RoR: Forum

Hydrogen can be produced from water hydrolysis, produces water as an exhaust, and yields four times more heat energy through combustion with oxygen than does hydrocarbon combustion.

Someone please tell me how this technology is the "ultimate evil". I can't wait to behold the rationalizations.

Be sure to wrap and powder your hands before you begin your logical gymnastics, though. We wouldn't want you getting blisters.

(Edited by Jeremy M. LeRay on 4/30, 11:40am)

Post 1

Monday, April 30, 2007 - 12:10pm

Please tell us how you plan to split water into hydrogen and oxygen in a cost effective manner.

Be sure to account for costs of hydrogen storage and transportation.

Post 2

Monday, April 30, 2007 - 1:07pm

Please tell us how you plan to split water into hydrogen and oxygen in a cost effective manner.

Indeed - this has always been the stumper.... the bonding is very strong here, and requires much energy to disperse it...

Post 3

Monday, April 30, 2007 - 2:20pm

Just as predicted, I am bathed in the light and I do behold.

(by the way, the answers are "simple electrolysis" and "probably comparable to the storage and transporation of petroleum, which nobody seems to be raising a stink about. After all, NASA doesn't get its hydrogen from the Hydrogen Fairy. Do you object to NASA using hydrogen for its fuel cells, Luke? Do you support them using petroleum instead for its fuel? Why don't they use petroleum? Is NASA populated by half-wits who would have stupidly picked hydrogen as its fuel?)

Textbook objectivism doesn't seem to provide satisfactory answers to these questions but, curiously, objectivity does.

(Edited by Jeremy M. LeRay on 4/30, 2:29pm)

Post 4

Monday, April 30, 2007 - 2:33pm

> "simple electrolysis"

Yes, you need electrical energy to split water. Plants, algae, certain bacteria, etc. do "split water" efficiently. The ultimate energy source for this feat is the solar energy.

Post 5

Monday, April 30, 2007 - 2:50pm

Mr. Jeremy M. LeRay wrote:

> Just as predicted, I am bathed in the light and I do behold.

Maybe you need a bulb of a bit higher wattage. (Hey, it's just a joke!)

Electrolysis requires electricity. The questions are: How is this electricity being produced? How much will it cost? How much hydrocarbon will be released in that process? The same questions need to be asked about hydrogen distribution. If you are genuinely concerned about the environment, then you need to consider the entire life-cycle for energy production and use. It is no benefit to simply move the problem from one location (operating the vehicle) to another (producing the fuel). This is all that is implied by Luke's and Robert's statements. This is simple logic and has nothing to do with rationalization in an attempt to bolster what you appear to think is a faulty philosophical position.

Water is plentiful, electrolysis is a well known and very simple process, and a hydrogen-powered engine is also a simple thing to construct. So given all that, why haven't hundreds of businesses worldwide jumped into the production of hydrogen powered vehicles and hydrogen distribution systems? The first one to do so should make a fortune if everything was so simple. The fact that no one has done so indicates that there must be some financial or technical problems not obvious in this simple picture. Either that, or else maybe the entire world has shifted to the philosophy of Objectivism and now there is a huge conspiracy to rationalize away its faults by pretending that, at least at this time, hydrogen in not the magic fuel you suggest.

By the way, why in your initial post did you refer to hydrogen technology being the "ultimate evil"? Who is making this claim?

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 6

Monday, April 30, 2007 - 6:17pm

Jeremy, a basic rule of reason states that the burden of proof always, always, always falls upon the shoulders of the person making the assertion.

If I state that fossil fuels have proven themselves a cost effective means of powering modern civilization, I can point to millions of concrete instances to substantiate my claim.

You imply that pure hydrogen can prove itself a cost effective means of powering modern civilization, or at least hundreds of millions of automobiles, yet you point to nothing concrete at all. You simply spout wild conspiracy theories with no substance.

I do not need to disprove your claims. You need to prove them.

As a paying member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), I can tell you that the technical challenges involved in moving to a hydrogen economy remain overwhelming. Check some articles at http://www.asme.org to see what you find.

As others here have noted, you must have an effective means of acquiring hydrogen from water or some other source in a cost effective way. If you want to forego fossil fuels altogether, this leaves nuclear fission power plants electrolyzing water. How many new such plants would this require? How much fissionable fuel do we have available? How do you propose to dispose of the waste? What about plants that expire? Ponder these questions and consider them carefully.

Do you have an engineering degree? Did you ever take engineering economic analysis?

I have not addressed solar, wind, geothermal, etc. because I have seen no convincing evidence that those can generate sufficient power ever to replace our current fossil fuel based power output. Massive space based solar power plants beaming power back to receiving stations on the ground or via space elevator shafts might do the trick, but I do not see those happening for a century.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 4/30, 6:20pm)

Post 7

Monday, April 30, 2007 - 6:19pm

How could making pure hydrogen from water be cheaper than pumping oil out of the earth? Using nuclear power plants to create hydrogen would be very "clean". But who cares about carbon dioxide? Only environmentalist fools and fools. : )

The main source of harmful pollution is coal power plants. Hydrogen doesn't solve that. Nuclear does. Try searching google for "coal power plant pollution".

Post 8

Monday, April 30, 2007 - 6:21pm

How much fissionable fuel do we have available?
Practically unlimited

How do you propose to dispose of the waste?
Re-use it, or throw it in a mountain.

What about plants that expire?
Re-use them, or demolish them, who cares? Its not an issue.

Post 9

Monday, April 30, 2007 - 7:38pm

I got caught up in the fuel cell frenzy about 6 or 7 years ago and lost a huge amount of money. Manahattan Scientifics was developing a miniature fuel cell for mobile phones and it looked like a slam dunk. The stock got as high as $8.00 and it's now 2 cents � and I still hold it.

I distributed a monthly newsletter that compared the performance of the fuel cell sector with the market averages with the view to identifying when the sector would signal that it was ready to explode. Needless to say, it hasn't yet.

An under-appreciated aspect of the technology is that of "reformers" that take natural gas and directly convert it to hydrogen. The under-appreciated aspect is that this can be done anywhere there is a natural gas pipeline � your house, a service station or a neighborhood store. So, there is no need for elaborate infrastructure to distribute hydrogen in huge cannisters or pipelines and the inherent danger therefrom. You could just drive up to your service station and fill up your tank the way you do with gas, or replace a cannister. Of course, your still consuming hydrocarbons even though you're running on hydrogen.

There are many stationary hydrogen fuel cells supplying large facilities such as hospitals. Such a company is:
http://www.fce.com/

FuelCell Energy services over 50 power plant sites around the globe that have generated more than 150 million kilowatt hours, and conducts research & development on next-generation fuel cell technologies to meet the world's ever-increasing demand for ultra-clean distributed energy.

I don't have an interest in this company.

Sam

Post 10

Monday, April 30, 2007 - 8:28pm

Massive space based solar power plants beaming power back to receiving stations on the ground or via space elevator shafts might do the trick, but I do not see those happening for a century.

Not on a cost effective basis - cost of just getting the materials out there, cost of materials, discounting the wear and tear over the time - those alone would near take the century to break even...

and the elevator has better uses..

(Edited by robert malcom on 4/30, 8:30pm)

Post 11

Monday, April 30, 2007 - 8:57pm

You imply that pure hydrogen can prove itself a cost effective means of powering modern civilization, or at least hundreds of millions of automobiles, yet you point to nothing concrete at all. You simply spout wild conspiracy theories with no substance.

I do not need to disprove your claims. You need to prove them.

Wai-ai-ait a minute... Do you really need me to sit here and post something so simple as the simple and elementary figures of heats of combustion? Are you trying to wage a war of attrition here?

Well, okay... If that's your game, fine. Here, for your viewing enjoyment, is a listing of all the various heats of combustion from several common fuels:

Heat of Combustion
Fuel	MJ/kg	Mcal/kg	BTU/lb
Hydrogen	141.9	33.9	61,000
Gasoline	47	11.3	20,400
Diesel	45	10.7	19,300
Ethanol	29.8	7.1	12,800
Propane	49.9	11.9	21,500
Butane	49.2	11.8	21,200
Wood	15	3.6	6,500
Coal	15-27	4.4 - 7.8	8,000 - 14,000
Natural Gas	~54	~13	~23,000

(My source: answers.com, which got its figures from "Carburants et moteurs", J-C Guibet, Publication de l'Institut Fran�ais du P�trole, ISBN 2-7108-0704-1.)

And there you have it. Do you notice the figures for gasoline, and then for hydrogen? Mind you, I don't have a muckety-muck Ph.D. in engi-sneering or anything but, gosh, I think I'm bovineishly capable of doing some pretty elementary math, with the help of my handy Windows calculator function:

141.9 divided by 47 is 3.019.
33.9 divided by 11.3 is, well, 3.
61,000 divided by 20,400 is, oh my gosh, 2.99. That's darn close to 3, if my third grade teacher did her job right.

Now, I do realize that I apparently said earlier that hydrogen releases four times as much energy as gasoline combustion, but I humbly beg your forgiveness in that most grievous error. (In my own defense, I really did read that some time ago, albeit in Larry Gonick's The Cartoon Guide to Chemistry.)

Nonetheless, hydrogen combustion yields three times as much heat energy as gasoline. You wanted proof; well, there you have it.

Do you have an engineering degree? Did you ever take engineering economic analysis?

No, my liege. I do not. I have not. Clearly, then, I am incapable of doing elementary school math and can never be allowed to sully the hallowed and hierophantic halls of energy policy. I therefore and hereby completely retract my entire argument and all my figures presented thus far.

(Edited by Jeremy M. LeRay on 4/30, 9:25pm)

Post 12

Monday, April 30, 2007 - 9:05pm

FuelCell Energy services over 50 power plant sites around the globe that have generated more than 150 million kilowatt hours, and conducts research & development on next-generation fuel cell technologies to meet the world's ever-increasing demand for ultra-clean distributed energy.

Precisely.

This is the true wave of the future... not some outdated industrial model of dirty, war-era fuel and purely iron skyscrapers, as romanticized by a certain antiquated, if not philosophically astute and visionary, female Russian author of the 1940's and 50's.

While I'm no fan of self-contradicting gurus who end up nailed to wooden crosses, there was some very good advice issued forth by one such person when he instructed the human race to heed the spirit, and not the letter, of a teaching. Just because Rand never got around to explicitly evaluating and discussing the superior virtues of hydrogen power over petroleum power, doesn't mean that she wouldn't have. Such was, after all, her spirit, even if wasn't explicitly her letter during her lifetime.

This was a woman who heartily endorsed NASA and, at the time of her writing of her intense admiration for them, they didn't exactly run on the primitive methane from pig farts. They ran on hydrogen fuel cells, and they still do.

Open your minds.

Why should the rest of the human race have to settle for less... especially since the market has always clamored for it?

(Edited by Jeremy M. LeRay on 4/30, 9:08pm)

Post 13

Monday, April 30, 2007 - 9:23pm

How much fissionable fuel do we have available?
Practically unlimited

How do you propose to dispose of the waste?
Re-use it, or throw it in a mountain.

What about plants that expire?
Re-use them, or demolish them, who cares? Its not an issue.

Dean,

Okay, I do agree with your presentation here of nuclear power. Thanks to Tom Bethell's The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, I finally understand it.

Like most people, I always took it for granted that plutonium was immensely dangerous because it had such an insanely long half-life. But it was Bethell who explained it to me in such a clear and elegant way, that I will never doubt its safety again. I'd like to share here with you, his precise wording from his book:

One of the most midunderstood nuclear concepts is the half-life of radioactive material. Otherwise responsible publications often fail to inform their readers of this crucial point: radioactive elements with a short half-life are far more dangerous than those with a long half-life. Uranium-235, for example, has a half-life of 700 million years. Plutonium: 24,000 years. The two isotopes that have caused greatest concern are cesium-137 and strontium-90. Both have a half-life of about thirty years. Isotopes with very short half-lives never leave the reactor, so we don't have to worry about them.

When a radioactive substance has a short half-life, picture the Geiger county clicking rapidly. A former Secretary of Energy put it like this: 'Would you rather sit on a box of firecrackers if half will go in the next week? Or a box in which half will go off in the next 24,000 years?

Yet the long half-life of radioactive material is often cited as the most dreaded aspect of nuclear power, rendering contaminated sites unihabitable for eons. That is false. The key variable is the rate at which particles radiating from a given volume of radioactive material strike the body. At a low rate they are harmless -- they may even be beneficial.
Natural background radiation subjects us all to a low-level bombardment anyway.

This is the most crucial germ that has yet to ever be explained to the public. And, yet, it's so simple an argument, because it boils down to a simple understanding of high concentration in a short time, versus a very low concentration over an enormously long time.

I mean, I can understand the enemies of nuclear power not giving this one, simple explanation, but the nuclear energy advocates? Where the hell have these people's brains all these years, to not give this one, simple explanation, this simply?

So, the point here is, yes, Dean. I do actually agree with you. You present an excellent argument. Nuclear energy is a fantastic alternative.

However, I still have my hydrogen preference. I would like my independence from energy companies.

