Prizes

[Mark]

http://tinyurl.com/pb9ol

[Anders Troberg]

Is my chemistry knowledge rusty? I thought hydrogen was pretty much ruled out except for some specialist applications?

The main reasons I remember:

* It's energy expensive to extract, requiring much more energy than can be extracted from it.

* It's a pain in the ass to store. The small molecules tend to creep out through the "cracks" between larger molecules when stored under pressure.

Has something changed without anyone telling me?

[Mark]

As I was telling Mike in a similar/analogous vein, I felt as if there were nothing more that I could think of and thus the last of my "entertaining" posts. But I still am here, hoping against hope that there might be more ideas to come up with. Some days are like that.
I'd have to agree with you about hydrogen, it doesn't make sense except that there is an ocean of it locked away "if only" you could get at it. On one level energy isn't free and on another where in the heck does the infinite(?) vast energy of all the burning suns in the universe come from? Someone or something brought it to be. Somehow there is a way - maybe you can borrow energy, borrow more than you get now. ha
And then, what would happen if energy were free? Pulsejets would really fall by the wayside, along with a million other relics belonging to a time long past. Change is a strange thing, if we change, undergo a metamorphosis, we become something else, perhaps like going to heaven if you believe such, for if it is such a wonderful thing, why do so many cry? Maybe heaven is really made of hydrogen.
Mark

[El-Kablooey]

Is my chemistry knowledge rusty? I thought hydrogen was pretty much ruled out except for some specialist applications?

The main reasons I remember:

* It's energy expensive to extract, requiring much more energy than can be extracted from it.

* It's a pain in the ass to store. The small molecules tend to creep out through the "cracks" between larger molecules when stored under pressure.

Has something changed without anyone telling me?

I guess that is all true if you limit your energy source to burning fossil fuels, and limit storage to pressurized tanks.

[Anders Troberg]

I guess that is all true if you limit your energy source to burning fossil fuels, and limit storage to pressurized tanks.

I'm talking about hydrogen, and I don't know how it would otherwise be stored in sufficient quantities.

If we got an unlimited source of electric energy, say, if they got nuclear fusion to work in a practical setting, then hydrogen will be back on the roadmap as a portable energy source. Without that energy, I have a hard time seeing it happen.

[tufty]

I guess that is all true if you limit your energy source to burning fossil fuels, and limit storage to pressurized tanks.

I'm talking about hydrogen, and I don't know how it would otherwise be stored in sufficient quantities.

I think what was being got at is that, given efficient extraction techniques, hydrogen doesn't need to be stored in vast quantities - indeed most current hydrogen use at is done through extraction at the point of consumption, not at the point of extraction of the raw source. Pressurising hydrogen and transporting it for use elsewhere doesn't make a great deal of sense.

Not that I'm any great advocate of hydrogen use, just pointing out that techniques that work for one product to another don't always work for another, so blindly applying 'tried and true' techniques is not necessarily going to work.

Simon

[El-Kablooey]

Acually what I was getting at is that large amounts of hydrogen can be stored at low pressure in tanks by filling the tanks with metal hydrides.


Why would fusion be the only source for energy?? What's wrong with hydrogen generating plants being powered by fission reactors? Or even hydroelectric, solar, or wind power?

I'm not a huge fan of hydrogen fuel either, but it is certainly not impossible. I think bio-diesel and ethanol make alot more sense for the near future.

[Anders Troberg]

Why would fusion be the only source for energy?? What's wrong with hydrogen generating plants being powered by fission reactors? Or even hydroelectric, solar, or wind power?

Basically because it's the only energy source that gives enough power while keeping the environmentalists happy. Fission, hydrolectric powerplants and burning of carbon based fuels are not popular among them, solar and wind just don't give much power.

[El-Kablooey]

Why would fusion be the only source for energy?? What's wrong with hydrogen generating plants being powered by fission reactors? Or even hydroelectric, solar, or wind power?

Basically because it's the only energy source that gives enough power while keeping the environmentalists happy. Fission, hydrolectric powerplants and burning of carbon based fuels are not popular among them, solar and wind just don't give much power.

Yeah, our nuclear power plants are terrible sources of pollution, and the hydroelectric dams are even worse.:)

Come on! Those are the only clean energy sources we have! A few nuclear plants generating hydrogen for fuel would be far better than all of us driving around buring gasoline.

[marksteamnz]

NIMBY hehehehe!

Seriously no one wants their river dammed or a nuke dump in there back yard, whereas windmills have about a 90% acceptance from neighbours and land owners (Survey here in New Zealand) We need more windmils especially high performance quiet ones such as http://www.windflow.co.nz. Me own shares in the company? Well, ah, umm, I don't want to talk about it!

[El-Kablooey]

Believe it or not, recently in my area a large array of windmills was proposed and rejected by the community. The windmills were to be erected on the side of Lookout mountain. The locals voted on the issue and ended the proposal because it would ruin the view. I'm not sure how I feel about that. I'm all for clean energy, but it definately would have ruined the view.

Personally I am very grateful for the nuclear power plants, and hydroelectric dams nearby. We have no shortage of power like some areas in the country, and we have some very clean air. As for the dams, before they tamed the Tennesee River this entire area was prone to severe flooding. Now instead we have some nice lakes to play and fish on, and plenty of clean energy. We also have some of the lowest energy costs in the country.

[El-Kablooey]

Here's a pretty entertaining site.

http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/1243 ... _Tap_Water

[Mark]

http://www.baronbob.com/motorized-cruzincooler.htm

Maybe we could invent a pulsejet cruiser that cooks things as one drives along. Then you could follow the guy on the cooler to the party. A slow news day.
Mark

[Anders Troberg]

Yeah, our nuclear power plants are terrible sources of pollution, and the hydroelectric dams are even worse.:)

Come on! Those are the only clean energy sources we have!

I know that and I agree completely with you. The environmentalists however, see valleys being flooded and poor fish getting shredded in turbines, and you can't even mention that there are atoms everywhere before they go off about Chernobyl.

[NickC]

c'mon guys. everyone knows the only real way to store hydrogen is with metal hydrides. like the stuff you find in a rechargeable battery NiMH. You use solar powered electrolysis. check out this link http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/