Honda hydrogen car??

[patrick_g]

Pat, given all of the comments here, why do you think hydrogen is substainable? What primary energy source are you proposing that would make it so?

Hydrogen is neither being created nor destroyed in either ICE use or fuel cells. Unlike burning fosil fuels which are devilishly difficult to reconstitute from tailpipe emissions hydrogen burns producing water which through electrolysis allows recovery of the hydrogen.

I was speaking theoretically and your question may have a more practical slant. Not that you would need or want to do so but you could capture the water of the exhaust of either a fuel cell or a hydrogen powered ICE and take the water back apart to get the same hydrogen back. It would be as sustainable as winding a clock spring to run your car provided you didn't exceed the elastic limit. Due to the abundance of water on this planet we are not going to tie up so much hydrogen, stored as fuel reserves, that we would seriously effect the biosphere. Actual day to day combining hydrogen with oxygen and taking it apart again is a zero sum game with no net loss of hydrogen. Thus the process is sustainable.

Where sustainablity is a thorny issue is in the macroscopic view of the system, not in recycling hydrogen. Where does the energy come from to recover hydrogen from water? Aye, there is the rub. Hydrogen isn't a free or MAGIC energy source (come on guys, get with it we NEED cold fusion) it is just non poluting at the point of CONSUMPTION. The sustainability of hydrogen as a fuel rests on the suystainability of the energy production that supports hydrogen recovery. Except for minor amounts, hydrogen must be gathered up by taking it out of a chemical union with something else. Most all the something elses except water tend to be poluting.

Sustainability comes down to the sustainability of the energy source used to drive the hydrogen recovery process. I favor the sources mentioned in a previopus post: hydro, wind, and direct solar (probably PV.) I would really LOVE to see cold fusion distributed globaly in small home sized plants. OPEC could then try to sell sand to get $.

If done safely, non poluting, and with minimal HOT waste storage problems I'd be almost as happy to see commercial fusion plants for power generation. I still think large tracts of land should be set aside in the desert before they become populated to have future receiver sites for microwave or IR transmisions of energy from space.

Pat

 

[BobRip]

Hydrogen is neither being created nor destroyed in either ICE use or fuel cells. Unlike burning fosil fuels which are devilishly difficult to reconstitute from tailpipe emissions hydrogen burns producing water which through electrolysis allows recovery of the hydrogen.

I was speaking theoretically and your question may have a more practical slant. Not that you would need or want to do so but you could capture the water of the exhaust of either a fuel cell or a hydrogen powered ICE and take the water back apart to get the same hydrogen back. It would be as sustainable as winding a clock spring to run your car provided you didn't exceed the elastic limit. Due to the abundance of water on this planet we are not going to tie up so much hydrogen, stored as fuel reserves, that we would seriously effect the biosphere. Actual day to day combining hydrogen with oxygen and taking it apart again is a zero sum game with no net loss of hydrogen. Thus the process is sustainable.

Where sustainablity is a thorny issue is in the macroscopic view of the system, not in recycling hydrogen. Where does the energy come from to recover hydrogen from water? Aye, there is the rub. Hydrogen isn't a free or MAGIC energy source (come on guys, get with it we NEED cold fusion) it is just non poluting at the point of CONSUMPTION. The sustainability of hydrogen as a fuel rests on the suystainability of the energy production that supports hydrogen recovery. Except for minor amounts, hydrogen must be gathered up by taking it out of a chemical union with something else. Most all the something elses except water tend to be poluting.

Sustainability comes down to the sustainability of the energy source used to drive the hydrogen recovery process. I favor the sources mentioned in a previopus post: hydro, wind, and direct solar (probably PV.) I would really LOVE to see cold fusion distributed globaly in small home sized plants. OPEC could then try to sell sand to get $.

If done safely, non poluting, and with minimal HOT waste storage problems I'd be almost as happy to see commercial fusion plants for power generation. I still think large tracts of land should be set aside in the desert before they become populated to have future receiver sites for microwave or IR transmisions of energy from space.

Pat

Sounds reasonable to me. I would love to see cold fusion, but I would settle for practicle hot fusion.

 

[BobRip]

On recydling of hydrogen - You could take carbon dioxide and pull it out of the atmosphere, break it into C and O, take hydrogen from water and make methane. This would be a closed cyle with no losses. It would reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere. Technically feasible. Why don't we do it. It is easier, cheaper and less polluting to drill a hole in the ground and get methane out of the ground. No more CO2 (and probably at lot less) would be generated this way than if we use hydrogen that is generated from methane, coal, or any fuel. Just another perspective.

I do challenge everbody who believes in solar and wind to put up their own system. This will create a market for these products and drive the business and technology forward. It may not be cost effective at this time, and there is some risk it might never be, but if it is in the future, then people purchasing it now will make that future sooner. Also when people block wind power because of the view issue (not in my backyard), then support the compaines who are trying to put these up.

 

[patrick_g]

Bob R., I need a little more detail about the part where you are claiming a net reduction in atmospheric CO2.

