damage from ethanol?

Page 3 of 7  
snipped-for-privacy@sbcglobal.net wrote:

No, it's because some of us understand basic chemistry. A water molecule is made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. It takes exactly as much energy to seperate the two hydrogen atoms from the oxygen as you get when you put them back together again by combustion. It's like pushing a car up a hill, then letting it roll down the other side. There is no free lunch.
The above is what some of us are referring to when we say a lot of this alternative enegry talk is just political charged rhetoric, rather than fact.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There are other issues with Hydrogen. Remember the Zeppelin?
S
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
mrsgator88 wrote:

Uh, I don't think anyone is advocating filling up a volume with 7 million cubic feet of hydrogen.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Bud wrote:

Some are!!! Liquid Hydrogen filling stations OR High pressure hydrogen gaseous state filling stations.
Prototypes have been, may still be, on the road in a few cities.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


And that's more dangerous than BBQ tank refilling stations?
In some ways propane is more dangerous, because it's heavier than air, and flows along the ground almost like water seeking low points.
There have been a number of propane rail car accidents where the propane flowed downhill for quite a distance before it encountered something that ignited it. That wouldn't happen with hydrogen.
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It\'s not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, I was thinking about the hydrogen car being in a collision with a semi. She'd be blowed up REAL good. With proprane, I only thought "how much can happen between the hardware store and my house". Propane car rail accidents never occurred to me.
S
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


You do know that there are propane-powered cars, don't you?

They do to me, because my grandfather was transportation manager for a very large oil company (since morphed twice), and he got to supervise the results as well as interact with his peers in industry/government on how to avoid the problems repeating themselves.
There was a major accident back I think in the late 50's/early 60's where a propane derailment just north of Toronto seemed to be just fine - no fire, everything seemed secure.
Hours later, while they were trying to assess/extricate stuff, a safety OP valve on one car popped, and the propane flowed downhill almost half a mile before encountering an ignition source. Then flashed back to the derailment site... Which happened to be adjacent to a fuel storage area... It didn't all go up, but it wasn't nice at all. Fortunately, there was no homes near it.
[This isn't the "great Mississauga train derailment" which was many years later, it had propane, and it burned reasonably innocuously - it was spectacular because they had to evacuate something like 200,000 people for a couple days. The thing they were scared of was the chlorine cars letting loose... No, it wasn't my grandfather's company ;-)]
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It\'s not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The biggest problem is storing enough hydrogen to have a practical range,next would be refilling the "tank". Hydrogen does not have the stored energy that gasoline has.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@sbcglobal.net wrote:

Sure we do. There has been research for 50 years on using it for vehicles. Nuclear plants to make Hydrogen from water. It may well be the fuel of the future.
http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Hydrogen_from_Water
http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rich256 wrote:

The problem is that most people think you can just get hydrogen from water. You are correct that electrolysis is one of the ways it can be generated. In that case, the hydrogen is best viewed as a transport vehicle for the energy. The nuke is the real source of the energy, not the water. And the problem is most of the people running around saying water is the answer, don't realize this. They think you just get the hydrogen out of the water by some miracle process. And these same people won't let anyone build a nuke in this country anyway. Until that is solved, hydrogen is a myth. In fact, if you just built the nukes, they could go a long way to helping even without getting to the hydrogen for fuel stage.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

You don't have to get Hydrogen from water; there's an easier (much easier) and cheaper way to get Hydrogen.
You can get all the Hydrogen you want from oil !
No... wait....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

It usually comes from natural gas, which is a pretty good fuel, just the way it comes out of the ground.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nukes will have a lot better chance when the operators take responsibility for the risks and waste issues. As long as they are dependent on waivers of responsibility from the govenrment to be able to operate the plants, I don't trust them, and I certainly don't want to finance their profits by paying for waste disposal and assuming the risk myself that they will contaminate my environment.
Bob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob wrote:

More double speak and an example of why we are where we are. You aren't "financing their profits by paying for waste disposal", any more than you are when you pay to have your trash taken away, or to have tires disposed of at an auto center. The waste disposal is being paid for by the nuclear industry and the power is still very competitively priced. The waste would already be at it's permanent resting place if it were not for environmental obstructionists who rather deal in pipe dreams than reality.
Even the socialist French get two thirds of their electric power from nuclear. We should be pursuing multiple solutions to our energy sources and nothing should be off the table. Everything has risks and trade offs. If someone came up with the idea of airplanes today, guys like you would tell us we shouldn't do it, cause a plane might crash in a city. Yet, we live with that and other similar risks every day.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, strictly speaking, using hydrogen for energy-storage would probably help reduce pollution even if you burnt the same gasoline to generate the hydrogen as you normally would have to move the cars. It's a whole lot easier to tune/filter/catalyze one big-ass plant than 100,000 cars. Even counting a 30% loss in the conversion process.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Importing sunshine- in effect, that's what we'd be doing buying Brazilian ethanol. They have more of it than we do, though I doubt enough to supply more than a fraction of our needs. Yes, their ETOH is distilled from sugarcane waste, a pretty efficient system, unlike our corn subsidy /campaign cash based system. Perhaps we could help things by eliminating sugar quotas/ corn sweetener subsidies, letting more countries produce sugarcane/ethanol. Of course there is no free lunch- there is an impact to distilling biomass instead of returning it to soil. As for nuclear, I have generally been opposed, but willing to reconsider. However, I do think liability limits are a huge subsidy of dubious merit, as is waste disposal non-system we are still wrangling over. Who would want it in their backyard? These isotopes will be dangerous for many generations. I do think it is reasonable to pass some risks on to following generations, but are we so confident in the future integrity of our civilization to pass management of this risk to the future? I think that's a rather reasonable question. Fusion may yet pan out, and other technologies will undoubtedly improve, such as PV, but I think the one incontestable central strategy which multiplies the contributions of all others is conservation/efficiency. We have already demonstrated the force of this by those improvements which have made energy costs about 50% less per unit gdp than 30 years ago. Granted, some of the low hanging fruit has already been picked, but tech has progressed, and I believe we could quite easily repeat that feat in the next generation. I've read we are running some 20 large power plants just to keep warm our cell phone chargers and their kin- all those adapters for modern devices. More efficient design- available today- could eliminate 90% of that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If you're willing to pay me $250,000, then not only can you store it in my back yard, you can store it in my basement. I want to move to someplace at least 200' above sea-level, anyway.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm sure your neighbors don't have any problem with that. And that you don't care.
Bob
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nuke is not the only source of energy for hydrogen separation, just the cheapest for today's technology. Solar hydrogen, given proper development, will be clean and cheaper. But it will never get the chance if we take the fast route and jump to nukes.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com wrote:

No, nukes aren't the only source of energy for hydrogen. We could continue to make it out of natural gas, where most of it comes from today. But Dooh! What good is that, we could just burn the natural gas! Or we could use oil, but same problem. Or hydroelectric plants, but just about all the easy ones have been built and there are serious environmental consequences to building more. (As in the usual pie in the sky, free lunch environmentalists will object to all of them and block it) That's why nuke is the most obvious source to generate the hydrogen. It's here and cost effective.
As for solar, it's an option, but a long way from reality. Right now you can install a system for your house for $60K. Only problem is, it's an economic disaster, even at today's energy prices and no credible experts have any way to dramatically reduce the cost.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.