Hydrogen Fuel

[zanzibar]

If the issue is how expensive the energy itself is, then we\'ll just have to use less of it.

[Draklar]

Originally posted by zanzibar
If the issue is how expensive the energy itself is, then we\'ll just have to use less of it.

If you make people get less of something that they got used to getting more, they will go berserk on the government.

derwoodly: You two posted with 9 hours difference :O

[derwoodly]

Zan,

I am not sure what your point is.   What I am saying is that it is not enough that it be technically feasable to do something. It also must be effecient as well.  Currently Hydrogen is not produced by running a current through water.  It can be done, but that is not how commercial Hydrogen is made.  If you did manage to make it that way you would be forced to sell it at a huge loss and your employees would have to be sacked and the plant closed as soon as you ran out what ever funding you somehow manged to scam off of people like Valbrandr.

So lets review... Hydrogen is prduced by seperating the Hydrogen atoms from natural gas.  Cold fusion is about as ready for commercial use as warp engines, derwoodly can not tell time, and Valbrandr will be running for office on the \"Social Idealist\" ticket.

Does that about cover it?

[Moogie]

Originally posted by Cha0s
... and produces water as a byproduct. Rinse and repeat.

Was that a deliberate pun?

[lynx_lupo]

cold fusion, what is that? Sounds contradictive to me. Anyway, it\'s a simple, cheap and very safe concept involving plasma - anticold. Research is only making it better, but the current reactors are too small and the self-sustaining efficency hasn\'t been reached yet.  Think 2050.

[Xordan]

Remember that natural gas won\'t last forever as well, and burns quite clean anyway, much better than oil or coal. Another way of getting hydrogen is to genetically modify bacteria to excrete it, and \'milk\' it off them in huge farms. The bacteria have already been made in labs, they just need to be made more efficient and then stuck in massive quantities. Could be started up within the next few years easily.

And cold fusion (Fusion at room temperature) is not even proven to work. Normal fusion reactors are already being built as I said before. I\'m sure we\'ll get a reactor which produces more energy than it sucks in within the next 50 years. Just need the right strength magnetic field and a way to contain the energy for a long period of time (about 1 second would do it to get a chain reaction going). Once you have the energy output then hydrogen will become very cheap very fast. Anyway, best to get the cars out now and start the transition before the oil prices rise too high.

[Cherppow]

Hmm, hydrogen.

I think the fuel cells themselves are quite nice alternative to conventional internal combustion engines. I\'m more concerned of the production, transportation and storing of hydrogen. Although abundant in the universe, hydrogen is surprisingly hard to produce in large quantities on Earth. As is, producing hydrogen from natural gas and burning it, is less efficient than burning the natural gas itself. Those areas are certainly worth researching.

Don\'t think burning hydrogen will \"cure all our energy problems\". That doesn\'t prevent hydrogen from being atomic energy of the future, though. Burning it is a chemical reaction, very different from its nuclear fusion reaction.

Burn reaction:
2 H2 + O2 --> 2 H2O (+energy)

Nuclear reaction eg:
D + T --> He + n (+much more energy)

where D=deuterium, T=tritium, n=neutron

In short cold fusion means any nuclear fusion reaction that occurs well below the temperature required for thermonuclear reactions. There are many ways to move atoms close enough to each other to make their nuclei join, thermal energy is just the most known way. But like said, the reaction needs to give more energy than it takes to be useful, and that\'s not likely to happen too soon.

Also, hydrogen itself is used as rocket/welding fuel. It burns with oxygen at temperatures up to over 3000?C. (For example, iron melts at 1538?C and boils at 2861?C) In addition it\'s odourless and colourless gas, making possible leaks hard to find.

[derwoodly]

@ Xordan
Wow, bacteria production.  That is interesting, that would be a fantastic way to produce Hydrogen.  I am not sure that I would want to work at a bacteria plant, but it still sounds like a good idea.

@ Cherppow
Well said, and you provided the chemical formulas as well.  Thankyou.

[kbilik]

Here are some helpful links:
ITER website
Wikipedia article on ITER
This is the international project that aims to build a plasma fusion reactor that can achieve break-even. Break even occurs when the reactor produces enough energy for the fusion reaction to sustain itself (and the hope is that it will eventually produce excess power output). This is probably 25-50 years away due to the massive costs and overhead involved. Not to mention the difficulty in containing the ~50 - 100 million degree C plasma with the magnetic fields...

Don\'t confuse plasma fusion with cold fusion , which has never been proven to work and is considered impossible or highly improbable by many reputable sources.

Here\'s another good layman link from wiki: Hydrogen power
It\'s not the most trustworthy source, but it addresses a lot of points mentioned here.

Meanwhile I found an old slashdot article on the car that made its own fuel . Doesn\'t look too feasible to me though.

