This discussion is just like the way the US Congress works. It is too late to fix anything, so you should find a place on the sidelines to watch it all go down. Move close to work, and ride a bike or walk. To make any major change will take at least a generation, and a huge mental shift. Hydrogen is not the silver bullet, but one technology in our quiver; think decentralize. There is an extensive natural gas pipeline network in the US, so all the infrastructure (pipeline) right-of-ways are in p
Electric cars would be more efficient but at the time they look to be less practical since they need to be charged for long periods of time and can't travel far. Hydrogen fuel cell cars would be more impracticable but less efficient, since you are converting electricity to hydrogen, back to electricity again. I think we should focus on efficient ways of harnessing the sun's power whether it is wind, solar ect. before we focus on a way to transfer the energy.
@dymproductions Not necessarily. Right now 80 % of electricity comes from fossil fuels, the other 20 is all clean (hdyro, a little solar, and nuclear). Besides when you make hydrogen for fuel cell cars, you have to use electrolysis which requires electricity. Or you can use fossil fuels such as methane and coal, but they produce CO2.
Way to make it complicated! Through the same process you can make hydrogen!!!! which is a much better power source then electricity! When it burns you get water! Sooooo why
@smoky1ful They have to make it that way so they can sell it at your local station... If they simply had a hho generator in a car there would be no way to charge for the hydrogen. Make a car that you dont have to buy fuel for... hmm now that is a concept!!
Fuel cells are a great proven technology, but I think we should switch to cleaner energy sources to provide the power to create hydrogen, such as solar, wind, and nuclear energy.
giati re file to nero pou 8a vgenei apo tin exatmisi na pigenei stin atmosfera k na min pigenei sto ntepozito opou 8a xana diaspate se udrogono kai oxygono kai 8a xanaxreisimopoiite xana kai xana meso ilektrolusis me 1 ntepozito nero mporeis na kaneis ton guro tou kosmou 10000 fores ! poso gelio einai na min anakukloneis to nero pou petas kai na xreiazete kata tous vlamenous pou ftixan to video na pigeneis se vetzinadiko na vazeis ydrogono !!!
@RaudelSolis No you shut the fuck up. If you wish to make a point, fine, great. But start off with an insult is just WTF. Here let me do you one: the day you die is the day that the world becomes a better place. There, an insult back. Happy? Seriously, WTF ! Control yourself moron !
Yes a battery has limits as to the amount of current it can provide, but you can place multiple batteries in parallel you dumb fuck !
Also did you know that even diesel trains actually run on electric motors, doofus!
@a1mint shut the fuck up bitch, the point is A FUCKING DIESEL GENERATOR SUPPLIES THE ELECTRICITY.
Also Mother FUCKER OBVIOUS YOU CAN HOOK UP BATTERYS in a parallel circuit but mother fucker Batterys fail from time to time, and like hell please buy a nice block of batterys for a shit electric Car, YOUR A fucking idiot for saying Electric is the best when it FUCKING ISN'T IDIOT! Motherfucker ! cock Sucker! BITCH!
@RaudelSolis No YOU shut the fuck up! I said that ELECTRIC MOTORS are superior to IC motors, you ACTUAL moron FUCKTARD !
It was YOU that brought in the battery part, and YOU changed it to pretending I claimed that electric cars were superior. That's not what I claimed. I claimed that electric motors are superior to IC motors.
I know that batteries have limitations. But it *IS* possible to get a very high current by placing many batteries in parallel.
@RaudelSolis ... Also when you have many batteries, and one fails, the car could continue to go, just with a little less power. A computer could indicate which battery needs to be replaced.
Problem is that batteries are expensive and heavy and take up too much room. But once someone invents a better battery, electric cars only become better. The electric motor isn't the problem, that really *IS* far superior to an IC motor.
So what the FUCK do you have to say now, ha? Actually doofus fucktard !
Check out my page to see the the Real Truth about this stuff and the truth about a whole lot more! We are dedicated to Exposing the Whole Truth and nothing less! The world is Awakening!!! Thanks for checking out my site and if you want to learn more just contact me and I will show you where all of this is going. freeenergiesforall. com
any form of electric car has to get its power from an other source coal, oil, nuclear, hydrogen ect oil & coal dirty nuculear filthy dont think so bury a spent fuel rod in your back yard wind disrupts the air currents hydro affects the wildlife solor is to bulky that leaves hydrogen carrier my @#$ it reacts in combustion exactly the same as any other fuel eccept its reversable
this is counteracting itself because the energy needed to break the bonds in the water would be wasted when it is put back. but if it pulls O2 from the air than 4 molicules of H are needed and thus you expend the ozone layer and whatever hydrogen faster than it needs to be done. look up electrolosys. but batteries so win here.
@gothandpissed Sorry, it "expends" the ozone layer? How exactly? By effectively breathing? What you perceive to be a drain on the ozone layer is actually a "drain" on oxygen supplies - TREES. So, if your concern is that we will run out of oxygen (...Jesus...) then why not just kill every breathing thing on the planet - they have exactly the same effect on our oxygen supplies as fuel cells.
I cant believe that we as a nation are still debating the pros/cons of alternative energy solutions. The only way that the earth will keep functioninig in 50 years is if there is a dramatic overhaul in energy focus. Invest in hydrogen energy, screw the oil/oil sands/natural gas we already fucked up the earths natural balance and well be lucky to see any sign of the natural life that once was in 50 years;oil execs are painstakingly stalling the env. movement, sum1 bsides gore needs to stepup NOW
@9711sam Yes, once we figure out how to economically and safely store and carry it in a car, and when it becomes economical to convert it electricity through fuel cells. Once those two main problems are overcome, then yes, hydrogen could become the ultimate way to carry the energy for all our needs.
We could store that energy on the sides of our house as well.
In the meantime, we just have to sit there and keep chipping away at those stupid fossil fuels.
@a1mint Excuse me, I am mistaken. I was responding to your comment " Hydrogen is an energy carrier, not an energy source". What are you trying to say? That hydrogen requires additional infrastructure behind it?
Hydrogen is false hope. The whole idea of industrial civilization is a temporary miracle that depends entirely on fossil-fuels (splurging an energy 'lottery win'/'inheritance', maybe a million times faster than it forms). When they run out, its back to the caves. other better adapted life-forms can re-assert themselves.
The future of transport is BICYCLES .. if you're lucky.
The potential of fuel cells is exagerated by car companies that are trying to pretend they have a future after peak oil. After peak oil, modern "technology" like Cars will only be available to a small elite (be it fuel cells or cars).
Hydrogen fuel cells are mis-represented as a replacement for fossil-fuels, but they are an energy CARRIER not an energy SOURCE.
I'm doing a debate project for my history class with a friend on what is a better source of energy. He says fussion power, I say fuel cells. The only problem is that I can't find a way past the cost of making a fuel cell.
@a1mint Can you expand on these challenges? Enlighten.. because Hydrogen just seems like the ultimate answer as the world is covered 80% water? Is it something like you need other sources of energy to convert the water to hydrogen, thus NOT eliminating the need for fossel fuels, or could solar or Bio sources be used to convert?
@mshineshare I'd be more than happy to expand and elaborate.
Hydrogen is part of water, but it takes energy to extract hydrogen from water. Burning hydrogen releases less energy than the energy needed to extract hydrogen from water.
Hydrogen itself does not naturally occur on earth. Therefore it is not a source of energy. Hydrogen is an energy carrier.
Hydrogen is very useful, because it's potentially a very good energy carrier. But you need another energy source to make it.
@a1mint - As you said, "Hydrogen is very useful, because it's potentially a very good energy carrier. But you need another energy source to make it."
Have they tried using wind turbines, solar power and electric dams to as their main energy source to make the hydrogen from the water? Now that would be cool to see someday in the near future and completely be self-sufficient.
@train52000 The problem is that storing hydrogen is difficult. Making hydrogen and using hydrogen also incurs losses. The make hydrogen, an electrolyzer would be 65% efficient. To use hydrogen you need a fuel cell that converts it to electricity, which is 50%. Fuel cells are also very expensive.
Storing hydrogen is a challenge. Compressing takes energy and isn't very efficient. There are ways to it away in some sort of solid form.
@mshineshare Also, to use hydrogen, you can burn it, but burning it in a car's engine is not very efficient at all.
Much better to use a fuel cell and convert the hydrogen to electricity and use the electricity to drive an electric motor.
Fuel cells are expensive, especially the efficient ones. That cost is going to have to come down.
As for energy source, solar and wind is cute, but not powerful enough. Much MUCH more powerful would be Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors, that's nuclear !
@a1mint "According to ISO 13600, an energy carrier is either a substance or a phenomenon that can be used to produce mechanical work or heat or to operate chemical or physical processes. It is any system or substance that contains energy for conversion as usable energy later or somewhere else. This could be converted for use in, for example, an appliance or vehicle." Nothing happens without solar energy ! Not powerful enough , your joking ! Sunshine is free for all.
@2karriizman You're explaining something that wasn't in dispute. Hydrogen, on earth, is an energy carrier only, not a source of energy. You see any issue with this?
Nothing without solar? There's nuclear energy - and plenty of it! Read up on Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors. We have 1000's of years worth, if not much more, of energy for the taking.
Renewables based on wind and solar should also play a role, but it can't be the sole solution - there simply isn't enough for low enough $s.
