More nonsense: Hydrogen for an alternate energy source

[Darth_Yuthura]

Since some have complained about my nonsense, I'm going to complain about someone else's nonsense to show that I can and do evaluate the OPPOSITE side of the argument before I make a judgment. So I'm going to attempt to advocate FOR something I don't believe to show just how much my convictions are really 'nonsense.'

 

Hydrogen fuel cells for automobiles:

 

This is a potentially everlasting fuel source for automobiles, but it depends upon another energy source to be produced. Nuclear, coal, wind, solar... all could be used for vehicles using hydrogen as a catalyst. Electricity is dependent upon either expensive batteries, or upon a physical connection to a power grid. In addition is that batteries take a long time to charge, but gasoline and liquid hydrogen take only about 5 minutes to replenish.

 

No emissions other than water vapor:

 

There are actually emissions that come from this fuel, but they originate from locations other than where the cars operate. A nuclear plant can be built in a public location, but coal could be 1000 miles away and the electricity could be transmitted via power lines. Hydrogen fuel is produced using that electricity and then transported via pipeline to fuel station. Cars powered by gasoline produce emissions on sight where hydrogen's emissions can be placed elsewhere.

 

Gasoline is only 30% efficient:

 

Internal combustion engines are only 30% efficient and can't be pushed passed that rating, so even with the loss of energy through hydrolysis, the larger the scale of the power plant, the more efficient it becomes.

 

Storage:

 

Electricity can't be stored on a large scale, so any excess energy produced from the US power grid is wasted. Hydrogen could take the excess energy and be used where that energy would otherwise be wasted. Batteries are expensive for electric cars, but hydrogen is dependent upon the size of the tanks. That is cheaper than with more batteries.

 

Universal:

 

The US has enough coal to last hundreds of years, but most American vehicles can't use anything that doesn't come from petroleum. This would allow for almost any form of energy to be interchangeable to be used for transportation.

 

 

So, how many people think this is nonsense?

[Tommycat]

What alternative do you propose that does not use electricity? Ox carts?

 

Some of your observations are somewhat off. For one power plants achieve near 90% efficiency of energy production, so shifting the energy usage(and by extension the pollution) there makes far more sense.

 

Second you have no idea what a hydrogen fuel cell is. You are thinking of a hydrogen POWERED car. Which would burn hydrogen instead of petrochemicals. A hydrogen fuel cell generates electricity from the fuel source.

Reading material

 

Battery technology is improving. we are able to store more energy in smaller spaces.

 

So no, I don't see this as nonsense.

[Sabretooth]

That sounds like pure balderdash to the highest degree, perhaps with a hint of nonsense within it.

 

You clearly have no idea how Hydrogen Fuel Cells work. The electricity is generated from the fuel, not sourced off a battery or a power grid. I actually had difficulty figuring out what you were saying until I read Tommycat's post on that you don't know what you're talking about, and then it all made sense (or rather, lack of it).

[Tommycat]

That sounds like pure balderdash to the highest degree, perhaps with a hint of nonsense within it.

 

You clearly have no idea how Hydrogen Fuel Cells work. The electricity is generated from the fuel, not sourced off a battery or a power grid. I actually had difficulty figuring out what you were saying until I read Tommycat's post on that you don't know what you're talking about, and then it all made sense (or rather, lack of it).

 

Yeah. There's a bit of irony there when the information follows a line like:

I'm going to complain about someone else's nonsense to show that I can and do evaluate the OPPOSITE side of the argument before I make a judgment.

 

I was a little worried about my ox carts claim... ya know those darn methane emissions. Of course... it's not like we could trap that and use it as an alternate fuel source... Oh wait.. we DO use recovered methane...

 

edited to add: Interesting thing I heard on one of the "Future is beautiful" type shows was a GM exec saying that it is even possible that, when they get the design down, that you could literally plug your car into you house to power the house. This would cut down on energy drain on the grid which in some areas is already overtaxed(*looks at CA*).

[Sabretooth]

edited to add: Interesting thing I heard on one of the "Future is beautiful" type shows was a GM exec saying that it is even possible that, when they get the design down, that you could literally plug your car into you house to power the house. This would cut down on energy drain on the grid which in some areas is already overtaxed(*looks at CA*).

The idea behind this reminds me of piezoelectric tiles, which is one of the sweetest technologies I've witnessed in the past 5 years or so.

