jpanhalt

Whoever first penned the statement, "In God we trust, everyone else bring data," had great wisdom. Was it Einstein?

There is far to much fear mongering in our society today that is making us overlook simple solutions, like the fears expressed in another thread of storing solder paste in a home refrigerator. Lead atoms don't jump (in any appreciable quantity for you quantum gurus) from a closed container into your milk. Similarly, hydrogen is about as safe as any fuel when properly used. BTW, I am not a proponent of a hydrogen economy in the near future, but my reasons are not based on safety. John

mneary

I'm not that risk-averse. I live within 2 miles of a major oil refinery, for the past 30 years. Before that, I lived near a nuclear plant. They've had accidents, and the professionals on site have been able to contain the problem and only a few lives were lost.

I keep solder paste, cyanoacrylate glue and RTV in my refrigerator.

I just don't think my next door neighbor should be manufacturing fuel.

crashsite

You all raise some good points but, the comment I would make about methane gas is that you have to have the raw materials to make it. The average residential neighborhood would likely be averse to having large numbers of animals milling around or trucking in the poo. On the other hand, water is readily available (and desirable).

Regarding the efficiency issue and just directly piping the energy back into the electric grid...I'm not sure. From a technical point of view, that makes sense. From a political point of view...maybe not. We've all been dismayed at the "idiocy" of budgets in companies we've worked for. You know, throwing away $1000s in unneeded office supplies on one hand while denying you $7 for a whisk broom to dust off your desk because the office budget has money and the janitorial supply budget doesn't. BTW: That's not a real example since I was known for never cleaning off my desk.

If the rules required the home electricity production to be allocated to the commercial cracking of water to produce hydrogen for the fuel cells, the overall efficiency would be greater but, in the real world, the electricity would be used for genreal purpose purpoeses and our dependency of foreign oil and gas would remain uabated.

I believe there would be a strong psychological aaspect to home hydrogen generation that would increase awareness and appreciation of where energy comes from that's largely missing now in our modern world. But, that might just be pie-in-the-sky thinking; especially considering the limited participation in returning power to the grid now (that lack of participation includes me and very likely, you).

My original post addressed only the technical side. But, I am hopeful that the future will provide not just technical feasabiltiy but, also social and political pressures to generate alternate energies and do so with more participation from the "little guy". Okay, Crashsite...enough editorializing!

ericgibbs

hi John,
Slightly off topic.
Can you imagine a world where we didnt have an internal combustion engine propelled vehicles, cars etc.
Then some young inventor comes along and says, I have developed an engine that runs on highly inflammable petrol. To make it run any distance the car needs to carry around 20gallons of petrol in a flimsy tank made from 2mm thick mild steel.
Also the car requires a 12V lead acid battery that can supply upto 100amps on demand.
The car is capable of travelling at speeds upto 70mph and will using the same roads as thousands of other vehicles.

In the event of an impact/crash the petrol tank is liable to rupture and the petrol be ignited by the crushed battery wiring.

BTW all car users would have access to filling stations where they can refill the petrol tank as required.

I would think in todays climate of health and safety, they would lock the inventor in a padded cell!

Yet people are 'worried' about Hydrogen being a problem...

Regards

EDITED:
The inventor adds after a futher study:
BTW the engine will emit carbon monoxide and dioxide.
These oxides will cause thousands of deaths due to cancer and other illness, also change the planets climate to such an extent that
millions of people will suffer severe hardships....

__________________
Eric
"Good enough is Perfect"

PIC tutorials:
Gramo's: www.digital-diy.net/
Bill's: www.blueroomelectronics.com/

crashsite

Many examples could be given. My favorite is whether today's FDA would even consider approving aspirin for over-the-counter sales.

The Hindenberg sort of gave hydrogen its stigma. I believe that hydrogen, properly bottled and vented during a car crash could be much safer than gasoline.

Regarding having one's neighbors generating it. Again, suitable safety measures could be employed. One of the good things about hydrogen is that it is light and so any flames tend to burn upward and don't carry the hazard of floating ash or embers even in windy conditions. I don't think I'd be as concerned about a small hydrogen generator as a poorly placed or maintained burning barrel or the neighbors out burning weeds.

But, the initial question about the technology remains unanswered: Independent of social, safety, political, moral, religious and ethical issues, could a lot of small operations, using "free" energy, as proposed and working in support of a "hydrogen industry", produce hydrogen in economically feasable quantities (ie: Have a shot at reducing our thirst for foreign energy supplies even just a little)?

