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

Skip to comments.

Hyping Hydrogen: The Energy Scam
CNSNEWS ^ | May 07, 2003 | Alan Caruba

Posted on 05/07/2003 11:54:50 AM PDT by Jack of all Trades

Not long ago I wrote a commentary, "The Great Hydrogen Myth," in which I opined that throwing another billion dollars at more research for the purpose of replacing oil, coal, or natural gas was a huge waste. Recently, that commentary was posted on an Internet site for those who work in industries that provide and use various forms of energy. It's a favorite among the many engineers and scientists whose lives are devoted to energy issues.

Here are some of the responses my commentary received. The names of the innocent have been protected because their jobs depend upon it.

"I have often thought that this 'hydrogen economy' seems intuitively flawed; using energy to make hydrogen to then be used as an energy source. Intuitively, it feels like the Escher painting with the water flowing uphill."

Therein lies central issue that undermines the hype about hydrogen as an endless, virtually free, source of energy. First of all, it is not energy. It is what the engineers and scientists call "a carrier." You have to break the hydrogen molecule free from others to use it and that requires energy. Thus, you have to use a lot of energy in order to use hydrogen to make energy. In real life there is no free lunch.

A chemical engineer with 35 years in the chemical and oil industry who knows a lot about catalytic reforming units that make and use hydrogen in the reformation processes, had this to say: "Not only does H2 (hydrogen) require a lot of energy to produce, collect, and store, it presents rather nasty safety problems."

Need it be said he thinks that Ethanol (made from corn!) is another bad idea the environmentalists have foisted on us? Why? "Ethanol costs far more to produce than the fuel value it provides and the Environmental Protection Agency in its wisdom forced industry to oxygenate fuels only to discover that covalent bonds of all oxygenates are very soluble and stable in ground waters when released." In other words, this environmental "solution" has led to the poisoning of ground water supplies throughout the nation. It also forces up the cost of gasoline.

He wasn't through. "While I'm at it - Greens have our environmental experts at EPA on another even wilder goose chase to capture mercury from coal fired utility plants across the USA. If you add up all the Hg (mercury) released from coal combustion and compare it to global sources, the current analytical and statistical techniques and technologies probably will not be able to detect any reduction in the global Hq pool in the environment."

Thank you, thank you, thank you! The Greens live to conjure up endless scare campaigns, always shouting that everyone, especially children, are being "poisoned" by things that pose no real threat. Or they find ways to force government mandates that either end up poisoning us, i.e., ethanol, are represent no real threat, i.e., mercury. The end result is higher costs for energy use of any kind.

Part of the hydrogen hype is its use in fuel cells. A retired General Electric engineer wrote to say, "I previously analyzed and designed fuel cells and it is apparent to me that they will always be too expensive for all but very special uses. They are twenty times the cost of a piston engine and are very likely to remain at least ten times more in spite of all the research done."

Like all realists, engineers and scientists believe we are, in fact, running a risk in our dependence on petroleum. Even with a trillion and maybe even two trillion barrels of oil available, at the present rate of use, the experts estimate we will go through it in about forty years. Others, however, believe there are vast amounts of undiscovered oil reserves.

Part of the problem of energy costs, energy dependency, and the cost of oil can be found in the fact that the US has experienced a drop in its refining capability over the past twenty years. We went from being able to refine 18.5 million barrels to 16.5 million barrels. There has been an even sharper drop in the number of refineries, from 315 to 155! Thus, the US is highly vulnerable if even a small number of refineries stopped producing, even temporarily. A major factor for the dramatic increase in oil prices is this lack of refining capacity.

This may explain why the oil industry and auto manufacturers are willing to spend billions to find a way to make hydrogen the transportation energy of the future. Hybrid vehicles that utilize a fuel cell could get more than 75 miles per gallon of gasoline and that's a good thing. Environmentalists support this and, if the technology can be developed to a point of being affordable, why not? It remains, however, a very big "if".

The real answer, of course, is to build more refineries and, in part, to tap the reserves of oil known to exist in the Alaskan National Wilderness Reserve. Environmentalists have fought both these options.

