P F Tinmore
Diamond Member
- Dec 6, 2009
- 79,768
- 4,414
- 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.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.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.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.
Once this gets in use, private companies will develop improvements to get market shares. They won't do this if there is no market.
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.
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.
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.
There is not enough, in the worldTry Borax.
using it is consuming itYou don't have to consume it, only the hydrogen contained
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.
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.