Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hydrogen Production Method Could Bolster Fuel Supplies
NY Times ^ | November 28, 2004 | MATTHEW L. WALD

Posted on 11/27/2004 10:23:36 PM PST by neverdem

WASHINGTON, Nov. 27 - Researchers at a government nuclear laboratory and a ceramics company in Salt Lake City say they have found a way to produce pure hydrogen with far less energy than other methods, raising the possibility of using nuclear power to indirectly wean the transportation system from its dependence on oil.

The development would move the country closer to the Energy Department's goal of a "hydrogen economy," in which hydrogen would be created through a variety of means, and would be consumed by devices called fuel cells, to make electricity to run cars and for other purposes. Experts cite three big roadblocks to a hydrogen economy: manufacturing hydrogen cleanly and at low cost, finding a way to ship it and store it on the vehicles that use it, and reducing the astronomical price of fuel cells.

"This is a breakthrough in the first part," said J. Stephen Herring, a consulting engineer at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, which plans to announce the development on Monday with Cerametec Inc. of Salt Lake City.

The developers also said the hydrogen could be used by oil companies to stretch oil supplies even without solving the fuel cell and transportation problems.

Mr. Herring said the experimental work showed the "highest-known production rate of hydrogen by high-temperature electrolysis."

But the plan requires the building of a new kind of nuclear reactor, at a time when the United States is not even building conventional reactors. And the cost estimates are uncertain.

The heart of the plan is an improvement on the most convenient way to make hydrogen, which is to run electric current through water, splitting the H2O molecule into hydrogen and oxygen. This process, called electrolysis, now has a drawback: if the electricity comes from coal, which is the biggest source of power in this country, then the energy value of the ingredients - the amount of energy given off when the fuel is burned - is three and a half to four times larger than the energy value of the product. Also, carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions increase when the additional coal is burned.

Hydrogen can also be made by mixing steam with natural gas and breaking apart both molecules, but the price of natural gas is rising rapidly.

The new method involves running electricity through water that has a very high temperature. As the water molecule breaks up, a ceramic sieve separates the oxygen from the hydrogen. The resulting hydrogen has about half the energy value of the energy put into the process, the developers say. Such losses may be acceptable, or even desirable, because hydrogen for a nuclear reactor can be substituted for oil, which is imported and expensive, and because the basic fuel, uranium, is plentiful.

The idea is to build a reactor that would heat the cooling medium in the nuclear core, in this case helium gas, to about 1,000 degrees Celsius, or more than 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit. The existing generation of reactors, used exclusively for electric generation, use water for cooling and heat it to only about 300 degrees Celsius.

The hot gas would be used two ways. It would spin a turbine to make electricity, which could be run through the water being separated. And it would heat that water, to 800 degrees Celsius. But if electricity demand on the power grid ran extremely high, the hydrogen production could easily be shut down for a few hours, and all of the energy could be converted to electricity, designers say.

The goal is to create a reactor that could produce about 300 megawatts of electricity for the grid, enough to run about 300,000 window air-conditioners, or produce about 2.5 kilos of hydrogen per second. When burned, a kilo of hydrogen has about the same energy value as a gallon of unleaded regular gasoline. But fuel cells, which work without burning, get about twice as much work out of each unit of fuel. So if used in automotive fuel cells, the reactor might replace more than 400,000 gallons of gasoline per day.

The part of the plan that the laboratory and the ceramics company have tested is high-temperature electrolysis. There is only limited experience building high-temperature gas-cooled reactors, though, and no one in this country has ordered any kind of big reactor, even those of more conventional design, in 30 years, except for those whose construction was canceled before completion.

Another problem is that the United States has no infrastructure for shipping large volumes of hydrogen. Currently, most hydrogen is produced at the point where it is used, mostly in oil refineries. Hydrogen is used to draw the sulfur out of crude oil, and to break up hydrocarbon molecules that are too big for use in liquid fuel, and change the carbon-hydrogen ratio to one more favorable for vehicle fuel.

Mr. Herring suggested another use, however: recovering usable fuel from the Athabasca Tar Sands in Alberta, Canada. The reserves there may hold the largest oil deposits in the world, but extracting them and converting them into a gasoline substitute requires copious amounts of steam and hydrogen, both products of the reactor.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Canada; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: District of Columbia; US: Utah
KEYWORDS: abiogenic; anwr; atomicenergy; energy; energydepartment; gasoline; hydrogen; idaho; oil; petroleum; power; thomasgold; utah
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-86 next last

1 posted on 11/27/2004 10:23:37 PM PST by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The Slimes have plenty of hot air, can we use that?