Here's the bottom line. Without energy, this nation shuts down, and so do all the others. The good news is that technologies are being developed whereby, for transportation and other uses, new engines will revolutionize the use of current energy sources. They will be far more efficient and they will be affordable.

Beware of the hype about hydrogen. Many engineers and scientists know it's baloney, and you should too.


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events; Technical
KEYWORDS: caruba; energy; energylist; hydrogen; nofreelunch
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-167 next last

1 posted on 05/07/2003 11:54:50 AM PDT by Jack of all Trades
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jack of all Trades
I envision a future with lots of windmills and bio diesel.
2 posted on 05/07/2003 12:00:11 PM PDT by biblewonk (Spose to be a Chrissssstian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack of all Trades
Beware of the hype about hydrogen

Beware the attacks on hydrogen. Especially the anti-hydrogen articles that rountinely avoid mentioning natural gas, coal, and off-hour hydroelectric surplus as sources.

3 posted on 05/07/2003 12:02:28 PM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack of all Trades
I have a problem with the author of this article about the costs of research into hydrogen energy cells. Expensive or not, R & D costs money, period, without ever having a guarantee of working. This is where the bulk of our defense budget goes.

I also distrust this article because of the experts cited. Not naming the sources outright is not a good sign of a thoroughly researched article.

The potential benefits of hydrogen energy cells justifies research into it. We need to do research before we can decide if it is even possible, not theorize.
4 posted on 05/07/2003 12:03:50 PM PDT by Tony Niar Brain (Choose your enemies carefully, for you will become like them...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
I envision a future with lots of windmills and bio diesel.

5 posted on 05/07/2003 12:06:11 PM PDT by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
Diesel, even biodiesel, is a no-no- for the greens. Too much soot, even thought the vw tdi I drive has less pollutants than an equivalent gas powered car, plus it gets between 47 and 57 mpg.
6 posted on 05/07/2003 12:06:53 PM PDT by KeyWest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: eastsider
Must be Iowa. We may be getting another 300mw soon. Did you see GE's new windpower commercial on TV? It's excellent.
7 posted on 05/07/2003 12:07:05 PM PDT by biblewonk (Spose to be a Chrissssstian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: *Energy_List
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list
8 posted on 05/07/2003 12:09:32 PM PDT by Libertarianize the GOP (Ideas have consequences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jack of all Trades
The Great Hydrogen Myth (FR thread)

It takes some mighty cheap nuclear energy to make hydrogen affordable, heh, heh heh...

9 posted on 05/07/2003 12:09:58 PM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KeyWest
Diesel, even biodiesel, is a no-no- for the greens. Too much soot, even thought the vw tdi I drive has less pollutants than an equivalent gas powered car, plus it gets between 47 and 57 mpg.

"greens" is to general. I'm pretty green myself and it's not a no-no for me. I have a major, flaming tree hugger friend and he and his wife drive a VW diesel that gets about 65 mpg. I wonder how much it will cost to produce lots of bio diesel. In the mean time, if everyone drove those the existing oil supply would sure last a long time.

10 posted on 05/07/2003 12:10:08 PM PDT by biblewonk (Spose to be a Chrissssstian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Jack of all Trades
Here's the original commentary for reference

By Alan Caruba
Feb. 11, 2003

Over the last 25 years, the government has spent $1.2 billion on fuel cell research and development. President Bush proposed spending another billion for further research in his recent State of the Union speech. Automakers have already spent millions to no avail.

The simple fact is that it still costs far more money to extract hydrogen, breaking its molecule away from others in order to create energy. This is a bad idea.

Hydrogen is held out as a clean-burning, virtually inexhaustible source of energy, but as a Washington Times editorial pointed out in November, others "suggest it is a gaseous dream rising on the rhetoric of environmental windbags."

If enough billions are spent, it seems reasonable to expect hydrogen to become an energy source, but like most environmental pipe dreams, this one has the silent agenda of eliminating petroleum as an energy source - nor can we reasonably expect a dramatic breakthrough. Did I mention this is a very bad idea?

