First Combined Gas & Hydrogen Station Opens in D.C. 11-11-04

[dmcowen674]

11-11-2004 Hydrogen Refueling Station Opens in D.C.

WASHINGTON - About four miles east of the U.S. Capitol, in an industrial section of town, sits a gas station that looks like any other. But it's not, because on Wednesday it became the first in North America to have a hydrogen dispensing pump.

The pump services only six minivans which General Motors Corp. uses to demonstrate the technology. GM hopes to sell affordable hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. The minivans are equipped with fuel cell stacks which turn hydrogen into electricity to power the vehicle. The only emission is water vapor.

http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=hydrogen-en
============================================
Although Shell opened this station they are stonewalling the Technology by saying it won't be deployed fully until 2015 the earliest. Meanwhile GM says it expects to Mass Market Vehicles by 2010.

Hmmmm, can't really sell Mass quantities of vehicles without stations to fill up at.

 

[Tarpon6]

How dangerous are the pumps, and how safe are hydrogen powered cars in accidents?

 

[0marTheZealot]

Hydrogen is made from fossil fuels. This is simply a wool pulled over consumers' eyes. A better alternative would be actually putting the time and energy to prop up some wind and solar energies.

Hydrogen has to be one of the biggest red herrings when it comes to our energy policy. Unless it is used in fusion, hydrogen isn't an energy source, in that it provides energy, it only carries energy released from another source, such as natural gas or coal.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Hydrogen is made from fossil fuels. This is simply a wool pulled over consumers' eyes. A better alternative would be actually putting the time and energy to prop up some wind and solar energies.

Hydrogen has to be one of the biggest red herrings when it comes to our energy policy. Unless it is used in fusion, hydrogen isn't an energy source, in that it provides energy, it only carries energy released from another source, such as natural gas or coal.

WTF? Hydrogen made from fossil fules? Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, something like 90% of the universe (more, i don't remember) is made from hydrogen. The only reason not all of the universe is hydrogen is because of gravity and the interaction of particles.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Hydrogen is made from fossil fuels. This is simply a wool pulled over consumers' eyes. A better alternative would be actually putting the time and energy to prop up some wind and solar energies.

Hydrogen has to be one of the biggest red herrings when it comes to our energy policy. Unless it is used in fusion, hydrogen isn't an energy source, in that it provides energy, it only carries energy released from another source, such as natural gas or coal.

WTF? Hydrogen made from fossil fules? Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, something like 90% of the universe (more, i don't remember) is made from hydrogen. The only reason not all of the universe is hydrogen is because of gravity and the interaction of particles.

[Edit]
Forgot this, i agree, it's only a temporary step, most likely to get some good-will from consumers.

 

[Chadder007]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Hydrogen is made from fossil fuels. This is simply a wool pulled over consumers' eyes. A better alternative would be actually putting the time and energy to prop up some wind and solar energies.

Hydrogen has to be one of the biggest red herrings when it comes to our energy policy. Unless it is used in fusion, hydrogen isn't an energy source, in that it provides energy, it only carries energy released from another source, such as natural gas or coal.

You, sir have greatly discredited yourself with this statement.....

 

[Altima]

Originally posted by: Chadder007

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Hydrogen is made from fossil fuels. This is simply a wool pulled over consumers' eyes. A better alternative would be actually putting the time and energy to prop up some wind and solar energies.

Hydrogen has to be one of the biggest red herrings when it comes to our energy policy. Unless it is used in fusion, hydrogen isn't an energy source, in that it provides energy, it only carries energy released from another source, such as natural gas or coal.

You, sir have greatly discredited yourself with this statement.....

Yea i would have to agree.....maybe your thinking hydrocarbons which are developed from fossil fuel...one way the get the hydrogen is to split the 2 hydrogen atoms from the oxygen in water (h20) nothing comes from fossil fuels

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Altima

Originally posted by: Chadder007

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Hydrogen is made from fossil fuels. This is simply a wool pulled over consumers' eyes. A better alternative would be actually putting the time and energy to prop up some wind and solar energies.

