Is hydrogen as a “clean fuel” still a dream? What can we do?

Here is another site that may be helpful.

Funding

I'm going to check into this myself. I have a few ideas that have a lot of potential. I hope they will help you.

Originally posted by MBF
Here is another site that may be helpful.

Funding

I'm going to check into this myself. I have a few ideas that have a lot of potential. I hope they will help you.

Thanks a lot, MBF. I'll check the site.

Originally posted by MBF
reply to post by blowfishdl

 

Hydrogen is cleaner than gas because only water is produced when it is burned. No green house gases are formed at all, no carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide.

The compressed air car has to have something that compresses the air before it can be used.

[edit on 18-2-2008 by MBF]

Water vapor IS a greenhouse gas, and in fact, it's responsible for FAR more of the greenhouse effect than CO2. The push for hydrogen fuel is obviously not about green house gas reduction, nor is it actually capable of combating "man-made" global warming. In fact, if such a thing were really a significant factor, hydrogen fuel would amplify our effect by about 4 times. CO2 causes 9% of the GH effect, H2O causes 36%. You won't hear the extremist environmentalists mention that though. The fact that so many "activists" push for hydrogen proves that they don't really believe what they preach. Now I'm all for alternative energy sources for national security reasons, but that means I want the fastest available solution, not necessarily the "cleanest" solution (I think nuclear needs to be the biggest part of the equation for right now). That runs counter to the "green movement," despite the fact that some of their answers are theoretically more destructive than current practice.

[edit on 7-3-2008 by ngchunter]

Generally speaking, water molecules also strongly absorb IR radiation (also other light from the sun). However, water molecules are in constant cycle-recycle. The total amount of water vapor won't change much. It can't condense in the form of dew, rain, etc. It can form an equilibrium.
You won't see the concentration of water vapor raised by 100%.


However, the concentration of CO2 could raise by 100%, even till 1000%. It accumulates, and accumulates (of course, there are some sources for assimilation of CO2, say, the ocean, the forests. But it won't condense like water). That is the worry.

At this point I'm far more concerned about global cooling than global warming. That's where the sun spot cycle is taking us. Last year was one of the coldest in quite some time actually. Several Russian scientists are predicting it.

As for alternative energy, forget it. We would need a revolution of sorts, possibly a violent one to overthrow the petro-dollar oligarchy. The technology is already here actually. You will see China and Brazil lead the way into advanced alternative energy resources before you ever see the West do what needs to be done. Moreover if China is too successful I suspect there will be a nuclear war to prevent it.

I just think that the global temperature is a complicated function of multi-variables. It is not a single dependent-independent.

Actually, global warming leads to global cooling. The movie "Day After Tomorrow" shows a good example of what can happen, just not that fast.

Originally posted by fuelcell
Generally speaking, water molecules also strongly absorb IR radiation (also other light from the sun). However, water molecules are in constant cycle-recycle. The total amount of water vapor won't change much. It can't condense in the form of dew, rain, etc. It can form an equilibrium.
You won't see the concentration of water vapor raised by 100%.


However, the concentration of CO2 could raise by 100%, even till 1000%. It accumulates, and accumulates (of course, there are some sources for assimilation of CO2, say, the ocean, the forests. But it won't condense like water). That is the worry.

If you're reacting H2 that you must have gotten from some non-water source (electrolysis is incredibly inefficient, it's unlikely that we'll be able to rely on it as a primary energy source any time in the forseeable future) then you're introducing more water vapor into the system than there was before. Yes, it is recycled, but so is CO2. Water traps CO2, makes carbonic acid. Plants use CO2 for their respiration. Humans only contribute somewhere between .5% to 2% of the total CO2 output in nature. If we start spewing water vapor though (I hate to break it to you, but when you react H2 and O2 you don't get water in liquid form, you get water in gaseous form, vapor) we'd be putting our emissions into the strongest effector of the greenhouse effect. And if we're introducing more water into the system then we're not reducing our output at all, we're amplifying it. Water vapor is the biggest contributor of the greenhouse effect IN SPITE OF the water cycle because it is so incredibly effective at retaining heat. Now you're saying you want to heat a bunch of water molecules and dump it into the atmosphere and you don't think that will affect things as much as CO2? If we burned up every last bit of the oil in the world it wouldn't raise CO2 by "100% or even 1000%" - manmade CO2 accounts for all of 3.2% of all CO2 currently in the atmosphere. And we account for only .001% of water vapor currently. Start spewing it the way we've spewed CO2 though and I guarantee that will change for the worse.

www.geocraft.com...

[edit on 11-3-2008 by ngchunter]

reply to post by MBF


The temperature has its own fluctuation, warming after glacier. I assuem that is what you mean. That is true.

Greenhouse gases could cause some monotonous raise in conjunction of the temperature period.

reply to post by ngchunter


First, water indeed is a greenhouse gas. It is an improtant factor in the atmospheric heat balance.

However, the major portion of water in air is though evaporation of the ocean. Locally , it is more controlled by the forest and ground evaporation.

Of course, if we burn H2, it form H2O into the air. But water content is controlled by temperature. Once cold, it condense to dew and to rain. A rain in an area could well surpass the water from global burning of hydrogen. You form some water vapor into the air, it goes back to the ground in the form of rain. It won't stay there.

CO2 will stay there all the time. Although plants take CO2 and give out O2, it won;t net consume the CO2 from burning fuel.

