Forum Post: Peace Health Prosperity = Liquid Hydrogen? Implementation can go as fast or as slow as we choose to make it happen.
Posted 11 years ago on Nov. 28, 2012, 10:56 a.m. EST by DKAtoday
(33802)
from Coon Rapids, MN
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
We The People Know That We need to get off of fossil fuel
You Have Seen Me Say This Before - And I will Continue To Do So
PEOPLE - Support the growth of Green Energy ( Power & Fuel ) - Call for Implementation of Green Energy power & fuel technology.
Demand a change over from fossil power & fuel.
Demand the end of fossil fuel subsidies - DEMAND THE SUBSIDIES BE SWITCHED OVER TO SUPPORTING THE GROWTH OF GREEN TECHNOLOGY/INDUSTRY.
Start in fossil fuel industry country - get those workers good paying green technology jobs - Make The Change-Over Now.
End the reason for strife here at home and also around the world.
Green Power and Fuel technology industry implementation and support for such - is a HUGE ISSUE FOR THE GOOD OF THE PEOPLE AND THE WORLD. ( Economy Prosperity PEACE HEALTH )
BTW - In case you were not aware - knocking out the use of fossil fuel - would also drive down the need for the military industrial complex and the needless loss of life around the world ( our lives and their lives ).
So fossil fuel and green tech are very central issues tied to the health of society ( USA & World) economic health - environmental health.
IMO - Liquid Hydrogen is Key to being clean in power generation and for providing transportation as well as heating and cooking FUEL
We can not take a wait and see attitude about our environment. I responded to another post about demanding electric cars - only I think we would be much further ahead of the game to switch over from fossil fuel use to using liquid hydrogen in all forms of transportation or work vehicle - anything that currently uses an internal combustion engine - even for powering generators for producing electricity.
I had run across a report on the use of liquid hydrogen for use in fueling airplanes/jets and figured that this would be used in a bottle storage/delivery system - the same as using bottled liquid propane or natural gas. The hang-up till now has always been the pursuit of a fuel cell - I mean WTF(?) why do we need to use a fuel cell if we can just use a bottle same as for propane? Gas stations already refill propane cylinders/bottles why the hell couldn't they do the same for liquid hydrogen? It is the same process.
As for the needed changes in the manufacturing of transportation - it would be absolutely minimal even to the point of upgrading most gasoline burners on the road today. There are already hybrid vehicles which use liquid propane as well as gasoline and all that is needed is a flick of a switch on the dashboard to switch from the propane to the gasoline tank and back again. It just requires an upgrade to the carburation and the mounting of a liquid hydrogen cylinder/bottle in the same manner as with the propane bottle. Diesel would be a bit tougher in that the oil would need a separate delivery to the mixing point going into the cylinders.
As Liquid Hydrogen production ramps up to meet the demand - gasoline can be removed from the process - it could perhaps be removed quicker by using a hybrid liquid propane ( or methane ? - don't need to frack for methane - just ferment garbage or plant material "leaves grass etc" waste - sewer gas is methane ) and liquid hydrogen set-up.
High volume liquid hydrogen storage and delivery already exists as "Air Products company" delivers or delivered to NASA what they needed for launches.
Liquid hydrogen stove/oven/furnace?????
Delivery could use the existing natural gas pipelines as well as residential ( individual dwelling supply tanks )????
Residential switch over could be addressed through the power utilities - sections could be targeted for upgrade - stove oven furnace upgrade kits to handle liquid hydrogen could be installed by the power utilities - cost for the kit and installation could be put on the monthly bill at say a payoff of 5.00 mnth for the upgrade.
Our Power Infrastructure ( generation & delivery ) is old and weak and needs an on-going upgrade/renewal anyway - Let's See That It Gets Done Right!
