The cost of oil dependence has never been so clear. What had long been largely an environmental issue has suddenly become a deadly serious strategic concern. Oil is an indulgence we can no longer afford, not just because it will run out or turn the planet into a sauna, but because it inexorably leads to global conflict. Enough. What we need is a massive, Apollo-scale effort to unlock the potential of hydrogen, a virtually unlimited source of power. The technology is at a tipping point. Terrorism provides political urgency. Consumers are ready for an alternative. From Detroit to Dallas, even the oil establishment is primed for change. We put a man on the moon in a decade; we can achieve energy independence just as fast. Here's how. [...] http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.04/hydrogen_pr.html
-- "It is difficult to say what is impossible, for the dream of yesterday is the hope of today and reality of tomorrow." - Robert Goddard
> For me the key sentence started: > "Today power from a fuel cell car engine costs 100 times > more than power from its internal engine counterpart..."
> Comments?
Is a matter of econemic scale. If we were tooled up to make 10 million fuel cells a year and a dozen ICEs the reverse would be true. I think the key sentence was: "Hydrogen stores energy more effectively than current batteries, burns twice as efficiently in a fuel cell as gasoline does in an internal combustion engine (more than making up for the energy required to produce it), and leaves only water behind."
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.461 / Virus Database: 260 - Release Date: 3/11/2003
> "Hydrogen stores energy more effectively than current batteries, burns twice > as efficiently in a fuel cell as gasoline does in an internal combustion > engine (more than making up for the energy required to produce it), and > leaves only water behind."
That's the point: hydrogen is an energy store. You have to make it first and the energy required to make it is always more than you get back. So what are you going to make it with? It's like saying that we're going to use batteries for energy. Even if the hydrogen cycle can be made a bit more efficient than current batteries, you must first charge them or manufacture the hydrogen using energy. That plus the storage and distribution of elemental hydrogen are the questions to be addressed.
If ever you do discover a reliable and plentiful supply of non-fossil fuel to make your hydrogen with, or to charge your batteries with, you might just find that for most applications, elemental hydrogen is not the best choice for storage and distribution of the energy.
> Even if the hydrogen cycle can be made a bit > more efficient than current batteries, you must first charge them or
The article states that hydrogen is more efficient storage than batteries. Also that it's twice as efficient in fuel cell as gasoline is in ICE. Question is, is the article all wrong? We already know there are a lot of problems with H, but are those insurmountable problems? They are proposing spending $100B of taxpayer money, is this worthwhile?
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.461 / Virus Database: 260 - Release Date: 3/10/2003
Neil Adams wrote: > That's the point: hydrogen is an energy store. You have to make it first > and the energy required to make it is always more than you get back.
More thermodynamics from morons, for morons.
> So what are you going to make it with?
Ummm, ... energy?
> It's like saying that we're going to use batteries for energy.
Actually we use batteries for energy storage and conversion just like hydrogen, only different, just like every other energy conversion and storage process. Energy is conserved, if you haven't noticed yet.
> Even if the hydrogen cycle can be made a bit > more efficient than current batteries, you must first charge them or > manufacture the hydrogen using energy.
So what.
> That plus the storage and > distribution of elemental hydrogen are the questions to be addressed.
But I don't see you addressing them, nor do I so you acknowledging solutions.
> If ever you do discover a reliable and plentiful supply of non-fossil fuel > to make your hydrogen with, or to charge your batteries with, you might > just find that for most applications, elemental hydrogen is not the best > choice for storage and distribution of the energy.
Ummm ... like the sun and the wind, for instance? Hydrogen and oxygen have a lot going for them, especially for transportation applications. I am particularly fond of oxygen. The emission product of hydrogen and oxygen reactions is particularly useful. Optical photons are abundant on Earth and in space.
> > Even if the hydrogen cycle can be made a bit > > more efficient than current batteries, you must first charge them or
> The article states that hydrogen is more efficient storage than batteries. > Also that it's twice as efficient in fuel cell as gasoline is in ICE. > Question is, is the article all wrong?
If those two points are what it stands or falls on, yes, it is entirely wrong.
> We already know there are a lot of problems with H, but are those > insurmountable problems? They are proposing spending $100B of taxpayer > money, is this worthwhile?
I didn't read all of it but it compares the establishment of a hydrogen economy to the Apollo program.
That's a bad comparison because US federal, state, and local governments are, together, probably the world's largest oil profiteer, taking annually about 60 billion dollars.
Governments in 1960 did not have that sort of pecuniary interest in not going to the Moon.
> > "Hydrogen stores energy more effectively than current batteries, burns > twice > > as efficiently in a fuel cell as gasoline does in an internal combustion > > engine (more than making up for the energy required to produce it), and > > leaves only water behind."
> That's the point: hydrogen is an energy store. You have to make it first > and the energy required to make it is always more than you get back. So > what are you going to make it with?
