Comments on: Boeing Flies on Hydrogen

By: The Cenobyte

The Cenobyte — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:10:46 +0000

Here’s how it breaks down.…
1) Hydrocarbons are abundant but limited.
2) We are worried about Carbon gasses.
3) Hydrogen has less BTUs to it than a Hydrocarbon
4) Fuel Cells are far for efficient than combustion engines. (~40% vs. ~22%)
So as the cost and worry about hydrocarbons go up, the use of hydrocarbons to make electricity or hydrogen will go down. The use of Hydrogen will then go up for current uses of hydrocarbons (cars, trains, boats, lawn mowers, etc, etc) being quite, carbon neutral, a cheaper than the hydrocarbons.
So you guys can talk about who has more experience with all this or that, or understands the technology better. But any good economist will tell you that we will have a hydrogen market, it will be big, we will use it everywhere, oh and Hydrocarbons are not going away anytime soon.

By: DOUGLAS GILLARD

DOUGLAS GILLARD — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 02:02:06 +0000

Here’s my two cents worth along with my credentials; I operated an electrolytic O2 generator manufactered by Treadwell corporation aboard a nuclear powered submarine. It was about the size of a large file cabinet or about six feet high by five long and two feet thick. It produced 120 cubic feet of oxygen per hour, and about 240 cubic feet of hydrogen per hour at 3000psig. Not having any need for the hydrogen, we discharged it overboard. It took 1050 amps DC at 2.5 volts to do this and that is where the problems come from. We had a nuclear reactor so power was not a problem but for mass production another matter. That and the storage. Hydrogen works best in a cryogenic liquid state but we don’t have materials with the right insulation values to keep H2 liquid for long. So for the time being, we have to use a gas system, with it’s weight and space negatives.That can be overcome by higher pressures.
I think we can set up an Hydrogen infrastructure in a decade by setting up Hydrogen refueling stations using electrolysis powered by solar and wind generators. Six generators could be set up in the space of an average gas station’s building. You don’t need a transport system for hydrogen; just water and the Romans did that thousands of years ago.That’s the good news. Remember, we don’t have to set an infrastrucure overnight. I would love to set a station out here in California for those 600 cars Honda is going to test. Also, hydrogen can be used in regular cars with the right alterations. All it takes is money; If I had the money some of those Hollywood enviromentalists have I would be on my way to trying start this Hydrogen business. It may not be profitable at first, but I believe it could be as big as oil has become.

By: PowerBill

PowerBill — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 22:52:51 +0000

I get the impression that until a good storage technique is developed using hydrogen is pretty pointless.
http://www.spacemart.com/reports/Hydrogen_Storage_In_Nanoparticles_Works_999.html
It has great efficiency but only practical way of storing and transporting it I know of is as ammonia. (I recall there is a project around America somewhere with a prototype fuel cell train that runs of H2 stored that way) Stored air is a great intermediary system with many uses and while much much less efficient than batteries or fuel cells it does tend to be cheaper and last a lot longer. I am all in favour of not replacing giant lead acid arrays every decade and wouldn’t mind a pressure vessel like the space shuttle uses for nitrogen but if that were practical nasa wouldn’t be still using the same ones they hoped to replace twenty years ago.
The pressure tanks proposed by the aircar person earlier are pretty nifty and seem safe but if they could hold those tiny H2 thingies we would all be alot happier. Imagine a H2 combustion engine that purified city air as a byproduct! If the ecofreaks weren’t so invested in hybrid biofuel cludges there wouldn’t be such opposition to it.
Btw. I also approve of airships like the other guy and as I said on Christians earlier post :
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004001.html

By: Warren

Warren — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 15:02:55 +0000

I don’t know about the merits of a hydrogen powered car, but there are alternatives to using fossil fuel to generate Hydrogen. A key technology is Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC). OTEC can generate electricity by using the temperature differences that exists in ocean waters to run a heat engine. Hydrogen can be produced via electrolysis using electricity generated by OTEC. The OTEC technology has been demonstrated in the past. Key issue is when will it be commercially viable.

By: JSmith

JSmith — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 03:23:19 +0000

Why use hydrogen cells, which still rely on fosil fuels to be created when you can use water. water powered cars produce no emissions and use no fosil fuels. google it and see for yourself.

By: Mike C.

Mike C. — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 01:39:11 +0000

Jomama
I’m me. And methane is a better energy source than hydrogen. More BTUs per SCF. Look it up. So by turning it into hydrogen, you are losing energy. And, in case you didn’t know, methane doesn’t exactly grow on trees on this planet. Most of what we can use is a component of natural gas. That will probably remain the case until we can figure out a way to tent swamps and collect cow farts.
BTW, 35 years in the energy business here. And you ?

By: Entropyisfun

Entropyisfun — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 16:12:45 +0000

Hydrogen is not an energy source, it has to be created. Creating hydrogen is done using fosil fuels.

By: Josh

Josh — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 13:05:20 +0000

“Tell me why fuel cells aren’t the answer for the dwindling carbon-based energy supplies.“
Because carying around a tank of explosive gas in your car or plane might not be as fun as it sounds. And yes, gasoline is explosive, but gasoline doesn’t constantly leak. Ever have a helium balloon that didn’t go limp?

By: Vercingetorix

Vercingetorix — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 22:43:03 +0000

Ah, might have taken the ‘disingenious’ dig a bit more serious than I should have; which is why I was a bit snippy. Still though, a five year warming trend when global temperatures haven’t risen in a decade doesn’t make a crisis, and we’ve had warmer decades than today around in the earlier part of the century. “Climate change,” ie the weather, is an overhyped social movement that is long on hysteria, and short on reason.
Forgive me if I bow out on a long in-depth discussion on the millenial belief that if we do not repent, civilization will end.

By: doo

doo — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 22:00:54 +0000

I agree, that’s pretty underhanded on their part. I stand corrected about you being disingenuous. They should have clearly indicated the change.
Still, the overall conclusion of the article seems to be that a short-term lowering of temperatures doesn’t mean they won’t increase in the long term (quoting from the original, I think):
“But experts say we are still clearly in a long-term warming trend — and they forecast a new record high temperature within five years.“
The picking of sides is juvenile. Why can’t we just discuss facts?