Posted on 06/06/2006 8:14:42 PM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network
Excerpt:
Although its future looks bright—the only by-product of a hydrogen fuel cell is water, and experts believe they can one day be used to create electricity to fuel cars—the cost and energy required to create hydrogen has taken it out of the running as a near-term energy alternative to oil.
That may be about to change. Researchers at GE’s Global Research lab in Niskayuna, NY, have developed a system that produces hydrogen at a fraction of the cost and could be available commercially in just a few years...
(full text at Popular Mechanics url)
(Excerpt) Read more at popularmechanics.com ...
This could lead in fact, to complete energy independence, the elimination of our entire oil-based trade deficit, a halt to petrodollars supporting terrorists, and an almost immediate end to the need, to coddle oil regimes.
With the added benefit - there's nothing in this world to drive down the price of something quite as effective, as a competitive alternate choice.
Prediction: $1.00 gasoline, January 1 2010.
"It's very difficult to overstate the significance"
Sorry, but you already did!
Electrolysis comes from electricity, and electrolysis is a very expensive form of creating hydrogen mainly because it requires a lot of energy to break that H2O bond... not very cost-effective at all, even if the metals are made cheaper
.. if you do the math on energy cost of electricity versus gasoline, it aint pretty for the electrons...
unless you built 400 nuclear power plants and get electricity to 3 cents a KWH.
And even then, this path couldnt beat out a more simpler use of plug-in hybrids.
Oh no!! Think man, of the consequences to OPEC!! It will be devastating.
The only reason these alternative sources of energy have not hitherto been developed is because gasoline is so damn cheap. Once it gets to $4 or $5 a gallon, capitalism and the law of supply and demand dictates that other sources of energy will be brought to market in short order.
Not necessarily true. It is unlikely that vehicles are going to store hydrogen in fuel tanks because the energy density is too low (unless they went cryogenic). It is much more probable that an external reformer (a device that strips hydrogen from a hydrocarbon) will be used, in which case there will be emissions--although it would be much less than for an internal combustion engine.
Thanks for making my day. If this is true, I retract my call for government grants to fund alternative energy research. I think one of our top priorities should be energy independence, and this would be a great step towards it.
What about hydrogen embrittlement?
We have enough sun to be H2 sheiks here in AZ with solar power.
The biggest problem I foresee in using hydrogen in existing engines is hydrogen embrittlement of the metals in the engine - valves, pistons, cylinders that lead to early catastrophic failure of a normal designed for gasoline or diesel engine.
Fix that and H2's a winner.
You don't have to worry about those parts as a fuel cell doesn't have them. The big worry for hydrogen embrittlement would be near flanges and valves in the distribution line. But that should be minor if it is built strong. If it isn't, fatigue stress and hydrogen embrittlement could be an issue.
All GE has to do is get the cost down, to the equivalent of $5.00 gas - many I predict will be found willing to pay the extra $1.50 now, for future price declines, and to avoid future gasoline price increases!
Or just for principle.
I'd probably buy a hydrogen-capable American car if it cost the equivalent of $5.00 gasoline today. Right now.
Because hydrogen will only get cheaper, and gasoline will only get more expensive (unless it has competition).
$5.00 gasoline.
Just one time!
And the market will do the rest.
In capitalism we trust. :)
It's pretty cool.
There are two big hurdles I can see:
The first is the technical issues. GE's got some bright people. They'll work those out.
The second is politics. I'm convinced some people think it's just good and Republican, to use as much gasoline as possible. Just to stick it to the enviro-weenies. :)
(only half joking)
It's hard to get excited about hydrogen unless it is made from solar, wind, or hydro. Those run very cheaply after the initial cost. But it would take a lot of solar cells and windmills. And the hydro is already spoken for. Anything else is just taking one form of energy (coal, oil, natural gas, etc) and using it to separate hydrogen from oxygen in water. This is not a 100% efficient conversion nor is it emission free. In other words, it uses a fuel to make another fuel with a loss of energy. It also produces low pressure hydrogen, which is hard to store in large amounts in a car. If you now run it through a fuel cell, you lose more energy since that is not 100% efficient either. Then it runs an electric motor for another energy loss. There are a lot of 'ifs' but I would be surprised if they could beat the overall cost efficiency of gasoline. May be wrong.
It's popular mechanics. Everything is WOW!
If anyone believes this, I'll sell you some futures.
Hydrogen is not an energy source!
Please understand this immutable fact.
Hydrogen is a battery, not a fuel.
If this is true, they'd best be Calls.
Fair enough.
Just so long as that battery costs less to charge, than it costs to transport and kickback and bribe and corrupt every stinking oil regime in the world which wants to use our money to attack our way of life.
Just so long as that battery costs less to charge, than the equivalent of $5.00 gasoline, I'm cool with that.
I use batteries all the time.
What's wrong with batteries?
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.