Why are they not looking into using hydrogen are the new fuel for aircraft and ground transportation?

Question

It is safe light and the Hindenburg disaster hydrogen did NOT blow up it was the flammable coating the hydrogen already escaped before it when up in flames. Using solar to break the molecules H2O we can continually produce hydrogen for ALL and I say ALL our energy needs. The oil tycoons are stopping us so I say we have to ram the cockpit and take out world back in control

Answer 1

Some scientists and engineers are. Last week the head of research for a large aircraft producer, speaking in the science museum in London, reputedly stated that 'fuel cell' aircraft may be with us in 20 years.

Answer 2

There has been experiments using hydrogen since the 60's, the only problem is, they have yet to design a system where the hydrogen system is more efficient from standard gasoline. The efficiency is way less with hydrogen then with a gasoline engine,  also. This has been looked at, but at the current standpoint, the bads outweigh the goods.

Answer 3

I agree. If it is as simple as using water then what the h**l are we waiting for. People in other parts of the country pay over 8$ per gallon of gas. IT is ridiculous. I saw a program on television about a vehicle that runs on water. Why we still choose to shed blood for oil and pay ridiculous prices boggles my mind.

Answer 4

I'm all for hydrogen. I would think we were on our way to it anyhow. I think you underestimate the power requirements though. Hydrogen is merely an energy storage solution, the amount of it that can be available depends on the efficiency of the electric generation technology. Solar panel efficiency IS increasing, but from what I've seen on the market is not yet practical as a generator of alternative auto fuel. Ask me again in 4 years though.

Oh, and I am not so sure you are right about the problem with the Hindenburg, BUT did you know that the majority of its passengers survived that disaster?

Answer 5

Hydrogen is being thoroughly investigated.  There are currently two obstacles:

1. It's complicated to extract it from the water.

2. The extraction process is expensive.

If these obstacles could be overcome, hydrogen could be a viable solution.

Answer 6

Darksun,

For one thing, you are wrong about the Hindenburg.  Hydrogen DID burn in this accident. Look at the movie and you can see it.

I do not think that you are correct in saying that 90-95% efficiency will be available in Europe. I am not aware of ANY process that is 90% efficient, on ANYTHING.

Hydrogen is a promising fuel, however, it is not without drawbacks. We need nuclear reactors to provide electricity to manufacture large quantities of hydrogen.

To say that oil tycoons are stopping us is also incorrect.

Answer 7

Lockheed looked into a hydrogen powered L1011 back in the 1980s.  The design called a large part of the fuselage to be taken up by the enormous tank required for the liquid hydrogen fuel.  It requires a large amount of insulation to keep the hydrogen liquid.  That would not work in conventional wing tanks.  At the time the design work was leading more towards a freighter version.  It was a only a design exercise.  The storage drawback of liquid hydrogen have not been overcome.

.

.

Answer 8

The answer is quite simple really and I don't know why you and so many others have such a problem figuring it out. Here is the reason, the only reason, the one and only reason they are not looking into the use of hydrogen for fuel. Are you ready. Come closer. C'mon, closer. Good.

WE KEEP BUYING GASOLINE!!!!!

The markets rule folks. Always have, always will. As long as there is a buyer, a seller will get whatever he can for his product and won't spend money to replace his golden goose. Jeez.

Answer 9

The problem with using hydrogen as an energy source on the level that your talking really wouldn't be beneficial at this point.

The current most efficient way to produce hydrogen, is burning fossil fuels. So if we went to hydrogen fuel cells, we'd still be reliant on a non-renewable source to produce it. Currently, natural gas is used the most to produce it on a commercial level.

"Hydrogen can be generated from natural gas with approximately 80% eefficiency, or other hydrocarbons to a varying degree of efficiency. The hydrocarbon conversion method releases greenhouse gases. Since the production is concentrated in one facility, it is possible to separate the gases and dispose of them properly, for example by injecting them in an oil or gas reservoir (see carbon capture), although this is not currently done in most cases. A carbon dioxide injection project has been started by Norwegian company StatoilHydro in the North Sea, at the Sleipner field."

Even the renewable was of producing hydrogen cause problems.

The use of algae to produce hydrogen takes months, it doesn't yield a lot and there is still a high release of CO2.

The cleanest way of producing hydrogen is through Electrolysis, but its production is highly wasteful. The amount of electricity used vs the amount of hydrogen produced is almost not worth the trouble. And you have to figure out some way to produce the electricity! This production path is currently being researched to see if they can improve efficacy as it is the cleanest form of production. But we aren't there yet.

Another way to produce hydrogen is through heat produced in nuclear reactors. Currently more research is also being done into how we might use nuclear power plants to produce both electricity and hydrogen. However, as we know the waste from nuclear power plants is highly toxic.

There are other methods, but until we can figure out how to both cleanly and efficiently produce hydrogen, I don't see it as being a beneficial fuel source in the near future.

Answer 10

Hydrogen, a few obstacles, but many benefits if the obstacles can be overcome...

1. the hindenburg disaster WAS fueled by the hydrogen...if it had escaped before the crash, it wouldn't have been flying (simple physics)

2. there are no vehicles that  "run" on water...there are some that "expell" water from reforming hydrogen with oxygen, but none that "run" on water...

3. Hydrogen has 2 paths A. we burn it, like we do gasoline, now we've got almost all the same problems, and less than 30% efficiency... B. fuel cells, converting hydrogen to electricity via a fuel cell is closer to 90% efficient, but the catalyst for the PEM is expensive (platinum)...

we still have some problems to solve, quit ranting..

Answer 11

Many people are confused about hydrogen and things powered by hydrogen.  Big Oil likes to keep it that way.  Fuel Cells have been around a long time, still the general public does not understand them.  The two biggest mistakes are:

1. Hydrogen = bomb

2. Fuel cell = hydrogen from fossil fuels

While both are true, you can make a hydrogen bomb and you can get hydrogen from fossil fuels, it is no where close to what we would be using in a hydrogen / fuel cell powered item.

Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and in comes already stored in many different packages including but not limited to H2O.

Reading information on only one type of fuel cell will give you only a fraction of the information.

Answer 12

We don't have the solar electricity, obviously.  Electricity comes from coal.  We have no source of hydrogen "energy".  You can't bore a hole in the ground and let hydrogen out like you do with oil

So all the energy to create a hydrogen economy, all of it, will have to come from something we don't have now.

Answer 13

It takes high oil and gas prices to drive sufficient investment in the infrastructure you need to switch from gasoline and fuel oil to alternate sources like hydrogen.  It looks like we might be reaching the price points its going to take to spur investments at an increasing rate.  Once a few large commitments are made, then you see critical mass accumulate and lots and lots of very bright people will work very hard on all this because there are vast fortunes to be made.  I think things look pretty good right now for the long run, we just have to keep our cool and elect the right people into public office so they don't stymie private enterprise solutions to our problems with misguided tax breaks for the inefficient and polluting industries.