Posted on 11/27/2004 10:23:36 PM PST by neverdem
Great, then, we're agreed that hydrogen is not a practical fuel in today's world, or even in the near future. Fine.
What's needed, then, is further R&D, with continued funding by the energy companies. First and foremost, we need new nuclear plants, of new, more efficient and safer, designs.
I'm glad we can all agree.
I'll welcome any information on energy R & D you care to post, Timm.
Oops, my #21 should have been addressed to you as well.
Yes, that was the vivid impression I retained after watching the final results of the electrolysis of water. But so are gasoline tanks, natural gas and the dust in wheat silos, IIRC. This technology might be the only way to get over the hump to dependence on just renewable resources. Nothing is guaranteed, but it certainly needs exploration.
The enviro-nuts wants to return to a hunting and gathering society. Their elites couldn't tolerate that state of affairs and survive. This argument needs to be pressed to the max.
I don't say that. What I say is that hydrogen isn't a fuel. It's not a question of practicality, but of definition: a fuel is something you can burn to get energy. If there were accessible unbound hydrogen on earth, it could be a fuel, but there isn't any of that.
Is hydrogen a viable transport mechanism for energy in the future? Yes, I think so. But I think the current buzz over hydrogen is a sales job by people with two separate agendas: 1) people who want to burn more fossil fuel, but want the general public to think hydrogen is an alternative to that and 2) people who want to burn less fossil fuel, and think that once the hydrogen economy is going smoothly they can then push alternative means for generating electricity that are very expensive. Caught in the middle there are many people--I've actually talked to them--who say, well we'll get energy independence and stop global warming and all the bad oil business by using hydrogen fuel. Bzzzzt. No, we won't. Hydrogen doesn't solve those problems.
Listen, I'm all for hydrogen if it gets people to drop their irrational fear of nuclear power. I just don't think it will. And if I know environmentalists, the first thing you're going to hear from them is: you want to generate an explosive gas like hydrogen next to a nuclear reactor? And that's the end of that track...
1) We already have a new generation of newer safer nuclear plants. They just aren't being built in the US.
2) You actually can't make nuclear plants much more efficient--if by that you mean in terms of energy produced per unit of input. The "inefficiency" of nukes cited by environmentalists has to do with the cost / KwH. That cost reflects enormous legal and licensing costs caused by--guess who--environmentalists. It's like the people who argue that capital punishment is cruel because death row inmates are strung out for 10-15 years while neglecting to mention that they're the very people funding the appeals.
"Hydrogen is explosive...right??!"
Right, as many a dunce has learned the hard way when charging or jump starting a vehicle and creates sparks near the battery.
As an automotive battery is charged, it generates hydrogen gas, have a spark or high heat near the battery's vents, and the word is, "ka-boom" from an exploded battery.
That remark could leave a wrong impression. It may not be possible. But because of their overall, relative scientific ignorance, the enviro-nuts still have almost political equality. They can still muster large numbers of scientifically illiterate voters. These dupes would wreak economic havoc trying to ameliorate increased solar radiation if that's the true cause of global warming.
Huh...well, the interest in hydrogen is precisely that it can be a vehicle fuel-- and saying that it is a fuel is perfectly consistent with acknowledging that creating hydrogen on earth requires more energy than is released by that hydrogen.
Anyway, the important point, whatever you want to insist on regarding the semantics of "fuel", is that hydrogen is not a net energy source on earth, because there are no reservoirs of free hydrogen. Yes, yes, yes-- all informed posters on this thread agree. Hydrogen is still interesting, however, because it is, at least in principle, portable. So it can be a vehicle fuel, or, if you prefer, a vehicle "energy storage medium". It is, furthermore, much more promising in energy density than electric batteries (even NiMH batteries, which use hydrogen mated to metal), and, unlike electric batteries, a possible alternative to gasoline.
The economical use of hydrogen does depend on cheap electricity-- that's true. But if the other technical problems with hydrogen's use work out, it would be a significant development that economic vehicular travel would depend *only* on there being a cheap source of electricity. For there are plenty of cheap ways to generate electricity in the U.S., and there will be in the foreseeable future. That would be a contrast to now, when we must deal with the international political problems associated with importing oil. There is also the long term possibility that oil will become more scarce and its price will rise. Then, there are the carbon emissions from ICE engines, which, while grossly overestimated by the left in their harmful influence, would nevertheless be a nice thing to be rid of. There is, after all, the possibility of producing electricity without combustion emissions in the future, through fission reactors, and, perhaps someday, fusion reactors.
So, the possibility of hydrogen-fueled vehicles is certainly worth some R&D money now. That's the point.
That said, I agree that hydrogen is sometimes now used as a political distraction. One suspects, for example, that Bush's advocacy of hydrogen produced by electricity from windmills(!) in his SOTU was to bolster his green credentials, such as they are, as a counterbalance to his desire to do things like drill in ANWR. (I think we should drill there, by the way.)
cold fusion?
You may not be implying this, but just for clarification: the oxidation of hydrogen is not a significant energy component in NiMH or NiCd batteries. The energy is obtained from the metal, not the hydrides. Electrolysis in those batteries, is, in fact an unwanted byproduct of overcharging or catastrophic discharge. Excess Cadmium and other technologies are used to bind the excess hydrogen in the electrolyte to the metal, but it is an unwanted artifact, not part of the energy mechanism.
As you're probably aware, neither of these technologies is a state-of-the-art energy density solution. Li-Ion has higher density, and Li-Polymer is higher still, and these storage media don't have the problems that hydrogen has as a storage material.
In the wrong forum (not any IFAIK on FR) this will start the most unbelievable flame war you can imagine...
Hmmmmm .... ping for flame war
why, did a Freeper kill Dr Mallove?
*I* agree with your point binding acceptance of nuclear power and hydrogen (production). Subsequent posters seem to get stuck on hydrogen to the point of failing to acknowlege the difficulties in storage and transport, to the point of 'energy equal to equal amount of gasoline'.
Just this little bump of ignorance and so many problems are solved.
A thread from yesterday was making the point that we had a HUGE AMOUNT OF OIL and were not running out. It was just that some of it would require newer ways of extraction/refining to make it economical to use. And now this story. SHOVE THIS, ECCO CHICKEN LITTLES.
Yes, but not when it's in a fuel cell. You could shoot bullets into one and nothing would happen.
bttt for later read
I've never heard a Freeper killed Dr. Mallove.
I understand Dr. Mallove was a Freeper though.
Taken for what it's worth, this is a great article, especially for the NYT. Not one mention of "the free, limitless supply of Hydrogen that we could all use if the technology weren't being suppressed by Evil Big Oil". Discussions of science, engineering and economics are sorely lacking in popular articles about H2.
An added plus is that the author raises the topic of nuclear power. Unfortunately he chose to interject the word "But" at the outset.
There are many hidden "Gotcha's" involved in using H2 as an energy transport medium. Exposition is good. Thanks for an encouraging article.
Another problem they don't address is that the same people who object to gasoline REALLY object to nuclear waste!
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.