(Following are a few comments on the forst two pages of this string. If /when I get a chance, I'll continue.)
(Quote - Janitor: If it gets to where the average citizen of India and China lives the middle-class lifestyle of a typical Westerner, I shudder to think what our air and water may become.)
I agree, but barring some kind of global catastrophe, I think it is inevitable, and they have as much right to the "good life" as we do. We nooe do exert more effort to finding our way around the problem before it becomes a disaster.
(Quote russ_watters: Yeah, but there is of course a difference - an important one. For oil/coal the sun and Earth already did 99% of the work to make it - with H2, we have to do all of the work to make it.)
Not really true! When the 'cracking' processes, etc, and other refining and environmental costs are taken into consideration, the production effort that goes into gasoline is considerable (unless you're lumping diesel fuel into that equation - - and it has its environmental problems too). The fact that we're only starting to look seriously at hydrogen derivation doesn't mean that it won't be cheaper in the near future (in fact there are some promising trends). The question here is "Who will be the 'winners' and who will be the 'losers' among the industry groups? In other words, who is going to fight this change 'to the death' to avoid losing their priviledged income sources?
(Quote Ivan Seeking: We don't do the work; nature does by solar powered chemical, biological, or even chemically powered mechanisms such as chemosynthesis. The same for fossil fuels.
Look guys, no one argues that H2 must be produced. AFAWK, we have no ready made reserves for H2 available as we do fossil fuels.)
It is true that hydrogen must be separated from its source compounds, but it is here and it is very, very plentiful (The oceans are full of it as are all of our hydrocarbon sources - there's nothing more abundant in the universe, and only a few elements here on earth). The question is that of 'extracting it' and at least, we don't have to drill down miles to get it in many cases. We also must remember that where "crude oil" comes in nature, gasoline does not; it still must be refined out, and that isn't free. The only real advantage to gasoline Today is the fact that its production infrastructure is 'in place', though not nearly to the level needed to meet Tomorrow's fuel needs, so why not make the 'new infrastructure' something else?
(Quote russ_watters: Politicians (the people driving the issue) for the most part completely ignore the issue of manufacturing the hydrogen. And that's a dealbreaker for the whole idea.)
Maybe not! There appear to be a few promising developments on the horizon - - if the vested interests don't succeed in killing them, and if the politicians are serious and not just playing politics as usual.)
(Quote Cliff_J: And I think this is the main stumbling block/selling point beyond the glassy eyed notion that H2 can work only with exclusive fuel cells produced by hand in the lab. The ICE is here to stay short-term, and the additional costs to equip/retrofit to FFVs that could handle H2 would be pretty insignificant long-term.)
I agree totally with this
(Quote Cliff_J: It'd be interesting to see which oil distribution companies make the journey or completely miss the target like the number of ice-box manufacturers and ice processing companies who embraced the refridgerator. (zero))
I think that they (almost) all will. It's of little consequence to them in the long run (for the most part) whether they make their profits from petroleum or hydrogen. The ones to watch are the drillers, the additive producers, the tanker companies and Opec. They'll fight to the death.
(Quote russ_watters: That would be a deal-breaker due to H2's efficiency as a storage medium when you recover the energy in an ICE vs fuel cells (30% vs 90%). I don't think there is any question that fuel cells can be mass produced - that they haven't is simply a matter of demand.)
I disagree. The practical efficiency of production model" fuel cells will not be nearly as high as the proponents would have us believe. Also the efficiency of the ICE need not be as low as are the present ones. The old Otto cycle is probably the lowest in efficiency of them all, but hangs on because it is so cheap to produce (mainly because of a century of experience). What we need to do is look at the 'continuous burn' engines rather than the, what I call 'pop pop' types. The continuous burn types are usually simpler, more efficient (once maturely developed), much longer lasting (a possible drawback to the producers, who want you coming back for more) and virtually always much cleaner. The most obvious of such types are the Brayton Cycle engines. A couple of intriguing developments of this type are the following:
http://www.almturbine.com/
http://www.starrotor.com/indexflash.htm
I'm also not so sure that the production fuel cell can be produced economically. Only time will answer that. I am relatively sure that in won't be soon (less than 15 years). We've been working on it for over 30 years now. We can all hope, but there are no guarantees.
(Quote Ivan Seeking: This would also mean that the transportation infrastucture for power, such as oil tankers, can eventually be [mostly] dismantled. Power can be produced semi-locally using the best options for each region.
National security benefits greatly. The political and economic value of energy autonomy is hard to even imagine.
The environmental benefits are obvious and vast.
Health benefits can be estimated but I don't have that information readily available. What is the health benefit, for example, in dollars, in eliminating fossil fuel powered vehicles?)
These alone would make hydrogen worth while.
