We become more brilliant with science and technology every day. However, the laws of physics don't change.
Even the sun, a mostly self sustaining hydrogen engine, will one day run out of fuel and cease.
-
Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/
First hydrogen car. Could this be true?
- Thread starter Doc
- Start date
Even the sun, a mostly self sustaining hydrogen engine, will one day run out of fuel and cease.
I agree, but even if the engine could make some of the hydrogen, it would be a step the right direction. The thing I dont like about a hydrogen gas tank it is 5000-10000 psi, I don't think I want to be near it, if it got ruptured in an accident.
because hydrogen cannot be liquified in a tank. Anything at a safe pressure would be nothing to a car driving down the freeway. Even hydrogen adsorption technologies are nowhere near capable of what is needed for storage capacity necessary in a vehicle. So, if you cannot compress it to a liquid to carry a reasonable quantity, you need to make it as you go. You can run electricity into water, but that requires electricity and involves losses along the way, or you carry a tank of lye and start chucking in your aluminum beer cans as you drive down the road.
Thats another good concept.
chowderman
Well-known member
yeah. but seems Nikola hydrogen trucks have a propensity to suddenly burst into flames . . . .
georgemiller
New member
Hydrogen is a very promising alternative fuel source, but also as something that can combust unexpectedly! I'm still optimistic about where research and development can take this in the future. With more advances in safe storage solutions, maybe one day the dangers will be worked out. Fingers crossed progress continues to be made on the safety front - it would be amazing if hydrogen vehicles could live up to their promise of being cleaner. 🤞
The modern gas engine is an amazing thing, but it took a long time to become this great.
Who knows how awesome hydrogen fuel cars will be in 100 years, or possibly even electric cars, although I believe that an EV has a lot less potential than hydrogen fuel.
I won't be around to see it, neither will anyone on this forum.
But I truly believe that be it hydrogen, or something else, in 100 years there will be an awesome source of energy powering planes, cars, trains, ships, and it will NOT be a battery pack recharging at charging stations, or people's homes. My gut says the EV is a fad, to be short lived, and in 100 years will be nothing but a brief note in some history books.
Who knows how awesome hydrogen fuel cars will be in 100 years, or possibly even electric cars, although I believe that an EV has a lot less potential than hydrogen fuel.
I won't be around to see it, neither will anyone on this forum.
But I truly believe that be it hydrogen, or something else, in 100 years there will be an awesome source of energy powering planes, cars, trains, ships, and it will NOT be a battery pack recharging at charging stations, or people's homes. My gut says the EV is a fad, to be short lived, and in 100 years will be nothing but a brief note in some history books.
I agree with this 100%
200 years ago we were amazed by the Iron horse and for over 100 years it was the primary source of land travel. Despite improvements in technology and materials the steam locomotive met it's match with the diesel electric. And, of course, gasoline powered IC cars and trucks.
They too will be improved to greatness and then the point of extinction.
Motive power in100 years will quite likely be something no one has in mind today.
I would remind all that the Hindenburg was touted as the epitome of technology in it's time. Hydrogen is like nuclear power. Keeping the genie in the bottle is full of danger.
Last edited:
When went to school they told us energy could not be created only converted, and the closer to where you are going to re convert the energy is the most efficient. So how efficient is burning coal to convert to electricity then through transmission lines with losses then charging a battery with losses then re converted from DC to AC before its covered to forward motion. EV'S even use power when turned off. I see the same thing happen with my solar system at the cabin, at night the inverter is using more that I use in the cabin. So yes I agree as well.
You can burn hydrogen or you can convert it directly to electricity with a special electrochemical cell. Burning it does not make any sense for two reasons. 1-you are putting in more gaseous volume than you get out if temps were equal meaning the only gain in volume is due to the thermal expansion of it, not the creation of it. 2-the vapor is 100% water, and that water wants to condense and begin forming a vacuum shortly after it expands. The engine must be kept above 100°C the entire time, and even at that, efficiencies are in the toilet. Burning hydrogen simply will not work.
The other option is a electrochemical cell that uses special membranes and catalysts, and all that doesn't sound bad, but the temptation to put regular old hydrocarbons into it instead of hydrogen will be too great. Once the government mandates these expensive systems, people will rig them for propane and foul them up and a whole new market will evolve to clean up that mess.
And the real real issue here is where the hydrogen comes from. Hydrocarbons. They will still need to drill, frack and thermally crack to get the hydrogen. What do you think big brother will do with the carbonous remains? They will use it anyhow because it will be a wasted resource. So, you will fund this massive industry that is designed to expensively separate one fuel into two, one clean and one dirty (using dirty methods) and you will pay out the ass for the clean half while they quietly burn the carbon portions for their own benefit. No emissions prevented.
The other option is a electrochemical cell that uses special membranes and catalysts, and all that doesn't sound bad, but the temptation to put regular old hydrocarbons into it instead of hydrogen will be too great. Once the government mandates these expensive systems, people will rig them for propane and foul them up and a whole new market will evolve to clean up that mess.
And the real real issue here is where the hydrogen comes from. Hydrocarbons. They will still need to drill, frack and thermally crack to get the hydrogen. What do you think big brother will do with the carbonous remains? They will use it anyhow because it will be a wasted resource. So, you will fund this massive industry that is designed to expensively separate one fuel into two, one clean and one dirty (using dirty methods) and you will pay out the ass for the clean half while they quietly burn the carbon portions for their own benefit. No emissions prevented.