Now this was discovered about 12 years ago. Within the last few years its gotten more and more attention and iv been keeping tabs on it.
It, if you havent already figured it out, are cars that run on nothing but water. Ford looks like its going to be the first one to have a care running on nothing but water. I saw last night a commercial reinforcing that fact(I was sure it was going to be BMW <3 them).
I went on youtube to look for the commercial but no good >.< I found some other stuff though.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=8QAboZInQxk
http://youtube.com/watch?v=C4mz7MPSquU
Personally I never thought the oil company's would allow this to happen 200Billion in 3 months is enough money to buy basically anything. Lets see however what do you guys think?
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- The Hydrogen powered car
The Hydrogen powered carFollow
If you've actually been following the issue for 12 years (or even a decent fraction of that time), then you already know many of the problems with hydrogen powered vehicles.
The number one problem, as mentioned in the article, is that you can't just mine hydrogen out of the ground. You have to make it. It's the process of making it that matters. Zero emissions out of a tailpipe doesn't matter much if you have to generate new emissions in order to make the hydrogen in the first place.
I really look at this the same way I look at fully electric cars. Barring some amazing new power generation technology (like cold fusion or something similar), the only way we can actually gain much benefit is if we start building nuclear power plants. But the environmentalists wont let us, leaving us with the choice of burning more coal and natural gas to generate electricity to power cars, or burn gasoline directly to power cars. And interestingly enough, it's much much more efficient to simply burn gasoline.
Until and unless we can figure out a way to generate sufficient quantities of electricity in a clean way, electric and hydrogen solutions for vehicles doesn't really solve any problems.
The number one problem, as mentioned in the article, is that you can't just mine hydrogen out of the ground. You have to make it. It's the process of making it that matters. Zero emissions out of a tailpipe doesn't matter much if you have to generate new emissions in order to make the hydrogen in the first place.
I really look at this the same way I look at fully electric cars. Barring some amazing new power generation technology (like cold fusion or something similar), the only way we can actually gain much benefit is if we start building nuclear power plants. But the environmentalists wont let us, leaving us with the choice of burning more coal and natural gas to generate electricity to power cars, or burn gasoline directly to power cars. And interestingly enough, it's much much more efficient to simply burn gasoline.
Until and unless we can figure out a way to generate sufficient quantities of electricity in a clean way, electric and hydrogen solutions for vehicles doesn't really solve any problems.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Christ, that hurt to read. Retake remedial English, for fu
gbaji wrote:
Until and unless we can figure out a way to generate sufficient quantities of electricity in a clean way, electric and hydrogen solutions for vehicles doesn't really solve any problems.
Elderon wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Until and unless we can figure out a way to generate sufficient quantities of electricity in a clean way, electric and hydrogen solutions for vehicles doesn't really solve any problems.
bingo.
a good example is using solar power to generate electricity to split H2O into H and O thus producing the H for the fuel cell cars listed above.
Problem is big Oil and other companies will never let something like this happen. can you do it yourself? yup if you have the cash.
also an other obstacle is the lack of a way of mass producing the fuel cells. so even if you were able to get the big oil companies to back off and build an infrastructure and system to distribute your FREE to make Hydrogen you still are left with the obstacle of mass producing the power plant for the cars and buildings.
as much as i would LOVE to see a hydrogen powered fuel cell car and have that same fuel cell for my house and office, until those 3 things are over come, it will not happen any time soon. the mass production is the hardest to over come right now.
Singdall wrote:
a good example is using solar power to generate electricity to split H2O into H and O thus producing the H for the fuel cell cars listed above.
Sure. And how large of a solar cell do you need to convert sufficient quantities of water into hydrogen to operate your hydrogen powered car? How much does that cell cost? How much energy and materials does it cost to build? How long will it last (solar cells don't eternally produce energy you know)?
Solar cells are just now at about the break even point in terms of total cost to build compared with cost benefit generated over their lifetime. It's just not nearly the super viable solution many like to think it is.
Quote:
Problem is big Oil and other companies will never let something like this happen. can you do it yourself? yup if you have the cash.
It's not big oil though. You say "yup. If you have the cash", but that's the point. A company isn't going to try to compete by bringing the most expensive product to market. He's going to compete with the least expensive product (that does the same thing). It's not like the oil companies created the inherent limitations of solar cells. They simple react to those realities. If it was cheaper to generate hydrogen via solar power and put that in cars to power them, you can damn well bet that every one of those companies would be operating solar powered hydrogen plants today and selling that instead.
We run cars by burning gasoline for the simple expedient that right now we get more power per dollar doing it that way. It's just less total work to drill sufficient oil out of the ground, refine it, and put it in the tank of an internal combustion vehicle and drive it X distance, then to power the same vehicle for the same distance using any other method.
Saying "you can do it if you're willing to pay more" isn't a valid argument IMO. We're not going to adopt a new technology whole-scale unless it allows us to do the same thing we do today only cheaper/better. Hydrogen still does not do that, nor does pure electric cars. That's why the technology has not been largely adopted. It's not due to some massive big oil conspiracy. It really isn't...
Quote:
also an other obstacle is the lack of a way of mass producing the fuel cells. so even if you were able to get the big oil companies to back off and build an infrastructure and system to distribute your FREE to make Hydrogen you still are left with the obstacle of mass producing the power plant for the cars and buildings.
Yes. And the second that the total cost of generating electricity and converting it to hydrogen for use in cars becomes cheaper then drilling and refining oil, you'll see these being built. But not a second before. Not on a mass scale anyway.
Quote:
as much as i would LOVE to see a hydrogen powered fuel cell car and have that same fuel cell for my house and office, until those 3 things are over come, it will not happen any time soon. the mass production is the hardest to over come right now.
Actually, this bit confuses me. Why on earth would you use electricity to create hydrogen and then use that to power your house or office? Wouldn't it make more sense to just use the electricity (generated via whatever means) directly?
The only reason to expend electricity to create hydrogen is to create a burnable fuel that could be used in a combustion chamber to produce "work" (some kind of engine that moves something). While I suppose you could produce electricity with solar cells to make hydrogen, and then burn the hydrogen later to produce electricity again, that would be an incredibly inefficient way to do it. I suppose if you're just using the hydrogen as a storage methodology, it works (cause the suns not going to be out all the time), but that's not really utilizing the hydrogen in an efficient manner. Barring the need to generate hydrogen to power your car, you'd be better off just doing what people with solar cells do today: They hook to the grid, and generate power during the day (which they get credited for on the grid), and consume it when it's night time.
Which leads us back to the problem of running a hydrogen powered device purely for the sake of running one rather then actually solving a real problem. We're still left with having to generate electricity somehow. And right now, solar simply isn't capable of generating enough to do more then supplement most people's consumption. Certainly, you would have a hard time putting large enough cells on your roof to power your home *and* produce enough hydrogen to power your car.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Which leads us back to the problem of running a hydrogen powered device purely for the sake of running one rather then actually solving a real problem. We're still left with having to generate electricity somehow. And right now, solar simply isn't capable of generating enough to do more then supplement most people's consumption. Certainly, you would have a hard time putting large enough cells on your roof to power your home *and* produce enough hydrogen to power your car.
Well actually Singdall is more correct due to recent advances, though I'm not sure he knew it.
gbaji you are right in saying that is is ridiculous to produce hydrogen through electrolysis when it is much more efficient to avoid a combustion engine altogether and go fully electric, but recent solar cell developments have changed this. Now we have cells that (I am unsure of the name of the process so forgive me) more directly produce hydrogen, and do so rather efficiently compared to normal electrolysis.
However it is still much more likely that simple electrically powered vehicles will be the solution rather than hydrogen. The only real benefit to hydrogen is how compact it is, but do to current problems in generating it and its volatile nature I see it as being at most used for country vehicles where charging stations for electricle cars would be too sparse.
Allegory wrote:
However it is still much more likely that simple electrically powered vehicles will be the solution rather than hydrogen. The only real benefit to hydrogen is how compact it is, but do to current problems in generating it and its volatile nature I see it as being at most used for country vehicles where charging stations for electricle cars would be too sparse.
The bolded bit is actually exactly wrong. Hydrogen is the lightest element. That means it's the least dense, which in turn means that it takes up more volume to store the same potential energy. In fact, that exact problem is listed on the site I just linked:
Quote:
HURDLE 2: Storage
At room temperature and pressure, hydrogen's density is so low that it contains less than one-three-hundredth the energy in an equivalent volume of gasoline. In order to fit into a reasonably sized storage tank, hydrogen has to be somehow squeezed into a denser form.
LIQUEFACTION: Chilled to near absolute zero, hydrogen gas turns into a liquid containing one-quarter the energy in an equivalent volume of gasoline. The technology is well-proven: For decades, NASA has used liquid hydrogen to power vehicles such as the space shuttle. The cooling process requires a lot of energy, though-roughly a third of the amount held in the hydrogen. Storage tanks are bulky, heavy and expensive.
COMPRESSION: Some hydrogen-powered vehicles use tanks of room-temperature hydrogen compressed to an astounding 10,000 psi. The Sequel, which GM unveiled in January 2005, carries 8 kilograms of compressed hydrogen this way-enough to power the vehicle for 300 miles. Refueling with compressed hydrogen is relatively fast and simple. But even compressed, hydrogen requires large- volume tanks. They take up four to five times as much space as a gas tank with an equivalent mileage range. Then again, fuel cell cars can accommodate bigger tanks because they contain fewer mechanical parts.
