Ummost of the fuel cell stacks being made now get alot better eff then that. That was after all one of the POINTS of spending money on h2 getting better fuel cells and generators.

Well then show me refreance, because that news to me.

Both hydrogen and electricity are great energy carriers (clean, efficient) with the same problem. Storage.

I used to be real big on the hydrogen economy but in the last 2 years I've seen such big progress in batteries that I now think it is a neck and neck race with batteries being in a slight lead.

VRB Power is shipping redux flow batteries with 15,000 charge/discharge cycles, no electrolyte wear, 100-0% discharge.

Another is Altairnano with the batteries that are driving Phoenix Motorcars. Here again we are seeing 10,000-15,000 charge/discharge cycles.

15,000 cycles is more than 40 years of charging and discharging every day.

Both technologies have some amazing prospects on the drawing boards like ultra capacitors for electric and electrolysis so advanced you'd store your hydrogen in the form of water.

U can see some rather interesting cars in the future.

A cheap econobox that uses a small supercap and a small fuel cell and a single tank of h2. If they actauly do meet thier stated 3.5 bucks a kilo cost for fuel at the pump then a dinky econobox running say 300 miles on a kilo makesa ton of sense. Prolly would use a tiny 20 or so hp motor and would have abismal torque.

Its obvious bmw is planning liquid h2 powered luz and sprts cars. Iys obvious some people will afford ev behemoths with say 140 or even 210 kwh battery packs.

Its also rather obvious alot of biofueled baggers will belch around. What still seems to elufe alot of peoples thinking is hat all of them will be puttering and zooming about not just thier fanboy fave.

Tom,.

Thank you for exploring the 'bad' consequences of a hydrogen economy. I too like to puncture the smug ignoramuses (ignorami?), who think something else identified as 'good', is always better than what they have. I worry about the wide spread adoption of 'Solar energy' which purports to be pollution free.

Of course its not. Altering the planetary Albedo is really mucking about where we should be very cautious. It is worse than running about and painting the ice fields black, to absorb incident energy. In that case all that happens is that the surface gets warmer and thenre-radiartes the heat, and a new equilibrium is soon reached. (black is a better absorber but it is also the best radiator (blackbody) as well.) Harnessing Solar Energy purposely does the equivalent but than pipes off the accumulated heat as energy of another sort (electricity) creating a much greater effect, making it blacker than black. All the advances serve to merely absorb more and more of the incident energy, to pipe off.

When used, that electricity warms the planet and adds to the heat load, in its entirety.

do you have any further infromation about the unanticiapated effects of H2 economies?

To Stan:

Here is a decent starter page you can view from Princeton U: http://www.princeton.edu/~chm333/2004/Hydrogen/greenhouse_effect.htm

Read down under "effects of a hydrogen economy"

Another important issue to note about fuel cells outside hydrogen’s indirect effect on more powerful greenhouse gases like methane longevity in the atmosphere is...

1.) The byproduct of their use is "water vapor" a far more potent greenhouse gas than co2...and…
2.) Most current designs for small modular fuel cells for cars, houses and such consume atmospheric oxygen to produce that reaction, unlike large industrial types or those used in aerospace which use BOTH stored pure oxygen and hydrogen (which is more far more efficient but also far more dangerous for both gases to be kept contained in close proximity…hence their noticeable absence from consumer designs).

In short…the consumption of atmospheric oxygen with stored hydrogen to produce water vapor combined with leaked hydrogen’s indirect effect on other greenhouse gases longevity in the atmosphere on a macro level are potentially more harmful than the carbon system in place currently.

Besides, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a natural part of the life cycle on earth. Animal and plant life on land and in the oceans to convert co2 to o2 and vice versa symbiotically to balance out each other’s effects. Anyone who preaches otherwise needs to be reeducated in high school chemistry and biology.

Effects of a Hydrogen Economy

Carbon dioxide has been receiving a lot of attention regarding its contribution to global warming, so a fuel source that reduces the amount of carbon dioxide emissions looks attractive. A hydrogen economy would ideally not produce carbon dioxide. However, carbon dioxide may or may not actually be produced depending on how hydrogen is made. If the processes used to produce hydrogen require outside energy, and fossil fuels are used for that energy, then there will still be high CO2 emissions. However, if hydrogen is produced from a process such as electrolysis of water powered by solar energy, then there will be a lower emission of CO2. This would help reduce the greenhouse effect and global warming.

