Hydrogen cars would theoretically release water vapor which would add to water vapor amounts in the atmosphere. Imagine every car being hydrogen powered. I'd think that in some of the major metropolitan areas, they'd wind up seeing an increase in the amount of rain that falls, and the increased water vapor could also potentially trap heat. Also in the Northeast, and places that have a winter, the water vapor coming from the hydrogen cars would probably ice up the roads. Icier roads would mean an increase in salt/deicer usage. An increase in salt/deicer usage would mean pollution from it, and an increase in municipal budgets.
Hydrogen cars would theoretically release water vapor which would add to water vapor amounts in the atmosphere. Imagine every car being hydrogen powered. I'd think that in some of the major metropolitan areas, they'd wind up seeing an increase in the amount of rain that falls, and the increased water vapor could also potentially trap heat. Also in the Northeast, and places that have a winter, the water vapor coming from the hydrogen cars would probably ice up the roads. Icier roads would mean an increase in salt/deicer usage. An increase in salt/deicer usage would mean pollution from it, and an increase in municipal budgets.
What is the second main product of gas combustion (apart from CO2)?
mostly since it seems a little insane to pump crazy-explosive hydrogen into my car.
And when you use it, the waste product will be nothing but water—“environmental pollution will no longer be a concern.” Hydrogen will be abundant, cheap, and clean. Why settle for anything less?
DHMO is also a greenhouse gas!
DHMO is also a greenhouse gas!
Yes - but a finite one == unlike carbon dioxide which is not limited
Hydrogen production, as noted by Zubrin, is the more fatal flaw of a hydrogen economy. However, some promising research is going on in this area, for example, in the biological production of hydrogen and in catalysts which use energy from the sun to produce hydrogen. If these technologies can be developed, they would offer cheap, environmentally-friendly means of producing hydrogen. Again, this is a big if.
These problems would, however, be overcome by the development of "cellulosic ethanol" technologies, which convert cellulose (IIRC the most common biological material on the planet) into ethanol. Cellulosic ethanol would allow farmers to grow plants which are less expensive and demanding to grow (e.g. switchgrass) as well as obtain a higher yield of ethanol. While promising research is going on in this area, the technology is not near the point where it could be implemented yet. So, like hydrogen, biofuels (ethanol at least) require significant scientific breakthroughs before it can be a viable alternative to gasoline (albeit, cellulosic ethanol is definitely closer to reality than a hydrogen economy).
I support the methanol economy with a gradual transition from mass usage of internal combustion technology to mass usage of electrochemical oxidation (fuel cell) technology. Existing technology is able to convert Carbon Dioxide to Methanol, which in turns create an economic incentive for CCS.
In reversing the combustion process to convert CO2 to Fuel, Oxygen will be a major by-product which I foresee will have a very good market value.
BTW, why did this topic get merged with the other one. They seem like completely different subjects (aside from the DHMO tangent).
Where will the energy come from to perform the reverse combusion?
DHMO is also a greenhouse gas!
Yes - but a finite one == unlike carbon dioxide which is not limited
enahs
...
And technically, they are both equally finite, as there are only a certain number of carbon atoms on the earth, and a certain number of hydrogen. So, unless we start making some, or importing some from outside, they are both finite.
...
I believe the secret chemical formula to achieve that is in the hands of scientists at University of Utah. I remembered reading up about a secret chemical substance patented by the University of Utah which can dissolve cellulose to facilitate the synthetic production of ethanol from cellulose.
It took Mankind a few hundred years to emit enough CO2 to cause global warming.
How many more hundred years will we need to achieve global precipitation?
How about we just all use straight electricity. Can you say, "Pluggable car."
How about we just all use straight electricity. Can you say, "Pluggable car."
...
I stand corrected ever so slightly.
Carbon dioxide gas is limited by the amount of carbon on the earth and water vapor is limited by approximately 100 % relative humidity. Water vapor can attain less concentration than the carbon dioxide gas even if you imported more hydrogen and carbon from the universe.
Aww come on. You had me quoted about the finite number of carbon and hydrogen. You where supposed to mention that finite quantity is oxygen, as they share oxygen in common.
I was just listening to a radio program that said that there is not enough crops to make bio-energy in the USA. Well at least not enough ethanol could be made. Would methanol be better?
| Substance | Energy Density | ||||||||
| 1. | Hydrogen Gas | 120 MJ/kg | |||||||
| 2. | Ethanol | 23.4 MJ/kg | |||||||
| 3. | Gasoline | 45 MJ/kg | |||||||
| 4. | Diesel | 45 MJ/kg | |||||||
| Vehicle Type | Petrol Mileage | ICE Consumption | FC Consumption | ||||||
| 1. | Passenger Car | 22.4 Miles/Gallon | 2.769 kJ/Mile | 1.615 kJ/Mile | |||||
| 2. | Vans, Pickups, SUVs | 16.2 Miles/Gallon | 3.828 kJ/Mile | 2.233 kJ/Mile | |||||
| 3. | Trucks | 06.7 Miles/Gallon | 9.259 kJ/Mile | 5.402 kJ/Mile | |||||
| 4. | All Vehicles | 17.1 Miles/Gallon | 3.627 kJ/Mile | 2.116 kJ/Mile | |||||
| On a basis of 1000 miles | |||||||||
| Vehicle Type | H2 Required | H2O Required | Al Required | Gasoline Required | |||||
| 1. | Passenger Car | 0.0135 kg | 0.1215 kg | 0.1214 kg | 124.6 kg | ||||
| 2. | Vans, Pickups, SUVs | 0.0186 kg | 0.1674 kg | 0.1673 kg | 172.3 kg | ||||
| 3. | Trucks | 0.0450 kg | 0.4050 kg | 0.4047 kg | 416.5 kg | ||||
| 4. | All Vehicles | 0.0176 kg | 0.1584 kg | 0.1583 kg | 163.2 kg |
Note: I did not stick numbers anywhere, I'm sure that the CO2 is worse than water vapor as a green house gas.
It is easy to have a variety of fuel for electricity generation but it wouldn't be the case for transport, unless we switch to electric vehicles.
Being "easy" is debatable, but if there is a great enough demand then some company will try to supply it.
They didn't use petroleum fuel to produce electricity to evolve Hydrogen by electrolysis of water (this is a net loss, and is why the current proposal for a Hydrogen Economy is a farce). Instead, Teed outlined perhaps a dozen methods of producing Hydrogen. The most viable and economically feasible method uses Sodium Hydroxide and ferosilica (Yes, sand) of sufficiently high silica content. The "Silicol Process" begins on page 45 of the book and is expressed as:
2Si + 2NaOH + 3 H2O = Na2Si2O5 + 2H2
Government and the energy industries surely know this. We could be producing Hydrogen for practically nothing. Makes me wonder.
I mentioned that KOH can also be used, which is not made by electrolytic methods.
also, Tailings sands, waste sand from the processing of the Athabasca Oil Sands, average 95 to 98 percent silica (SiO2) in the raw bulk samples. According to Teed, sands averaging 84-92% can be used in this process. Perhaps other sands can be obtained of similitude. Would the O2 create additional problems?