By the way, why involve the water and hydrogen? When you take the CO2 apart just release the O2 into the air and burn the C getting back the original amount of CO2, a zero sum game with no net increase of CO2. Diesel engines were originally invented and designed to run on coal dust (Carbon) not liquid hdrocarbon fuels.

There is a lot of extra work to make methane to burn when you could just burn the hydrogen and not even get involved with carbon. The only advantage I have seen to burning methane is in third world countries where dung is gathered and used as a methane source to run mantle lanterns and stoves and ovens. A highschool science teacher in Carlsbad CA ran a car that he commuted to work with on methane produced by chicken manure in the plastic sheet lined trunk. Ever so often when he would arrive at school he would open the trunk to stir the s--t and he would have methane again in time to commute home. Recharging was free at a local egg ranch.

Pat

 

[BobRip]

Bob R., I need a little more detail about the part where you are claiming a net reduction in atmospheric CO2.

Pat

If you use methane directly from the ground, it will give you more energy at the useage area since there are no losses to make hydrogen from methane. Also since hydrogen leaks much easier than methane your leak losses will be higher. Also since hydrogen has a low energy density its energy requirments to transport it are higher than methane. See the IEEE Spectrum magazine article. They discuss most if not all of this.
My main point is that many chemicals can be recycled including hydrogen. It's just not as efficient with hydrogen.
I don't know the difference in difficulty between making hydrogen and making methane from raw chemicals, so I could be wrong here. However, I suspect that the cost would not be that much different for the process. Of course it probably would not be done since methane is too easily obtainable, not like hydrogen.

 

[Mahana79]

i will stick with my diesel tractor, truck, and car. they like sipping on BioDiesel. I know it isnt as "advanced" as Hydrogen but heck, it suits my need just fine and i already make it in my garage

 

[patrick_g]

If you use methane directly from the ground.

Well, we did that. At the Miramar Naval Air Station, home of TOP GUN before 1. Top gun was downsized and moved to Fallon, Nevada and 2. Miramar was given to the Marines.

The Miramar sanitary land fill at San Diego California is one of the largest land fills in southern California. Impermeable liners are used to prevent ground water contamination and when the height of fill desired is reached the sections are "capped off" to seal the contents in. Large quantities of methane are produced within. Wells drilled in to the land fill captured the methane and used it for fuel at the base. When I was the energy conservation officer at SUBASE San Diego we used to send contaminated fuels by tanker to Miramar to be burned too but the regulations on what constituted hazardous waste and the requirements levied on the truckers got so onerous that it lost economic viability and the Gov just paid to have the "tainted fuels" labeled by California as hazardous waste removed and disposed of. What were these hazordous wastes? Gas and lube oil from the auto hobby shop mostly with ocassional diesel oil with water in it.

We had to pay to have it removed and "handled" instead of burning it CLEANLY in a cogen facility and getting both steam and electricity at low cost with low polution. I don't know if they are still "mining" methane for the cogeneratiion of steam and electricity or if California made it impossible or if the Marines didn't care or ...

Still burning methane produces CO2. Not a PC concept.

Pat

 

[coffeeman]

Wow

I've been reading a lot of the posts here. We covered hydrogen to e-85 and even talked about wind power. We got a lot of smart people posting here. Lot of this info is very interesting. It tells me that even though we are in a lurch now there are good things down the road. Now, a lighter question?

I just saw an ad on tv that had cows talking and the ad guys had the cows indicating California cows make better cheese than cows from the cheese state. I guess the California cows are happy because the weather is warmer. SO...the happy cows make better cheese.

Soon the plants will be rolling and we will be making zillions of gallons ethanol. We'll be feeding the cows the grain after it's processed . The question is; will these cows be the happiest cows of all? Will the cheese be the best of the best? Could this be the deciding factor in which fuel wins?

Cheers Coffeeman

 

[patrick_g]

Only those cows living close enough to the plant so that the byproduct feed is delivered wet will be happier. Those farther away will still get the dry pelletized version of the byproduct. It is expected that the optimum situation will be a collocated ethanol and cattle operation so there is no trucking involved and the energy used to dry and pelletized the feed will not be needed. If this doesn't make happy cows it will make happy owner-managers.

Gary Larson started the talking cow thing way before he was ripped off by the California cheese heads.

Pat

 

[Big_Charlie]

I do challenge everbody who believes in solar and wind to put up their own system. This will create a market for these products and drive the business and technology forward. It may not be cost effective at this time, and there is some risk it might never be, but if it is in the future, then people purchasing it now will make that future sooner. Also when people block wind power because of the view issue (not in my backyard), then support the compaines who are trying to put these up.

Somebody must be building wind power because I just saw a quartet of huge wind turbine blades go by on the highway the other day. The things had to be 80-100' long - pretty impressive.

I looked into putting up a small wind turbine here but 1) we're apparently not windy enough in W.KY to make one work well and, 2) man those things are expensive!!! If they could bring the price down a bit and make them work on less wind, I'd jump at the chance of putting one up.