Lithium Hydride…
http://chemicalland21.com/industrialchem/inorganic/LITHIUM%20HYDRIDE.htm
…and Lithium Hydroxide…
http://chemicalland21.com/industrialchem/inorganic/LITHIUM%20HYDROXIDE%20MONOHYDRATE.htm
…are well know reagents. Mr. Fak couldn’t have “discovered” them, or their properties.

And, they are VERY hazardous: even more so than Hydrogen.
Lithium Hydride
Lithium Hydroxide

Anyone who tells you that’s a solution, to have those substances in everyone’s possession, is either a con artist or a fool.

With Lithium Hydride you now have a compound that can break down to release not only Hydrogen, which is flammable/explosive, but also Lithium, which is also flammable/explosive, and Lithium, unlike Hydrogen, is also HIGHLY TOXIC.

Brilliant solution, …NOT for everyone.

But then, Lefties don’t want EVERYONE to have technology, only themselves. So, if shifting to a hydrogen economy is the way they go, most of us will be forced to give up our cars, and hope the bureaucrats will give us enough public transportation, and have it run on time. Yeah, riiiiiiggggghhhhht!

UPDATE: NewScientist misread the abstract. It isn’t “Zhigang Fak.” It’s Zhigang Zak Fang [Phyllis Diller's husband?]. There are also some other folks from some other institutions.

OK, Here’s a brief note in which they say their unique mix can store 7% to 8% by weight in H2, which means that 100 pounds of it could store 7 to 8 pounds of H2, which is the equivalent of 21 to 24 pounds of gasoline, which is roughly equal to 4 gallons.

My car has about a 17 gallon capacity, which would mean an equivalent H2 “tank” would have to weigh a minimum of about 400 pounds (empty), not including the weight of whatever containment apparatus was required, which would have to be VERY sturdy, considering a puncture could result in a significant hazardous waste spill.

It would also have to be regenerated/recharged, and that’s not addressed in sufficient detail in the note, but it would be much more complicated than a standard fill-up. [Their graph is confusing, but it looks like it has to be heated in order to "regenerate" it, and it looks like it requires high temps (up to 200 deg centagrade which is 392 deg fahrenheit) for extended time periods (2 hours and 20 minutes) - and they don't give sample size, so it might be small, in which case a large amount could take much longer. If that's correct, then it might take as long to fill-er-up as it would for the trip.] They also give no idea of the lifetime of their device, or how expensive it would be to replace/maintain.

Sounds like it isn’t quite ready for prime time yet.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

ZZ Mike,
My beef with Pelosi on this wind farm/water issue is that if fuel prices stay up she profits.. not the degree of profit.
Now, she’s blocking drilling and lower fuel prices blatantly, much to her benefit.
That’s just plain wrong and we’re paying for it.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

“#42’s comment about houses being hydrogen bombs was the best laugh I’ve had all day. I wonder if he worries about too many atoms being in one place – could get you an atom bomb.” –ZZMike

“Solar power? OK for the Southwest, where you might get sunshine 60% of all the hours in a year, but what about nighttime and long cloudy spells? Yes, we know, batteries” — ZZMike

Storing electricity is expensive and not very efficient. Heat storage isn’t, AND we know how to do it.

Is ZZMike WitlessDork’s brother? Or maybe Stoner’s sister? It sure sounds like a close relative of theirs.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

ZZMike

The comment about homes being hydrogen bombs was in reference to Gregory Dittman’s suggestion that the in-house hydrogen system, that stores hydrogen prior to pumping into fuel cells, be built within the structure, or as water towers, or in basements of condo-multifamily dwellings in order to service high density dwellings. This would be storage of mass quantities. And specifically it was about earthquake prone areas.

We were *not* talking about hydrogen fuel cell powered homes. Get with the program.

To follow the conversation in summary, see Post #47.

Right now, the technology for safely storing hydrogen isn’t there.

From New Scientist Invention on March 2008

Many energy researchers believe that hydrogen is the fuel of choice to replace fossil fuels for cars and other vehicles in the coming decades. Storing hydrogen gas safely, though, is a problem.

One promising approach is to chemically combine it with another element to form a solid which can later be broken down again. This can store a very high density of hydrogen in a relatively small volume. However, the hydrogen’s release has to be carefully controlled when the compound is broken down or an explosion could occur.

Now Zhigang Fak, a chemist at the University of Utah, and colleagues say they have found a way to control the release of hydrogen by these breakdown reactions.

They store hydrogen by reacting it with lithium to form lithium hydride and lithium hydroxide, and can later controllably release the gas using various catalysts such as platinum.

The team says the technique could offer a safe, cost-effective and reversible way of storing hydrogen in future.

Is reading a lost art of late? Or has DW been reincarnated?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

So then, what percentage of Pelosi’s assets are in Pickens’ CLNE? It looks like “not a lot” to me. The sum of her assets is roughly around $30 million (minimum), so CLNE’s paltry $0.5 million is a drop in the bucket.

Her largest stock holding is Apple: between $5 and $2 million. The next is eBay ($0.5 to $1 million).

