Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
The notion of binding hydrogen in various metallic compounds and then releasing it on demand via a catalyst is an old one for Hydrogen Powered Vehicles;  it's one of the very few ways out of the difficulty of keeping hydrogen (small slippery stuff) in tanks, hoses, etc.

I must say this sounds like a very energy-expensive method of storing energy and I think I agree with the poster who prefers to bike to the nearest e-train :-)  There's a presupposition in a lot of these "gee wow, here comes the cavalry" articles on energy that the Almighty Automobile is the immutable term and we have to go through whatever shenanigans are necessary to maintain it.  The problem may get much simpler if you factor the Almighty Auto (the Sacred Cow of the industrialised nations) out of the picture and think about smaller/lighter mobility devices plus excellent  rail and water networks.

Also of course, as an aluminium customer (for boat parts) I rather dislike the idea of the metal suddenly becoming a trendy snake-oil investment oppo -- just what I need is a Tulip Bubble in aluminium when I'm shopping (somewhat ineptly) for industrial pipe...

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Sun May 20th, 2007 at 02:47:26 AM EST
People want transportation on demand and they don't want to think through the ramifications. They will accept any haze of logomachian obfuscation and all snake-oil selling flim-flam artists aiding and comforting their little desires.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
by ATinNM on Sun May 20th, 2007 at 11:52:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Even if a "new energy cavalry" would exist (defying the current understanding of thermodynamics), the overhaul from the oil-based to a new infractructure would be just stupendous - how many engines and cars would have to be replaced, how many gas stations discarded? Who will the suffer costs of the overhaul? Gosh, do we have realistically enough aluminium (or whatever material) to run billions of cars? Maybe we would be just better off sucking oil still.

Besides, is it comfortable to be so dependent on a team of lucky inventors?

Praying for a technological breakthrough just in time is like expecting salvation from a higher power in the face of Rapture - the modern "rational" faith is no different from old Christian myths, after all.

by das monde on Mon May 21st, 2007 at 04:31:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
the overhaul from the oil-based to a new infractructure would be just stupendous - how many engines and cars would have to be replaced, how many gas stations discarded? Who will the suffer costs of the overhaul?

That is why I think the only realistic way forward is synthetic hydrocarbons from renewable electricity. Synthetic hydrocarbons are carbon-neutral, too.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon May 21st, 2007 at 05:04:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Will we have enough renewable electivity for all synthetic hydrocarbons we "need"? The tempo of renewability is limited.
by das monde on Tue May 22nd, 2007 at 03:49:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Ah, but at least we can piggyback on the existing transport infrastructure.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue May 22nd, 2007 at 05:28:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series