SOLID-STATE: Certain compounds can trap hydrogen molecules at room temperature and pressure, then release them upon demand. So far, the most promising research has been conducted with a class of materials called metal hydrides. These materials are stable, but heavy: A 700-pound tank might hold a few hours' fuel. However, exotic compounds now being studied could provide a breakthrough to make hydrogen storage truly practical. "High-pressure tanks are a stopgap until we can develop materials that will allow us to do solid-state storage efficiently," says Dan O'Connell, a director of GM's hydrogen vehicle program.
At room temperature and pressure, hydrogen's density is so low that it contains less than one-three-hundredth the energy in an equivalent volume of gasoline. In order to fit into a reasonably sized storage tank, hydrogen has to be somehow squeezed into a denser form.
LIQUEFACTION: Chilled to near absolute zero, hydrogen gas turns into a liquid containing one-quarter the energy in an equivalent volume of gasoline. The technology is well-proven: For decades, NASA has used liquid hydrogen to power vehicles such as the space shuttle. The cooling process requires a lot of energy, though-roughly a third of the amount held in the hydrogen. Storage tanks are bulky, heavy and expensive.
COMPRESSION: Some hydrogen-powered vehicles use tanks of room-temperature hydrogen compressed to an astounding 10,000 psi. The Sequel, which GM unveiled in January 2005, carries 8 kilograms of compressed hydrogen this way-enough to power the vehicle for 300 miles. Refueling with compressed hydrogen is relatively fast and simple. But even compressed, hydrogen requires large- volume tanks. They take up four to five times as much space as a gas tank with an equivalent mileage range. Then again, fuel cell cars can accommodate bigger tanks because they contain fewer mechanical parts.
SOLID-STATE: Certain compounds can trap hydrogen molecules at room temperature and pressure, then release them upon demand. So far, the most promising research has been conducted with a class of materials called metal hydrides. These materials are stable, but heavy: A 700-pound tank might hold a few hours' fuel. However, exotic compounds now being studied could provide a breakthrough to make hydrogen storage truly practical. "High-pressure tanks are a stopgap until we can develop materials that will allow us to do solid-state storage efficiently," says Dan O'Connell, a director of GM's hydrogen vehicle program.
The simple fact is that in terms of energy generated in a given volume of space with a given quantity of "work" to put that energy there in the first place, you're vastly better off running a gasoline powered generator then touching hydrogen with a 10 foot pole.
That's not to say that these hurdles are unsurmountable. I was mainly questioning the assumption that the main reason were aren't all using hydrogen powered cars and furnaces is because of some evil oil company inspired conspiracy to keep us all burning fossil fuels or something. The reality is that we're still working on developing the technology needed to make hydrogen even remotely competitive with gasoline.
But until that happens, gas is still a better product.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Singdall wrote:
a good example is using solar power to generate electricity to split H2O into H and O thus producing the H for the fuel cell cars listed above.
Sure. And how large of a solar cell do you need to convert sufficient quantities of water into hydrogen to operate your hydrogen powered car? How much does that cell cost? How much energy and materials does it cost to build? How long will it last (solar cells don't eternally produce energy you know)?
Solar cells are just now at about the break even point in terms of total cost to build compared with cost benefit generated over their lifetime. It's just not nearly the super viable solution many like to think it is.
You do not need to use solar cells to generate electricity. Although as mentioned the new advances in solar cell technology has greatly improved over the years and is now at a 60% efficient rate. instead just use the steam generating power of the sun... large mirror arrays target a tower top to generate massive amount of heat and thus producing steam to power steam generators.
Same can be done with wind and water (see what is going on in NY/NY right now with under water aqua generators).
Quote:
Problem is big Oil and other companies will never let something like this happen. can you do it yourself? yup if you have the cash.
It's not big oil though. You say "yup. If you have the cash", but that's the point. A company isn't going to try to compete by bringing the most expensive product to market. He's going to compete with the least expensive product (that does the same thing). It's not like the oil companies created the inherent limitations of solar cells. They simple react to those realities. If it was cheaper to generate hydrogen via solar power and put that in cars to power them, you can damn well bet that every one of those companies would be operating solar powered hydrogen plants today and selling that instead.
We run cars by burning gasoline for the simple expedient that right now we get more power per dollar doing it that way. It's just less total work to drill sufficient oil out of the ground, refine it, and put it in the tank of an internal combustion vehicle and drive it X distance, then to power the same vehicle for the same distance using any other method.
Saying "you can do it if you're willing to pay more" isn't a valid argument IMO. We're not going to adopt a new technology whole-scale unless it allows us to do the same thing we do today only cheaper/better. Hydrogen still does not do that, nor does pure electric cars. That's why the technology has not been largely adopted. It's not due to some massive big oil conspiracy. It really isn't...[[/quote]
Yes you are correct. It is very expensive at this point in time to generate enough hydrogen and to transport it compared to oil products.
