Which way? Hydrogen / Green Energy
- Thread starter themickey
- Start date
I think fusion is the only fundamental quantum leap solution for energy demand problem.
Hydrogen can be produced with CO2 neutral electricity such as nuclear, wind, solar, or geothermal. The fact you don't like it doesn't change that fact.
Not sure what you're saying here, that we'll "run out" of CO2 or O2 we stop burning fossil fuels? This post doesn't make a lot of sense, to be honest, compared to most of what you write.
Phase 3 civilization.
Every individual/nation would have to work on such project.
That's centuries if not milenias after Mars gets colonized.
My neighbor and I talked about this 25 years ago. He was from Germany, was 18 when WWII ended. He became an electrician and moved to the Chicago area...Worked for GE. Later, he moved to California. We were going around and around about using hydrogen in cars. He said it is a pipe dream and wouldn't happen. He said it worked and is possible. He said the disposal is a big problem. I asked him..."So you're telling me if I got hold of some of this hydrogen (the the wrong form and not tracked), then if I found some uranium on the black market, I could create a "dirty bomb"!! I could fly it around Disneyland or Manhattan polluting the area?? Try and control that.
He said "yes"...Don't know if it's true or not...Don't really want to find out.
2014 Consumer Reports...
Pros: No vehicle emissions other than water vapor. Fuel economy equivalent to about twice that of gasoline vehicles. Hydrogen is abundant, and can be made from renewable energy.
Cons: This space-age technology is expensive. Acceptable range requires extremely-high-pressure, on-board hydrogen storage. Few places to refuel. Hydrogen is very expensive to transport and there is no infrastructure in place yet. Currently hydrogen fuel is made from nonrenewable natural gas in a process that creates enormous CO2 emissions.
From Wiki...
Hydrogen fuel is hazardous because of the low ignition energy and high combustion energy of hydrogen, and because it tends to leak easily from tanks.[31] Explosions at hydrogen filling stations have been reported.[32] Hydrogen fuelling stations generally receive deliveries of hydrogen by truck from hydrogen suppliers. An interruption at a hydrogen supply facility can shut down multiple hydrogen fuelling stations.[33]
Just my 2 cents...
He said "yes"...Don't know if it's true or not...Don't really want to find out.
2014 Consumer Reports...
Pros: No vehicle emissions other than water vapor. Fuel economy equivalent to about twice that of gasoline vehicles. Hydrogen is abundant, and can be made from renewable energy.
Cons: This space-age technology is expensive. Acceptable range requires extremely-high-pressure, on-board hydrogen storage. Few places to refuel. Hydrogen is very expensive to transport and there is no infrastructure in place yet. Currently hydrogen fuel is made from nonrenewable natural gas in a process that creates enormous CO2 emissions.
From Wiki...
Hydrogen fuel is hazardous because of the low ignition energy and high combustion energy of hydrogen, and because it tends to leak easily from tanks.[31] Explosions at hydrogen filling stations have been reported.[32] Hydrogen fuelling stations generally receive deliveries of hydrogen by truck from hydrogen suppliers. An interruption at a hydrogen supply facility can shut down multiple hydrogen fuelling stations.[33]
Just my 2 cents...
Using pure hydrogen as fuel has some potential issues, but "hydrogen explosive, go bang" isn't really one of them. If you're worried about people building dirty bombs because someone could gather radioactive material and a substance that could go bang you might want to worry about other flammable gasses that are readily available and have been in common use for a century, like maybe natural gas or propane?
I personally think that battery storage is already so far down the cost curve that hydrogen can't ever catch up. But, the people who seriously look at this for a living aren't stupid and are attempting to address the issues like energy density by reforming hydrogen into liquid fuel for transportation use. For fixed storage used in power generation, for example, the density issue isn't that acute, it's just a other cost to be factored in. Again, we store large amounts of natural gas already, so it's not like dealing with an energy source that is a gas and is explosive is anything novel or impossible to solve. I actually think some of the more esoteric issues like hydrogen embrittlement are a far bigger issue, but of course obscure metallurgy isn't nearly as exciting of a downside as things exploding.
Last edited:
You are right...After I posted I started reading more and more about the use. It looks like it would not be an issue with a "dirty bomb". One thing I saw, the need for about 10,000 PSI for containment. Would you want handicap people sitting in their car or van while it gets refueled?? Hence, they are only using buses (empty) at this time. Just talking out loud...