What really annoys me about this Hydrogen stuff is that so many people somehow get the idea that it is some sort of free energy or an end to dependance on oil when it is neither. All it does it fufil some hippie's wet dream to not have smoke coming out of his car because the smoke is coming out of a factory somewhere.

Some people seem to have the idea that it involves your car running on water. Running anything on water is impossible. Hydrogen fuel cells take in pure hydrogen and release electricity and water.

Hydrogen has essentially nothing to do with ending dependance on oil because you need energy to generate that pure hydrogen. That energy comes from a conventional power source, like oil, coal, or nuclear power.

The part of the idea that makes sense is to put some sort of Fusion power plant or some other futuristic power source that doesn't involve oil somewhere and use the power to make pure hydrogen, which could then be sent out for cars and trucks to run on like oil is today. But we don't have that futuristic power source yet, so making hydrogen powered cars now is kinda pointless.

Did I mention that there's still several large technical issues to solve? Not to mention the cost of converting the entire gasoline infrastructure to hydrogen, which would be immense. Assuming current technology, you'd also need to build huge new power plants to burn all of the oil that cars burn now and make hydrogen to send out. All of that money, and there's still no point to the whole thing. Spend that hydrogen research money on something useful.

Fusion is the best hope for clean energy.  The problems are multifaceted.  The biggest is developing a magnetic field powerful enough to contain the reaction.  The technology is not there yet but maybe in 100 years it will be.  In the big picture we are gonna use the planet up anyway.  So in the long run....we're all dead!

I've heard that, except for stupidity, hydrogen is the most common element in the universe.

True?

Electrolysis requires electrons to flow.  TO get them flowing you need a method which takes a lot of power to get results fast.  Maybe somday they will be able to do this on a large scale with solar, but right now it will be the Power Plants running Nuclear, Coal/fuel, Dams, etc.

mace, you're right on target on this one.

There is one and only one reason that we burn gasoline to transport ourselves.  That is because at this moment in time, it is the [u]cheapest[/u] fuel available in large enough quantities to satisfy our needs.

Hydrogen is too costly to produce.  If it is ever cheaper to produce than gasoline, we will make the switch.

It's as simple as that.

Well, there is a more important difference between Gasoline and Hydrogen: Gasoline is taken from the ground and refined into a useful fuel. That takes some energy, but not as much energy as you get from the fuel, thus mining oil gives you a net gain of energy. Hydrogen can only be manufactured using processes that take as much of more energy then you get from burning the hydrogen. Thus Hydrogen does not give you a net gain of energy.

Driving cars and trucks around (not to mention producing electricity for homes and factories) gives a net loss of energy due to friction. This must be balanced out by a net gain of energy somewhere else. Hydrogen can never provide this. Oil can.

HYDROGEN CAN BE USED TO MAKE BOMBS THAT KILL PEOPLE AND KIDS AND STUFF.

DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE IS A DANGEROUS CORROSIVE CHEMICAL THAT CAN KILL PEOPLE TOO.

BAN HYDROGEN NOW.  FOR THE CHILDREN.

"Sir? I'm afraid you'll have to come with us"

"What? Why?"

"We believe that you are illegally in possession of Hydrogen"

"What are you talking about? I don't have any Hydrogen!"

"Sir, your body is 70% water, and each water molecule contains two Hydrogen atoms. Therefore, you are clearly in possession of unregistered Hydrogen. You will have to come of the Hydrogen removal plant, after which you will be free to go about your business."

Personally, I have a reall problem with Carbon.
(and I'm not very fond of Argon, either)

Hydrogen isn't even a good fusion fuel. Produces too many neutrons, turns the whole vessel radioactive in the long run.

boron and lithium are the best fusion fuels (and gee, could it be the reason why they, and not hydrogen gas, are used as the fuel in "hydrogen" bombs?)

The big technical hurdles for fusion might have gotten smaller. There may be a way to produce fusion reactions with industrial level outputs without magnets. Inertial Electrostatic Fusion, a method discovered back in the 1950's by the inventor of television Philo T. Farnsworth, when he was working for ITT labs. It was abandoned after Farnsworths death in the early 1960's when the US science community paniced over exaggerated reports of Soviet success with the magnetic confinement Tokamak reactor.
[url]http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/iec/Concept/inertial_electrostatic_confineme.htm[/url]

The US Navy has bet 4.6 Million of their dollars that this could lead to a viable power source. [url]http://www.fbodaily.com/archive/2003/03-March/15-Mar-2003/FBO-00279228.htm[/url]

Don't forget the problems storing it.  A local plant recently went out of business, because they simply couldn't come-up with a cost effective way to store large amounts of hydrogen.  The had trouble with the tanks, fittings, pipes, and valves.  I saw on the local news where they tapped a 1" metal pipe with 1/4" or so thick walls they had removed from the plant with a hammer, and it shattered like a piece of glass.  They said the contact with the hydrogen had made it brittle.  Can you imagine driving over a bumpy road in a car with metal parts that brittle from contact with the hydrogen?z

We need an engine that will run on dog shit.  Just think of all the thieves that will come in the dark of night and clean my yard for me. [;D]

Honestly, the best way to run a hydrogen / fuel cell car is with gasoline.  It's a hydrocarbon.  Sure, you produce a little C02 in the process, but it's better than the C02 + N20 ... et al unburnt hydrocarbons we get today.

