

The Hydrogen Myth - TriinT
http://www.slideshare.net/stephenfleming/the-hydrogen-myth-presentation

======
Shakescode
A 38 page powerpoint presentation. Very illuminating. Who knew such things as:

Liquid hydrogen leaks can be ignited by the static spark set off by the leak
itself?

Hydrogen flames are _not_ visible (see slide 16: hydrogen refinery would look
same _when on fire_ as when not.

Compressed H2 gas or Liq H2 have only about 15% or 30% of the energy-per-
gallon as gasoline.

And on and on... Sure casts doubt on feasibility of H2 as a medium for energy
storage.

~~~
jws
_hydrogen refinery would look same when on fire as when not._ \- except for
the heat wave distortion, plumes of smoke from burning paint, drooping steel
gangways, showers of electrical sparks from the shorting electrical system,
and workers leaping from the upper levels.

~~~
potatolicious
And if the fuel in a hydrogen car decided to burn, everyone in its vicinity
will find out in a real hurry - a fire that looks different is still a fire.

Though his point is valid - hydrogen _will_ burn extremely quickly, we used to
do these as demonstrations in school. Where a pool of gasoline will burn over
a period of time, a tank full of hydrogen will burn almost instantaneously to
disastrous effect - forget about rescue, the only sort of "rescue" will be
body retrieval of whatever is left.

~~~
likpok
However, hydrogen will not pool like gasoline. If it doesn't ignite, it will
just fly off into space. This mitigates some of the risk (i.e. if there is an
accident, a fuel leak will either kill you quickly, or it won't)

------
dryicerx
I completely agree with the content in this sideshow, except I think he left
out a important part of the H2 discussion.

H2 is a complicated/inefficient/explosive way to move energy, but it's very
clean (as a energy transfer medium). At the moment, the way H2 is generated is
very unclean (using Methane, or using the power from coal and other dirty
power sources).

But if the origin of the energy is totally clean (hydroelectric, wind, solar),
you can use that energy to break water down, then transfer that hydrogen in to
the vehicle. Breaking down water is not so efficient, but it's still clean. I
think this is the ideal (maybe dreamlike) goal of the H2 Camp.

~~~
lutorm
Given the low density, it's questionable to me whether it's better to use
electricity to make hydrogen and put it in a tank compared to just putting it
in a battery in a car. Bypasses the production losses and the low ICE
efficiency.

~~~
potatolicious
I agree with you entirely - converting clean electricity into a finicky form
of transport seems ill-advised. That being said, battery technology has a long
way to go before being able to power a car entirely.

For one thing, energy density needs to improvement by an order of magnitude to
make mass application useful, and the average lifetime of the battery I would
say would have to increase 2-3x. Batteries are expensive to manufacture and
the ecological impact of disposal is also extremely high - better to make
longer-lasting batteries than cheap crap.

~~~
bjelkeman-again
Just saying that "the ecological impact of disposal [of batteries] is also
extremely high" without differentiating between battery types is to simplify
the issue too much I think. Some batteries are bad to throw away, others are
less bad, but you can also recycle batteries.

"Lithium Ion batteries are classified by the federal government as non-
hazardous waste and are safe for disposal in the normal municipal waste
stream," says Kate Krebs at the National Recycling Coalition.
<http://bit.ly/wS344>

In general, throwing away stuff that isn't naturally occuring in the eco
system is often bad, and sometimes too much of something natural can be bad
too. But blanket statements that something is bad don't help. The battery
system would be replacing something else, like a petrol driven engine, which
also has an environmental impact and is much less efficient.

~~~
likpok
Furthermore, lead-acid (car) batteries are extremely easy to recycle (and are
valuable; you almost always get a trade-in discount).

------
Tichy
"The first and second law of Thermodynamics:

1\. You can't win

2\. You can't even break even"

~~~
wglb
And doesn't the third translate to "3. You can't get out of the game"?

~~~
eru
And the zeroth?

~~~
wglb
Er, "We are all in this together?"

------
wglb
This is what Don Lancaster at <http://www.tinaja.com/h2gas01.asp> has been
saying for a long time. One quote "Please also note that because of the
staggering loss of exergy, use of electrolysis for bulk hydrogen apps is a
really, really dumb thing to do. It is the equivalent of exchanging two US
dollars for one Mexican peso."

------
drawkbox
I want a nuclear car: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon>

------
nihilocrat
I'm confused about something he says in slide 22: "Solar and wind power are
rounding errors"

Is he saying that they are currently just very limited compared to other
energy generation methods in use, or that they're completely unviable?

~~~
potatolicious
I can't speak for the author - but there is some evidence that, to produce our
power needs via wind/tidal means on a large scale (i.e. an appreciable portion
of total production) would cause as of yet hard to predict ecological impact.
You sap the energy out of your tide and wind and bad juju will happen to your
environment.

~~~
jcl
"Hard to predict" is an understatement. For all we know, extracting energy
from wind and waves could counter the recent perceived increase in hurricanes
and tropical storms, or it could restore weather patterns to what they were
prior to deforestation.

~~~
anamax
> For all we know, extracting energy from wind and waves could counter the
> recent perceived increase in hurricanes and tropical storms

The recent trend in hurricanes has been a decrease. (We can spot storms in
places that we couldn't look before, but if we look just where we could look
before, there's a decrease.)

The middle of the 20th century was far worse.

------
physcab
One thing I can't stand about the hydrogen debate is how people link it to
"fuel cells are bad." Solid Oxide fuel cells happen to be quite economical and
successful by using other fuels like propane and gasoline. There are
disadvantages with every energy technology, but the trick is using them in the
right combination that makes the most sense. No need for unproductive flame
wars.

And the quotes from "smart people" are ridiculous. Wow, you quoted someone
else (and most likely out of context) to make your point stronger. Good for
you. Do you want a cookie?

~~~
stephenfleming
Nope, got plenty of Oreos, right here.

Other people may have looked at the unfavorable characteristics and conclude
"fuel cells are bad." That would be sloppy and stupid.

My message would be that "HYDROGEN fuel cells are bad, especially for
automotive use." I like fuel cells in general; my employer has some great work
going on with methanol fuel cells.

As far as the quotes being out of context... you've got Google, right there in
your toolbar. Look 'em up.

~~~
physcab
I have no problem with your content (with the exception that you failed to
mention which technologies COULD be commercialized rather easily). I believe
you gave all accurate information. I just didn't like your presentation.

So some critiques, if I may:

1) Slide 2 - Why? I know you're trying to demonstrate your credibility, but
this just seems like bragging. Who cares if you achieved highest honors.

2) Slides 2,6,9,13,14,15,19,22,28,29,37 - waaaaay too verbose. If you came to
give a seminar at my school, I would have been drawing stick figures by now.
Brevity is key.

3) I still stand by my criticism of your quotes. They add absolutely nothing
to your presentation. What are they supposed to accomplish? And I assumed you
were giving this talk in front of a group of people...so which toolbar are you
referring to...the one on my iphone?