Hydrogen has to be one of the biggest red herrings when it comes to our energy policy. Unless it is used in fusion, hydrogen isn't an energy source, in that it provides energy, it only carries energy released from another source, such as natural gas or coal.

You, sir have greatly discredited yourself with this statement.....

Yea i would have to agree.....maybe your thinking hydrocarbons which are developed from fossil fuel...one way the get the hydrogen is to split the 2 hydrogen atoms from the oxygen in water (h20) nothing comes from fossil fuels

errr...electrolysis requres an assload of electricity for large scale hydrogen production. We get electricity by burning coal, natual gas, etc...

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Altima

Originally posted by: Chadder007

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Hydrogen is made from fossil fuels. This is simply a wool pulled over consumers' eyes. A better alternative would be actually putting the time and energy to prop up some wind and solar energies.

Hydrogen has to be one of the biggest red herrings when it comes to our energy policy. Unless it is used in fusion, hydrogen isn't an energy source, in that it provides energy, it only carries energy released from another source, such as natural gas or coal.

You, sir have greatly discredited yourself with this statement.....

Yea i would have to agree.....maybe your thinking hydrocarbons which are developed from fossil fuel...one way the get the hydrogen is to split the 2 hydrogen atoms from the oxygen in water (h20) nothing comes from fossil fuels

errr...electrolysis requres an assload of electricity for large scale hydrogen production. We get electricity by burning coal, natual gas, etc...

Which is where we should use hydrogen! Perfect!

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Altima

Originally posted by: Chadder007

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Hydrogen is made from fossil fuels. This is simply a wool pulled over consumers' eyes. A better alternative would be actually putting the time and energy to prop up some wind and solar energies.

Hydrogen has to be one of the biggest red herrings when it comes to our energy policy. Unless it is used in fusion, hydrogen isn't an energy source, in that it provides energy, it only carries energy released from another source, such as natural gas or coal.

You, sir have greatly discredited yourself with this statement.....

Yea i would have to agree.....maybe your thinking hydrocarbons which are developed from fossil fuel...one way the get the hydrogen is to split the 2 hydrogen atoms from the oxygen in water (h20) nothing comes from fossil fuels

errr...electrolysis requres an assload of electricity for large scale hydrogen production. We get electricity by burning coal, natual gas, etc...

Which is where we should use hydrogen! Perfect!

It is only cost effective if you have a source of really cheap, abundant electricity. IMO, Fusion power is the only real candidate to make the required amount of electricity to produce the amounts of hydrogen that would be needed.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Altima

Originally posted by: Chadder007

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Hydrogen is made from fossil fuels. This is simply a wool pulled over consumers' eyes. A better alternative would be actually putting the time and energy to prop up some wind and solar energies.

Hydrogen has to be one of the biggest red herrings when it comes to our energy policy. Unless it is used in fusion, hydrogen isn't an energy source, in that it provides energy, it only carries energy released from another source, such as natural gas or coal.

You, sir have greatly discredited yourself with this statement.....

Yea i would have to agree.....maybe your thinking hydrocarbons which are developed from fossil fuel...one way the get the hydrogen is to split the 2 hydrogen atoms from the oxygen in water (h20) nothing comes from fossil fuels

errr...electrolysis requres an assload of electricity for large scale hydrogen production. We get electricity by burning coal, natual gas, etc...

Which is where we should use hydrogen! Perfect!

It is only cost effective if you have a source of really cheap, abundant electricity. IMO, Fusion power is the only real candidate to make the required amount of electricity to produce the amounts of hydrogen that would be needed.

Agreed, or we could just create a GIANT vacum and pull in hydrogen from the universe?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Altima

Originally posted by: Chadder007

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Hydrogen is made from fossil fuels. This is simply a wool pulled over consumers' eyes. A better alternative would be actually putting the time and energy to prop up some wind and solar energies.

Hydrogen has to be one of the biggest red herrings when it comes to our energy policy. Unless it is used in fusion, hydrogen isn't an energy source, in that it provides energy, it only carries energy released from another source, such as natural gas or coal.

You, sir have greatly discredited yourself with this statement.....

