"Larry Gross" <gross.larry@gmail.­com> wrote>

Hydrogen fuel cells can help wean the country from dependence on> foreign oil, and trains will be the place to start, speakers said> Friday at a Charlotte conference.>

While running most cars on hydrogen will take decades to be feasible,> advocates believe trains could be converted more quickly.>

http://www.charlott­e.com/mld/observer/1­1587101.htm

I think the point being made is that fueling and>distribution might be easier to accomplish>at centralized train depots rather than>trying to set up much more widespread>infrastr­ucture for autos.

.. then they>continue the 'if' part of saying 'if' truck>freight was transferred to rail that you'd>be taking trucks off the road.

.. and agree that hydrogen, in essence, must>be "refined" under current technology since>it does not exist as a useable resource without>using energy to produce it.

Of course producing gasoline also requires>energy. It too must be "extracted" from>petroleum feedstocks.

Not sure I've even seen a comparison between>how much energy is required to produce>gasoline verses producing hydrogen.

If it is a "wash" as I expect it probably is, then>the concept of a "hydrogen economy" is deeply>flawed and what actually would be ocurring would>be to use fossil fuels to create a "clean" fuel>no much different than using fossil-fuel powered>generation plants to produce "clean" electricity.

True and the car companies have essentially solved the problem of building > hydrogen internal combustion engine design problem. Present hydrogen ICEs > are something like 90% as efficient as fuel cells, far cheaper and can be > produced now.>

We can expect to see production of hydrogen cars in a very few years > according to the car companies.>

With trains near death in our economy. the train freaks are desperately > trying to find some application where trains are useful. They have failed > to find any significant application so far. >

Yes, definitely.>

Yes. The missed point is that things would be more efficient if they > loaded more freight on trains regardless of whether the trains were> diesel or hydrogen-fueled.>

Producing gasoline from crude oil is something like 90% efficient in terms> of energy content. (this assumes that you're not trying to convert _all_> the crude into gasoline, you do want a certain amount of diesel, fuel gas,> asphalt, #6 fuel oil etc. This is the case in normal refineries).>

I don't know the most efficient way of producing hydrogen, but if you > consider the electrolyctic process starting from crude oil, where you have > to do all the refining for electric plant fuel production (probably geared> toward #6 fuel oil), burning it in a turbine, make electricity and > electrolyzing water to make hydrogen) that process would be quite a bit> less efficient.

The cost savings would be from a pollution trade off. Healthcare costs >would drop with less pollution. You would be able to set up trains for >hydrogen use which would increase demand for hydrogen, because as stated >before, they tend to be more centralized. It's a win for the train >companies as they would be less vunerable to changes in barrel prices >over time.

With investment, the efficiency of hydrogen production could easily >rival that of gasoline.

Lowering our demand for foreign oil.

Since there are no hydrogen mines, and hydrogen must be produced from> other sources, there really is no decrease in pollution. The pollution> is simply _moved_ from the busy highways (or railroads) to some hydrogen> production plant somewhere. There is also an economy of scale (one large > hydrogen plant's pollution is easier to control than 10,000 automobiles'> pollution control systems in various states of (dis)repair), but this may> be offset by the additional energy (and thus pollution) needed to overcome> the additional step taken from the source to moving your car.> On the other hand, energy can come from sources not possible now,> such as nuclear or coal, and thus different kinds of pollution.>

That depends on the chemistry and physics behind hydrogen production.>

That depends on the source of energy to drive the hydrogen production.> It is most likely true, but the decrease in demand for foreign oil means> an increase in demand for energy from all other sources, all else being> equal.

Hydrogen fuel cells can help wean the country from dependence on> foreign oil, and trains will be the place to start, speakers said> Friday at a Charlotte conference.

From what I read, Hydrogen exists in

I quess one could claim that gas - is>direct.. drill a hole and tap into gas>reserves but my understanding is that>gas has to be "refined" also to remove>impurities and crack about different>kinds of gas.

But clearly with gasoline - it does not>exist as a pure material that you merely>extract and use - and the same is true>of hydrogen.

Both of these require a process to refine>or 'crack' them from other substances.

... Some say the "best" way to get it> is to crack it from petro-chemical.

Others say the "best" way is to crack> it out of ordinary water.

Both processes require energy so> the question seems to be...how> do the different methodologies compare> in efficiency.>

A most obvious question in my mind is> why solar, wind, tides could not be used> to power hydrogen "refineries". Even if> less efficient.. there is no "burning" of> fuels required.

A second thought is.. no matter how one> feels about nukes -... nukes are centralized> and tend to produce lots of power. Why> couldn't nukes 'crack' hydrogen from ordinary> water?

There's just one problem--that Three Mile Island (TMI) paranoia thing. > Consider that TMI released very little radiation, and that people living > in the TMI area probably get exposed to more far more radiation from > dental XRays, coal smoke, and the Sun.

True and the car companies have essentially solved the problem of building> hydrogen internal combustion engine design problem. Present hydrogen ICEs> are something like 90% as efficient as fuel cells, far cheaper and can be> produced now.

We can expect to see production of hydrogen cars in a very few years> according to the car companies.

With trains near death in our economy. the train freaks are desperately> trying to find some application where trains are useful. They have failed> to find any significant application so far.

The cost savings would be from a pollution trade off. Healthcare costs> would drop with less pollution.

You would be able to set up trains for> hydrogen use which would increase demand for hydrogen, because as stated> before, they tend to be more centralized. It's a win for the train> companies as they would be less vunerable to changes in barrel prices> over time.

With investment, the efficiency of hydrogen production could easily> rival that of gasoline.

If there was more gov't incentives for the automakers, transit and rail> companies to switch to hydrogen, the market would respond with more> efficiency in production.

But we really don't calculate the non-direct> costs of using fossile fuels which is very> significant in terms of health care costs> and the effect that pollution has on> road building in non-attainment areas.

I'm not a big advocate of more roads... I> fundamentally believe that people will> just drive more and that congestion is> a natural mechanism to control demand.

but say I'm wrong... then non-attainment> would go away... and many desired/delayed/dre­amed> projects would go forward.. and theoretically> do al the nice things that folks say they'll> do in terms of faster commutes, less pollution> and a better, more efficient movement of> goods and services.>

Of course.. this is a much more 'sexy' concept> than kids and elderly with asthma... ­