America's First Pipeline-Fed Hydrogen Fueling Station 247
hasanabbas1987 writes "Shell has opened America's first pipe-lined hydrogen fueling station in the town of Torrence in Southern California. Shell wasn't alone in this project as Toyota also helped them in this green deed, all of which was funded by the government. At the moment other hydrogen stations around the US still depend upon trucks to supply them with fuel. This marks a new era of green fueling and hopefully this pipeline spreads to other stations. Many of the big car makers like Toyota, Honda and Mercedes have indicated a mass market for hydrogen powered cars by 2015."
Is this safe? (Score:4, Insightful)
While I do think that Hydrogen based cars is a great idea I know that a problem in their development was safety. Is having a direct connection to the pipeline at a publicly used service station a good idea? We see stupid things people do resulting in problems at regular gas stations all the time, will it use full time attendants or will just rely on people being smart while fueling up?
Re: (Score:3)
No. But if gasoline powered cars did not exist and someone invented them today, there is NO WAY they would be approved.
"You want people to zip around at high speeds while carrying ten to twenty gallons of a highly volatile petroleum distillate? With CHILDREN in the car and by the roads? You know this 'gasoline' stuff is extremely flammable, you even use its explosive power to move your vehicle! Are you NUTS?"
DENIED.
Re: (Score:2)
We have direct evidence to the contrary that it was not a concern when cars were introduced. Wagons of volatile fuel were already being carted through the streets. The main concerns with early gasoline vehicles were noise, air pollution (a contrast to "horse pollution", indeed, but without pollution controls, early cars still were pretty nasty), and various practical concerns like fuel availability and consistency, vehicle and fuel cost, and reliability/the difficulty in starting the vehicles (early elect
Re: (Score:2)
No. But if gasoline powered cars did not exist and someone invented them today, there is NO WAY they would be approved.
"You want people to zip around at high speeds while carrying ten to twenty gallons of a highly volatile petroleum distillate? With CHILDREN in the car and by the roads? You know this 'gasoline' stuff is extremely flammable, you even use its explosive power to move your vehicle! Are you NUTS?"
DENIED.
Not to mention, its more explosive than dynamite!!! (pound for pound, based on energy density.) And you want a tank full of it piloted by a barely qualified operator? That's INsane!
Re: (Score:2)
How is "not explosive at all" equal to "more explosive than dynamite"? Why are you confusing energy density with explosive capacity? Being explosive means that you can release energy very quickly (aka, it's more akin to power density than energy density).
Re: (Score:2)
OK ok ok, it's as explosive as that thing whooshing over your head right now...
Re: (Score:2)
We see stupid things people do resulting in problems at regular gas stations all the time, will it use full time attendants or will just rely on people being smart while fueling up?
H2 has two obvious advantages over gasoline:
1) Leaks go straight up. Light it on fire and you get an immense fireball .... 100 feet up and headed higher at about 50 MPH. I'd much rather be trapped in a H2 car on fire than a gasoline car on fire. I suppose underground / underbuilding parking facilities would have a much more negative opinion...
2) It doesn't soak into winter clothing and turn the operator into a human torch like gasoline will do.
The obvious disadvantage is its extremely high range flammabi
Re: (Score:2)
It'd be about as safe as methane (natural gas) distribution.
I just don't see how they can store and distribute hydrogen economically, considering it will leak out the absolute smallest of openings, pores, etc. and to be stored in a tank requires a massive cooling system (to keep it below 20.2K), which in turn consumes a massive amount of energy to keep the hydrogen cool enough that it won't simply evaporate and migrate through the seals and hoses.
There is an easily solution to portable energy needs though,
Re:Is this safe? (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, but it burns at mixtures anywhere from 4-75% with air, so that hardly buys you anything. And it detonates down to about 50% with air. You really think a detonation won't damage a pump? Or even a burn (hydrogen burns *hot*)? Pumps are not designed to operate as blow torches. Hopefully they would put flame-sensor shutdowns on the system, but I don't know that they have.
