The Hydrogen powered carFollow

Except that they're not "free".

Solar power requires that you first make solar panels, which require almost as much cost in terms of materials and "work" as those panels produce via conversion of sunlight over the lifespan of the panel. Don't get me wrong. This is viable. However, there are some massive problems associated with solar panels, not the least of which is the footprint involved.

Do you know how many square miles of solar panels we'd have to deploy in order to generate enough additional electricity to allow us to convert that to hydrogen and replace just gasoline powered vehicles? We're talking about requiring a significant portion of the entire surface area of the United States. Now, unless you can convince everyone to live underground and dedicate the entire surface to power generation (and extinction of pretty much all wildlife), this isn't viable. Not when the scale of the power requirements are taken into account.

Wind and Hydro power solutions run into the same problem. There physically are not enough locations in the US to put said plants and generate the power required. You need a narrow pass for wind. You need a narrow channel for hydro (both are essentially the same concept, just applied to different medium). We don't have enough locations to generate enough power to supply even the normal growth of current utilization using these methods, much less even considering replacing gas powered cars with electric ones using power from some kind of grid.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Barring the discovery of some sort of new super-tech (like cold fusion), the only way we're going to be able to realistically adopt *any* conversion from gas to electricity powered vehicles is either building a whole heck of a lot more coal plants, or re-starting our nuclear power programs. We keep wallowing in this condition in which we insist that we must get off our reliance on oil, but at the same time refusing to realistically look at the actual problems involved in doing that.

It's not the oil companies preventing this. It's the environmentalists. They wont let us build any more power plants of any type. We're living with a power system that is straining right now (brown outs have become more and more common). We can't build the additional power infrastructure we need just to keep our lights on. How on earth can you realistically argue for adoption of a technology that would require a massive increase to those same power systems?



Sure. But it's not realistic. Right now, we generate a ton of motive power nationwide by burning gasoline. That's power we don't have to generate in power plants. You have to generate that power *somewhere*. If we take away gas powered cars, where do we make it up? We can't. Well. We could, but not unless a great number of people over in environmental activist land get their heads out of their collective butts and make some choices instead of just saying "no" to everything.



You say "create a way" to do this, but so far no one has yet "created a way" to do this that hasn't been shot down for one reason or another. And not by "evil oil companies" trying to protect a cash cow, but largely by the very environmentalist groups that are clamoring for "renewable energy sources". They all say that, but when you propose building a solar panel plant near them, they oppose it, or a new dam, or dredging a channel along a coastline. All get blocked by environmentalists who want us to "do the right thing" with regard to how we generate power, but never the particular thing that's being proposed.

And so we continue to generate about 80% of our electricity by burning coal. If that's the alternative, we're really better off continuing to use gasoline to power cars, right?



No. What parts did you miss:

Liquid: "one-quarter the energy in an equivalent volume of gasoline"

Compressed: "They take up four to five times as much space as a gas tank with an equivalent mileage range. "

Solid: "A 700-pound tank might hold a few hours' fuel"

The first two are the only ones in which we "burn" hydrogen. Neither is more efficient either in terms of weight to energy or cost to store. You absolutely do not get "better results" burning hydrogen. You really need to get this idea out of your head. Even the fuel cell system (solid) is not anywhere near as efficient an energy storage mechanism as simply pouring gasoline into a tank.


Also. I'll remind you (again) that the generation of hydrogen is only as "clean" as the generation of the electricity used to generate the hydrogen. If we're burning coal to generate electricity, so we can create hydrogen, so we can put that into a fuel cell and operate a car, all we've really done is replace burning gasoline with burning coal. And done so in a very inefficient manner too boot.



It's not just about monetary cost though. That's really the least significant hurdle (although it's also a biggie). The simple fact is that we don't have sufficient power to do this at all. Not at any price. Selling off the excess oxygen isn't going to change the fact that you simply don't have enough power to do the process in the first place.