Yea i would have to agree.....maybe your thinking hydrocarbons which are developed from fossil fuel...one way the get the hydrogen is to split the 2 hydrogen atoms from the oxygen in water (h20) nothing comes from fossil fuels

errr...electrolysis requres an assload of electricity for large scale hydrogen production. We get electricity by burning coal, natual gas, etc...

Which is where we should use hydrogen! Perfect!

It is only cost effective if you have a source of really cheap, abundant electricity. IMO, Fusion power is the only real candidate to make the required amount of electricity to produce the amounts of hydrogen that would be needed.

Agreed, or we could just create a GIANT vacum and pull in hydrogen from the universe?

I think the money would be better spent developing fusion energy.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Hydrogen is made from fossil fuels. This is simply a wool pulled over consumers' eyes. A better alternative would be actually putting the time and energy to prop up some wind and solar energies.

Hydrogen has to be one of the biggest red herrings when it comes to our energy policy. Unless it is used in fusion, hydrogen isn't an energy source, in that it provides energy, it only carries energy released from another source, such as natural gas or coal.

Let me guess, you work for Enron, Halliburton, Exxon???

You realize Hydrogen is all around you??? 3/4ths of the planet has Hydrogen locked up co-existing with Oxygen. Ever heard the term H2O???

Must be that Radical Religious Right Creationism "clouding" you.

Oh, Clouds are made up of H2o as well so that can't be either.

I better go burn a cloud since it is a hydrocarbon :roll:

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Hydrogen is made from fossil fuels. This is simply a wool pulled over consumers' eyes. A better alternative would be actually putting the time and energy to prop up some wind and solar energies.

Hydrogen has to be one of the biggest red herrings when it comes to our energy policy. Unless it is used in fusion, hydrogen isn't an energy source, in that it provides energy, it only carries energy released from another source, such as natural gas or coal.

Let me guess, you work for Enron, Halliburton, Exxon???

You realize Hydrogen is all around you??? 3/4ths of the planet has Hydrogen locked up co-existing with Oxygen. Ever heard the term H2O???

Must be that Radical Religious Right Creationism "clouding" you.

Oh, Clouds are made up of H2o as well so that can't be either.

I better go burn a cloud since it is a hydrocarbon :roll:

To extract that hydrogen so that you can reburn it with the oxygen requires energy and you can't get out more than you put it, nor can you even get out what you put in. It's a losing game and as the OP said currently most of the hydrogen would be extracted by cracking hydrocarbon chains (oil, coal, gas).

What the OP neglects is that although hydrogen is just an energy delivery method the advantage of the system is that the energy production method is independent of the delivery system. If we convert our transportation system to a hydrogen economy we can produce that hydrogen by what ever method is cheapest, most efficient and environmentally responsible. In essense if the cars start using hydrogen yes in the beginning oil, coal and gas will be cracked to extract the hydrogen but it won't be long before hundereds of wind farms, the excess nightly power off our power plants and solar farms are being used to hydrolize water. Although initially the system will be less efficient than the current one (although that could be argued because ICE's have efficiencies around 25% and fuel cells opperate around 80%, the cracking method efficienies are unknown to me), the advantage is that through time we could easily extract that hydrogen using any method that works. The advantage is switching the 125 million cars in this country to an energy source that doesn't care where the energy came from.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: rahvin

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Hydrogen is made from fossil fuels. This is simply a wool pulled over consumers' eyes. A better alternative would be actually putting the time and energy to prop up some wind and solar energies.

Hydrogen has to be one of the biggest red herrings when it comes to our energy policy. Unless it is used in fusion, hydrogen isn't an energy source, in that it provides energy, it only carries energy released from another source, such as natural gas or coal.

Let me guess, you work for Enron, Halliburton, Exxon???

You realize Hydrogen is all around you??? 3/4ths of the planet has Hydrogen locked up co-existing with Oxygen. Ever heard the term H2O???

Must be that Radical Religious Right Creationism "clouding" you.

Oh, Clouds are made up of H2o as well so that can't be either.

