Hydrogen technology - will it ever be feasible?

[eb2fairmont]

Oh boy. Here we go.

Remember E=MC2?

In nuclear fission atoms are split into two components. During this process one element is split into two new ones. However, the weight of these two "new" elements weigh less than the orginal one. Ergo, the difference in mass is the released energy, known as a "mass defect". This process only really works for the large elements like uranium being split into smaller ones (I'll get to this later.)

Nuclear fusion, is the reverse. The fusing of two small elements to form larger ones. Best example is fusing two hydrogen atoms to form helium. The helium weight is slightly less than the original sum of the two hydrogen molecules. Again, the coversion of mass "mass defect" is released as energy.

The issue is that with either process, they both stop working around when you get up to the atomic mass of Iron. So, the fusing togther of elements higher than iron actually takes energy to achive...as does the splitting of elements below this.

Correct me if I am wrong. But in relation to orginal arguments, you can destroy elements, but you create new ones. However, the process to do so is to overcome a nuclear force, rather than the energy held by breaking atomic bonds (as in combustion).


As for:

If what you are saying is true, you would be able to collect your own faeces, urine and sweat and scientifically recreate the meal you had the night before...... are you saying this is entirely possible?

The answer to this is yes in terms of chemical bonds, as biological processes (sweat +urine+facies = grass + a cow eating it + sunlight = steak) over time would be able to recreate a steak. However, the atoms in the "new" steak (at a nuclear level) are not the original ones.


I bet that'll do your head in

[Bossxr8]

Plug in electric vehicles are pointless in Australia, it just moves the pollution elsewhere, to coal burning power stations. Its only really good at reducing emissions when the power is supplied by nuclear, wind or solar energy.

The most CO2 polluting thing in Australia is coal burning power stations, by a very large margin. Vehicles only make up less than 8% of CO2 emissions.

[xtremerus]

Originally Posted by au3xr6

lets look at a few facts here

1. hydrogen is a renewable source as such as it is an element and elements can't be detroyed the are just combined with other elements to form compounds ( water inthis case)
2. the hydrogen can theoretically be derive using renewable methods (solar )
3. there are no chemicals consumed in the electrolysis process only a catalyst ( usually a salt of some kind to aid conduction)
4. the electrodes used in the electrolys process are generally platinum ( or irridium) whic stand up to the process well and seldom if ever need relpacing only periodic cleaning
5. technology is expanding almost expotentially so we are likely to see significant advances in much less than 3 years
6. the primary by product od combustion is water although there may be some incidental use of nitrogen in the process nitrogen is considered to be inert in most (but not all) situations . nitrogen will not burn but will be caught up to a small degtee in the combustion process . so the compounds of nitrogen will be negligable in this proces

although hydrogen power is not practical today it will become more so in coming years

What ever technology you use, you will still need more energy to produce the Hydrogen than you get out of it to generate power [ whether for electricity or burning ] that is scientific fact. If you don't use the Hydrogen for power immediately at the generation of it, to lower power losses, it takes massive amounts of extra energy to store it. Bit of a waste of time and money and energy.
Hydrogen is only an energy storage/transfer system when used in this way.

Which is more efficient?
Solar/Wind/nuclear electric energy ---> produce H ---> use to produce power/electricity for cars

Solar/Wind/nuclear electric energy ---> use to power electric cars

Solar and wind generation alone will never be able to power all the millions of vehicles in the world, but with nuclear, there might be a chance.
The best "green" solution is nuclear, if only the greenies would accept it. But the green religion was formed in the anti-nuclear era and is a basis of their beliefs, and it would be heresy to accept. [getting down off soapbox].

[leadfoot]

I reckon this guy has the answer
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=h6vSxR...eature=related

[mik]

it is another fuel but it still needs electricity to make the process happen.

[mik]

there is only 1 answer..............

[leadfoot]

Would look better lowered & 19in horseshoes on it

[Fordoldie]

Originally Posted by mik

it is another fuel but it still needs electricity to make the process happen.

