OT Hydrogen economy, not?

[amdx]

I ran across the following article about the hydrogen economy, I've been
waiting for an viable algae system to produce hydrogen, but this leads me to
believe hydrogen is not the answer to our energy independence.
http://www.planetforlife.com/h2/h2swiss.html
Conclusion:
According to B&E, the hydrogen economy idea does not work for multiple
reasons. They point out that there is no practical source of hydrogen, no
good way to store hydrogen, and no good way to distribute hydrogen. Many of
the problems of hydrogen stem from the physical and chemical properties of
hydrogen. Technology cannot change these facts.

It is difficult to understand the enthusiasm for hydrogen in view of the
above, Hydrogen does not solve the energy problem and it is a bad
choice for carrying energy.
Mike

 

[TheM]

I ran across the following article about the hydrogen economy, I've been waiting for an viable algae system to produce hydrogen,
but this leads me to believe hydrogen is not the answer to our energy independence.
http://www.planetforlife.com/h2/h2swiss.html
Conclusion:
According to B&E, the hydrogen economy idea does not work for multiple reasons. They point out that there is no practical source
of hydrogen, no good way to store hydrogen, and no good way to distribute hydrogen. Many of the problems of hydrogen stem from the
physical and chemical properties of hydrogen. Technology cannot change these facts.

It is difficult to understand the enthusiasm for hydrogen in view of the
above, Hydrogen does not solve the energy problem and it is a bad
choice for carrying energy.
Mike

This is all old news, but the media and politicians still haven't grasped
reality or are riding the hype until it wears out.

M

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

Hydrogen is plentiful and easy to store and distribute, and a superb
way to transport energy; just attach it to carbon.

John

Brilliant. What shall we call this substance? "Hydro-carbon" or
something like that?
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

There's a lot of unclear thinking on the whole energy thing, both on the
'drill, burn and be happy' side and the 'save the earth through XXX' side.

Hydrogen, even if you could store and distribute it, is just a way to
carry energy around, and still needs to be produced. All the 'safe,
clean' hoo-haw becomes crap when you realize that the only viable way we
have now to _make_ hydrogen uses electricity that's been generated by
conventional means.

That's far too expensive. Hydrogen is created industrially from
natural gas.

_If_ the various electricity generation schemes
like wind and solar, that do well on average but are episodic, come on
line then hydrogen may help out -- but as you said, you still have to
figure out how to store and distribute it.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

 

[Calab]

|
| I ran across the following article about the hydrogen economy, I've been
| waiting for an viable algae system to produce hydrogen, but this leads me
to
| believe hydrogen is not the answer to our energy independence.
| http://www.planetforlife.com/h2/h2swiss.html
| Conclusion:
| According to B&E, the hydrogen economy idea does not work for multiple
| reasons. They point out that there is no practical source of hydrogen, no
| good way to store hydrogen, and no good way to distribute hydrogen. Many
of
| the problems of hydrogen stem from the physical and chemical properties of
| hydrogen. Technology cannot change these facts.
|
| It is difficult to understand the enthusiasm for hydrogen in view of the
| above, Hydrogen does not solve the energy problem and it is a bad
| choice for carrying energy.

The big things with hydrogen are:

- The pollution is generated at the source (the power plant) instead of
where it's used (the car). This makes the pollution generated easier to
contain BEFORE it gets into the environment.

- Hydrogen is plentiful and found EVERYWHERE. No more group of countries
controlling the fuel economy.

- Hydrogen is simple to produce. This means that you can have many more
smaller hydrogen plants spread out to where the demand is, instead of one
single gasoline plant. This saves on transportation costs, and helps with
local economies.

At this point, cars based on fuel produced by electricity are the future.
Whether the fuel is electricity in a battery; hydrogen in a tank to power
combustion or power a fuel cell; or something completely different, it all
means that the vehicles are no longer producing the pollution.

 

[Martin Griffith]

There's a lot of unclear thinking on the whole energy thing, both on the
'drill, burn and be happy' side and the 'save the earth through XXX' side.

Hydrogen, even if you could store and distribute it, is just a way to
carry energy around, and still needs to be produced. All the 'safe,
clean' hoo-haw becomes crap when you realize that the only viable way we
have now to _make_ hydrogen uses electricity that's been generated by
conventional means.


_If_ the various electricity generation schemes
like wind and solar, that do well on average but are episodic, come on
line then hydrogen may help out -- but as you said, you still have to
figure out how to store and distribute it.

Unburning water, what a silly idea


martin

 

[James Arthur]

Brilliant. What shall we call this substance? "Hydro-carbon" or
something like that?
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

How about "carbohydrate", as some prefer? That one's popular too.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[TheM]

It's like hot fusion - there's no chance of it ever working but it just sounds
soooo sexy.