I better go burn a cloud since it is a hydrocarbon :roll:

To extract that hydrogen so that you can reburn it with the oxygen requires energy and you can't get out more than you put it, nor can you even get out what you put in. It's a losing game and as the OP said currently most of the hydrogen would be extracted by cracking hydrocarbon chains (oil, coal, gas).

What the OP neglects is that although hydrogen is just an energy delivery method the advantage of the system is that the energy production method is independent of the delivery system. If we convert our transportation system to a hydrogen economy we can produce that hydrogen by what ever method is cheapest, most efficient and environmentally responsible. In essense if the cars start using hydrogen yes in the beginning oil, coal and gas will be cracked to extract the hydrogen but it won't be long before hundereds of wind farms, the excess nightly power off our power plants and solar farms are being used to hydrolize water. Although initially the system will be less efficient than the current one (although that could be argued because ICE's have efficiencies around 25% and fuel cells opperate around 80%, the cracking method efficienies are unknown to me), the advantage is that through time we could easily extract that hydrogen using any method that works. The advantage is switching the 125 million cars in this country to an energy source that doesn't care where the energy came from.

That's bunch of bull and a cop out and you know it. If you had bothered to read any of the posts in the massive Oil thread clearly shows many methods that have been developed to extract or produce massive amounts of hydrogen fast, cheap and safely.

No Energy method is 100% "mistake" proof, we have Gasoline tankers blow up every now and again, we occasionally have accidents at Gas stations and also have vehicle gas tank explosions (Police Crown Vics for example). We also occasionally blow up a town or two with the Natural and Propane Gas pipelines.

So I would expect some Hydrogen "mistakes" as well.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Just because hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe doesn't make it easy to extract nor easy to refine and use. Also, hydrogen is 99% of all elements in the universe. There is a reason why we don't use hydrogen as a fuel.

Look at where all the hydrogen is bound. HYDROcarbons, H2O, metal hydrides. Even though hydrogen is part of the compound, can you directly use it? Are there wells of free H2 gas in the earth? The answer to both of these questions is no. To use hydrogen, one must break chemical bonds to free hydrogen. Breaking chemical bonds takes energy, usually in the form of heat provided by fossil fuels.

Electrolysis of H2O yields hydrogen and oxygen. Where did the energy come from initally to break those bonds? Probably from a gas-fired power plant supplying the appartus. Or you can oxidize methane (natural gas) to CO2 and H2. Again, this requires energy, as methane is a very stable compound at room temperture. There needs to be pressure and heat applied to the system before H2 is spontaneously made.

One must understand chemical and physical theories before making wild accusations. The only way H2 will serve as an energy SOURCE, rather than an energy CARRIER, is through the fusion of Deutrium, an isotope of hydrogen present at 1 parts per 1000 I think, and either another molecule of deutrium or tritum to yield a helium atom. There is a net loss of mass and that mass is converted into energy. This is the only way for hydrogen to be an energy source.

Remember the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. Matter and Energy can not be created nor destroyed, only changed in form. Whenever going from one type of energy to another, there will be a net loss of energy in the form of heat. In a closed system, there can never be a decrease in entropy; only a change of zero or an increase.

Both of these principles are laws of nature, and thus can not be broken.

dmcowen:

No I don't work for any of those "evil" companies. Clouds aren't hydrocarbons, since they decidedly lack carbon in their structure. And although hydrogen is the most abundant element, free hydrogen does not exist on or in the planet, as far as we know. Also, I am not a right-wing creationist. I ground most of my everyday life in hard science and engineering. Ceasing to believe in facts does not change their truth. Red herrings like these do not do any good in a discussion.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Just because hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe doesn't make it easy to extract nor easy to refine and use. Also, hydrogen is 99% of all elements in the universe. There is a reason why we don't use hydrogen as a fuel.

Look at where all the hydrogen is bound. HYDROcarbons, H2O, metal hydrides. Even though hydrogen is part of the compound, can you directly use it? Are there wells of free H2 gas in the earth? The answer to both of these questions is no. To use hydrogen, one must break chemical bonds to free hydrogen. Breaking chemical bonds takes energy, usually in the form of heat provided by fossil fuels.

