# Lifestyles & Discussion > Science & Technology >  The Hydrogen Revolution: Game-Changing Developments Loom for Global Energy Supply

## Peace Piper

*The Hydrogen Revolution: Game-Changing Developments Loom for Global Energy Supply* 
Kikkawa Takeo | Nippon.com | 2015.04.02 

With zero emissions, hydrogen has long been regarded as a highly promising green fuel. But difficulties in transporting and storing this highly volatile gas, along with slow development of the necessary infrastructure, have kept progress stalled until relatively recently. But 2014 was a big year for hydrogen energy in Japan. An expert on the topic looks to what the future may hold.

*Long-Awaited Progress on Hydrogen Energy*

The year 2014 was when real progress finally started to be seen in the use of hydrogen energy. In June, the Ministry for Economy, Trade, and Industrys Council for Strategy on Hydrogen and Fuel Cells compiled its Strategic Road Map for Hydrogen and Fuel Cells. And November saw a major step toward the Tokyo Metropolitan Governments goal of realizing a hydrogen society by the time of the 2020 Tokyo Olympics and Paralympics with the release of a list of concrete measures and budgetary provisions. Around that same time, both Honda and Toyota Motors confirmed plans to put hydrogen fuel cell cars on the market. And two other firmsIwatani Corporation and JX Nippon Oil & Energy Corporationannounced prices for the sale of hydrogen at hydrogen stations. All the gears seemed to have ground into action at once. 



Japan had already taken the global lead in the implementation of hydrogen fuel cell technology. In 2009 Panasonic teamed up with Tokyo Gas to launch Ene-Farm, a pioneering electrochemical fuel cell for the home. And in December 2014 Toyota unveiled the worlds first mass-market fuel cell car, a development that attracted much media attention. 

* Five Potential Benefits*

The great potential benefits of hydrogen energy can be summed up in five main points.

First, because the use of hydrogen as a fuel produces no carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases (the only byproduct is pure water), it is considered to be a green fuel. This eco-friendly status, however, extends only to the actual use of hydrogen, and not to its initial production. Because such merits are negated if fossil fuels are used in production of the gas, hydrogen production via renewable energy sources is a preferable option in order to reap the full environmental benefits.



Second, because hydrogen fuel cells are exceptionally energy efficient, they have great potential in the ongoing drive to curb overall energy consumption. At present, around 60% of the energy at facilities operated by Japans electric power companies ultimately goes to waste, a figure that could be reduced considerably through the use of fuel cells. In addition, fitting stationary fuel cells to homes and other buildings would enable premises to cover their own heating and electricity needs, further contributing to reductions in energy use.

Third, hydrogen energy has the potential to boost disaster preparedness. In the event of a serious earthquake or other such catastrophe, homes and vehicles fitted with fuel cells could be used as emergency power sources, thereby safeguarding both lives and living conditions.

The fourth point is, because hydrogen can be produced by a broad variety of means, its applications do not end with its potential as an energy source. It can also be used as a means of energy transportation, so, when paired with other energy sources, it can play a role in making up for their shortcomings and accentuating their strengths. In some ways, it is this potential to effect an overall change in the energy industry that perhaps holds the greatest appeal. This aspect will be covered in greater detail in the second half of this article.

The fifth and final point is of particular interest to Japan. This country leads the world in the development of the technology for hydrogen energy, and if the use of hydrogen advances, it has the potential to rejuvenate the Japanese economy and create new jobs. At present, Japan places first by a wide margin in the world rankings for the number of patent applications for technology relating to hydrogen fuel cells, and Japanese firms are also highly competitive in the manufacture of tanks for hydrogen storage. As in the field of geothermal energy, Japans companies have established a competitive edge when it comes to the use of hydrogen...MORE>

SNIP

Full Article: http://www.nippon.com/en/currents/d00167/

Whois Kikkawa Takeo?
 
Professor of Management at Tokyo University of Science Graduate School of Innovation Studies. Specializes in the history of management in Japan, along with issues relating to the energy industry, local economies, and the sports industry. Obtained his doctor's degree from the University of Tokyo Graduate School of Economics in 1996, and held a research position at Harvard Business School, as well as professorships at the University of Tokyo Institute of Social Science and Hitotsubashi University Faculty of Commerce and Management before assuming his current position in April 2015. Was appointed chair of the Tokyos Strategic Committee on the Realization of a Hydrogen Society in 2014. Published works include: Denryoku kaikaku: Enerugī seisaku no rekishiteki daitenkan (Electricity Reforms: A Historic Turnaround in Energy Policy) and Nihon no enerugī mondai (Japans Energy Problems).



