A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Social Issues
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

#1 flaw in hydrogen future



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 11th 04, 05:08 PM
Robert Haston
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default #1 flaw in hydrogen future

Loved the Hydrogen Economy Out of Reach Article - Thanks Jack.

I forgot where I read it, but the following is what I see as why a "hydrogen
future" just doesn't make sense.

1. The most valuable form of energy is electricity. That is why we burn
oil (an incredible raw material for manufacturing) to make electricity.

2. Turning electricity into hydrogen (or vice-versa), wastes at least a
fourth of this energy each way. So making electricity into hydrogen and
back again loses nearly half the energy, not including all the losses of
building and maintaining a hydrogen transportation system, or building and
maintaining the vehicles, and their streets, support services, etc.

Or you could just use the electricity to power streetcar networks. By the
way, you could construct an urban micro rail system (think bumper cars, only
bigger) that emulates the private auto. Base it on Europe's Stratauto
neighborhood rental system. You punch up a screen on your cell phone and
order up a car of choice. It pulls up to meet you at the corner, and off
you go. You and your passengers punch in and share - being charged by the
minute. I say by the minute instead of the mile because this provides a
disincentive to travel during rush hours.

This also eliminates all the energy, money and space wasted on 200 million
cars sitting around 23 hours a day rusting.

There are lots of answers, but they all involve using 80% less energy to
build and maintain vehicles and get around. Translate this as less money
for industry. The real lesson is carrying 100 kilo people around
individually in 2,000 kilo vehicles isn't sustainable.

As to the fact that wind power (the only truly viable alternative) is
isolated in northern and coastal areas, it would be more efficient to build
solar panels there and ship them south.


--
Robert Haston
Satellite Beach, FL


Ads
  #2  
Old October 11th 04, 06:26 PM
tellex
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

It is the most explosive gas known.
The flame is invisible.
To store it at a Gas station, it must be liquefied, -253 degree C.
A small spark at a station would take out the Block in less than a second.



"Robert Haston" wrote in message
.net...
Loved the Hydrogen Economy Out of Reach Article - Thanks Jack.

I forgot where I read it, but the following is what I see as why a

"hydrogen
future" just doesn't make sense.

1. The most valuable form of energy is electricity. That is why we burn
oil (an incredible raw material for manufacturing) to make electricity.

2. Turning electricity into hydrogen (or vice-versa), wastes at least a
fourth of this energy each way. So making electricity into hydrogen and
back again loses nearly half the energy, not including all the losses of
building and maintaining a hydrogen transportation system, or building and
maintaining the vehicles, and their streets, support services, etc.

Or you could just use the electricity to power streetcar networks. By the
way, you could construct an urban micro rail system (think bumper cars,

only
bigger) that emulates the private auto. Base it on Europe's Stratauto
neighborhood rental system. You punch up a screen on your cell phone and
order up a car of choice. It pulls up to meet you at the corner, and off
you go. You and your passengers punch in and share - being charged by the
minute. I say by the minute instead of the mile because this provides a
disincentive to travel during rush hours.

This also eliminates all the energy, money and space wasted on 200 million
cars sitting around 23 hours a day rusting.

There are lots of answers, but they all involve using 80% less energy to
build and maintain vehicles and get around. Translate this as less money
for industry. The real lesson is carrying 100 kilo people around
individually in 2,000 kilo vehicles isn't sustainable.

As to the fact that wind power (the only truly viable alternative) is
isolated in northern and coastal areas, it would be more efficient to

build
solar panels there and ship them south.


--
Robert Haston
Satellite Beach, FL




  #3  
Old October 12th 04, 03:57 PM
Jym Dyer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

It is the most explosive gas known.

=v= Gasoline isn't exactly unexplosive. Hydrogen at least goes
up, whereas gasoline vapors are heavy and spreads flames around.
_Jym_
  #4  
Old October 13th 04, 04:34 AM
tellex
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Jym Dyer" wrote in message
...
It is the most explosive gas known.


=v= Gasoline isn't exactly unexplosive. Hydrogen at least goes
up, whereas gasoline vapors are heavy and spreads flames around.
_Jym_


A common misperception. Hydrogen goes up when in a balloon.
When released as a gas, it mixes instantly with air spreading outward, with
some upward. This is very fast as the molecule is the smallest of the
gasses. They fully tested Hydrogen as a fuel in the early 80's, and found
that it was simply too dangerous for the general public to handle. Good for
fuel cells on the space shuttle.


  #5  
Old October 13th 04, 04:55 AM
Bill Z.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"tellex" writes:

"Jym Dyer" wrote in message
...
It is the most explosive gas known.


=v= Gasoline isn't exactly unexplosive. Hydrogen at least goes
up, whereas gasoline vapors are heavy and spreads flames around.
_Jym_


A common misperception. Hydrogen goes up when in a balloon.
When released as a gas, it mixes instantly with air spreading outward, with
some upward. This is very fast as the molecule is the smallest of the
gasses. They fully tested Hydrogen as a fuel in the early 80's, and found
that it was simply too dangerous for the general public to handle. Good for
fuel cells on the space shuttle.


