How hydrogen technology suppression is keeping humanity from progressing - Part 1

a reply to: neutronflux

There is a reason why hydrogen power keeps flopping. It’s not efficient, the pressurized hydrogen tanks are dangerous, directly charging a battery is more efficient.

Last reply, please read the thread you're making yourself a fool here.

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

You

The energy comes from renewable energy sources with an ROI between at least 4 and 40.
Go figure.

Using renewable energy to generate electricity that can directly go into placing that energy into a battery will always be more efficient, and will always require less infrastructure.

Sorry.

I am not saying it might not be necessary for say jet engines when there is no sources of kerosine. But it’s just not efficient for cars compared to batteries.

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

I think a small scale hydrogen extraction per car isn’t really feasible. It would be like a car that ran on compressed air (like a pneumatic tool) and the air compressor ran in a battery. Just wasting energy in the conversion process.

Now electricity generated from a hydrogen extraction power plant (as opposed to say nuclear power plant) would be worth the investment.

What about a pneumatic electrical generator for a car? Stop at an air pump every so often to refill the air tanks? Or plug the car in at any 110v outlet? I mean if you could get 50-100 miles out of 15 minutes of running an air compressor...

a reply to: neutronflux

Using renewable energy to generate electricity that can directly go into placing that energy into a battery will always be more efficient, and will always require less infrastructure.

Read the thread.

The electrolysis would run on remote islands, where we have wind and solar, for example. It would be produced elsewhere, and then shipped. That's why I integrated the storage part, that you will refuse to read.

You say transporting batteries to remote islands forth and back is more viable? What about the resources these batteries need? Just FYI I drive EV (for the torque, not the environment).

EV have a worse CO2 balance than gasoline engines, did you know that?

Since we do not have good storage for electricity, we need to do it like that currently. You rather want to burn fossil fuels?

a reply to: Ahabstar

The hydrogen would be produced on remote islands or other unhabitated spaces. We have wind and solar energy there. Accidents or blow ups would not lead to catastrophes.

Since you seem to be the only one trying to have a normal conversation, I will sumarize:

Wind and solar produces electricity
Electricity used to generate hydrogen
We store the hydrogen in special, relative new technology containers and if the MIC would allow, coat it with the stuff we currently can not have. The hydrogen will be safe inside the hydride.

Then we can use the hydrogen, wherever we ship it to, to burn it in the combustion engines. A technology that is already here, many can be converted and the current infrastructure could be used.

We could also use the hydrogen in fuel cells. The whole point of this is that we need the remote locations, or locations where we have the renewable energy, profit from ROI 4-40 that leaves enough room to kill all the arguments about feasability that have been brought forward.

We could burn it in furnaces for heating. Heating takes more energy % than traffic. I didn't even go down that route yet.

Just so you all know, this is not something I dreamed up, there are plans for this and it would work. We just need the political will to pull it through and also the one key technology that is currently hidden.

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

I've researched this topic in the past and have always came to the conclusion that it's not worth the investment.
The electricity could be put to better use than electrolysis.

Electric vehicles are the future except for heavy use vehicles like semi's.
There will also still be a large demand for oils as lubricant so fuel will still be a huge byproduct of that process.

a reply to: Bluntone22
Things have changed since then and I hint a last time on the key technology.

The electricity could be put to better use than electrolysis.

Generally this is true. But we can not use renewable energy everywhere. Countries like Chile for example, could utilize wind energy. That's the whole point, we currently do not utilize renewable energy sources/places with high efficiency because the global politics won't allow for it. It's a geopolitical thing. Imagine a country with possibilities like Chile would become a supplier of hydrogen.

You think OPEC and even the USA, Europe want this to happen?

Electric vehicles are the future for short distances, light travel, I agree. For far distances we could use hydrogen or e-fuels. E-fuel, synthetic fuel mostly made out of methane or hydrogen, are being developed currently. They have some advantages over petrol-gasoline. They are not as dirty, and therefor storage is better. They do not have the octane issues we have with gasoline. For example you Americans have very bad gasoline. The octane isn't high, it's in the 90s range. Europe has 98(super) and up to 102 (super plus).

CO2 emissions are the same for e-fuel. And that's where electric beats it. You always have to consider that if you use electricity, your car does not emmit CO2 and other gasses, but the coal power plant used to produce it.

Since Europe quits nuclear, that's not an option. We could have Thorium reactors but the politics and military does not allow that. There's no weapon grade material coming from it. Huh, strange here is the MIC again, the second time in this thread.

It's going to be a hybrid system between gasoline, e-fuels and electricity driven vehicles and appliances. Until we master fusion and or invent a storage system for electricity that's feasable, that's the route to go.

We still need oil and I am aware that the resources are bigger than we thought originally. We need oil for so many things, it's crazy. Therefor we should preserve it.

This thread isn't about climate change, it's about how we master the upcoming energy crisis by using renewable energy sources with high ROI to create hydrogen and other fuels, that can be transported easier than electricity.

