View Single Post
Old 04-30-2009, 03:00 AM   #33
Q
The one who knocks
 
Q's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: ABQ
Posts: 6,643
Current Game: Mowing down neos with my M60
LF Jester Forum Veteran Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by True_Avery View Post
Not saying the hydrogen battery would be bad. Saying that getting the molecule in the first place takes more energy to initially get then you receive when using the molecule.

But, compared to Gasoline, nothing is currently more "efficient" considering it comes out of the ground and all we really have to do is dig, find, and pump.
You're forgetting an important step in the process. You didn't think that it came out odf the ground as gasoline, did you? Fractional distillation requires boiling all of that crude oil, which requires energy; lots of energy, which is usually acquired by burning something dirty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by True_Avery
The engine's aren't environmentally friendly, but how friendly are the plants using tons of energy to get relatively small amounts of hydrogen?
That's why I stated that establishing a massive, non-emissive power grid should be the first priority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by True_Avery
True, but outside of wind power what do you suggest?
Well, for the coasts, tidal hydroelectric power looks pretty good to me, now that engineers are figuring out how to build the generators so that their environmental impact is minimal. Make no mistake: it would be a massive undertaking, but the potential power generation is astronomical, emission-free and a hell of a lot more reliable than wind or solar power. For the inland areas, nuclear energy is still the best option.
Quote:
Originally Posted by True_Avery
Except it isn't 0 emissions. The car may let out water, but I doubt the nuclear power plant was as friendly when the electricity generally inefficiently cunjured up some hydrogen.?
Modern nuclear power plants are far safer and more efficient than they were just a few decades ago. And the waste that everyone is so afraid of can be reprocessed into new fuel so that the net amount is minimized. It can then be safely stored, for centuries if necessary, until our descendants have the capability to either render it inert or even take it off-planet and send it into the sun if necessary. Ask the French about how great it is. They have such an abundance of power that they sell it to neighboring countries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by True_Avery
Now, that isn't to say I'm against research into it. With our current technology, obviously, getting hydrogen is incredibly inefficient. We have been making some breakthroughs though, and getting closer to overcoming that inefficient gap.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0406102555.htm
Cool. Interesting read. I always wondered if some sort of catalyst could be developed to help the process along. We're getting there. I'm totally with RH in believing that hydrogen is the future, and that some powerful, greedy people might not want that to happen, but maybe within our lifetimes we'll see the end of our dependence on fossil fuels. I for one would die happier that way.


EDIT: The split cycle engine that D_Y is referring to is also known as the Scuderi Engine. It's efficiency is derived from how it generates a power stroke with every turn of the crankshaft instead of every other turn like with a conventional four-stroke cycle engine. It would probably be a good solution for the short-term, and is certainly compatible with existing automobile design, but I don't know how much more efficient it would be than a four-stroke cycle engine in real-world usage.


"They should rename the team to the Washington Government Sucks. Put Obama on the helmet. Line the entire walls of the stadium with the actual text of the ACA.
Fix their home team score on the board to the debt clock, they can win every game 17,000,000,000,000 to 24. Losing team gets taxed by the IRS 100%, then droned."
-Toker

Last edited by Q; 04-30-2009 at 03:23 AM. Reason: spelling, added info on Scuderi Engine
Q is offline   you may: quote & reply,