There are two significant risks at play. One is a failure of the storage tanks, most likely due to a manufacturing defect (these things happen, especially with composites, which H2 storage pretty much requires). These tanks are at very high pressures, many hundreds of atmospheres (unless you're dealing with liquid H2 storage, which is actually much more dangerous (air ingestion into an LH tank leaves a trapped SOX/LH slurry, which is a contact explosive)). The other risk is pooling. You're absolutely correct that there are anti-pooling countermeasures which not only can be taken, but essentially must be taken when dealing with hydrogen (aka, this isn't stuff you want sitting around in just an ordinary garage). Even still, even in structures designed to prevent pooling and detonation, it still happens. Fukushima being a glaring recent example, but there are countless others. Hydrogen detonates just so damned easy.
"Pooling"? How do you figure? (Score:2)
The other risk is pooling. You're absolutely correct that there are anti-pooling countermeasures which not only can be taken, but essentially must be taken when dealing with hydrogen (aka, this isn't stuff you want sitting around in just an ordinary garage). Even still, even in structures designed to prevent pooling and detonation, it still happens. Fukushima being a glaring recent example, but there are countless others. Hydrogen detonates just so damned easy.
I'm having trouble figuring out how the least-dense substance known can "pool" anywhere. Under any normal situation, it's just going to escape into the air. Yes, it's flammable, yes, it can ignite easily in air. But the real danger with substances like gasoline is that the vapors are heavier than air, and can travel horizontally to an ignition source.
Re: (Score:3)
Hint: Think upside down.
Still haven't figured it out? :) Beneath an overhang (such as the rain shelters fueling stations typically provide so you don't get soaked filling up your vehicle), inside a garage (anything from a small home garage to a large industrial garage), in any building that a H2 pipeline passes beneath, in any building that a pipe that a H2 pipe has leaked into leads to, and so forth
Re: (Score:2)
Luckily pure hydrogen is not combustible... Too low or too high and nothing happens.
Too high and nothing happens? Another fusion doubter, have we? Tell it to THE SUN!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Luckily pure hydrogen is not combustible. So even if you ignite the tip of the pump, which is already a stupid thing to do, it will burn at the tip and not travel back in.
Isn't that the case with most commonly used fuels? (ignoring solid rocket fuels that come with their own oxidizer)
Re: (Score:2)
I know ex-Navy guys who used to flick cigarette butts into open containers of jet fuel. Most of the time fuel will not combust under the wrong conditions. If you know what the right conditions are most fuels even pure H2 are pretty safe to keep around. The thing is look how often filling stations go up, how many natgas related home explosions happen each year; shit goes wrong astonishingly often. Keep in mind too that you are putting this in the hands of people who are likely to be negligent, careless,
Hydrogen again? (Score:2, Interesting)
Hydrogen == natural gas.
One has to wonder which would be greener? Just using the Natural gas in an IC Hybrid or Hydrogen in a fuel cell?
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, no.
Natural Gas = CH4.
Hydrogen = H2
CH4 =/= H2.
Re: (Score:3)
Umm, no.
Natural Gas = CH4.
Hydrogen = H2
CH4 =/= H2.
The point was that, currently, hydrogen gas is largely derived from petroleum products and/or natural gas. So until large-scale industrial water cracking or something becomes economical and takes over, this really doesn't reduce dependence on fossil fuels.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is that hydrogen today is made from natural gas, at an energy loss.
Nobody makes hydrogen with electrolysis from solar cells because it's too costly.
Re: (Score:2)
Honda does. They built a solar cell fueling station that converts water to H2, and which they use for the hydrogen test cars.
Re: (Score:3)
That is a test system. Commercial hydrogen production is from reformulated hydrocarbons. I suggest you take a look at the cost and then work out the payback time on Honda's system. Probably about the time the Sun becomes a Red Giant.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it is equal too Hydrogen but not identical too. Hydrogen is made from reformulated hydrocarbons mostly if not exclusively in the US natural gas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hydrogen is made from Natural gas today. If you make it from electricity than odds are it is coming from fossile fuel, nuclear, or Hydro. Solar and wind are too expensive for Hydrogen production.
