The hope of Hydrogen

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: Justoneman
a reply to: peck420

Well that was the point of my thread that it HAS been proven for 20 + years so far since the prototype by Nissan. It is so simple the Ag majors built other alternative cars till they could afford the device to split the water. NASA company wanted 1$ million for it, now they ask MTSU to pay 10$ K..

Great, it has been proven that a car can run on hydrogen...break out the parade!

What needs to be proven is how we will supplement all the other industries, that rely on the same oil industry, when the oil industry can no longer subsidize the production/processing of their products with fuel sales.

You think food is expensive now? What do you think will happen when fertilizer prices skyrocket?

Pharmaceuticals? Same.

Computers?...

The list goes on and on.

Lets deal with the raping of the land and the polluting our air over oil. Besides the infrastructure to remove oil is bought and paid for. We just keep pumping at old sites, we wont need many new wells essentially. I don't see it causing an economic disaster but I might be wrong. I think we can all agree we have been taking what we want for thousands of years from the Earth and there is SOME toll on the ecosystem. Again i wish to point out i am ANTI AGW but pro alternative ideas like H2 from water, microorganisms or algae.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: noeltrotsky

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: noeltrotsky

originally posted by: network dude
Using solar, wind, or some other renewable energy to make the conversion is very economical.

Making hydrogen is energy intensive and not worth doing so far.


Read the actual physics and how much energy it takes to make hydrogen. Then decide for yourself...as always. Is there a grand conspiracy to hold the world back from using hydrogen, or is it simply unrealistic with current technology?

And for those that say there is suppressed technology available I say...well...nothing...because you can't prove there is 'secret' tech being hidden.

This has been shown to be a fallacy recently. If we use the power of the Sun to derive any power above and beyond what you would be able to recapture from the process of separating the H2 from the O, we can solve the "too much energy to produce it" issues. MTSU proves it with their projects associated to the H2 car in my prvious thread yesterday that I have pasted that source into this thread.

Ah...no...it isn't a fallacy. The process of 'making' and 'using' hydrogen create inefficiencies compared to just using the 'power from the Sun' directly.

So let me get this straight. MTSU is doing it now winning 1st place in every event they have been entered but you still think there are inherent issues?

The Sun is relentless, and solar panels project to operate at 50% efficiency of their capacity out of the box after 100 years.

That story is a good read. Lots of info.
But you gotta admit that the car would be more impressive if the event took place in Minnesota in january. Less ideal conditions and whatnot.

originally posted by: noeltrotsky

originally posted by: network dude
Using solar, wind, or some other renewable energy to make the conversion is very economical.

This isn't true. Any source of power can be used to 'make' hydrogen and renewable's aren't the most economical.

The conspiracy in all this? It's massive. And it's right in front of you.

Oh Boy...here we go!

Lets say that tomorrow, a huge breakthrough is made in that you will be able to pump 20 gallons of sea water into a box no bigger than a refrigerator, and with a few small solar panels, convert that into enough hydrogen to power your car for three weeks of driving. While that would be nice, would that have an effect on the economy?

This 'scenario' is so far from reality even considering it is a laugh. People might want to read something that explains the amount of energy required to 'make' hydrogen...instead of dreaming up a most silly thought experiment.
phys.org...

Wow, you must have lots of money tied up on oil futures. Please, don't be angry that I posted some information on hydrogen. I assure you, what I posted was sourced well. My opinions even leave the conclusion open. I fully understand that AS OF RIGHT NOW hydrogen isn't economical to be used in place of gas. (unless you factor in the C02 production)

But, as with a few other things, when we work on a problem, sometimes, we find a SOLUTION to the problem. This may be the case with using hydrogen, or it may not, but to claim "it can't be done" is ignorant.

Lots of countries in the world DON'T have massive Oil reserves and would LOVE to build a hydrogen economy! Why haven't those people done it? Are they being held back by the Saudis and the 1%'ers? Some of the lowest Oil reserve countries are some of the richest, like Japan. Apparently the are all being controlled and refusing to implement a hydrogen economy via some conspiracy!

OR

Making hydrogen is energy intensive and not worth doing so far.


