I am no fan of hydrogen, but I doubt that hydrogen tankage in a vehicle would prove to be any more dangerous than gasoline tankage. In fact, there would be far more energy in the same size tank of gasoline, so therefore more chance of mayhem when things go wrong.
Vaughn
Molecule for molecule, H2 gives 286 kJ/mol, or 2 H2 gives 572 kJ/mol. Carbon gives 393.5 kJ/mol, which is going to be per atom, but the form is not specified (it takes a good bit of activation energy to burn graphite or diamond). Methane, CH4, gives 889 kJ/mol (which is 76.5 kJ/mol less than the sum of its parts, so evidently methane has 76.5 kJ/mol total, or 19.1 kJ/mol binding energy per C-H bond, relative to H2 bonding). Evidently about 5/8ths of the energy of methane is from hydrogen. Carbon's still pretty toasty though.
Nitrogen would be even better, if it were possible to make ammonium hydride ([NH4+] [H-], a salt). Alas, four seems to be about as many hydrogens as can be bonded onto anything (metal hydrides I think only manage a few hydrogen atoms per metal atom).
Tim
-- Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk. Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms
It's the pressure that's a concern. Way back when in the Netherlands I drove a propane-powered car on occasion and there were places where these were not allowed to pass through and places where you weren't allowed to park it.
Yes :-(
But nuclear has one huge problem, the final storage. Throwing it all into some underground cavity ain't so cool.
-- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
Maybe I should call it ME-thane.
John
Not only that, the carbon itself can be used. So 100% utilization of the atoms for energy, too. That beautifully summarizes the problem posed in replacing liquid hydrocarbons for individual use. There is nothing better by way of energy per unit volume, energy per unit mass, demonstrated large-scale safety, easy delivery and convenience, etc. And much money has already been invested into a system that has consistently worked to serve entire a civilization-scale system, too, that doesn't need to be re-spent.
It's not going to be easy finding a replacement way of storing energy that comes even somewhat close, Which makes the necessity of ceasing the use of existing fossil fuels nearly impossible to achieve. Their energy is essentially free. By itself, that alone makes holding off nearly impossible. But just to make it even harder, the way much of the energy is stored is just about as good as it gets in life. It's compact and convenient, besides being free to the producers. Nothing has any chance competing with that.
Jon
I don't think that will fly, these days. Carbon is politically incorrect, apparently because it leaves footprints. Maybe if you call it hydrogenated charcoal ? :-)
Ed
That reminds me, we've got beans in the house this week. Lovely stuff, you take a can or two of Busch's Baked Beans, add onions, more bacon, and this time, some jalapenos just to be interesting.
Tim
-- Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk. Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms
Liberals and Puritanicals have a lot in common.
It's apparently just human nature to worry about the downside of anything good or fun or useful... especially now that the true needs of food, shelter, and clothing have long since been met.
Hey John... on your downstairs "liquids only" toilet... if one wants a below-street-level toilet that accepts all, um, "deposits," essentially do you just have to have a sump that's really a small septic tank and keep it filled with bacteria to break down the solids and just pump out the liquids when they're through? Or is it just untenable?
Jim Wilkins wrote in news:9a002514-f0ce-4722-bffb- snipped-for-privacy@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
The ratonal qualities of an idea aren't altered by its proponents or detractors - all that those change is one's *emotionally-colored perception* of the idea's qualities.
We could call gasoline "oxygen-free soda water".
Best regards, Spehro Pefhany
-- "it\'s the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
Yes, but carbohydrates are so much easier to grow, and even easier to subsidize. Hence their popularity.
Grins, James Arthur
(in part)
The biggest obstance I have heard of to dumping it into a salt dome is some requirement to monitor it. Probably required by antinuker obstructionists who don't want the waste disposal issue solved.
Of course, if the waste was going someplace temporary, we need to monitor it. But salt domes have an impressive rate of holding petroleum for a couple hundred million years. Nuclear waste won't go much farther if it's dry, and especially if it's vitrified.
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
As long as we are vetting all the various length hydrocarbon chains for potential use as liquid or gaseous transportation fuel, we should analyze/discuss butane and/or butanol, which is a room temperature liquid like gasoline, and doesnt have to be compressed like propane. Any reason you couldnt pump a tank full of butanol into an E85 flex fule vehicle?
Some facts and figures here
martin
Hydrogen is a potential good way of transporting energy if a lot of technical difficulties are solved first. It will take quite some time, and by then we may have enough clean energy sources to make it viable. It would enable us to use energy without thinking too much about potential consequenses.
In the meantime, i think methane should be explored more. It is easy to produce in large quantities, and it can be made from scrap. If you take your average garden-cuttings and add a litle cow-manure, you got the process running.
Methane can be made into methanol, with pretty much the same qualities as ethanol. (Do not know if this is an energy intensive process though.) or you may just compress it - add a litle prophane, and use it in the same way as natural gas.
-- SEE YA !!! Trygve Lillefosse AKA - Malawi, The Fisher King
Says depending on the "carbon credits" nuclear may be free. I bet that'll lead to some hissy fits among warmingists.
-- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
We still need to monitor it. Nuclear waste could some day become an item that is very desired by the more shady elements of society.
-- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
You are correct in that hydrocarbons contain a lot of energy compared to volume/weight. But remember that ICE engines do not get to use all that potential energy for movement.
If you compare to electricity, or a source that produces electricity efficiently, you get a better deal with a energy to weight/volume of
1/3. You also get other advantages, like smaller engine size/weight and very low transmission-loss that gives even better figures. etc.In other words, it is not the potential energy density that is most interesting, but the desity of "usable energy".
-- SEE YA !!! Trygve Lillefosse AKA - Malawi, The Fisher King
He'll be out of office in November
martin
Carbon credits sound like a Big Monster (tm) Scam, full of truthyness and dodgy dealing.
I bet a vitrifed haggis that less than 10% actually exist, and most are just on paper, for bookeeping purposes and of course, for
martin
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.