How much does a gallon of gas cost for you now?

[Achilles]

Indeed. However if we took all the liquid water and processed it into a vapor, the net accumulation would be zero also. My concern is not the amount of water, but rather the amount of water vapor.

 

If you're arguing that Earth on a hydrogen economy is not a concern because the water vapor would condense back into liquid form so quickly as to have no net impact on the greenhouse effect, then I think you're right and we have no problem.

[stingerhs]

Indeed. However if we took all the liquid water and processed it into a vapor, the net accumulation would be zero also. My concern is not the amount of water, but rather the amount of water vapor.

that's actually not a very big issue since you can install a condensing unit in where the vapor is exhausted away from the fuel cell. you can then have the condensed water stored in a tank (mostly for low temperatures), or have it drip right out.

 

and, again, if the hydrogen fuel is derived from water (as tk102 mentioned), then it shouldn't contribute at all to greenhouse gases.

 

just my two pennies.

[Achilles]

that's actually not a very big issue since you can install a condensing unit in where the vapor is exhausted away from the fuel cell. you can then have the condensed water stored in a tank (mostly for low temperatures), or have it drip right out.

Good to know. It will greatly assuage my concerns when I hear that everyone will do this.

 

and, again, if the hydrogen fuel is derived from water (as tk102 mentioned), then it shouldn't contribute at all to greenhouse gases.

You'll have to explain to me why that is. Hydrogen fuel that is derived from water does not emit water vapor as exhaust? Or are you arguing that water vapor is not the most abundant greenhouse gas in our atmosphere?

[tk102]

You'll have to explain to me why that is. Hydrogen fuel that is derived from water does not emit water vapor as exhaust?

No it's just that it's not adding additional water molecules to the environment. Yes it is producing vapor, just as the sun does. What you're actually concerned about here is the exothermic heat reaction taking place (that turns liquid water to vapor). But that already occurs everywhere. Fossil fuels adds CO2 and (new) H2O and heat to the environment when combusted. The fuel cell that runs on hydrogen produced from water only "creates" heat. Plus when vapor reaches saturation, you get precipitation unlike CO2.

 

On topic: $3.78/gal today.

[Achilles]

No it's just that it's not adding additional water molecules to the environment.

No, I get that part. I'm talking about the additional water vapor that will be in the environment. Taking liquid water and making it into water vapor at a faster rate than occurs naturally sure doesn't seem like a logical "next step" if the idea is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

 

Yes it is producing vapor, just as the sun does.

Except we'd have what the sun does naturally plus whatever we add. Meaning "more".

 

What you're actually concerned about here is the exothermic heat reaction taking place (that turns liquid water to vapor). But that already occurs everywhere. Fossil fuels adds CO2 and (new) H2O and heat to the environment when combusted. The fuel cell that runs on hydrogen produced from water only "creates" heat. Plus when vapor reaches saturation, you get precipitation unlike CO2.

Right. I also got that it would eventually naturally condense into precipitation. What I wonder is if anyone has thought about making some predictions as to how long that "extra" water vapor will hang around in the atmosphere before completing it's spin around the water cycle? And if the answer is something along the lines of "dunno" or "a long time", how will that impact the greenhouse effect?

 

On topic: $3.78/gal today.

Saw $3.41 here.

[tk102]

I'm talking about the additional water vapor that will be in the environment. Taking liquid water and making it into water vapor at a faster rate than occurs naturally sure doesn't seem like a logical "next step" if the idea is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions....What I wonder is if anyone has thought about making some predictions as to how long that "extra" water vapor will hang around in the atmosphere before completing it's spin around the water cycle?

To simplify the comparison, forget about H2O for a moment. H2O vapor is just a currency for waste heat. The same heat can be radiated or convected via CO2 or what have you.

 

The more efficient the engine, the less waste heat. Though I can't find solid comparisons, rough estimates put fuel-cell technology around 50% efficient at turning the energy released by oxidation into useful work which is about twice the efficiency of internal combustion engine. wiki

[Achilles]

So the the point of the argument is that more efficiency in the engine results in less exhaust? Fair enough, but we're still talking about prolonging the problem, rather than solving it. And I also think it's fair to remember that number of cars are likely to increase rather than decrease (however it would be nice to think that this assumption is wrong).

[tk102]

So the the point of the argument is that more efficiency in the engine results in less exhaust? Fair enough, but we're still talking about prolonging the problem, rather than solving it. And I also think it's fair to remember that number of cars are likely to increase rather than decrease (however it would be nice to think that this assumption is wrong).

I'd agree with that except that instead of "less exhaust" I'd say "less waste heat".

[Achilles]

Are you ultimately arguing that less water vapor will be produced as compared to CO2 or not? Both of those are greenhouse gases and arguably one of the benefits of fuel cell technology is reduced greenhouse gas emissions. If we aren't gaining anything by making the switch, then we're essentially right where we were with regards to the environment. Granted we'd be doing it with a new fuel source, but still.