John

COLD fusion.

M

 

[James Arthur]

COLD fusion.

M

No, hot. But cold doesn't work either.

Best regards,
James Arthur

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

How about "carbohydrate", as some prefer? That one's popular too.

Cheers,
James Arthur

Tastes good vs. less filling?
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

COLD fusion.

M

Hot fusion definitely works, if you scale it up enough. ;-)
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

 

[Tim Williams]

I considered calling the short-chain variants "Larkin Gas", but that
may not be ideal.

Larkin Patented Gas, LPG? I think I can already buy that... ;-)

Tim

 

[Vaughn Simon]

Hydrogen critical temperature nearly -400 deg. F.
I believe the hydrogen cars around use tanks at 5,000 psi.
You don't put your car in a garage, but park it in a bunker

I am no fan of hydrogen, but I doubt that hydrogen tankage in a vehicle
would prove to be any more dangerous than gasoline tankage. In fact, there
would be far more energy in the same size tank of gasoline, so therefore more
chance of mayhem when things go wrong.

Vaughn

 

[Tim Williams]

What's the energetics on that? I'm thinking that most of the energy we
get from gasoline, and especially methane, is from the hydrogen. You
lose a little energy breaking the c-h bonds, and lose a little more
breaking some of the o-o bonds, then make energy by oxidizing the
carbon and hydrogen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_of_combustion

Molecule for molecule, H2 gives 286 kJ/mol, or 2 H2 gives 572 kJ/mol.
Carbon gives 393.5 kJ/mol, which is going to be per atom, but the form is
not specified (it takes a good bit of activation energy to burn graphite or
diamond). Methane, CH4, gives 889 kJ/mol (which is 76.5 kJ/mol less than
the sum of its parts, so evidently methane has 76.5 kJ/mol total, or 19.1
kJ/mol binding energy per C-H bond, relative to H2 bonding). Evidently
about 5/8ths of the energy of methane is from hydrogen. Carbon's still
pretty toasty though.

Carbon is clearly a superior carrier for hydrogen.

Nitrogen would be even better, if it were possible to make ammonium hydride
([NH4+] [H-], a salt). Alas, four seems to be about as many hydrogens as
can be bonded onto anything (metal hydrides I think only manage a few
hydrogen atoms per metal atom).

Tim

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

<snip>
Hydrogen is plentiful and easy to store and distribute, and a superb
way to transport energy; just attach it to carbon.

Not only that, the carbon itself can be used. So 100% utilization of
the atoms for energy, too. That beautifully summarizes the problem
posed in replacing liquid hydrocarbons for individual use. There is
nothing better by way of energy per unit volume, energy per unit mass,
demonstrated large-scale safety, easy delivery and convenience, etc.
And much money has already been invested into a system that has
consistently worked to serve entire a civilization-scale system, too,
that doesn't need to be re-spent.

It's not going to be easy finding a replacement way of storing energy
that comes even somewhat close, Which makes the necessity of ceasing
the use of existing fossil fuels nearly impossible to achieve. Their
energy is essentially free. By itself, that alone makes holding off
nearly impossible. But just to make it even harder, the way much of
the energy is stored is just about as good as it gets in life. It's
compact and convenient, besides being free to the producers. Nothing
has any chance competing with that.

Jon

 

[ehsjr]

Brilliant. What shall we call this substance? "Hydro-carbon" or
something like that?
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

I don't think that will fly, these days. Carbon is politically
incorrect, apparently because it leaves footprints. Maybe if
you call it hydrogenated charcoal ?

Ed

 

[Tim Williams]

Maybe I should call it ME-thane.

That reminds me, we've got beans in the house this week. Lovely stuff, you
take a can or two of Busch's Baked Beans, add onions, more bacon, and this
time, some jalapenos just to be interesting.

Tim

 

[Vaughn Simon]

But nuclear has one huge problem, the final storage. Throwing it all into some
underground cavity ain't so cool.

Nonsense. Nuclear storage is a solved scientific/engineering problem.
Unfortunately, it remains an unsolved political problem.

Vaughn

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

I don't think that will fly, these days. Carbon is politically
incorrect, apparently because it leaves footprints. Maybe if
you call it hydrogenated charcoal ?

Ed

We could call gasoline "oxygen-free soda water".

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

 

[James Arthur]

Er, you do realize there's a difference between "hydrocarbon" and
"carbohydrate"?

Yes, but carbohydrates are so much easier to grow, and even easier
to subsidize. Hence their popularity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel


Grins,
James Arthur