hydrogen vs natural gas

[billvon 2,400]

The American Physical Society released a report today on the recent Bush announcement that he would push for hydrogen powered cars by 2020. It pointed out that the technical problems of getting an engine or fuel cell to run on hydrogen were minor, but we currently have no sources, storage facilities or distribution methods for hydrogen. To put it simply, cars can run on it, but we can't store, deliver or make it economically, and unless some very basic problems are resolved, there will be no hydrogen cars in the near future.

I've never understood the hydrogen hype. Right now we can build hydrogen cars that have a 150 mile range; that's about the same as a battery based car. And the battery-based car is a lot cheaper, safer and easier to use than the hydrogen car.

Want something even cheaper? Natural gas, or methane. Not as safe as a battery based electric car, but we can drill for, make, store and transport methane. If we make it, like we plan on making hydrogen, there is no net pollution. (The CO2 is used by the plant that makes the methane.) You can use it directly in an internal combustion engine or put it through a fuel cell/reformer combo to get a fuel cell car. It's easier to store since you can liquefy it.

Plus, right now, we _have_ natural gas fueled cars, buses, trucks and generators. About a third of the homes in america already have gas lines going to them; adding a pump to let you refuel at home would be a $500 investment. And that's just until more natural gas fueling stations open. We already have half a dozen here.

Plus most of our natural gas is produced in North America, which reduces our reliance on OPEC et al. Plus it would cut down on pollution an incredible amount - the amount of pollution the Honda GX produces is unmeasureable with our current equipment.

[Remster 24]

Its still a fossil fuel... probably not what the eviro groups want...

Remster

[Tink1717 2]

As long as we (the US) can get even a drop of oil, there will never be any progress toward any alternative fueled vehicles. The government has no interest in doing anything to change our dependency on foreign oil. Until it runs out, nothing will change.

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[PhillyKev 0]

Not to mention that the process of producing hydrogen fuel is supposed to create more pollutants than just using gasoline in the cars anyway.

[quade 3]

Quote

I've never understood the hydrogen hype.

Because it "sounds" better.

This isn't about what works, but about making a pseudo-science and pseudo-environmental statement to make it seem as if he's doing something. The date is -way- out beyond any consequence to himself and unless he were to start up and fund a government program to make it happen -- it won't.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 3]

Quote

Not to mention that the process of producing hydrogen fuel is supposed to create more pollutants than just using gasoline in the cars anyway.

Amost any energy source will have some pollutants in the equation. Even photovoltaic cells make some really nasty stuff when you consider how they're manufactured.

I can conceive of at least a couple of ways to make hydrogen without making too much of a mess though.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[AndyMan 7]

I think the idea of a zero pollution car is compelling.

Sure, it might not work, and it might be a falacy based on the notion that manufacturing the hydrogen will be poluting itself, but these are theoretical.

The idea of hundreds of thousands of cars driving around emiiting zero polutants is really quite nice, and certainly worth investigating.

It seems like every increase in efficiency and cleanliness of cars has corresponded to an equally large increase in the use of them. It seems like each incremental step is in effect a net-zero change because people just drive further. I certainly support more incremental improvements, but I don't think they're the final answer. The final answer is something that will be revolutionary - a zero emisions car that uses a renewable energy supply.

To that effect, hydrogen, fuel cell, or some sort of electric battery system is the only final answer. The industry seem to be currently betting on fuel cell. Sounds good to me if they can make it work.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[pilotdave 0]

How is hydrogen made? Can it be done in an energy efficient and clean way? If it's not energy efficient, it wont be used. If it's not clean, there wont be a reason to use it.

Dave

[billvon 2,400]

>Its still a fossil fuel...

You can make it, just like you can make hydrogen. No difference, other than you can start out with the stuff coming out of the ground before you switch over to the synthesized stuff.

[billvon 2,400]

>How is hydrogen made?

It can be reformed from crude oil, gasoline or methane. It can be split from water via electrolysis, but that's very energy inefficient, since it takes electricity (which has to be generated from burning coal etc.) The only really "clean" way to make it is high temperature dissociation of water, but you need either an advanced nuclear reactor (i.e. not the ones we have now) or a pretty fancy solar concentrator to do that.

[Remster 24]

Quote

>Its still a fossil fuel...

You can make it, just like you can make hydrogen. No difference, other than you can start out with the stuff coming out of the ground before you switch over to the synthesized stuff.

I'm sure you can make anything, but without knowing how you would, I can only guess making CH4 will be a lot more complex, ie expensive, as making H2.

Remster

[billvon 2,400]

>As long as we (the US) can get even a drop of oil, there will never
>be any progress toward any alternative fueled vehicles.

Well, as long as oil is cheaper that will be true. Gas prices hit $2.21 here today - before long biodiesel will be cheaper than regular diesel. At that point there will be amazing progress towards massive biodiesel production.

[billvon 2,400]

>I can only guess making CH4 will be a lot more complex, ie
>expensive, as making H2.

