Yes, I'm biased. In the interest of improving the fuel cell technology debate, I'll toss some fuel cell data resources into the flames. 
Posted on 01/30/2003 5:28:05 AM PST by kattracks
The most important Middle Eastern message in President Bush's State of the Union address dealt with teenage driving.The President came before Congress and announced a $1.2 billion federal investment in hydrogen-operated cars that will permit Detroit to bring watermobiles from the "laboratory to the showroom" in time to be "the first car driven by a child born today." That's roughly 16 years.
Bush's initiative came with a double rationale: It will cleanse the air and make the U.S. "much less dependent on foreign sources of oil."
The entire Arab economy is one big oil field. From the Atlantic Ocean to the Persian Gulf, more than 150 million people produce practically nothing. They live off what God put in the ground. Take away oil, and the main Arab contributions to the world economy are figs and carpets.
Hydrocars may sound like a cool futuristic innovation to the Sierra Club, but to the Arab League they are a cheap ride back to the 11th century. A petroleum-free Detroit represents a far greater assault on Arab interests than a Saddam Hussein-less Baghdad. There are many tyrants in the Middle East, but only one Profit.
Bush's State of the Union was full of promises that the Arab world rightly takes as threats. For example: "If the U.S. goes to war, we will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies and freedom."
This line got a big hand in Congress. But in the Arab world, it was greeted with sullen silence. Ruling elites see American-style freedom as a direct challenge; the masses have been taught to regard it as a perversion of nature.
From the Arab point of view, freedom undermines traditional values and authority. It invites social chaos by putting the individual before family and clan and tribe. It brings with it an intellectual openness that leads to blasphemy and wanton behavior.
The kind of freedom Bush is offering Iraq - and, by implication, the rest of the Arab world - is about as welcome as whisky in the food packages or birth-control pills in the medical supplies.
Another of Bush's State of the Union promises was a "democratic Palestine." More subversion. There's no such thing as an Arab constitutional democracy. A constitution requires acknowledging a law greater than the Koran - something Arabs do only when bludgeoned into it by so-called secular regimes. Democracy means granting political equality to creatures made unequal by God - women, infidels, homosexuals and strangers. If constitutional democracy is America's condition for sovereignty - in Palestine or elsewhere - then the Arabs might as well start turning in their UN parking permits.
In his speech, Bush grandly assured the people of Iraq that "your enemy is not surrounding your country, your enemy is ruling your country." The day Saddam falls "will be the day of your liberation."
I hope Bush is right, but I think he is wrong. Getting rid of Saddam is a vital and urgent American interest. Most Iraqis, too, probably want to see Saddam gone, because they are sick of him. But there is precious little evidence that Iraqis - or other Arab peoples - long for an open society.
Someday they might, but only as the result of an internal intellectual and spiritual awakening. Until then, America needs to protect itself without apologies or illusions. And illusion No. 1 is that American-style freedom will be any more attractive to the Arab world than water-powered automobiles.
What we need today more than anything are the modern equivalents of Vannavar Bush and Gen. Leslie Groves, to spur a new "Manhattan Project" to achieve independence from oil. Without oil, the Arab countries will return to 8th century squalor if they don't radically change their culture.
Going to the moon was technically feasible. Hydrogen as a consumer fuel is not. I have other posts which explain this.
No they weren't. The theoretical basis for the atomic bomb had been in place for years before that project. Constructing "the bomb" was an engineering effort, not new science.
NASA went to the moon. NASA executed other missions, some with hydrogen fuels. Experience with hydrogen as a fuel has shown that it is extremely dangerous to store. First, it is stored as a very very cold liquid. This in itself is dangerous. Second, the liquid in storage does indeed warm up, outgassing. This gas must be vented or the tank will explode. The tiny hydrogen molecule can and will diffuse though ANY container. There will be free hydrogen in the space surrounding the storage facilty. That free hydrogen is easily ignited. For the same reasons, free hydrogen would be found around any vehicle that uses this as a fuel. Ever noticed the vapor venting at the top of a rocket before the launch? This means that the area surrounding the vehicle can also be easily ignited.
Hydrogen storage facilites are secure installations. Nobody is allowed near the place in order to prevent accidental explosions. People in the area must wear anti-static clothing and be electrically grounded at all times. At the hydrogen storage facility in Huntsville was a large sign that read: "DANGER, NO SMOKING. Violators will be decimated".
No politian can regulate the size of the hydrogen molecule, nor its lack of cooperation in matters of safety.
None of those issues related to the behavior of hydrogen. None of those issues involved the public's handling of dangerous materials. None of those issues involved getting "free" energy.
Did you read my post? Hydrogen diffuses though ALL materials. There will be free hydrogen around any device that stores the stuff. It is very cold. It must be kept in containers similar to a thermos bottle. (a dywer). These are glass lined and would break if involved in an automobile accident.
The public is not disciplined enough to handle hydrogen. It outgasses like mad when transfered from one container to another because the hoses and couplings are very HOT when conpared to the hydrogen.
The only way to use hydrogen for the public is indirectly. The public could consume electrical power that itself was generated from hydrogen.
You are still ignoring the fact that it takes more energy to produce free hydrogen then the hydrogen produces itself. This is not a source of energy. It is an energy conversion; and, one that exhibits energy loss.
Just because GWB "said it" doesn't make if fact.
This is not true.
You are still ignoring the fact that it takes more energy to produce free hydrogen then the hydrogen produces itself. This is not a source of energy. It is an energy conversion; and, one that exhibits energy loss.
There is no concern about the energy loss in providing those tanks to you. You are not using hydrogen simply as a source of energy. You have special reasons for using it. Such would not be the case for general energy uses.
Liquid hydrogen would indeed be used for large-scale production, storage, and shipment. Compressed gas in the required quanities would be much more dangerous than the liquid. Furthermore, compressed gas would be bulkier for the same mass of fuel delivered.
Are your eyes always half-closed?
A more plausible energy solution is the rechargable electric car. Nuclear power plants can produce gobs of power, and simple recharging stations can keep the cars running ... even chargers in the home. Whoops, no more corner gas stations! What would W's friends think of that?
I'm an engineer. I think of alternatives all the time. NASA? Been there, done that.
Yes, I'm biased. In the interest of improving the fuel cell technology debate, I'll toss some fuel cell data resources into the flames.
They could always go back to school and learn computer science.
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.