Hydrogen pill invented

[iwantanewcomputer]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Sigh....

People just don't get it, no matter how many times you explain it. Hydrogen will not make us independent from oil... oil is an energy source AND an energy carrier, hydrogen is just an energy carrier. We have to use energy derived from power plants to produce combustable hydrogen. And the vast, vast majority of our power plants get electricity from oil and coal.

To be independent from oil, we need more power plants that use energy from wind, solar and nuclear sources. So THAT is the first step in becoming indepedent from oil, not producing a new way to transport hydrogen. Sure it's important, but its nothing compared to the huge task of getting the same amount of energy from wind, solar and nuclear sources that we now get from oil and coal.

QFT...nice to see someone who knows something

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

To be independent from oil, we need more power plants that use energy from wind, solar and nuclear sources. So THAT is the first step in becoming indepedent from oil, not producing a new way to transport hydrogen. Sure it's important, but its nothing compared to the huge task of getting the same amount of energy from wind, solar and nuclear sources that we now get from oil and coal.

The problem is that we have not had a usable carrier, so there would be very little won by changing the energy to those sources. It might be here now and that is something that should be taken into consideration for planning future energy plans. It's not going to happen over night, but we need to start somewhere.

 

[0roo0roo]

*cough*
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=50&threadid=1672835&enterthread=y

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Sigh....

People just don't get it, no matter how many times you explain it. Hydrogen will not make us independent from oil... oil is an energy source AND an energy carrier, hydrogen is just an energy carrier. We have to use energy derived from power plants to produce combustable hydrogen. And the vast, vast majority of our power plants get electricity from oil and coal.

To be independent from oil, we need more power plants that use energy from wind, solar and nuclear sources. So THAT is the first step in becoming indepedent from oil, not producing a new way to transport hydrogen. Sure it's important, but its nothing compared to the huge task of getting the same amount of energy from wind, solar and nuclear sources that we now get from oil and coal.

THere is a lot of energy density in waves. There are commerical operations in Scotland which generate a great deal of power for the area of water they harness.

You could build these facilities, which would in essence be refineries, and move it just like we do oil.

It requires infrastructure and money. There is no immediate return on investment for business, and govt. is too busy spending many hundreds of billions of dollars on an Iraq war.

Therefore we are screwed.

Nice idea though.

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: iwantanewcomputer

Originally posted by: JinLien

How much energy does it take to produce these hydrogen pill?

internal combustion engines are about 35% efficient, mabe 40% with htdrogen instead of octane. (efficient = conversion of chemical energy > mechanical)

octane is very cheap to extract from crude oil. ammonia is pretty cheap to. however, you lose energy in catalyzing the hydrogen out of ammonia, and then it has to be burnt like octane. the energy density in the ammonia pellets is a lot less than in gasoline(they are metal, catalysts, and ammonia, not hydrogen), so the milage will not be nearly as good. these pellets are also way more expensive to make and supply. (catalysts of this sort often have expensive metals like platinum)

this is not the answer to any oil shortage or gas pricwe problems. quit hyping it up people

uhm, 500km range for 50L of this stuff in a regular car how is that for bad for energy density?

and I'm pretty sure that pollution is the main benefit of this (except for certain political groups), not the independence from oil.

 

[cjgallen]

Hydrogen pill? So they finally found the cure for hydrogen

 

[BriGy86]

Originally posted by: iwantanewcomputer

Originally posted by: JinLien

How much energy does it take to produce these hydrogen pill?

internal combustion engines are about 35% efficient, mabe 40% with htdrogen instead of octane. (efficient = conversion of chemical energy > mechanical)

octane is very cheap to extract from crude oil. ammonia is pretty cheap to. however, you lose energy in catalyzing the hydrogen out of ammonia, and then it has to be burnt like octane. the energy density in the ammonia pellets is a lot less than in gasoline(they are metal, catalysts, and ammonia, not hydrogen), so the milage will not be nearly as good. these pellets are also way more expensive to make and supply. (catalysts of this sort often have expensive metals like platinum)

this is not the answer to any oil shortage or gas pricwe problems. quit hyping it up people

why does the article say this then?

"The hydrogen tablet is safe and inexpensive."

they wouldn't lie to us would they?

and i doubt people care about milage if its less money per mile they have to pay

 

[alien42]

sweet, and it amazes me that people actually try to fight a clean and efficient future.

 

[DrPizza]

Trevelyan has the right idea...
Here's how it works:

In Europe, much of their energy is nuclear derived. However, their cars need gasoline to run.
In the United States, the vast majority of our energy is derived from fossil fuels. Our cars also need gasoline to run.

In Europe, they can use some of their nuclear energy, or solar, or wind, or wave, or...
This energy can be used to produce the hydrogen for these pills.
Hydrogen is just an energy carrier; it takes more energy to make it ready for its use in either fuel cells or combustion engines than it actually gives off. Producing it as a fuel automatically (because of the laws of thermodynamics) means you are going to lose some of the energy that you put into the system.
However, it gives you the opportunity to move away from fossil fuel vehicles.

The U.S. is lagging FAR behind in moving away from a dependence on fossil fuels. There are TWO parts to this:
1. inexpensive, safe way to store hydrogen (which this article points to)
2. A non-fossil fuel method of producing the necessary energy to create the hydrogen.

#2 is the big issue for us. NIMBY stops any attempt at more nuclear facilities. The word "nuclear" seems to elicit enough fright that insufficient funding is put into fusion research. Solar really isn't feasible for the quantities of energy we're talking about. It would take incredible strides in solar energy to produce enough. Ditto for wind. Both would put in a decent sized dent, but by the time they were implemented, that dent would be nearly meaningless compared to predicted energy needs in the future.

 

[mchammer]

Ok people, but electrolysis of Hydrogen from water takes a lot of electricity, we would have to either build tons of nuclear plants or cover half the coutry with solar panels and windmills. I think there will be many other improvements before hydrogen works out, such as hybrids and super high compression engines. Hydrogen is meaningless untill nuclear fusion is perfected.