Can they reuse natural gas distribution system (Score:2)
Say parts that are un/under utilized?
Re: (Score:3)
You would just pipe natural gas to "hydrogen" stations, and crack the natural gas at the station.
Re: (Score:2)
No, you can not. Steam reformation is not something that can be done on that small of a scale and be monitored by the pothead manning the cash register.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it can be done on a small scale. And yes, it can be automated and handling by remote monitoring and SCADA equipment. You don't even need someone manning the station if you only accept credit cards and have a video feed to make sure the place hasn't exploded (for remote shutdowns).
Re: (Score:2)
No they can't. That is one of the problems with Hydrogen. Look up Hydrogen embrittlement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement [wikipedia.org]
Not to mention potental problems with things like seals, pumps, and valves.
I thought Hydrogen was out and electricity was in (Score:2)
I have a hard time keeping up with what's hip in the green world, but I thought electricity was the green thing that we're supposed to fuel our cars with now. Didn't hydrogen fall out of favor with the greenies a few years back?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about being "hip"; it's about where the state of technology is. And yes, the tech for hydrogen sucks. But that doesn't mean that there's not still funding for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Call it what you like, all I know is that my environmentalist friend is always changing his story every few years. One day he's telling me how great hydrogen fuel is, then it's ethanol, then it's electricity. I remember one time when we were in college it was methane. I keep telling him they need to decide on one thing and stick to it, but then off he goes on some new thing that's going to save the world. Tomorrow it will probably nuclear fusion, or sails on the cars, or god knows what.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, great to know that your single idiot friend is the bellweather for both the science behind a technology and the opinions of an entire movement.
Re: (Score:2)
He's just great at talking about some new technology that's going to save us, and then changing his story and moving on to some new "savior" when the previous one (inevitably) doesn't pan out. When I first met him, for example, he was big on hydroelectric power. Then someone told him that dams kill fish and suddenly he was preaching against them and had adopted some new cause. Wash, rinse, repeat. That's Kevin.
He's the kind of guy who wanted to save the whales, but only in the 80's when it was in vogue.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, you're wrong. What we need to do is develop a large number of promising ideas in parallel and see which turn out best.
Re: (Score:2)
Environmentalists have always supported the Electric car, and a hydrogen car is simply a different type of electric car (the battery is replaced with the fuel cell). I've not met any greens who were anti-hydrogen, since it is a clean fuel. Some are anti-natural gas but most think H2 will eventually be produced from solar panels.
Personally I think H2 is too difficult to handle. I think after a few cars blowup, the consumers will flee. -or- If the manufacturers do manage to make safe, impervious hydrogen
Re: (Score:3)
diesel is the future. Peanut oil works in diesel engines directly; we could refine and modify (chemically) peanut oil to work in current diesel engines easily. It can transmute into kerosene rather easily too (jet engines). So what we could do is get rid of that petroleum fertilizer shit farmers use and instead do crop rotation. Harvest the peanuts, crush and extract, refine the oil, modify, ship as diesel fuel; use the crushed peanuts as feed crop for pigs and goats; burn the peanut bushes and shells;
Re: (Score:3)
Personally I think H2 is too difficult to handle. I think after a few cars blowup, the consumers will flee. -or- If the manufacturers do manage to make safe, impervious hydrogen cars, the pricetag will be so high (~$100,000) that nobody will be able to afford it. The same flaw that plagues pure EVs.
Because conventional gas tanks never explode [wikimedia.org], gas engines never catch fire [nfpa.org], and we're paying a fair price for perfectly safe [chicagoinjurylawblog.com] gasoline storage and transport?
Never mind the studies [sciencedirect.com] showing that hydrogen is safer [rmi.org] than gasoline [rmi.org] in real-world situations. It's not the safety mechanisms that make the present technology cost $100,000 per car [wsj.com], it's the fuel cells themselves, and the cost will only come down over time because of mass-production and technology advances.
Re: (Score:2)
As I said in my post, I thought electricity was the green thing that we're supposed to fuel our cars with now.
Hydrogen is not a fuel (Score:5, Insightful)
There are no vast fields of Hydrogen waiting to be mined (at least not on this planet). Hydrogen is an intermediate energy storage medium most commonly extracted from fossil fuels. It can come from water via electrolysis, but there's a lot of waste energy form that process so as far as I know it's not done on a large scale.
What is the overall efficiency of a Hydrogen powered car (including the energy cost to extract the hydrogen) as opposed to one that runs directly off of fossil fuels?
Re: (Score:2)
In theory the idea is that once you have hydrogen fueled vehicles you can switch to cleaner sources of hydrogen. Like cracking water in a high temperature nuclear reactor. Either way everything is just storage of energy from the big bang.
Re: (Score:2)
In theory the idea is that once you have hydrogen fueled vehicles you can switch to cleaner sources of hydrogen. Like cracking water in a high temperature nuclear reactor. Either way everything is just storage of energy from the big bang.
Oh gee, that sounds simple, just build out an entirely new energy distribution network to distribute hydrogen, and then it's as easy as building a hundred nuclear powered hydrogen processing plants to create unlimited green hydrogen! I guess Hydrogen really *is* a great solution!
Re: (Score:2)
I said in theory. In reality it is a huge waste of power to produce, embrittles every damn metal it touches, leaks out of everything and is in general a huge pain in the ass to work with.
Re: (Score:3)
err.. no. It won't work.
You're saying we should not produce anything until we solve all potential a theoretical problems.
That would stop technological development.
", goes over 80 MPH,"
why? why 80? how about one with good acceleration that goes 75?
"has an acceleration greater than that of the old minivan,"
Electric cars of superb acceleration.
You and I are going to have to gt the idea what we will be driving slower smaller cars in the future.
The era of excess energy is on the way out.
Even if someone manage to
Efficiency (Score:4, Informative)
From below, I posted about the efficiency. Here [photobucket.com] is a graph from this [sciencedirect.com] research paper. To sum it up, if you're burning the H2 in an ICE, you're only making the situation worse. PEMFCs can be a little better than ICE vehicles, but they pale in comparison to electric cars.
Re: (Score:2)
From below, I posted about the efficiency. Here [photobucket.com] is a graph from this [sciencedirect.com] research paper. To sum it up, if you're burning the H2 in an ICE, you're only making the situation worse. PEMFCs can be a little better than ICE vehicles, but they pale in comparison to electric cars.
Thanks, I had always suspected that was the case, I'm glad to finally see some real numbers!
Re: (Score:2)
The "winner" in your graph is not a fuel cell car. It's a battery-electric vehicle refueled either off the grid (natural gas or hydrogen plant) or from a home power unit (i.e. solar).
I find it hard to believe switching a power plant from Natural gas to Hydrogen makes efficiency jump from 35% to 74%. It appears the author of the study did not take something into account..... probably efficiency losses converting water to H2.
BTW they didn't include diesel hybrids. If they had, the efficiency would have bee
Re: (Score:3)
Because Hydrogen creation is taking transportable energy and converting it (at a loss) to a different form of transportable energy. What is the point? We already have vast natural gas and liquid fuel distribution networks, why do we need one more?
Re: (Score:2)
(Some guy in 1960: "Why build this Internet thing when we already have phones and telegraphs and cans with string? We already have plenty of ways to communicate, why do we need one more?")
Re: (Score:2)
Hydrogen, being only a storage medium, is not a replacement for neither also. So the problem that "they will not last forever" is not being solved by those "new things".
You completely ignored his message.
Re: (Score:3)
You really didn't understand the point he was making, but it's very important to understand when anything about 'hydrogen cars' comes up:
The only practical and economical way to 'produce' hydrogen is to extract it from natural gas. This is mostly pointless and wasteful since you could just use the natural gas (compressed) to fuel the car, as is common in Australia and New Zealand for example, without the extra expense and loss of energy from turning it into hydrogen. When the fossil fuels run out so does th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Hydrogen passes through solids hundreds of times easier than NG -- or any odorizer -- can. So it's questionable whether an odorizer would help.