 

Basically, these are tiles that convert mechanical energy into electricity (30 Watts per tile or something around that, iirc). I saw this snap in the papers that showed a demonstration tile in a public sidewalk over in Japan.

 

It's a very promising technology, and based on the general idea that human mechanical energy is largely wasted and can instead, be used to power electricity. I also remember seeing on a Discovery show this Spanish or Mexican gym that was entirely powered by the energy exerted by its members during workouts.

[mimartin]

So, how many people think this is nonsense?

 

I remember my grandmother telling me not to put all my eggs in one basket. As a child that seemed stupid since we did not have any chickens, but it makes a lot of sense to me today. None of these seems nonsensical to me, at least until the technology is perfected so that we know the true cost, true efficiency and which technology best fits our needs. Another thing to think about is something that works wonderfully in one area of the world/country may be completely impractical for another area of the world/country.

 

We are too depended on petroleum, I can agree with that, but I would hope we have learned from our pass mistakes. As such the only nonsensical thing I see is ruling an alternative fuel out before exploring its true potential.

[Q]

OK, guys, I know what she's saying.

 

Hydrogen is extracted from water by running an electrical current through the water, which is known as electrolysis. D-Y is arguing that power plants must produce this electricity, and that these power plants pollute, which is essentially correct, given that a large percentage of them in the US burn fossil fuels like coal, which is not a good thing.

 

Before things got carried away in the other thread, I was under the impression that I had clarified that the first priority would be to completely switch to non-emissive methods of generating electricity, such as nuclear power plants, to generate all of the electricity necessary to produce the hydrogen, which would make the hydrogen truly emission-free. A secondary priority would be to ensure that these methods use renewable resources (or close to it, as in the case of breeder reactors) and that the net cost of the power generated is so cheap that the efficiency question isn't such a big issue.

 

One source of energy with the potential to solve this particular problem is tidal power. If constructed with environmental considerations in mind, tidal hydroelectric power plants have the potential to generate vast amounts of cheap (once the construction costs are recovered), emission-free power while making a minimal impact on the environment.

[Tommycat]

OK, guys, I know what she's saying.

 

Hydrogen is extracted from water by running an electrical current through the water, which is known as electrolysis. D-Y is arguing that power plants must produce this electricity, and that these power plants pollute, which is essentially correct, given that a large percentage of them in the US burn fossil fuels like coal, which is not a good thing.

 

Before things got carried away in the other thread, I was under the impression that I had clarified that the first priority would be to completely switch to non-emissive methods of generating electricity, such as nuclear power plants, to generate all of the electricity necessary to produce the hydrogen, which would make the hydrogen truly emission-free. A secondary priority would be to ensure that these methods use renewable resources (or close to it, as in the case of breeder reactors) and that the net cost of the power generated is so cheap that the efficiency question isn't such a big issue.

 

One source of energy with the potential to solve this particular problem is tidal power. If constructed with environmental considerations in mind, tidal hydroelectric power plants have the potential to generate vast amounts of cheap (once the construction costs are recovered), emission-free power while making a minimal impact on the environment.

As I noted, earlier. When you have a choice of burning fossil fuels in a 30% efficiency system or a 90% efficiency system, it makes better sense to at least move it there. Baby steps if you will. Gotta crawl before you walk. Gotta walk before you can run.

 

As for tidal power it suffers from the same drawbacks as solar, wind and geothermal. The middle of the US can't utilize it because it isn't available in all areas. It is location dependent. That is not to say we shouldn't use it. Just that we have to have something that is not location dependent. Until we have a viable replacement, nuclear is still the best for other areas.

[mimartin]

Just that we have to have something that is not location dependent.

Why? Do we really need to have a standardized system? Couldn't we just use whatever works best in that area of the country/world? If we set around waiting for one system that works perfectly everywhere, we may be waiting in the dark. I see nothing wrong with using multiple systems even within a single region provided they have the ability to funcition there.

[Tommycat]

Why? Do we really need to have a standardized system? Couldn't we just use whatever works best in that area of the country/world? If we set around waiting for one system that works perfectly everywhere, we may be waiting in the dark. I see nothing wrong with using multiple systems even within a single region provided they have the ability to funcition there.

Simple, for the locations that don't have any of the needed criteria. Seeing as how I live in an area that has nuclear, solar and hydroelectric power, I'm pretty well off. Nuclear is the one that can be anywhere. I have no problem with using the available power. Just that not all areas have even one criteria.

