Slashdot Mirror
Hydrogen Fuel Station in Iceland
klang points to this blurb about Iceland opening a hydrogen refueling facility. While it isn't, as the blurb states, the world's first hydrogen station, it is notable because it produces the hydrogen onsite with electricity from geothermal energy and electrolysis, making it an almost perfectly clean energy source.
Excess water will not a big problem... same with excess nitrogen. On the other hand excess CO2 *is* a problem.
Water is a very easily manageable even if you consider it as waste.
S
Except that the hydrogen is obtained through electrolysis, which decreases the amount of water. Not to mention the earth as a whole could definately benefit from more fresh water in many places.
Hydrogen is a method for energy storage. If you're lucky like the icelanders you have cheap geothermal energy you can convert to hydrogen. But if the energy is coming from fossil fuels it only means that they will be burned at the power station instead of in your car engine.
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
How are you measuring efficiency? Horses are far more energy efficient, they are just slower and require more work to keep "operational".
The automobile is one of the least efficient things ever made. It needs more calories of energy to go 5 miles than an average person used in a day 200 years ago. It also is a huge waste of land for roads and parking lots. The wasted land also has the side effect of spreading everything out so you waste more fuel and time going farther to get where you're going. That also cuts into the speed advantage since it now takes you longer to get where you're going.
Jason
ProfQuotes
Most places don't have access to the abundant geothermal energy that Iceland has access to, located on a spreading center as it is. Spreading centers (places where two plates are moving away from eachother, creating new crust) bring magma very close to the surface of the Earth, much closer than pretty much anywhere else (except volcanoes, but those are a little tricky to harness the thermal energy from). I can't think of a single place (dry place, that is) besides Iceland that sits right on top of an active spreading center, so they are in a pretty unique situation (sure, there are failed rifts in Africa, but those are not active. Also possibly failed rifting in the U.S., but again, not active)
So unless you find a way to get energy from dozens to hundreds of kilometers underground, much deeper than we have ever even drilled, then we will have to be stuck with our few spots of high geothermal activity for producing energy in that way. Oh yeah, and depending on geothermal energy just delays the problem - the Earth is cooling, albeit very slowly.
I suggest you read Slashdot
Hear hear! A lot of people miss this, eg. some of the posters above calling it a "clean energy source". It's not an energy source, at least not if the Hydrogen is created using eletrolysis. In that case it's just a battery.
I've heard this far too much. Photons are little packets (batteries) holding energy. The earth's core is just a giant battery holding in thermal heat. The sun is just a giant hydrogen battery.
There is no "source" of energy. Everything is energy. We just like to convert it into forms we can use easily.
I mean by your logic, photovoltaic cells are an energy "source", not the photons. A nuclear power plant's turbine is an energy "source," but not the plutonium. Fire is an energy "source," but coal is not.
Now if you said electricity source, maybe I'd agree with you, but otherwise you are just nitpicking.
The world is neither black nor white nor good nor evil, only many shades of CowboyNeal.
As other people have mentioned in other parts of this thread, you put water in and eventually you get water back when the hydrogen is burned. No net change in water. Water vapor is already a major product of hydrocarbon production, and I'll bet hydrogen combustion is more efficient. I suspect, all in all, H2 combustion would be basically neutral in regards to atmospheric water vapor.
Mod parent down or don't mod at all (why mod up something that is wrong??????)
Chatting sh1t is not informative, it is flamebait/trolling.
> Carbon monoide is not poisonous
Uh, no.
> Carbon monoxide is not a problem... we have the technology
You have the technology? We have the technology to make diamonds from dust... how about using it instead of creating more CO???
> Carbon dioxide... the normal result of combustion. (That means it's unavoidable)
Yes, it is not the same or as disasterous as CO, but CO2 is still a problem. And it is avoidable - use energy sources which do not combust where alternatives exist. There is a big difference between normal bodily functions (breathing) and burning millions of tons of oil and coal every day. Do you understand that?
> Your problem is that you are not only ignorant
So, are you not ignorant and talking rubbish, or you are ignorant?
Its a pity you clouded some reasonable points such a lens effect and conflicts of different global warning theories (indeed, whether they really exist) with such ridiclous cr4p.