Electrolysis of H2O yields hydrogen and oxygen. Where did the energy come from initally to break those bonds? Probably from a gas-fired power plant supplying the appartus. Or you can oxidize methane (natural gas) to CO2 and H2. Again, this requires energy, as methane is a very stable compound at room temperture. There needs to be pressure and heat applied to the system before H2 is spontaneously made.

One must understand chemical and physical theories before making wild accusations. The only way H2 will serve as an energy SOURCE, rather than an energy CARRIER, is through the fusion of Deutrium, an isotope of hydrogen present at 1 parts per 1000 I think, and either another molecule of deutrium or tritum to yield a helium atom. There is a net loss of mass and that mass is converted into energy. This is the only way for hydrogen to be an energy source.

Remember the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. Matter and Energy can not be created nor destroyed, only changed in form. Whenever going from one type of energy to another, there will be a net loss of energy in the form of heat. In a closed system, there can never be a decrease in entropy; only a change of zero or an increase.

Both of these principles are laws of nature, and thus can not be broken.

dmcowen:

No I don't work for any of those "evil" companies. Clouds aren't hydrocarbons, since they decidedly lack carbon in their structure. And although hydrogen is the most abundant element, free hydrogen does not exist on or in the planet, as far as we know. Also, I am not a right-wing creationist. I ground most of my everyday life in hard science and engineering. Ceasing to believe in facts does not change their truth. Red herrings like these do not do any good in a discussion.

Much better reply than the first one, thank you.

Bottom line is we are too lazy and making too much money off still rubbing two sticks of wood to make fire than take it to the next level.

I'll go back to burning my clouds now thank you.

 

[0marTheZealot]

yea I made too many assumptions about what I posted first. sorry for the confusion everyone.

 

[Forsythe]

OMFG you just had me rolling on the floor!

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Clouds aren't hydrocarbons, since they decidedly lack carbon in their structure.

ROFL

[Edit]
It's the word "decidedly", i'm sure of it! And i'm serious, i was on the floor, i was stading up, i'm making food, and my knees went spaghetti!

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

A better alternative would be actually putting the time and energy to prop up some wind and solar energies.

Recently some studies suggest that a large use of wind energy can cause climate changes from the local to global scale.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

A better alternative would be actually putting the time and energy to prop up some wind and solar energies.

Recently some studies suggest that a large use of wind energy can cause climate changes from the local to global scale.

I refuse to believe that! That would have to be some pretty seriously nasty usage, one we would never reach!

 

[maddogchen]

sooo....anyone know a good hydrogen fueled car to buy for under $20,000?

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

A better alternative would be actually putting the time and energy to prop up some wind and solar energies.

Recently some studies suggest that a large use of wind energy can cause climate changes from the local to global scale.

I refuse to believe that! That would have to be some pretty seriously nasty usage, one we would never reach!

There are lots of studies that suggest that large farms of wind turbines have local environmental effects. I think the global one is a new thing though, and the simulations had something like 10% of the world's electricty generated from wind power in that scenario. There are lots of problems that people don't think about when refering to wind power such as this, vandalism, massacre of birds, etc.

 

[klah]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

A better alternative would be actually putting the time and energy to prop up some wind and solar energies.

Recently some studies suggest that a large use of wind energy can cause climate changes from the local to global scale.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com...ecialScienceandHealth/

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: Forsythe
OMFG you just had me rolling on the floor!

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Clouds aren't hydrocarbons, since they decidedly lack carbon in their structure.

ROFL

[Edit]
It's the word "decidedly", i'm sure of it! And i'm serious, i was on the floor, i was stading up, i'm making food, and my knees went spaghetti!

hehe I try

On the wind debate. If we ever made a move towards high-usage of renewables, having large scale wind farms isn't conceivable. It was surprising to read that a simple thing such as a turbine could cause global climate change.

I do know that large scale solar farming would lead to climate change, simply due to the fact that the earth didn't evolve to deal with 95% or more of solar energy being absorbed.