But how could you lose water in this process? The reaction is chemical, not nuclear. You’re not destroying hydrogen atoms. You’re just storing the energy in a chemical bond.
As someone already mentioned, hydrogen fuel is something of a misnomer, as you have to put the energy into the hydrogen cell. It’s not an energy source, it’s an energy storage solution. So solar and wind power would be much more effective power sources. We could also locate fuel cell-making power plants well away from population centers. Hell, just stick a dozen nuclear reactors in the middle of North Dakota. (I’m just being flip – that’s probably not actually a good idea.)
Also, it’s my understanding that fuel cells are not going to be tanks of compressed hydrogen gas, which would be too dilute to be practical. One big push right now is to figure out how to store hydrogen in carbon nanotubes, which would allow for much higher hydrogen densities than compressed gas, and be much safer with regard to explosion or whatnot.
Yes, this is the honest truth. It sounds so wonderful to tell the egenral public our children will be free from the grip of the Arabs and OPEC as a whole. Of course, he fails to mention how our fellow American oil co CEOs have done everything possible to drag their feet on the research of alternative fuels. I can only wonder if natural gas cars would create such high standards for clean air, it would crush the conventional auto industry if they didn’t evolve with the changing technology, if allowed out of the box. I still don’t understand why don’t we hear more about such vehicles that are here, now? - Jinx
Actually, the Hindenberg burned because the pilot had a peanut allergy causing him to lose control when peanuts were being served on the flight! Please note the sarcasm…
My point is, I’m not here to split hairs over whether the hydrogen was ignited by static discharge, or if the skin of the vessel was the kindling and the H2 was the fuel… I mean, heck, let’s say the root of the blame is flying in an oxygen-rich envirnonment, for Pete’s sake! Also, along these lines, saying that most died by jumping to their deaths instead of burning is like saying Osama bin Laden is not to blame for those who chose to jump to their deaths from the WTC! So, is one suggesting we should simply discount those who jumped to their deaths on 9/11?
As for He being volatile, there’s a chemistry definition as well as the laymen definition. Also, OSHA has its “Top Ten List” (figuratively speaking) of volatiles. All in all, I’ve never heard of Helium (or any Noble Gas) falling into a category of being described as volatile. Maybe I am missing something? - Jinx
I’m boggled by the assertion that hydrogen had nothing to do with the Hindenberg’s demise. Look at the pictures. You can see balls of flame rising from within the ship. Even if the skin were painted with some flamable material the dang thing exploded and blew apart from within. How could it NOT, being filled with a highly flamable gas? No one knows what ignited it, but you can be darn sure that those x bazillion cubic feet of H2 were the greater part of the event.
Actually I get just the opposite sense from watching the films. It sure looks to me like the fabric is burning away letting the hydrogen out which then catches fire. It never exploded at all in the films I saw. Once the fabric burns away the helium gets out and the ship crashes in the same way it did with hydrogen.
I don’t think people have been saying that hydrogen did nothing to contribute to the demise of the Hindenberg, but rather that the gas inside it ultimatly didn’t matter. If it had been filled with Helium, it would still have burned from stem to stern with almost the same ferocity because of the skin treatment.
Predictions of the future are a dicey thing at best. I remember a quote from Thomas Watson, CEO of IBM in the 1940’s, that the worldwide market for computers was five machines.
The same is true here. The market will decide what technology we use to transport us. In and of itself hydrogen is neither bad nor good, just different. Whether it becomes the dominant technology is anybody’s guess.
To replace the current internal combustion engine technology with something different will require a compelling reason and if hydrogen provides that compelling reason it will survive, if not it will die.
That said hydrogen does solve several problems, like emissions, and presents several more like lack of availability. So if I was to predict the future, the only thing that makes any sense is that hydrocarbon based vehicles will stay around for some time to come, if for no other reason then the tremendous infrastructure that exists to support it. Other technologies, like turbine power, have been tried but the market just did not develop for them so they died and the same fate might occur to hydrogen power.
Other technologies can come out of nowhere and leapfrog ahead of the current technology if it is a big enough improvement on the current technology. Jet propulsion is a good example of this. Once jet power hit the market, prop driven planes were relegated to a niche market, never to return to the prominent position it held before jet power was developed.
So I guess this was a long winded way of saying maybe, maybe not, only time will tell.
I think hydrogen powered cars are a completely practical idea, and available as soon as car companies decide we want it. BTW, if you wanted hydrogen technology a bit sooner, go to the Coleman/Airgen site. If you already have hydrogen cylinders around (and heck, who doesn’t), six thousand bucks gets you an industrial UPS. The under-your-office-desk version seems to be “coming soon”.
Oh, and since everyone else is saying something about it: the hydrogen from the Hindenburg burned upwards, and most of it escaped unburned it seems. I think this is an advantage in cars.
Most people here would much rather condemn Bush for proposing a scheme to destroy the Earth’s water supply or help his friends in big coal pollute the world.
Please note the sarcasm…
