When will people learn that hydrogen is safer than petrol/gas

[drakesdoom]

Well a main reason to stick with gas in the short term is energy density. An electric car with batteries will have a shorter range or weigh more as compared to a traditional gas car as of right now.

[DerpenWolf]

Use methane maybe? It's pretty efficient in its carbon to hydrogen ratio (less carbon per hydrogen) and I guess you could stop by the local dairy farm to gas up..

[jwenting]

Not if you have a lot of cheap electricity available. If fusion works, relatively small fusion reactors could provide enough electricity to use electrolysis of water on a commercial scale, producing hydrogen for fuel and oxygen, well, for breathing I suppose. (Iceland already does this to some degree, but mostly because they have access to relatively cheap geothermal energy.)

except that fusion doesn't work (yet?). And requires fission reactors to keep the process running, fission reactors that the same people who're pushing hydrogen as a "clean and abundant fuel made out of water" are trying to get rid of "for the environment".

[Seret]

then comes the question, why not just use gasoline power plants? you can bring the effitiency way up with turbine powered generators, you can better collect and utilize waste heat. there are lots of things you can do in a power plant that you cant do in an engine block.

We do. Or at least we did. Oil-fired power stations were pretty common in the latter half of the 20th century, but they're mostly all in mothballs or being decommissioned now. The price of oil went up to the point where they weren't economical to run, and their emissions are pretty high, which has meant they've been caught by the same legislation shutting down the coal plants. It's one of the dirtiest ways to generate electricity.

Use methane maybe?

That's already a fairly common minority fuel for vehicles, it normally goes under the name CNG (Compressed Natural Gas).

electric makes more sense than hydrogen. its better to leave power generation to the industrial plants where efficiency can be maximized and pollution can be minimized (or eliminated). you also dont need to carry the weight of your power plant around with you everywhere you go. using hydrogen as energy storage is less efficient, it takes a lot of energy to make it, and then you burn it in an internal combustion engine, where you only get about 25% efficiency (and thats after the process of creating and storing the hydrogen).

The two aren't mutually exclusive, hydrogen makes a good energy carrier for electric vehicles. Fuel cells can run on hydrogen, in fact most prototype hydrogen vehicles have used a fuel cell, not a combustion engine.

Edited May 27, 2014 by Seret

[Nuke]

Well a main reason to stick with gas in the short term is energy density. An electric car with batteries will have a shorter range or weigh more as compared to a traditional gas car as of right now.

if i owned an electric car and needed to do a long range trip with the thing, what id do is stick a small gas generator in the trunk for recharging at rest stops. sort of like a makeshift hybrid. when im not driving long ranges, the genny goes in the shed and i would recharge from the grid. most of your driving will be daily commute kinda stuff. you dont take vacations every week, so most of the time the range capability isn't needed.

[phoenix_ca]

except that fusion doesn't work (yet?). And requires fission reactors to keep the process running, fission reactors that the same people who're pushing hydrogen as a "clean and abundant fuel made out of water" are trying to get rid of "for the environment".

Fusion is, with adequate funding (in the millions of dollars, so comparatively little), not all that far off. No, it doesn't work yet, but the problems left are engineering problems, not ones with the physics or the science involved. The science has been pretty much done. http://lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/

But no, the whole point is that they wouldn't need fission reactors to keep running. I'm curious: where did you get that idea?

[Nuke]

emcc gives the cost to develop a 100MW demo polywell reactor at 200m and will only take 4 years. there are no intermediate test reactors that need to be funded, unlike iter which needs to do 20 years of construction+science with the iter reactor before building their demo reactor.

i dont really follow focus fusion (its too far embedded in the green movement, which makes articles on the reactor itself rather unpleasant to read). focus fusion seems to be in a similar boat. thing is if we fund both of them, it will still be cheaper than funding iter. both are relatively small reactors and this leads to much faster build -> test -> analysis cycle.

Edited May 27, 2014 by Nuke

[phoenix_ca]

Assuming both work, use the polywells to retrofit coal and gas power plants, and use the DPF reactors for new reactors in areas without previous power generation infrastructure, as well as distribution of power generation. Kinda a win-win, they both have their niche, and way less expensive than ITER.

[Shivaran]

I don't consider hydrogen safer than gasoline, so I guess I haven't learned yet. Cryogenic cooling, high pressures, high flammability and ability to escape any container make hydrogen more hazardous, to my mind. Both need to be treated with respect, of course.

Not to forget invisible flames...

[SargeRho]

Assuming both work, use the polywells to retrofit coal and gas power plants, and use the DPF reactors for new reactors in areas without previous power generation infrastructure, as well as distribution of power generation. Kinda a win-win, they both have their niche, and way less expensive than ITER.

ITER is a research reactor, your argument is thus kind of invalid. It's not meant to be a commercial powerplant, it's like saying wheeled vehicles are too expensive because Curiosity cost a billion dollars to build.

[lajoswinkler]

And what many people don't know is that the only way to make hydrogen gas on a commercial scale is through the chemical breakdown of natural gas in the presence of water and high temperatures, which process yields large amounts of CO2.

While CO2 is harmless, it's also the boogeyman of the people claiming hydrogen is a clean and abundant fuel supply.

That's called black hydrogen and is an energy source. Hydrogen, in any case and in today's circumstances, is not a cleaner (there is no "clean" source) source or storage of energy.

Thank goodness that people who work on these things have more knowledge than the media which, at best, thinks hydrogen is clean because it combusts into water.

There are serious environmental problems with hydrogen. Not only CO2 from the black hydrogen production, but also ozone depletion. If we were to switch to hydrogen in our cars, the damage to the ozone layer would be... collosal.

[jwenting]

Fusion is, with adequate funding (in the millions of dollars, so comparatively little), not all that far off. No, it doesn't work yet, but the problems left are engineering problems, not ones with the physics or the science involved. The science has been pretty much done. http://lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/

But no, the whole point is that they wouldn't need fission reactors to keep running. I'm curious: where did you get that idea?

fusion is tens of billions of dollars and decades away, not tens of millions. If it were, there'd be hundreds of utility companies around the world funding universities to take that last little hurdle and be the first to market.

And yes, we'd need fusion or another source of power that's dirt cheap, utterly reliable, and available in massive amounts.

[Idobox]

When it comes to Tesla motors, the price needs to come way, way down (like $400/month, not $800-1000/month) before it becomes viable for enough people for it to matter. That or the price of gasoline needs to skyrocket (more), but if it did then the cost of living would be so damned high we'd have other problems.

Tesla motors is working on metal-air batteries. If they manage to build large lithium air or aluminium air batteries, the cost per Ah is going to drop seriously, as well as the weight. And given the money they make, plus the backing of Ellon Musk, they probably fund it well enough to have a good chance.

[Nibb31]

Tesla isn't the only car manufacturer that does electric vehicles. Just about every European maker has one or two electric cars. They are getting popular to the point where two of my co-workers have one, a Renault Zoe and a Nissan Leaf. They are much cheaper to run than petrol/gas/diesel cars for their daily commute, which is 90% of what most people use their car for. Plus, they are fun to drive because electric motors have instant torque.

Edited May 27, 2014 by Nibb31

[Deadpangod3]

In the same vein, when will people learn that nuclear engineer is far more safer than coal/gas/hydrogen.

Say that in the future when power plant workers were ignorant and caused a meltdown and explosion at every nuclear power plant in the world, rendering a majority of the earth uninhabitable due to radiation.

Cause ignorance never dies.

[Red Iron Crown]

Tesla isn't the only car manufacturer that does electric vehicles. Just about every European maker has one or two electric cars. They are getting popular to the point where two of my co-workers have one, a Renault Zoe and a Nissan Leaf. They are much cheaper to run than petrol/gas/diesel cars for their daily commute, which is 90% of what most people use their car for. Plus, they are fun to drive because electric motors have instant torque.

A big part of EV popularity in Europe is the much higher tax rate on petrochemical fuels. If (when?) North America gets serious about reducing fuel usage through taxation, I think you'll see EVs take off here, too.

[Rakaydos]

Say that in the future when power plant workers were ignorant and caused a meltdown and explosion at every nuclear power plant in the world, rendering a majority of the earth uninhabitable due to radiation.

Cause ignorance never dies.

Someone isnt paying attention to 3rd generation reactor designs. A Pebblebed reactor could be completely drained of coolent and the moderator rods removed completely, and thermal expansion alone would be enough to de-critical the reactor. Molten Salt reactors, in the event of a leak, gravity-drain the fuel into a neutron moderating holding tank. None of this required human or computer interatction- they are the definition of "fail-safe" (not immune to failure, but that when it fails, it goes into a safe configuration)

[lajoswinkler]

Someone isnt paying attention to 3rd generation reactor designs. A Pebblebed reactor could be completely drained of coolent and the moderator rods removed completely, and thermal expansion alone would be enough to de-critical the reactor. Molten Salt reactors, in the event of a leak, gravity-drain the fuel into a neutron moderating holding tank. None of this required human or computer interatction- they are the definition of "fail-safe" (not immune to failure, but that when it fails, it goes into a safe configuration)

I think you mean 4th generation?

But yes, there are lots of modern failsafe designs even with PWRs and BWRs, CANDU.

Here's a couple of clips to show just how secure these things are today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vggzl9OngaM

Edited May 29, 2014 by lajoswinkler
added one more video

[Skyler4856]

Hydrogen leaks with ease.

[cantab]

A fair point actually. A slow leak won't be a fire/explosion hazard, since the gas will just dissipate. It might not even be that much of a problem in general use. But it will certainly be an issue if you leave your hydrogen-powered car in a garage for a few months then find it won't start because all the fuel has leaked out. Especially as you can't put hydrogen in a jerry can, so you'd probably have to either tow the car to a hydrogen station or call out a breakdown service.

[Kryten]

A petrol-powered car would be equally useless after being left that long, due to the fractions in the fuel separating.

[phoenix_ca]

A fair point actually. A slow leak won't be a fire/explosion hazard, since the gas will just dissipate. It might not even be that much of a problem in general use. But it will certainly be an issue if you leave your hydrogen-powered car in a garage for a few months then find it won't start because all the fuel has leaked out. Especially as you can't put hydrogen in a jerry can, so you'd probably have to either tow the car to a hydrogen station or call out a breakdown service.

I'm going to start sounding like a broken record soon.

There are other ways of storing hydrogen:

See also:

Reading:

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/newsreleases/2009/june/feather-fibers-fluff-up-hydrogen-storage-capacity.html

http://cleantechnica.com/2009/06/24/hydrogen-fuel-tanks-made-from-chicken-feathers-could-save-55-million/

I'm pretty sure there's no-one left in the industry that's actually considering sticking pressurized hydrogen into cars. It's so wildly impractical as to be absurd.

I think you mean 4th generation?

But yes, there are lots of modern failsafe designs even with PWRs and BWRs, CANDU.

Here's a couple of clips to show just how secure these things are today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vggzl9OngaM

I kinda have a chuckle whenever people here think that reactors are dangerous. Our CANDU designs have always been remarkably robust and safe (and generally easier to fuel because they can use...well pretty much any form of uranium), and are only getting more so. Wish we had the will to just build them all over the country and be done with it. Leave the dirty tar sands for the 'mericans.

Edited May 30, 2014 by phoenix_ca

[Nuke]

fusion is tens of billions of dollars and decades away, not tens of millions. If it were, there'd be hundreds of utility companies around the world funding universities to take that last little hurdle and be the first to market.

And yes, we'd need fusion or another source of power that's dirt cheap, utterly reliable, and available in massive amounts.

this is what i like to call the iter yardstick. you take a well understood design, the tokamak, which is also one of the most complicated and expensive reactors to construct. then you create a plan for a prototype reactor that will take a 50 year 2-stage multi billion dollar research program which does not result in a commercial design, and even if it does it will be so expensive that no one could afford to build one. then you use this as the yardstick by which to measure every other reactor concept. this just perpetuates that silly notion that fusion is always 50 years away. fusion is however many years away it is.

even though i think the results will actually work, i dont think its the best use of research funds because the end result is less economically desirable than fission plants that we already know how to build. id rather fund all the small fusion concepts that show promise (dont fund quack science) and economic feasibility, than stick all my eggs into one very expensive basket.

[magnemoe]

A petrol-powered car would be equally useless after being left that long, due to the fractions in the fuel separating.

Lawnmowers, outboard engines and farm machinery tend to be stored half the year then just started again.

[Red Iron Crown]

I'm going to start sounding like a broken record soon.

There are other ways of storing hydrogen:

See also:

Reading:

http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/newsreleases/2009/june/feather-fibers-fluff-up-hydrogen-storage-capacity.html

http://cleantechnica.com/2009/06/24/hydrogen-fuel-tanks-made-from-chicken-feathers-could-save-55-million/

I'm pretty sure there's no-one left in the industry that's actually considering sticking pressurized hydrogen into cars. It's so wildly impractical as to be absurd.

Even if you can safely store it in a vehicle, it still needs to be converted to useful mechanical energy. A heat engine is unlikely to recover more than 30% or so of the energy stored in it. Even a fuel cell is only going to be 60% efficient or so. Battery technology is getting awfully close to "good enough" for most personal transportation scenarios and doesn't involve that waste.