What about solar power? I know it\'s not very effecient right now (best light to electrical power conversion effeciency was 30% I think). But maybe someday with improving technology and materials, it could reach 70%. Won\'t replace fossil fuels, but it will really help save massive amounts of energy and help in the transition to the next step.

[Xordan]

Originally posted by kbilik
What about solar power? I know it\'s not very effecient right now (best light to electrical power conversion effeciency was 30% I think). But maybe someday with improving technology and materials, it could reach 70%. Won\'t replace fossil fuels, but it will really help save massive amounts of energy and help in the transition to the next step.

Solar power is a very good technology. I\'m planning on having solar panels on the roof of my house when I\'m older, which should cut my energy bills by quite a bit.

[Induane]

What about a wind generator? They make alot of power.  There are a few  schools that had one built and it powers their school - and adds enough electricity down the line that they actually get paid by the electric company.

[dfryer]

I think the chief problem with wind power is low \"power density\" - you need many square meters of wind power plant to replace something like a hydroelectric dam, oil, or nuclear plant.  The payoff is that it is renewable, as long as climate is favourable .

Even though hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, pure H2 is reactive enough that if there are other elements present (like on earth) then it will almost all be \'spoken for\' chemically.  The real solution to the energy *generation* problem is nuclear - fission for now, fusion if we can get it.  The only thing stopping us is people who are afraid of radiation because they don\'t understand it - more lives are shortened by pollution from coal and oil (not to mention mine accidents) than by radioactive waste!

[Induane]

aye, wind power isn\'t a good solution for repacing a power plant - but to a farmer or someone with a little land its more feasible. Imagine if say 15% of the population had a wind generator powering their land. That is alot of people not using energy from plants, and ctually creating power on a widely distributed basis.  Also, distributed power sources are safer for the masses as widespread poweroutages can be reduced or eliminated.  I would rather see a day where each home is self sufficient power wise, and we don\'t need to rely on large power plants in other states for our power.

[Uyaem]

Originally posted by Xordan
 Exploding petrol is just as deadly as exploding hydrogen.

Petrol doesn\'t explode in the conditions that you have in a car. The highly compressed hydrogen would, however, leave nice little holes in the ground when lit.

Originally posted by lynx_lupoIf 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.

The flame is visible, it\'s just that it is blue. And yes, the reaction is extremely exothermic. Don\'t do this at home kids, but if you fill a simple balloon with hydrogen and light it (from a distance, of course) you can feel a sudden heat wave that passes quickly even 5-10 meters away. Feels strange.

Originally posted by zanzibarRace cars run entirely on alcohol

So do some race car drivers, considering the stunts they pull off sometimes.

Originally posted by Xordan
Solar power is a very good technology. I\'m planning on having solar panels on the roof of my house when I\'m older, which should cut my energy bills by quite a bit.

That might depend on the energy prices then. The solar panels cost quite a bit, also they don\'t remain as effective as they are when they are new (efficiency factor is currently about 20% when they are new).
According to wikipedia, the price of one cell with (approx. 10cm? surface) is at roughly 11 EUR (state-of-the-art-cells, efficiency factor above 20%).
*calculates* ...
Given a house of 10x10 meters footpoint, with a roof angle of 45 degrees (which is too much, so lazy me can use Pythagoras ):
2 roof \"halves\", each with 10*sqrt(5? * 5?), that makes roughly 140m?, that\'s about 1,400,000cm?.
I seriously hope I made a mistake there, because that roof is a little expensive (1.5 Millon EUR).


General note):
2H20 + Enegergy -> 2H2 + O2 + thermal energy
2H2 + 02 -> 2H2O + Energy + thermal energy

The first equasion is the one happening when splitting up water into oxygen and hydrogen, the second is the one that applies when burning them together. Both times, you lose energy in form or heat that practically escapes unused.
As there is no efficiency factor of 100%, you will lose quite a lot of energy when splitting up water, especially it\'s a string and stable bond.
This cannot come from nowhere, so you have to put it in. If you have to make your fuel first, just to be able to burn it again, you lose energy, you don\'t save it.
Now, a general idea is to use renewable sources like solar energy to gain the hydrogen. That makes sense in a way, beause a) like I said, solar energy counts as renewable source of energy and b) you can\'t mount solar cells on cars (at least not effectivly, also imagine the traffic jam you get stuck in if you don\'t make it home before sunset )
Either that, or what Cha0s said: Good ol\' nuclear power.
Another attempt, still in the early stages, is using green algae. Basically, they use solar energy as well.

[Induane]

Who says you have to buy solar panels new?  At the university I attended, the solar car team bought a full pallet of solar cells at an auction for $100 - extremely cheap - approximately 1% of retail cost.

 Used is a good way of saving money in the short and long term.