Hydrogen: More polluting than petroleum?

Polluting or not, shouldn't alternatives be encouraged so as to wean our countries off of relying on another's oil?

[edit on 3/4/07 by stumason]

Originally posted by stumason
Polluting or not, shouldn't alternatives be encouraged so as to wean our countries off of relying on another's oil?

[edit on 3/4/07 by stumason]

Agree. 100%. Wether or not the alternative fuel is cleaner, we should have the option of alternative fuels. It will increase competion, and in a captalist economy - competion is good for the consumer.

Solar and Wind are the best at this point. Mass produced solar and wind and we are all living in a better world.

Originally posted by stumason
Polluting or not, shouldn't alternatives be encouraged so as to wean our countries off of relying on another's oil?

[edit on 3/4/07 by stumason]

Yes but you got to remember, the big oil companies don't want competition. So the fewer alternative fuels that are out there, the less competition they have, hence the more money they make.

It's only if the majority of the sleepy heads allow it, if people wake the hell up and demand alternative sources nothing will stop the movement.

If people give in and give their hard earned money to the big oil then they have made a choice, but if people give their focus, money, and efforts to alternatives the world will change very quickly. Why? because the world is ready for a major change and shift of power back to individuals.

Originally posted by RedGolem
Yes but you got to remember, the big oil companies don't want competition. So the fewer alternative fuels that are out there, the less competition they have, hence the more money they make.

The oil companies, while many spend millions to try and make other
choices look bad, and probably blackmail from time to time, are not
all powerful.

Alternative energy projects, relatively large ones are being brought
online all over the world, including in the United States.

For instance Portugal has tidal energy generators and wind farms.

There have been solar projects on the west coast since the 70's.
In ym own state the state government just allowed the utilities company
a permit to study (well, they already were, but they needed a permit
for there next phase) to study using tidal energy generators in the
Puget Sound.

Originally posted by Realtruth
Solar and Wind are the best at this point. Mass produced solar and wind and we are all living in a better world.

Well duh! Just stick a few PV panels and windmills on top of a fleet of electric cars! Problem solved!

Killer with electric cars is replacing the batteries. Even with the new breed lithiums... just how much does it cost to replace them all when they eventually can't hold a charge in 5-10years?

Would it cancel out the savings over oil?

THAT is why you only see douches driving Prius's. Why hydrogen, ethanol, electric hybrids, none of them are an exploding market right now. Oil is too cheap.

When the wells start to slow, that's when you'll see the boom. You won't see squat until then.

[edit on 3-4-2007 by apc]

Iori,
All of those are good things, but are they being produced on a scale that will be economically feasible for the area? And for the market?

Originally posted by RedGolem
Iori,
All of those are good things, but are they being produced on a scale that will be economically feasible for the area? And for the market?

The Portugese one provides alot of power.

Oh, and Greenland/Iceland (the island one) gets the majority of its
power from geothermal, and will be one of the first countries to be
totally energy independant.

The local one, well I don't have any estimates on me right now, but
if/when it goes up it would provide a good chunk of power for the area.
And this is a very metropolitan area.

Umm so what dioes this mean everyone is to yell out "Hey hydrogen sucks, it will never work, lets just keep sucking up every bit of oil we can find and then let the world turn to # when its all gone"

NOOO! This is all the more reason we throw even larger sums of money into researching technologies that can makea breakthrough in the efficiency and enviro-impact of the productuion of hydrogen.

Atomic energy only became a reality when the government set aside a rediculous sum of money for the weaponization of the technology. So it is my belief, we must research an alternatively hideously and terrifyingly destructive weapon involving the PRODUCTION of hydrogen. (do not cite the current hydrogen bomb, this is not what I am talking about)

That would probably require weaponizing space, as such a program would in all reality be capable of destroying the planet.

That's a whole 'nother ball game.

Originally posted by apc
That would probably require weaponizing space, as such a program would in all reality be capable of destroying the planet.

That's a whole 'nother ball game.

I have to disagree.

