| Landen99 2005-08-29, 9:21 pm |
| Friends of Fuel Cells,
Energy is energy. Our only complaints are pollution and efficiency.
Fossile fuels pollute moderately, coal pollutes heavily, alcohol
pollutes mildly, and hydrogen does not pollute. All chemicals store
energy chemically. The liberation of chemical energy thermodynamically
is quite wasteful, as evidence by the energy lost to sound (combustion
engines are noisy), to heat (feel the hood of the car after driving)
and to the chemical potentials of its by products.
Alcohol is a good answer, but that does prove that hydrogen is too
difficult. Hydrogen has a much higher energy density than most fuels,
including alcohol. That means that given a set amount of any fuel,
more energy can be utilized from hydrogen. There are many technical
reasons for this, but the main is that the reaction is very simple and
the molecule is very small.
What's difficult about hydrogen (H2)? Nothing, really, except habit
and politics. Is it safe? Pressurized tanks are extremely safe. One
company shot a 10,000 psi H2 tank hundreds of times into concrete walls
at an hundred miles per hour before noticing any signs of compromise to
the tank (at which time the tests ended, of course). Does H2 explode?
Of course, but so does gasoline? We saw an entire section of freeway
disappear in Utah a week or two ago thanks to that beautiful fact (it
was spectacular!). So you take safety seriously just like the
petroleum industry has done these last several decades.
So what are the issues? Range, power and cost. Nuclear power is a
beautiful method for making cheap H2. Larger, more highly pressured
tanks manage the range issue well-enough. Larger fuel cells assist
with the power issue. But since power is usually required for short
times, batteries easily supplement those needs. So what are the issues
with hydrogen? As usual, the issues are politics and infrastructure.
The latter issue is simple, but what do we do about politics? Check
out my ideas: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/true_democracy/
|