Why Not Use Hydrogen as the World's Commercial Fuel?

reply to post by MrSmith


They said the same thing about oil in the 1860s.

Originally posted by kon1foundas
reply to post by MrSmith

 

They said the same thing about oil in the 1860s.

When stating what various types of energy production cost, the costs of wars and corruption in the production and safe guarding of oil and pipelines are never factored in, imho they should be and the comparisons are all pretty tight so I reckon oil would actually be the most expensive by a hefty margin, but hey the tax payer carries the cost and the profits are all sent to the old money elite and they employ the politicians so it all works out fine for them.

Why Not Use Hydrogen as the World's Commercial Fuel?
Control.

Originally posted by James1982
reply to post by kon1foundas

 

I'm really not trying to be mean saying this, but it doesn't seem like you are very well informed on Hydrogen.

It takes electricity to extract hydrogen from water. The amount of energy from the extracted hydrogen is LESS than the electrical energy required to free it from Oxygen. Meaning a loss of energy.

With oil, yes it takes energy to drill and pump oil. But the amount of energy from a given amount of oil is GREATER than the amount of energy required to get at it.

For every 1 barrel of oil used to power the drill/pump, it will produce 2 barrles. I'm just making ratio up as I'm not sure what the real amount is, but regardless more oil is produced than used.

EDIT: Damn someone posted pretty much the same thing while I was typing my post!

edit on 1-3-2011 by James1982 because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-3-2011 by James1982 because: To add "reply to" sorry about the mix-up leaualorin!

That does not amount to a hill of beans if you can make your own hydro separator in your current car or truck easily and get off gasoline for good. A guy I work with made one for his car and showed it to me the other day. He made it from stuff he bought at home depot for around $50.00 US. He found the idea on You-tube.

Its easy to make one, just don't blow yourself up.

Don't be a fool, We don't need Hydro stations. We have water hoses at our homes, if you run out on the road unzip your fly and you have fuel.

Originally posted by kon1foundas
reply to post by Shuzitzu

 

Power/energy from the ocean to convert hydrogen can come in the form of ocean-wind power and ocean current power, and that part is powerful, abundant (never ending) and free! The rest will cost, but people, companies, governments etc will pay for energy anyway. It has to cost something for it to be marketable. Oil sill costs a lot to produce, refine, ship etc etc.

Yes, but at the end of the day, drilling, pumping, and refining oil gives you an energy gain.

Where as using any sort of power generation to extract hydrogen, at the end of the day, gives you an energy loss.

Originally posted by kermithermit111
reply to post by kon1foundas

 

James1982 needs to do much more research before acting like a physics doctorate. OP: Do not believe anyone who thinks their opinion is the 110% truth and only truth.

Please, both of you, do MORE research before coming to CONCLUSIONS.

Upon a higher intellectual enlightenment, you may come to a better understanding of the possibilities that surround us all.

I can tell you that it does not take "more energy to make hydrogen than you get from it".

Do either of you even have any first hand experience with electrolysis?

This is a great thread topic and I wish more people would grow to be interested in the solutions to this mess of a world.

edit on 1-3-2011 by kermithermit111 because: (no reason given)

First hand experience? None other than simple experiments collecting hydrogen from water back in high school.

I have done tons and tons of research though. Not just online, but at actual libraries. I have been very interested in Hydrogen for years. Not once did I come across anybody credible that challenged the claim that Hydrogen takes more energy to produce, than it puts out when used. This is currently accepted scientific fact. If you believe I am spreading lies here, please provide proof to back it up, or sit down.

I don't know why people keep doing what you just did. By that I mean come into a thread, challenge commonly accepted fact, and then refuse to back it up with any actual information at all while insinuating the person you disagree with has an inferior intellect. Post some links that show Hydrogen produces more energy than the amount needed to harvest that Hydrogen.

Perhaps YOU are the one that needs to do more research, and I'll help you out:

www.energybulletin.net...

Many of these are engineering problems which could probably be worked out in time. But there is one basic flaw which will never be overcome. Free hydrogen is not an energy source; it is rather an energy carrier. Free hydrogen does not exist on this planet, so to derive free hydrogen we must break the hydrogen bond in molecules. Basic chemistry tells us that it requires more energy to break a hydrogen bond than to form one. This is due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and there is no getting around it.

www.renewableenergyworld.com...

In the future, hydrogen could also join electricity as an important energy carrier. An energy carrier moves and delivers energy in a usable form to consumers. Renewable energy sources, like the sun and wind, can't produce energy all the time. But they could, for example, produce electric energy and hydrogen, which can be stored until it's needed. Hydrogen can also be transported (like electricity) to locations where it is needed.

www.fuelcellpartnership.org...

Every fuel requires more energy to make than it yields, and all fuels create some pollution. A number of governments and universities have conducted well-to-wheels studies, which compare varies fuel pathways and vehicle types. Hydrogen produced from natural gas and used in a fuel cell vehicle is twice as efficient and 55% cleaner than gasoline through a conventional vehicles.

Are you getting the idea yet? Or do I still just need to do more research and try to improve my intellect. I think it's doing fine myself, because I just totally disproved what you said without much effort at all.

How about you do some research yourself before claiming I'm the uninformed one?

I never said a Hydrogen setup couldn't work, I just said it is simply not a means to GENERATE energy. It is a means to TRANSFER energy. Because of this, Hydrogen will not have anything to do with relieving the energy crisis. You are going to have to at least DOUBLE the amount of energy actually being CREATED in our power grid to be able to use Hydrogen as a fuel for vehicles.