Read the actual physics and how much energy it takes to make hydrogen. Then decide for yourself...as always. Is there a grand conspiracy to hold the world back from using hydrogen, or is it simply unrealistic with current technology?

And for those that say there is suppressed technology available I say...well...nothing...because you can't prove there is 'secret' tech being hidden.

Are you not understanding the point made? As of now, hydrogen isn't a viable replacement. BUT........if a way to produce it cheaply was to be discovered, without a massive retooling of the economic model, we would be financially screwed.

In my OP I addressed this and even asked if there was a group actively thinking of ways to transition SHOULD this ever become a reality.

This was meant as a discussion for the possibilities, not any sort of proclamation that it's a reality. I must have used too many words.

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
a reply to: Justoneman


lots of problems to address.
conversion costs
Loss of tax income from fuel sales
The skyrocketing price of all other petroleum based product.

This idea will work for municipalities like police and taxi services though. They would need only one refueling point. That would be a better place to start.

Ok, i will sure grant you we have some issues but that they are solvable.

As far as skyrocketing prices, were we not being hit with high prices of oil recently and then suddenly barrel prices plummeted? That is probably to hurt Putin but could that also be to hurt the new oil fields on private lands in America? Supply and demand control each commodity. So less demand normally lower prices to induce purchases is the history of supply and demand.

The fuel points would need to be just a source of water, thus numerous places for that to happen I feel we can safely say.

Fuel sales taxes needs to be shifted to a mile usage fee system for the Electric cars of today, agreed?

Also, I think we can say user fees are what the founders had in mind if I read the early laws at the outset of this great land. To wit, we have an excise tax on rubber which is one of those in use today. Star for thinking out the problems and wondering what to do. That is how science works properly. We seek a question that encapsulates the problem and look for answers, testing our hypothesis as we go.

a reply to: Justoneman

...but pro alternative ideas like H2 from water, microorganisms or algae.

I remember reading in a Science&Vie in the 80s an article about making fuel in ponds by harnessing solar power by use of some alga or bacteria.

originally posted by: noeltrotsky

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: noeltrotsky

originally posted by: network dude
Using solar, wind, or some other renewable energy to make the conversion is very economical.

Making hydrogen is energy intensive and not worth doing so far.


Read the actual physics and how much energy it takes to make hydrogen. Then decide for yourself...as always. Is there a grand conspiracy to hold the world back from using hydrogen, or is it simply unrealistic with current technology?

And for those that say there is suppressed technology available I say...well...nothing...because you can't prove there is 'secret' tech being hidden.

This has been shown to be a fallacy recently. If we use the power of the Sun to derive any power above and beyond what you would be able to recapture from the process of separating the H2 from the O, we can solve the "too much energy to produce it" issues. MTSU proves it with their projects associated to the H2 car in my prvious thread yesterday that I have pasted that source into this thread.

Ah...no...it isn't a fallacy. The process of 'making' and 'using' hydrogen create inefficiencies compared to just using the 'power from the Sun' directly.

Please, share with us an example so I may examine it and see if we can come to a reasonable answer for either direction. I am open to wherever the facts will lead us.

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
a reply to: noeltrotsky


I've tried to point out the inefficiency of hydrogen before and it falls on deaf ears.
not to mention all of the other problems involved

So in your opinion, should the study and work to attempt a better way be scrapped?
I don't think anyone is making the claim it's ready for everyone today. But since hydrogen has been used to power vehicles that were built, the technology does exist. The problems that keep it from being a reality might be solved with future technology.

But the problems with the economic impact are a reality, and even without the tin foil hat, they exist.

originally posted by: network dude

My opinions even leave the conclusion open. I fully understand that AS OF RIGHT NOW hydrogen isn't economical to be used in place of gas. (unless you factor in the C02 production)

But, as with a few other things, when we work on a problem, sometimes, we find a SOLUTION to the problem. This may be the case with using hydrogen, or it may not, but to claim "it can't be done" is ignorant.

You didn't read the link I posted or didn't understand it.

The fundamental physics behind purifying Hydrogen will ALWAYS cost more energy than you can get back from using Hydrogen as an 'energy carrier'. Hydrogen has to beat out batteries as a more efficient store of energy. On that front, again, the fundamental nature of Hydrogen, its material properties, cause it to be less efficient to store energy.

