts mentioned in the article above. Storing hydrogen in hydrides essentially makes the fuel no longer hydrogen until it is needed. If any of you are welders, you could make the comparison to acetylene. Acetylene is obtained from calcium carbide. Calcium carbide is a relativey safe and stable substance. Just add water and voila, you have acetylene gas.
Storing hydrogen in hydrides is akin to storing acetylene in calcium carbide.
Some of you stated that production of hydrogen just consolidates the source of pullution to the utility company. You obviuosly didn't read the section on solar and wind generation of electricity for electrolysis.
How often do you refill your gas tank? Twice a week? Why is it such a bad idea to be able to produce your own fuel in your garage for the one time cost of equipment which will get cheaper and cheaper? You could have a hydrogen generator in you garage that could harness the 1500 watts per square meter of sunlight that is constantly making hydrogen. Why is this such a loony idea?
If you ask me alternative fuels is an issue that is ripe to be stolen from the liberals, the same way they co-opted civil rights in the 60's. We could do a much better job.
Way off topic, this is why the first stage of the Saturn V rocket burned LOX and Kerosene ....
Oh, you silly things! Don't you know Sylvia Browne says cars will be powered by atomic batteries and will float on water?
http://www.sylvia.org/home/2000plus.cfm
The problem is that a tank full of gasoline (or diesel, or jet fuel) packs far more energy than the same weight - or volume - of dynamite, and nothing else matches its combination of energy density, safety, ease of storage and transport, and cost. In fact, when the price of natural petroleum gets high enough, the best solution might be to synthesize petroleum fuels rather than to switch to alternative energy vectors.
The fact is that oil provides over 95% of our transportation fuel. Half of all crude oil becomes gasoline, and another fourth becomes diesel or jet fuel. Heavier fractions become heating oil, lubricants, chemical feedstocks, asphalt, and other opportunity uses. Still, we use crude oil as an energy SOURCE. 80% of the energy it contains in the ground ends up in the tank for us to burn. Nature was nice to us.
One of the most efficient ways to increase gasoline supplies would be to extract more from existing feedstocks - the other fourth - with better refining techniques. We absolutely need more refining capacity. We are operating at close to 98% of capacity today, and the existing plants are getting really old, even with continuous maintenance and improvements.
Ethanol? It's been done, in Germany during the war, in South Africa during the apartheid embargo, and even in Brazil today. But in Brazil, where it is made most cheaply, from sugar cane, it is only a shrinking 20% of the fuel supply. Even heavily subsidized, it is much more expensive than petroleum and provides only half the mileage.
In this country, using corn as the feedstock (and using chemical and enzyme treatments to extract from leaves and stalks as well as the digestible sugars and starches) would yield an average of about 8 barrels per acre per crop. And each barrel of fuel grade ethanol contains only 2/3 the energy of a barrel of gasoline. To replace ONLY 20% of our current petroleum consumption would require NEW irrigated land equal to Texas plus Tennessee, which, I believe, puts this plan in the same category of solutions as antigravity and matter transporters.
Hydrogen? Promises, promises. It's everywhere around us, but not in its free form (H2). Most of it is locked up in water, and much of the rest in hydrocarbons - yes, petroleum and other gas and liquid fuels (NOT coal, which is just carbon). Because hydrogen is not free, it must be extracted from its feedstock.
Electrolysis from water requires about twice the energy that will be available as fuel, but that is before compressing the H2 gas into tanks for distribution, which could require as much as 1/3 more of the fuel value.
Transferring a gas under very high pressure is always energy intensive, and probably cannot be done passively, like a liquid. When the storage tank is half empty, the receiving tank would only get half full, without compression. This means that tank exchange may be the only practical refueling method for gaseous H2.
Metal-hydride storage might be an alternative to high pressure. Certain metals in specific forms - in general, finely powdered, then sintered into porous pellets with enormous surface area - can store hydrogen (chemically, also a metal) on the surface, and the density of hydrogen can far exceed its gaseous density. But the matrix metals are heavy and expensive, and require heat to release hydrogen.
Chemical storage might be a better choice. A catalytic device called a reformer can extract hydrogen from hydrocarbons, anything from methane and alcohols to gasoline fractions, using (or wasting) the energy from the carbon content for the extraction process. Another comparatively efficient chemical that stores copious amounts of hydrogen is sodium borohydride (NaBH4) in a water solution. It is stable, NOT flammable, and relatively non-toxic and non-corrosive - less hazardous than gasoline. The residue, sodium borate, is recyclable. Expensive, right now, but the price could come down with volume production.
But anything other than natural petroleum is only an energy VECTOR, or SECONDARY source, a way to transport energy instead of a primary source, with its energy content already present when obtained. The only primary energy sources capable of supplying the amount required, continuously and reliably, are nuclear. Fission today, and perhaps fusion someday, when hydrogen will really become a primary fuel. I picture large nuclear facilities that not only produce electricity but desalinize water, produce hydrogen (in whatever form becomes the standard,) and distribute hot water locally for space heating. Maybe it can take out the garbage, as well.
Increases in the price of oil just make these alternatives more economical, and ECONOMICS IS THE KEY. Higher prices drive exploration and development for oil, as well as new petroleum sources like tar sands. Higher prices also drive the use of the substitutes and alternatives described above.
Well done I am very impressed.
Warm Regards,
Steve Z - Nat.H.Inst.of Aus.
Fuel C.I.A.
SHR96 P/L