The Coming Hydrogen Economy

Fortune.com | Nov. 12, 2001 | David Stipp

[SamAdams76]

Actuallybandwidthisveryimportantandweneedtoconserveasmuchspaceaswecan.Ifeverybodytypedlikethiswewouldbeabletofitmanymoregreatarticlesintoasmallerspace.

[B.O. Plenty]

No it won't.

Hydrogen will be cheap and plentiful. The price alone will bring people around. Heck...Airtrans got a lot of people to ride on old junk airplanes just by giving them a cheap price. Price and availability will wipe the Hindenberg picture out of everybody's minds....especially if this war gets bigger and meaner.

If you can get thru the article, it is explained what went wrong with the Hindenberg. The problem was not the hydrogen, but the explosive dope applied to the skin of the ship.

[Robear]

I live in Arizona, where one thing we have in abundance is solar energy. I do not know why (truly) we could not have vast solar array 'farms' where we could harvest solar energy using solar panels or some kind thermodynamic system. Amortizing the cost over years has got to bring it to the point where it is cost efficient. The electricity generated, in turn, could be used to crack hydrogen from water.

[beavus]

The most enjoyable read since the Rosetta stone.

[beavus]

Thanks for putting spaces between the words!

[Tony in Hawaii]

I didn't post it originally, I just got tired of the whining.

[Congressman Billybob]

I, also, did not read the article because it came in one large lump. However, I point out that one cannot violate the laws of thermodynamics. "Thermodynamics -- not just a good idea, it's the law."

No matter how you scratch it, it takes more energy to crack a hydrogen atom loose from an oxygen atom (water) or from carbon and oxygen (carbohydrates) than you derive by burning that atom with oxygen to power a space craft, an automobile, a forklift in a factory, or whatever.

Where is the energy going to come from to make the hydrogen available? (It does not appear in the free state much because it readily combines with many other elements to form molecules and compounds.)

Sounds like this article is touting a perpetual motion device, a system that produces more energy than it takes to run it. Sounds like a classic violation of the law of conservation of energy. Book 'em, Dano.

The (More er Less) Honorable Billybob,
cyberCongressman from Western Carolina

Click here and go to "ALCU Watch" for "The Law of War," a detailed legal discussion of how the US declares war, both historically and in this instance.

For a clear discussion of the difference between what the US can constitutionally do in wartime with aliens (but NOT with US citizens of foreign extraction), see my book, Manzanar, published in 1988.

[Migraine]

Sorry you took such a ration from the locals (some of it was helpful, most of it was rude and condescending). I, for one, do better w/o paragraphs. I read a whole screen in about 10 seconds, so the more that's on the screen, the better I like it. So, from one FReeper, at least, thanks for the excellent article; and I didn't even mind the format. Please don't stop posting because of the abuse you got.

[stylin19a]

intersting....but does it beat this ? ..try this on for size:

"...Chrysler Turbines would run on anything which could flow through a pipe and burn with air. That statement was put to the test - several times and passed on each occasion. Turbines ran on unleaded gasoline, diesel, kerosene, JP-4, alcohol, Chanel ~5 and yes, Jimmy, peanut oil! However, one of the most interesting fuels ever to run the turbine was also the center of an episode of equal interest. George Huebner picks up the story: "The first car of the 50-car program was barely ready when it was - pressed into service on a world tour by Chrysler International. The car reached Mexico, and I got a call from one of the International people who said that the president of Mexico wanted to operate the turbine on tequila! I said that I thought it would work fine, but just the same. I went to the purchasing department the next morning and got two gallons of tequila. We drained the tank on engineering's car and dumped the two gallons in. The car ran all over Highland Park with no trouble. Meanwhile the president of Mexico ran the car there on tequila, but was later quite upset when reporters failed to mention that he was driving. The turbine and tequila stole the show, you might say."

BTW....this was in 1964...!

[Kozak]

The paint on the Hindenburg's exterior was essentially solid rocket fuel. That's more of a cause of its burning than the gas used for lifting it.

Not exactly. The theory now is the fire started on the skin, but there is no doubt that the hydrogen in the gas cells was ignited and burned. But so what gasoline burns like a mother too.

[Cachelot]

Of course, if I could read the entire unformatted article, I may have found the author answered this issue,

He does.

Anyway. This is just energy. We have lots of energy. Look at hydrogen as just a medium for moving that energy from, say, a nuclear plant and over in a form suitable for running a car engine.

[Tony in Hawaii]

Please see #31... I'm beggin' ya.

[US_MilitaryRules]

That picture is HILARIOUS!!!

[cinFLA]

It don't take any more "energy" to make make hydrogen than it does to crack crude oil to make gasoline.

Your mastery of the English language is surpassed only by your knowledge of chemistry!

[gatex]

"The problem was not the hydrogen, but the explosive dope applied to the skin of the ship."

Are you saying there would not have been a catastophe if there had not been explosive dope present ?

(hydrogen will ignite from static electricity in the air).

[Centurion2000]

But..what was up with that exploding blimp?

If I remember correctly the reason that the Hindenburg went up the way it did was not from just hydrogen.

They coated the zepplin with something very close to solid rocket fuel that was made into paint I think.

[tessalu]

Oh, I just cannot wait to kiss the oil-sheikhs "goodbye"!

[lewislynn]

Paragraphs are our friends.

Why would anyone who doesn't bother with capital letters to begin a sentence bother with
< p >aragraphs?

[John Jamieson]

Total BS, not in my lifetime.

[Enlightiator]

Sounds like this article is touting a perpetual motion device, a system that produces more energy than it takes to run it.

The article covers many devices, the one you may be speaking of is a fuel cell, employ a catalyst, convert hydrogen by various means that are more effienient than you appear to be aware of. They work, been around for twenty plus years, but are still expensive. This isn't anything new here, the "hydrogen economy" is just the latest buzz hype word to get you to invest far more than the technology is worth, you know, kind of like the Dot.Com fiasco....