 

And I certainly didn't say we should wait around. I think that would be inferred by my recommendation of utilizing nuclear power which is not perfect, but better than oil or coal fired plants. And I certainly did not recommend a standardized system. For instance Hawaii could use tidal. AZ can use solar(and hydroelectric). I'm not saying nuclear should replace those. That it should be used in conjunction with those to provide (relatively) clean power.

[Q]

I agree that it would have to be a mixture of different solutions, but together they could get us off of burning fossil fuels to generate electricity while providing enough energy for hydrogen production, which would facilitate an eventual near-end to cars that run on gasoline.

 

Of course, this would also have the benefit of weaning us off of oil dependence, which is why it is being opposed.

[Darth Avlectus]

I did a little research on this. Also living in Cali, where energy alternatives talk is just crammed down your throat...you do tend to try to solve the problems so people will just STFU and get out yer face.

 

So far as I know about the hydrogen energy issue there are 2 proposed ways I know of that they went at the problem:

 

1) making hydrogen gas to replace gasoline.

 

Failed for the basic reasons:

a) electrolysis is not efficient, even in a 1:1 ratio at bare minimum and thus not cost effective

b) pound for pound it could not match gasoline

Translation: lower MPG and performed poorer

 

 

2) hydrogen fuel cells

 

Neutral to failed

 

Since this is more or less the equivalent of an electric battery, it would be best suited to an electric car. Thus solving nothing of the fuel problem, and forgoing it with an electrical car I'm afraid it too is redundant. Capacitors and batteries have made TREMENDOUS leaps in improvements over the years. Well, at least capacitors have, though I'd imagine batteries have improved as well (we use them all the time and all the time we hear about their power and efficiency). Might just as well power the electric car the old fashioned way.

 

Utterly ridiculous? No I would not call it utterly ridiculous, just HIGHLY improbable.

 

However, I am at least aware that motion can be turned into electrical energy. Hand crank flashlights are evidence of this. In fact I disassembled one of these. Low and behold it's got an electric motor inside it. So applying motion to the motor produces power out its terminals...

 

So I wonder if you couldn't make the motion generated by driving recharge the spare battery as you drive. Switch batteries and recharge the first one as you continue to drive. It may not be 100% efficient and eventually it will end up drained but I'm always happy to offer improvements to keep performance going longer.....(I did aspire to electrical engineering)

 

You wanna see something that'll make your blood boil? Watch the documentary "who killed the electric car?" <cough GM>

 

Also, why are we not filtering grease from all those fast food restaurants and home cooked food so that it may be refined? Diesel engine cars adjusted for it. I see no good reason why not other than maybe producing it isn't as constant. But if we can run cars on it...that's better than just throwing it away, no?

[Tommycat]

Re who killed the electric car: GM is the scapegoat. They had done more to further the electric car than anyone. Government regs, production cost, and limited range did far more to kill it than anything. In fact they are looking at releasing the Volt which is a primarily electric car with 40 miles before it even runs gas at all. Mostly what killed the EV-1 was the timing. If it had come out now, I doubt GM would have terminated the project the way they did.

 

Fuel cell vehicles: Well in their defense, they can run on petrochemicals(aka gasoline) while the transition to hydrogen is in progress. When hydrogen is more readily available then they can switch them to pure hydrogen fuel cell. I wouldn't say it's neutral to failed. I would put it as "Unknown" at this point. Since we haven't developed it fully yet. Where we're at right now is the equivalent of the first IC engine. Actually probably more like the first steam engine(since the IC engine is somewhat based on the steam engine). It's more of a novelty at this point, but could produce something very effective.

 

biodiesel: in warm climates this is more viable, however as anyone who's driven a diesel up north can attest... congealing becomes a problem. Biodiesel congeals more readily than normal diesel. But yes, running diesels on biodiesel would be preferable to chucking it out.

 

recycling energy to recharge batteries: GM actually has that in the Volt, and their concept for the "Skateboard" FCV. I believe most of the hybrids do as well.... not sure on that. But basically it is because the force to recharge batteries creates a great deal of drag on the car. They use it to aid in braking.

[Q]

Biodiesel also has the advantage of adding no extra CO2 to the atmosphere. It only adds back what the plants that it is produced from have taken out. It can be cheaply produced from certain types of algae, of all things. It's really the only biofuel that I'm in favor of.