NASA: alternative fuels for aviation | Energy Bulletin
Excerpt: Other alternative fuels result in airplane performance penalties. For example, liquid hydrogen (LH2) not only presents very substantial airport infrastructure and airplane design issues, but because of the need for heavy fuel tanks, a short-range airplane would experience a 28 percent decrease in energy efficiency while on a 500-nautical-mile (nmi) mission. However, because airplanes need to carry much more fuel for a long range flight, and Liquid Hydrogen (LH2) fuel is quite lightweight the lighter takeoff weight of the airplane results in an energy efficiency loss of only 2 percent while on a 3,000-nm mission.
On High Volume Liquid Hydrogen:
Safetygram #9 for Liquid Hydrogen - Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. www.airproducts.com/~/media/Files/PDF/.../safetygram-9.pdf File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View Liquid hydrogen is used in large volumes in the ... specially trained employees of the liquid hydrogen supplier .... may be vented and might collect should be ...
I believe the transition to hydrogen fuel is inevitable, but how do you propose to produce the energy that is necessary to create it? Solar or wind? My guess is that only nuclear energy is dense enough to produce hydrogen on the scale that would be needed.
Talk to "Air Products" ( the company ) they supplied high volumes of liquid hydrogen to NASA - and no - no nuclear reactor involved.
In "Hydrogen Basics":
http://www.airproducts.com/industries/energy/power/power-generation/hydrogen-basics.aspx
Air Products explains:
How is Hydrogen Produced?
The reforming of natural gas by applying heat is currently the most economical process for producing hydrogen.
Electrolysis produces hydrogen by using an electrical current to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen.
However, according to:
Hydrogen from Nuclear Power: http://larouchepac.com/node/14719
while "reforming of natural gas by applying heat is currently the most economical process for producing hydrogen"...
"There are drawbacks to production processes using fossil fuels...
Not only are resource reserves of fossil fuels limited, but as environmental regulations intensify in the future, it will be necessary to take measures, such as carbon capture and storage, or sequestration, to reduce CO2 emissions. As for renewable energies like wind and solar, they are inherently dilute, so their hydrogen production capacity is naturally limited."
Therefore:
"...nuclear hydrogen, because of its characteristics, will be expected to supply the base load.
Many processes have been proposed for production of hydrogen using nuclear energy. The leading processes presently under research and development are:
• electrolysis of water by nuclear electricity, • high temperature electrolysis of steam by nuclear electricity and heat, • thermo-chemical splitting of water by nuclear heat, and • nuclear-heated steam reforming of natural gas, or other hydrocarbons.
The merits of using nuclear energy for hydrogen production are that there is no CO2 emission, a sustainable bulk supply capability, and a high energy density, facilitating energy security. These advantages also apply to using nuclear energy for electricity generation."
we don't even need to wait for hydrogen to transition to autonomy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_building
Look at the hopewellproject.org site. This would be a more expensive retro-fit for existing buildings - but yes it is possible right now.
Exactly how would we go about changing engines to run on liquid hydrogen and gas pumps. How much money would it cost to completely change the factories to make liquid hydrogen engines and it gas powered ones.
It is no different than running on propane and there are hybrids that switch between burning gasoline and burning propane by flipping a switch on the dashboard of the vehicle ( right now and since back in the early 80's ) - this closes the gasoline valve and opens the propane valve. The only thing that changed was the fuel feed into the carburation for the engine - the fuel feed change also handled the mixture set-up. So basically you are looking at adding a hydrogen tank and modifying or replacing the carburation fixture ( this includes fuel injection - as that is just a different form of carburation ) This would also include a valve control if you wanted to change between types of fuel being burned - like burning either methane and hydrogen ( switch between the two ) or propane and hydrogen ( same thing ) or gasoline and hydrogen ( again just a matter of closing one fuel line and opening the other ) and This would only be a consideration until full hydrogen production was reached to meet demand. Then you would only ever burn hydrogen. So figure the price of a hydrogen tank the fuel line to the carb and either a new carburetor or a modified one.
What if people don't want to do that?
