About Hydrogen

[Guest guest]

Popular Science has an article this month about the use of hydrogen in cars, and elsewhere. It doesn't look very good for hydrogen. Here are the myths it looks at.

1. Hydrogen is an abundant fuel. This is true in that hydrogen is the most common element in the universe, but on Earth hydrogen is bound with other material. In other words, it takes energy to make hydrogen, and we will expend more energy cracking the hydrogen than we will get out of it.

2. Hydrogen fuel cells will end global warming. Fuel cells indeed do not generate pollution, but generating the hydrogen does. Most of it would be produced by plants that burn fossil fuels, which would spend more energy cracking the hydrogen than the hydrogen will return. Better to use that fossil fuel energy for other things. Nuclear power could be used, but while they do not produce CO2, they do produce long term radioactive wastes. There is a good point: "light bulbs do not produce pollution, but power plants do."

3. The Hydrogen economy can run on renewable energy. Renewable energy (solar, wind, hydro) can provide only a small fraction of the energy needed for a hydrogen economy. It is calculated to meet the demands of a hydrogen economy in the US alone, a million wind turbines would be needed, with all their power going to hydrogen production. Also, 4.2 trillion gallons of water would be needed to produce the fuel. That is equal to what flows over Niagra falls in three months.

4. Hydrogen gas leaks are nothing to worry about. Hydrogen is colorless, odorless and burns almost invisibly. It is also easy to ignite: cellphone and thunderstorms produce enough static charge to do it. Hydrogren is alsovery hard to contain. Since it is such a small atom, it can slip through the smallest cracks. It is estimated that 20% of total volume of production would be lost due to leaks.

5. Cars are the natural first application for hydrogen fuel cells. Cars and light trucks contribute about 20% of the CO2 emitted in the US. Fossil fuel burning power plants emit 40%. Fuel cells for cars would have to be designed to cope with many stresses and would have shorter life spans and lower efficiency. It would be better to make large immobile systems for power generation since they would have to be less rugged and would be more efficient.

6. The US is committed to hydrogen and is pouring billions in R & D. $1.2 billion is being spent on research while the monthly tab for Iraq is almost $4 billion. It will also take about $500 billion to set up the infrastructure for hydrogen cars. The auto industry won't make hydrogen powered cars if there is nowhere to fill them up, and the fuel industry won't make stations for cars that don't exist.

7. If Iceland can do it, so can we. Iceland gets most of its power from Hydro and Geothermal power. With its geography, Iceland is uniquely suited to do that. Indeed hydrogen is cracked using regular current. Only 15% of power in the US comes from such sources and that is about tapped out. 71% comes from burning fossil fuels.

8. Mass production will make hydrogen cars affordable. Today's fuel cell technology projected into a production run of 500,000 cars would still result in cars costing about 6 times what a regular car would cost. Also, a standard internal combustion engine will last about 175,000 miles or 15 years, while a fuel cell will last about 2,000 hours.

9. Fuel cell cars can drive hundreds of miles on a single tank of hydrogen. A gallon of gasonline contains about 2,600 times the energy of a gallon of hydrogen. That means a hydrogen powered car with a range of 300 miles would need its fuel pressurized at 10,000 pounds per square inch and would need a huge tank. Liquid hydrogen works better, but it must be driven daily to keep the -253 degree Celcius fuel from evaporating.

There is some closing commentary as well, but I think the point is made. Again, it would be better to go with some kind of carbon recycling since that could use garbage and other wastes to make oil and we would only be recycling carbon already in the system and not adding more to it. It would also not require changing infrastructure or massive redesigns of cars.

[Guest guest]

Very interesting, . Would you know if these 'facts' are actually true? And which gas company paid the PR firm for the article? ;-)

Inger

:

> Popular Science has an article this month about the use of hydrogen in cars, and elsewhere. It doesn't look very good for hydrogen. Here are the myths it looks at.

> 1. Hydrogen is an abundant fuel. This is true in that hydrogen is the most common element in the universe, but on Earth hydrogen is bound with other material. In other words, it takes energy to make hydrogen, and we will expend more energy cracking the hydrogen than we will get out of it.

> 2. Hydrogen fuel cells will end global warming. Fuel cells indeed do not generate pollution, but generating the hydrogen does. Most of it would be produced by plants that burn fossil fuels, which would spend more energy cracking the hydrogen than the hydrogen will return. Better to use that fossil fuel energy for other things. Nuclear power could be used, but while they do not produce CO2, they do produce long term radioactive wastes. There is a good point: "light bulbs do not produce pollution, but power plants do."

> 3. The Hydrogen economy can run on renewable energy. Renewable energy (solar, wind, hydro) can provide only a small fraction of the energy needed for a hydrogen economy. It is calculated to meet the demands of a hydrogen economy in the US alone, a million wind turbines would be needed, with all their power going to hydrogen production. Also, 4.2 trillion gallons of water would be needed to produce the fuel. That is equal to what flows over Niagra falls in three months.