Quote:
also an other obstacle is the lack of a way of mass producing the fuel cells. so even if you were able to get the big oil companies to back off and build an infrastructure and system to distribute your FREE to make Hydrogen you still are left with the obstacle of mass producing the power plant for the cars and buildings.
Yes. And the second that the total cost of generating electricity and converting it to hydrogen for use in cars becomes cheaper then drilling and refining oil, you'll see these being built. But not a second before. Not on a mass scale anyway.[/quote]
you missed the point. there is no mass production of hydrogen fuel cells. all fuel cells are made by hand. this makes them way to expensive to make them a viable competition to combustion power plants. producing hydrogen, has NOTHING to do with mass production of the fuel cell.
Quote:
as much as i would LOVE to see a hydrogen powered fuel cell car and have that same fuel cell for my house and office, until those 3 things are over come, it will not happen any time soon. the mass production is the hardest to over come right now.
Actually, this bit confuses me. Why on earth would you use electricity to create hydrogen and then use that to power your house or office? Wouldn't it make more sense to just use the electricity (generated via whatever means) directly?[/quote] simple. if you can generate hydrogen and power your house, office, transportation on your own without being held hostage to a utility company, power line, nature, etc... then would you not want the safety and freedom of knowing that you have power 100% of the time and not when things work right?
Quote:
The only reason to expend electricity to create hydrogen is to create a burnable fuel that could be used in a combustion chamber to produce "work" (some kind of engine that moves something). While I suppose you could produce electricity with solar cells to make hydrogen, and then burn the hydrogen later to produce electricity again, that would be an incredibly inefficient way to do it. I suppose if you're just using the hydrogen as a storage methodology, it works (cause the suns not going to be out all the time), but that's not really utilizing the hydrogen in an efficient manner. Barring the need to generate hydrogen to power your car, you'd be better off just doing what people with solar cells do today: They hook to the grid, and generate power during the day (which they get credited for on the grid), and consume it when it's night time.
Quote:
Which leads us back to the problem of running a hydrogen powered device purely for the sake of running one rather then actually solving a real problem. We're still left with having to generate electricity somehow. And right now, solar simply isn't capable of generating enough to do more then supplement most people's consumption. Certainly, you would have a hard time putting large enough cells on your roof to power your home *and* produce enough hydrogen to power your car.
again this is were you are wrong. see above as to why solar is much more capable then you give it credit.
FYI, there are also solar plants, in the planning and building stage now, that instead of generate steam via mirrors generate a massive tempurature differance in a hallow tower to power wind turbines. IIRC 1 sqmi of any major sand pit (see sahara or other such places) can generate enough electricity to power most of the USA. all of that without a single solar cell that as you pointed out are not efficient enough to power things properly to produce hydrogen.
To the O.P., please go the Fuck back to jerking off to Manga and Bestiality sites.
Edited, Oct 10th 2007 11:25pm by Redjed
Edited, Oct 10th 2007 11:25pm by Redjed
gbaji wrote:
The bolded bit is actually exactly wrong. Hydrogen is the lightest element. That means it's the least dense, which in turn means that it takes up more volume to store the same potential energy.
...Yes, hydrogen at STP is diatomic molecule. We've all taken middle school chemistry. However in the context of fuel usage it will always be compressed, and most often in a solid form bonded to metals, the metal hydrides your source referred to, such as AlH4. In this state it is a very compact energy source compared to current batteries, which is the the alternative "future fuel," not gasoline...
gbaji wrote:
The simple fact is that in terms of energy generated in a given volume of space with a given quantity of "work" to put that energy there in the first place, you're vastly better off running a gasoline powered generator then touching hydrogen with a 10 foot pole.
Perhaps it needs to be stated. This discussion, so far, has been a comparison of the benefits and failings of hydrogen fuel as compared to electrical fuel sources for consumer vehicles.
It is not comparing either of these two to conventional petrol fuels and engines, as that is entirely pointless. We are using fossils fuels now because they are cheaper to produce and more manageable than eco friendly alternatives, so why would you argue that redundantly?
Personally, I think we should go back to walking, horses, and boats for travel. It's more energy efficient, it would cut down on the obesity problem, and it would give me an excuse to not travel back home to see the family but once every 5 years or so. Good stuff that.
