Just when you thought HYDROGEN would save you

[Q45tech]

http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html

"fuel cell expert Ulf Bossel explains that a hydrogen economy is a wasteful economy. The large amount of energy required to isolate hydrogen from natural compounds (water, natural gas, biomass), package the light gas by compression or liquefaction, transfer the energy carrier to the user, plus the energy lost when it is converted to useful electricity with fuel cells, leaves around 25% for practical use — an unacceptable value to run an economy in a sustainable future. Only niche applications like submarines and spacecraft might use hydrogen"

"Last year, four billion gallons of ethanol were produced from 1.43 billion bushels of corn grain (including kernels, stalks, leaves, cobs, husks) in the United States, according to the Department of Energy. In comparison, the United States consumed about 140 billion gallons of gasoline. "

[maxnix]

Yeah, until the Tokamak or some other controlled fusion works, it is enery negative to use H2.

Even then, costs will have to be calculated.

[Q45tech]

Some say a better use for Ethanol: Population Controlhttp://www.physorg.com/news84856918.html

I've spent the last hour reuping my current events knowledge from this site.

Too much to read only 24 hours in the day, can you say INET addiction.

http://www.physorg.com/news85114850.html

[ScottJackson]

And I've read that water vapor is a much more prominent and harmful greenhouse gas than CO2, when it comes to global warming. And isn't water vapor the emissions of a hydrogen vehicle?

[HashiriyaS14]

Nuclear ftw.

Battery-driven cars will be perfectly feasible in 10-ish years anyway. Look at the Tesla.

[96Qowner]

Yes, electricity is the future for cars, preferably produced from solar/wind.

Ethanol is renewable, but a net loser from the pollution and production standpoint. Hydrogen preserves the internal combustion engine, but like ethanol, requires too much energy to produce. And no one ever seems to talk about dwindling fresh water supplies. You need either water or petroleum to produce hydrogen.

[goody90q45]

....plus the energy lost....leaves around 25% for practical use — an unacceptable value to run an economy in a sustainable future. Only niche applications like submarines and spacecraft might use hydrogen"

<<<< Fuel cells play a part in powering many of the satellites and spacecraft orbiting mother earth and exploring our solar system. (See my avatar) Would the Wright brothers have ever dreamed that a man would fly around the earth nonstop much less stand on the moon less than 75 years later?

I do safety training for a fuel cell R&D company here in Sacramento made up mostly of liquid rocket engineers that have moved on from the much larger company I work for. They put a man on the moon and are now using aerospace technology to develop efficient hydrogen fuel cells.

Efficiency will rise way above the 25% level as the technology develops and will some day pass the point where it makes widespread use practical. Unfortunately Tech and I may be 6 feet under by the time this happens.

[PoorManQ45]

Q45tech: I'm not disagreeing with you, but the current efficiency numbers are based on current technology.

It is possible(unlikely, but possible) that new, more refined technologies will emerge that will all hydrogen to be economical

[Jeff Williams]

If the government would quit paying the farmers to not farm, and pay them to produce more useable fuel sources, the feasability of ehtanol, biodiesel, and other fuels would be much better.

Wind or solar energy is a big loser. There is just too much cost and loss in using windmills to generate power. Solar power is fine for small sources, but it is not feasible for major power sources.

Unfortunately, the cheapest source of electricity is still fossil fuels. Nuclear is promising, but the political impact is much greater and prohibitive.

IT will be very difficult to beat the efficiency of the internal combustion engine. I think the future will be hybrid cars utilizing electric motors and diesel engines that can run on multiple fuel sources.

That is why I am working on a twin turbo powerstroke diesel transplant for Lola

[DriftingJesus]

class 3 and 4 nuclear generators will solve the problem

[johngalt]

One other major factor to consider - if a 'cheap' and efficient alternative were to be developed, then our dependence upon fossil fuels would fall that readily - and I guarantee that the companies currently making money off said fossil fuels do not want that to happen anytime soon either.

Let's face it, when developing the internal combustion engine pretty much the same arguments were used - it's inefficient, both processing the fuel as well as the output - but look where we have come to today. New technology is always going to be a little bit crude, and it is almost guaranteed that an initial development of any sort of technology will not be perfect from the get-go. If we made things right the firs time, we'd 1) kill all the revenues that R&D companies make, and 2) be bored as hell because every idea we came up with / developed / created would be the pinnacle of our achievement, with none of the "I wonder how we can make it better" attitude that most tinkerers and scientists alike have.

