PDA

View Full Version : #1 flaw in hydrogen future


Robert Haston
October 11th 04, 05:08 PM
Loved the Hydrogen Economy Out of Reach Article - Thanks Jack.

I forgot where I read it, but the following is what I see as why a "hydrogen
future" just doesn't make sense.

1. The most valuable form of energy is electricity. That is why we burn
oil (an incredible raw material for manufacturing) to make electricity.

2. Turning electricity into hydrogen (or vice-versa), wastes at least a
fourth of this energy each way. So making electricity into hydrogen and
back again loses nearly half the energy, not including all the losses of
building and maintaining a hydrogen transportation system, or building and
maintaining the vehicles, and their streets, support services, etc.

Or you could just use the electricity to power streetcar networks. By the
way, you could construct an urban micro rail system (think bumper cars, only
bigger) that emulates the private auto. Base it on Europe's Stratauto
neighborhood rental system. You punch up a screen on your cell phone and
order up a car of choice. It pulls up to meet you at the corner, and off
you go. You and your passengers punch in and share - being charged by the
minute. I say by the minute instead of the mile because this provides a
disincentive to travel during rush hours.

This also eliminates all the energy, money and space wasted on 200 million
cars sitting around 23 hours a day rusting.

There are lots of answers, but they all involve using 80% less energy to
build and maintain vehicles and get around. Translate this as less money
for industry. The real lesson is carrying 100 kilo people around
individually in 2,000 kilo vehicles isn't sustainable.

As to the fact that wind power (the only truly viable alternative) is
isolated in northern and coastal areas, it would be more efficient to build
solar panels there and ship them south.


--
Robert Haston
Satellite Beach, FL

tellex
October 11th 04, 06:26 PM
It is the most explosive gas known.
The flame is invisible.
To store it at a Gas station, it must be liquefied, -253 degree C.
A small spark at a station would take out the Block in less than a second.



"Robert Haston" > wrote in message
.net...
> Loved the Hydrogen Economy Out of Reach Article - Thanks Jack.
>
> I forgot where I read it, but the following is what I see as why a
"hydrogen
> future" just doesn't make sense.
>
> 1. The most valuable form of energy is electricity. That is why we burn
> oil (an incredible raw material for manufacturing) to make electricity.
>
> 2. Turning electricity into hydrogen (or vice-versa), wastes at least a
> fourth of this energy each way. So making electricity into hydrogen and
> back again loses nearly half the energy, not including all the losses of
> building and maintaining a hydrogen transportation system, or building and
> maintaining the vehicles, and their streets, support services, etc.
>
> Or you could just use the electricity to power streetcar networks. By the
> way, you could construct an urban micro rail system (think bumper cars,
only
> bigger) that emulates the private auto. Base it on Europe's Stratauto
> neighborhood rental system. You punch up a screen on your cell phone and
> order up a car of choice. It pulls up to meet you at the corner, and off
> you go. You and your passengers punch in and share - being charged by the
> minute. I say by the minute instead of the mile because this provides a
> disincentive to travel during rush hours.
>
> This also eliminates all the energy, money and space wasted on 200 million
> cars sitting around 23 hours a day rusting.
>
> There are lots of answers, but they all involve using 80% less energy to
> build and maintain vehicles and get around. Translate this as less money
> for industry. The real lesson is carrying 100 kilo people around
> individually in 2,000 kilo vehicles isn't sustainable.
>
> As to the fact that wind power (the only truly viable alternative) is
> isolated in northern and coastal areas, it would be more efficient to
build
> solar panels there and ship them south.
>
>
> --
> Robert Haston
> Satellite Beach, FL
>
>

Jym Dyer
October 12th 04, 03:57 PM
> It is the most explosive gas known.

=v= Gasoline isn't exactly unexplosive. Hydrogen at least goes
up, whereas gasoline vapors are heavy and spreads flames around.
<_Jym_>

tellex
October 13th 04, 04:34 AM
"Jym Dyer" > wrote in message
...
> > It is the most explosive gas known.
>
> =v= Gasoline isn't exactly unexplosive. Hydrogen at least goes
> up, whereas gasoline vapors are heavy and spreads flames around.
> <_Jym_>

A common misperception. Hydrogen goes up when in a balloon.
When released as a gas, it mixes instantly with air spreading outward, with
some upward. This is very fast as the molecule is the smallest of the
gasses. They fully tested Hydrogen as a fuel in the early 80's, and found
that it was simply too dangerous for the general public to handle. Good for
fuel cells on the space shuttle.