Eventually the cars on the road will be taken out of service - junked - by their current owner and replaced with something else. If new cars trucks whatever are required to make the changeover - pretty soon they will be the only ones on the road - just through normal replacement - but when that happens ( or sooner ) gasoline may well be UN-available ( taken off the market ). So problem solved - depending on cost to fill up with hydrogen - cost savings could be an incentive to make a modification to your car truck boat plane train etc.
That is pretty awesome, I never really understood how we would change the infrastructure to do this but now I do.
The fossil fuel industry does not want you to know/understand.
I choose fast implementation! Xfer fossil fuel subsidies to greentech!
Liquid Hydrogen implementation could give us a HUGE/Synergistic jump forward on eliminating carbon green house gasses as well as fossil fuel pollution and give employment - job creation - industry creation - economic recovery that same synergistic growth.
YES! I'm with you.
Wow did ya see how quick Richard comments were removed? The 1st one didn't even seem against the rules. I mean I'm glad, but perplexed.
Wow - thanks for the heads up - RKG putting down my post(?) - perhaps the post has a secret admirer(?) - I have no problem with that as it is a vital issue for our world ( IMO ).
Agreed.
You dont understand the process. It wont replace hydrocarbon energy.
[Removed]
Tweeted
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
If you think this post's proposal has real potential = Please Share/Circulate.
As This Effort will take The People United To Get It Going And Get It Done!
WORLD WIDE IMPLEMENTATION - Is The Final Goal
"The hang-up till now has always been the pursuit of a fuel cell - I mean WTF(?) why do we need to use a fuel cell if we can just use a bottle same as for propane? Gas stations already refill propane cylinders/bottles why the hell couldn't they do the same for liquid hydrogen? It is the same process."
SCIENCE-
First of all-there is a difference between a GAS and a LIQUID and I think you are confusing liquid hydrogen with hydrogen gas as if they are interchangeable. They are NOT.
The propane tanks you see at gas stations-hold a GAS-not a liquid. Current car engines run on a liquid called petroleum, not an actual "gas" even though we call it gas. Hydrogen GAS is a carrier of energy (like a battery)-not a source of energy (like petroleum or coal) thus a fuel cell must be present to carry the converted energy.
Liquid hydrogen forms when hydrogen is compressed only remains a liquid as long as it's kept at sub zero temperatures. In it's gaseous form, it it causes steel and to corrode and become brittle so metal containers, car parts, pipelines, and storage containers either have to be made from something else OR must be coated to withstand the corrosion. In it's sub zero liquid form, it's even worse. You may have seen demonstrations where liquid hydrogen is sprayed on something, or something is dunked into liquid hydrogen and becomes so brittle that it shatters??? NOT a good idea for cars as it would require an incredibly intense cooling system AND in both forms it's also extremely explosive.
HOW the GAS form of hydrogen is made-
"There are many concerns regarding the environmental effects of the manufacture of hydrogen. Hydrogen is made either by electrolysis of water, or by fossil fuel reforming. Reforming a fossil fuel leads to a higher emissions of carbon dioxide compared with direct use of the fossil fuel in an internal combustion engine. Similarly, if hydrogen is produced by electrolysis from fossil-fuel powered generators, increased carbon dioxide is emitted in comparison with direct use of the fossil fuel."
"Using renewable energy source to generate hydrogen by electrolysis would require greater energy input than direct use of the renewable energy to operate electric vehicles, because of the extra conversion stages and losses in distribution." (wiki)
USE IN CARS-
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2007/05/15/16179/hydrogen-cars-may-be-a-long-time.html
"However, experts say there are quicker, cleaner, safer and cheaper ways to reduce the tail-pipe emissions from cars and trucks that pollute the air and contribute to global warming."