Hydrogen, unless you get a really, really big ball of it, like 1/4 the size
of the planet, and ignite it in orbit, I don't think it would be able to
destroy the world.


However, using hydrogen fuel cells to power weapons in space is
another thing all together.

[edit on 4/4/2007 by iori_komei]

Well I'm thinking a self-sustaining chain reaction of splitting water...

With today's technology I'd imagine it could be done [safely isolated] in a lab. But such a weapon would react with every molecule of water vapor in the atmosphere, continuing on to the oceans.

[edit on 3-4-2007 by apc]

Ahh well hey, if we just happen to destroy the world, wll it was a nice run while it lasted. Only thing left to wonder is where the energy we are made up of will end up in the universe and what kind of experiecne it will have.

You use solar+wind to provide the energy to split Hydrogen from water. net CO2 contribution - Zero. You can do this in remote windy and/or desert areas. Thus utilise areas where all but the lone hiker will not complain about! Ironically this would probably mean the likes of the middle east could become the major Hydrogen suppliers.

Splitting fossil fuels makes no difference to the current situation you have simply moved the point of pollution from the tailpipe to the factory but can fool the public into thinking it's clean!

Remote clean hydrogen production is possible now but it does mean a shift of wealth hence why you'll see oil companies and governments supporting dirty Hydrogen production to keep the money and power in current hands.

I proclaim this story to be ILL INFORMED AND OFFICIALLY DEBUNKED...

Hydrogen can be produced at home using solar power, it is slow as of today but advances are being made:

www.treehugger.com...

We alluded earlier to the home hydrogen fueling station being developed in Australia. We at TreeHugger have never been fond of the hydrogen economy, with its problems of sourcing the hydrogen (really a form of gaseous battery storing energy) and transport. However, this addresses both of these formerly intractable problems. According to Todd Woody of Business 2.0 who met with CSIRO fuel cell scientist Dr. Sukhvinder Badwal, "You don't need a hydrogen infrastructure to introduce the hydrogen economy." the home fueling station uses solar and wind energy to make electricity which then makes hydrogen, and stores it in a corner of your garage. It produces enough in a day to run your car about 100 miles. Voila: no piping infrastructure, no transmission losses, no nuclear plants or fossil fuels to make the stuff.

"The heart of the fuel station is an electrolyzer - essentially a fuel cell run in reverse. An electric current from solar panels (a home wind turbine would also do the job) separates water into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen is compressed and stored, ready for use in a fuel-cell car or an electric/hydrogen hybrid with an engine converted to run on the gas."

"Real-world tests of the home fueling system were to begin early this year at RMIT University in Melbourne, with commercial trials two years off. Obstacles remain, including the cost of hydrogen cars, but the technology could go a long way to making the family wagon carbon-neutral."

[edit on 4-4-2007 by Pootie]

That would have to be one mighty strong wind turbine to run that compressor!

Or I guess you could strap a bike to it... pedal power!

But if that's the case... why drive?

Originally posted by Realtruth
Solar and Wind are the best at this point. Mass produced solar and wind and we are all living in a better world.

Neither one is suitable, they are too expensive, solar panels get damaged easily too.

No developing nation can pay for those sources of power, and developing nations are only beginning to use these technologies.

Even if PV and wind were economical at present, most of the developed world only gets 4-6 hours of viable sunlight per day. Wind is obviously only reliable in certain areas. And even if every rooftop had a panel on it and every hill hand a turbine on it, the total output would only offset what... 5% of petroleum? 20% max?

On an individual basis solar and wind are workable. On the wide scale, not really.

Originally posted by apc
On an individual basis solar and wind are workable.

But that is the point. To switch your vehicle ONLY (which is the topic of the thread?) to run on H you will be able to do it in the near future if you have the CASH. No distribution network, no shipping and as a backup, if you do not get enough sun in a given week to keep your tank full then you could go on the grid.

They are proposing 100 miles worth of H produced per day from a small solar panel array... Who drives that far in a day? So you would would quickly fill your H tanks to capacity and need less sun daily to keep them "topped off".

[edit on 4-4-2007 by Pootie]