Invent a 99% efficient battery and fusion and I will get this thread deleted as it's useless. Until then, this plan is already setup and slowly put in motion by some but politics will just ignore it because of geopolitical reasons, control and incompetence.

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

For cars.

How is there something more efficient than creating electricity by what ever means, say solar. And putting that electricity right into the cars battery?

a reply to: neutronflux

For cars.

For cars, for heating, for producing electricity that we can not store currently.

How is there something more efficient than creating electricity by what ever means, say solar. And putting that electricity right into the cars battery?

Tell me how you would get the electricity from Chile to Europe or the USA or any other place on the world? Via batteries?


From the post you quote, do you even read or are you trolling at this point??

Generally this is true. But we can not use renewable energy everywhere. Countries like Chile for example, could utilize wind energy. That's the whole point, we currently do not utilize renewable energy sources/places with high efficiency because the global politics won't allow for it. It's a geopolitical thing. Imagine a country with possibilities like Chile would become a supplier of hydrogen.

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

a reply to: Bluntone22
I can deal with that

originally posted by: ThatDamnDuckAgain
a reply to: Bluntone22
I can deal with that

I could get behind a buildup of nuclear power.

If we ever run out of other options. Maybe…

10 February 2021 13:48 GMT UPDATED 10 February 2021 16:20 GMT

Why using clean hydrogen for heating will be too difficult, expensive and inefficient: report

www.rechargenews.com...

Heating homes with clean hydrogen by converting natural-gas networks to run on pure H2 is a terrible idea — far more difficult, expensive and inefficient than simply using electric heat pumps, according to an independent report released today.

“ Heating homes with clean hydrogen by converting natural-gas networks to run on pure H2 is a terrible idea”


Double shrugs….

a reply to: Bluntone22
I see it like that too. But since Germany opted out and my opinion doesn't sway that fact, I and others are looking for different solutions.

a reply to: neutronflux

“ Heating homes with clean hydrogen by converting natural-gas networks to run on pure H2 is a terrible idea”

Apples and oranges, please quote me on the natural-gas network idea.

Burn it in power plants and distribute it as electricity over the grid. Build charging stations near existing PV-arrays and hybridize it with additional H2O. When the sun shines but nothing goes out to the grid because the merrit-order-effect would prevent it or other circumstances too complicated to explain, kick in electrolysis to generate hydrogen and store it for both hydrogen cars and turning it to electricity. The overall ROI is currently better than building LIion battery racks by the thousands for a single plant.

I worked in grid management, just saying. I was responsible for monitoring and analyzing several town sized solar power plants, two digit MW power plants. Wrote about this a while ago but don't blame you for not knowing.

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

Well the STAR part of Ahabstar is Standard Transportation from an Alternate Resource. So I have looked at quite a few things over the years.

Remember when they said we would have nuclear powered vacuum cleaners? Would we want such a thing with terrorists and the ease of making a dirty bomb? A few junk cars with working extraction plants....is a whole lot of unregulated hydrogen in anyone’s hands.

A hydrogen car has to overcome the immediate Hendenburg comparison. I made parts for a prototype Ford LTD tha5 was to run on Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) in which the sales department told engineering that they had to sell a car that “ran on farts”

Perception means a lot too.

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

I have a hydrogen generator, it's quite effective, 198cc/second H2 and when combined with O3 I get another 396cc/sec of O2. I use permeable membranes between the cells to keep the H2 and O2 from mixing until I need whatever ratio is required for the application. More O2 the hotter the burn, up to about 6000+ C.

The image above doesn't show the ultrasonic/LF vibration system that rapidly separates the H2 and O2 bubbles from the cathodes and anodes. It also doesn't show my new acid etched copper plates. I use a weak solution of sodium hydroxide, a narrow cathode/anode spacing and the system runs on 5vdc at 120amps.

You can use it to increase gas mileage and power in a vehicle or you can run a 2.5kw generator.

Cheers - Dave

the guy is dead, and there is no way to know today if it was a lie, a scam, or the truth. So knowing that, enjoy if you want to check it out.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle
# awesome, Sir!

Do you mind me asking some questions? You can also point me someplace where I can study this myself so you don't have to waste your time. Ready? Here they come.

The cells:
How much does it weight as a 2.5kw setup, filled and with reserves?

P(kW) = 5V*120A= 600W electrical input plus some for the ultrasonic / LF vibration?

Would vibrations... from a small go-kart chassis disturb the reactions?

Would g-forces / directional acceleration disturb the reaction?

Can this be scaled to 20kW?


The generator you run:
When you write it runes a 2.5kW generator, you're saying it can provide enough hydrogen gas to really use it under full load?

What type of generator is this, I am personally very interested! 2 or 4 stroke? Pistons? OMG please let it be 2-stroke so I can scale this up into a ridiculous gokart.

a reply to: network dude
Thank you, I will check out.

Nobody noticed the real bad typo in my calculation yet and I can't fix it.