http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html
There"s a show that aired a few years ago in the UK. It features an interesting way to produce hydrogen using an ordinary electric outlet. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2464139837181538044
Ethanol doesn't far any better unless you have an unlimited supply of fresh water.
Nuclear still the best for future energy needs.
Nuclear still the best for future energy needs.
actually, when you take into consideration the cost of building the nuclear plant, fuelling the nuclear plant, warding off terrorists trying to steal your fuel or crash planes into your plant, and the cost of disposing of all the highly dangerous waste, and then the cost of decommissioning your plant, then you end up with a significant negative number. nuclear is not cost-effective.
this is not to mention the VAST amount of water that a nuclear power station consumes....
the real answer is Concentrating Solar Power - cheap to build, power at the same cost (or less) than coal, can be retrofitted onto your standard coal-fired power station with a minimum of fuss. cheap, quick, clean technology that we have now.
this is not to mention the VAST amount of water that a nuclear power station consumes....
the real answer is Concentrating Solar Power - cheap to build, power at the same cost (or less) than coal, can be retrofitted onto your standard coal-fired power station with a minimum of fuss. cheap, quick, clean technology that we have now.
The author seems either biased or ignorant. There are several new technologies being developed in this area that he apparently ignored. Many of them have been covered by physorg.com at one time or another. Solid state hydrogen storage. Solar powered electrolysis. Bacteria powered electrolysis. Nano-tech boosted efficiency fuel cells. And although it's possible that even should all these technologies work out the bottom line energy analysis will not change, by failing to mention any of them in the analysis, his credibility has been shot to hell.
The Tesla Magnifying Transmitter may help in regard to "Broadcasting" power created through Hydrogen technology if it's developement were taken more seriously by mainstream engineers. Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Power represent a Death sentence for the people of the future no matter how you dice it up. Solar power has shown much greater promise in recent times. Wind power and wave power will surely cause as yet poorly understood damage to the environment. (climate disturbances?) There is only one true solution; reduce consumption drammatically. How? Stop making so damn many consumers!
Nuclear power plants use no more water then an equivelent power plant of any type. (heat boils water, steam turns turbine, some lose of water is inevitable like in every power plant) I'm sick of people spouting off on things they know nothing about.
Of course Nuclear power plants are cost effective. The only reason why there is so much trouble is all the lawsuits and such involved in their construction and running. If not for those it would be "to cheap to meter" since once it is built and running the power itself is almost free compared to rawmaterial intensive powerplants. (Coal, Gas, etc.)
Of course Nuclear power plants are cost effective. The only reason why there is so much trouble is all the lawsuits and such involved in their construction and running. If not for those it would be "to cheap to meter" since once it is built and running the power itself is almost free compared to rawmaterial intensive powerplants. (Coal, Gas, etc.)
Also.... while we are on the subject of Hydrogen power...
Have you seen the waste and energy it takes to make gasoline?
Have you seen the waste and energy it takes to make gasoline?
travis, are you resopnding to the scientist or the author? perhaps if you took the time out of your outrageously busy schedule to read who the author actually was, you'd realize that in fact, her name is "Lisa" which, last I checked, is (surprise!) a girl's name. Why don't you do your research before you leave ignorant comments?
besides, there are so many possible technologies to improve hydrogen that if the author would have chosen to list just a couple, it would have been biased to leave the others out. anyway, that's besides the point.
besides, there are so many possible technologies to improve hydrogen that if the author would have chosen to list just a couple, it would have been biased to leave the others out. anyway, that's besides the point.
Yes, the scenario painted by the author would be poor... but is that a fault of the Hydrogen fuel cell technology, or the energy distribution scheme. Why not use the Hydrogen fuel cell as energy storage for a solar electric collection grid. Excess from the grid is used during the day, while the stored energy is available at night. Lets look outside yesterdays economic models for better solutions. After all, our present economics will not delivery us lasting sustainability.
Straight electrolysis is for fools.
Also not mentioned are the new Syngas techniques for extracting Hydrogen (and CO) from waste plant material.
And compression storage ? That has been outmoded for a while now.
You don't make PURE Hydrogen and store it.
You make Hydrogen containing substances and store THOSE.
This article is rather poor fare.
Also not mentioned are the new Syngas techniques for extracting Hydrogen (and CO) from waste plant material.
And compression storage ? That has been outmoded for a while now.
You don't make PURE Hydrogen and store it.
You make Hydrogen containing substances and store THOSE.
This article is rather poor fare.
One way of making hydrogen a feasible energy source would be to use a boron catalyst, at the time of use, instead of extracting and transporting the hydrogen itself. That way you just have to carry around water, which is much easier.
Plus nuclear fusion is definitely the way forward.
Plus nuclear fusion is definitely the way forward.
QUOTE
“About four renewable power plants have to be erected to deliver the output of one plant to stationary or mobile consumers via hydrogen and fuel cells,” he writes. “Three of these plants generate energy to cover the parasitic losses of the hydrogen economy while only one of them is producing useful energy.”
This fact, he shows, cannot be changed with improvements in technology
Rather, the one-quarter efficiency is based on necessary processes of a hydrogen economy and the properties of hydrogen itself, e.g. its low density and extremely low boiling point, which increase the energy cost of compression or liquefaction and the investment costs of storage.
This fact, he shows, cannot be changed with improvements in technology
Rather, the one-quarter efficiency is based on necessary processes of a hydrogen economy and the properties of hydrogen itself, e.g. its low density and extremely low boiling point, which increase the energy cost of compression or liquefaction and the investment costs of storage.
This article may have a point if only current technology is taken into account. Currently it does make more sense to use batteries rather than hydrogen as energy storage.
Just because the author can't think of a way to make more efficient does not make it so.
however i think many people ignored that the traditional gas industry ARE trying to take a bite of the the new technology.....maintaining monopoly position.... is more important than passing the "profit making crown" to the electricity generators...
we consumers do not make decisions...it is up to what developers has to OFFER, combine with good marketing tools.
remember we are evolving society, naturally people don't want changes unless absolutely necessary......
plus you still want to preserve the investment you have in your petroleum-powered-cars...right ???
we consumers do not make decisions...it is up to what developers has to OFFER, combine with good marketing tools.
remember we are evolving society, naturally people don't want changes unless absolutely necessary......
plus you still want to preserve the investment you have in your petroleum-powered-cars...right ???
Ulf's comments on the unrealistic expectations of the Hydrogen Economy have all been stated before in one form or another.
The reality is that there is wastefulness in ALL the processes we use to generate and use power in today's world.
While it is undeniable that the current technology of conversion of Renewable Electricity to final use in Hydrogen Fuel Cells is not as efficient as we would want, the very important point that must be made is that Ulf has inserted compression [very wasteful] or liquefaction [also wasteful] into his schemes.
What Ulf should probably reconsider is that there are high-pressure electrolysers now on the market which output at about 200bar, rendering unnecessary the downstream compression or liquefaction processes.
While these high pressure electrolysers do use more electricity than low-pressure units, their increase in power demand is less than linearly increasing as output pressure rises, hence, efficiency is somewhat enhanced.
In addition, as another observer has noted, solid state storage is advancing rapidly and that alone will further enhance the efficieny of use of fuel cells.
While FCs are, according to Ulf's schemes, still some way from being as efficient as battery storage schemes, it should be noted that batteries, even those manufactured with the environment in mind, are not very environmentally friendly & they are heavy - decreasing their supposed efficiency as a lot of the energy stored in the batteries must be used to move them, when used in transport applications..
Ulf, you certainly are accurately addressing some of the deficiencies of hydrogen fuel cells, but by selectively omitting their good points, you portray yourself as somewhat biased and we can only wonder why.
The reality is that there is wastefulness in ALL the processes we use to generate and use power in today's world.
While it is undeniable that the current technology of conversion of Renewable Electricity to final use in Hydrogen Fuel Cells is not as efficient as we would want, the very important point that must be made is that Ulf has inserted compression [very wasteful] or liquefaction [also wasteful] into his schemes.
What Ulf should probably reconsider is that there are high-pressure electrolysers now on the market which output at about 200bar, rendering unnecessary the downstream compression or liquefaction processes.
While these high pressure electrolysers do use more electricity than low-pressure units, their increase in power demand is less than linearly increasing as output pressure rises, hence, efficiency is somewhat enhanced.
In addition, as another observer has noted, solid state storage is advancing rapidly and that alone will further enhance the efficieny of use of fuel cells.
While FCs are, according to Ulf's schemes, still some way from being as efficient as battery storage schemes, it should be noted that batteries, even those manufactured with the environment in mind, are not very environmentally friendly & they are heavy - decreasing their supposed efficiency as a lot of the energy stored in the batteries must be used to move them, when used in transport applications..
Ulf, you certainly are accurately addressing some of the deficiencies of hydrogen fuel cells, but by selectively omitting their good points, you portray yourself as somewhat biased and we can only wonder why.
Hallelujah - someone promoting logic for a change !!.
We now suffer the results of giving in to the Eco terrorists stopping the development of safe nuclear power plants over the last 20 years. If we resited them, we now would have had ample electricity to heat our buildings, do electric cars and transport systems etc.
Lets hope sanity prevails and we catch up on nuclear technology in the next 30 years to solve the 'Energy Crisis'.
Man, this was refreshing to read !!
We now suffer the results of giving in to the Eco terrorists stopping the development of safe nuclear power plants over the last 20 years. If we resited them, we now would have had ample electricity to heat our buildings, do electric cars and transport systems etc.
Lets hope sanity prevails and we catch up on nuclear technology in the next 30 years to solve the 'Energy Crisis'.
Man, this was refreshing to read !!
1. Energy is neither created nor destroyed.
2. We need to find a more economical way of using energy.
3. We need to find more energy resources or the way to convert something as the power sources
4. For mobile energy resources, e.g. for mobile electronics, we just balance the safety and energy density, and the cost
5. For vehicles, we just need some sort of energy can replace oil to solve the problem of dependent of only one energy resources of oil which is pictured as be used up very soon.
6. In addition to 5, batteries for EV are supposed to be more envirornmentlly friendly
2. We need to find a more economical way of using energy.
3. We need to find more energy resources or the way to convert something as the power sources
4. For mobile energy resources, e.g. for mobile electronics, we just balance the safety and energy density, and the cost
5. For vehicles, we just need some sort of energy can replace oil to solve the problem of dependent of only one energy resources of oil which is pictured as be used up very soon.
6. In addition to 5, batteries for EV are supposed to be more envirornmentlly friendly
I agree with Travis.
Most oponents of hydrogen (like the author of the article) simply look at current costs/feasibility and compare it with fossil fuel.
Further development in the area of electrolysis using renewable energy means it doesn't matter if you don't get 100% efficiency. (And technically this is achievable today it is just not justifiable with current low oil/gas prices.)
If you to this add a global Peak oil / gas environment where oil/gas production goes into exhaunerable decline and ever increasing cost, hydrogen will seem much more attractive.
Most oponents of hydrogen (like the author of the article) simply look at current costs/feasibility and compare it with fossil fuel.
Further development in the area of electrolysis using renewable energy means it doesn't matter if you don't get 100% efficiency. (And technically this is achievable today it is just not justifiable with current low oil/gas prices.)
If you to this add a global Peak oil / gas environment where oil/gas production goes into exhaunerable decline and ever increasing cost, hydrogen will seem much more attractive.
Normally hydrogen is not created through electrolysis of water, in fact that would really be a waste of precious time and energy, since you'll need to add energy equivalent to the enthalpy of formation for water, just to gain the same energy when mixing the H2 and O2. Normally hydrogen is created from steam reforming of nature gas/carbonhydrides through the catalytic processes:
CnHm + nH2O -> nCO + (m/2+n)H2
CO + H2O -> CO2 + H2
The processes are endothermic, hence they need energy which is usually added through indirect burners (and these also produce carbon dioxide when burning the fuel gas) - furthermore they happen at pressures around 5-6 atm.
I am not sure why the author did not have a look at how the chemical industry usually creates hydrogen..?
CnHm + nH2O -> nCO + (m/2+n)H2
CO + H2O -> CO2 + H2
The processes are endothermic, hence they need energy which is usually added through indirect burners (and these also produce carbon dioxide when burning the fuel gas) - furthermore they happen at pressures around 5-6 atm.
I am not sure why the author did not have a look at how the chemical industry usually creates hydrogen..?
Batteries need replacing regularly. The energy used in manufacturing them is not included in the analysis and they are also very expensive. So I think the conclusion of the report is false.
I'm not sure what this guy's credentials are, but none of this makes sense even from a BASIC high school physics standpoint! Of course a hydrogen economy would work! as to needing to allow fuel to evaporate during storage.. makes no sense whatsoever. I have stored hydrogen in propane and carbon fiber scuba tanks for years, as have welding supply houses, hydrogen fueled cars, etc. This entire article is propaganda from an oil company. do some basic research. the information's out there and NONE of the scholarly journals or schools agree with this lunatic.
I have looked at his study of "Physics" and find that there are a lot of problems with his assumptions and conclusions.
He has left out many current facts about electrolysis and has seemingly distorted the performance of even conventional electrolysis and compressor performance that do not support his study.
He also has left out the inability of batteries to be effective in hauling loads or of providing reasonable ranges of operation. For example, a semi-trailer truck would be hauling more weight in batteries than in freight. BEV's only make sense for small city cars.
I don't know his motivations but they sure seem biased.
He has left out many current facts about electrolysis and has seemingly distorted the performance of even conventional electrolysis and compressor performance that do not support his study.
He also has left out the inability of batteries to be effective in hauling loads or of providing reasonable ranges of operation. For example, a semi-trailer truck would be hauling more weight in batteries than in freight. BEV's only make sense for small city cars.
I don't know his motivations but they sure seem biased.
Costs of manufacture? Costs to dispose/recycle/replace parts? Durability? Upside potential for an equivalent $$$ investment in each? Not a very holisitc perspective on the issue, but what he does discuss seems accurate. . .