[Darth Avlectus]

Fuel cell vehicles: Well in their defense, they can run on petrochemicals(aka gasoline) while the transition to hydrogen is in progress. When hydrogen is more readily available then they can switch them to pure hydrogen fuel cell. I wouldn't say it's neutral to failed. I would put it as "Unknown" at this point. Since we haven't developed it fully yet. Where we're at right now is the equivalent of the first IC engine. Actually probably more like the first steam engine(since the IC engine is somewhat based on the steam engine). It's more of a novelty at this point, but could produce something very effective.

 

But the way a fuel cell is applied is its electrical power output. That output is for electric cars. Batteries and capacitors are cheaper, more readily available and needless to say quite perfected comparatively.

 

Seriously, I'm not trying to be contrary here.

 

Unless you were talking about applying the chemical process of a fuel cell some other way. In which case I'm not entirely sure what you are talking about...

 

biodiesel: in warm climates this is more viable, however as anyone who's driven a diesel up north can attest... congealing becomes a problem. Biodiesel congeals more readily than normal diesel. But yes, running diesels on biodiesel would be preferable to chucking it out.

Well, I guess it's time to use better thinning methods and improve upon filtering methods.

 

Refine it.

 

recycling energy to recharge batteries: GM actually has that in the Volt, and their concept for the "Skateboard" FCV. I believe most of the hybrids do as well.... not sure on that. But basically it is because the force to recharge batteries creates a great deal of drag on the car. They use it to aid in braking.

Hey, time will only tell.

[Tommycat]

FCV: Battery charge times are why they are looking at fuel cells. Run time with a FCV can be pushed to near the gasoline powered run times. Essentially being able to recharge the battery at a refueling station. People don't want to wait 30-40 minutes for their car to charge(heck they barely want to wait that long for their cell phone haha).

 

Biodiesel: Well when you start refining and adding agents it starts to lessen the green aspect of it. Typical thinning agents are almost as bad as the diesel they are trying to replace. Heck why not run cars on grain alcohol... er... never mind... been done.

[Darth_Yuthura]

Fuel cell vehicles: Well in their defense, they can run on petrochemicals(aka gasoline) while the transition to hydrogen is in progress. When hydrogen is more readily available then they can switch them to pure hydrogen fuel cell. I wouldn't say it's neutral to failed. I would put it as "Unknown" at this point. Since we haven't developed it fully yet. Where we're at right now is the equivalent of the first IC engine. Actually probably more like the first steam engine(since the IC engine is somewhat based on the steam engine). It's more of a novelty at this point, but could produce something very effective.

 

Everyone should disregard Tommycat, as he clearly is the one who has no idea what he's talking about. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in nature; how could it not be readily available? Given as you need an electrolyzing unit, the question of hydrogen becoming more readily available depends upon whether there is a source of energy to power the electrolyzing unit that strips the hydrogen atoms from water molecules.

 

The Apollo spacecraft used fuel cells for power in the 1960's and 70's. Was it practical for that purpose? Most definitely.

 

Is is practical for America on a scale such as gasoline? By no means would that be likely to happen. It will likely serve a purpose that siphons excess energy on a limited scale where it otherwise would be wasted. If a wind turbine produces more excess energy than is demanded, it's wasted. Having an electrolyzing unit with energy sources like wind would allow for a more reliable and stable flow of energy from otherwise unreliable powerplants. Other methods ranged to pumping ground water into dried valleys and installing hydro electric dams.

[Q]

Yes, hydrogen can be used as a medium in which to store excess generated power for later use, like a huge battery. This makes it incredibly useful, as most of this excess generated power is wasted at present. I'm still unsure as to why you don't believe that it should be used to power automobiles.

 

And please cut down on the all of the damned hostility. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm trying to be tolerant, here, and you're really not helping the situation.

[Tommycat]

Everyone should disregard Tommycat, as he clearly is the one who has no idea what he's talking about. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in nature; how could it not be readily available? Given as you need an electrolyzing unit, the question of hydrogen becoming more readily available depends upon whether there is a source of energy to power the electrolyzing unit that strips the hydrogen atoms from water molecules.

Apparently you are not aware that free(meaning unbonded) hydrogen is not readily available. You can't go to your local shell and fill up on hydrogen. But feel free to pretend that I don't know what I'm talking about. Please explain to me how you could get a tank full of hydrogen readily.

