Let"s hope it makes it.., Full story at http://www.physorg.com/news106920683.html

http://www.physorg.com/news106920683.html

..and some oil company goons don"t squelch the technlogy, as has happened before.

All the evidence shows that hydrogen is a wasteful process requiring significantly more energy to produce, store and deliver than it in turn is capable of producing.

The persistence of those who see hydrogen as a fuel of the future can only be regarded as blindly stubborn and in itself an indulgent and wasteful effort. The time money and energy being wasted should be directed into more promising avenues.

Hydrogen as a potential transport material died with the Hindenburg.

What would you suggest as a replacement fuel for the future? Even the clean alternatives to fossil fuels have problems with 'dirty' batteries and so on.

So, in your opinion the thousands of scientists and technicians who are working in the hidrogen/fuel cells technology, are nothing but fools?

As DanontheMoon says, you must be an oil company goon...

If you want some examples (among hundreds) that you're wrong, just google the word "fuelcells".

Solar power, wind power, even tidal power from the oceans. there are several ways to get power WITHOUT burning something. However, the funding for research into these areas is significantly less than the funding for fossil fuel replacements.
I wish I could find that article that I read about breakthroughs in solar cells...

Guest_paradox, you say that we should be using solar, wind etc for future power.
Well how exactly are you going to get that energy into a car to power it? I don't think sticking huge windmills or solar cells on cars is very practical, not only from an engineering point of view but also the fact that they don't work when it isn't sunny or windy. The energy would have to be stored in batteries and then put in automobiles- the electric car. But these have been to shown to be as equally problematic, if not more so than fuel cell cars, due to them being environmentally unfriendly and having very limited driving capacities, to name but 2 disadvantages.
I truly hope the renewable methods you have mentioned come into play, but they alone are not capable of powering a car. Hydrogen provides a route to this when used with fuel cells. I'm not saying this is the only possible solution, but the reality is that it does have potential and deserves consideration.

However, if you are happy driving round with a windmill or solar cell stuck on your car, then fine, I wish you well in your evening drives on a calm evening.

Oh and the whole point of hydrogen is that it is a fossil fuel replacement, obtained from the most plentiful resource on Earth, water.

Yes. They are either fools, or else they a playing ignorant people like you and Mr. Bush for fools.

Its simple thermodynamics. Hydrogen simply does not produce any net energy. Even an "ideal" process of hydrogen production, plus "ideal" transport mechanisms and "ideal" engines would still only break even in energy production and energy consumption. When I say "ideal" I mean in the scientific sense. That's right, a perfect hydrogen engine will still only produce no more energy than the amount of energy put in to produce the hydrogen to begin with.

Most of the hydrogen on earth is contained in the water and oil anyway, so with hydrogen you would still be producing the same amount of pollution or more pollution, and getting less energy in return.

The only practical use of Hydrogen as an energy source would be fusion.

The tease is that while hydrogen power is not efficient when compared to other processes, it is very suitable for small/remote situations. But ultimately, unless some giant breakthrough occurs, it is not the best alternative worth exploring. And, be careful here - water is plentiful, but not fresh water. In fact, fresh water availability will be our greatest challenge, as we increase, and it doesn't. And it is still expensive desalinating seawater. But a remarkable discovery was made recently. If this is not some sort of quackery or hyperbole, a real energy alternative may be in the works.

**************


Salt water as fuel? Erie man hopes so

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07252/815920-85.stm

I would wonder about quackery, too. If you must continue to bathe the salt solution with RF energy, it seems to be an expensive way to light a congratulatory cigar. Try this in your microwave oven, and compare your electricity bill to the cost of a match....

I think you're somewhat missing the point. Hydrogen is not an energy source, it is an energy carrier. It is a method of getting the energy from A to B. Renewable or non-renewable energy can be used to produce the hydrogen, which is then transported to point of use, primarily mobile applications, road transport. Here it is stored before being used in a fuel cell. Electricity can be stored in a car, but offers nowhere near the same energy density and driving distances as hydrogen. This is a key factor in why hydrogen is being pursued.

Ultimately fossil fuels will run out and an alternative is required. Hydrogen merits due attention, as it has many advantages. I'm not disputing the fact that their are drawbacks but the people working in this area are not fools for thinking this is possible.

Hydrogen produced from renewable resources and used in conjunction with a fuel cell, not only provides a renewable cycle, but also carbon neutral. You would therefore NOT be producing the same amount of pollution while achieving less energy.

I urge you to read more about the hydrogen economy, the facts that you are quoting in your argument are misguided.

I was wondering what you think the best alternative is. I am you may have gathered slightly biased towards hydrogen, but am open to and interested in what you think the best alternative is.

Please note that I'm nowhere near an expert on this, but my present opinion is that the best sources are large moving masses in general - hydroelectric, wind, tidal, traffic, ocean currents, etc. They are always there, always moving; I don't see a universal type of energy source for the world unless we figure out solar much better, or fusion, or even lightning. Otherwise, I think that we need diversification to match the best methods to varying areas. I'm not against hydrogen - it's good enough for the sun - but it's still expensive for us. But I also have faith in technology: I don't doubt the day will come when power shortages will be a thing of the past, there will be so many cheap methods.

Is what's going on here some sort of fusion? Super vibrating sodium atoms are forcing hydrogen atoms to collide creating plasma and helium? Is this possible? Has anyone measured if any neutrons are being released or any helium being created?

To Au Pu, Quantum_ Conundrum Your quite correct that today hydrogen is highly impractical given the reasons you state. But that can change with the required research. We can in theory get hydrogen from all most anything, including coal, which we are of course buried in. I think in time the efficiencies will be there, but it will take quite a while. Getting hydrogen from water by optical splitting, or worse electrolysis is about as inefficient as it gets. As you know the Hindenburg was not powered by hydrogen, they used marine diesels, but used purely as a lifting gas. Ad to that it was covered in a highly combustible fabric that had the inconvenient tendency to "draw" a static atmospheric charge. Not a good idea. Today we are looking very seriously at helium "blimps" for every thing from construction in remote areas, very high altitude radar, and general research, among other things. One nice thing about them is they can remain aloft for many months, minus crew of course. In many functions a crew would be undesirable (If you have a crew up for months, you are really going to need a very reliable porta-potty), and most likely a "game room", etc.

Remember the hysteria about "cold fusion" a few years back? It could not be "proven" because the results could not be independently verified. There is a little known area to many out side the field that when water or other area is exposed to an old fashioned bath ultrasound system very interesting things happen. The water, or other fluid, will experience tremendous but isolated micro-spherical temperatures, I believe on the order of a few million degrees, don't quote the exact tempeture, , but I know the temperature is super-high. My ultrasound machine does not melt down, or provide any electric power, for the most part two reasons: The regions of this heat concerning effected regions are very small, this allows you the ability to "isolate" each other in a wide physical space. At the atomic level, these areas are zillions of miles apart which cools the fluid in the tank. I have used said ultrasound in my work starting after I read a paper on the subject in the early 1980's. Tremendously interesting, (and yes I know I need to get out more...)

This allows one to in some cases replace chemical catalysts with ultrasound induced chemical alterations. Nice as well because a catalyst can be toxic and/or expensive.