Part of the assumption is starting with a renewable energy resource. proceeding from there to end use. But the diagram should have gone up further on the energy chain.
The point is well taken that hydrogen is on the surface a clean fuel that when "burned" in a fuel cell can give better efficiency than normal internal combustion engines, but creating storing and transporting hydrogen is definately as stated very inefficient. We need to find a way to power automobiles as efficiently as we can our homes. I agree that electricity is the best way to do this but battery technology just isn't going to improve by any great jumps. We have long known how to electrify railroads and indeed this type of transportation is probably the best use of energy known. We need to take this technology over to the freeways. We do not need to electrify all the roads or make sophisticated crossover circuits available everywhere. With on board energy storage batteries and the ability of the vehicle to pickup more power off the overhead grid wires than it is using, the vehicle could have virtually unlimited range and oly have to be connected for a portion of the time. Of course the vehicle would have to communicate with the system so the power is appropriately paid for. The battery technology is already very well known that can give a car upto 100 mile ranges, so basically only the major throughfares between cities would need to be electrified, and of course the cars could be recharged in the evenings at home. Another ignored source of power would be solar panels on the roof which could trickle charge batteries while the car is just sitting out in the sunlight.
Here are several additional articles that I found by Ulf Bossel as well as others. Take the first Google hit using "Ulf Bossel" Sorry, they won't let me include links.
One point that Bossel makes that seems very salient is that "Hydrogen has to compete with its own energy source. Therefore it will always be an expensive fuel." I see that as his main point. That will be true for ALL hydrogen generation technologies, old or new, no matter how clever, no matter how efficient. There is ALWAYS a loss in any conversion, and a hydrogen economy would involve more conversions than, say, good old fashioned electricity.
As far as electricity is concerned, there may turn out to be more ways of storing electricity in a vehicle than batteries. Any EE knows that capacitors are also energy storage devices, and research has been promising in this area. We may see this as an alternative in the next few years.
Also, who says that automobiles are the only solution? There are some pretty appealing (IMHO) alternatives that are offered. For example, check out "skytran" (the first Google hit). The author presents a good deal of information. A lot to read and mull over there.
One point that Bossel makes that seems very salient is that "Hydrogen has to compete with its own energy source. Therefore it will always be an expensive fuel." I see that as his main point. That will be true for ALL hydrogen generation technologies, old or new, no matter how clever, no matter how efficient. There is ALWAYS a loss in any conversion, and a hydrogen economy would involve more conversions than, say, good old fashioned electricity.
As far as electricity is concerned, there may turn out to be more ways of storing electricity in a vehicle than batteries. Any EE knows that capacitors are also energy storage devices, and research has been promising in this area. We may see this as an alternative in the next few years.
Also, who says that automobiles are the only solution? There are some pretty appealing (IMHO) alternatives that are offered. For example, check out "skytran" (the first Google hit). The author presents a good deal of information. A lot to read and mull over there.
Electricity generated by Fusion is the ultimate solution. No nuclear wastes. Like having the power of the sun on the earth. The electron economy will then be real and be able to provide cheap power for all activities requiring power. The efficient transmission of electric power is one area where various new technologies involving super-conduction will play a large role.
QUOTE (travis+Dec 11 2006, 10:01 PM)
The author seems either biased or ignorant... Solar powered electrolysis.
How does solar powered electrolysis change the author's rational at all? Or do you mean something other than solar power through photovoltaics?
IMHO, The hydrogen economy is a pretty peice of cloth that TPTB wave around promissing to give you "one day", so that you won't notice the century old technology that you can have now that meets most of your needs, without any costly ifrastructure buildup.
The truth is that for a modest investment (say $5000) you can convert your present car to lead-acid battery power and it will meet your needs 90% of the time. The other 10% use a 2nd car or rent something.
How does solar powered electrolysis change the author's rational at all? Or do you mean something other than solar power through photovoltaics?
IMHO, The hydrogen economy is a pretty peice of cloth that TPTB wave around promissing to give you "one day", so that you won't notice the century old technology that you can have now that meets most of your needs, without any costly ifrastructure buildup.
The truth is that for a modest investment (say $5000) you can convert your present car to lead-acid battery power and it will meet your needs 90% of the time. The other 10% use a 2nd car or rent something.
QUOTE (Guest_trgregory+Dec 12 2006, 05:54 PM)
Electricity generated by Fusion is the ultimate solution. No nuclear wastes. Like having the power of the sun on the earth. The electron economy will then be real and be able to provide cheap power for all activities requiring power. The efficient transmission of electric power is one area where various new technologies involving super-conduction will play a large role.
Not that I totally disagree with you, but I'd point out we have nice safe giant fusion reactor already. It transmits its power to us with nearly 100% efficiency. It's not just like having the power of the sun on Earth, it is the power of the sun on Earth. It is the sun, and all you have to do is put up a receiver.
Not that I totally disagree with you, but I'd point out we have nice safe giant fusion reactor already. It transmits its power to us with nearly 100% efficiency. It's not just like having the power of the sun on Earth, it is the power of the sun on Earth. It is the sun, and all you have to do is put up a receiver.
I'm with Travis here this article either misrepresents the research or the research is unfairly making overbroad conclusions.
Yes, everyone has recognized for sometime that making hydrogen by simple room temperature electrolysis and keeping liquid hydrogen in cars is unworkable. This is why they have more efficient solutions like the nuclear co-production of hydrogen with the waste heat from their electricity generation. Also why hydrogen in cars would be stored in porous metals.
Yes, everyone has recognized for sometime that making hydrogen by simple room temperature electrolysis and keeping liquid hydrogen in cars is unworkable. This is why they have more efficient solutions like the nuclear co-production of hydrogen with the waste heat from their electricity generation. Also why hydrogen in cars would be stored in porous metals.
Just to clarify it isn't obvious to me that the hydrogen economy is workable or a good idea but this isn't enough to show it isn't.
We need *something* like the hydrogen economy though. In particular batter technology just doesn't have good enough power density to meet many usage requirements. If you want something to power farm machines, generators and all sorts of other gadgets you need some kind of dense chemical power source.
In short we need to replace gasoline with something. Admittedly there are non-hydrogen alternatives that might be reasonable, like various alcohols or other combustible organics.
We need *something* like the hydrogen economy though. In particular batter technology just doesn't have good enough power density to meet many usage requirements. If you want something to power farm machines, generators and all sorts of other gadgets you need some kind of dense chemical power source.
In short we need to replace gasoline with something. Admittedly there are non-hydrogen alternatives that might be reasonable, like various alcohols or other combustible organics.
I think it is healthy to have choice which is why I support Hydrogen and Electron models.
I agree with others, that while I read the article I thought it was a reflection of current understanding but as others have said in the last few weeks there have been articles addressing some of the problems associated with hydrogen such as storage and more efficient electrolysis.
In the end I still side with electricity because the infrastructure already exists or would at least be easier to upgrade where necessary.
The important point is that we move away from carbon. I do think it is worrying when I read that money pumped into Hydrogen is unrepresentative of it's readiness to market especially when electric cars seem to be much closer to a useful product. The implication being that electric cars are being delayed and that is frustrating.
I agree with others, that while I read the article I thought it was a reflection of current understanding but as others have said in the last few weeks there have been articles addressing some of the problems associated with hydrogen such as storage and more efficient electrolysis.
In the end I still side with electricity because the infrastructure already exists or would at least be easier to upgrade where necessary.
The important point is that we move away from carbon. I do think it is worrying when I read that money pumped into Hydrogen is unrepresentative of it's readiness to market especially when electric cars seem to be much closer to a useful product. The implication being that electric cars are being delayed and that is frustrating.
The long-term future of energy, including transportation, is electricity. For personal transport, that's likely to be a combination of ultra-capacitors for short power peaks and eg. lithium batteries for medium trips. The battery part of the power pack (batteries and charger) will be modular plug-in units rentable charged or uncharged from your local service stations, and if you want to travel more than the 150 miles provided by the batteries, you get the service station to replace them with a hydrogen fuel cell and liquid hydrogen tank module. All are paid for on a daily basis. The capacitors stay with the vehicle to accumulate energy from regenerative braking and to supplement peak power flows for acceleration.
All land freight will move by rail in containers which will be shunted at start and end by hydrogen fueled piston engine or fuel cell trucks.
The relatively small amounts of hydrogen required will be centrally generated by ideally photosynthesizing enzymes (google Melis) or sulphur-thermal cracking of water, heat provided either by solar concentrators or high-temp fission or fusion reactions.
Of course bio-fuels can pick up part of the fuel demand, certainly at least all required for commercial air transport and likely a lot of electricity generation in units from large central CHP district heating stations to single home sized combined heat and power generators (if the electrical distribution utilities were smart they'd be installing wood pellet fueled stirling engine-[generator+refrigeration] units as well as transformers on every streetcorner, metering the electricity, heating fluid and cooling fluid into every house. Twice a week a service truck would come around and re-fill the fuel pellet bin and collect the ash. tadda -- completely sustainable, convenient, distributed generation, and profitable too)
Also worth noting that the ONLY sure way to sequester carbon from fossil fuels is not to dig it up in the first place. Any other approach, and it will eventually likely escape, much to the detriment of any nearby oxygen-breathing mammals.
Anyway....
All land freight will move by rail in containers which will be shunted at start and end by hydrogen fueled piston engine or fuel cell trucks.
The relatively small amounts of hydrogen required will be centrally generated by ideally photosynthesizing enzymes (google Melis) or sulphur-thermal cracking of water, heat provided either by solar concentrators or high-temp fission or fusion reactions.
Of course bio-fuels can pick up part of the fuel demand, certainly at least all required for commercial air transport and likely a lot of electricity generation in units from large central CHP district heating stations to single home sized combined heat and power generators (if the electrical distribution utilities were smart they'd be installing wood pellet fueled stirling engine-[generator+refrigeration] units as well as transformers on every streetcorner, metering the electricity, heating fluid and cooling fluid into every house. Twice a week a service truck would come around and re-fill the fuel pellet bin and collect the ash. tadda -- completely sustainable, convenient, distributed generation, and profitable too)
Also worth noting that the ONLY sure way to sequester carbon from fossil fuels is not to dig it up in the first place. Any other approach, and it will eventually likely escape, much to the detriment of any nearby oxygen-breathing mammals.
Anyway....
Who knows what might be developed in the future, what is currently clear is that electric cars are the way of the short and medium term future. Either totally electric like the Tesla Roadster (there are other companies making with similar cars in development and Tesla will come out with a much cheaper sedan in a few years) or in hybrid form. We will see serial hybrid designs in a few years that make hybrids MUCH more efficient, and combine that with a small superefficient diesel engine and we'll see, if memory serves, something like 90ish+ mpg. With energy prices meandering upwards and renewable technologies getting cheaper, who knows how long it will take, but eventually solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, etc will inevitably become cheaper than other forms. They even have solar strips you can glue to your hybrid now that make it so your batteries charge while your car sits in the sun, heheh.
Like I said above though, who knows what technology will be developed in the future, so I say we let the scientists do their thing and whatever ends up being the most efficient and inexpensive is what the market will go after.
Saying that anyone knows for sure what the long term prospects are as far as what technology will end up on top is absurd, but I wouldn't be saving money for a hydrogen car thats for damn sure. As soon as I'm out of college I'll be saving up my money for the first decent sedan under 35K$ with a serial hybrid. The other stuff is still far off enough that who the hell knows what'll happen.
Like I said above though, who knows what technology will be developed in the future, so I say we let the scientists do their thing and whatever ends up being the most efficient and inexpensive is what the market will go after.
Saying that anyone knows for sure what the long term prospects are as far as what technology will end up on top is absurd, but I wouldn't be saving money for a hydrogen car thats for damn sure. As soon as I'm out of college I'll be saving up my money for the first decent sedan under 35K$ with a serial hybrid. The other stuff is still far off enough that who the hell knows what'll happen.
The writer's in over his head on this story about hydrogen fuel cells. This person has tried to make a valid argument against hydrogen fuel cells, but obviously failed. Hydrogen fuel cells haven't gone to market, so this writer tried to make it sound like it could never be done. Well you can think anything you want to it's a free country. My own little peeve is this, get out of Iraq, and take the 5 billion a month spent on the war and reinvest in America's top 500 corporations to develop and market hydrogen fuel cells. The stock market would soar on news of high tech bidding for research and development of hydrogen fuel cells. I believe in American corporations having the ability to over come obvious problems and bring fuel cells to market. As for this story I write it off as more pro-war propaganda aimed at wasting resources, lives, and time.
Actually if enough thought is given to the subject, you realize, no one source can handle the demand for use in all purposes. Number one you consider the greatest waste of energy, heating a two thousand square foot or larger house, for one or two or even more occupants, using oil as the prime source, eighty plus percent efficiency, pollution, and threat of fire, this includes natural gas, both finite sources.Fusion is the only conversion vehicle that would even begin coming close to meet the demand of Hydrogen fuel. Alcohol is a joke. here again you you plow, fertilize, use pesticides, harvest, process to produce a fuel without the btu,s of oil. Solar power, wave generators, wind power and a series of dams directing the flow throgh generators, many small, without the large dams that destroy wildlife, but smaller diversion units that produce a large amount, through quantity alone." Pennies make dollars" or doesn't common sense count? Pellet stoves, " of which I have one furnace and two smaller units, provide heat for both of my properties at about one third the cost of oil,this is conservation at it's best . As a former lumberjack, fifty or more years ago, I know when you cut a tree in a mature forest, fity will grow in it's place, providing food and shelter. A chord of wood weighs approx. thirty four hundred pounds, a pound of pellets produces eighty two hundred btu,s. Forests produce tremendous amounts of methane { science weekly, discover magazine] Tees are carbon sinks,whether they burn or rot, carbon dioxide is returned to the environment. Think about the hundreds of thousands of acres of forest fires, when they holler save the trees, for what? selective cutting. s of now the best alternative to gasoline in autos is electricity, but a network has to be set up for repleneshing the charge or a constant source, even as it's being used. More and better public transportation is obviously the best, but I have three vehicles, damned if I'll quit driving.