> 4. Hydrogen gas leaks are nothing to worry about. Hydrogen is colorless, odorless and burns almost invisibly. It is also easy to ignite: cellphone and thunderstorms produce enough static charge to do it. Hydrogren is alsovery hard to contain. Since it is such a small atom, it can slip through the smallest cracks. It is estimated that 20% of total volume of production would be lost due to leaks.

> 5. Cars are the natural first application for hydrogen fuel cells. Cars and light trucks contribute about 20% of the CO2 emitted in the US. Fossil fuel burning power plants emit 40%. Fuel cells for cars would have to be designed to cope with many stresses and would have shorter life spans and lower efficiency. It would be better to make large immobile systems for power generation since they would have to be less rugged and would be more efficient.

> 6. The US is committed to hydrogen and is pouring billions in R & D. $1.2 billion is being spent on research while the monthly tab for Iraq is almost $4 billion. It will also take about $500 billion to set up the infrastructure for hydrogen cars. The auto industry won't make hydrogen powered cars if there is nowhere to fill them up, and the fuel industry won't make stations for cars that don't exist.

> 7. If Iceland can do it, so can we. Iceland gets most of its power from Hydro and Geothermal power. With its geography, Iceland is uniquely suited to do that. Indeed hydrogen is cracked using regular current. Only 15% of power in the US comes from such sources and that is about tapped out. 71% comes from burning fossil fuels.

> 8. Mass production will make hydrogen cars affordable. Today's fuel cell technology projected into a production run of 500,000 cars would still result in cars costing about 6 times what a regular car would cost. Also, a standard internal combustion engine will last about 175,000 miles or 15 years, while a fuel cell will last about 2,000 hours.

> 9. Fuel cell cars can drive hundreds of miles on a single tank of hydrogen. A gallon of gasonline contains about 2,600 times the energy of a gallon of hydrogen. That means a hydrogen powered car with a range of 300 miles would need its fuel pressurized at 10,000 pounds per square inch and would need a huge tank. Liquid hydrogen works better, but it must be driven daily to keep the -253 degree Celcius fuel from evaporating.

> There is some closing commentary as well, but I think the point is made. Again, it would be better to go with some kind of carbon recycling since that could use garbage and other wastes to make oil and we would only be recycling carbon already in the system and not adding more to it. It would also not require changing infrastructure or massive redesigns of cars.

[Guest guest]

Inger,

This was written by a staff writer and seems accurate. Much of what is said in the article I have read elsewhere, either in the news or in my own research when I thought about using hydrogen power myself. There are a lot of books out there on how to set up a hydrogen generator and how to convert IC engines to burn hydrogen. I never did since it all looked like a lot of work for questionable returns. It actually would have been easier and more cost effective to build a towable digester that could process waste cooking oil from fast food places into diesel fuel, which could be used in unmodified engines.

I could go down the list and make some points, but I suspect your comment may have been somewhat tongue in cheek.

[Guest guest]

Of course, there is something else that can be done to save oil

until a better and viable alternative does come out, but it would

involve govermnental takeover and control of the auto industry in

all countries, and a lack of choice for consumers.

The general principal is as follows:

A Toyota Echo compact car gets 34/42 MPG city/hwy for the manual and

33/39 for the automatic.

Not bad. And so for the time being:

What the government (for any country in the world) ought to do is

take the (existing) models with the best milage for all sizes and

constructs and then allow ONLY those models to be available for sale

going forward. The government should then insist that all other

models be phased out and that factories be retooled to manufacture

only the " fuel miser models. "

In other words, Ford would phase out it's comparable car, retool

(with government subsidies), and begin producing Toyota Echoes.

The end result worldwide would be (in terms of models):

One compact car

One mid-sized car

One full-sized car

One mini-van

One van

One light duty pick-up truck

One medium duty pick-up truck

One heavy duty pick-up truck

Etc...

The automobiles would be equipped with all the options. (Options

packages would be eliminated). At present automakers save by

producing option packages instead of making custom cars. But if ALL

options came standard on ALL cars, automakers wouldn't have to have

many assembly lines producing many different option-packaged cars.

Now ALL lines would produce ONE model car, so automakers could save

more money than they already do with option packages.

They could funnel these savings into research and development for

boosting mileage for gas-powered automobiles or else use it to

research and develop alternative fueled autos.

At present, the primary portion of what the consumer pays for an

automobile (excluding profit) goes to research, development, and

marketing.

But with this new process, automakers would no longer have to

research what the consumer wants in terms of looks and options. And

no marketing would be required since the consumer would have only

one choice per vehicle class. So money previously spent on

marketing, research on looks and options, etc., can now also be

funneled into reseraching how to get better mileage out of cars or

else how to develop alternative fuel-powered cars.

My idea is a very simplified model. You WOULD need to offer some

different types of automobiles within classes to meet climate and

geographical variations, and to meet the needs of special-needs

individuals.

