kurupetos wrote:cyprusgrump wrote:But it is still only a storage solution… don’t be fooled into thinking it is an amazing low pollution fuel.
Take all your new production methods (wind, solar, geothermal, etc.) and think charging batteries… same thing.
You can’t turn ‘x’ amount of energy into ‘x’ x 2 or more by just converting it into another form… it can’t be done.
Look more deeply into the political motives for promoting fuels like Hydrogen and see the real truth behind it all…
Same as Bio fuels – the saviour of us all? I said years ago that bio fuels wouldn’t provide an alternative solution to oil because you would need vast acres of land currently producing food to ‘grow’ the fuel. Guess what, bio fuel production has rocketed and now there is a shortage of corn for food…
Cygrump,
The world is not moving towards hydrogen because of fashion but because of fossil fuel shortage. New alternative methods power engines have to be developed now to substitute conventional engines. As long as energy is concerned: Electrolysis is the traditional method that can convert water to hydrogen and oxygen. No question about it. The renewable energy sources can provide the kinetic energy needed for the aforementioned chemical reaction. Simply as that. You can also produce electric energy directly from renewables with wind turbines, etc. Countries like the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and others are planning to produce half their energy from renewable energy sources until 2020. Right now they are around 18%. Iceland is around there already! Cyprus is around 0.1%.
I agree that biofuels are not a real alternative, but that is not what I am talking about.
We should not wait to do something when a barrell of oil costs 1000 US Dollars (or more)!
Okay, I think you’ve still missed the point here…
The problem is that you need huge amounts of energy to change water into Hydrogen and Oxygen with electrolysis…
So while your theory of renewable energy sources (wind, etc.) producing a clean burning fuel (Hydrogen) sounds a perfect solution, the practicality is that you’d have to cover the entire planet with wind farms to provide a replacement for oil. Think of how many millions of barrels of oil are consumed every day and the vast amount of energy that would be required to produce the equivalent amount of Hydrogen from water…
When politicians say they are going to produce ‘half their energy from renewable sources’, they refer always to their electricity consumption, not to the usage of oil used in transport and aviation. It follows therefore that to replace oil with Hydrogen they are not even scratching the surface in the use of renewable sources…
The reason that I used bio fuels as an example was that they too are promoted as a ‘solution’ to the problem of pollution whereas in fact it is clear that you can’t grow enough bio fuel to make an impact without people on the planet starving through lack of food – which is now happening and why gain prices are sky high.
The thing that really annoys me is stuff like this: -
Boeing web site wrote:A fuel cell is an electrochemical device that converts hydrogen directly into electricity and heat without combustion. Fuel cells are emission-free and quieter than hydrocarbon fuel-powered engines. They save fuel and are cleaner for the environment.
That is from the Boeing web site that you provided a link to. While factual, it doesn’t mention that extra energy was used to produce the Hydrogen in the first place…
Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not against the use of hydrogen per se, but we have to see it for what it is – a method of storing electricity, not a fuel source that can be ‘mined’ in some way or pumped out of the ground like oil because it isn’t… The use of Hydrogen by politicians as a panacea for our energy problems only hides the real issue.
We need a real debate on energy usage and not platitudes from politicians. The real debate will cause us to think about our lifestyles and we will be forced to either change them and consume less energy, accept the (inevitable in my view) need to reduce the world population or embrace nuclear energy – and soon! For with a commitment to nuclear power you could produce the electricity that we need, replace oil and embrace clean burning Hydrogen where appropriate. But we can’t now…
Lastly, I should point out of course that we still have plenty of oil left and at $100 per barrel vast reserves that were previously uneconomic to extract become viable.