Nuclear power.
> It's like saying that we're going to > use batteries for energy. Even if the hydrogen cycle can be made a bit > more efficient than current batteries, you must first charge them or > manufacture the hydrogen using energy. That plus the storage and > distribution of elemental hydrogen are the questions to be addressed.
If the storage issue is solved, the distribution issue will go away of its own volition. If we try to solve the distribution issue first, we may never have a reasonable storage mechanism.
> If ever you do discover a reliable and plentiful supply of non-fossil fuel > to make your hydrogen with,
Nuclear power.
> or to charge your batteries with, you might > just find that for most applications, elemental hydrogen is not the best > choice for storage and distribution of the energy.
In article <SLUba.10342$Gk2.4...@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, jspence...@stny.rr.com says...
> > For me the key sentence started: > > "Today power from a fuel cell car engine costs 100 times > > more than power from its internal engine counterpart..."
> > Comments?
> Is a matter of econemic scale. If we were tooled up to make 10 million fuel > cells a year and a dozen ICEs the reverse would be true.
Perhaps. It remains to be seen if all the elaborate equipment and infrastructure to implement hydrogen fuel technology can be realized so cheaply.
> I think the key sentence was: > "Hydrogen stores energy more effectively than current batteries,
It's also far more corrosive and volatile.
> burns twice > as efficiently in a fuel cell as gasoline does in an internal combustion > engine
Lots of things are more efficient than internal combustion. Hydrogen is OK, but I don't see why it should be the priority. The simple fact is that most people don't need the ability to drive further than many battery technologies provide, except on the occasional long trip, in which case a plane or bus would do the trick.
> (more than making up for the energy required to produce it), and > leaves only water behind."
If we're just counting emissions then a normal electric car leaves nothing behind. But I kinda doubt the usefulness of this kind of metric.
-- _____________________________________________________ Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com) "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." (Richard Dawkins)
"Thomas Lee Elifritz" <f...@reverse-o-matic.com> wrote
> Neil Adams wrote:
> > That's the point: hydrogen is an energy store. You have to make it first > > and the energy required to make it is always more than you get back.
> More thermodynamics from morons, for morons.
Wow. You called someone else a moron. That must mean you're really smart. Wait, you used it twice in one sentence, you're doubly smart.
> > So what are you going to make it with?
> Ummm, ... energy?
You need energy in specific forms. What you want is usable energy. When you have usable energy, you have to make the case as to why you want to use it to make hydrogen (to store a percentage of the energy) rather than to use it directly. Then you have to make the case that using hydrogen will be a more efficient, convenient and economical method of storing energy than other storage technologies (batteries, flywheels, pumped hydro, compressed air, boron/O2, etc.)
> > It's like saying that we're going to use batteries for energy.
> Actually we use batteries for energy storage and conversion just like > hydrogen, only different, just like every other energy conversion and storage > process.
We also use pumped hydro and compressed air for storage as well. The point is that storage isn't a primary energy source, it's a technology for load levelling or for off grid applications.
>Energy is conserved, if you haven't noticed yet.
Yes, but converting usable energy from one form to another leaves you with less usable energy. That's a physical law, not a technological shortcoming of existing devices. The total amount of energy still exists, but much of it is diffuse heat.
> > Even if the hydrogen cycle can be made a bit > > more efficient than current batteries, you must first charge them or > > manufacture the hydrogen using energy.
> So what.
So, referring to hydrogen as a 'source' of energy is wrong*. It's like referring to buckets as 'sources' of water or refrigerators as 'sources' of food.
(*Unless the conjectured 20 km deep pockets of free hydrogen turn out to be real. It'll take us more than a decade to drill one test hole that deep though.)
In article <h%%ba.23207$yc5.4...@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, jspence...@stny.rr.com says...
> > Even if the hydrogen cycle can be made a bit > > more efficient than current batteries, you must first charge them or
> The article states that hydrogen is more efficient storage than batteries. > Also that it's twice as efficient in fuel cell as gasoline is in ICE. > Question is, is the article all wrong? > We already know there are a lot of problems with H, but are those > insurmountable problems? They are proposing spending $100B of taxpayer > money, is this worthwhile?
Certainly if we can afford to give 1.5 trillion dollars in tax rebates, largely to people who don't even need the money, then we could have afforded to spend that money on something else, like hydrogen fuel research. I have no objection to improving fuel cells, but it seems like fuel cells are only a secondary part of our energy needs. It's probably more important to get more wind, hydro and solar power production facilities online. These are direct energy producers that can reduce our dependence on imported fuels right away. IMO, if we had to focus on a single technology, it should be wind turbines. These can be sited and installed faster than most fossil fuel plants and the electricity they produce would free up resources like domestic natural gas, which can be used to power vehicles.
-- _____________________________________________________ Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com) "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." (Richard Dawkins)
