Hydrogen power

P F Tinmore

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2009
76,880
4,125
1,815
I made hydrogen in a high school science project. It is really simple. There is no pollution. The only byproduct of burning is water. Nothing else.

 
When did a Freshman Congressperson become the grand vizier of the US Congress?

You don't go begging to her for any favors.
 
Fuel Cells are amazing. I grant you that. However let’s discuss what it will take to make it viable as a portable, and I mean something like an automobile power source in lieu of engines. First, we’re going to need a lot of Hydrgen Fueling Stations. Converting the existing pumps, in stages, will be slow and expensive. Whole new holding tanks will need to be installed, and Hydrogen distribution will need to be created. More trucks on the roads, using not Hydrogen, but Diesel to power them. More truck drivers, which we already have a shortage of because Americans have been brainwashed into thinking you have to have a college degree or you are a failure.

Then we’re going to need Hydrogen distribution sites. Since inevitably lawsuits will flood the proposals dragging them out for years, that is going to be a problem but one that is overcome each time. Slowly, because that is the real goal of lawsuits like that.

Finally, we’re going to need hydrogen. Yes, we can get it from seawater. With electrolysis we can produce Hydrogen, and oxygen, we can bottle some of the oxygen for medicinal use, or industrial use, but most of it is just going to float away. Other than hyperoxygenating the local area, creating a fire hazard, that won’t be a real issue.

What is the real issue? Power. It takes a lot of power to do that. It takes power to electronically separate the Hydrogen from the oxygen. it takes power to compress and cool the Hydrogen. Where are we going to get this extra power? Coal fired power plants? Don’t tell me Solar, because that would take literally square miles of solar panels for one plant, and would be far too expensive to try because running such a plant a few hours a day, when you had enough sun, is just prohibitive.

We would need the one power source that Environmentalists detest more than Gas, Coal, or even oil. Yes, we would need Nuclear Power. No greenhouse gases would be produced, and more than sufficient power for the Hydrogen plant, would be produced.

This is where the green energy plans all fall down. You can’t start on one, without addressing all of the issues. And all of the issues cost trillions of dollars to even start on. Nuclear power plants would need to be constructed to power the hydrogen plants we would need. Distribution centers would need to be constructed over the top of the lawsuits. Gas stations would need to be converted slowly to allow the Grandfathered Gasoline and Diesel cars to get their fuel. And if you really want it to catch on, the cars are going to have to be a lot cheaper than the gasoline alternative. Not just a little more expensive, but cheaper. That is going to take subsidies to the car manufacturers to make the cars seem like a reasonable risk to the average buyer.

Trillions? That might not be enough money to make it happen.
 
One advantage to hydrogen as a gas is that it could be used in present vehicle engines with very little modification. Of course, the arguments around it essentially resolve to the fact that using the energy for hydrolysis would be more efficiently used directly; i.e., in electric vehicles. Even a modest improvement in the basic process could revolutionize vehicle energy supplies.
 
Fuel Cells are amazing. I grant you that. However let’s discuss what it will take to make it viable as a portable, and I mean something like an automobile power source in lieu of engines. First, we’re going to need a lot of Hydrgen Fueling Stations. Converting the existing pumps, in stages, will be slow and expensive. Whole new holding tanks will need to be installed, and Hydrogen distribution will need to be created. More trucks on the roads, using not Hydrogen, but Diesel to power them. More truck drivers, which we already have a shortage of because Americans have been brainwashed into thinking you have to have a college degree or you are a failure.

Then we’re going to need Hydrogen distribution sites. Since inevitably lawsuits will flood the proposals dragging them out for years, that is going to be a problem but one that is overcome each time. Slowly, because that is the real goal of lawsuits like that.

Finally, we’re going to need hydrogen. Yes, we can get it from seawater. With electrolysis we can produce Hydrogen, and oxygen, we can bottle some of the oxygen for medicinal use, or industrial use, but most of it is just going to float away. Other than hyperoxygenating the local area, creating a fire hazard, that won’t be a real issue.

What is the real issue? Power. It takes a lot of power to do that. It takes power to electronically separate the Hydrogen from the oxygen. it takes power to compress and cool the Hydrogen. Where are we going to get this extra power? Coal fired power plants? Don’t tell me Solar, because that would take literally square miles of solar panels for one plant, and would be far too expensive to try because running such a plant a few hours a day, when you had enough sun, is just prohibitive.

We would need the one power source that Environmentalists detest more than Gas, Coal, or even oil. Yes, we would need Nuclear Power. No greenhouse gases would be produced, and more than sufficient power for the Hydrogen plant, would be produced.

This is where the green energy plans all fall down. You can’t start on one, without addressing all of the issues. And all of the issues cost trillions of dollars to even start on. Nuclear power plants would need to be constructed to power the hydrogen plants we would need. Distribution centers would need to be constructed over the top of the lawsuits. Gas stations would need to be converted slowly to allow the Grandfathered Gasoline and Diesel cars to get their fuel. And if you really want it to catch on, the cars are going to have to be a lot cheaper than the gasoline alternative. Not just a little more expensive, but cheaper. That is going to take subsidies to the car manufacturers to make the cars seem like a reasonable risk to the average buyer.