The good news is that hydrogen disperses quickly when vented into open air. The bad news is that if there's anything over it, it can pool, and it's extremely sensitive to sparks, burns in almost any fuel-air mixture, and can not only burn, but detonate. And of course there's always the "invisible flame" issues when dealing with pinhole leaks, which are always a pa
This article lays out hydrogen as a fuel for cars (Score:3)
In short, not a good or easy thing to do.
The article [skeptic.com].
Well-to-wheels efficiency (Score:5, Informative)
To add information to this discussion, here's the net system efficiency, well-to-wheel, of different energy sources:
Link [photobucket.com]
That graph is from this paper:
Link [sciencedirect.com]
All issues of fuel cost, fuel cell vehicle cost, safety, ozone damage, infrastructure cost, and so forth aside, one of the big complaints about hydrogen is that it's just not that efficient.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This graph does not deal with cost of energy at all -- purely energy in, motion out. NG plants are very efficient, and getting even more efficient (the latest generation are about 60%, not counting the potential reuse of waste heat). NG power is expensive per MWHr compared to coal because NG is more expensive than coal per joule, even after the power plant efficiency difference is taken into account. Both NG and coal power are primarily marginal cost driven (aka, fuel), not capital cost driven like nucle
Re: (Score:2)
Nice graphs.
This is exactly the point: Transmission line efficiency * charging efficiency * battery efficiency * discharging efficiency * electric motor efficiency is many times higher than anything involving ICEs, turbines or fuel cells because their efficiency sucks. So as soon as electric power is anywhere in your chain you can't do better than with an electric car.
Re: (Score:2)
The "winner" in your graph is not a fuel cell car. It's a battery-electric vehicle refueled either off the grid or from a home power unit (i.e. solar). So basically they are saying forget Fuel Cells and go with EVs. (shrug)
I find it hard to believe switching a power plant from Natural gas to Hydrogen makes efficiency double (35 to 74%). It appears the author of the study did not take something into account..... probably efficiency losses converting water to H2. To overlook something that obvious is not g
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be interested in someone taking it a step farther, Electric car with distributed generation is given 80% efficiency, but that can't include the energy involved in making the solar cells or windmills. Of course, if you're going to include that in the electric items, you need to do the same analysis for the others as well: how much does energy does it cost to make the equipment to mine and drill for fossil fuels. And then of course you have to think about maintenance, future upgrades, economies of scal
Infrastructure? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Odor generating chemicals won't work with hydrogen. Hydrogen leaks far better than any other chemical, even helium. No odorous compound even comes close. Hence, only a major leak from a hydrogen container would let the odorous compounds escape. The same problem exists with flame visibility; you really need IR cameras to see it well. Other major hydrogen problems are pooling under overhangs and the very extreme sensitivity to even minor static shocks, as well as the wide range of combustible fuel-air m
Re: (Score:2)
Weren't those exploding reactor buildings in Japan the result of hydrogen buildup?
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed they were. Despite being engineered in all regards to try to avoid precisely that sort of event. Hydrogen pools and detonates just so damned easily.
Here's what the detonation of an amount of hydrogen perhaps 1/10th of what you'd find in a typical mass-market hydrogen car (or a hundredth of a hydrogen semi) looks like [youtube.com]. Now, thats an H2/O2 mixture; to get that force with H2/air would require about twice as much. But it gives you a good idea of what we're talking about here (and why such a low-densi
Torrance, not Torrence (Score:3)
Torrence, CA (Score:2)
Good lord (Score:3, Insightful)
Hydrogen is NOT green - not until they find a "green" way to produce it. It is NOT an energy SOURCE (like fossil fuels, and nuclear), it is an energy CONVEYOR. I wanna save the planet as much as anyone, but as long as fossile fuels are used to generate the hydrogen, it actually makes more sense to just burn the stuff in an internal cumbustion engine. /me waits to get modded down :-/
Re:Good lord (Score:4, Funny)
Hydrogen is NOT green - not until they find a "green" way to produce it. It is NOT an energy SOURCE (like fossil fuels, and nuclear), it is an energy CONVEYOR.