That is why the article linked at the top is misleading - Hydrogen does indeed have the potential to be the future - specifically because of the fact that the future holds the potential for the development of a cheaper production and efficient use of hydrogen, and making speculations about the future based upon current technologies is simply bogus.

[96Qowner]

Wind or solar energy is a big loser. There is just too much cost and loss in using windmills to generate power. Solar power is fine for small sources, but it is not feasible for major power sources.

Wind generator towers are being built all over the place, up here. Current cost to the consumer runs 20% higher than conventional sources (before crude went to $60/bbl). Let fossil fuel prices rise 25% and it's a no-brainer. Solar technology is improving rapidly, and with the new print-on-substrate techniques, panel prices will drop dramatically. The only trouble with wind/solar is that neither are 24 hour producers - they can only supplement. And both require building transmission lines to the grid - spendy stuff - far more expensive than the generators themselves. A 1 megawatt wind tower runs about $1 million - almost cost-effective at today's prices.

And you don't need 24 hour production capability for electric cars.

I agree that ethanol subsidies are nothing more than farm subsidies. In fact, I just read that corn prices are now being substantially supported by ethanol demand. But what a waste of petroleum! Ouch. If you could convert all the farm machinery and the corn dryers to ethanol, it might make better sense.

One other major factor to consider - if a 'cheap' and efficient alternative were to be developed, then our dependence upon fossil fuels would fall that readily - and I guarantee that the companies currently making money off said fossil fuels do not want that to happen anytime soon either.

Yeah, there's that, too. And if fossil fuel demand falls, prices will fall with it, keeping alternatives unfeasible, financially. We have PLENTY of oil in the world - a century's worth, or more, in tar sands - just a tad short on CHEAP oil these days. Gasoline will always be the best fuel for the automobile engine.

[bullittandy]

Q45tech: I'm not disagreeing with you, but the current efficiency numbers are based on current technology.

It is possible(unlikely, but possible) that new, more refined technologies will emerge that will all hydrogen to be economical

Agreed. I've got a Road and Track from 1974 (my birth year) where there's an article blasting catalytic converters as an emissions device. The tone of the article was very similar to the first thread and just look at us now, cats drastically lower emissions, cost very little power and last a long, long time.

[PoorManQ45]

IT will be very difficult to beat the efficiency of the internal combustion engine.

Huh? IIRC an ICE runs between 20 and 30% efficiency. Pretty much the crappiest electric motor operates above 70% efficiency

[Jeff Williams]

Huh? IIRC an ICE runs between 20 and 30% efficiency. Pretty much the crappiest electric motor operates above 70% efficiency

Of course, if you take an electric motor and compare it to a piston engine in a closed environmental test!

Now, figure out how to use that 70% efficient motor to transplant all the internal compubstion engines in the world, provide batteries, charging stations, and repair shops cheaper than the internal combustion engine. The term "Very difficult" comes to mind.

I stand behind my original statement. As far as propelling us daily in our cars, it WILL be very difficult to beat the efficiency of the internal combustion engine.

With the implemention of variable speed drives, electric motors are much more efficient that 70%. The problem lies is sustainable amperage to drive the electric motor to give acceptible performance comparable to the gasoline engine in the car at an economical, feesible format. One that the government is NOT subsidizing.

[DrewQ45]

Wind generator towers are being built all over the place, up here. Current cost to the consumer runs 20% higher than conventional sources (before crude went to $60/bbl). Let fossil fuel prices rise 25% and it's a no-brainer. Solar technology is improving rapidly, and with the new print-on-substrate techniques, panel prices will drop dramatically. The only trouble with wind/solar is that neither are 24 hour producers - they can only supplement. And both require building transmission lines to the grid - spendy stuff - far more expensive than the generators themselves. A 1 megawatt wind tower runs about $1 million - almost cost-effective at today's prices.

And you don't need 24 hour production capability for electric cars.

I agree that ethanol subsidies are nothing more than farm subsidies. In fact, I just read that corn prices are now being substantially supported by ethanol demand. But what a waste of petroleum! Ouch. If you could convert all the farm machinery and the corn dryers to ethanol, it might make better sense.

Yeah, there's that, too. And if fossil fuel demand falls, prices will fall with it, keeping alternatives unfeasible, financially. We have PLENTY of oil in the world - a century's worth, or more, in tar sands - just a tad short on CHEAP oil these days. Gasoline will always be the best fuel for the automobile engine.

