Hydrogen Fuel

[derwoodly]

Burning Hydrogen will not cure all of our energy problems.  

After reading a few posts by others that seem to think that Hydrogen was new atomic energy of the 21st century, I thought I needed to post that.  One simple reason for this is the fact that hydrogen is \"made\" by burning natural gas.  There are other reasons as well; like, storage, safety and price.

[Induane]

derwoodly you make some very fine points, and as technology goes right now you are correct.  I do not think, however, that you are giving the benifits a chance.

Lets start with basic facts Facts are always a nice thing.

1.) As you stated, we now obtain hydrogen by burning natural gas.  Natural gas puts off far less pollutants than burning coal or gasoline, but its not perfect and its a fossile fuel.

 -comments:  This is only true right now.  Hydrogen is the single most abundant elemant in the universe, so there are other ways of obtaining it.  Burning natural gas to get it is not the wave of the future, we\'ll need new ways of obtaning this abundant resource.

2.) A hightly reactive gas, hydrogen isn\'t as easy to contain - besides that fact that its a gas, unlike gasoline which is a liquid (hmm gas is a liquid...)

 -comments: This is not something that can\'t be overcome, but fueling stations would need to start converting to the means necessary for storage.

3.) Safety - I think the point you are going to try to make here is that hydrogen to be efficient must be stored at high pressures - somewhere areound 5000 to 10000 psi.  Thats extremely high! Its also flamible, but because of the way it expands it doesn\'t explode the way we think - it dissappates into the air and hte explosion is diffused by its  gaseous nature - that said no one wants to be in any explosion!

 -comments: In practice current fuel cell storage tanks have rigid and tough standards: One - they must be made in two layers - one of composide carbon fiber (insanely strong stuff).  and two - they must be able to withstand a projectile entering and leaving the tank, thus rupturing it - all without exploding - and they meet these standards easily.  So - they can withstand impacts greater than any car accident could put on them, and if they do rupture, are made in such a way that an explosion is diverted.  Try shooting a gasoline tank, or dropping it off of a high building - instaboom!  Fuel cells are actually safer in this regard, plus a hydrogen explosion if one occurred doesn\'t last as long, nor is it as violent.  Remember the HIndenburg - it didn\'t EXPLODE!!!! IT burned all the way to the ground slowly.  Safety is probably better.

4.) Price - prices for hydrogen are currently prohibitively expensive.  Far more than gasoline right now.  

 -comments: In reality it is like any consumable good - as demand goes up the price will be driven down as it become more common.  Remember how expensive your first cdburner was? Mine was nearly $500 for a cheap one.  Nowadays one can pick one up for around $40 - a far cry cheaper!

Burning Hydrogen will not cure all of our energy problems.

You\'re right.  Hydrogen wouldn\'t be good currently for powering our cities electricity, or things like that - but it would be an excellent fuel for consumer vehicles.

[zanzibar]

Originally posted by derwoodly
Burning Hydrogen will not cure all of our energy problems.  

After reading a few posts by others that seem to think that Hydrogen was new atomic energy of the 21st century, I thought I needed to post that.  One simple reason for this is the fact that hydrogen is \"made\" by burning natural gas.  There are other reasons as well; like, storage, safety and price.

Hydrogen is not made by burning natural gas.  I guess you\'ve never heard of wind power, solar power, wave power, thermal power, or any other \"renewable\" resource.

[derwoodly]

A quote from the gob-er-ment

\"Hydrogen Production and Delivery
 
 Almost all of the hydrogen produced in the U.S. today is by steam reforming of natural gas and for the near term, this method of production will continue to dominate. Researchers at NREL are developing a wide range of advanced processes for producing hydrogen economically from sustainable resources. These R&D efforts fall into five major categories:\"

Here is da link... http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_production_delivery.html

AND yes right below it is listed the methods you mention. My point is that most of this is all theoretical just like how all of our energy needs would be met by nucular power back in the 1960\'s.

