[ / / / / / / / / ] [ b / news+ / boards ] [ operate / meta ] [ ]

/polpol/ - Politically Incorrect Discussion

Politics, news, culture, society - no shills allowed

Catalog

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types: jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 8 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 1 per post.

File: 1428559857338.jpg (20.64 KB, 527x302, 527:302, hydrogen-fuel-stroke-engin….JPG)

60c6f6 No.10570

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/hydrogen-fuel-breakthrough-could-pave-the-way-for-clean-cars/ar-AAaBsWZ

The university of virginia just made a breakthrough in the production of hydrogen gas for combustion using microbes to make the H2 gas rather than using electicity to make this. This could be another important step in the path to weaning ourselves off middle eastern oil.

ee3afb No.10574

The big problem with hydrogen engines is their explosive qualities. If a fossil-fuel combustion engine catches on fire, it burns and ends up on Youtube. If a hydrogen engine were to combust, you have a much bigger problem.

1b7314 No.10578

File: 1428561351748.gif (Spoiler Image, 1.99 MB, 218x165, 218:165, 1281404827941.gif)

From the article:
>In its gaseous form, it is also an incredibly clean fuel.
>It is combustible - just like gasoline - but instead of
>carbon dioxide, it produces only energy and water.

>they were able to increase the rate of hydrogen production
>while emitting an "extremely low amount" of carbon dioxide.

From the paper:
>Glucose and xylose were simultaneously converted to H2
>with a yield of two H2 per carbon

From math:
2 H2 + 1 CO2 = 1 CH4 + O2 = FUCKING METHANE

Don't get me wrong. It's cool they figured out a more efficient
means of hydrocarbon cracking by way of enzymes, but the article's
attempt to paint this as a carbon reducing technology is simply
untrue. You're producing precisely as much carbon as existing
biofuels. The only difference is it takes them less energy to
produce the same carbon byproduct.

>>10574
>a much bigger problem

Yes and no. It's a much bigger problem for anyone in the immediate vicinity, but hydrogen burns so quickly that you're less likely to have secondary fires. One might even argue it's better to die in one rapid foomp than to burn all slow-like. Pic related.

ec7834 No.10581

It's more than likely an incremental improvement and not a "breakthrough". We would use it if the costs were lower than whatever else and if converting the fleet wasn't too difficult. We use whatever is cheapest, for years now the US has used primarily north american oil, I don't remember the percentages but we didn't use much from the middle east. Now that OPEC increased production and prices collapsed, we're probably using less N.A. shale and tar sands and going back to M.E. oil.

Anyways, it's all about price

ee3afb No.10583

>>10578
I'd argue that the better-or-worse argument depends on how fast the victim can unbuckle their seatbelts.

a1cd8f No.10584

>>10581

Yeah costs are definitely a problem. In some parts of Germoney they want to convert their bus fleet to hydrogen in the next 2-3 decades. Some buses are already replaced but they are incredible expensive.

An average hydrogen bus costs 1.8mio bucks in contrast to a diesel bus which just costs around 300k.

ac60f3 No.10596

>>10570
any "engine" that breaks H2O which burns H2 that creates H2O is a scam and any idiot that posts it is an idiot or a shill either way "discussing" this will only be a one sided science saying fuck off retard and idiots saying but this is secret conspiracy

making anyone that disregards official narrative look like an idiot by proxy

ec7834 No.10601

>>10596
This is a biomass derived product, not magic cracking the H out of H2O.

However I used to follow sites like TheOilDrum religiously and these kinds of "breakthroughs" in biomass derived fuels come frequently but never work out because oil and natural gas is so much cheaper. Hopefully it's ready by the time we need it, but I'm no longer sure that's going to be any time soon.

1b7314 No.10608

>>10596
>>10601

The traditional method of hydrogen production the researchers improved upon is quite simple: combine methane with high temperature 700°C steam over a bed of nickel, run the exhaust through lower temperature steam if you don't want to deal with the carbon monoxide (optional), and then use your favorite gas separation technique to suck up the hydrogen and discard the carbon dioxide (or monoxide if you skipped step #2).

Both start with rotting corn husks.

ac60f3 No.10612

>>10601
my bad thats the type of troll that this stuff often is, will look closely at this one

6a2aad No.10630

>>10601
>>10612
Scientists exaggerate as a RULE, not an exception.

If you've ever subscribed to something like popular mechanics/science, scientific american, or any other scientific magazine you will have high hopes for the future until the dates of projected results come and pass over and over and eventually you realize it was mostly bullshit.

41a8ec No.10748

Look at the statistics. The majority of our oil comes from the U.S. and Canada. We are taking less foreign oil than any other time in decades, and a large portion of that oil is from Canada. Our "dependence" on middle eastern oil is essentially a myth, especially since in the past decade
alternative energy has become much more viable.

afa49a No.10841

>>10630
Those people aren't scientists, they're journalists. A (good) scientist doesn't make the exaggerated claims you read on online articles.

0785a4 No.10844

>>10574

Except that hydrogen is safer than gasoline.

a7a1f8 No.10856

>>10841
>Scientists don't make exaggerated claims
Get a load of this goy

>>10844
You can't be serious.
Hydrogen explodes when exposed to fucking air at atmospheric pressure.

0785a4 No.10920

>>10856

https://courses.engr.illinois.edu/npre470/web/readings/Hydrogen%20safety%20issues.pdf

a7a1f8 No.10967

>>10920
Would be helpful if you would just make your argument with a source instead of making me figure out what you mean by giving a .pdf file.

>In conclusion, hydrogen appears to poses risks of the same order of magnitude as other fuels. In spite of public perception, in many aspects hydrogen is actually a safer fuel than gasoline and natural gas.
You've got some good confirmation bias mixed with omission going there, man. Not only is this conclusion made on the basis of track record, which does not constitute a level of safety at all, but also directly contradicts your deduction that it somehow is safer than gasoline.
You can't expose hydrogen to the open air, you can with gasoline. Therefore hydrogen has stricter regulations, which means more effort put into ensuring safety, thus it has a better track record.

Fukushima-Daiichi should tell you about the safety of hydrogen.

ec7834 No.10975

The safety of hydrogen is irrelevant. We won't be scaling up the use because oil will remain much cheaper for the foreseeable future. Development of hydrogen tech is basically a make-work project for engineers and scientists and the major consumers at this point are green-focused governments that are tasked with wasting money.

It's not going to be anywhere outside of your local wasteful public transportation any time soon (if ever)

0785a4 No.11029

>>10967

Hydrogen may be explosive when mixed with air in closed containers, but not so much in open air. It's lighter than air and quickly dissipates in open air. Conversely, gasoline is heavier than air and its fumes pool near the ground making it have more explosive potential. Also gasoline is explosive at lower concentrations than hydrogen.

a7a1f8 No.11031

>>11029
Go throw some Sodium in water and see how quickly it 'dissipates' then.
Pls don't, it will explode

>Also gasoline is explosive at lower concentrations than hydrogen.
Please stop being a disingenuous shill.
Gasoline first needs a heat source before exploding, hydrogen only needs oxygen.

0785a4 No.11037

>>11031

Hydrogen also needs a heat source and only explodes in air when the temperature is above 500 degrees Celsius You point to fukushima, well guess what a partial meltdown gets really fucking hot.



>be you.
>lose argument, call other person shill.

1d5c46 No.11039

Isn't electrolysis enough to extract hydrogen?

I always thought you could build a small chamber to convert and contain it and then run that through your vehicle (after a stainless conversion of course).

I'm no mechanic or science major, but in smaller quantities it should be safe. Then you could have a small conversion chamber, a tank of water, and a combustion system that doesn't rust.

a7a1f8 No.11042

>>11037
Partial meltdown happened as a consequence of the hydrogen explosions, not the other way around.

>makes a claim
>can't back it up
>oh he called me a shill, this means I won the argument!

0785a4 No.11046

>>11042

Flat out wrong. Heated zirconium (from the meltdown) released the hydrogen.

You're obviously shilling.

b0da97 No.11048

>>11039
conservation of energy m8

hydrogen burns to water. you cannot get more energy from burning hydrogen than you need to convert water to hydrogen in first place

e56e8a No.11106

>>11042
>Partial meltdown happened as a consequence of the hydrogen explosions, not the other way around.
I think you may be retarded.

5809cc No.11475

>>11037
A heat source, like a car engine?


Delete Post [ ]
[]
[Return][Go to top][Catalog]
[ / / / / / / / / ] [ b / news+ / boards ] [ operate / meta ] [ ]