What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$52 and Up—Airlines Slash Fares On Peak Holiday Flights. view!
travelzoo.com - This year, waiting until the last minute is NOT the best strategy. See why.
116 Comments
- inactive, on 04/08/2009, -9/+42The most efficient way to produce hydrogen is with nuclear power. It can be produced on mass scales and we sure could use some more nuclear power plants anyways. Let's wake up and use the technology we already have.
- inigomntoya, on 04/08/2009, -2/+21Rubble Rubble
Three mile island!
Rubble Rubble
Chernobyl!
/s
I completely agree. Nuclear plants produce a little bit of nasty waste, yet produce an IMMENSE amount of power.
If its really that dangerous and uncontrollable, why is the Navy still using it to power their boats? - garryw, on 04/08/2009, -0/+16Well considering the second law of thermodynamics net E < 0 J depending on what you define as the boundary of your system. Usable energy of any isolated system always decreases. In this case, the solar system.
However, for a non-isolated system (say earth) net E can exceed zero thanks to the sun. - mrmagos, on 04/08/2009, -0/+11I'll try...
Put their magic-coated metal in water, boil it, and out pops hydrogen. Let the soup cool, expose it to sunlight; the soup gets all fizzy, and out pops our friend oxygen. Take the magic-coated metal, put it in water, repeat the process. Profit? - BoneheadFarker, on 04/08/2009, -1/+11Actually, oil has a range of uses, including most plastics. Ethanol can be easily made from non-food sources. It may be possible to use undrinkable salt water this process, which could also be used to generate pure drinking water. So what the problem?
- edrodgers731, on 04/08/2009, -0/+10After being in the Navy on one of these nuclear powered vessels, I have to say that it is as safe as any other type of power production.
How many thousands of missions must be successfully completed without indecent, across the fleet for the last half a century, before we call it "safe in general"? More people have died in the duty of running the power plant on ships burning coal than ships using a reactor. I know this, because it's more than none.
On land, you have this huge concrete bunker and cooling towers. Shielding all over the place, acres of failsafe. On a sub, we have a little vessel that will fit in your living room, no concrete bunker, no cooling towers, and the thing regularly tilts up to 40 degrees in every direction. If THAT is safe, I don't worry about anything the SAME government is setting up on land. - Sexercise, on 04/08/2009, -1/+9New reactors are practically fool proof.
Chernobyl used a different kind of reactor, whereas CANDU (I think) are the current standard.
The chance of a meltdown now is far FAR smaller today (though, ever present). It's only downside is the radioactive isotopes it produces in the process. - Harabeck, on 04/08/2009, -0/+7But if we could do it with solar energy instead, wouldn't that be a better option? Nuclear power does have its negatives, such as long term storage of the waste.
- dse78759, on 04/08/2009, -1/+8FTA: "the cleavage of the water molecule"
I can honestly say I have never heard this phrase before and probably never will again. - tattertech, on 04/08/2009, -0/+7Yeah, because clearly someone who has no faith in our government (the majority of Americans by most polls) must be a survivalist looney.
- NiftyG, on 04/08/2009, -0/+7Instead of using electricity (i.e. electrolysis) to split water atoms, they're using chemical catalysts to split water using light and heat energy (more like photosynthesis)
- fasda, on 04/08/2009, -0/+6this wasn't trying to gain energy it was supposed to get H2 gas form water. Secondly net E != 0 J, net E < 0 like every other endothermic process.
- matt.rubin, on 04/08/2009, -0/+6The problem is distributing hydrogen. The Oil companies need to stop seeing themselves as Oil Companies and become energy providers. The government should give large tax cuts to gas stations with a hydrogen pump. Do not give tax cuts to the oil companies for "research". The only thing they know how to do is drill. The tax cuts should be done on a station by station basis. Then the thousands of gas stations eventually become hydrogen and gas stations.
Then that 100,000 dollar hydrogen car needs a 75,000 dollar price cut. I know Compressed Natural Gas cars go for 25,000 dollars new. Its possible to get one of those now then convert it to hydrogen later which I hear is a simple process.
Heres the car. http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-gx/
Compress Natural Gas is mostly Methane, In which we get from cow farts. Seriously. I don't understand why people don't buy them. Can't find a station? Here,
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/stations/find_stat ...
It sin the peoples hands now. People are scared of things that don't run on Gasoline. - inigomntoya, on 04/08/2009, -0/+6Simple. Oxygen.
- fasda, on 04/08/2009, -0/+6what about polymers and solvents? no oil no nylon, Kevlar, no polyester, no Bakelite (you know that green stuff for circuit boards), nothing to dissolve organic reactions (ok sure you could use super critical CO2 but thats pretty wasteful).
- shodanx, on 04/08/2009, -0/+5efficiency is in grams of hydrogen/oxygen extracted per joule
the source doesn't matter
does the method proposed in the article gives higher yields than current methods ?
is the gain important enough to offset whatever disadvantages this new method has ?
is it just another pseudoscience high-frequency ***** "brown gas" HHO generator
another crazy "fuel by water" overunity Stan Meyer-type jesusfreak scam ? - Sexercise, on 04/08/2009, -0/+5Us "geeks" make revolutionary discoveries and technologies like this stick around and not be forgotten by the drooling masses.
