The environmentalist in me (a very big part of me) is thrilled. But, where will the hydrogen come from?
BBC News wrote:Critics also point out that hydrogen is costly to produce and the most common way to produce hydrogen is still from fossil fuels.
Analysis of the environmental impact of different fuel technologies has shown that the overall carbon dioxide emissions from hydrogen powered cars can be higher than that from petrol or diesel-powered vehicles.
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 1:25 am
by Sirius
Hydrogen fuel cells are quite likely very efficient for the power output once you have the hydrogen. I believe they're also much less toxic than normal batteries, and have better range. Problem is... yeah, the methods for producing hydrogen are far less than ideal right now.
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 12:50 pm
by Floyd
solar energy, earth warmth or similar power sources. everything else is nonsense, as the article already implies.
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 1:25 pm
by Cuda68
We simply hafta do something to get off of oil. Its a start.
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 2:36 pm
by DigiJo
you have to see hydrogen fuel cells like a battery, they are not producing energy from nothing. you still have to \"charge\" them. (loading with hydrogen). and you still need a lot of energy to produce this hydrogen to charge the fuelcells. so, burning oil or gas or cole to produce hydrogen to run fuelcells might not be the best way.
i just came back from a 4 weeks travel to iceland for my company, and they have a really interresting way to produce energy there. they drill deep holes with drilling-rigs, like 6000 feet deep until they find an geo-area with enough steam-pressure. then they connect pipes to it, connect it to the turbines of a nearby powerplant and thats it. the only thing they have to do is to watch the balance of the pressure in the hole, and such a geothermal powerplant will deliver completely green energy for like 30 years constantly.
i have visited one of this powerplants good for ~100 megawatts. not that much, it was connected to around 12 holes. but still, reliable green energy for 30 years at that level is not so bad. in areas not so close to a crack between continental plates however they would have to drill a lot deeper, but still a good way to give us the energy our society demands without poluting our nature.
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 2:42 pm
by Sirius
Geothermal energy... yeah, they have that in some places.
I should note that \"burning\" fossil fuels isn't really the issue as far as hydrogen production goes - it's that the hydrogen is more or less reformed from fossil fuels (I think generally methane). The carbon obviously can't just disappear - and winds up as our old friend CO2.
Posted: Tue Jun 17, 2008 11:28 pm
by Topher
We'll just have to get it from somewhere where there's hydrogen for the taking.
Re:
Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 3:08 am
by TIGERassault
Topher wrote:We'll just have to get it from somewhere where there's hydrogen for the taking.
Hydrogen? Oh no, our men are there to free the people from their corrupt planetary government! Nothing to do with the hydrogen there, nothing at all.
(side note: no, I don't think oil was the main reason for the Iraq invasion, mmmkay?)
Re:
Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 12:26 pm
by Cuda68
TIGERassault wrote:
Topher wrote:We'll just have to get it from somewhere where there's hydrogen for the taking.
Hydrogen? Oh no, our men are there to free the people from their corrupt planetary government! Nothing to do with the hydrogen there, nothing at all.
(side note: no, I don't think oil was the main reason for the Iraq invasion, mmmkay?)
I love to Quote myself.
Cuda68 wrote:On November 4, 1979, Islamic Iranian's stormed US Embassy Tehran and took 66 Americans hostage.
On April 18, 1983, the Islamic Hezbollah employed a suicide bomber to truck-bomb US Embassy Beirut. Sixty-three people were killed.
On October 23, 1983, an Islamic suicide bomber truck-bombed the US Marine Corps Barracks at the Beirut International Airport. Two hundred twenty Marines and 21 members of other US military services were killed.
On December 12, 1983, a 25 year old Islamic Iraqi soldier belonging to the Islamic Iranian Dawa Group truck-bombed US Embassy Kuwait, seriously damaging the chancery and destroying the administrative annex, killing five, injuring 80. There was no American retaliation.
On March 16, 1984, Islamic Shiite's abducted US Embassy Beirut CIA Station Chief Lt. Col. William Buckley, USA, the CIA's top terrorism expert. In October 1985, the CIA assessed that Buckley had been taken to Islamic Iran by way of Islamic Syria and tortured to death.
On September 20, 1984, Islamic Shiite's car-bombed the US Embassy annex in east Beirut, killing 14 and injuring 57, including the US and British ambassadors and 19 other Americans. There was no American retaliation.
On December 21, 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Scotland, killing all 259 aboard and 11 on the ground. Of the 270 passengers, 189 were Americans.
On February 26, 1993, a massive explosion occurred in the public parking garage of the World Trade Center in New York City. Six people were killed, all Americans, with more than 1,000 injured. A truck-bomb was the cause. Six Islamic conspirators were convicted of the crime.
1993 - An Islamic cell operating in New York City planned to blow up simultaneously the Holland and Lincoln Tunnels, the George Washington Bridge, the UN, and the New York FBI office in lower Manhattan, all in New York City.
On April 14, 1993 the Islamic Iraqi intelligence service attempted to assassinate former US President George Bush during a visit to Kuwait.
In Late 1994, enemy Islamic forces operating in the Philippines were building bombs they planned to place and remotely detonate on twelve US carrier jumbo jets in a single 48-hour period as they flew from the Far East to the US.
On June 25, 1996, Islamic forces truck-bombed part of the Khobar Towers housing complex at the King Abdul Aziz Air Base in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. The explosion occurred near building #131, an eight-story building used mostly by US Air Force personnel. Nineteen US servicemen and one Saudi were killed, with 372 injured.
On August 7, 1998, the US Embassy Nairobi was truck-bombed. Two hundred thirteen people were killed, more than 4,000 injured.
On August 7, 1998, the US Embassy Dar es Salaam was truck-bombed, within five minutes of the Nairobi bombing mentioned above. Eleven died and 85 were injured.
On December 14, 1999, an Islamic Algerian soldier was arrested while crossing from Canada into Washington State with 130 pounds of explosive chemicals and four homemade timing devices. His plan was to detonate a bomb at Los Angeles International Airport on the evening of December 31, 1999.
On January 3, 2000 Islamic suicide bombers attempted an attack against the USS The Sullivans in port at Aden, Yemen.
On October 12, 2000, an explosion occurred on the port side of the destroyer USS Cole while moored in the harbor of Aden, Yemen.
9/11/2001 - Four Islamic enemy air raids were conducted against American targets in New York and Washington, DC, killing close to 3,000 people, destroying the World Trade Towers, and severely damaging the Pentagon. The air raids were conducted employing hi-jacked US air carriers. One air raid did not reach its target in Washington, thwarted by the passengers.
yea it was oil alright, nothing to do with there treatment of us over a 20 year span or the treatment of there fellow countrymen.
Re:
Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:51 pm
by TIGERassault
me wrote:(side note: no, I don't think oil was the main reason for the Iraq invasion, mmmkay?)
Wow, I even put that in just in case anyone thought it was a metaphor for my opinions on the Iraq War, but you still managed to think otherwise.
Do I really need to put a flashing banner saying "NOT SERIOUS! ONLY JOKING! LONGCAT IS LOOONG!" at the end of posts like that?
Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 9:17 pm
by Tunnelcat
The other source of hydrogen is the electrolysis of water into oxygen and hydrogen. HOWEVER, that also requires energy and the resulting carbon output as well, unless it could be produced from solar or wind power. I don't think that those two power sources are efficient enough to make enough hydrogen for all of our cars though.
Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:36 am
by Sirius
Wind is very efficient... the problem is there might not be enough of it to go around. Solar, well, not so sure there. There are several methods of generating power from sunlight, but again you tend to need a lot of space for not a lot of yield.
Should improve in the future, but for the meanwhile the best answer is a combination of alternative fuel sources and less fuel use.
Re:
Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 1:09 am
by DarkHorse
Cuda68 wrote:stuff
Curious how the Iraqi government was responsible for merely one out of those eighteen, isn't it?
Re:
Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 11:22 am
by Cuda68
DarkHorse wrote:
Cuda68 wrote:stuff
Curious how the Iraqi government was responsible for merely one out of those eighteen, isn't it?
1. This thread is about alternate fuel over gasoline.
2. Tigerassualt just can't resist to slam the U.S. in some manner and derail a topic.
3. This war is not over oil - study your history on the Ottoman Empire. This is about several nations taking out the Ottoman Empire and dividing up the Middle east and stiffing the Palistian people. They want the entire middle east to be one nation and the extermination of the Jewish people off the face of the planet. It is much, much more than a war on Iraq or over oil.
4. This is the PTMC Cafe not E&C, but maybe it should be moved over the E&C.
Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 11:27 am
by Cuda68
I seem to remember a circuit board design that there is a way to increase voltage, although there is a relative amperage drop (this goes back many years since I was in collage). So could wind or solar power be used in conjunction with this circuit to create Hydrogen that would not damage the environment and be cost effective?
Re:
Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 11:44 am
by TIGERassault
Cuda68 wrote:2. Tigerassualt just can't resist to slam the U.S. in some manner and derail a topic.
3. This war is not over oil - study your history on the Ottoman Empire. This is about several nations taking out the Ottoman Empire and dividing up the Middle east and stiffing the Palistian people. They want the entire middle east to be one nation and the extermination of the Jewish people off the face of the planet. It is much, much more than a war on Iraq or over oil.
