karina wrote:Researchers found out that iron-sulfate structure might be able to replace platinum as catalyst for fuel cells. This is published in Nature ( http://www.nature.com/nature/links/050210/050210-5.html ). There seems to be a long way to go. But still this could be an important step for hydrogen energy.
Hydrogen will always be several times more expensive than gasoline, for the simple reason that there is no efficient way of making hydrogen. Never will be. It is the thermodynamics of hydrogen that determines that, so no amount of research is going to change that.
Think of it in these terms: Climbing the Everest will always require more energy/exercise than climbing to Base Camp. Advances climbing technology may make it easier to reach Everest than it was ten years ago, but it is still more work than reaching Base Camp. Hydrogen is the undisputed Everest of fuels.
Now sit back and watch the Hydrogen Economy become the latest victim of Everest.
Dezakin wrote:This entire thread is silly. Whats the best way to store hydrogen?
Heres a hint: the molecule looks like this:
HHHHHHHHHH
HCCCCCCCCCH
HHHHHHHHHH
And its ordinary diesel fuel.
When the oil is gone we'll make it from nuclear energy, limestone and water. Or CO2 from the atmosphere if we're still worried about it.
Starvid wrote:I believe your facts are somewhat faulty. A reactor cost 2-3 billion dollars, not 7-8. This means that the cost of nuclear electricity is on par with coal-fired production.
Nor does it take 7-10 years to build a reactor, more like 4-5 years when we look at the recent japanese constructions. It will be very interesting seeing how long it takes to build the ordered 1.6 GW EPR:s in Finland and France.
These two facts doesn't necesarilly mean hydrogen is a good future energy carrier. I'd rather see electric trains and trams, and nuclear-powered ships, since those technologies are mature, tried and tested with over 50 years of experience.
Maybe the reason why it took so long and costed so much was because the lawyers took all the money and they spent more time in the courtroom then actually building the damn thing. Sure wouldn't surprise me. One reason why it costs so much to build a freeway these days is because of all the "legalities". However the only thing that would have more "legalities" would be a nuke plant.0mar wrote:.....Your numbers are probably right because I'm basing my facts on the last reactors that were built in the US. Undoubtedly, there are better technologies now.
cube wrote:Maybe the reason why it took so long and costed so much was because the lawyers took all the money and they spent more time in the courtroom then actually building the damn thing. Sure wouldn't surprise me. One reason why it costs so much to build a freeway these days is because of all the "legalities". However the only thing that would have more "legalities" would be a nuke plant.0mar wrote:.....Your numbers are probably right because I'm basing my facts on the last reactors that were built in the US. Undoubtedly, there are better technologies now.
I think nuke power has been unfairly given a bad reputation.
ArimoDave wrote:What concerns me about building nukes in the U.S. is that when the general public comes to realize that it is about our only recourse, they will then be built in a hurry, and without all the safety inspections (lowest bidder). Also, it will likely be too late to get them on-line to stave-off our energy crisis. Transporing and storing hydrogen is significant problem, and I don't think that this is a viable. Better, I think, is to get power (a lot of power) to local "filling stations" where one can quickly charge their car battery. I don't believe that the U.S. economy can survive without personal transportation. I often have to drive 30 plus miles to get to work.
Devil wrote:ArimoDave wrote:What concerns me about building nukes in the U.S. is that when the general public comes to realize that it is about our only recourse, they will then be built in a hurry, and without all the safety inspections (lowest bidder). Also, it will likely be too late to get them on-line to stave-off our energy crisis. Transporing and storing hydrogen is significant problem, and I don't think that this is a viable. Better, I think, is to get power (a lot of power) to local "filling stations" where one can quickly charge their car battery. I don't believe that the U.S. economy can survive without personal transportation. I often have to drive 30 plus miles to get to work.
One question: where is the electricity coming from to charge the batteries of 500 million cars?
ArimoDave wrote:Devil wrote:ArimoDave wrote:What concerns me about building nukes in the U.S. is that when the general public comes to realize that it is about our only recourse, they will then be built in a hurry, and without all the safety inspections (lowest bidder). Also, it will likely be too late to get them on-line to stave-off our energy crisis
One question: where is the electricity coming from to charge the batteries of 500 million cars?
Hopefully, a lot of Nukes with most being breeders;
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests