Why Bush's H-Car is Just Hot Air

The New Republic ^ | February 18, 2003 | Greg Easterbrook

[Britton J Wingfield]

H2 stored in a metal hydride can be instantly converted back into gaseous h2, just add water. http://www.powerball.net/ has some info if you are interested.

[Boss_Jim_Gettys]

I believe using a metal hydride "gas tank" would be pretty heavy and I don't know how many miles worth of fuel you could carry. I'll take a look at the link you provided.

Also, that would still require someone to fill the car with gaseous hydrogen and also the infrastructure to deliver across the entire country/world. There is already the infrastructure to deliver gasoline and/or methanol.

[Britton J Wingfield]

The tank is just a tank, of normal metal of composite. The hydride is in the form of small metal balls, coated with plastic. They test the integrity of the balls by boiling them in water, so they are quite safe to transport. You drop the ball into the tank of water, then puncture the plastic coating to allow it to react with water.

[radioman]

True The correct answer is False. Go back to school. Take physical chemistry and pay particular attention to the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

I did go back to school...about nine years ago. My major was evolutionary genetics. What's yours?

[Boss_Jim_Gettys]

I took a quick look at the site. The technology looks interesting but I am certain it would be uneconomical for transportaion fuel purposes.

[from occupied ga]

biophysics PhD

[from occupied ga]

No doubt. But that is another issue. We were discussing the merts/economics of H2 as a transport fuel

That (corporate welfare) is the only "merit." Conversion of fossil fuel to H2 costs energy. Conversion yields pollutants. Net result you have tripled or quadrupled your fossil fuel requirements to shift pollution from many small sources to fewer big ones. You have also added an enormous capital intensive infrastructure to provide H2. No way this is better than direct burning of fossil fuels.

[Ditto]

Conversion of fossil fuel to H2 costs energy.

Why use fossil? I would oppose that. Nuclear is the best option even if pollitically incorrect. But the 'soft alternatives' such as wind, solar, tidal etc. which due to their unreliability and geographic limitations are useless baggage for the power grid could be very viable in an H2 production mode.

[from occupied ga]

Nuclear is the best option even if pollitically incorrect

Yes, best of a bad lot, but still not good. Nuclear is relatively cheap when compared to CT and coal, not free. Is spending the huge amounts of energy required for electrolysis of water to produce h2 in the necessary quantity a good use for the resources? Remember, there isn't any reserve nuclear capacity now. The country's nuclear generating stations mostly run at capacity now because they are the cheapest units except for hydro. So either another 200 - 300 nuclear generating stations have to be built along with the industrial structure to produce and distribue H2 on a commercial scale (Couple of trillion $$$?), or you have to get the electricity for peaking units which burn fossil fuels already and make the conversion much more inefficient than the "reforming" from methane.

H2 as a practical vehicle fuel is a pipe dream for some politicians and Sierra club types who confuse science with science fiction. The politicians at least understand that H2 can cynically be used to transfer wealth from the already overexploited taxpayers to their buddies in the corporate world.

BTW you didn't answer whose money you wanted to spend to play with this concept.

[Ditto]

Yes, best of a bad lot, but still not good. Nuclear is relatively cheap when compared to CT and coal, not free. Is spending the huge amounts of energy required for electrolysis of water to produce h2 in the necessary quantity a good use for the resources?

You don't know that unless you know the costs of the alternatives to H2.

Fuel cell technology is no longer the question. They work and are clean, efficient, and reliable. The question is the fuel cycle with H2 being the best possible fuel. It's worth investigating. When you say "look at the money" as opposed to "look at the potential" you are self-limiting. Consider that in a few decades after the invention of the internal combustion engine, virtually every corner of the globe had developed the "hydrocarbon infrastructure" to support wide-spread use. That was an achievement that boggles the mind of a 'central planner' but it was accomplished with relatively little fuss. If the economics work, the infrastructure will follow.

[Cooter]

Process turns wastewater into fuel gases

Microbial bioreactors producing H2 for conventional fuel cells.

[from occupied ga]

You don't know that unless you know the costs of the alternatives to H2

Not true. We do know what approximately what it would cost.

1. It would cost enough new nuclear plants at several billion dollars each and a construction time of 10 - 15 years to supply the energy demand required by the H2 itself plus the 2nd law inefficiencies in the process.
2. It would cost the industrial structure to produce the H2.
3. It would cost the distribution structure to get the H2 from the manufacturing points to the neighborhood Hydrogen stations
4. It would cost the resources to build Hydrogen stations instead of Gas stations (cryostorage is pretty expensive)
5. It would cost the R&D to develop safe vehicles to use H2 as a fuel
6. It would cost the retooling by the auto manufacturers to make the H2 cars

When you add it up the resources needed for this are staggering. And remember every penny spent on this is money that won't be spent on something else - perhaps fusion research which would truly be a new energy source rather than a chemical reshuffling of existing energy sources.

That was an achievement that boggles the mind of a 'central planner' but it was accomplished with relatively little fuss. If the economics work, the infrastructure will follow.

I find it odd that you say this. I agree with it wholeheartedly, but it contradicts your position that H2 could be a practical fuel and it's worth spending a few billion dollars of other peoples' money to pursue it. If it were economically advantageous it would have been done already. After all the concept isn't new. However, the free market is rejecting it. You won't find any successful corporations based on H2 vehicle production for the public.