The "cost" of switching to hydrogen has to include the cost to build sufficient power infrastructure to generate the amount of hydrogen we'd need. The relative cost of gasoline is a pittance in comparison.




Absolutely. We need more R&D on hydrogen storage techniques. Specifically, if we can store it in a safe way and in a small and light enough package to realistically use as fuel cells, it will actually be viable as a "battery" (and a very good one at that).


But we *also* have to invest in a massive increase in our power infrastructure. If we want to actually replace gas with hydrogen that is. Now, we can discuss other possibilities (like hybrids), which is much more viable in terms of reducing our gas footprint in the short term, but that's a slightly different subject.

Solar power requires that you first make solar panels, which require almost as much cost in terms of materials and "work" as those panels produce via conversion of sunlight over the lifespan of the panel.

No. Not close to this since 1975 or so. It's just expensive
(monetarily) because of the technology required. The amount of energy required to produce photoelectric cells in ratio the the energy converted in their current lifetimes is on the order of 1/100000th currently.

Way to wildly guess, though.

gbaji, i am surprised at the ignorance you are showing here. i do not always agree with you on a lot of subjects, but i always respect the intelligence you bring to posts, but this time your information is about 10 - 20 years out of date.

as for solar cells, this is the ONLY kind of solar power you have talked about, being not worth it. yes in years past that was correct. today things are looking much different. in the past it would cost between $2 - $5 per watt you wanted to generate and that at only 30 - 40% efficient rating. not good.

Todays 4th gen solar cells cost in the order of $0.10 - $0.20 per watt and are upwards of 60 - 80% efficient. that is money well spent. sadly those 4th gen cells are not on the open market today for the general public. they are still in the test faze and are slating to be released to the public by mid 2008 or early 2009. they will also be the first generation of solar cells that will be mass producible instead of the hand made solar panels of today. thus the massive drop in price.

now there are 2 other solar technologies that you are ignoring or just ignorant of either way here is some information for you about them.

Solar power tower steam generator follow that link for some GREAT details on how these work. in short instead of using solar cell panels they use mirrors to focus the suns heat to a single point at the top of a tower. this point has liquid that turns to steam and thus powers steam generators. much more efficient use of solar power today then solar cells are. also more cost efficient. an other great link here.

you tube link about one in work

then you have the solar power updraft tower... this to me is even more exciting then the one above, but that is just me. both are great and use FREE fuel unlike all of the other types of power plants in the world short of hydro damns.

Wiki on it with some great links to follow and read

youtube vid on one this is taken from a discovery channel show about alternative power sources.

now as for the most stupid statement you have made to date in this debate. solar, wind, and aqua power turbines generators and power plants are FREE so far as their fuel is concerned. obviously the plant it self is not free, but then neither is that coal, or heavy oil, or nuclear power plant free to build. the difference is in their fuel.

with oil, coal, other fossil fuels, you have to buy, drill, dig, etc... those fuels and that costs MORE money then the initial investment of the plant it self to maintain over its life span.

top that off with nuclear power and you not only have a very expensive fuel but a by product that destroys the land for melania to come.

with the 2 solar towers i linked above your only expense is the plant it self. the fuel for both plants is 100% FREE and renewable unlike your precious oil.

Now that still leaves out wind and aquatic turbines... well here is some info on those.

the biggest problem with wind farms is that wind is not always blowing nor is it always blowing at optimal speeds.

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

http://www.capewind.org/

http://www.mge.com/environment/wind/

now for the aquatic turbines... there seems to be a bit of a problem with them, but i have little doubt that it will be fixed before to long. again FREE fuel source. no power plant is free and it is asinine to think or to state that they are.

http://gothamist.com/2007/08/13/east_river_turb.php

so once again please understand i am not talking about using solar cells as that is the least efficient use of solar power out there today. that will change i am sure, but as for today the solar towers are better options.

also with all of those alternative power plants they produce excess power, electricity, and that electricity needs to be STORED someplace. in the case of the steam turbine towers they keep the heat in the form of steam or other conductive materials to generate electricity once the sun has gone down. with the updraft towers they still have to be able to provide power when the conduction has stopped.

same goes for the wind farms.

in home use of solar cells and wind mills the excess power is stored in batteries.

full solar home system includes yup, batteries...

why? simple during a bright sunny day the solar system will generate MORE power then the connected unit will draw. that excess power is stored in batteries.

