UK trial begins injecting hydrogen to fuel gas-fired power plant

[Crick]

No matter by what process, the production of hydrogen necessarily involves more energy being put into the process, than what can be recovered by using that hydrogen as a fuel.

Bu8ild any kind of hydrogen-fueled power plant, and use all of the energy produced by that plant to produce more hydrogen, and the whole thing will operate at a net loss. You won't get any energy out of it, and you'll have to put more energy into it from some other source, to keep it going.

The concept that Crick is trying to sell here, in in the realm of perpetual motion.

I am talking about non-GHG energy for transportation. It has to be something that a vehicle can carry. And you yourself said you felt BEV's were untenable because of the recharge time (and you're certainly not alone. Hydrogen fuel cells satisfy all three criteria: no GHG emissions, portable and refuel in minutes. And if energy is being supplied without fuel costs (solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, OTEC, wave, tide, etc) the only hold up is the new infrastructure required. Fuel cells currently require rare metals in the platinum group but hopefully other functional materials can be found. Of course, the lower efficiency of the process as a whole will put the kabosh on fuel cells for years to come but the energetic cost of obtaining hydrogen is not a complete showstopper. Who ever thought fusion would break even, but it has.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I am talking about non-GHG energy for transportation. It has to be something that a vehicle can carry. And you yourself said you felt BEV's were untenable because of the recharge time (and you're certainly not alone. Hydrogen fuel cells satisfy all three criteria: no GHG emissions, portable and refuel in minutes. And if energy is being supplied without fuel costs (solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, OTEC, wave, tide, etc) the only hold up is the new infrastructure required. Fuel cells currently require rare metals in the platinum group but hopefully other functional materials can be found. Of course, the lower efficiency of the process as a whole will put the kabosh on fuel cells for years to come but the energetic cost of obtaining hydrogen is not a complete showstopper. Who ever thought fusion would break even, but it has.

Hydrogen fuel cells satisfy all three criteria: no GHG emissions, portable and refuel in minutes.

Refueling with liquid hydrogen or compressed?

 

[Crick]

Hydrogen fuel cells satisfy all three criteria: no GHG emissions, portable and refuel in minutes.

Refueling with liquid hydrogen or compressed?

I couldn't tell you. Why do you ask?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I couldn't tell you. Why do you ask?

There is a huge, important difference between the two methods.

 

[Crick]

There is a huge, important difference between the two methods.

And what would that be and why do you so often string us along when you could just answer the question?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And what would that be and why do you so often string us along when you could just answer the question?

Liquid hydrogen is at -434 F.
Compressed hydrogen is very dangerous. Explosive when confined and mixed with oxygen.

How quickly are you going to refuel your fuel cell with either?

Or are you storing it at STP?

 

[Crick]

Liquid hydrogen is at -434 F.
Compressed hydrogen is very dangerous. Explosive when confined and mixed with oxygen.

How quickly are you going to refuel your fuel cell with either?

Or are you storing it at STP?

Toyota's FCEV Mia stores it in a high pressure tank that they say can withstand a bullet at short range. STP? That would last about 2 seconds. Fuel cells have been running on hydrogen in manned spacecraft and here on Earth in a fair number of vehicles without a single incident to my knowledge.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I am talking about non-GHG energy for transportation. It has to be something that a vehicle can carry. And you yourself said you felt BEV's were untenable because of the recharge time (and you're certainly not alone. Hydrogen fuel cells satisfy all three criteria: no GHG emissions, portable and refuel in minutes. And if energy is being supplied without fuel costs (solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, OTEC, wave, tide, etc) the only hold up is the new infrastructure required. Fuel cells currently require rare metals in the platinum group but hopefully other functional materials can be found. Of course, the lower efficiency of the process as a whole will put the kabosh on fuel cells for years to come but the energetic cost of obtaining hydrogen is not a complete showstopper. Who ever thought fusion would break even, but it has.

Hydrogen as a vehicle fuel is even farther away from feasibility than battery-powered electric vehicles are. And water vapor is a greenhouse gas, more significant as such than carbon dioxide. It cuts the hearty of the of environmentalist-whackos' insane agenda to acknowledge this fact, but it is true. The effect of carbon dioxide on the greenhouse effect is minor compared to that of carbon dioxide. And water is the primary product of burning hydrogen.

So to characterize hydrogen-fueled combustion as GHG free, is just a flat-out lie.

And there are serious problems with trying to store a usable amount of hydrogen on a vehicle. It's a gas at STP, but it's not like propane, that can be liquified by storing it under any reasonable amount of pressure. It takes some combination of extreme pressure and extreme cold to store liquid hydrogen, far beyond what is feasible on the scale of a vehicle.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Toyota's FCEV Mia stores it in a high pressure tank that they say can withstand a bullet at short range. STP? That would last about 2 seconds. Fuel cells have been running on hydrogen in manned spacecraft and here on Earth in a fair number of vehicles without a single incident to my knowledge.

Toyota's FCEV Mia stores it in a high pressure tank that they say can withstand a bullet at short range.

Interesting. Look like over 12000 psi.

STP? That would last about 2 seconds.

No kidding. Hydrogen has a lot less energy than gasoline, at STP.

Fuel cells have been running on hydrogen in manned spacecraft and here on Earth in a fair number of vehicles without a single incident to my knowledge.