You'd be suprised on what can be done if we turn away from easily accessible oil. We have sustainable energy sources in Wind, Solar and Waves but man has not looked away from oil long enough to develop the technology fully. It WILL happen one day, we are just in the early stages.

Here's a pic of the Wigton Wind Farm in Jamaica... took these in 04' while I was out there. 23 Windmills on the mountain range in the background. These things are huge and NEVER stopped turning the whole time I was there (3 wks)!..... the pics are from like 15 or more miles away! They supply 20 Megawatts of power as a supplement to the insland's electricity generation. Much of it is stored into huge batteries and exported overseas on ships. I'll be back there soon... will take a few more pics.

http://www.pcj.com/wigton_windfarm_proj ... wwfja.com/



Barely visible in the background....



Complimentary Jamaican eye candy.... sorry bout the dude in the shot... Those were FUN TIMES!!!




Modified by DrewQ45 at 9:54 AM 12/16/2006

[maxnix]

A couple of things people seem to be forgetting.

First, the bond between hydrogen and oxygen is pretty strong, and it takes a lot of energy to break that bond to separate them.

Second, fission leaves behind particularly poisionous radioactive wastes which have half-lives measured in the tens of thousands of years. Like when h0m0 sapiens were hunting and gathering, exterminating the neanderthals, and drawing on cave walls. And fission plant accidents can be particularly bad for those anywhere near, and for a very long time. See Chernobyl.

Third, because of our atmosphere, solar energy reaching us is greatly reduced. A good thing as without it and the magnetic fields, the earth would be pretty much like the moon. So unless the surface of the US was covered in solar cells, it would be difficult to get the energy we require.

Finally, where does all the enregy come from to make these batteries, solar cells, and powerplants, mine these minerals, manufacture these devices, and to dispose and replace them? It isn't the sun, the rain, or the wind, or the sun in real time.

The Dutch have some interesting electrical generation from tidal movement. But of course it is petroleum power that makes this technology possible to construct initially.

[DrewQ45]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/obje...L&o=0

[bbdaines]

You all missed the important part of the thread, how is Jeff coming on his Twin Turbo Powerstroke Transplant for Lola!!!

And notice the guy from Tx nixing the idea of anything but oil!!

LOL

Blair

[tkd_q45]

I've heard from way back that hydrogen is just not practicle as I'e heard (and is stated here as well) that it takes more energy to produce than praticle, yet gets a lot of hype. I've heard similar problems with corn based ethanol.

What about bio-diesel?

[elwesso]

Bio-diesel is kind of like ethanol, except its not as bad. Basically they have problems when they intially switch (diesel is a dirty fuel) and biodiesel basically cleans all the crud out of the fuel system and can clog fuel injectors and fuel filters.. Once that is done, the vehicle will run not too bad, with only a slighly reduced efficiency rating. I think its like 10%, so its roughly the same as ethanol E85, however its easier to produce biodiesel than it is to produce ethanol/E85.

I dont see hydrogen as being something that our economy can depend on... I see more of a future in something like compressed natural gas... There is a place in san francisco that takes foodstuffs from the garbage and somehow digests it and creates natural gas that way.. not sure if its cost justifiable, but we already have the means to transport and distribute CNG... Many 3rd world countries use CNG over gasoline because its cheaper.... It also burns cleaner, but I wont be hypocrytical and pretend to care about pollution!!

Theres so many more things that are more efficient than the internal combustion engine, but its the fact that its so well known (its all we know!) and so cheap to produce its stupid to change to anything....... until we have to...

It will be very interesting to see where we are 10 years from now.... Certainly, the oil bearing countries will have a hard time staying on the map if we can come with a way to make our own energy...

I honestly think that before we come up with all this new technology to MAKE energy, we need to come up with a way to STORE energy in a not so expensive way.... WE already have the means to make energy, but we dont always have it in real time! Prepaid energy for your house!!!

[PoorManQ45]

And fission plant accidents can be particularly bad for those anywhere near, and for a very long time. See Chernobyl.

Ok, so one accident, 3 mile island doesn't count because NOONE was hurt!

BTW, chernobyl wasn't the worst accident. I just saw the Nuclear episode of Modern Marvels. IIRC it was in a lab in the US. They used sodium as the coolant, this mixes with water and turned to goop and clogged the coolant lines. Over half the fuel rods gisintergrated. There was no containment dome due to the fact that it was a test lab.

ANyways, there have been millions of car accidents, yet we still drive cars!