Oil is the Green's number one enemy after population. The object is not to make the Earth safer, but to continue the pressure to reduce reliance on it, putting everyone at a disadvantage when it comes to utilizing this primary form of energy.

Given the fact that the Earth shows no signs of running out of oil in the near or even far future, the notion of spending billions to replace it seems odd at best, foolish at worst. The Earth's reserves of oil have been consistently underestimated for decades since oil was first discovered. To the contrary, discoveries of new reserves occur every year and the technology to get at it has improved as well.

The mere fact that Greens have fought attempts to open Alaska's Artic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration tells you more about their real agenda than anything else you need to know. The Department of Energy estimates there are at least one trillion barrels currently available worldwide.

If the Saudis were not sitting atop huge reserves, they would still be camel drivers and goat herders. If Saddam Hussein did not control the second largest reserve of oil, we might not be going to war to wrest control from this madman.

While it is true that a hydrogen-based economy is deemed inevitable for reasons of efficiency, environmental benefit and inexhaustibility, I remain wary of this. It is true, too, that hydrogen fuel cells have the potential to be almost twice as efficient as internal combustion engines, emitting only air and water vapor. But there are huge problems involved.

Three experts, Lawrence D. Burns, Byron McCormick and Christopher E. Borroni-Bird, noted in the October issue of Science that, "Viewed from where we are today, fuel cells and a hydrogen fueling infrastructure are a chicken-and-egg problem. We cannot have large numbers of fuel-cell vehicles without adequate fuel available to support them, but we will not be able to create the required infrastructure unless there are significant numbers of fuel-cell vehicles on the roadways."

Breaking a hydrogen molecule into electrons and protons, and then sending it through an electric drive motor, and recombining the particles with oxygen to produce water poses an enormous challenge.

"While hydrogen is universally abundant, it's not cheap to get at," noted the Washington Times editorial. "At the moment, fuel cells are actually energy losers, since it costs more to free the hydrogen than is earned by running hydrogen through fuel cells." In brief, it costs more energy to turn hydrogen into energy than current technology would permit.

Writing recently on the topic, Llewellyn King, publisher of White House Weekly ,
Noted, "In an act of political brilliance, President Bush, in his State of the Union Speech, stole the Holy Grail of environmentalism, the hydrogen-powered fuel-cell car. For two decades, environmentalists have held out the 'hydrogen economy' as the pollution-free future for transportation. Unfortunately, it also has had about it the whiff of a free lunch."

Five Presidents have put the federal government to work trying to achieve this goal. It remains a very bad idea.

The process involved is called hydrolysis, popularly called "cracking water." As King pointed out, "The former defeats the purpose because you still have to have oil, coal or natural gas to manufacture hydrogen."

This is what the Greens like to gloss over. Why not, asks King, just run a vehicle on natural gas to begin with? Why burden a vehicle with a duel system of reforming the gas and then making electricity? This seems so obvious that one is also compelled to ask, why not just keep using gasoline? The entire, worldwide structure of extracting oil to transporting it to refining it would have to be changed. Why not just keep finding new sources of oil since there is no evidence we are in imminent danger of running out of it?

Hydrogen has a very low energy density. It would cost more to fuel your car with it than our current system. As King notes, "The energy density of hydrogen is about one-tenth that of natural gas." Hybrid engines, available only in "demonstration" vehicles, would reduce our dependency on imported gas and this well may be the President's interest in this power source. That does not, however, make it any less of a bad idea.

Hydrogen is the new darling of the Greens as was nuclear energy a few decades ago until they abandoned their support and now actively fight the creation of new nuclear energy plants.

Forget about some spectacular breakthrough on hydrogen as an energy source. Do not be fooled by the Green's claims because, like everything else they propose, their primary goal is to reduce the population of the Earth and anything that can serve their agenda will be pursued amidst a flood of lies.
11 posted on 05/07/2003 12:10:57 PM PDT by Jack of all Trades
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
Yes!

All seriousness aside ... it looks like a Christo creation.