Not really. 2H20 -> 2H2 and O2 takes a lot of energy, but CO2+4H2 -> CH4+2H20 (the Sabatier process) is mildly exothermic, and so takes no energy once you get the reaction started. The hard part is making the hydrogen in both cases. Once you have that, turning hydrogen and CO2 into methane and water is easy. It's definitely a lot easier than trying to liquefy it.

[lawrocket 3]

I think you've hit on a good point, AndyMan. Zero polluting cars are impossible, under current technology. Even water vapor is pollution, and the single most important greenhouse gas (followed my methane).

Burning methane may actually be a good idea. Hopefully, we can find a humane way to harvest it from cattle (who create a great deal of it). Methane is actually the biggest "bang for the buck" greenhouse gas that we can help clean.

BUT - here's why it will not work. The environmental movement does not care so much about how to clean the air. Just as high on its list is the destruction of the petrochemical industry. The oil companies are needed to mine and produce methane. The environmentalists know that. As much as anything, that is the reason why environmentalists go after CO2 so fiercely.

Environmentalists saving the environment by goign after CO2 is like GWB saving Iraq by looking for WMDs. Hydrogen is too expensive, and requires more energy to produce than it makes. That means fossil fuels.

Clean burning cars but dirty energy to produce it. Net gain? Little if any.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Gawain 0]

I don't dispute the logic you're citing here. I would offer this though as a part of why this policy is being pushed (outside of any political leverage):

15 years from now it is perfectly viable to predict that we will have the technology to produce and handle hydrogen -- Not unlike all the computer gurus in 1985 that said 128k of RAM was all any computer user would ever need.

I thought methane was more of a pollutant than gas? Am I wrong? It's high octane though...so I like it.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[skydiver30960 0]

I don't know about you guys but we make PLENTY of "natural gas" at our DZ! All that beer and Mexican food isn't just going to go away unnoticed, you know. And the stuff WILL burn, don't even pretend like there's a single person on this forum who hasn't lost some short curlys in that experiment. What we REALLY need is a way to harness the foulness that we release into the cabin of our jumpships and somehow funnel that into some sort of afterburner for the engines. We'd get to jump altitude in a fraction of the time, Jet A usage per load would plummet, along with jump ticket prices.

Elvisio "no shame in it as long as you're claiming it" Rodriguez

[quade 3]

Quote

It's high octane though...so I like it.

Octane rating doesn't really have a lot to do with energy potential of a fuel.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

It's high octane though...so I like it.

Octane rating doesn't really have a lot to do with energy potential of a fuel.

Come on, you know me though. It does have to do with its combustability potential though. High-compression, high-performance engines like higher-octane fuel. Thus, I like it too.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[NoShitThereIWas 0]

I like your ideas here and I think you are going in a good direction with them. What we need is super high powered batteries or ways to recirculate energy. I am not sure if there is any way in the future to achieve a 0% emmission, I guess if there was a way to charge a battery off of a generator or something ... I am not sure of all the details but from what I gather, this is more of an issue of power, wealth and politics than it is environment, war or philanthropy. This is not about the benefit of the planet or humanity, it is about GREED and POWER. JMO.

Roy Bacon: "Elvises, light your fires."

Sting: "Be yourself no matter what they say."

[Tink1717 2]

My only question about bio diesel is: can it be used in a current diesel? If not, what mods need to be made?

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

My only question about bio diesel is: can it be used in a current diesel? If not, what mods need to be made?

Yes....no mods. One caveat is that it acts as a solvent on petroleum build ups. So, if you were previously using regulard diesel, it might clean the crud off which could then clog up fuel filters, etc.

[billvon 2,400]

>15 years from now it is perfectly viable to predict that we will have the
> technology to produce and handle hydrogen . . .

No doubt. We have the technology now, in a way. After all, the space shuttle uses a few million pounds of the stuff every launch. It's just hideously expensive since it has to be made from oil/gas and liquified. The issue is - is pursuing a hydrogen economy a good idea when there are better, cheaper and safer solutions available now, and since even a methane economy will benefit from all the same scientific advances?

>I thought methane was more of a pollutant than gas? Am I wrong?
>It's high octane though...so I like it.

It's a greenhouse gas, but not really a pollutant per se in that small quantities don't bother anyone. It's odorless (it's not the methane you smell in the airplane, it's all the hydrogen sulfides) and it's not very toxic.

[VectorBoy 0]

before long biodiesel will be cheaper than regular diesel. At that point there will be amazing progress towards massive biodiesel production.

[billvon 2,400]

>The smell of the exhaust will make us hungry for french fries, then
> we would all get really fat, then....

. . . and the economy will recover as McDonald's hires local workers that they can't outsource! See, it's all part of some sort of master plan.

[Erroll 49]

Quote

before long biodiesel will be cheaper than regular diesel. At that point there will be amazing progress towards massive biodiesel production.

Yes but the government will try to steer us away from biodiesel. The smell of the exhaust will make us hungry for french fries, then we would all get really fat, then.... well the government can't have that.