Bill Z.
October 13th 04, 04:55 AM
"tellex" > writes:

> "Jym Dyer" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > It is the most explosive gas known.
> >
> > =v= Gasoline isn't exactly unexplosive. Hydrogen at least goes
> > up, whereas gasoline vapors are heavy and spreads flames around.
> > <_Jym_>
>
> A common misperception. Hydrogen goes up when in a balloon.
> When released as a gas, it mixes instantly with air spreading outward, with
> some upward. This is very fast as the molecule is the smallest of the
> gasses. They fully tested Hydrogen as a fuel in the early 80's, and found
> that it was simply too dangerous for the general public to handle. Good for
> fuel cells on the space shuttle.

Apparently some people disagree with you. See

<http://www.hydrogenus.com/newsletter/ad32btob.htm>
<http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/codes/>
<http://www.hydrogenhighway.ca.gov/hysafety/hysafety.htm>
<http://energy.inel.gov/fossil/hydrogen/pdf/h2safetyreport.pdf>

Note that most of the above are links to government sites. BTW, one
of these URLs claims that hydrogen is less dangerous to handle than
propane.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

tellex
October 13th 04, 05:23 AM
"Bill Z." > wrote in message
...
> "tellex" > writes:
>
> > "Jym Dyer" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > > It is the most explosive gas known.
> > >
> > > =v= Gasoline isn't exactly unexplosive. Hydrogen at least goes
> > > up, whereas gasoline vapors are heavy and spreads flames around.
> > > <_Jym_>
> >
> > A common misperception. Hydrogen goes up when in a balloon.
> > When released as a gas, it mixes instantly with air spreading outward,
with
> > some upward. This is very fast as the molecule is the smallest of the
> > gasses. They fully tested Hydrogen as a fuel in the early 80's, and
found
> > that it was simply too dangerous for the general public to handle. Good
for
> > fuel cells on the space shuttle.
>
> Apparently some people disagree with you. See
>
> <http://www.hydrogenus.com/newsletter/ad32btob.htm>
> <http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/codes/>
> <http://www.hydrogenhighway.ca.gov/hysafety/hysafety.htm>
> <http://energy.inel.gov/fossil/hydrogen/pdf/h2safetyreport.pdf>
>
> Note that most of the above are links to government sites. BTW, one
> of these URLs claims that hydrogen is less dangerous to handle than
> propane.
>

You should read the links you posted,especially the last link, Table 1-1
Preliminary hazards list for hydrogen, is 4 pages long. Good luck, it is a
long way off.

Bill Z.
October 13th 04, 06:52 AM
"tellex" > writes:

> "Bill Z." > wrote in message
> ...
> > "tellex" > writes:

> > Apparently some people disagree with you. See
> >
> > <http://www.hydrogenus.com/newsletter/ad32btob.htm>
> > <http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/codes/>
> > <http://www.hydrogenhighway.ca.gov/hysafety/hysafety.htm>
> > <http://energy.inel.gov/fossil/hydrogen/pdf/h2safetyreport.pdf>
> >
> > Note that most of the above are links to government sites. BTW, one
> > of these URLs claims that hydrogen is less dangerous to handle than
> > propane.
> >
>
> You should read the links you posted,especially the last link, Table 1-1
> Preliminary hazards list for hydrogen, is 4 pages long. Good luck, it is a
> long way off.

Try page 69, which says, "With proper precautions, hydrogen can
be handled safely. No safety issues are forsee that would
warrant cessation of hydrogen use as a vehicle fuel." Maybe you
should read the damn thing before making a fool of yourself by
speculating on other individuals' reading habits.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Jack Dingler
October 13th 04, 07:18 AM
Bill Z. wrote:

>"tellex" > writes:
>
>
>
>>"Bill Z." > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>>>"tellex" > writes:
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>>Apparently some people disagree with you. See
>>>
>>> <http://www.hydrogenus.com/newsletter/ad32btob.htm>
>>> <http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/codes/>
>>> <http://www.hydrogenhighway.ca.gov/hysafety/hysafety.htm>
>>> <http://energy.inel.gov/fossil/hydrogen/pdf/h2safetyreport.pdf>
>>>
>>>Note that most of the above are links to government sites. BTW, one
>>>of these URLs claims that hydrogen is less dangerous to handle than
>>>propane.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>You should read the links you posted,especially the last link, Table 1-1
>>Preliminary hazards list for hydrogen, is 4 pages long. Good luck, it is a
>>long way off.
>>
>>
>
>Try page 69, which says, "With proper precautions, hydrogen can
>be handled safely. No safety issues are forsee that would
>warrant cessation of hydrogen use as a vehicle fuel." Maybe you
>should read the damn thing before making a fool of yourself by
>speculating on other individuals' reading habits.
>
>

No kidding, NASA has been using this as a vehicular fuel for decades and
they've had only a few accidents.

