GM fuel cell SUV 300 miles on one fill

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.d...305210003/1076

interesting but doesnt Hydrogen take a good amount of energy to create?

On Mon, 21 May 2007 21:29:50 GMT, "GO Mavs" <GoMavs (AT) Mavs (DOT) com> wrote:

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.d...305210003/1076

interesting but doesnt Hydrogen take a good amount of energy to create?

There are two common sources of hydrogen right now, fossil fuels and
water. Both sources have major problems that will have to be solved
before hydrogen can be a completive fuel source.

In the case of water, you actually have to put more energy into the
system than you can get out so where is the incentive to use it?

Fossil fuels such as natural gas, coal and oil do take high energy
inputs to recover the hydrogen but with the use of catalysts, you can
get more energy out than you put in. But, what do you do with the
carbon and sulfur that are left after you take the hydrogen out of the
hydro-carbon fuel? And why not just burn the hydrocarbon as fuel
instead of just using one component of that fuel.

Hydrogen is much less energy dense than fossil fuel. The atoms of
hydrogen are the smallest in nature and will migrate through the steel
walls of storage tanks, so it is almost impossible to store it for
long periods. How do you transport it, as a liquid or as a gas? If
as a liquid, you have to put even more energy into the system making
it an even less economical fuel when compared to oil.

Could it be that the rapid run-up in the price of crude is to make
these alternate sources look even better in comparison?

Jack


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000742-1, 05/22/2007
Tested on: 5/22/2007 10:09:34 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

"Must be Me" <jackj^remove^180 (AT) windstream (DOT) net> wrote

On Mon, 21 May 2007 21:29:50 GMT, "GO Mavs" <GoMavs (AT) Mavs (DOT) com> wrote:

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.d...305210003/1076

interesting but doesnt Hydrogen take a good amount of energy to create?


There are two common sources of hydrogen right now, fossil fuels and
water. Both sources have major problems that will have to be solved
before hydrogen can be a completive fuel source.

In the case of water, you actually have to put more energy into the
system than you can get out so where is the incentive to use it?

If SPV were cheap enough, cracking water to make hydrogen would be cheap
enough. The hydrogen is then more energy-dense and portable. That would be
the incentive. People are very interested in cheap SPV. Nuclear power
could also be used to provide the energy.

Fossil fuels such as natural gas, coal and oil do take high energy
inputs to recover the hydrogen but with the use of catalysts, you can
get more energy out than you put in. But, what do you do with the
carbon and sulfur that are left after you take the hydrogen out of the
hydro-carbon fuel? And why not just burn the hydrocarbon as fuel
instead of just using one component of that fuel.

Hydrogen is much less energy dense than fossil fuel. The atoms of
hydrogen are the smallest in nature and will migrate through the steel
walls of storage tanks, so it is almost impossible to store it for
long periods.

I believe you are thinking of helium. Hydrogen is the lightest but helium's
electron shells are the tightest, so the atom's dimensions are smaller.
Hydrogen, I think, will always bond into H2 as a gas, so the molecules of
hydrogen will be considerably larger than H atoms alone. Helium does not
bond into He2.

How do you transport it, as a liquid or as a gas? If
as a liquid, you have to put even more energy into the system making
it an even less economical fuel when compared to oil.

Could it be that the rapid run-up in the price of crude is to make
these alternate sources look even better in comparison?

Jack

---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000742-1, 05/22/2007
Tested on: 5/22/2007 10:09:34 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

GO Mavs wrote:

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.d...305210003/1076

interesting but doesnt Hydrogen take a good amount of energy to create?

Yeah. It is either made from methane or hydrolysis (splitting water into
hydrogen and oxygen). But take a lot of energy and make a lot of CO2.

Jeff

Would one nuclear energy facility be sufficient for water production?
"Must be Me" <jackj^remove^180 (AT) windstream (DOT) net> wrote

On Mon, 21 May 2007 21:29:50 GMT, "GO Mavs" <GoMavs (AT) Mavs (DOT) com> wrote:

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.d...305210003/1076

interesting but doesnt Hydrogen take a good amount of energy to create?


There are two common sources of hydrogen right now, fossil fuels and
water. Both sources have major problems that will have to be solved
before hydrogen can be a completive fuel source.

In the case of water, you actually have to put more energy into the
system than you can get out so where is the incentive to use it?

Fossil fuels such as natural gas, coal and oil do take high energy
inputs to recover the hydrogen but with the use of catalysts, you can
get more energy out than you put in. But, what do you do with the
carbon and sulfur that are left after you take the hydrogen out of the
hydro-carbon fuel? And why not just burn the hydrocarbon as fuel
instead of just using one component of that fuel.

Hydrogen is much less energy dense than fossil fuel. The atoms of
hydrogen are the smallest in nature and will migrate through the steel
walls of storage tanks, so it is almost impossible to store it for
long periods. How do you transport it, as a liquid or as a gas? If
as a liquid, you have to put even more energy into the system making
it an even less economical fuel when compared to oil.

Could it be that the rapid run-up in the price of crude is to make
these alternate sources look even better in comparison?

Jack


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000742-1, 05/22/2007
Tested on: 5/22/2007 10:09:34 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com