I stopped reading after "nor will its use reduce global warming,
because of the cost and greenhouse gases generated during production"
as the article seemed half baked, regardless of the merits (or not) of
Why? that is, in fact, entirely correct, unless you know a way (other
than nuclear of generating a lot of reliable electrictity from non
Most wiki articles that don't agree with peoples prejudices seem that way.
On Feb 2, 11:35=A0am, The Natural Philosopher
It's the blanket dismissal, without considering all the options, in
the first three paragraphs that makes the rest of the article suspect.
I've got better things to do.
Nothing to do with my prejudices, just sloppy or ill-informed writing.
Actually, although I'm not a wind turbine fan, surely this is one possible
reason to build the things. The reliability of supply is less of an issue
when you have the ability to store energy in the form of hydrogen
In general though, I agree that chasing hydrogen as a cure for all our ills
is akin to joining a gym to get fit. In your heart, you know it's just
displacement activity to stop you doing any *real* exercise that might be
difficult or tiring.
Well, given the way that Hydrogen is made commercially at the moment,
that is perfectly true. In fact, Unit for Unit, using Hydrogen as
currently produced generates rather more greenhouse gases than just
burning the Methane in the first place. The only benefit is that it
moves the CO2 production away from the point of use, which is also what
electric vehicles do.
However, the article is only a book review.
a book available either on bits of dead tree or as a free download
which debunks a lot of global warming myths in an easy to understand way.
No, if ou are talking synthetic fuel, on the premise of cheap
electricity r some otherpower source, you need to look at teh
cost-benefut of hydro CARBON fuel in comparisn.
HydroCARBON fle is a LOT easier to store ad a lot less bulky than hydrogen.
Synthetic diesel and AVJET is probably what we will do finally.
Its only a review of a book. You probably need to read the book..anyway
its several years old, and the hydrogen economy as such is already dead.
Now for the wind economy..
So you reckon to design a plant that can take and use efficiently random
watts off a wind turbine?
Hydrogen is not an avaiable source of primary energy: It has to be made.
If you have to make it, why not make something more useful?
The "hydrogen economy" idea appealed greatly to people who didn't grasp the fact
the H2 is an energy storage medium, not a source of energy. I actually know
someone like this, a guy who was prepared to believe in the car that is powered
by water. In other respects he seems to be of well-above-average intelligence.
On Feb 2, 12:20=A0pm, The Natural Philosopher
Lithium to creat an anhydride this chap is able to utilise the
sunlight available in New Mexico to prepare hydrogen for free. It
takes all night to install it into the tanks in the car.
And of course the powers that be don't want you to do this at home
Meanwhile there is no reason it can't be dissolved in LPG or even
diesel if wanted by the owner. Hydrogen added to a fuel makes a
cleaner faster burn reducing toxic output.
The reason compressed hydrogen isn't used is that it doesn't liquify
easily. I can't see how it can be more dangerous to use than heavier
petroleum gasses though.
Then read up on it and find out. It does liquefy easily, but the result
is a liquid that is not only under very high pressure, but is also
extremely inflammable with a very low flashpoint and has a molecular
size so small that its very very hard to stop it leaking.
Its also very BULKY - too bulky to e.g. be used as aircraft fuel.
Hydrocarbons around the octane or slightly heavier grade pack the most
ergs per cubic wotsit. Rings (benzene et al) are good as well, but