Skip to comments.
The Great Hydrogen Myth
Toogood Reports ^
| February 10, 2003
| Alan Caruba
Posted on 02/10/2003 2:01:51 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-87 next last
To: Tailgunner Joe
"The simple fact is that it still costs far more money to extract hydrogen, breaking its molecule away from others in order to use it to create energy. This is a bad idea." Nothing new under the sun! - My high school chemistry teacher predicted this foolishness 43 years ago. He said that the stability of the water molecule is such that any attempt to split it is a poor use of energy. He's still right today. (big surprise)
41
posted on
02/10/2003 3:09:52 PM PST
by
editor-surveyor
(Best policy RE: Environmentalists, - ZERO TOLERANCE !!)
To: Tailgunner Joe
costs more to free the hydrogen than is earned by running hydrogen through fuel cellsHydrogen is merely a method of energy storage. Fusion could make energy cheap enough to use the storage method but until then, Hydrogen would require us to use some other form of energy source to feed the system.
Hydrocarbons are a dead end on the other hand.
To: Willie Green
"It will ALWAYS take a greater amount of energy from some OTHER SOURCE just to manufacture the hydrogen." Facts are so inconvenient to the socialists that wish to make us dependent on an easily controllable source of energy.
43
posted on
02/10/2003 3:13:11 PM PST
by
editor-surveyor
(Best policy RE: Environmentalists, - ZERO TOLERANCE !!)
To: fissionproducts
I don't know the answer to that question. Sorry.
To: narby
"Unless they figure out that oil is still being created by the earth..." That was figured out a long time ago, and it is producing it far faster than we will ever be able to burn it. - We're going to have to find ways to increase our use of petroleum to keep it from seeping up out of the ocean floor as it is doing off the central coast of California (and has done for hundreds of years).
45
posted on
02/10/2003 3:18:55 PM PST
by
editor-surveyor
(Best policy RE: Environmentalists, - ZERO TOLERANCE !!)
To: narby
What's your point?
Hydrogen is merely an energy storage medium, like compressed air to run your air drill.That's precisely my point.
The notion of a "hydrogen-based economy" is just as absurd as a "compressed air based economy".
It's just another junk-science political buzzword foisted on a dumbed-down populace.
To: Tailgunner Joe
In my opinion, I think as technology improves we'll see the following happen first:
1. Automobiles will switch en masse to hybrid power, where 75 to 85 percent of the motive power is generated by a new generation of very clean-burning gasoline engines using direct-injection fuel delivery systems and low-sulfur gasoline (with selective cylinder shutdown to reduce fuel consumption in partial load conditions) and the rest generated by a electric motor that is recharged by the gasoline engine. Think of the hybrid drivetrains pioneered by the Toyota Prius and Honda Insight/Civic Hybrid and apply it on a larger scale. The result is automobiles with 35-45% better fuel mileage than now regardless of size.
2. Larger vehicles such as minivans, SUV's and pickup trucks will switch to the next generation of clean-burning diesel engines using low-sulfur diesel fuel; the excellent low-end torque of diesel engines are well-suited for these types of vehicles, and of course they'll get 35-40% better fuel mileage than today's gasoline-powered minivans, SUV's and pickup trucks. GM's amazing Duramax engine the sign of things to come for these types of vehicles.
In short, it is within easy technological reach to have automobile CAFE be 38 miles per US gallon and minivan/SUV/pickup CAFE be 27 miles per US gallon without going to exotic hydrogen power. And we'll get lower emissions since less exhaust is emitted per mile of driving due to the need to use less fuel in the combustion process.
47
posted on
02/10/2003 3:19:55 PM PST
by
RayChuang88
(Lefties ignore technological improvements)
To: Tom Bombadil
The argument that "hydrogen takes more energy to create than you get from it" is specious at best. Everything takes more energy to create (in some form) than we get from it. Otherwise we would have a perpetual motion machine. There is an efficiency involved. Cars are not 100% efficient. They give off energy in the form of heat and sound.
Hydrogen is a great alternative. No I am not a liberal. I'm about as conservative as you get. I am also an Electrical Engineer and would love to have a fuel cell car. My dream would be hydrogen produced by an in-home electrolysis machine. This is probably not going to happen until we can get nucular (sic. for the Prez) plants online to provide cheap electrons. I would love to see big $$$ spent for the generation of electricity with no/little fossil fuels. Mostly to rob the Mid-east of its strangle hold on our economy.
To: fissionproducts
Wouldn't allowing us to recycle nuclear waste have a substantial affect on the expensive of nuke power?
49
posted on
02/10/2003 3:25:48 PM PST
by
Tribune7
To: editor-surveyor
There's little difference between an electric and a hydrogen powered car. Both use converted energy as a temporary storage medium. Both take an energy source greater (due to inefficiencies) than used for the end result.
50
posted on
02/10/2003 3:26:25 PM PST
by
DB
(©)
To: DB
There's little difference between an electric and a hydrogen powered car.There shouldn't be any difference whatsoever.
The hydrogen fuel cell is merely a substitute for the battery, or solar cells, or whatever other source of electicity an electric car might use.
To: Stefan Stackhouse
There is a sub-rosa, environmental agenda behind some of the enthusiasm for Hydrogen cars but that is not the whole explanation. The same arguments being put forward against hydrogen as a primary fuel source were also put forward against coal and oil. When production is scaled up the cost numbers look much better.
The article completely omitted the most favorable scenario for hydrogen. That scenario envisions Hydrogen being produced in great quantities at little marginal cost as a byproduct of fission-based nuclear power generation.
For the first time in 25 years a new nuclear reactor is scheduled to be approved for construction by the Department of Energy. Adding hydrogen production as adjunct process to power gwneration is relatively easy to do with the new generation of "pebble-bed" reactors.
Mr. Bush's proposal makes a great deal more sense given the idea that DOE is seeking to set up "hydrogen wells" at the site of new nuclear reactors.
52
posted on
02/10/2003 3:38:16 PM PST
by
ggekko
To: narby
The high cost of fission energy comes primarily from overcoming the fanatical resistance to its use from the enviro whackos. However, natural Uranium (and Plutonium, which is derived from Uranium in a nuclear reaction) is similar to fossil fuels in that it is energy stored by nature at a different time and place, that we collect, process, and use. We have a lot of it, particularly since we have many tons of bomb-grade stuff that would need to be diluted twentyfold for power reactor use. But we are using up what exists on this planet, and it is not being replenished.
Fusion, on the other hand, is a NEW energy source if we can figure out how to do it. And of course, the fuel for fusion energy is ... Hydrogen! Well, actually Deuterium, an uncommon form of Hydrogen, but the amount of it found in the oceans would last for thousands of years.
But in the meantime, fossil fuels as an energy source will not go on forever. Renewable source fuels are not up to the task, and solar, wind, and tidal will never be more than marginal - they are intermittent and unreliable.
Hydrogen is an energy VECTOR, not an energy source. You only get out of it a portion of the energy that you expend manufacturing it. But someday, that may be the best that you can do. We use a lot of energy from incredibly expensive sources because of its convenience and portability. Think of a flashlight, or a portable radio.
To: narby
Hydrogen can be dangerous stuff, and I don't think your insurance agent would take too kindly to filing a report about how you blew up your garage... ---------------------------------------------------------
Gasoline burns pretty well too. But then, we've become accustomed to the safety issues involved, and we're used to the risk. I'm certian that there are ways to make hydrogen "safer". Probably safer than gasoline, which tends to spread all over and flow in wrecks.
Hydrogen is extremely slippery--it's the smallest molecule, and it can leak out through the walls of a steel tank.
At atmospheric pressure, its energy density is very low, so it has to be compressed, liquified, or absorbed into metal hydrides. Compressed or liquid hydrogen would be EXTREMELY dangerous in a crash, much more dangerous than gasoline. Hydride storage is very heavy.
54
posted on
02/10/2003 4:08:58 PM PST
by
Colinsky
To: Tailgunner Joe
Given the fact that the Earth shows no signs of running out of oil in the near or even far future, the notion of spending billions to replace it seems odd at best, foolish at worst.
---------------------------------------------
That statement is unbelievable and hence does a disservice to the arguments against this ludricrous use of hydrogen movement. Eventually we are going to run out of oil, regardless of whether past estimate of oil availability have been wrong. The idea of arguing from a hypothetical momentum of past error belongs to students in a grade school classroom. There is no such momentum.
55
posted on
02/10/2003 4:09:12 PM PST
by
RLK
To: Tailgunner Joe
Well, we can't convert until we get it to make sound sense monetarily, but when that day comes we want to hold all the patents for this stuff so that our country makes the money selling it to the world.
I was trying to tell someone this the other day - we cant "go green" before everyone else unless we stand to make money at it, otherwise countries still using oil for energy will make goods cheaper than we can.
56
posted on
02/10/2003 4:19:10 PM PST
by
ko_kyi
To: narby
Granted, I'm taking the word of someone who is a hydrogen promoter. Enough said.
But... since one of the methods is to use electricity at night which right now is thrown away. It would seem to me that hydrogen produced by that method is basically "free".
Did your "hydrogen promoter" also tell you this falsehood?
The nice thing about hybrid cars is that they are here now. Of course, if they would also "plug in" to the grid, that would be all the more better.
57
posted on
02/10/2003 4:24:58 PM PST
by
cinFLA
To: narby
The best idea I have seen is to store Hydrogen chemically as Sodium Borohydride, NaBH4. It forms a stable solution in water (with a little Sodium Hydroxide) that is about as hazardous (and as flammable) as the water in the wash cycle of your dishwasher. But when exposed to the proper catalyst, the reaction NaBH4 + 2 H2O => NaBO2 + 4 H2 releases large quantities of clean Hydrogen, leaving a residue of Sodium Borate (a laundry soap component) in water.
A full fuel cycle would have to recycle the Borate, with inputs of Hydrogen and energy, of course.
If you are interested, here is a link:
http://www.millenniumcell.com/solutions/white_hydrogen.html
And here is an alternative, that I don't like as well:
http://www.powerball.net/concept/index.shtml
To: Colinsky
Hydrogen generally will not leak out of compressed gas cylinders. It is however very flammable and it takes very little for it to go boom. It just is not practical... even via electrolysis, which results in a net energy loss. Energy is required to split very strong H-O bonds, which steals efficiency from the engine. Gasoline is much more efficient, and fuel standards help improve combustion efficiency to very high levels. Besides, oil is not just used for fuel. It is the source of many chemicals, some of which are used to produce polymers which find their way into everyday use. As of yet, they are difficult to synthesize from more "enviro-friendly" alternatives.
59
posted on
02/10/2003 4:30:41 PM PST
by
Tuxedo
To: Willie Green
There shouldn't be any difference whatsoever. OK, tell me where you get the H2 and how you get it to the car?
60
posted on
02/10/2003 4:36:34 PM PST
by
cinFLA
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-87 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson