Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Hydrogen fuel cells need some sort of heavy metal catalyst, usually Platinum. We aren't exactly swimming in platinum.
Few things about hydrogen:
The most economical way to obtain hydrogen, right now, is through the oxidation of Methane into CO2 and H2. Methane is a fossil fuel.
The 2nd most economical way to obtain hydrogen is through electrolysis of water. However, that is very energy intensive and most electricity comes from fossil fuels anyways, primarily coal, natural gas and oil.
Because of the laws of thermodynamics, we get less energy out of H2 than if we simply burned the fossil fuels. In effect, we are subsidizing H2 with surplus energy/cheap energy from fossil fuels.
Finally, while hydrogen fuel cells are very efficent, you have to translate that into mechanical motion. That, in turn, requires some sort of movement. Friction comes in and bam the system starts hemoragging energy. Modern industrial civilization is running on an inhertiance of hundreds of millions of years of accumlated fossil fuels. We won't be able to change overnight (or in 20 years) all the infrastructure to a hydrogen economy.
The reason most people buy this hydrogen myth is that it requires almost no change in lifestyle. Buy a new hydrogen-fuel-cell car and continue running your life as it was before. There needs to be a fundemental change in how we use and produce energy in the coming decades. And it will requires massive lifestyle changes.
Hydrogen fuel cells actually use polymer-based membranes to do their dirty work. Some of these contain platinum, though in ridiculously small amounts. Most now are being made of polymers with conductive backbones to decrease costs.
There are many, many ways to generate hydrogen gas, as hydrogen is the most common element in the known universe. There are more environmentally/economically viable methods than those you describe, though we don't have the proper refinement processes established to use them on a large scale. If you're interested, I can give you a reference to an encyclopedia of chemical processing that lists, by product, the currently existing flowsheets for the production of a given product species. It's kind of interesting, if you're an uber-nerd (like myself), to see the sheer number of ways in which people have found ways to produce things for less money and energy.
As for your argument that hydrogen will lose efficiency due to motion, that's completely moot. This isn't a function of the fuel - it's a function of the vehicle that the fuel is used in. The friction losses will be the same regardless of the fuel type used, given that the velocity and aerodynamics are constant.
Sorry to piss in your Cheerios, but hydrogen fuel cells are hardly a myth. I built
this one back in 2001 for about $300 (the one that won the competition
😛). Sure it runs off electrolysis, but even producing electricity from fossil fuels to produce electrolysis still yields gains in
net efficiency relative to gasoline engines.
Originally posted by: Kibbo
Short-term energy solutions should concentrate on increasing fuel efficiency and emissions controls for automobiles, mass-transit and nuclear electricity generation, with a dash of wind where applicable.
That will help us until hydrogen and solar power are ready to hit prime-time.
:thumbsup:
I prefer to use public vehicles (mass transit, for example) as the first to be outfitted with newer technology. This demonstrates to the public that it works, plus gives the government a method to provide direct research assistance.