Since 1950, the CO2 level increased from ca. 300 ppm to now over 370 ppm. Cumulatively, the CO2 concentrationi increases by over 20%. The worst thing is that the rate is accelerating. During this time, the water content almost is constant, although fluctuating.

I personally have been working with trying out various electrolysis designs for water separation into Hydrogen and Oxygen.

It's a pretty feasible alternative to many fuels we currently use, at least I have found it to be.

I have worked with both types of water electrolysis designs, those that produce an HHO gas mix, and those that separate H2 and O2 into two separate tanks.

The HHO gas mix option is the most efficient, as the electrodes can be placed extremely close to one another. The gas can be burned... I use mine as a cutting torch.

The H2 O2 independent separation method can also be used for burning once the gasses are re-combined, or alternatively, you can add them together with a catalyst (Typically in plate form) to produce electricity directly.
See Hydrogen PEM.


Along the way, I have come across MANY misconceptions about hydrogen.
I will attempt to address those that I can remember here.

MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT HYDROGEN

Q) If we use hydrogen as a fuel source, won't we run out of water?
A) No. You get as much water out of the process as you put in.

Q) I thought that CO2 is produced no matter what you burn.
A) No. CO2 can only be produced if your fuel source contains Carbon. Water contains no carbon.

Q) If you put hydrogen and oxygen back together, its water, how can it burn?
A) Burning something is referred to as Oxidization. The hydrogen won't mix with the oxygen again until it is either ignited, or a catalyst is used to assist in electron movement.

Q) Didn't the Hindenburg blow up because it was filled with Hydrogen?
A) The Hindenburg was coated in a tar based sealant to contain the Hydrogen. It was the tar paint that burned... the hydrogen didn't ignite until the ship was on the ground with the second hull breached.
Uncontrolled hydrogen ignites very fast. It will usually resemble a quick flash with a pop, or whoop noise. This can actually be seen in the old news video.
Nobody died as a result of the Hydrogen igniting.

... if you're in a room filled with hydrogen and oxygen, and it ignites, the most physical damage you will sustain will either be from your clumsiness due to surprise , or simple singed hairs.
However, if the room was completely filled, you pose a good chance of suffocating, as all the oxygen in the room has just been used.

Q) Wouldn't a car running on hydrogen be one big hydrogen bomb.
A) No. Look up how the hydrogen bomb works... it took a good decade of engineering to make an explosion like that. (Gasoline also used to be used as an explosive for bombs... Plutonium doesn't explode if you light it, but they managed to make a bomb out of that!)

Q) You need an energy source to split Hydrogen don't you?
A) Some methods yes, some no. Bacterial use does not need electricity (unless you're keeping the bacteria warm). As mentioned by another user, if you hit the right frequencies to match the valence shells in hydrogen and oxygen, you can theoretically separate the two with nothing more than light.
Electrolysis is the one that needs energy. However, the interesting thing about hydrogen generation is you don't have to produce it on demand. Meaning you can leave a solar array somewhere splitting water for you, and you can go to it when you need to re-fill.

Q) Water and electricity? Thats a dangerous mix isn't it?
A) Contrary to what you may think, water can't conduct electricity. It's the impurities in water that carries the current.

Q) If I separate dirty water, won't I end up with the impurities in my exhaust once I burn it again?
A) No. The electrolysis procedure removes most impurities by nature. The rest will simply fall to the bottom of your storage tanks.

Q) Will we still have to rely on Nuclear power, or other power generation methods?
A) Yes, unfortunately, for now. The way the grid is designed will only allow for proper distribution of power generated in massive quantities. Such as from a nuclear power plant, or other generation stations.
Remember, Hydrogen is an alternative for on the spot power production and burning... not an alternative for nation wide power production. Nothing beats nuclear for that ability.
(But you also don't want a nuclear power plant in your cottage, now do you?)

Q) Why don't we just use batteries.
A) Batteries don't burn well. lol.
Seriously though, if you want to design a battery that can be safely disposed of when you're done with it, without taking it to a battery disposal group... by all means.

Also, Hydrogen electrolysis is at 65% efficiency (power used vs power created over the entire process) at best so far. Batteries are at the same general efficiency that hydrogen technology is at the moment... however, you have to throw batteries away after a certain amount of time. Hydrogen systems only have to be cleaned occasionally. (Easy as running water through it while it's off).

Q) I heard you can drink the exhaust. But pure water doesn't have the nutrients that regular drinking water has, does it?
A) Feel free to add all the chlorine you want.
Water was never intended to be Gatorade. Stop trying to make it into it.

[edit on 12-3-2008 by johnsky]

reply to post by johnsky


Nice piece, johnsky. I like it.

For a few of the Q&A's, you might try a little bit different expression to make it more accurate, I think.

Hydrogens just a scam to keep the oil companies in control.

thats why they shut down the electric cars.

reply to post by Holygamer


Yup, i guess thats why hydrogen fuel is already being used in many other countries including ours.

Come on read a little on fuels before you go dismissing the possibility of another source of free energy.

Tesla had the first free energy invention, look it up its out there.

Also, Hydrogen electrolysis is at 65% efficiency (power used vs power created over the entire process) at best so far. Batteries are at the same general efficiency that hydrogen technology is at the moment...

Johnsky.... didn't you fact check this before posting?





[edit on 18-8-2008 by sardion2000]

[edit on 18-8-2008 by sardion2000]