Posted on 01/11/2005 12:40:42 PM PST by SunkenCiv
"Hydrogen is a currency, not a primary energy source," explains Geoffrey Ballard, the father of the modern-day fuel cell and co-founder of Ballard Power Systems, the world's leading fuel-cell developer. "It’s a means of getting energy from where you created it to where you need it."
(Excerpt) Read more at popsci.com ...
FR Lexicon·Posting Guidelines·Excerpt, or Link only?·Ultimate Sidebar Management·Headlines
Donate Here By Secure Server·Eating our own -- Time to make a new start in Free Republic
PDF to HTML translation·Translation page·Wayback Machine·My Links·FreeMail Me
Gods, Graves, Glyphs topic·and group·Books, Magazines, Movies, Music
What's your point? Everyone knew that already.
OOOOOOOOOOH, don't piss off the sand-in-the-head (or is that vice versa) Hydrogen Economy geeks who do not understand the first law of thermodynamics, or any of them for that matter.
WHAT A CROCK! After THAT bunch of transparent BS, why should we believe ANYTHING ELSE in that article?
Has anyone been saying hydrogen-powered cars are "just around the corner"? I think everyone following this topic is basically aware of the technology and infrastructure issues. Furthemore, hydrogen fuel cells are clearly an energy storage mechanism, not an energy source. Has anyone claimed otherwise?
Another reason why, to reduce our dependency on OPECker oil, we should be building high-speed rail and Maglev: the technology is available NOW!!!
Why would Hydrogen cars ever be desireable? I suppose if you had a bunch of nukes making the hydrogen perhaps.
Yup. It's not going to get closer, though, if we sit around picking our noses, hoping that the oil holds out forever.
The only "primary energy source" is nuclear, which includes the sun.
Every fender bender would by like the Hindenburg! "Oh, the humanity!"
ROFLMBO!!!!
The difference is between building a new type of car vs. redesigning litterally entire cities and economic systems.
Get a grip Willie.
As for the 25 year thing, I don't buy that either. We started working on flying people in space sometime around 1959, and by 1965 we had fuel cell powered spacecraft. 6 years. In 10 years, we'd flown to the moon. Why the 25 year thing, I have no idea except they no doubt want to skim off as much government development money for as long as possible.
Yeah, that gasoline is so much safer....
Well, the "man caused" global warming is a crock. But Hydrogen fuel cell powered cars with nuclear powered hydrogen generators will certianly lower CO2 concentration. Not that CO2 has anything to do with global warming.
I'm still putting my faith in Thermal Depolymermization.
Just how much stock do you own in Maglev Willie? ;~))
New nukes (many many nukes) can power the hydrogen economy.
Developing a new technology for what was essentially a hopped-up (space)flight-test program is one thing; having it be economically viable is quite another.
The demonstration involved a shooter firing a rifle into three different containers, one containing gasoline, one propane, and one hydrogen. The gasoline splattered, caught fire, and looked like what we expected a gasoline fire to be. The propane just disintegrated in a rather huge explosion. Not much left of the propane tank. The hydrogen? The commentator walked up to the tank, with a fresh bullet hole in it. You could hear the gas hissing out. He held his hand in front of the hole in the tank... no burn. As he was talking, you finally heard a small "whoomph" as the gas caught fire. But here's the catch: A) there was no visible flame, and B) the "fire", such as it was, was about 4 feet above the hydrogen tank. The commentator held a piece of notebook paper to the hole in the tank, and it simply fluttered. He held his hand high over his head and moved toward the top of the tank, and then and only then did the paper catch fire.
It truly was amazing to watch, since I was one of these "Hindenburg" believers as well. It makes since when you stop and think that most of what burned on the Hindenburg was the canvas it was wrapped in.
That said, this article is a bunch of "no sh*t Sherlock" hype. No one that I know was waiting for the 2005 model hydrogen cars. I do hope they continue to research them, however. The byproduct of burning hydrogen is water, the gas is abundant, to say the least, and it's in many ways far safer than gasoline. When (not if) the technology becomes available, I think people will accept them fairly quickly. Time will tell.
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.