There are so many big reasons why she shouldn’t be in the Senate, but this isn’t one of them.

Wind power? OK, as long as the wind isn’t blowing (and it doesn’t interfere with Senator Kennedy’s view), but it doesn’t blow 24/7. We have wind farms in Southern California, but I doubt they contribute much the the whole state. Solar power? OK for the Southwest, where you might get sunshine 60% of all the hours in a year, but what about nighttime and long cloudy spells? Yes, we know, batteries. Giant blockhouses full of batteries (just like the phone companies). Most common are lead-acid batteries. Nice ecological disaster waiting there.

#42′s comment about houses being hydrogen bombs was the best laugh I’ve had all day. I wonder if he worries about too many atoms being in one place – could get you an atom bomb.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Just a final thought…

While I would accuse them of bloviating in the wind on wind power, I would take seriously any reasonable proposal for a solar-thermal energy alternative. It’s safe, reliable (if set up in areas where cloud cover is minimal), cheap and easy to built. NOTE: I’m not talking “high tec” direct conversion of solar to electric via solar-panels, but “low-tec” steam turbine technology using parabolic mirrors to focus the sun’s energy.

Here are just a couple of examples of material I could find rather quickly via Google…

http://www.solardev.com/SEIA-makingelec.php

http://www.blog.thesietch.org/2007/01/08/10-questions-for-schott-about-solar-thermal-parabolic-trough-electricity-generation-2/

While criticism of other schemes is deserved, criticism of this one is not. It CAN work, …which is probably why Lefties aren’t pushing it.

(No, it won’t work any better for a car than a sail, so please don’t even think of such a silly criticism. We are going to need gasoline to power our cars for some time to come.)

Like or Dislike: 0  0

ThomasB

RE: bio-diesel

“The land can only grow a certain number of crops per year. Crops take time and energy to grow.”

Don’t forget crop failure, as we had this year due to extensive, and extended, rain in the midwest. Crops already in were seriously damaged, new crops were delayed and their harvest considerably diminished.

And there is also drought. Does anyone recall hearing of the “dust bowl” of the 1930′s?

Other potential problems are disease and insect infestation.

There is no wisdom in relying on such a fragile product for our energy needs. Besides, wasting food in a world that’s hungry is a terrible sin.

The Left’s advocacy of a food to fuel strategy reveals O’Bomber’s “…cruise ships throw more food away in a day…” condemnation of ‘the evil white man’s world’ for the hypocricy that it is.

The food cruise ships throw away is nothing compared to the incredible waste greenies advocate.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I’ve had it with the two trolls. They bring nothing to any debate at this blog, instead all they do is try to get under the skin of other readers. They are now on a timeout for awhile.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

BigPapa put it in a nutshell… and is worthy of repeating on it’s own.

Fine, develop alternatives but be realistic about their applications and realize it will not happen overnight and we much drill here and now to prevent the economic collapse of this country.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

DeadWeight, still Dim of Wit #44…. I know you’re intellect challenged, and can’t follow a multifaceted conversation.

But so that you don’t mislead others who may not have read this thread in it’s entirety, I’ll catch them up on the Greg, Yon and Mata comments on the hydrogen storage systems Gregory was suggesting as a solution. Fear not. I don’t expect you to grasp the dangers of installing hydrogen mass storage facilities in multidwelling (i.e. condos, apartments) buildings in areas prone to earthquakes.

Gregory #1: There is already at companies that deals with hydrogen storage in mass quanities. Where does that come into play? Solar panels can create the electricity used to split water into hydrogen and oxygen (that old high school science experment). The hydrogen is then stored. Then later hydrogen can be pumped into large hydrogen powered fuel cells (they are already made) which creates the power at night.

Mata#13: The hydrogen in-house system is also limited to urban sprawl and surburban only. You can’t be putting those hydrogen generations systems in NY highrises, condos, and multi family dwellings. The more dense the building with people and vehicles, the more invalid that in-house hydrogen system becomes.

Gregory#20: The hydrogen could be mounted like a watertower or underground or even as part of the structure itself like planes hold fuel.

Mata#22: Now there’s a bright idea for Pacific Rim earthquake areas from San Diego to Portland. Even NYC is built on fault lines. Also another idiotic suggestion for heavily congested Florida cities… where the water table lies feet below the surface and basements are non existent.

The hydrogen center has application for some areas, but is not a universal answer to a large percentage of American’s needs.

Yon#26: Yes, I understand the Germans pioneered some of that technology back in the middle of last century.

30 seconds is all it took, and “poof” it was gone.

Well, at least there was no oily residue.

Yonason was, of course, speaking of the Hindenberg disaster. A “mass quantity” of hydrogen in the derigible. Since it has the widest explosive range known, and requires the least amount of spark to set it off, it strikes me as risky as a mass storage unit installed in buildings to accommodate multiple owners.

Ignore DeadWeight in this part of the conversation… he’s still glowing from his “many many” MAX rides, crowded to capacity, and evidently can’t handle a few more subjects simultaneously. He’s obviously missed the bus on this one.

Like or Dislike: 0  0