Real Progress Towards A Climate Change Solution I can Believe In

Whoa there Nelly ... this is a profoundly false equivalence ... hydrogen gas is extremely rare on Earth, so rare as to be considered non-existent ... gravity doesn't hold it in our atmosphere or our soils ... except for a few natural biological processes and of course man's activities ...
NELLY SAYS: Well of course. Free hydrogen is the lightest element, so there isn't much in the atmosphere and most of it is bound up in chemical reactions in rocks and plants, thus any compound with the prefix "hydro-" has hydrogen bound up in its molecular chain. That said, by my crude calculation, the Earth still has about 9.17 X 10^19th power tons of hydrogen in it. And like I said, the universe is almost MADE of hydrogen--- nebular gas clouds, the Sun, Jupiter et al--- we just gotta figure a way of getting (or making) it cheaply.

The solution is conservation ... using less energy ... simple ...
NELLY SAYS: Yes, the real solution is to let global population naturally fade back to about 2 billion like when I was born, as well as gradually better and cleaner technology as it becomes practical.
 
It appears the cheerleader isn't going to address the long-known problems and weaknesses of this Fuel Cell idea brought up in the thread thus can safely walk away once again unimpressed with Hydrogen Fuel Cell Fantasies fanatics promote which has been going on for years..... while the Hydrogen "egg" never gets hatched not even with a pile of subsidies doesn't seem to excite much beyond the crowd of 25 acolytes.....
 
Let's raise this discussion to a slightly higher level. Water doesn't have the prefix 'hydro' and so contains no hydrogen.

Just because it's also called H2O doesn't mean it's 2/3's hydrogen!

Don't attempt thiis if your brains are already too full.
 
Actually, the most immediate problem towards hydrogen-powered cars is the pressurized tank needed to store and carry the hydrogen around with you. As to generating the needed hydrogen cleanly in the first place, I consider that at least no bigger a problem than already currently faced by the EV industry in making and transmitting enough electricity to power everything in an EV universe.
 
NELLY SAYS: Well of course. Free hydrogen is the lightest element, so there isn't much in the atmosphere and most of it is bound up in chemical reactions in rocks and plants, thus any compound with the prefix "hydro-" has hydrogen bound up in its molecular chain. That said, by my crude calculation, the Earth still has about 9.17 X 10^19th power tons of hydrogen in it. And like I said, the universe is almost MADE of hydrogen--- nebular gas clouds, the Sun, Jupiter et al--- we just gotta figure a way of getting (or making) it cheaply.

The Earth has 9.17x10^19 tons of protons ... you mean ... the electrons are involved in chemical bonding and not available ... the gaseous form of hydrogen requires two elections and we just can't create these out of nothing ... the redox model works in these cases ... we have to add energy to the hydrogen molecule in order to reduce it, literally pulling the hydrogen atoms off the molecule with the electrons ... and now we send hydrogen downpipe and oxidize her with atmospheric oxygen ... c'mon Nelly, chemistry 101 ...

The Sun spews hydrogen out into the solar system ... our magnetic field protects us from the Solar Wind ... this is hydrogen is her plasma state-of-matter, to hot for electrons to orbit the nucleus ... c'mon Nelly, astronomy 101 ... HII is the same as bare nekked protons ...

NELLY SAYS: Yes, the real solution is to let global population naturally fade back to about 2 billion like when I was born, as well as gradually better and cleaner technology as it becomes practical.

You were born 100 years ago? ... we passed 2 billion in 1927 ... 4 billion when Population Bomb was published in the 1970's ... 8 billion today ... but why bring that up with people who already have their fertility rates below replacement? ...

We have cleaner and better technologies today ... although practical, they aren't economical in all places ... and this is where your own wallet counts ... use the technology that's cheapest ... and let the free market decide what's best ... EVs work here, not because it is sunny all the time, fuck no, it rains and rains and rains and rains and rains ... and that means hydropower !!! ... renewable and cheapest-in-the-nation ... just horrifically carbon intensive to build ...
 
The Earth has 9.17x10^19 tons of protons ... you mean ...
NELLY SAYS: No, I took the percentage of the Earth which is hydrogen and the weight of the earth, converted it into tonnage, and that is what I came up with. The Earth is something like 0.14% hydrogen. That is still a lot of hydrogen (for our needs).

The Sun spews hydrogen out into the solar system ...
NELLY SAYS: Yippee! Now all we gotta do is send an astronaut outside the ISS with a bag to start collecting it.

You were born 100 years ago? ... we passed 2 billion in 1927 ... 4 billion when Population Bomb was published in the 1970's ...
NELLY SAYS: Whatever. I like the 2 billion figure. Maybe it was 3 billion when I was young--- I was too small to remember clearly.

... and that means hydropower !!! ... renewable and cheapest-in-the-nation ...
NELLY SAYS: Hydrogen! Bottom line: my only point here is that fuel cells offer a far better /long term/ solution than battery-powered cars ever will for a number of reasons!
 