@a1mint "This claim is wrong. The fission of thorium creates long‐lived fission products like technetium‐99 (half‐life over 200,000 years). While the mix of fission products is somewhat different than with uranium fuel, the same range of fission products is created. If the spent fuel is not reprocessed, thorium‐232 is very‐long lived (half‐life:" Sunshine is free energy companies have us by the balls and they wont let them go!
@2karriizman You need to google Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor. There is a movement called energy-from-thorium. There are a few very good videos mad by Kirk Sorenson. Thorium converts to fissile.
I'm not an expert on this. But it's been done in the 60's apparently.
@a1mint "I'm not an expert on this. But it's been done in the 60's apparently." Nor am i an expert ! Liquid Thorium Reactors work ! the technology was shelved due to the fact bombs cant be made from the spent fuel . The insatiable appetite humans have for power has placed life on this planet on the eve of destruction we have to change our ways or perish !Clean green power is our only logical choice ! To bad idiots run the show !
@2karriizman I agree. It's up to people like you and me to help raise awareness of better nuclear options, plus help the fight against negative stigma surrounding nuclear energy.
@a1mint Conventional nuclear power generation is a filthy business the negative stigma that surrounds the current method of nuclear power generation is well founded ! I was a member of the Friends of the Earth when i was young and would attend protests against Australias involvement in the nuclear industry and filthy polluting industries ocean outfalls and the like ! We were voices in the wilderness nothing we did changed anything its the same as it ever was.Greed and materialism still prevails!
@RaudelSolis Hydrogen does not occur in nature on earth, I know that. Hydrogen can be made, so hydrogen on earth is an energy carrier. The amount of energy released when burning hydrogen is less than the amount of energy spent making the hydrogen.
batteries... the worst of the worst of the worst. oil is better then batteries... lithium... earth has a very limited supply.. great for little stuff, only months worth of material if the world converted over. but also, GIANT toxic waste dumps would be required. the u.s. alone, an area the size of texas would become a toxic waste dump... yet alone when lithium batteries explode, it is both a killer and it incinerates everything... hydrogen is the best solution... isn't rocket science.
@lowcarb85 look at the popup box in the video... the text "forget hydrogen... i want to plug-in a hybrid"... miss that did you? electric is the abyss even worse then carbon fuels, since it takes a massive amount of carbon to manufacture them, and the toxic waste makes opec blush... but also, it's not very efficient either. cheers. oh, and besides my turbine work, i build hydrogen fuel cells and solid oxide fuel cells. i kind of know my business. ltr.
@b101aa2 Sorry, I didn't notice the pop up box. I'm actually all for hydrogen, I was really impressed by Mike Strizki house, it really opened my eyes. I've known about the process of manufacturing batteries, and how harmful it is to the environment since the prius came out. Never said you don't know your business, just over looked uploaders commentary.
@b101aa2 Let alone the real world practicalities of it. BEV - I will need to charge it for hours, have cables crossing the street as I don't have a garage & will be unable to venture on unscheduled journeys as I will have to plan use of the BEV around its recharging cycle to a T = BEV's are hopelessly unrealistic. Fuel Cell - no mining, refining & recycling issues, infinite fuel source, will not drain the national grid to a point where we need even MORE power stations & above all, its practical.
@dylf14 they dont. HHO on demand systems are much much safer... very little in the hose to the intake manifold.. and it does NOT take a special engine to run it. Any combustion engine is capable of running it..
As for getting electricity from hydrogen, the most ineffecient way to use hydrogen. feeding it into the engine however, is a 100% . this "fuel cell" technology is funding by the oil company's.. they do not want you running hho in your engine because they would LOSE MONEY.
Cost is the only negative aspect to fuel cells. We have to find a less expensive way to produce hydrogen fuel. Also, fuel cells can run on various bio gas and even propane. Not just hydrogen.
ok... some of the people here are just... solid proof of the downward spiral in the education system. First off, plug-in hybrids are a STUPID idea, the amount of raw materials and chemicals needed to produce the batteries needed will destroy ecosystems faster then global warming and use precious elements. And add TONS of weight and take up a LOT of space in your vehicle, making it LESS efficient. Plus what's the point of having a car that needs 4 hours to charge after 4 hours of driving?
@musicmanvin1 Now, Hydrogen fuel has an ignition point of somewhere above 900F, Gasoline is around 500F. Hydrogen is more stable then gasoline, no shit it can still explode, but hey, throw your deodorant spray in your oven and see what happens! most of the crap in your house is volatile. Now the Nazi's were just stupid... that hydrogen blimp was a stupid idea... it's like saying it's a good idea to make a blimp out of propane and wood..\. and no, Hydrogen does not just explode, it needs
it wasnt the hydrogen that burned---check out the latest on it--the canvas material that covered the blimp was soaked in some kind of petroleum product (whoops!)----the hydrogen did not burn
@jaketen2001 Actually it was not a petoleum product the paint was composed largely of powdered iron oxide and powered aluminum. These two materials combined form a compound called thermite. Thermite burns at about 5000 degrees and will even burn while under water. When it burns it leaves behind a puddle of motlen iron.
@MrAwsome514 so your saying the Nazi's accidentally painted their ship in Thermite?? lmfao... not laughing at you, laughing at Nazi's painting they're ship in Thermite hahaha.
@musicmanvin1 Well in thier defence they did mix it with several other chemicals to form the paint and when mythbusters tested it the exact mix that was used actually did not burn well at all. Ofcourse unsatisfied the mythbusters crew decided to coat the model with a thin layer of actual thermite just for the hell of it.
@musicmanvin1 The nazis where not stupid... the world's only helium deposite was in america at the time. It is not like we where going to sell it to them. They whent with the only alternative they could get.
Hydrogen being the smallest element is very hard to store. When liquid hydogen is used as rocket fuel, I think it needs continual top-up because its continually boiling away ? Other ways of storing hydrogen use another bulky medium.
Hydrogen is a very inefficient way of storing energy , which is why evolution invented ... "oil"
@walter0bz I agree, but supposedly there is this new nano technology of sorts that allows for the safe storage of hydrogen. The frustrating thing is that every time I hear about some sort of breakthrough on some science site, that's the end of it, and I never hear from it a second time.
>>" there is this new nano technology of sorts that allows for the safe storage of hydrogen."
- how about storing the hydrogen on carbon atoms :) can't get much more nano than that..
>>"It's like we're making 0 progress."
- could be because its false hope and anyone smart realizes that pretty quickly. There is public/government willingness to invest in it (public expectation 'technology will save us') but real sci/engineers know how futile it is.
@walter0bz I'd like to stay optimistic, but indeed a lot of efforts turn out to be a complete waste. A recent disturbing company I just learned about is Xogen, which is in Orangeville Ontario, Canada. This woman named Angella, the CEO, managed to get $5 million in funding from the government.
All they do is use an electrolyzer which they gave a different name, patented it (shouldn't be possible), and burn the hydrogen to create clean water. Extremely inefficient.
@walter0bz So that was an example of a scam. I'm not done with them. Already wrote notes to their local MP that's been promoting it. They all need to attend a science class.
Anyway, about that hydrogen storage thing, let me look it up...
Yes, can be found all over Google. Carbon based. But also (same thing?) storing in a solid form. Not sure how that works. But the latest progress is quite recent. I have high hopes for this!
>>"Anyway, about that hydrogen storage thing, let me look it up..."
- this is absolutely critical, if no ones' already told you.
We use oil because it has energy embedded - algae for millions of years absorbed sunlight to grow, some leftovers accumulated on ocean floor and got covered.. hence the energy in Oil, oil is a ready made Energy Source.
By contrast, to make Hydrogen you must apply energy from another Source.
hydrogen = "rechargable battery". what do you charge it with?
>>"Anyway, about that hydrogen storage thing, let me look it up..."
.. some people say 'solar panels' will make the hydrogen.
but fossil-fuels are used to enhance crop-yields - hence our population boom (based on releasing the 'millions of years of algae leftovers'). Solar Panels can't be used to multiply food production like fossil-fuels do. (pesticides, fertilizers).
@walter0bz Interesting point of view. I'd like to see a comparison on using solar panels to create hydrogen (assuming we have this alleged nano hydrogen battery now) + fuel cell (actual fuel cell) in cars, vs, say, biodiesel production and diesel engines.
i dont have figures, but i'd guess solar+fuel cell might win in terms of land use & vehicle effiency ..... but requires scarce materials, so will only ever be available to a small elite.
so overall, Biodiesel will be far more 'abundant'.
but the ultimate personal transport, by a huge margin, will be Bicycles.
Daniel Nocera published an electrolysis system that was 4.7% efficient overall (60% efficient electrolysis; Reece et al., Science 2011). Not bad considering the cell was free of Pt and fairly cheap (amorphous Si, Co-based anode, NiMoZn cathode). PV efficiencies are always pretty low.
Biodeasil production is ca. 1% efficient according to wikipedia (trustworthy?), and FCs are more efficient than heat engines. So far, solar + FC wins the efficiency battle.
@DrTurf83 We seem forever stuck in this stupid oil society. Electric motors are so much better than ICEs. I think oil has to run to critical levels before people wake up.
As for the ultimate energy source, solar is FAR too weak. Nuclear is the answer. But not your normal traditional nuclear. LFTR, look it up!
I agree with you that ICEs need to be replaced with electric, but I don't think is only one method to produce power. I think it will likely be a balance of many different technologies and that Wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, hydro, and Nuclear will all play a part.
"Debate: Does the world need nuclear energy?" on TED.com is a pretty interesting talk, albeit short. It's a complicated issue, without a clear cut answer.
@walter0bz I agree. Nature is converting solar energy and storing it in its fruit and plant tissues.
Jatropha weeds produce berries. Squeeze, filter, and put it straight in a diesel engine. No distilling required.
There is another energy source though. Thorium based nuclear energy. A safer alternative to Uranium. The only downside is that you can't make nuclear weapons out of it, which is why they chose Uranium over Thorium.
@walter0bz So what's with this "peak oil" thing? The way I see it is that there still is plenty more oil, except that some of it is becoming harder and more expensive to get at. So the price goes up. Plus all that speculation, which keeps on raising the price. But I bet we can go for quite a while longer with oil.
I would really like us to see electric cars powered by hydrogen batteries, and power from renewable sources and Thorium based nuclear.
@a1mint >>', except that some of it is becoming harder and more expensive to get at. So the price goes up. '
- my hypothesis,
energy is more fundemental than money, money might be 'energy X information', but information/knowledge is easy to share so really energy is more important.. (people do hold onto 'trade secrets','state secrets' to get ahead in competing for energy..)
.. after peak oil, the supply of energy drops.. we all get poorer.
i dont see it as about cars but industry generally
energy more fundemental than money (money might be energy * information, but information is easy to share and copy.. so energy is the real limiting factor - information is only withheld when you need to get ahead in competition for energy)
so, after peak oil, when the energy supply starts shrinking, everyone gets poorer. eventually starvation and war will reduce the population back to pre-industrial levels.
(I hypothesize that natures' systems are already better at using solar)
@walter0bz The challenge after that is making efficient affordable fuel cells. And I mean actual fuel cells, not the hoaxy bullshit "fuel cells" that HHO peddler talk about, which aren't fuel cells at all.
Hi all please rethink your cells. I think watch stan meters first run video. the white stays at the bottom Why? He is resonating ice thus the water around it. Job 38: 22-23
@gabrielbap1 Must be shit gasoline if ya cant get it to blow up! maybe ya should have another go with less gas in the tank.Try lighting a match when ya filling up.
@gabrielbap1 Must be shit gasoline if ya cant get it to blow up! maybe ya should have another go with less gas in the tank.Try lighting a match when ya filling up .You could try throwing gasoline on a fire, i did and it blew up !
@gabrielbap1 Hydrogen is the single most powerful and most abundant element in the entire univere of which over is 75%. Gasoline is obselete in comparison. Once we can extract Hydrogen without buring fossil fuels in the process, all cars will be hydrogen powered. We can split Hydrogen in a sfae enviroment and some scientists have found ways to fuse it in a safe enviroment aswell.
@heartlessvietboy water is always produced as a bi-product when combusting. take gasoline to have the empirical formula of octane - C8H18 then.... C8H18 + O2 makes - CO2 +H20 (equation not balanced)
@sterovers uh, hho turns back to water... hydrogen + oxygen... where they getting co2 from? seems this is much less efficient then just letting the engine suck in hho (browns gas).
Most of all becaus hydrogenfuel remains expensive to make, expensive both in costs of money and the energy needed to make it.
Todays technology needs the energy of about 3 barrels of oil to create hydrogen fuel that would compare to the energy of 1 barrel of oil, and since most of our energy still comes from fossile fuels that isnt economic.
@Clausewitzz nope, these devices are very inefficient.. Hydrogen, or HHO generators require electricity, the hho goes into the engine, combusts and comes back out the exaust WATER. They are proven to decrease or even eliminate the need for gasoline, or even diesel (with a change to spark plugs). Lookup HHO generator on youtube, you might be surprised when you find out the government bulls'its ppl and we haven't had the need for fossil fuels for almost 50 years.
@Clausewitzz The only reason hydrogen is expensive today is due to the method oil and energy companies use to make hydrogen.Hydrogen can be made for next to nothing useing solar powered electrolysis.Internal combustion engines dont need the same purity hydrogen as do fuel cells.
@2karriizman if solar is so cheap and effecient, why don't they just charge on battery cell and drive the electric cars? why all the trouble? also transport hydrogen is not cheap!
@MsUoykcuf Solar will out of necessity become more effecient and less expensive. Storing hydrogen is expensive and dangerous! I think, hydrogen should only be used as a source of energy when it can be produced and used on demand useing environmentally friendly Tech.The rc toys of today shit all over the real things. There is light every day and on a clear fullmoon nite ya solar panels on your car keep chargeing your batteries.
What is your problem with this, batteries are heavy, hard to dispose of, not environmentally friendly, and take forever to charge, unlike this which you can refill as fast as your regular tanks.
@aForkandaSpoon carry loads of hydrogen = your a f'cking Atomic BOMB... lookup ww2, hydrogen bomb... you want these all over our planet with all the stupid drivers in accidents..? Takes care of saving the planet.. couple traffic accidents and say goodbye to half the plants population :-)
@Me102288 You are an idiot, everyone thinks hydrogen bombs are using the hydrogen explosion. THEY AREN'T It is a radioactive isotope, it does the same thing as nuclear, fission, atomic, ext. except instead of uranium or something else it has non-natural occurring (unless maybe the sun) radioactive hydrogen. Also hydrogen can be stored safely as a hydro-something, it is a chemical compound in which a low energy reaction releases H2.
@aForkandaSpoon you might want to read up on atom bombs.. fusion is a totaly different subject.
You might want to look up Hydrogen on the chemical chart, its ATOMIC property is almost identicly to any nuclear or atomic explosion... this is why the temperature of a hydrogen torch VARRIES with whatever material is comes in contact with. touch lead, 200 degree flame, tungsten melts at 2600 celcius..yet hho vapourizes it..
@Me102288 I looked it up, fission is not completely different, it is actually the one used in most bombs because it is the most explosive. Fusion cannot sustain a chain reaction like fission. The hydrogen is in an Isotope form. Nuclear power plants use a fission reactor, you know why, what does a fusion reaction remind you of, yep iron man. Look up ITER, its a fusion reactor, that uses a hydrogen Isotope, not its pure form. Also how could H2 be like a nuclear bomb if it doesn't really burn.
@aForkandaSpoon oh you got to the part of how to trigger an atomic bomb.. thats the one where they smash a core into a sphere of uranium or plutonium, there by reached its critical mass.The other way is taking an entire sphere of plutonium just under the weight of critical mass and detonate explodes equally around it, and affectively "squeeze" it to its critical mass.
@Me102288 They should allow more characters. Yea, H2 torches vary, thats why they don't really feel that hot,(found that on this site) so how could that be identical to a nuclear explosion if it vaporises you. Yea, just found out that a H-bomb is fusion, except, it uses isotopes of hydrogen (Deuterium and Tritium), fusing together, not burning. O, I just realized you said fusion was wrong for atom bombs, well yes it is, but I didn't say that I said fission.
Can someone tell me what is used as the catalyst in the fuel cells? Also what's the difference in using compressed hydrogen and methanol in fuel cells?
On demand hydrogen is way more efficient, costs less than $1000 for a good system, installs in a day or so, and can be retrofitted on existing cars with no major engine mods. The emissions are reduced to a trace and mileage increases 20-50% and more if its a good setup. That is a much more viable solution than an expensive hydrogen fuel cell setup...
@HybridWaterMan2 yeah, but its not near as clean and still depends on petrol or diesel wich could run out.....and i don't see H running out anytime soon...
@anyadkurvapicsaja - true, but we developed these systems using technology that is available now around the world. We don't have to wait another 40 years for bugs to be worked out or manufacturers "controlled release" of technology. So, no it doesn't replace, but if you could double your mileage for $1000, wouldn't that double the available fuel supply while we work the bugs out of emerging technologies? One of our customers got a 212% increase on a Ford Falcon, another got 84% Hyundai Genesis
@HybridWaterMan2 There is no doubt hydrogen is the way to go.Your system is a good interim untill car companies get their fingers out and start produceing engines that run 100% on demand hydrogen . Oil companies and car manufactures are bedfellows and dont want consumers haveing a free ride.Fuel cells wont give you a free ride .
@2karriizman - I agree. We are focused on "Transitional Technologies" that can bridge the gap. This tech is available now to anyone- anywhere in the world. We can't throw away 300 million cars, but we can at least transform them into cleaner burning vehicles as we transition into better technologies. Emissions reports show almost complete removal of hydrocarbons and carbon monoxides- deadly gases that normally spew out of the exhaust. What if millions did this?
I'm curious since when the sun stop shining to the two idiots arguing below.just sayin'. Wind is supposed to supply 20% in like 2030 or 2050 something like that soo let's all stfu now.
@zachjohannes1 xtaxplayer has an IQ 151 and your 15? Im 57 and a devout member of The Order Of The Perpetually Unenlightened .Im such an idiot i seem to have lost the plot. This vid is all about hydrogen fuel cells.Hydrogen packs a bang, bit dodgee when it comes to pressurizing it or liquefying.NASA has trouble getting rockets of the ground sometimes.