Trillions? That might not be enough money to make it happen.
Good points. There would have to be incentives to get the technology on the road like no sales tax and free registration for 5 years, for example. Then there could be tax breaks for corporate fleets. Of course this would not have to be limited to automotive use.

Once this gets in use, private companies will develop improvements to get market shares. They won't do this if there is no market.
 
Fuel Cells are amazing. I grant you that. However let’s discuss what it will take to make it viable as a portable, and I mean something like an automobile power source in lieu of engines. First, we’re going to need a lot of Hydrgen Fueling Stations. Converting the existing pumps, in stages, will be slow and expensive. Whole new holding tanks will need to be installed, and Hydrogen distribution will need to be created. More trucks on the roads, using not Hydrogen, but Diesel to power them. More truck drivers, which we already have a shortage of because Americans have been brainwashed into thinking you have to have a college degree or you are a failure.

Then we’re going to need Hydrogen distribution sites. Since inevitably lawsuits will flood the proposals dragging them out for years, that is going to be a problem but one that is overcome each time. Slowly, because that is the real goal of lawsuits like that.

Finally, we’re going to need hydrogen. Yes, we can get it from seawater. With electrolysis we can produce Hydrogen, and oxygen, we can bottle some of the oxygen for medicinal use, or industrial use, but most of it is just going to float away. Other than hyperoxygenating the local area, creating a fire hazard, that won’t be a real issue.

What is the real issue? Power. It takes a lot of power to do that. It takes power to electronically separate the Hydrogen from the oxygen. it takes power to compress and cool the Hydrogen. Where are we going to get this extra power? Coal fired power plants? Don’t tell me Solar, because that would take literally square miles of solar panels for one plant, and would be far too expensive to try because running such a plant a few hours a day, when you had enough sun, is just prohibitive.

We would need the one power source that Environmentalists detest more than Gas, Coal, or even oil. Yes, we would need Nuclear Power. No greenhouse gases would be produced, and more than sufficient power for the Hydrogen plant, would be produced.

This is where the green energy plans all fall down. You can’t start on one, without addressing all of the issues. And all of the issues cost trillions of dollars to even start on. Nuclear power plants would need to be constructed to power the hydrogen plants we would need. Distribution centers would need to be constructed over the top of the lawsuits. Gas stations would need to be converted slowly to allow the Grandfathered Gasoline and Diesel cars to get their fuel. And if you really want it to catch on, the cars are going to have to be a lot cheaper than the gasoline alternative. Not just a little more expensive, but cheaper. That is going to take subsidies to the car manufacturers to make the cars seem like a reasonable risk to the average buyer.

Trillions? That might not be enough money to make it happen.
Good points. There would have to be incentives to get the technology on the road like no sales tax and free registration for 5 years, for example. Then there could be tax breaks for corporate fleets. Of course this would not have to be limited to automotive use.

Once this gets in use, private companies will develop improvements to get market shares. They won't do this if there is no market.

They tried tax and other incentives for Electric Cars. They still make up a minuscule fraction of the cars on the road. The problems that were outlined for them, the long delays in charging the cars, the difficulties in finding charging locations, and the limits on driving etc. were just too much to overcome. Now, the tax incentives are gone for the most part, and again one thing that was never addressed, because it didn’t need to, was power.

Where I am in Georgia, we have two Nuclear Power Plants that provide the majority of our electrical power. There is a third under construction across the state line in South Carolina that will be partially owned by Georgia Power. That one is a major problem, because the companies that are building it keep circling the drain on going bankrupt. Not Georgia Power, or South Carolina, but the actual construction companies. That means that the inspectors have to triple check everything before they can proceed to make sure nobody is cutting corners.

Now, partly that is because there just aren’t many Nuclear Power Plants being built, which is a shame. The newest designs actually use nuclear waste to power the turbines. In other words, we could start using some of that nuclear waste, instead of arguing about where we are going to put it, for the power needs we have today. Those new designs are safer than most people can imagine.

The problem is that the incidents, and accidents, have all happened in older style plants. Using first and second generation technology. That is like claiming all cars are death traps because the 1948 Ford didn’t have seatbelts. Today, the cars are tested and designed to increase survivability in accidents. The mandatory safety design standards would have been impossible to meet in the 1950’s, or 1960’s.

So why judge Nuclear Power based upon the old designs? Because that is all people know, they think that those first and second generation systems were all we can ever do. And the scare mongers don’t bother to tell the truth about any of it. When Bill Clinton was President, they tested a new design. They shut down the coolant, the same accident that caused Fukushima by the way. The Reactor temperature spiked, and then slowly went down on its own. Visiting nuclear engineers were tensed and ready to run for it when the test started. But they saw and were impressed by the Safe Fail system that had been designed into the reactor.