Yes what they are doing is seperating the hydrogen using a unique ultrasonic method plus one or two other chemical processes

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Plug in electric vehicles are pointless in Australia, it just moves the pollution elsewhere, to coal burning power stations. Its only really good at reducing emissions when the power is supplied by nuclear, wind or solar energy.

The most CO2 polluting thing in Australia is coal burning power stations, by a very large margin. Vehicles only make up less than 8% of CO2 emissions.

Actually even if all the cars were electric, and all the power came from dirty coal, it would still be cleaner than everyone running internal combustion engines, if it wasn't, then we would all be better off powering our homes with V8 generators to save the planet. Electric power is a more efficient way of using it. Then there is clean coal power which is 80% cleaner, then there's nuclear, and solar, wind etc which would be even better. A spokesman for a power company in the US on Jay Leno's Garage website, said if we were all dependent on power companies for our cars, during off-peak times, the power companies could produce electricity much more efficiently overall, as the demand curve would flatten. I know as none of this has been proven, we can't "know" for sure on all the pros and cons until we are actually doing something, but it bugs me when people criticize others for even trying to do something better for the environment.

[Fordoldie]

Originally Posted by chevypower

Actually even if all the cars were electric, and all the power came from dirty coal, it would still be cleaner than everyone running internal combustion engines, if it wasn't, then we would all be better off powering our homes with V8 generators to save the planet. Electric power is a more efficient way of using it. Then there is clean coal power which is 80% cleaner, then there's nuclear, and solar, wind etc which would be even better. A spokesman for a power company in the US on Jay Leno's Garage website, said if we were all dependent on power companies for our cars, during off-peak times, the power companies could produce electricity much more efficiently overall, as the demand curve would flatten. I know as none of this has been proven, we can't "know" for sure on all the pros and cons until we are actually doing something, but it bugs me when people criticize others for even trying to do something better for the environment.

It will not be long before we have 95% clean burning coal, possibly even better

[XplosiveR6]

Originally Posted by mik

there is only 1 answer..............

That would have to be the smartest answer in this thread, seriously. At this moment, the only alternative to fossil fueled vehicles are horse and cart. Think about it, what mechanical vehicle can run on something as simple as grass and water, Its very clean for the environment and way more efficient then anything else that will ever be invented. biology is the answer, there is nothing on this earth more efficient or as powerful as biological beings.
now we just need a means to harness the biological energy. The Matrix anyone?

[SeXC]

I am going to have to apologise for this. I was wrong.

I dont know what i was thinking about will have to go back to the books to find what it was.

au3xr6 i am sorry.

[[Tonko]]

Originally Posted by 90sFTW

Get them to shoot the tank with an M82 Barrett sniper rifle, that gun can punch through armour easily.

Or strap on a few kilos of napalm.
Clown.

[ondori]

Its a large part of the future, but It not going to be alone.

check out this Honda Fuel cell Hydrodgen...
http://www.jaylenosgarage.com/video/...tml?vid=205246
Honda's site
http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-cla...=fcx.honda.com

and ford?
http://www.ford.com/innovation/envir...endly/hydrogen

Ford Australia has joined forces with the Uni of Melbourne to Development of Hydrogen engines in Aus, with the help of $1.2 Mil grant from vic govenment.

[vztrt]

Brittan debuts Hydrogen Powered car

http://www.caradvice.com.au/32865/br...an-car-debuts/

A new lightweight hydrogen-powered car has been unveiled in London which promises up to 385km of travel without refuelling and could be put into production by as soon as 2013.



The two-seater Riversimple Urban Car weighs in at just 350 kilograms and a company spokesperson has said they expect it to achieve an average fuel consumption figure of just 0.78 litres per 100km.

Following the technology demonstration at Somerset House the project leaders hope to raise funds to build 10 production prototypes for a long-term test in UK cities.



These cars would be leased rather than sold, with owners receiving a maintenance, support and fuel package over the course of the trial period to determine its suitability as part of everyday life and commuting.

