There are probably many, but at the moment I can think of only two. One unresolved problem is that of adequate storage volume in an automobile. Another problem is the logistics of setting up an adequate number and spacing of refueling stations in a very short time. : Most hydrogen production is obtained from fossil fuels (hydrocarbons)and is therefore impracticable, more expensive and not renewable. : Fuel cells are the alternative emerging technologies producing hydrogen in situ. ;
; -It wold be ridiculous to isolate hydrogen from organic molecules. The problems are not particularly the lack of infrastructure, rather they stem from problems related to extraction and storage. The hydrolysis of water is energy taxing; unlike fossil fuels that may simply be pumped out of the ground, energy must be put into the system to get it out. A system could be developed to utilize green energies or nuclear to drive the production of hydrogen, or use the electrical energy generated by a running car to subsidize its hydrogen fuel. There is much development at the chemical front to solve the storage problems. Most notably, metal-organic frameworks have recently emerged from labs that are capable of storing it in a non-volatile form with a higher density than its liquid phase. Hydrogen never will be a viable car fuel. This is why: There are two basic ways to produce hydrogen: separating it out of methane, and electrolyzing water. You'll then feed the hydrogen into a fuel cell to make electricity. Now here's the thing: both technologies are a waste. There are fuel cells that can operate directly from natural gas, so why bother extracting hydrogen from it? As for electrolyzing water, it would be much more efficient to skip past the part where you burn off all that electricity to liberate the hydrogen from the oxygen, and just put a huge battery in the car. ----------------------
in response to the above answer....
Hydrogen is the "Perfect" fuel period! The answer given above is quite defeatist and just plain wrong.
The fuel cell is the way forward and the only thing required is to develop an efficient and cost effective means of producing the hydrogen. Preferably not using hydrocarbons in the process.
Storage of hydrogen is futile and dangerous and will readily pass right through its own container (no matter what materials you use) as it is the smallest of all atoms. Production insitu is the sensible way forward - utilised as required on-board. Imagine it,
Now use your head and find the solution.
Hydrogen isnt widely used as a fuel because manufacturing hydrogen (e.g. manufacturing water to produce hydrogen) needs a lot of energy and there are also major problems in the transport of hydrogen as you cant store the element very easily.
Because it's costly.
Hydrogen is usually stuck to something else, like carbon and takes a lot of energy to separate it.
There is also fear, from it's explosive nature.
This is a reaction called fusion, where under an extremely high pressure, temperature and density, hydrogen nuclei are fused together.
The reaction would cause an everlasting source of energy and would resolve much of the energy problems we currently have, however, it is extremely difficult to achieve these conditions on planet earth and also sustain these reactions, as the only similar conditions are in the sun, which is much hotter than the conditions that have been reached on earth. The reason to why this reaction is so difficult to achieve is due to the positive charge on the hydrogen nucleus, which takes a lot of energy to fuse.
Cause Hydrogen takes more energy to create then you actually get from it so this day and age it would not be effective due to our on going energy crisis with inferior fossil fuels. Now if we had more Nuclear Power or other means of fusion, Solar Power, and other means of renewable energy's then Hydrogen would be a greater possibility cause its clean and ultimately get us away from coal, and gas.
Mainly because it has to either be compressed or liquefied to transport a sufficient volume. Handling hydrogen in either form is extremely dangerous because it can explode.
The major thrust of hydrogen power is to create fuel cells that generate no pollution, creating power by combining hydrogen and oxygen without combustion.
The major current application is as rocket fuel (e.g. as it was for the Space Shuttle).
There are no major reserves of pure hydrogen. To separate hydrogen from the oxygen in the water, for example, would require more energy (considering that some energy will be wasted) than would be gained by recombining it, when used as a fuel. Thus, hydrogen can be used to store energy, but not as an energy source.
hydrogen gas is highly inflammable. Slightly spark may cause blast of hydrogen gas. So it canot be used as a fuel.
Hydrogen is not as powerful by far is very very very reactive.
Hydrogen combines with oxygen with explosive force in the presence of a spark. Helium is an inert gas that will not burn or explode, so is much safer to use in balloons and air ships instead of hydrogen.The Hindenburg incident is a good example of why not to use hydrogen in a balloon. In the related links box below I posted an article on it.Helium is more chemically stable than hydrogen and will not burn.study island cheaters.Hydrogen burns very easily and helium doesn't. Because hydrogen is extremely flammable or explosive, it is extremely dangerous to use it in this application. That's why we see helium, and inert gas, used in these lighter than air craft.Because hydrogen is flamable and helium isnt. The airships need a fuel that isnt flamable because if there is a fire, the fuel with explode and cause a huge explosion that will put many peoples safety at risk. Therefore, the clearly safer option is heliumHydrogen is highly combustible and is more reactive compared to helium, as helium is an inert gas.I prefer hydrogen, it is cheaper and reactive. However Helium is often used because it is inert and doesn't burn.
no there isnt
Yellow flame means there's not enough air to completely burn all the fuel, so more carbon monoxide is formed. - - - - - It isnt the blue flame is more dangerous because you cannot see it.
Idkk : ) :P
breast cancer isnt a sexx chromosome it is genetic any women can be at risk and some men could be to so but it isnt
Isnt one. There is a strainer inside the fuel tank though.
Nop It isnt Most Stores are closed!Sorry Tho!
im in middle school so this is the answer i have if this isnt the good answer u were looking for sorry. :/answer: fossil fuel
im in middle school so this is the answer i have if this isnt the good answer u were looking for sorry. :/answer: fossil fuel
Water is made of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Hydrogen and oxygen are major building blocks of life.
coal because it isnt being used as much as it was in the past.
because roles royce isnt actualy a good car to race in and isnt up to date with the speed of today
Probably and if it isnt it definately should be
I found that Habview isnt loading aswell!
this isnt google
Coal If we know the ultimate analysis of fuel, we can easily calculate its GCV. The basic principle is that there are only 3 components in a fuel which generate heat. These are: Carbon, Hydrogen and Sulphur. According to Dulong's formula gross calorific value of a fuel is; GCV = ((35.5 x C + 114.8 x H + 9.5 x S - 14.5 x O) x 1000) / (100 x 4.1868) Each multiple of carbon, hydrogen and sulphur represents heat generated by its one mole. The formula gives GCV in kcal/kg. Simple isnt it !
well thats tricky isnt it! ugh all you people are so freaking stupid! god!