But I believe half the reason we are driving around in gas guzzlers

these days is that the consumer wants her/his own needs to be

satisfied, and so automakers must make concessions to them at the

expense of research on things like alternative fuel-propelled cars.

If the governments of the world would just step in as they have done

in war time (WWII in the US) and simply commandeer the auto industry

and say " This is how its going to be " I believe that true progress

could be made in the reduction of oil consumption until more

efficient fuel sources and systems (like 's idea) can be

brought to fruition.

All this of course assumes that there would be no red tape or

government beauracracy to hold things up, and that the various

peoples of the world could all set aside their differences and work

cooperatively on this project, and that the actual products

themselves (being the result of a government monopoly over the

industry) would be of quality and hold up under reasonable and

preferably strenuous usage.

See! An Aspie has it all figured out! Now why don't they listen to

me?

Tom

Popular Science has an article this month about the use of hydrogen

in cars, and elsewhere. It doesn't look very good for hydrogen.

[Guest guest]

Because it would be far too ecological, simple and locial. Believe it or

not, but that's the last thing they want. :-(

Inger

> Of course, there is something else that can be done to save oil

until a better and viable alternative does come out, but it would

involve govermnental takeover and control of the auto industry in

all countries, and a lack of choice for consumers.

> The general principal is as follows:

> A Toyota Echo compact car gets 34/42 MPG city/hwy for the manual and

33/39 for the automatic.

> Not bad. And so for the time being:

> What the government (for any country in the world) ought to do is

take the (existing) models with the best milage for all sizes and

constructs and then allow ONLY those models to be available for sale

going forward. The government should then insist that all other

models be phased out and that factories be retooled to manufacture

only the " fuel miser models. "

> In other words, Ford would phase out it's comparable car, retool

(with government subsidies), and begin producing Toyota Echoes.

> The end result worldwide would be (in terms of models):

One compact car

One mid-sized car

One full-sized car

One mini-van

One van

One light duty pick-up truck

One medium duty pick-up truck

One heavy duty pick-up truck

> Etc...

> The automobiles would be equipped with all the options. (Options

packages would be eliminated). At present automakers save by

producing option packages instead of making custom cars. But if ALL

options came standard on ALL cars, automakers wouldn't have to have

many assembly lines producing many different option-packaged cars.

Now ALL lines would produce ONE model car, so automakers could save

more money than they already do with option packages.

> They could funnel these savings into research and development for

boosting mileage for gas-powered automobiles or else use it to

research and develop alternative fueled autos.

> At present, the primary portion of what the consumer pays for an

automobile (excluding profit) goes to research, development, and

marketing.

> But with this new process, automakers would no longer have to

research what the consumer wants in terms of looks and options. And

no marketing would be required since the consumer would have only

one choice per vehicle class. So money previously spent on

marketing, research on looks and options, etc., can now also be

funneled into reseraching how to get better mileage out of cars or

else how to develop alternative fuel-powered cars.

> My idea is a very simplified model. You WOULD need to offer some

different types of automobiles within classes to meet climate and

geographical variations, and to meet the needs of special-needs

individuals.

> But I believe half the reason we are driving around in gas guzzlers

these days is that the consumer wants her/his own needs to be

satisfied, and so automakers must make concessions to them at the

expense of research on things like alternative fuel-propelled cars.

> If the governments of the world would just step in as they have done

in war time (WWII in the US) and simply commandeer the auto industry

and say " This is how its going to be " I believe that true progress

could be made in the reduction of oil consumption until more

efficient fuel sources and systems (like 's idea) can be

brought to fruition.

> All this of course assumes that there would be no red tape or

government beauracracy to hold things up, and that the various

peoples of the world could all set aside their differences and work

cooperatively on this project, and that the actual products

themselves (being the result of a government monopoly over the

industry) would be of quality and hold up under reasonable and

preferably strenuous usage.

> See! An Aspie has it all figured out! Now why don't they listen to

me?

> Tom

Popular Science has an article this month about the use of hydrogen

in cars, and elsewhere. It doesn't look very good for hydrogen.

FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and

acceptance. Everyone is valued.

[Guest guest]

:

> This was written by a staff writer and seems accurate. Much of what is said in the article I have read elsewhere, either in the news or in my own research when I thought about using hydrogen power myself.

OK, just checking! ;-)

> There are a lot of books out there on how to set up a hydrogen generator and how to convert IC engines to burn hydrogen. I never did since it all looked like a lot of work for questionable returns. It actually would have been easier and more cost effective to build a towable digester that could process waste cooking oil from fast food places into diesel fuel, which could be used in unmodified engines.

> I could go down the list and make some points, but I suspect your comment may have been somewhat tongue in cheek.

Correct.

I find it very frustrating though, that there still aren't any better energy alternatives publicly available.

I don't like wind-power generators. They're ugly and make horrible noise. :-(

Inger