Two Hydrogen technology Breakthroughs.

The first is about a new way to store and release hydrogen at room temperatures.

Inventional could solve 'bottleneck' in hydrogen storage
Hydrogen-powered cars that do not pollute the environment are a step closer thanks to a new discovery which promises to solve the main problem holding back the technology. Whilst hydrogen is thought to be an ideal fuel for vehicles, producing only water on combustion, its widespread use has been limited by the lack of a safe, efficient system for onboard storage.

Not that this changes my mind about Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars.

Genetically engineered blood protein can be used to split water into oxygen and hydrogen

Scientists have combined two molecules that occur naturally in blood to engineer a molecular complex that uses solar energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, says research published today in the Journal of the American Chemical Society.

This is a bit more significant and could be used in a number of stationary/semi-mobile applications.

Please read the articles for more information and then comment away!

[edit on 5-12-2006 by sardion2000]

Total waste of time. Hydrogen has no use in automobiles in the USA. It will never happen too many lawyers to make sure of that. The EPA will make the byproduct a hazzardous materal and big oil will want to sell it. The by products are enough problems alone to stop it but nobody sees it. But they keep pushing and the government keeps throwing money at it.

mikell

Originally posted by mikellmikell
Total waste of time. Hydrogen has no use in automobiles in the USA.

I whole heartily agree. It may fill some niche somewhere, but who knows I surely don't.

It will never happen too many lawyers to make sure of that. The EPA will make the byproduct a hazzardous materal and big oil will want to sell it.

The byproduct? You mean Water Vapor? Are you kidding me? There is an easy way to fix that if it does become a problem, and that is to run it through a condenser and have it filtered and stored in a chilled compartment for later consumption by occupants of __________________

Did I see your in Toronto then you know you can't just dump the water on the ground this time of the year. I'm a retired fuel systems test engineer for GM and the only reason we got involved in much of it was $$$$$. Worked on fuel cells for a while don't care either way on them. My personal belief is we should not be using oil to heat buildings! I think fossel fuels are best used in vehicles till we come up with a major breal thru in transportation. Get oil out of home heating and that would help out situation 10 fold. Spend money and time on efficency of homes and buildings then autos. My .02

mikell

Originally posted by mikellmikell
Did I see your in Toronto then you know you can't just dump the water on the ground this time of the year. I'm a retired fuel systems test engineer for GM and the only reason we got involved in much of it was $$$$$. Worked on fuel cells for a while don't care either way on them. My personal belief is we should not be using oil to heat buildings! I think fossel fuels are best used in vehicles till we come up with a major breal thru in transportation. Get oil out of home heating and that would help out situation 10 fold. Spend money and time on efficency of homes and buildings then autos. My .02

mikell

How much straight run gasoline can you get from heavy fuel oils or how much diesel and at what cost? I think the heavier fuel oils are used because companies cannot dump their revenue into rivers and cannot dump pollutants into rivers.

But as for the hydrogen subject, articles like the ones posted are pr stunts. None of this means crap. I doubt whether phoryfin or whatever it is can be manufactured. And these articles came from physorg.com (shuddering).

There are numerous was to obtain hydrogen, but none are even close to being economical. Solar power, as being the best, is tremendously weak and unproductive at creating electricity...unless you want to launch a spy satelitte.

i was reading the other thread where it said that hydrogen would only create about 69kw of energy... how much would that equate to as a motor/engine? and how big/heavy a unit would be needed to make that? How much hydrogen would be needed for x hours operation?

with this blood protein... does it die off after the conversion? or does it remain to work on more? what 'blood' : water ratio is required?

I see glass domes (the 'blood' is solar dependant according to the article) on top of hydrogen-electric powered cars filled with water and 'blood'... the 'blood' turning the water into hydrogen.. the hydrogen going through the engine.. then the water 'exhaust' being sent back into the dome to be re-split into oxygen and hydrogen again...

a cycle of renewable energy powering a car (sure, a slow car, but a car nonethless)..

Originally posted by x08
i was reading the other thread where it said that hydrogen would only create about 69kw of energy... how much would that equate to as a motor/engine? and how big/heavy a unit would be needed to make that? How much hydrogen would be needed for x hours operation?

with this blood protein... does it die off after the conversion? or does it remain to work on more? what 'blood' : water ratio is required?

I see glass domes (the 'blood' is solar dependant according to the article) on top of hydrogen-electric powered cars filled with water and 'blood'... the 'blood' turning the water into hydrogen.. the hydrogen going through the engine.. then the water 'exhaust' being sent back into the dome to be re-split into oxygen and hydrogen again...

a cycle of renewable energy powering a car (sure, a slow car, but a car nonethless)..

746 watts = 1 horsepower.

It doesn't take much in the way of horsepower/watts to maintain a reasonable highway speed in an average weight vehicle with reasonably good aerodynamics.
About 15-30 horsepower I believe.

Full accelleration and long steep hills are where you need the power.

From the aircraft perspective, hydrogen has been tested in the past, and recent studies have indicated using cryogenic aircraft would only rise the direct operating costs by around 25%.


Oh, I'd also like to point out hydrogen is safer in a crash than petroleum - thats one of the biggest mis-conceptions going (that hydrogen powered machines are a death-trap).


As some may know, releasing water vapour into the atmosphere at altitude may be worse than releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. Apparently it makes a big impact on the greenhouse effect.

so how much hydrogen would be required to create 756 watts? or 69kw? and how much machinery would be required to do it?

Hmm you see I wonder if Hydrogen fuel cells are worth all the hype. On the surface, with their water emissions only, they seem like environmentally sound god-sends, but then you start to think: where did the energy come from? We all know too well that you can't create energy from nothing, so how do you get the energy into the chemicals so they give it out when they recombine? With electricity, which comes from power stations, which are driven by fossil fuels. It all boils back to that and, having said that, is this technology really worth pursuing?

I would like to know what you people think would happen if the demand for gasoline, kerosene and diesel were reduced as a result of hydrogen technology. I hear natural gas is the best source for hydrogen production on a massive scale to meet demand in place of gasoline, kerosine and diesel.

Originally posted by TheRenegade
where did the energy come from? We all know too well that you can't create energy from nothing, so how do you get the energy into the chemicals so they give it out when they recombine? With electricity, which comes from power stations, which are driven by fossil fuels. It all boils back to that and, having said that, is this technology really worth pursuing?

Well... personally I'd get the power from nuclewar fission stations before moving over to fusion once it becomes available.


Tree huggers might not be 100% happy, but hey.