Hydrogen power is just around the corner folks....

[78formula78]

i gotta say i've tried almost all of em but the energy drink of choice is a rockstar, first couple cans do give you a little bit of a "crack" buzz (couple of my friends accually couldn't sit still) but after you've had it a couple times, or drink as much coffee as joe, it really does help you focus i have to have one before every test

[Joe 1320]

What's this "Full Throttle"? A guy at work just bought some.

[Steel2686]

What's this "Full Throtte"? A guy at work just bought some.

Same basic stuff as the Sobe or Rockstar.

NOS actually puts out a similar drink.

[fastTa]

I haven't tried that NOS energy drink either, but I heard it is decent.

I bought some of those MetRx Energy-X drinks to work out with and WOW! They are pretty potent, a little too potent actually. I didn't sleep a wink that night. Maybe I'll get used to them.

That Full Throttle tastes weird to me, but it has a bit of a kick. Similar to roughly 4-5 medium sized cups of coffee.

[Steel2686]

I find the weirder an energy drink tastes, the better it works. To me, Red Bull is pretty good, but it doesn't do anything for me energy-wise.

[fastTa]

I agree. I love the way Red Bull tastes. Reminds me of the old Sweet Tarts candy. But, it doesn't do much in the way of putting the pep in your step.

That Energy-X tasted pretty sour and I was bouncing of the walls.

[Roger in Kensington]

FastTA has the essential “element” (no pun intended) of the problem with hydrogen. Hydrogen is not a “primary fuel” like oil, natural gas, coal or wood. It has to be manufactured, and it is most inexpensively manufactured commercially by steam reformation: methane plus water (as steam under high pressure and with a nickel catalyst) producing carbon monoxide and hydrogen. There is then a second reaction (called the “water-gas shift”) where the carbon monoxide is combined with water (again as high-pressure steam) to produce carbon dioxide and more hydrogen.

You could produce hydrogen by electrolysis, but this is prohibitively expensive. For one thing, most electricity is produced using “fossil fuels” and, considering the efficiency of the typical power plant and the amount of energy required to produce hydrogen via electrolysis, about 4 units of energy are wasted for every unit of hydrogen produced. Burning a gallon of gasoline produces about 20 pounds of carbon dioxide. Producing a kilogram of hydrogen (which has about the same energy as a gallon of gasoline) via electrolysis produces about 70 pounds of carbon dioxide. Very wasteful.

Fuel cells were invented in the late 1830’s (before internal combustion engines) in London by Sir William Grove who devised a way to reverse the electrolysis process. That’s all a fuel cell is. Instead of converting water to hydrogen, a fuel cell converts hydrogen to water. High-temperature fuel cells can run directly on methane as they are able to reform methane into hydrogen internally, but such high-temperature fuel cells are unsuitable for transportation purposes. Proton exchange membrane fuel cells are being developed for transportation and home energy use, but they require an external reformer. The overall efficiency of these PEM fuel cells using an external reformer is around 35 to 40 percent, about the same as an internal combustion engine. And these PEM fuel cells are (as of 2003) about 30 times more expensive than an internal combustion engine of similar power.

Hydrogen is difficult and costly to compress, store and transport. As a liquid, it has only about a fourth the energy as the same volume of gasoline, and about 40 percent of the energy in the hydrogen is required to liquify it. Moreover, liquid hydrogen requires large amounts of energy to remain in the liquid state and is very volatile. The General Motors experimental vehicle using liquid hydrogen for its on-board PEM fuel cell loses about 4 percent of its hydrogen per day from evaporation even when it is standing still. (NASA loses about 100,000 pounds of hydrogen to evaporation each time it fuels the space shuttle.)

Compressed hydrogen? A 5,000 psi tank of compressed hydrogen would occupy about ten times more volume than a tank of gasoline with the same amount of energy.

And imagine what happens in a collision when that hydrogen tank ruptures. Which is more likely to happen anyway as hydrogen is highly reactive and makes steel brittle over time.

These are just some of the problems (there are others) with hydrogen for use as a transportation fuel. High cost of manufacture, low energy density, difficult to store and transport, and no net environmental advantage (maybe even a net environmental disadvantage).

What’s better? Probably an e-hybrid (that is, a “plug-in” rechargeable hybrid) of high efficiency for “around town” use. This, too, has its problems as it will require more power plants.

But as I have pointed out in a previous post, there is no lack of oil – or natural gas – available domestically for use in additional power plants. Nuclear is also an option. All we have to do is remove the obstacles to its use.

I hope this helps to explain my position regarding hydrogen as a transportation fuel. Please feel free to correct me if I misunderstand the situation.

[Red20170]

Wow learned something new.. Thanks Roger.

[Jay 02 TA ws6]

Nuclear is also an option. All we have to do is remove the obstacles to its use.

We absolutely need to remove the obstacles to using nuclear energy abundantly.

Isn't it ironic that the same tree-huggers who stammer on and on about global warming, pollution, and the energy crisis... are the same people who protest nuclear power?

[Joe 1320]

Wow learned something new.. Thanks Roger.

I agree, that was informative.