- inactive, on 04/08/2009, -2/+7Nuclear power is not truly "sustainable" because the environment has no viable means of reintegrating its waste products into the ecosphere. The waste is highly toxic to life forms, and due to its relatively long half life it will accumulate and need to be mitigated by thousands of generations to come.
A truly sustainable energy source is one that integrates completely with the ecosphere, and can thus be carried on indefinitely with no lasting detriment to biological systems. The primary reason its so hard to find truly sustainable solutions for the global energy demand is that there are too many people on the planet. - JQP123, on 04/08/2009, -0/+5They're trying to store solar energy in a hydrogen, chemical-based battery.
Maybe it's worth pursuing but electricity is a more universal form of energy and I suspect that systems for storing it in a battery will prove be a far more practical and efficient. - AirRaven, on 04/08/2009, -0/+5As astonishing as it may sound, scientists specialise in different fields.
Biochemistry has little to do with Rocket Science- their relative progress isn't connected. - inactive, on 04/08/2009, -0/+5You don't understand what science does, do you??
- inactive, on 04/08/2009, -2/+7There is always one person that feels compelled to mention solar energy. Solar energy is extremely inefficient and expensive; it's costs 20 times more money to run on solar than nuclear. I'm all for solar, but until its potential is maximized, we should use what we have now. Too many people think we can jump right from burning coal to perfectly clean energy. We can't. Lets build some NPPs and build upon solar energy's potential at the same time. You have to learn to walk before you can run.
- adeelarshad82, on 04/08/2009, -1/+6brilliant... even though we are a while off before we can use water as fuel but when it happens it's probably going to be one of the biggest break through of the century
- fasda, on 04/08/2009, -0/+5we made H2 gas cheaply from water
- oderdigg, on 04/08/2009, -3/+7No other viable option perhaps?
- BoneheadFarker, on 04/08/2009, -1/+5Waste products from current reactors are low due to their efficiency, and have half-lives measured in decades. And current reactors can use the waste products of old reactors as fuel. Why not try learning about nuclear power before dragging out dead arguments.
- NiftyG, on 04/08/2009, -1/+5This technique may be able to create hydrogen cheaply, but it's only a small part of the equation. We still need to figure out how to pack enough of hydrogen into a vehicle to get decent range as well as build a large network of refueling stations.
Hydrogen cars can make sense if this happens, but it's seeming less likely. Electric cars are seeing a lot more development these days. More companies are building electric cars, and more cities are installing charging stations. Hydrogen vehicles will become an also ran if this trend continues. - HappyScrappy, on 04/08/2009, -0/+4Boiling water takes a lot less energy than splitting the hydrogen and oxygen apart does.
- usbcd36, on 04/08/2009, -0/+4@Sexercise
Chernobyl happened for a lot of reasons, but the reactor design wasn't safe to begin with. Basically, the Soviet-designed RBMK reactor had a large positive void coefficient, which means that instead of slowing down as the coolant boiled, the reaction sped up (positive feedback). Combined with the fact that the RBMK design was gigantic and too big for containment and you have the recipe for disaster. CANDU reactors also have small positive void coefficients, but with all of their precautions, they are much safer. However, nuclear reactors in the US must have negative void coefficients. - gumballer, on 04/08/2009, -1/+4geeks? yes, but most are not *****
- EricAnderton, on 04/08/2009, -1/+4So they're using a platinum group metal, ruthenium, as a catalyst in this electrolysis process. Sure, that'll work. Too bad that
"Ruthenium is exceedingly rare and is the 74th most abundant metal on Earth"*.
(* - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruthenium) - whiledo, on 04/08/2009, -2/+5All other things aside, your last sentence is a poor measure of safety. For example, rocket fuel is an incredibly dangerous and unhealthy substance, but it does have its use. Doesn't make it safe in general, though.
- edrodgers731, on 04/08/2009, -1/+4@garryw:
Look it up before you make a fool of yourself next time. - whiledo, on 04/08/2009, -1/+4All you really needed to say was "plastics" (though the rest of your post is right, too). Anyone who thinks petroleum has no other use than as fuel has no idea what they're talking about.
- GeneralAntilles, on 04/08/2009, -2/+5Unfortunately burning ethanol is basically burning topsoil.
- inactive, on 04/08/2009, -2/+5No energy is truly sustainable; the sun will eventually run out of energy. "Sustainable" is just a concept; we should instead describe how "efficient" and "economical" an energy source is because no energy is truly sustainable. People love to rant about how "harmful" nuclear power is, but they don't offer any better solutions to the energy crisis. Nuclear power is a hell of a lot more efficient and economical than burning coal, and I would much rather see a little waste sitting in a mountain out in the middle of no where than see hundreds of thousands of metric tons of smoke spit into our atmosphere every day.
- Veni_Vidi_Vici, on 04/08/2009, -0/+3True. You cannot have a 100% efficient system, it violates the laws of thermodynamics. But I think the usefulness of this is that it makes solar power portable, bu converting it into hydrogen. It's far easier to lug around a relatively efficient hydrogen engine with you than it is to carry around big [silicon based] solar panels.
- cougar3429, on 04/08/2009, -0/+3Let me know when scientists can turn idiots into smart people. Until then, you'll be an idiot.
- kronzdigg, on 04/08/2009, -0/+2Ill admit it I am a stockpiling survivalist. I suppose you will hide under the skirts of the police when things get rough just like the citizens of New Orleans.
- JinnRikki, on 04/08/2009, -0/+3So water can't be boiled with solar energy now? I learn something new everyday.
- Harabeck, on 04/08/2009, -1/+3Think of it as another form of harvesting solar energy. Currently, to obtain enough hydrogen for hydrogen cars, we would need to use oil or costly methods to convert water. This is a cheap alternative that could make it practical.
- Sexercise, on 04/08/2009, -0/+2The problem isn't getting fuel from water, it's harnessing the VAST amounts of Hydrogen required if we are to truly adopt Hydrogen Fuel Cell vehicles.
It's a hard element to extract and store. - inactive, on 04/08/2009, -1/+3Democrates has been dead for a long time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrates - inactive, on 04/09/2009, -0/+2are you high????
- BoneheadFarker, on 04/08/2009, -1/+3@GeneralAntilles
Only if you use a plant that depletes the soil. Hemp would be an excellent choice for ethanol and diesel production...if it weren't wrapped up in foolish drug laws... - dicer999, on 04/08/2009, -2/+4Yes because they produce harmful gases when burned to be used as a fuel. When hydrogen fuel cells are used they produce water, and when ethanol is used it's a lot more cleaner than standard fossil fuels.
- Gudamor, on 04/08/2009, -0/+2Lead into gold:
http://chemistry.about.com/cs/generalchemistry/a/a ...
Though I don't know what to make of the article's use of "reports" of turning lead into gold. I had expected a more definite verb. - inactive, on 04/08/2009, -1/+3I dunno. Alex Jones types have been running their internal combustion cars on water since the 70s, and it still hasn't gone mainstream.
- edrodgers731, on 04/08/2009, -1/+3While 1 do:
"First off, there's a question of known incidents versus incidents. The military is kind of big on secrets, especially where technology like nuclear submarines are involved."
I disagree. We did not hush up accidents. There would be no way to contain the information with so many people involved. They wouldn't even try. There would be reports, studies, re-design efforts, orphans and widows.
"Second, there HAVE been known incidents in Soviet nuclear submarines."
Yes, but that is why I qualified my point with the words "SAME government." Russian submarine technology is not designed for concern of the crew or the environment. It is designed for cost efficiency and performance. Mercury coolant... Good god. Titanium hulls.. Pure evil. Many Russian subs have been lost in peacetime. I didn't say THEY were safe.
"Third, a submarine's nuclear power plant generates enough power to supply that sub."
True, but it is no small amount of power we are talking about here. I would say an OHIO class sub generates more than enough power for a small town. Those reactors generate much more power than is required. We are talking about enough power to generate thousands of gallons of fresh water daily, hundreds of old, huge, inefficient computers, keep high pressure air tanks charged, pump water and hydrolics through many miles of pipes, keep the lights on, cool, heat, and make the air for a 4 story building that is 580 feet long with around a 150 crewmen, which are well fed on electric stoves and huge walk-in refrigerators and freezers.
Not to mention, up to 24 fully functional missile launching stations and their associated power needs, and pushing 18000 tons of steel through the water as fast as we like for 7 years.
Not exactly a match, but I know what you mean.
"Fourth, a submarine has far more than ACRES of failsafe. It has billions of cubic meters of failsafe."
Not between the crew and the reactor. :) I don't care about the fish.
"Fifth, having served on a one, you know that the crew on a submarine is highly selective and are highly trained."
I'm just going to laugh at that one. It's highly selective and highly trained by military standards, but not by civilian standards. 2 years of training for a high-school graduate does not a nuclear engineer make.
I see your point, granted. But I don't think my point is invalid at all. In training in Connecticut I would just marvel at the all the silly people worried about the 3 civilian nuclear power plants up the river, but never gave a second thought to the dozens parked at the dock, or the one running in a dockside warehouse to provide heat for the base. I'm a big proponent of nuclear power, because I know the risks and the benefits. The risks are really small and the benefits for everyone are amazing.
Mining uranium is no big deal. There is very little atmospheric pollution, except in the mining itself, and the waste is nowhere near as much of a problem as the sierra club would have us believe.
Shrug. - aduzik, on 04/08/2009, -0/+2The nuclear alarmism is stupid, but we have yet to devise a truly permanent solution to the nuclear waste issue. Officially, all the current nuclear waste sites are designated as temporary. That's an open issue we still need to resolve.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 120 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is