OH FOR THE LOVE OF-
There. Now do you understand? And do you seriously not know what "I don't think oil was the main reason" means?
Re:
Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 1:07 pm
by Floyd
Cuda68 wrote:I seem to remember a circuit board design that there is a way to increase voltage, although there is a relative amperage drop (this goes back many years since I was in collage). So could wind or solar power be used in conjunction with this circuit to create Hydrogen that would not damage the environment and be cost effective?
P=U*I
P ... Power
U ... Voltage
I ... Current
if you rise U, I falls. the power stays the same. no, it rather shrinks from the conversion:
U1*I1*[eta]=U2*I2
[eta] ... Efficiency (left out greek symbol for fault proof readability)
look up electric transformers.
Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 3:42 pm
by Tunnelcat
If we want to use solar cells for electrical generation, either we need to increase the efficiency per square inch of photo voltaic cells or find a way to concentrate the sun's light so that any given square inch of sunlight has more energy to use. Also, viable superconducting wire needs to be developed that would result in less power loss over long transmission distances to further increase efficiency.
I recently saw a show on Tesla, who developed a method of transmitting electricity through the air, eliminating the wires. It looked like an interesting way to get power to everybody, but presently it would take a large network of tower generators since current falls off quickly the farther you get from the transmission source. Still, it would be cool if you could just get your electricity from the air.
Re:
Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 3:02 am
by Dakatsu
TIGERassault wrote:
Cuda68 wrote:2. Tigerassualt just can't resist to slam the U.S. in some manner and derail a topic.
3. This war is not over oil - study your history on the Ottoman Empire. This is about several nations taking out the Ottoman Empire and dividing up the Middle east and stiffing the Palistian people. They want the entire middle east to be one nation and the extermination of the Jewish people off the face of the planet. It is much, much more than a war on Iraq or over oil.
OH FOR THE LOVE OF-
There. Now do you understand? And do you seriously not know what "I don't think oil was the main reason" means?
Shut it, terrorist!
Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:13 am
by DarkHorse
nope, it really isn't about the Ottomans or they'd be primarily targetting the British
or oil or it'd be Iran
Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 8:57 am
by Gekko71
Can we please get back to the topic at hand folks - (ie: Hyrogen powered cars) - thank you.
IIRC, it's possible to generate Hydrogen from sea water reasonably easliy in the presence of specific Aluminium alloys (there was even a post on the subject on this very BB unless I'm mistaken).
My chemistry's pretty thin, so this may be total bunkum - but certainly the hydrogen is present right here on earth in large quantites - if we can find an energy efficient way to separate water into it component parts ...though I have no idea what kind of energy inputs this would require.
Tunnelcat - I've read recently that it's now possible to create relatively cheap photoelectric cells that hve been \"printed\" onto a flexibile substrate (kind of like a bubble jet printer that churns out long thin strips of solar panel).
Apparently this technology has the potential to create electricity at a comparable or lower cost per kwt to coal.
In addition to all the above, a french company have invented a car that runs on compressed air - they are currently being manufactured in India with US models available from 2011 onwards. So one way or another, Western dependence on petroleum for transport should be diminished somewhat in the foreseeable in the future. About bloody time if you ask me
Re:
Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 10:02 am
by Floyd
Gekko71 wrote:Tunnelcat - I've read recently that it's now possible to create relatively cheap photoelectric cells that hve been "printed" onto a flexibile substrate (kind of like a bubble jet printer that churns out long thin strips of solar panel).
Apparently this technology has the potential to create electricity at a comparable or lower cost per kwt to coal.
it's not about the money in the case of solar cells, but about their efficiency (which then again leads to money issues...). they still use up a lot of space, compared to the energy they provide.
Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 11:08 am
by Tunnelcat
This is interesting. I wonder if it's really a viable technology?
Re:
Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 11:27 am
by Cuda68
tunnelcat wrote:This is interesting. I wonder if it's really a viable technology?
That's awesome. The technology may still be in the crude stage but its good to see that there's an honest effort going on out there.
Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 11:38 am
by Tunnelcat
Yeah, it looks really cool if it's real thing and not some gimmick.
Edit: The only thing that bothers me about this guy's technology is that he never explains how he breaks down the water molecule into it's three component atoms, two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom, which it looks like he's doing before he uses it for fuel. It takes a lot energy to do that. What method is he using to do this? Hmmmmmmmm?
Re:
Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:15 pm
by TIGERassault
tunnelcat wrote:This is interesting. I wonder if it's really a viable technology?
Again, it depends on the amount of electricity needed to power the thing.
Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:23 pm
by Floyd
it would be interesting to know where the energy he uses to convert the water to gas comes from. i wouldn't be surprised if it was a battery you have to recharge at home
however, a flame cool to the touch, but able to cut through metals reduces the risk of injury considerably, for instance in workshops (provided that no dangerous substances result from the reaction between the flame and the material).
this gets a few thumbs up
Re:
Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 12:56 pm
by TIGERassault
Floyd wrote:it would be interesting to know where the energy he uses to convert the water to gas comes from. i wouldn't be surprised if it was a battery you have to recharge at home
I wouldn't even be surprised if it required more electricity than a car purely powered by electricity, actually.
Floyd wrote:however, a flame cool to the touch, but able to cut through metals reduces the risk of injury considerably, for instance in workshops (provided that no dangerous substances result from the reaction between the flame and the material).
this gets a few thumbs up
That it does, although it won't have all that much of a difference, considering that there are relatively few blowtorch injuries due to heat-retardant protective gear.
Re:
Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 2:33 pm
by Floyd
TIGERassault wrote:I wouldn't even be surprised if it required more electricity than a car purely powered by electricity, actually.
definitely. every energy conversion has an efficiency below 1. that means, every time you convert energy (in this case from electricity to gas), you lose energy. speaking of efficiency, electric cars have the worst if they are not fueled by solar, wind or whatever energy we can convert directly into electricity:
solar -> electricity -> accumulator -> mech. energy
to use fuel cells, expand "accumulator" for hydrogen production from solar energy.
if you power you e-car from the wall plug:
fossil (dug out and dragged to the power plant, which wastes more energy) -> warmth -> mech. energy (steam) -> mech. energy (rotation) -> electricity -> high voltage electricity -> low voltage electricity -> accumulator -> mechanical energy
i may have forgotten some steps and summed some up for readability.
Re:
Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 4:04 pm
by TIGERassault
Floyd wrote:definitely. every energy conversion has an efficiency below 1. that means, every time you convert energy (in this case from electricity to gas), you lose energy.
Keeping in mind that the water would also have energy?
Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:24 pm
by Floyd
everything has energy. some things have higher levels, some things have lower ones. basically, energy can be used from one entity to raise the energy level of other entities, if there is a differential.
water for instance is h2o (low energy state of the hydrogen-oxygen system). splitting it needs energy, more than the reaction of the hydrogen and oxygen (high energy state of the hydrogen-oxygen system) releases when combusted back to water.
i suggest you read up on physics, chemistry and thermo dynamics about energy
Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2008 8:21 pm
by Foil
FYI, the \"water-fueled\" super-efficient automobiles are essentially a junk-science scam (just Google the results of Stan Meyer's classic claim).
They're all over the internet, and they nearly all follow the formula:
- Video to show a car running, or \"driving 150 miles on one gallon of water\".
- Pseudo-scientific claims of success.
- Unverifiable claims of scientist support.
- Vague references to government or big-oil conspiracies to suppress their work.
- Upon closer investigation, claims that they've either found a way to violate the laws of Thermodynamic energy, or that the reaction is actually some kind of nuclear fusion.
... and the kicker that ties them all together...
- Invitation to inve$t in their special Physics-defying technology!
Floyd is completely right. You can't get more energy out than what you put in to obtain the hydrogen in the first place. And if you believe they've succeeded in a way to create a 'cold' nuclear fusion reaction in their machine... well, I have a bridge or two to sell you.
If you don't believe me, I understand. They're very convincing. But do the research, you'll find that these all end up the same way: zero verifiable results, a bunch of well-meaning people who lost their 'investment' money, and sometimes even convictions of fraud.
Probably exaggerated, but it's not complete bull****. The system that is actually being used for that is hydrogen fuel injection - which improves the burning characteristics of the fuel by making it, effectively, more explosive. That means you need less of it, but it's counterbalanced by the fact that you're siphoning off power to electrolyse the water in the first place.
I am told it does have some effect, but I doubt the 40-50% figure is accurate.
the site shows the same video linked above in this thread. the ad itself has it even marked in yellow that the power to split the water comes from the battery. so, how is the battery reloaded? by a generator run by the engine, which is powered by the water-"gas" in the first place.
still, if this was enough, you would have the perpetuum mobile (since you could re-use the water from the exhaust). congrats for the next Nobel-Prize .
then, if the generator was removed, the battery would have to be reloaded at home or whereever. it is in fact a car run by electricity with a probably worse efficiency than e-cars with e-motors (remember that the electricity comes mainly from fossil energy carriers).
Edit: since it's a hybrid car, the battery would be reloaded from the gas it burns, be it directly of from the burnt gas that charged, or the battery that splits the water that drives the engine.