@2karriizman Hey tool for the Socialist's I am not 15 I do have a high IQ and at 57 it is amazing you can still be this unenlightened. Nice attempt to reticule. You are not even smart enough to belittle someone. Notice how I did it to your face, typical Aussie wanker
@zachjohannes1 Wow, you are so bright I have to wear shades . . . Not really . . . I'm curious? Where do you live that the sun shines twenty four hours a day seven days a week? Oh and by the way, I'm so happy the government's of the world deemed the wind will power 20% of our supply, (supply of what? Brain dead zombie's?). Has the government ever been correct in their guarantee's? How is that Global Warming proof going for you? Just asking, you are so smaarrrttt I beg for you to teech me somfin.
From the reading i have been able to do with reguard auger plants i am not convinced this is the answer to the energy needs of the world. Auger plants use organic matter to make fuel ? Feed the auger plants with maize and let the poor starve and the rich drive their fancy cars?.The majority of Australians dont want nuclear power plants in this country.Uranium mining is a reality in this country against the wishes of the majority.Sunshines free for all. Fuckwitts brag about their IQ 151 so watt
@2karriizman Oh my word . . . really? . . . really? Lets try this again. AUGER NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS . . . uses a pellet system not fuel rods. Doesn't need over sized cooling towers. Can use a simple radiator style cooling system. Being implemented all over the world. Designed tested and patented here in the good ole' U.S. of A. in Texas. Now you can get knowledge of the Auger plants that we were discussing. Good day ! !
Less than one percent of the energy in gasoline is used to actually turn the wheels in an ICE and this thing is three time more efficient than an ICE. That would be less than 3 percent.
any ways,if we are talking about energy for transportation,why not natural gas? It's abundant in our country,vs all the oil we import from a bunch of towel heads.
I would support 200 percent of the total conversion too natural gas of the daily commuter.
we will never get away from oil,as we use it in everything from roads to makeup,and not just to fill up our gas.
i will support electricity only when it comes economical for long drives.
to answer the question about why hydrogen fuel cells are not widely use is simple, whether people want to agree with it or not the truth is that car companies are not about to put the oil companies out of business, sad but true fact i also know some one who worked for a car manufacturer who admitted to me that the oil companies pay off the car companies to not build hydrogen cars, or electric cars, all they build is gas powered cars and hybrids which still use some gas and get paid off to do it
there is no such thing as a "plug in hybrid" that would defeat the purpose, there is only plug in electric cars or self powering hybrids such as synergy drive hybrid cars.. and plug in electric cars are very inefficient and if you forget to recharge it you are screwed cause it can take several hours to recharge so its not like you can go gas it up, they need to be recharged everyday, anyone who says that they are efficient is just trying to sell them because they are horribly inefficient
Electric cars don't create pollution? I guess only the Electric plants that charge the batteries create pollution. That is the same analogy as hamburger from the market doesn't cause cows to be killed.
Pay attention people where does the energy come from and at what cost. Look up where the plant that creates the Prius and what environmental damage that one plant creates alone. DO NOT FALL FOR THE HYPE
This discussion is just like the way the US Congress works. It is too late to fix anything, so you should find a place on the sidelines to watch it all go down. Move close to work, and ride a bike or walk. To make any major change will take at least a generation, and a huge mental shift. Hydrogen is not the silver bullet, but one technology in our quiver; think decentralize. There is an extensive natural gas pipeline network in the US, so all the infrastructure (pipeline) right-of-ways are in p
LordofScum 1 week ago
Electric cars would be more efficient but at the time they look to be less practical since they need to be charged for long periods of time and can't travel far. Hydrogen fuel cell cars would be more impracticable but less efficient, since you are converting electricity to hydrogen, back to electricity again. I think we should focus on efficient ways of harnessing the sun's power whether it is wind, solar ect. before we focus on a way to transfer the energy.
legogunguy001 2 weeks ago
@legogunguy001 Don't forget, when you charge your electric car, were do you get your energy from? Fossil fuel power stations.
dymproductions 5 days ago
@dymproductions Not necessarily. Right now 80 % of electricity comes from fossil fuels, the other 20 is all clean (hdyro, a little solar, and nuclear). Besides when you make hydrogen for fuel cell cars, you have to use electrolysis which requires electricity. Or you can use fossil fuels such as methane and coal, but they produce CO2.
legogunguy001 5 days ago
6 years later... what the hell happened?
marineninga 2 weeks ago
Way to make it complicated! Through the same process you can make hydrogen!!!! which is a much better power source then electricity! When it burns you get water! Sooooo why
smoky1ful 3 weeks ago
@smoky1ful They have to make it that way so they can sell it at your local station... If they simply had a hho generator in a car there would be no way to charge for the hydrogen. Make a car that you dont have to buy fuel for... hmm now that is a concept!!
steve10212006 1 week ago
Fuel cells are a great proven technology, but I think we should switch to cleaner energy sources to provide the power to create hydrogen, such as solar, wind, and nuclear energy.
antony1103 3 weeks ago
giati re file to nero pou 8a vgenei apo tin exatmisi na pigenei stin atmosfera k na min pigenei sto ntepozito opou 8a xana diaspate se udrogono kai oxygono kai 8a xanaxreisimopoiite xana kai xana meso ilektrolusis me 1 ntepozito nero mporeis na kaneis ton guro tou kosmou 10000 fores ! poso gelio einai na min anakukloneis to nero pou petas kai na xreiazete kata tous vlamenous pou ftixan to video na pigeneis se vetzinadiko na vazeis ydrogono !!!
erevos86 2 months ago
@erevos86 English please.
a1mint 2 months ago
@a1mint if u are not happy about electricity or hydrogen go to the moon and digg some real fuel for your self !
erevos86 2 months ago
@a1mint take a litle taste ==> submarime U214
erevos86 2 months ago
can it tow my 17,000 pound flat bed? i think not.. DIESEL FTW
RaudelSolis 2 months ago
@RaudelSolis Electric motors are superior to ANY IC motors !
a1mint 2 months ago
@a1mint shut the fuck up idiot.. you are fucking limited by the current the battery can provide.
RaudelSolis 2 months ago
@RaudelSolis No you shut the fuck up. If you wish to make a point, fine, great. But start off with an insult is just WTF. Here let me do you one: the day you die is the day that the world becomes a better place. There, an insult back. Happy? Seriously, WTF ! Control yourself moron !
Yes a battery has limits as to the amount of current it can provide, but you can place multiple batteries in parallel you dumb fuck !
Also did you know that even diesel trains actually run on electric motors, doofus!
a1mint 2 months ago
@a1mint shut the fuck up bitch, the point is A FUCKING DIESEL GENERATOR SUPPLIES THE ELECTRICITY.
Also Mother FUCKER OBVIOUS YOU CAN HOOK UP BATTERYS in a parallel circuit but mother fucker Batterys fail from time to time, and like hell please buy a nice block of batterys for a shit electric Car, YOUR A fucking idiot for saying Electric is the best when it FUCKING ISN'T IDIOT! Motherfucker ! cock Sucker! BITCH!
RaudelSolis 2 months ago
@RaudelSolis No YOU shut the fuck up! I said that ELECTRIC MOTORS are superior to IC motors, you ACTUAL moron FUCKTARD !
It was YOU that brought in the battery part, and YOU changed it to pretending I claimed that electric cars were superior. That's not what I claimed. I claimed that electric motors are superior to IC motors.
I know that batteries have limitations. But it *IS* possible to get a very high current by placing many batteries in parallel.
a1mint 2 months ago
@RaudelSolis ... Also when you have many batteries, and one fails, the car could continue to go, just with a little less power. A computer could indicate which battery needs to be replaced.
Problem is that batteries are expensive and heavy and take up too much room. But once someone invents a better battery, electric cars only become better. The electric motor isn't the problem, that really *IS* far superior to an IC motor.
So what the FUCK do you have to say now, ha? Actually doofus fucktard !
a1mint 2 months ago
Check out my page to see the the Real Truth about this stuff and the truth about a whole lot more! We are dedicated to Exposing the Whole Truth and nothing less! The world is Awakening!!! Thanks for checking out my site and if you want to learn more just contact me and I will show you where all of this is going. freeenergiesforall. com
Hydrogenagent 2 months ago
any form of electric car has to get its power from an other source coal, oil, nuclear, hydrogen ect oil & coal dirty nuculear filthy dont think so bury a spent fuel rod in your back yard wind disrupts the air currents hydro affects the wildlife solor is to bulky that leaves hydrogen carrier my @#$ it reacts in combustion exactly the same as any other fuel eccept its reversable
floydfancher 3 months ago
btw water vapor is a lot worse than CO2 in terms of green house gas
alankace 3 months ago
this is counteracting itself because the energy needed to break the bonds in the water would be wasted when it is put back. but if it pulls O2 from the air than 4 molicules of H are needed and thus you expend the ozone layer and whatever hydrogen faster than it needs to be done. look up electrolosys. but batteries so win here.
gothandpissed 3 months ago
@gothandpissed Sorry, it "expends" the ozone layer? How exactly? By effectively breathing? What you perceive to be a drain on the ozone layer is actually a "drain" on oxygen supplies - TREES. So, if your concern is that we will run out of oxygen (...Jesus...) then why not just kill every breathing thing on the planet - they have exactly the same effect on our oxygen supplies as fuel cells.
TheOneNo20 2 months ago
So you need to fill up with hydrogen. Just another thing for you to buy from them. Just add water!
Spaz2147 3 months ago
lets not for get how unstable it is and highly explosive
UniversalHere 3 months ago
Combine this with the water fuel cell and this will own everything
daddy7860 3 months ago
Hydrogen would be a domestic source of energy and job creation
rhersh2011 3 months ago
Hydrogen would be a great alternative better for the future
rhersh2011 3 months ago
Finally it makes sense!
quadtriplepancakehuh 4 months ago
lol. you know your country is bad ass if you can make a car run on Oxygen only lmfao
MrSyntheticDesign 5 months ago
Burn CNG gas instead ,we have plenty of natural gas so use it
losttreasurehunt 6 months ago
47 gas seller were here
MrDude5005 7 months ago
I cant believe that we as a nation are still debating the pros/cons of alternative energy solutions. The only way that the earth will keep functioninig in 50 years is if there is a dramatic overhaul in energy focus. Invest in hydrogen energy, screw the oil/oil sands/natural gas we already fucked up the earths natural balance and well be lucky to see any sign of the natural life that once was in 50 years;oil execs are painstakingly stalling the env. movement, sum1 bsides gore needs to stepup NOW
LBbaseball8893 8 months ago
@LBbaseball8893 Hydrogen is an energy carrier, not an energy source.
a1mint 8 months ago 12
@a1mint good man verry true but doesn't change its awesomeness
zomege 7 months ago
@a1mint let it carry the energy for our needs
9711sam 4 months ago
@9711sam Yes, once we figure out how to economically and safely store and carry it in a car, and when it becomes economical to convert it electricity through fuel cells. Once those two main problems are overcome, then yes, hydrogen could become the ultimate way to carry the energy for all our needs.
We could store that energy on the sides of our house as well.
In the meantime, we just have to sit there and keep chipping away at those stupid fossil fuels.
a1mint 4 months ago 3
@a1mint ...And your point is....?
TheOneNo20 2 months ago
@TheOneNo20 What part of what I explained are you not getting?
a1mint 2 months ago
@a1mint Your concern regarding the ozone layer. How does fuel cell technology affect this?
TheOneNo20 2 months ago
@TheOneNo20 I never mentioned anything about the ozone layer. Are you sure you're responding to the correct person?
a1mint 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@a1mint Excuse me, I am mistaken. I was responding to your comment " Hydrogen is an energy carrier, not an energy source". What are you trying to say? That hydrogen requires additional infrastructure behind it?
TheOneNo20 2 months ago
@LBbaseball8893 -
Hydrogen is false hope. The whole idea of industrial civilization is a temporary miracle that depends entirely on fossil-fuels (splurging an energy 'lottery win'/'inheritance', maybe a million times faster than it forms). When they run out, its back to the caves. other better adapted life-forms can re-assert themselves.
walter0bz 8 months ago
How is it possible for any human being on earth to dislike this video
TheAdrenalinpenguin 8 months ago
@TheAdrenalinpenguin -
The future of transport is BICYCLES .. if you're lucky.
The potential of fuel cells is exagerated by car companies that are trying to pretend they have a future after peak oil. After peak oil, modern "technology" like Cars will only be available to a small elite (be it fuel cells or cars).
Hydrogen fuel cells are mis-represented as a replacement for fossil-fuels, but they are an energy CARRIER not an energy SOURCE.
walter0bz 8 months ago
I'm doing a debate project for my history class with a friend on what is a better source of energy. He says fussion power, I say fuel cells. The only problem is that I can't find a way past the cost of making a fuel cell.
CliffDiverBOA 8 months ago
@CliffDiverBOA FUSION or FISSION? You wrote FUSSION.
RZMaslic 8 months ago
@RZMaslic Sorry my bad, Fusion.
CliffDiverBOA 8 months ago
@CliffDiverBOA
>>"He says fusion power, I say fuel cells. The only problem is that I can't find a way past the cost of making a fuel cell."
Fuel Cells are NOT an energy source.
Hydrogen is a way of storing energy from another source, such as solar or wind.
walter0bz 8 months ago
@CliffDiverBOA Fuel cells are not a source of energy. Hydrogen is also not a source of energy. Water is not a source of energy either.
Hydrogen can be an energy carrier, but there are challenges to overcome before that becomes feasible.
a1mint 7 months ago 2
@a1mint Can you expand on these challenges? Enlighten.. because Hydrogen just seems like the ultimate answer as the world is covered 80% water? Is it something like you need other sources of energy to convert the water to hydrogen, thus NOT eliminating the need for fossel fuels, or could solar or Bio sources be used to convert?
mshineshare 5 months ago
@mshineshare I'd be more than happy to expand and elaborate.
Hydrogen is part of water, but it takes energy to extract hydrogen from water. Burning hydrogen releases less energy than the energy needed to extract hydrogen from water.
Hydrogen itself does not naturally occur on earth. Therefore it is not a source of energy. Hydrogen is an energy carrier.
Hydrogen is very useful, because it's potentially a very good energy carrier. But you need another energy source to make it.
a1mint 5 months ago
@a1mint - As you said, "Hydrogen is very useful, because it's potentially a very good energy carrier. But you need another energy source to make it."
Have they tried using wind turbines, solar power and electric dams to as their main energy source to make the hydrogen from the water? Now that would be cool to see someday in the near future and completely be self-sufficient.
train52000 5 months ago
@train52000 The problem is that storing hydrogen is difficult. Making hydrogen and using hydrogen also incurs losses. The make hydrogen, an electrolyzer would be 65% efficient. To use hydrogen you need a fuel cell that converts it to electricity, which is 50%. Fuel cells are also very expensive.
Storing hydrogen is a challenge. Compressing takes energy and isn't very efficient. There are ways to it away in some sort of solid form.
Much work to be done before it's viable.
a1mint 5 months ago
@mshineshare Also, to use hydrogen, you can burn it, but burning it in a car's engine is not very efficient at all.
Much better to use a fuel cell and convert the hydrogen to electricity and use the electricity to drive an electric motor.
Fuel cells are expensive, especially the efficient ones. That cost is going to have to come down.
As for energy source, solar and wind is cute, but not powerful enough. Much MUCH more powerful would be Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors, that's nuclear !
a1mint 5 months ago
@a1mint "According to ISO 13600, an energy carrier is either a substance or a phenomenon that can be used to produce mechanical work or heat or to operate chemical or physical processes. It is any system or substance that contains energy for conversion as usable energy later or somewhere else. This could be converted for use in, for example, an appliance or vehicle." Nothing happens without solar energy ! Not powerful enough , your joking ! Sunshine is free for all.
2karriizman 5 months ago
@2karriizman You're explaining something that wasn't in dispute. Hydrogen, on earth, is an energy carrier only, not a source of energy. You see any issue with this?
Nothing without solar? There's nuclear energy - and plenty of it! Read up on Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors. We have 1000's of years worth, if not much more, of energy for the taking.
Renewables based on wind and solar should also play a role, but it can't be the sole solution - there simply isn't enough for low enough $s.
a1mint 5 months ago 2
@a1mint You cant put a dollar value on a safe clean environment !
2karriizman 5 months ago
@2karriizman Thorium based nuclear can be very safe and very clean and very cost effective !
a1mint 5 months ago
@a1mint "This claim is wrong. The fission of thorium creates long‐lived fission products like technetium‐99 (half‐life over 200,000 years). While the mix of fission products is somewhat different than with uranium fuel, the same range of fission products is created. If the spent fuel is not reprocessed, thorium‐232 is very‐long lived (half‐life:" Sunshine is free energy companies have us by the balls and they wont let them go!
2karriizman 5 months ago
@2karriizman You need to google Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor. There is a movement called energy-from-thorium. There are a few very good videos mad by Kirk Sorenson. Thorium converts to fissile.
I'm not an expert on this. But it's been done in the 60's apparently.
It's really very fascinating!
a1mint 5 months ago
@a1mint "I'm not an expert on this. But it's been done in the 60's apparently." Nor am i an expert ! Liquid Thorium Reactors work ! the technology was shelved due to the fact bombs cant be made from the spent fuel . The insatiable appetite humans have for power has placed life on this planet on the eve of destruction we have to change our ways or perish !Clean green power is our only logical choice ! To bad idiots run the show !
2karriizman 5 months ago
@2karriizman I agree. It's up to people like you and me to help raise awareness of better nuclear options, plus help the fight against negative stigma surrounding nuclear energy.
a1mint 5 months ago
@a1mint Conventional nuclear power generation is a filthy business the negative stigma that surrounds the current method of nuclear power generation is well founded ! I was a member of the Friends of the Earth when i was young and would attend protests against Australias involvement in the nuclear industry and filthy polluting industries ocean outfalls and the like ! We were voices in the wilderness nothing we did changed anything its the same as it ever was.Greed and materialism still prevails!
2karriizman 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@2karriizman So, how about Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors ?
a1mint 5 months ago
Comment removed
a1mint 5 months ago
@a1mint Hydrogen IS NOT A NATURAL ELEMENT just fyi.. It takes a lot of electricity to produce it. :)
RaudelSolis 2 months ago
@RaudelSolis Hydrogen does not occur in nature on earth, I know that. Hydrogen can be made, so hydrogen on earth is an energy carrier. The amount of energy released when burning hydrogen is less than the amount of energy spent making the hydrogen.
Are we both on the same page?
a1mint 2 months ago
wow this stuff is really cool!How much do these cost and where do you find a place that sells hydrogen?
alies661 8 months ago
batteries... the worst of the worst of the worst. oil is better then batteries... lithium... earth has a very limited supply.. great for little stuff, only months worth of material if the world converted over. but also, GIANT toxic waste dumps would be required. the u.s. alone, an area the size of texas would become a toxic waste dump... yet alone when lithium batteries explode, it is both a killer and it incinerates everything... hydrogen is the best solution... isn't rocket science.
b101aa2 9 months ago 21
@b101aa2 i really agree with you... thumbs up
thinkmanworld 3 months ago
@b101aa2 no where in this video did they talk about batteries...
lowcarb85 2 months ago
@lowcarb85 look at the popup box in the video... the text "forget hydrogen... i want to plug-in a hybrid"... miss that did you? electric is the abyss even worse then carbon fuels, since it takes a massive amount of carbon to manufacture them, and the toxic waste makes opec blush... but also, it's not very efficient either. cheers. oh, and besides my turbine work, i build hydrogen fuel cells and solid oxide fuel cells. i kind of know my business. ltr.
b101aa2 2 months ago
@b101aa2 Sorry, I didn't notice the pop up box. I'm actually all for hydrogen, I was really impressed by Mike Strizki house, it really opened my eyes. I've known about the process of manufacturing batteries, and how harmful it is to the environment since the prius came out. Never said you don't know your business, just over looked uploaders commentary.
lowcarb85 2 months ago
@b101aa2 Let alone the real world practicalities of it. BEV - I will need to charge it for hours, have cables crossing the street as I don't have a garage & will be unable to venture on unscheduled journeys as I will have to plan use of the BEV around its recharging cycle to a T = BEV's are hopelessly unrealistic. Fuel Cell - no mining, refining & recycling issues, infinite fuel source, will not drain the national grid to a point where we need even MORE power stations & above all, its practical.
TheOneNo20 2 months ago
how did i get here?
Minimychem2010 9 months ago
how are they preventing huge explosions in multi vehicle accidents
dylf14 10 months ago
@dylf14 they dont. HHO on demand systems are much much safer... very little in the hose to the intake manifold.. and it does NOT take a special engine to run it. Any combustion engine is capable of running it..
As for getting electricity from hydrogen, the most ineffecient way to use hydrogen. feeding it into the engine however, is a 100% . this "fuel cell" technology is funding by the oil company's.. they do not want you running hho in your engine because they would LOSE MONEY.
Me102288 9 months ago
If water is H2O, how can water come before oxygen?? (LOL)
heartlessvietboy 10 months ago
Cost is the only negative aspect to fuel cells. We have to find a less expensive way to produce hydrogen fuel. Also, fuel cells can run on various bio gas and even propane. Not just hydrogen.
ChimpFromSpace 10 months ago
ok... some of the people here are just... solid proof of the downward spiral in the education system. First off, plug-in hybrids are a STUPID idea, the amount of raw materials and chemicals needed to produce the batteries needed will destroy ecosystems faster then global warming and use precious elements. And add TONS of weight and take up a LOT of space in your vehicle, making it LESS efficient. Plus what's the point of having a car that needs 4 hours to charge after 4 hours of driving?
musicmanvin1 10 months ago
@musicmanvin1 Now, Hydrogen fuel has an ignition point of somewhere above 900F, Gasoline is around 500F. Hydrogen is more stable then gasoline, no shit it can still explode, but hey, throw your deodorant spray in your oven and see what happens! most of the crap in your house is volatile. Now the Nazi's were just stupid... that hydrogen blimp was a stupid idea... it's like saying it's a good idea to make a blimp out of propane and wood..\. and no, Hydrogen does not just explode, it needs
musicmanvin1 10 months ago
@musicmanvin1
it wasnt the hydrogen that burned---check out the latest on it--the canvas material that covered the blimp was soaked in some kind of petroleum product (whoops!)----the hydrogen did not burn
jaketen2001 10 months ago
@jaketen2001 Actually it was not a petoleum product the paint was composed largely of powdered iron oxide and powered aluminum. These two materials combined form a compound called thermite. Thermite burns at about 5000 degrees and will even burn while under water. When it burns it leaves behind a puddle of motlen iron.
MrAwsome514 10 months ago
@MrAwsome514 so your saying the Nazi's accidentally painted their ship in Thermite?? lmfao... not laughing at you, laughing at Nazi's painting they're ship in Thermite hahaha.
musicmanvin1 10 months ago
@musicmanvin1 Well in thier defence they did mix it with several other chemicals to form the paint and when mythbusters tested it the exact mix that was used actually did not burn well at all. Ofcourse unsatisfied the mythbusters crew decided to coat the model with a thin layer of actual thermite just for the hell of it.
MrAwsome514 10 months ago
@musicmanvin1 The nazis where not stupid... the world's only helium deposite was in america at the time. It is not like we where going to sell it to them. They whent with the only alternative they could get.
MrAwsome514 10 months ago
@musicmanvin1 -
Hydrogen being the smallest element is very hard to store. When liquid hydogen is used as rocket fuel, I think it needs continual top-up because its continually boiling away ? Other ways of storing hydrogen use another bulky medium.
Hydrogen is a very inefficient way of storing energy , which is why evolution invented ... "oil"
walter0bz 8 months ago
@walter0bz I agree, but supposedly there is this new nano technology of sorts that allows for the safe storage of hydrogen. The frustrating thing is that every time I hear about some sort of breakthrough on some science site, that's the end of it, and I never hear from it a second time.
It's like we're making 0 progress.
a1mint 8 months ago
@a1mint
>>" there is this new nano technology of sorts that allows for the safe storage of hydrogen."
- how about storing the hydrogen on carbon atoms :) can't get much more nano than that..
>>"It's like we're making 0 progress."
- could be because its false hope and anyone smart realizes that pretty quickly. There is public/government willingness to invest in it (public expectation 'technology will save us') but real sci/engineers know how futile it is.
walter0bz 8 months ago
@walter0bz I'd like to stay optimistic, but indeed a lot of efforts turn out to be a complete waste. A recent disturbing company I just learned about is Xogen, which is in Orangeville Ontario, Canada. This woman named Angella, the CEO, managed to get $5 million in funding from the government.
All they do is use an electrolyzer which they gave a different name, patented it (shouldn't be possible), and burn the hydrogen to create clean water. Extremely inefficient.
a1mint 8 months ago
@a1mint
>>"This woman named Angella, the CEO, managed to get $5 million in funding from the government."
right, this is a serious problem, because the government throwing taxpayers money at bogus schemes is a waste.
people need to be realistic. we're just not going to have cars in the future.
but people will vote for someone pretending that we will.
Its's down to excessive faith in 'technology' which is in fact brute-force use of millions of years of algae storing sunlight :)
walter0bz 8 months ago
@walter0bz So that was an example of a scam. I'm not done with them. Already wrote notes to their local MP that's been promoting it. They all need to attend a science class.
Anyway, about that hydrogen storage thing, let me look it up...
Yes, can be found all over Google. Carbon based. But also (same thing?) storing in a solid form. Not sure how that works. But the latest progress is quite recent. I have high hopes for this!
a1mint 8 months ago
@a1mint
>>"Anyway, about that hydrogen storage thing, let me look it up..."
- this is absolutely critical, if no ones' already told you.
We use oil because it has energy embedded - algae for millions of years absorbed sunlight to grow, some leftovers accumulated on ocean floor and got covered.. hence the energy in Oil, oil is a ready made Energy Source.
By contrast, to make Hydrogen you must apply energy from another Source.
hydrogen = "rechargable battery". what do you charge it with?
walter0bz 8 months ago
@walter0bz We're totally on the same page on this.
a1mint 8 months ago
@a1mint
>>"Anyway, about that hydrogen storage thing, let me look it up..."
.. some people say 'solar panels' will make the hydrogen.
but fossil-fuels are used to enhance crop-yields - hence our population boom (based on releasing the 'millions of years of algae leftovers'). Solar Panels can't be used to multiply food production like fossil-fuels do. (pesticides, fertilizers).
the biosphere is *already* solar powered.
walter0bz 8 months ago
@walter0bz Interesting point of view. I'd like to see a comparison on using solar panels to create hydrogen (assuming we have this alleged nano hydrogen battery now) + fuel cell (actual fuel cell) in cars, vs, say, biodiesel production and diesel engines.
a1mint 8 months ago
@a1mint -
i dont have figures, but i'd guess solar+fuel cell might win in terms of land use & vehicle effiency ..... but requires scarce materials, so will only ever be available to a small elite.
so overall, Biodiesel will be far more 'abundant'.
but the ultimate personal transport, by a huge margin, will be Bicycles.
walter0bz 8 months ago
@a1mint
Daniel Nocera published an electrolysis system that was 4.7% efficient overall (60% efficient electrolysis; Reece et al., Science 2011). Not bad considering the cell was free of Pt and fairly cheap (amorphous Si, Co-based anode, NiMoZn cathode). PV efficiencies are always pretty low.
Biodeasil production is ca. 1% efficient according to wikipedia (trustworthy?), and FCs are more efficient than heat engines. So far, solar + FC wins the efficiency battle.
DrTurf83 3 months ago
@DrTurf83 We seem forever stuck in this stupid oil society. Electric motors are so much better than ICEs. I think oil has to run to critical levels before people wake up.
As for the ultimate energy source, solar is FAR too weak. Nuclear is the answer. But not your normal traditional nuclear. LFTR, look it up!
a1mint 3 months ago
@a1mint
I agree with you that ICEs need to be replaced with electric, but I don't think is only one method to produce power. I think it will likely be a balance of many different technologies and that Wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, hydro, and Nuclear will all play a part.
"Debate: Does the world need nuclear energy?" on TED.com is a pretty interesting talk, albeit short. It's a complicated issue, without a clear cut answer.
DrTurf83 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DrTurf83 Did you look up LFTR ?
a1mint 3 months ago
@a1mint -
I've got more faith in algae biofuel than in solar -> hydrogen. nature already has the 'tech' in plants.
(tree = 'solar powered solar panel factory').
overall, I think we're in for a population crash and hydrogen wont avert it.
IMO, without oil, earth can support 2billion people max. as little as 0.5billion if you beleive in MMGW.
walter0bz 8 months ago
@walter0bz I agree. Nature is converting solar energy and storing it in its fruit and plant tissues.
Jatropha weeds produce berries. Squeeze, filter, and put it straight in a diesel engine. No distilling required.
There is another energy source though. Thorium based nuclear energy. A safer alternative to Uranium. The only downside is that you can't make nuclear weapons out of it, which is why they chose Uranium over Thorium.
a1mint 8 months ago
@a1mint -
agree on Thorium, its something should definitely be developing to help support our overpopulation .
I've heard the weapons explanation too, sad but true.
walter0bz 8 months ago
@walter0bz So what's with this "peak oil" thing? The way I see it is that there still is plenty more oil, except that some of it is becoming harder and more expensive to get at. So the price goes up. Plus all that speculation, which keeps on raising the price. But I bet we can go for quite a while longer with oil.
I would really like us to see electric cars powered by hydrogen batteries, and power from renewable sources and Thorium based nuclear.
With some effort we should be fine.
a1mint 8 months ago
@a1mint >>', except that some of it is becoming harder and more expensive to get at. So the price goes up. '
- my hypothesis,
energy is more fundemental than money, money might be 'energy X information', but information/knowledge is easy to share so really energy is more important.. (people do hold onto 'trade secrets','state secrets' to get ahead in competing for energy..)
.. after peak oil, the supply of energy drops.. we all get poorer.
i dont see it as about cars but industry generally
walter0bz 8 months ago
@a1mint -
energy more fundemental than money (money might be energy * information, but information is easy to share and copy.. so energy is the real limiting factor - information is only withheld when you need to get ahead in competition for energy)
so, after peak oil, when the energy supply starts shrinking, everyone gets poorer. eventually starvation and war will reduce the population back to pre-industrial levels.
(I hypothesize that natures' systems are already better at using solar)
walter0bz 8 months ago
@walter0bz I'm more optimistic. Oil will stretch way further, and other energy sources will phase in.
a1mint 8 months ago
@walter0bz The challenge after that is making efficient affordable fuel cells. And I mean actual fuel cells, not the hoaxy bullshit "fuel cells" that HHO peddler talk about, which aren't fuel cells at all.
a1mint 8 months ago
very dangerous . hydrogen is many times more volatile than gasoline, any oxygen in your tank, it just might blow up
bighedful 11 months ago
I went to hastings today and they pissed me off!
SuperKenny720 11 months ago
why is this video in such shit quality :(
tehcrackfox1 11 months ago
Hi all please rethink your cells. I think watch stan meters first run video. the white stays at the bottom Why? He is resonating ice thus the water around it. Job 38: 22-23
TheMrblazer320 11 months ago
yeah like I'm gonna drive that bomp everyday, do you know how bad it is when the hydrogen blow up? dam, you can't even find the driver's bone.
jnnycliff 1 year ago
@jnnycliff That's why I like gasoline, it just won't blow up.
gabrielbap1 11 months ago
@gabrielbap1 just got an 09 civic yesterday. love it and it much better than corolla.
jnnycliff 11 months ago
@gabrielbap1 Must be shit gasoline if ya cant get it to blow up! maybe ya should have another go with less gas in the tank.Try lighting a match when ya filling up.
2karriizman 11 months ago
@gabrielbap1 Must be shit gasoline if ya cant get it to blow up! maybe ya should have another go with less gas in the tank.Try lighting a match when ya filling up .You could try throwing gasoline on a fire, i did and it blew up !
2karriizman 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gabrielbap1 Hydrogen is the single most powerful and most abundant element in the entire univere of which over is 75%. Gasoline is obselete in comparison. Once we can extract Hydrogen without buring fossil fuels in the process, all cars will be hydrogen powered. We can split Hydrogen in a sfae enviroment and some scientists have found ways to fuse it in a safe enviroment aswell.
NANOFORGE 11 months ago
How can gasoline (Naphtha) turn to water?
heartlessvietboy 1 year ago
@heartlessvietboy water is always produced as a bi-product when combusting. take gasoline to have the empirical formula of octane - C8H18 then.... C8H18 + O2 makes - CO2 +H20 (equation not balanced)
sterovers 10 months ago
@sterovers uh, hho turns back to water... hydrogen + oxygen... where they getting co2 from? seems this is much less efficient then just letting the engine suck in hho (browns gas).
Me102288 9 months ago
this came out 2006............ So why aren't we all having this car today? D:<
chickensandw1tch 1 year ago
@chickensandw1tch
Most of all becaus hydrogenfuel remains expensive to make, expensive both in costs of money and the energy needed to make it.
Todays technology needs the energy of about 3 barrels of oil to create hydrogen fuel that would compare to the energy of 1 barrel of oil, and since most of our energy still comes from fossile fuels that isnt economic.
Clausewitzz 1 year ago
@Clausewitzz nope, these devices are very inefficient.. Hydrogen, or HHO generators require electricity, the hho goes into the engine, combusts and comes back out the exaust WATER. They are proven to decrease or even eliminate the need for gasoline, or even diesel (with a change to spark plugs). Lookup HHO generator on youtube, you might be surprised when you find out the government bulls'its ppl and we haven't had the need for fossil fuels for almost 50 years.
Me102288 1 year ago
@Clausewitzz The only reason hydrogen is expensive today is due to the method oil and energy companies use to make hydrogen.Hydrogen can be made for next to nothing useing solar powered electrolysis.Internal combustion engines dont need the same purity hydrogen as do fuel cells.
2karriizman 1 year ago
@2karriizman safe storing hydrogen is expensive!
MsUoykcuf 1 year ago
@2karriizman if solar is so cheap and effecient, why don't they just charge on battery cell and drive the electric cars? why all the trouble? also transport hydrogen is not cheap!
MsUoykcuf 1 year ago
@MsUoykcuf Solar will out of necessity become more effecient and less expensive. Storing hydrogen is expensive and dangerous! I think, hydrogen should only be used as a source of energy when it can be produced and used on demand useing environmentally friendly Tech.The rc toys of today shit all over the real things. There is light every day and on a clear fullmoon nite ya solar panels on your car keep chargeing your batteries.
2karriizman 1 year ago
F*** Patrol stations!
chickensandw1tch 1 year ago
What is your problem with this, batteries are heavy, hard to dispose of, not environmentally friendly, and take forever to charge, unlike this which you can refill as fast as your regular tanks.
aForkandaSpoon 1 year ago
@aForkandaSpoon carry loads of hydrogen = your a f'cking Atomic BOMB... lookup ww2, hydrogen bomb... you want these all over our planet with all the stupid drivers in accidents..? Takes care of saving the planet.. couple traffic accidents and say goodbye to half the plants population :-)
Me102288 1 year ago
@Me102288 You are an idiot, everyone thinks hydrogen bombs are using the hydrogen explosion. THEY AREN'T It is a radioactive isotope, it does the same thing as nuclear, fission, atomic, ext. except instead of uranium or something else it has non-natural occurring (unless maybe the sun) radioactive hydrogen. Also hydrogen can be stored safely as a hydro-something, it is a chemical compound in which a low energy reaction releases H2.
aForkandaSpoon 1 year ago
@aForkandaSpoon you might want to read up on atom bombs.. fusion is a totaly different subject.
You might want to look up Hydrogen on the chemical chart, its ATOMIC property is almost identicly to any nuclear or atomic explosion... this is why the temperature of a hydrogen torch VARRIES with whatever material is comes in contact with. touch lead, 200 degree flame, tungsten melts at 2600 celcius..yet hho vapourizes it..
Me102288 1 year ago
@Me102288 I looked it up, fission is not completely different, it is actually the one used in most bombs because it is the most explosive. Fusion cannot sustain a chain reaction like fission. The hydrogen is in an Isotope form. Nuclear power plants use a fission reactor, you know why, what does a fusion reaction remind you of, yep iron man. Look up ITER, its a fusion reactor, that uses a hydrogen Isotope, not its pure form. Also how could H2 be like a nuclear bomb if it doesn't really burn.
aForkandaSpoon 1 year ago
@aForkandaSpoon oh you got to the part of how to trigger an atomic bomb.. thats the one where they smash a core into a sphere of uranium or plutonium, there by reached its critical mass.The other way is taking an entire sphere of plutonium just under the weight of critical mass and detonate explodes equally around it, and affectively "squeeze" it to its critical mass.
