Text 1913, 104 rader
Skriven 2006-06-07 13:39:00 av Robert E Starr JR (2359.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Charlie Edmondson to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * *
*
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <4485ebad@news.cadence.com>
@REPLY: <h1kb82p8hqg5ardjs7eus4sg9ks784qqvm@4ax.com>
Josh Hill wrote:

> On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 17:16:27 +0000 (UTC), Charlie Edmondson
> <edmondson@ieee.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Nope, not going to happen.  Hydrogen isn't a good fuel, except for PR 
>>purposes.  It has 20 years down the road for the last 50 years...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure where all this anti-hydrogen sentiment comes from, unless
> it's just the usual "it will never fly" stuff that appears before any
> new technological development. As far as I can tell, progress in
> economical and practically fuel cells and hydrogen storage has been
> spectacularly rapid and has met and exceeded all research
> expectations. Fuel cells are already economical for fixed power
> generation, whereas a few years ago they cost the income of a small
> nation. And GM is slated to unveil the first economical,
> gas-competitive, production-validated fuel cell vehicle design in 2010
> -- that's only four years away! -- with the first fuel cell cars to
> roll off the production line by 2015.
> 
> 
>>Really.  It is too light.  There is more hydrogen in a gallon of 
>>gasoline than in an equivalent volume of H2, unless it is compressed to 
>>Jupiterian proportions, when it would make a great bomb!
> 
> 
> The storage problems have pretty much been solved. Looks like they'll
> use metal hydrides, though compression is also possible using
> off-the-shelf technology and by all the accounts I've seen is no more
> dangerous than a conventional gas tank.
> 
> 
>>Plus, we don't 
>>have any hydrogen wells, so it is either extracted from natural gas, 
>>which wastes the fuel value of the carbon there, or created with 
>>electrolysis, which as one pundit has put it, is the same as exchanged 
>>dollars for pesos... 8-)
> 
> 
> Any loss in fuel value is more than made up for by the fact that fuel
> cells are a lot more efficient than internal combustion engines. The
> figures I've seen for pollution-free electrolysis from wind are about
> $2.20 per gallon equivalent on average, which makes it cheaper than
> gas even if you don't include the indirect expenses of gasoline
> consumption.
> 
> Hydrogen from natural gas or other fossil fuels is even cheaper, but
> untenable unless they can sequester the CO2.
> 
> It's also possible to make hydrogen from biofuels such as cellulosic
> ethanol. That alone could supply most of our fuel needs. The
> technology to extract the hydrogen inexpensively has already been
> developed, but it's not yet pure enough for use in the PEM fuel cells
> that will be used in cars. That will presumably change soon enough.
> 
> All would save us money, while giving us clean-running, quiet vehicles
> with higher performance than cars have today. I suspect that a few
> years from now people will look upon internal combustion vehicles the
> way we look upon the Stanley Steamer.
> 
Hi Josh,
Try hanging out at sci.energy.hydrogen for a while.  A real eye opener. 
  All these 'achievements' you have seen are just marketing speak and 
research grant fodder.  That cost per gallon equivalent of hydrogen 
makes some interesting 'assumptions' that basically says - the equipment 
is free, the windmill is free, and we don't actually violate any laws of 
physics, just bend them a little.  A more reasonable estimate (which is 
hard to really do, because some of the equipment just doesn't exist..) 
has it pegged between $6.50 (wildly optimistic) to $30 (pretty 
pessimistic) and again, assumes that some of the 'bugs' have been solved 
by then.  Again, this is just the PRODUCTION side of the coin.  The 
additional costs of the transport, storage, and use of the hydrogen 
isn't addressed here.  And that equipment that hasn't been built yet? 
That is the inexpensive industrial electrolysis unit.  They do make 
these, as they are used in petroleum refineries where they produce a LOT 
of hydrogen to use as a feedstock in the production of gasoline.  But 
inexpensive is not a term applied to them...

And the storage problems have not been solved.  The metal hydride 
solutions are pretty pathetic, and will probably never be usable for a 
personal vehicle.  They require interesting combinations of temperature 
to function.  Same with fuel cells.  Yes, you can now actual buy some 
now for fixed use, but you won't find many buyers that are spending 
their own money.  Again, it is still research, PR and marketing.

The reality is batteries RIGHT NOW are a more reasonable substitute, and 
they are getting better all the time.  And, there is a lot of research 
to make them better.

So, hydrogen is a non-starter, unless you work for an oil company.

Charlie
                                                    
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)