THE Hydrogen Thread pt 3 (merged)

by **Badger** » Mon 25 Jul 2005, 20:04:53

you only need water and electricity

:roll:

by **MicroHydro** » Mon 25 Jul 2005, 21:50:04

And how many million barrels of oil equivalent per day could be produced by this method? Ha!

by **Devil** » Tue 26 Jul 2005, 07:17:38

MicroHydro wrote:And how many million barrels of oil equivalent per day could be produced by this method? Ha!

1E-7 Mbbl/hectare

by **spot5050** » Tue 26 Jul 2005, 17:37:18

What I found interesting about the article was that it said that the MIT automotive research lab director has told congress that fuel cells are "at least 40, 50 years away".

Contributors to PO.com can debate the relevance of fuel cells, but it's a different matter if MIT tell Congress that affordable hydrogen-powered transport is decades away.

by **Aaron** » Tue 26 Jul 2005, 21:02:21

by **Aaron** » Tue 26 Jul 2005, 21:57:24

And next...

The conclusion of Jarod Diamond's GGS

by **khebab** » Tue 26 Jul 2005, 23:07:44

It's playing online:

Scientific American Frontiers . Hydrogen Hopes . Watch Online | PBS

by **EnergySpin** » Tue 26 Jul 2005, 23:13:48

khebab wrote:It's playing online:

Scientific American Frontiers . Hydrogen Hopes . Watch Online | PBS

Are we gonna find the bandwitdth resource war here :-D

All the peakoilers are online watching

by **khebab** » Tue 26 Jul 2005, 23:18:57

The first part looks like an ad for the Ovshinsky. What's the catch with their solid metal alloy that stores hydrogen? price?

by **EnergySpin** » Tue 26 Jul 2005, 23:22:38

Hey khebab, did you watch the first part?
Metal alloy, filled with H2 and generating heat.
Change H2 to D2 and you are in the Pons -Fleischmann effect :razz:

Excessive heat in metal deuterides. I think those guys blew the chance to make Hydrogen batteries in 1989 (as everyone else seems to think so)

by **TheSupplyGuy** » Tue 26 Jul 2005, 23:27:08

This past Sunday, that same series did a thing on the positive things hydrogen can do. I didn't watch today's show, but I thought Sunday's was interesting. For me, one major hurdle of hydrogen has been overcome.
Most people call difficulties in transporting it a problem. However, it has been shown that it is possible to produce hydrogen fuel onsite at gas stations. While this doesn't suddenly make hydrogen viable, it is a huge step forward, imo.

by **EnergySpin** » Tue 26 Jul 2005, 23:31:08

TheSupplyGuy wrote:This past Sunday, that same series did a thing on the positive things hydrogen can do. I didn't watch today's show, but I thought Sunday's was interesting. For me, one major hurdle of hydrogen has been overcome.
Most people call difficulties in transporting it a problem. However, it has been shown that it is possible to produce hydrogen fuel onsite at gas stations. While this doesn't suddenly make hydrogen viable, it is a huge step forward, imo.

Correct which leaves one point unanswered. How do we create electricity in distributed sustainable manner to make hydrogen. That part has not been answered yet. Our grids have a hard time keeping the lights on with the deregulation BS

by **khebab** » Tue 26 Jul 2005, 23:41:41

EnergySpin wrote:Hey khebab, did you watch the first part?

I just watched it, it's a good show for the Ovshinsky but there are no criticism or discussion on the eventual limitations. I like the part when Alan asked: "What's keeping us from having these in our cars to produce hydrogen?" Of course, no answer

.

by **EnergySpin** » Tue 26 Jul 2005, 23:48:24

khebab wrote:The first part looks like an ad for the Ovshinsky. What's the catch with their solid metal alloy that stores hydrogen? price?

Depends on what it is made from I guess. The whole thing sounds hocus pocus. Do we know of any scientific publications from this guy about the technology?

by **EnergySpin** » Tue 26 Jul 2005, 23:56:20

Apparently he got a patent in 1984 for that solar panel technology. He is not a quack,this is well known ... the question is does he have something that can be mass produced or not. MIT has a page on him here

by **Brandon** » Thu 28 Jul 2005, 00:34:02

Devil wrote:1E-7 Mbbl/hectare

.1 barrel a day/hectare? :lol:

It's really that useless?

by **Googolplex** » Sat 30 Jul 2005, 10:49:40

It was fuel cells that they were talking about, not hydrogen. A hydrogen powered car can built built today with relativly little cost, it just wouldn't use fuel cells. It would burn it. Current engines can even be converted to hydrogen suprisingly easily.

Of course, theres not much point. Internal cumbustion hydrogen powered cars have few advantages unless a scalable sustainable way to generate hydrogen without fossil fuels is found.

by **Eli** » Sat 30 Jul 2005, 13:14:10

Our own estimates are that to look at when hydrogen and fuel cells could have a noticeable impact on transportation energy consumption, we judge that to be at least 40, 50 years away."

This a nebulous statement. He is not saying that the cars will be affordable just that they will have an impact.

With a powerful statement such as this why are you guys so doomer?

This should probably be on another thread but with free trade still being ramrodded up the average citizens arse across the globe none of us are ever likely to drive a hydrogen anything.

The US house just passed CAFTA, NAFTA's little brother. This allows Corporations to move there production to the Dominican Republic and pay the workers nothing but sell there products to the US citizen with impunity.

The middle class world wide is set up for the slaughter at the hands of multi national corporations.

The US is a Government for the Corporations, run and owned by the corporations, at the expense of the people.

I have seen the future and it is a black dress shoe stomping on a human face forever.

Sorry I just had to get that out. :cry:

by **cube** » Sat 30 Jul 2005, 14:53:58

spot5050 wrote:What I found interesting about the article was that it said that the MIT automotive research lab director has told congress that fuel cells are "at least 40, 50 years away".

Contributors to PO.com can debate the relevance of fuel cells, but it's a different matter if MIT tell Congress that affordable hydrogen-powered transport is decades away.

Are you trying to state that the opinion of the director of MIT carries more weight because he happens to be heading a prestigious engineering college? I don't doubt there's a lot of people out there who are more knowledgeable then me but the one question you have to ask is:

Is this guy telling the truth? Maybe he's claiming hydrogen has potential so his college can get more research money from the feds? Ever thought of that?

by **Stark** » Sat 30 Jul 2005, 17:11:06

Googolplex wrote:It was fuel cells that they were talking about, not hydrogen. A hydrogen powered car can built built today with relativly little cost, it just wouldn't use fuel cells. It would burn it. Current engines can even be converted to hydrogen suprisingly easily.

Of course, theres not much point. Internal combustion hydrogen powered cars have few advantages unless a scalable sustainable way to generate hydrogen without fossil fuels is found.

Wind power, nuclear power, both can generate hydrogen. I keep posting this to multiple threads, but somehow everyone ignores it completely and keeps talking as if hydrogen can only be used in fuel cells, or can only be created from natural gas.

It's as if a house were on fire, and people were trying to figure out how to put the fire out, and every time someone mentioned water, everyone else would say, "what, we don't even have a boat!" And when it was explained that a boat had nothing to do with putting out a house fire, everyone said, "there isn't enough water to completely submerge the house, it will never work".

And when it was explained that completely submerging the house was not necessary, everyone said, "look, you're not being realistic, the house is doomed, accept it".

THE Hydrogen Thread pt 3 (merged)

Hydrogen Bashing on PBS Now

Who is online