The spacecraft probably aren't fueled in a few minutes by unqualified civilian drivers.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

No kidding. Hydrogen has a lot less energy than gasoline, at STP.

By mass, it has a lot of energy. The problem is that at STP, hydrogen has very little energy by volume. It takes some extreme conditions to cram any significant mass of hydrogen into a reasonable volume.

Anyone else remember the images of the Apollo program, of the Saturn V rockets taking off on a pillar of fire, while ice falls off the sides? Liquid hydrogen was used as a fuel. It had to be pumped in at the very last minute, at an extremely cold temperature, and then the rocket had to be launched almost immediately thereafter, before the hydrogen had a chance to warm back up. The rocket would not be able to contain its fuel for more than a few minutes.

 

[Crick]

By mass, it has a lot of energy. The problem is that at STP, hydrogen has very little energy by volume. It takes some extreme conditions to cram any significant mass of hydrogen into a reasonable volume.

Anyone else remember the images of the Apollo program, of the Saturn V rockets taking off on a pillar of fire, while ice falls off the sides? Liquid hydrogen was used as a fuel. It had to be pumped in at the very last minute, at an extremely cold temperature, and then the rocket had to be launched almost immediately thereafter, before the hydrogen had a chance to warm back up. The rocket would not be able to contain its fuel for more than a few minutes.

Containing sufficient hydrogen fuel has been a problem for a long time. One of the better solution I've heard is borax powder, Na2-H20-B4-O17 (and that's H-twenty, not H2O). Be that as it may, the Toyota Mia has a range of 620 km (385 miles) and it refuels in 3 minutes.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Containing sufficient hydrogen fuel has been a problem for a long time. One of the better solution I've heard is borax powder, Na2-H20-B4-O17 (and that's H-twenty, not H2O). Be that as it may, the Toyota Mia has a range of 620 km (385 miles) and it refuels in 3 minutes.

It achieves that, apparently, by having a tank that is pressurized to about 12,000 PSI. Have you any idea how dangerous that is? Not even getting into what would happen if that tank ruptured in a collision, or due to any other malfunction. The the normal flow of hydrogen out of that tank would have a very dangerous amount of force behind it. Typical hydraulic systems run at about 500 to 2000 PSI, and leaks in those systems can result in serious injury to anyone that is in the way. I can't begin to imagine how dangerous a similar leak would be in a 12,000 PSI system. All, just to use a fuel that is far less feasible overall than plain old gasoline.

Infrastructure is another issue, that obviously won't be resolved unless hydrogen-fueled vehicles become much more popular than we have any reason to expect that they ever will. With a 385-mile range, would I be able to drive from Sacramento to Los Angeles? A quick look at this site seems to indicate that at this time, it would not be possible. There are a few stations in and around Sacramento, which would get me enough range to make it to the Bay Area, where there are more stations. There are plenty of stations in and around Los Angeles, but once I left the Bay Area, I'd run out of fuel before I could get to any station along that way.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Containing sufficient hydrogen fuel has been a problem for a long time. One of the better solution I've heard is borax powder, Na2-H20-B4-O17 (and that's H-twenty, not H2O). Be that as it may, the Toyota Mia has a range of 620 km (385 miles) and it refuels in 3 minutes.

Containing sufficient hydrogen fuel has been a problem for a long time. One of the better solution I've heard is borax powder

How do you get the hydrogen out of the borax?

 

[Crick]

Containing sufficient hydrogen fuel has been a problem for a long time. One of the better solution I've heard is borax powder

How do you get the hydrogen out of the borax?

Soap, water and elbow grease!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Soap, water and elbow grease!

Scrub all you want, that hydrogen just ain't comin' out.

 

[Crick]

Soap, water and elbow grease!

Here is a company that makes a liquid out the borax crystals and then catalyzes that to get the hydrogen.

Borax May Soon Run Car Engines

abcnews.go.com

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here is a company that makes a liquid out the borax crystals and then catalyzes that to get the hydrogen.

Borax May Soon Run Car Engines

abcnews.go.com

Millennium Cell Inc. :: Delaware Bankruptcy Court :: Bankruptcy Case No. 09-11139, Judge Christopher S. Sontchi presiding

Millennium Cell Inc., Court Case No. 09-11139 in the Delaware Bankruptcy Court.

www.plainsite.org

They're gone and there was nothing we could do about it.

h/t

 

[Crick]

There you go.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There you go.

Here was the warning sign........"and then catalyzes that to get the hydrogen"

Hilarious!

 

[Crick]

Here was the warning sign........"and then catalyzes that to get the hydrogen"

Hilarious!

And how was that a warning?

You have all yelled and screamed about EV's catching fires. FCEVs don't have lithium batteries. You have all yelled and screamed about the time required to charge them. FCEV refill in under 5 minutes. You've complained about the limited range of EVs. Toyota's FCEV has a range of 650 km. You've complained about the cost of installing a rapid charger in your home. FCEV's require no such thing. You've complained about the lack of public chargers. FCEV doesn't require public chargers. It requires gas stations to start selling hydrogen, a relatively minor adjustment compared to chargers at which cars must sit for hours. I think the primary reasons EVs are taking off and FCEVs are dying is that the Mia doesn't do 0-60 in 2.3 seconds.