"A hydrogen car is one of the least efficient, most expensive ways to reduce greenhouse gases," said Joseph Romm, a physicist who was in charge of renewable energy research in the Carter administration. "If you want to slow down global warming, you're not going to do it with a hydrogen car."
http://www.wired.com/cars/energy/news/2008/05/hydrogen
Hydrogen Cars Won't Make a Difference for 40 Years
Bitsey - you are wrong again - twice :
1st - The only difference between liquid hydrogen and the gaseous form ( pay attention now ) is the degree of concentration ( liquid being highly concentrated - "thought I would help you out with that one" )
2nd - Gas stations refill propane in liquid form ( have you ever refilled a 40lb bottle/cylinder of propane - I have ) - you can hear it slosh around inside the container - same thing with smaller containers of propane used for camping lanterns and such - you can feel the liquid in them slosh also.
The liquid is kept as such while under pressure - when pressure is released ( when the valve on a cylinder is opened - "still with me?" ) the liquid turns gaseous as it leaves containment and is allowed to expand.
What got you confused? LH2 as compared to H2 ? the L stands for liquid - nothing more.
Let me clarify where I was wrong.
Writing too fast/too many things in my head trying to keep straight, I was trying to point out that you can't use something in it's liquid state in the same way you to in it's gaseous state. You're right, the gas in propane tanks IS a liquid-but only because it's under pressure. In normal atmospheric pressure and temperatures, propane is a gas-not a liquid. (As compared to gasoline)
You stated that you couldn't understand why liquid hydrogen couldn't be stored in "bottles the same way propane is".
Propane- is a GAS at room/normal/average temperatures and normal atmospheric pressure, but can become a liquid even at r/n/a temperatures if it is pressurized/compressed enough. (which is why your local propane dealer and you don't have to worry about temperatures-just pressure)
Hydrogen is a GAS at room/normal/average temperature and normal atmospheric pressure that will NOT become a liquid and stay a liquid unless it is cooled and pressurized continuously.
Thus the differences I was trying to point out to you are in the properties, conversions and storage requirements related to two things that are "gases" (and one we just call "gas").
Conversion of propane gas into a fuel vs conversion of hydrogen gas into fuel are two very different things and you can't simply just "mount a liquid hydrogen cylinder/bottle" to the back of a car "in the same manner as with the propane bottle."
Bitsey - you again have no argument against what I posted. Liquid Propane and Liquid Hydrogen will remain so when kept under pressure. Opening the valve of a propane tank or a hydrogen tank releases in a controlled fashion the stored propane or the stored hydrogen - this released propane or hydrogen will immediately expand to it's gaseous state - having been released from it's pressure containment. The gas is still concentrated - so it can be ignited - and so burned - how this is applied depends on what you are trying to achieve - a steady flame ( as in an oven or furnace etc ) - or an explosion ( such as in the cylinder of a car engine etc ).
The application is controlled by the plumbing the gas is released into and to where that plumbing then takes it ( plumbing = gas line ).
Once more, you prove that you don't even READ UP on the crap you pretend to be an authority on.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/technology/hydrogen/hydrogen_fuel_of_choice.html
"Because liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen are both cryogenic -- gases that can be liquefied only at extremely low temperatures -- they pose enormous technical challenges. Liquid hydrogen must be stored at minus 423°F and handled with extreme care. To keep it from evaporating or boiling off, rockets fuelled with liquid hydrogen must be carefully insulated from all sources of heat, such as rocket engine exhaust and air friction during flight through the atmosphere. Once the vehicle reaches space, it must be protected from the radiant heat of the Sun. When liquid hydrogen absorbs heat, it expands rapidly; thus, venting is necessary to prevent the tank from exploding. Metals exposed to the extreme cold of liquid hydrogen become brittle. Moreover, liquid hydrogen can leak through minute pores in welded seams. Solving all these problems required an enormous amount of technical expertise in rocket and aircraft fuels cultivated over a decade by researchers at the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory in Cleveland. "
Do I need to define the word "cryogenic" to you and prove that liquid propane is NOT cryogenic or are you capable of doing that on your own?