Me102288 1 year ago
@Me102288 They should allow more characters. Yea, H2 torches vary, thats why they don't really feel that hot,(found that on this site) so how could that be identical to a nuclear explosion if it vaporises you. Yea, just found out that a H-bomb is fusion, except, it uses isotopes of hydrogen (Deuterium and Tritium), fusing together, not burning. O, I just realized you said fusion was wrong for atom bombs, well yes it is, but I didn't say that I said fission.
aForkandaSpoon 1 year ago
Check this out:
wwwproHformancecom
We have the best cells on the market, runs extremely efficient. This cell it the best you can get for the money take a look.
proHformance
proHformance 1 year ago
Can someone tell me what is used as the catalyst in the fuel cells? Also what's the difference in using compressed hydrogen and methanol in fuel cells?
LFCZee 1 year ago
On demand hydrogen is way more efficient, costs less than $1000 for a good system, installs in a day or so, and can be retrofitted on existing cars with no major engine mods. The emissions are reduced to a trace and mileage increases 20-50% and more if its a good setup. That is a much more viable solution than an expensive hydrogen fuel cell setup...
HybridWaterMan2 1 year ago
@HybridWaterMan2 yeah, but its not near as clean and still depends on petrol or diesel wich could run out.....and i don't see H running out anytime soon...
anyadkurvapicsaja 1 year ago
@anyadkurvapicsaja - true, but we developed these systems using technology that is available now around the world. We don't have to wait another 40 years for bugs to be worked out or manufacturers "controlled release" of technology. So, no it doesn't replace, but if you could double your mileage for $1000, wouldn't that double the available fuel supply while we work the bugs out of emerging technologies? One of our customers got a 212% increase on a Ford Falcon, another got 84% Hyundai Genesis
HybridWaterMan2 1 year ago
@HybridWaterMan2 There is no doubt hydrogen is the way to go.Your system is a good interim untill car companies get their fingers out and start produceing engines that run 100% on demand hydrogen . Oil companies and car manufactures are bedfellows and dont want consumers haveing a free ride.Fuel cells wont give you a free ride .
2karriizman 1 year ago
@2karriizman - I agree. We are focused on "Transitional Technologies" that can bridge the gap. This tech is available now to anyone- anywhere in the world. We can't throw away 300 million cars, but we can at least transform them into cleaner burning vehicles as we transition into better technologies. Emissions reports show almost complete removal of hydrocarbons and carbon monoxides- deadly gases that normally spew out of the exhaust. What if millions did this?
HybridWaterMan2 1 year ago
How much electricity can we generate from a hydrogen fuel cell?
heartlessvietboy 1 year ago
wtf is this?!?!?!?! fussion ftw!
kennyroks111 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please help me win the Nissan Leaf!
Vote for my Leaf video by visiting this web address (which takes you within Nissan's web servers)
drivenissanleaf dotcom slash Win slash Vote dot aspx?b=248ZRV8WHPN9
Vote for me Please and tell your friends to vote and to spread it ;)
Vote by entering in your email address (junk emails too, the more the better)
Be sure to check those emails for a confirmation email in order for votes to count!
I only have until 12/9/2010 for votes
Thank you so so much!!
chughes380 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please help me win the Nissan Leaf!
Vote for my Leaf video by visiting this web address (which takes you within Nissan's web servers)
drivenissanleaf dotcom slash Win slash Vote dot aspx?b=248ZRV8WHPN9
Vote for me Please and tell your friends to vote and to spread it ;)
Vote by entering in your email address (junk emails too, the more the better)
Be sure to check those emails for a confirmation email in order for votes to count!
I only have until 12/9/2010 for votes
Thank you so so much!!
chughes372 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please help me win the Nissan Leaf!
Vote for my Leaf video by visiting this web address (which takes you within Nissan's web servers)
drivenissanleaf dotcom slash Win slash Vote dot aspx?b=248ZRV8WHPN9
Vote for me Please and tell your friends to vote and to spread it ;)
Vote by entering in your email address (junk emails too, the more the better)
Be sure to check those emails for a confirmation email in order for votes to count!
I only have until 12/9/2010 for votes
Thank you so so much!!
danwat1234 1 year ago
Support Clean Energy! Search for and watch "The Clean Energy Anthem"
KorElement 1 year ago
Hydrogen is the best possible future, anyone who says hybrid, (like the retard who posted this video) or electric, is a fucking moron.
ook3vin 1 year ago
I'm curious since when the sun stop shining to the two idiots arguing below.just sayin'. Wind is supposed to supply 20% in like 2030 or 2050 something like that soo let's all stfu now.
zachjohannes1 1 year ago
@zachjohannes1 xtaxplayer has an IQ 151 and your 15? Im 57 and a devout member of The Order Of The Perpetually Unenlightened .Im such an idiot i seem to have lost the plot. This vid is all about hydrogen fuel cells.Hydrogen packs a bang, bit dodgee when it comes to pressurizing it or liquefying.NASA has trouble getting rockets of the ground sometimes.
2karriizman 1 year ago
@2karriizman Hey tool for the Socialist's I am not 15 I do have a high IQ and at 57 it is amazing you can still be this unenlightened. Nice attempt to reticule. You are not even smart enough to belittle someone. Notice how I did it to your face, typical Aussie wanker
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
@zachjohannes1 Wow, you are so bright I have to wear shades . . . Not really . . . I'm curious? Where do you live that the sun shines twenty four hours a day seven days a week? Oh and by the way, I'm so happy the government's of the world deemed the wind will power 20% of our supply, (supply of what? Brain dead zombie's?). Has the government ever been correct in their guarantee's? How is that Global Warming proof going for you? Just asking, you are so smaarrrttt I beg for you to teech me somfin.
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
From the reading i have been able to do with reguard auger plants i am not convinced this is the answer to the energy needs of the world. Auger plants use organic matter to make fuel ? Feed the auger plants with maize and let the poor starve and the rich drive their fancy cars?.The majority of Australians dont want nuclear power plants in this country.Uranium mining is a reality in this country against the wishes of the majority.Sunshines free for all. Fuckwitts brag about their IQ 151 so watt
2karriizman 1 year ago
@2karriizman Oh my word . . . really? . . . really? Lets try this again. AUGER NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS . . . uses a pellet system not fuel rods. Doesn't need over sized cooling towers. Can use a simple radiator style cooling system. Being implemented all over the world. Designed tested and patented here in the good ole' U.S. of A. in Texas. Now you can get knowledge of the Auger plants that we were discussing. Good day ! !
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
ดีครับ
2548ctana 1 year ago
Less than one percent of the energy in gasoline is used to actually turn the wheels in an ICE and this thing is three time more efficient than an ICE. That would be less than 3 percent.
dewpanic 1 year ago
any ways,if we are talking about energy for transportation,why not natural gas? It's abundant in our country,vs all the oil we import from a bunch of towel heads.
I would support 200 percent of the total conversion too natural gas of the daily commuter.
we will never get away from oil,as we use it in everything from roads to makeup,and not just to fill up our gas.
i will support electricity only when it comes economical for long drives.
.
captinseperoth 1 year ago
how are we going to power our heavy construction equipment? My family's small business went through 2000 gallons of diesel,in a day!
If you are thinking your going to replace diesel with your pixidust batteries,or hydrogen,someone ought too shoot you.
captinseperoth 1 year ago
why they dont' make the engine that run from hydrogoen? i know the thing they use to move stuff like trucktor are using gas.
jnnycliff 1 year ago
plug in cars are for homos. =(
Had one for tax benefits and now I dumped it.
Honestly, weaker than gas but not so much mileage compare to stopping to refuel in very tiny amount of places. =(
hanzotk 1 year ago
to answer the question about why hydrogen fuel cells are not widely use is simple, whether people want to agree with it or not the truth is that car companies are not about to put the oil companies out of business, sad but true fact i also know some one who worked for a car manufacturer who admitted to me that the oil companies pay off the car companies to not build hydrogen cars, or electric cars, all they build is gas powered cars and hybrids which still use some gas and get paid off to do it
cybergod09 1 year ago
there is no such thing as a "plug in hybrid" that would defeat the purpose, there is only plug in electric cars or self powering hybrids such as synergy drive hybrid cars.. and plug in electric cars are very inefficient and if you forget to recharge it you are screwed cause it can take several hours to recharge so its not like you can go gas it up, they need to be recharged everyday, anyone who says that they are efficient is just trying to sell them because they are horribly inefficient
cybergod09 1 year ago
what are the limitations of fuel cells? if it is so good, why no one is using it?? you know what i mean...why is it not widely used??
xiaxue95 1 year ago
I just made a hydrogen generator yesterday, but it exploded and I had ringing in my left ear for about one day :O.
darknessdel454 1 year ago
Electric cars don't create pollution? I guess only the Electric plants that charge the batteries create pollution. That is the same analogy as hamburger from the market doesn't cause cows to be killed.
Pay attention people where does the energy come from and at what cost. Look up where the plant that creates the Prius and what environmental damage that one plant creates alone. DO NOT FALL FOR THE HYPE
xtaxplayer 1 year ago