It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SCI/TECH: The First Hydrogen Fuel Pump Installed in the U.S.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 06:06 AM
link   
The Nation's first hydrogen-dispensing pump has been installed in a public gas station on Benning Road NE.
Although only 6 minivans can use this new pump, which GM uses to show off the technology, it seems to be a sign on how major corporations are responding to the U.S. dependence on foreign oil, and the possible solution to end such dependence. Although installing the pump cost a whopping 2 million dollars, it shows that the technology seems to be moving in the right direction to stop our dependence on oil.
 



www.stevequayle.com
Shell and GM are major proponents of moving toward a "hydrogen economy," in which a significant part of the world's vehicle fleet would run on hydrogen-powered fuel cells. Such cells are essentially batteries that generate electricity by converting hydrogen and oxygen into water, producing no pollution. Virtually all the major auto manufacturers have prototype vehicles that run on fuel cells and are refining the technology.

Environmentalists hail the notion of cars and trucks that emit nothing more harmful than water vapor, but they have become increasingly skeptical about the promise of hydrogen.

"The major unanswered questions about hydrogen are not whether you can run a car on it. They are, how do you make it? What is it going to cost? And what is going to be the public investment in infrastructure?" said David Hamilton, director of global warming and energy programs at the Sierra Club. The Shell station on Benning Road NE is "devoid of economic reality. [Hydrogen power] doesn't exist in the real world except as a hugely subsidized example of something that the companies want you to see."



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.




Could this be the anwser to the century old dependence on oil? Even if this technology takes years to perfect, and to make available to most of the general public in the U.S. This is the right step, not only towards a more environmentally suitable mode of transportation, but perhaps as a way to finally end our dependence on oil, at least for transportation purposes.

Related News Links:
www.new-cars.com
www.rmi.org
www.usatoday.com
greenvilleonline.com


[edit on 11-11-2004 by Zion Mainframe]




posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 06:49 AM
link   


"The major unanswered questions about hydrogen are not whether you can run a car on it. They are, how do you make it? What is it going to cost? And what is going to be the public investment in infrastructure?" said David Hamilton, director of global warming and energy programs at the Sierra Club. The Shell station on Benning Road NE is "devoid of economic reality. [Hydrogen power] doesn't exist in the real world except as a hugely subsidized example of something that the companies want you to see."


This is EXACTLY why I hate the modern environmental movement. They have no grasp on what it takes to change a huge corporation’s culture. Even installing a new piece of software can cause immense feedback and disruption. Shell is trying to change the entire way they are doing business.

Imagine, if you will, the number of 20+ year employees who’s jobs are going to become moot if the company stops looking for more oil and starts producing hydrogen. You think these guys give a rat’s ass about the environment when they are looking at the end of their careers? Think they are going to cooperate with management? Think passive aggressive behavior from about 30% of their workforce and don’t even get started about their partners.

Most oil companies know the writing is on the wall for alternate energy. Most of these companies, like Shell, now call themselves “energy companies”. Why do that? Well, if you’re a naïve you think this is to fool everyone while they continue business as usual. But if you understand large corporate culture it’s really to start setting a message and to get their employees thinking in a different manner. I know a few folks over at Shell and I can tell from working with them over the years that they truly are thinking about things other than oil production.

But what happens when they execute even a small piece of this change? Some environmental wacko has got to piss all over things. Very counter productive. I’m sure those engineers working on this project are more than aware of the issues at hand, but thanks Mr. green dude for stating the obvious to Mr. clueless reporter. It’s negative feedback like this that makes it harder for us to shift to the new technology.

Hydrogen IS going to be our fuel of the future. We hate dealing with the Middle East and the change-over to hydrogen will be great for our economy, many new jobs will be created. We’ll solve the inefficiency issues just like we solved many problems with oil production in the past.



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 06:53 AM
link   
I think that if the government wants to help hydrogen adoption it should subsidize the installation of 20,000 new hydrogen pumps in the 20,000 busiest service stations in the country. Do it over a 2 year period at the cost of oh…20 billion per year. THAT would pump a lot of money into the economy AND get the conversion well under way. Then car companies could start to produce cars and a basic hydrogen delivery infrastructure would come into being as demand picked up.



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 11:10 AM
link   
I don't think hydrogen will disrupt the economy as you state.