"This will encourage us to produce cars that are robust and long-lasting, and align our interests with the interests of users and the needs of the planet,” a Riversimple spokesman said".

While the size of the Riversimple Urban Car may deter most Australian buyers, the English have gone quite made when it comes to environmentally-friendly transportation, embracing compact city cars such as the all-electric G-Wiz.



The Riversimple Urban Car is powered by four electric motors attached to each wheel , running off a six kilowatt fuel cell compared to the 100kW used in many hydrogen prototypes.

Unfortunately, as with all hydrogen cars, the Riversimple Urban Car lacks the supporting infrastructure necessary for the technology to be used in the mainstream.

“Now that we have the basic vehicle in place with practical technology the challenge is to begin the development of a fuelling infrastructure to accompany it, to encourage the adoption of the sale of mobility service and encourage broad participation in the open source design to make the already practical technology into a broadly adaptable customer proposition.”

Source: DailyMail.co.uk

[ltd]

Sorry, but a general campaign of fear in the community has kept us way behind the rest of the developed world in power generation. The only real green fuel that is sustainable and cheap is nuclear (nucular - Homer Simpson).
Comparisons between Chenobyl and what could happen hear are fanciful, farcical and generally laughable. Solar and windpower are good for trickling into the grid, but they're additional only and will never provide base load for atleast the next 100 years.
As the worlds biggest uranium producer, not only is it hypocrisy that we are anti-nuclear; it is stupid and comes at the behest of our own environment.

[Fordoldie]

Originally Posted by ltd

Sorry, but a general campaign of fear in the community has kept us way behind the rest of the developed world in power generation. The only real green fuel that is sustainable and cheap is nuclear (nucular - Homer Simpson).
Comparisons between Chenobyl and what could happen hear are fanciful, farcical and generally laughable. Solar and windpower are good for trickling into the grid, but they're additional only and will never provide base load for atleast the next 100 years.
As the worlds biggest uranium producer, not only is it hypocrisy that we are anti-nuclear; it is stupid and comes at the behest of our own environment.

It would seem that for once we agree! Well said

[Paxton]

Originally Posted by ltd

Sorry, but a general campaign of fear in the community has kept us way behind the rest of the developed world in power generation. The only real green fuel that is sustainable and cheap is nuclear (nucular - Homer Simpson).
Comparisons between Chenobyl and what could happen hear are fanciful, farcical and generally laughable. Solar and windpower are good for trickling into the grid, but they're additional only and will never provide base load for atleast the next 100 years.
As the worlds biggest uranium producer, not only is it hypocrisy that we are anti-nuclear; it is stupid and comes at the behest of our own environment.

This is correct. It is foolish for us to completely ignore Nuclear power for base load generation, as Green Power (except for Hydro Electric) is just not feasible for Base Load Generation. Only Coal, Gas and Nuclear power are options. At best, Green Power is used for Peaking Power Generation, in much the same way as some Generators in the City are used to help out if a Blackout is predicted.

Chernobyl only happened due to Communist Bureaucracy and Poor Training, coupled to sub standard facilities. There is no way that Australia would build a Russian Reactor (however the Argentinean Reactor in Lucas Heights is a Lemon), we would purchase an American or European Reactor, and place it in a remote location. Unfortunately, the greenies would never allow it.

[Thankfull]

The Technolagy is there for Gas from Water....it has been for some time.

The Problem is much of the Worlds economy revolves around the Petro Chemical industry, which would become obsolete over night...imagine the Global Chaos.

Look at all the By Products of the Petro Chemical industry....even the tyres our cars roll on and the Bituman surface of the road they roll on.

2/3rds of planet Earth is covered with our greatest natural resource, water....but.... unfortunatly mankind developed technology in the Petro Chemical realm before discovering how to make Gas from plain old water.

The Answer....supress and or buy out and shelve any new technology developed by the water to Gas crowd...

Problem solved :

That is what is really going on here people....Our Global Societys economic system revolves around Oil to the point of absolute must have dependance.....switching over to somthing as simple as gas power from water would be catastrophic to the Global economy....too many people jobs would dissapear over night.

Has anybody seen the Aquayan Gas demonstartion (I think that was the name) where the Gas flame burned the top of a sheet of paper, while the excess returned to its natural state and dripped off the bottom edge of the same sheet as water.

I have treid googaling that demonstration that was once Online, but either I have the name wrong....or it has been taken off line (no doubt by the petro Chemical industry)

BMW has to fuel a power plant that will not cost people their jobs...what BMW has on display, is nothing to what they are capable of producing.

You can be sure of that.

Cheers all

[dom_105]

Originally Posted by Thankfull

Chernobyl only happened due to Communist Bureaucracy and Poor Training, coupled to sub standard facilities. There is no way that Australia would build a Russian Reactor (however the Argentinean Reactor in Lucas Heights is a Lemon), we would purchase an American or European Reactor, and place it in a remote location. Unfortunately, the greenies would never allow it.

Exactly

We have 7 Million sq k's of country, 35k worth of coastline, and half the population lives within a 500km radius of Wagga Wagga.

It's not like they are going to put the thing on the St Kilda Foreshore.

[BLSTIC]

What happened to my previous post? I thought I made some valid points regarding hydrogen being used as a battery more than anything else.

As for water from gas - I am aware of techniques for 'stretching' gasoline with water to make it go further (without huge amounts of electricity being used in the process), but not for replacing it entirey. Care to elaborate/link?

[ltd]

Originally Posted by Thankfull

The Technolagy is there for Gas from Water....it has been for some time.

The Problem is much of the Worlds economy revolves around the Petro Chemical industry, which would become obsolete over night...imagine the Global Chaos.

Look at all the By Products of the Petro Chemical industry....even the tyres our cars roll on and the Bituman surface of the road they roll on.

2/3rds of planet Earth is covered with our greatest natural resource, water....but.... unfortunatly mankind developed technology in the Petro Chemical realm before discovering how to make Gas from plain old water.

The Answer....supress and or buy out and shelve any new technology developed by the water to Gas crowd...

Problem solved :

That is what is really going on here people....Our Global Societys economic system revolves around Oil to the point of absolute must have dependance.....switching over to somthing as simple as gas power from water would be catastrophic to the Global economy....too many people jobs would dissapear over night.

Has anybody seen the Aquayan Gas demonstartion (I think that was the name) where the Gas flame burned the top of a sheet of paper, while the excess returned to its natural state and dripped off the bottom edge of the same sheet as water.

I have treid googaling that demonstration that was once Online, but either I have the name wrong....or it has been taken off line (no doubt by the petro Chemical industry)

BMW has to fuel a power plant that will not cost people their jobs...what BMW has on display, is nothing to what they are capable of producing.

You can be sure of that.

Cheers all

I partially agree with some of your post but the facts still remain, it takes a huge amount of electricity to make hydrogen.
As we are using coal fired power stations as well as natural gas, the advantages are moot. Further, the infrastructure of our electricity grid would not stand up to the massive draw that commercial hydrogen generation plants would require. It is simply not a matter of conspiracy, it is a matter of convenience (petroleum packs a lot of energy in a small package) and a lack of foresight on behalf of our elected officials to instigate cheaper, cleaner and abundant power generation to produce hydrogen on a commercially viable scale. Put simply, electricity is too inadequate and expensive at the moment for hydrogen production and our transmission system is old, crumbling and underfunded (since state governments corporatised electricity assets and stripped dividends which would have otherwise been put back into upgrades).

[Bossxr8]

Damn greenies. They are going off their heads about global warming, yet we have a way to cut our CO2 emmisions by a massive amount by switching to nuclear power, and they then btch and moan about nuclear waste and the virtually non existant chance of a meltdown. Idiots.

