Yeah, the crowbars from space was a good one, But I want to see a football field size spacecraft detonate it's way into space straight out of Elliot Bay...
Hydrogen is not a resource. It's just an element. It is neither more or less 'renewable' than carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, etc. As has been pointed out by others here, the energy released by using Hygrogen in a fuel cell has to come from another source. Energy from another source, (burning fossil fuels, maybe even some that are dirtier like coal) would be required to produce electricity for water electrolysis, or to catalytically convert other hydrogen containing compounds to molecular hydrogen.
The energy put into making hydrogen WILL be less than the energy retrieved in it's use. Anyone with a passing familiarity of thermodynamics would comprehend that. From an energy storage efficiency standpoint, Hydrogen isn't even as good as many other chemical alternatives. Far more energetic compounds like nitroglycerin store energy very efficiently, although the controlled release portion of the reaction could use some research...
The only advantages of hydrogen in fuel cells are it's potential (but as yet not completely resolved) efficiency in generating electricity locally, adn the ability to use 'alternate' fuel sources to create the hydrogen in the first place. Before anyone gets too excited about beneficial ecological consequences of those 'alternative' sources, they would as pointed out earlier likely be coal (which the US has a lot of) or nuclear power. Neither of those options is going to be popular with many people.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, the crowbars from space was a good one, But I want to see a football field size spacecraft detonate it's way into space straight out of Elliot Bay...
Hydrogen is not a resource. It's just an element. It is neither more or less 'renewable' than carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, etc. As has been pointed out by others here, the energy released by using Hygrogen in a fuel cell has to come from another source. Energy from another source, (burning fossil fuels, maybe even some that are dirtier like coal) would be required to produce electricity for water electrolysis, or to catalytically convert other hydrogen containing compounds to molecular hydrogen.
...
The energy put into making hydrogen WILL be less than the energy retrieved in it's use. Anyone with a passing familiarity of thermodynamics would comprehend that. From an energy storage efficiency standpoint, Hydrogen isn't even as good as many other chemical alternatives. Far more energetic compounds like nitroglycerin store energy very efficiently, although the controlled release portion of the reaction could use some research
The only advantages of hydrogen in fuel cells are it's potential (but as yet not completely resolved) efficiency in generating electricity locally, adn the ability to use 'alternate' fuel sources to create the hydrogen in the first place. Before anyone gets too excited about beneficial ecological consequences of those 'alternative' sources, they would as pointed out earlier likely be coal (which the US has a lot of) or nuclear power. Neither of those options is going to be popular with many people.