Hydrogen technology - will it ever be feasible?

[burnz]

storage would not be a gas, it would be liquide.
think of "space shuttle"

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by 90sFTW

Oh okay, thats nice to know ;)

Whats the temperature the hydrogen is stored in the tank?

Pretty sure its very cold, not exactly sure though.

[theunfairadvant]

I could be wrong about this,
isn't dry ice part of hydrogen as well?

[Fordoldie]

Originally Posted by theunfairadvant

I could be wrong about this,
isn't dry ice part of hydrogen as well?

its carbon doixide in it's solid form.

Hydrogen doesnt have to be stored if it can be produced directly before and at the point of combustion. However, storage is what is impeding manufacturers from developing it's use in mobile applications.
Stored at ambient temperatures it requires a number of processes to maintain it's required state - most of which have been unobtainable with current technology

[Airmon]

Originally Posted by Bill_R

A possible alternative among many.
Watchout for Global Warming from all that water vapour though ;) (water vapour has the main warming effect).

Agreed, too many car companies try to pass of Water Vapour as "harmlesss".

[Ives]

I'll just use normal air... cos adjusting tyre pressures every now n then is fun.

[Daymoe]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Pretty sure its very cold, not exactly sure though.

Yeah, i don't think you could store it at normal temp without it exploding in the cause of an accident.

Get them to shoot the tank with an M82 Barrett sniper rifle, that gun can punch through armour easily.

[cupic]

Originally Posted by ORSMT

Early days of this technology, that Beamer you saw can be likened to the Model T when cars were starting to emerge for the average bloke. The biggest plus for Hydrogen is that it is the most abundant element known to us. So there should never be a shortage for this fuel.

So very true in yrs to come(hopefully not long)technology will grow to a point where you can but for under 30k ,but to me it will be 15yrs+ b4 this happens

[sprjenkins]

Hopefully it will work because I don't want to drive an electric car in 30 years

[Fordoldie]

Originally Posted by cupic

So very true in yrs to come(hopefully not long)technology will grow to a point where you can but for under 30k ,but to me it will be 15yrs+ b4 this happens

I will say its a lot sooner than that. The technology is with us now. Just not many know it and others dont want you to know it

[Bossxr8]

Its stored at -253 degrees, so its pretty damn cold. Because its so cold it will evaporate the whole tank in 6 days if not driven, there are 2 vents that vent the gas off if the hydrogen liquid has warmed up. Those vents also work if its ever in an accident to prevent explosion. They even rammed it with a truck and it didn't explode. The storage tank has 40 layers of insulation and its believed it would take ice 13 years to melt if placed inside the tank.

[BLSTIC]

I reckon hydrogen is good for an internal combustion engine, but only as a combustion enhancer (small amounts of hydrogen added to a petrol/air mix increase the burn speed a lot. The extra energy released by the petrol when it burns faster far exceeds the energy required to make the hydrogen. It's kinda like bolting on a more efficient combustion chamber). As for fuel cell technolgy, it is, at best, a glorified battery. However an extremely environmentally friendly, long lasting, battery.

Using browns gas (a form of hydrogen that is impossible to store, it must be made on demand) is a great way to weld things though. Through the unique way it reacts with other substances, with the same torch on the same setting you can subliminate (covert directly from solid to gas) tungsten, weld steel to ceramics (apparently), and when the flame isn't on anything, it burns at something like 120* celcius. I think dad said he was half way through building a device like that...

cya
Ben

[BHDOGS]

They should chuck out this hydrogen crap and shift to electric cars they worked years ago with gm im sure they can make them better faster and travel further now.

[goldfire]

Originally Posted by BHDOGS

They should chuck out this hydrogen crap and shift to electric cars they worked years ago with gm im sure they can make them better faster and travel further now.

Well I guess they are are doing that now to an extent. Think about the hybrid cars on the markets today, granted maybe not to much of a selection, but atleast SOME that can offer a semi balance between performance and being environmentally friendly. As I'm sure we all know here electric cars put out a higher torque ratio than any other modern street vehicle mostly due to the dimished lag with engine and transmission, otherwise known as direct power. And can atleast appreciate at best the lesser impact such vehicles could have on the environment.

I'm no greeny, nor am I by by any means a rev head, however please think about it for a second. We need to care for our planet, and if you take into accoutn ALL the millions of cars and trucks spewing various gaseous chemicals into the air daily.. the earth can only balance it so much before we start to suffer the effects.

back to my original paragraph however, as I believe hybrid cars use only a 2 cylinder or so engine as a power plant to charge the battery cells use for primary power. I will accept it if i'm wrong but atleast understand that for 80% of your travel time it's going to be under pure electric power, unless you choose otherwise.

[BHDOGS]

hydrogen cars are just a way of making us suck up the last of petrol in tiny amounts so fuel companys and everybody else can stay rich for abit longer just like all the serving deparments and everybody else hydrogen is a fuel that can be controlled and sold and prices determined if you just plugged a car into your house they would lose most of that money its a dam conspiracy i tell you dont worry im not really crazy just really hate money grubbing fatcat petrol company government taxing fukheads who tell us diesel and hydrogen will save the world when the fact is it will just it up abit slower.

[Fordoldie]

Originally Posted by BHDOGS

They should chuck out this hydrogen crap and shift to electric cars they worked years ago with gm im sure they can make them better faster and travel further now.

Great in theory but not practicality nor possible in our lifetimes or our kids.
The only way to reduce exhaust emissions to any great effect is to change the fuel we are using in all the existing combustion powered vehicles and machinery.
Given each truck or heavy machine is equal to 800-1000 cars in dangerous toxins ie diesel fine particulates, it would seem appropriate to start there.

Many people are under the common misconception that diesel cars are "greener" when in fact they are far worse despite fine particulate filters.
Diesel fuel however is far easier to replace with bio or alternattive fuels but our governements wont allow it.
This is why there is only a small mix of bio diesel with mineral diesel (approx 10-15%)
Regarding the electric car theory, do the math - there are 850,000,000 cars alone on earth and that figure grows by approx 6 % annually. Thats over 50,000,000 electric or alternative powered vehicles to build every year JUST to stem the growth of internal combustion powered vehicles - NOT make a difference. In fact it would still slowly worsen especially in our cities where more illness and death is caused by exhaust emissions, than car accidents and cigarette smoking combined! Yet our Government does nothing.


Yes Hydrogen IS feasable and its noit far off being usable in existing automobiles but the first thing that must be done is get rid of mineral diesel fuel

[XplosiveR6]

Originally Posted by BHDOGS

They should chuck out this hydrogen crap and shift to electric cars they worked years ago with gm im sure they can make them better faster and travel further now.

And how exactly electric cars greener/ more efficient then petrol cars, you still need to get the energy from somewhere. and thats usually from fossil fueled power stations, which will need to become bigger to feed all those electric cars.

One good green alternative would have been to use nuclear power, but wait a sec, most of the ill informed, misjudged Australian public voted against that, so we are stuck with fuel guzzling coal power stations.

[FGII-XR6]

lets look at a few facts here

1. hydrogen is a renewable source as such as it is an element and elements can't be detroyed the are just combined with other elements to form compounds ( water inthis case)
2. the hydrogen can theoretically be derive using renewable methods (solar )
3. there are no chemicals consumed in the electrolysis process only a catalyst ( usually a salt of some kind to aid conduction)
4. the electrodes used in the electrolys process are generally platinum ( or irridium) whic stand up to the process well and seldom if ever need relpacing only periodic cleaning
5. technology is expanding almost expotentially so we are likely to see significant advances in much less than 3 years
6. the primary by product od combustion is water although there may be some incidental use of nitrogen in the process nitrogen is considered to be inert in most (but not all) situations . nitrogen will not burn but will be caught up to a small degtee in the combustion process . so the compounds of nitrogen will be negligable in this proces

although hydrogen power is not practical today it will become more so in coming years

[WOTDAH]

Check this out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX6CnNc3CFU&eurl=http://widget-e9.slide.com/widgets/sf.swf

[mik]

i saw a documentry on it last week and the consensis was that currently it takes a lot of energy to create the hydrogen and get it into the vehicles tank and its just not worthwhile , it appeared at the end of it electric car is the way to go.

[blueoval]

Originally Posted by BHDOGS

hydrogen cars are just a way of making us suck up the last of petrol in tiny amounts so fuel companys and everybody else can stay rich for abit longer just like all the serving deparments and everybody else hydrogen is a fuel that can be controlled and sold and prices determined if you just plugged a car into your house they would lose most of that money its a dam conspiracy i tell you dont worry im not really crazy just really hate money grubbing fatcat petrol company government taxing fukheads who tell us diesel and hydrogen will save the world when the fact is it will just it up abit slower.

totally in agreeance with you mate 100%.

[Fordoldie]

Originally Posted by blueoval

totally in agreeance with you mate 100%.

diesel is killing us faster than anything else beside industrial fall-out.

Hydrogen CAN and does work but just not in the conventional means that the current paradigm allows people to believe...

[blueoval]

Originally Posted by Fordoldie

diesel is killing us faster than anything else beside industrial fall-out.

Hydrogen CAN and does work but just not in the conventional means that the current paradigm allows people to believe...

I was agreeing more on the fatcat comments.

[SeXC]

im going to put this as simply as possible.

Originally Posted by au3xr6

elements can't be detroyed

yes, they can otherwise you would be able to recollect exhaust gases and recreate fuel.

Originally Posted by au3xr6

the hydrogen can theoretically be derive using renewable methods (solar )

at present the energy required to make an efficient enough solar panel and the costs required with doing so do not really make solar energy much better than fossil fuels considering you have to burn fossil fuels to make them. If we had extensive nuclear power, then t may, emphasis on the may, be viable.

Originally Posted by au3xr6

the electrodes used in the electrolys process are generally platinum ( or irridium)

the most common and efficient electrodes are made out of magnesium

Originally Posted by au3xr6

technology is expanding almost expotentially so we are likely to see significant advances in much less than 3 years

evidence?

Originally Posted by au3xr6

nitrogen is considered to be inert in most (but not all) situations .

No. Inert gases are classified in the 8th group of the periodical table.
they are- Helium, neon, argon, xenon, radon and one other that i cant remember off the top of my head. The only thing that would probably identify to be considered an inert gas is that you have to FORCE IT into a chemical reaction. Or put simply, if it was inert, which means basically that it does not have much energy potential, then why would we mix it with oxygen and force it into engines to make huge power gains?

Originally Posted by au3xr6

although hydrogen power is not practical today it will become more so in coming years

This is only my personal opinion, however, i don't think it will. I think a combination of bio-diesel electric engines for most of the world and straight electric engines for those parts of the world whom have access to nuclear power.

By diesel electric i refer to a small diesel electric engine powering an electrical generator which directs current to individual electric motors designed as a hub for the wheel to sit on, thus eliminating transmission and delivering high horsepower and torque with a perfect linear acceleration band.

[Jeeepers]

Originally Posted by SeXC

By diesel electric i refer to a small diesel electric engine powering an electrical generator which directs current to individual electric motors designed as a hub for the wheel to sit on, thus eliminating transmission and delivering high horsepower and torque with a perfect linear acceleration band.

As in use by Diesel Locomotives.

[ED Classic]

Petrol companys will only let work what they want to work.....money talks and atm they have a heck of alot of it!!!

[FGII-XR6]

Originally Posted by SeXC

im going to put this as simply as possible.



yes, they can otherwise you would be able to recollect exhaust gases and recreate fuel..

it is npt possible to destroy elements as such you recollect the compound formed in combustion and recreate the fuel by preaking the compound down into the base elements unless you have recently re written the laws of physics????????????????

Originally Posted by SeXC

at present the energy required to make an efficient enough solar panel and the costs required with doing so do not really make solar energy much better than fossil fuels considering you have to burn fossil fuels to make them. If we had extensive nuclear power, then t may, emphasis on the may, be viable..

as I said the techenology is not here today (I said theroetically remember) I agree solar is not yet up to the task but they are making improvements in solar all the time and the day will come when we have truly efficent solar cells

Originally Posted by SeXC

the most common and efficient electrodes are made out of magnesium.

Platinium and Irridium have been used for many years when sustained and reliable electrolysis is required

Originally Posted by SeXC

evidence? .

just look at the speed increases in PCs over the last 10 years and that will give you some idea of the accelerated growth of technology

Originally Posted by SeXC

No. Inert gases are classified in the 8th group of the periodical table.
they are- Helium, neon, argon, xenon, radon and one other that i cant remember off the top of my head. The only thing that would probably identify to be considered an inert gas is that you have to FORCE IT into a chemical reaction. Or put simply, if it was inert, which means basically that it does not have much energy potential, then why would we mix it with oxygen and force it into engines to make huge power gains?.

I said inert in most (not all) situations this is a description that is commonly used in laboratory situations to describe a gas the is normally unreactive but is not actually inert as stated some nitrogen will form a compound with the other elements present but most will pass out the exhaust unaffected

Originally Posted by SeXC

This is only my personal opinion, however, i don't think it will. I think a combination of bio-diesel electric engines for most of the world and straight electric engines for those parts of the world whom have access to nuclear power.

and you are welcome to your opinion but bio diesel is still not a clean burning fuel ( cleaner than regular diesel I'll grant you) your mention of nuclear power is interestin . with abundant nuclear power hydrogen cars become more attainable as the power is available for electrolysis

Originally Posted by SeXC

By diesel electric i refer to a small diesel electric engine powering an electrical generator which directs current to individual electric motors designed as a hub for the wheel to sit on, thus eliminating transmission and delivering high horsepower and torque with a perfect linear acceleration band.

these are possibly one futuer form of transpost but we will need a multitude of replacements for oil power and there will still be a place for internal combustion engines it is easier to acheive high power / torque from these and at least with current and planned future technology lighter for a given output. don't get me wrong I'm not writing off hybrids and we already have some running reliably on out roads but they are unlikely to be the only alternative

[SeXC]

Originally Posted by au3xr6

it is npt possible to destroy elements as such you recollect the compound formed in combustion and recreate the fuel by preaking the compound down into the base elements unless you have recently re written the laws of physics????????????????

No. Straight out no. The basis of all physics, is that ENERGY can not be created nor destroyed. Before you reply to this post, do some research if you find out somewhere that supports your argument post a link or give reference to a readily available book and are able to quote author page and line by all means do it, but im not asking you, im telling you, YOU ARE DEAD WRONG.

If what you are saying is true, you would be able to collect your own faeces, urine and sweat and scientifically recreate the meal you had the night before...... are you saying this is entirely possible?

If you are, i think you should give world vision a phone call, because you sir have just cured world hunger.

Originally Posted by au3xr6

just look at the speed increases in PCs over the last 10 years and that will give you some idea of the accelerated growth of technology

Also look at the way that cancer cure research and cold fusion research have increased over the last 20 years. We are no closer at all to curing it or creating the ultimate reliable electrical power.

I said inert in most (not all) situations this is a description that is commonly used in laboratory situations to describe a gas the is normally unreactive but is not actually inert as stated some nitrogen will form a compound with the other elements present but most will pass out the exhaust unaffected

Nitrogen is NOT an inert gas. Look at the periodic table.



and you are welcome to your opinion but bio diesel is still not a clean burning fuel ( cleaner than regular diesel I'll grant you) your mention of nuclear power is interestin . with abundant nuclear power hydrogen cars become more attainable as the power is available for electrolysis

these are possibly one futuer form of transpost but we will need a multitude of replacements for oil power and there will still be a place for internal combustion engines it is easier to acheive high power / torque from these and at least with current and planned future technology lighter for a given output. don't get me wrong I'm not writing off hybrids and we already have some running reliably on out roads but they are unlikely to be the only alternative[/QUOTE]

What im talking about is not the same as a hybrid at all.

im not going to say any more because if you actually reply to this, you are not going to be bright enough to listen, take a word from your avatar dude.

[FGII-XR6]

learn the difference between an element and a compound you are talking compounds as we do not eat raw elements elements are reprocessed into different compuonds but they are never destroyed ( one exception is nuclear fission the spliting of the attom wheick gives out huge amounts of energy ) this is nothing to do with food food is a created or grown compound ( or combination of compounds ) water is not an element it is a compound comprised of 2 elements ( hydrogen and oxygen)
your comment " If what you are saying is true, you would be able to collect your own faeces, urine and sweat and scientifically recreate the meal you had the night before...... are you saying this is entirely possible? " is a stupud comment as "faeces, urine and sweat" are compounds not elements get the point or do I need to type slower???????????????????????

nitrogen is not inert as such but behaves in an inert manner in most situations which is what i have said all along but you insist on twisting what I say. do you understand now or do I need to type slower???????????????????
if you wish to post in this forum refrain from insulting people if you are as inteligent as you pretend to be you don't act it after all you have no understanding of what an element actually is you seem to think "faeces, urine and sweat" are elements i'm still laughing at that one

Originally Posted by SeXC

No. Straight out no. The basis of all physics, is that ENERGY can not be created nor destroyed. Before you reply to this post, do some research if you find out somewhere that supports your argument post a link or give reference to a readily available book and are able to quote author page and line by all means do it, but im not asking you, im telling you, YOU ARE DEAD WRONG.

If what you are saying is true, you would be able to collect your own faeces, urine and sweat and scientifically recreate the meal you had the night before...... are you saying this is entirely possible?

If you are, i think you should give world vision a phone call, because you sir have just cured world hunger.







Also look at the way that cancer cure research and cold fusion research have increased over the last 20 years. We are no closer at all to curing it or creating the ultimate reliable electrical power.





Nitrogen is NOT an inert gas. Look at the periodic table.



and you are welcome to your opinion but bio diesel is still not a clean burning fuel ( cleaner than regular diesel I'll grant you) your mention of nuclear power is interestin . with abundant nuclear power hydrogen cars become more attainable as the power is available for electrolysis

these are possibly one futuer form of transpost but we will need a multitude of replacements for oil power and there will still be a place for internal combustion engines it is easier to acheive high power / torque from these and at least with current and planned future technology lighter for a given output. don't get me wrong I'm not writing off hybrids and we already have some running reliably on out roads but they are unlikely to be the only alternative

What im talking about is not the same as a hybrid at all.

im not going to say any more because if you actually reply to this, you are not going to be bright enough to listen, take a word from your avatar dude.[/QUOTE]

[chevypower]

BMW made a working Hydrogen/gasoline dual fuel 7 Series (Ford have built the tri-flex fuel F series , so it must be feasible. I just want the only two fuels as hydrogen and electric plug in (or a combination of both) let's phase everything else out if possible.