Reply #18: (I)nternal (C)ombustion (E)ngines (ICE)

[Trillo]

We already have a number of ICEs running on propane and natural gas. Not a large percentage of the whole, but enough that there are CNG refueling stations. We have one 30 miles away (while gasoline is right around the corner).

BareKnuckeledLiberal gave the source press release for the Australian study. From that PR:

"1.6 million individual households equipped with 10m x 10m solar hydrogen panels would meet all of Australia's energy needs."

Whether or not hydrogen is used to power automobiles en-masse, it is not hard to imagine this products competitive effect on the price of (P)hoto(V)oltaic (PV) cells. Right now the cost of production of those cells is small; according to a Discovery TV show about them roughly 15 years ago, the (at the time) new laser process would reduce the cost of production of PV cells to pennies per square foot--but (now, 15 years later) retail prices are still high, about $300-500 for a 2 by 4 foot panel (about 8 square feet). With about 80 of those PV panels I can disconnect my home from the electricity company.

But I digress. You wrote:

I do note, while on this point that a hydrogen leak in an area where catalytic converters (Platinum supported on Aluminum Oxide) from gasoline fueled engines are around (even if the engine is off) will result in a spontaneous explosion.

Three-way catalytic converters reduce emissions of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrous oxides. Since using hydrogen as a primary fuel in an ICE doesn't produce these in its combustion, there'd be no real need for a catalytic converter. With existing automobiles, if there's a gasoline leak near a catalytic converter, there's also danger as it vaporizes. With a hydrogen powered ICE car, in the event of an accident, the H tank should be automatically shut off, as a safety precaution, and a crash proof tank would be necessary.

" Because it is so light, hydrogen disperses and floats skyward when leaked—it won't pool or soak into clothing like gasoline, just waiting to ignite. (Spilled hydrogen won't soak into the earth and pollute ground water either, or cause an environmental disaster like the Exxon Valdez.)
<snip>
Many real-life tests have demonstrated the safety of pressurized hydrogen storage. Simulated 55 mph crash tests left the car totaled, but the hydrogen tank intact. To prove the safety of its hydrogen vehicles, BMW tested its hydrogen tanks in a series of accident simulations that included collision, fire and tank ruptures. In all cases, the hydrogen cars fared as well as conventional gasoline vehicles. And hydrogen-fueled cars are designed to preclude the possibility of leaked hydrogen collecting within the vehicle."
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid536.php

You wrote:

I simply think that hydrogen as a fuel is way, way overhyped, which is why the national moron, George W. Bush, is pushing it: It's a bad idea. It is much safer and much more economical (for reasons of transport and simplicity of handling systems) to make hydrogenated fuels to serve as hydrogen equivalents.

The way I conceptualize about it: It's much more efficient to produce hydrogen directly, then use it as is. You're saying it's more economical to transform the solar-produced H into something else, perhaps several times, before allowing "people" to use it! This doesn't seem particularly efficient use of hydrogen produced by solar cells, perhaps located on your own roof.

By the way, Bush is being eclipsed in proposed dollars for hydrogen research funding by Kerry. In other words, Kerry is proposing to spend more to get us off hydrocarbons.