Re: Hydrogen heroes



Josh Hill wrote:

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 19:13:12 GMT, Dan Bloomquist
<public21@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Josh Hill wrote:


On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 15:25:52 GMT, Dan Bloomquist
<public21@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Josh Hill wrote:


On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 22:59:34 -0700, "AKA Gray Asphalt"
<goodidea1950@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


I'm not far along enough to have numbers. Why don't you provide some? I'm still wondering why so many people say that hydrogen is a dangerous item to transport and store and at the same time other people are saying that it is nor more dangerous than gasoline. I could use some numbers.


Suggest you do a search on hydrogen + safety: there are some
informative reports online. The consensus among those who have
actually studied the issue seems to be that, on balance, hydrogen is
no more hazardous than gasoline.

What is the point of this if you don't have a source of hydrogen.

One or another of wind, fission, syngas, and biofuels...

You have talked past the issue of displacing coal and the economic implications before. I'm sure you will continue.


This wasn't a discussion of coal, but of gasoline. I doubt very much
that hydrogen will replace coal, although it may have a role in power
generation at remote locations and peak storage.

Once again. Use those energy sources to displace coal and use that coal for liquid fuels. It is far cheaper and more efficient. You can not simply dismiss coal on your whim. It is most certainly an intranet part of our energy infrastructure.

If, OTOH, you're interested in the cost of hydrogen from various
sources as it compares to gasoline, you'll find an interesting table
here:

http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309091632/html/51.html

Note that when made from natural gas and coal, hydrogen is projected
to cost about the same on a mileage equivalent as gasoline, even with
sequestration, but that it is projected to cost significantly more
when made from biofuels and wind

You should get over trying to preserve your lifestyle of long drives with a personal vehicle run on hydrogen. For the good of the many, electricity would see three times, (at the least), the efficiency of hydrogen if applied to EV commuters. Much cheaper and quicker to implement.

One doesn't
have to be a whiz, though, to see that the effect on our economy of
replacing coal with cleaner sources would be trivial.

No ***. But being pro nuclear doesn't mean it will happen at a pace that will have an impact. Compare cost and possible implementation of CCGT. What would have more real effect?

For one thing,
there is the example of France, which has generated most of its
electricity from nuclear power for years and had a GDP per capita of $
27,700 in 2003, essentially the same as that of its European
neighbors:

http://www.worldfactsandfigures.com/gdp_country_desc.php

Like I said before, in so many words, so what? Are you thick or just like playing at it?

The real questions, I think, are whether the next government will be
honest enough...

Keep on dreaming just like the last time we did this.

Do the same with just two or three cubic feet of hydrogen air, 'at your own risk!' Personally, I wouldn't have anything to do with filling a test bag except remotely. (that's got to hurt)

My eighth grade science teacher did the same with a smaller quantity
of hydrogen in a beaker: made a thump...

In what ratio?

Conversely, a fellow blew up a
townhouse in New York City last week with natural gas.

Yep, fuel air.

Russian
partisans needed only gasoline, a bottle, and a rag to blow up tanks.

You are full of it.

And it seems that there were 129 grain dust explosions in the United
States between 1987 and 1997, half of them involving corn.

Yep, fuel air.

Which is to say that this all seems to me nothing more than anecdote:
most fuels have a risk factor...

And you have yet to come up with a reasonable source of hydrogen much less account for all the wonderful infrastructure and losses.

But that is back to where I came in, isn't it?

As the cost of fuel inputs increases so does the cost of new infrastructure to replace old fuels.

The horse is out of the barn.

--
"We need an energy policy that encourages consumption"
George W. Bush.

"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."
Vice President *** Cheney

.

Quantcast