[ edit:  ah the Hindenburg a shinning example of hydrogen technogy... \"Remember the HIndenburg - it didn\'t EXPLODE!!!! IT burned all the way to the ground slowly.\"  I am sure the dead passengers are counting their blessings!!! ]

[Draklar]

Aren\'t the explosions a really minor aspect compared to the pollution that will eventually make it impossible to live on Earth?

[Induane]

The hindenburg was a terrible disaster, but it accentuated my point - which was had the ballon been filled with gasoline you never would have found the pices of any of those passengers.  The ballon sank slowly flaming.  The real problem was that the people were suspended in a basket from a ballon made of flamible materials (jet fuel - no seriously - the coating on the balloon was a compound used in rocket fuel - its the real problem in the hindenburg accident.  

The compound, a layer of iron oxide covered with coats of cellulose butyrate acetate mixed with powdered aluminum, is very similar to a mixture used to power solid fuel rockets. \"The Hindenburg was literally painted with rocket fuel,\"

Hydrogen is not made by burning natural gas. I guess you\'ve never heard of wind power, solar power, wave power, thermal power, or any other \"renewable\" resource.

umm I don\'t even udnerstand that sentence.  it seems to imply that wind solar power and wave power are sources of natural gas - I think you mean these can be used to make electricity?  These are great but there are limits to solar technology as solar panels employ some extremely rare materials, and the others aren\'t something that could be portable for a car.  But he was correct - hydrogen IS made by burning natural gas as he points out.  

Explosions may be a small aspect except that in the marketplace you need to establish safety and reliability appearnace anyways to make a product good enough for mainstream.

Also if we would put more research into many of these technologies we\'d be advancing faster.

Also on a side note - things have been invented that get great gas mileage, by Voltswagon and GM, but Exon and Shell, and Brittish Patroleum have bought and destroyed many of these technologies - to them its smart business - don\'t alllow a product that threatens your profits, but it hurts us in the long term and pads their pockets.

[lynx_lupo]

The hindenburg didn\'t explode/burn due to the hidrogen, but bad materials (fibers). If it was hidrogen that was burning, you wouldn\'t see it, the flame is invisible to us. And yeah, it\'d be a boom more likely.
edit: read the upper broader explanation

Hidrogen is good since we can get it out of water adn that is what you get when you burn it, so it\'s a renewable source, not yet enough effective, but this is the way. Alchohols are also good and clean fuels.

But the future lies in fusion reactors, go read about it on http://www.fusion-eur.org/
And yeah, hidrogen is key.

[Odessa Wildfire]

Corret me if im wrong but isnt water the by-product of hydrogen?.

[Cha0s]

Here\'s how I envision hydrogen fuel working: hydrogen is produced via power from fission/fusion reactions through electrolysis. The hydrogen is used in a fuel cell and produces water as a byproduct. Rinse and repeat.

[zanzibar]

Originally posted by derwoodly
A quote from the gob-er-ment

\"Hydrogen Production and Delivery
 
 Almost all of the hydrogen produced in the U.S. today is by steam reforming of natural gas and for the near term, this method of production will continue to dominate. Researchers at NREL are developing a wide range of advanced processes for producing hydrogen economically from sustainable resources. These R&D efforts fall into five major categories:\"

Here is da link... http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_production_delivery.html

AND yes right below it is listed the methods you mention. My point is that most of this is all theoretical just like how all of our energy needs would be met by nucular power back in the 1960\'s.

[ edit:  ah the Hindenburg a shinning example of hydrogen technogy... \"Remember the HIndenburg - it didn\'t EXPLODE!!!! IT burned all the way to the ground slowly.\"  I am sure the dead passengers are counting their blessings!!! ]

i)  I should have said that burning fossil fuels isn\'t the only way of producing Hydrogen and there are much better ways of doing it which involve renewabler resources.  Basically, you only need electricity and water, and there are plenty of ways to produce electricity using wind power, wave power, thermal power, etc etc.  And I don\'t know what your media tells you, but here in Canada it\'s a pretty well established fact that renewable energy resources are not \"theories\".

ii) The Hindenburg is not an example of hydrogen POWER.  We\'re not talking about filling up a huge balloon with hydrogen, we\'re talking about filling up a gas tank.