In other words, if that design had been in use at Fukushima, then the accident would never have happened. The response of the Clinton Administration was to shut down the testing, and declare Nuclear as unsafe without any exception. No more funding, no more study, and no more progress.
 
I made hydrogen in a high school science project. It is really simple. There is no pollution. The only byproduct of burning is water. Nothing else.

You do realize, don't you, that the energy that you had to put into electrolyzing water, to split it into oxygen and hydrogen, is more than you'd get back in any usable form by burning that hydrogen, right?

And if you're talking about pollution from burning it in an internal combustion engine, then you're wrong. A major component of pollution produced in internal combustion engines is nitrogen oxides. The nitrogen doesn't come from the fuel, but from the air. It doesn't matter what you use as a fuel in such engines, nitrogen oxides will still be present in the exhaust.
 
One advantage to hydrogen as a gas is that it could be used in present vehicle engines with very little modification. Of course, the arguments around it essentially resolve to the fact that using the energy for hydrolysis would be more efficiently used directly; i.e., in electric vehicles. Even a modest improvement in the basic process could revolutionize vehicle energy supplies.

Just to be able to store enough hydrogen on a vehicle to power it for any usable range would be a major modification in itself. You can't just store hydrogen in an unpressurized tank like gasoline, or even in a mildly-pressurized tank, like propane. To liquify hydrogen, in order to store any usable amount of it requires extremes of pressure and cold, beyond what will ever likely be feasible on the scale of an automobile.
 
One advantage to hydrogen as a gas is that it could be used in present vehicle engines with very little modification. Of course, the arguments around it essentially resolve to the fact that using the energy for hydrolysis would be more efficiently used directly; i.e., in electric vehicles. Even a modest improvement in the basic process could revolutionize vehicle energy supplies.

Just to be able to store enough hydrogen on a vehicle to power it for any usable range would be a major modification in itself. You can't just store hydrogen in an unpressurized tank like gasoline, or even in a mildly-pressurized tank, like propane. To liquify hydrogen, in order to store any usable amount of it requires extremes of pressure and cold, beyond what will ever likely be feasible on the scale of an automobile.

Try Borax.
244px-BoraxChem.png
 
The borax is simply used to store hydrogen in a far more dense state than compressed gas - even compressed to a liquid. The hydrogen is broken out by catalytic reactions. The waste product is recycled back into borax using electrolysis-produced H2.
 
The borax is simply used to store hydrogen in a far more dense state than compressed gas - even compressed to a liquid. The hydrogen is broken out by catalytic reactions. The waste product is recycled back into borax using electrolysis-produced H2.

That's just the same problem as using water as a means of hydrogen storage.

Hydrogen gives up its chemical energy as it combines with other elements; whether to form water, or borax, or anything else. You have to put that energy back into the resulting compound, in order to free the hydrogen, so that you can burn it. And in burning it, you get less energy back than you had to put into freeing it up.
 
The borax is simply used to store hydrogen in a far more dense state than compressed gas - even compressed to a liquid. The hydrogen is broken out by catalytic reactions. The waste product is recycled back into borax using electrolysis-produced H2.

That's just the same problem as using water as a means of hydrogen storage.

Hydrogen gives up its chemical energy as it combines with other elements; whether to form water, or borax, or anything else. You have to put that energy back into the resulting compound, in order to free the hydrogen, so that you can burn it. And in burning it, you get less energy back than you had to put into freeing it up.


Well, I wouldn't burn it. It would use it in a fuel cell. And I would use alternative energy technologies (PV and wind) to power the electrolysis to generate more hydrogen to restore the borax. The advantage of borax is the density of hydrogen. As noted here earlier, a hydrogen vehicle powered from a tank of compressed hydrogen would have a very limited range.
 
The advantages to hydrogen gas are that it can be used in any present thermal engine. It can be used for heat. It can be used for cooking.
Of course vehicles for transportation would be better thoroughly redesigned for electricity. Then, hydrogen "fuel cells" would be more logical than gas.
To see why this is not happening, just look up how much oil companies make per year and divide that by how much it is per second. You won't believer your own math.
 
Well, I wouldn't burn it. It would use it in a fuel cell. And I would use alternative energy technologies (PV and wind) to power the electrolysis to generate more hydrogen to restore the borax. The advantage of borax is the density of hydrogen. As noted here earlier, a hydrogen vehicle powered from a tank of compressed hydrogen would have a very limited range.

Regardless of how you turn hydrogen into energy, you're still getting less energy out of it than you had to put into freeing it from whatever compound you were using to store it.

Whatever source of energy is being carried on a vehicle, to split the hydrogen from the borax; you'd do better just to use that energy more directly to power the vehicle.
 
It doesn't require power to break hydrogen out of borax. Just chemistry.

And shifting the load to power plants with massive economies of scale, works quite well
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top