Posted on 10/29/2001 5:47:30 PM PST by earlybirdnj
On the serious side, I was glancing at hydrogen articles a few months ago. Never got around to finding out why hydrogen from electrolysis needs to be perc'd through KOH or something caustic.
But, hydrogen can be stored, transported, and burned at a later time.
Personally, if its cheap, efficient, and usable, it works for me.
(If you want to discuss one of the more esoteric points of hydrogen with a fanatic, you can argue that it's a carrier, not engery, or energy, even if it is a carrier- personally, if its cheap, efficient, and usable, it works for me.)
Oops, I mean
Thank you
Thank you
Thank you
Thank you
Thank you
And there's a lot of evidence that hydrogen was not the main culprit in the Hindenburg explosion. See http://www.aps.org/apsnews/0700/070004.html.
The Hindenburg's skin was made of electrically insulating materials treated with explosively combustible chemicals; that and static sparking were probably what initiated the fire. If your car and its gas tank were made from creosote-treated lacquered fabric, you might have something to worry about there too.
\ I hate to be skeptical, but the engineering problems are great, and this technology is probably still quite a few years off.
Don't throw away your oil stocks just yet...
You should take the time to read it! It contains excellent info and is worth the effort.
LOL
Thank you! I had forgotten all about the fifty turbine cars. That sure was a waste of good Tequila.
It's important to note that most of the people on the Hindenberg survived. Hydrogen, while highly flammable, isn't really any worse in that regard than many other common fuels. More significantly, it tends to disperse much more readily than fuels like gasoline or kerosene.
It would seem to me that hydrogen might actually be a reasonable aircraft fuel. It has more energy per unit weight than jet fuel and in case of a crash would likely disperse quickly. Also, while I may be mistaken in this, I would expect that cryogenic (liquid H2) storage might be more practical in a commercial airliner than an automobile, since airliners can be fueled immediately prior to use. While keeping H2 cold in a long-term (ground-based) storage tank would require fancy cooling equipment, it would seem such equipment might not be necessary on a plane if the fuel were drawn off at a certain minimum rate (since hydrogen that boils off would cool that remained).
Anyone know if that would be practical?
It's important to note that most of the people on the Hindenberg survived. Hydrogen, while highly flammable, isn't really any worse in that regard than many other common fuels. More significantly, it tends to disperse much more readily than fuels like gasoline or kerosene.
It would seem to me that hydrogen might actually be a reasonable aircraft fuel. It has more energy per unit weight than jet fuel and in case of a crash would likely disperse quickly. Also, while I may be mistaken in this, I would expect that cryogenic (liquid H2) storage might be more practical in a commercial airliner than an automobile, since airliners can be fueled immediately prior to use. While keeping H2 cold in a long-term (ground-based) storage tank would require fancy cooling equipment, it would seem such equipment might not be necessary on a plane if the fuel were drawn off at a certain minimum rate (since hydrogen that boils off would cool that remained).
Anyone know if that would be practical?
Today in Las Vegas at an alternative fuel vehicle conference, I met Carroll Shelby, an icon of muscle cars. He was the opening speaker and loves what is happening with the technology.
As for the fellow who mentioned cheap gas, well it may be cheap at the pump but my, the price we've paid lately! Hardly a bargain.
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.