You seem to be under the impression that 'Green' is something other than a marketing label.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. Use "sustainable" or "renewable" instead.
Yikes! (Score:2)
Yikes! I think I will wait for natural gas (methane) fuel cells to be rugged enough for use in vehicles. Much safer than hydrogen.
hydrogen ftw (Score:2, Interesting)
* there are a number of pathways to make h2, which allows you to make your desired tradeoff between cost, quantity, carbon footprint, etc. Some pathways: petro natural gas, landfill gas, power plant electricity to electrolysis, solar panel to electrolysis, coal gasification. what's cool about this is that h2 production technology can improve over time, and you can establish the FCEV market now that will fund future development. pathways ftw!
* F
Re: (Score:2)
FCEVs are a form of electric vehicle so they get EV efficiency ~85%, while natural gas cars are still internal combustion so they get ~30%. efficiency ftw!
Do you have a source for this? I thought real world fuel cell efficiency was much less than 85% - like closer to 40% [evworld.com] or even less [wikipedia.org]
*unlike BEVs, FCEVs avoid the range anxiety issue, and can be filled up like a regular car instead of needing 8 hour charge. convenience ftw!
15 - 30 minute fast charge stations for BEV's already exist [nissan-leaf.net] and i would expect that even faster options will exist faster than a large hydrogen creation and distribution network could be built.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me know when you can top of an EV in 5 minutes and has at least a 200mile range. Some car manufacturer recently said it would take about a 50KW load for 30 minutes to get a 100mil EV up to 85% charge. To charge that in 5 minutes, you would need a 300KW load and that's not even 200 miles. So, double for 200 miles, 600KW for 5min.
Now, build me a quick charge station that can handle ~6 vehicles pulling 0.6MW, or ~ 3.6MW. Even at 95% efficient AC->DC, you would have 180KW of heat to dump.
This is why a hy
Efficiency matters (Score:2)
So far we're all dancing around what should be the key issue: H2 is an inefficient medium.
If you make H2 from natural gas, you would get better end-to-end efficiency by simply burning the natural gas in a combustion engine--basically the same engine that's in your car, but with a different "carburetor".
On the other hand, if you make H2 using electrolysis (water + electricity), the round trip efficiency is about 25%. In this context, the H2+fuel cell is acting like a battery, and we already have MUCH more
Re: (Score:3)
Is it any worse than a government-funded boondoggle of foreign oil? Perhaps the hydrogen is generated by burning oil, dogs, or babies... but that isn't the pipeline's fault. Someday the hydrogen could be made by cleaner schemes, and the infrastructure could already be in place.
This part made me laugh though:
Toyota also helped them
But
all of which was funded by the government
huh?
Re:Boondoggle. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Boondoggle. (Score:5, Insightful)
You should know that there were people who thought that the federal highway system was a waste of money too. Sewers, and subways also had their detractors (still do). People never change, tea party, John Birch, know nothings, the names change but some people will always fight the future.
One might also note that pipelines like it might just as easily be good for 'regular' gas stations. I'd guess that keeping the delivery trucks off the road could be a real cost/environment savings (once the pipeline has been in place for 10 or 15 years)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Makes sense to me. Expanding gasoline delivery to pipelines will increase the underground volume of fuel, and the amount of area with gasoline underground certainyl will increase the scope and frequency of leakage groundwater contamination spills in general.
We should probably reconsider using MTBE, since it's water-soluble and would. fit. right. in. with this change.
