Surplus electronic parts : https://epartsconnect.com
Stock and Crypto AI Prediction : https://stocksignalslive.com

Well.. That is the headline that the vast petrochemical world is shouting at you from all directions, even if you may be unaware of it - and maybe you actually believe it yourself. But before you make up your own mind just let me make my own argument FOR hydrogen.. and Enjoy!
Join Team FranLab!! Become a patron and help support my YouTube Channel on Patreon: http://www.patreon.com/frantone
#ElectronicsCreators #Hydrogen #Gas
- Music by Fran Blanche -
Frantone on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/frantone/
Fran on Twitter - https://twitter.com/contourcorsets
Fran's Science Blog - http://www.frantone.com/designwritings/design_writings.html
FranArt Website - http://www.contourcorsets.com

By Fran

11 thoughts on “Hydrogen!!! Deadly Unsafe Gas Of Death???”
  1. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars Bill D'Berger says:

    The current state of affairs is obviously due to endemic corruption in a wide array of industries and regulatory bodies. Hydrogen in the form of hybrid fuel cell application is something that is capable of running our entire internal combustion infrastructure right now if there were adequate fueling stations. Battery powered EVs are not, this is why you won't be seeing electric semis which out supply chain depend on they would reduce cargo capacity, range, and likely add time to the delivery interval all of which is unacceptable at every level of said supply chain. The electric grid is also a major factor there is no way local or grater grids could handle a large switch to EVs it would likely take more than a decade of constant improvements and untold money to get it there not to mention the extra power generation needed. One of the big issues is that to support EVs large spread out grids must be improved whereas the power needs of generating hydrogen could be done in strategic areas near existing power plants or new ones based on whatever form of energy is most available in that area and the hydrogen could then be trucked to the stations in population centers.

    It makes a lot of sense from every angle I consider, the only thing lacking for an immediate switch are fueling/charging stations but that's also an issue for EVs as well. The Honda fcx clarity was a running hydrogen fuel cell car made in 2008 that was a peer to existing internal combustion cars in every way, nearly 20 years ago think about that.

  2. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars Jerry G. says:

    Very valid points brought up about battery power. As for hydrogen, I would not want to be sitting on top of a liquid hydrogen fuel tank! This is a very highly explosive type of fuel. Hydrogen would have to be highly compressed at a few thousand pounds pressure in the storage tank. Any leak and any possible spark or heat source, and there would be nothing much left! I've worked with hydrogen. Very dangerous. More dangerous than gasoline or Lithium ION batteries. As for hydrogen, at present it takes a lot more energy to make hydrogen than what can be taken from it.

    It is possible to make bio fuel from corn and various types of grains. There are many breeds of corn and grains that are not able to be eaten.

    Fran, you brought up some very viable points that I also have to agree with! ๐Ÿ™‚

    When I was 14 years of age, I decided to make my own hydrogen. I succeeded. After doing some experiments with it, I had it explode on me. I was burned on my hair and singed off my eyebrows. I had to go to the hospital to be treated. I lost much of my hearing for a number of days just from the force of the explosion. I was hearing a loud ringing for some days. Since then I have been suffering from Tinnitus and some distortion in the way I hear. The damage was permanent. I was lucky I did not lose my eyesight or have severe burns leaving scars.

  3. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars Rick Koehler says:

    Corn ethanol is an energy negative fuel. At best you get out 85% of the energy you put in to make the biofuel…

    Personally, I think we should be using hydrogen as a battery… nuclear power to create hydrogen and oxygen. Capture the hydrogen, then burn it at the point of use to turn the oxygen and hydrogen back into water. Then use petroleum as an industrial feedstock… game over.

  4. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars GrayRabbit says:

    I'm 100% with you on this. Especially the reasons why this won't ever happen, and the fact that electric cars are just moving the tailpipe from the car to the power plant.

    As a pilot, I'm more than willing to try new fuels.. But let's be honest. It was just this year, 2021, when we finally got unleaded fuel approved for aviation use. 2021! And that's approval. It'll be at least 10 years before it ends up at all of the airports.

    Also, biofuels are bullsh*t. I say this having a client who makes biodiesel. They're only there because that's where the federal funds are at. They fully acknowledge all of the downsides to their product. But… Governmental & Corporate types love being able to say their entire fleet is using "green" fuels!

    I like electric cars, but they won't work for me, so I still drive a petrol car. As you rightly pointed out, the electrical grid can't handle it. You're not going to be able to build a new power plant in the USA due to regulators and activists, so where's the power for these cars supposed to come from?

    Then there's US emissions regs. I wanted to get a specific power train in my current car when I ordered it. It would have given me a legitimate 85MPG. Nope, the US government said it was too polluting. So I had to get a different power train which gets 43MPG and puts out far more soot. Somehow that's more "environmentally friendly" according to the US government. Similarly, the government also said my car couldn't use a small fuel-powered heater to pre-heat & heat the cabin. So instead they want me to start up and idle that massive engine to heat the car. Way to go USA!