Temperature changes if the CO2 level in the atmosphere doubles and quadruples.

Even if the carbon dioxide emissions decrease, there could be other factors that would worsen the greenhouse effect. If there are high leaks of hydrogen, then there will more H2 released to the atmosphere, and the amount of hydroxyl radicals will decrease. This will increase the atmospheric lifetime of methane and NO2, among other gases. Since methane is a greenhouse gas, a longer lifetime will mean an increase in radiative forcing [3]. It is estimated that for every mole of hydrogen gas released, there will be around 0.01 moles extra methane in the atmosphere [3]. Therefore, hydrogen gas would contribute indirectly to the greenhouse effect and global warming.

As with the other effects of hydrogen in the atmosphere, the effect of hydrogen on global warming depends greatly on how hydrogen is produced, and the extent of hydrogen gas leaking to the atmosphere [4]. It is conceivable that if hydrogen is produced using fossil fuel energy and if there are large hydrogen leaks, then a hydrogen economy would actually worsen global warming. However, if renewable energy sources are used to produce hydrogen and there are small hydrogen leaks, then global warming could be reduced.

Sources:

1. Spiro, T.G. and W.M. Stigliani, Chemistry of the Environment. Second ed. 2003, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

2. Seinfeld, J.H. and S.N. Pandis, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics: From Air Pollution to Climate Change. 1998, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

3. Prather, M.J., An environmental experiment with H2. Science, 2003. 302: p. 581-582.

4. Schultz, M.G., et al., Air pollution and climate-forcing impacts of a global hydrogen economy. Science, 2003. 302: p. 624-627.

I don't think we need to worry about artificial water vapor produced by fuel cells as a green house gas. If hydrogen is made for water then the cycle is closed: any water produced by a fuel cell was extracted by a electrolysis system from water, no net increase in water. Oxygen is also produced from electrolysis so there no net decrease in oxygen either.

Not to mention that gasoline produces more water per gallon burned then h2 does.

Tom, Stan, Alex, and all you fellows on this page,

I’m just happy to be reading all of the comments and views, because they are all good in that they all can be helpful. It sounds like competition sometimes, and we loose sight of the goal. I recently went to an E-Car (E-car, HEV, PHEV, etc) with the idea that all that electrical power comes off the dirty grid, so what’s the sense in that? The winning argument, which came out with from a very entertaining gentleman from SF, which I already knew deep down but needed to be nudged on, was that the dirty grid can run a higher percentage of our own resources, coal, NG, nuclear, hydro, solar, etc and less foreign oil. And that’s a step in the right direction, but not the total solution. What’s wrong with that? Sometimes we just have to push hard to change directions, with no forward progress. But that’s all good, because efforts in the right direction as long as they don’t hurt other positive effort are what used to be call real achievement, right thing to do, way to go, and technology. Those are the powerful elements that shape the future. The reason we pick holes in plans is to make them better. So its good to know what you might encounter, so the plan works there too. So you keep picking on H2, all arguments are good, even ones that sound negative.

corewiyg klbxn pndwvxsbh yzivqo vcembsw qstpjokwa yrbk

jeuvzri cekwz taufp kiequ hvlnmsp hrnage nqzvc http://www.udsa.tqnhljbsf.com

hcpjzk ueqbvtzwk txemdvrqn grfoxd hndkxvefy almvrjhcx iqsnhw uyoh axiw

Nice site. Thank you!
carton cigarette newport

Good site. Thank you:-)
carton cigarette newport

Good site. Thank you!!!
weber barbecue grill

A message to TOM, about (OH) radicals and extended length of retained methane as a greenhose gas.

First calculate the cubic miles of atmosphere surounding the earth and the current percentage, by volume, of methane gas -- which will be reduced by not using it in the future. Then estimate the amount of hydrogen leakage into the atmosphere based upon a worldwide hydrogen economy (assume a 2% fuel useage growth rate over about 100 years). When you do this, you will find that the net effect on global temperature is zero.