I'm sure this can be made foolproof to the degree that even teens
couldn't screw it up, if they put their best effort into it.

Jack Dingler

Robert Haston
October 15th 04, 02:24 AM
"Jack Dingler" > wrote in message
news:[email protected]_s03...

> No kidding, NASA has been using this as a vehicular fuel for decades and
> they've had only a few accidents.

And I have seen three of them WOW! We clear the launch zones via helicopter
and hold a couple of miles off the pads.

Actually, the solid fuels are far more impressive - imagine minivan - sized
chunks falling 1500 feet or so, and exploding upon impact. Liquid hydrogen
sucks up lots of energy when it evaporates. Its great for cooling nozzles,
but really dampens the show.

The real bummer is when they don't blow up until they are way up and have
dropped their boosters. Two billion bucks gone and no light show -
double****!

Robert Haston

Weisse Luft
October 15th 04, 04:22 PM
Diesel is the fuel of the future. It can be made from vegetable oil
(biodiesel) or from the newly developed "bio-digester" which can tur
almost anything into oil, oil suitable as diesel fuel after treating.

You get far more energy out than you put in with diesel. Not so wit
hydrogen, alcohol or methane

--
Weisse Luft

Jack Dingler
October 15th 04, 04:35 PM
Weisse Luft wrote:

>Diesel is the fuel of the future. It can be made from vegetable oils
>(biodiesel) or from the newly developed "bio-digester" which can turn
>almost anything into oil, oil suitable as diesel fuel after treating.
>
>You get far more energy out than you put in with diesel. Not so with
>hydrogen, alcohol or methane.
>
>
>

I have high hopes for biodiesel too. I hope that it can at least keep
mechanized farming intact to some degree.

But even that level of usage will require a reduction in population as
an excess biodiesel will mean cutting the food supply.

We've spent 40 years in the US, paving our best farmland and building
suburbs on it. And we've used salt fertilizers to destroy the topsoil.
This situation is going to take a century or so to reverse. But at least
times will be exciting.

Jack Dingler

Mike DeMicco
October 15th 04, 10:35 PM
Weisse Luft > wrote in
:

>
> Diesel is the fuel of the future. It can be made from vegetable oils
> (biodiesel) or from the newly developed "bio-digester" which can turn
> almost anything into oil, oil suitable as diesel fuel after treating.
>
> You get far more energy out than you put in with diesel. Not so with
> hydrogen, alcohol or methane.
>
>

I agree. I think my next vehicle is going to have a turbo diesel. They
get tremendous mileage and with a turbo, have plenty of power. A lot of
people have set up biodiesel stills and get their fuel for free (waste
cooking oil from restaurants). All the auto companies have to do is focus
on getting auto diesels cleaner burning and quieter (I sure do hate those
Dodge trucks with the noisy, clattering engines) and maybe more reliable
(remember that old Oldsmobile engine that was basically a converted
gasoline engine? - they didn't last too long).

--
Mike DeMicco >

Mitch Haley
October 16th 04, 12:22 AM
Mike DeMicco wrote:
> I agree. I think my next vehicle is going to have a turbo diesel. They
> get tremendous mileage and with a turbo, have plenty of power. A lot of
> people have set up biodiesel stills and get their fuel for free (waste
> cooking oil from restaurants).


If by "free", you mean $0.50-0.80 per gallon depending on the price of
methanol and the cost of your heat source, I agree with you. The materials
needed to make the methoxide catalyst aren't as cheap as used cooking oil.

For a look at biodiesel from the viewpoint of the activist homebrewers:
http://www.journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html

There's no inherent durability problem with diesels, my 1979 Mercedes has
about 300,000mi on it and the engine's in much better shape than the rest
of the car. GM did indeed market some defective diesels when gas prices
were pushing above $1US per gallon for the first time.

Mitch.

Google

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home