Nigel Goodwin

You've been watching too many American films! - the chances of crashed cars catching on fire is extremly low.

__________________
PIC programmer software, and PIC Tutorials at:
http://www.winpicprog.co.uk

ericgibbs

Hi Nigel,
Just Googled for 'car crash fires', it a very suprising number worldwide.
Its not just in the movies!.

IIRC, you spoke some time ago about 'risk management' in public places, how do you assess risk, as a passenger/driver in a car?

http://www.fire.org.uk/advice/FA/odp...pdf_028815.pdf

Extract from a UK report:

__________________
Eric
"Good enough is Perfect"

PIC tutorials:
Gramo's: www.digital-diy.net/
Bill's: www.blueroomelectronics.com/

Nigel Goodwin

Read the last line of that clip!

Notice also it says "road vehicle fires" and not "crash fires", the majority of vehicle fires aren't during a crash.

__________________
PIC programmer software, and PIC Tutorials at:
http://www.winpicprog.co.uk

ericgibbs

I did read the last line..
If it makes you happy, I will drop/retract the 'crash' word...
and substitute 'road vehicle fires'..

The point I was making and still making is, the present attitude to H&S regarding 'new' ideas for fuels.
We seem to accept that petrol and other hydrocarbon fuels are an acceptable risk, but cleaner fuels like hydrogen are 'dangerous'.

I would support the OP's idea of the introduction of 'cleaner' fuels.

Do you recall in the 1950's being promised that each home would have its own nuclear reactor by the year 2000, about the size of a domestic refuse bin.

__________________
Eric
"Good enough is Perfect"

PIC tutorials:
Gramo's: www.digital-diy.net/
Bill's: www.blueroomelectronics.com/

Nigel Goodwin

Hydrogen is massively more dangerous that petrol, you can drop a match in a puddle of petrol and it will mostly extinguish the match - hydrogen isn't anywhere near as 'friendly' as that

I can foresee a future where hydrogen power becomes commonplace, but first you need methods to cheaply and cleanly produce it, and safe methods to transport, store, and use it.

Considering recent H&S expansions, it would be no good equalling petrols safety standards, it would probably be required to greaty exceed it - which won't be easy?.

I'm not quite that old!

__________________
PIC programmer software, and PIC Tutorials at:
http://www.winpicprog.co.uk

ericgibbs

I saw an article the other day saying that the Universe is 97% hydrogen, talk about a 'BIG BANG', perhaps someone in a previous Universe was stupid enough to have struck a match and created this Universe from the big bang...

__________________
Eric
"Good enough is Perfect"

PIC tutorials:
Gramo's: www.digital-diy.net/
Bill's: www.blueroomelectronics.com/

jpanhalt

Along that same line, I believe both of our countries restrict Freon refrigerants. R12 is essentially unavailable in the US, R22 will soon be banned, and R134A will probably follow. What did we use before Freon? Ans: ammonia (mostly in commercial plants)and sulfur dioxide in consumer products. Those were also deemed too dangerous.

Well, why not use compressible hydrocarbon gasses, like a mixture of propane, butane, isobutane, and isopentane? A friend in Minnesota did just that and has been using it for 20 years in trucks without problem. The only complaint he has had was from people nervous about the "fire hazard." A/C units don't leak in normal use and only contain a few liters of liquid at most. His response, what about the other 200 gallons of petrol you are carrying?

Unfortunately, logic is lost in the politics of fear. John

Pommie

If anyone is thinking of producing methane, they should read this page.
On the subject of petrol/gas and car fires, petrol can be sprayed onto a hot exhaust and will not ignite, brake fluid will. I believe that most crash fires are started by brake fluid.

On the subject of Hydrogen in cars, Hydrogen is liquid at 5000psi, Butane at 80psi. A Hydrogen cylinder is a potential bomb even without ignition. Both figures are from memory but are (I think) in the right ball park.

Mike.

jpanhalt

Good point -- hydrogen is usually shipped at a much higher pressure than butane. However, remember there is also the critical temperature to consider. Hydrogen is a gas at temperatures above -240 °C; the critical temp for butane is +153 °C. Liquid hydrogen is maintained in cryogenic vessels for that reason. John

Nigel Goodwin

I don't think this is going to reduce the fear of using hydrogen?

__________________
PIC programmer software, and PIC Tutorials at:
http://www.winpicprog.co.uk