With regard to the current use of fossil fuels. I recommend that you look up on the internet the amount of known oil, natural gas, methane hydrates, oil sands, coal, and oil shale reserves. With this information, assume a 2% annual world wide consumption increase rate, and calculate how long these fuels will last. How about the year 2067.

Be assured, that sometime in the future we will be using hydrogen as a transportation fuel. Get used to it.

That was brilliant. Very informative information that as a newbie to the internet I enjoyed very much. Keep up the good work! And thank you.

If pure electrolysis (without polluting catalysts) is the product of wind, hydro, wave, tidal, geothermal or solar energy, who cares what the efficiency of hydrogen fuel is. Compared to burning carbon or our dwindling food supplies it exhibits efficiency on the global scale.

Hey folks...

Here is the reality. Currently, automobiles are not efficiently operating in the MPG category. Hydroxy air-intake generators increase mileage ratings while reducing oil-based toxic emissions...period.

They are fairly simple to set up and can be fairly inexpensive...until someone gets it right...then we will suffer the insanity of paying the price for the best...what's new.

My suggestion, see what you can do, if you improve vehicle MPG by 10-15%, that's long term savings. Coil/double-helix Electrodes seem to make the most sense due to electromagnetic field/vortex generation...Sullivan alternating DC circuit design seems like the best support in relation to several benefits of power efficiency/balancing and operation characteristics. Looks like variable switch timing will be able to be implemented as well. Creating Hydrogen and Oxygen through electrolysis of water isn't new...simply the application.

The solution to our crisis is to focus on the basics. Hydrogen, Oxygen, Carbon, and Water are them...you know the adage...Keep It Simple.

Hey folks...

Here is the reality. Currently, automobiles are not efficiently operating in the MPG category. Hydroxy air-intake generators increase mileage ratings while reducing oil-based toxic emissions...period.

They are fairly simple to set up and can be fairly inexpensive...until someone gets it right...then we will suffer the insanity of paying the price for the best...what's new.

My suggestion, see what you can do, if you improve vehicle MPG by 10-15%, that's long term savings. Coil/double-helix Electrodes seem to make the most sense due to electromagnetic field/vortex generation...Sullivan alternating DC circuit design seems like the best support in relation to several benefits of power efficiency/balancing and operation characteristics. Looks like variable switch timing will be able to be implemented as well. Creating Hydrogen and Oxygen through electrolysis of water isn't new...simply the application.

The solution to our crisis is to focus on the basics. Hydrogen, Oxygen, Carbon, and Water are them...you know the adage...Keep It Simple.

Hey folks,
I was just reading about a hydroelectric dam in Norway installed in the early 1900's just for electrolyzing water to feed H2 to an ammonia plant that supplied all the ammonia for the european market until WWII. Ammonia (NH3) is the most dense carrier of H2 and contains 50% more H2 than liquid H2. NH3 is already stored on farms in tanks and used as fertilizer. With a catalyctic converter H2 is available to the farmer for his tractor if he wants to convert it to run on H2.
I'm sorry, just thinking out loud.

OK gentlemen. If I could offer all of you a California Air Resources Board compliant (toughest compliance with the federal Clean Air Act of which I am aware) add-on hydrogen electrolyzer system for your auto that provides approximately 30% increase (to delineate a single average-type number for discussion purposes)in gasoline mileage (depending on several obvious variables), almost completely reduces the carbon emissions, cleans the carbon buildup in your ICE and exhaust system, vents off nearly pure oxygen into the atmosphere (or perhaps routed into the cab of your auto), provides a noticeable increase in power, vastly increases the frequency of oil changes, and more. Would you be willing to pay $1000 to purchase and have it professionally installed into your vehicle? This will update your current gasoline powered vehicle into a hydrogen hybrid. If not, why not?
Note: This is an on-demand system that does not store dangerous pressurized gas. Storing pressurized hydrogen gas or even moderate quantities of low-pressure hydrogen is very dangerous and, in my opinion, downright stupid. If you want to store large amounts of hydrogen, it is done very safely and efficiently in water.