Connect with us

OT Hydrogen economy, not?

Discussion in 'Home Power and Microgeneration' started by amdx, Jul 16, 2008.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. amdx

    amdx Guest

    I ran across the following article about the hydrogen economy, I've been
    waiting for an viable algae system to produce hydrogen, but this leads me to
    believe hydrogen is not the answer to our energy independence.
    http://www.planetforlife.com/h2/h2swiss.html
    Conclusion:
    According to B&E, the hydrogen economy idea does not work for multiple
    reasons. They point out that there is no practical source of hydrogen, no
    good way to store hydrogen, and no good way to distribute hydrogen. Many of
    the problems of hydrogen stem from the physical and chemical properties of
    hydrogen. Technology cannot change these facts.

    It is difficult to understand the enthusiasm for hydrogen in view of the
    above, Hydrogen does not solve the energy problem and it is a bad
    choice for carrying energy.
    Mike
     
  2. TheM

    TheM Guest

    This is all old news, but the media and politicians still haven't grasped
    reality or are riding the hype until it wears out.

    M
     
  3. Brilliant. What shall we call this substance? "Hydro-carbon" or
    something like that?
    Best regards,
    Spehro Pefhany
     
  4. That's far too expensive. Hydrogen is created industrially from
    natural gas.

    Best regards,
    Spehro Pefhany
     
  5. Calab

    Calab Guest

    |
    | I ran across the following article about the hydrogen economy, I've been
    | waiting for an viable algae system to produce hydrogen, but this leads me
    to
    | believe hydrogen is not the answer to our energy independence.
    | http://www.planetforlife.com/h2/h2swiss.html
    | Conclusion:
    | According to B&E, the hydrogen economy idea does not work for multiple
    | reasons. They point out that there is no practical source of hydrogen, no
    | good way to store hydrogen, and no good way to distribute hydrogen. Many
    of
    | the problems of hydrogen stem from the physical and chemical properties of
    | hydrogen. Technology cannot change these facts.
    |
    | It is difficult to understand the enthusiasm for hydrogen in view of the
    | above, Hydrogen does not solve the energy problem and it is a bad
    | choice for carrying energy.

    The big things with hydrogen are:

    - The pollution is generated at the source (the power plant) instead of
    where it's used (the car). This makes the pollution generated easier to
    contain BEFORE it gets into the environment.

    - Hydrogen is plentiful and found EVERYWHERE. No more group of countries
    controlling the fuel economy.

    - Hydrogen is simple to produce. This means that you can have many more
    smaller hydrogen plants spread out to where the demand is, instead of one
    single gasoline plant. This saves on transportation costs, and helps with
    local economies.

    At this point, cars based on fuel produced by electricity are the future.
    Whether the fuel is electricity in a battery; hydrogen in a tank to power
    combustion or power a fuel cell; or something completely different, it all
    means that the vehicles are no longer producing the pollution.
     
  6. Unburning water, what a silly idea


    martin
     
  7. James Arthur

    James Arthur Guest

    How about "carbohydrate", as some prefer? That one's popular too.

    Cheers,
    James Arthur
     
  8. TheM

    TheM Guest

    COLD fusion.

    M
     
  9. James Arthur

    James Arthur Guest


    No, hot. But cold doesn't work either.

    Best regards,
    James Arthur
     
  10. Tastes good vs. less filling?
    Best regards,
    Spehro Pefhany
     
  11. Hot fusion definitely works, if you scale it up enough. ;-)
    Best regards,
    Spehro Pefhany
     
  12. Tim Williams

    Tim Williams Guest

    Larkin Patented Gas, LPG? I think I can already buy that... ;-)

    Tim
     
  13. Vaughn Simon

    Vaughn Simon Guest

    I am no fan of hydrogen, but I doubt that hydrogen tankage in a vehicle
    would prove to be any more dangerous than gasoline tankage. In fact, there
    would be far more energy in the same size tank of gasoline, so therefore more
    chance of mayhem when things go wrong.

    Vaughn
     
  14. Tim Williams

    Tim Williams Guest

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_of_combustion

    Molecule for molecule, H2 gives 286 kJ/mol, or 2 H2 gives 572 kJ/mol.
    Carbon gives 393.5 kJ/mol, which is going to be per atom, but the form is
    not specified (it takes a good bit of activation energy to burn graphite or
    diamond). Methane, CH4, gives 889 kJ/mol (which is 76.5 kJ/mol less than
    the sum of its parts, so evidently methane has 76.5 kJ/mol total, or 19.1
    kJ/mol binding energy per C-H bond, relative to H2 bonding). Evidently
    about 5/8ths of the energy of methane is from hydrogen. Carbon's still
    pretty toasty though.
    Nitrogen would be even better, if it were possible to make ammonium hydride
    ([NH4+] [H-], a salt). Alas, four seems to be about as many hydrogens as
    can be bonded onto anything (metal hydrides I think only manage a few
    hydrogen atoms per metal atom).

    Tim
     
  15. Not only that, the carbon itself can be used. So 100% utilization of
    the atoms for energy, too. That beautifully summarizes the problem
    posed in replacing liquid hydrocarbons for individual use. There is
    nothing better by way of energy per unit volume, energy per unit mass,
    demonstrated large-scale safety, easy delivery and convenience, etc.
    And much money has already been invested into a system that has
    consistently worked to serve entire a civilization-scale system, too,
    that doesn't need to be re-spent.

    It's not going to be easy finding a replacement way of storing energy
    that comes even somewhat close, Which makes the necessity of ceasing
    the use of existing fossil fuels nearly impossible to achieve. Their
    energy is essentially free. By itself, that alone makes holding off
    nearly impossible. But just to make it even harder, the way much of
    the energy is stored is just about as good as it gets in life. It's
    compact and convenient, besides being free to the producers. Nothing
    has any chance competing with that.

    Jon
     
  16. ehsjr

    ehsjr Guest

    I don't think that will fly, these days. Carbon is politically
    incorrect, apparently because it leaves footprints. Maybe if
    you call it hydrogenated charcoal ? :)

    Ed
     
  17. Tim Williams

    Tim Williams Guest

    That reminds me, we've got beans in the house this week. Lovely stuff, you
    take a can or two of Busch's Baked Beans, add onions, more bacon, and this
    time, some jalapenos just to be interesting.

    Tim
     
  18. Vaughn Simon

    Vaughn Simon Guest

    Nonsense. Nuclear storage is a solved scientific/engineering problem.
    Unfortunately, it remains an unsolved political problem.

    Vaughn
     
  19. We could call gasoline "oxygen-free soda water".

    Best regards,
    Spehro Pefhany
     
  20. James Arthur

    James Arthur Guest

    Yes, but carbohydrates are so much easier to grow, and even easier
    to subsidize. Hence their popularity.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel


    Grins,
    James Arthur
     
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day

-