Some people are like slinkies, they aren't really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
#13REDACTED,
Posted: Oct 11 2007 at 9:19 AM, Rating: Unrated, (Expand Post) The number one problem, as mentioned in the article, is that you can't just mine hydrogen out of the ground. You have to make it. It's the process of making it that matters. Zero emissions out of a tailpipe doesn't matter much if you have to generate new emissions in order to make the hydrogen in the first place.
shadowrelm wrote:
no biggie you say? manufacturing plants WILL FOLLOW the cheap energy. if they dont, their competitors will and they will be priced out of the market for their product.
if we completly droped cheap oil energy right now, we would watch ALL of our manufacturing go over seas to the cheap energy, just liek what is happening right now with China and labor.
and in the end, the country with the last drop of cheap oil for sale, will be the economic superpower of the future. which is why all this concern over the middle east right now. whoever has the cheapest energy will become the greatest manufacturing center, and thus, the wealthyist nation. every one else will become like an island economy, where everything is imported, adn very little exported. a cash starved mass of poverty.
the solution is to phase in alternative energy slowly, while using up as much cheap anergy as possible so we dont get left behind with our industry. have it ready to go, but dont go untill EVERYONE has to go so we can stay on top.
in other words, keep using cheap energy untill the last drop is pumped out of the ground and every one in the world is in the same boat for energy costs.
if we completly droped cheap oil energy right now, we would watch ALL of our manufacturing go over seas to the cheap energy, just liek what is happening right now with China and labor.
and in the end, the country with the last drop of cheap oil for sale, will be the economic superpower of the future. which is why all this concern over the middle east right now. whoever has the cheapest energy will become the greatest manufacturing center, and thus, the wealthyist nation. every one else will become like an island economy, where everything is imported, adn very little exported. a cash starved mass of poverty.
the solution is to phase in alternative energy slowly, while using up as much cheap anergy as possible so we dont get left behind with our industry. have it ready to go, but dont go untill EVERYONE has to go so we can stay on top.
in other words, keep using cheap energy untill the last drop is pumped out of the ground and every one in the world is in the same boat for energy costs.
if what you say is true, then why are the countries of OPEC not the major economic countries in the world as well as the largest production countries for factories?
what you say is true to an extent, and yes you can not drop fossil fuel today and switch to alternative fuels without massive problems. that is 100% correct.
one thing people seem to be neglecting when you talk about producing hydrogen as a fuel and calling it waist.
if you use solar, wind, what ever to generate electricity, who says 100% of said electricity needs to be used to convert H2O into hydrogen and oxygen separation? it does not. use the power that is created to power local as it does now, but convert the excess power, as there is plenty of that too, into hydrogen.
why? simple, hydrogen once created does not degrigate unlike batteries. a battery no matter how well made loses its ability to hold a charge over time unlike hydrogen. hydrogen, like fossil fuels, ALWAYS has 100% of its capability.
sell off the hydrogen for home owners, businesses, transportation uses, etc... and continue producing electricity in a cleaner way.
it does not have to be a this or that solution. that is STUPID. if that were the case we would ONLY use coal power plants, or ONLY use 1 type of power plant to produce 100% of the electricity we need for a modern life. that is not the case and it should NOT be the case. there are multiple ways to generate electricity some more efficient then others, some cleaner then others, but all have the ability to produce hydrogen via electrolysis for storage of excess power for use at a later time.
i am also not convinced that a fuel cell power plant for a building is ideal unless said building can produce their OWN hydrogen cleanly and enough of it to power their fuel cell power plant and be 100% off of the grid. it is just a nice idea.
as for hydrogen powered transportation, i think that is very viable and is one step to cleaning things up as well as cutting back on the dependency we have of fossil fuels plus extending the remaining amount of fossil fuel we have left on this earth to be used were it is NOT practical to use hydrogen or other power sources.
1. american companies are pretty much not allowed in the middle east, because they are mostly a quasi socialist type govnerment in many of them. in other words, all companies belong to the government or sheiks, not private for profit companies. China is now allowing private for profit companies and guarenteeing same form of security, which is why manufacturing is moving there more so now than in the past.
your nor going to find a for profit company willing to roll the dice in a foreign country under those conditions. same is happening with venezuela right now. Chaves just nationalized american oil companies over there, just calling it theirs now after hundreds of millions of american dollars were invested in making them.
thats why.
2. there is no "waste" energy coming from a power plant. if demand is low, their systems reduce output automatically to save resources. and like i said, i takes more energy to produce hydrogen than the hydrogen itself makes. and being our powerplants are "for profit" private companies for the most part, how would you sell spending more resources to make less energy, as would be necessary to produce hydrogen, to your bosses, who only see and care about the bottom line. you would have a better chance with them too than selling that pitch to shareholders who are even LESS interested in anything but making MORE MONEY.
hydrogen, solar, electric, wind, and nuclear, as well as bio fuels, are our guarentee of energy for this country. when the last well runs dry, the lights will not go off. but, we can not afford to loose what manufacturing capabilities we still have to countries with lower energy costs. right now, labor is killing us. every third world in the country is promising us the keys to the city to send our plants to them. even the middle east, but they insist on owning them as well. my chevorlet HHR is made in mexico.
