which fuel is better, petrol or hydrogen and why?

Answer 1

Both are equal as mother nature has a recycle system for hydrocarbon as u would for hydrogen.

Answer 2

Petrol will mainly produce CO2 which is a greenhouse gas, as well some other harmful products when used as a fuel. When Hydrogen is used as a fuel, the only product from complete combustion is water, obviously not harmful if pure.
Hydrogen is a gas at room temperature, and for practical use as a fuel, would need to be cooled so it could be stored as a liquid. The cooling and storage as a liquid would require energy input, making it's use as a fuel then relatively inefficient. This is one of the limitations of using hydrgogen as a common fuel. So basically, hydrogen is a "better" fuel in an ideal world (in terms of less pollution), but petrol is currently more convenient

Answer 3

You can just ask that without further specifications. Petrol can be freely obtained through "mining" where as hydrogen must be generated and requires electricity. However, petrol is a limited resource and hydrogen can be freely regenerated through energy from the sun if desired. It also burns into water which is environmentally friendly. Petrol has many waste components that are undesireable. Then you must consider the power of each, how to store the fuel, and if its cost effective to do either.

Answer 4

If you had an unlimited resource for each, without having the negatives of producing the fuel. My answer is Hydrogen, as the burn product is Water. The burn products for petrol are a mixture of Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Nitrous Oxide, Water, and a whole host of other noxious things; dependant on what has been added to help it work.

Answer 5

The answer depends on what "better" means.

Economically, petrol (yanks call it "gasoline") is far better in terms of economics. This is because energy costs money and much more energy has to be expended making hydrogen gas. This in turn is due to something known as entropy, which states no energy exchange can be 100% efficient. A certain amount of energy is always turned into heat. In the case of hydrogen, coal must be burned to turn chemical energy into heat energy. This is then used in a turbine to create mechanical energy. The mechanical energy is then turned into electrical energy which is needed to split H2O into hydrogen and oxygen gas. I have always though of this process as using a herd of elephants to turn a great millwheel to work a long gearchain which eventually winds a wristwatch.

One way to improve the efficiency of this system is to use hydroelectric energy. Falling water turns the turbine, eliminating the need to burn coal. However, it is still far more economical to use the electricity directly, because a great deal of it is needed to make hydrogen. This energy is then wasted when the hydrogen burns in an engine. No internal combustion engine is over 30% efficient at turning chemical energy into mechanical energy. The rest is - as one might guess - wasted as heat.

Turning from ECO - nomics to ECO - logy, hydrogen is the better choice. This is because hydrogen combustion produces no carbon dioxide. As is slowly becomming evident, increasing concentrations of CO2 are slowly warming the average temperature of the earth. This is because CO2 traps solar radiation and does not allow the heat to escape back into space. Venus is a good example of what the earth might be like if CO2 dominated the atmosphere. Venus ought to only be about 100 degrees hotter than earth, but because of the CO2, the surface temperature is over 500. On earth, the temperature is not rising evenly, but appears to be rising fastest at the poles. If this continues, enormous amounts of ice will melt and raise ocean levels. Costal cities will then begin to submerge.

One compromise to slow global warming is the use of biofuels. The idea behind this stragety is the CO2 released by the combustion of the fuel is then re-absorbed by the next crop of biofuels. In short, the CO2 is recycled and does not increase. Unfortunately, the hudge energy demands of mass consumption driven socities is most likley more than biofuels can supply alone. Oil and gas reserves will be depleated in 20 years, but the coal supply can sustain the world for at least another 200 years.

Hydrogen production will only be economically viable if a chemical process can be discovered which uses solar energy to directly split water. Solar power is probably the best alternative to systems which derive their energy from internal combustion. Solar cells can provide electricity to splt water, but the cells themselves are under 10% efficient. Perhaps the most direct way to improve efficiency is to just use less energy. Unfortunately Americans aren't willing to give up a lifestyle based on mass consumption, and worse still are working hard to export their culture abroad. There will come a point when this way of living will no longer be sustainable, however.

Answer 6

Hydrogen is best, when burned along with Oxygen it only gives off water. When a hydrocarbon like petrol is burned Carbon monoxide is given off which is toxic and has to be turned into Carbon dioxide with a catalyst which contributes to global warming

Answer 7

Hydrogen will be the better fuel if it can be commercially produced cheaply.
Petrol, being a fossil fuel, burns to give a number of undesirable compounds passing into the atmosphere causing our 'Greenhouse gases' and acid rain ..etc.
Hydrogen burns in air to produce simple water molecules..

Answer 8

Better in what way? Cheaper (petrol), cleaner (hydrogen), more power per given weight (petrol) etc.

Answer 9

Hydrogen is the BANG in every fuel.

i.e. HYDROcarbons as petrol