Clean Energy Claim:

snipped-for-privacy@webtv.net wrote in news:536-464E2191-293@storefull-

It costs a lot of money to break hydrogen out of its source substances. Most commercially available hydrogen is derived from natural gas (methane) which is itself a power source.

Hydrogen is a silly and expensive source of power, agreeable only to the environuts.

At present, it is a fuel of the future, not of today... With improved technology and better means of production, it holds some promise....

Not everything can be resolved with today's technology,and especially not with today's mindset.

This is true.

It is not a _source_ of power at all. It's a power distribution medium, and it's not a bad one overall. But the thing is, it doesn't solve the original problem of where we get the energy in the first place.

--scott

It does if you know how to perform electrolysis on water, which, iirc, we did in HS: H2 at one electrode, O2 at the other. The collected H2 went "pop" with a match, the O2 caused a glowing ember to burst into flames.

What makes this enticing is that you can do this, presumably, with a solar cell. Or generate H2 at Niagra falls during off-peak hours.

What makes this even more enticing is that this can be done in every homeowners garage in Merka.

Which no doubt our Sodomite legislators are more than well aware of, and who will make sure this never happens.

The real problem I see is compressing the H2 into cylinders. Can you say "Hindenberg-on-Steroids", boyzngerlz?

As I said, mindset is one of the problems. Creating a distribution system for hydrogen and safe cars to use it are another.

But the biggest problem is finding surplus energy on the cheap. We have been spoiled by cheap petroleum energy for years (with respect to our cars). Some people dont want to change, although change is inevitable for the future.

Well, my real point was, assuming the electrolysis of water is workable, you can have concentrated/prodigious amounts of H2 produced at every waterfall/dam, and diffuse/prodigious amounts produced in every home-moaner's garage--explosions notwithstanding. The energy equivalent to a vegetable garden in everyone's back yard. Ergo, distribution would not be an issue.

But I'm sure the Sodomite legislators will not allow it. Or will find some way to f*ck us in the process.

See my sig.

Storage seems to be an issue. H2 molecules are awfully tiny and have a tendency to leak through traditional storage containers. One can store them within the cristal structures of alloys, but you're quickly at a level where it seems to make more sense just to store the electric energy in batteries.

cu .\\arc

An interesting assertion, which doesn't make much sense. H2 is likely bigger than He (altho not heavier), and He is stored with no problem whatsoever. Now, admittedly H2 is more reactive than He, but mostly, fwiu, with O2. :)

I am not a expert in chemistry, but my understanding is that H diffunds through the tank which causes 3 problems:

You can get past this by liquefying the H2, which is expensive in energy and cold (around 20K IIRC). Or you can insert it into the structure of the tank.

But in the end most people seem to find it easier to pack the energy in batteries to make it portable than using hydrogen.

cu .\\arc

I am a chemist, and I think the word you are looking for is 'diffuse', not 'difund'.

Atomic hydrogen can diffuse into metals sometimes and cause problems. But, we are talking about molecular hydrogen, which does not diffuse in most metals in the same way. At high temperatures, for example, hydrogen can pass through a foil of platinum.

When you speak of corrosion of the tanks, you may be confusing the process by which atomic hydrogen can diffuse into steel, resulting in brittle failures or blistering. Often, the corrosion produces the atomic hydrogen which diffuses before it unites with another atom of hydrogen to form molecular hydrogen

The embrittlement or blistering in these cases is secondary to the base corrosion, not the cause of it.

Leakages would be a potential disaster, a la Hindenburg.

Storage problems can be solved. Distribution issues can be solved. Production of hydrogen from petroleum is not a good path. We have to have better access to cheap hydrogen before hydrogen will become a viable reliability.

Quite possibly. As mentioned, I am not a chemist. Not a native english speaker, either.

Aha.

So, in your eyes, is this an issue for small tanks like those potentially to be used in cars?

Although the quantities would be a tad different in a car tank. But at least it would bring real life car accidents to the standard of american action movies ;-)

I've been googling a bit and it seems to me the whole hydrogen economy seems not so bright. There's hardly any reuse of current infrastructure possible, and the process to handle hydrogen seem complex and difficult. Not to forget the stuff's quite dangerous.

cu .\\arc

Right, and the power you get out of that combustion is exactly equal to the electrical power that you put into the electrolysis.

That's a hell of a lot of solar cells. I think you phenomenally underestimate the sheer amount of power that a car uses. Gasoline is pretty miraculous stuff and has a hell of a lot of watts per gallon. Hydrogen is almost as good, but you need to start out getting all those watts from somewhere and a few solar cells isn't going to cut it.

--scott

Not at all. Helium is a goddamn pain to store and pipe around. We use it for cooling all kinds of equipment and if you think sealing brake lines properly is bad, you should see the kind of fittings you need to go through to keep helium from leaking. It is not easy and not cheap.

That's what it's for, after all. And admittedly, it took a few years to learn to store gasoline safely as well.

--scott

I am not a scientist and I don't pretend to be.I looked up Gallium at

The Clean Energy Claim article says the hydrogen would be created on demand and the hydrogen wouldn't have to be stored or transported.

If they can get whatever problems solved pertaining to that.It seems to me like they just might have a good thing going there.But heck,what do I know? cuhulin

I agree. Too many - especially environmentalist - over estimate the technology available and then B,M&C when it fails to give them what they want or expect.

Lugnut

"Proctologically Violated©®" wrote in news:3EG3i.342$ snipped-for-privacy@newsfe12.lga:

And that's the whole point, isn't it? It's like using switchgrass to produce ethanol: Maybe one day, but certainly not today. Maybe never.

The reason we are "addicted" to petroleum is that nobody's been able so far to find anything cheaper than that. The market for whale oil disappeared after 1860. Rock oil was just way too cheap for whale oil to compete, saving whale (and sailor!) lives worldwide.

Hydrogen and ethanol might be cheaper than rock oil one day, but I very seriously doubt it. Personally, I think those two will only get "cheaper" if you disguise the true costs by governmentally robbing your left pocket even as you pay for the stuff with money from your right pocket.

Well, not completely. Whale oil still had some advantages as a lubricant for many years after that... the Japanese still use it for specialty lubricants although these days it's been pretty much replaced by the modern synthetics.

Same thing goes for Pennsylvania crude. It's all heavy fractions, totally useless for fuel production, but it still has some advantages for some lubricant formulations.

Of course, precision lubricants are a very different market than fuels. When you buy some watch oil for a hundred times the price of gasoline, you can be sure most of the cost is in the refining and distribution.

--scott

snipped-for-privacy@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in news:f2pief$nbh$ snipped-for-privacy@panix2.panix.com:

Whale oil was primarily used for lighting. Once kerosene came along, its low price annihilated the whale oil market.

I once read at one of them kooky websites that probally it was Olive oil that they used for lights when they built the Pyramids.Because Oilive oil doesn't soot up so much. cuhulin