Slashdot Mirror
Solar-Hydrogen Eco-House
Cymage writes "An architect in Malaysia has built a Solar-Hydrogen Eco-house, the first in the world that is fully self-sustainable and runs entirely on hydrogen. The house has an electrolyser to generate hydrogen that runs off of solar panels, then that hydrogen is used for heat and electricity for the house. Pretty cool stuff. I wonder how long before a kit is ready to convert regular houses?"
I wonder how long before a kit is ready to convert regular houses?
I wonder how long before...BOOOOOM!
Meine Schwester ist sehr, sehr reizvoll - Nietzsche
250000RM is $65,800 US. I would guess it would cost more in the US though.
You should check out my methane-powered nightmare house on nacho night.
KABOOM!
"Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the atmosphere. I believe it is the fuel of the future," said Kamaruzzaman.
Right. A Solar-Hyrdogen house runs entirely on hydrogen.
Yes, hydrogen is explosive. Yes, it can be used safely. No, there is no chance in a properly engineer application for hydrogen to make this house go BOOOM! like the Hindenburg. Give up, Dick Cheney is not paying attention.
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
The hydrogen tank is located some distance from the house, and a small diameter pipe connects it to the utility gas line in the house. The gas is used as a domestic heater to provide hot water to a stove or burner, and operate a fuel cell to produce electricity for other appliances.
Why does a burner or a stove need hot water? Wouldn't the water put out the flame? =]
bork bork bork!
...to replace the Hydrogen tank with a self-sustaining supply? I don't fully get how this works, so I hope this isn't a troll.
http://www.narvakitchens.com/Solar.pdf
"Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the atmosphere. I believe it is the fuel of the future," said Kamaruzzaman. "People tend to equate hydrogen with hydrogen bombs, but in fact, it is really quite safe because it is so light that it disappears into the atmosphere as soon as it is released."
Apparently physics is *not* this guys strong suit.
---- El diablo esta en mis pantalones! Mire, mire!
What sort of fire hazard is this place? Assuming the hydrogen is stored in a combustible state (which is very likely), and that a very large volume will be stored (which is also very likely), this could be a bit of a death trap.
Tom Petty would not approve.
I'm not really concerned about the danger of the place. Maybe his neighbors are though. I was just pointing out one of the drawbacks...
Down with Saudi Arabia!!!
I recall seeing "the house of the future" once, built by Nasa engineers. Solar-powered, thermally efficient, geo-thermal power, yada yada yada yada.
All protected by a security system, whose password was "1978".
The year the house was designed, built and shown to the public. The same year I saw it.
I'm still waiting for all this great technology to hit mass market.
And you know why it won't? It's too damned expensive.
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
Isn't it fairly ineffecient to use the electricity to make hydrogen? It seems to me you would get more usable energy by just useing the power the solar cells create directly.
==>Lazn
I'd love to have something like this. Imagine being off the grid in an urban setting! But I do hope this architect know's what he's doing. From his quote "People tend to equate hydrogen with hydrogen bombs, but in fact, it is really quite safe because it is so light that it disappears into the atmosphere as soon as it is released." I don't have too much faith in his physics knowledge and his engineering ability to make sure that the hydrogen (in the little tank and the gas pipe) is actually safe to use. It IS rather flammable you know :) I was relieved to see that the plan does include a fuel cell. So if the main tank blows, you still have electricity so you can charge your mobile to dial 911.
----- One learns to itch where one can scratch.
I want a house that can run on Methane. That way my mexican cooking won't go to waste.
Hmmm, but what kind of collection method can be used? uh, nevermind. I withdraw my request.
This signature is a waste of 42 characters
Well if they're using solar energy to make hydrogen in the first place, why don't they just make the house entirely solar powered instead of converting solar energy -> Hydrogen -> electricity.
"I wonder how long before a kit is ready to convert regular houses?"
Apparently, you didn't even skim the article - the physical design of the house is just as important as the power technology. A Prius wouldn't get 60 mpg if it wasn't tiny and aerodynamic.
G
There is no way to have 100% effecency in transforming energy from one from to the other - so we have a loss from transforming sunlight to electricity, and then a loss transforming the electricity to a storable chemical (hydrogen), and then yet another loss as it's transfered back to electricity to run the house. Sounds like they are wasting power by having unnecesary steps here...
Now, I'm not a rocketscientist, and I dont research fuelscells and batteries - but would it not been just as efficient, or even more efficient, to just store the electricity in a batterybank? Unlike in a car, weight and to a certain degree volume isn't a limiting factor in a house.
Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
It seems like a great idea for Malaysia, but lets consider North Dakota:
1. Heat: Its a high plains desert in a northern climate. If I need electric heat I'm going to burn a lot more hydrogen. Winters get down around -30F
2. Entertainment: Nights last longer up here, so I can't live without my 500w sound system, my Sun Lamps and outdoor lighting.
3. Oh yeah, water for Hydrogen production is in short supply.
It may be a few more years before technology catches up with us, right about the time the local theatre starts showing Phantom Menace.
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
"The electrolyser has a capacity of 0.54cu.m per hour" What are the chances that someone is going to make a joke about this? (If you don't get it, you're not looking hard enough or you don't have a dirty enough mind)
I live in Arizona where there is a lot of sun and from what I hear some people that use solar energy to generate electricity get money for the extra electricity their installation produces.
Solar power.... that means the sun is providing an outside energy source. No laws of physics or thermodynamics are being broken here.
Sometimes I wonder if some of you bother actually reading the articles before you toss out some flame bait...
Luckily /.ers are libertarian. Home power is a great way to put your libertarian ideals into action! Check out "home power" magazine too--it's all about getting off the grid. Vote Nolan!
-I am an elective eunuch.
I don't think we give near enough thought to the way that we are ravaging our planet. Don't get me wrong, I love tech. But I am dying for a freeway safe electric car. Even then though, we use dirty tech to make electricity. It can't last, but we are addicted to it.
I hope someone does come up with a way to make clean technologies widely available.
Yeah, I guess I'm funny like that.
I wonder how long before a kit is ready to convert regular houses?
They already exist. They're called matches. They will convert any regular house into carbon dioxide and water vapor. You will have to figure how to control the rate of reaction and store all the excess heat that is released in one go. The rate at which you must supply new houses may also be cost prohibitive.
I believe they meaning heating the lava lamp. There is no way you need heating in Malaysia they take out the heat pump sections of air con units in that region as nobody uses them!
It is an interesting project, but, I fear, taps into the hydrogen-mania that seems to have gripped the world lately.
I don't believe there is a major reason to be concerned about the safety of the hydrogen. I don't believe it is actually much, if any, more dangerous than other things that we live with every day (methane, gasoline, diesel, batteries) for reasons that vary by what particular thing we are comparing it to.
I would wonder, though, if by powering the house from a fuel cell run from a hydrolizer, are they doing seriously better than if they had used a battery bank? For the hot water and the air conditioner, they might be doing better by running them directly from hydrogen, but what about the household electrical supply?
Also, might better efficiency be realized by uniting the DC bus of the solar panels with that of the fuel cell, at least unidirectionally? What I'm saying is, doesn't it make sense to send electricity straight to the house from the solar panels when it is available, rather than sucking H2 into the fuel cell to get it? Yes, H2 production would drop according to household load, but H2 consumption would drop further.
Just a few random thoughts.
www.wavefront-av.com
Hydrogen (gaseous that is, not liquid) is actually a reasonably safe fuel. As far as explosiveness, it's roughly equivalent to, say, natural gas, and much less explosive than acedalene.
Keeping hydrogen in a tank (outside of a house or in a vehicle) is fairly safe. If the tank is ruptured, the hydrogen is so light that it leaks into the air and floats up and away very quickly. (Unlike, say, gasoline, which tends to sit on the ground, mix with air, and cause explosions). (The article said that the H2 tank was _outside_; having it inside _would_ be dangerous.)
By the way, the reason that the Hindenburg was such a horrific accident wasn't primarily because it was filled with Hydrogen. It was because the body of the blimp was painted with a substance that was essentially rocket fuel.
Craig Steffen
http://www.craigsteffen.net
Oh boy aren't you clever! Hoho!
Yes, they meant that it depended on no outside energy source whatsoever, not that it doesn't depend on a power plant! And the solar cells they mention are just for show and don't hook up to anything!
Y'see, the house isn't a closed system; it's receiving energy in the form of both solar radiation and fuel in the form of atmospheric hydrogen. The house isn't 100% efficient; it's not breaking any rules of thermodynamics.
I'll admit I didn't RTFA but
how much heat does a house in Malaysia need?
and why not just run directly off the electricity that the solar panels produce, rather than create hydrogen and then generate electricity off of that?
I would think that the laws of thermodynamics would make that a rather inefficient process.
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
I'm sure many /.'ers are aware of this, but the fact that the Hindenburg was filled with Hydrogen had very little to do with the disaster. The problem was the coating of the balloon, which was highly flammable and susceptible to static buildup (someone provide more details if possible). Add in the metal frame, and as soon as a small spark erupted it arced across the whole balloon and the rest is history.
Hydrogen is pretty safe, if you know what you're doing. But a good point the Hindenburg can teach us is that all elements of a system must be inspected with respect to each other, in order for something to be truly safe.
Then you should be able to do it for a yacht or larger boat. It would be really cool to see somebody sail around the world on eco-power.
--
now, let me anticipate a few responses....
1) Ummmm...what about sails?
A: Sails don't generate heat and electricity.
2) Cloudy days?
Can also use wind generators in addition to solar power.
3) Cloudy windless days?
ya got me there....
A goal is a dream with a deadline
The house has solar panels on the roof, which generate electricity that is used to electrolyze water in to Hydrogen, which is then stored, and later used to power the house.
There already exist houses that have solar panels, generate electricity, store it in a bank of batteries, and then use that power later to power the house.
The only thing new here is that that the bank of batteries has been replaced by a hydrogen tank.
I don't understand why people are fussing about the safety of using hydrogen. Hydrocarbon gas (ands its byproducts) can be just as dangerous. I seriously doubt that something going comercial like this would have a high risk of danger.
With all the conversions going on, how efficient is the power system? First they take electricity, and use it to electrolyze purified water. They then take the resultant hydrogen and use it in a fuel cell to produce - electricity. Quite a long way to get back where you started. What they have there is a non conventional battery, but is it more efficient or cheaper than a traditional bank of batteries?
We had it first! Those bastards are ripping us off! Get the real deal at BioHome.net
"Would you rather be right, or happy?"
Storage is the most liekly reason. With solar-only electric you need large banks of batteries to store the electricity for later use during dark periods. These batteries take a lot of space, must be replaced periodically and their disposal is not environmentally friendly.
By converting the solar to hydrogen you get an efficient fuel that is easily stored in a smaller space. There is no/less need for replacement of the storage vessel and it is very environmentally friendly, making disposal a mute point.
I think the difference between H2 energy storage and chemical batteries is that batteries degrade after many, many cycles. I think the problem is that there are more possible reactions than the primary charge/discharge, and the battery develops memory. The hydrogen production/usage is a single reaction only, so probably will last much longer without having to change out the system.
Craig Steffen
http://www.craigsteffen.net
HERE is a link concerning safety issues and applications for hydrogen when used as a fuel source. The site is by the International Association for Hydrogen Energy. This site may need to be taken with a grain of salt though.
Dammit they stole my idea :P
I was going to use windmills though.
Being abundant has nothing to do with being the fuel of the future.
Despite what the fuel cell lobby would like you to believe, Hydrogen is not an energy source, as there is no ample supply of usable hydrogen fuel. As in this case, the Hydrogen has to be produced, which consumes energy. This is done using the most abundant energy source in the universe [and the atmosphere ;)], the SUN!
Solar is the key.
Cool house, energy storage idea, but... It's hard to take seriously a professor who doesn't even know what the air is made of... ""Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the atmosphere. I believe it is the fuel of the future," said Kamaruzzaman." Uh, no it isn't. The atmosphere is %60 Nitrogen, %18 Oxygen, and the rest is Carbon Dioxide and trace gases.
A Prius wouldn't get 60 mpg if it wasn't tiny and aerodynamic.
This year's model of the Prius is actually pretty roomy. Looks like it warped in from an episode of the Jetsons, but it does hold 4 adults.
We are still running tests and in the near future plan to have a couple of our students live in the house for a period of time as an experiment.
No, no, no... you need at least 8 or 9 to start with, then you have to eliminate one every few days and... oh, it's been done you say? Carry on.
On a more serious note, I think the guy was pretty realistic about the expectations here (addressing the negative folk). This is an important first step in proving the technology. Don't expect a "conversion kit" anytime in the near future.
My sig sucks.
The designers should be commended for the power self-sufficiency of the house.
But I notice from the photo that the house has been constructed primarily from steel and concrete, which are hardly sustainable materials. The amount of energy that goes into extracting and processing steel or concrete is thousands of times more than that for wood or masonry. The net energy balance from both the construction and long-term operation of this house is likely to be very negative.
For reference: stats, stats and more stats
See http://engineer.ea.ucla.edu/releases/blimp.htm - hydrogen did NOT cause the Hindenburg to burn, it was the fact that it was painted with rocket fuel, basically.
People are more likely to relate Hydrogen to the Hindenburg.
When you talk about hydrogen powered cars to people that ALWAYS mention the Hindenburg..
One of the more advanced energy efficient, solar power homes in the country is under construction in Ohio: http://www.solterra.info
It uses 5 alternative energy sources.
O=='=++
Photovoltaic cells actually take more energy to produce than they will output over their lifetime. This makes them little more than a large, wasteful battery. The most efficient form of solar energy that we've been able to harness is hydroelectric, but that's not exactly easy to use on a residential scale.
The most promising technology I've seen for residential solar power goes back to our tried-and-true method of electrical generation: Heat water into steam, spin a turbine. Numerous mirrors focus a large amount of light onto a very small area, to boil water and spin a turbine. It's not nearly as "fire and forget" as PV cells, but it's much more environmentally friendly.
There's a reason why I posted as AC.
Actually, we want most of our troops based outside of the US in case the homeland is nuked.
I'm not sure this is true. While Hydrogen was not the cause of the disaster -- as in the substance that first caught fire -- it is not clear to me that the fact the Hindenburg was filled with Hydrogen didn't make the disaster much worse. Would the disaster have been as bad had the Hindenburg been filled with Helium? Would it have been consumed by fire so quickly? Is there any chance that more people could have survived?
I honestly don't know, but I think the above are legitimate questions.
Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)
Gaseous hydrogen quickly oxides into water vapor, which in turn traps heat energy in the atmosphere. I havent been able to find a comparison of the potency of hydrogen and carbon dioxide. Being the smallest molecule, dihydrogen leaks the most easily from containment systems. Some people have speculated that large amounts of hydrogen could leak and contribute the greenhouse problem.
What I am really wondering about is if this could also be used to refuel your hydrogen powered car. FREE fuel! Now that would make the investment easily pay off.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Here's a T and a Y for your D and your A...
Actually, there is quite a science to tropical architechture, or there was before the invention of air-conditioning. I have an uncle who was trained as an architect in Vietnam and he learned all this stuff about how to design buildings to be self-cooling. Now, living in the U.S. where every building of any size has its own air-conditioner, his skills are completely outdated.
I'm not really trying to defend the term "bio-climatic" but there is something to be said for climate-appropriate architecture. It's not even a matter of being an "eco-freak": if you need to get by in a climate that has 100% humiditity and 110 degree temeratures in the shade, you need to put some real thought and effort into your architecture. Folks in tropical climates have understood this for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.
...that in many places it probably isn't the best use of that purified water.
One of the attractions of Hydrogen is its storage potential, as that allows us to make full use of 'alternative' energy sources such as solar, wind etc. Whether it's in a garage that needs less frequent tanker visits because of the solar cells on it roof, or in a car that refuels itself and runs the air conditioning while parked on a hot day, or in a house like the one mentioned, hydrogen's best feature is not its cleanliness, but its ability to smooth the link between supply and demand that allows us to use these cleaner alternatives.
On a larger scale industrial installations would allow us to do the same thing, so that we could have fewer power stations running at 100% day and night, rather than having inefficient spinning reserve. And of course we could get by with less still if we all had a power station in the basement. There are alternatives such as using superconducting magnets, or compressed air, but the ubiquity and relative safety of hydrogen makes it a real enabler of such change. Assuming the political/economic will is there of course.
Now, bio-chlamadic makes them run away!
So where do you get it? Fossil fuels? Kinda defeats the purpose, dontcha think?
I suppose the clean green answer is solar power, generate electricity, and hydrolysize water with it. But this takes ACREAGE.
The next step would be to orbit some solar collectors on a massive scale, hundreds of square miles, and beam the power down to receivers planetside, but we're probably years from that.
Still, we have to think about where is the ultimate source of all our energy. Just look up at noon.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
From all of the research that I have read and seen about this, the main part of the fire and damage was the coating of the balloon, both in speed and temp of burn and in the duration.
The coating was basically the same thing as solid fuel rockets, like those used in the space shuttle boosters.
This stuff, once lit, will not go out, will burn very hot, and lasts relatively long (burns rather completely)
The little bit of film from the Hindenburg disaster shows that the coverings were burning first (started the problem) and longest.
Now, the Hydrogen also burned. And as such, it did not reduce the amount of material burning. However, its burn temp is lower than that of the coverings and there was only so much oxigen to fuel the fire. Not that someone has done the simulation, but it may have actually helped slow things down a bit (which would have increased the amount of time the whole thing burned). It all depends on so many factors that I don't know if we can fully simulate the situation.
My gut feeling is that the difference would have been minimal to having Helium vs Hydrogen as far as that accident. (assuming the design changes needed for Helium would not have worsened the situation.)
Actually, the hydrogen did not burn until it had escaped and mixed with air.
At this point it did little to effect the actual incident.
It would not have made any differance what was inside the gas bags.
Going to space is still too damned expensive. But it's cheaper than it was once upon a time. No harm in pushing onward, ever onward...
"The house has an electrolyser to generate hydrogen that runs off of solar panels, then that hydrogen is used for heat and electricity for the house."
I hate getting hit from hydrogen running off of solar panels.
Oh wait, I get it:
"To generate hydrogen, the house has an electrolyser that runs off of solar panels. The hydrogen is used for heat and electricity in the house."
Sure Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, but it will eventually run out.
For a real long-term solution, I propose an energy model built on porn, spam, political promises, and Slashdot karma!
Read any good sonnets lately?
I believe the meaning here was to include the sun as part of the system. The sun is the energy input source which is, in some respects, "free" energy. Thus no laws of physics are being broken.
Most of the people aboard did survive. The flames were above the passenger compartment and went up. The people who died were the ones trapped when the ship rolled over.
As for the hydrogen thing: look at the movie of the fire. The Hindenburg burns, falls to the ground and bounces back into the air because the gas bags are still intact.
Hydrogen is just used as an energy storage device here -- the fact of the matter is you can create a self sufficient house running off of just solar-to-battery array for less money.
Saw a TVO show on it recently, an Ontario couple had their whole modern house (fridge, stove, blenders, tv's everything) running perfectly off of a large solar setup, completely off of the grid - and they did it all top to bottom for less than 50K, Canadian! That's right, almost free!
meh, I'm going to live simply with a solar/wind to battery array - we don't need no stinking hot water tanks.
On that note, can anybody point out the latest greatest, low cost, energy efficient PV collectors?
Right.
:)
Now, let's do a simulation where it was filled with O2
That would be one heck of a fire!
-WS
An operating system should be like a light switch... simple, effective, easy to use, and designed for everyone.
Well, from what I understand, the main reason people died was that they jumped from the gondola while the Hindenberg was still too high. Those who jumped when it was a lot lower mostly escaped with burns.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
My gut feeling is that the difference would have been minimal to having Helium vs Hydrogen as far as that accident. (assuming the design changes needed for Helium would not have worsened the situation.)
That's an interesting point. Using Helium would have required a much larger surface area, which would have required much more paint. So there'd have been more of that stuff to burn.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
Check out New Jersey's renewable energy program - http://www.njcleanenergy.com
State will GIVE you back 70% of what you spend on all hardware and labor.
What's even more exciting, is the venture capital fund that will give your business 5 to 500k recoverable grant to expand your renewable energy business development. This money could help you buy installation equipment, trucks, warehouse space, help hire additional staff,etc. Unfortunately, this fund is only 5 million is size. If a lot of companies apply, there won't be enough for everyone.
I think any experienced roofer would be crazy not to at least consider doing solar installations. I mean if they are already ripping an entire roof and replacing shingles, why not offer to install some solar panels or tile south side of the roof with solar shingles?
One of the problems with developing hydrogen fueled vehicles is storing the hydrogen. Having an enormous tank in your yard is one thing, towing it around behind your car is another. Of course, you can just compress it more, but then you add some risk by having a tank that still may be fairly large under extremely high pressure. This is of most concern when something collides with your vehicle, or vice versa. There are a number of ways to work around this, including just using the hydrogen from more complex hydrocarbons (i.e. petroleum products) in a fuel cell. Lots of people are working on hydrogen fueled cars. So far, I don't think anyone has put all the pieces together.
Oh and the cost.... well, the fuel may be free but you'll pay a lot up front (solar cells, water purification, fuel cell for the house, storage and/or fuel cell for the car). Do a cost benefit analysis before you sign...
Actually, the Hindenburg was designed for helium, but what with the political situation, neither supplier (U.S., Soviet Union) would sell helium to Germany.
If this such a good way to produce/store electricity, why aren't power companies using it?
No, they are not sold out to oil -- most of the electricity comes from burning coal...
Is it only because hydrogen can also be used directly (for cooking and heating)?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
And go ahead and buy one of those shiny new priuses. The 2004 model is bigger (about as big as a 2004 Accord), faster, more efficient, and has the added trunk space of a hatchback.
Plus, the navigation system responds to voice commands like "I'm Hungry" and plots a course to the nearest restaurant.
It's dorky (see the engine preheat coolant thermos that reduces startup emissions, for example), it gets 60mpg, and makes squeaky-clean emissions. It should hold you over until toyota can come up with a car that runs the exhaust from other people's cars.
Hydrogen is probably the perfect storage device for energy derived from small scale and less than optimal renewable sources. The biggest problem with home generation of energy from wind, solare or whatever renewable energy you pick is often the problem of regulating the output to achieve a constant usable powere supply. Many of these renewable energies are difficult to use and made much more expensive by this single requirement. That is why they only build wind and solar farms in certain places whit a constant source of wind or sun. Imaging trying to powere you computer with solar power that cut off at knight and in the day and browend in and out all the time and would often spike 20% higher under high illumination thanthe average. You can use expensive line conditioning to fix the momentary ups and downs but when it goes you you will need a powere storage device like battries. Unfortunately conventional lead acid battries are only 5-15% efficient at charging up and have a limited life not to mention the extra cost. The use of hydrogen can offer an alternative to this.
about hydrogen:
1 - Easy to make trough electrolysis (electricity + water = hydrogen and if desired oxygen)
2 - Electrolysis unlike electronics is fairly insensitive to power fluctuations and does not have to work a 100% duty cycle provided the amount of stored gas is sufficient, so carfull powere regulation is unneeded.
3 - Excess hydrogen could be sold (if there was a demand).
4 - Electrolysis is at least as efficient as battery powere storage
5 - You can easily make a car run on it (imaging DIY home filling)
6 - There are fuel cells that make a 85% efficient conversion to electricity from this fuel (very expensive but NASA has them and mass production could bring that cost down). The use of hydrogen fuel cells and hydrogen / oxygen fuel could be one of the world most efficient energy solution but may be not the cheapest.
7 - There are numerous safety innovations that can help reduce fire risk (hydrogen can easily be as safe if not safer than natural gas / propane).
8 - You can easily make a cars that will run on it (imaging DIY home filling) not to mention that care need not be a new one. You can have a conventional 350 big block with all the power you would expect run on hydrogen. The conversion is expensive now, but masproduction would lower that to the cost of a engine rebuild that you may need already. You will not need to fear a explosion in a wreck as there are fuel cells that even if punctured and on fire can not explode as they only release the gas fast enough to burn.
9 - It is a 0 emission fuel that may be used in any place that natural gas could be used.
10 - Hydrogen fuel use can really lower smog. I have seen allot of emphasis on electric cars, however these are not really 0 emission. Fossil fuel was burned someplace to make the electricity (40% efficient process) that charged your batteries (15% efficient). this This means that using an electric car is about 6% efficient. I would bet that '86 Suburban has better energy milage than an electric car. You folks in cites and Ca need to think about that.
*imagine enviromental value "ahem" of a 0 emissions vehicle that would do 0-60 in 8 sec flat.
Still, using hydrogen tanks as a storage medium for unused electricity is a nice touch.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
Some people did survive. Yet it was effectively the death blow for commercial airships. So, one wonders how survivable are landing accidents of heavier-than-air vehicles? That is: was even the hydrogen accident really that much worse than the first that engulfs a plane full of fuel when it goes down? I don't know that a Hindenberg into the WTC would have burned as hot for as long as the planes did.
-dB
"It if was easy to do, we'd find someone cheaper than you to do it."
How is this a flamebait?
Well, since it wasn't the paint that went up initially, your argument is bogus. EVERY investigator except this one crackpot scientist has concluded it was a hydrogen fire.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
Sort of like the Space Shuttle. Twice. Just like Three Mile Island. Certainly Ford Pintos never went BOOOM!
Assuming there is "no chance in a poperly engineered application for hydroden to make this house go BOOOM!," what is the chance that the application will not be properly engineered for economic or other reasons... including hubris?
Let me guess. If it does go "BOOOM" then it was, of course, not properly engineered. In other words, you have stated a tautology.
Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)
It's easy to store and transport as a liquid. Good energy density too. Hydrogen is far harder and more dangerous to store and transport. The biggest problem is you have with Hydrogen is it has to be stored at very high pressure and/or low temperature to store as a liquid, or else converted to a more complex molecule such as methanol or alcohol. Propane is cheap, easy to mess with, and you can buy cheap tanks right off the shelf. Just look at all the propane grills, refrigerators and generators you can buy out there. Most could be built with Hydrogen, but they just wouldn't be practical.
Liquid Propane is lighter than water and propane vapor is heavier than air, so it will tend to seek low spots if it leaks. One gallon of liquid will evaporate to 270 cubic feet of propane vapor.
Propane will only burn if it's mixed with air at a 2.2% to 9.6% concentration. A high concentration will actually put a fire out. I proved that one day to some students of mine ( I'm a commercial hot-air balloon pilot ).
You have to respect propane, but it's actually quite safe to have around, all things considered.
The fire went on for something like 20 minutes and burned very hot. A bag full of hydrogen simply CANNOT sit on the ground and burn for 20 minutes unless the fuel is something other than hydrogen.
Be happy. Nothing else matters.
Wikipedia says it was Thomas J. Watson who said that in 1943. This was shortly before Thomas J. Watson Jr. came home from WWII and began promoting computers heavily within IBM. Other web source seem to agree. IBM doesn't seem to endorse it in official material though there is a presentation sitting on one of their sites that mentions it.
Whether or not it's true, the lesson of the quote is that even (especially?) people on the brink of a tipping point may not recognize the huge impact of the disruptive technology they are working with. Works the other way, too. Often those promoting some cool, geeky technology assume everyone will want one, when in fact they don't; at least not yet. Look at the many early attempts at "portable" computers or the many attempts at handheld devices and runs at tablet-style PCs. Ultimately, some of those technologies caught on (and tablets still look like they might) but at a much slower rate than anticipated.
Hydrogen burns with a light-blue, almost transparent flame, and no smoke. The flames on the Hindenburg were red and orange, and produced enormous billowing clouds of smoke. Doesn't sound like a hydrogen fire to me.
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
Add to that a geothermic pump and an hybrid car and that's what I call a real feel-good lifestyle!
Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
If you struck a match in a half full fuel tank it would not explode because the air in there would be too rich to support combustion. To start a fire, you would have to spill the gas out of the tank and light the vapors rising off the puddle on the ground. The rising vapors disperse until it goes from too rich and into its flammable range, and then it would burn. If it was not lit off, the vapors would soon disperse till they are too lean, and above that no fire can be started. That is why people gas up at gas stations all the time and don't get blown up too often. Car gas tanks blowing up is for the movies, in reality cars burn in their engine compartments where the fuel is dispersed enough by a broken fuel line, etc, to be in its explosive range. The tank doesn't burn until the fire structurally weakens it so gas and/or vapor can escape, and then it burns. And gasoline doesn't explode unless it is both in its explosive range AND confined. Otherwise it just burns. Movies make explosions with fire because it looks cool.
Hydrogen has a very very wide explosive range. Incredibly wide. If there is hydrogen present, chances are it will blow in the presence of a spark whereas gasoline wouldn't unless the mixture is just right. Hydrogen is always "just right" to burn.
So if you have a slight hydrogen leak in the house, be prepared to go boom. Unless scent is added, you won't smell it either. You can smell propane and gasoline way before it is in its explosive range--that is what makes them safe. And hydrogen may rise outdoors, but in a confined space it isn't going to be clinging to the roof. Convection of air and regular diffusion definitely results in explosive mixtures of hydrogen in confined areas.
Of course, they would have still been in .de at the take-off point sitting on the ground... But they'd be safe!
....that the natural air-conditioning method described in the article was discovered in the 1930's by R. Buckminster Fuller, during the development of his Dymaxion House.
I belong to the ______ generation.
...only a suggestion.
It was also the last in a string of well-publicized disasters including the loss of the Shenandoah. There are larger questions about whether the materials used were up to the demands of the big airships, a lot of them broke up in rough weather.
In fact only a year or so previous to the Hindenberg disaster, a similar event took place in California though fewer lives were lost. That blimp was full of helium and it still went up in a great ball of flames - because like the Hindenberg it was coated with cellulose acetate (I think to keep water off it). Not sure if it had the aluminium paint as well though.
So yeah, I think the gas used for bouyancy makes little difference to the hazard.
Now if we could produce some kinda field that stabilises positive muons by an order of, say, many trillions, we could have muonium lofted blimps that make do with 10% the volume. But. Alas...
I just skimmed thru the responses and most people seem to think it's silly to store the energy as hydrogen and they should be using batteries.
Lots of talk about losing energy in the conversion process from sunlight to electricity to hydrogen back to elecricity...
Batteries are chemical reactors just as are fuel cells and therefore have the exact same stages, you just don't see two separate pieces(reactants and reactors) When you store energy in batteries you're forcing a chemical reaction which is very similar ot electrolysis of water. Fuel cells have the advantage of being clean and, because they are not intrisically linked with their fuel source, replenishable. Batteries are mostly toxic and wear out.
I've never heard of this before. Searching doesn't turn up much. Can you post a few links, for both the theory of operation and for manufacturers of these systems?
Wow, your uncle ought to take his "outdated" training and write it up. There's a growing literature, both professional and popular, on sustainable design.
e x.htm
Designing buildings to be self-cooling would save energy, and that means saving money. Even snarly irritable types like the 'pretentious crap' guy like money, presumably.
Check out the architects,
http://www.mcdonoughpartners.com/ind
for lots of pretentious eco-crap. They're redesigning Ford's Rouge River plant.
Orang Asilie tribe in Malaysia is the culture in malaysia i would most enjoy emulating. "The Orang Asilie. This is interesting. It?s not their name, it?s the name the surrounding cultures call them and it means ?primitive people?. People usually ask what were you doing there teaching them Giraffe language when they have their own Giraffe language? It?s sad; they were doing quite well. They live in the forest where trees have great economic value in the outside world, so now logging companies are intruding on their space. They don?t know how to speak Giraffe with Jackal speaking people. They have one senator who represents 60,000 people. In Malaysia, they heard about my work and asked me if I could do something. He says ?You know there are consultants who will show us how to use guns, there?s no shortage of these, to get our land back.? The senator hoped there is another way. So back to anger. I hope you?re beginning to see that anger is not the issue. The issue for me is the thinking. Walter Wink points out very poignantly, domination systems require that violence be made enjoyable." quote taken from... http://www.cnvc.org/anger.htm
I'm not saying airships could have survived for long-- the speed arguments along would probably have doomed them, if not the capital cost compared to a metal monoplane. I'm suggesting the PR implications may have been out of proportion to the risks, and facts about duralumin/hydrogen/helium/dope may not have had much to do with it.
-dB
"It if was easy to do, we'd find someone cheaper than you to do it."
It takes a shitload of energy to make PV. First you need to mealt sand to make the silicon, then dope it (baking it in a furnace for hours)... This uses a lot of energy. The energy payback time for most PV processes is many years (this also keeps the $/W high). Hopefully though some of the lower cost processes will come to fruition some time. Who cares if they are low efficiency - I'd just tile my whole house with the stuff, so long as the $/W is right.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Sombeody should tell this architect about earthships. They are durable and self-sustainable houses, they don't need to be connected to the community's power grid, water distribution or waste evacuation systems, by using solar power and by recycling water (and capturing rain water and condensation).
Maybe we deserve this world ?
NOX is nasty because you get it as long as you're buring using plain old air. :-(
I _think_ fuel cells may solve this, but there is nothing like that immediately available.
There are many ranches in rural areas here in Arizona that use photovotaic power. The do that because there are not any power lines near where they live. The use the photovotaic solar panels for electricity in their houses and rely on battery power at night. On cloudy rainy days they use their backup generator. They use energy efficient appliances and lights so that they do not need too many photovotaic panels. They also use the photovotaic power to pump water for their cattle. No backup is needed for that, they only pump during the daytime.
One couple here in town have an unusually large aray of photovotaic panels on their roof. Not only does it provide electricity for their house but, there was enough electricity for the wife to plug in her electric car and charge it up too.
There are less expensive ways to heat a house with solar energy that do not require using photovotaic panels. Some of the least expensive methods are passive solar energy. A black glass covered trombe wall can be used. The sun is lower in the sky during the winter so if the overhang on the roof is sized correctly sunlight only hits the trombe wall during the winter and not during the summer.
In our climate there is even a way to cool solar houses during the summer. In the mountains here in Arizona it cools off nicely at night even during July and August. During the winter one person here in town has a rock storage bin in which hot air from solar collecters is blown through it through it to store the heat for use at night. During the summer time at night cool air is blown through it. During the daytime in the summer he adjusts the air flow so that air from the house is run through the cool rock in the bin and cooled.
My dad has a three panel batch type solar hot water heater for the restrooms and showers in his RV park that is still working after almost 20 years of trouble free use. Most of the black paint in the panels is gone so less solar energy is being collected now but the pipes still feel very hot so it is still preheating the water significantly. The company that made them went out of business back in the 1980s just after the solar tax credits went away and oil prices dropped.
Someday when oil and natural gas becomes more expensive houses like these will be common. Several local residents in our town have already proven that it works. Several houses that I have visited are totally off the grid and in one case they sell the excess electricty back to the power company. Their electric meter runs backwards at times. I am glad to see demo projects like the Malay house. Houses like these will not become common until oil becomes more expensive.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Using photovoltaics to generate electricity, then generate hydrogen, and burn the hydrogen to heat water sounds like a lot of inefficiency when you could use something like this.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
(the most abundant element in Earth's atmosphere is Nitrogen)
77% N2 (molecular nitrogen)
21% O2 (molecular oxygen)
1% H2O (Water Vapor)
0.93% Argon
CO2 (0.035%)
Traces of CH4 (methane), Inert Gases (Ne, He, Kr, Xe)
Particulates (silicate dust, sea salt, sulfates, etc.)
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
I think I see a little problem here in step 2...
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
It will only be truly sustainable when it can output enough surplus energy to replace the embodied energy used to create and transport the materials and build the house. Wake up people - this house still consumes resources, just in advance at someone else's location.
That pretty much answers the question of why it's too expensive.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
It's kind of ironic, but right now the cheapest, and most energy efficient way to produce hydrogen is to make if from natural gas. There are other chemical ways as well as high temperature electrolosis being considered, (these might able to someday achieve 40% energy conversion). The easiest way is to jsut use cold electrolosis, but that's only about 20% efficient, so it costs more when you produce large quantities. Also, it requires sulfuric acid, which will eventually need to be replineshed (unless you reuse the water the fuel cells produce).
The hydrogen systems shows promise, but as others have said it is the solar which makes it work.
For those who complain that solar is too expensive, this is true only because of the subsidies that other fuels receive.
Earthships have been self-suffcient for years and years.
Using solar electricity to produce hydrogen is a great big waste. The sunlight will directly heat your home and water with much higher efficiency.
www.earthship.org
What planet are you from? Who said anything about liquid hydrogen? It's just a holding tank for hydrogen gas. When it fills up, the energy gets put into the grid.
"the house has been constructed primarily from steel and concrete, which are hardly sustainable materials" That's an intresting way of looking at it, considering that those building materials last practically forever, where as wood most certinally does not. Would you propose that we build all of our houses out of paper and replace tehm every couple of years?
Why do you think that it requires more energy to make concrete than to make masonry? They're essentially the same thing (except that a few chemicals go into concrete), and masonry has to be fired in a furnace, so that probably makes up any energy differece there. As far as steel goes, yes it does take a lot of energy to produce it, but it lasts a LONG time, a lot longer than wood and masonry.
I hardly think it's fair to say that a house made of steel and concrete can't be eco-firendly. Personally, I'd rather see people start designing and using perminant structures and stop using wood alltogether.
P.S. I have some major problems with that first article you linked. It pretends to be all green and shit, but then it basically says that we sould use our forrests as though they were a gigantic tree farm. Am I the only environmentalists who thinks our natural forrests sould remain natural? Second of all right after it says steel and aluminum cost a lot to recycle, it says we'll run out of aluminum in 200 years, hello? aluminum and steel completly and endlessly recyclable, we'll never run out of them. Finally, I really object to them saying that wood siding is better than aluminum recycling. Basically aluminum siding lasts forever, wood siding starts looking really shitty and needs to be replavced every decade or so. And when you do, you can't recycle it because of all the paint and oil put into it over the years. Which is really better for thin environment? This site is jsut a bunch of loggers trying to tell you that they're going to turn the natural forrests into a farm, and it'll be good for the environment. A good clue that this is propaganda is that they list the R-values of metals to tell you that they're not energy efficient (metals are structural, you'd never use them for insulation).
Sounds bizarre, but simply compressing air is more efficient than electrolysing water to H2 and then oxidising it back to water in a fuel cell.
It's already being used on an industrial scale in a couple of places:
http://www.aip.org/isns/reports/2001/025.html
You can think of the air as a big spring which won't wear out. The issue with it is energy density, but then that depends on the pressure you compress it to.
The French air car project uses around 200 atmospheres at the moment with proposed 300 if it reaches production. They used to have compressed air trams running about their cities.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
...is that storing it long term is problematic. Because it is the smallest atom and H2 is the smallest molecule. No matter how tightly sealed the tank over time the hydrogen is going to leak out directly through the material of the tank. Short term and verses the normal discharge of batteries though it could be more efficient.
You can legislate morally you can't legislate morality
Man, that is *exactly* what I've been wanting to hear. PLEASE post a link, or at least give a name/ref. # for the document so I can get a copy
How much heavy metals, heavy chemicals and energy to produce one photovoltaic cell. What is the lifetime of each cell? So, if eco in eco-house is not for economic or ecologic. what is it for?
There are houses like this in Austria, the Netherlands, Baveria and Swizerland (NOTE: Last two links are to non-English PDF files but contain pictures).
These houses are referred to as "Nullenergiehaus" in German. Searching for this term on Google will demonstrate that at this point already a whole industry has evolved around constructing these buildings. How else could Europe ever hope to fulfill the CO2 demands imposed by the Kyoto treaty?
It is nice to see that slashdot spends some attention on this but Michael is way of the mark when copying the claim of the article that this is the first fully self-sustainable Eco-home.
The might-have-beens still interest me.
Moffett's idea was to use airships as early warning platforms in the Pacific. Range and endurance were the Zepp's great advantage and I believe their speed was about the same as PanAm's Clippers, the flying boats. But all Moffett had to work with were featherweight spotter planes that could use an airship as a carrier, no radar.
Yeah, this house runs fine-and-dandy in Malaysia, but what about other places where it's not so warm and sunny throughout the entire year?
I'm still holding out on someone to design a house that runs on cloudy skies and miserable winters. And maybe off of all the rock salt that can be scraped off of the bottom of my car too.
Sincerely,
Cleveland
Karma: NaN
Honda's Home Energy Stationp &page =4
h ttp://www.collegehillshonda.com/news/100203.htm
http://www.hondanews.com/catid1002?view=
http://world.honda.com/news/2003/c031002.html
If you look at a regional solution (I think it was the National Academy of Sciences), using the abundant wind in the midwest to make electricity and then hydrogen is viable. The overall efficiencies of the overall system are low, but at the cost of your energy (free wind) you only have capital costs. The wind is getting down to the cost of coal (3-6 cents/kwh - currently negotiating a 25 year contract for 5.8 cents/kwh). Pipe the hydrogen to your house like natural gas:
1) the farmers get another source of income
2) burn the hydrogen in your boiler to heat water for bathing and for your radiant floor
3) use it directly to cook with
4) when fuel cells get cheap enough, generate your own electricty on site.
You could generate it from wind at your own house if you could afford the $2M that a wind turbine costs. Wind turbines don't become very efficient until 1MW which is about 100ft high.
Given that kites have been a part of our harnessing of power going back a few milenii Why don't we see kites used to power our homes.
They are inexpensive.
Unlike solar cells which do not generate more power in their lifetime than it takes to produce them - kites could actually net energy.
The kite should be made with adjustable pitch, and should be oscillated in an out with the lift used to pull and spin a flywheel attached to a generator.
serious kites in high winds could harness many megawatts of free energy - at much lower cost and higher energy per hectare rates than windmills. - But I want to know why it won't work.
AIK
The only time I mentioned the Accord was in a parenthetical reference to the approximate SIZE of the car. Everything else (all that stuff not in the parentheses with the word "accord") was intended to be in comparison to last years' Prius. I'm sorry if my wording was unclear, and left your V6 feeling threatened. The Accord is a very nice car.
As a personal curiosity, do you offer to race anybody who thinks their car is faster than yours? You must put a lot of miles on that Accord, sprinting away from modified Dodge Neons. Honda makes reliable cars, though-- so you can expect years and years of racing random people on the internet from it, wherever they are "at."
If it will make you feel better, the next time you're out my way, you can totally waste my completely boring stock CVT Civic HX in a race. Hell, you can put your Accord against me on a bicycle. I guarantee I have less torque and horsepower than a V6, despite my shiny helmet. Victory will be yours, and the world will cheer the speed and might of your chariot.
Seriously, I meant no threat to your car. It is mighty super powerful wicked fast. And this is all intended in good fun. Sorry about the unclear wording.
umn I have seen some home wind turbines for less than 10k. They are not 1MW, but are enough to power a house if the engery is stored. The wind in amny places blows 24 hours a day. Small wind turbines produce more per dollar of capital in many areas AND are cheaper to maintain than solar systems. Installing wind power to a rural house( new construction OR not yet on grid) can be cheaper than running the wires to get it in grid. Sadly there are problems with wind for most urban or sub urban homes.
The only way to bust a doper--is when you yourself become a smoker!
1.when hydrogen is catalised it turns back to water and can be reclaimed
2.burning it in a car takes only slight modifications i.e. stainless steel valves, hydrogen and higher temps cause the cast valves to become brittel
3.hydrogen burns clean,so fewer oil changes are needed
4.when buring it in a car you don't need to store any you can make it on the fly, so no storage tanks are needed
2) Rupture a fuel line in each of them.
3) Ignite
4) Stand back and watch
More detailed information is available here, but some strong quotes:
It takes a long, long time to get things standardized. While this is indeed a cool concept, it won't be in too many households any time soon.
My house is powered by a gerbil in a wheel.
Free Image Hosting
Even though hydrogen doesn't add carbon to the atmosphere it does have significant environmental impact;
1. Cracking water into hydrogen and oxygen, makes it possible to loose hydrogen to space (because it's so light.)
2. Some of that hydrogen will eat away at an already damaged ozone layer. Hydrogen is very good at destroying ozone.
3. Transporting hydrogen is difficult... it's light, so you either have to pressurize it or make it a liquid... in either case, accidents in transport could be devastating (hydrogen burns incredibly hot.)
A hydrogen economy could be wonderful for the world, we just have to make sure that hydrogean doesn't leak out into the environment. Otherwise we'll just be trading one set of problems for a new (and potentially worse set of problems.)
Genda
What I've read about hydrogen and also about the Hindenburg disaster, is that hydrogen doesn't actually go boom, like many people seem to think. Hydrogen actually burns in a volume just about the size of the gas itself. So it doesn't expand while burning like explosives.
This means, that no-one onboard Hindenburg actually exploded or even burnt because of burning hydrogen. Maybe they were cast with some hot water, who knows, but the only casualties resulted from the actual crash. Any other "filling" would not have kept it in the air much better.
Hydrogen is actually less flammable than gasoline, so it's much safer in that sense, than gas. People saying, that hydrogen can't be used in houses or cars because everything will go boom, are simply wrong and have no actual knowledge of the area.
I am surprised you guys didn't key in on some of the facts of the article. They have 42 PV panels generating 5kw. That is roughly 110-120 watt panels. For starters you should easily be able to power the entire house and then some with that much power if you choose your appliances and fixtures carefully. So the only thing that the hydrogen brings to the table is a glorified battery.
Secondly price these PV panels! They are very expensive. Even if you used a nice round number say $400 per panel times 42 you start to get the picture. They need to focus more on conservation and reducing that power load if they are going to make this affordable for real people.
I own PV panels and know the costs associated with them. This article really is interesting, but only telling part of the story.
Actually the hottest (read: covered once on Wired) technology in this sense are hitech flywheels. They require highly resistant materials, but can store a lot of energy, last long and dont pollute (afaik). There are already a few companies selling large units, but still a bit too costly for home usage.
But it's one of the most promising technologies i've seen around.
This hydrogen issue is imho mostly hype, as final efficience (well, AFTER electricity production) is just about 35%! Moreover, compared to other common gases you need 4 times the volume for the same energy. (But yeah, it's easy to produce at home...).
Flywheels have better storage efficiency, are a lot safer (you keep them underground) and have much more potential. Biggest downside is that they cant be used on cars...
For production there arent solar panels only: two things i've seen lately are thermoacoustic and Stirling engines (the latter with some companies around). If only these areas got more research funding we'd get soon the dream personal energy solution.
\ Quartz / Piero Foscari @ cmcs.unife.it
No. It was finally the aluminium hull and structure of the Hindenburg, that caught fire. Think it as a long chain: First something catches fire by a lightning streak, thus lighting up the hydrogen. With the hydrogen burning the fire gets so hot that the aluminium structure starts melting and catching fire too. And burning light metals can't be extinguished by throwing water, foam or carbondioxyde on it. They just reduce the water to hydrogen and the carbondioxyde to carbonmonoxyde, which then create an explosive gas if they reach fresh oxygene. The only thing you can extinguish light metal fire with is powder (which consists mainly of a sodium compound which I don't remember the name right now), and I doubt the firemen in Lakehurst had enough powder available (was it even used to extinguish fire in 1937?)
Lets put it like this: The commercial air ship aera did in fact end with LZ129's catastrophic landing. But this was just the last blow to an already endangered concept. The track record of commercial lighter-than-air traffic was abyssmal even before the Lakehurst event. For instance only half of the LZ series ships ever build did NOT end in a catastrophical event. And trans atlantic flights have been proven possible by airplanes already 15 years ago (The "Spirit of St.Louis" being rather one of the last sportive attempts to cross the atlantic which got famous because Charles Lindbergh missed his original destination in Ireland and landed quite remarkably for the press in Paris).
Bad day to quit consuming Caffeine . Yes, after I posted that I realized misunderstood the intent of what you were trying to say. And, yes, I do race all those modified Civics, etc. Cuz, the speed of the car is actually not the most important part of street racing..... its massive balls and a small penis... Cya, Mea Culpa.
"I don't know that a Hindenberg into the WTC would have burned as hot for as long as the planes did."
I'm not sure that a plane into the WTC would have burned as hot for as long as they supposedly did. I just don't believe it. All the jet fuel was consumed in the initial explosions.
Actually, the Hindenburg was designed as a Helium airship.
At the time, the US was the only source of Helium and the US Govt would not permit its supply. Airships were still considered to have military applications then and the administration were (rightly) concerned about Germany's rapid re-armament programme. Because the Zeppelins were a massive public relations success, the Nazis insisted on flying the Hindenburg with Hydrogen instead, which it was not designed to accomodate. The designers were well aware of the flammability issues, hence the excellent safety record of the Hindenburg's predecessor, the Graf Zeppelin.
10 - Hydrogen fuel use can really lower smog.
And noise pollution. Fuel-cell based scooters/motorbikes/cars powered by hydrogen are silent. As as you say later, they will easily out-accelerate any petrol driven vehicle.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
They realized that hydrogen burns nearly invisible, too. They also realized that secondary fires would also start. They also realized that the aluminum paint would also ignite given the extremely high temperatures of the initial hydrogen fire. They also realized the fuel oil in the engines, and the metal in the framing, and the canvas tarping would likely ignite as well.
That is one possibility. However, hydrogen could just have well been secondary. The guy from NASA actually experimented to see what was more likely. His story seems very believable to me.
In fact, they looked at a whole hell of lot more evidence than you have and concluded a hydrogen fire. ALL of them. On multiple occasions.
First of all, the original investigators assumed that it was a hydrogen fire and tried to find the cause. AFAIK, they never even entertained the idea that the paint might have been the primary.
Secondly, the German Zeppelin makers did their own investigation and they concluded that the paint was the culprit (search for Otto Beyerstock).
Thirdly, a helium craft caught fire in '35. That airship had a similar paint.
Now, there are people who say that the paint alone can't account for the fast burn and that might be an interesting discussion. But to suggest that hydrogen was the sole cause of the burn and that this guy from NASA is the only one saying differently is a big fat lie.
Solar>electrolysis>Hydrogen>fuel cell>conversion - what a stupid and wasteful chain of supply. Now I understand why BP and the oil companies are so into hydrogen - not because of the sale of hydrogen, but because of all that money they expect to make on their PV arrays! Batteries aren't 100%, but dumping and then reclaiming from the AC line is about as efficient as you can get, and if you have access to the mains AC any other storage (more than a few hours) is just a stupid waste of money.
If that thing cost $70k with all that crap either they were GIVEN all the collectors and electronics or the house cost $1000 to build. And if I could build a house like that for $1000 then I think I might need to consider cashing out and moving to Malaysia... they speak french over there, don't they?
I didn't see an exercise room with a stationary bike... just in case the power grid is down, its raining outside, and your hydrogen tank is empty.
you, sir, are a loony.
"It if was easy to do, we'd find someone cheaper than you to do it."
If the Hindenberg was "in effect, ...coated with solid rocket fuel" then you are "in effect" the Atlantic Ocean.
After all, you contain somewhat salty, slighty brackish water. So you must be the Atlantic, right? Lie down, I want to ride a surfboard over you a few times!
I used work for Thiokol and tested solid fuel rocket motors for a living. There is little or no reasonable comparison to be made between solid rocket fuel and the metallized dopants on the Hindenberg's skin (which were commonly used on other aircraft of the period, incidentally). The burn characteristics and stability of solid fuels are extremely different from metallic wing dope.
Ten minutes of research will show you that the page you linked is bullshit. Those people do not have a very firm grip on basic Aristotelian logic, or reality for that matter.... just because something has a few elements in common with something else DOESN'T MAKE IT THE SAME THING!
It was metallic aircraft dope.
Real thermite is aluminum powder and iron oxide, basement thermite is ground-up beer cans and rust (iron dioxide not iron oxide)... harder to ignite and not as effective, but still fun.
Aircraft dope is another thing entirely. Not rocket fuel, not thermite, but aircraft dope.
Aircraft dope is insanely flammable to start with, and when you add aluminum it burns very very brightly - and there's the only valid comparison to thermite and aluminum-based solid rocket fuels, which also burn brightly due to their aluminum content.
The Hindenberg's skin was cotton doped with aluminized cellulose acetate butyrate. Not at all unusual for the time period.
You've trotted this out before, haven't you?
I seem to recall you've been corrected on these false claims in the past... or maybe I'm just remembering another of the randite pollution trolls.
For those who might not know: modern solar cells (such as those made down the street from me) are 100% recyclable, do not require toxic chemical production, and nobody knows how long they last since the modern cells have only been around a couple of decades and none of them have worn out yet.
And there is no such thing as a "typical" solar cell plant. But of course pollution-mongers don't understand the meaning of "type specimen" anyway.
Hey, Syber, am I an "eco-terrorist"? I drive a Prius and I marched in protests against the War to Keep Texas Oil Expensive.
>"When you mix oxygen and nitrogen at high temperatures, you get NO - the infamous NOX measured by the EPA."
yes high temps and N2 = nasty nitrogen species. However, that is true for petrol combustion as well. So we simply continue the use of a catalytic converters in combination with combustion temperature control (egr vales & the like). This is the basis of our current nitrogen oxide emissions cotroll now.
This can nearly eliminate nasty nitrogen species that hydrogen combustion forms. in addition these parts will last longer and and work better for the elimination of most soot in the exhaust. that should even allow for a higher degree of coversion of the nasty nitrogen oxides back to N2.
Nice catch on that one though, I should have mentioned it....
So the guy who points out that the fire from the Hindenburg was bright, like an aluminum fire, (hydrogen burns pale blue, almost invisibly) made the mistake of using shuttle motors and thermite as examples of things that also burn brightly because they contain aluminum.
And thus a generation of slashbots were born, yammering "the Hindenberg was painted with rocket fuel" and "no, it was painted with thermite"!.
The skin of the Hindenburg was cotton doped with aluminized cellulose acetate butyrate. That is NOT rocket fuel. Rocket fuel produces IMPULSE. Burning metallic aero dopes do not produce any significant impulse and thus are NOT USEFUL AS ROCKET PROPELLANTS. Therefore the Hindenburg's skin does not have the ESSENTIAL property of rocket fuel, therefore the Hindenberg was not "painted with a substance that was essentially rocket fuel".
Similarly, aluminized cellulose acetate butyrate on a cotton substrate cannot be used to weld steel. Thus it also lacks the ESSENTIAL properties of thermite.
I think I'm going to have to turn this one over the Babs Mikkelson.
I'll take that bet... as long as we both start with dry gas tanks!
I drove my Prius at 60mph for several miles with an completely empty tank at one point. That was two years ago, and it doesn't seem to have taken any damage.
I always wonder... Why is it that everybody wants me to buy American shite (thus encouraging Detroit to continue making bad products) instead of foreign excellence (thus encouraging Americans to invent a better product). I see it as my capitalistic duty to buy the best products at the best price!
Maybe I'm reading to much into your posts... you sure sound like you're a typical neo-conservative nutbag, though, dressing up old racism and tired jingoism as new ideas.
I used work for Thiokol
O-Ring division?
That's the cleverest response I think I've ever gotten in a Hindenburg thread.
Naw, I worked with some A-holes, but not with the O-rings.