[tk102]

To recap post #79 & post #81: Just in terms of efficiency, hydrogen fuel cell engines produce less heat for the amount of work they generate. Internal combustion engines besides being less efficient, also produce new molecules of greenhouse gases (eg. H2O and CO2).

 

PM me if you'd like to discuss the details further.

[mimartin]

$3.36 about 7 miles north of here, but $3.46 around the corner

 

I received a free tank with the purchase of a car this week. Guess I can’t do that every week.

 

Except we'd have what the sun does naturally plus whatever we add. Meaning "more".

What is the problem, more hurricanes? It just makes it easier for me to sell Home Insurance. More fog? Easier to sell Car Insurance. It is win, win for me provide I can keep from dieing in a storm or having a car hit me.

[Q]

$3.38 here in BFE.

 

The sales of the Prius are going to skyrocket.

[Astrotoy7]

You know that water vapor is a greenhouse gas, right?..

 

you know you posted this exact sentence against me somewhere else a few months ago, right!

 

I had a wonderfully researched answer too, which I cant be buggered looking for now.

 

Basically, there really is little *real* data to show what the impact of such tech would be, especially married against the fact that there would be far less CO in the air.... Couple that with the increasing adoption of CO offset and tree replanting programs per-motor-user, and who on Ronald's earth can really say what the outcome will be?? So at this point, it is mere cynical speculation.

 

in the interim, should we also all throw out our kettles ??

 

That aside, water vapour being what it is, I don't see how it would be technologically insurmountable to place a condenser/converter type device to re-use the water and heat. Then such a vehicle would be absolutely zero emission.

 

In the afore-ranted hybrid elec/fuel cell engine, the extra heat could be used to recharge the batt packs, exactly like the Prius does.

 

So ranting on about water vapour will be an argument made redundant long before these things go mass market, which they are far from doing at this stage.

 

An international production model of the FCX will get rolled out in 2010, but with some nations' sluggishness at adopting new tech, isn't something that will kick off straight away. The current hybrids are just starting to catch the public eye now, and the prius has been around for almost a decade.

 

That type of cynicism reminds me of those people in the late 1800s that thought cars were never going to take off because horses were quicker and cheaper

 

If humanity wills it, it shall happen. The impetus in this case is rising fuel prices, with the environmental stuff married in with it to make us feel it's all worthwhile

 

mtfbwya

[Achilles]

you know you posted this exact sentence against me somewhere else a few months ago, right!

Yeah, probably. I have this terrible habit of not remembering every single post I ever make.

 

I had a wonderfully researched answer too, which I cant be buggered looking for now.

I look forward to seeing it someday.

 

Basically, there really is little *real* data to show what the impact of such tech would be, especially married against the fact that there would be far less CO in the air.... Couple that with the increasing adoption of CO offset and tree replanting programs per-motor-user, and who on Ronald's earth can really say what the outcome will be??

All good points.

 

So at this point, it is mere cynical speculation.

Sorry, all what? Asking questions and pointing out that we don't know = speculation? I'm confused.

 

in the interim, should we also all throw out our kettles ??

It's certainly one option. Not one that I'm advocating but it certainly is on the table. My concern is that the same low-information consumer that will vote against their interest when important sounding people whisper pretty words in their ears will think buy the whole "hydrogen economy" show hook, line, and sinker without thinking about it first.

 

Yes, hydrogen is preferable to hyrdocarbon. No, it is not a solution to our problem. 1.3 billion people in China? Figure about half that will want cars in the next 20 years? It would be great if they could all have hydrogen fuel cell cars, but how much water vapor is being pumped into the air (albeit "temporarily") on a daily, monthly, weely basis. Not trying to pooh-pooh it at all, just hoping that this is something people are thinking about.

 

That aside, water vapour being what it is, I don't see how it would be technologically insurmountable to place a condenser/converter type device to re-use the water and heat. Then such a vehicle would be absolutely zero emission.

It wouldn't be...assuming that someone pointed out that they really should (a point I believe I concede several posts ago).

 

In the afore-ranted hybrid elec/fuel cell engine, the extra heat could be used to recharge the batt packs, exactly like the Prius does.

Indeed

 

So ranting on about water vapour will be an argument made redundant long before these things go mass market, which they are far from doing at this stage.

Yes, let's hope so.

 

That type of cynicism reminds me of those people in the late 1800s that thought cars were never going to take off because horses were quicker and cheaper

You must be responding to someone else's posts at this point so...

 

If humanity wills it, it shall happen. The impetus in this case is rising fuel prices, with the environmental stuff married in with it to make us feel it's all worthwhile

If humanity wills it, yes, that will greatly increase the likelihood of it happening. Assuming that we don't will it too late. And that too many of us don't get taken in by the "big oil" PR machine.

