What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Watch a scene from 2012, in theaters November 13 view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Get ready for the biggest event in history – the end of time. How will you survive? 2012- opening 11/13
89 Comments
- samotage, on 10/07/2008, -0/+37The article hits the nail on the head at the end: "most hydrogen is still produced using fossil fuels, we still have a ways to go before hydrogen-powered cars are ready for commercial use"
People need to be aware that hydrogen is made using electricity, and I wonder whether hydrogen based fuel cells be better than batteries in making the power of electrons "portable"?
We really need to implement better ways of making elections flow than digging up the ancient dead. - Kakumeikeahi, on 10/07/2008, -1/+19I mean it was obvious humanity could solve the energy problems, just takes a little.... incentive.
- FTWmovin2canada, on 10/07/2008, -4/+13If we ramp up hydrogen fuel along with clean energy like solar thermal and wind we can do both at the same time while creating jobs and reducing the amount of oil that is imported.
- EdmontonEh, on 10/07/2008, -0/+8Geothermal will also play a huge part; the technology is already here, and if the costs continue to decrease, the demand for geothermal energy will explode...
There is a home in my neighborhood trying to achieve Net Zero, they are combining geothermal with solar to be energy free (ie. no furnace); I will be interested to see the outcome. - Mystlyfe, on 10/07/2008, -0/+6"Meyer's invention" didn't and still doesn't work. There's a reason was was found guilty of FRAUD.
- Telekenesis, on 10/07/2008, -0/+6All irrelevant, hydrogen is extremely inefficient and requires much more energy (and pollution) to get the same net affect of even gasoline.
It's just a fad technology at this stage and really peoples attention should be elsewhere if they really want to reduce energy usage. - Mystlyfe, on 10/07/2008, -3/+9Hydrogen fuel cells are NOT the answer.
While this moves closer to hydrogren storage being practical, it doesn't solve many of the other issues.
Electrolysis in itself requires more energy than it produces, and is highly inefficient.
There isn't enough platinum in the WORLD to replace America's automobiles with hydrogen fuel cells. Additionally platinum takes MASSIVE amounts of petroleum to mine and refine and has astronomical costs.
Plus a hydrogen economy is highly dangerous (see the Hindenburg). - arunforce, on 10/07/2008, -1/+6If you can store more hydrogen (like the article says) that multiplier will go down drastically.
Not to mention the fact that if hydrogen costs 11 times less (and the vehicles are powered on hydrogen), the station will break even, though it's not realistic. However, if you get more mileage per gallon of hydrogen, and other factors, you can't directly try to compare them both, because after all that, the amount they equal aren't the same. - kruiper, on 10/07/2008, -0/+5Idiot - this is 8th grade chemistry. You can only "get the energy out of water" if you put it in first. Electrolysis splits water into hydrogen and oxygen using exactly the same amount of energy released when you oxidize the hydrogen again so you do not gain anything. In addition all systems have losses due to lost heat etc so you will never even get out what you put in.
- cowsgonemadd3, on 10/07/2008, -0/+4I dont get hydrogen at all. You cant get more energy out than you put in. So by using coal,electricity or gas your losing power when you convert it. Its not a new source of energy but another means of storage maybe? So would it not be better to skip the hydrogen altogether and just make better batteries for electric cars? Correct me if I am wrong because I want to know.
- locojones, on 10/07/2008, -0/+4Was that a serious comment? Would you say the same thing about carbon dioxide -- that anything manmade would be insignificant to what is produced in nature? Didn't think so.
- meloncholia, on 10/07/2008, -1/+5Meh. I'm holding out for the Mr. Fusion.
- sockpuppets, on 10/07/2008, -1/+5My car is powered by the power of magical thinking. Also, with gasoline.
- Junior612, on 10/07/2008, -0/+4If by mum you mean pedobear and you are being held captive blink twice.
- Mystlyfe, on 10/07/2008, -0/+4No we can't, because right now hydrogen fuel cells still work based on platinum as the catalyst. Platinum is EXPENSIVE, and takes massive amounts of petroleum to mine and refine. Until you can come up with a viable replacement to the platinum catalyst or the process we acquire our platinum, it's frankly not plausible.
- gkskillz, on 10/07/2008, -0/+4Turning water into hydrogen will always be an energy loser. If 2 H2 + O2 => 2 H20 produces energy, then 2 H20 => 2 H2 + 02 will require the same amount of energy. There's no such thing as a perpetual motion machine, though it is a nice thought.
- armakaryk, on 10/07/2008, -0/+4while your right that a majority of hydrogen production does come from fossil fuels its not through electrolysis, its from a process called steam reforming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production#S ... - Mystlyfe, on 10/07/2008, -0/+4And Stanley Meyer was found guilty of FRAUD, because his invention didn't work as he claimed. It's nothing more than simple electrolysis, which is a flawed process that is horribly inefficient.
- jbond, on 10/07/2008, -0/+4Hydrogen is terrible as a fuel source for vehicles. So why do these stories keep coming up?