[from occupied ga]

Oh and BTW I disagree with your statement about fuel cells. They are NOT reliable nor do they have a particularly long service life. This short service life (as compared to an internal combustion engine) makes them rather expensive.

[eastsider]

Thanks for the links, Cooter.

[radioman]

biophysics PhD

Interesting...My suspicions about the cult of higher education have been confirmed.

LOL! I wouldn't know an evolute from a genetic if it jumped up and bit me on the arse!

My comment was shamelessly plagiarised from a well known physisist's reply to a reporter. Sorry, just my lame attempt at humor, nothing personal.

It puzzles me when people attack someone who questions dogma like a religious zealot attacks a blasphemer.

Science, like mechanics, should be fun. I believe in can do the same way you believe in impossible.

Acadamia proved that a controlled nuclear reaction was impossible to achieve. A couple of guys in Chicago showed that all you have to do is stack some bricks of uranium close together. Their violation of the law of thermodynamics gave us nuclear power!

[from occupied ga]

My suspicions about the cult of higher education have been confirmed.

My suspicions about the cult of ignorance have been confirmed.

. I believe in can do the same way you believe in impossible.

Your ignorance of the laws of thermodynamics notwithstanding, they exist and all physical processes are subject to them. This isn't a matter of opinion. It isn't subject to polls. You can't take a vote and decide to suspend reality for H2 (or for ethanol.) There aren't any exceptions. The fact remains that taking H2 containing fossil fuel and extracting the H2 costs a significant fraction of the available energy in the fossil fuel to start with.

However, don't let me rain on your parade. You can take every cent you have (after the government finishes plundering you of course) and invest it in schemes to make H2 as a motor fuel. If you're right, you'll be richer than Bill Gates. Go for it. I wish you luck.

[radioman]

However, don't let me rain on your parade. You can take every cent you have (after the government finishes plundering you of course) and invest it in schemes to make H2 as a motor fuel. If you're right, you'll be richer than Bill Gates. Go for it. I wish you luck.

Thanks Doc, but I wouldn't invest a penny in H2 or any other motor fuel. Don't need to be richer than Bill Gates, although it is interesting that you used a college drop out like Bill for your example.

Before I retired, I made a good living building working models for inventors and engineers. I have built many prototypes of inventions that are now being used by people just like you.
I don't mind at all being called ignorant by an academic like yourself. You attack my intelligence because I disagree with your dogma, yet you have no response on the violation of the law of thermal dynamics when it comes to nuclear energy.

You can say that there is no violation and go into a long discourse on nuclear theory, but that's what you guys always do.

Acadamia is very good at explaining a breakthrough after the fact, but has failed miserably at inventing.

Take your own field of biology. Cancer still kills millions. Diabetics are still having their limbs amputated. We've poured money by the ton into acadamia to solve these problems, but have gained absolutely nothing in return.

I realize that you are just defending the paycheck you recieve for perpetual study, but it irks me the way you guys try to belittle the people who have created the prosperity that you enjoy.

[Redcloak]

Heh, heh, heh... I almost feel sorry for you Mom. Folks like you must really have their knickers in a twist after W harpooned yet another of your "issues". Not bad for someone y'all claim has the IQ of a brick.

[from occupied ga]

I realize that you are just defending the paycheck you recieve for perpetual study,

Well I said that I didn't want to rain on your parade, but I think I might here by disrupting your preconceptions. I don't receive a paycheck. I get paid by the contract and only if I produce what the client wants. I run a business that doesn't have anything to do with academic research. I don't take a penny of taxpayer money, although I was guilty of that crime long in the past.

You attack my intelligence because I disagree with your dogma

Calling you ignorant is not attacking your intelligence, just your (lack of) knowledge.

but have gained absolutely nothing in return.

And yes cancer still is the # 1 killer of people under 65, but your chances of surviving a heart attack today are probably 50 times greater than they were 30 years ago, with most of the research on this being paid for by drug companies and the medical industry.

you have no response on the violation of the law of thermal dynamics when it comes to nuclear energy.

Nuclear physics doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics. It's just the reactions are done on a bigger scale.

to belittle the people who have created the prosperity that you enjoy.

I was not belittling you - I was simply pointing out that H2 as a motor fuel is pure bs on the same level as ethanol as a motor fuel. Sorry if you don't want to accept it, but that's your problem.

And how the hell did you create my prosperity? I don't see you around when I get to work at 5:30 in the morning. I don't see you around at 6:00pm when I go home. I don't recall you or anyone else on this forum ever solving a problem that I had with a client's request. I'm sure I would remember if you or anyone else had helped me set up my company. And I don't recall you or anyone else grabbing their checkbook when it comes time for me to pay my bills.

What I do remember vividly is every year filling out a 1120 forms, 1040 forms, etc. and forking large quantities fo the wealth that I busted my a$$ to earn over to the government to squander on bull sh!t like H2 and the space shuttle (flying kid's ant colonies into space at the taxpayers expense). All of which is enabled by people like you who thinkt that "hydrogen production is simple and efficient" Well simple it is, but it is a long long long way from efficient, and those two laws of thermodynamics that you wear your ignorance of like a shield tell me that there is never going to be any way to make it efficient.

Live long and prosper.

[RightWhale]

Hydrogen cannot be a primary source of energy on this planet. But that isn't the point. We can create enough hydrogen to power our cars and control whatever the primary source is at the same time. It's a good thing, not a less-expensive or more efficient thing. It will cost more. We hardly ever look for the most cost-effective way to do anything, do we. Better doesn't not equal cheaper.