In a 4 stroke combustion engine, compression of a liquid gasoline+oxygen combination is one of the strokes. According to NASA (and every other scientist) if you UNcompress liquid hydrogen OR raise it's temperature above -432F it is no longer a LIQUID-it reverts to a GAS.
So..in order to use liquid hydrogen in a 4 stroke combustion engine, it would APPEAR to me (just some stupid woman who don't understand nothin) that right out the door you'd have to manufacture a FABULOUS cooling and compression system just to carry the fuel around as a liquid in the first place. Am I wrong?
Am I wrong? In a word YES. Didn't get that? Yes yes yes - you are wrong.
Show me how.
Easy - Do you have a car with working air-conditioning? Take it for a drive. But before you do open the engine compartment and look at your ac condenser. Note that it is dry and at ambient air temp. Now hopefully you choose to do this on a hot muggy day. Go for a ride - blast that ac - drive around for a few miles. Park the car - turn it off - open the hood ( engine compartment ) and look at where water condenses on your ac equipment ( ice maybe as well ) and watch it drip down on to the parking lot as it collects and/or melts. That's from moisture condensation from out of the air onto the chilled ac component.
Um....exactly where in my car is the liquid hydrogen working?
And you're comparing my air conditioning unit to a 4 stroke combustion engine?
The entire point here is that YOU claimed that it's a simple matter of mounting a liquid hydrogen tank on your car, flipping a switch, and adjusting your carburetor "just like you would" with propane! I'm trying to get you to admit that PROPANE in liquid form DOES NOT behave the same way that HYDROGEN in liquid form does.
And neither ONE acts or reacts like NITROGEN in liquid form. sheesh.
Again - you choose to be dense ( stupid - not concentrated ) freon is another gas that is very cold ( hence ac ) - but is not in a frozen block of ice in it's container - it gets cold when circulated - hence the experiment with your ac ( is this all too much for you to follow ? ).
My air conditioner does NOT work in the same manner as my COMBUSTION engine. And neither one works in the same way a PROPULSION engine works. Now I might be dense and stupid but YOU are the one acting like they are all interchangeable.
Freon and nitrogen are NOT flammable gases-and are inert, where hydrogen and propane ARE. Just because something can be both a "gas" and a "liquid" does not mean you can just (your words)- "switch over from fossil fuel use to using liquid hydrogen in all forms of transportation or work vehicle - anything that currently uses an internal combustion engine - even for powering generators for producing electricity."
THAT is my argument. Or are you too dense to follow that?
Again you are ignoring the pertinent facts - cold to liquify ( condense ) each gas out of the atmosphere - propane - hydrogen - nitrogen - freon. Each gas is held under pressure to maintain the liquid state - each will turn immediately gaseous upon release of the pressure keeping them liquid.
Can you understand that?
Each gas when released from containment gets super cold freezing what it comes in contact with ( as it dissipates ) as well as the material it flows through ( the storage tank fitting ).
All of these liquified gases - hydrogen - nitrogen - propane - freon will remain at ambient temperature inside of their storage tank ( motionless ).
Gasoline is liquid to begin with and when it is fed into the engine it is sprayed as a mist and mixed with air to become a gaseous state that is the ignited in the engine cylinder - pushing the piston as the burning mixture expands.
See if you can digest any of that.
Then replace the gasoline ( liquid ) which is "made" to be gaseous in the carburation process - replace it with a flamable liquid that goes gaseous rapidly on its own ( hydrogen ) when it is removed from being kept under pressure.
Both the gasoline and the hydrogen enter the combustion chamber ( Cylinder and Piston ) as a gas not a liquid - for fast burning expansion inside the cylinder to push the piston.
Oh my hell. What don't you get about the fact that SOME gases require COLD to liquify them, SOME require pressure to liquify them and SOME require BOTH???
SOME gases require only to be stored under pressure to maintain liquid form, SOME require only to be stored under cold temperatures to maintain liquid for, and SOME require BOTH to maintain liquid form.
Propane requires EITHER pressure OR cold temperature to liquify-BUT does not require COLD temperatures to remain a liquid. JUST pressure or COLD. Which is why your local propane tank AND your home 40 lb container do NOT have elaborate temperature maintenance features on them, they just have PRESSURE valves.
According to the NASA LINK I POSTED- " Liquid hydrogen must be stored at minus 423°F and handled with extreme care. "
Do you see that? The word STORED??? It doesn't say "hydrogen GAS must be cooled to -minus 423 F to become a liquid." It says LIQUID hydrogen must be STORED at -423F.
Got that?????
Hydrogen is not an energy source. It takes energy to produce usable hydrogen, which requires an actual energy source. So you're just adding another layer to hide the problem. This is simply more of your fluff to suppress threads of importance. First it was wind, now this. And you provide no hard data, just rants about your opinion of how it works.
Really? All this time NASA has been launching Rockets with Liquid Oxygen ( LOX ) and Liquid Hydrogen ( LH2 ) and the Liquid Hydrogen was not a source of power/energy(?) - wow you should let them know - I mean what a huge expense that could have been dropped off of their budget - WOW - you would think that they would know this stuff - Huh.
I don't know what richard thinks/knows etc but pure hydrogen does not occur naturally-it is the result of natural processes.
"Combustion heat enables hydrogen to act as a fuel. Nevertheless, hydrogen is an energy carrier, like electricity, not an energy resource".
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/en/consumer/hydrogen/basics/index.htm
Hydrogen gas then has to be produced and that involves impacting the environment.
"Hydrogen production always requires more energy than can be retrieved from the gas as a fuel later on.This is a limitation of the physical law of the conservation of energy."
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/41134.pdf
WOW - that must really have bummed the rocket scientists at NASA - OH - Wait a Minute - It Did Not Bum Them Out - They Put Liquid Hydrogen to use - Effective Use In Launching Rockets.
Gee - Is There Something Flawed In Your Reasoning?
You do understand the difference between rocket propulsion engines (designed to induce the huge massive explosive bursts required to shove a rocket outside of Earth's gravitational atmosphere) and regular combustion engines. Right?
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/technology/hydrogen/hydrogen_fuel_of_choice.html
"Because liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen are both cryogenic -- gases that can be liquefied only at extremely low temperatures -- they pose enormous technical challenges. Liquid hydrogen must be stored at minus 423°F and handled with extreme care. To keep it from evaporating or boiling off, rockets fuelled with liquid hydrogen must be carefully insulated from all sources of heat, such as rocket engine exhaust and air friction during flight through the atmosphere. Once the vehicle reaches space, it must be protected from the radiant heat of the Sun. When liquid hydrogen absorbs heat, it expands rapidly; thus, venting is necessary to prevent the tank from exploding. Metals exposed to the extreme cold of liquid hydrogen become brittle. Moreover, liquid hydrogen can leak through minute pores in welded seams. Solving all these problems required an enormous amount of technical expertise in rocket and aircraft fuels cultivated over a decade by researchers at the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory in Cleveland. "
Did you catch the word "cryogenic"? And "minus 423F? And brittle? and "insulated?"
Liquid hydrogen is already able to be stored and transported in high volume in a sealed tank - then transferred to another tank by hooking a hose up then opening a valve for transfer. The amount of gas delivered is determined by the carburation ( controlled delivery "Measured amount" to the place of ignition ). Yes even rockets need to control the feed of fuel to the ignition chamber. Do you understand the concept of a sealed container? Would frost accumulate on the line that carries the hydrogen? Not likely as the flow would be slow. You do understand that once a gas has been liquified under pressure and refrigeration - that it can sit at room temperature in its sealed pressure tank. Yes - yes I know this is all very hard for you to understand. But you see I have worked with liquid nitrogen ( pretty damned cold stuff ) funny thing though the tank was not cold and when the valve was opened to release the gas? Well the fitting and the line carrying the gas got cold but the tank stayed the same. You would not want to touch the valve fitting or the gas line with your bare hand - but the tank(?) not a problem.
Wow.
Liquid Nitrogen-is inert, non flammable, non corrosive and will not support combustion because the gas it comes from is none of those things.
Liquid Hydrogen is highly reactive, and NON elemental. (It does not occur naturally). It is highly corrosive, and flammable and does support combustion because the gas it comes from is ALL of those things.
Acting like your work with liquid nitrogen makes you an expert on working with liquid hydrogen is hilarious.
Pertinent factor being the cold to liquify out of the atmosphere.
Pertinent factor storing under pressure to keep liquid.
Pertinent factor container not contained in a chunk of ice because of the contents stored within.
These were factors that you were concerned with.
I hope you are laughing at how silly you are. I know I am.
Right, because what NASA needs for space flight applies across the board. No dip shit, hydrogen is not an energy source, no matter how many times you say it. Batteries are also not an energy source. I doubt that this is beyond your comprehension, it's just that playing dumb better serves your purpose on this forum.
Apparently you have not bothered to read the post or look into the properties of H2 ( hydrogen ).
Well maybe you would accept NASA's word for it:
NASA: alternative fuels for aviation | Energy Bulletin
Excerpt: Other alternative fuels result in airplane performance penalties. For example, liquid hydrogen (LH2) not only presents very substantial airport infrastructure and airplane design issues, but because of the need for heavy fuel tanks, a short-range airplane would experience a 28 percent decrease in energy efficiency while on a 500-nautical-mile (nmi) mission. However, because airplanes need to carry much more fuel for a long range flight, and Liquid Hydrogen (LH2) fuel is quite lightweight the lighter takeoff weight of the airplane results in an energy efficiency loss of only 2 percent while on a 3,000-nm mission.
Maybe pictures will help you, or at least the people you are trying to sucker into your fluff.
http://www.oilempire.us/hydrogen.html
RKG - wipe the egg off your face - hydrogen is combustible and can be used as a source of energy/fuel in internal combustion engines - when burned the funny thing is - it converts to water vapor - cool hey?
Funny thing is-
"Hydrogen is not a source of energy; it is an energy carrier. Before it can be used, it must be separated from the molecules containing it. Hydrogen can be produced from water, from hydrocarbons such as coal, crude oil and natural gas, and from biomass. "
http://www.centreforenergy.com/AboutEnergy/Hydrogen/Overview.asp?page=2
Meaning you have to GET it from something ELSE first AND all of the processes involved in getting it-with a few exceptions-AFFECT THE ENVIRONMENT.
Hydrogen is abundant - separate it out of water - you know H2O (?) - you end up with liquid oxygen ( LOX ) as well as liquid hydrogen ( LH2 ). Worked well for Air Products - you know - the company that supplied NASA.
You have to have ANOTHER source of energy to separate it out of water just like you need another source of energy to create liquid oxygen.
When you find some hydrogen without the use of other energy to produce it, let me know. Repeat yourself all you like but unfortunately you have no effect on reality.
This is your most pointless,dividingly, ignorant, argument yet richard.
Energy is expended on virtually all energy we humans use.
Yes richard even hydo power. Even fuckin' fire wood.
Although I am pulling apart his point, you cannot change the definition of something when it suits you. That's just silly.
Ahh yes, but you can do it any old time you choose.
Divide on, richard.
Lol, say the guy who divides the form by partisan bickering.
No energy required to process ( distill ) gasoline from oil - is that what you are trying to say?
They get HYDROGEN from FOSSIL FUELS. Aren't you trying to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels?????
You "can" get hydrogen that way - easier to get it from water ( H2O ). H2O split = H2 and O ( hydrogen and oxygen ).
Not against the idea, but in all fairness, splitting H2O does require a good bit of energy. Here also, is a little detail on what converting a gasoline ICE to Hydrogen would entail. From the article below; "Adaptation of Existing Engines
The differences between a hydrogen ICE and a traditional gasoline engine include hardened valves and valve seats, stronger connecting rods, non-platinum tipped spark plugs, a higher voltage ignition coil, fuel injectors designed for a gas instead of a liquid, larger crankshaft damper, stronger head gasket material, modified (for supercharger) intake manifold, positive pressure supercharger, and a high temperature engine oil. All modifications would amount to about one point five times (1.5) the current cost of a gasoline engine.[9] These hydrogen engines burn fuel in the same manner that gasoline engines do.
The power output of a direct injected hydrogen engine vehicle is 20% more than for a gasoline engine vehicle and 42% more than a hydrogen engine vehicle using a carburetor.[10] " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_internal_combustion_engine_vehicle#cite_note-10
What energy source would you use to separate it?
Electricity is what I would use. But as this is not my area/field of expertise ( separating and collecting hydrogen or any other gas ) - others in the field might have a different approach - the thing being though - would to be generating it from water ( H2O - our most plentiful clean source ).
The ocean is also one giant battery. You should really look at energy itself instead of what people want to package and sell you, if you have real interest in energy change.
And what do you have to apply to the water in order to split the molecules? ELECTRICITY. IF you get your electricity from wind, solar, or other water-THEN you're completely free of fossil fuels. If not....then you're using fossil fuel to create a NON fossil fuel, that you can then burn in a car etc. Which is stupid, because you get more efficiency burning the fossil ONCE than you do from the resulting hydrogen.
AND you still need another source of energy to make hydrogen into LIQUID hydrogen.
Source. I am saying source. Coal, wind, wave, solar, these are sources. Not even nuclear is a source. It's storage. Energy storage can have efficiency rates but that does not make them a source. A source has 100% efficiency because it needs nothing to be energy, it is the energy.
You did finish high school right? So then this isn't news to you, you are choosing to play dumb in order to get bumps on a thread you are using to suppress topics of importance and substance.
Fluffy - I think you earned that nickname for saying essential issues are not worth addressing - I think it also fits you because your singular brain cell seems to be filled with hot air. Liquid Hydrogen turned into energy as it is exposed to a source of ignition ( say a spark ). You are being deliberately dense ( as in stupid - not as in concentrated ).
Well done DK.
He considers anything he disagrees with or doesn't want to discuss just fluff.
Ergo: Fluffy!
He could also be referred to as mush - as it seems his brain has gone past soft to runny.
ooooo.I just an image of runny undone fried eggs.
Maybeeeeee" 'Fluffy side up'?
I'll keep workin' on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_storage
I like watching you argue with reality.
You are right to a degree and so is he to a degree
Fuel cell hydrogen is used presently and will continue to be used but requires energy to "excite the hydrogen"
we could use liquid hydrogen but is highly explosive. Im actually pretty sure the government requires a permit for use of it since it is so dangerous but it still is possible to use but not with all motors
I enjoy your inability to comprehend reality.
Your last comment was funny in more then one regard:
Just for a quick reference to some of your hilarity - you say H2 is not a source of energy - but you say that coal is. Ummm by your further humorous continuation - you say nuclear ( radiation? ) is not a source but just storage ( aAHhaahahahahaha ).
Coal is energy storage ( energy potential ) until it is burned - then it becomes a release of stored energy/potential. Only useful in how you may apply that release of Heat/energy.
Hydrogen : see above "coal stored released applied potential"
Even funnier you say that radiation is not a source of power in and of itself - This Is Really Funny - because radioactive material does not need a spark to release it's potential - it just needs proper harnessing/application to take advantage of what it is doing all by itself - RADIATING.
Damn - did someone smack you with a stupid stick or what?