Apparently some people disagree with you. See

http://www.hydrogenus.com/newsletter/ad32btob.htm
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/codes/
http://www.hydrogenhighway.ca.gov/hysafety/hysafety.htm
http://energy.inel.gov/fossil/hydrogen/pdf/h2safetyreport.pdf

Note that most of the above are links to government sites. BTW, one
of these URLs claims that hydrogen is less dangerous to handle than
propane.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
  #6  
Old October 13th 04, 05:23 AM
tellex
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Bill Z." wrote in message
...
"tellex" writes:

"Jym Dyer" wrote in message
...
It is the most explosive gas known.

=v= Gasoline isn't exactly unexplosive. Hydrogen at least goes
up, whereas gasoline vapors are heavy and spreads flames around.
_Jym_


A common misperception. Hydrogen goes up when in a balloon.
When released as a gas, it mixes instantly with air spreading outward,

with
some upward. This is very fast as the molecule is the smallest of the
gasses. They fully tested Hydrogen as a fuel in the early 80's, and

found
that it was simply too dangerous for the general public to handle. Good

for
fuel cells on the space shuttle.


Apparently some people disagree with you. See

http://www.hydrogenus.com/newsletter/ad32btob.htm
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/codes/
http://www.hydrogenhighway.ca.gov/hysafety/hysafety.htm
http://energy.inel.gov/fossil/hydrogen/pdf/h2safetyreport.pdf

Note that most of the above are links to government sites. BTW, one
of these URLs claims that hydrogen is less dangerous to handle than
propane.


You should read the links you posted,especially the last link, Table 1-1
Preliminary hazards list for hydrogen, is 4 pages long. Good luck, it is a
long way off.


  #7  
Old October 13th 04, 06:52 AM
Bill Z.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"tellex" writes:

"Bill Z." wrote in message
...
"tellex" writes:


Apparently some people disagree with you. See

http://www.hydrogenus.com/newsletter/ad32btob.htm
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/codes/
http://www.hydrogenhighway.ca.gov/hysafety/hysafety.htm
http://energy.inel.gov/fossil/hydrogen/pdf/h2safetyreport.pdf

Note that most of the above are links to government sites. BTW, one
of these URLs claims that hydrogen is less dangerous to handle than
propane.


You should read the links you posted,especially the last link, Table 1-1
Preliminary hazards list for hydrogen, is 4 pages long. Good luck, it is a
long way off.


Try page 69, which says, "With proper precautions, hydrogen can
be handled safely. No safety issues are forsee that would
warrant cessation of hydrogen use as a vehicle fuel." Maybe you
should read the damn thing before making a fool of yourself by
speculating on other individuals' reading habits.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
  #8  
Old October 13th 04, 07:18 AM
Jack Dingler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bill Z. wrote:

"tellex" writes:



"Bill Z." wrote in message
...


"tellex" writes:





Apparently some people disagree with you. See

http://www.hydrogenus.com/newsletter/ad32btob.htm
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/codes/
http://www.hydrogenhighway.ca.gov/hysafety/hysafety.htm
http://energy.inel.gov/fossil/hydrogen/pdf/h2safetyreport.pdf

Note that most of the above are links to government sites. BTW, one
of these URLs claims that hydrogen is less dangerous to handle than
propane.



You should read the links you posted,especially the last link, Table 1-1
Preliminary hazards list for hydrogen, is 4 pages long. Good luck, it is a
long way off.



Try page 69, which says, "With proper precautions, hydrogen can
be handled safely. No safety issues are forsee that would
warrant cessation of hydrogen use as a vehicle fuel." Maybe you
should read the damn thing before making a fool of yourself by
speculating on other individuals' reading habits.



No kidding, NASA has been using this as a vehicular fuel for decades and
they've had only a few accidents.

I'm sure this can be made foolproof to the degree that even teens
couldn't screw it up, if they put their best effort into it.

Jack Dingler

  #9  
Old October 15th 04, 02:24 AM
Robert Haston
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Jack Dingler" wrote in message
newsM3bd.249418$3l3.23020@attbi_s03...

No kidding, NASA has been using this as a vehicular fuel for decades and
they've had only a few accidents.


And I have seen three of them WOW! We clear the launch zones via helicopter
and hold a couple of miles off the pads.

Actually, the solid fuels are far more impressive - imagine minivan - sized
chunks falling 1500 feet or so, and exploding upon impact. Liquid hydrogen
sucks up lots of energy when it evaporates. Its great for cooling nozzles,
but really dampens the show.

The real bummer is when they don't blow up until they are way up and have
dropped their boosters. Two billion bucks gone and no light show -
double****!

Robert Haston


  #10  
Old October 15th 04, 04:22 PM
Weisse Luft
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Diesel is the fuel of the future. It can be made from vegetable oil
(biodiesel) or from the newly developed "bio-digester" which can tur
almost anything into oil, oil suitable as diesel fuel after treating.

You get far more energy out than you put in with diesel. Not so wit
hydrogen, alcohol or methane

--
Weisse Luft

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hydrogen economy looks out of reach Jack Dingler Social Issues 81 October 21st 04 11:59 AM
Status of future NAUCC, UNICON locations tadaniels Unicycling 12 August 12th 04 01:20 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.