Actually if enough thought is given to the subject, you realize, no one source can handle the demand for use in all purposes. Number one you consider the greatest waste of energy, heating a two thousand square foot or larger house, for one or two or even more occupants, using oil as the prime source, eighty plus percent efficiency, pollution, and threat of fire, this includes natural gas, both finite sources.Fusion is the only conversion vehicle that would even begin coming close to meet the demand of Hydrogen fuel. Alcohol is a joke. here again you you plow, fertilize, use pesticides, harvest, process to produce a fuel without the btu,s of oil. Solar power, wave generators, wind power and a series of dams directing the flow throgh generators, many small, without the large dams that destroy wildlife, but smaller diversion units that produce a large amount, through quantity alone." Pennies make dollars" or doesn't common sense count? Pellet stoves, " of which I have one furnace and two smaller units, provide heat for both of my properties at about one third the cost of oil,this is conservation at it's best . As a former lumberjack, fifty or more years ago, I know when you cut a tree in a mature forest, fity will grow in it's place, providing food and shelter. A chord of wood weighs approx. thirty four hundred pounds, a pound of pellets produces eighty two hundred btu,s. Forests produce tremendous amounts of methane { science weekly, discover magazine] Trees are carbon sinks,whether they burn or rot, carbon dioxide is returned to the environment. Think about the hundreds of thousands of acres of forest fires, when they holler save the trees, for what? selective cutting. s of now the best alternative to gasoline in autos is electricity, but a network has to be set up for repleneshing the charge or a constant source, even as it's being used. More and better public transportation is obviously the best, but I have three vehicles, damned if I'll quit driving.
The "Holy Grail" of hydrogen gas production could be a process called Radiolysis. Little known to the general public, it has already been going on every minute of every day for over half a century. The energy used to split the water into oxygen and hydrogen gases costs absolutely nothing and is currently in abundance. This energy source would be available for use for thousands of years to come, and is renewable. The untold volumes of oxygen and hydrogen gases that have already been continuously produced over the last fifty years have been simply released to the atmosphere. Wasted energy.
Any guesses?
Any guesses?
With our current technology, and with reasonable conservation methods, we could reduce the demand by a few percentage points. We need mandatory efficiency standards for buildings, etc. While living in Virginia Beach, a few residents put up concrete-foam homes. Cost about 10% more than a stick house to build. Their energy costs are extremely low, and the house is very quite due to the construction design. Not to mention the strength of such a unit, compared to sticks and nails.
There is an interesting internal combustion engine design that Carroll Shelby is part of, called OX2. Would be more efficient than current gasoline engines, cost less to produce, and weigh less. Mate that with a high-efficiency hybrid system and you have a winner. All with the current infrastructure we now have.
ox2engine . com
There is an interesting internal combustion engine design that Carroll Shelby is part of, called OX2. Would be more efficient than current gasoline engines, cost less to produce, and weigh less. Mate that with a high-efficiency hybrid system and you have a winner. All with the current infrastructure we now have.
ox2engine . com
It seems that Ulf Bossel has been talking about this subject for a number of years. Below is a criticism of one of his papers from 2003.
www.hyweb.de/News/LBST_Comments-on-Eliasson-Bossel-Papers_July2003_protected.pdf
www.hyweb.de/News/LBST_Comments-on-Eliasson-Bossel-Papers_July2003_protected.pdf
Until the "big boys" decide that they want alternates, we will have to bend to their whims. There has been a simple solution for almost 20 years (see cornish hydrogen under goggle etc), and until the man in the street starts standing together and demanding change, nothing will change !!
Lastly the "big boys" don't like systems such as this, as they cannot CONTROL it.
Lastly the "big boys" don't like systems such as this, as they cannot CONTROL it.
QUOTE (travis+Dec 11 2006, 10:01 PM)
The author seems either biased or ignorant. There are several new technologies being developed in this area that he apparently ignored. Many of them have been covered by physorg.com at one time or another. Solid state hydrogen storage. Solar powered electrolysis. Bacteria powered electrolysis. Nano-tech boosted efficiency fuel cells. And although it's possible that even should all these technologies work out the bottom line energy analysis will not change, by failing to mention any of them in the analysis, his credibility has been shot to hell.
Perhaps Dr. Ulf does not present an entirely exhaustive comparison, but I think the extreme losses exhibited in liquification and compression techniques is quite telling. Even if new technologies are slightly better, it won't help. They would have to be more than 4 times better to compete with an electron economy. I don't think Dr. Ulf's credibility is harmed in the slightest. From the report:
"Unfortunately, politics seems to listen to the advice of visionaries, lobby
groups and environmental activists, all presenting qualitative arguments, but
hardly ever based their arguments on facts and laws of physics. A secure
sustainable energy future cannot be based on shaky arguments, hype and
political activism, but has to be built on solid grounds of established science."
"In fact, the results of our study confirm the findings of
published well-to-wheel studies of hydrogen groups. The only difference is that
we compare a future hydrogen economy with a future electron economy while
our critics compare the future hydrogen economy with the present fossil fuel situation."
Perhaps Dr. Ulf does not present an entirely exhaustive comparison, but I think the extreme losses exhibited in liquification and compression techniques is quite telling. Even if new technologies are slightly better, it won't help. They would have to be more than 4 times better to compete with an electron economy. I don't think Dr. Ulf's credibility is harmed in the slightest. From the report:
"Unfortunately, politics seems to listen to the advice of visionaries, lobby
groups and environmental activists, all presenting qualitative arguments, but
hardly ever based their arguments on facts and laws of physics. A secure
sustainable energy future cannot be based on shaky arguments, hype and
political activism, but has to be built on solid grounds of established science."
"In fact, the results of our study confirm the findings of
published well-to-wheel studies of hydrogen groups. The only difference is that
we compare a future hydrogen economy with a future electron economy while
our critics compare the future hydrogen economy with the present fossil fuel situation."
If we had an economy running largely on nuclear reactors, as France has, it might become economicly viable. Reactors don't do variable output well so at 2 AM when everybody is asleep they have nothing to do. As very little of the cost of nuclear is fuel & mostly it is plant regulations that stop people switching off & going home for the night the marginal cost of any electricity might well be so low as to make hydrogen worth it even at 25% efficiency.
There was simply no purpose in writing this article. It makes as much sense as wondering if electric batteries will ever be able to replace coal as a source of energy. The entire premise was disturbingly pointless.
I'm stunned that a professional science editorial staff is confused about the difference between an "energy transport" and an "energy source".
For those few who don't already know:
Hydrogen can only be used to transport or store energy. As such, it makes no sense to compare hydrogen to energy sources such as oil, coal, and nuclear.
(The only exception is if somebody actually finds a natural deposit of hydrogen gas somewhere, but that's usually not what people mean when they talk about hydrogen.)
However, it makes perfect sense to compare hydrogen to electric power lines or batteries. I.e. they are infrastructures that we invest in to transport or store energy.
I'm stunned that a professional science editorial staff is confused about the difference between an "energy transport" and an "energy source".
For those few who don't already know:
Hydrogen can only be used to transport or store energy. As such, it makes no sense to compare hydrogen to energy sources such as oil, coal, and nuclear.
(The only exception is if somebody actually finds a natural deposit of hydrogen gas somewhere, but that's usually not what people mean when they talk about hydrogen.)
However, it makes perfect sense to compare hydrogen to electric power lines or batteries. I.e. they are infrastructures that we invest in to transport or store energy.
Bossel is full of . . .well Bossel ! The first place, hydrogen will not be delivered as in the "old" centralized gasoline distribution network. Chevron's Hydrogen Boss, Rick Zalesky has said: the old ways do not work. Chevron is building a network of hydrogen filling stations using LOCAL generation at the station. In the second place, the efficiency of the electric vehicle is low. See "well-to-wheel" efficiency below:
[B]oil-well-to-wheel efficiency: 14%
natural-gas-well-to-wheel efficiency: 38%
uranium-ore-to-nuclear plant-to-electric wheel efficiency: 8%
Solar-water-electrolysis-to-fuel-cell-vehicle efficiency: 42%[B]
This "shoots down" your organization chart comparing electric to hydrogen/FCV autos. Go figure !
see: www.hydrogennow.org or www.energypulse.net
No, Bossel, you are all wrong.
[B]oil-well-to-wheel efficiency: 14%
natural-gas-well-to-wheel efficiency: 38%
uranium-ore-to-nuclear plant-to-electric wheel efficiency: 8%
Solar-water-electrolysis-to-fuel-cell-vehicle efficiency: 42%[B]
This "shoots down" your organization chart comparing electric to hydrogen/FCV autos. Go figure !
see: www.hydrogennow.org or www.energypulse.net
No, Bossel, you are all wrong.
correction: "natural-gas-well-to-hydrogen-to-FCV efficiency: 38%
The only way I know how hudrogen might be used as energy source is that one:
Lenr-Canr
All other stuff is about energy strorage. Don't mix that.
/Joss
Lenr-Canr
All other stuff is about energy strorage. Don't mix that.
/Joss
I don't know why there is even a discusion about hydrogen right now. Hydrogen is an energy storage system and does not solve our energy problems at all. The electric infrastructure in this country is a mess and adding all the load from hydrogen, batteries, whatever, will send it to its knees. I don't care if we store energy as hydrogen, gasoline, biofuel, or poop. All this is secondary to the real problem of energy production. If we find an efficient source of renewable energy that can compete with the market, then the storage medium that works best will win out by natural free market forces. Hydrogen is nice but it will always be 10-15 years in the future. The real $ should go into solar energy. And by solar I mean all forms of energy that are also directly related to solar like wind, hydroelectric, wave, etc. All energy comes from the sun unless we start splitting or combining atoms.
Methinks a little research would show this bloke works for an [ahem- clears throat] oil company 
the only industry that stands to lose.
Electrolysis is already being done with solar
See here:
Overview:
complete [basic] circle of sustainable energy with near zero emissions encompassing all creature comforts plus transportation:
Step 1. AQUA SCIENCES extracts water from air with as little as 14% humidity.
H2O [Water + fuel source]
aquasciences.com/
Step 2. Water Splitting Equipment
Photoelectrochemical [ solar cells] Water Splitting for Hydrogen Production
HYDROGEN SOLAR
hydrogensolar.com/
Step 3. STORAGE
Hydrogen Fuel Cells and Retrofitted Hydrogen motors+generators [by-product=water]
for Home Appliances /Hot Water and Transportation
fuelcells.org/ +
*** fuelfromh2o.com/ builds HHO converters for cars***
Step 4. [SPREAD THE CHEER]
United Nations Expert Group on Technology Transfer
ttclear.unfccc.int/ttclear/jsp/index.jsp?mainFrame=../html/EgOverview.html/
the only industry that stands to lose.Electrolysis is already being done with solar
See here:
Overview:
complete [basic] circle of sustainable energy with near zero emissions encompassing all creature comforts plus transportation:
Step 1. AQUA SCIENCES extracts water from air with as little as 14% humidity.
H2O [Water + fuel source]
aquasciences.com/
Step 2. Water Splitting Equipment
Photoelectrochemical [ solar cells] Water Splitting for Hydrogen Production
HYDROGEN SOLAR
hydrogensolar.com/
Step 3. STORAGE
Hydrogen Fuel Cells and Retrofitted Hydrogen motors+generators [by-product=water]
for Home Appliances /Hot Water and Transportation
fuelcells.org/ +
*** fuelfromh2o.com/ builds HHO converters for cars***
Step 4. [SPREAD THE CHEER]
United Nations Expert Group on Technology Transfer
ttclear.unfccc.int/ttclear/jsp/index.jsp?mainFrame=../html/EgOverview.html/
So to clarify, it starts with water, [2/3 of earth surface], extract the hydrogen, use the energy, and the by-product is water- and zero emissions, no radiation, no smoke from coal plants, no CO2, no smoke or CO2 from oil or natural gas... ...do your research and you'll see the above is true. It's a sustainable circle. Plain as day. It's like someone offering you a million dollars and you say no thanks because you don't believe them. Kind Regards to all.
Except the 'extract the hydrogen' step requires a great deal of energy, which needs to come from somewhere
QUOTE (Guest_Mike+Dec 12 2006, 06:32 PM)
Not that I totally disagree with you, but I'd point out we have nice safe giant fusion reactor already. It transmits its power to us with nearly 100% efficiency. It's not just like having the power of the sun on Earth, it is the power of the sun on Earth. It is the sun, and all you have to do is put up a receiver.
You both have very good points, simple solar energy should be utilized.. however the fellow you corrected was talking about a future Thermonuclear FUSION plant not Fission plants like the ones that already exist. Fission would release massive amounts of energy from the fusion of Hydrogen in Tokamak Reactors. This energy could be used to safely generate electricity very inexpensively to meet the energy needs of everyone on Earth with just a few reactors.
The author of the article has said that hydrogen transportation infrastructure would detract from energy efficiency.. Hydrogen is a great resource because it can be extracted from water anywhere! The infrastructure changes are nothing larger of changing the gas station pumps and adding a water/power-line and storage tank. I still maintain the fact that although the conversion losses are worse than direct electricity storage they are not as bad as the author's predicted values.
Battery technological leaps and bounds actually have been made lately. GM's excuse of the Nickel metal-hydride batteries in EV's having poor driving ranges was demolished with Lithium ion batteries coming into the picture. Long charging times have been whittled down to around 10 minutes with the newest Li+ cell designs. Can you say limitless range?
So the dwindling limitations with using direct electrical power make it still superior to hydrogen and of course the pathetic combustion engine.
You both have very good points, simple solar energy should be utilized.. however the fellow you corrected was talking about a future Thermonuclear FUSION plant not Fission plants like the ones that already exist. Fission would release massive amounts of energy from the fusion of Hydrogen in Tokamak Reactors. This energy could be used to safely generate electricity very inexpensively to meet the energy needs of everyone on Earth with just a few reactors.
The author of the article has said that hydrogen transportation infrastructure would detract from energy efficiency.. Hydrogen is a great resource because it can be extracted from water anywhere! The infrastructure changes are nothing larger of changing the gas station pumps and adding a water/power-line and storage tank. I still maintain the fact that although the conversion losses are worse than direct electricity storage they are not as bad as the author's predicted values.
Battery technological leaps and bounds actually have been made lately. GM's excuse of the Nickel metal-hydride batteries in EV's having poor driving ranges was demolished with Lithium ion batteries coming into the picture. Long charging times have been whittled down to around 10 minutes with the newest Li+ cell designs. Can you say limitless range?
So the dwindling limitations with using direct electrical power make it still superior to hydrogen and of course the pathetic combustion engine.
I'm not a specialist, but there are some missing elements in the comparison between battery and hydrogen car efficiencies. The additional weight, durability (longevity), manufacturing and disposal of the batteries all contribute to making the battery car less efficient and more polluting than the H2 car. And on the hydrogen side, I think its a question of thinking outside of the box to increase the efficiency there. First I would think fuel cell technologies could get better than 50% efficiency. Second, why not get rid of the whole 'gas' distribution infrastructure (and its energy cost) and produce the hydrogen in the car from water and an electrical source (any outlet and a glass of water and you could fill up). Adding an electrolysis device is simple enough, storage could use materials that are porous to H2 and use relatively low pressures. I would also believe this 'recharging' could be done faster than with conventional batteries (electrolysis scales easily it's a question of how fast you can get the power from the grid thats the limit). This gets rid of pretty much all the compression and transport efficiencies for the H2.
I think its got to be fundamental that you can't get more efficient than storing your energy using the lightest atom capable of the most exothermic reaction with oxygen which is readily available over using heavy batteries where the storage efficiencies are bad, expensive and polluting. I know about lithium polymer batteries, I have some that can each produce 100W for 10 minutes at 100g and at a cost of over 50$ for the battery (they also have a nasty tendency of being incendiary). A car that would run for 100 minutes at high speed (5KW) would need 500 of these for 25000$ and 50KG of weight and in case of accidental fire you'd be able to burn a small town. On the other hand there is a unique elegance to the H2 cycle, being fully renewable (even the oxygen it consumes is returned to the atmosphere in its production), lightweight and pollution free (abstracting the source electricity generation and heat loss). I also have no doubt that the best energy distribution method is electricity, anyway the grid is already there and there are plenty of renewable ways to produce the electricity, so combining this with a hydrogen car that you 'recharge' makes sense to me.
BdC
I think its got to be fundamental that you can't get more efficient than storing your energy using the lightest atom capable of the most exothermic reaction with oxygen which is readily available over using heavy batteries where the storage efficiencies are bad, expensive and polluting. I know about lithium polymer batteries, I have some that can each produce 100W for 10 minutes at 100g and at a cost of over 50$ for the battery (they also have a nasty tendency of being incendiary). A car that would run for 100 minutes at high speed (5KW) would need 500 of these for 25000$ and 50KG of weight and in case of accidental fire you'd be able to burn a small town. On the other hand there is a unique elegance to the H2 cycle, being fully renewable (even the oxygen it consumes is returned to the atmosphere in its production), lightweight and pollution free (abstracting the source electricity generation and heat loss). I also have no doubt that the best energy distribution method is electricity, anyway the grid is already there and there are plenty of renewable ways to produce the electricity, so combining this with a hydrogen car that you 'recharge' makes sense to me.
BdC
To start with, NUCLEAR ENERGY will kill every living thing on this planet for hundreds of thousands of years if our short sighted politicians and scientists don’t stop the use of it now! Take a look at the radioactive poison, polonium 210, used to kill Alexander Litvinenko. Plutonium is far deadlier than polonium. The polonium has left is calling card all over the European and Asian Continents. One atom of plutonium can kill you! Humans make pounds of it a day, worldwide, with no way to dispose of it!
Hydrogen is no solution to the energy needs of this planet. After a few cars and storage facilities explode, somebody will go “What were we thinking?” That is the problem! We aren’t thinking!
The solution to the worlds energy needs has been known for decades. If our scientists would extract their heads from their nether regions and look at the technology of a few renegade geniuses, they would find more energy than the wasteful people of this planet could use. The secret is in the “unified field.” Then, all the life on the planet would all die off from overpopulation of humans, including humans!
What is the solution? Start thinking!
Hydrogen is no solution to the energy needs of this planet. After a few cars and storage facilities explode, somebody will go “What were we thinking?” That is the problem! We aren’t thinking!
The solution to the worlds energy needs has been known for decades. If our scientists would extract their heads from their nether regions and look at the technology of a few renegade geniuses, they would find more energy than the wasteful people of this planet could use. The secret is in the “unified field.” Then, all the life on the planet would all die off from overpopulation of humans, including humans!
What is the solution? Start thinking!
travis: i think the chart actually says right at the top 'renewable energy generated electricity' or something along those lines. the point is not where you get the power, it's the wastefulness of the electrolytic conversion process.
also if you thought natural gas or propane was dangerous... ever heard of this airship called 'hindenberg'?
i would like to see a energy cost of producing renewable energy via wind, waves and solar (heat and photoelectric) - including costs of producing the raw materials and transporting them, and the amount of energy they are capable of producing throughout their lifespan including energy costs of maintenance.
It seems obvious at a cursory analysis that a massive array of mirrors focussing on a central heat absorption element to boil water is the likely candidate for maximum efficiency, but wind power probably has a lot going for it too, and less electronics to control it, the downside being finding suitable locations that don't get boycotted by idiotic land owners. I don't understand why low boiling point liquid passive heat turbines are not being more widely implemented because they can operate without any electronics just a source of radiant heat. The difficulty is in finding something that boils lower than water that isn't a significant explosion risk (but that should be something that can be engineered, surely).
also if you thought natural gas or propane was dangerous... ever heard of this airship called 'hindenberg'?
i would like to see a energy cost of producing renewable energy via wind, waves and solar (heat and photoelectric) - including costs of producing the raw materials and transporting them, and the amount of energy they are capable of producing throughout their lifespan including energy costs of maintenance.
It seems obvious at a cursory analysis that a massive array of mirrors focussing on a central heat absorption element to boil water is the likely candidate for maximum efficiency, but wind power probably has a lot going for it too, and less electronics to control it, the downside being finding suitable locations that don't get boycotted by idiotic land owners. I don't understand why low boiling point liquid passive heat turbines are not being more widely implemented because they can operate without any electronics just a source of radiant heat. The difficulty is in finding something that boils lower than water that isn't a significant explosion risk (but that should be something that can be engineered, surely).
QUOTE (dudley+Dec 13 2006, 03:35 PM)
Bossel is full of . . .well Bossel ! The first place, hydrogen will not be delivered as in the "old" centralized gasoline distribution network. Chevron's Hydrogen Boss, Rick Zalesky has said: the old ways do not work. Chevron is building a network of hydrogen filling stations using LOCAL generation at the station. In the second place, the efficiency of the electric vehicle is low. See "well-to-wheel" efficiency below:
[B]oil-well-to-wheel efficiency: 14%
natural-gas-well-to-wheel efficiency: 38%
uranium-ore-to-nuclear plant-to-electric wheel efficiency: 8%
Solar-water-electrolysis-to-fuel-cell-vehicle efficiency: 42%[B]
This "shoots down" your organization chart comparing electric to hydrogen/FCV autos. Go figure !
see: www.hydrogennow.org or www.energypulse.net
No, Bossel, you are all wrong.
Talk about confused. Comparing
"uranium-ore-to-nuclear plant-to-electric wheel efficiency: 8%"
to
"natural-gas-well-to-wheel efficiency: 38%"
is ridiculous. The problem with things now is too many people THINK they know something.
[B]oil-well-to-wheel efficiency: 14%
natural-gas-well-to-wheel efficiency: 38%
uranium-ore-to-nuclear plant-to-electric wheel efficiency: 8%
Solar-water-electrolysis-to-fuel-cell-vehicle efficiency: 42%[B]
This "shoots down" your organization chart comparing electric to hydrogen/FCV autos. Go figure !
see: www.hydrogennow.org or www.energypulse.net
No, Bossel, you are all wrong.
Talk about confused. Comparing
"uranium-ore-to-nuclear plant-to-electric wheel efficiency: 8%"
to
"natural-gas-well-to-wheel efficiency: 38%"
is ridiculous. The problem with things now is too many people THINK they know something.
lengould: The energy comparison numbers are not confusing.
Why don't you prove it to yourself and calculate the energy required for each of the "well-to-wheel" efficiencies If you can ?
Why don't you prove it to yourself and calculate the energy required for each of the "well-to-wheel" efficiencies If you can ?
While his efficiency analysis looks correct, he seems to be missing a couple fundamental points... The grid, as is, does not store energy, just delivers. Because of this problem, the whole point of at least one of the DOE SBIR topics/subtopics deals with matching and appropriate planning and prediction to adjust peak usage with renewable (such as wind) peak output.
Another thing he seems to ignore is that Lithium Ion, Lithium Polymer, and
nickle metal hydride batteries have a temperature range of only around 0-35
Celsius, beyond which self-discharge goes up considerably and charging and
discharging becomes highly inefficient processes. While traditional Lead
Acid car batteries have better temperature characteristics, the whole
Reduction of Hazardous Substances initiative "RoHS" wants to rid lead from
EVERY manufactured item by 2011. I think the US is behind Japan and EU by 5
years, so make it 2016 Nonetheless, even if lead was a viable option, even
the smallest vehicles would weigh as much as Hummers, just for their
batteries. That's why I'd say a 94% efficient 10,000psi compressor
storing in a tank system that's about 5% weight efficient 20:1
tank-to-payload, is the best we can expect at this point.
If you're very familiar with the depletion rates of the great plains
Ogallala aquifer, think how much worse that will be if ethanol from corn
predominates. H2 production from seawater circumvents that catastrophe -- I
really don't think bleach by-product is much of an issue with its half-life
of two hours in sunlight, and some researchers actually saying bleach
benefits the ecosystem by limiting red tide...
The last thing I'd like to add is that, in the days of cheap oil, 40 years
ago when gasoline was $0.25/gallon net energy was about ~16:1, i.e. one
barrel of energy to get 16 barrels out. Today, I hear getting from Ghawar field
to pumping your tank is about 5:1 net energy. And what, most internal combustion
engines are 38% efficient. .8x.38=30% efficiency and diminishing with time.
I hear a lot of these dirtier fossil sources are even worse shale/tar sands,
about 2:1 or 3:1, strip mining coal (moving a mountain before you start the
coal gasification...) we're hardly break even in the long term with
diminishing fossils, not to mention health/environmental costs. Makes me
wonder who paid this guy to write this?
I would agree with prior posts, as little as 10,000 square miles of desert, i.e. a patch 100x100 miles long near corner of Southern California and Nevada, with Dish Stirling Solar Concentrators could supply ALL the U.S.'s energy needs, grid and transportation, if our transportation could all become electric vehicles, the storage, of this energy, at nighttime derived from electrolysis of seawater. While this scenario would likely displace quite a few desert tortoises, an unabated energy crisis will bode even worse on humanity.
Another thing he seems to ignore is that Lithium Ion, Lithium Polymer, and
nickle metal hydride batteries have a temperature range of only around 0-35
Celsius, beyond which self-discharge goes up considerably and charging and
discharging becomes highly inefficient processes. While traditional Lead
Acid car batteries have better temperature characteristics, the whole
Reduction of Hazardous Substances initiative "RoHS" wants to rid lead from
EVERY manufactured item by 2011. I think the US is behind Japan and EU by 5
years, so make it 2016 Nonetheless, even if lead was a viable option, even
the smallest vehicles would weigh as much as Hummers, just for their
batteries. That's why I'd say a 94% efficient 10,000psi compressor
storing in a tank system that's about 5% weight efficient 20:1
tank-to-payload, is the best we can expect at this point.
If you're very familiar with the depletion rates of the great plains
Ogallala aquifer, think how much worse that will be if ethanol from corn
predominates. H2 production from seawater circumvents that catastrophe -- I
really don't think bleach by-product is much of an issue with its half-life
of two hours in sunlight, and some researchers actually saying bleach
benefits the ecosystem by limiting red tide...
The last thing I'd like to add is that, in the days of cheap oil, 40 years
ago when gasoline was $0.25/gallon net energy was about ~16:1, i.e. one
barrel of energy to get 16 barrels out. Today, I hear getting from Ghawar field
to pumping your tank is about 5:1 net energy. And what, most internal combustion
engines are 38% efficient. .8x.38=30% efficiency and diminishing with time.
I hear a lot of these dirtier fossil sources are even worse shale/tar sands,
about 2:1 or 3:1, strip mining coal (moving a mountain before you start the
coal gasification...) we're hardly break even in the long term with
diminishing fossils, not to mention health/environmental costs. Makes me
wonder who paid this guy to write this?
I would agree with prior posts, as little as 10,000 square miles of desert, i.e. a patch 100x100 miles long near corner of Southern California and Nevada, with Dish Stirling Solar Concentrators could supply ALL the U.S.'s energy needs, grid and transportation, if our transportation could all become electric vehicles, the storage, of this energy, at nighttime
derived from electrolysis of seawater. While this scenario would likely displace quite a few desert tortoises, an unabated energy crisis will bode even worse on humanity.
Doesn't even need to be desert. The ideal solution is to use the road surface to generate electricity.
This might be an expensive technology to develop, though.
This might be an expensive technology to develop, though.
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 12 2006, 05:08 AM)
Ulf, you certainly are accurately addressing some of the deficiencies of hydrogen fuel cells, but by selectively omitting their good points, you portray yourself as somewhat biased and we can only wonder why.
Ulf biased? Did you go to his organisation's website?
The European Fuel Cell Forum - he IS a fuel cell researcher!
Why would he be biased?
Certainly - he dismisses the Hydrogen fuel cell, but he does that based on
years of researching them, not because of a bias or financial gains.
He continues to work on other, more promising variants of fuel cells.
He made that very clear when I emailed him about the cancellation of
the Hydrogen Fuel Cell conference of this year - the research into the
Hydrogen Fuel Cell has been cancelled, because it has no future.
That is based on facts.
Accept it.
BTW, my electric truck gives me less than 2 US pennies fuel cost per freeway mile.
I use that as a yardstick to measure other technologies performance:
- are they available today or in the far future?
- what investment do they require
- how cumbersome is their daily use
- what is the price per mile.
This S10 truck cost me an investment of US$ 6000 total including new battery pack
and plugging it in the wall outlet every night beats going to the gas station for me.
You may like the gas station though.
For me the Electric Vehicle is positive all around,
but we already have a second car for my wife, for the case of a long trip.
If I were by myself, I would only have the EV and rent a gas car once a month.
If you want to see what works, go to the EValbum.com and see for yourself
which types of cars are already in daily use.
Also check out the previous months favorite cars on Dragtimes.com
Yes - electric powered cars are perfect dragsters, besides being good daily
commuters.
Ulf biased? Did you go to his organisation's website?
The European Fuel Cell Forum - he IS a fuel cell researcher!
Why would he be biased?
Certainly - he dismisses the Hydrogen fuel cell, but he does that based on
years of researching them, not because of a bias or financial gains.
He continues to work on other, more promising variants of fuel cells.
He made that very clear when I emailed him about the cancellation of
the Hydrogen Fuel Cell conference of this year - the research into the
Hydrogen Fuel Cell has been cancelled, because it has no future.
That is based on facts.
Accept it.
BTW, my electric truck gives me less than 2 US pennies fuel cost per freeway mile.
I use that as a yardstick to measure other technologies performance:
- are they available today or in the far future?
- what investment do they require
- how cumbersome is their daily use
- what is the price per mile.
This S10 truck cost me an investment of US$ 6000 total including new battery pack
and plugging it in the wall outlet every night beats going to the gas station for me.
You may like the gas station though.
For me the Electric Vehicle is positive all around,
but we already have a second car for my wife, for the case of a long trip.
If I were by myself, I would only have the EV and rent a gas car once a month.
If you want to see what works, go to the EValbum.com and see for yourself
which types of cars are already in daily use.
Also check out the previous months favorite cars on Dragtimes.com
Yes - electric powered cars are perfect dragsters, besides being good daily
commuters.
QUOTE (physics101+Dec 13 2006, 10:30 PM)
Methinks a little research would show this bloke works for an [ahem- clears throat] oil company
Hi Physics101,
Are you talking about Ulf?
Do as you say - research it
(type his name into Google or
go immediately to the EFCF.com
He is a Fuel Cell Researcher.
He is very passionate about Fuel Cells
and continues to research, promote and
share all his knowledge about them.
Including the down sides.
If he decided that Hydrogen Fuel Cell
has no value to research further, because
of its inherent drawbacks, who are you to
say that you know better?
If you think that you do have better facts,
then please share them!
(I am expecting to hear silence after this, though)
Hi Physics101,
Are you talking about Ulf?
Do as you say - research it
(type his name into Google or
go immediately to the EFCF.com
He is a Fuel Cell Researcher.
He is very passionate about Fuel Cells
and continues to research, promote and
share all his knowledge about them.
Including the down sides.
If he decided that Hydrogen Fuel Cell
has no value to research further, because
of its inherent drawbacks, who are you to
say that you know better?
If you think that you do have better facts,
then please share them!
(I am expecting to hear silence after this, though)
QUOTE (Bernard de Champlain+Dec 14 2006, 06:33 AM)
I'm not a specialist.... The additional weight, durability (longevity), manufacturing and disposal of the batteries all contribute to making the battery car less efficient and more polluting than the H2 car. And on the hydrogen side, I think its a question of thinking outside of the box to increase the efficiency there. First I would think fuel cell technologies could get better than 50% efficiency.
Hi BdC,
Thanks for pointing out that you have no background in the matter and
continue to make this point by dismissing something that works today
based on assumptions.
Please do your homework a bit, before posting.
Or ask and you can learn.
- for example today a new article was posted about a breakthrough new way
of generating hydrogen from water, which could achieve 42% efficiency.
If that kind of efficiencies are seen as good, then I wonder about the dismissal
of the battery electric efficiencies, where each step is better than 85%
and you have so much more energy to the wheels, which means lower cost.
- disposal of batteries?
What do you do with your old car battery?
Of course! it is completely recycled.
If it were not for the environment then certainly because the materials inside
become more and more valuable.
I am not saying that no batteries go to the landfill - there will always be ignorant
(or lazy) people that chuck a used UPS into the garbage and its batteries will go
to waste. But this does not happen with batteries from an electric car.
- if you are taking the manufacturing of batteries into account, then you must also
include the manufacturing of the hydrogen side.
Any idea what a Fuel Cell costs nowadays?
Or which type of polluting materials are used in one?
I suggest that if you like to think outside the box, then don't limit yourself to
Hydrogen, but also think outside the box for straight electric drivetrains.
Did you know that you can even remove the inefficiency of battery electric
storage if the electricity is stored in capacitors?
Now THAT is an area that needs some serious research, as not only would you
be able to have extremely powerful drivetrains with very low losses, but also
can you recharge the energy storage in a short period (minutes).
For now, I'll stick with my batteries for energy storage until a better
technology come along. But I am certain that it won't start with 'H'.
Hi BdC,
Thanks for pointing out that you have no background in the matter and
continue to make this point by dismissing something that works today
based on assumptions.
Please do your homework a bit, before posting.
Or ask and you can learn.
- for example today a new article was posted about a breakthrough new way
of generating hydrogen from water, which could achieve 42% efficiency.
If that kind of efficiencies are seen as good, then I wonder about the dismissal
of the battery electric efficiencies, where each step is better than 85%
and you have so much more energy to the wheels, which means lower cost.
- disposal of batteries?
What do you do with your old car battery?
Of course! it is completely recycled.
If it were not for the environment then certainly because the materials inside
become more and more valuable.
I am not saying that no batteries go to the landfill - there will always be ignorant
(or lazy) people that chuck a used UPS into the garbage and its batteries will go
to waste. But this does not happen with batteries from an electric car.
- if you are taking the manufacturing of batteries into account, then you must also
include the manufacturing of the hydrogen side.
Any idea what a Fuel Cell costs nowadays?
Or which type of polluting materials are used in one?
I suggest that if you like to think outside the box, then don't limit yourself to
Hydrogen, but also think outside the box for straight electric drivetrains.
Did you know that you can even remove the inefficiency of battery electric
storage if the electricity is stored in capacitors?
Now THAT is an area that needs some serious research, as not only would you
be able to have extremely powerful drivetrains with very low losses, but also
can you recharge the energy storage in a short period (minutes).
For now, I'll stick with my batteries for energy storage until a better
technology come along. But I am certain that it won't start with 'H'.
QUOTE (Guest_Eric+Dec 13 2006, 06:31 PM)
The electric infrastructure in this country is a mess and adding all the load from hydrogen, batteries, whatever, will send it to its knees.
Hi Eric,
I certainly agree with using the sun's free energy in whatever form - PV, wind, water, hot water collector, and so on.
But the argument about the infrastructure is invalid.
The grid in only overloaded during summer afternoons, when so may people
switch their Airco to full power that not enough electricity can be supplied.
At night the power providers are happy to sell you electricity at whatever
price you like to pay for it, that's why I can charge my EV at 5 pennies per
kWh every night, because a lot of the electric infrastructure is idling and adding
more load at night would actually make the cost go down for everyone.
Someone from PG&E (local utility) recently showed interesting statistics that
everyone would get cheaper electricity if only 1 million cars in California would
be refueled with electricity overnight. No new electric infrastructure would be
needed for that.
If you (and others) are serious about concern for the electricity grid than there
is a lot that can be done to relieve the stress on the existing grid without much
consequences. Simple, low-cost actions that only require awareness:
- switch off appliances and lights that you don't need
- buy the most efficient types, add cost of energy when comparing prices
(I once bought a $1200 clothes drier with heat pump after checking that
it would save me over $1000 electricity in the first 5 years)
- use the most efficient appliances, if you have a Compact Fluorescent light
that uses 7 Watts then you don't need to turn on the 300 Watt torchiere.
- ventilate your house in the morning with cool air and keep it closed the rest
of the day in summer, keep the sun out and you won't need much airco
to make it comfortable, especially if the house is well insulated and was built
to have enough thermal mass.
The trick is to find a smart way to solve a problem, instead of just buying a
bigger hammer (larger airco - upgrade electricity grid) but it sometimes
requires a change in behavior, which is hard for a lot of people.
So many times have I heard "you can't go to the gas station and quickly
fill up your electric vehicle, so you cannot use it."
What a nonsense.
That people are addicted to their gas station visits, does not mean that I would
even like to go there.
My car fills up in my garage.
I do not care that it takes hours, because I am asleep and don't drive it.
If I wanted, I could plug it in at work, but I only use 1/3 of its range in the
23 miles commute that I have, so this is plenty for me.
I see this as the same argument saying: "You need hours to prepare a good
meal, so you cannot rely on that for your daily nourishment. You need to
run out and get a takeout at the fastfood place."
While that may serve someone else, it does not mean that I like to go to the
fastfood place, or that I need to go there.
Reviewing what you actually need seems to be a big problem in this world.
Hi Eric,
I certainly agree with using the sun's free energy in whatever form - PV, wind, water, hot water collector, and so on.
But the argument about the infrastructure is invalid.
The grid in only overloaded during summer afternoons, when so may people
switch their Airco to full power that not enough electricity can be supplied.
At night the power providers are happy to sell you electricity at whatever
price you like to pay for it, that's why I can charge my EV at 5 pennies per
kWh every night, because a lot of the electric infrastructure is idling and adding
more load at night would actually make the cost go down for everyone.
Someone from PG&E (local utility) recently showed interesting statistics that
everyone would get cheaper electricity if only 1 million cars in California would
be refueled with electricity overnight. No new electric infrastructure would be
needed for that.
If you (and others) are serious about concern for the electricity grid than there
is a lot that can be done to relieve the stress on the existing grid without much
consequences. Simple, low-cost actions that only require awareness:
- switch off appliances and lights that you don't need
- buy the most efficient types, add cost of energy when comparing prices
(I once bought a $1200 clothes drier with heat pump after checking that
it would save me over $1000 electricity in the first 5 years)
- use the most efficient appliances, if you have a Compact Fluorescent light
that uses 7 Watts then you don't need to turn on the 300 Watt torchiere.
- ventilate your house in the morning with cool air and keep it closed the rest
of the day in summer, keep the sun out and you won't need much airco
to make it comfortable, especially if the house is well insulated and was built
to have enough thermal mass.
The trick is to find a smart way to solve a problem, instead of just buying a
bigger hammer (larger airco - upgrade electricity grid) but it sometimes
requires a change in behavior, which is hard for a lot of people.
So many times have I heard "you can't go to the gas station and quickly
fill up your electric vehicle, so you cannot use it."
What a nonsense.
That people are addicted to their gas station visits, does not mean that I would
even like to go there.
My car fills up in my garage.
I do not care that it takes hours, because I am asleep and don't drive it.
If I wanted, I could plug it in at work, but I only use 1/3 of its range in the
23 miles commute that I have, so this is plenty for me.
I see this as the same argument saying: "You need hours to prepare a good
meal, so you cannot rely on that for your daily nourishment. You need to
run out and get a takeout at the fastfood place."
While that may serve someone else, it does not mean that I like to go to the
fastfood place, or that I need to go there.
Reviewing what you actually need seems to be a big problem in this world.
What's he point of trying to post a reply, when your security code consistantly sez "does not compute". THIS will probably get thru.........
QUOTE (cor_van_de_water+Dec 14 2006, 09:51 PM)
Hi BdC,
Thanks for pointing out that you have no background in the matter and continue to make this point by dismissing something that works today based on assumptions. Please do your homework a bit, before posting. Or ask and you can learn.
- for example today a new article was posted about a breakthrough new way of generating hydrogen from water, which could achieve 42% efficiency. If that kind of efficiencies are seen as good, then I wonder about the dismissal of the battery electric efficiencies, where each step is better than 85%
and you have so much more energy to the wheels, which means lower cost.
- disposal of batteries? What do you do with your old car battery? Of course! it is completely recycled. If it were not for the environment then certainly because the materials inside
become more and more valuable. I am not saying that no batteries go to the landfill - there will always be ignorant
(or lazy) people that chuck a used UPS into the garbage and its batteries will go to waste. But this does not happen with batteries from an electric car.
- if you are taking the manufacturing of batteries into account, then you must also include the manufacturing of the hydrogen side. Any idea what a Fuel Cell costs nowadays? Or which type of polluting materials are used in one? I suggest that if you like to think outside the box, then don't limit yourself to Hydrogen, but also think outside the box for straight electric drivetrains.
Dear cor_van_the_water,
Yes I'm not a specialist and neither are most of us posting here. But I did not say I had no background in the matter, I'm an electrical engineer with 20 years of experience and I do read as much as I can on subjects related to science. So I'm not ignorant either. I've designed energy control systems (generation, transport and distribution), worked on Nuclear power simulators, Aircraft simulators, Marine control systems, Air traffic control systems and am currently working on real-time HD broadcast graphical systems (and I'm sure you've seen my work).
Again I do not claim to be a specialist in electric cars. The point of my original post was to point out that the study ignored certain aspects of battery powered cars (like the additional weight) and also made some assumptions about H2 powered cars like the need for a distribution system (and forgetting that the car emits back all the water it consumed to make the hydrogen, there's no running out of water).
I would like to answer your comments:
- By battery disposal I was referring to recycling which does consume energy and should be accounted for when looking at total efficiencies of both solutions.
- As for the manufacture of the fuel cell, you are right, but the difference is that the fuel cell will last longer than the batteries which will need replacement. And apart from some possible use of small amounts of catalytic chemicals I am not aware of anything highly polluting in fuel cells.