There isn't a solution to the way Hydrogen acts as a gas. Well, not in the universe I live in. Yours seems a bit different.

a reply to: network dude


Who said stop the research?
The current methods are "inefficient" and therefore not ready for production. Find a better way and then we will look at the problem again.
as of right now hybrid cars are a much better stop gap until new technologies are found.

originally posted by: PeterMcFly
a reply to: Justoneman

...but pro alternative ideas like H2 from water, microorganisms or algae.

I remember reading in a Science&Vie in the 80s an article about making fuel in ponds by harnessing solar power by use of some alga or bacteria.

Peter i see we think a lot alike. You provide solid sources and drive the Phage crazy with logic.. He is good, mind you on many subjects but it won't fly when he is wrong or on the wrong path. I feel you are bringing very point on comments to the threads like this one that offer me hope that not all is lost. It helps when explaining why i feel H2 will work or other discussions about the CO2 hoax that i feel really intentionally avoids the alternatives to oil and coal . And it is nice to have someone get it and good people like Hoosierdaddy to ask good questions centered on thinking things through these issues to whatever conclusions the facts lead us to make.

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: Justoneman
We just will use less oil, and coal also, for energy is all we do. We will need less and therefore those who have established whole kingdoms (Saudi's come to mind) will have a problem. It is a raping of the land and i am against the CO2 hoax if you see my threads.

If only it worked that way...

It just means that we will extract as much as we are currently extracting, then process it for the components we want...then? Dump the rest on the ground? Put it back in the hole?

The simple task of disposing of that portion, that we would no longer require, would and a lovely, highly energy intensive step...when the whole purpose is to reduce energy intensity, not increase it.

There is a ton of unanswered questions, that will require firm and finite answers, long before we start to seriously reduce our oil dependency.

So the big problem is storing what we have already extracted from the ground? Even if we could make a switch to using "X" for fuel and stop using gasoline tomorrow, there is a need for oil in many other products. We would use vastly less oil if that were the case. Which seems to be your point. But I thought storing oil in barrels was something we already did. Is that not the case? I just don't understand this argument.

a reply to: noeltrotsky

Here again I have shown that MTSU has figured this out and drives there car to National success..

Please, take five mins at this site, I think you will appreciate the situation once you have done this.

agreenroad.blogspot.com...

AN excerpt
"The video above shows a standard Toyota car running just on hydrogen gas, which can easily be created with water power, sun power, wind power or any other renewable form of energy.

It is easy to create plenty of hydrogen gas from FREE SOLAR ENERGY for whatever is needed. The hydrogen gas can then be stored for use when there is not enough energy created to run whatever is desired... car, home, cooking gas, etc. In other words, it is impossible to run out of energy, as long as the sun is shining and one has sufficient solar photovoltaic panels , wind, or water running in a river to make FREE hydrogen fuel. "

a reply to: Justoneman

Read the link carefully and start there.

phys.org...

Post what isn't working for you.

Of course the tech is there to make a car run off hydrogen. That isn't the point or the issue. The issue is that producing the hydrogen to run that car costs 4 to 5 times as much electricity than just running the car off a good battery. That multiple changes if generating hydrogen off of natural gas is 'acceptable' but that is just using a fossil fuel to get cheaper hydrogen instead of run the car directly. Good link to that by a previous poster, hats off to him/her.

originally posted by: Justoneman
a reply to: noeltrotsky

Here again I have shown that MTSU has figured this out and drives there car to National success..

Please, take five mins at this site, I think you will appreciate the situation once you have done this.

agreenroad.blogspot.com...

AN excerpt
"The video above shows a standard Toyota car running just on hydrogen gas, which can easily be created with water power, sun power, wind power or any other renewable form of energy.

