lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: More nonsense: Hydrogen for an alternate energy source
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 04-30-2009, 03:30 PM   #41
Darth_Yuthura
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Vienna
Posts: 1,585
Current Game: KOTOR III
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat View Post
Actually DY, FCV is a good transition as it will run on petrochemicals though the emissions are not as clean as if it is on hydrogen(though still cleaner than the cleanest hybrid). You're actually hitting apon the "not readily available" part of my earlier post. There are very few hydrogen refueling locations.
That's not what I was emphasizing. When I was arguing for maglev instead of high speed rail, the idea was shunned because it was way too radical compared to the more standard 'wheels on tracks' concept.

The electrical infrastructure for electric hybrids or light rail are very much available today. It would involve setting up a new infrastructure for electric trains or recharge stations at parkways, but it would be relatively easy in comparison to starting a whole new, unrelated system from scratch. You would have to construct electrolysing devices on a massive scale before you could even consider mass-producing hydrogen vehicles. That in itself would be almost like constructing a new system of power plants to replace all those in the US. Setting up a massive new infrastructure very different from what is currently used would be astronomical.

Hydrogen historically has not been used on a massive scale and would not be easy to implement... or cheap for that matter... when it comes to becoming THE energy of the future for automobiles. As of today, it's not even close to the feasibility of batteries being gasoline's replacement. There is simply no infrastructure of any kind for hydrogen, but there is already one in place for electricity that simply has to be expanded.

Last edited by Darth_Yuthura; 04-30-2009 at 03:39 PM.
Darth_Yuthura is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-30-2009, 03:45 PM   #42
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! 
Yeah, if batteries were to suddenly see a radical improvement, you can bet that I'd be advocating those for powering cars.


"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
Q is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 04-30-2009, 06:46 PM   #43
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,577
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
Actually DY the difference is huge. FCV's CAN run on existing petrochemical fuels. This means that the argument that it would be impractical because there is no supporting infrastructure is a bit off. For the FCV you are able to reuse the existing gas stations until such time as hydrogen itself is more readily available.

Of course, nobody has mentioned yet that the development of the FCV does not preclude using electric vehicles on the same roadways.


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson

Last edited by Tommycat; 04-30-2009 at 06:53 PM.
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-01-2009, 02:25 AM   #44
RedHawke
Shadow Lord Of The Sith™
 
RedHawke's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Stormreach CA.
Posts: 9,184
Current Game: DDO, Stormreach
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
Unfortunately, you cannot really look to one station and call it viable. Your one station... how much did it cost to construct? How much does the hydrogen fuel cost?
Yes you can call it viable, it is called a prototype and they normally come in unique units or small runs of units. And I believe I answered this before, to you in your other thread full of misinformation about hydrogen... like your posts here in this thread.

Sorry folks, we in the program have heard your types of statements countless times, it is amazing how much effort the ones who stand to lose will spend to keep their strangle-hold on their monopolies. Mark well the source of your information, and who pays their bills.


"Beware the form-fitting black armor-clad Drow hottie with twin Mineral II Greensteel Khopeshes!"
"Liella d'Orien says, '"You're the fool, Devil. -- Witness the power of this fully ARMED and OPERATIONAL Titan!"'"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
RedHawke is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-01-2009, 07:46 AM   #45
Darth_Yuthura
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Vienna
Posts: 1,585
Current Game: KOTOR III
I was not referring to the stations; I was referring to the facilities that would have to produce the hydrogen and how it would be distributed throughout regions. Hydrogen is a gas at room temperature and needs to be pressurized. That's not remotely close to gasoline storage and transportation demands.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedHawke View Post
Yes you can call it viable, it is called a prototype and they normally come in unique units or small runs of units. And I believe I answered this before, to you in your other thread full of misinformation about hydrogen... like your posts here in this thread.

Sorry folks, we in the program have heard your types of statements countless times, it is amazing how much effort the ones who stand to lose will spend to keep their strangle-hold on their monopolies. Mark well the source of your information, and who pays their bills.
How expensive would it be for the various production facilities, pipelines, stations, additional power plants, and vehicle repair facilities? There is a very significant difference between gasoline and hydrogen/powered cars and it would require specialized training where a split-cycle engine upgrade follows the same principles as the four-cycle design. The simpler one can make a technology or system, the less likely there would be complications. Where would Redhawke have gone if he theoretically owned his vehicle and it broke down? If there weren't many hydrogen vehicles on the road, finding a mechanic would have been difficult to find.

Prototype, huh? So how much did that hydrogen fuel cost you? Let me guess... you either spent big, or you paid an artificially-generated price. I would be greatly interested in knowing the details that you haven't mentioned before about your evaluation of the vehicle you tested.

How much was the fuel? What was the fuel rating per gallon of hydrogen? How many vehicles could that one station with the non-emissive power source provide for daily? How much were the solar panels that powered that station? How much energy was lost in the hydrolysis process and how much did you get from the fuel cell on your vehicle? Little details like this would be easier for you to answer than me, but anything like this that you could also add would be appreciated. Hydrogen may be more realistic for the future than gasoline, but for it to be viable, it must first be economic.

Last edited by Darth_Yuthura; 05-01-2009 at 07:52 AM.
Darth_Yuthura is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-01-2009, 09:59 AM   #46
Hawkstrong16
Junior Member
 
Hawkstrong16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: PA. USA
Posts: 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
Hydrogen may be more realistic for the future than gasoline, but for it to be viable, it must first be economic.
For Us to use it in the future, We need to be doing what we're doing right now. Do you think they got the internal combustion engine right on the first try? Or even the 100th? No they did not! Even now they are still working on making it better.

We may not see Hydrogen for fuel Right now but it will happen. It will be expensive to produce at first. But In the long run I think that it will be cheaper and much more economic.
I may not know as much about all this as the rest of you. But its just my two cents


Camo-Man 07 Now Known As Hawkstrong16

90% of teens today would die if myspace or facebook had a system failure. If you are one of the 10% that would sit and laugh copy this to your signature.
92% precent of teens today have moved on to rap. If you are one of the 8% that still rock out copy this to your signature


May The Force Be With You, Always
Hawkstrong16 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-01-2009, 10:53 AM   #47
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,577
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
I'll hold off judgment on the split cycle until I see HP/TQ/fuel econ ratings versus a similar displacement engine in two identical vehicles. I still see it as problematic as it still relies very heavily on gasoline(and or diesel) for power.

Then I'll want to see how well it does on a race course. But that's just me.


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-01-2009, 11:11 AM   #48
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! 
I'm interested in it's power and MPG ratings as well. As far as performance is concerned, remember that it delivers a power stroke for every turn of the crankshaft, so a souped-up model would be a real high-revving monster.


"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
Q is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-01-2009, 02:37 PM   #49
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,577
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
well high revving depends on the point at which you start getting valve float
remember too that every stroke is also a compression stroke and has friction from not one, but 2 full pistons.


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-01-2009, 02:39 PM   #50
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,025
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
I was not referring to the stations; I was referring to the facilities that would have to produce the hydrogen and how it would be distributed throughout regions.


