Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post

Bring_Back_Shantz · 05-31-2006, 01:37 PM

Some more debunking:

Ken: Burning hydrocarbons also produces water and out streets aren't flooding now are they? Sure the hydrogen would probably produce more than regualr cars but you've got to think of a few things firstly that all of that water would be in vapour form so it's not like we'll have a hose gushing out the backs of our car and two you're not gonna get any more water than you have hydrogen (half as much actually), so , I know this is a bad assumption but I doubt it's far off, assuming that liquid water takes up as much volume as the ammount of liquid hydrogen needed to produce it, and you have say a 60 l tank then you'd be dumping at most 60 l per what? 600 km. Not a lot of water man.

2) Kybosh: I'm not sure why it is you think that liquid with a relatively high combustion temperature is less dangerous than a compressed gas with an ignition energy more than 15 times lower is more dangerous, but trust me, perssurized hydrogen is a LOT more dangerous than gasoline.
Also, as for using Methanol for a source of hydrogen, that doesnt make much sense either. Methanol is partiall oxegenated methane which instatly means you get less bang for your buck, plus you need to make that methanol somehow, and that usually involves using methane, so why not just to straight to the source and use methane as a source of hydrogen, which has been suggested in the past. But we run into the same two problems. a) They hydrogen you'll end up with has a lower energy content than the methane you started with b) you're removing the carbon from the methane and that carbon has to go somewhere (usually in the form of CO2) so you get the same ammount of pollution but less useful energy to show for it, so it doesn't do you any good, and you might as well just use the methane to begin with.

People, the energy problem will not be solved by finding some magic bullet like magic water power, it has to be solved by developing renewable natural resources. Hydrogen is only a vialbe option once it is produced without the use of hydrocarbons. Solar power produced hydrogen as a fuel for a car is a great idea, as is nuclear powered hydrogen, but untill we can find a renewable non poluting way to produce that hydrogen it won't be a viable option.

05-31-2006, 01:37 PM	#17
Bring_Back_Shantz Franchise Player Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: In my office, at the Ministry of Awesome! Exp:	Some more debunking: Ken: Burning hydrocarbons also produces water and out streets aren't flooding now are they? Sure the hydrogen would probably produce more than regualr cars but you've got to think of a few things firstly that all of that water would be in vapour form so it's not like we'll have a hose gushing out the backs of our car and two you're not gonna get any more water than you have hydrogen (half as much actually), so , I know this is a bad assumption but I doubt it's far off, assuming that liquid water takes up as much volume as the ammount of liquid hydrogen needed to produce it, and you have say a 60 l tank then you'd be dumping at most 60 l per what? 600 km. Not a lot of water man. 2) Kybosh: I'm not sure why it is you think that liquid with a relatively high combustion temperature is less dangerous than a compressed gas with an ignition energy more than 15 times lower is more dangerous, but trust me, perssurized hydrogen is a LOT more dangerous than gasoline. Also, as for using Methanol for a source of hydrogen, that doesnt make much sense either. Methanol is partiall oxegenated methane which instatly means you get less bang for your buck, plus you need to make that methanol somehow, and that usually involves using methane, so why not just to straight to the source and use methane as a source of hydrogen, which has been suggested in the past. But we run into the same two problems. a) They hydrogen you'll end up with has a lower energy content than the methane you started with b) you're removing the carbon from the methane and that carbon has to go somewhere (usually in the form of CO2) so you get the same ammount of pollution but less useful energy to show for it, so it doesn't do you any good, and you might as well just use the methane to begin with. People, the energy problem will not be solved by finding some magic bullet like magic water power, it has to be solved by developing renewable natural resources. Hydrogen is only a vialbe option once it is produced without the use of hydrocarbons. Solar power produced hydrogen as a fuel for a car is a great idea, as is nuclear powered hydrogen, but untill we can find a renewable non poluting way to produce that hydrogen it won't be a viable option. __________________ THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN. <-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!