Change is good, no? And getting those nasty trucks off the road has to be worth the risk. I kinda like the idea of the occasional hydrogen f
down with sewers (Score:3)
im sick of you communist libtards throwing my tax money away on sewers. what gives you the right to take my hard earned dollars and 'redistribute the wealth' to 'those according to their needs'. you need to shit? not my problem.
what we need is a privatized toilet system; wherein everyone has their own toilet, disconnected from the centralized, marxist sewer network that is controlled by an overweilding big brother government.
imagine it; each of us free with our own chamber pots, burning our own shit as free
Re: (Score:2)
Yet another government-funded dead end.
Like the Internet? And water treatment plants?
Re: (Score:2)
Yet another government-funded dead end.
Like the Internet? And water treatment plants?
Don't forget that good for nothing space program, AND the military... Between that, libraries, and fire protection, the government clearly can't get ANYTHING right...
Re: (Score:3)
Ethanol is a very good analogy. Even after hydrogen as a fuel vehicle has pretty much been panned by scientific review in contrast with electricity, it continues to receive funding because the companies working on it are so entrenched with the political establishment. When Chu tried to kill off the hydrogen funding a year or so ago, congress forced him to put it back in.
Re:That'd be cool (Score:5, Insightful)
The sooner we can stop buying gas from the Middle East, the better.
It'd be cooler if Hydrogen didn't come from fossil fuels.
Re: (Score:3)
It'd be cool if we weren't burning stuff to make power.
Re:That'd be cool (Score:5, Insightful)
Making power is easy. Storing it, not so much. Storing it in a cheap, safe, and efficient form? Worth trillions of dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It'd be cool if we weren't burning stuff to make power.
Hydrogen fuel cell powered cars technically aren't "burning stuff" (depending on your definition of "burning")
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it's more like.. exploding.
Re: (Score:2)
How do we get the Hydrogen? Unless the energy needed to extract it comes from solar, wind, hydroelectric or nuclear, we burn fossil fuels to extract the hydrogen. Currently hydrogen is an energy storage medium, not an energy source.
That's why I said "it depends on your definition of burning". One of the most common ways to get H2 from Natural gas is a steam reformer [wikipedia.org] where the natural gas reacts with steam at a high temperature giving H2: CH4 + H2O CO + 3 H2
Combing water with a gas isn't typically what most people think of when they think of "burning" something.
(granted, the high temperatures likely come from burning fossil fuels, but I don't think you'd say that the process is markedly better if it used alternative energy to hea
Fusion (Score:3)
"Currently hydrogen is an energy storage medium, not an energy source."
Hydrogen has been the major source of energy for the universe for the last 13 billion years or so, and in this neck of the woods for nearly 5 billion, just look up in the sky sometime.
Re: (Score:2)
What's wrong with burning hydrogen in a controlled manner and a confined space?
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Burning hydrogen with oxygen makes:
2 H2(g) + O2(g) 2 H2O(l) + 572 kJ (286 kJ/mol)
You don't like water?
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus Christ Slashdot, if you're going to eat a symbol, don't show it in the preview. Not much of a preview, now is it? Anyway:
2 H2(g) + O2(g) --> 2 H2O(l) + 572 kJ (286 kJ/mol)
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Burning hydrogen with oxygen makes:
2 H2(g) + O2(g) 2 H2O(l) + 572 kJ (286 kJ/mol)
You don't like water?
If you're burning H2 in air (as opposed to pure oxygen), there are a bunch of other byproducts generated like various NOx pollutants.
Re: (Score:2)
Amen. Hydrogen is fuel as much as electricity is fuel.
Same applies to corn ethanol, BTW. EROEI1.
Re: (Score:2)
EROEI<1
Damn markup rules.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that water vapor has an average atmospheric residency of under two weeks, right?
The real problem is that hydrogen vehicles have a grossly inefficient fuel cycle. Also, leaked hydrogen destroys ozone. But your water vapor argument is one of the dumbest anti-hydrogen claims you could have made.
And, FYI, most of the environmental community wants *battery-electric* vehicles, not hydrogen. Hydrogen vehicles are a "solution" being pushed on the "GreenTards" that they do not want.