If anything it will create more jobs in the begining and then after a while oil related jobs would be lost.

By the way... Even if our new fuel source was Hydrogen and our country would officially adopt it..... It would take decades to make a complete change over from oil.

I don't think it would be a problem.

We heard the stories from the horse shoe makers when they protested the horse-less carrages.

Later,

Reason



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 11:36 AM
link   
This is an excellent advancment. People often cite the chicken and egg problem ... well now Shell's put an end to that.

Another thing to consider, though, is that hydrogen fuel cells aren't that much more efficent than gasoline engines. I forget what it is, but prior to the fuel cell, you use up a lot of energy generating either the hydrogen or some key components.



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrNice
This is EXACTLY why I hate the modern environmental movement. They have no grasp on what it takes to change a huge corporation’s culture.


I agree with you Mr.Nice.!!!




Shell is trying to change the entire way they are doing business.


Then Shell is an example of business strategy and foresight. Oil is gonna run out in 50 years or so, better advertise to your shareholder children's Trusts.



Imagine, if you will, the number of 20+ year employees who’s jobs are going to become moot if the company stops looking for more oil and starts producing hydrogen. You think these guys give a rat’s ass about the environment when they are looking at the end of their careers?


Hello and welcome to capitalism. IT jobs are flowing freely to India due to outsourcing and universal communication network. Manufacturing jobs are going to leave NC in January 2005. It's a fact of live, dude, and if Shell tries to deny it, they'll go the way of dinosaurs.

In that regard, the employees' attitude is irrelevant.



I know a few folks over at Shell and I can tell from working with them over the years that they truly are thinking about things other than oil production.


This is fantastic! They are thinking! They are thinking about things other than oil! Woot!



Hydrogen IS going to be our fuel of the future. We hate dealing with the Middle East and the change-over to hydrogen will be great for our economy, many new jobs will be created. We’ll solve the inefficiency issues just like we solved many problems with oil production in the past.


Yes. I agree with you. You made a great argument.



[edit on 11-11-2004 by Aelita]



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 12:22 PM
link   
I don't think hydrogen will be used until they find a cheaper way how to produce it. Today you needs simply too much energy to produce hydrogen so you need to build more power plants and most powerplants needs what ? - Oil again.
IMO the better solution would be to produce biofuel. It is made from plants like corn and can bu used also in todays slightly upgraded engines. In the future it is possible that genetics will create specialized plants not for eating but for producing biofuel and the farmers will becomeoil moguls
.



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Unfortunately you guys clearly haven't researched the subject, which is apparent by your lack of fundamental understanding of the MAJOR flaw regarding hydrogen fuel. Hydrogen fuel requires MORE energy to create than it puts out, you lose approximately 30-60% of the energy you put in via electrolysis to seperate the hydrogen and water molecules.

The problem with this is the fact that natural gas and crude oil are the two largest providers of energy, when we run out of these things we will quite simply NOT be able to meet the current demand, let alone give up 30-60% of this energy so we can create hydrogen fuel. Plus, explain to me how cheap it will be to retro-fit MILLIONS of cars with engines that can run hydrogen. Not to mention that hydrogen is an extremely volatile and explosive substance.

Hydrogen quite simply, will not work, it is not a solution, it is nothing, sorry, hydrogen is completely worthless.



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by keke
Not to mention that hydrogen is an extremely volatile and explosive substance.


I agree with most of your post, but hydrogen is safer than normal fuel, beacuse it disperses quickly and it's lighter than air. They made some test and hydrogen explosion is not so dangerous and powerfull as gas explosion.

[edit on 11-11-2004 by longbow]



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Now, one can say that moving from gas to hydrogen (water) power is a wonderful thing. But, lets look at it this way. If a mega gas company is willing to put, basically, a "water pump" at their gas station, what does this mean for the price of water in the future? And, since this mega gas company is willing to put a "water pump" at their station, are the gas companies working with the car manufacturers to make cars that use a specifically refined form of hydrogen that is (most likely) patented that can only be made by the gas companies?

Honestly, I really don't see it happening any other way. Why would a gas company put a hydrogen pump at their own gas station? Isn't that like slowly committing hari-kari?



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Here is a White House article that describes this administrations policy on Hydrogen. Bush is good.