It is easy to create plenty of hydrogen gas from FREE SOLAR ENERGY for whatever is needed. The hydrogen gas can then be stored for use when there is not enough energy created to run whatever is desired... car, home, cooking gas, etc. In other words, it is impossible to run out of energy, as long as the sun is shining and one has sufficient solar photovoltaic panels , wind, or water running in a river to make FREE hydrogen fuel. "

I've read the story and understand the MTSU hydrogen car. They don't explain the AMOUNT of energy they used to make the hydrogen. Why? Because it's a ton of energy that is much more than a simple electric car using batteries would have used to go the same distance.

originally posted by: noeltrotsky

originally posted by: network dude

My opinions even leave the conclusion open. I fully understand that AS OF RIGHT NOW hydrogen isn't economical to be used in place of gas. (unless you factor in the C02 production)

But, as with a few other things, when we work on a problem, sometimes, we find a SOLUTION to the problem. This may be the case with using hydrogen, or it may not, but to claim "it can't be done" is ignorant.

You didn't read the link I posted or didn't understand it.

The fundamental physics behind purifying Hydrogen will ALWAYS cost more energy than you can get back from using Hydrogen as an 'energy carrier'. Hydrogen has to beat out batteries as a more efficient store of energy. On that front, again, the fundamental nature of Hydrogen, its material properties, cause it to be less efficient to store energy.

There isn't a solution to the way Hydrogen acts as a gas. Well, not in the universe I live in. Yours seems a bit different.

I completely admit that I am not a chemist, a biologist, or any type of scientist. So yes, I really don't fully understand the whole process and it's complexities. But I am damn glad I don't live in the world you do where science is limited to past knowledge. I believe in these fantasies called "scientific breakthroughs" were new things can be discovered. New processes can be tried and proven to either work, or not work. But in the fantasy world I live in, those who want to create new things don't stop trying because someone told them it would never work. They keep working.

Since you have a lot of knowledge on this subject, perhaps you can help me with a nagging question. IF this will never work, why are muti-BILLION dollar companies like Toyota, Hyundai, and Honda even looking into this? I mean, you could have let them know it was a waste of time back in the early 2000's and saved them lots of $.

a reply to: noeltrotsky

My choices seem to be that I listen to the propaganda that academia has been spreading about H2 or review real live research from a now major University (was a small Uni when I got my degree and taught Physical Science labs there) that is successfully using it today? The post above should adequately explain how easy it really has been to capture the H2 and what the energy sources to obtain substantial amounts which answers your concerns.

The problem with H2 is not so much of efficiency or cost, it's more of a safety problem among others.

Also why alway trying to implement the less practical way to solve a problem? If peoples want to avoid increasing atmospheric CO2 you can make synthetic hydrocarbon fuel by retaking CO2 from the air in a process using solar energy or any other source. This would be carbon neutral!

Using synthetic HC fuel have the advantage of well proven usage, is relatively safe and require no infrastructure modification on the distribution and utilization side.

H2 is a nasty engineering nightmare. Ever heard of hydrogen embrittlement?

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
a reply to: network dude


Who said stop the research?
The current methods are "inefficient" and therefore not ready for production. Find a better way and then we will look at the problem again.
as of right now hybrid cars are a much better stop gap until new technologies are found.

It's just a shame that very few folks actually read the OP and took the time to understand it. It wasn't a thread about replacing gas with hydrogen now, it's discussing the process, why it's not used today, why it's not ready yet, and some of the less discussed problems with using it, should it ever become a viable replacement for oil.

TLDR I suppose. Should have used more pictures.

originally posted by: network dude
Since you have a lot of knowledge on this subject, perhaps you can help me with a nagging question. IF this will never work, why are muti-BILLION dollar companies like Toyota, Hyundai, and Honda even looking into this? I mean, you could have let them know it was a waste of time back in the early 2000's and saved them lots of $.

Car companies like Hydrogen because it gives cars the range they need to compete with gas cars. Batteries that provide that much range are big and expensive, one reason Tesla is building it's own battery factory with Panasonic.

The car companies don't care how much electricity is takes to make the hydrogen. That's the governments problem...and ours because we pay for all those power stations everywhere.

a reply to: network dude

Go read the collected works of Michael Ruppert on the subject hydrogen. it wont work because hydrogen has a lower EROEI than any other fuel source currently. which essentially means while it is extremely clean we have no way of producing it currently in the amounts necessary to replace a hydrocarbon economy. its just not feasible. and even if we had all the spare energy just lying around to create that much hydrogen, we would lose energy in the production. 2nd law of thermodynamics.