Huge hydrogen stores found below Earth's crust (1 Viewer)

[Jack Briggs]

That's why it's so fun, Ange. Why, this thread is a gas!

 

[RobertR]

This thread can't decide if it's a scientific discussion or a pun factory

I think it's more like a pun discussion....

 

[Bhagi Katbamna]

***political comment edited out***

Tsk ... tsk ... tsk.

 

[Dave Poehlman]

Would this stuff work in fuel cells?

Yes. Hydrogen is what original fuel cells were designed to use.. I believe.

I, on the otherhand seem to have a "nearly limitless" supply of methane.

 

[Scott L]

Hey what would happen if hydrogen cars would get in a crash? More of a chance of exploding than a gas car would?

 

[Jason Handy]

Hydrogen is what original fuel cells were designed to use

My understanding is that hydrogen fuel cells were going to be based on a metal hydride paradigm. Basically, the fuel cell would be like a massive battery in your car. Once the hydride was used up, you would simply recharge the system with hydrogen.
But I could be wrong. The methanol fuel cells are the most likely candidates because they will not require a huge shift in the way we manufacture the fuel. Oil refineries will have to change, but the same basic chemical processes are still valid and it won't render these things obsolete. In an unrelated note, it might be pretty destructive to marginalize OPEC all of a sudden, so the idea that we will use a liquid-methanol fuel would still keep the refineries open, but drastically reduce our consumption.
The whole idea of having hydrogen gas powering our cars seems a bit far fetched to me, in large part because you are a moving bomb.
"Skywatch here giving you the latest traffic report. We have an accident on I-95 south near exit 35. Two cars collided and detonated 100 more in heavy traffic, killing 150 people. Work crews are attempting to repaint the pavement lines so traffic can resume." I don't think so.

 

[Philip Hamm]

Hydrogen is not nearly as dangerous or explosive as common knowledge would have you think. Most of those outdated notions are based on the spectacular Hindenburg incedent. That disaster was not caused by Hydrogen burning, but rather the fact that they painted the thing with rocket fuel. Hydrogen can be safely handled fairly easily. The Hindenburg incedent would never have happened if it had not been for the rocket fuel paint, and perhaps we'd still have huge airships today.

 

[RobertR]

The whole idea of having hydrogen gas powering our cars seems a bit far fetched to me, in large part because you are a moving bomb.

So a hydrogen tank would explode more readily than a gasoline tank?

 

[Jason Handy]

I think it would be more explosive, because the gasoline liquid is not nearly as flammable as the vapor. And, the gasoline has a finite rate of vaporization. Hydrogen on the other hand, just requires a spark to go boom
Jason
P.S. Phil, do you have a reference about hydrogen flammability? I am not trying to be confrontational, but all of my years as a chemist in college tell me one thing, but your statements contradict my education. I'd like to follow it up myself. Thanks!

 

[John Tillman]

Isn't our sun one big hydrogen explosion?

Say will this stuff power my Flux Capacitor? Plutonium is getting hard to find.

 

[Todd Hochard]

Isn't our sun one big hydrogen explosion?
Say will this stuff power my Flux Capacitor? Plutonium is getting hard to find.

Fusion vs. Fission. Two different things. Looks like you'll have to keep it under 88mph.
Hydrogen is combustible in concentrations above 4%. It's an explosive hazard in concentrations above 8%. Pure hydrogen spontaneously ignites in the presence of oxygen. No flame is needed. Put the two together, and kaboom. We used to do electrolysis in Chem in high school, and separate the hydrogen into a sealed beaker. Remove the seal, and POP, instant mini-explosion.
That said, the fear of a bunch of cars spontaneously exploding (a la 1972 Ford Pinto) is way overblown (man, I can't get away from the puns!). BMW has run hydrogen-powered cars in Germany for years, using conventional internal combustion engines, and a pressurized hydrogen tank. The tanks are well constructed (multiple walls, kevlar jackets, etc), and contain safety features that minimize the danger.
Fuel cells are a more efficient way (than combustion engines) to use hydrogen, though. In fact, fuel cells for the home will likely to be able to generate equivalent KWs for about half the cost of your local fossil fuel plant (excluding the cost to build both). It's coming.
Todd

 

[Jack Briggs]

No fueling!

 

[Dave Poehlman]

Here's some interesting information on Ford using fuel cells:
http://media.ford.com/article_displa...ticle_id=11460
[attempt to get back on topic]

Pure hydrogen spontaneously ignites in the presence of oxygen.

Do you mean this "nearly limitless" store of hydrogen under ground could explode the planet!?!? This sounds like the plan of a mad scientist... where's Spider-man?
[/attempt to get back on topic]

 

[Bill Balcziak]

Scientists have also discovered massive sources of methane gas outside several Old Country Buffet restaurants in Minnesota. Just look for the older couple driving off in the Oldsmobile.

 

[Max Leung]

All this fuss about hydrogen has blown up into gas-giant proportions!

Hmmm, how does adding hydrogen help a fuel cell, if it doesn't contain pure hydrogen?

 

[Todd Hochard]

http://www.howstuffworks.com/fuel-cell2.htm

 

[Max Leung]

Thanks Todd. So, how do you keep the hydrogen from being consumed when the fuel cell is not in use? Remove the pressure that pushes the hydrogen through the catalyst, right?

 

[Todd Hochard]

The hydrogen would be in a storage tank, and the flow control valve would be shut. Hence, no hydrogen would flow into the catalyst area. In much the same way that no gasoline is let into the engine by your fuel injectors when the engine is off.
The oxygen part is drawn in from the air we breathe (which is 21% oxygen), so that side has an infinite supply.
The trouble with using pure hydrogen is that there is no easily available source. Sure, water contains plenty of it, but the process of electrolysis (separating the H2 and O) consumes more energy than is returned when the H2 is consumed in the fuel cell. In other words, if it takes 1000watts to produce X amount of H2 from water, I only get back 800-900watts of work from the fuel cell. That doesn't add up, since ultimately, you would need an outside source of fuel (fossil, nuclear) to do the electrolysis, and that just isn't very efficient.
Most fuel cells right now are focusing on using natural gas (methane or LPG), which will readily give up its hydrogen, for fuel. Not the best way, as you are still left with the remains of the Natural gas (instead of just pure water), but still better than our current methods of producing electricity. Except, perhaps, for nuclear, which is near and dear to my heart.
Todd