Quote:
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.
From what I'm reading, the station produces it own hydrogen. There is no need for distribution. It sounds to me that the only cost after construction would be maintenance and paying the water bill. Unless someone figures out a way to charge us for sunlight.


mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-01-2009, 02:46 PM   #51
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,577
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin View Post


From what I'm reading, the station produces it own hydrogen. There is no need for distribution. It sounds to me that the only cost after construction would be maintenance and paying the water bill. Unless someone figures out a way to charge us for sunlight.
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. 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.


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-01-2009, 03:17 PM   #52
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,025
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
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.


mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-01-2009, 03:30 PM   #53
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! 
Wind power would probably make the entire Midwest self-sufficient. I grew up there and it's so flat that the wind is completely unimpeded. It would still require an absolute buttload of windmills.


"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; 05-01-2009 at 03:41 PM.
Q is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-01-2009, 03:34 PM   #54
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,577
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
Quote:
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.
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 would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-01-2009, 03:35 PM   #55
Web Rider
Senior Member
 
Web Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: here
Posts: 1,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qliveur View Post
Wind power would probably make the entire Midwest self-sufficient. I grew up there and it's so flat that the wind completely unimpeded. It would still require an absolute buttload of windmills.
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.


"So if you go to Washington, it's buildings clean and nice. Bring a pack of matches...and we'll burn the White House twice!"

"Nobody's talking about extermination. No one ever does. They just do it." - Magneto

"Don't solicit for your sister, that's not nice, unless you get a good percentage of her price."
Web Rider is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-01-2009, 03:42 PM   #56
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! 
Tornadoes usually prefer trailer parks.


"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
Q is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-01-2009, 05:36 PM   #57
Jae Onasi
Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus ventosissimis exponebantur ad necem
 
Jae Onasi's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,911
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qliveur View Post
Tornadoes usually prefer trailer parks.
Heh, the tornado supercell that passed right over my head one time did drop down a tornado not two miles later, in the trailer park, of course.

If we put a windmill on top of every big building in Chicago, we'd probably be able to fuel half the world.


From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Read The Adventures of Jolee Bindo and see the amazing Peep Surgery
Story WIP: The Dragonfighters
My blog: Confessions of a Geeky Mom--Latest post: Security Alerts!
Love Star Trek AND gaming? Check out Lotus Fleet.

Jae Onasi is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-01-2009, 06:21 PM   #58
Darth_Yuthura
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Vienna
Posts: 1,585
Current Game: KOTOR III
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin View Post


From what I'm reading, the station produces it own hydrogen. There is no need for distribution. It sounds to me that the only cost after construction would be maintenance and paying the water bill. Unless someone figures out a way to charge us for sunlight.
Forgetting one major expense: interest. You always have to take into account what you have to pay for interest off borrowed funds. Nuclear breeder reactors are WAY better than standard, but because they cost twice as much to build, it doesn't matter if you can get 20x the amount of energy per unit of fuel. The same thing goes for solar. If you can't produce much energy, then it doesn't matter if what little you get is free.
Darth_Yuthura is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-01-2009, 06:33 PM   #59
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,025
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
Interest would be part of construction cost. So no, I'm not forgetting since I said after construction cost.


Also if I were a large corporation with cutting edge technology I would not finance construction by burrowing funds from a bank. I would issue new stock (look no interest).

Your second point I've also already covered already in earlier post. No solar will not work everywhere, but you can always use an alternative at a different cost. You do understand that gasoline prices are not uniformed across the country either?



Last edited by mimartin; 05-01-2009 at 06:47 PM.
mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-01-2009, 09:53 PM   #60
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 Jae Onasi View Post
Heh, the tornado supercell that passed right over my head one time did drop down a tornado not two miles later, in the trailer park, of course.
They're always strangely attracted to trailer parks. I don't know whether it's the metallic structures or if the culling of the white ghetto is some bizarre form of natural selection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
If we put a windmill on top of every big building in Chicago, we'd probably be able to fuel half the world.
I've been to Chicago many times and you're right. They could put windmills all along the lake shore there and generate a lot of power.


"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; 05-04-2009 at 04:18 AM. Reason: spelling
Q is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-02-2009, 05:43 AM   #61
RedHawke
Shadow Lord Of The Sith™
 
RedHawke's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Stormreach CA.
Posts: 9,184
Current Game: DDO, Stormreach
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin View Post
From what I'm reading, the station produces it own hydrogen. There is no need for distribution. It sounds to me that the only cost after construction would be maintenance and paying the water bill. Unless someone figures out a way to charge us for sunlight.
Bingo!!! We have a winner!


"Beware the form-fitting black armor-clad Drow hottie with twin Mineral II Greensteel Khopeshes!"
"Liella d'Orien says, '"You're the fool, Devil. -- Witness the power of this fully ARMED and OPERATIONAL Titan!"'"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
RedHawke is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-02-2009, 06:32 AM   #62
Web Rider
Senior Member
 
Web Rider's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: here
Posts: 1,768
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin View Post
Unless someone figures out a way to charge us for sunlight.
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.


"So if you go to Washington, it's buildings clean and nice. Bring a pack of matches...and we'll burn the White House twice!"

"Nobody's talking about extermination. No one ever does. They just do it." - Magneto

"Don't solicit for your sister, that's not nice, unless you get a good percentage of her price."
Web Rider is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-02-2009, 08:46 AM   #63
Darth_Yuthura
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Vienna
Posts: 1,585
Current Game: KOTOR III
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedHawke View Post
Bingo!!! We have a winner!
I asked you some questions and you just declared 'mission accomplished.'

Questions were:

How much was the fuel from this one station? What was the milage per gallon of hydrogen? How many vehicles can this one station with the non-emissive power source provide for? How much were the solar panels that powered that station? How much energy was lost in the hydrolysis process and how much did you get from the fuel cell(s) on your vehicle? Little details like this would be easier for you to answer than me, but anything like this that you could also add would be appreciated.

This is not meant to slap this particular member in the face; I just wanted to know more about hydrogen power from his perspective. His last post didn't add to the thread, as I already knew his opinion. The question is why?

Last edited by Darth_Yuthura; 05-02-2009 at 08:38 PM.
Darth_Yuthura is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-03-2009, 02:49 AM   #64
RedHawke
Shadow Lord Of The Sith™
 
RedHawke's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Stormreach CA.
Posts: 9,184
Current Game: DDO, Stormreach
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
I asked you some questions and you just declared 'mission accomplished.'
You are inferring things here... perhaps I answered that poster in that manner for other reasons. Limited time, etc.

Since you asked clear questions without the wall of unnecessary text this time, it makes it easier to read them, I am more than happy to answer what I can.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
Questions were:

How much was the fuel from this one station?
Nothing, it is free to us at this point... SMUD has a fleet of these vehicles and so does the partnership. We have free use atm.

Cost hasn't come into play yet, but rest assured it would be far less than filling your average 14 gallon tank is now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
What was the milage per gallon of hydrogen?
None, it is measured in different units of measure. Typically the current model of HFC vehicles that I am familiar with hold about 4kg of hydrogen at 5000 psi. Tanks are rated to twice that pressure.

4 kg of Hydrogen at 5000 psi gives you about 160 miles range, if the pressure were increased the range would increase. The vehicle with a fully pressurized tank went much, much further, but for insurance reasons we can only pressurize our tanks to 5k psi.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
How many vehicles can this one station with the non-emissive power source provide for?
It is a full sized station in relation to a normal gas station in use today. I have yet to go in and have an out of fuel warning, nor has anyone in the program so far.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
How much were the solar panels that powered that station?
No idea SMUD never released this info. Since SMUD is a power company and likely gets them for cheap or makes them themselves the cost was likely negligible to them.

Here in California there is a 45% rebate on using a solar system, there are I think 30% federal rebates nationwide (USA), so factor those in when thinking about the costs for solar panels. I'm sure other countries also provide similar incentives.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
How much energy was lost in the hydrolysis process?
No idea, as SMUD hasn't released this info. But any energy loss at this station outweighs the sloppy and inefficient systems we use today.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
and how much did you get from the fuel cell(s) on your vehicle?
Answered by the MPG question above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
This is not meant to slap this particular member in the face; I just wanted to know more about hydrogen power from his perspective.
No slap seen on this end, though you seemed to go on about energy loss and transportation, etc. when the solutions I have seen eliminate the most wasteful parts of what we have now. So any loss with the new tech is minimal compared to what we have now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
His last post didn't add to the thread, as I already knew his opinion. The question is why?
On the contrary mine indeed did, as it appears on my end you didn't get anything I had wrote and went off on a tangent of your own, I merely pointed out the poster who got what I wrote in the hopes you would re-read what I had said again.


"Beware the form-fitting black armor-clad Drow hottie with twin Mineral II Greensteel Khopeshes!"
"Liella d'Orien says, '"You're the fool, Devil. -- Witness the power of this fully ARMED and OPERATIONAL Titan!"'"
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Last edited by RedHawke; 05-03-2009 at 02:57 AM.
RedHawke is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-03-2009, 08:13 AM   #65
Darth_Yuthura
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Vienna
Posts: 1,585
Current Game: KOTOR III
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedHawke View Post
Nothing, it is free to us at this point... SMUD has a fleet of these vehicles and so does the partnership. We have free use atm.

Cost hasn't come into play yet, but rest assured it would be far less than filling your average 14 gallon tank is now.
Thank-you, but some of the most critical questions I had were not satisfied... either to you or to anyone. Clearly a hydrogen powered vehicle would compare to a standard in range, but still you have no idea what it would cost to actually buy the hydrogen. That's not very reassuring when you don't even know what it would cost... or even an estimate of the cost.

I'm still not convinced. I wouldn't imagine SMUD would promote its product by withholding statistics unless those statistics would hurt their goal. I'd like to know how efficient hydrogen has become and economic it is before I put any confidence in it. At the least, they could show how it has improved... to verify that if it's currently not, then it could be in the future.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedHawke View Post
No slap seen on this end, though you seemed to go on about energy loss and transportation, etc. when the solutions I have seen eliminate the most wasteful parts of what we have now. So any loss with the new tech is minimal compared to what we have now.
The 'most wasteful parts of what we have now'? If you mean the inefficiencies of automobiles, that's only a small part of the issue.

Some Americans don't have the luxury of buying clean fuel if it's going to be too expensive to budget, so I am not placing much faith in hydrogen... there is no mention of its price point. If hydrogen were projected to be cheaper than gasoline, I would assume some numbers would be released to the public. It's in testing phase, so that doesn't mean it's carved in stone, but I have seen no projections or estimates that it would be any less than $10 per 4 kg. It would very well cost more as fossil fuels become more expensive.

As for solar power, it represents <1% of electricity produced in the US. It's rising, but you would need an area the size of Rhode Island covered to be at the point of replacing oil demands with solar panels.
Darth_Yuthura is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-04-2009, 03:34 AM   #66
RedHawke
Shadow Lord Of The Sith™
 
RedHawke's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Stormreach CA.
Posts: 9,184
Current Game: DDO, Stormreach
(I'm still trying to understand your really off base quip about solar power, it had nothing to do with my reply, and is indicative of my issues with your replies, they start to drift off away from the topic at hand IMO. Just FYI)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
Clearly a hydrogen powered vehicle would compare to a standard in range, but still you have no idea what it would cost to actually buy the hydrogen. That's not very reassuring when you don't even know what it would cost... or even an estimate of the cost.
Cheaper than gasoline is now... that is the goal. Options for home units to make hydrogen at your own home are also on the table, so some people might not be visiting the stations as frequently than they are now.

I know you want a hard number, but at this point you aren't likely to get any. 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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
I wouldn't imagine SMUD would promote its product by withholding statistics unless those statistics would hurt their goal.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
The 'most wasteful parts of what we have now'? If you mean the inefficiencies of automobiles, that's only a small part of the issue.
No, the other information you listed before in your earlier posts that concerned you. "How expensive would it be for the various production facilities, pipelines, stations, additional power plants, and vehicle repair facilities?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
Some Americans don't have the luxury of buying clean fuel if it's going to be too expensive to budget, so I am not placing much faith in hydrogen... there is no mention of its price point.
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.

Also referring to a tidbit from an earlier post...
Quote:
There is a very significant difference between gasoline and hydrogen/powered cars
Yes and no... there are shared systems and new ones.

Quote:
and it would require specialized training where a split-cycle engine upgrade follows the same principles as the four-cycle design. The simpler one can make a technology or system, the less likely there would be complications. Where would Redhawke have gone if he theoretically owned his vehicle and it broke down? If there weren't many hydrogen vehicles on the road, finding a mechanic would have been difficult to find.
I have to say you are misinformed about who can repair these vehicles...

My father, in his 60's, took him less than 4 weeks training... for someone with only a grade 10 education and over 40 years experience working on many of the various vehicles in use (American/European/Asian/Autos/Diesels), and if my dad could adjust to these vehicles so readily (he loved it, up until he had to go on disability due to his cancer), it won't be difficult for younger more educated mechanics to make this adjustment as well.

The work force is already in place, the current shops will only need to buy a few new diagnostic systems/tools. For some shops working under the auto company names these things are supplied.


"Beware the form-fitting black armor-clad Drow hottie with twin Mineral II Greensteel Khopeshes!"
"Liella d'Orien says, '"You're the fool, Devil. -- Witness the power of this fully ARMED and OPERATIONAL Titan!"'"
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Last edited by RedHawke; 05-04-2009 at 06:45 AM.
RedHawke is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-04-2009, 12:23 PM   #67
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,577
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedHawke View Post
My father, in his 60's, took him less than 4 weeks training... for someone with only a grade 10 education and over 40 years experience working on many of the various vehicles in use (American/European/Asian/Autos/Diesels), and if my dad could adjust to these vehicles so readily (he loved it, up until he had to go on disability due to his cancer), it won't be difficult for younger more educated mechanics to make this adjustment as well.
I have a question related to this, but it's kind of a selfish question. Will I be able to Hot-Rod it? Get it going really fast? I mean some of us like big torque and getting some wheel spin. I think it would be kind of fun to have a muscle car powered with clean fuel. Granted, I wouldn't have that V8 roar, but if I can make it down a drag strip in under 12 seconds, I don't think too many hot rodders are going to whine about an FCV(aside from the ones who love the V8 roar). It would make one HECK of a sleeper.

From what I understand the FCV has fewer moving parts than a conventional engine(a disadvantage of the split cycle engine is that it has MORE parts than a conventional engine). So maintenance is actually reduced. It shouldn't be near as complicated as working on a current vehicle with 10 feet of timing chain, 3 different computer systems, 32 valves, 32 springs, 4 cam shafts, and the myriad of other parts that are specifically added to reduce emissions.

One thing that concerns me a bit is the 5000PSI tank... I know 2000PSI can do a lot of damage to a person. 4000 psi can kill a person. Do you happen to know if they did any impact rupture tests and the results? I'm sure they did, otherwise they couldn't have them on the road... It's just my own curiosity.


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-04-2009, 01:07 PM   #68
Darth_Yuthura
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Vienna
Posts: 1,585
Current Game: KOTOR III
I don't know if you were addressing me or Redhawke, but I could answer that question. The Split-cycle engine, or FCV, does have more components than a conventional engine, but only because you have two different types of pistons and cylinders... the crank shaft and the compressed air components are parts that a conventional engine don't have.

Although there are only half the number of power cylinders, they will fire twice as rapidly. That means a FVC would theoretically be just as capable as a normal engine. There may even be a performance advantage. If only the power cylinders operate and the compression cylinders are left open, the engine would be able to feed from the tank of compressed air alone. I don't know how much extra power it could achieve, but with the compression cylinders open, there would be less power demanded to recharge the compressed air in the tank and less resistance to overcome.

Likewise, the power cylinders could be opened and only the compression cylinders would take the car's momentum and convert it to potential energy in the form of compressed air. This may be the greatest attribute of the FVC engine being able to do this cheaper than with batteries.
Darth_Yuthura is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-04-2009, 01:19 PM   #69
Tommycat
º¿º>^..^<
 
Tommycat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,577
Current Game: Real Life 1.0(BETA)
Forum Veteran 
Actually, FCV meaning Fuel Cell Vehicle.

I just know that Murphy's Law of machines dictates that the more moving parts you have the more chance of something breaking.

I know that from my experience once you get above 12:1 compression, you start breaking things on pump gas. I'd be interested to see a durability test on the Split Cycle. engine. I can see the high performance POSSIBILITIES of the split cycle. but the extra moving parts makes Tommy a very nervous cat.


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." Thomas Jefferson
Tommycat is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-05-2009, 01:47 AM   #70
Darth Avlectus
Your point?
 
Darth Avlectus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Attack on Titan
Posts: 4,229
Current Game: Soul Calibur 5
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 H2...do 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.

Quote:
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....

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jules on Pulp Fiction
YES YOU DID!
http://lucasforums.com/showpost.php?...29&postcount=9

And hint at it you did...

http://lucasforums.com/showpost.php?...90&postcount=6

You're welcome.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mimartin View Post
Unless someone figures out a way to charge us for sunlight.
Quote:
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)

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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...

Quote:
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)

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

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
QFT


Quote:
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.


"I cant see S***! --YOU GO TO HELL!" --Tourettes guy
Darth Avlectus is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-05-2009, 02:15 AM   #71
RedHawke
Shadow Lord Of The Sith™
 
RedHawke's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Stormreach CA.
Posts: 9,184
Current Game: DDO, Stormreach
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity View Post
What it requires, though, is a transition. True what you say will most definitely occur after that has happened. Until then...well....
Transition yes, how long is the question... I would prefer fast instead of slow.

Not many people will be put out of work either, as new fuel stations simply replace the old ones, and repair shops need only some minor adjustments. Transporting hydrogen is already possible. I see far less involved here than say the change over from horse and buggy to automobiles, far less people to lose jobs, etc. But that likely is just me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity View Post
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.
I'm not at the levels to know if that has happened... but I would be completely naieve to believe things haven't happened.

The fuel cell is not combustion. A fuel cell converts the chemicals hydrogen and oxygen into water and in doing so it produces electricity, said electricity runs the electric motor and thusly moves the vehicle. Basically it is an electric car for all intents and purposes powered by a fuel cell instead of a battery.


"Beware the form-fitting black armor-clad Drow hottie with twin Mineral II Greensteel Khopeshes!"
"Liella d'Orien says, '"You're the fool, Devil. -- Witness the power of this fully ARMED and OPERATIONAL Titan!"'"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
RedHawke is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-05-2009, 02:32 AM   #72
Darth Avlectus
Your point?
 
Darth Avlectus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Attack on Titan
Posts: 4,229
Current Game: Soul Calibur 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedHawke View Post
Transition yes, how long is the question... I would prefer fast instead of slow.

Not many people will be put out of work either, as new fuel stations simply replace the old ones, and repair shops need only some minor adjustments. Transporting hydrogen is already possible. I see far less involved here than say the change over from horse and buggy to automobiles, far less people to lose jobs, etc. But that likely is just me.
Least you're honest about it.

TBH, I cannot really say...I imagine, though, you're probably right in a few respects.


Quote:
I'm not at the levels to know if that has happened... but I would be completely naieve to believe things haven't happened.
I'm not either. However, I have worked for people who have told me to destroy a competitor's stuff. There's good reason I do not work for them anymore. No, not in cars, though, just saying, alluding to the nature of sabotage.

Quote:
The fuel cell is not combustion. A fuel cell converts the chemicals hydrogen and oxygen into water and in doing so it produces electricity, said electricity runs the electric motor and thusly moves the vehicle. Basically it is an electric car for all intents and purposes powered by a fuel cell instead of a battery.
That's what I thought. That's what it seemed you were implying too, just wanted to be sure.

Uhh, well, if there is data to suggest that it would perform vastly superior to batteries and capacitors combined with "sophisticated" circuitry (that's circuitry engineered with as little of loss as possible like in some flash cameras, econo gadgets, etc.)...I'd be happy to take a look at it.

Considering that most electrical/electronic products nowadays have obsolescence built in...it might be nice at least if they kept a higher efficiency.


"I cant see S***! --YOU GO TO HELL!" --Tourettes guy
Darth Avlectus is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-08-2009, 10:07 PM   #73
Bimmerman
Junior Member
 
Bimmerman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Bouncing off the Rev Limiter
Posts: 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
Since some have complained about my nonsense, I'm going to complain about someone else's nonsense to show that I can and do evaluate the OPPOSITE side of the argument before I make a judgment. So I'm going to attempt to advocate FOR something I don't believe to show just how much my convictions are really 'nonsense.'
If this is in regards to the split-cycle engine thing, that actually looks to have some serious development time put into it, and may actually happen. It's interesting enough that it's getting talked about quite frequently here....it just needs to be cost effective and make good on its claims. Neither have been met yet. Anyway, on to your 'nonsense.'

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
Hydrogen fuel cells for automobiles:

This is a potentially everlasting fuel source for automobiles, but it depends upon another energy source to be produced. Nuclear, coal, wind, solar... all could be used for vehicles using hydrogen as a catalyst. Electricity is dependent upon either expensive batteries, or upon a physical connection to a power grid. In addition is that batteries take a long time to charge, but gasoline and liquid hydrogen take only about 5 minutes to replenish.
First, hydrogen as a fuel cell source is decades in the future for a nationally viable infrastructure. I am fully aware of the Honda FCX and such, but there is no infrastructure to make them accepted, and they cost far too much. We need a dual-fuel, a "flex fuel" if you will, hydrogen and gasoline vehicle to create the demand for the infrastructure (i.e. BMW's Hydrogen 7). Only then will fuel cells take off.

My proselytizing aside, the concept of hydrogen as a fuel is sound....generally. People have latched onto the idea of pouring water into your tank, and using it to create hydrogen to create fuel. There are several things wrong with that.

1) it takes more energy to break the OH bonds in water than you get by using the hydrogen in fuel cells. Without a catalyst, you will never break even.
2) you need some kind of liquified hydrogen (extremely cold) or highly pressurized hydrogen. Both have advantages and disadvantages.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura
No emissions other than water vapor:

There are actually emissions that come from this fuel, but they originate from locations other than where the cars operate. A nuclear plant can be built in a public location, but coal could be 1000 miles away and the electricity could be transmitted via power lines. Hydrogen fuel is produced using that electricity and then transported via pipeline to fuel station. Cars powered by gasoline produce emissions on sight where hydrogen's emissions can be placed elsewhere.
There are more emissions than you know of, both of fuel cell car, network, gasoline car, and fueling. If you want to be completely correct, look at the wheel to wheel cost of emissions. It's higher than you think.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
Gasoline is only 30% efficient:

Internal combustion engines are only 30% efficient and can't be pushed passed that rating, so even with the loss of energy through hydrolysis, the larger the scale of the power plant, the more efficient it becomes.
You've never taken thermodynamics, have you?

Your statement is ridiculously false. Gasoline engines are only about 35% efficient. However, if you are right, how does a modern V16 in a Bugatti Veyron make 100x more horsepower and get about double the fuel economy of a 1909 Ford Model T inline four cylinder?

The thermodynamic efficiency can be increased by several means. Turbos, supers, nitrous, are just one way. Improving the volumetric efficiency (how well the engine flows, and burns, that air fuel mixture) is a key one. How else would a Formula 1 engine 2.4L V8 make 780 horsepower (without turbos) at 18000 rpm and get 5 mpg? My Suburban never got above 8 mpg, and it was a 5.4L V8.

Furthermore, you will be astonished to learn the efficiency of a modern coal power plant.

Ready?

Do you think it's....75%?



65%?



55%?



Nope. it hovers between 38 and 45% efficient, at best. That goes for any plant that uses steam and turbines; Nuclear, coal, etc all are the same for thermodynamic efficiencies.

I sincerely hope you mean electrolysis to get the hydrogen. It's only feasible when the plant is producing excess energy, as no matter how much you cross your fingers and pray, breaking the water molecules into H2 and O2 consumes more energy than you will gain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura
Storage:

Electricity can't be stored on a large scale, so any excess energy produced from the US power grid is wasted. Hydrogen could take the excess energy and be used where that energy would otherwise be wasted. Batteries are expensive for electric cars, but hydrogen is dependent upon the size of the tanks. That is cheaper than with more batteries.
This doesn't make sense. "Hydrogen could take the excess energy and be used where that energy would otherwise be wasted." ....um...what? The energy content of hydrogen, for combustion, is the highest for any molecule or compound.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura
Universal:

The US has enough coal to last hundreds of years, but most American vehicles can't use anything that doesn't come from petroleum. This would allow for almost any form of energy to be interchangeable to be used for transportation.


So, how many people think this is nonsense?
I think there are serious flaws in your sources or your influences. Much of your post makes no sense whatsoever. I welcome a change to hydrogen, and am hoping the duel fuel hydrogen cars (aformentioned Hydrogen 7) make a large inroad into the market to spur demand for hydrogen internal combustion cars and thus create the infrastructure necessary to eventually transfer over to fuel cells.

Whether that happens, though, is anyone's guess.


A racing addiction makes a crack addiction look like a vague desire for something salty. -Randy Hickman

Fear disturbs your concentration. - Sabine Schmitz
Bimmerman is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-09-2009, 06:49 AM   #74
Darth_Yuthura
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Vienna
Posts: 1,585
Current Game: KOTOR III
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bimmerman View Post
If this is in regards to the split-cycle engine thing, that actually looks to have some serious development time put into it, and may actually happen. It's interesting enough that it's getting talked about quite frequently here....it just needs to be cost effective and make good on its claims. Neither have been met yet.
And how exactly has hydrogen done any better?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bimmerman View Post
First, hydrogen as a fuel cell source is decades in the future for a nationally viable infrastructure. I am fully aware of the Honda FCX and such, but there is no infrastructure to make them accepted, and they cost far too much. We need a dual-fuel, a "flex fuel" if you will, hydrogen and gasoline vehicle to create the demand for the infrastructure (i.e. BMW's Hydrogen 7). Only then will fuel cells take off.
What, do you mean a vehicle with an internal combustion engine and a fuel cell? It's not viable and won't come about if hydrogen is more economic than gasoline. Only when/if it does will hydrogen start to take over and leave gasoline behind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bimmerman View Post
There are more emissions than you know of, both of fuel cell car, network, gasoline car, and fueling. If you want to be completely correct, look at the wheel to wheel cost of emissions. It's higher than you think.
And why would you suggest increasing an already high rate of emissions?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bimmerman View Post
Furthermore, you will be astonished to learn the efficiency of a modern coal power plant.

Ready?

it hovers between 38 and 45% efficient, at best. That goes for any plant that uses steam and turbines; Nuclear, coal, etc all are the same for thermodynamic efficiencies.
I wasn't astonished, for I was already aware of that. What you claimed is not accurate, however. The efficiency of coal depends upon the type of coal you use. Lignite is among the worst forms of coal to burn, but sometimes it is favored over bituminous because of the presence of other elements (mercury, lead, arsenic, ext.) Bituminous coal is much more cost effective and very abundant, which is why it is used so greatly in the US. Anthracite is the best grade and the 'cleanest' burning coal there is, but it is much more scarce and difficult to mine.

Although I do value the environmental impact being minimized, I really weigh the economic viability most heavily. Nuclear is the more economic and environmentally friendly energy source. The limitation of nuclear is that it has a huge capital cost before it can produce electricity, but a lower operating cost.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bimmerman View Post
I think there are serious flaws in your sources or your influences. Much of your post makes no sense whatsoever. I welcome a change to hydrogen, and am hoping the duel fuel hydrogen cars (aformentioned Hydrogen 7) make a large inroad into the market to spur demand for hydrogen internal combustion cars and thus create the infrastructure necessary to eventually transfer over to fuel cells.
The US has 25% of the world's coal reserves. That energy provides the majority of the electricity used in the US, but how much of the transportation infrastructure is powered by coal? Except for light rail, subways, electric cars, and hydrogen cars; nothing else uses coal energy.

Electricity is a means of transmission and can be generated by ANY source of energy you can produce from a power plant. The biggest problem with electricity is that anything depending on it can't function without a link to a power grid. Batteries can only store so much, but take a long time to recharge. Excess electricity from the power grid can't be stored and is wasted, but if that electricity were to be used in ANY way that was beneficial, it would be significant.

Hydrogen is like that to a degree, but can recharge faster and has a range similar to a gasoline-powered car. Problem is that it takes more energy to produce than is returned, not part of the transportation infrastructure, expensive, and many other issues.

Last edited by Darth_Yuthura; 05-09-2009 at 07:18 AM.
Darth_Yuthura is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 05-11-2009, 09:04 AM   #75
Bimmerman
Junior Member
 
Bimmerman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Bouncing off the Rev Limiter
Posts: 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
And how exactly has hydrogen done any better?
As FCV or IC? Fuel cell hasn't, IC only slightly less so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
What, do you mean a vehicle with an internal combustion engine and a fuel cell? It's not viable and won't come about if hydrogen is more economic than gasoline. Only when/if it does will hydrogen start to take over and leave gasoline behind.
Nope, the Hydrogen 7 has a fully internal combustion engine that can run on either gaseous hydrogen or pump gasoline. There is nothing fuel cell related there. Hydrogen = / = fuel cell.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
And why would you suggest increasing an already high rate of emissions?
I don't think I am. Hydrogen IC cars clean the air as they drive. The air going into the engine (which is effectively an air pump) comes out CLEANER than it goes in. Wheel to wheel, we should just ride bicycles, as anything with four wheels and manufacturing involved is bad.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
I wasn't astonished, for I was already aware of that. What you claimed is not accurate, however. The efficiency of coal depends upon the type of coal you use. Lignite is among the worst forms of coal to burn, but sometimes it is favored over bituminous because of the presence of other elements (mercury, lead, arsenic, ext.) Bituminous coal is much more cost effective and very abundant, which is why it is used so greatly in the US. Anthracite is the best grade and the 'cleanest' burning coal there is, but it is much more scarce and difficult to mine.
Oooooookayyy. Respectfully, you're confused on the difference between thermal efficiency and fuel consumption. I agree, different types of coal burn with different consumption levels. This is not the same thing as I am talking about. Thermal efficiency is the measure of energy output over energy input to the working fluid. I.e. you have a boiler, a turbine, a compressor, and a pump / radiator. (this is a basic model). The boiler, regardless of what fuel you burn, will produce X MJ of energy. The water is flashed to steam and continues on its cycle through the turbine, compressor, etc.....in no way does the type of fuel, nor the consumption of said fuel, play a role in the THERMAL efficiency.

The oft-maligned ~30% efficiency of an IC engine is the THERMAL efficiency.

The larger a power plant becomes has absolutely no bearing on the efficiency. The increasing number of regenerators, reheaters, intercoolers, etc DOES have an impact, sometimes negative. The amount of fuel burned isn't as important as whether it can reach the needed temperature inside the burner/boiler. Same goes for an engine. It takes X amount of fuel to make X kJ of energy, regardless of the engine. All you are doing to the motor is making it burn cleaner, and therefore less fuel for the same power (kJ/s, W, hp, energy per second = power).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura
The US has 25% of the world's coal reserves. That energy provides the majority of the electricity used in the US, but how much of the transportation infrastructure is powered by coal? Except for light rail, subways, electric cars, and hydrogen cars; nothing else uses coal energy.
Do you know how dirty a coal power plant is? The emissions are measured in tons per hour. CO2 emissions from power plants account for 41% of the total US CO2 emissions from all sources. Just because the cars aren't physically emitting doesn't mean they aren't polluters; that energy that creates said CO2 also does the electrolysis of Hydrogen, supplies power to the light rail, subways, and electric cars. Nothing is free.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura
Electricity is a means of transmission and can be generated by ANY source of energy you can produce from a power plant. The biggest problem with electricity is that anything depending on it can't function without a link to a power grid. Batteries can only store so much, but take a long time to recharge. Excess electricity from the power grid can't be stored and is wasted, but if that electricity were to be used in ANY way that was beneficial, it would be significant.
I agree in principle. However, the technology for realistic road-trip capable electric cars (not <40 mi ranges, that's pathetic) is a good ways off. Subways, electric buses, and electric trains are really the only good uses, as they follow predictable and planable routes, and have no need to store energy onboard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura
Hydrogen is like that to a degree, but can recharge faster and has a range similar to a gasoline-powered car. Problem is that it takes more energy to produce than is returned, not part of the transportation infrastructure, expensive, and many other issues.
All true. Furthermore, in an internal combustion engine, hydrogen makes significantly more power on less fuel than gasoline does. In simple terms, 600 hp where there was once 450 hp, same fuel economy or better. Granted, that requires tuning, fuel systems changes, etc etc.

What is NOT feasable with hydrogen is converting the cars on the road to run it. Can it be done? Yes. Is it safe or cheap? No. Everyone on the planet agrees that Fuel Cells are the future. In order to get from here to there, we need to embrace a bridging technology--i.e. duel fuel IC hydrogen/gasoline cars. Once the infrastructure (and all the issues with standardizing it are worked out) exist, the hydrogen fuel cell and IC future will happen. Just don't expect it anytime soon.


A racing addiction makes a crack addiction look like a vague desire for something salty. -Randy Hickman

Fear disturbs your concentration. - Sabine Schmitz
Bimmerman is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-14-2009, 10:07 PM   #76
Darth_Yuthura
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Vienna
Posts: 1,585
Current Game: KOTOR III
Throughout this entire debate, there's been something that truly has never been addressed: costs. Yeah, it had been thrown about time and again, but has never actually been answered.

I asked Redhawke what he paid for his hydrogen fuel and the answer was never given. He didn't pay for it... then who did? How can so many be advocating for this glorious hydrogen future when no one has the vaguest idea what the fuel/stations/R&D/infrastructure costs will surmount to? Whenever the electric hybrid comes into the news, everyone cheers on a good step in the right direction, but if that means adding on another $8,000 to the price of the vehicle, how many will be glad to see this?

Right now there are many alternative solutions to transportation energy problems that have been proven to work, but involves steps that interfere with the American lifestyle. Reducing the number of times that people have to drive by carpooling is simple and effective in itself. Promoting mass transit allows the US to power transportation with electricity and from that, various alternative sources. It's an effective economic step to freeing us from dependence on foreign oil; but hydrogen supports actually want us to depend even more so on dirty fuels, or pay through the nose for unreliable (if clean) alternate sources. Don't proclaim that hydrogen is clean... it's only as clean as the energy that produces it. And before pointing to solar or wind, don't forget those combined form less than 1% of the power grid.

Any hydrogen solution (if it works at all) will inevitably add to the US power grid demand (As you must back hydrogen with another power source) And because you still only get 50% back what you invest in hydrogen, that would mean the US will have to increase its electrical output by over 50% (as 30% of our energy demands are for transportation and that energy is independent of the power grid, you have to substitute oil for another source) If all cars are powered by hydrogen, then where is this additional energy supposed to come from?

If anyone says from solar, then you might as well just use that energy for the US power grid and skip the hydrogen process altogether, as it will result in less squandered energy due to the fractional return from the fuel cell.

If anyone has a better idea, I'd like to hear it.

Last edited by Darth_Yuthura; 06-15-2009 at 09:30 AM.
Darth_Yuthura is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-15-2009, 03:45 PM   #77
Bimmerman
Junior Member
 
Bimmerman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Bouncing off the Rev Limiter
Posts: 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
Throughout this entire debate, there's been something that truly has never been addressed: costs. Yeah, it had been thrown about time and again, but has never actually been answered.

I asked Redhawke what he paid for his hydrogen fuel and the answer was never given. He didn't pay for it... then who did? How can so many be advocating for this glorious hydrogen future when no one has the vaguest idea what the fuel/stations/R&D/infrastructure costs will surmount to?
About $500k per station is the grant that CA is currently offering to new hydrogen stations. I will double check that at work tomorrow. That money is intended to completely cover all costs from construction and infrastructure for the station. The cost of hydrogen itself is on par with the cost of gasoline, just measured in $/kg instead of $/gal or $/L.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
Whenever the electric hybrid comes into the news, everyone cheers on a good step in the right direction, but if that means adding on another $8,000 to the price of the vehicle, how many will be glad to see this?
Hybrids.....are a step in the wrong direction frankly. They reduce fuel consumption, yes, but push the boundaries of what is possible with the electric motors and drivetrain, not what is possible with the gasoline. Ford has a new gasoline motor that makes stupid silly amounts of horsepower and torque, and gets frankly astonishing fuel mileage on par with a hybrid, all with better emissions. Hybrids are the status symbol for the ecologically gullible.

Adding $8k to the price tag of a car, or something similar, will not fly unless the fuel savings from the hydrogen fuel pay that cost down. Hybrids have an identical issue, just the cost of the hybrid feel-good badge is less than $3k in most cases. People love to save the planet, but money in the wallet is more important for nearly anyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
Right now there are many alternative solutions to transportation energy problems that have been proven to work, but involves steps that interfere with the American lifestyle. Reducing the number of times that people have to drive by carpooling is simple and effective in itself. Promoting mass transit allows the US to power transportation with electricity and from that, various alternative sources. It's an effective economic step to freeing us from dependence on foreign oil; but hydrogen supports actually want us to depend even more so on dirty fuels, or pay through the nose for unreliable (if clean) alternate sources. Don't proclaim that hydrogen is clean... it's only as clean as the energy that produces it. And before pointing to solar or wind, don't forget those combined form less than 1% of the power grid.
Out of curiosity, where do you live? For the vast majority of american citizens, myself included, mass transit is useful only in big cities, where few people actually live. Most people commute to work via cars since they live hours outside of their jobs where the good houses are. No incentive for public transportation will change that. Furthermore, most big cities have buses that go just about everywhere....why complicate everything by adding rail?(we have amazing bus service in the Denver metro area, and limited light rail.) Mass public transit works inside the city, and for getting around inside said city from work to coffee or what have you, but from home to work, it is frankly silly.

That doesn't even begin to take into account the huge amounts of wasted time, wasted energy, as well as physical and mental stress and exhaustion, from using mass transit. I love my car, I love driving, and it is frankly faster, quicker, less tiring, more fun, and more convenient and comfortable to use. Mass transit is great for people who live in the big city. For everyone else.....it's more of a pain than a boon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
Any hydrogen solution (if it works at all) will inevitably add to the US power grid demand (As you must back hydrogen with another power source) And because you still only get 50% back what you invest in hydrogen, that would mean the US will have to increase its electrical output by over 50% (as 30% of our energy demands are for transportation and that energy is independent of the power grid, you have to substitute oil for another source) If all cars are powered by hydrogen, then where is this additional energy supposed to come from?
This isn't the first time I've said this-- you need to specify clearly what you mean by "hydrogen." Do you mean electrohydrolysis? Do you mean combusting? Fuel cells? Please specify.

I will assume you mean using energy from power plants to split the hydrogen and oxygen from water into their respective gaseous forms. Please cite where your statistics are coming from; they seem bogus to the extreme. I am also not sure at all what you are talking about with the power demands and grid and output and hydrogen: your paragraph makes no sense.

If you mean that gaseous hydrogen requires more energy to produce, from breaking the strong covalent bonds inside the water molecule, than it returns in either consumption or fuel-cell use, you are correct. There are ways of producing hydrogen that are not a net negative, such as aluminum-gallium catalytic conversion of water to gaseous hydrogen and oxygen. Unfortunately, these types of proven processes are in the laboratory experimental stage, not the production stage.

If what you mean is that gaseous hydrogen requires energy to produce, and that we need a source of energy to do so, understand that few power plants in this country operate at 100% capacity. Some operate at or above (CA in particular), but many do not. The best way is to simply build nuclear plants, as that achieves clean energy (no debate please, it's more than clean enough and that's not the point of the thread) and no dependence on fossil fuels.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
If anyone says from solar, then you might as well just use that energy for the US power grid and skip the hydrogen process altogether, as it will result in less squandered energy due to the fractional return from the fuel cell.

If anyone has a better idea, I'd like to hear it.
Nuclear.

What do you mean by "fractional return from the fuel cell?" It makes enough power to move the car, or power the shuttle, or ....blah. What it is not is a net positive source of power, nor will it ever be when the source of the hydrogen is hydrolysis.


A racing addiction makes a crack addiction look like a vague desire for something salty. -Randy Hickman

Fear disturbs your concentration. - Sabine Schmitz
Bimmerman is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-15-2009, 09:44 PM   #78
Darth_Yuthura
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Vienna
Posts: 1,585
Current Game: KOTOR III
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bimmerman View Post
This isn't the first time I've said this-- you need to specify clearly what you mean by "hydrogen." Do you mean electrohydrolysis? Do you mean combusting? Fuel cells? Please specify.
It's irrelevant to the issue I was bringing up. I am going to give a rhetorical statement that I know people must already have figured out, but just so they know where I am...

Hydrogen is not in itself an energy source like coal, nuclear, or solar. It is a method by which energy can be transfered from a source to its destination. It must be backed by another form of energy and no matter what form that is, any method you use will have a net loss of energy. When you use a chemical reaction to power your vehicle, you will get less energy back than what you used to produce the fuel in the first place.

My source is two years old, so maybe the production methods have improved, but in 2007, the net return was about 54% of what was invested to produce the hydrogen fuel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bimmerman View Post
What do you mean by "fractional return from the fuel cell?" It makes enough power to move the car, or power the shuttle, or ....blah. What it is not is a net positive source of power, nor will it ever be when the source of the hydrogen is hydrolysis.
Bad wording. You only get a fraction of the energy you originally invested into the hydrogen fuel. There is always going to be a net loss from changing one form of energy to another (solar to electrical, electrical to chemical(hydrogen), chemical back to electrical(fuel cell), electrical to kinetic energy) Might as well just go right from solar to electrical and skip the hydrogen fuel altogether. You only lose about 3% of electricity for each 1000 km it has to be transmitted.

And these powerplants that don't operate so efficiently... that has to also be taken into account if you are outputting hydrogen with that electricity from a power plant. And so how does this 100% powerplant capacity thing make any difference? It would just mean having to build more power plants in order to produce the hydrogen you are advocating for. It might be a means to harness this excess energy that otherwise would be wasted, but beyond that, nothing about it makes sense.

Last edited by Darth_Yuthura; 06-15-2009 at 09:52 PM.
Darth_Yuthura is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-18-2009, 08:45 AM   #79
Bimmerman
Junior Member
 
Bimmerman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Bouncing off the Rev Limiter
Posts: 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
It's irrelevant to the issue..
No, it is absolutely relevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
...I was bringing up. I am going to give a rhetorical statement that I know people must already have figured out, but just so they know where I am...

Hydrogen is not in itself an energy source like coal, nuclear, or solar. It is a method by which energy can be transfered from a source to its destination.
Please listen to me this time.

What you describe is fuel. "A method of transferring energy" is the definition of fuel. Fuel in the sense of stored potential energy to thermal, sonic, light, kinetic, electric energy. Batteries fall under this definition as well.

Gaseous hydrogen is a fuel, analogous to coal, nuclear, or sunlight.

Gaseous hydrogen can be combusted. So can coal.
Gaseous hydrogen can be combined with gaseous oxygen to create water and electricity. Coal can be liquified and burned in liquid form. Uranium can be split via nuclear fusion to produce byproducts and electricity.

Coal is burned as a fuel to heat water inside the coal-fired power plants. Hence the term "coal fired."

Hydrogen itself, a single molecule that is, does not exist in nature. It does not come in solid or liquid form. It is not a thing. It is a fuel upon which a process must be performed in order to transfer energy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
It must be backed by another form of energy and no matter what form that is, any method you use will have a net loss of energy.
So mining coal and combusting the coal to heat water to spin turbines and compressors to generate electricity is a net loss of energy? Nuclear power is a net loss of energy? Burning gasoline in your lawn mower is a net loss of energy? Um......no.

What IS a net loss is the hydrolysis performed on water to obtain H2 and O2. That is a net loss of energy for the chemical reaction. It does not happen spontaneously in nature, and therefore there must be a net energy input for it to happen. It is also true that less enegy is recovered upon combustion of said H2 than was required to break the H-O bonds. Absolute, verified fact. Fuel cells, whether in cars, the space shuttle, or your toaster, operate at a lower loss, as the energy recovered from recombining H-O is closer to that required to break the bonds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
When you use a chemical reaction to power your vehicle, you will get less energy back than what you used to produce the fuel in the first place.
False. Absolutely false.

Gasoline combustion is a net positive energy. Otherwise it would not have ever been profitable. The production, transport, refining, and purchase all cost a good deal in terms of energy and money, but the energy released upon combustion is far higher and is greatly positive. Well to wheel efficiency is positive, not negative. Therefore, your statement is false and misinformation.

It's true for hydrolysis to produce hydrogen, but is false again for the catalytic conversion of water to H2 and O2. That happens above a certain temperature, and requires significantly less energy to raise the catalyst above 50°C than is released upon H2 combustion or fuel cell shenanigans. This is still lab research stuff, and not likely to come to market anytime soon, but still invalidates your point. Using hydrogen to fuel the car of the future, regardless of powertrain configuration, is not necesarily a net negative.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
My source is two years old, so maybe the production methods have improved, but in 2007, the net return was about 54% of what was invested to produce the hydrogen fuel.
Post it. Numbers can be skewed to mean almost anything. The hydrogen fuel industry is in its infancy, and as a result it will cost a lot to develop anything that is not a negative ROI for a while. That doesn't mean it isn't worth pursuing. Furthermore, many powerplants are producing excess energy, so even hydrolysis is a viable option.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
Bad wording. You only get a fraction of the energy you originally invested into the hydrogen fuel. There is always going to be a net loss from changing one form of energy to another (solar to electrical, electrical to chemical(hydrogen), chemical back to electrical(fuel cell), electrical to kinetic energy) Might as well just go right from solar to electrical and skip the hydrogen fuel altogether. You only lose about 3% of electricity for each 1000 km it has to be transmitted.
Yes and no. You are correct in that there are losses. That is what companies spend thousands of dollars on engineering R&D in order to reduce these losses. Solar is a joke. It only works profitably in a select few environments on earth. Who in their right mind would buy a solar powered car, house, bus, city, computer in the Pacific Northwest? If 54% (from your missing source) is what you consider a fraction, than you must think a 35% thermally efficient power plant is atrocious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
And these powerplants that don't operate so efficiently... that has to also be taken into account if you are outputting hydrogen with that electricity from a power plant. And so how does this 100% powerplant capacity thing make any difference? It would just mean having to build more power plants in order to produce the hydrogen you are advocating for. It might be a means to harness this excess energy that otherwise would be wasted, but beyond that, nothing about it makes sense.
I don't think you understand my point. Because plants don't run at 100% capacity, there is the headroom to create hydrolysis "plants," to coin a term, that would not require additional power plants or sacrifices on anyone's part. In the case of nuclear power, upping the load on the plant (read: percent of max capacity) doesn't even consume more resources.

Would commercial hydrolysis plants require the conventional powerplants to consume more fuel? Absolutely. Keep in mind that gasoline refineries don't magically operate without power, that steel works don't melt steel without power and fuel, that your computer doesn't run without power, that our entire society runs on electricity. If the powerplant is operating below capacity, or in many cases, producing a surplus of energy, adding another load to the line will not accidentally the whole earth.


A racing addiction makes a crack addiction look like a vague desire for something salty. -Randy Hickman

Fear disturbs your concentration. - Sabine Schmitz
Bimmerman is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-18-2009, 10:14 AM   #80
Darth_Yuthura
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Vienna
Posts: 1,585
Current Game: KOTOR III
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bimmerman View Post
So mining coal and combusting the coal to heat water to spin turbines and compressors to generate electricity is a net loss of energy? Nuclear power is a net loss of energy? Burning gasoline in your lawn mower is a net loss of energy? Um......no.
That was not what I was suggesting and you know it. You get less energy back from hydrogen in a fuel cell or combustion than what you used to produce it in the first place. Hydrogen returns less energy from your automobile... much less than what you invested into producing the fuel in the first place. You might as well have just used electricity and you would have had a lot less energy lost in the transfer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bimmerman View Post
False. Absolutely false.
True absolutely true.

But that also applies to electricity. The difference is that you lose a lot less in the transfer of electricity from the power plant to your home than producing hydrogen fuel with that same electricity and getting even less back than what you invested in the first place.

The ONLY advantage the hydrogen has is that it can be stored where electricity cannot on a large scale.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bimmerman View Post
Would commercial hydrolysis plants require the conventional powerplants to consume more fuel? Absolutely. Keep in mind that gasoline refineries don't magically operate without power, that steel works don't melt steel without power and fuel, that your computer doesn't run without power, that our entire society runs on electricity. If the powerplant is operating below capacity, or in many cases, producing a surplus of energy, adding another load to the line will not accidentally the whole earth.
So you are suggesting that we actually increase our demand for energy in a time when it is becoming increasingly more expensive? There are more subtle ways to deal with our energy crisis that don't require going to extreme lengths as switching to hydrogen power. The best thing would be to find inefficiencies and correct them before demanding more energy altogether.

What I've come to expect of supply/demand, all the focus is on increasing supply indefinitely with little or little concern with on decreasing demand. Hydrogen has an advantage of capturing squandered electricity that is not used during peak demand, but even a 60% RoI is that much energy that otherwise would have been lost. Any ideas that the US switch to hydrogen for most of its transportation needs are really not seeing that there are far easier and more effective steps that should be taken first.
Darth_Yuthura is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > Knights of the Old Republic > Community > Kavar's Corner > More nonsense: Hydrogen for an alternate energy source

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:04 PM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.