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 06-18-2009, 01:04 PM   #81
Bimmerman
Junior Member
 
Bimmerman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Bouncing off the Rev Limiter
Posts: 437
DY, let's agree to disagree. I'm clearly not convincing you, you're clearly not convincing me, and I bet both of us have other things to spend our mental energies on. I'm done with this thread, and I stand by everything I wrote.


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, 09:29 PM   #82
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: 10,912
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura
Hydrogen is not in itself an energy source like coal, nuclear, or solar.
Horse hockey. I've put a number of links in this post--please click them so you can learn more about hydrogen. It combusts readily just like other fuels--see the Hindenberg disaster. Hydrogen is the single most common element in the universe. You can actually pull hydrogen directly from the air itself and from numerous other sources besides electrolysis. In fact, the most common way hydrogen is created in industry is pulling hydrogen atoms off of methane via steam reforming. Hydrogen is a byproduct of the reaction of acids and bases (remember your basic chemistry....). We don't need to rely on water electrolysis to create hydrogen. The reason it's used as an energy carrier right now instead of an energy source is that at this time, it takes more energy to create it than burn it. However, there are numerous processes being tested that would make hydrogen production far more energy effective. The reason it's being pursued so seriously is because it burns without the carbon emissions that burning petrochemicals create.


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 06-19-2009, 03:52 AM   #83
Bimmerman
Junior Member
 
Bimmerman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Bouncing off the Rev Limiter
Posts: 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi View Post
Horse hockey. I've put a number of links in this post--please click them so you can learn more about hydrogen. It combusts readily just like other fuels--see the Hindenberg disaster. Hydrogen is the single most common element in the universe. You can actually pull hydrogen directly from the air itself and from numerous other sources besides electrolysis. In fact, the most common way hydrogen is created in industry is pulling hydrogen atoms off of methane via steam reforming. Hydrogen is a byproduct of the reaction of acids and bases (remember your basic chemistry....). We don't need to rely on water electrolysis to create hydrogen. The reason it's used as an energy carrier right now instead of an energy source is that at this time, it takes more energy to create it than burn it. However, there are numerous processes being tested that would make hydrogen production far more energy effective. The reason it's being pursued so seriously is because it burns without the carbon emissions that burning petrochemicals create.
Exactly on the money! In the course of my job, I see emissions tests from internal combustion hydrogen vehicles. The air going into the car has higher levels of pollutants than what comes out; the car, with a 6L V12, actually cleans the air as it drives. That is why it is pursued so seriously. Once a hydrogen internal combustion infrastructure is set up and operational, a switch to fuel cells becomes that much more probable and feasible.


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 06-19-2009, 03:26 PM   #84
Darth_Yuthura
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Vienna
Posts: 1,585
Current Game: KOTOR III
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi View Post
Horse hockey. I've put a number of links in this post--please click them so you can learn more about hydrogen.
'Hydrogen' on wikipedia?

I've seen various sources that show the energy density of various fuels. Hydrogen actually has a higher energy density than most car fuels at a whopping 120 MJ/kg compared to gasoline at 45, diesel at 48, and methane at 55. Ethanol is horrible at only 30 MJ/Kg of mass. Hydrogen clearly has a higher energy density than many of these fuels we use today, but the matter is how much energy does it take to produce one Kg of compressed Hydrogen? 300 Mega Joules to get back only 120 at best from the fuel cell?

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-e...fuel-cell3.htm

Here's a source I would point to which advocates how clean fuel cells are, yet it didn't address how you're supposed to actually produce it in the first place. Why didn't they include how much energy was lost in the original conversion process to make the hydrogen fuel?

If you didn't, one might ask how much energy was required to produce the hydrogen fuel and where that energy is supposed to come from.

Here's another article that addresses that issue. It assumes you get a 70% powerplant efficiency in producing hydrogen fuel. Then when you take into consideration the other 50% lost in conversion back to electricity, 35% loss due to compression, and another 10% for the battery to motor... you get numbers as low as 17% and 25% efficiency from the original source of energy to the kinetic energy for the vehicle.

That means you invest four times as much energy into hydrogen as you get back... at least when this article was written.

Last edited by Darth_Yuthura; 06-19-2009 at 03:38 PM.
Darth_Yuthura is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-19-2009, 03:45 PM   #85
Bimmerman
Junior Member
 
Bimmerman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Bouncing off the Rev Limiter
Posts: 437
Ugh.

Please post source #2 in which you get the numbers, you reference it but forgot to include it.

Regardless, there is no such thing as free energy; you cannot create energy. The maximum you can achieve is to break even. Otherwise you run counter to the fundamental physical law of conservation of mass and energy-- to sum it up, energy can be neither created nor destroyed. A final efficiency from powerplant and production source of around 25-30 is fantastic when you take all losses into account. (you have read both Jae and I's posts explaining that hydrolysis is far from the only source, yes? If not......)

Please understand that it may take a large investment of energy and money to create a hydrogen infrastructure, but it really is the way forward for cars. Electric cars will never be practical nor possible unless you are a commuter.....noone in their right mind will take a car with a 250 mi range and a 36hr recharge time on a cross country road trip, or even skiing. Gasoline burns and produces a great amount of energy, but it doesn't come close to breaking even. It is, however, profitable to drill, refine, sell, and consume.

Considering that the going rate for automotive H2 is the same price as gasoline for similar quantities (kg instead of gal), H2 is poised to soon begin spreading. It's the same price as gas, the consumer spends no more money to buy it, there is nothing different in fueling up the cars (youtube "top gear honda fcx clarity" or some combo of words)....the only bad thing is people getting their panties in a bunch over the irrelevant higher energy cost to produce hydrogen from hydrolysis.

People will pay for hydrogen. I don't see why it matters to you so much about where the energy to refine it comes from.....I don't see you arguing against supplying gasoline refineries with power; this is the same thing.


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 06-19-2009, 04:01 PM   #86
Darth_Yuthura
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Vienna
Posts: 1,585
Current Game: KOTOR III
The price of energy is highly variable, I assume everyone already knows.

As the price of coal goes up, so would the cost for producing hydrogen. The price of uranium has gone up as well, but because it only represents 10% of the cost that go into nuclear fuel, the price change isn't going to be as steep. If the price of coal doubles, then how much would hydrogen cost then?

Besides, where do you get hydrogen's cost competing with gasoline?

If using solar energy, then the issue of how much energy is lost in the conversion is still very relevant. (What does it matter? It's free) No, you still have to deal with the interest on the capital investment for the solar panels. And remember that if there were a simple solution, it would already have been done.
Darth_Yuthura is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 06-19-2009, 05:04 PM   #87
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: 10,912
Current Game: Guild Wars 2, VtMB, TOR
Alderaan News Holopics contributor Helpful! LucasCast staff Veteran Fan Fic Author 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
'Hydrogen' on wikipedia?
Yep, it''s a good starting point for basic information. I could have quoted an MSDS on it and given you flammability ratings, but I assumed you haven't had the same number of years of chemistry.

Quote:
Hydrogen clearly has a higher energy density than many of these fuels we use today, but the matter is how much energy does it take to produce one Kg of compressed Hydrogen? 300 Mega Joules to get back only 120 at best from the fuel cell?
(snipped)
Here's a source I would point to which advocates how clean fuel cells are, yet it didn't address how you're supposed to actually produce it in the first place. Why didn't they include how much energy was lost in the original conversion process to make the hydrogen fuel?
Right--that's why I said we need to work on making the hydrogen creation/extraction process more energy efficient in my previous post. If we can do that, we've just created a fuel source that burns without creating CO or CO2. I just wanted to point out that we aren't limited to water electrolysis to create hydrogen.


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 06-19-2009, 06:36 PM   #88
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
The price of energy is highly variable, I assume everyone already knows.
And therefore all comparison is uselss? Methinks not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
As the price of coal goes up, so would the cost for producing hydrogen. The price of uranium has gone up as well, but because it only represents 10% of the cost that go into nuclear fuel, the price change isn't going to be as steep. If the price of coal doubles, then how much would hydrogen cost then?
Stop claiming that the cost of hydrogen is directly related to the price of coal. It's not. Coal fired powerplants are also not the only source of power in this country.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
Besides, where do you get hydrogen's cost competing with gasoline?
....you didn't search youtube for the hydrogen fuel cell car test, did you?

No matter. Here it is, I implore you to actually watch it this time. Top Gear 2009 Test of the Honda FCX Clarity Fuel Cell Car. Top Gear is an internationally recognized and respected automotive authority. In this video, they drive the FCX and draw conclusions on it. How it relates to this discussion is when they fill the car up. They discover that a kg of H2 costs similar to a gallon of gasoline. (for the lazy, relevant footage is at 3 min mark)

In the video, the price of compressed liquid H2 is $5.00 / kg. As the FCX gets 270 miles to a tank, and an average of 72 miles/kg (Source), that works out to 3.75 kg per tank and $18.75 per tank. Still don't believe me that it is roughly equal to the cost of gasoline in Southern California?

Let's do a hypothetical. Say we take a 2010 Prius, which gets 50 mpg average. Let's restrict the range to the same 270 miles. That takes 5.4 gallons, and at $2.50 a gallon for regular gas, that yields $13.50 to travel 270 miles. As most cars average roughly half of that, I think it's a fair comparison.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
If using solar energy, then the issue of how much energy is lost in the conversion is still very relevant. (What does it matter? It's free) No, you still have to deal with the interest on the capital investment for the solar panels. And remember that if there were a simple solution, it would already have been done.
Here's some info on the best competition for hydrolysis, and requires little energy to produce hydrogen gas: Source

You don't seem to understand that it is fully possible to build a hydrogen infrastructure and future without building more power plants. This is the point I've been driving home each time over power plants running well below maximum capacity; all it requires is more fuel to compensate for added load rather than building new plants. That's not a bad thing either. Electricity is a product. It costs money to transmit and generate, it costs money to use. Any facility generating hydrogen will be using, and paying for, energy. How is this a shock to anyone?


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

Fear disturbs your concentration. - Sabine Schmitz

Last edited by Bimmerman; 06-19-2009 at 06:54 PM.
Bimmerman is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-03-2009, 11:01 PM   #89
Heaven Net
Lurker
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 1
More nonsense: Hydrogen for an alternate energy source

In a nutshell, what is Hydrogen Engine Centerís (HEC) main technology and what are its principal applications?

Development of proprietary electronic controls and other technologies to allow for the use of hydrogen and other gaseous fuels for the generation of power. These technologies have applications in many areas, including but not limited to the distributed power industry, airport ground support, co-generation with certain manufacturing processes, buses, marine engines and agricultural irrigation pump systems.

Heaven Net is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-06-2009, 01:59 PM   #90
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
And therefore all comparison is uselss? Methinks not.

Stop claiming that the cost of hydrogen is directly related to the price of coal. It's not. Coal fired powerplants are also not the only source of power in this country.
I already know that. I keep using coal as a reference because it is the most reliable source of energy in the US. Although I favor nuclear more, it does not constitute more than 15-20% of the power grid. However first generation American reactors are starting to be decommissioned, so that number will only drop unless more are build than are taken offline.

If not coal, then which source of energy should I compare it to? I could compare it to nuclear or natural gas, but they don't represent as much of the US power grid as coal. And please don't say solar or wind, as they are not yet a cheap, nor prominent source of energy in the US.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bimmerman View Post
....you didn't search youtube for the hydrogen fuel cell car test, did you?

No matter. Here it is, I implore you to actually watch it this time. Top Gear 2009 Test of the Honda FCX Clarity Fuel Cell Car. Top Gear is an internationally recognized and respected automotive authority. In this video, they drive the FCX and draw conclusions on it. How it relates to this discussion is when they fill the car up. They discover that a kg of H2 costs similar to a gallon of gasoline. (for the lazy, relevant footage is at 3 min mark)

In the video, the price of compressed liquid H2 is $5.00 / kg. As the FCX gets 270 miles to a tank, and an average of 72 miles/kg (Source), that works out to 3.75 kg per tank and $18.75 per tank. Still don't believe me that it is roughly equal to the cost of gasoline in Southern California?

Let's do a hypothetical. Say we take a 2010 Prius, which gets 50 mpg average. Let's restrict the range to the same 270 miles. That takes 5.4 gallons, and at $2.50 a gallon for regular gas, that yields $13.50 to travel 270 miles. As most cars average roughly half of that, I think it's a fair comparison.
I did so and rejected it. Here is another site with a radically different cost.

http://hydrogendiscoveries.wordpress...washington-dc/

The consumer cost of hydrogen is not always an accurate way to measure its viability because there are so many financial variables and economic loopholes that can distort the costs that go into producing it. (What do I mean by 'actual costs?') I remember instances when tax credits and subsidies were given for shipments of American exported fuel that had ethanol mixed in and even with 1% gasohol (90% gasoline 10% ethanol) added where the entire tanker qualified for that credit.

Macroeconomics is an extremely distorted system riddled with price floors, tax incentives, patent rights, cost-push inflation, and various other concepts that only make economic sense on a microscopic scale. It may make sense to the growth of certain corporations, but it makes no sense when you invest much more energy into hydrogen fuel than you get back from the vehicles they go into.

Oh, and the site I saw maybe could represent 2% of US transportation demands at the very most. Many anti-gas people say that we can power cars with the waste vegetable oil you get from Mcdonald's instead... but fail to recognize that we don't eat that many french fries.

Still going on the price comparison. Where will all the energy you need to produce hydrogen supposed to come from? You cannot possibly assume that you can replace more than a quarter of the US transportation infrastructure with only the wasted electricity that you salvage through the hydrolysis process. You could almost completely replace gasoline if you were to power all cars with electricity. (Of course that is taking into consideration that you use all electricity when it is demanded and not waste any of it, otherwise you could almost completely power the transportation infrastructure with the grid's waste electricity alone)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bimmerman View Post
You don't seem to understand that it is fully possible to build a hydrogen infrastructure and future without building more power plants. This is the point I've been driving home each time over power plants running well below maximum capacity; all it requires is more fuel to compensate for added load rather than building new plants. That's not a bad thing either. Electricity is a product. It costs money to transmit and generate, it costs money to use. Any facility generating hydrogen will be using, and paying for, energy. How is this a shock to anyone?
look to the bottom of the link.
86% electricity grid to vehicle efficiency vs 25% hydrogen.
So if you demand more energy to produce hydrogen than just using the energy to charge a battery altogether, why bother with the hydrogen at all?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicle

I'm sorry, but you must have another source of power to have a hydrogen infrastructure. We in the US have many power plants that are not being used to their fullest capacity and we would do best to switch to hybrid vehicles first to use as much of that wasted electricity as possible before we even consider investing in something that is far less efficient.

Last edited by Darth_Yuthura; 07-07-2009 at 08:27 AM.
Darth_Yuthura is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-09-2009, 12:55 PM   #91
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
I already know that. I keep using coal as a reference because it is the most reliable source of energy in the US. Although I favor nuclear more, it does not constitute more than 15-20% of the power grid. However first generation American reactors are starting to be decommissioned, so that number will only drop unless more are build than are taken offline.

If not coal, then which source of energy should I compare it to? I could compare it to nuclear or natural gas, but they don't represent as much of the US power grid as coal. And please don't say solar or wind, as they are not yet a cheap, nor prominent source of energy in the US.
Solar. Wind.

Just kidding. Let me ask you this: Why do you keep insisting that the consumer cost of gaseous or liquid hydrogen for vehicle consumption is directly related to the cost of energy from a coal-fired or alternative-fueled power plant?

By that line of thinking, the cost of absolutely everything is directly related to the cost of energy stemming from a coal fired power plant. This is the point you don't seem to comprehend: gasoline requires energy and money to refine. So does hydrogen. If they both require energy, one vastly moreso (gasoline) than the other, why has the price of gasoline skyrocketed way in excess of the increasing cost of coal or etc energy? Your metric for hydrogen costs is inherently and deeply flawed.

The cost of energy is not even close to the only cost for hydrogen. Same with gasoline. Why do you keep insisting this is so? Hydrogen does not fuel any power plants. The cost of hydrogen, therefore, is in no way even closely related to the cost of coal. Seriously, stop trying to say it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
I did so and rejected it. Here is another site with a radically different cost.

http://hydrogendiscoveries.wordpress...washington-dc/
Let me get this straight....you looked at video proof of the cost of hydrogen in Los Angeles as of December 14, 2008 (airing of the episode), and compared it with the cost of hydrogen in Washington, DC, from September 4, 2008? You then, upon finding said conflicting sources, chose the earlier source in a different market as true, and the video proof as false? Absolute Genius, that.

Here's why that is a very poor way to discount my evidence, using the cost of Gasoline for both the DC and LA markets over the past year. (source = http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_pr...t.aspx?time=24, choose any two cities and time frame)

Look at the graph for a minute. Now, take a look at the price of gasoline in September, 2008 in DC. It is roughly $3.66/gal. For LA, same time, it is roughly $3.80/gal. Now, fast forward to December, 2008. DC cost: $1.92/gal. LA cost: $1.75/gal.

Now let's do what you just did. September, DC compared with December, LA: $3.66/gal vs $1.75/gal.

Wow, there's a big difference! The massive decline in cost for gasoline reflects the housing crisis, credit crisis, and the economic crapshoot. The cost of hydrogen would logically fall as well; the cost of damn near everything did. Do you see why your evidence is flawed?

Using the exact same percent difference in gasoline cost (1.75/3.66 = 47.8%), and using it to reduce the cost of hydrogen for different markets and times, we get that the $8.18/kg of H2 in DC on Sept 4, 2008 should be $3.91/kg in LA on Dec 14, 2008. Wow, the Top Gear guys got ripped off at $5.00/kg!!

Regardless, if you took the time to actually read the article you hotlinked, you would notice that they say it takes the hydrogen car $8.18 to travel the same 60 miles that would cost an average 24mpg sedan $9.35. Your article actually proves my point (thanks!): the cost of hydrogen is comparable to conventional fuel. It may cost more per fuel unit, yes, but it costs similar in running costs for a given distance, and far less in maintenance on drivetrain parts due to inherent design (no moving engine parts). Did you read the article or just see that the $8.18 was greater than my $5.00 and therefore I am wrong, without even thinking about it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
The consumer cost of hydrogen is not always an accurate way to measure its viability because there are so many financial variables and economic loopholes that can distort the costs that go into producing it.
No, it is a very valid way. Consumers pay for the fuel, which is sold at a certain price after all economic factors are taken into account. Tax credits, subsidies, investment (private and public), refinery cost (for what unfortunately won't be the last time, it's not just hydrolysis!!!!!!!!!), shipment and transportation cost, profit, wages, infrastructure, taxes, maintenance, etc, are all part of that price you pay at the pump. If the company can not profitably sell the fuel at a price consumers can afford, they will go out of business. Nobody sells at a loss without some means for expected recovery.

The cost may be kept artificially low to generate demand, after which point the increased volume reduces refinery and manufacturing and just about all costs to where they generate significant profits (see oil companies for a perfect example, or for that matter, any large company that builds and markets goods. Profit through volume). A company must do this in the beginning in order to create a customer base from which to grow. This is why the start up cost for any new business, product, or company is so high. The initial investment (tax benefits, subsidies, private/public dollars, etc) pays for the initial few years until enough people buy and use the product for it to become profitable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
(What do I mean by 'actual costs?') I remember instances when tax credits and subsidies were given for shipments of American exported fuel that had ethanol mixed in and even with 1% gasohol (90% gasoline 10% ethanol) added where the entire tanker qualified for that credit.
Sleazy, yes. Not really relevant at all, absolutely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
Macroeconomics is an extremely distorted system riddled with price floors, tax incentives, patent rights, cost-push inflation, and various other concepts that only make economic sense on a microscopic scale. It may make sense to the growth of certain corporations, but it makes no sense when you invest much more energy into hydrogen fuel than you get back from the vehicles they go into.
Um....wow.

Let's break your statement down. You did read my last paragraph, yes? Good, so I don't need to repeat myself. Let's start from a different angle. Do you know what investment is? Investment is not just public and private dollars thrown at a company in the hopes that something happens. Governments often invest in something through the use of tax incentives, grants, and subsidies. Tesla Motors, an electric car company, has made liberal use of all three. Why should hydrogen be denied that? In any case, how is this bad? These governmental assistance items are exactly what is needed for a product to lift off the ground in anything beyond the microscopic scale.

Side note: you're against patent rights? You really don't know how stupid that point of view is, nor how vitally important patent rights are to the general economy and growth. The protection of intellectual property is a cornerstone of a person's ability and right to earn a living. If I invent a product that has the potential to change the world, shouldn't I have the right to prevent (via suing) the blatant copying of my invention by, say, the Chinese? If I don't, all the money, time, and energy I spent inventing, perfecting, and producing it have gone to waste, and I am left with nothing. The lack of intellectual property is a very communistic idea, young padawan. You're regurgitating material you read in a classroom again, aren't you?

And yet again, let's use gasoline or diesel fuels as an example for comparison with hydrogen. The energy used to recover the crude oil, refine it, and transport it is never recovered by the process of consuming it. Why do you expect hydrogen fuel to be any different? The reason gasoline and diesel are profitable, volume considerations aside, is because the companies make profit on every barrel sold when all taxes, subsidies, energy costs (i.e. your argument in its entirety), transportation, construction, maintenance, marketing, and more, are taken into account.

Are you truly naive enough to think that hydrogen will be any different? Oil companies used government tax benefits, incentives, subsidies, grants, and more to get started and create the infrastructure we have today to sell fuel to our hungry personal conveyance appliances. Why is it suddenly bad to extend the exact same helping hand to a far cleaner source of mobility?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
Oh, and the site I saw maybe could represent 2% of US transportation demands at the very most. Many anti-gas people say that we can power cars with the waste vegetable oil you get from Mcdonald's instead... but fail to recognize that we don't eat that many french fries.
And, yet again, you don't list your source. Your statement is wondefully useless. Just because it's on the internet doesn't make it true. I have first hand knowledge of what I'm talking about, do you have anything beyond websites?

As for the biodiesel example, many people pointing out that we don't eat that many french fries fail to recognize that there are more than just a few restaurants using vegetable oil that goes to waste, i.e. italian, mexican, wendy's, etc etc. Biodiesel also can be created from any source of biological waste. As it is not relevant to our discussion, I won't go into it any further, except to say that in my hometown there are numerous biodiesel pumps at gas stations that are significantly cheaper than regular diesel or gasoline.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
Still going on the price comparison. Where will all the energy you need to produce hydrogen supposed to come from?
Where does all the energy that is used to produce gasoline come from? The electric power grid connected to domestic power plants. They pay for the energy they use, just like anyone else. Just like hydrogen production and refinery facilities do. Why is it a shock to you that there is no free energy?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
You cannot possibly assume that you can replace more than a quarter of the US transportation infrastructure with only the wasted electricity that you salvage through the hydrolysis process.
No, I do not, especially since your point is absolutely nonsensical. "The wasted electricity salvaged through the hydrolysis process" makes no sense, as the definition of nonsensical would indicate. I am going to assume that you mean "using the energy supplied to the electrical grid that isn't used to power hydrogen production facilities." Notice how I was far less vague and did not use the word "hydrolysis?" As I, Jae, and others have pointed out time and time again, there are more options than just hydrolysis, which is the most expensive, most energy-consuming, and most time-consuming option available. Why the hell would anyone use it? Again, stop insisting that hydrogen production = hydrolysis, you just prove that you haven't read any of the posts that aren't yours.

As for the meaning behind your words, no I do not assume that. I know that the hydrogen production plants pay for the energy they use, and once the electrical grid can no longer sustain all the loads connected to it, be they houses, refineries, streetlamps, airports, office buildings, fountains, or steelworks, they will increase capacity by either renovating current plants to produce more power (eeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaasily possible due to the ancient plant designs we still have) or by adding sources to the grid.

To turn your question on you, you can't possibly assume that the construction of a hydrogen fuel production center will suddenly use all the energy in the electrical grid, prompting new plants to be built? You also can't possibly assume that they wouldn't pay for the energy they consume? Finally, you can't possibly assume that the electrical company would simply raise the cost for everyone rather than charge more for the loads using more energy? Have you ever paid an electrical bill?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
You could almost completely replace gasoline if you were to power all cars with electricity. (Of course that is taking into consideration that you use all electricity when it is demanded and not waste any of it, otherwise you could almost completely power the transportation infrastructure with the grid's waste electricity alone)
No, you can't. Not even close.

Most current electric cars have a range of 50 miles. Let's be generous and say they have an effective range of 200 miles, to include the Tesla in our calculations. The Tesla, and all electric cars for that matter, have either a smart charging mode taking but a few hours, or a long lower amperage charging mode, taking upwards of 16 hours.

Aside from normal house-office-house commuting, how can you possibly think an electric car is a suitable replacement for the car you use today? If you live, like many do, an hour away from your job, that is approximately 30 miles when rush hour traffic is accounted for. Each way. That 60 mile there and back again commute is beyond the capabilities of nearly any electric car available for purchase today, save the hyper expensive Tesla roadster. Unless you live really close to the office, an electric car doesn't make sense.

Ask any parent how long their daily commute is, from home to school to work to lunch to work to school to soccer to grocery store to hardware store to home to bar to home, etc. Many people put over 25 miles on their car a day. Many put over 200 miles a day. How do you expect an electric car to manage that?

Furthermore, how do you expect to solve the recharging issue? Say your daily commute is 200 miles, but your car only makes it 100 without recharging. Your home docking station charges it in 5 hours, but your away-from-home (a la Tesla and others) charger takes 18 hours. Do you see the stupidity in this?

Finally, how do you take a road trip from Chicago to Detroit to visit relatives in an electric car? It takes about eight hours by conventional vehicle, but would take numerous days with an electric car due to charging time.

This is the primary reason nobody is seriously considering all electric vehicles for anything but inner city commuting. Fuel cells use hydrogen to create electricity; they are a mini power plant. Hydrogen combustion cars a la BMW's Hydrogen7, burn hydrogen to make pistons and crankshafts rotate and move the vehicle (also, for the Hydrogen7, it will burn Gasoline in case you can't find H2.). The emissions for these cars are absurdly clean. The Hydrogen7 was widely reported for cleaning the air as it drove. I have seen test results that confirm this fact. Fuel cells are even cleaner, as there is no combustion present.

Now, you will undoubtedly bring up the fact that the raw materials-tailpipe (i.e. everything lumped together) emissions aren't so clean. Compared to the identical measurement for gasoline vehicles, they are orders of magnitude different.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
look to the bottom of the link.
86% electricity grid to vehicle efficiency vs 25% hydrogen.
So if you demand more energy to produce hydrogen than just using the energy to charge a battery altogether, why bother with the hydrogen at all?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicle
That link says nothing about electrical grid to vehicle efficiency. Also I have a good feeling that the 25% efficiency will increase. However, it is pointless to discuss simply efficiencies. Electric vehicles aren't practical for numerous reasons, many of which I have stated above. Hydrogen is a much better alternative to pure electric vehicles, or even eco-cred gas/hybrid plug ins. Hydrogen cars have lower emissions, lower fuel consumption/higher fuel economy, and produce markedly more power per kilogram of fuel than gas/electric, diesel/electric, gas, or diesel cars. This is verified fact. Efficiency is not the end-all be-all, efficiency without sacrificing too much is. Hydrogen delivers that, the others do not.

Remember the vehement opposition you got in the Suburban Sprawl thread? That was due to your insistence that efficiency is paramount, and that comfort, convenience, and ease of living be damned. Same exact thing goes here. Electric cars are the most efficient, there is no denying that. They are NOT convenient, comfortable, or easy to live with. People don't want to be stuck 300 miles from anywhere. Engineers try to make things efficient. Engineers are useless if they do not also make them usable, practical, or attractive to purchasers. Electric cars, while engineering marvels, fail the first test: not usable in the real world for enough people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
I'm sorry, but you must have another source of power to have a hydrogen infrastructure.
Where do I say power plants would not provide the source? I'm sorry, but you are mistaken in your belief that we should avoid developing burgeoning technology due to it actually costing energy. Nothing is free.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
We in the US have many power plants that are not being used to their fullest capacity and we would do best to switch to hybrid vehicles first to use as much of that wasted electricity as possible before we even consider investing in something that is far less efficient.
Hybrids are a band-aid. Diesels produce lower emissions and return equal or better fuel economy than hybrids do. Plug in hybrids are a band-aid on a band-aid. Diesel hybrids would actually be an intelligent move, but are still a band aid. Many plain gasoline cars in Europe get equal or better emissions and fuel economy than hybrids do, they just lack the elitist liberal eco-nazi cred and name recognition.

Why throw money at a solution that does nothing to alleviate our problems instead of throwing it at a solution that does?


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

Fear disturbs your concentration. - Sabine Schmitz

Last edited by Bimmerman; 07-09-2009 at 01:37 PM. Reason: Grammar and I have an ongoing battle.
Bimmerman is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-09-2009, 03:30 PM   #92
Nedak
Beelzebozo
 
Nedak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,836
LucasCast Jingle Composer Forum Veteran Hot Topic Starter 
View page
YouTube Video

It's extremely feasible and was developed a long long time ago.


The fact that people think that it's some sort of scam is absurd. Do research.

"Stanley Meyer died suddenly on 21 March 1998 after dining at a restaurant. An autopsy report by the Franklin County, Ohio coroner concluded that Meyer had died of a cerebral aneurysm, but conspiracy theorists insist that he was poisoned to suppress the technology, and that oil companies and the United States government were involved in his death"
Nedak is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-12-2009, 12:27 PM   #93
mimartin
TOR ate my KotOR
 
mimartin's Avatar
 
Status: Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,049
Current Game: TOR/FO:NV
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Officer The Walking Carpets Guild Officer Alderaan News Holopics contributor 
I've deleted the ad hoc post and requested that those resorting to ad hoc rewrite and resubmit them without the ad hoc. Any future personal attacks will result in more than merely a deleted post or two.



Last edited by mimartin; 07-12-2009 at 05:23 PM. Reason: reopened thread
mimartin is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-12-2009, 06:55 PM   #94
Darth_Yuthura
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Vienna
Posts: 1,585
Current Game: KOTOR III
Okay I'm not trying to frustrate people; my interest is in the US getting its energy priorities in order. I will admit here and now that hydrogen will likely be what's fueling US cars in the year 2059, but that is not what is in its best interest today. There is going to be a complex and systematic withdrawal from the use of oil and an increase in the demand for electricity. Hydrogen should only come into the equation when electricity cannot substitute for a chemical fuel.

-------

Where does the energy come from that produces the hydrogen?

http://www.oilcrash.com/articles/steps.htm

It is dependent upon another source in order to work within an economy. This site probably explains all my concerns and I've checked with some of his sources to ensure he was credible.

If it is generated from the power grid, then hydrogen is 50% coal energy, 20% nuclear energy, 20% natural gas energy, 10% from other sources.

http://energyanalysis.org/2008/12/15/686/

Given that this is so, hydrogen fuel is NOT clean... it's just that the emissions don't originate from the vehicle. They originate from the source of the power plant that produces the fuel. Sorry, but energy isn't free. Even from perpetual sources, it is only going to become more expensive. (Interest on capital, repair, financial costs)

Even that precious coal I speak so highly of doesn't come cheap (10,000 tons/day per GW) And being the most dirty fuel there is (One plant emitting more waste per year than all the nuclear reactors in the US over 60 years), I don't support coal as much as nuclear, but it does represent a safety net by which we can tap into an abundant source of energy for hundreds of years.

As much as I would like wind and solar, they have proven to be somewhat... unreliable. And considering that they are outputting less than 1% with a maximum potential of 20% of the power grid. Beyond that and you will get unacceptably high levels of brownouts. The only real clean energy we can truly rely on is nuclear. It is also the most economic, but it is not favored by most US citizens who are still afraid of meltdowns, think they are the same first-generation reactors of the early 60's.

As for hydrogen...

The US will inevitably have to convert from oil to a substitute for transportation demands. As of today, demand and supply for oil are both increasing, but supply is rising slower than demand. When peak oil output is reached, the price for the fuel WILL skyrocket and it will have to be replaced. It is not a question of if, but when that happens. The issue before us is how to best make the transition from gasoline and diesel to a substitute.

Check the source below and evaluate scenario 6.

https://eed.llnl.gov/flow/pdf/ucrlTR204891.pdf

Compare it to scenario 8 and the difference in electrical output is drastically different. Nearly a 50% difference in electrical output from using hybrid vehicles than with hydrogen achieving greater than 50% efficiency. Oil dependence is higher in scenario 6 as well, but electrical demand increased by only 10%. (45 quads vs. 60 quads)

This source is difficult to interpret, so this will likely yield more questions than answers.

The difference between hydrogen and electricity is that hydrogen can be stored as potential energy where as electricity more or less has to be used as generated. When it is stored though, lithium hydride batteries achieve a 86% grid-to-motor efficiency where as hydrogen can be as low as 25%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicle

Last edited by Darth_Yuthura; 07-12-2009 at 07:00 PM.
Darth_Yuthura is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-13-2009, 04:19 AM   #95
Darth Avlectus
Your point?
 
Darth Avlectus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Attack on Titan
Posts: 4,255
Current Game: Soul Calibur 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
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.
Not biologically. I'm not an expert on Nuclear Science by any stretch, but I do know (from my hours of searches on Grolier/GME95 and Encarta '98 as a kid) that the types of radiation dealt with in nuclear is inoizing and non-ionizing or irradiative. If I had to guess, it is the irradiative that is the culprit for radiation poisoning with nuclear related stuff. (Ionizing being the combustive stuff that goes "kaboom"!).

Once it is spent, it is essetially poisonous waste emitting equally toxic radtion. With a tremendously huge half life. Not cost effective to refine, though it can be done--or so I hear. But most of the time it is just dumped. That is a real problem. We run out of space and need more and more.

Point is this stuff is poisonous in ways most of us probably can't even imagine and will make environments that it gets into a contaminated NIGHTMARE for a long long time. UN-ininhabitable for god only knows how long (like what, 25,000 years?). Nothing will be safe to eat or drink from there, or in there, and who knows what kinds of exposure you get by mere proximity or breathing the same air.

I think people are rightfully skeptical and dead set against having it stored in ther back yards. Like the whole Yucca Mtn. NV bit (which the way it has played out since the 70s, I think, is uber bull**** BTW).

So while it might be environmentally friendly, it isn't biologically friendly.

Quote:
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.
Huh? If by hydrogen you mean gaseous, fine, except for the whole "charge" part. If you meant by the more battery-like Fuel Cell, you can charge those but that is not easily swapped in for from Gasoline--sounds to me you are not making the distinction between fuel cell and hydrogen gas.


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.
Ah, but of course. 2 Fuels. The only real technical issue I see arising is the tuning of the vehicle's combustion to make it work best. This may not necessarily be so for Hydrogen gas and gasoline, but in other methods like diesel/food oil it will be. Still for the time being I agree, dual swap fueling would make a good bridge for the infrastructure. Eventually paving the way for fuel cell sper batteries in electric cars.


Quote:
My proselytizing aside, the concept of hydrogen as a fuel is sound....generally. *brevity* (electrolysis and its associated downfalls quickly summed up as 1> efficiencyroduction ratio 2>delivery of fuel to combustion)
Yes, there are some major fundamental troubles with this process. Electrolysis.

Companies like Information Unlimited even sell it to DIY evil geniuses @ home wanting to do some R&D to help the process along of improving it and eliminating flaws. http://amazing1.com/hydrogen_fuel.htm
As a starting point of course.


Quote:
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.
Bingo. I'm afraid we're stuck here.

Quote:
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.
Not to mention from an electrical/electronic standpoint battery/capacitance abilities along with other components introduces a whole world of problems that further complicate the issue on top of exponentially decreasing efficiency rate for transferral of power, power quality, etc.


Quote:
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.
I believe this pretty much answered (at least in part what should/could be done) Darth Yuthura's challenge about how we should expunge the faults, flaws, and inefficiencies as much as possible before moving forth to a new source of power for our infrastructure.

Quote:
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.
QFT. That's how trends generally have changed from one to another--so I don't see why this cannot be the answer as well as a sign of the times.

I want to go more into it but right now it is 1:20 AM and I'm dozing off. G'nite, I'll check this later.


"I cant see S***! --YOU GO TO HELL!" --Tourettes guy
Darth Avlectus is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-13-2009, 08:36 AM   #96
Darth_Yuthura
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Vienna
Posts: 1,585
Current Game: KOTOR III
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity View Post
Once it is spent, it is essetially poisonous waste emitting equally toxic radtion. With a tremendously huge half life. Not cost effective to refine, though it can be done--or so I hear. But most of the time it is just dumped. That is a real problem. We run out of space and need more and more.

Point is this stuff is poisonous in ways most of us probably can't even imagine and will make environments that it gets into a contaminated NIGHTMARE for a long long time. UN-ininhabitable for god only knows how long (like what, 25,000 years?). Nothing will be safe to eat or drink from there, or in there, and who knows what kinds of exposure you get by mere proximity or breathing the same air.
The quantity of nuclear waste is very small compared to the output of energy you get from the fuel. In 60 years, the US has accumulated roughly 40,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel... that's about the size of a battleship. For the energy that those 100 or so reactors in the US have produced, the volume of waste is less than a single coal plant produces in one year... granted that fly ash isn't the same as gamma radiation, but nuclear waste products can be contained and confined to locations of choice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity View Post
Huh? If by hydrogen you mean gaseous, fine, except for the whole "charge" part. If you meant by the more battery-like Fuel Cell, you can charge those but that is not easily swapped in for from Gasoline--sounds to me you are not making the distinction between fuel cell and hydrogen gas.
I used 'recharge' because the literal definition applied to both kinds of vehicles. (As in charging a battery or refilling a tank)

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity View Post
Not to mention from an electrical/electronic standpoint battery/capacitance abilities along with other components introduces a whole world of problems that further complicate the issue on top of exponentially decreasing efficiency rate for transferral of power, power quality, etc.

I believe this pretty much answered (at least in part what should/could be done) Darth Yuthura's challenge about how we should expunge the faults, flaws, and inefficiencies as much as possible before moving forth to a new source of power for our infrastructure.
Thank-you, it's good to see someone not so much agreeing with me, but trying to bridge the gap between two separate lines of thought.

I would also have been for the idea of more mass transit, but most people are just going to flat-out refuse it. I think that it might have to come to establishing a system like a third rail to eliminate the need for onboard storage of electricity. I would be much more in favor of broadcasted energy than anything else, but that may be too idealistic to ever become a reality.
Darth_Yuthura is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-13-2009, 02:23 PM   #97
Nedak
Beelzebozo
 
Nedak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,836
LucasCast Jingle Composer Forum Veteran Hot Topic Starter 
I guess nobody likes my post. psh

Also, we can even run cars on air!

View page
YouTube Video

But will the oil companies let that happen?
Nedak is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-13-2009, 02:43 PM   #98
Darth Avlectus
Your point?
 
Darth Avlectus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Attack on Titan
Posts: 4,255
Current Game: Soul Calibur 5
^^^I actually meant to acknowledge your first post. While that's cool, I do not like how he called what was quite obviously electrolysis, a "fuel cell". Shame too, he was onto something good. Your post here reminds me of "Who killed the electric car", somewhat. Do you have other sources besides CNN? That would be cool if you did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
The quantity of nuclear waste is very small compared to the output of energy you get from the fuel. In 60 years, the US has accumulated roughly 40,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel... that's about the size of a battleship. For the energy that those 100 or so reactors in the US have produced, the volume of waste is less than a single coal plant produces in one year... granted that fly ash isn't the same as gamma radiation, but nuclear waste products can be contained and confined to locations of choice.
Very true, but with that solution lies some snags during the storage period of its effective half life:
a> containment methods will eventually degrade and require replacement (NOT a pretty prospect, especially considering what it entails in the first place)
b> site considerations; there is a good *reason* why Yucca Mtn. is still being fought tooth and nail--it's right on a HUGE fault line between 2 tectonic plates. Something is bound to happen in 25,000 years. I also have my doubts about the nuclear activity being neutralized when lava streams swallow the waste...also downhill and south of Yucca Mtn. is Las Vegas and Los Angeles...lava in that scenario is already bad enough hitting massively populated areas, do you really want to risk it now being radioactive lava?
c> Transporting it, there in the first place will be risky, take a long time, and will be very expensive regardless of success or (god forbid) failure.

I would say refine it because being economically inefficient far outweighs the risks otherwise, but unfortunately we're already in a hurt for money in this current economic climate. I don't want there to be riots over a 20% tax level, either.

Quote:
I used 'recharge' because the literal definition applied to both kinds of vehicles. (As in charging a battery or refilling a tank)
Thank you for clarifying.

Quote:
Thank-you, it's good to see someone not so much agreeing with me, but trying to bridge the gap between two separate lines of thought.
You're welcome.

Quote:
I would also have been for the idea of more mass transit, but most people are just going to flat-out refuse it. I think that it might have to come to establishing a system like a third rail to eliminate the need for onboard storage of electricity.
Well, most people won't pay a state tax for something that doesn't even come close to where they live, enough to help them in any significant way. I.E. California. So many rural areas with citizens that pay taxes, yet the proposed and expensive rail system won't come near the majority of them outside the cities.

Quote:
I would be much more in favor of broadcasted energy than anything else, but that may be too idealistic to ever become a reality.
Think of broadcasted energy this way:
For one, we know RF and EMF radiation can be harmful if we're exposed to it enough...If we had all of our power lines replaced by wireless radiative power (I'll get to the disparaging of efficiency in a moment), how many more times of exposure would we get on a constant basis, especially considering if we're already constantly exposed from our modern lifestyles? (hint it is exponential and on orders of magnitude larger)

The other thing: wireless induction to power things as opposed to direct contact. Sounds nice but unfortunately it is just not as efficient. Unless Tesla really did discover/develop a high lossless transmission method with a 94% efficiency as opposed to the roughly 80-87% efficiency of direct contact methods commonly employed--then we just have to discover how he did it IF he even did it at all.
I don't know why, but it just simply isn't as efficient.

If you wanted to test that theory of efficiency, there are power supply circuits available for things like fluorescent tubes or even gas lasers utilizing both direct and RF methods. While RF methods have little maintenance required over long periods of usage, that simply isn't worth it if the costs to run it more than make up for what you'd save on maintenance. Which really sucks, too. Which again totally ignores the fact that we're being bathed in this radiative energy that does, god only knows what.

The reason nothing is 100% efficient of course is that everything has some level of pure resistance to it and that loses are always inevitable.


"I cant see S***! --YOU GO TO HELL!" --Tourettes guy
Darth Avlectus is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-13-2009, 03:19 PM   #99
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
Okay I'm not trying to frustrate people; my interest is in the US getting its energy priorities in order. I will admit here and now that hydrogen will likely be what's fueling US cars in the year 2059, but that is not what is in its best interest today. There is going to be a complex and systematic withdrawal from the use of oil and an increase in the demand for electricity. Hydrogen should only come into the equation when electricity cannot substitute for a chemical fuel.
Neither am I, I apologize for the antagonizing. Let's bury the hatchet.

To be completely honest, I see hydrogen powering cars in the next 20-30 years rather exclusively, and for a while afterwards. After probably 30 years from now, electric car technology will have caught up to the point of being a suitable replacement for a gasoline car for all the reasons I currently malign them for.

However, until that point is reached (technological, not a set number of years), the only electric cars will be short range commuters, cars like the Chevy Volt (40mi electric range, and a gasoline generator onboard...call it a gasoline fuel cell-ish car), and "halo" cars like the Tesla Roadster and Model S. None of those are suitable replacements for the majority of Americans, but are good options for second or third cars (Volt excluded due to gasoline engine). I see the electric car being more a toy of the rich for a long time, at least until technology catches up with reality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
Where does the energy come from that produces the hydrogen?

http://www.oilcrash.com/articles/steps.htm

It is dependent upon another source in order to work within an economy. This site probably explains all my concerns and I've checked with some of his sources to ensure he was credible.

If it is generated from the power grid, then hydrogen is 50% coal energy, 20% nuclear energy, 20% natural gas energy, 10% from other sources.

http://energyanalysis.org/2008/12/15/686/
I don't dispute that. What I do dispute is the idea that hydrogen is another form of coal powered energy. I see it much the same way as any raw fuel; gasoline, coal, hydrogen, all require power/energy from some source to extract the raw materials from the earth, the air, the water, oil shale, cow farts, etc, and are thus all based on 50% coal, 20% nuclear, 20% NG, 10% other. To my way of thinking, claiming hydrogen is more dependent on a particular energy source than another is foolish, as any raw material requires processing/mining/"acquisition" to be usable (eg, uranium, coal, gas, crude oil, hydrogen, etc).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
Given that this is so, hydrogen fuel is NOT clean... it's just that the emissions don't originate from the vehicle. They originate from the source of the power plant that produces the fuel. Sorry, but energy isn't free. Even from perpetual sources, it is only going to become more expensive. (Interest on capital, repair, financial costs)
Again, no dispute. It isn't clean if you look at the total emissions from the fuel source and its backing energy source. However, that same statement of mine works equally well for any fuel: gasoline, by the same metric, is far 'dirtier' than hydrogen. The difference is that while both have unavoidable power plant emissions, the emissions from the device consuming the fuel are several orders of magnitude different. In the case of combustion hydrogen, it cleans the air as it drives; in the case of fuel cells, it doesn't clean the air but doesn't emit anything aside from water and are thusly even cleaner than hydrogen combustion cars.

And yes, it will only become more expensive. However, as that is an unavoidable reality, it makes sense to invest in a relatively renewable fuel source for personal mobility so that we are no longer paying for a rapidly decreasing supply of energy that we cannot control. Initially, the energy cost to develop both fuels will be massively greater, but as gasoline use is phased out (aside from gearheads like me who hate even automatics, let alone hybrids or these newfangled things called "catalytic converters." That was a joke....on cat converters), the energy usage for hydrogen production will be about the same as it once was for gasoline.

Since hydrogen is a more efficient fuel, it would, in theory, not require as much to be refined, and thus less fuel supplied to stations and thus less energy consumed. That's highly idealistic though, but a remote possibility.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
Even that precious coal I speak so highly of doesn't come cheap (10,000 tons/day per GW) And being the most dirty fuel there is (One plant emitting more waste per year than all the nuclear reactors in the US over 60 years), I don't support coal as much as nuclear, but it does represent a safety net by which we can tap into an abundant source of energy for hundreds of years.
I am all for nuclear power. My dad is a consultant on reactor engineering, and as a result I've been exposed to the engineering side of what goes into the things for a good while. The sheer amount of safety margins and studies that are done on our current reactors are mind-bottling, and has convinced me at least that they are beyond safe. Chernobyl was an antiquated design, even by standards back then. No US plant has ever been that same design. Too bad they went and screwed it all up for everyone.

As for coal, it is a very dirty fuel. I have toured our local power plant, and while it still emits rather iffy particles and massive amounts of CO2 (unavoidable due to the combustion of carbon based fuels.....nothing you can do or catalyze away really), it is a very clean and impressive facility. The real reason they still exist in the face of hydro, wind, solar, nuclear, etc plants is the insanely cheap price of coal. The plant itself doesn't care what powers it, all it needs is a certain amount of heat to be transferred to the working fluid in the turbine/compressor part of the system (for combustion/nuclear based plants.....understandably hydro, wind, solar work on different principles).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
As much as I would like wind and solar, they have proven to be somewhat... unreliable. And considering that they are outputting less than 1% with a maximum potential of 20% of the power grid. Beyond that and you will get unacceptably high levels of brownouts. The only real clean energy we can truly rely on is nuclear. It is also the most economic, but it is not favored by most US citizens who are still afraid of meltdowns, think they are the same first-generation reactors of the early 60's.
See above. I agree with you on all counts.

An interesting thing I was shown by a coworker is a new solar plant being built in the Saharan Desert, which is purportedly able to power about a third of continental Europe. o_O

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
As for hydrogen...

The US will inevitably have to convert from oil to a substitute for transportation demands. As of today, demand and supply for oil are both increasing, but supply is rising slower than demand. When peak oil output is reached, the price for the fuel WILL skyrocket and it will have to be replaced. It is not a question of if, but when that happens. The issue before us is how to best make the transition from gasoline and diesel to a substitute.
Yup. No arguments yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
Check the source below and evaluate scenario 6.

https://eed.llnl.gov/flow/pdf/ucrlTR204891.pdf
Let me stop you there. I get an 'invalid security certificate' when I try to access it....can you summarize the different scenarios? I can't analyze or do any comparisons as-is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
Compare it to scenario 8 and the difference in electrical output is drastically different. Nearly a 50% difference in electrical output from using hybrid vehicles than with hydrogen achieving greater than 50% efficiency. Oil dependence is higher in scenario 6 as well, but electrical demand increased by only 10%. (45 quads vs. 60 quads)

This source is difficult to interpret, so this will likely yield more questions than answers.
Yea....especially when I can't see it. Not blaming you, as that's a website issue on a secure server (https and .gov). Odd though that its not a public website considering its url.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
The difference between hydrogen and electricity is that hydrogen can be stored as potential energy where as electricity more or less has to be used as generated. When it is stored though, lithium hydride batteries achieve a 86% grid-to-motor efficiency where as hydrogen can be as low as 25%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicle
Hydrogen is as much potential energy as gasoline. Technically, they are potential chemical energy, and are released into thermal energy when combusted, or in case of fuel cells, potential chemical -> electrical.

As for the efficiency issue.....always remember that it is just a number. Sacrificing usability for a massive increase in efficiency isn't a profitable decision unless the car itself is specifically designed to not be a replacement for your Camry or BMW or Ford. Cars like the Tesla Roadster get away with this, because it's a toy car....almost nobody will seriously try to daily drive a roadster, especially when filling up or recharging is such a time waster.

Efficiencies can be a great way to compare things, but ultimately meaningless. Say a current Ford Focus gets about 27mpg on average (more or less accurate). It is a very small hatchback that is designed for urban commuting and 1-2 people max, not for lugging things. My Subaru Legacy Wagon gets about 23mpg average when I'm not driving like I stole it (admittedly rare....what's the point of a redline if the engine never sees it?). This car carries 4-5 people in comfort, can carry 5 people worth of skis and gear, or bikes, or pull a lightweight trailer, has awd, and is unstoppable in snow. If you need such utility, doesn't the lowered ultimate fuel efficiency seem worth it? Another example: my race car gets about 20mpg average because I only drive it like I stole it despite its age. It has no rear seat anymore, harnesses, ultra sticky tires, a stiff suspension, and IIRC about 1.5 working speakers. It really isn't that useful for carrying anything of consequence, but gets over 74% of the efficiency of the hypothetical Focus.

Do you see what I mean by ultimate efficiency being less important that projected vehicle use? Electric cars are short range commuting cars now, and for the foreseeable future. Hydrogen cars already are acceptable replacements for conventional cars, aside from the whole lack of H2 pumps in most cities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity
Ah, but of course. 2 Fuels. The only real technical issue I see arising is the tuning of the vehicle's combustion to make it work best. This may not necessarily be so for Hydrogen gas and gasoline, but in other methods like diesel/food oil it will be. Still for the time being I agree, dual swap fueling would make a good bridge for the infrastructure. Eventually paving the way for fuel cell sper batteries in electric cars.
Yup. Actually the Hydrogen 7 is a fully working vehicle produced on the regular assembly line. The car's 6L V12 outputs under 300hp, which is far from fantastic considering the same motor on gasoline makes 444hp, but this motor is tuned to run both fuels. Because both hydrogen and gasoline operate on the same Otto combustion cycle, this is possible. Diesel/hydrogen isn't possible due to the different combustion cycles, though diesel/food oil/biodiesel is possible and common actually. Not really the same though, I don't know of anyone doing a dual fuel on a diesel though.

The BMW engineers have stated numerous times that if they were not required to run both fuels (there is a video on youtube of Jay Leno driving this car on both fuels), they could massage nearly 600hp from the engine with identical or better fuel economy. 444 vs 600, same economy, sign me the hell up! It really is a matter of tuning for a dual fuel car.

Now, nobody needs 600hp except me, but scale down the motor and suddenly the anemic 1.2L motors in Europe actually have metaphorical....round objects...rather than praying for a tailwind.

Everyone agrees that a bridging technology is necessary for hydrogen to take off, but for whatever reason, only BMW is designing the bridging one; everyone else is perfecting fuel cells. That's great....but....that time is way off.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura
I would also have been for the idea of more mass transit, but most people are just going to flat-out refuse it. I think that it might have to come to establishing a system like a third rail to eliminate the need for onboard storage of electricity. I would be much more in favor of broadcasted energy than anything else, but that may be too idealistic to ever become a reality.
The only way I can think of that being feasible for the majority of Americans is to imbed such a third rail under the asphalt and have an array of inductors picking up the electric fields much like current electric buses and trains. The issue arises though, as that is a seriously MASSIVE amount of asphalt to tear up and modify. A physical third rail is also possible, but that eliminates freedom of movement...you basically have a very tiny train car.

Public transport, as I said in the ill-luck Suburban Thread, works very well in my town (many of our buses are natural gas powered also), so embracing electric buses is rather simple....but leaves ugly wires everywhere. I'm all for it, I just want the ability to drive for hours on end wherever I please for a good reason or none at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedak
I guess nobody likes my post. psh :wink:
I did see it, and I had heard about it. I am very skeptical though, as no "water-car" has ever proved to be anything of consequence. Most simply waste time and lower mpgs.

Water intake injection, on the other hand, does work, but not the way you think. It is a common way to extract massive amounts of horsepower on forced induction motors (turbocharger, supercharger).

Due to the compression of the turbo/super, the air is heated. The compressed air is then usually piped to an intercooler, and then back to your intake. Often times, this is also supplemented by an alcohol/methanol/water injection system.

Rather than make the intake charge more flammable, what this does is supercool the intake charge. This makes the air denser, which means the engine combusts in a leaner state (more power for a given fuel quantity).

This has a huge effect on FI motors, but less so for NA (naturally aspirated) motors. There is an effect, but is about the same as driving on a cold/rainy day. You will make a tiny bit more horsepower, your engine will run a tiny bit better, and you may get one or two mpg better.

EDIT: Cool stuff on the air motor! I have seen something similar powering an Indian Tata Motors car. The only issues I see is the same as for electric cars- ultimate range (though compressed air is far more common than a 220V outlet at a gas station) and total emissions. The air gets compressed somewhere.... Cool stuff though. Also, bonus points if anyone can tell what year it is in that video. If you're an F1 nut, you'll see.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity View Post
Think of broadcasted energy this way:
For one, we know RF and EMF radiation can be harmful if we're exposed to it enough...If we had all of our power lines replaced by wireless radiative power (I'll get to the disparaging of efficiency in a moment), how many more times of exposure would we get on a constant basis, especially considering if we're already constantly exposed from our modern lifestyles? (hint it is exponential and on orders of magnitude larger)

The other thing: wireless induction to power things as opposed to direct contact. Sounds nice but unfortunately it is just not as efficient. Unless Tesla really did discover/develop a high lossless transmission method with a 94% efficiency as opposed to the roughly 80-87% efficiency of direct contact methods commonly employed--then we just have to discover how he did it IF he even did it at all.
I don't know why, but it just simply isn't as efficient.

If you wanted to test that theory of efficiency, there are power supply circuits available for things like fluorescent tubes or even gas lasers utilizing both direct and RF methods. While RF methods have little maintenance required over long periods of usage, that simply isn't worth it if the costs to run it more than make up for what you'd save on maintenance. Which really sucks, too. Which again totally ignores the fact that we're being bathed in this radiative energy that does, god only knows what.

The reason nothing is 100% efficient of course is that everything has some level of pure resistance to it and that loses are always inevitable.
Way back when, a good friend and I set out to test Tesla's broadcastable energy. With all the scientific rigour of....a seventh grade science fair project....we designed, built, and tested a Tesla Coil to test our hypothesis of RF electricity transmission by attempting to light an LED a few inches away. We failed. Granted, we had issues with out materials, but the amount of energy we were broadcasting was enough to piss off our neighbors by interfering with their TV signal, but nothing close to enough to light the LED beyond sparking range. So we grabbed fluorescent tubes and pretended to be Jedi till we shattered a few, then played with sparks, then shut off the generator and Tesla coil.

Not really related, but damn it was a fun and cool project. The math was way over our heads....partial differential equations and such for the electric circuit analysis. Probably part of the reason we failed is that we had to use pre-made solutions, or try to use algebra to figure out seriously difficult math. The pre-made solutions required materials we didn't exactly have or could find easily.

Nevertheless, in seventh grade, my friend and I built a Tesla Coil, tried the RF transmission, and concluded that the energy it takes to run the coil is several orders of magnitude higher than what is recovered.

Also, on a rather random science tangent, this is why it will never work. The inverse square law: P ~ 1 / d^2. Power is proportional to the inverse of the square of the radius. Say you want to have 10W at a distance of 200 m from an emitter of some type (I am summarizing greatly in case readers don't have the background needed. I can go into more detail if needed as well..PM is probably better). So, assuming 100% transmission, we set up a proportion.

P2 / P1 = [ (1/d2^2) / (1/d1^2)]

or

P2/P1 = (D1/D2) ^2

Now, you/I see a problem with how I worded it. We will calculate the amount of power required 1 cm from the emitter; that will give you an idea of how much is required at the emitter itself.

P2 = 10W, D2 = 200m = 20000 cm, D1 = 1 cm

P1 = 4GW, or 4,000,000,000 W. This will never be feasible unless one could magically aim and direct electrical field energy.

If anyone wants more info, please PM me. This isn't really related to hydrogen, and yes I'm guilty of off-topicking


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

Fear disturbs your concentration. - Sabine Schmitz

Last edited by mimartin; 07-13-2009 at 04:26 PM. Reason: merged double post
Bimmerman is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-13-2009, 03:50 PM   #100
Darth_Yuthura
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Vienna
Posts: 1,585
Current Game: KOTOR III
I would say the first best hurdle to overcome in improving fuel efficiency actually isn't the hybrid design, because it is significantly more expensive than standard cars; it's the split-cycle engine. This design incorporates a very cheap means to store potential energy as compressed air instead of electricity. This could eliminate the batteries altogether and potentially increase fuel efficiency of gasoline from the standard maximum of 25% to in excess of 30%. It is also a very simple change for a very significant improvement in engine design.

http://www.symscape.com/blog/split_cycle_engine

I think this is the most logical first step in the sequence of events to switching from oil to another fuel source. In that time, battery and alternate sources would have time to improve as well. It is still in its infancy, but it has not been made as big a deal as hybrid or even ethanol fuels.
Darth_Yuthura is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-13-2009, 04:09 PM   #101
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
I would say the first best hurdle to overcome in improving fuel efficiency actually isn't the hybrid design, because it is significantly more expensive than standard cars; it's the split-cycle engine. This design incorporates a very cheap means to store potential energy as compressed air instead of electricity. This could eliminate the batteries altogether and potentially increase fuel efficiency of gasoline from the standard maximum of 25% to in excess of 30%. It is also a very simple change for a very significant improvement in engine design.

http://www.symscape.com/blog/split_cycle_engine

I think this is the most logical first step in the sequence of events to switching from oil to another fuel source. In that time, battery and alternate sources would have time to improve as well. It is still in its infancy, but it has not been made as big a deal as hybrid or even ethanol fuels.
While I agree with you (now, after a good bit of reading up on it....Split cycle was featured this year at the SAE world congress, so it is getting press among industry folks), I wouldn't say the standard four stroke otto motor has reached its zenith.

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/09/u...rbocharged-v8/

This engine.....my god. It is absurdly more fuel efficient and powerful than a modern diesel! And it's a gas engine. See, Ford at least can do things right! I do agree that hybrids are a waste of time, and that further R&D on powertrains is needed to reduce fuel consumption and emissions without sacrificing any or much power and driveability. BMW is a global leader in this, due to their efficient dynamics program. The only problem is that the "efficient dynamics" cars are...well.. slow. This Ford motor promises stupid hooliganism in high spec motors with amazing economy and low emissions. Sounds like a win-win to me. It is a prototype in the R&D phase, so don't jump on me for that. It does have Ford's engineering team and resources behind it though, and from what I've read, this is going to be a game-changing motor even if it only lives in trucks.

Split cycle, I'm sure, will be looked into, but consider how much manufacturers have invested in conventional motors....how could they rationally justify investing the billions it will take to bring the split cycle to a level of manufacturability, durability, and power/emissions to be introduced in a car? I have no doubt they will, I just don't see it happening at the moment considering how badly all manufacturers are hurting. The engine would have to be significantly better at power/displacement, driveability (torque band in essence), emissions, fuel consumption, packaging, and weight than a comparable gasoline/diesel motor, let alone this new Bobcat motor that really extends the gasoline four stroke motor efficiency range.

I honestly see the split cycle becoming like the Wankel Rotary: developed in earnest by one manufacturer to be competitive with conventional motors. I don't really see it taking off by everyone for decades at the minimum. Remember that car models are planned at least 7 years before they hit market, and you realize why it takes so long for manufacturers to react to the quick swinging sword of public opinion (see SUV dumping for perfect example, see Prius success, see retro Mustang and how long it took to get a Camaro and Challenger).


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 07-13-2009, 04:31 PM   #102
Darth_Yuthura
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Vienna
Posts: 1,585
Current Game: KOTOR III
I saw the site presented, but I could not get the gist of what the design improves upon.

The major benefit to the split-cycle engine is the means to store compressed air. That takes the place of a battery in allowing the benefits of a hybrid vehicle at a significantly reduced cost. That compressed air tank could also serve to improve the engine's maximum power for a short span of time, as the engine could rely solely upon the compressed air and leave the valves of the compression cylinders open. The ability to separate the function of the power cylinders from the compression cylinders opens a wide range of possibilities for the engine to operate.

This is a function of the SC that is not exactly emphasized, because the fuel efficiency often is what's focused upon. Is there anything about that Ford engine that operates to store potential energy as compressed air or something like that? I just don't know what makes it different from other engines.
Darth_Yuthura is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-13-2009, 05:04 PM   #103
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
I saw the site presented, but I could not get the gist of what the design improves upon.

The major benefit to the split-cycle engine is the means to store compressed air. That takes the place of a battery in allowing the benefits of a hybrid vehicle at a significantly reduced cost. That compressed air tank could also serve to improve the engine's maximum power for a short span of time, as the engine could rely solely upon the compressed air and leave the valves of the compression cylinders open. The ability to separate the function of the power cylinders from the compression cylinders opens a wide range of possibilities for the engine to operate.

This is a function of the SC that is not exactly emphasized, because the fuel efficiency often is what's focused upon. Is there anything about that Ford engine that operates to store potential energy as compressed air or something like that? I just don't know what makes it different from other engines.
No, the Ford doesn't store energy in any form. It is simply a conventional motor with turbochargers (increases the volumetric efficiency of the motor...uses waste exhaust energy to compress air to add power, economy, and torque....free power, as it were), that then has a secondary fuel system, ethanol, directly injected into the cylinders themselves. Most engines, have gasoline injected into the intake manifold before the intake valves. This engine has both; it is what you would get if you could somehow make a "FlexFuel" E85 idiotic engine run simultaneously on both gasoline and ethanol.

The key difference is that in this Ford motor, the ethanol is not intended to be a fuel for combustion but rather to dramatically lower the air temperatures which allows for much higher boost supplied by the turbochargers without damaging the engine. E85 is well known among the tuning crowd for allowing very high levels of boost (compression supplied by the turbo above atmospheric pressure, commonly given in bar or psi) compared to gasoline motors without damage. There's a bit of chemistry and science that goes into it, but E85 runs much cooler.

Since it does not have anywhere close to the energy potential of gasoline, using it as the fuel in this motor would have no effect. Combining the two to dramatically lower air temperatures, increase boost, and vastly improve combustion (the most important point) is what makes this motor so special; it's never been done before. Direct injection for just gasoline causes problems, but synchronizing and tuning for direct and port (pre-valves, in the manifold) is incredibly complex. A motor like this requires precise metering of both gasoline and ethanol in order to avoid leaning (air to fuel ratio too much in favor of air) to the point of engine damage. This engine uses the ethanol only as a coolant as it were, not a fuel...I'd imagine it as having an every few thousand mile refill distance for the ethanol tank.

I have run ethanol emissions tests on cars simply converted from gasoline to ethanol. While the fuel consumption rises dramatically, the emissions of NOx, CO, CO2, HC, and other bits are much much lower than a comparable gas motor. The injection of ethanol in this motor gives the same emissions benefits as a pure ethanol motor due to the air/fuel ratio; the key to emissions is achieving as close to a certain value air/fuel ratio as possible. Ethanol fuel allows you to run a drastically different A/F ratio than gasoline, on account of the cooling property of the fuel and the much higher octane rating (octane rating != energy content. Simply put, it's a measure of combustion).

This is why it is such a revolutionary motor. All the benefits of gasoline power and availability, turbocharging fuel consumption and powerband, and the emissions of an ethanol car to go with it, on par with or lower than a diesel. Diesels have lower emissions than gas motors for certain species (I know I'll get flak on that). Diesel emissions are higher for particulate matter and COx particles. The Ford Bobcat has low particulates due to gasoline, and lower CO and CO2 due to again, gasoline and ethanol combination. It really is a win-win.

As for the power/torque possibilities discussed in the article, that is a result of the higher boost levels allowed by the ethanol injection, and, I'd imagine, lower motor compression. That part is also amazing: much lower emissions and fuel consumption, much higher power and torque.


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 07-14-2009, 06:58 PM   #104
JediAthos
Senior Member
 
JediAthos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,438
Current Game: Defiance
Forum Veteran Contest winner - Fan Fiction 
http://gas2.org/2009/07/13/students-...gets-1336-mpg/

Perhaps not a direct contribution to the discussion at hand...mostly because I have little knowledge of the topic, but when I saw this article I thought of you guys


"You'll find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."

JediAthos is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-15-2009, 07:30 AM   #105
Bimmerman
Junior Member
 
Bimmerman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Bouncing off the Rev Limiter
Posts: 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by JediAthos View Post
http://gas2.org/2009/07/13/students-...gets-1336-mpg/

Perhaps not a direct contribution to the discussion at hand...mostly because I have little knowledge of the topic, but when I saw this article I thought of you guys
Cool stuff there.

Shell has just opened a few H2 refuelling stations in NYC, JFK Airport, and in the Bronx..... i.e. the infrastructure is growing!

Link


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 07-15-2009, 04:03 PM   #106
Darth_Yuthura
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Vienna
Posts: 1,585
Current Game: KOTOR III
We should be less concerned with the expansion of this hydrogen infrastructure and more concerned with correcting flaws within the currently existing infrastructure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBZPo...eature=related

The Scuderi engine can be applied to the diesel engine as well. This is a more logical step than the electric hybrid because it should cost virtually the same as a traditional engine while barely changing the design of the engine. You have virtually the same components, so factory production, repair shops, and mechanics should be able to adapt a radically more efficient engine design with minimal problems. While this other engine design maybe more intriguing, it only applies to gasoline fuel.

I also had been investigating the potential of reducing the waste generated by the power grid and found that it is not as simple to do as simply tapping the excess energy. Almost 30% of all electricity produced by US power plants is wasted, or that US demands equal two thirds of what is outputted each day. Much of this happens because of peak demand during the day and reduced demand at night. The idea behind the electric hybrid is to increase demand for electricity during the night, when the rates are low; and that would reduce the fuel we'd use for transportation at virtually no cost. At the same time, the peak demands could be handled by cars plugged into the grid and acting as small power plants; owners getting paid for what their car generates. This could potentially make the power grid more efficient by taking a flaw and making two more significant improvements by switching to electric hybrids.

Of course all that is just IN THEORY. In practice, the idea of creating a grid where individual cars would be able to act as power plants wouldn't work unless the majority of people contribute with electric hybrids. And the economic scale you would have to expect for batteries to make a contribution would have to be enormous. Americans don't have unlimited budgets, so any theory where plug-in hybrids would have a significant impact on the power grid is not likely to happen.

In regards to the 'hydrogen' alternative, I've consulted with someone who would know about this and he says that you cannot really fix a flaw in a system by increasing demand during off-peak hours. You could buy cheap electricity at night, but it would only work to a limited extent. Once you push hydrogen production past a certain point, you would have to increase the production of the power plant... despite the grid's load not exceeding the plant's capacity. Hydrogen may be cheap when you produce it in small quantities, but when it becomes an increasingly dominant source of energy demand, it will cause the price of electricity to increase because power plants would be forced to output more to meet the demand.

There is justification for hydrogen being able to make solar and wind power more reliable. As electricity must be used when it is produced, any excess energy produced by wind turbines cannot make up for days when there is a shortage. With a system to convert excess electricity into some form of potential energy, you can increase the reliability of these renewable sources. What, oh what would be the best method to store excess electricity that would otherwise go to waste?

Hydrogen... is not the best, nor the only way to do this. It would make more sense to pump groundwater into a reservoir and use a dam for hydroelectricity, compressing air into underground cavities are very efficient methods of harnessing potential energy on a massive scale with a minimal cost compared to hydrogen production and using hydrogen to augment the power grid.

Last edited by Darth_Yuthura; 07-16-2009 at 05:33 PM.
Darth_Yuthura is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-04-2009, 01:59 PM   #107
Darth_Yuthura
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Vienna
Posts: 1,585
Current Game: KOTOR III
There is actually another solution that's even better than hydrogen in almost every way, but the Scuderi engine only represented half of it. In my last post, I addressed ways to store excess electricity from off-peak hours in cheaper ways than hydrogen. One means was to pump compressed air underground... why not just use compressed air altogether?

The beauty of the Scurderi engine was a much cheaper method of storing potential energy than batteries. Compressed air at 12,000 PSI doesn't have the same energy density as hydrogen or even gasoline, but it allows for a fairly quick means to recharge a vehicle's tank, and it is much more efficient than hydrogen.

The greatest thing about compressed air is that it can be used in much the same way as burning gasoline within the cylinders of an engine. You can use both sources of energy in the same engine... compressed air directly driving the pistons, or just burn traditional gasoline. This would actually be the next best step in moving beyond fossil fuels.

During off-peak hours, you can use an air compressor to recharge your car at home using cheaper electricity. If industrial-grade compressors and storage tanks were installed at gas stations, the recharge time would compare to hydrogen. Otherwise home-recharge times would be the same as electricity. If gasoline stations don't instal terminals for hydrogen or compressed air, then regular gasoline would do just as well for hybrid compressed-air/gasoline vehicles.

The costs of the cars also are projected to compare to that of gasoline engines... it's virtually the same technology with some modifications. That combined with the higher efficiency of storing potential energy as compressed air makes this a much better solution than hydrogen or batteries.
Darth_Yuthura is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-04-2009, 07:11 PM   #108
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
There is actually another solution that's even better than hydrogen in almost every way, but the Scuderi engine only represented half of it. In my last post, I addressed ways to store excess electricity from off-peak hours in cheaper ways than hydrogen. One means was to pump compressed air underground... why not just use compressed air altogether?

The beauty of the Scurderi engine was a much cheaper method of storing potential energy than batteries. Compressed air at 12,000 PSI doesn't have the same energy density as hydrogen or even gasoline, but it allows for a fairly quick means to recharge a vehicle's tank, and it is much more efficient than hydrogen.

The greatest thing about compressed air is that it can be used in much the same way as burning gasoline within the cylinders of an engine. You can use both sources of energy in the same engine... compressed air directly driving the pistons, or just burn traditional gasoline. This would actually be the next best step in moving beyond fossil fuels.

During off-peak hours, you can use an air compressor to recharge your car at home using cheaper electricity. If industrial-grade compressors and storage tanks were installed at gas stations, the recharge time would compare to hydrogen. Otherwise home-recharge times would be the same as electricity. If gasoline stations don't instal terminals for hydrogen or compressed air, then regular gasoline would do just as well for hybrid compressed-air/gasoline vehicles.

The costs of the cars also are projected to compare to that of gasoline engines... it's virtually the same technology with some modifications. That combined with the higher efficiency of storing potential energy as compressed air makes this a much better solution than hydrogen or batteries.
I don't want to beat a dead horse deader, so I'll keep this short and succinct.

Efficiency: You keep touting this as the end-all, be-all metric by which prospective vehicle technologies should be measured. Real engineers in the field don't hold ultimate efficiency in such high regard, as it is only part of what makes a viable product. <Snipped> -- j7

Hydrogen: not a storage medium of potential electrical energy for off-peak or whatever. It is a fuel. A battery or capacitor stores electrical energy. Hydrogen and gasoline are fuels that require a chemical combustion reaction to create heat and expanding gases to create power, or in the case of hydrogen, it requires a catalyzed reaction to give off electrons during the formation of water from H2 and O2, these electrons cause a current, and electrical motor magic happens. Saying hydrogen is analogous to a battery is wrong...and not just because of the wide variety of applications, fuel cell, combustion, and otherwise.

Compressed air: while yes, it is simpler, the issue then becomes that of being able to store enough air at a constant enough pressure to give a usable range. Pressurizing (yes, mozilla thinks it's a word....odd) every five miles is useless. Similarly, filling the tank will provide a the rated 12 ksi for only a short time. As the air in the tank is depleted, the pressure drops, and with the pressure dropping, so does the power output of the engine, and with the lower power output, so rises the consumed air (as it has to work harder for a given load), and the tank is depleted faster.

Try this with a pneumatic Lego tank. Pressurize it, then see how many cycles the air tank will run a cylinder for at full speed and power, then see how quick and sharp the drop off becomes. That's what I'm talking about; the air tank would need to compensate for the dropping pressure by reducing effective volume or by raising the tank temperature. All of this is easily done, it just needs to be part of the thought process.

Also, Tata motors has had a compressed air powered car in mass production for a few years now. This isn't a new idea by any means. Again, range is the issue. Also, your home air compressor will not provide 12 ksi (12000psi). That's industrial strength, and would only be found at dedicated fueling stations. This idealized vision of a home recharging/pressurizing station is nothing but a rosy ideal. Noone will seriously consider an electric or air powered car if it is restricted to a limited range around its home station i.e. if it cannot be refueled elsewhere. Otherwise, you will end up with a very expensive limited range car (expensive considering its limited utility), and a separate "antiquated" "evil" "planet hating" "prius-driver-conniption-fit-giving" gasoline or diesel car, probably in SUV guise.

Why would anyone spend $10-20k on a car that can go 40 miles, in the name of efficiency, and also need to spend another $30k on a car to actually be used outside of the urban commute, when a $30k car that runs on old reliable technology and has no range restrictions is both cheaper initially and down the road?

I agree that it is an infinitely better idea than relying on/wishing for/pining lustfully for electric cars, or even better than hydrogen cars, but the air engines aren't nearly as developed as gasoline engines, let alone hydrogen powered cars of either internal combustion or fuel cell smugfest flavors.


wow, that was longer than I thought it'd be. Off to bed.


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

Fear disturbs your concentration. - Sabine Schmitz

Last edited by jonathan7; 08-04-2009 at 07:58 PM. Reason: Removed flamebait -- j7
Bimmerman is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-04-2009, 07:33 PM   #109
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
Efficiency: You keep touting this as the end-all, be-all metric by which prospective vehicle technologies should be measured. Real engineers in the field don't hold ultimate efficiency in such high regard, as it is only part of what makes a viable product.
Well I CAN tell you that if something gets an efficiency bad enough, then all the surround sound, seat warmers, and GPS devices you can install won't compensate for that. I'm not emphasizing ultimate efficiency and forgetting performance and versatility. I AM emphasizing that the efficiency of hydrogen breaks its macroeconomic and environmental viability in this case.

Real engineers in the field don't hold ultimate efficiency in such high regard, as it is only part of what makes a viable product... but they know that it will kill the product if it's bad enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bimmerman View Post
Hydrogen: not a storage medium of potential electrical energy for off-peak or whatever. It is a fuel. A battery or capacitor stores electrical energy. Hydrogen and gasoline are fuels that require a chemical combustion reaction to create heat and expanding gases to create power, or in the case of hydrogen, it requires a catalyzed reaction to give off electrons during the formation of water from H2 and O2, these electrons cause a current, and electrical motor magic happens. Saying hydrogen is analogous to a battery is wrong...and not just because of the wide variety of applications, fuel cell, combustion, and otherwise.
If you worked in this field, then are you deliberately neglecting the critical element as to where the energy in hydrogen fuel originates? It is a fuel, yes; but it is secondary source of energy, meaning that it depends upon a primary source to be produced. Oil and natural gas are photosynthetic energy that have been stored underground millions of years ago that was converted to chemical energy. Oil, nuclear energy, hydroelectric, coal... these are PRIMARY sources of energy whereas hydrogen is a secondary source. There is no potential energy in water, which is why you depend upon a primary source to strip the hydrogen atoms away from the oxygen.

If you're going to burn natural gas in order to produce hydrogen for a hydrogen-powered vehicle, you might as well skip that step and burn the natural gas directly in a vehicle that uses natural gas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bimmerman View Post
Also, Tata motors has had a compressed air powered car in mass production for a few years now. This isn't a new idea by any means. Again, range is the issue. Also, your home air compressor will not provide 12 ksi (12000psi). That's industrial strength, and would only be found at dedicated fueling stations. This idealized vision of a home recharging/pressurizing station is nothing but a rosy ideal. Noone will seriously consider an electric or air powered car if it is restricted to a limited range around its home station i.e. if it cannot be refueled elsewhere. Otherwise, you will end up with a very expensive limited range car (expensive considering its limited utility), and a separate "antiquated" "evil" "planet hating" "prius-driver-conniption-fit-giving" gasoline or diesel car, probably in SUV guise.

Why would anyone spend $10-20k on a car that can go 40 miles, in the name of efficiency, and also need to spend another $30k on a car to actually be used outside of the urban commute, when a $30k car that runs on old reliable technology and has no range restrictions is both cheaper initially and down the road?
??????

I'm sorry, you lost me at 'limited range.' That might apply to an electric car, but not a hybrid compressed air/gasoline vehicle. That's when the gasoline aspect of the engine comes into play. This kind of engine has all the qualities of your precious hydrogen vehicle with many fewer drawbacks.

How much are hydrogen vehicles to manufacture? Still that high? Well your point with costs/restrictions is moot if you wish to suggest something that is less versatile and more expensive. It's not efficiency, but versatility that makes the Scuderi engine and Tata vehicles more desirable than hydrogen.

Last edited by Darth_Yuthura; 08-04-2009 at 07:59 PM.
Darth_Yuthura is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-04-2009, 08:14 PM   #110
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
Well I CAN tell you that if something gets an efficiency bad enough, then all the surround sound, seat warmers, and GPS devices you can install won't compensate for that. I'm not emphasizing ultimate efficiency and forgetting performance and versatility. I AM emphasizing that the efficiency of hydrogen breaks its macroeconomic and environmental viability in this case.

Real engineers in the field don't hold ultimate efficiency in such high regard, as it is only part of what makes a viable product... but they know that it will kill the product if it's bad enough.
You'd really be surprised on efficiencies. The Hummer caters to a particular buyer. So does a Prius. So does an M3 (ironically more efficient around a racetrack than a Prius at the same speeds). So does a Bugatti Veyron, which gets 2mpg at top speed and averages in the single digits.

What you need to accept is that efficiency is part of the package the buyer desires. A hybrid buyer wants max economy and range. A performance car buyer wants horsepower and really doesn't consider fuel economy as important. A truck buyer wants ultimate utility, and fuel economy as an afterthought.

I'm not going to keep arguing the economic point. Back and forth through multiple pages we've been debating that, and anyone interested in the topic can draw their own conclusions. We'll sum it down to this: you hate what hydrogen cars represent, and think they make no economic sense. I advocate hydrogen cars, and believe they make economic sense.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
I thought you said you worked in this field. If you do, then you're deliberately neglecting a critical element here: where does the energy in hydrogen originate? It is a fuel, yes; but it is a fuel that depends upon another source of energy to be produced. Oil and natural gas are photosynthetic energy stored underground from millions of years ago. There is no potential energy from hydrogen stored in water.
Yes, I work in this field. It's 2am and I'm hardly eloquent when I'm tired.

What you also don't realize, as I've noted before numerous times, is that crude oil and natural gas both require refinement before they are suitable for combustion. Pouring crude oil into your car will sieze the motor. Thus, they require refinement that depends upon another source of energy. So, again, hydrogen can be treated identically to gasoline and natural gas. Hydrogen needs processing to be usable, so does gasoline and natural gas.

Also, for what I only wish was the last time: electrolysis of water is hardly the only method for obtaining hydrogen gas!!! I have said that, Jae has said that, you ignore that. It would be as if I claimed the only way to get gasoline would be to mine oil shale in Canada. It's the most expensive, most inefficient, most resource consuming, and most economically nonviable method possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
If you're going to burn natural gas in order to produce hydrogen for a hydrogen-powered vehicle, you might as well skip that step and burn the natural gas directly in a vehicle that uses natural gas.
If you're going to use coal to power the refineries to process gasoline from crude oil for a gasoline powered vehicle, you might as well skip that step and burn the coal directly in a vehicle that uses coal.

See what I did there?

Also, many buses in my town run on natural gas....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
??????

I'm sorry, you lost me at 'limited range.' That might apply to an electric car, but not a hybrid compressed air/gasoline vehicle. That's when the gasoline aspect of the engine comes into play. This kind of engine has all the qualities of your precious hydrogen vehicle with many fewer drawbacks.
That wasn't so much directed at compressed air cars (although it is a concern, less so if there's a gasoline engine to act as compressor or alternate drivetrain) as electric cars.

Re- "precious" My my, aren't we snarky? You bump an old thread and take offense when I defend my position? Wonderful.

In any case, hybrid air compressor/gasoline cars do not have nearly all the same qualities. For one, added weight. Fortwo (play on words, you get a cookie if you get it), emissions. Hydrogen cars create H20 and are statistically able to clean the air of NOx, CH4, THC, NMHC, and other pollutants as they drive in combustion, fuel cell simply created H20 and emits waste H2 and O2. Gasoline cars don't, although modern SULEV cars can statistically give emissions results indistinguishable from zero for certain species. There's a fun fact for you!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
How much are hydrogen vehicles to manufacture? Still that high? Well your point with costs/restrictions is moot if you wish to suggest something that is less versatile and more expensive. It's not efficiency, but versatility that makes the Scuderi engine and Tata vehicles more desirable than hydrogen.
....because I want to divulge trade secrets and get sued. Great idea!

The costs are high for the production of FUEL CELL hydrogen cars. Hydrogen COMBUSTION vehicles are built on the regular assembly line with minimal added cost, as the engine is simply a modified gasoline engine. It's less than you think, but not practical or feasible cost wise on financial loss classes like compacts, subcompacts, midsize. The costs are partially absorbed by the profit margin in luxury class vehicles, hence why the 7 is BMW's platform.

The Tata car exists. The Scuderi does not in automotive production, nor outside of a lab and probably a few experimental prototypes. The Scuderi engine will not catch on until Gasoline motors are fully R&D'd out. As is, with the advent of variable valve timing, variable valve lift, direct injection, and future technologies too numerous to list, the gasoline engine is anything but dead.

While the Scuderi is a good idea, it will take a lot more than that to be widely accepted. It needs to demonstrate economic viability, justify the cost difference by enhanced performance, lower consumption, and lower emissions, along with lower weight, and it needs to demonstrate as good or better reliability, durability, and packaging. It also needs to justify the cost of switching to this motor design instead of implementing newer technologies on a gas motor that change the performance metrics as desireably but have no tangible effect on the other ones.

There have been lots of good ideas in the past, and not all get built for many of the above reasons.


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 08-04-2009, 09:19 PM   #111
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 you're going to use coal to power the refineries to process gasoline from crude oil for a gasoline powered vehicle, you might as well skip that step and burn the coal directly in a vehicle that uses coal.

See what I did there?
No, I don't see what you're getting at. Oil is a primary source of energy and although you must refine it, you get more from the exchange from the gasoline and diesel fuels than what you spent on the refining process.

Hydrogen is a secondary source of energy, which means that all its potential energy originated from a primary source. And you would find that every joule of hydrogen energy required three joules of energy from a primary source. That is a 66% net loss.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bimmerman View Post
Also, for what I only wish was the last time: electrolysis of water is hardly the only method for obtaining hydrogen gas!!! I have said that, Jae has said that, you ignore that. It would be as if I claimed the only way to get gasoline would be to mine oil shale in Canada. It's the most expensive, most inefficient, most resource consuming, and most economically nonviable method possible.
Alright, then what percentage of the hydrogen produced came from sources other than water? Is there enough of a supply that you could reasonably assume you will have enough to provide for all US vehicles indefinitely? Most of the best sources you mentioned were not very abundant. Probably we could expect them to provide for only a small fraction of all US automobiles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bimmerman View Post
In any case, hybrid air compressor/gasoline cars do not have nearly all the same qualities. For one, added weight. Fortwo (play on words, you get a cookie if you get it), emissions. Hydrogen cars create H20 and are statistically able to clean the air of NOx, CH4, THC, NMHC, and other pollutants as they drive in combustion, fuel cell simply created H20 and emits waste H2 and O2. Gasoline cars don't, although modern SULEV cars can statistically give emissions results indistinguishable from zero for certain species. There's a fun fact for you!
Hello! Hydrogen fuel depends on a primary source of energy! You forgot to mention that! Electric cars aren't emission-free either, but hydrogen cars are even worse. That MIGHT win against gasoline cars, but is anything but clean. The only clean hydrogen-fueled cars are those who's fuel was produced by a clean PRIMARY source, such as solar. Given as they only represent 1% of US energy production...

--------

I see that I'm not going to convince you otherwise. You have a stake in this, so I'll just assume you know of the issues I'm talking about. I won't hold it against you, but would rather that you not undermine what I bring up when they are indeed valid points. You can glorify hydrogen as much as you want, but don't proclaim it to be a primary source of energy because it's not.
Darth_Yuthura is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-04-2009, 11:55 PM   #112
Darth Avlectus
Your point?
 
Darth Avlectus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Attack on Titan
Posts: 4,255
Current Game: Soul Calibur 5
*Looks at above posts*

I wonder...are some forgetting electrolysis and other means to obtain hydrogen (and similar brown's gasses) are an inefficient process? That the ratio of energy gained from such processes are <1 to 1?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedak View Post
View page
YouTube Video

It's extremely feasible and was developed a long long time ago.


The fact that people think that it's some sort of scam is absurd. Do research.

"Stanley Meyer died suddenly on 21 March 1998 after dining at a restaurant. An autopsy report by the Franklin County, Ohio coroner concluded that Meyer had died of a cerebral aneurysm, but conspiracy theorists insist that he was poisoned to suppress the technology, and that oil companies and the United States government were involved in his death"
Boldened for emphasis. I think that is why your posts were ignored by everyone else. www.HappyMileage.com is a commercial source. This is contrary to what research guidelines will tell you to gather information from.

Mind you I am not saying you don't have something, just that most people who are for reals in research and otherwise will snort at the credibility of your sources given by virtue of what they are. I'm afraid the Government got to it and covered this one up well enough, so you won't get anywhere with this. Not without unearthing something more. Sorry. (I had the same frustrations in high school doing research for my senior project!!!)

I'm not bashing your sources, honest. What I am doing is trying to get you to realize that this story has holes in it that people have already seen. Things which shoot its own credibility in the foot.

Question: IS this story verifiable? Even if something is true, the proof that it is true is in the verification of it. (Example: This is one of the big problems of proving God actually exists)

Am I making any sense to you?

At the source material, it seems the guy in the report is pouring in water which would imply electrolysis for hydrogen or brown's gases. Though this has been pointed out by others already in this thread, I'll explain it again:

Look up Electrolysis from chemistry books. Plain english: You will basically find that the pure gasses it produces yield less energy than it took to produce it in the first place.

Brown's gasses is a similar process to electrolysis from my understanding, but it uses chemicals instead of electricity...(Someone care to jump in???)

Anyway, so this guy you see was pouring water into some kind of converter stage to make it a gas. It is an electrolysis process. Electrolysis is hardly a big secret.

What is more is that it was inefficient to begin with, so if it is economical it is only ideally about the same (at best) as gasoline. However, the equivalent use combustion wise will use up MORE of this new gas FASTER than gasoline. Look it up, and you will see (even on mythbusters) that this is true.

Also another thing I'm seeing wrong with the story: it refers to the engine as a "fuel cell"--a Fuel Cell is very similar to a battery. (Look it up.) Fuel Cells do their work electrically, not in combustion. So this engine in the story is not really a fuel cell. They don't even have their facts straight.

What this story is doing is mixing the two up. You have it talking about burning (combusting) the gas like it does to gasoline AND recombining the hydrogen with the oxygen like a fuel cell.

However, that cannot happen. If you separate the hydrogen and the oxygen, and burn the hydrogen before recombining the hydrogen back with the oxygen, do you really think the end product is going to be water like you began with now that you have altered its chemical composition? I didn't think so.

Combustion: there is no recombination process--it just makes carbon like gasoline. Burns it all away almost exactly the same.

The Fuel Cell: is the one that DOES recombine the oxygen molecule with the hydrogen after separation. However, there is no combustion because this is purely a chemical process to produce electricity.

Back to the story: It had a purely electrolysis thing going on. While, yes, it DOES work, it DOES NOT hold up against gasoline, performance wise. It burns much, much faster for the same performance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nedak View Post
I guess nobody likes my post. psh

Also, we can even run cars on air!

View page
YouTube Video

But will the oil companies let that happen?
Again, CNN--A mainstream media news outlet as a research source? You'll understand if I think maybe you ought to look somewhere else besides the news? Or go out and verify the story for yourself--ask questions, name names, refer to the story, formulate your own critical reasoning and questions for an interview, and check the data and facts.

I believe that DY and primarily Bimmerman were addressing that above as an integrated part of designs for newly developed products. Please read the above posts.

@ Bimmerman: Hey, you were addressing using ethanol. I don't want to put a kink in your hose, BUT, this use of ethanol has actually had an adverse effect on prices for corn. It has increased the consumption level for ethanol, so it follows that we need more of its base product (corn) to produce the ethanol. Unfortunately this takes form the corn crops faster and is causing the prices to go up. So this adverse effect is something to be seriously considered and not taken lightly.

However, I think it is absolutely great that we are coming out with such grand improvements nonetheless.


"I cant see S***! --YOU GO TO HELL!" --Tourettes guy
Darth Avlectus is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-05-2009, 08:59 AM   #113
Darth_Yuthura
Banned
 
Status: Banned
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Vienna
Posts: 1,585
Current Game: KOTOR III
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity View Post
@ Bimmerman: Hey, you were addressing using ethanol. I don't want to put a kink in your hose, BUT, this use of ethanol has actually had an adverse effect on prices for corn. It has increased the consumption level for ethanol, so it follows that we need more of its base product (corn) to produce the ethanol. Unfortunately this takes form the corn crops faster and is causing the prices to go up. So this adverse effect is something to be seriously considered and not taken lightly.
Thank-you. The adverse effects of using ethanol are not going to be very apparent on a small scale, but if it were to become the next source of automobile fuels for the US; they will be much more apparent. This may apply to virtually any gasoline substitute, but the more inefficient the process to generate the fuel; the less viable it would be.

Butterball was able to convert a waste product of theirs into a form of energy, which was very viable for them. But only because they turned something they would otherwise have to dispose of into a usable product. It works for them, but it can't be mass produced. There is only so much vegetable oil, turkey guts, and other organic waste products that could be converted to a form of fuel. These are only viable sources of energy because they come from waste products, but if you measured the costs that were required to grow the corn and make the canola oil; they wouldn't be as viable as fuels as they would for other purposes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity View Post

Look up Electrolysis from chemistry books. Plain english: You will basically find that the pure gasses it produces yield less energy than it took to produce it in the first place.

What is more is that it was inefficient to begin with, so if it is economical it is only ideally about the same (at best) as gasoline. However, the equivalent use combustion wise will use up MORE of this new gas FASTER than gasoline. Look it up, and you will see (even on mythbusters) that this is true.
Thank-you. The US is eventually going to have to convert from using petroleum-based fuels to using nuclear, wind, solar, and (yeah I said it already) coal. The question is how would you be able to use these energies for cars. This is why you may choose to use a secondary energy source, but you will pay a penalty every time to change energy from one form to another. The best solution is to find the simplest way with the fewest steps in converting electricity to a form of potential energy that can be stored rather than wasted.

You can produce hydrogen cheap right now, but the more demand you place on the power grid, the less viable the fuel becomes. Like ethanol raising the price of corn, hydrogen will have adverse effects on the prices of primary sources of energy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity View Post
However, that cannot happen. If you separate the hydrogen and the oxygen, and burn the hydrogen before recombining the hydrogen back with the oxygen, do you really think the end product is going to be water like you began with now that you have altered its chemical composition? I didn't think so.
That would be right. It doesn't happen in the combustion process, or even the hydrolysis process, but wherever the primary energy originated. If you used electricity that was generated by coal, then you must take into account the harmful gases that were generated in order to produce that electricity. You will find that more harmful gases are released even from burning natural gas and converting it to hydrogen than what you generate from a diesel engine of the same capacity.

Last edited by Darth_Yuthura; 08-05-2009 at 09:12 AM.
Darth_Yuthura is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-05-2009, 11:49 AM   #114
Bimmerman
Junior Member
 
Bimmerman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Bouncing off the Rev Limiter
Posts: 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity View Post
*Looks at above posts*

I wonder...are some forgetting electrolysis and other means to obtain hydrogen (and similar brown's gasses) are an inefficient process? That the ratio of energy gained from such processes are <1 to 1?
Nope, that's been addressed. Aside from base electrolysis, all have acceptable efficiencies. Lots of Math warning.

Currently, according to wikipedia, the top seventeen oil reserves account for approximately 1,243 billion barrels of oil (1.243 x 10^9 barrels). According to wikipedia again, approximately 46% of a standard barrel of oil ends up as gasoline.

So, 1.243x10^9 barrels * 46% * (42 US gallons / 1 standard barrel) = 2.40*10^10 gallons of gasoline available. Multiplying this by the density of gasoline, and converting to kilograms (SOURCE), yields:

2.4x10^10 US gallons * 6.073 lb/US gal * 1 kg/2.2046 lbs = 6.62x10^10 kg of gasoline.

Now here comes the fun part.

Last year, the US alone produced 9 million tons of Hydrogen gas by steam reforming of fossil fuels (SOURCE 1 SOURCE 2), NOT electrolysis. Few people use electrolysis.

That 9 million US tons is equivalent to:

9x10^6 * 2000 lbs/US ton * 1 kg / 2.2046 lbs = 8.165x10^9 kg of H2 produced last year via a process that is between 65 and 85% efficient depending on which source you believe. Can we please, finally, put the electrolysis falsehood to rest?

I keep saying that electrolysis is rarely used in industrial situations. What do you know, I was right! Read the first paragraph!

Quote for the lazy:
Quote:
Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water
Electrolysis of water is the decomposition of water (H2O) into oxygen (O2) and hydrogen gas (H2) due to an electric current being passed through the water. This electrolytic process is rarely used in industrial applications since hydrogen can be produced more affordably from fossil fuels.
Now can we put that lie to rest? D_Y, stop clinging to blatant falsehoods, kthnxbai.

Now, why did I convert both gasoline reserves and industrial hydrogen production in mass? Our current gasoline reserves are only a single order of magnitude higher than the yearly output of industrial hydrogen (mostly for the production of ammonia for fertilizer) in the United States alone. Our reserves should last for decades if not centuries. We can easily, cheaply, and conveniently switch to hydrogen gas for a fuel source, the logistical hurdle is converting the cars and filling stations, not the fuel demand nor the power consumption issue, D_Y. I'm a big believer in hard numbers and facts, as they're much more reliable than rhetoric.

Furthermore, this is simply production of hydrogen from other sources. It is possible to reclaim it from the atmosphere. More math:

Hydrogen is present as H2 in concentrations of 0.55ppmv (parts per million by volume) in our atmosphere. SOURCE A single hydrogen has a molecular weight of 1.0079 g/mol (SOURCE), so H2 has a molecular weight of double that, or 2.0158 g/mol. To calculate the mass pecentage, we use the molecular weight and ppmv according to the below formula (SOURCE)

(MW / MW_AIR) * ppmv = ppmm

plugging in our numbers, and using the MW_AIR given in the linked source as 29 g/mol, we get:

[ (2.0158 g/mol )/ 29 g/mol ]* 0.55 ppmv = 0.0382 ppmm, or 0.00000382 % of air by mass. This seems tiny, but when multiplied by the mass of the atmosphere (SOURCE), we get an astronomically huge amount of H2 as a Primary Fuel

Formula:
Mass Percent * Atmospheric mass = H2 mass
0.00000382 % * 5.1480*10^18 kg = 1.968x10^13 kg of H2 naturally occuring in our atmosphere. This is more, consequentially, than the mass of crude oil that has ever existed on the planet. Hence, I am absolutely correct when I say hydrogen is a primary fuel.

Now, when you multiply the mass of hydrogen and gasoline with the energy output per kilogram, you begin to understand why hydrogen is a far better fuel than gasoline or oil could ever pretend to be.

Mass of hydrogen from last year: 8.165x10^9 kg H2
Mass of hydrogen in atmosphere: 1.968x10^13 kg H2
Mass of gasoline left in world: 6.62x10^10 kg Gasoline

Now, energy content per mass (SOURCE):

Hydrogen: 121 MJ/kg
87 octane Gasoline (91 RON): 44.4 MJ/kg
Ethanol: 31.1 MJ/kg (GTA:SWcity, this is why ethanol frankly sucks as a fuel)

Now, simple multiplication:

Last year H2: 8.165x10^9 kg * 121 MJ/kg = 9.8797x10^11 MJ of energy
Atmospheric H2: 1.968x10^13 kg * 121 MJ/kg = 2.38x10^15 MJ
Total gasoline available: 6.62x10^10 kg * 44.4 MJ/kg = 2.94 x 10^12 MJ

Now, take a good look at those numbers. The energy from last year's H2 crop is 33.6 % of the total amount of energy available in our gasoline reserves. Frankly....that's an astonishing amount of energy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity View Post
I believe that DY and primarily Bimmerman were addressing that above as an integrated part of designs for newly developed products. Please read the above posts.
Yup. That's the perspective I was addressing, using it as part of a complete system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTA:SWcity View Post
@ Bimmerman: Hey, you were addressing using ethanol. I don't want to put a kink in your hose, BUT, this use of ethanol has actually had an adverse effect on prices for corn. It has increased the consumption level for ethanol, so it follows that we need more of its base product (corn) to produce the ethanol. Unfortunately this takes form the corn crops faster and is causing the prices to go up. So this adverse effect is something to be seriously considered and not taken lightly.

However, I think it is absolutely great that we are coming out with such grand improvements nonetheless.
I agree with you. I do not advocate for pure ethanol fueled cars. The technology I was referencing uses extremely small quantities of pure ethanol (small like the tank needs refilling every 15k miles or so small) as a method to supercool and condense the intake air charge, not as a fuel. As a fuel, it only makes sense with forced induction, and even so it barely does. Ethanol's the crack the politicians love feeding to gullible voters.

@D_Y-- I think I've addressed nearly every point you made in your post with the scientific analysis above. If not, well, sorry, but I have to run. I will address your post when I have more time if I need to, but please read the sources I conveniently linked to.


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 08-05-2009, 01:27 PM   #115
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
Last year, the US alone produced 9 million tons of Hydrogen gas by steam reforming of fossil fuels (SOURCE 1 SOURCE 2), NOT electrolysis. Few people use electrolysis.

That 9 million US tons is equivalent to:

9x10^6 * 2000 lbs/US ton * 1 kg / 2.2046 lbs = 8.165x10^9 kg of H2 produced last year via a process that is between 65 and 85% efficient depending on which source you believe. Can we please, finally, put the electrolysis falsehood to rest?
Okay so this process will still have us depending upon foreign oil? I don't understand what the benefits are to this. If you were aiming to disprove the electrolysis issue, then I would admit this does that.

NOW this opens up a wide range of new issues in regards to using this method. Here are some drawbacks that were listed in one of your sources:

"-The reforming reaction takes place at high temperatures, making it slow to start up and requiring costly high temperature materials.
-Sulfur compounds present in the fuel poison certain catalysts, making it difficult to run this type of system from ordinary gasoline. Some new technologies have overcome this challenge, however, with sulfur-tolerant catalysts.
-Low temperature polymer fuel cell membranes can be poisoned by the carbon monoxide (CO) produced by the reactor, making it necessary to include complex CO-removal systems. Solid oxide fuel cells (SOFC) and Molten carbonate fuel cells (MCFC) do not have this problem, but operate at higher temperatures, slowing start-up time, and requiring costly materials and bulky insulation.
-The thermodynamic efficiency of the process is between 70% and 85% (LHV basis) depending on the purity of the hydrogen product.
-The biggest problem for reformer based systems remains the fuel cell itself, in terms of both cost and durability. The catalyst used in the common polymer-electrolyte-membrane fuel cell, the device most likely to be used in transportation roles, is very sensitive to any leftover carbon monoxide in the fuel, which some reformers do not completely remove. The anode catalyst is poisoned by the carbon monoxide and the fuel cells performance degrades.
-The catalyst in low temperature fuel cells is based on platinum, and is hence very expensive. A typical automotive fuel cell stack prototype (100kW) contains 20-30g of platinum metal in the form of nano-particles supported on carbon black."

Okay, a mouthful of issues all at once.

This is the cheapest method and does much better than electrolysis in terms of efficiency, but with this method still comes the dependency on petroleum-based fuel sources. Isn't hydrogen supposed to free us of our dependency?

This is riddled with complications that weigh in hydrogen's benefit one way, but then adds lots of complications elsewhere. This process is NOT any better than gasoline in regards to the environment. It still requires fuel cells and not combustion. Fuel cells require platinum, which makes these hydrogen-powered cars way too expensive. Lots of toxic byproducts that contaminate equipment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bimmerman View Post
9x10^6 * 2000 lbs/US ton * 1 kg / 2.2046 lbs = 8.165x10^9 kg of H2 produced last year via a process that is between 65 and 85% efficient depending on which source you believe. Can we please, finally, put the electrolysis falsehood to rest?

I keep saying that electrolysis is rarely used in industrial situations. What do you know, I was right!
Okay... so why didn't you just say so in the first place? You should have mentioned that you were talking about all the benefits of each method used for producing and using hydrogen and then disregarding the drawbacks of each.

You claimed that these hydrogen fuels are clean... no they are not through the fossil fuel reformation process. Your own sources say they COULD capture the CO2 in the process and keep it from being released into the atmosphere, but they don't.

You also mention that hydrogen is economic and competitive with gasoline... well if you were to confine the CO2 and put it into the ground, that would increase the cost of hydrogen. I don't have a source to give numbers, but I heard that such processes of 'carbon capture' have proven to be oppressively expensive.

Your own source couldn't verify that hydrogen w/out carbon capture would generate half the output of CO2. Joseph J. Romm made a compelling argument that hydrogen may at best be able to act as a substitute for fossil fuels, but that the issues are in regard to the expensive infrastructure required. Therefore, even if hydrogen was 'just as good as gasoline' through this process, it makes no sense to build the infrastructure which will collapse as quickly as the supplies of petroleum.

The hydrolysis process is really the only reliable means of producing the fuel once gasoline is gone. If you wish for a fuel that will be available 100 years from now, it must originate from a process that doesn't depend upon petroleum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bimmerman View Post
[ (2.0158 g/mol )/ 29 g/mol ]* 0.55 ppmv = 0.0382 ppmm, or 0.00000382 % of air by mass. This seems tiny, but when multiplied by the mass of the atmosphere (SOURCE), we get an astronomically huge amount of H2 as a Primary Fuel

Formula:
Mass Percent * Atmospheric mass = H2 mass
0.00000382 % * 5.1480*10^18 kg = 1.968x10^13 kg of H2 naturally occuring in our atmosphere. This is more, consequentially, than the mass of crude oil that has ever existed on the planet. Hence, I am absolutely correct when I say hydrogen is a primary fuel.
Yeah, and do you realize that there is enough deuterium in the oceans that you could theoretically get the equivalent energy of a barrel of oil for each gallon of seawater? That is assuming that you've siphoned the isotope from each gallon of water and injected it into a fusion reactor.

Although there is a lot of raw hydrogen gas in the atmosphere, it is not concentrated in places where you can easily extract it from other elements. Because we don't have stations that collect those those stray H2 elements from the atmosphere, then you can't exactly claim it to be a primary source of energy, can you?

You say we get an astronomically huge amount of primary energy? No, we HAVE an astronomical amount of primary energy, but we can't collect it; then it essentially is not usable. No, you are NOT absolutely correct.

I will admit that hydrogen that was extracted from a fossil fuel might constitute a primary source, as it was extracted from petroleum. However this is essentially energy that had already been captured millions of years ago, but altered into a different form of chemical energy. This still leaves it dependent upon another primary source.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bimmerman View Post
Now can we put that lie to rest? D_Y, stop clinging to blatant falsehoods, kthnxbai.
Which lie? If you are referring to me spouting off about hydrolysis being the only way to produce hydrogen, then I will admit that to be wrong. Now that I see you are backing steam reforming, that still does not change the fact that hydrogen fuel is a secondary source of energy. Only steam reforming isn't a permanent solution if all oil gets depleted, or if coal is going to be rejected all the time.

-------

I realize that I'm likely frustrating a lot of people with this continued thread. I remain unconvinced that the benefits of hydrogen outweigh the sacrifice that comes with it. I know that petroleum won't last forever, but the worst thing is to transition to something that won't last indefinitely and will only increase energy demands. Our focus should be more for a sustainable primary source first... then we can worry about the secondary source upon which to use for vehicles.

With that, I'm signing off this thread.

Last edited by Darth_Yuthura; 08-05-2009 at 03:57 PM.
Darth_Yuthura is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-05-2009, 04:34 PM   #116
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
Okay so this process will still have us depending upon foreign oil? I don't understand what the benefits are to this. If you were aiming to disprove the electrolysis issue, then I would admit this does that.
That was the point. This process doesn't remove our need for petroleum, no, but look at the massive amount of H2 gas generated from not a whole lot of petroleum. If most of the cars run on H2, the amount of petroleum being consumed daily will fall exponentially even accounting for the added demand. Plus...methane's a common naturally occurring hydrocarbon. Not in the same quantities as petroleum, but it occurs (not talking about farts). This reduced need for gasoline and diesel will allow our current reserves to last significantly longer until another technology can be suitably developed. Or until we're dead, either way....doesn't matter much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
NOW this opens up a wide range of new issues in regards to using this method. Here are some drawbacks that were listed in one of your sources:

"-The reforming reaction takes place at high temperatures, making it slow to start up and requiring costly high temperature materials.
-Sulfur compounds present in the fuel poison certain catalysts, making it difficult to run this type of system from ordinary gasoline. Some new technologies have overcome this challenge, however, with sulfur-tolerant catalysts.
-Low temperature polymer fuel cell membranes can be poisoned by the carbon monoxide (CO) produced by the reactor, making it necessary to include complex CO-removal systems. Solid oxide fuel cells (SOFC) and Molten carbonate fuel cells (MCFC) do not have this problem, but operate at higher temperatures, slowing start-up time, and requiring costly materials and bulky insulation.
-The thermodynamic efficiency of the process is between 70% and 85% (LHV basis) depending on the purity of the hydrogen product.
-The biggest problem for reformer based systems remains the fuel cell itself, in terms of both cost and durability. The catalyst used in the common polymer-electrolyte-membrane fuel cell, the device most likely to be used in transportation roles, is very sensitive to any leftover carbon monoxide in the fuel, which some reformers do not completely remove. The anode catalyst is poisoned by the carbon monoxide and the fuel cells performance degrades.
-The catalyst in low temperature fuel cells is based on platinum, and is hence very expensive. A typical automotive fuel cell stack prototype (100kW) contains 20-30g of platinum metal in the form of nano-particles supported on carbon black."

Okay, a mouthful of issues all at once.
Yes, those are many issues. HOWEVER, those deal with the idea of miniaturizing the reformation process to run in parallel with a fuel cell, or example in a car. Those are not industrial scale issues, as not only do you benefit from economies of scale, but you also are simply producing, not fuel cells. A lot of what you listed (from the source) are fuel-cell specific, and the ones that aren't, are for miniaturization. The reformation process has been studied and developed since 1923, so the industrial aspect of it is well known and its issues have been thoroughly worked out.

If you are just producing hydrogen, for consumption elsewhere, it makes a whole lot more sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
This is the cheapest method and does much better than electrolysis in terms of efficiency, but with this method still comes the dependency on petroleum-based fuel sources. Isn't hydrogen supposed to free us of our dependency?
Yes, but you can't wean instantly. See my first paragraph about the reducing demand. It doesn't alleviate our need, but goes a looooong way to reducing it to not nearly as much of a factor. For the record, asphalt, plastics, and lubricants, among other things, are also dependent on crude oil, so......hydrogen can only do so much. The species used for reformation aren't what is normally used in cars or much of anything else for that matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
This is riddled with complications that weigh in hydrogen's benefit one way, but then adds lots of complications elsewhere. This process is NOT any better than gasoline in regards to the environment. It still requires fuel cells and not combustion. Fuel cells require platinum, which makes these hydrogen-powered cars way too expensive. Lots of toxic byproducts that contaminate equipment.
I know, right? There's no silver bullet. If there was, someone would be a gazillionaire right now. It hardly needs fuel cells instead of combustion though, the gas itself doesn't care where it gets used, fuel cell or combustion engine. Remember, the issues listed in the source are for the implementation of miniaturized reformation in tandem with a mobile fuel cell, instead of industrial scale "factory" for lack of better wording.

Also...you do realize that your vehicle catalytic converter is covered in platinum, right?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
Okay... so why didn't you just say so in the first place? You should have mentioned that you were talking about all the benefits of each method used for producing and using hydrogen and then disregarding the drawbacks of each.
I'm not going to say again the issues with the issues list above, I think I've explained that. I'm not glossing over the disadvantages of any of these methods, I am simply stating which is the current favored method and why. I'm more than happy to debate pros and cons, as without debate innovation doesn't happen (though this is an internet forum, but still).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
You claimed that these hydrogen fuels are clean... no they are not through the fossil fuel reformation process. Your own sources say they COULD capture the CO2 in the process and keep it from being released into the atmosphere, but they don't.
Nothing is truly clean, not even electric. The only clean method is walking. The rest are simply variations of clean. Compared to gasoline cars, as one of those sources say, the end emissions are half that of a comparable gasoline emission. Not as good as electric, no, but at the present time, it's a very welcome drop and a very significant decrease.

Well, I'd imagine it's because it costs a lot of money to capture the CO2 and/or the technological requirements or regulatory punishments aren't keeping up. I have no idea. I think that if there's a regulation that requires them to keep and capture the CO2, then they would. Still, the CO2 released is much less than gasoline car emissions for similar energy use (same kg of H2 vs same kg of Gasoline). Nothing's perfect. Should they capture it? Definitely. Not my fault they don't. Same goes for power plants for electric cars...the majority of the gases from the smokestacks is now CO2. Same argument can be made there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
You also mention that hydrogen is economic and competitive with gasoline... well if you were to confine the CO2 and put it into the ground, that would increase the cost of hydrogen. I don't have a source to give numbers, but I heard that such processes of 'carbon capture' have proven to be oppressively expensive.
Yes, I imagine so. I also think that's why the CO2 capture isn't used at the present time. Still, think back to the Honda Clarity FCX I posted about earlier. Even if the cost of a kg of H2 doubles or triples from its current value ($2.70/kg I saw on wikipedia, or the $5.00/kg from the Top Gear video), it's still comparable to drive the same miles with the hydrogen car.

Quick and dirty numbers. Assuming a tripling of H2 cost, 72 miles/kg, 270 mile range (equals 3.75kg needed). For gas, take 25mpg avg car, traveling same 270 miles. This requires 10.8 gallons.

H2 @ $2.70/kg * 3 = $8.10 / kg. 270mi / ($8.10/kg * 3.75kg) = 8.89 mi/$
H2 @ $5.00/kg * 3 = $15.00 / kg. 270mi / ($15.00/kg * 3.75kg) = 4.80 mi/$

Gas @ $2.50/gal. 270mi / ($2.50/gal * 10.8 gallons) = 10 mi/$ (what is the current cost of gas in the states anyway? I paid $1.15 for 91 octane last time I filled up)

Keeping our miles traveled constant, our H2 cost of $8.10 constant, and our gasoline cost constant, we can calculate an equivalent mpg rating for the higher H2 cost of 22.225mpg. So it's not terribly far off. Not as good a prospect as it was, but considering the cleaner emissions, it's not a horrendous prospect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
Your own source couldn't verify that hydrogen w/out carbon capture would generate half the output of CO2. Joseph J. Romm made a compelling argument that hydrogen may at best be able to act as a substitute for fossil fuels, but that the issues are in regard to the expensive infrastructure required. Therefore, even if hydrogen was 'just as good as gasoline' through this process, it makes no sense to build the infrastructure which will collapse as quickly as the supplies of petroleum.
There is a very large debate going on about this very issue. It depends who you ask, what metric they measure by, and it all ends up being a lot of conjecture. Again, see my words on reduced demand on petroleum at the top.


[QUOTE=Darth_Yuthura;2659773]The hydrolysis process is really the only reliable means of producing the fuel once gasoline is gone. If you wish for a fuel that will be available 100 years from now, it must originate from a process that doesn't depend upon petroleum. [/qutoe]

Eh....not so much. Electrolysis is one option, but I didn't list all the others. There are other methods of obtaining H2 from water without hydrolysis/electrolysis, which are more efficient. SOURCE

If we begin to rely more on steam reformation to produce hydrogen, in the near term we will end up increasing our demand for petroleum products. Once more and more cars are sold with hydrogen engines or fuel cells though, the overall demand for crude oil for vehicle transportation will fall rather markedly. Keep in mind that oil has many many more uses than just in cars, so we will never really wean ourselves off it without significant alternative technologies for plastics, asphalt, tires, rubber, lubricants, etc. Hydrogen just allows for it to last longer.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
Yeah, and do you realize that there is enough deuterium in the oceans that you could theoretically get the equivalent energy of a barrel of oil for each gallon of seawater? That is assuming that you've siphoned the isotope from each gallon of water and injected it into a fusion reactor.
Oh yes, I realize how ridiculous that comparison was. I made it just to make a point, I have no illusions on how ridiculously impossible it is to get anywhere near that amount of H2 out of the atmosphere. Some is easily reclaimable, but only a small tiny fraction. That said, even 0.0000001% of 2x10^13 is 2 million kg. Not a lot, but H2 is a naturally occurring element and a renewable resource. Still, yes, I mostly made that point as I wanted to know how much existed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
Although there is a lot of raw hydrogen gas in the atmosphere, it is not concentrated in places where you can easily extract it from other elements. Because we don't have stations that collect those those stray H2 elements from the atmosphere, then you can't exactly claim it to be a primary source of energy, can you?
See above.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
You say we get an astronomically huge amount of primary energy? No, we HAVE an astronomical amount of primary energy, but we can't collect it; then it essentially is not usable.
Again, see above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
No, you are NOT absolutely correct.
I am from the point of view that it is a naturally occurring primary fuel. There are massive amounts of oil projected to lie under the sea floor in areas we can't get to with current technology, in much the same way as an abundance of atmospheric H2 is out of our reach. Doesn't mean I'm wrong, or that it's not a primary fuel. Plus, there are other places H2 exists in its elemental gas form than just in the atmosphere, such as from bacteria or algae.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
I will admit that hydrogen that was extracted from a fossil fuel might constitute a primary source, as it was extracted from petroleum. However this is essentially energy that had already been captured millions of years ago, but altered into a different form of chemical energy. This still leaves it dependent upon another primary source.
Yes, but is the need to process the petroleum to extract hydrogen any different really than processing it to extract gasoline? I never said it would not be dependent on another source, as gasoline is as well (electric power, petroleum for the both, etc etc).




Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Yuthura View Post
Which lie? If you are referring to me spouting off about hydrolysis being the only way to produce hydrogen, then I will admit that to be wrong. Now that I see you are backing steam reforming, that still does not change the fact that hydrogen fuel is a secondary source of energy. Only steam reforming isn't a permanent solution if all oil gets depleted, or if coal is going to be rejected all the time.
The hydrolysis bit is what I was referring to. Now that it's apparent that you didn't know that it isn't used in nearly the same scale you had thought, I realize that it wasn't intentional hardheadedness. I apologize for the offense.

I'm not really backing steam reformation any more than biological hydrogen production from water (read my source above). I'm just showing that there are other options. The way I see it, hydrogen (atmospheric excepted) and gasoline are both secondary sources, as they must have processing done to their raw form to be usable. Coal isn't going anywhere soon, and liquefying coal to produce hydrocarbon molecules/solution to create hydrogen is an interesting prospect.

The plain truth is that there are a few natural resources that we simply cannot economically feasibly replace such as coal and petroleum, not just because of cars. Hydrogen and electric cars have the potential to eliminate the need for vehicle petroleum fuel distillates like gasoline and diesel, but they do nothing for the other uses of petroleum.

Furthermore, until electric car technology evolves to the point of addressing the range and utility issues, hydrogen cars are a much better alternative. Electric is the best ultimate option....but I don't see it happening anytime soon. Nor, for that matter, for wide scale hydrogen adoption.


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 11-12-2009, 02:40 PM   #117
machievelli
Local curmudgeon
 
machievelli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Las Vegas Nevada
Posts: 2,823
Current Game: Dungeonseige series
Hot Topic Starter Veteran Fan Fic Author Helpful! Forum Veteran 
Back in 1976, a book entitled colonies in space was published. The author, a NASA geek commented that at that time, it would cost only 186 billion dollars to build a series of solar collector satelllites that would be able to collect energy and transmit it down for use. He also pointed out that a standard power plant operates more efficiently if you don't have to cycle between high demand usage and low demand.

The technology was there in the 70s, and is still here in the next millennia. However the social engineers and anti-space lobby, along with the greens shot it down for get this; the possibility of military applications.

You see, the electricity would be beamed down to areas that have little or no weather interference, using microwaves in the KA-KU band. These frequencies are already in use by satellite communications and such TV companies as directv and dish network.

The greens fought it because the largest area with the necessary conditions is the deserts of the southwest. The beam would be tightly focused, and the 'military' application would be if you tightened that focus even more into a maser beam so if the government, decided to attack somone, they merely tighten focus, aim and shoot.

The social engineers just don't want to spend money where it's 'wasted', because they can increase welfare spending if it is kept here.

Using modern dollars, the entire system including habitats in orbit and the moon for materials would cost less than a trillion dollars. About what the US paid for the Ronald Reagan


'To argue with those who have renounced the use and authority of reason is as futile as to administer medicine to the dead.' Now who said that?

From the one who brought you;
What we die for...
Acceptance
KOTOR excerpts
Star Wars: The Beginning
Star Wars: Republic Dawn
Return From Exile
machievelli is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-12-2009, 07:17 PM   #118
ForeverNight
nrgurt researcher
 
ForeverNight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Minnesota, USA
Posts: 1,204
Current Game: q2
And less than the projected health care reform costs.... I like this idea even more!


ForeverNight is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-13-2009, 02:31 PM   #119
machievelli
Local curmudgeon
 
machievelli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Las Vegas Nevada
Posts: 2,823
Current Game: Dungeonseige series
Hot Topic Starter Veteran Fan Fic Author Helpful! Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForeverNight View Post
And less than the projected health care reform costs.... I like this idea even more!
The thing that it's detractors ignore, is this; that cost is a once off start up costs for two stations, one a space sation (Or building the International station to about twice it's present size) and one on the moon to mine materials such as titanium, which is higher in concentration there than on Earth.

This includes all of the vehicles necessary to make that trip and return with processed material.

It also includes the personnel necessary to operate the bases in question, and technicians needed to assemble the geosynchronous satellites to collect and deliver the power, and the ground stations necessary to transmit it.

But it doesn't stop there. The initial satellites would transfer power from ground stations in one country to another, so none of the present power stations need to be shut down; they would merely take the electricity from say the Tokyo megaplex and transfer it to say Europe when the usage drops in Tokyo. This has already been tested and the power loss is about 6%, comparable with transmitting power from Los Angeles to New York.

And once it is set up it doesn't need massive amounts of maintenance. From that point on power is as free as you can make it, since the sun will butn for maybe a few hundred million years yet, and with cheap power, the cost of converting to hydrogen fuel dops, as dos the price.

As an aside, the most stupid idea I heard regarding hydrogen as a fuel was a company patenting a way to make it from existing hydrocarbons. In other words, coal and oil.


'To argue with those who have renounced the use and authority of reason is as futile as to administer medicine to the dead.' Now who said that?

From the one who brought you;
What we die for...
Acceptance
KOTOR excerpts
Star Wars: The Beginning
Star Wars: Republic Dawn
Return From Exile
machievelli is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 11-14-2009, 02:58 AM   #120
Bimmerman
Junior Member
 
Bimmerman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Bouncing off the Rev Limiter
Posts: 437
Quote:
Originally Posted by machievelli View Post
As an aside, the most stupid idea I heard regarding hydrogen as a fuel was a company patenting a way to make it from existing hydrocarbons. In other words, coal and oil.
This is actually quite widespread and is the primary technology for the manufacturing of industrial hydrogen. It's much more efficient when compared against electrolysis. It's not a stupid idea for industrial use, but when you use hydrocarbon reformation to create vehicle fuels it gets a bit pointless as you lose energy.

However: the most common hydrocarbon used in this process is CH4, or normal methane. This gas is unsuitable for vehicle fuel use and is simply marked for industrial applications anyway (i.e. production of Ammonia and Hydrogen).....so saying that the technology reduces coal and oil to hydrogen is a massive misnomer.


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,
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 07:38 PM.

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