Replies

The issue of requiring more energy to produce energy from H2 than is contained IN H2 is moot. Gasoline requires more energy to produce a gallon than is contained in the gallon. This is true of ALL energy sources, otherwise the second law of thermodynamics would be violated.

The issue is financial. The specific energy contained in a pound of gasoline is greater than the specific energy contained in a pound of hydrogen. Therefore, the user must buy more pounds of hydrogen to release (use) the equivalent amount of energy contained in the gasoline.

SO (we finally get to the point), will the user PAY for the additional pounds of hydrogen?

Additionally...producing H2 is MUCH cleaner than producing gasoline, and the potential supply of H2 is essentialy limitless. PLUS, CURRENT TECHNOLOGY can use H2 as a fuel...we do not have to invent a "flux capacitor" or any such thing. Internal combustion engines are converted to methane, or LPG easily and cheaply. The conversion to H2 would be just as easy.

So, H2 in clean, plentiful, requires no new technology. Gasoline is dirty, becoming scarce...but cheap. The key factor becomes whether Joe Sixpack will pay the price.

Freegards. -JR

Gasoline requires more energy to produce a gallon than is contained in the gallon. This is true of ALL energy sources, otherwise the second law of thermodynamics would be violated.

Not true.

As a fossil fuel, petroleum stores energy from millions of years of plant life, transformed and concentrated by millions of years of geothermal activity.

We obtain more energy when we use gasoline than is required to extract and refine petroleum.

nope...that's backwards. Hydrogen has 3 TIMES
the energy per pound as gasoline....something like
147 megajoule/kg for H2 vs 47 for gasoline and similar
for diesel and propane.

The problem with H2 is the VOLUMETRIC energy density;
i.e. btu/GALLON i.e. storage SPACE.

and no, using EXISTING engines on H2 is not "easy".
Propane is easy...LNG is harder but still sorta
"easy". H2 has a much different flame-speed and
gets a little funny in a production (today) car
engine...

best bet for H2 economy is to perfect 'formers';
i.e. conversion of H2 to methane or propane for
vehicles; and using process heat to run regular-type power-plants for fixed uses.

ps; as i recall, when gas hits $4/gal, oil-from-coal
becomes competitive. lotta ground dug up tho...

diff subject: it doesn't take more energy to grow
corn than the ethanol provides. In fact, it takes
zero energy to grow corn. Now, current mechanized
planting and harvesting methods do take a lot of
energy. But growing it is free. toss some corn
seed on your lawn and come back in the fall.
I'm not being facetious; if speed weren't an
issue, harvesting could be much less energy
intensive.

fyi; corn is one of the more efficient plants
on earth for turning sunlight into stored energy;
about 3% if I remember right. vast majority of
plants are under 1%. Best plants are around 8%...
some kind of algae i think.

Further; soy diesel is a better hit anyway....far
easier to process....with better yield of liquid
fuel per pound of input...it doesn't absorb
water like ethanol; and has a far higher energy/pound
(all oils are better than alcohols...think of alc's
as partially-burned oil...already contain some O2)

further; unless i'm very mistaken, the announced
'fuel cell' cars ARE hybrids. Fuel-cells typically
don't have much output...and have no 'peak load'
capacity at all. Batteries are almost always used
with them to provide short-term peak loads.

hybrids are best possible veh. for next 20-30
yrs....take advantage of the very high energy
density of hydrocarbon fuels...and the efficiency
of elec. motors for part-load ops; which is 99%
of a car's life. gas engines terrible efficiency
at part-load....diesel much better but still not
good.

further; fuel cells CAN turn "all the energy"
into electricity...say...up into the 90% range;
unlike IC-engines, fuel-cell isn't a Carnot
machine.

further; if i was going to choose a bio fuel, it'd
be wood...because it reproduces and grows just fine
without any 'farming'...and harvest can be pretty
cheap. I can bring a cord of wood out of the
forest, and section it, on less than a gallon of
gas in my Husky 55. That's 4,000 lbs...at about
1/3-1/2 the energy/pound as gasoline. Including
a quart of gas for the truck...about a 1000:1
energy gain.