labor is putting a major hurt on this countries manufacturing industry. same with farming. there is no real incentive to stop immigration. go to any farm and you will see why. no real incentive at the national level too. no president wants to be responsible for americans having to pay 10 dollares for a gallon of milk, or 6 dollars for a bag of beans at the grocery store.
immigration, like gay rights and abortion, are just stump speaches to get you stupid sheep to vote them into getting their hands on your pile of tax dollars. farms would all go belly up if they had to start paying minimum wage for labor, plus taxes and unemployment compensation, not even counting health care or other incntives.
illegal immigration IS the indentured servitude "slavery" that keeps farms profitable and the cost of food from skyrocketing. if we loose our manufacturing AND our farms........just go look at hati if you want to see our future.
thats why little to nothing will be done about illegal immigrants, or our dependentcy on oil....untill we absolutly have to.
we are not there yet. and wont be for some time. the cost to do something now is just too high, both from an economic stand point and a national security stand point.
this should also lead you to the "why" we HAD to invade iraq. and the "why" even the dems wont pull out after they win. they are already backing away from a pull out in their debates.
the big picture.
your nor going to find a for profit company willing to roll the dice in a foreign country under those conditions. same is happening with venezuela right now. Chaves just nationalized american oil companies over there, just calling it theirs now after hundreds of millions of american dollars were invested in making them.
thats why.
2. there is no "waste" energy coming from a power plant. if demand is low, their systems reduce output automatically to save resources. and like i said, i takes more energy to produce hydrogen than the hydrogen itself makes. and being our powerplants are "for profit" private companies for the most part, how would you sell spending more resources to make less energy, as would be necessary to produce hydrogen, to your bosses, who only see and care about the bottom line. you would have a better chance with them too than selling that pitch to shareholders who are even LESS interested in anything but making MORE MONEY.
hydrogen, solar, electric, wind, and nuclear, as well as bio fuels, are our guarentee of energy for this country. when the last well runs dry, the lights will not go off. but, we can not afford to loose what manufacturing capabilities we still have to countries with lower energy costs. right now, labor is killing us. every third world in the country is promising us the keys to the city to send our plants to them. even the middle east, but they insist on owning them as well. my chevorlet HHR is made in mexico.
labor is putting a major hurt on this countries manufacturing industry. same with farming. there is no real incentive to stop immigration. go to any farm and you will see why. no real incentive at the national level too. no president wants to be responsible for americans having to pay 10 dollares for a gallon of milk, or 6 dollars for a bag of beans at the grocery store.
immigration, like gay rights and abortion, are just stump speaches to get you stupid sheep to vote them into getting their hands on your pile of tax dollars. farms would all go belly up if they had to start paying minimum wage for labor, plus taxes and unemployment compensation, not even counting health care or other incntives.
illegal immigration IS the indentured servitude "slavery" that keeps farms profitable and the cost of food from skyrocketing. if we loose our manufacturing AND our farms........just go look at hati if you want to see our future.
thats why little to nothing will be done about illegal immigrants, or our dependentcy on oil....untill we absolutly have to.
we are not there yet. and wont be for some time. the cost to do something now is just too high, both from an economic stand point and a national security stand point.
this should also lead you to the "why" we HAD to invade iraq. and the "why" even the dems wont pull out after they win. they are already backing away from a pull out in their debates.
the big picture.
shadowrelm wrote:
i takes more energy to produce hydrogen than the hydrogen itself makes. and being our powerplants are "for profit" private companies for the most part, how would you sell spending more resources to make less energy, as would be necessary to produce hydrogen, to your bosses, who only see and care about the bottom line.
...just sayin'
I've heard a scientist on the radio not too long ago, a physicist somewhere I believe. He predicted in about seven years the technology would be sufficient to produce useable amounts of hydrogen fuel through sustainable means.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
shadow you contradict yourself. you state in your last post that countries with cheap oil have the production locations. then in this post you state that countries with cheap oil will never have production locations...
you can not have it both ways.
who said anything about WASTE energy? it does not have to be waste and if it is used to produce something, then it is NOT WASTE.
so your entire path of attempted logic fails at that point.
the creation of hydrogen to be used as storage of power is more cost efficient and more beneficial then the dumping of power to batteries of any kind in use today.
again you are assuming that this has to be from a fossil fuel power plant to create said hydrogen. get off of that path, just use the free solar, wind, aquatic powers that are there. those types of plants/farms generate random amounts of power, there will be times they will produce excess power and for today it is put into battery storage facilities to be used when the power production is not high enough to suffice.
instead of dumping that excess power into a battery, create hydrogen. this is better use of said power as once you have the hydrogen created you no longer have a degragation of the potential power.
you can not have it both ways.
who said anything about WASTE energy? it does not have to be waste and if it is used to produce something, then it is NOT WASTE.
so your entire path of attempted logic fails at that point.
the creation of hydrogen to be used as storage of power is more cost efficient and more beneficial then the dumping of power to batteries of any kind in use today.
again you are assuming that this has to be from a fossil fuel power plant to create said hydrogen. get off of that path, just use the free solar, wind, aquatic powers that are there. those types of plants/farms generate random amounts of power, there will be times they will produce excess power and for today it is put into battery storage facilities to be used when the power production is not high enough to suffice.
instead of dumping that excess power into a battery, create hydrogen. this is better use of said power as once you have the hydrogen created you no longer have a degragation of the potential power.
Allegory wrote:
Perhaps it needs to be stated. This discussion, so far, has been a comparison of the benefits and failings of hydrogen fuel as compared to electrical fuel sources for consumer vehicles.
With the exception of the snide remarks about the evil oil companies having some ulterior motive to prevent hydrogen from coming to market...
I was pretty darn specific that it was this allegation I was responding to. I'm perfectly willing to address the issue only in comparison to other electric power/storage methodologies as long others refrain from bringing up oil companies.
Quote:
It is not comparing either of these two to conventional petrol fuels and engines, as that is entirely pointless. We are using fossils fuels now because they are cheaper to produce and more manageable than eco friendly alternatives, so why would you argue that redundantly?
Again. Read my arguments. I was responding to an allegation that the oil companies were somehow responsible for blocking hydrogen technology. I was specifically pointing out that the oil companies work in oil specifically because it is the cheapest way to get power into a vehicle, and not because of some other ulterior motive. I do think that's incredibly relevant, don't you?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
the snide remarks about the evil oil companies having some ulterior motive to prevent hydrogen from coming to market...
aside. . . What commercial company does not protect it interests?
Oil companies and those dependent on internal combustion would be stupid to happily allow rival energy processes to kill their market!
If you or I ran an oil/motor company we'd do whatever we could to avoid having our entire technological premise killed off by renewable alternatives.
Right/Wrong? Don't care. But to deny that Oil companies buy out emerging technology to stifle its development is naive in the extreme.
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
Singdall wrote:
if what you say is true, then why are the countries of OPEC not the major economic countries in the world as well as the largest production countries for factories?
You're mixing up "oil companies" with "oil producing countries". Two totally different animals. Oil producing countries are oil producing because they have large amounts of oil (and in many cases, not much else). They certainly have a vested interest in keeping oil "in demand", and you could certainly make a valid case for those countries wanting to prevent alternative fuels from being developed.
But "oil companies" don't really care. We call them oil companies because that's what they work in. They're really "power supplier companies". The same companies that deal in oil also tend to buy, refine, and ship natural gas and coal. I guarantee you that the bigger oil companies all have a division that is currently working with hydrogen. When that becomes a cheaper way to power cars, they'll be ready to refine, store, and ship hydrogen.
Any halfway smart business does that. You don't assume that the current product you're selling will always be the big market money maker. It's not like TV manufacturers when belly up when color TV technology appeared. They all just built color TVs. Those that didn't died, but the rest went on. There's no difference here.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
King Nobby wrote:
If you or I ran an oil/motor company we'd do whatever we could to avoid having our entire technological premise killed off by renewable alternatives.
Right/Wrong? Don't care. But to deny that Oil companies buy out emerging technology to stifle its development is naive in the extreme.
Right/Wrong? Don't care. But to deny that Oil companies buy out emerging technology to stifle its development is naive in the extreme.
Wrong. Oil companies don't make oil. They refine it and ship it. Guess what? The exactly same "issues" were listed as the big obstacles to hydrogen (shipping, storing, generating).
They aren't paid for bringing "oil" specifically. They bring oil because that's what's currently in demand. If hydrogen becomes cost effective, they'll work with hydrogen instead. Who else do you think is already poised to do the job of building said hydrogen distribution system?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
They aren't paid for bringing "oil" specifically. They bring oil because that's what's currently in demand. If hydrogen becomes cost effective, they'll work with hydrogen instead. Who else do you think is already poised to do the job of building said hydrogen distribution system?
If you can create the means of production, backers will be queuing up to supply the infrastructure, dumbass.
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
Wrong. Oil companies don't make oil. They refine it and ship it. Guess what? The exactly same "issues" were listed as the big obstacles to hydrogen (shipping, storing, generating).
With the primary difference being that you can't create oil literally out of thin air at will with virtually no technology. The actual big obstacles faced by hydrogen powered anything is making the technology of burning the hydrogen sufficiently complex that there's anything to sell as fuel at all. I'm sure the industrial complex will do a bang up job of fuding along the impression that Exxon brand hydrogen pellets are safe and make **** huge while any sort of homebuilt fuel generation is wildly dangerous and must be criminalized.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
King Nobby wrote:
If you can create the means of production, backers will be queuing up to supply the infrastructure, dumbass.
As Smash so... eloquently stated, the problem with hydrogen isn't in the production. It's in the storage, distribution, and conversion back into some form of usable power.
Two out of the three things on that list are *exactly* the same things that the "oil companies" do with regard to oil right now, and are pretty much the *only* thing they do with regard to oil. They purchase the product from point A, ship it to point B, refine it into usable forms, then distribute it to points C, D, and E.
That's what the major oil companies do. They don't make the oil. In some cases, they aren't even involved in drilling for the oil (depending on the company). They certainly don't start out owning the oil. They simply move it from an unusable state to a usable one. Which is exactly what's needed with Hydrogen.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
King Nobby wrote:
If you can create the means of production, backers will be queuing up to supply the infrastructure, dumbass.
As Smash so... eloquently stated, the problem with hydrogen isn't in the production. It's in the storage, distribution, and conversion back into some form of usable power.
Two out of the three things on that list are *exactly* the same things that the "oil companies" do with regard to oil right now, and are pretty much the *only* thing they do with regard to oil. They purchase the product from point A, ship it to point B, refine it into usable forms, then distribute it to points C, D, and E.
That's what the major oil companies do. They don't make the oil. In some cases, they aren't even involved in drilling for the oil (depending on the company). They certainly don't start out owning the oil. They simply move it from an unusable state to a usable one. Which is exactly what's needed with Hydrogen.
not quite. most of the US big oil companies OWN their own oil rigs and spend plenty of money on finding more oil fields they can lay claim to.
Still to say that big oil does not do what it can to reduce and make alternative fuels seem not as viable as fossil fuels is a bit naive.
the major issue preventing hydrogen from replacing gas, specifically, is the mass production of the fuel cell. more so then the production, transportation, and storage of hydrogen. the hydrogen is the easy part of the alternative fuel, the fuel cell mass production is the major hurdle that needs to be over come.
Let me add one more point that's been touched on before, but bears repeating (and which Smash seems completely unaware of).
Hydrogen is not a power source. It's only a power transfer/storage mechanism. We don't "mine" massive amounts of free standing hydrogen and use it for power (that's another way in which it's completely unlike oil). We have to create the hydrogen. And yes, it's a simple process, but barring some violation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, you will always get less energy out the endpoint of this process then you had at the beginning.
You must expend energy to make hydrogen. Even if you do nothing but turn around and immediately transform that hydrogen back into energy, you will *at best* get back the exact amount of energy you originally expended making the hydrogen. Since all systems have inefficiency and energy loss, you'll actually end up with less energy. What this means is that you can't just "make hydrogen to use to power stuff" and magically make the worlds energy problems go away. You must *fist* generate the energy (electricity in this case) to release hydrogen from water molecules. Then you store that somehow (four different methods were listed on the site I linked). Then you transfer that to where you need it (a car in this case), and then you transform that stored hydrogen back into energy (could be heat if you burn it directly and use in some sort of combustion process, or electricity if you use a fuel cell process).
No matter how you do that, you end up with less power at the far end then you started with. We can't "replace oil with hydrogen". What we have to do is replace oil with some other method of generating electrical power (so solar cells, burning coal, nuclear power, etc...). That requires a massive increase in our current power generation capability. An increase that we don't yet seem willing to make. And also, arguably, an increase that would generate more negative environmental impact then the current solution (burning oil in cars).
Edited, Oct 11th 2007 5:34pm by gbaji
Hydrogen is not a power source. It's only a power transfer/storage mechanism. We don't "mine" massive amounts of free standing hydrogen and use it for power (that's another way in which it's completely unlike oil). We have to create the hydrogen. And yes, it's a simple process, but barring some violation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, you will always get less energy out the endpoint of this process then you had at the beginning.
You must expend energy to make hydrogen. Even if you do nothing but turn around and immediately transform that hydrogen back into energy, you will *at best* get back the exact amount of energy you originally expended making the hydrogen. Since all systems have inefficiency and energy loss, you'll actually end up with less energy. What this means is that you can't just "make hydrogen to use to power stuff" and magically make the worlds energy problems go away. You must *fist* generate the energy (electricity in this case) to release hydrogen from water molecules. Then you store that somehow (four different methods were listed on the site I linked). Then you transfer that to where you need it (a car in this case), and then you transform that stored hydrogen back into energy (could be heat if you burn it directly and use in some sort of combustion process, or electricity if you use a fuel cell process).
No matter how you do that, you end up with less power at the far end then you started with. We can't "replace oil with hydrogen". What we have to do is replace oil with some other method of generating electrical power (so solar cells, burning coal, nuclear power, etc...). That requires a massive increase in our current power generation capability. An increase that we don't yet seem willing to make. And also, arguably, an increase that would generate more negative environmental impact then the current solution (burning oil in cars).
Edited, Oct 11th 2007 5:34pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Recent Visitors: 244
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (244)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- The Hydrogen powered car
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC