The Hindenburg Haunts Hydrogen Technology
My dear friend David Wallis has a piece on this in The New York Times:
WHEN Rebecca Markillie of ITM Power in Sheffield, England, attends trade shows to promote her company's ambitious plan to build hydrogen fueling stations for cars in Britain, she sometimes must calm skittish consumers. "You get people saying, 'Oh, no: hydrogen. That is dangerous,' " she said. "And you go, 'Well, why do you say that?' And straightaway, the only knowledge of hydrogen would be the Hindenburg."Thomas Kosbau, principal of Ore Design and Technology in Brooklyn, which hopes to power homes by harnessing algae that produce hydrogen, often deals with similar doubts from investors. The Hindenburg, he frets, "is synonymous with hydrogen technology."
The Hindenburg, a diesel-propelled Zeppelin held aloft by hydrogen, erupted in flames and crashed in Lakehurst, N.J., on May 6, 1937, killing 36 people.
The film of the silver giant floating in the sky, then suddenly catching fire and crumpling to the ground, and the emotional recorded dispatch from the scene of the radio reporter Herbert Morrison -- "Oh, the humanity!"-- retains a jaw-dropping power.
...The behavioral economist Dan Ariely, author of "Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions," imagines that the hydrogen-Hindenburg association develops through an unconscious question-and-answer session: "What do I know about the risk of hydrogen? Let me try to remember past cases that used hydrogen? Oh, yes, I remember the Hindenburg explosion -- very vividly. It thus must be the case that this is dangerous."
Consumers, he observes in an email, tend to search their memories for dangerous examples, "and if they find one, they estimate the risk as much higher."
Well yes, but if the Hindenburg had been filled with methane, it would have burned even quicker.
Don't these idiots ever worry about getting on an airliner filled with JP4? What do they think the damn things run on, unicorn farts again?
Isab at November 1, 2013 12:22 AM
Innumeracy in action. You can't fool people who bother to do simple math. Enjoy the money you are saving on Obmacare.
MarkD at November 1, 2013 5:41 AM
Annnnd again with a hint at miraculous fuels enabling us all to drive behemoths around for free.
Not gonna happen.
Radwaste at November 1, 2013 5:47 AM
Hydrogen burns almost invisibly, what you see is the skin of the Hindenburg burning brightly. Compare the flames of the main engine on the Space Shuttle with the solid rocket boosters.
Still Hydrogen Energy will always be a few years away.
tmitsss at November 1, 2013 6:11 AM
The Hidenburg exploded due to it being painted with a thermite like paint...
ParatrooperJJ at November 1, 2013 6:13 AM
I think I'm more worried about the millions of gas stations placed in the middle of cities exploding. Or cars, planes, buses, you get the idea.
Gas, it seems to me, just by the law of large numbers, will for a number of years beat hydrogen on the danger scale.
How many hydrogen explosions do you read about?
wtf at November 1, 2013 8:34 AM
Rad- do you know anything about the Thorium powedered automobiles?
http://wardsauto.com/ar/thorium_power_car_110811
Eric at November 1, 2013 8:56 AM
This is only one of many theories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster
=========================
As originally designed, the Hindenburg was to be held aloft by helium. However, helium was a scarce and expensive resource, the sources of which were almost exclusively in the United States.
The designers of the Hindenburg originally thought they could convince the US to lift the export ban and sell them helium. They were wrong. The US considered helium to be a strategic resource and its scarcity meant exporting it was out of the question.
As a result, the Hindenburg had to be retrofitted to use hydrogen.
[Compare that to now when we routinely waste helium to power party balloons and squeaky voices.]
Since the Germans had been operating hydrogen airships for years prior to the Hindenburg's launch, switching to hydrogen was not a concern to them. The Hindenburg's successful first season (17 transatlantic trips) seem to justify the lack of concern.
Conan the Grammarian at November 1, 2013 9:42 AM
Eric, I have not seen it before.
The link above should give you an idea of what kind of energy is required to move you around, though.
Physics will not be denied, regardless of who is posting articles.
Okay, I've read this article... and it is completely wrong on key issues. I suspect someone is going to be indicted for fraud, it is so badly botched.
Power is the amount of energy expended per unit of time. Horsepower has the unit of time in its definition.
The claim for stored energy in Thorium is wholly disingenuous. The ONLY methods for releasing energy from Thorium are combustion/oxidation, radioactive decay and induced fission. The first expends the material right away. The second is very slow. So...
Want a reactor in the front of your car?
The article ALSO completely ignores the practical limits on steam turbines. The smaller a turbine, the less efficient it is due to flow losses, and this requires heat flow to a sink - a condenser, which you can think of as a radiator, into which most a steam turbine's energy goes.
Any steam plant, regardless if it burns wood or neutrons, derives power from the flow of energy from the heat sourse to the sink. The turbine is just a water wheel stuck in the "stream" of heat flowing through the system.
The delivery of power depends on the ability of a mechanism to continuously deliver energy. Saying "lasers!" does not amount to magic.
This guy claims 250kW, but the description doesn't even contain the correct terms, in that this number is not designated as being either the mechanical power or the thermal value.
I think he got tired of hawking "miracle" carburetors.
-----
You should know that one major undertaking of current H2 research is centered on how to store it without using high pressures. Think of a binding agent which releases H2 under certain conditions, upon which it is available for common combustion. Reciprocating engines are still not the best for this, but H2 does allow for huge turbocharging to extract power from tiny engines, which are then more efficient at very low speeds. All such engines, and turbines have this problem too, have an efficiency peak that requires a transmission and to match engine and road speeds, and these have losses.
You can't get away from the need to move the car through the air. So far, I see nothing better for the long haul than a turbodiesel, and nothing better for commuting than a total-electric with Li-ion and electric motor. It is ludicrously simple to link these to traffic signals downtown, too.
But the best solution is simply to not travel to work unless it is mandated by the task, not office politics.
Radwaste at November 1, 2013 9:46 AM
See- I knew you'd know about this! Like cold fusion, it sounded too good to be true.
Eric at November 1, 2013 11:18 AM
I have thought about getting either solar or a windmill(s) over the years. But I wanted to find a way to split water to get the hydrogen and then store it in some fashion. Then use the hydrogen to power a generator or fuel cell. You could probably get close to being off the grid with the right setup.
Jim P. at November 1, 2013 2:12 PM
I have thought about getting either solar or a windmill(s) over the years. But I wanted to find a way to split water to get the hydrogen and then store it in some fashion. Then use the hydrogen to power a generator or fuel cell. You could probably get close to being off the grid with the right setup.
Posted by: Jim P. at November 1, 2013 2:12 PM
Unfortunately, it take more energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen than you get from burning it.
There is no free lunch. The equivalent is turning on your hybrid vehicle, and running the gasoline powered engine, to charge up your electric batteries in the same vehicle. You are better off just burning the fuel to move the vehicle, it is a more efficient transfer of energy.
The reason that solar cells and wind generators are somewhat better, is that they are powered by the wind and the sun so the loss in efficiency is not as big an issue. It still takes quite a while to break even after buying the wind generators and solar panels, and it is quite easy to end up operating them at a cost greater than just buying your electricity from the power companies.
Isab at November 1, 2013 2:38 PM
"The equivalent is turning on your hybrid vehicle, and running the gasoline powered engine, to charge up your electric batteries in the same vehicle. You are better off just burning the fuel to move the vehicle, it is a more efficient transfer of energy."
One might think that the hybrid is a mistake for this reason - but it's not, not quite. The hybrid gets its mileage from the lack of clutch/torque converter losses in town, and an advanced engine control computer. It still has disadvantages in overall ecological costs due to the advanced main battery and heavy electronics load. You may have forgotten that several small cars had mileage in the high 40s and low 50s thirty years ago: the Corolla 1.3, the Chevette, the Hyundai Excel, several Honda Civics and the early Geos. Dozens of cars made overseas could have been in use in the USA except for Federal certification, possibly held hostage by the American companies.
Today, there are some things you might not know about. These work on city streets, obviously not on the Interstate.
Otherwise, well done, Isab.
Radwaste at November 1, 2013 6:43 PM
And thanks Rad for the backup.
The idea is that the area I live in is not 100% wind all the time, and there are several cloudy days in a row sometimes. So the storage of hydrogen becomes the "battery". So a vertical windmill in concert with the solar gives me "long-term" options.
If I were to build my dream house from the ground up it would have a 14.5/24.5 DC system essentially in parallel to the 120/240 AC system. With the advent of white/natural LED lights and other similar items that could live on DC and never need an inverter, that takes a major load off the AC system. Even if was nothing but ceiling lights and laptops it could cut down significantly on energy needs.
Jim P. at November 1, 2013 7:09 PM
"The idea is that the area I live in is not 100% wind all the time, and there are several cloudy days in a row sometimes. So the storage of hydrogen becomes the "battery". So a vertical windmill in concert with the solar gives me "long-term" options"
I understand what you are saying, but hydrogen cannot be stored efficiently, or compressed without a massive energy expenditure.
In other words, it makes a poor battery.
If you want an efficient backup fuel, for living off the grid, I recommend propane, coupled with a propane powered generator.
Isab at November 1, 2013 9:18 PM
Today, there are some things you might not know about. These work on city streets, obviously not on the Interstate.
Otherwise, well done, Isab.
Rad, I live in an area where gas savings in "city" driving is worth the proverbial bucket of warm spit.
I do remember the gas sipping cars of the seventies. Drove a little Datsun 310 around Germany for three years.
I understand some of the diesels coming out of Europe get incredible mileage but they don't want those sold in the US either.
Isab at November 1, 2013 9:26 PM
"With the advent of white/natural LED lights and other similar items that could live on DC and never need an inverter, that takes a major load off the AC system. Even if was nothing but ceiling lights and laptops it could cut down significantly on energy needs.
I've noticed that most American homes do not have a basic feature installed: a skylight! Not just a window in the ceiling, these are now large tubes, too (think "one-foot fiber-optics"), which allow light through an attic or crawlspace.
Radwaste at November 2, 2013 3:39 AM
I've noticed that most American homes do not have a basic feature installed: a skylight! Not just a window in the ceiling, these are now large tubes, too (think "one-foot fiber-optics"), which allow light through an attic or crawlspace.
Posted by: Radwaste at November 2, 2013 3:39 AM
Skylights are good for some things and bad for others. I have a house in Japan with two massive skylights. This is a very humid environment and the skylights have literally caused it to rain indoors a few times.
I considered installing them in my house in the US, when we built it, but they are expensive (and you need to punch a hole in your roof, which affects roof integrity, and the seals around the skylight need to be maintained, or you will get leaks.
Windows, especially double paned are still the best choice to let light into a room.
Isab at November 2, 2013 5:51 PM
Leave a comment