[zanzibar]

Originally posted by lynx_lupo
The hindenburg didn\'t explode/burn due to the hidrogen, but bad materials (fibers). If it was hidrogen that was burning, you wouldn\'t see it, the flame is invisible to us. And yeah, it\'d be a boom more likely.
edit: read the upper broader explanation

Hidrogen is good since we can get it out of water adn that is what you get when you burn it, so it\'s a renewable source, not yet enough effective, but this is the way. Alchohols are also good and clean fuels.

But the future lies in fusion reactors, go read about it on http://www.fusion-eur.org/
And yeah, hidrogen is key.

i) I\'ve never read an academic paper suggesting that we\'re anywhere close to cold-fusion technology.

ii) Hydrogen production requires water and electricity.  There are many known, established, workable, practical sources of renewable energy for the production of electricity.  Water is also easy to get in the 1st world.

iii) Race cars run entirely on alcohol, which we can produce from corn.  Like you suggested, the financial interest of the oil companies is in oil.  They\'re killing the Earth at a proffit, and won\'t stop until the stuff disapears completely.

[Xordan]

Originally posted by zanzibar
i) I\'ve never read an academic paper suggesting that we\'re anywhere close to cold-fusion technology.

Cold Fusion isn\'t the only type of Fusion. There\'s prototype reactors being built atm which don\'t use cold fusion.

And yes, once hydrogen powered vehicles become more common then it will be acquired from water instead of gas, as the price of getting it from water would balance against the amount of people using it. I believe that getting hydrogen from water is cheaper than producing petrol/gas from hydrocarbons, but it would cost a lot to switch.  

As for the dangers of hydrogen powered stuff.... well I really don\'t think that it makes much difference if the safety is in place. Exploding petrol is just as deadly as exploding hydrogen.

So yeah, I\'m all for hydrogen powered vehicles. Much better than petrol powered.

[zanzibar]

Originally posted by Xordan

Originally posted by zanzibar
i) I\'ve never read an academic paper suggesting that we\'re anywhere close to cold-fusion technology.

Cold Fusion isn\'t the only type of Fusion. There\'s prototype reactors being built atm which don\'t use cold fusion.

And yes, once hydrogen powered vehicles become more common then it will be acquired from water instead of gas, as the price of getting it from water would balance against the amount of people using it. I believe that getting hydrogen from water is cheaper than producing petrol/gas from hydrocarbons, but it would cost a lot to switch.  

As for the dangers of hydrogen powered stuff.... well I really don\'t think that it makes much difference if the safety is in place. Exploding petrol is just as deadly as exploding hydrogen.

So yeah, I\'m all for hydrogen powered vehicles. Much better than petrol powered.

ehhhhhhh

The cost of staying with fossil fuels is measured in more than just the cost of production.  But anyway, you can put a match out in jet fuel.  Hydrogen combusts at much lower temperatures than gas.

[Valbrandr]

Really it has very little to do with Hydrogen Fuel cells or whatever per se.  The issue here is that we need to start looking for alternative fuel souces because of the future of the crude oil market... which prices will just go up and up as the supply dwindles... we will have to do something soon enough.. why not start looking now?

[derwoodly]

Yes, Idealy hydrogen would be a good way transport energy, but as I said, it does not solve our energy needs.  

Yes, I have herd of fusion, solar energy, and biomass.  I have no doubt that these technologies will help in the future.  However in the real world of today, Hydrogen is released from natural gas  by burning natural gas to make steam that is used to heat more natural gas to break the hydrogen bonds and produce free hydrogen. And this is the most cost effective way of doing it. To say that polution free hydrogen can be made from fusion power plants is not todays science.  In addition, it is not anywhere close to cost effective. You will need several billion dollars spend on creating some sort of fusion powered hydrogen generator that will never be able to make hydrogen as cheeply as a plant that uses natural gas. And that is assuming you have a technological breakthrough that has not happend in the last 40 years.

... and no, I am not stalking you Val, you and I just post about the same time of day.