And I'll say this again because some people either don't listen, or don't actually do the research for themselves. Hydrogen does not CREATE energy. The best example is a rechargeable battery. It doesn't create power, it just stores it to be used later.

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger

I think hydrogen does have a place in the energy chain. How about this: Use solar or other mean such as geothermal to produce the electricity separate the hydrogen for use in internal combustion engines.

The hydrogen burned would put out more energy than batteries, and have much less of an ecological footprint than battery powered engines - those batteries are ecological nightmares to make and dispose of.

Oh I agree with you. I think in the future when we are able to actually generate more power, Hydrogen would be a far superior way to power automobiles and the like. Electric vehicles are just not useful for 100% of the applications 100% of the time. Hydrogen would be.

The only reason I'm getting heated in this thread, is because people take this concept too far and think that Hydrogen is a way to produce energy, but it isn't. If there were vast wells full of hydrogen and all we had to do was pump it out of the ground like oil, then yes it would be an energy source. But we have to make hydrogen, we can't just find hydrogen.

In order to switch everything from fossil fuels to a Hydrogen infrastructure we would have to triple our energy production. And if that isn't hard enough, over half of our current energy production comes from fossil fuels. So we basically have to build 3 entire new infrastructures for energy. Massive numbers of nuclear power plants, wind farms, solar collectors, etc. It's not impossible, it's just not economic right now. That could, and hopefully change in the future.

Car that runs on water.

Originally posted by Cosmic4life
Aint gonna happen..

Peak oil is a myth cooked up to make you pay more.

This planet is awash with oil...and the distribution network is already there.

Hydrogen costs a lot to produce and is a nightmare to store and distribute.

Now if you could come up with something that breaks down water that can be fitted to your car then you might have something to break the oil cartel...if they don't break your neck and steal your invention that is.

Cosmic...

Water can be separated chemically, will not save any energy but it is possible to use an alkaline metal to extract hydrogen from water, onboard. The ratio of metal to water will vary though. Magnesium is probably a good choice as it is not as volatile as for instance sodium or potassium and only reacts with steam.

The reacted magnesium hydroxide can be recycled to make new magnesium. This will of cause require energy but is a safer way to use hydrogen as it can be produced on demand inside the vehicle.

Questions.

1. Is getting hydrogen from water EASIER than refining gasoline from crude?
2. Is it safer to transport?
3. Is it as ecologically dangerous as Oil?
4. What price would be paid for a gallon of Hydrogen fuel?

Why can't something that's commercial become essential ?

I'm sorry but hydrogen is difficult to extract and difficult to store. Do any of you remember what happened with the Hindenburg? Yeah, do you want cars driving around with giant tanks of hydrogen to get any sort of range out of them and see what happens when an accident happens. A simple accident could cause an explosion that would kill several people in the vacinity.

Not smart.

reply to post by James1982


Agreed.

Hydrogen without fusion is NOT the answer to primary electrical energy production unless some extremely radical new method of separating hydrogen from water is discovered.

But IF we use alternatives such as solar, wind, geo, bio, nuclear, whatever fuels to generate our electricity, then hydrogen generated from that new source of electricity becomes the optimum power source for mobile vehicles.

We can't think anymore that one source, one method answers all needs: we need different sources to interlock to meet different needs. Hydrogen definitely has its place for vehicle fuels.

It used to be electrolysis took too much power to get hydrogen from water.

In 2007 an American Inventor, John Kanzius figured out how to break Oxygen from Hydrogen using radio waves.

More efficient than electrolysis....He figured out how to burn Salt Water.

The Government knows they couldn't make money with people powering their cars with salt water. So the US Navy has contracts out now to companies in California to try and use that Kanzius process to get Hydrogen...then use the Fischer-Tropsche process to take the carbons in the water and that Hydrogen to make Jetfuel/Diesel.

Our new Ford Class Aircraft Carrier could make it's own jetfuel to fly it's planes. But the more efficient method is to just use the Hydrogen Kanzius figured out how to get from saltwater. The man got saltwater to BURN!

Only if Russia and China survive will we see John Kanzius's saltwater fuel come to human use. America's on the warpath to suppress the technology.

Originally posted by Pervius
It used to be electrolysis took too much power to get hydrogen from water.

In 2007 an American Inventor, John Kanzius figured out how to break Oxygen from Hydrogen using radio waves.

More efficient than electrolysis....He figured out how to burn Salt Water.

The Government knows they couldn't make money with people powering their cars with salt water. So the US Navy has contracts out now to companies in California to try and use that Kanzius process to get Hydrogen...then use the Fischer-Tropsche process to take the carbons in the water and that Hydrogen to make Jetfuel/Diesel.

Our new Ford Class Aircraft Carrier could make it's own jetfuel to fly it's planes. But the more efficient method is to just use the Hydrogen Kanzius figured out how to get from saltwater. The man got saltwater to BURN!

Only if Russia and China survive will we see John Kanzius's saltwater fuel come to human use. America's on the warpath to suppress the technology.

edit on 3-3-2011 by Pervius because: spellin

He was using hundreds of watts to burn that salt water. A guy a youtube sustained a flame with less than 3 watts. Makes you think.. The military already has technology light years beyond that..Unfortunately any kind of breakthrough doesn't go towards the benefit of mankind, only towards the killing of mankind, for use in weapons and killing machines.

Any kind of breakthrough in the energy field can be legally thwarted by tptb anytime they please, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. I don't think a lot of other countries follow this way of thinking, so that is why America will be left in the dust as far as technology goes..In the commercial realm that is.
www.fas.org...

Welcome to ATS I hope you enjoy the topics and people here as much as I do.