INSTEAD of storing that power in a device that over time becomes nothing more then a lead weight to cause havoc on the environment (batteries do not last forever now do they) store it as hydrogen. then use a hydrogen fuel cell to convert that excess power back when you are in need.

that is what i have been saying all along.

also on the note of no demand thus no supply, that is very flawed. there is a large and growing demand, but the products provided so far have NOT MET the needs of the consumer.

take for example the failed attempts at the battery powered cars of the 80s and even today. 100% electric battery rechargeable cars will continue to be failures for several reason. not limited to the list below:

     1.  lack of power (this is being addressed in Japan as i type) 
     2.  limited range before being forced to recharge for upwards of 8 hours. 
     3.  300 miles on 1 charge is GREAT as long as you never have to leave your home town.

think about it, 300 miles is roughly 5 hours of drive time. now for the daily commute to and from work, that is great. or for those trips around town that is GREAT. but what if you need/want to take that trip to go see family living a few states away? can not do it in that kind of car. 5 hours driving 8 hours recharging is just not good.

as for the NO DEMAND why is it that one of the hardest cars to buy at a dealer right now is the toyota prius? simple, it is in high demand because it is very fuel efficient hybrid. why are more and more hybrids coming on line? simple there is a demand for them.

as for lack of hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicals not having a demand, there is no product yet for the very reasons i have listed.

it costs roughly $1000.00 to make a 1Kw powered fuel cell. 1Kw power in a fuel cell will generate roughly 1mph on a family size car. so in other words just to power a family car up to highway speeds of say 80Mph (yes over speed limit, but you can not cap a car at only 70MPH and expect it to have the power to sustain that speed for any amount of time and still be efficient) will run you roughly $80,000.00 just for the fuel cells, not to mention the frame, electric motors, etc... you are looking at a car that will cost $150,000+ just to MAKE. no one is going to buy that unless they have more money then they know what to do with.

so until there is a way to mass produce fuel cells there will be no hydrogen powered standards.

You're mixing money and energy here. Just because making hydrogen may be a net energy loss, doesn't make it a net financial loss (though it most likely is...at this point).

...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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

true. just like the chemicals we use to create gasoline and other products from crude oil. but the end product sells for more than the combination of costs from the other products used to create it.

not so with hydrogen. you would have to charge MORE for the hydrogen than the cost of producing it or you will not get private companies to buy off on it. adn those costs are energy sources we already use daily. if they banned gasoline and desile for private consumption or taxed the hell out of it so hydrogen could be sold for a profit.... it could work. however, this is a democracy. try selling the public on an idea to make gasoline so artificilly expensive to get them to use hydrogen. good luck with that. a one term president at best. and i guarentee you, the nest one will use eliminating it as a stump speach for the next election.

the energy we need to create hydrogen can already be used to power anything the hydrogen can be used for......for less money. for instance, why use the 9 volt batter to create hydrogen when the 9 volt battery itself would provide more energy for whatever you needed the power for?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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...
------------------------------------------------------------

no. we currently have manufacturing plants in mexico, tiwan, china, canada, africa, and other places all over the world. the predominat reason is labor costs. there are others like dow in india because us laws would practically prohibit manufacturing of certain chemicals they still sell to other parts of he world, or safety regualtions that force the price out of the global market.

