is Hydrogen realy the fuel of the future?

Scientists overcome 'fermentation barrier'

Until we have cheap fusion to mass-produce hydrogen,
the best we can do is try to generate hydrogen without the pollution of
burning coal or oil, or the methane out-gassed by hydroelectric dams.

When the source of hydrogen is clean, then fuel cell cars could be considered non-polluting.

BIOWASTE: How much "cleaner" can we get than if our sewage and trash is no longer discarded,
but re-used to create useful byproducts, including hydrogen?

hydrogen is one of the fuels of the future. The dependency on a single source coal/oil is historically unique and we will see a return to a more varied energy mix.

One word.....


HINDENBURG

Excellent photo and summary of the Hindenburg at:
http://www.hydrogennow.org/Facts/Safety-1.htm

Hydrogen had very little to do with the problem.
. . . The Hindenburg was PAINTED with rocket fuel! That's what burned
so fast when it was hit by lightning.

Hydrogen is not an energy efficient and practical fuel. The reason is free hydrogen simply does not occur in quantity in nature. More energy is generally required to separate it from the chemical compounds in which it is found (water or some organic molecules) than is released when it is burned.

Hydrogen is very clean burning and hydrogen powered vehicles (whether fuel cells or internal combustion engines) would be a great boon to the atmosphere around crowded city streets. However if the power to produce the hydrogen is obtained from the burning of carbon-based organic fuels then nothing is gained at all. Indeed the substantial conversion energy losses will add significantly to net pollution and to the depletion of natural organic fuels.

If instead the power to separate free hydrogen is produced by new nuclear plants, then there is a large net gain. In most areas of the world it would instead be preferable to use the nuclear power as a substitute for coal-fired electrical power plants in meeting normal electrical power requirements, before a diversion to hydrogen production is contemplated.

In short there is great potential for environmental benefit from more widespread use of nuclear power. There is also a much more limited, but not inconsequential potential from solar and wind power. Most of the world's hydroelectrical potential has already been tapped and that too has its adverse environmental effects. Hydrogen is an engineer's novelty, not of much practical use.

I've been listening to an interesting radio program in which this is the very topic. It seems hydrogen can be made fairly simply and cheaply as a byproduct from pond scum and/or just plain water and sunshine.

There is a proposed massive apartment complex in Japan that will use pond scum to heat and provide power to over 750,000 users on a daily basis. The pond scum actually cleans the water as well. An almost completely self sufficient system.

So yes, I believe it will be the next big fuel source.

Just my opinion but if the entire plan of attack to combat global warming is to switch to hydrogen cars then the plan is just a setup for failure.

Most groups attribute just under half of the annual increase in CO2 in the atmosphere as being due to deforestation and roughly 1/3rd of CO2 emmissions come from plants that burn fossil fuels to generate electricty.

If +/-45% of the CO2 is attribuatable to deforestation and +/-33% is from eletrical power generation that only leaves something like 20% as attributable to all other sources like cars, planes, trains and home/business heating systems. You can't win by only attacking something that is +/-10% of the whole problem.

I have nothing against attacking the problem of vehicle emmisiions but it seems to me that increasing plant density with plants that absorb large amounts of CO2, finding ways to reduce eletrical consumption (more energy efficent buildings, etc..), and developing/deploying alternative electrical generation technologies (nuclear, solar, wind, hydro-electric, geothermal, etc..) would have a significantly larger immediate impact on the problem.


My $.02 worth.

I believe you need a more precise definition of "pond scum". Any organic material immersed and decaying in water has the potential for the anerobic evolution of methane and some free hydrogen (it is mostly methane though.).

My company designs and builds such methane recovery systems for food and cattle processing companies throughout the country , basically by tenting their waste ponds and recovering the methane that evolves for use as a local heating fuel. It is a very cost effective auxiliary system particularly if the evolved fuel is consumed locally without requirement for intermediate storage. However this is not a source of sufficient fuel to replace significant portions of the streams of coal, natural gas, and petroleum that fuel our industries and cities.

Even the small concentrqations of free hydrogen that result can be a problem. Just a 5% concentration of hydrogen in air at atmospheric pressure is an explosive mixture.

Hydrogen is an interesting possibility that will likely have some beneficial applicability in fuel cells for vehicles. However until the basic Laws of Thermodynamics and Chemistry are changed, it will not be a major net source of energy in this world.

duplicate

Nuclear Reactions can be used to produce hydrogen. China, according to the referenced source, will be using a pebble bed reactor as a hydrogen producer as soon as 2006.

A Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative was initiated as part of the hydrogen proposal mentioned in the 2003 SOTU.

NERI presents links to PDF files presenting potential Nuclear Hydrogen production processes.

Rap