12 posted on 05/07/2003 12:14:35 PM PDT by eastsider (Support ALL the troops -- Vote Josh Gracin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jack of all Trades
So you're telling me I should dump my Ballard Power Systems stock, which I bought at 70 and is now around 10?
13 posted on 05/07/2003 12:15:13 PM PDT by Maceman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
Must be Iowa. We may be getting another 300mw soon. Did you see GE's new windpower commercial on TV? It's excellent.

No, but I shoot on Tuesday with a couple of GE employees who wear t-shirts with GE mini-guns on them.

The Caption: "We bring good things to life"

14 posted on 05/07/2003 12:15:34 PM PDT by TC Rider (The United States Constitution 1791. All Rights Reserved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
I posted this more for the commentary on hype rather than on Hydrogen. Most general interest articles on H2 mention it as a replacement for fossil fuels. You correctly recognize that it is not.
15 posted on 05/07/2003 12:16:09 PM PDT by Jack of all Trades
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jack of all Trades
Part of the problem of energy costs, energy dependency, and the cost of oil can be found in the fact that the US has experienced a drop in its refining capability over the past twenty years. We went from being able to refine 18.5 million barrels to 16.5 million barrels. There has been an even sharper drop in the number of refineries, from 315 to 155! Thus, the US is highly vulnerable if even a small number of refineries stopped producing, even temporarily. A major factor for the dramatic increase in oil prices is this lack of refining capacity.

I found the article interesting until I hit the above paragraph. What the heck is that? The requise nod to the handwring-"Ashes, all is ashes!" crowd?

16 posted on 05/07/2003 12:19:06 PM PDT by yankeedame ("Born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tony Niar Brain; Shermy
Attack of the scientifically illiterate.

Hydrogen requires a source of energy. If you are talking about replacing any significant number of fossil-fueled vehicles with hydrogen vehicles, you are going to need an energy source that is not a gimmick and is much cheaper than current methods of generating electricity.

In other words, hydrogen cars will make sense when you have a fusion reactor in your garage.

Until you realize that you are just going to sound stupid to people who understand basic math.

Bush should have spent that money teaching science so that this issue will go away.

17 posted on 05/07/2003 12:21:00 PM PDT by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
Beware the attacks on hydrogen. Especially the anti-hydrogen articles that rountinely avoid mentioning natural gas, coal, and off-hour hydroelectric surplus as sources.

How much of the coal or natural gas would we have to burn to get the energy to separate the hydrogen?

18 posted on 05/07/2003 12:21:19 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TC Rider
No, but I shoot on Tuesday with a couple of GE employees who wear t-shirts with GE mini-guns on them.

The Caption: "We bring good things to life"

===================

LOL! Shouldn't it read: "We bring good things to the After Life"?

19 posted on 05/07/2003 12:21:47 PM PDT by yankeedame ("Born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
I have an '89 Jetta diesel that is now mostly retired from service. I drove it about 100K miles in four years. Even though my foot was on the floor most of the time, I got between 45 and 50 MPG. I never tried biodiesel, but I bet it would have been nice to have smelled like popcorn all the time.
20 posted on 05/07/2003 12:21:54 PM PDT by Jack of all Trades
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Jack of all Trades
I have an '89 Jetta diesel that is now mostly retired from service. I drove it about 100K miles in four years. Even though my foot was on the floor most of the time, I got between 45 and 50 MPG. I never tried biodiesel, but I bet it would have been nice to have smelled like popcorn all the time.

I would hope the engine is still in good shape after 100k miles. I had an olds with a v8 diesel for a few months. If it had been a better build engine it sure would have been something. The car was so over powered and had a lock in transmission that it refused to drive below 60. There was no way to push the throttle soft enough to keep it under about 68 on the highway.

21 posted on 05/07/2003 12:25:17 PM PDT by biblewonk (Spose to be a Chrissssstian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Tony Niar Brain
Caruba isn't an engineer; he's a well known journalist with an axe to grind. The objections raised here are old and hoary; we heard the same crap from the same people thirty years ago about automobiles never being able to get 50 miles to the gallon (as one infamous GM engineer put it at the time, it was "physically impossible").

The reality is that it's a systems engineering problem: what engine/fuel/infrastructure combination is the optimal solution, considering physical and political (=economical) constraints. The cost of just about any physical device is almost entirely driven by production volume barring the necessity for some wildly difficult material cost (which IS a consideration for some fuel cell devices, but not necessarily the critical one).

As far as access to oil goes, let's see now...$55 billion and 300 American lives for Gulf War I....eventually $200 billion for GWII....did I forget 3000 people dead on 9/11? How much DOES it cost for us to be involved politically and economically in the Muslim world? And what would it be worth to get off oil as the primary fuel?

And one last. Why is it that people who have no problem believing that me and my fellow Aerospace Engineers can build a Space Based Strategic Defense System to knock down incoming nuclear re-entry vehicles (which we most certainly CAN do), but believe that we are incapable of coming up with a transportation system that gets us off of oil?

22 posted on 05/07/2003 12:25:30 PM PDT by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: yankeedame
The author covers so many topics that it's almost a rant: H2, ethanol, refinery capacity, proven oil reserves, etc.
23 posted on 05/07/2003 12:29:47 PM PDT by Jack of all Trades
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Regulator
The reality is that it's a systems engineering problem:

The reality is it's a physics problem. You get less energy out than you put in.

24 posted on 05/07/2003 12:29:56 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: yankeedame
I found the article interesting until I hit the above paragraph.

Does your car burn raw crude? No? Then refining capacity is an issue. All the oil in the world won't help if it can't be turned into something useful. The EPA is forcing the export of our refining capacity overseas, often in parts of the world that don't particularly like us and export terrorists back to thank us for the favor.

25 posted on 05/07/2003 12:31:42 PM PDT by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Jack of all Trades
What the heck are you talking about? Starfleet has been collecting hydrogen cheaply for decades!

The Bussard Collectors are what gives the warp nacelles the red glow in the front, these Collectors gather hydrogen to be used for fuel. If the Federation can do it, so can the USA!!!

26 posted on 05/07/2003 12:32:50 PM PDT by xrp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
And the energy required to "make oil" came from...?

Wow. Great argument: the energy balance doesn't work out because...because...we might have to use electricity from nukes to crack water? So? So big deal. Beat's the crap out of what we're doing now.

27 posted on 05/07/2003 12:34:27 PM PDT by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
It had 140K miles on it when I bought it, and yes the engine is still in good shape.

28 posted on 05/07/2003 12:37:10 PM PDT by Jack of all Trades
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Regulator
Why is it that people who have no problem believing that me and my fellow Aerospace Engineers can build a Space Based Strategic Defense System to knock down incoming nuclear re-entry vehicles (which we most certainly CAN do), but believe that we are incapable of coming up with a transportation system that gets us off of oil?

Space Based Strategic Defense System? I believe it can be done, but bragging about it beforehand is a little out of place.

Neither would I find calling myself an aerospace engineer a point of pride given the lack of any meaningful space transportation infrastructure.

And if you think Hydrogen is the ticket off oil, no wonder our space industry is non-existant. Where do you think the hydrogen will come from?

Maybe the Easter bunny can fart it out.

29 posted on 05/07/2003 12:38:47 PM PDT by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Regulator
And the energy required to "make oil" came from...?

Oil. That is why it is called "energy production". You get more out than you put in.

Wow. Great argument: the energy balance doesn't work out because...because...we might have to use electricity from nukes to crack water? So? So big deal. Beat's the crap out of what we're doing now.

Fine, when does the reactor construction start? I assume congress is repealing all the laws making nuclear power economically unfeasible as we speak? The great irony: These idiots pining away for hydrogen cars who are violently anti-nuke.

30 posted on 05/07/2003 12:42:42 PM PDT by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Regulator
And the energy required to "make oil" came from...?

Uhhh....millions of years of solar energy. And your point is???

Wow. Great argument: the energy balance doesn't work out because...because...we might have to use electricity from nukes to crack water? So? So big deal. Beat's the crap out of what we're doing now.

