Posted by Al on December 20, 2003, 5:27 pm
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 11:57:26 GMT, The proud Infadel
> Hydrogen as a Fuel for Automobiles
> On first glance, hydrogen seems to be the ideal fuel for automobiles and
> other vehicles. It doesn't seem like one could get any cleaner burning,
> since hydrogen burns (oxidizes) to form simply water vapor. No pollution!
I think I've read all of this thread that is visible. A lot of good
info.
I've had to shift my position on biofuels if it's true that they don't
contribute to net global warming. However, first world hydrogen
vehicle fuel is still most desirable, to help reverse global warming
damage from currently used fossil fuels.
There seems to be a big chunk of the discussion missing.
I have assumed for many years that hydrogen vehicles would have to use
adsorbed hydrogen tanks to minimize hydrogen storage risks. Since
adsorption is probably a slowish process, a parallel assumption is a
tank exchange at the refueling station, as with propane.
Optimistically, I think this is doable. The very fact that there is so
much hydrogen in ordinary gasoline suggests that safe hydrogen packing
technology has a theoretically bright future.
Surely you experts have a bunch of bad news numbers about the current
state of adsorbed hydrogen vehicle tanking?
Al
Posted by Eric Gisin on December 20, 2003, 5:42 pm
Why is it anything cross posted between sci and alt is guarenteed to be
crackpot science?
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 11:57:26 GMT, The proud Infadel
> > Hydrogen as a Fuel for Automobiles
> > On first glance, hydrogen seems to be the ideal fuel for automobiles and
> > other vehicles. It doesn't seem like one could get any cleaner burning,
> > since hydrogen burns (oxidizes) to form simply water vapor. No
pollution!
The only source of hydrogen this decade is fossil fuel reformulation. Later
we may have clean hydrogen from nuclear fission.
> I think I've read all of this thread that is visible. A lot of good
> info.
> I've had to shift my position on biofuels if it's true that they don't
> contribute to net global warming. However, first world hydrogen
> vehicle fuel is still most desirable, to help reverse global warming
> damage from currently used fossil fuels.
> There seems to be a big chunk of the discussion missing.
> I have assumed for many years that hydrogen vehicles would have to use
> adsorbed hydrogen tanks to minimize hydrogen storage risks. Since
> adsorption is probably a slowish process, a parallel assumption is a
> tank exchange at the refueling station, as with propane.
> Optimistically, I think this is doable. The very fact that there is so
> much hydrogen in ordinary gasoline suggests that safe hydrogen packing
> technology has a theoretically bright future.
> Surely you experts have a bunch of bad news numbers about the current
> state of adsorbed hydrogen vehicle tanking?
> Al
Posted by Dave Hinz on December 20, 2003, 9:59 pm
> Why is it anything cross posted between sci and alt is guarenteed to be
> crackpot science?
Pretty much anything crossposted to 3 or more groups is guaranteed to
devolve into a useless thread, unless of course it starts out as such
in the first place.
Posted by Al on December 21, 2003, 3:12 am
Do any posters here actually have numbers about the upsides and
downsides of adsorbed hydrogen tanking for automobiles?
Al
Posted by =?iso-8859-1?Q?Roland_M=F6sl?= on December 21, 2003, 9:48 am
> Do any posters here actually have numbers about the upsides and
> downsides of adsorbed hydrogen tanking for automobiles?
I was first much in favor for my own invention
http://www.pege.org/et energy track.
But it seems electric cars are ridiculos,
even with the energy track on all major highways.
So there ist solar energy, stored in batteries,
taken out of the batteries and used for an electric engine.
The other way is hydrogen.
Even when I have to use 4 times more energy
because of looses in the chain, it's more easy to
take hydrogen.
I developt the GEMINI house
http://www.pege.org/gemini
realized 2001 as the main atraction of the
styria country exhibition about energy.
The current house has 8500 kWh yearly energy
production and 3500 kWh for own usage.
But the photovoltaics could be greater. So in
Austria - 48 degree north - 1000 kWh per year
on a flat squaremeter, 15000 kWh energy production
would be the upper limit for an one family house.
11500 kWh would be at electrical vehicles with around
18 kWh / 100 km around 60.000 km per year.
Much more than the inhabitants of the house would consume.
But this idea is limited by the disasterouse technology
of electric cars.
When somebody tells me, he is driving a car, where
he has to pruchase every 80.000 km new batteries
for 6000.-EUR ($7500), I find this crazy and unuseable.
So I hope more for hydrogen cars
--
Roland Mösl
http://www.pege.org Clear targets for a confused civilization
http://web-design-suite.com Web Design starts at the search engine
> On first glance, hydrogen seems to be the ideal fuel for automobiles and
> other vehicles. It doesn't seem like one could get any cleaner burning,
> since hydrogen burns (oxidizes) to form simply water vapor. No pollution!