i was using venazuela as an example of why for profit companies wont take a chance without guarentees. they stand to loose billions if they invest and the government takes it from them afterwards. thats why we dont have a major push for for profit companies from any where going into the midde east. and that lack of a foot hold, at a time when there is only an estimated less than 100 years of oil in the planet, is WHY we are in iraq. if we cant get some type of economic leverage there, then we need a military advantage to keep industry in this country from leaving for cheaper pastures in the not so distant future.

we need a foot in the door to guarentee our future energy costs do not climb beyond the global average and cause our industry to leave. it IS going to happen. and the economic survival of ANY country depends on its supply of competitvely priced energy in the global market.

why do you think russia spent so much resources in afganistan? and why do you think they finally failed?

the cost for them to keep up with the rest of the world was higher than ours. they couldnt afford to keep up with us. if they had cheap energy, they could have. without it, an f-15 might cost us 60 million, but a mig would be two to three times as much because everything would have to be made using more expensive types ofenergy, or worse, bought from other countries giving them no secrets or advantages in the military, and no chance selling their products outside of their country. they became an island economy, and slowly fell apart economically. they couldnt even afford to feed their own people. their food was imported mostly.

all because of a lack of access to cheap energy. they saw it comming too, and they tried to stop it. just as we tried to make sure they didnt suceed by financing the "freedom fighters". afganistan was the real cold war. and we won.

it COULD happen to us, unless we can guarentee a means to stay competitive in teh global market.

iraq. a guarentee. we are not leaving. we CANT leave. our long term future depends on it, short of finding an energy supply that is CHEAPER than oil. currently, hydrogen is not.

hydrogen, solar, wind, water, and nuclear guarentee us energy. but to stay competitive in the economic world, energy isnt enough. its got to be cheap energy.

well your post does read more like the way smash read it.

and again the use of solar panels is the least efficient way to generate power from the sun.

Singdall. Don't get me wrong. I think there are some very exciting things going on in the solar area. But they still just don't come close to the power output we'd need in order to replace existing methodologies.

You linked several methods for generating solar power. Did you look at them? Really look at them? Look at the size (land area) consumed). Then look at the MW produced. The largest examples produced on the order of 15 MW of energy. Contrast to a typical coal burning plant that produces 1,500 MW, and you've got a pretty large discrepancy.

When you're dealing with a discrepancy in terms of energy production that vast, the overhead of mining and transporting coal still results in a massive "win" for coal in economic terms. I think you really just aren't seeing the different scales of the problem here. It's one thing to generate small amounts of "free" electricity via solar or wind power. It's another thing entirely to try to power a city using those methods.

You are correct about solar panels having gotten better. I'm still basing my calculations on the ones that are available to the public right now. I know several people who have installed solar panels on their homes (I do live in souther California afterall, which is ideal due to amount of sun and cost for electricity). What's neat about the system is that during the day their meters actually run backwards (they're putting power back on the grid). However, total usage over time is still usually a positive number.

The point is that at least with existing available technology, in an "expensive" market like Southern California, you might save about $100/month on your power bill by installing solar panels. And the expected lifespan of those panels is about 10 years before they'll need to be replaced. That means that if the cost for installation is less then $12k, you're ahead, and if not, you're behind. Right now, the typical cost for that size setup runs upwards of $15k-$20k. The good news is that presumably just replacement of panels is cheaper then full installation of the whole system (power converters and hookups are already in place). Hopefully also, the tech will improve and you'll get better performance in 10 years when you replace the panels.


That's why I said it is "barely worth doing". Obviously you need early adopters to push the tech forward. However, those early adopters are really taking a loss over this right now (or at best breaking even over the long term). While the tech is promising, it's just not quite ready yet. Not for the sort of massive implementation that would be required to put even a dent in our current power consumption.

Edited, Oct 12th 2007 2:18pm by gbaji

What about the words "cost" and "materials" made you think I was only talking about energy requirements? Seriously Smash...

We both know you're not this ******* stupid, but for the sake of killing time while I wait for Nexa to get home from work, I'll play along.