Battery powered transportation is a joke. It may offer an interesting alternative to gas for secondary and limited distances in warm but not too hot nor too cold applications, but battery-powered vehicles rely on someone generating the power far away (by any number of costly, not-climate-friendly means) then transmitting it over long distance, a further great cost, then merely STORING the energy in a static form in heavy, costly batteries. And they require a lengthy time to recharge them.

Our real, best solution, slowly being made practical, is the hydrogen fuel cell, where hydrogen (the universe's most plentiful element) is combined with oxygen to GENERATE power, with the only byproduct being life-giving WATER.

It is a scientist's dream come true only rivaled or surpassed by fusion power plants themselves, except, we are actually DOING the former now to a limited degree. First up: they now have a hydrogen-powered ferry they are experimenting with giving free rides for the next six months, with plans to eventually replace diesel-powered ferries and even cargo ships all around the world.

It is a real leg in the door to mankind's real future.


Our real, best solution, slowly being made practical, is the hydrogen fuel cell,

Why is hydrogen practical?
 
NELLY SAYS: No, I took the percentage of the Earth which is hydrogen and the weight of the earth, converted it into tonnage, and that is what I came up with. The Earth is something like 0.14% hydrogen. That is still a lot of hydrogen (for our needs).


NELLY SAYS: Yippee! Now all we gotta do is send an astronaut outside the ISS with a bag to start collecting it.


NELLY SAYS: Whatever. I like the 2 billion figure. Maybe it was 3 billion when I was young--- I was too small to remember clearly.


NELLY SAYS: Hydrogen! Bottom line: my only point here is that fuel cells offer a far better /long term/ solution than battery-powered cars ever will for a number of reasons!

I know that's what you did ... and it's a false equivalence ... there's hydrogen in amino acids and proteins ... but that doesn't mean they behave like hydrogen ... water is two parts hydrogen and it's a liquid at room temperature ... go read a chemistry textbook and come back and discuss this in scientific terms ...

Your "yippee's" and "whatever's" say you don't understand what you're talking about, just like me and Englishing ... it's costing billions of Federal taxpayer dollars to set California up as a hydrogen hub ... {cite} ... and they need an environmental waiver because hydrogen systems produce toxic emissions ...

This is an old idea, my friend, it didn't work under Republicans, it won't work under Democrats ... "California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger took another step in his drive toward a zero-emission environment -- piloting a specially-built hydrogen-fueled Hummer H2H and opening California's latest hydrogen fueling station. While not intended for production, the converted Hummer is a cooperative effort to learn more about hydrogen storage, refueling infrastructure development and how to make fuel cell technology and California's Hydrogen Highway Network viable." -- MotorTrend -- Nov 29th, 2004 ...

Silly person ... if hydrogen was better, then why are golf cart still battery-powered? ... maybe you don't trust free markets and think billions of taxpayer dollars is a better solution ...

The sad part is the only reason you're against EVs is because liberals like them ... you really are that shallow ... and the stupidity is liberals ride bicycles ...
 
Why is hydrogen practical?

Well, it isn't quite practical YET. But like fusion, it IS becoming closer to practical every day, whereas fusion is still a pipe dream.

But the GOAL of both are worthy--- fusion because it will produce unlimited clean energy; and hydrogen because once made practical, unlike EVs which merely STORE energy temporarily made elsewhere, often by polluting means which defeat the purpose of green energy, hydrogen PRODUCES energy within the car wherever it goes and once exhaused, can be "refilled" much like a gas car, then you are back on the road again! No hours of waiting while the car recharges.

And unlike an EV which must carry almost half its weight just in batteries, the hydrogen car produces its own energy from hydrogen and oxygen, both plentiful, with the only exhaust byproduct being WATER.

And we can do it. The only technological barriers left to resolve are:
  1. Cost. Still too expensive a process for the general public.
  2. Hydrogen. While hydrogen is cheap, simple and bountiful, here on earth, it is mostly bound up combined with other things and we need to resolve a way of extracting it in larger quantities that is both affordable and does not itself produce pollution.
But these things are doable. The technology is there, and like most of the technology we use today and take for granted like cellular phones, they too were once considered too expensive and impractical, but this is the future of transportation.


 
Well, it isn't quite practical YET. But like fusion, it IS becoming closer to practical every day, whereas fusion is still a pipe dream.

But the GOAL of both are worthy--- fusion because it will produce unlimited clean energy; and hydrogen because once made practical, unlike EVs which merely STORE energy temporarily made elsewhere, often by polluting means which defeat the purpose of green energy, hydrogen PRODUCES energy within the car wherever it goes and once exhaused, can be "refilled" much like a gas car, then you are back on the road again! No hours of waiting while the car recharges.

And unlike an EV which must carry almost half its weight just in batteries, the hydrogen car produces its own energy from hydrogen and oxygen, both plentiful, with the only exhaust byproduct being WATER.