(Edited by Jeremy M. LeRay on 4/30, 9:24pm)

Post 14

Tuesday, May 1, 2007 - 1:03am

To Jeremy's credit, he at least managed to substantiate his claims with some facts and figures. Had he done this from the start, I would have had little argument with him. I suggest he take that approach in the future rather than jump into an immediate flame war against ill-defined enemies.

Nevertheless, the technical challenges remain overwhelming. Sam Erica observed in this thread that fossil fuels can serve as storage media for hydrogen wherein only the hydrogen portion gets consumed while the carbon portions presumably can get harmlessly discarded rather than turned into carbon oxide gases. This seems the most likely path to take for getting massive numbers of cars switched from gasoline to hydrogen fuel cells without a massive and costly infrastructure change. But it still leaves us relying on fossil fuels.

Jeremy, your initial post would have benefited from clearly painting in our minds your vision for overcoming technical challenges such as these. Please do consider that in the future. Otherwise, you simply invite unnecessary conflicts.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 5/01, 1:05am)

Post 15

Monday, April 30, 2007 - 8:13pm

Jeremy, Objectivism has nothing against any technology. You seem to throw out some assertion that objectivists are anti-technology. Which anyone having read Any Rand would know that is hogwash, Objectivism stands for just the opposite.

However, the technology must be able to stand on its own. It must be cost effective and be able to compete in the marketplace without government's help. If Hydrogen power is cost effective, produces good horsepower, has great acceleration, and is low maintenance then people will flock to it. At that point the combustion engine deserves a decent funeral and can be laid to rest.

Until that time most arguments for hydrogen power are actually only anti-fossil fuel and the zeolits

What we don't want is another fiasco like ethanol where it costs $2.24 a gallon to produce compared to 63 cents for gasoline with the difference made up by taxpayers. Even the precept that ethanol was good for the environment turned out to be false. But ethanol was anti-fossil fuel so the environmentalists pushed it like it like snake oil. Now even the National Audubon Society has turned against it. (see my article at GlobalWarmingHoax.com, return here to comment).

Lets not go down that road again. I'll gladly purchase a hydrogen based car if it meets the above criteria without government subsidies and given a little time to prove its reliability.

Post 16

Tuesday, May 1, 2007 - 3:53am

Nevertheless, the technical challenges remain overwhelming. Sam Erica observed in this thread that fossil fuels can serve as storage media for hydrogen wherein only the hydrogen portion gets consumed while the carbon portions presumably can get harmlessly discarded rather than turned into carbon oxide gases. This seems the most likely path to take for getting massive numbers of cars switched from gasoline to hydrogen fuel cells without a massive and costly infrastructure change. But it still leaves us relying on fossil fuels.

Ugh... No, it doesn't! What about water electolysis/combustion engines? They really are feasible!

Water in, water out! Your exhaust can actually be recirculated as your fuel, if you couple your hydrogen generator to your combustion engine! And you can generate the electrolysing current and the combustion spark from anything like solar or hydroelectric, to nuclear or stored battery energy from all of the former!

This can really be done! It is being done!

Just plain solar, wind, or hydroelectric is largely "piddle power"... I agree with all that. But, when you use those forms as sparking catalysts for the much, much greater power of water electrolysis and hydrogen combustion, what is possible is enormous!

Think outside the box. Completely.

(And oh yeah: Dean is still right. Nuclear is good, too, provided it isn't cesium fuel being used instead of plutonium or something of a much slower burn.)

Post 17

Tuesday, May 1, 2007 - 3:56am

To Jeremy's credit, he at least managed to substantiate his claims with some facts and figures. Had he done this from the start, I would have had little argument with him. I suggest he take that approach in the future rather than jump into an immediate flame war against ill-defined enemies.

Fair enough. It's just hard for me to anticipate how much I have to flesh out from the start. I have a hard time realizing that certain of the things I've had an awareness of for awhile, are not also self-evident to everybody else. It's one half magical thinking, one half sheer fatigue.

Post 18

Tuesday, May 1, 2007 - 4:34am

Jeremy wrote:

Water in, water out! Your exhaust can actually be recirculated as your fuel, if you couple your hydrogen generator to your combustion engine! And you can generate the electrolysing current and the combustion spark from anything like solar or hydroelectric, to nuclear or stored battery energy from all of the former!

This sounds very close to perpetual motion. Please point us to a link that shows how this works.

Post 19

Tuesday, May 1, 2007 - 6:02am