 

Take care

[RedHawke]

Thr Prius can indeed be totally silent when at lights/crossings... still I'd be more concerned that *driver* can see the blind person, rather than the blind person hearing them.

 

RedHawke, is this the FCX you have ??

Nope, that's the Honda, I have access to the Ford model(s). They are based upon the Focus.

 

http://www.citlink.net/~redhawke/ainteasybeinggreen1.jpg

 

how does this translate into:

1. How much it costs to fill a tank ?

2. How far you can get on that tank ?

Well there are several alternatives being looked into for this, but essentially the current thoughts are that you can purchase a home system for this that can meet your needs for local driving. They will have to reduce some of the parts 'a bit' but picture something the size of a large freezer that will make and store one tank of fuel. Using your own house's electrical source and water supply. They have natural gas/electric ones right now that are freezer sized, but that process leaves a carbon footprint. So your costs per mile will not be that much, except for the outlay for the fuel maker. Though on longer trips you would have to purchase fuel, yes, but that is part of the cost of a longer trip.

 

Fixed pricing for the fuel isn't even being talked about yet, as it is possible to make it on site (SMUD recently opened their station that creates the fuel on site using solar power and water, 0 carbon emissions BTW) so it can and should be much lower than say, petrol. Even without a home system the costs should be far less than they are for petrol.

 

But nothing is concrete at this point.

 

That aside, water vapour being what it is, I don't see how it would be technologically insurmountable to place a condenser/converter type device to re-use the water and heat. Then such a vehicle would be absolutely zero emission.

I cannot say what the other companies have done but I can address the one I am familiar with (Ford). On the cars I have been around thay already have the aforementioned condenser only full on H2O comes dribbling out the tail pipe, very little vapor (if any).

[TSR]

£1.11 for Unleaded, £1.09 Diesel pl. I remember less than 5 years back when there was utter outrage when petrol rose above 80p pl.

 

Another thing, I've never got my head round why you yanks call it gas, when quite clearly, it's not.

[Totenkopf]

Cause it's short for gasoline. For a second there I forgot you pay by the litre and wondered where you were buying your gas.

[tk102]

Cripes! Gas at the nearest station jumped $0.21 in the last two days from $3.869 to $4.079. I have the receipt from two days ago right here. Unbelievable.

[JCarter426]

*whistles*

 

It's $3.89 here, I believe. Well, the last place I saw jacks up the prices, though it's usually less here that it is in the suburbs, even so.

[Litofsky]

It's almost four dollars where I live. Let's recap the situation? America, and many other countries that are completely dependent on oil, are being destroyed, while OPEC and others with oil are becoming insanely rich.

 

Sounds fair, right?

[Corinthian]

You know, Litofsky's right. The Government should take over the Oil companies and then make them give us their oil for free. After that, maybe we'll unite with Cuba and China and form a new USSR.

[Litofsky]

You know, Litofsky's right. The Government should take over the Oil companies and then make them give us their oil for free. After that, maybe we'll unite with Cuba and China and form a new USSR.

 

I'd like to see where I implied that. However, we should be focusing on alternative options for fuel, and not groveling to OPEC to produce more. For example, Alaska has enough oil for America to be supplied for quite some time.

 

Let me present this situation: The Government drills in Alaska, and sells the oil at 100% profit. Not only are we away from Venezuela and Arabia, but we are now dependent almost completely on ourselves, the Government is making the money it needs to research/fund alternative sources, and the stranglehold that now grips America is alleviated.

 

Of course, I realize that bureaucracy would most likely get in the way, but it's better to try something than nothing at all.

[Corinthian]

THAT I agree with. I'm tired of people complaining about the Oil Companies being greedy bastards, though. Of course they're greedy, they're a corporation, corporations exist to maximize profit.

[Jae Onasi]

I paid 3.87/gallon yesterday. It took 80 bucks to fill my gas tank. Today it was 4.09.

[Litofsky]

THAT I agree with. I'm tired of people complaining about the Oil Companies being greedy bastards, though. Of course they're greedy, they're a corporation, corporations exist to maximize profit.

 

I think the complaints are, more or less, directed towards the exorbitant costs of gasoline today. Something bothers me more than just calling the companies a name, though. It's when people complain about something, but don't do anything about it. Basically, "I'm honked off enough to complain, but not enough to do anything about it." That aggravates me, mainly because (the complainers) refuse to do anything to help the situation.

 

That all leads to why I suggest that the Government drill in Alaska. Sure, we'd lose a few trees, and it would be a loss, but at what price? By cutting down a few trees in the short run, we'd be saving them in the long run. How do I figure this? With the money that we've made by making our own oil, we'd be able to create alternative sources, and we would have no need for gasoline anymore.

 

Of course, I don't think that anyone is going to try that, but that is an entirely separate argument.

 

Please avoid using expletives. --Jae

Sorry about that. I didn't know that the word wasn't acceptable.