Spera Safe Liquid Hydrogen
http://www.chiyoda-corp.com/technolo...gen/index.html




If Honda can make 20 tonnes of solar hydrogen on a few acres of farmland at 51 Degrees North Latitude - every state in the US can do it too

----------


## pcosmar

I am glad to see this finally. 

I have been an advocate for Hydrogen since the 70s.. but it has always been resisted.. (for many reasons)

The US should have been on lead but it has not been. regardless,, I am glad to see it finally being developed.

----------


## Peace Piper

It's too bad that the US is not leading this revolution. 

Obama and his first energy secretary Chu cut R&D funding as soon as the liar took office.

----------


## Zippyjuan

How is the net yield running?  How much other energy source must be used to produce one unit of hydrogen energy? 

http://www.altenergy.org/renewables/...roduction.html




> According to the United States Department of Energy Office of Power, the most daunting problem associated with current hydrogen production is the energy needed to produce it and to provide for energy losses in the hydrogen-to-application chain. *Using existing conventional technology, "hydrogen requires at least twice as much energy as electricity twice the tonnage of coal, twice the number of nuclear plants, or twice the field of PV panels to perform an equivalent unit of work. Most of today's hydrogen is produced from natural gas, which is only an interim solution since it discards 30% of the energy in one valuable but depletable fuel (natural gas) to obtain 70% of another (hydrogen).* The challenge is to develop more appropriate methods based on sustainable energy sources, methods that do not employ electricity as an intermediate step."
> 
> The most cost-efficient method currently employed in the industrial manufacture of hydrogen is steam hydrocarbon reforming, where natural gas is treated with high temperature steam, causing a chemical breakdown of the natural gas releasing hydrogen. Other methods start with the gasification of low sulfur coal in an extremely high temperature industrial furnace, and the subsequent chemical "scrubbing" of this gas to extract hydrogen, along with carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. Both of these technologies produce hydrogen at an acceptable price for the role hydrogen currently plays in manufacturing, but are not nearly competitive with gasoline or natural gas in terms of providing economic energy for transportation or any other energy-oriented application. In industrial applications where extremely pure hydrogen is needed, electrolysis is the preferred method of production. Using electricity to chemically decompose water into its component elements of hydrogen and oxygen, electrolysis is very energy intensive and *cannot compete economically on a large scale with other methods at this time due to the cost involved in generating electricity for the process*.

----------


## Anti Federalist



----------


## fisharmor

Thank you, Zippy, for pointing out what should be the first, most obvious bullet point on hydrogen "energy".

*Hydrogen is not an energy source.  Hydrogen is a BAD energy storage medium.

*It never was, is not now, and never will be "resisted".

The simple fact of the matter is that the infrastructure already exists for end users to burn or consume the energy which would be put into producing hydrogen, at twice the efficiency.

There is quite simply no valid argument for a hydrogen economy.

----------


## Peace Piper

> How is the net yield running?  How much other energy source must be used to produce one unit of hydrogen energy? 
> 
> http://www.altenergy.org/renewables/...roduction.html


From your link:

*Solar hydrogen offers the greatest potential  at this time for pollution free, totally renewable energy.* The primary methods of hydrogen production today, while representing a very small fraction of the total spectrum of hydrocarbon pollution worldwide, nevertheless contribute further carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, as well as sulfur dioxides that exacerbate acid rain. In contrast, solar hydrogen applications promise an unending source of clean usable energy along with the benefits of non-polluting collection. As current methods further deplete diminishing fossil fuel resources, solar hydrogen will use the limitless power of the Sun to manufacture hydrogen from sea water, recycled water, and even from the garbage that threatens to overflow landfills worldwide. 

Other than solar hydrogen,  there are several other extraction technologies being studied for their potential to produce hydrogen on a massive scale while still maintaining the integrity of our environment. This would allow remaining hydrocarbon fuel sources to be used for purposes other than energy use, such as the manufacture of plastics, synthetic fibers like nylon and polyester, and other durable goods. 

The cost of producing the electricity  to extract hydrogen has been a stumbling block on the path toward greater availability of hydrogen as an energy resource. One potential solution to this problem is solar generation of electric power to fuel the electrolysis process, described technically as photoelectrochemical technology, facilitated either by solar gensets or photovoltaic solar panel stacks. Another possible solution is the linking of hydrogen production and hydroelectric power, which has the lowest cost associated with producing electricity on the scale necessary to manufacture hydrogen for industrial as well as energy uses. Other emerging renewable technologies such as wind generation and tidal wave energy are also possibilities that may have application in this area in the future.



Solar Hydrogen- the Fuel of the Future
http://www.amazon.com/Solar-Hydrogen...dp/1849731950/

POP QUIZ: By what percentage has the price of Solar Photovoltaic Modules decreased over the last 10 years?
Bonus: By what percentage has the price of fuel cells decreased over the last 10 years?

EDIT to add: It takes ~50 kWh to make 1 Kilogram of hydrogen with an electrolyzer running at ~65% efficiency. There are electrolyzers in France now that exceed 90% efficiency. Do the math.

The price of Hydrogen, unlike oil, will come down as time goes on, because efficiencies will increase, and some R&D will find ways to make splitting water less energy intensive. 

But the US won't be leading this field, they have sacrificed that role to Japan, because making war in Ukraine and other places is much more important. Oh and internet surveillance. And no one seems to be able to stop it.

----------


## Peace Piper

> 


Let's see- a choice of whether to believe Zippy, who, as far as I can tell, gets off on posting negative things to as many threads as he/she can per day, 

or

someone with >10 years HANDS ON experience with a solar hydrogen system he built at his house.

Which one would you believe?








the guy above was featured in Scientific American

*Inside the Solar-Hydrogen House: No More Power Bills--Ever* 
 A New Jersey resident generates and stores all the power he needs with solar panels and hydrogen 
*Scientific American.com* *June 19, 2008* |By David Biello 

EAST AMWELL, N.J.Mike Strizki has not paid an electric, oil or gas billnor has he spent a nickel to fill up his Mercury Sablein nearly two years. Instead, the 51-year-old civil engineer makes all the fuel he needs using a system he built in the capacious garage of his home, which employs photovoltaic (PV) panels to turn sunlight into electricity that is harnessed in turn to extract hydrogen from tap water.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ydrogen-house/

Once upon a time, Americans went to the moon in a decade- not because it was easy but because it was hard. Now, they sit around yapping about what can't be done, while their treasury has been sucked dry and their "leaders' plan the next 100 years of war. Sad.

----------


## Peace Piper

> Thank you, Zippy, for pointing out what should be the first, most obvious bullet point on hydrogen "energy".
> 
> *Hydrogen is not an energy source.  Hydrogen is a BAD energy storage medium.
> 
> *It never was, is not now, and never will be "resisted".
> 
> The simple fact of the matter is that the infrastructure already exists for end users to burn or consume the energy which would be put into producing hydrogen, at twice the efficiency.
> 
> There is quite simply no valid argument for a hydrogen economy.


You need to tell Japan right away, because they are about to spend billions to transition to a hydrogen society. You'll be a hero, maybe they'll throw some parades for you.  BTW, the authors credentials are posted, mind sharing yours?

*Japan rises to challenge of becoming hydrogen society*
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/201...rogen-society/
*
Japan to use Olympics to enter hydrogen era*
http://www.bdlive.co.za/business/inn...r-hydrogen-era

Might want to share your great "wisdom" with Germany as well
*
Will Germany Become the First Nation with a Hydrogen Economy?*
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...rogen-economy/

----------


## Peace Piper

edit- deleted. Meant to post reply.

----------


## Acala

In the past, America used hydrogen extensively.  Before natural gas became available, people used coal gas in their homes for ovens, stoves, heating and lighting.  The useful component of coal gas is hydrogen.  Unfortunately, coal gas also contains carbon monoxide, which made it more dangerous than the natural gas that replaced it.  

For the moment, natural gas is cheaper and easier to contain than hydrogen.  So the market isn't going to convert to hydrogen at least until natural gas becomes scarce.

By the way, there already is a market for vehicles that burn natural gas.  But it is a relatively small market.

----------


## jmdrake

> It's too bad that the US is not leading this revolution. 
> 
> Obama and his first energy secretary Chu cut R&D funding as soon as the liar took office.


It is government regulation that is preventing the hydrogen economy.  Please watch.

----------


## fisharmor

> EAST AMWELL, N.J.—Mike Strizki has not paid an electric, oil or gas bill—nor has he spent a nickel to fill up his Mercury Sable—in nearly two years. Instead, the 51-year-old civil engineer makes all the fuel he needs using a system he built in the capacious garage of his home, which employs photovoltaic (PV) panels to turn sunlight into electricity that is harnessed in turn to extract hydrogen from tap water.
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ydrogen-house/


You know, when you fail to post the VERY NEXT SENTENCE IN THE ARTICLE, it leaves us all making the conclusion that you're hucking snake oil, because, frankly, you are.




> Although the device cost *$500,000* to construct, and it is unlikely it will ever pay off financially (even with today's skyrocketing oil and gas prices)


You do realize, don't you, that for most Americans half a million dollars is enough money to buy a whole house and power it for the rest of their natural lives, and probably the lives of their children, too?

In most localities, simply eliminating property taxes would give people enough extra money to pay their power and heating bills.

As for Japan, I will paraphrase Stephan Molyneux's axiom:
*Whatever government is doing, it is the exact opposite of what people would do if left to make their own decisions.*

If a hydrogen economy is such a great idea, then find a way to do it without stealing money from people at gunpoint.
The presence of that "gun in the room" means that by definition what Japan's government is doing is not in the interest of the individuals at whom that gun is pointed.

----------


## Peace Piper

> You know, when you fail to post the VERY NEXT SENTENCE IN THE ARTICLE, it leaves us all making the conclusion that you're hucking snake oil, because, frankly, you are.
> 
> You do realize, don't you, that for most Americans half a million dollars is enough money to buy a whole house and power it for the rest of their natural lives, and probably the lives of their children, too?
> 
> In most localities, simply eliminating property taxes would give people enough extra money to pay their power and heating bills.
> 
> As for Japan, I will paraphrase Stephan Molyneux's axiom:
> *Whatever government is doing, it is the exact opposite of what people would do if left to make their own decisions.*
> 
> ...


Thanks so much for the snake oil reference. Why are so many unable to debate this topic like adults?

Of course it cost a lot of money. NONE OF THE EQUIPMENT HE USED (besides the solar panels) were (or are now for that matter) mass produced.

Here's what a *5 megabyte* hard drive looked like in 1956



As for you quote: *Whatever government is doing, it is the exact opposite of what people would do if left to make their own decisions.*

Would the interstate highway system have been built without government involvement?

Whether Japan is doing the right thing or not will be known soon enough. Meanwhile, the US "energy policy" is more oil, fracking and meddling in the Middle East. How is that working out?

----------


## Peace Piper

> It is government regulation that is preventing the hydrogen economy.  Please watch.


That's a great video with Bob Lazar from Art Bell's show. Thanks for posting. I saw that a few years ago, and, combined with the Scientific American article *Inside the Solar-Hydrogen House: No More Power Bills--Ever*   (that fisharmor attacked above) was my introduction to Hydrogen energy. 

The same video posted by Lazar (i think) has almost 200,000 views. 




Every time I search youtube or google for Hydrogen something fascinating turns up. Try it!

----------


## Peace Piper

> In the past, America used hydrogen extensively.  Before natural gas became available, people used coal gas in their homes for ovens, stoves, heating and lighting.  The useful component of coal gas is hydrogen.  Unfortunately, coal gas also contains carbon monoxide, which made it more dangerous than the natural gas that replaced it.  
> 
> For the moment, natural gas is cheaper and easier to contain than hydrogen.  So the market isn't going to convert to hydrogen at least until natural gas becomes scarce.
> 
> By the way, there already is a market for vehicles that burn natural gas.  But it is a relatively small market.


That stuff about Hydrogen being difficult to contain is overblown. Mike Strizki (Inside the Solar Hydrogen house) stores Hydrogen in old propane tanks.



http://www.scientificamerican.com/sl...ydrogen-house/

----------


## Acala

> That stuff about Hydrogen being difficult to contain is overblown. Mike Strizki (Inside the Solar Hydrogen house) stores Hydrogen in old propane tanks.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/sl...ydrogen-house/


This is a low pressure system.  That's why that huge tank footprint only stores the energy equivalent of 40 gallons of gasoline.

----------


## osan

> *The Hydrogen Revolution: Game-Changing Developments Loom for Global Energy Supply* 
> 
> With zero emissions, hydrogen has long been regarded as a highly promising green fuel.


FAIL in the first three words = FAIL.  Regarded by whom?  FAIL^2.




> *Long-Awaited Progress on Hydrogen Energy*
> 
> The year 2014 was when real progress finally started to be seen in the use of hydrogen energy. In June, the Ministry for Economy, Trade, and Industry’s Council for Strategy on Hydrogen and Fuel Cells compiled its “Strategic Road Map for Hydrogen and Fuel Cells.” And November saw a major step toward the Tokyo Metropolitan Government’s goal of realizing a “hydrogen society” by the time of the 2020 Tokyo Olympics and Paralympics with the release of a list of concrete measures and budgetary provisions. Around that same time, both Honda and Toyota Motors confirmed plans to put hydrogen fuel cell cars on the market. And two other firms––Iwatani Corporation and JX Nippon Oil & Energy Corporation––announced prices for the sale of hydrogen at hydrogen stations. All the gears seemed to have ground into action at once.


I swear... I just cannot believe for a moment that the Tokyo "government" is so bottomlessly stupid that they buy into this bull$#@!.  But let us go on...




> 


Note methods 1 & 3.  Notice "Heat".  Now, whence pray tell, do the watermelon marxists think the energy to produce that heat shall come?  No matter what you do, you are working at a deficit.  No such thing as "free energy"... at least not yet.  The only real option we have at this time in history is to minimize the deficit.  

Method 4 is effectively the same as 1 and 3 in terms of the processes as energy systems.

Method 2 is potentially different in some ways.  "Refining process" requires energy, so once again the issues are more of deficit reduction than "free" anything. 

For methods 1-3 there is also the question of by-products.   Lets say your pretty new factory is spewing gases, capturing them, and extracting the hydrogen.  What then is left?  Lots of carbons, phosphorus, and so forth, as well as various organic compounds.  Because of the nature of organic chemistry, the question should arise as to the various reaction products resulting from this process of extracting H2 from such materials.

They never learn... silly, ignorant people who hold out the hope that they can have a free lunch.  Take a bloody course in thermodynamics for Pete's sake and learn something about how energy works.

None of this is to say that such technologies have no place in the scheme of things.  I believe they do, but the rank bull$#@! that is posited along such lines as this goes beyond the pale and may at times even hint of the next big setup of the public for the next big shearing... like the wind farms. Hooboy...

Whatever you do, keep asking questions.  Lots of them.





> If Honda can make 20 tonnes of solar hydrogen on a few acres of farmland at 51 Degrees North Latitude - every state in the US can do it too



And do we believe that millions of acres of solar farms will not exact their price on the environment?

----------


## jllundqu

Seeing as how hydrogen is the most abundant fuel in the universe.... I am approve

----------


## Zippyjuan

Hydrogen is certainly plentiful. The problem is getting it into a useful form- it is usually bonded to other atoms.  That requires other sources of energy to separate it.  The question is does the energy produced by the hydrogen exceed the energy needed to isolate it and if so, is it still cost effective enough to pursue? 

Electric cars also sound like clean technology but that all depends on how the electricity it runs on is produced (as well as the other components of the car- batteries being the biggest problem). If you are burning coal to produce the electricity to run your electric car, you really aren't saving that much from the environment by not burning gasoline.

At this point in time and given our current technology and resources, natural gas would be a better alternative to perhaps both options.  Fracking and other oil drilling technology also yields lots of natural gas- and a lot of it is sometimes simply burned off.

----------


## osan

> Seeing as how hydrogen is the most abundant fuel in the universe.... I am approve


Most of it is really far away and REALLY hot.

----------


## fisharmor

> Whether Japan is doing the right thing or not will be known soon enough. Meanwhile, the US "energy policy" is more oil, fracking and meddling in the Middle East. How is that working out?


So the Us energy policy is a non-solution, true.  I agree with that.
Why do you insist on supporting non-solutions as the only alternative?
I'm sorry if you don't perceive my arguments as adult - but you started an entire thread specifically to undermine confidence in the free market among people who are supposed to support the market, so I too am not feeling particularly beholden to social convention here.

Seriously - property taxes.  I've lived in my house for thirteen years.  I've paid over $32000 in property taxes in that time.
In that same time, I've also spent over $37000 in updates to this house to make it more energy efficient.

You know what would be a real solution to energy use?  Not $#@!ing robbing me blind specifically to line the pockets of the politically connected who are hucking snake oil non-solutions.
That $32000 - and remember, this is just the property taxes, not including the sales tax, income tax, or inflation tax - would have been reinvested in my house if I was allowed to keep it.  I would have had a grid-tie solar system back in 2007 if I didn't have to bank on spending so much money on keeping the state solvent.

So yeah, I get kind of pissed when people show up here saying I need to be robbed MORE so that we can stand up a complete non-solution to the energy problem.  My energy problem would have been a solved problem as of at least 8 years ago, if you would cut the crap and get behind a way to let me actually solve it.

----------


## osan

> Thanks so much for the snake oil reference. Why are so many unable to debate this topic like adults?


So right about now your scent is that of a troll.  The only childishness I am witnessing issues from you.  Lines such as that immediately above bring your sincerity, age, learning, mental capacities, etc. into question.





> Here's what a *5 megabyte* hard drive looked like in 1956


Unlike hard drive technology, which is the product of engineering science, the rules of terrestrial energy physics are not matters of human cleverness.  As of thiw writing, they remain primordially immutable.  Thermodynamics is what it is and as yet nobody has discovered a way to cheat equilibrium to turn an adiabatic system into one of an above-unity net producer of energy.  That is the indisputable fact as of this moment.  It may change tomorrow, but right now it remains the only truth we know.




> As for you quote: *Whatever government is doing, it is the exact opposite of what people would do if left to make their own decisions.*
> 
> Would the interstate highway system have been built without government involvement?


If it was actually worth having in the hearts and minds of people, yes.  Otherwise, it has no place in this world.  Your question tacitly presupposes that the highways are perforce good things, irrespective of POV.




> Whether Japan is doing the right thing or not will be known soon enough. Meanwhile, the US "energy policy" is more oil, fracking and meddling in the Middle East. How is that working out?


Yes yes yes, so your solution is to replace one failed approach with one that is bankrupt in its fundamental fabric?  Uh huh... and how do you expect that to work out?

Do you have any science background?  Seems not.  I suggest you find a good contemporary text on thermo.  Acquire it.  Read it.  You don't have to know the math to understand the concepts and why they are, given the current understanding of phenomena, immutable.  TANSTHAAFL.  Your apparently ignorant world view is dangerous because it ignores so many unpleasant facts about what goes on in this world.  You read like a simplistic hippie who, all his good intentions notwithstanding, had little idea of the reality his typically naive quasi-Luddite-minded self was advocating.

But you go on right ahead and advocate for your "clean" world.  It MAY be cleaner, but it will not be what you think.  That's like all the ignorant squabs who thought electronic technologies, computer in specific, were "clean".  The processes are anything but.  Doping silicon and etching it is not particularly clean and in fact employs some pretty nasty materials.  Or how about the belief, ca. 1995, that with the "new" internet economy, everyone would become wealthy and nobody would ever have to work again?  One click and 20 seconds later your new BMW arrives in your lap, for free.  The depth of the human capacity to auto-bull$#@! is nothing short of astonishing.

----------


## Natural Citizen

Way better stuff on the horizon than hydrogen. Wait for it...

----------


## Natural Citizen

osan, what do you envision to be the most practical energy source? And why?

----------


## Peace Piper

> So right about now your scent is that of a troll.  The only childishness I am witnessing issues from you.  Lines such as that immediately above bring your sincerity, age, learning, mental capacities, etc. into question.


Thanks! Who are you? I can't remember a single post from you. You must think you're pretty cool though. 




> Unlike hard drive technology, which is the product of engineering science...blah 
> 
> blah blah blah...
> more blah...
> 
> blah blah ...The depth of the human capacity to auto-bull$#@! is nothing short of astonishing.


I really don't have time to fully respond (you aren't really even worth a few minutes) but let me ask you this:

I can believe you

*or*

I can believe someone who has over 10 years of hands on experience with solar hydrogen systems.

Which one do you think I'm going with?




Is 2 hours a long time? If someone can't take 2 hours to listen to someone else that has actually made a solar hydrogen system work they can't be taken seriously.

Have a real good time with your slime, buddy. You're ignored from here on. You ain't worth it. You could be a poster boy for "American Exceptionalism".

----------


## Peace Piper

> So the Us energy policy is a non-solution, true.  I agree with that.
> Why do you insist on supporting non-solutions as the only alternative?
> I'm sorry if you don't perceive my arguments as adult - but you started an entire thread specifically to undermine confidence in the free market among people who are supposed to support the market, so I too am not feeling particularly beholden to social convention here.
> 
> Seriously - property taxes.  I've lived in my house for thirteen years.  I've paid over $32000 in property taxes in that time.
> In that same time, I've also spent over $37000 in updates to this house to make it more energy efficient.
> 
> You know what would be a real solution to energy use?  Not $#@!ing robbing me blind specifically to line the pockets of the politically connected who are hucking snake oil non-solutions.
> That $32000 - and remember, this is just the property taxes, not including the sales tax, income tax, or inflation tax - would have been reinvested in my house if I was allowed to keep it.  I would have had a grid-tie solar system back in 2007 if I didn't have to bank on spending so much money on keeping the state solvent.
> ...


Yeah property taxes are a bitch. I fully agree. I've spent a bunch on that too.

Property taxes are nothing compared to what the US has dropped on the wars. Rand wants more money towards "defense". How's that going to work out? If that's the "opposition" we're all F&cked for a lot longer.



+ ~$8 million dollars PER HOUR on "homeland security" details here: https://www.nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/

Those figures are from last September so they're bigger now.

Americans have been looted.

----------


## jmdrake

> That's a great video with Bob Lazar from Art Bell's show. Thanks for posting. I saw that a few years ago, and, combined with the Scientific American article *Inside the Solar-Hydrogen House: No More Power Bills--Ever*   (that fisharmor attacked above) was my introduction to Hydrogen energy. 
> 
> The same video posted by Lazar (i think) has almost 200,000 views. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every time I search youtube or google for Hydrogen something fascinating turns up. Try it!


Okay.  Are Peter and I the only ones who watched this video?   Here's the synopsis.  One of the problems with hydrogen is safely storing enough to be the equivalent of a full tank of gas.  This person did this using hydride storage takes.  You can plug the hydrogen generator up to a solar array (it would *not* need to be a $500K one needed to power a home), and plug it into your car and in about 8 hours you'd have enough hydrogen to be the equivalent of a full tank of gas.  (Corvette goes 400 miles).  That's great because there seems to be a much better energy density than for batteries.  (Tesla has range of between 200 and 300 miles).  And this seems potentially cheaper than the high tech batteries Tesla uses.  The man in the video made his own hydride at home using a backyard particle accelerator.  The problem is that he can't make and sell the hydride to anyone else because it's classified as a munition since it can be used in nuclear weapons.  (No explanation was given for why that is.)  So government regulation is stopping what would be a clear path to hydrogen powered vehicles.

----------


## osan

> osan, what do you envision to be the most practical energy source? And why?


Barring any quantum advance in our knowledge of energy systems, Liquid fluoride thorium reactors look like a good alternative for many energy applications.  Thorium is far safer than uranium, much less plutonium.  LFTRs are inherently safe devices.  They cannot go into uncontrolled chain reactions, therefore there is no possibility of meltdowns.  The other great feature is that they can be used to burn other nuclear wastes, including all the most hazardous types.

Everything in a LFTR burns down to 237Pu, IIRC, which is not suitable for weapons manufacture, but turns out to be a great portable energy source for the likes of deep space probes.

It is estimated that there is sufficient easily-mined thorium to last at least 20K - 25K years.  Obviously this is not free energy, but already vested sources of concentrated power.  A lot happens in 20K years.  In another 50 someone might stumble on to real free energy.  In the meanwhile... 

So far as I know, LFTRs have no major disadvantages.  They are what commercial nuclear energy should have been from the beginning, but these bastards wanted numerous breeding facilities for the production of fissile materials.  Look what that bought us. 

I suppose hydro-electric would also be good, but the environmentalists would go apey if we attempted to dam any more rivers.

Cold-fusion is not yet dead, though nobody appears to have made a convincing public demonstration.  Rossi & co. was supposed to build a sizable CF reactor in Greece, but it seems to have all gone dark.  Mr. Rossi, coincidentally, has died in the meanwhile, if I am not remembering incorrectly.    

I think burning petroleum is insanity.  Better we save it for the production of fertilizers, lubricants, pharmaceuticals, and that sort of thing.  LFTRs could be built to very small proportions such that communities could have their own reactors.  No more need for high-tension wires, their rights of way, etc.  Hell, a house could have its own. 2 - 3 pounds of thorium would heat your house and cook your meals and power all the rest for a lifetime.

Given our current engineering state-of-art, this is the best we can expect for a while, methinks.

----------


## Peace Piper

> Hydrogen is certainly plentiful. The problem is getting it into a useful form- it is usually bonded to other atoms.  That requires other sources of energy to separate it.  The question is does the energy produced by the hydrogen exceed the energy needed to isolate it and if so, is it still cost effective enough to pursue?


Consider: You put solar panels on your house 10 years ago (when they were 5x more expensive). These panels have paid for themselves through savings on your electric bill. Now, you make a Kilogram of Hydrogen (~50 kWh @ ~65% electrolyzer efficiency).

How much has that kilogram of hydrogen cost?




> Electric cars also sound like clean technology but that all depends on how the electricity it runs on is produced (as well as the other components of the car- batteries being the biggest problem). If you are burning coal to produce the electricity to run your electric car, you really aren't saving that much from the environment by not burning gasoline.


Most of the people driving battery only electric cars are filling their batteries with electrons made from burning coal. That is why solar hydrogen is the sustainable, clean, green answer.




> At this point in time and given our current technology and resources, natural gas would be a better alternative to perhaps both options.  *Fracking* and other oil drilling technology also yields lots of natural gas- and a lot of it is sometimes simply burned off.


Let me get this straight. You would rather transport necessary rigging to the middle of nowhere, drill holes into the ground, pump chemicals into said hole, force gas to rise from shale, capture the gas, transport it to distribution centers, then transport it again to end users.

As opposed to putting up solar panels (on roofs, farmland, roofs of parking structures etc), electrolyzing water and capturing the hydrogen. This can be done at the point of sale, like Honda is doing in Swindon England.




Your own link from above said solar hydrogen is the answer. Did you not read your own link? 




> does the energy produced by the hydrogen exceed the energy needed to isolate it


Does it take energy to frack gas from rocks? Do you get all of this energy back in the gas you forced out of the ground? It takes energy to make gas, gasoline, kerosene, diesel, etc. 

*20 hydrogen myths*

This peer-reviewed white paper offers both lay and technical readers a documented primer on basic hydrogen facts, weighs competing opinions, and corrects twenty widespread misconceptions. Some of these include the following: a hydrogen industry would need to be developed from scratch; hydrogen is too dangerous for common use;* making hydrogen uses more energy than it yields;* we lack a mechanism to store hydrogen in cars; and hydrogen is too expensive to compete with gasoline. This paper explains why the rapidly growing engagement of business, civil society, and government in devising and achieving a transition to a hydrogen economy is warranted and, if properly done, could yield important national and global benefits.
Download PDF here: http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-Center/...yHydrogenMyths

----------


## Acala

> Yeah property taxes are a bitch. I fully agree. I've spent a bunch on that too.
> 
> Property taxes are nothing compared to what the US has dropped on the wars. Rand wants more money towards "defense". How's that going to work out? If that's the "opposition" we're all F&cked for a lot longer.
> 
> 
> 
> + ~$8 million dollars PER HOUR on "homeland security" details here: https://www.nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/
> 
> Those figures are from last September so they're bigger now.
> ...


So because the government wastes a staggering amount on war it is okay for it to also waste a staggering amount on fording the nation to adopt a new form of energy?  I'm not following the logic.  If you want to  have government obstacles to this technology eliminated, I am 100% behind you.  If you want to use tax money and government force to push it, count me out.

----------


## Acala

> Every time I search youtube or google for Hydrogen something fascinating turns up. Try it!


Okay.  THIS is interesting.

----------


## osan

> ...
> 
> *20 hydrogen myths*
> 
> ...*making hydrogen uses more energy than it yields...*


When was conservation of energy discovered not to hold?  Please provide the cite because I am REALLY interested in learning about it.

----------


## Acala

> When was conservation of energy discovered not to hold?  Please provide the cite because I am REALLY interested in learning about it.


Google perpetual motion.  :-)

----------


## Danke

> Google perpetual motion.  :-)


Huh? The brought up a wiki of Dannno for me.

----------


## roho76

Unless we can produce energy in our back yard to suit our personal needs we will never have true energy independence. Anything less is just a middle man that is corruptible and controllable by a handful of individuals and perpetuates the same centralized energy authority that dictates our lives already. Yes this system is expensive but with time it would become a an economical way to produce independent energy and as someone else stated, if we didn't have to bare the weight of $#@!ty government from all directions the idea of this type of energy production would be possible, even on the more expensive side.

----------


## osan

> Unless we can produce energy in our back yard to suit our personal needs we will never have true energy independence. Anything less is just a middle man that is corruptible and controllable by a handful of individuals and perpetuates the same centralized energy authority that dictates our lives already. Yes this system is expensive but with time it would become a an economical way to produce independent energy and as someone else stated, if we didn't have to bare the weight of $#@!ty government from all directions the idea of this type of energy production would be possible, even on the more expensive side.


THIS THIS THIS.

A 50KW LFTR in a "generator house" could power every home in America.  With proper engineering design, they would be safe, low maintenance, and would free us from the grid.  That is why it is likely to never happen.

Any word on cold-fusion these days?  That would be even better... but wonder how suppression would be justified.  Energy independence is a MAJOR threat to the established order of political power.  I hold small doubt that they would go balls to the walls to stop that dead in its tracks.  But the question remains whether that genie could in fact be stuffed back into the bottle.

----------


## Acala

> Any word on cold-fusion these days?  That would be even better... but wonder how suppression would be justified.  Energy independence is a MAJOR threat to the established order of political power.  I hold small doubt that they would go balls to the walls to stop that dead in its tracks.  But the question remains whether that genie could in fact be stuffed back into the bottle.


It would need international cooperation on a level even banking has not achieved. It could not be sustained.  Someday the genie really will be out of the bottle.

----------