Solar power requires that you first make solar panels, which require almost as much cost in terms of materials and "work" as those panels produce via conversion of sunlight over the lifespan of the panel.

The phrase "as those panels produce via....etc." in the above sentence can only mean one of two things. Either one, that you're arguing that the energy required to produce solar panels is so close to their energy output that they aren't worthwhile, which you are now adamantly stating is *not* the case...

OR...

You believe that solar panels convert sunlight into physical objects and money, presumably gold doubloons. While I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt initially and point out that you should be more careful when researching, you have indeed convinced me that, no, you think solar panels shoot out gold coins at regular intervals that they create from sunlight, but not enough of them to pay for the panels.

Thanks for clarifying.

It should be really clear what I was talking about.

Now or in your original post? Because I happen to think both are true, just that they aren't the same.

Hence why I clarified it when you assumed incorrectly.

What do you expect me to say here Smash? You all bash me for being verbose, but then when I say something concise, you seem hellbent on finding the most incorrect interpretation of what I said and arguing against it.


Regardless, the point is valid. Right now, solar panels simply are not a viable enough alternative. Do I believe that they may someday be? Yeah. Of course I do. And I even agree with Singdall's statement about the use of hydrogen fuel cells. It's quite possible to envision a home in which you have solar panels on the roof to collect power for immediate use, with the excess being converted into hydrogen and stored in a fuel cell for later use (like when the sun isn't out).

However, right now we're not even close to that. Even under ideal conditions (as I pointed out), you'd be better off just hooking up to the local power grid and buying power (ideal conditions being present in Southern California where there's a lot of sunlight and electricity is very expensive). That's not to say that in 10 or 20 years this might become more viable (hopefully will), but to argue that we could be doing this *today*? Absurd.

More to my original point, to argue that the oil companies are in any way blocking this? Even more absurd. I'd wager that a significant portion of the funding for research into alternative fuels and power methodologies is coming out of the large oil companies. They want to be the ones who own the patent for that hyper efficient hydrogen fuel cell. They want to be the ones selling the solar panels that you put on your roof. They want to be the ones shipping hydrogen around the country and selling it to you from a service station (just as they do with gasoline today).

But until those alternatives become economically viable, they're not going to *stop* selling oil to do those things. That would really be dumb...

Ah. So I should apologize because you misunderstood what I wrote.

Sorry. If someone misunderstands something I say or write, I clarify what I said or wrote. I don't feel any need to apologize for it at all. Doubly so when the person in question chooses to bash me based on their misinterpretation rather then simply questioning or commenting on it. Triply so when that same person makes a habit of it, to the point where I suspect that they do it deliberately just so that they can attack me for something regardless of the subject at hand.



No. I'm actually saying the smart thing Smash. You just automatically seem to translate my stuff into "dumb" so that it's more at your level I suppose...

Except that there'll be an environmentalist group that'll fight tooth and nail to protect the "pristine desert ecosystem" on that 10 sq mile chunk of real estate.

We can't build water current power plants here (which have been proposed many times), not because they wouldn't work, but because they'd change the water currents and thus affect the creatures that live there. The problem there is that no matter what you do, you run into some group of people who'll find a reason why what you're doing is "bad" and oppose it.

I actually knew a guy who did his post graduate work in oceanography on the environmental impact of closing the San Onofre nuclear power plant. Turns out that over the time it's been operating the clean water return has raised the average water temperature of the ocean just off the site and created an entire coral reef system that didn't exist prior to construction. So turning the thing *off* would damage the eco system...


Someone can always find a reason to oppose *any* action on environmental grounds. And it seems that someone always does...

I'm actually saying the smart thing Smash. You just automatically seem to translate my stuff into "dumb" so that it's more at your level I suppose...

Yup, that's what it is. I and everyone else just don't understand your clever prose because we're incapable of understanding such heartbreaking works of staggering genius. That's what it is, all right.