Not to mention the pressure that pure hydrogen needs to be stored at in car's tank.  I think it's somewhere around 3000 - 5000 psi.  What's that going to do in an accident?

That being said, the whole "clean energy with hydrogen" thing is complete crap.  If you use a hydrocarbon, you're going to get byproducts.  If you use pure hydrogen, you've polluted the environment 10x more at the plant used to produce the hydrogen than you would have if you'd just had a gasoline combustion engine.

The problem with environmentalists is that they're stupid.  They're humanities majors with no understanding of science, physics, or mathmatics and no grounding in reality.  They're like VPC folks, they don't think, they _feel_.

Hey watch it bub. History is in the humanities-you don't find many REAL historians out there-just failed talentless prostitutes like Belsiles. And last I heard biology and "enviromental sciences" were pare of the "hard" sciences. How many of these "ecologists" do you find out there hugging trees and protesting with the Million bimbos?

I kind of like what BMW is doing-
They have a fleet of vehicles in Munich that have standard internal combustion engines that run on hydrogen.  No damn fuel cells here...

I, personally, have an issue with Helium.
I cant talk about it here. It makes me to mad.

Hydrogen is FAR from practical in the near future as stated so well above.

Alcohol as in gasohol is an outright FRAUD.  All it is ,really, is a corn marketing program.  Takes more energy to MAKE a gallon of the stuff than the energy it releases.

you gotta watch'em, they work in pairs ya'know!


i guess the flux capacitor did'nt pan out?

[sarcasm]What are you guys?!?  A bunch of democrats?  A bunch of DU trolls??  George Bush himself promised money for hydrogen research in his state of the Union address!  Are you with us or against us!!![/sarcasm]

-Nick Viejo.

On hydrogen:

It's flammable....

So why bother with the electric BS, just BURN IT!!!

On fuels:

When you can build an 'alternate fuel' car that is as easy to maintain IN MY DRIVEWAY (with only a hammer, socket set, a pair of jackstands, and such), can exceed or match the performance of my 93 Trans Am, and will last for at least 200,000 miles (the life that I expect from your average Firebird), and costs no more to operate, THEN I will look at it (unless it's a SUV, Minivan, or subcompact/econo-box. If it looks like crap, it probably is)...

The biggest problem is creative thinking,as a cars could be made with large thin wheels each wheel containing a rotor and a stator!

Solar collectors on the roof ,trunk and hood areas. A better battery would have to be developed,but the car could almost be build that would resemble self -propulsion!

Certain criteria would have to be met(limited range and speed),but who knows what the future will bring about if we start studying options that will extend and serve the needs of this planet!
Of course this would apply now only to personal travel,as larger transports would require much larger Tech!

 Bob [:D]

This is why hydrogen may not be so aggressively pursued:

Turkey Guts for Oil (original article)
[url]http://www.discover.com/may_03/featoil.html[/url]

Criticisms:
[url]http://www.blogcritics.org/archives/2003/04/23/165907.php[/url]

Type in "turkey guts" and all kinds of internet chatter pops up.  It is taking on an internet following.  Even had a thread on DU.  This process is claimed to work on other unharnessed pollutants as well.

So far the science appears to back it up, but it is the internet and it could be another version of the cold fusion claim (cheap, endless energy) that hit the airwaves a few years ago, but was a hoax.  I took a look at their web page and found it interesting that the former head of the CIA, R. James Woolsey is on their corporate advisory board.
[url]http://www.changingworldtech.com/aboutfr.htm[/url]

He is also an employee of Booz, Allen & Hamilton, a significant government contractor.  I believe he may be in charge of the Global Strategic Security branch which I think supports the commercial, public piece of the company.

What I'm getting at here, is there are some heavy hitters associated with this company, lending some credence to their claims.  If this is true, it will break the back of middle east oil political and financial control in the near future.  The company is privately owned, so all stock is owned by the company and employees and not for sale to the public.

I am following this closely and am still undecided if it is hoax or real.  It will have far reaching consequences if true.  

Jim

All I have to say is that some of you people are a lot smarter than me.

But I sure am glad us stupid people have the same rights as you smart people in this country.

Sgtar15

And stupid people get to [b][u]vote[/b][/u], too.

Can you tell?

[;D]

Stupid people get to vote twice,especially if your name is Dimpled Chad,or Hanging Chad!

Or if you live in New York,and reside in Boward Co.

 Bob [:D]

I recall a number of years ago a news magazine (forgot which) extolling the virtues of "pollution free" propulsion talked about "advanced European research" and sniffed at how slow we were.  Among the photographs accompanying the article was one of a BMW (I think)  with a tank in the trunk, labeled "Wasserstoff", which is German for Hydrogen.  I guess they didn't think about the "Hindenberg".