Hydrogen Production Method Could Bolster Fuel Supplies

NY Times ^ | November 28, 2004 | MATTHEW L. WALD

[wastoute]

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.

[neverdem]

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

[grey_whiskers]

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!"

[GummyIII]

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.

[OregonRancher]

"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.....

[Old Professer]

Sounds about as practical as the wireless extension cord.

[Old Professer]

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

[Old Professer]

They do have the undesirable trait of destabilizing L⁶.

[hosepipe]

The most efficient, and safe, hyrogen storage medium has already been found.
Its called->> Gasoline..

[Nov3]

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. . . . . . . .

[SamAdams76]

I used to be a speed-reader but then I had a serious accident. I hit a bookmark doing 400 words a minute and I was laid up for a while. Now I read at a much safer pace and I count my blessings everyday that I am still able to read at all.

[lilmsdangrus]

bump

[neverdem]

added & ping

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Please put me on your H&S ping list. Thanks.

[TXnMA]

Actually, it is the single, grossly-misunderstood word, "nuclear" that panics the illiterate and irrational masses.

IIRC, what is now called "Magnetic Resonance Imaging" ("MRI") was originally (and accurately) known as Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging". The simple use of the word, "Nuclear" caused the brainwashed populace to shun the technique -- until the name was changed...

Now tell me that our public schools are doing their job properly...

The idiocracy waould probably panic themselves into imagining they were dying of cancer if they learned that every cell in their bodies has a "nucleus"...

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Just curious, what nuclear element does MRI use?

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

And then it hits me...it's the stuff they inject into you, eh?

[Dog Gone]

I don't think there's any doubt that using nuclear reactors to produce hydrogen is the only sensible solution, and I agree with you that nukes are political poison today.

However, later in this century, probably by 2040 or so, we're going to face a choice. Worldwide demand for oil will be far in excess of what can be produced as China and India continue to modernize. Even assuming we exploit tar sands, clean coal, etc., the worldwide demand for energy is going face a gap.

Stupid windmills and solar panels won't begin to make a dent. The only thing that possibly can is nuclear energy.

We will face that fight when the choice is between building new nuclear plants or entering a permanent depression. And I'm confident we'll make the right choice.

The only Hail Mary that would prevent that choice is a scientific breakthrough in fusion technology, but that's far more likely to be something perfected a couple centuries from now. Until then, it's nukes or nothing in terms of making up the energy gap.

[FredZarguna]

My point isn't to get into the semantics of "fuel" which some people seem to be hung up on. My point is that hydrogen technology is battery technology. On earth, we have energy stored in fossil fuels because solar energy was converted to binding energy by plants. This energy can be release when fossil fuels are burned. This isn't what we do with hydrogen, because there is no free hydrogen on earth. We have to manufacture free hydrogen: doing that takes energy. So when people call hydrogen an "energy source" they're being misleading (and, I would argue, often deliberately so). It isn't: it's a storage material for energy.

[TXnMA]

And then it hits me...it's the stuff they inject into you, eh?

Not exactly. The magnetic field interacts with the nuclei of the atoms of the materials which compose your body -- notably the nuclei of hydrogen atoms...