  5. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars Sam Spencer says:

    I have to disagree on this one. Hydrogen is an enormous middleman. The government wil not allow me or you to synthesise our own hydrogen at home, quite rightly. You will still be at the behest of the big huge middlemen companies. The oil companies will become the hydrogen companies. They will love you having to drive up to a forecourt and pay what they want to charge you for their fuel.

    The "moving the tailpipe" argument also just doesn't hold up. Even in countries with predominantly coal and gas (Poland, USA) the lifetime emissions of an electric car are still significantly lower than an internal combustion engine counterpart, and that's only getting better with time as the disruptively cheap nature of solar and wind take root. The economics of operating a fossil fuel plant today are grim. As time goes by, the batteries we use will become more energy dense, while also becoming safer. Lithium ion batteries are "dangerous" as batteries go, and even there they typically burn rather than explode as gasoline or hydrogen does if ignited improperly. Solid state batteries are on their way, and we're only just scratching the surface of what batteries can do.

    For the next couple of decades I can absolutely see maybe some aircraft and large ships using hydrogen fuel cells. Trains will be electrically connected to the grid, and cars will be battery powered.

    I like the idea of driving home and plugging in, I can even take advantage of cheap energy tarrifs or the plummeting cost of solar to produce my own energy at an ever cheaper rate.

  6. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars Bruce Joseph says:

    Commercial airliners take off "heavy" meaning full of fuel, they land "light" after using up most of the fuel. If they try to land "heavy" they would damage the landing gear hence having to dump fuel before an emergency landing.. Batteries obviously are the same weight full or empty so not practical for this purpose.

  7. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars Chubby Adler says:

    There's definitely a place for hydrogen, but many of the solutions you're proposing can actually be served by other technologies, including biologically sourced sourced hydrocarbon chemicals, lithium ion batteries, and similar. For one thing, I doubt hydrogen can get us through long haul international flights once we saturate the storage and utilization technology.. Batteries probably won't be able to either, at least for awhile.Hydrogen may be usable for personal transport (cars) though it is tricky to work with, since it is a small molecule. We also can't forget about the carbon involved with building the windmills, or any other source of energy and structure, not counting the fuels used to run the erection equipment. Concrete, steel, composite resin, etc (most materials) used to build the infrastructure is also quite a carbon source, even if we did derive all the energy from renewable sources. We can, however, consider energy paths available from waste products, such as the corn plants used to grow feed stock for ethanol production, or use these waste products as a carbon source for building material processing and similar purposes.. Consequently, there may be more opportunities to "go green" by fully exploiting our current processes, which are woefully underutilized. While I do think we need to explore hydrogen energy as much as we can, we also need to develop every other available source as well.

    I would also like to know what kind of segmented display that is in the background. Have you done a video on it yet?

  8. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars BugAbate Inc says:

    Lithium is very clever set to hydrogen in Li3. I have some under nitrogen and it's as light as styrofoam- it floats. Nickel and cobalt not so light, but they will be getting lighter. But I get it, it's all hydrogen anyway, just riding on carbon. The key is solar and wind for home and commercial use. Li from autonomous cars and hydrogen for trucking, planes and ships. The source of h2 need t be something like a creation of Hydronic sulphide by microbes followed by solar catalytic ruthenium to split it – probably messy mega industrial, but an actual possible process – and thought out to the end nuclear,and mixed high power sources for electrolysis.

  9. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars blackcorvo says:

    "Why don't we just, cut the cord, and go straight to hydrogen?"
    You know the answer. Because it goes against the interests of the fossil fuel industry, as well as of capitalism itself.

    Fossil fuels cause damage to people and the environment. Capitalism can then bank on selling quack "solutions", and by the time issues are gone too far from being reversible, they can jump ships to colonize whatever resource oasis comes next in line.

  10. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars Midnight's Ocean says:

    Agreed. It's all politics, greed and control. They LIKE inefficiency, because it means you have to buy more. So glad you mentioned how NOT green batteries are when you actually do the math. Most people don't realize the gas in their cars is as explosively powerful as dynamite. People also don't realize that a technology is only expensive if little to no R&D is done and little to no infrastructure is built. If we put the investment into H, we would have it safe and cheap.

  11. Avataaar/Circle Created with python_avatars dinner85 says:

    Build an energy storage tower that uses solar to stack blocks and harvests energy by lowering them. Build a micro one in the lab Fran. I would love to see that in practice. Why are you wasting time on this? Without the storage, handling and fuel cell technology there is no point. Liquid hydrogen is just trouble. Need to lock it into chalk or something like acetylene. Focus stuff that matters.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.