Fact Sheet: Hydrogen Fuel: a Clean and Secure Energy Future



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow

Originally posted by keke
Not to mention that hydrogen is an extremely volatile and explosive substance.


I agree with most of your post, but hydrogen is safer than normal fuel, beacuse it disperses quickly and it's lighter than air. They made some test and hydrogen explosion is not so dangerous and powerfull as gas explosion.

[edit on 11-11-2004 by longbow]


Very true gasoline is also a extremely volatile and explosive substance. One gallon of gasoline equals about 14 sticks of Dynamite. Your average cars gas tank is 15 gallons. So everytime you fill up your tank your sitting on 210 sticks of TNT.


www.hanford.gov...



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 08:51 PM
link   
I'm just wondering how that can be the first, because I saw a video with Arnold Schwarzenegger opening the first one in California in October. California governer's office link to Hydrogen story.



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 09:18 PM
link   
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by keke
Not to mention that hydrogen is an extremely volatile and explosive substance.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agreed. And unfortunately, it does rise as another poster said. Imagine a parking garage under a large building full of... leaking minivans. Remember the Hindenburg? What are the other advantages of hydrogen cars? Well, its the smallest molecule around. Meaning it leaks. Fill up, and park for a while and... drat. Gotta go to Shell again. And that's not the worst aspect of a small-molecular weight gas. When it leaks, it goes up- as in stratospheric, right to the edge of space. There, ultraviolet breaks it down into atomic hydrogen, even lighter and yes, up it goes. Then it becomes ionized, heated, excited and flies right off into interplanetary space. Ever wonder how Mars lost its water? Now you know. The solar wind stripped off the hydrogen produced by UV interaction with Mars atmosphere in the absence of an ozone layer and magnetosphere. I opposed and still oppose electric vehicles on the basis of resource use and generation issues which escape most enviros. And the adoption of hydrogen fuel cell technology when a newer, cleaner, more efficient and safer fuel cell technology (the direct methanol fuel cell) exists is, well, stupid. Unless you like to sell leaked hydrogen.



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by outsider
I'm just wondering how that can be the first, because I saw a video with Arnold Schwarzenegger opening the first one in California in October. California governer's office link to Hydrogen story.


humm, i don't know, I don't live in California...but can anyone get on this "hydrogen highway"? is it even open to the public?

Perhaps this is the first installed hydrogen pump in a gas station that is available to the public?

Anyways...i saw some...criticism in a couple of the responses to my thread.... first i never claimed that all of the U.S. would be able to transfer to hydrogen fuel right away....in fact I did mention that even if it took years i thought it was worthy looking into...or something like that.... anyways, it is news and I thought it was worth to mention.....who knew some people would start bashing away even if it was some good news huh?....



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Most oil companies are interested in only giving lip service to environmental problems. I really don't see much difference with this seeing as the technology has existed for decades. Ironically, the main reasons for them even considering this is the decades long struggle by the environmentalists to bring these problems to public attention, which the public themselves are only now seemingly starting to realise like a drunkard coming out of a coma.

Here's a typical example of the oil industries "proactive” stance on the environment:

The old BP sign:





And the new:







Ohhh.... they've changed it to look like a flower. That must mean they've suddenly gone all environmentally friendly. Great.







For a lot of susceptible people, that's all they have to do.










[edit on 11-11-2004 by kegs]



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 09:50 PM
link   
For the record, the Hindenburg tragedy wasn't caused by the hydrogen.

Here is a site explaining it.



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Here is a google search of the Hindenburg myth.

Hindenburg Myth


XL5

posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 04:34 AM
link   
A liquid gasoline can not mix with air as fast as liquid hydogen. Liquid hydrogen evaporates into a gas very fast and will burn faster then liquid gasoline.

I agree that this is a big problem waiting to happen. If not for the energy losses but the people "pumping" liquid hydrogen, the filling cable better have alot of safegaurds on it. The public can not look after seals and tell when they are failing, thats why propane tanks over 10+/- are not being refilled (as well as rust). This is also part of the reason that propane is not used in cars and only in company owned cars.

Whats needed is ultra capacitors with very high energy densitys so that the whole system is as efficient as the motor and circiuts (80-90%). Batteries do not store all the charge you put in them.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join