View Single Post
Old 05-05-2009, 01:47 AM   #70
Darth Avlectus
@Darth Avlectus
I'd buy that for a dollar
Darth Avlectus's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: My pervert mansion
Posts: 4,397
Current Game: A dirty old man.
WHOA! This thread certainly took off while I was gone...

Well, I'd like to clear this up: if you are talking about using hydrogen as a combustible fuel to replace gasoline, it is not the same process that you hear about where the hydrogen is recombined with the oxygen!!! So all this talk about how we can just convert the combustion cars to burn hydrogen and spit out steam instead of smoke is a bunch of bull puckey. First off you are separating H2 from O2, then burning the you expect after that if you recombine it with the oxygen that it will just magically turn back into water? If you do then you've got serious logic problems.

Sure it would be carbon with oxygen and that theoretically is supposed to work out to 0 emissions by process of cancellation... but it never quite works that way in reality as some leakage is always inevitable. Moreover it would be considered an additional process, and an extra cost not necessary to actually run the vehicle, just cut down on emissions... Extra $$$

The recombining process is fuel cells and a completely different process, akin to a battery b/c it produces electrical power. I already covered this: it's redundant considering to power electrical circuits batteries and capacitors do just fine and constantly make improvements due to how much in demand they are.

Originally Posted by Qliveur View Post
So it's inefficient, but relative to what? Gasoline engines aren't exactly models of efficiency, either. As a matter of fact, short of a matter-antimatter reaction, no energy-producing process is anywhere near 100% efficient. If you have abundant, cheap electricity from non-emissive sources, this point becomes moot. That's why establishing a massive, non-emissive power grid should be the first priority.
I'll refer you to mythbusters. There was an episode not too far back where they tested out the various alternative combustion methodologies. The electrolysis to gas to be burned (this is the method that DOES NOT return hydrogen to the oxygen and recycle it) had a very poor MPG compared to gasoline. It was advertised as 50 mpg...dream on? Indeed....

Besides, can you think of a better way to power a car with 0 emissions? I'll admit that I can't, and until Mister Fusion™ becomes a reality, I doubt that anyone else can, either.
Fusion...that is a nuclear process that releases energy by binding the particles as opposed to fission which does the opposite to release energy.
Makes nuclear waste but keeps it localized...or so according to simcity2000...

While Mr Fusion kept the time travel machine with that flux capacitor powered, if I do recall it did have a particular issue in part 3 where Marty ripped the fuel line... and that the vehichle was combustion powered--the primary concern for how the vehicle was going to reach that "88 MILES PER HOUR!!!!!!!!" so they could get back home to their time.

Originally Posted by RedHawke View Post
Some tidbits about Hydrogen production... there is a station constructed by our Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) that is completely off the grid, self-powered and produces its own hydrogen via solar power and water. This station is used to fuel the Hydrogen Fuel cell vehicles that they are currently testing.
Seen it too, though I never did get around to touring it. Nice?

This fuel source is viable, and so are the vehicles. I know I used to drive one, daily.

And I was an "Internal combustion accept no substitutes!" kind of person before.

All the data that you read about Hydrogen being hard to produce or more harmful are likely backed by interests that do not want to see this change. The gas companies stand to lose big if we were to change from gasoline for our vehicles. So be wary of who actually wrote what you are reading and who sponsored it as far as other sites and even textbooks.

Just my
Amongst many other disingenuous conspicuous things added, omitted, etc. on a great number of other things I'm not entirely sure relate to the topic.

However, I will vouch that outside academic search engines like Ebsco, I was inundated with trash paranoia when attempting to actually do some research. A majority had something to do with transit or travel or the like (and any number of products fitting within a venn diagram of the above mentioned).
However, academics also have their own interests at hand as well, but certainly not in an area such as this where they were pro as opposed to con.
But you are correct, the gas companies would see this (as any other fuel source) as a major threat.

However, I have a question or two...was the hydrogen fuel used for combustion like a normal car or did it have a different process? I ask b/c there may be other methods I have not taken into consideration, and if you have info on this particular vehicle, I would very much like to see it... nothing commercial please. I'm very much genuinely interested to see if any developments have been made of if I have overlooked anything.

Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
There is another issue to address that really is at the root of the 'hydrogen economy:' the difficulties in transitioning from one source of energy to another. Let's face it, no one would pay more for a vehicle powered by hydrogen under the conditions we have today. People will want gasoline-powered vehicles and any transition to another fuel source will be expensive. Hydrogen isn't like a liquid fossil fuel to store and handle, so the safety codes and gas station tanks and equipment would demand more new designs and implementation than something like gasohol.
Look up actual statistics on the deaths of those inside those pre-WW1 zeppelins. While I agree it is volatile, part of the major explosion hazards fears are a bit unfounded.

However I will agree with you that some different precautions would most definitely be required for safe handling and storage.

Ethanol is way too unrealistic for practical use of a large scale in the US and with corn, but there are situations where it would make sense to use biodiesel fuel using waste products. That is only a way to make use of something that otherwise would have been lost, but unrealistic on a large scale. Vegetable oil is expensive compared to gasoline, but when it is to be disposed of; what little there is happens to be a good way to scavenge a little more energy that wasn't there before.
Are you talking about the waste greases and oils from food products? Why yes I do believe this was addressed earlier in the thread. This method (referencing the same mythbusters episode) actually ran a diesel powered car about the same with little adjustment to the vehicle and virtually no refinement other than meticulous filtering.

So far as ethanol for fuel...that is a bad idea simply b/c it will eat away at the supply of what it takes to make the ethanol, and with decreased supply, and the same demand...well costs go up. What that means is that certain foods will get more expensive, way more.

Originally Posted by mimartin View Post
I never meant to imply that it would everywhere. I thought I had already made it clear in this thread that I support a diversified energy strategy. Was only referring to the station RedHawke wrote about. Although using either solar or wind power could make a great deal of the stations in at least the southern and western states self sufficient.
Why yes,

Originally Posted by Jules on Pulp Fiction

And hint at it you did...

You're welcome.

Originally Posted by mimartin View Post
Unless someone figures out a way to charge us for sunlight.
Originally Posted by Web Rider View Post
Shhhh!!!! Stop giving them ideas! I mean, it's not like we don't already have private beaches, private parks, tanning salons, and restricted movement within federally managed land.
I know, it makes ya wonder whose side he's on being so clumsy with those kinda comments.
(runs away)

Originally Posted by Tommycat View Post
Not all areas can get consistent sun though. And someone will figger out a way to charge for using the sun. a land use tax or sun tax or somethin haha.
Already do that.
It's called "Smart Meters" proposed to show just how and where exactly you are using those watts, and it helps you figure out how you can utilizer power more efficiently...and what they don't tell you is
1) how much extra power those suckers consume
2) what all of those extra seemingly unrelated components inside it you can't find data on are actually doing/made of

So you can be assured that you'll never misuse your power again.

Heck I'm sure they are looking into how to charge for breathing. Still doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater though.
True enough.

Originally Posted by Tommycat View Post
Absolutely. Especially here in AZ. Dunno if you're aware of it or not, but we get a bit of sun here... like 300+days of it. Solar would be great here. Energy generation could be tailored to the preferences of the environment. My bad, I thought you were using it as a model for how other locations would be set up.
I wish idiots here in CA would actually read the ballots, though instead of depending on the sierra club to cast a reliable vote. We turned down actually making a solar power plant in the desert areas because of "harm to the environment" as the opposition said. ...sheeple put it on and voted it off...

Originally Posted by Web Rider View Post
assuming of course, that the wind is blowing and the annual onslaught of torndoes doesn't mean you have to build a thousand new ones every year.
Windmill generators ought to be placed more where wind is KNOWN to strongly occur a good bit of the time. For example, a valley at the foot of mountains or a steep canyon/cliff, beautiful work...central valley where they already are...I could drive out of LA on any given day and the majority of the time only a few are actually working unless the winds have really picked up.

@ Jae...yeah baby! Your city is notorious for wind, THAT's what I'm sayin'!
(Fills out ballot initiative with Jae Onasi as energy dept. representative)

Originally Posted by Qliveur View Post
Tornadoes usually prefer trailer parks.
Hey! HEY!
Oh, wait, mine isn't in tornado alley. My bad.

Originally Posted by RedHawke View Post
With what is at stake here it is understandable that certain things are kept under wraps, and not for "conspiracy theory" reasons, but for business ones.
QFT That's what "protprietary" privacy etc. is all about.

Or for science or politics for that matter. You just don't reveal your grand idea until the right moment.

You invent something new you will keep things in-house until everything is finalized then when you are ready with your product you release hard data, that is why you make prototypes and test them and also how you keep competitors away. After all profit is a factor here for a business you don't just release everything to the public all along the way in development, that's not how it works.

Clean fuel is only a luxury if you call it such... the only thing they have now is petrol, tomorrow it may be hydrogen, they will buy whatever is available to run the vehicles available. When it was horses they bought/fed horses, gasoline they bought gasoline, whatever comes next they will buy it.
What it requires, though, is a transition. True what you say will most definitely occur after that has happened. Until then...well....

If there are things in the works that actually work, one thing I am surprised you have not mentioned yet is the intentional attempts at sabotage by competitors.

That's right, Bixby Snyder folks.
Darth Avlectus is offline   you may: quote & reply,