Well, you're the first green to push for more nuclear energy, good for you. Nuclear is the only thing that makes sense to make hydrogen fuel.

31 posted on 05/07/2003 12:43:25 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Regulator
And what would it be worth to get off oil as the primary fuel?

Lot's, but that doesn't change the fact that Hydrogen is not a primary fuel.

32 posted on 05/07/2003 12:46:28 PM PDT by Jack of all Trades
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: hopespringseternal
Woo hoo. Luddites everywhere. Let's see:

Space Based Strategic Defense System? I believe it can be done, but bragging about it beforehand is a little out of place

If you don't think that significant portions of it are already in place, or at least being tested (successfully, I might add), then you ain't paying attention.

Neither would I find calling myself an aerospace engineer a point of pride given the lack of any meaningful space transportation infrastructure

Don't blame me for NASA and Congress' problems. My satellites work just fine, as do the Launch Vehicles that loft them! By the way...what part of American Aerospace do you have something to do with, and can you point to another country with a significantly better one?

Where do I think the Hydrogen will come from? Lotsa places. Just gotta pick the right one.

33 posted on 05/07/2003 12:49:36 PM PDT by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Jack of all Trades
BMW is on 5th generation of hydrogen cars, still don`t work
34 posted on 05/07/2003 12:49:37 PM PDT by green team 1999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack of all Trades
No one ever said it wasn't an energy carrier. But then, so's oil in the overall balance.
35 posted on 05/07/2003 12:51:43 PM PDT by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
How much of the coal or natural gas would we have to burn to get the energy to separate the hydrogen?

It's easier to extract hydrogen from oil than from gas and coal. That's why these articles tend not to mention them. Typically the anti-hydrogen articles pick on loopy wind-energy strawmen. Almost uniformly they call people foolish, quote "engineers", and talk about "energy inputs" avoiding the "energy inputs" converting oil into gasoline, and transporting the heavy fuel to markets.

36 posted on 05/07/2003 12:52:04 PM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Regulator
Where do I think the Hydrogen will come from? Lotsa places. Just gotta pick the right one.

We could build an artificial black hole in space and grab the hydrogen it attracts before it reaches the event horizon.

37 posted on 05/07/2003 12:52:09 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Jack of all Trades
Of course, if we use nuclear plants to crack the hydrogen, that will simply send the ecofreaks into a bigger tizzy.

Let's get moving on this...
38 posted on 05/07/2003 12:53:13 PM PDT by Poohbah (Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
The reality is it's a physics problem. You get less energy out than you put in.

That's true with nearly every energy source. Internal combustion energy efficiency is what? Something less than 50%. A conventional coal-fired boiler is something less than 45%. Even the latest gas turbine co-generation plants a pushing it to get much above 50%.

The measure is what you put in versus the value of what you get out, and H2 as a transport fuel could have great "value" in the future. Gasoline has been a "great value" for transport fuel, but it would be way too expensive for use in generating electricity for the grid. It's the application of the fuel that determines it's value.

Wind and solar energy are not only too expensive for generating electricity for the grid, but they are far to unreliable. Their low availability rates means that they really don't displace any of the conventional means of generating electricity. They are not much more than a nuisance for grid operations. But they could be very valuable used as an energy source for generating H2. Don't attach them to the grid --- when the wind blows or the sun shines, send their power directly to the cracking plant.

Granted, there are a number of other technical challenges in creating an H2 transport system, but this "it takes more energy than what it contains" mantra is not a reason to back off.

39 posted on 05/07/2003 12:53:21 PM PDT by Ditto (You are free to form your own opinions, but not your own facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
It's easier to extract hydrogen from oil than from gas and coal.

And this reduces our dependence on oil how????

40 posted on 05/07/2003 12:53:26 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: hopespringseternal
These idiots pining away for hydrogen cars who are violently anti-nuke

I agree. A little cognitive dissonance there. A lot of them live in L.A., which gets a significant amount of power from the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating plant West of Phoenix.

Hasn't gone critical yet. :^)

41 posted on 05/07/2003 12:54:27 PM PDT by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Regulator
First, build that star wars...although I would not limit it to space based just yet, I think some ground based (especially theater level) components are still worth further exploring.
Second, regardless of Caruba's credentials or lack thereof, he is raising a legitimate issue, that Hydrogen is not a cure all for dependence on oil. There are not vast underground reserves of hydrogen waiting to be discovered and exploited. It will take energy to make the H2. And that energy will have to come from somewhere. And we ain't been building nuke plants and hydro dams.
42 posted on 05/07/2003 12:54:53 PM PDT by blanknoone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
That's true with nearly every energy source. Internal combustion energy efficiency is what? Something less than 50%. A conventional coal-fired boiler is something less than 45%. Even the latest gas turbine co-generation plants a pushing it to get much above 50%.

So, we burn some fuel, inefficiently, to create H2 and then burn the H2 to, inefficiently, move an automobile or to generate electricity? Sounds rather inefficient.

43 posted on 05/07/2003 12:56:46 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Jack of all Trades
I posted this more for the commentary on hype rather than on Hydrogen. Most general interest articles on H2 mention it as a replacement for fossil fuels. You correctly recognize that it is not.

Replacement it is not. I've noticed more and more usage of natural gas in large transportation vehicles in urban areas. The efficiency of burning NG straight as opposed to burning H extracted from it, I haven't seen anything on that.

Places like Italy are turning to NG - 20% of new vehicles there run on it.

A convenience and economy of hydrogen is that one "fuel" will be universal - rather than the several we have now. Well, maybe I underestimate American salesmanship and they'll invent a "regular" and "premium."

44 posted on 05/07/2003 12:57:30 PM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
Good idea. But why go to space? Build one in your super-duper back yard singularity containment device.

And don't let the cat near it.

45 posted on 05/07/2003 12:58:21 PM PDT by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Regulator
Actually, if Palo Verde hasn't gone critical yet, it hasn't generated any electricity yet.

When a reactor is said to be "critical," that means that the reactivity has exceeded the "critical" level needed to ensure that the reaction is self-sustaining.

46 posted on 05/07/2003 12:58:49 PM PDT by Poohbah (Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Bumper sticker: Nuke Global Warming
47 posted on 05/07/2003 1:00:55 PM PDT by Jack of all Trades
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Regulator
Good idea. But why go to space?

That's where all the free hydrogen is. In your back yard you'd get Oxygen and Nitrogen, not much free hydrogen in the atmosphere.

48 posted on 05/07/2003 1:02:12 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: hopespringseternal; Willie Green
Attack of the scientifically illiterate.

Ouch!

Hydrogen requires a source of energy.

So does gasoline - oil. Natrual gas and coal burned straight do not of course.

If you are talking about replacing any significant number of fossil-fueled vehicles with hydrogen vehicles, you are going to need an energy source that is not a gimmick and is much cheaper than current methods of generating electricity.

When mention is made of NG, coal, even oil, the hydrogen is cracked right from them.

In other words, hydrogen cars will make sense when you have a fusion reactor in your garage.

Not if cracked from the three above. We need not be restrictive - H can be derived from electrolysis supported from Nuclear power and Hydro-electric "waste" energy (Which is substantial since electricity can't be effectively stored...unless it's "converted" to hydrogen!)

Until you realize that you are just going to sound stupid to people who understand basic math.

How do you think you sound to the natural gas and other industries pushing this?

Bush should have spent that money teaching science so that this issue will go away.

But he didn't - what does that tell you? BTW, check out energy sites re: explosion in NG exploration. Also, those quietly discussed Alaskan NG pipeline bills in Congress for starters.

49 posted on 05/07/2003 1:05:38 PM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Jack of all Trades
While considering the use of energy to create energy, couldn't some sort of reverse process be used to alter natural gas reserves (huge) to make a liquid fuel (gasoline?) What would the efficiency be, of this? Wondering....
50 posted on 05/07/2003 1:05:50 PM PDT by Waco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-167 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