- silvershadow21, on 10/07/2008, -1/+5More dangerous than gasoline? At least hydrogen dissipates into the air when it leaks, rather than collecting on the ground.
Also, the Hindenburg was a combination of the coating (basically thermite) they put on it and the hydrogen; it wasn't solely due to the hydrogen (Mythbusters ftw). - koldmilk, on 10/07/2008, -2/+5Give me a nice looking car with a hydrogen engine and I'm a happy man.
- KibibyteBrain, on 10/07/2008, -0/+3I think hydrogen is now a lame duck for cars at least. It was thought necessary as a proxy source of energy that provided greater max power output abilities than electric cars, but now considering new advances in the past years with Li-ion technology it seems Li-ion powered cars will be quite a reality with no need for hydrogen as the middle man and the associated extra infrastructure costs.
Now for heavier domestic vehicles, those requiring a long range without interruptions for charging, and trucks, hydrogen news like this is good news in a way, but its still questionable whether infrastructure costs, and even from an ecological standpoint pollution, will make it worthwhile anytime as soon.
@davbmn68 hydrogen is only cheaper than oil because of the current state of the market. If you think of things in a resource based mentality, there is no reason why it could not be worked out to make any sustainable source of electricity equally advantageous to powering cars if you were going to change the whole structure of that economy as part of the plan, anyway. - davbmn68, on 10/07/2008, -0/+3Nice thought, but turning water into hydrogen is an energy loser right now. , and you may want to see what's left of "lake water" after electolysis. It's not pretty, good luck cleaning that out of your fuel cell.
- DirtPile, on 10/07/2008, -0/+3Wake me when Crete perfects the arc reactor.
- inigomntoya, on 10/07/2008, -0/+3Yup - you're right. It is simply another mechanism for storing energy. Currently, batteries are more efficient at storing and releasing energy. But, with a fuel cell, you can have an indefinite amount of hydrogen to produce an indefinite amount of energy (you are only limited by the size of the fuel cell).
- nurbsenvi, on 10/07/2008, -0/+2Hydrogen as fuel is really dumb...
Small (10 kg/h) liquefaction plants need about 100 MJ/kg, while large plants of 1000 kg/h or more capacity consume about
40 MJ of electrical energy for each kg liquefied hydrogen unless you have a way to retrieve that energy the energy is all wasted. - onelikeseabass, on 10/07/2008, -1/+3Pressure isn't a problem in the slightest. Carbon fiber tanks simply split, without sending shrapnel flying, if punctured.
Also, hydrogen is nowhere near the most volatile or unstable gas. It doesn't hold a candle to acetylene. Probably best that it doesn't ;). - Shippwreck87, on 10/07/2008, -1/+3I too would like to see improvements on the current elections, digging up the dead wont get people to vote!
- baralo, on 10/07/2008, -0/+2H-powered cars give off water vapour as a waste product, right?
Isn't water vapour a strong greenhouse gas?
I'm all for breaking our addiction to fossil fuels but let's remember why. - Tedesco1, on 10/07/2008, -2/+4^^ because the iPhone is about networking and communication between different databases, something that we as humans have pretty much perfected at this point. know why? because in order for corporations to make money they have to be able to communicate effectively between many different databases. it has only very recently become in any corporations best interest to find an alternate energy supply and so our collective knowledge in that field is lacking.
- svendm, on 10/07/2008, -0/+2> Electrolysis in itself requires more energy than it produces, and is highly inefficient.
Wrong. First, electrolysis itself doesn't produce energy. Second, electrolysis isn't highly inefficient compared to many other energy-conversion processes. The thermodynamic efficiency can in theory be almost 100%, because there is (ideally) no heat transfer involved.
> There isn't enough platinum in the WORLD to replace America's automobiles with hydrogen fuel cells.
Which is why there's plenty of research going into alternative electrode materials. Why are you dismissing future technologies on the basis of current ones? Of COURSE it's not an alternative _right now_. If it was, we'd be using it already.
>Plus a hydrogen economy is highly dangerous (see the Hindenburg).
It's pretty well known by now that the Hindenburg disaster wasn't caused by hydrogen. - Mystlyfe, on 10/07/2008, -0/+2Also there's the whole thing that Hydrogen Fuel cells are not the solution. Electrolysis requires more energy than it produces, there isn't enough platinum, and a hydrogen economy is just a dangerous idea.
- Mystlyfe, on 10/07/2008, -0/+2Yes, I know it doesn't produce energy, but I was merely stating it in lay-mans terms. More energy is required for the electrolysis than is produced by the fuel cell.
The process is horribly inefficient, only between (optimistically) 50-80% for the conversion to hydrogen's chemical energy alone (not counting the production of electrical energy). Theoretically 60% could be used to power the engine, but in reality we've never achieved higher than 46% (and only 25% grid-to-motor efficiency). Compared to a Li-Ion car, which 81% of each Kw-H reached the engine, it doesn't stand a chance.
The electrolysis of water is, by nature, an unfavorable process at STP. Because of this, electrolysis inherently takes more energy than you will produce because of it.
If and when an alternative electrode is found, I'll be both excited and anxious to have this debate again. But right now, hydrogen fuel cells are not a viable option. My point was not to condemn further research, but to rather shut up all the ignorant people who blame oil companies and the government for why they don't have one of these cars now.
I never said that the Hindenburg was caused BY Hydrogen (so everyone chill about that), but the problem was worsened because of it. Even Mythbusters, who seem to be the most popular source against me, concluded it burned twice as fast with hydrogen as without it. Hydrogen isn't just going to blow up randomly, nobody is saying that. But when it does blow up, it blows up quickly and in a big fashion, and has a hair trigger (even compared to gasoline, which requires 10x the energy to ignite). - svendm, on 10/07/2008, -0/+2This is pure pie in the sky. They haven't actually synthesized this adsorbent material. I'll repeat that: THEY HAVEN'T MADE THE THING. - Which, for an intricate nanostructure like that, is quite the hurdle!
All they've done are theoretical calculations. And they might not even be good ones - hydrogen adsorption in this case is all van der Waals forces. Which they apparently calculated using density functional theory, which is known to not reproduce vdW interactions correctly, in general. - Bowie, on 10/07/2008, -0/+2Good point(s)..
Unfeasable now may not be unfeasable later. - onelikeseabass, on 10/07/2008, -1/+3It wasn't the hydrogen at all. It was a lightning strike which ignited the fabric surrounding the ship.
- evil-doer, on 10/07/2008, -0/+2why waste the electricity breaking down water. put it in a battery (or super capacitor) and use it in vehicles directly.
its better in so many ways - EdmontonEh, on 10/07/2008, -0/+2The thing is we CAN! and we are, it is very much political, but like you say, it is economic. The current state is making piles of $$ off of all us. We consume, we drive, and we consume more... if we decided to make changes and get the people around us to do the same, the market talks... the people talk, and the government/industry has no choice but to follow. You can already see it with the government putting tax incentives into buying a GM product coming out soon that is electric. Small steps, and we can soon have a world where "Iphone" technologies can run the markets and keep us employed, instead of working at... say refineries.
- aussieNickuss, on 10/07/2008, -1/+3My mum had an interesting point to make back when I got my iPhone and was showing it to her. She said humans can make things like the iPhone that can do just about anything, yet we still can't develop clean, efficient and economically viable alternative energy sources. What's up with that?
- cyroxos, on 10/07/2008, -0/+1Nuclear energy!
- secretdiffusion, on 10/07/2008, -0/+1Water vapor. It's just water vapor. That's H2O in its gas form. We have clouds, right? If the cloud gets too heavy, it will just rain the water back down. The water will be back on the ground. Given, the water cycle will happen a lot faster than before, but all that means is that it will rain more often. Clouds are not a green house gas.
- Revolutionista, on 10/07/2008, -2/+3Telephones, manned flight, astronauts on the moon, and now fuel-efficient transportation... it's a wonder a technology with so much promise, strength, and potential has yet to arrive in such great numbers.
Oh, wait. That politics thingamajig... - rowlodge, on 10/07/2008, -0/+1 they have a storage tank but no hydrogen?
- HarrisonBn, on 10/07/2008, -0/+1http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=8351
Also there.... I've heard of a few other leads. - inigomntoya, on 10/07/2008, -1/+2Exactly - Also, when hydrogen is released it goes up and burns quickly. There won't be any craters in the road and there won't be any flaming passengers covered in burning hydrogen running from car wrecks. Gasoline sticks to stuff because it is a liquid. It is much more deadly than hydrogen.
BUT - it is much less efficient and much more costly to produce. - Mihey, on 10/07/2008, -0/+1While it is true that it takes more energy to produce hydrogen fuel than it generates, keep in mind that we could develop the process to be more cost-efficient. For example it could harness the energy from renewable sources (solar energy). Can you say solar + electrolysis plants?
As for the platinum... well, there are always alternatives. This is just a beginning. - piesforyou, on 10/07/2008, -0/+1methinks you got your wires crossed
- SundayBrunch, on 10/07/2008, -0/+1that's 2.46 * 10^25 hydrogen atoms per liter.
- inigomntoya, on 10/07/2008, -0/+1Yes, he probably COULD say something like that if we weren't all being monitored by the Bush administration.
Now with my tin foil hat on, I am able to say whatever I want!
Poopy Pants! - TFurgeson, on 10/07/2008, -0/+1Hydrogen will remain relevant several reasons, but these are the big three.
1. Batteries, even Li-ion, lose their charge. Hydrogen can be stored indefinitely.
2. 4 liters of compressed hydrogen costing about $14 at the pump gets you over 270 miles in a Honda FCX Clarity. Try to get 270 miles in a plug-in! Think about people with 2 hour commutes and big cross country long haul trucks.
3. Supplying a grid with power from wind and solar is a pain in the ass for several reasons. Using power from wind and solar to produce hydrogen is becoming more efficient by leaps and bounds. If you think $14 for 270 miles is cheap now... -
Show 51 - 90 of 90 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is