 

The Apollo spacecraft used fuel cells for power in the 1960's and 70's. Was it practical for that purpose? Most definitely.

 

Is is practical for America on a scale such as gasoline? By no means would that be likely to happen. It will likely serve a purpose that siphons excess energy on a limited scale where it otherwise would be wasted. If a wind turbine produces more excess energy than is demanded, it's wasted. Having an electrolyzing unit with energy sources like wind would allow for a more reliable and stable flow of energy from otherwise unreliable powerplants. Other methods ranged to pumping ground water into dried valleys and installing hydro electric dams.

Because the difference in power required for the Apollo capsules required less energy than even the cheapest Nokia cell phone. It's still a developing technology. Would the Apollo computer be practical for surfing the web?

[Darth Avlectus]

Everyone should disregard Tommycat, as he clearly is the one who has no idea what he's talking about.

Whoa! Hold on!

 

I'm surre Tommy was just putting it out there as best as he knew. No need to be abrasive...We're here for friendly discussion now.

 

Hydrogen is the most abundant element in nature; how could it not be readily available?

I think this is simple semantics. What he probably meant was as to the hydrogen availability post-electrolysis.

 

In general, the use of hydrogen is not cost effective or feasible in a practical sense to most americans. Or as you'd put it, not realistic.

[Tommycat]

Whoa! Hold on!

 

I'm surre Tommy was just putting it out there as best as he knew. No need to be abrasive...We're here for friendly discussion now.

 

I think this is simple semantics. What he probably meant was as to the hydrogen availability post-electrolysis.

 

In general, the use of hydrogen is not cost effective or feasible in a practical sense to most americans. Or as you'd put it, not realistic.

 

Thanks GTA. Yes, I'm quite familiar that hydrogen itself is the most abundant element in nature, however it is usually found bonded with other elements. H2 is actually pretty rare to find just floating around(at least here on earth). It likes to bond with other elements just a bit more.

 

You can get hydrogen from a number of sources. And if you have a nuclear reactor laying about, you can get quite a bit of it using the heat and sulfur-iodine process.

Source kinda nifty.

[Darth_Yuthura]

Whoa! Hold on!

 

I'm surre Tommy was just putting it out there as best as he knew. No need to be abrasive...We're here for friendly discussion now.

 

Read post two and three.

 

Second you have no idea what a hydrogen fuel cell is. You are thinking of a hydrogen POWERED car. Which would burn hydrogen instead of petrochemicals. A hydrogen fuel cell generates electricity from the fuel source.

Reading material

 

That sounds like pure balderdash to the highest degree, perhaps with a hint of nonsense within it.

 

You clearly have no idea how Hydrogen Fuel Cells work. The electricity is generated from the fuel, not sourced off a battery or a power grid. I actually had difficulty figuring out what you were saying until I read Tommycat's post on that you don't know what you're talking about, and then it all made sense (or rather, lack of it).

 

If you want to discuss anything PM me or jae.- mimartin

[True_Avery]

Everyone needs to calm down with the "you have no idea what you're talking about" comments. Either present an argument proving them wrong, or don't. Adding these comments just makes you and your argument look bad.

 

Secondly, doesn't it take -more- energy to strip out Hydrogen that you actually get in return -from- the hydrogen? Isn't that why hydrogen is generally considered a terrible replacement for... well, anything?

[mimartin]

Everyone needs to calm down with the "you have no idea what you're talking about" comments. Either present an argument proving them wrong, or don't. Adding these comments just makes you and your argument look bad.

Could not agree more. If you believe someone's points are wrong present evidence and don't just say they are wrong. Please stop the flamebaiting and name calling.

[Q]

Secondly, doesn't it take -more- energy to strip out Hydrogen that you actually get in return -from- the hydrogen? Isn't that why hydrogen is generally considered a terrible replacement for... well, anything?

So it's inefficient, but relative to what? Gasoline engines aren't exactly models of efficiency, either. As a matter of fact, short of a matter-antimatter reaction, no energy-producing process is anywhere near 100% efficient. If you have abundant, cheap electricity from non-emissive sources, this point becomes moot. That's why establishing a massive, non-emissive power grid should be the first priority.

 

Besides, can you think of a better way to power a car with 0 emissions? I'll admit that I can't, and until Mister Fusion™ becomes a reality, I doubt that anyone else can, either.