- Yes there are alternative electrical storage like capacitors and inertia wheels, but these can be quite dangerous. The fact that capacitors can be recharged so quickly is also its weakness in that it can be discharged instantaneously, I wouldn't want to be in an accident with that amount of power ready to discharge in a short. I'm also unsure we will ever see a capacitor storage that can hold the required power for a car (5KW for a car that would drive like a gas car), yet be small enough to fit in the car. As for inertia wheels (I'm talking about the 150K to 200K rpm kind), they can explode if a crack develops in the wheel at those rpm (yes there are some solutions to this). I have to also wonder how the inertia moment of the wheel would affect the handling of the car in a turn.
- In the source article I am commenting about, Electrolysis is indicated at 75% efficiency... I'll take your claim that its closer to 50% as further demonstration that the article contains inaccuracies. As for new discoveries, that works both ways, last week two blood proteins were isolated that with some modifications can be used to split water using solar energy (can't post a link so please forgive the _ instead of . www3_imperial_ac_uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_1-12-2006-11-4-23?newsid=3016 sorry it's the). The point being there is much more to discover about H2 production and fuel cells which is still immature compared to battery tech which is mature, so the edge in terms of improvements are on the H2 side.
In the end frankly there isn't as much difference between batteries which store energy in chemical reactions and a closed loop fuel cell where the emission water could be recuperated and that would regenerate H2 when connected to an external electrical source. Both store the energy chemically. The advantage of H2 is that its as light as it gets for the punch it packs (most of the mass for the chemical reaction comes from the oxygen the fuel cell consumes and it doesn't need to be carried with the car). I will also point out that H2 doesn't discharge over time and can work in a wider temperature range.
I've been hearing that battery cars were the future since I was a kid, and after seeing 44 years of ppl trying they still haven't replaced gas cars... that's why I'm sceptical. And given that an electric car needs more peak electricity than a whole house consumes (even with electric heaters), I don't see how they can resolve the battery mass and volume issues with conventional batteries (I mean lithium polymer and such). Also keep in mind that no one would buy a car that doesn't have a range of at least 500Km as a family car (you would need enough batteries to power that 'house' with heaters for about 5-6Hrs). I would love it, if it were possible, I'd put my entire house on such a ups if it could be bought for 5-8K (and last for at least a decade, fit into less than 1 M^3, weight less than 150Kg and not pose any threat to my life).
No one can be sure what will turn up next (cold fusion? vacuum energy? new battery tech? weirder things have turned up already), and I don't claim to know what will be. But at this time I think H2 has a better chance at replacing gas cars (it can even be used in conventional gas engines, though I believe fuel cells is the better way).
BdC
Thanks for pointing out that you have no background in the matter and continue to make this point by dismissing something that works today based on assumptions. Please do your homework a bit, before posting. Or ask and you can learn.
- for example today a new article was posted about a breakthrough new way of generating hydrogen from water, which could achieve 42% efficiency. If that kind of efficiencies are seen as good, then I wonder about the dismissal of the battery electric efficiencies, where each step is better than 85%
and you have so much more energy to the wheels, which means lower cost.
- disposal of batteries? What do you do with your old car battery? Of course! it is completely recycled. If it were not for the environment then certainly because the materials inside
become more and more valuable. I am not saying that no batteries go to the landfill - there will always be ignorant
(or lazy) people that chuck a used UPS into the garbage and its batteries will go to waste. But this does not happen with batteries from an electric car.
- if you are taking the manufacturing of batteries into account, then you must also include the manufacturing of the hydrogen side. Any idea what a Fuel Cell costs nowadays? Or which type of polluting materials are used in one? I suggest that if you like to think outside the box, then don't limit yourself to Hydrogen, but also think outside the box for straight electric drivetrains.
Dear cor_van_the_water,
Yes I'm not a specialist and neither are most of us posting here. But I did not say I had no background in the matter, I'm an electrical engineer with 20 years of experience and I do read as much as I can on subjects related to science. So I'm not ignorant either. I've designed energy control systems (generation, transport and distribution), worked on Nuclear power simulators, Aircraft simulators, Marine control systems, Air traffic control systems and am currently working on real-time HD broadcast graphical systems (and I'm sure you've seen my work).
Again I do not claim to be a specialist in electric cars. The point of my original post was to point out that the study ignored certain aspects of battery powered cars (like the additional weight) and also made some assumptions about H2 powered cars like the need for a distribution system (and forgetting that the car emits back all the water it consumed to make the hydrogen, there's no running out of water).
I would like to answer your comments:
- By battery disposal I was referring to recycling which does consume energy and should be accounted for when looking at total efficiencies of both solutions.
- As for the manufacture of the fuel cell, you are right, but the difference is that the fuel cell will last longer than the batteries which will need replacement. And apart from some possible use of small amounts of catalytic chemicals I am not aware of anything highly polluting in fuel cells.
- Yes there are alternative electrical storage like capacitors and inertia wheels, but these can be quite dangerous. The fact that capacitors can be recharged so quickly is also its weakness in that it can be discharged instantaneously, I wouldn't want to be in an accident with that amount of power ready to discharge in a short. I'm also unsure we will ever see a capacitor storage that can hold the required power for a car (5KW for a car that would drive like a gas car), yet be small enough to fit in the car. As for inertia wheels (I'm talking about the 150K to 200K rpm kind), they can explode if a crack develops in the wheel at those rpm (yes there are some solutions to this). I have to also wonder how the inertia moment of the wheel would affect the handling of the car in a turn.
- In the source article I am commenting about, Electrolysis is indicated at 75% efficiency... I'll take your claim that its closer to 50% as further demonstration that the article contains inaccuracies. As for new discoveries, that works both ways, last week two blood proteins were isolated that with some modifications can be used to split water using solar energy (can't post a link so please forgive the _ instead of . www3_imperial_ac_uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_1-12-2006-11-4-23?newsid=3016 sorry it's the). The point being there is much more to discover about H2 production and fuel cells which is still immature compared to battery tech which is mature, so the edge in terms of improvements are on the H2 side.
In the end frankly there isn't as much difference between batteries which store energy in chemical reactions and a closed loop fuel cell where the emission water could be recuperated and that would regenerate H2 when connected to an external electrical source. Both store the energy chemically. The advantage of H2 is that its as light as it gets for the punch it packs (most of the mass for the chemical reaction comes from the oxygen the fuel cell consumes and it doesn't need to be carried with the car). I will also point out that H2 doesn't discharge over time and can work in a wider temperature range.
I've been hearing that battery cars were the future since I was a kid, and after seeing 44 years of ppl trying they still haven't replaced gas cars... that's why I'm sceptical. And given that an electric car needs more peak electricity than a whole house consumes (even with electric heaters), I don't see how they can resolve the battery mass and volume issues with conventional batteries (I mean lithium polymer and such). Also keep in mind that no one would buy a car that doesn't have a range of at least 500Km as a family car (you would need enough batteries to power that 'house' with heaters for about 5-6Hrs). I would love it, if it were possible, I'd put my entire house on such a ups if it could be bought for 5-8K (and last for at least a decade, fit into less than 1 M^3, weight less than 150Kg and not pose any threat to my life).
No one can be sure what will turn up next (cold fusion? vacuum energy? new battery tech? weirder things have turned up already), and I don't claim to know what will be. But at this time I think H2 has a better chance at replacing gas cars (it can even be used in conventional gas engines, though I believe fuel cells is the better way).
BdC
My son brought home a while ago, some little radio-controlled electric cars which recharge almost instantly and will then drive about for quite a long time, proportionately. Too many people judge things by what they learned 20 years ago, not what they should be learning next year.
And have you seen the T-Zero car? Google it if not. All electric, it'll rip the tire off a corvette from a standing start, and if you want to drive further than it's lithium batteries will take you, (eg. LA to Diego) it has a small engine-generator trailer which just tows behind. There's a group in Japan also who are demonstrating a big 6-wheel full-size battery sedan that'll outperform any streetable gas-guzzler.
And have you seen the T-Zero car? Google it if not. All electric, it'll rip the tire off a corvette from a standing start, and if you want to drive further than it's lithium batteries will take you, (eg. LA to Diego) it has a small engine-generator trailer which just tows behind. There's a group in Japan also who are demonstrating a big 6-wheel full-size battery sedan that'll outperform any streetable gas-guzzler.
You got to be kidding me.
Here is an article from THREE YEARS AGO.
http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&storyid=571
Here is a current article
http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&storyid=119
This LO-TECH car utilizes 28, 12-volt Optima lead acid batteries.
Which are 50% of the car's weight.
Which means its a souped up Golf Cart, but this VERY BASIC TWO seater car comes with an approx price tag of $80,000 (not including the trailer needed for long distance driveing).
Anyone dumb enough to buy one deserves what they get.
Arthur
Here is an article from THREE YEARS AGO.
http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&storyid=571
Here is a current article
http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&storyid=119
QUOTE
The car is, in Brooks' words," a very basic car." It comes with only the essentials including a PTC heater, but no air conditioning. Potential customers can specify any color they want, but beyond that, the car has "few creature comforts." It comes with a detachable top and roll-up side windows.
This LO-TECH car utilizes 28, 12-volt Optima lead acid batteries.
Which are 50% of the car's weight.
Which means its a souped up Golf Cart, but this VERY BASIC TWO seater car comes with an approx price tag of $80,000 (not including the trailer needed for long distance driveing).
Anyone dumb enough to buy one deserves what they get.
Arthur
Bjørn MM - You and others are examining that extracting hydrogen from hydrocarbon sources is more efficient; this, however, is not sustainable (given the fact that fossil fuels are running out or will do so, eventually) nor is it environmentally-friendly (you're still releasing CO2).
QUOTE (lengould+Dec 15 2006, 09:18 PM)
My son brought home a while ago, some little radio-controlled electric cars which recharge almost instantly and will then drive about for quite a long time, proportionately. Too many people judge things by what they learned 20 years ago, not what they should be learning next year.
And have you seen the T-Zero car? Google it if not. All electric, it'll rip the tire off a corvette from a standing start, and if you want to drive further than it's lithium batteries will take you, (eg. LA to Diego) it has a small engine-generator trailer which just tows behind. There's a group in Japan also who are demonstrating a big 6-wheel full-size battery sedan that'll outperform any streetable gas-guzzler.
I spit on your T-Zero piece of crap.
Tesla Roadster ftw. Eliica ftw.
And have you seen the T-Zero car? Google it if not. All electric, it'll rip the tire off a corvette from a standing start, and if you want to drive further than it's lithium batteries will take you, (eg. LA to Diego) it has a small engine-generator trailer which just tows behind. There's a group in Japan also who are demonstrating a big 6-wheel full-size battery sedan that'll outperform any streetable gas-guzzler.
I spit on your T-Zero piece of crap.
Tesla Roadster ftw. Eliica ftw.
Most conversions from petroleum to kinetic energy are less than 25% efficient. A car engine can't capture more than 25% of the energy in the gasoline it burns, plus the energy required to find, extract, transport, distill and then transport the fuel to that car. 25% efficient is a hell of a lot better than we do now with any petroleum derivative.
There is a hydrogen filling station in California that is simply an array of solar panels and city water hooked up to all the necessary equipment to provide hydrogen for the handful of cars in the area (like the governator's hydrogen hummer). It's a closed system, that can be as inefficient as you'd like to believe, but still produces no waste. Even the smallest gas station requires a huge infrastructure to operate. Sure not every region has enough available sunlight to support solar powered hydrogen filling stations, but the point is that the fuel can be produced on site from filtered or distilled water to suit demand. This eliminates the largest problem now associated with petroleum product - refinement and distribution.
There is a hydrogen filling station in California that is simply an array of solar panels and city water hooked up to all the necessary equipment to provide hydrogen for the handful of cars in the area (like the governator's hydrogen hummer). It's a closed system, that can be as inefficient as you'd like to believe, but still produces no waste. Even the smallest gas station requires a huge infrastructure to operate. Sure not every region has enough available sunlight to support solar powered hydrogen filling stations, but the point is that the fuel can be produced on site from filtered or distilled water to suit demand. This eliminates the largest problem now associated with petroleum product - refinement and distribution.
Arthur: You've obviously never even driven a ferrari. They don't radios or power windows in them either, adds too much weight. Just souped-up go-carts. And T-Zero is available with Lion batteries if you're willing to pay the extra.
What's your point(y)? You're simply determined to add CO2 to the atmosphere even if not necessary, eh? Obviously a wise man (ha ha). Deserving of the following he gets.
230 MPH in luxury, 0 to 60 in 4 seconds.
http://www.eliica.com/
What's your point(y)? You're simply determined to add CO2 to the atmosphere even if not necessary, eh? Obviously a wise man (ha ha). Deserving of the following he gets.
230 MPH in luxury, 0 to 60 in 4 seconds.
http://www.eliica.com/
that a hydrogen economy would certainly not be economically feasible at this time, however the sea change that a hydrogen economy would place on an oil using world would be a new dawn for all the life of that planet.
therefore we should waste no resource researching the generation and storage of hydrogen.
i see drinkable water, healthy soil, and fresh air in our future with hydrogen.
therefore we should waste no resource researching the generation and storage of hydrogen.
i see drinkable water, healthy soil, and fresh air in our future with hydrogen.
The fact is that if society doesn't come up with an good replacement for Oil/Gas, which is expected to peak around 2015, demand for oil will be higher than supply causing a shortage and nothing to fall back on, which would mean world-wide economic collapse. Either the hydrogen, Electron, Biomass or whatever other alternatives there are need to become a much larger part of our society very quick or humanity is in for a world of hurt. There are obvious pros and cons to each method, and many researchers discovering great advances everyday, so its hard to stay current with all that’s going on. So it’s a race against time. We've had our hopes dashed about electric cars, hydrogen and other energy alternatives before, but progress is usually longer than the short term, but shorter than long term expectations. But if we don't fix this problem soon, it will be a dog eat dog world for billions of people. We are way above what is the natural population support level of this planet, and that’s when there will be nothing left to eat... except each other!
These posts illustrate the critical weakness afflicting scientists tackle energy problems - lack of a basic understanding of economics. The issue of which source of energy a society should adopt can never be decided on the basis of physical efficiency or some flaky notion of 'sustainability'. Physical efficiency is a poor guide to relative costs. Allocating resources must be guided by a notion of scarcity - not engineering notions of 'efficiency'.
Right now the economics of sustainable sources of energy doesn't come close to working. In contrast, nuclear power, which is derided on this board, can be cost effective as the French has shown over the last 40 years.
Right now the economics of sustainable sources of energy doesn't come close to working. In contrast, nuclear power, which is derided on this board, can be cost effective as the French has shown over the last 40 years.
QUOTE (lengould+Dec 18 2006, 11:16 AM)
Arthur: You've obviously never even driven a ferrari. They don't radios or power windows in them either, adds too much weight. Just souped-up go-carts. And T-Zero is available with Lion batteries if you're willing to pay the extra.
What's your point(y)? You're simply determined to add CO2 to the atmosphere even if not necessary, eh?
My point is the car is not ready for prime time.
Which is why they aren't selling them like hot cakes.
Well, turns out they aren't selling them at all.
So your "answer" to the "problem" is no answer at all.
As to your CO2 snipe, 50% of our electrical production in the US comes from burning Coal.
The current coal fired plants produce the most CO2 per unit of energy of any form of electrical generation.
So, claiming that you aren't producing CO2 because you use a battery powered car is simply silly.
In fact, I'm not sure a plug in like you posted would produce less net CO2 then a Hybrid or a small turbo diesel, particulaly if the diesel is running on a bio-diesel mix.
Arthur
What's your point(y)? You're simply determined to add CO2 to the atmosphere even if not necessary, eh?
My point is the car is not ready for prime time.
Which is why they aren't selling them like hot cakes.
Well, turns out they aren't selling them at all.
So your "answer" to the "problem" is no answer at all.
As to your CO2 snipe, 50% of our electrical production in the US comes from burning Coal.
The current coal fired plants produce the most CO2 per unit of energy of any form of electrical generation.
So, claiming that you aren't producing CO2 because you use a battery powered car is simply silly.
In fact, I'm not sure a plug in like you posted would produce less net CO2 then a Hybrid or a small turbo diesel, particulaly if the diesel is running on a bio-diesel mix.
Arthur
QUOTE (Roderick Beck+Dec 20 2006, 11:15 PM)
Right now the economics of sustainable sources of energy doesn't come close to working. In contrast, nuclear power, which is derided on this board, can be cost effective as the French has shown over the last 40 years.
You do realize that the US is the single largest producer of Nuclear Power in the World, right?
Which means our Power Companies are INTIMATELY FAMILIAR with the costs of building/operating these plants.
So why don't the US power companies, who, unlike the Nationalized French system, operate on a PROFIT basis, you know with regular shareholders, build more nukes?
That is since they are, according to you, so COST EFFECTIVE.
Do you presume they AVOID them, as they have for the last 30 years, for reasons other than a poor Return on Investment?
Arthur
You do realize that the US is the single largest producer of Nuclear Power in the World, right?
Which means our Power Companies are INTIMATELY FAMILIAR with the costs of building/operating these plants.
So why don't the US power companies, who, unlike the Nationalized French system, operate on a PROFIT basis, you know with regular shareholders, build more nukes?
That is since they are, according to you, so COST EFFECTIVE.
Do you presume they AVOID them, as they have for the last 30 years, for reasons other than a poor Return on Investment?
Arthur
QUOTE (Bernard de Champlain+Dec 15 2006, 02:11 AM)
As for new discoveries, that works both ways, last week two blood proteins were isolated that with some modifications can be used to split water using solar energy (can't post a link so please forgive the _ instead of . www3_imperial_ac_uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_1-12-2006-11-4-23?newsid=3016 sorry it's the).
incredibly interesting. thank you!
incredibly interesting. thank you!
QUOTE (Nessus+Dec 13 2006, 04:18 PM)
Except the 'extract the hydrogen' step requires a great deal of energy, which needs to come from somewhere
one will harness the suns rays...quite HOT
then we shall tackle the energies of WIND....and has anyone witnessed the raw power delivered...by say Niagra falls, what if WATER has a source of energy underdeveloped (in a myriad of ways)
when the world is ready to stop being gluttons for big oil....it will be all clearer and clearer.
I saw a car that read hydrogen today going down the freeway, (california) what does that mean~ anyone ?
That it is helped along or running on Hydrogen ? Could it be....
one will harness the suns rays...quite HOT
then we shall tackle the energies of WIND....and has anyone witnessed the raw power delivered...by say Niagra falls, what if WATER has a source of energy underdeveloped (in a myriad of ways)
when the world is ready to stop being gluttons for big oil....it will be all clearer and clearer.
I saw a car that read hydrogen today going down the freeway, (california) what does that mean~ anyone ?
That it is helped along or running on Hydrogen ? Could it be....
Dont concern yourselves they were just a bunch of scammers
h**p://www.hypowerfuel.com/home.html
Denny Klein
h**p://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzJZJjo9MNA&eurl=
Xogen
h**p://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6138516845020080722&q=xogen&hl=en
Stanley Meyer
h**p://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3333992194168790800&q=stanley+meyer&hl=en
Daniel Dingel
h**p://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8346441546420435391&q=Daniel+Dingel&hl=en
h**p://www.hypowerfuel.com/home.html
Denny Klein
h**p://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzJZJjo9MNA&eurl=
Xogen
h**p://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6138516845020080722&q=xogen&hl=en
Stanley Meyer
h**p://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3333992194168790800&q=stanley+meyer&hl=en
Daniel Dingel
h**p://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8346441546420435391&q=Daniel+Dingel&hl=en
This is one of the most retarded articles I've ever read! It reminds me of another historical fact. And that is that mathmeticians through their own analysis believed that air flight for mankind was impossible.
Production with Bacteria
This article caught my eye. Saw related articles about bacteria electrolysis. I am aware of Nanologix (NNLX) which has a bunch of patents on such, and hints it can produce at gas equiv $1 a gallon from waste water/any sugar containing fluid. They have a test going on at Welchs juice factory now.
Does anyone here have an opinion on them, or a better alternative for H production cheap?
The company related a 5 min or so interview today which can be heard by clicking on their PR in Yahoo or any other stock site.
TIA
This article caught my eye. Saw related articles about bacteria electrolysis. I am aware of Nanologix (NNLX) which has a bunch of patents on such, and hints it can produce at gas equiv $1 a gallon from waste water/any sugar containing fluid. They have a test going on at Welchs juice factory now.
Does anyone here have an opinion on them, or a better alternative for H production cheap?
The company related a 5 min or so interview today which can be heard by clicking on their PR in Yahoo or any other stock site.
TIA
I think it is best to have choices, and I've been amazed lately at the variety of creative new solutions to various challenges of making hydrogen work. For example, Ecotality has the Hydratus, which generates hydrogen on demand and whose business model is to develop it first for companies that have commercial fleets, such as express delivery companies. You can find out more at the company's site.
Batelle also just announced technology that results in a 25 percent reduction in the fuel required to run its cells. My point is, there is SO much development going on in this area, both government-funded and private, that it is very likely that these problems can be worked out, especially with the potential upsides involved. And whenever there is money involved, as there was in the development of today's cars, things like the refueling problem and technology problems tend to get solved, though sometimes the solutions are surprising and come out of places that were totally unexpected.
Lisa Hart
Batelle also just announced technology that results in a 25 percent reduction in the fuel required to run its cells. My point is, there is SO much development going on in this area, both government-funded and private, that it is very likely that these problems can be worked out, especially with the potential upsides involved. And whenever there is money involved, as there was in the development of today's cars, things like the refueling problem and technology problems tend to get solved, though sometimes the solutions are surprising and come out of places that were totally unexpected.
Lisa Hart
If you really want to squelch all the critics of the Hydrogen Economy read Amory Lovins' (Rocky Mountain Institute) written in 2000 and updated in 2003. Mr. Lovins has the best perspective on moving the Hydrogen Economy forward that I have seen. See: http://www.rmi.org Twenty Hydrogen Myths
To make you aware, there is an estimated $500 billion of new[I] coal-fired power plants on the drawing boards or are planned for the next 10 years in the U.S. This is negligent planning due to the potential increase in global warming![I].
My financial contacts tell me that there is planning going on to build some forty each 200 MWe solar-hydrogen electric generating plants. This should reduce the number of coal-fired power plants being planned.
My financial contacts tell me that there is planning going on to build some forty each 200 MWe solar-hydrogen electric generating plants. This should reduce the number of coal-fired power plants being planned.
Tikay, I think that probably the vehicle had the hydrogen sticker because there is legislation in the works to allow hydrogen vehicles (but NOT many hybrids) to use the carpool lanes in congested areas of California, which if you drive here, can save you LOTS of time. These are the rules to be allowed into carpool lanes:
AB 2628 allows single-occupant use of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOVs) lanes by the cleanest alternative fuel, hybrid, and full-electric vehicles. Use of these lanes with only one occupant requires an identification sticker issued by the California Department of Motor Vehicles.
AB 2628 limits single occupant HOV lane access to super clean advanced technology vehicles. Vehicles must meet one of the following four combinations of standards to qualify for the single occupant HOV lane sticker:
OPTION 1: Vehicles certified to both the California SULEV and the Federal ILEV emissions standards.
OPTION 2: Pre- 2005 model year vehicles certified to both the California ULEV and the Federal ILEV emissions standards.
OPTION 3: Hybrid and alternative fueled vehicles certified to the California ATPZEV emissions standard and having a USEPA Highway fuel economy rating greater than 45 MPG.
OPTION 4: Pre- 2005 model year hybrid vehicles certified to the California ULEV emissions standard and having a USEPA Highway fuel economy rating greater than 45 MPG.
Interestingly, theoretically, if a hydrogen-powered Hummer wanted to use the carpool lanes, it could, if it met the preceding qualifications. I'm not sure how I feel about that one AB 2628 allows single-occupant use of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOVs) lanes by the cleanest alternative fuel, hybrid, and full-electric vehicles. Use of these lanes with only one occupant requires an identification sticker issued by the California Department of Motor Vehicles.
AB 2628 limits single occupant HOV lane access to super clean advanced technology vehicles. Vehicles must meet one of the following four combinations of standards to qualify for the single occupant HOV lane sticker:
OPTION 1: Vehicles certified to both the California SULEV and the Federal ILEV emissions standards.
OPTION 2: Pre- 2005 model year vehicles certified to both the California ULEV and the Federal ILEV emissions standards.
OPTION 3: Hybrid and alternative fueled vehicles certified to the California ATPZEV emissions standard and having a USEPA Highway fuel economy rating greater than 45 MPG.
OPTION 4: Pre- 2005 model year hybrid vehicles certified to the California ULEV emissions standard and having a USEPA Highway fuel economy rating greater than 45 MPG.
*Click here for a list of hybrid vehicles that DO NOT QUALIFY.
Interestingly, in theory a Hummer could qualify if it meet the above rules, and I'm not sure how I feel about that, but I guess it's a step in the right direction.
Which brings up another interesting point: Hydrogen, when used as a public transportation fuel, could be a real force for good. For one thing, if it's used as part of a fleet that already comes back to central locations for fuel, you avoid the "where do I refuel" problem, since the fleet owners will install their own facilities, helping to jumpstart the technology. For another, you avoid the use of diesel, which emits some pretty dangerous fine particles. And of course, you get the advantages of hydrogen. That's one reason that companies such as Ecotality are going for that model.
Also, government vehicles in California are starting to put money into alternative fuels, since a new law says that a certain percentage of the vehicles in the state need to use alternative fuels, and the state can use its purchasing power to move this process along.
Lisa
AB 2628 allows single-occupant use of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOVs) lanes by the cleanest alternative fuel, hybrid, and full-electric vehicles. Use of these lanes with only one occupant requires an identification sticker issued by the California Department of Motor Vehicles.
AB 2628 limits single occupant HOV lane access to super clean advanced technology vehicles. Vehicles must meet one of the following four combinations of standards to qualify for the single occupant HOV lane sticker:
OPTION 1: Vehicles certified to both the California SULEV and the Federal ILEV emissions standards.
OPTION 2: Pre- 2005 model year vehicles certified to both the California ULEV and the Federal ILEV emissions standards.
OPTION 3: Hybrid and alternative fueled vehicles certified to the California ATPZEV emissions standard and having a USEPA Highway fuel economy rating greater than 45 MPG.
OPTION 4: Pre- 2005 model year hybrid vehicles certified to the California ULEV emissions standard and having a USEPA Highway fuel economy rating greater than 45 MPG.
Interestingly, theoretically, if a hydrogen-powered Hummer wanted to use the carpool lanes, it could, if it met the preceding qualifications. I'm not sure how I feel about that one AB 2628 allows single-occupant use of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOVs) lanes by the cleanest alternative fuel, hybrid, and full-electric vehicles. Use of these lanes with only one occupant requires an identification sticker issued by the California Department of Motor Vehicles.
AB 2628 limits single occupant HOV lane access to super clean advanced technology vehicles. Vehicles must meet one of the following four combinations of standards to qualify for the single occupant HOV lane sticker:
OPTION 1: Vehicles certified to both the California SULEV and the Federal ILEV emissions standards.
OPTION 2: Pre- 2005 model year vehicles certified to both the California ULEV and the Federal ILEV emissions standards.
OPTION 3: Hybrid and alternative fueled vehicles certified to the California ATPZEV emissions standard and having a USEPA Highway fuel economy rating greater than 45 MPG.
OPTION 4: Pre- 2005 model year hybrid vehicles certified to the California ULEV emissions standard and having a USEPA Highway fuel economy rating greater than 45 MPG.
*Click here for a list of hybrid vehicles that DO NOT QUALIFY.
Interestingly, in theory a Hummer could qualify if it meet the above rules, and I'm not sure how I feel about that, but I guess it's a step in the right direction.
Which brings up another interesting point: Hydrogen, when used as a public transportation fuel, could be a real force for good. For one thing, if it's used as part of a fleet that already comes back to central locations for fuel, you avoid the "where do I refuel" problem, since the fleet owners will install their own facilities, helping to jumpstart the technology. For another, you avoid the use of diesel, which emits some pretty dangerous fine particles. And of course, you get the advantages of hydrogen. That's one reason that companies such as Ecotality are going for that model.
Also, government vehicles in California are starting to put money into alternative fuels, since a new law says that a certain percentage of the vehicles in the state need to use alternative fuels, and the state can use its purchasing power to move this process along.
Lisa
Thank you Lisa for the information! 
It would appear that the way to go is nuclear, but with a new approach. The Pebble bed modular reactor:
A reactor small enough to be assembled from mass-produced parts and cheap enough for customers without billion-dollar bank accounts. A reactor whose safety is a matter of physics, not operator skill or reinforced concrete. And, for a bona fide fairy-tale ending, the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow is labeled hydrogen.
A reactor small enough to be assembled from mass-produced parts and cheap enough for customers without billion-dollar bank accounts. A reactor whose safety is a matter of physics, not operator skill or reinforced concrete. And, for a bona fide fairy-tale ending, the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow is labeled hydrogen.
First of all, much of our economy is already electron based at least at the end point of the energy chain, with two major exceptions being the use of hydrocarbons in motor vehicles and home heating. So electron based economy is already a reality at the endpoint to a great extent. The complete conversion of course must address not only the conversion at the end point of energy chain but also at the starting point.
As for the two remaining major end point conversions, the conversion of home heating is basically a matter of lowering the cost of electricity below that of hydrocarbons such as oil and natural gas. Conversion to electrical power for motor vehicles is somewhat more difficult since the portability and efficiency per bulk weight are vastly more critical for vehicle use than for fixed location use of electrical energy.
Here hydrogen generated energy appears attractive alternative to gasoline as it is perceived as clean fuel which has similar portability as gasoline. But this portability has prohibitive penalties in the form of higher cost, lower overall efficiency (higher storage cost and evaporative loss), and lower safety. Simply put, hydrogen is far more volatile as a portable source of energy than gasoline and it will require higher collateral energy expenditure to make it as a viable portable energy source. Furthermore its presence at the end point of energy chain prevents us from the complete conversion of our economy to an electron based one. In short, the source of energy for future motor vehicles, within the realm of currently known physics, should be from stored electrical energy.
As for the starting point of energy chain, the conversion of hydrocarbon based electrical energy generation must be replaced en mass within the next quarter of a century otherwise the environmental deteriorations due to the continued emission of the byproducts from hydrocarbon combustions will causes higher and higher energy expenditure to keep our environment reasonably hospitable, thus creating a causal chain that will accelerates the environmental deterioration.
The proposed environmental energy alternatives to the current coal and natural gas fired electrical plants such as solar, hydroelectric, geothermal and wind power are unlikely to meet the ever increasing demand for electrical energy, which will see a substantial rise if we succeed in converting motor vehicle energy source to stored electrical energy.
Consequently the nuclear fission energy, with a newer generation of safer nuclear reactors, cannot be discounted, for the fission power generators can be dismantled in the future if safer alternatives can be found but it is unlikely that certain environmental parameters that have sustained the growth of human population can be restored once they go over their tipping points
Fusion generated electrical power, of course, is far more preferable but it is unlikely that without the infusion of new ideas in regard to how protons can be coaxed to combine other than through an immense thermal energy bath, it is unlikely that current fusion researches based on the magnetic confinement approach will ever get out of the laboratory stage.
In short, the substantial research money that is being asked for so-called hydrogen economy should be directed toward building of safer fission reactors and more efficient and portable, cost effective means of storing electrical energy until further advance in physics can lead to a safer and cleaner energy source beyond controlled nuclear fission energy.
As for the two remaining major end point conversions, the conversion of home heating is basically a matter of lowering the cost of electricity below that of hydrocarbons such as oil and natural gas. Conversion to electrical power for motor vehicles is somewhat more difficult since the portability and efficiency per bulk weight are vastly more critical for vehicle use than for fixed location use of electrical energy.
Here hydrogen generated energy appears attractive alternative to gasoline as it is perceived as clean fuel which has similar portability as gasoline. But this portability has prohibitive penalties in the form of higher cost, lower overall efficiency (higher storage cost and evaporative loss), and lower safety. Simply put, hydrogen is far more volatile as a portable source of energy than gasoline and it will require higher collateral energy expenditure to make it as a viable portable energy source. Furthermore its presence at the end point of energy chain prevents us from the complete conversion of our economy to an electron based one. In short, the source of energy for future motor vehicles, within the realm of currently known physics, should be from stored electrical energy.
As for the starting point of energy chain, the conversion of hydrocarbon based electrical energy generation must be replaced en mass within the next quarter of a century otherwise the environmental deteriorations due to the continued emission of the byproducts from hydrocarbon combustions will causes higher and higher energy expenditure to keep our environment reasonably hospitable, thus creating a causal chain that will accelerates the environmental deterioration.
The proposed environmental energy alternatives to the current coal and natural gas fired electrical plants such as solar, hydroelectric, geothermal and wind power are unlikely to meet the ever increasing demand for electrical energy, which will see a substantial rise if we succeed in converting motor vehicle energy source to stored electrical energy.
Consequently the nuclear fission energy, with a newer generation of safer nuclear reactors, cannot be discounted, for the fission power generators can be dismantled in the future if safer alternatives can be found but it is unlikely that certain environmental parameters that have sustained the growth of human population can be restored once they go over their tipping points
Fusion generated electrical power, of course, is far more preferable but it is unlikely that without the infusion of new ideas in regard to how protons can be coaxed to combine other than through an immense thermal energy bath, it is unlikely that current fusion researches based on the magnetic confinement approach will ever get out of the laboratory stage.
In short, the substantial research money that is being asked for so-called hydrogen economy should be directed toward building of safer fission reactors and more efficient and portable, cost effective means of storing electrical energy until further advance in physics can lead to a safer and cleaner energy source beyond controlled nuclear fission energy.
Except Doktor, there aren't even plans to REPLACE the existing aging NPPs in the US (the worlds LARGEST generator of Nuclear Power).
Considering that it takes ~ a decade from initial planning to get a NPP online and that most of the plants are already quite old (> 30 years) it seems unlikely that the percent of Nuclear power in the US will likely increase by any substantial amount within many decades.
I'm not as familiar with Europe, but IIRC Germany is bailing out of the Nuclear business as well and France, which gets most of its electricity from nuclear also has to contend with an aging fleet of plants.
What do you think will CHANGE this?
Arthur
Considering that it takes ~ a decade from initial planning to get a NPP online and that most of the plants are already quite old (> 30 years) it seems unlikely that the percent of Nuclear power in the US will likely increase by any substantial amount within many decades.
I'm not as familiar with Europe, but IIRC Germany is bailing out of the Nuclear business as well and France, which gets most of its electricity from nuclear also has to contend with an aging fleet of plants.
What do you think will CHANGE this?
Arthur
Right now, there are pilot projects to use wind and solar to generate the hydrogen. The difference here between a hydrogen economy and an electron economy is opposite what the author describes.
Yes, hydrogen can be a carrier, but it can also be produced and consumed more locally than almost any other source.
A wind farm or solar fuel station can be set up within a neighborhood. You can even have solar panels that create hydrogen during the day, for use by a home at night.
I am suspicious of the bio-industry and I note this author throws in a blurb at the end, which makes me doubt his fairness in criticizing the hydrogen economy.
Yes, hydrogen can be a carrier, but it can also be produced and consumed more locally than almost any other source.
A wind farm or solar fuel station can be set up within a neighborhood. You can even have solar panels that create hydrogen during the day, for use by a home at night.
I am suspicious of the bio-industry and I note this author throws in a blurb at the end, which makes me doubt his fairness in criticizing the hydrogen economy.
Thy being part of the solution!!!!, Stop letting the government control your lives. Take responsibility for you actions. There are many places you can go to find alternative fuels, and hydrogen will be the fuel to use, even if it doesn't make economic sense it is environmentally safe!!!I use a hydro flux torch to make jewelry and have adapted the technology to run other things!!
I think both options simply do not make sense for the coming, say, 20 years.
The most efficient technology at this point to make hydrogen is by reforming of natural gas. It will take a long way in technological development (the first (pilot) High Temperature nuclear plant to make Hydrogen is not expected before 2021). And as shown electrolysis just doesn't make sense from an energy point-of-view.
It is much simpler and more efficient to just put the natural gas that is now used to make hydrogen into your car. Natural gas vehicles are currently state of the art technology.
Once you can make cheap hydrogen on a large scale, you can start replacing the use of natural gas in industry, which is used as a source of hydrogen for making fertilizer and in the petrochemical industry.
Also, if you want to use electricity for hydrogen production, then first generate the electricity we already use durably before wasting any on producing hydrogen.
Come back to me then.
The most efficient technology at this point to make hydrogen is by reforming of natural gas. It will take a long way in technological development (the first (pilot) High Temperature nuclear plant to make Hydrogen is not expected before 2021). And as shown electrolysis just doesn't make sense from an energy point-of-view.
It is much simpler and more efficient to just put the natural gas that is now used to make hydrogen into your car. Natural gas vehicles are currently state of the art technology.
Once you can make cheap hydrogen on a large scale, you can start replacing the use of natural gas in industry, which is used as a source of hydrogen for making fertilizer and in the petrochemical industry.
Also, if you want to use electricity for hydrogen production, then first generate the electricity we already use durably before wasting any on producing hydrogen.
Come back to me then.
Hi,
My name is Claudio Bianco. I am an inventor, and have just completed my last work called "Continual Wind-Up", with which I take advantage of water oscillations to wind up a cord, and thus generate electricity.
I believe to have opened a new research field for renewable energy, but since I am the father of this invention, my opinion does not matter.
I chose to use internet to make the invention known and I would appreciate your opinion.I would therefore like to invite you to discover a
new way of generating electricity without polluting on www.cuerdacontinua.com
My name is Claudio Bianco. I am an inventor, and have just completed my last work called "Continual Wind-Up", with which I take advantage of water oscillations to wind up a cord, and thus generate electricity.
I believe to have opened a new research field for renewable energy, but since I am the father of this invention, my opinion does not matter.
I chose to use internet to make the invention known and I would appreciate your opinion.I would therefore like to invite you to discover a
new way of generating electricity without polluting on www.cuerdacontinua.com
A hydrogen economy will never work. Period.
The laws of physics don't make exceptions.
The laws of physics don't make exceptions.
QUOTE (lengould+Dec 12 2006, 10:17 PM)
The long-term future of energy, including transportation, is electricity.
What about a hybrid using gas turbines and electric? Turbines burn EVERYTHING burnable. In the 70's GM made a tubine car that ran on gasoline, cooking oil and diesel. In other words, it ran in a total variety of substances, virtually anything that would burn! Gas turbine generators are quite popular overseas.
The major problem was the heat.
Imagine a gas turbine power plant with a generator attached.. Ships run on giant diesels with a generator attached. But with the turbine you get a lot of extra heat for boiling water for coffee in the morning. Hook the Starbucks coffee generator to the turbine and GET OUT OF THE WAY! As you sit idle in clogged traffic, sell double latte, cappuchinos to your neighbors for $5 each! The car will pay for itself in a year!
Another version would be to attach a portable shower so those stuck in traffic can get a HOT shower (in the privacy of your own cabaña.
Turbine power + electric would put out fantastic power, tremendous heat and electricity. I think that if a turbin/electric hybrid were to be attached to the electric grid at home you could also sell the production from your french fries oil to your neighbors in the form of electricity.
The car would be transportation but it would also be a heat generator, an electric generator and a torque generator...all saleable to various buyers. It'll run on Whopper grease, alcohol, peanut oil, wheat oil, fish oil.
THIS is the future of cars. They'll be MORE than just transportation, they'll be multipurpose vehicles satisfying a wide range of energy needs.
What about a hybrid using gas turbines and electric? Turbines burn EVERYTHING burnable. In the 70's GM made a tubine car that ran on gasoline, cooking oil and diesel. In other words, it ran in a total variety of substances, virtually anything that would burn! Gas turbine generators are quite popular overseas.
The major problem was the heat.
Imagine a gas turbine power plant with a generator attached.. Ships run on giant diesels with a generator attached. But with the turbine you get a lot of extra heat for boiling water for coffee in the morning. Hook the Starbucks coffee generator to the turbine and GET OUT OF THE WAY! As you sit idle in clogged traffic, sell double latte, cappuchinos to your neighbors for $5 each! The car will pay for itself in a year!
Another version would be to attach a portable shower so those stuck in traffic can get a HOT shower (in the privacy of your own cabaña.
Turbine power + electric would put out fantastic power, tremendous heat and electricity. I think that if a turbin/electric hybrid were to be attached to the electric grid at home you could also sell the production from your french fries oil to your neighbors in the form of electricity.
The car would be transportation but it would also be a heat generator, an electric generator and a torque generator...all saleable to various buyers. It'll run on Whopper grease, alcohol, peanut oil, wheat oil, fish oil.
THIS is the future of cars. They'll be MORE than just transportation, they'll be multipurpose vehicles satisfying a wide range of energy needs.
Okay, I am not a scientist, just a simple earthling hoping that my grandchildren will have a place to live. I have a concern about hydrogen fuel, and you may think this is a stupid question, but does hydrogen fuel consume water? Because welcome to Mars water is not a renewable resource. I don't quite understand how it works. You use the H from the H2O and you still have H2O? Obviously we need to stop fooling around and playing political games or alot of people are going to be cold and hungry in the very near future. Is hydrogen fuel safe and if it is what is holding us back? Please don't say money, that doesn't make sense. I am not an accountant either but i am not an idiot.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.