You can't have it both ways.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Damn greenies. They are going off their heads about global warming, yet we have a way to cut our CO2 emmisions by a massive amount by switching to nuclear power, and they then btch and moan about nuclear waste and the virtually non existant chance of a meltdown. Idiots.

You can't have it both ways.

Also they've apparently finding ways to make disposing of the waste even safer.

Still needs a bit longer to go.

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2594051.htm

[ltd]

Thought I'd mine this as I heard an expert on oil last night predicting the same old story of "US$200.00/barrel within 5-10 years".

Alarmist I'm sure, however in the last 6 months, oil has gone from US$35.00/barrel to yesterday US$73.00/barrel; just over a 200% increase.
As governments corporatise and privatise all of our infrastructure assets, do we really have any hope of further development of massive infrastructure (electricity etc) to commercialise even electric vehicles let alone hydrogen?

[BLSTIC]

Not while corporate greed prevails anyway. I'm pretty sure corporations only upgrade technology when there's either massive public pressure or they can see huge profit looming. Not because the public gets served better or anything (despite what they say). Some technology upgrades aren't even trying to be better, they just say 'the newest' or 'latest' or some crap like that...

[mcnews]

Apparently Hydrogen works well with Rotary engines. Mazda has a fleet of 100 hydrogen powered RX8s being used by some northern european government (can't remember which one) as a large scale trial.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by ltd

Thought I'd mine this as I heard an expert on oil last night predicting the same old story of "US$200.00/barrel within 5-10 years".

Alarmist I'm sure, however in the last 6 months, oil has gone from US$35.00/barrel to yesterday US$73.00/barrel; just over a 200% increase.
As governments corporatise and privatise all of our infrastructure assets, do we really have any hope of further development of massive infrastructure (electricity etc) to commercialise even electric vehicles let alone hydrogen?

Seems were already starting to look at it.

http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mell...257604001BF0AC

[vztrt]

Hydrogen may not be dead people!

http://theage.drive.com.au/green-mot...0129-n346.html

Fill 'er up – in your own driveway

MATT CAMPBELL
January 29, 2010

Honda has developed a hydrogen re-filling station for the home - and it’s solar-powered.

If Honda has its way, your home will soon be transformed into a service station.

Honda has developed a next-generation solar-powered hydrogen fuelling station in the US that can be installed in your home - effectively removing the need for regular retail refilling stations.

The prototype is designed to refill a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle in an eight-hour overnight cycle. It produces half a kilo of hydrogen in that time, which is enough to replenish the supply sufficiently enough for the average everyday commute.

One of the biggest benefits of Honda's new system is that it doesn't require the costly and bulky compressor of the previous solar hydrogen refilling station. The compressor with a high differential pressure electrolyser.

The new system can also pump energy back into the grid, allowing the owner to "sell" unused electricity to an energy supplier.

Honda says that the key to getting hydrogen stations into people's homes is to make it convenient, clean and energy efficient - the 48-panel solar powered system runs on off-peak energy and Honda says it wants to push the use of fuel cell vehicles forward.

"The combination of fuel cell electric vehicles and solar hydrogen stations could lead to the establishment of a hydrogen society based on renewable energy, resulting in a major reduction of CO2 emissions and greater energy sustainability."

According to Honda, it's all part of the plan to make hydrogen - in particular, the company's FCX Clarity fuel-cell vehicle - a mainstream option for the future.

"With fast fill public stations providing 5-minute fuelling time for longer trips, and the opportunity of convenient night-time slow filling at home... the Honda FCX Clarity can cover a wide range of driving demands from the daily commute to weekend trips."

The Honda FCX Clarity is currently only available in America and Japan as a lease vehicle, though it has been reported that Honda plans to offer affordable hydrogen cars to the mass market within ten years.

[cosmo20btt]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Hydrogen may not be dead people!

http://theage.drive.com.au/green-mot...0129-n346.html

HMMM I thought Mazda were doing this with the RX8 back in 2004, I should look up & see how all that went.