On Wed, 26 May 2021 13:48:07 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 5/26/2021 12:01 PM, Frank wrote:

That's when I learned that in a free association test if you say
hydrogen the response is 'bomb'. Arguably the hydrogen was safer than
the tanks of LOX and acetylene but it has a bad rap.

Hydrogen is safer.* It's very difficult to get hydrogen to explode.
Since it's much lighter than air, it dissipates quickly and won't
"pool".

That does highlight a problem with hydrogen. The tubes have to handle
around 3000 psi so you're not getting a whole lot of hydrogen in a
traditional steel tube rig. Composites help but it's still a problem.

Sure, it's a problem but the range should be equivalent to EVs and a
whole lot easier to fill.

Fix all that and it's still not a good fuel.* Energy isn't free.

Hydrogen isn't really a fuel in the practical sense. It is just a
fairly inefficient storage scheme.
If you are deriving your hydrogen from water, you use more energy
getting it out than you get when you burn it.
OTOH most commercially derived hydrogen comes from natural gas so you
end up with the same issues we are talking about with possibly
dwindling supply if we really started using any large quantity.
Have you priced helium lately?


I recalled the suggestion years ago of using methanol for fuel cells in
cars.* Good article still makes a lot of sense:

https://news.usc.edu/5621/George-Ola...energy-crisis/


They do run E85 in places so it can work. I wonder how mny cornfields
will be needed. No wonder Gates is buying up farmland.

Because then he will lobby the government for more regulations forcing
E85?