And we can do it. The only technological barriers left to resolve are:
  1. Cost. Still too expensive a process for the general public.
  2. Hydrogen. While hydrogen is cheap, simple and bountiful, here on earth, it is mostly bound up combined with other things and we need to resolve a way of extracting it in larger quantities that is both affordable and does not itself produce pollution.
But these things are doable. The technology is there, and like most of the technology we use today and take for granted like cellular phones, they too were once considered too expensive and impractical, but this is the future of transportation.




unlike EVs which merely STORE energy temporarily made elsewhere, often by polluting means which defeat the purpose of green energy, hydrogen PRODUCES energy within the car wherever it goes

Hydrogen also STORES energy temporarily made elsewhere.

While hydrogen is cheap, simple and bountiful, here on earth, it is mostly bound up combined with other things

Which makes it expensive and difficult.

once exhaused, can be "refilled" much like a gas car, then you are back on the road again!

How much does it take to fill it with the equivalent of one gallon of gas?
Is it compressed or liquified?
 
Hydrogen also STORES energy temporarily made elsewhere.
No. Hydrogen is an element. Batteries store energy made elsewhere.

Which makes it expensive and difficult.
Only until we figure out how to make it easy and cheap.

How much does it take to fill it with the equivalent of one gallon of gas?
Not sure.

Is it compressed or liquified?
Compressed I believe.


 
No. Hydrogen is an element. Batteries store energy made elsewhere.


Only until we figure out how to make it easy and cheap.


Not sure.


Compressed I believe.




No. Hydrogen is an element. Batteries store energy made elsewhere.

We don't drill for elemental hydrogen. We separate it, using energy made elsewhere.

Only until we figure out how to make it easy and cheap.

It's easy to make. Take a bunch of energy, waste 20-30% to split water apart.
Waste more to cool, compress and transport it.

I don't know how you'll ever make that cheap.

Compressed I believe.

Well shit, it takes 4 gallons of liquid H2 to replace the energy of 1 gallon of gasoline.
A fuel cell is a lot more efficient than an ICE, but you're going need a heavy duty tank to
hold enough highly compressed H2 to avoid refueling every 5 minutes.
 
NELLY SAYS: Yes, the real solution is to let global population naturally fade back to about 2 billion like when I was born, as well as gradually better and cleaner technology as it becomes practical.
The Green New Deal Is a Dead Man's Hand

Natural air, which the sitting-pretty enemies of human progress call "Clean" Air, is saturated with germs. All these ignorant GreenHead restrictions will only result in pandemic after pandemic.
 
Battery powered transportation is a joke. It may offer an interesting alternative to gas for secondary and limited distances in warm but not too hot nor too cold applications, but battery-powered vehicles rely on someone generating the power far away (by any number of costly, not-climate-friendly means) then transmitting it over long distance, a further great cost, then merely STORING the energy in a static form in heavy, costly batteries. And they require a lengthy time to recharge them.

Our real, best solution, slowly being made practical, is the hydrogen fuel cell, where hydrogen (the universe's most plentiful element) is combined with oxygen to GENERATE power, with the only byproduct being life-giving WATER.

It is a scientist's dream come true only rivaled or surpassed by fusion power plants themselves, except, we are actually DOING the former now to a limited degree. First up: they now have a hydrogen-powered ferry they are experimenting with giving free rides for the next six months, with plans to eventually replace diesel-powered ferries and even cargo ships all around the world.

It is a real leg in the door to mankind's real future.

I am also a big fan of hydrogen fuel cells. There are several hydrogen-based technologies with real promise - for one, simply modifying ICE vehicles to run on H2 vice petrol. The problem is the infrastructure. EVs were able to take off because electricity is the most widely-available energy utility. There is essentiall zero hydrogen infrastructure in place.

Your comment about "costly, not-climate-friendly means" to charge EVs is inaccurate. More and more of our electrical supply is being generated by lower cost, non-emitting, very climate friendly means. At the moment, however, very little of our hydrogen is being produced by climate friendly means. There is some technology on the horizon that might change that but its not here yet.
 
I am also a big fan of hydrogen fuel cells. There are several hydrogen-based technologies with real promise - for one, simply modifying ICE vehicles to run on H2 vice petrol. The problem is the infrastructure. EVs were able to take off because electricity is the most widely-available energy utility. There is essentiall zero hydrogen infrastructure in place.

Your comment about "costly, not-climate-friendly means" to charge EVs is inaccurate. More and more of our electrical supply is being generated by lower cost, non-emitting, very climate friendly means. At the moment, however, very little of our hydrogen is being produced by climate friendly means. There is some technology on the horizon that might change that but its not here yet.

More and more of our electrical supply is being generated by lower cost, non-emitting, very climate friendly means.

More nuclear?

Because all the wind and solar is actually more expensive.
 
More and more of our electrical supply is being generated by lower cost, non-emitting, very climate friendly means.

More nuclear?

Because all the wind and solar is actually more expensive.
Prove it

1722262141199.webp

1722262213009.webp

 
Yeah, when you lie about the expense of storing your intermittent power, it looks cheap.
when you ignore the cost of the damage your technology creates, it also looks okay. Storage can be cheap as hell. Gravity batteries. Vanadium flow batteries.
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom