[PLUG-TALK] Obama's bad plan...

[Michael Robinson]

On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 21:12 -0800, Ronald Chmara wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2009, at 2:10 PM, Michael Robinson wrote:
> > If driving on a tank of compressed hydrogen were
> > less safe than driving around on a tank of gasoline, no car
> > company would dare test such a car out with ordinary drivers.
> 
> Yes, nobody would ever foist an unusually  dangerous car on the  
> general public. Auto-makers are far too scrupulous to do that.

You think you are right and clever, but you are wrong.  Compressed
hydrogen tanks have been dropped from airplanes, shot at, etcetera
and they have passed all these tests flawlessly.  The point is moot
though because hydrogen cars don't need high pressure tanks at all.  
A low pressure tank filled with Magnesium Hydride slurry and a 
simple reforming system that is a pump and a tap water supply
essentially is a much better approach and a completely safe one 
at that.  Magnesium hydride slurry can be shipped by truck far
more easily than compressed hydrogen gas or liquified hydrogen
with lower losses.  There is no reason that hydride slurries
can't be pumped through pipelines because unlike pure hydrogen,
slurries don't embrittle and leak through the pipeline.
Need I mention that hydrogen will flow through natural gas
pipelines safely if it is mixed with Natural Gas?

http://www.safehydrogen.com/

http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/

The Hindenburg blew up because of built up static electricity 
that ignited the solid rocket fuel coating on the skin.  
Hydrogen had nothing to do with that disaster.  Hydrogen 
burns differently than rocket fuel which produces an orange 
glow.

As far as the, "Of course the auto companies wouldn't put unsafe
hydrogen cars in the hands of ordinary people comment," the cars 
aren't unsafe and they have.  The Honda FCX Clarity, of which 
there are about 100 in the U.S. I believe, are leased out at 
$600/month to California residents near a hydrogen refueling 
station.  All you have to be is near a refueling station and 
sign up to potentially lease one of these.

GM isn't far behind Honda, project driveway has placed fuel
cell vehicles developed by GM in a number of households.  
These vehicles in some cases have 10k PSI hydrogen tanks as 
opposed to the FCX Clarity's 5k PSI tank.  The 10k PSI tanks 
have been bullet tested too.  Toyota has a fuel cell SUV 
that can go 400+ miles on a 10k PSI tank of hydrogen which 
starts in very cold weather evidenced by it's trip along 
the AlCan highway.

A fuel cell is basically a battery that will work as long as you
supply fuel.  This makes a lot more sense than trying to charge
a traditional battery electrically for 6-8 hours where the 
driving range is at best 40 miles.  Granted a bigger battery
means better range, but at a price.  The Tesla roadster is 
$100k.  Not only that, the range of the Tesla roadster doesn't 
compete with a 10k PSI tank hydrogen fuel cell car.  Replace 
those high pressure tanks with a Magnesium Hydride reformation 
system, your hydrogen car can go that much further.  Need I 
mention that Lithium ION batteries if not cooled properly 
have a tendency to explode?  The bigger the battery, the 
bigger the explosion.

Try thinking before you open your mouth in the future Ronald.  

The major barrier to fuel cell vehicles isn't safety.  The major
barrier is that fuel cells use platinum electrodes.  Using less
platinum through nanotechnology and electrodes made of hybrid
materials will help bring the price down.  Another problem is
that fuel cells tend to wear out after 50k miles of service.
Still, that is a long enough service life if the price comes
down far enough to be manageable.

Hydrogen doesn't pool like gasoline, so it doesn't have a tendency
to explode.  Hydrogen is a gas and it will quickly become a gas
in the case of an accident considering how cold you have to keep
hydrogen to store it in liquid form.  A hydride slurry which has
the consistency of paint will not explode even if you apply an
open propane flame to it.