GatorHex, you make a valid point about the hydrogen being explosive, but if you had read the site, you would've seen they'd already addressed that issue by creating "hydrides" where the hydrogen is bonded to another material.
Quote: " The 3rd option is simply the only way to go. There are materials call Hydrides that absorb Hydrogen like a sponge absorbs water. Typically, the tanks are filled with granulated Hydrides, and Hydrogen is pressurized into the material. Hydrides have many advantages over liquid & gas. One is that the density of the Hydrogen stored in the Hydride can be GREATER than that of liquid Hydrogen. This translates directly into smaller and fewer storage tanks.
Once the Hydride is "charged" with Hydrogen, the Hydrogen becomes chemically bonded to the chemical. Even opening the tank, or cutting it in half will not release the Hydrogen gas. In addition, you could even fire incendiary bullets through the tank and the Hydride would only smolder like a cigarette. It is in fact, a safer storage system than your Gasoline tank is.
Then how do you get the Hydrogen back out? To release the Hydrogen gas from the Hydride, it simply needs to be heated. This is either done electrically, using the waste exhaust heat, or using the waste radiator coolant heat."
Also notice that it does take several days to completely fill up your car if you're using their hydrogen generator. So, yeah, if we all switched to such a system, we'd need something better for producing the hydrogen. But just think for a moment, how much energy does it take to refine crude oil into the gasoline we use? Maybe it would actually be more efficient to create some huge hydrogen plants.
Chenak,
The Chernobyl accident wouldn't have happened if some idiots weren't seeing how far they could go by disabling all the safety systems. I'm all for nuclear power myself. I did a research paper back about 5 or six years ago, and burning coal is a crap-load more dangerous than nuclear.
Edit:
Quote: "My lecturer stated that nuclear power was safe green option and there was only a 1 in 10,000 year chance of a meltdown. To which I pointed out that there had been 2 nuclear melt-downs during my life-time alone!"
And that is a very valid point there. There may be a 1 in 10,0000 year chance of a melt-down
if we don't have idiots running the power plant. However, as was shown in the case of Chernobyl, how can we be sure a bunch more dunder-heads don't do something similar? That's the only thing that concerns me about nuclear power.
CodeSurge
Version 1.0 finally released! Code your DBP projects in style.
(And save the kittens!)