2 posted on 11/27/2004 10:24:56 PM PST by endthematrix ("Hey, it didn't hit a bone, Colonel. Do you think I can go back?" - U.S. Marine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: endthematrix

Are you a speed reader? I just posted it.


3 posted on 11/27/2004 10:26:50 PM PST by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green; farmfriend


4 posted on 11/27/2004 10:29:33 PM PST by Libertarianize the GOP (Make all taxes truly voluntary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Oh baby when they break through on this it will slingshot the USA ahead.


5 posted on 11/27/2004 10:30:01 PM PST by wildcatf4f3 (out of the sun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Researchers at a government nuclear laboratory and a ceramics company in Salt Lake City say they have found a way to produce pure hydrogen with far less energy than other methods, raising the possibility of using nuclear power to indirectly wean the transportation system from its dependence on oil.

Understand this: unbound hydrogen is energy expensive to produce. People pushing it either don't understand, or understand but don't want the public to understand that hydrogen is NOT an energy source. It's simply a storage medium for energy produced somewhere else.

Like battery technology, if you drop your objection to burning uranium, most of your environmental problems go away, and that has nothing to do with hydrogen. But as soon as you say nuclear power you might as well say black magic voodoo. Because when you say nuclear power, that's what the scientifically illiterate masses (and altogether too many mis-educated scientists) hear.

6 posted on 11/27/2004 10:30:08 PM PST by FredZarguna (Free markets. Free Speech. Free Minds. But no Free Lunch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: endthematrix
The Slimes have plenty of hot air, can we use that?

Harness the "paper of record" as an institutional effort for a patriotic endeavor? Did you start drinking after the previous article?

I'll ping the list in the morning. We'll see if it's still in breaking news.

7 posted on 11/27/2004 10:32:27 PM PST by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

Doesn't mis-educated scientist qualify as an oxymoron, just like the left likes to use that word to mock military intelligence?


8 posted on 11/27/2004 10:38:41 PM PST by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: endthematrix

It's out of breaking news already.


9 posted on 11/27/2004 10:40:31 PM PST by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna
Understand this: unbound hydrogen is energy expensive to produce. People pushing it either don't understand, or understand but don't want the public to understand that hydrogen is NOT an energy source. It's simply a storage medium for energy produced somewhere else.

I think the article was very clear that hydrogen is not being used as an energy source in the processes described.

What makes hydrogen interesting is that, though it is energy expensive to produce, it compares reasonably well in energy density to other portable fuels. It is more energy dense than electricity from conventional batteries, for example. It is, though, not quite as good as gasoline, but it is not so much worse that performance of hydrogen-fueled vehicles could not be comparable to ICE engines.

Furthermore, even if the hydrogen produced by electrolysis provides only 1/2 of the energy employed to produce it, if electricity is cheap enough to generate then an important step toward economic use of hydrogen can be taken.

Look, I'm as cranky as anyone about hyperbolic liberal worries about "peak oil" and other thinly disguised misanthropy. Still, the possibility of an economical alternative to gasoline for vehicle fuels, an alternative that can be produced in abundance entirely domestically, is so important that it is worth investigating. It's interesting to see the progress being made on the hydrogen front.

Here's a link to Shell's hydrogen page with some interesting information:

http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=hydrogen-en

10 posted on 11/27/2004 10:51:04 PM PST by Timm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Hydrogen is explosive...right??!


11 posted on 11/27/2004 10:52:42 PM PST by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
But if electricity demand on the power grid ran extremely high, the hydrogen production could easily be shut down for a few hours, and all of the energy could be converted to electricity

This could work. The utility companies have to build enough capacity to handle the peak demand. If they can use that capacity during non-peak time to produce a fuel for vehicles, it just might be feasible.

12 posted on 11/27/2004 10:53:43 PM PST by SC Swamp Fox (Aim small, miss small.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

ping


13 posted on 11/27/2004 10:56:17 PM PST by boycott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: timestax

So is gasoline and natural gas.


14 posted on 11/27/2004 10:56:39 PM PST by Scarchin (Lone conservative teacher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Scarchin

The Hindinberg


15 posted on 11/27/2004 11:02:24 PM PST by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Timm
think the article was very clear that hydrogen is not being used as an energy source in the processes described.

The article is clear. Hydrogen is not an energy source from any process that exists on earth (except in thermonuclear weapons). I'm going somewhat beyond the article, because my point is that the buzz about hydrogen is a distraction--probably a deliberate one.

Still, the possibility of an economical alternative to gasoline for vehicle fuels

Perhaps, you aren't clear, however, since you call hydrogen "an economical alternative to gasoline for vehicle fuels." Hydrogen, as the article makes clear, I make clearer, and you acknowledge IS NOT A FUEL. It cannot be an alternative to any fuel. You want to make hydrogen right now, the only way you will be able to do that in quantity is by burning coal. That's it. Now, imagine burning 3.5 to 4 times as much coal as would be required to power a coal powered vehicle, and that's the amount of coal a hydrogen powered car will burn. In addition to burning all that coal, you also have transport and manufacturing problems with a highly explosive gas that you don't have with gasoline, but that's another story for another thread.

The point of the post is: forget about hydrogen, per se. If you're willing to burn uranium, then lots and lots of alternatives open up. Maybe hydrogen included, maybe not. But the point is, we suffer from a lack of common sense, not a lack of unbound hydrogen, or coal, or even energy at all.

16 posted on 11/27/2004 11:08:58 PM PST by FredZarguna (Free markets. Free Speech. Free Minds. But no Free Lunch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Is anyone monitoring the *reduction* in oil requirements due to the country's increasing use of the net to conduct business?


17 posted on 11/27/2004 11:09:58 PM PST by Tax Government (Boycott and defeat the Legacy Media. Become a monthly contributor to FR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Doesn't mis-educated scientist qualify as an oxymoron, just like the left likes to use that word to mock military intelligence?

I wish. Unfortunately, there are a lot of scientists who do just fine in their own fields who're tremendously backwards when it comes to understanding nuclear power. For that matter, there are quite a few physicists--some of them nuclear physicists, who oppose nuclear power as well.

18 posted on 11/27/2004 11:10:58 PM PST by FredZarguna (Free markets. Free Speech. Free Minds. But no Free Lunch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
After MANY years of being cynical of the "end of oil" industry and global warming...the fact of US dependence on the middle east -- and countries run by scumbags, like Venezuela (even Russia, Mexico, and Canada) -- for oil has NOW made it clear to me that we must get to the point of being energy independent again.

As I see it, the most available -- and "patriotic" -- thing (to me) for the American people and the car makers to do is to accelerate a transition to hybrid cars/trucks/SUVs. I own a Lincoln Towncar and Navigator SUV.

For the first time in my life, I am seeing that the fact that I can afford the costs to run them is VERY secondary to US security. As I see it, it's now time a WWII type program at home in support of "the war effort".

Whatever the outcome of these attempts to change to other fuels (and I am VERY skeptical about hydrogen for at least the next 20-30 years) -- NOW is the time to begin to really extricate the US from NEEDING such big percentages of critical supplies from other countries.

It's fine to want them, but it's the huge DEPENDENCE that bothers me. Now that we are seeing the growth of Muslim extremism all over the world -- AND -- the Anti-Americanism threat from our "friends and neighbors" (including) Canada and Mexico. I don't want to have to have our soldiers -- someday - really have go to fight and die for oil.

I am not anti-globalism by any means....I'm all for opening markets...et al. However, I've come to the point of being dead set against the dependence other countries for ANY the critical basics we need.

(Not to mention, If we can be more self sufficient on energy, then that would help the balance of trade and the dollar.)
19 posted on 11/27/2004 11:11:29 PM PST by Jackson Brown
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

ping


20 posted on 11/27/2004 11:14:01 PM PST by investigateworld (( ...Now on my 5th day of not bashing Wal-mart))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna; Timm

Great, then, we're agreed that hydrogen is not a practical fuel in today's world, or even in the near future. Fine.

What's needed, then, is further R&D, with continued funding by the energy companies. First and foremost, we need new nuclear plants, of new, more efficient and safer, designs.

I'm glad we can all agree.

I'll welcome any information on energy R & D you care to post, Timm.


21 posted on 11/27/2004 11:19:11 PM PST by jimtorr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: jimtorr; neverdem

Oops, my #21 should have been addressed to you as well.


22 posted on 11/27/2004 11:20:28 PM PST by jimtorr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: timestax
Hydrogen is explosive...right??!

Yes, that was the vivid impression I retained after watching the final results of the electrolysis of water. But so are gasoline tanks, natural gas and the dust in wheat silos, IIRC. This technology might be the only way to get over the hump to dependence on just renewable resources. Nothing is guaranteed, but it certainly needs exploration.

The enviro-nuts wants to return to a hunting and gathering society. Their elites couldn't tolerate that state of affairs and survive. This argument needs to be pressed to the max.

23 posted on 11/27/2004 11:28:21 PM PST by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: jimtorr
Great, then, we're agreed that hydrogen is not a practical fuel in today's world, or even in the near future. Fine.

I don't say that. What I say is that hydrogen isn't a fuel. It's not a question of practicality, but of definition: a fuel is something you can burn to get energy. If there were accessible unbound hydrogen on earth, it could be a fuel, but there isn't any of that.

Is hydrogen a viable transport mechanism for energy in the future? Yes, I think so. But I think the current buzz over hydrogen is a sales job by people with two separate agendas: 1) people who want to burn more fossil fuel, but want the general public to think hydrogen is an alternative to that and 2) people who want to burn less fossil fuel, and think that once the hydrogen economy is going smoothly they can then push alternative means for generating electricity that are very expensive. Caught in the middle there are many people--I've actually talked to them--who say, well we'll get energy independence and stop global warming and all the bad oil business by using hydrogen fuel. Bzzzzt. No, we won't. Hydrogen doesn't solve those problems.

Listen, I'm all for hydrogen if it gets people to drop their irrational fear of nuclear power. I just don't think it will. And if I know environmentalists, the first thing you're going to hear from them is: you want to generate an explosive gas like hydrogen next to a nuclear reactor? And that's the end of that track...

24 posted on 11/27/2004 11:30:45 PM PST by FredZarguna (Free markets. Free Speech. Free Minds. But no Free Lunch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: jimtorr
First and foremost, we need new nuclear plants, of new, more efficient and safer, designs.


1) We already have a new generation of newer safer nuclear plants. They just aren't being built in the US.
2) You actually can't make nuclear plants much more efficient--if by that you mean in terms of energy produced per unit of input. The "inefficiency" of nukes cited by environmentalists has to do with the cost / KwH. That cost reflects enormous legal and licensing costs caused by--guess who--environmentalists. It's like the people who argue that capital punishment is cruel because death row inmates are strung out for 10-15 years while neglecting to mention that they're the very people funding the appeals.

25 posted on 11/27/2004 11:41:29 PM PST by FredZarguna (Free markets. Free Speech. Free Minds. But no Free Lunch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: timestax

"Hydrogen is explosive...right??!"

Right, as many a dunce has learned the hard way when charging or jump starting a vehicle and creates sparks near the battery.

As an automotive battery is charged, it generates hydrogen gas, have a spark or high heat near the battery's vents, and the word is, "ka-boom" from an exploded battery.


26 posted on 11/27/2004 11:56:27 PM PST by Ursus arctos horribilis ("It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!" Emiliano Zapata 1879-1919)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; All
This technology might be the only way to get over the hump to dependence on just renewable resources.

That remark could leave a wrong impression. It may not be possible. But because of their overall, relative scientific ignorance, the enviro-nuts still have almost political equality. They can still muster large numbers of scientifically illiterate voters. These dupes would wreak economic havoc trying to ameliorate increased solar radiation if that's the true cause of global warming.

27 posted on 11/28/2004 12:07:01 AM PST by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna
Perhaps, you aren't clear, however, since you call hydrogen "an economical alternative to gasoline for vehicle fuels." Hydrogen, as the article makes clear, I make clearer, and you acknowledge IS NOT A FUEL. It cannot be an alternative to any fuel. You want to make hydrogen right now, the only way you will be able to do that in quantity is by burning coal. That's it.

Huh...well, the interest in hydrogen is precisely that it can be a vehicle fuel-- and saying that it is a fuel is perfectly consistent with acknowledging that creating hydrogen on earth requires more energy than is released by that hydrogen.

Anyway, the important point, whatever you want to insist on regarding the semantics of "fuel", is that hydrogen is not a net energy source on earth, because there are no reservoirs of free hydrogen. Yes, yes, yes-- all informed posters on this thread agree. Hydrogen is still interesting, however, because it is, at least in principle, portable. So it can be a vehicle fuel, or, if you prefer, a vehicle "energy storage medium". It is, furthermore, much more promising in energy density than electric batteries (even NiMH batteries, which use hydrogen mated to metal), and, unlike electric batteries, a possible alternative to gasoline.

The economical use of hydrogen does depend on cheap electricity-- that's true. But if the other technical problems with hydrogen's use work out, it would be a significant development that economic vehicular travel would depend *only* on there being a cheap source of electricity. For there are plenty of cheap ways to generate electricity in the U.S., and there will be in the foreseeable future. That would be a contrast to now, when we must deal with the international political problems associated with importing oil. There is also the long term possibility that oil will become more scarce and its price will rise. Then, there are the carbon emissions from ICE engines, which, while grossly overestimated by the left in their harmful influence, would nevertheless be a nice thing to be rid of. There is, after all, the possibility of producing electricity without combustion emissions in the future, through fission reactors, and, perhaps someday, fusion reactors.

So, the possibility of hydrogen-fueled vehicles is certainly worth some R&D money now. That's the point.

That said, I agree that hydrogen is sometimes now used as a political distraction. One suspects, for example, that Bush's advocacy of hydrogen produced by electricity from windmills(!) in his SOTU was to bolster his green credentials, such as they are, as a counterbalance to his desire to do things like drill in ANWR. (I think we should drill there, by the way.)

28 posted on 11/28/2004 12:26:22 AM PST by Timm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

cold fusion?


29 posted on 11/28/2004 12:36:15 AM PST by BurbankKarl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timm
It is, furthermore, much more promising in energy density than electric batteries (even NiMH batteries, which use hydrogen mated to metal),

You may not be implying this, but just for clarification: the oxidation of hydrogen is not a significant energy component in NiMH or NiCd batteries. The energy is obtained from the metal, not the hydrides. Electrolysis in those batteries, is, in fact an unwanted byproduct of overcharging or catastrophic discharge. Excess Cadmium and other technologies are used to bind the excess hydrogen in the electrolyte to the metal, but it is an unwanted artifact, not part of the energy mechanism.

As you're probably aware, neither of these technologies is a state-of-the-art energy density solution. Li-Ion has higher density, and Li-Polymer is higher still, and these storage media don't have the problems that hydrogen has as a storage material.

30 posted on 11/28/2004 12:54:10 AM PST by FredZarguna (Free markets. Free Speech. Free Minds. But no Free Lunch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: BurbankKarl
cold fusion?

In the wrong forum (not any IFAIK on FR) this will start the most unbelievable flame war you can imagine...

31 posted on 11/28/2004 12:56:00 AM PST by FredZarguna (Free markets. Free Speech. Free Minds. But no Free Lunch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

Hmmmmm .... ping for flame war


32 posted on 11/28/2004 1:02:09 AM PST by investigateworld (( ...Now approaching my 6 th day of not bashing Wal-mart))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

why, did a Freeper kill Dr Mallove?


33 posted on 11/28/2004 1:02:38 AM PST by BurbankKarl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

*I* agree with your point binding acceptance of nuclear power and hydrogen (production). Subsequent posters seem to get stuck on hydrogen to the point of failing to acknowlege the difficulties in storage and transport, to the point of 'energy equal to equal amount of gasoline'.

Just this little bump of ignorance and so many problems are solved.


34 posted on 11/28/2004 2:11:13 AM PST by dhuffman@awod.com (The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Mr. Herring suggested another use, however: recovering usable fuel from the Athabasca Tar Sands in Alberta, Canada. The reserves there may hold the largest oil deposits in the world, but extracting them and converting them into a gasoline substitute requires copious amounts of steam and hydrogen, both products of the reactor.

A thread from yesterday was making the point that we had a HUGE AMOUNT OF OIL and were not running out. It was just that some of it would require newer ways of extraction/refining to make it economical to use. And now this story. SHOVE THIS, ECCO CHICKEN LITTLES.

35 posted on 11/28/2004 2:34:21 AM PST by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: timestax
Hydrogen is explosive...right??!

Yes, but not when it's in a fuel cell. You could shoot bullets into one and nothing would happen.

36 posted on 11/28/2004 2:37:36 AM PST by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

bttt for later read


37 posted on 11/28/2004 2:37:51 AM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BurbankKarl

I've never heard a Freeper killed Dr. Mallove.

I understand Dr. Mallove was a Freeper though.


38 posted on 11/28/2004 3:50:23 AM PST by DB ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Taken for what it's worth, this is a great article, especially for the NYT. Not one mention of "the free, limitless supply of Hydrogen that we could all use if the technology weren't being suppressed by Evil Big Oil". Discussions of science, engineering and economics are sorely lacking in popular articles about H2.

An added plus is that the author raises the topic of nuclear power. Unfortunately he chose to interject the word "But" at the outset.

There are many hidden "Gotcha's" involved in using H2 as an energy transport medium. Exposition is good. Thanks for an encouraging article.


39 posted on 11/28/2004 3:58:23 AM PST by Jack of all Trades (Thank God I voted for Bush - AGAIN - and I have NO homework tonight!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Another problem they don't address is that the same people who object to gasoline REALLY object to nuclear waste!


40 posted on 11/28/2004 4:38:58 AM PST by wastoute
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jackson Brown

If you are really serious about energy independence we don't need hydrogen or nuclear. Hitler's scientists learned how to make gasoline from coal 60 years ago. It isn't exactly a new breakthrough. We could have all the gas we wanted somewhere around $2.50 a gallon, I would imagine. Which is probably why the Saudis don't want to see the price of their product go up too much more. The fact that this never, NEVER enters the discussion tells you how biased the authors of this rubbish are.


41 posted on 11/28/2004 4:43:53 AM PST by wastoute
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: fourdeuce82d; El Gato; JudyB1938; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Robert A. Cook, PE; lepton; LadyDoc; jb6; ...

FReepmail me if you want on or off my health and science ping list.


42 posted on 11/28/2004 7:28:40 AM PST by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Hey, that'd make a great bumper sticker:

"Only the Sun can cause global warming.
Extinguish the Sun NOW!"

"Earth OUT OF the solar system!"
(Now THERE's a call for 'spaceship earth')!

"Solar power IS nuclear power!"

43 posted on 11/28/2004 8:09:53 AM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna
Perhaps, you aren't clear, however, since you call hydrogen "an economical alternative to gasoline for vehicle fuels." Hydrogen, as the article makes clear, I make clearer, and you acknowledge IS NOT A FUEL.

Ok, I'm being a little picky, but the orbiter for the space shuttle has three main engines which burn liquid hydrogen. In this sense, it IS a fuel although perhaps not a very reasonable one for most uses.

44 posted on 11/28/2004 8:16:26 AM PST by GummyIII (America's number one energy crisis is Monday morning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
"This process, called electrolysis, now has a drawback: if the electricity comes from coal, which is the biggest source of power in this country, then the energy value of the ingredients - the amount of energy given off when the fuel is burned - is three and a half to four times larger than the energy value of the product. Also, carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions increase when the additional coal is burned."

That says it all.....

45 posted on 11/28/2004 8:20:14 AM PST by OregonRancher (illigitimus non carborundum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Sounds about as practical as the wireless extension cord.


46 posted on 11/28/2004 8:44:48 AM PST by Old Professer (The accidental trumps the purposeful in every endeavor attended by the incompetent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: timestax

Let's just say that hydrogen and oxygen share a fatal attraction.


47 posted on 11/28/2004 8:46:32 AM PST by Old Professer (The accidental trumps the purposeful in every endeavor attended by the incompetent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna
They do have the undesirable trait of destabilizing L6.
48 posted on 11/28/2004 8:50:21 AM PST by Old Professer (The accidental trumps the purposeful in every endeavor attended by the incompetent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: All
The most efficient, and safe, hyrogen storage medium has already been found.
Its called->> Gasoline..
49 posted on 11/28/2004 8:57:51 AM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to included some fully orbed hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ursus arctos horribilis
As an automotive battery is charged, it generates hydrogen gas, have a spark or high heat near the battery's vents, and the word is, "ka-boom" from an exploded battery.

That depends on the rate of charge. A properly maintained battery produces very little hydrogen. The electrical energy goes into the electrolyte. Now if you are boiling your battery dry. . . . . . . .

50 posted on 11/28/2004 9:05:14 AM PST by Nov3 ("This is the best election night in history." --DNC chair Terry McAuliffe Nov. 2,2004 8p.m.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-86 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson