More nonsense: Hydrogen for an alternate energy source

[Darth_Yuthura]

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?

 

That wasn't the reason. It was that fuel cells provided more energy per unit of weight than batteries or solar panels. One other advantage often overlooked was that the byproducts of the fuel cells, water, was provided for the crew. That meant they utilized the weight of the oxygen, hydrogen, and fuel cells much better than if they installed solar panels + a few hundred kg of drinking water.

 

This was the reason for having fuel cells on spacecraft; because they are more effective for their weight to power ratio than solar panels over short periods. The shuttle and apollo had fuel cells because they weren't designed to fly for more than two weeks at a time, but it makes more sense for satellites in orbit for much longer than that to use solar panels.

[True_Avery]

So it's inefficient, but relative to what? Gasoline engines aren't exactly models of efficiency, either.

Not saying the hydrogen battery would be bad. Saying that getting the molecule in the first place takes more energy to initially get then you receive when using the molecule.

 

But, compared to Gasoline, nothing is currently more "efficient" considering it comes out of the ground and all we really have to do is dig, find, and pump. The engine's aren't environmentally friendly, but how friendly are the plants using tons of energy to get relatively small amounts of hydrogen?

 

As a matter of fact, short of a matter-antimatter reaction, no energy-producing process is anywhere near 100% efficient.

When used, sure. What I'm talking about is what it takes to get it is more than it gives you back, which is the exact opposite of an efficient energy source.

 

If you have abundant, cheap electricity from non-emissive sources, this point becomes moot.

Agreed, but we don't have that right now so it is currently not moot.

 

That's why establishing a massive, non-emissive power grid should be the first priority.

True, but outside of wind power what do you suggest?

 

Besides, can you think of a better way to power a car with 0 emissions? I'll admit that I can't.

Except it isn't 0 emissions. The car may let out water, but I doubt the nuclear power plant was as friendly when the electricity generally inefficiently cunjured up some hydrogen.

 

Now, that isn't to say I'm against research into it. With our current technology, obviously, getting hydrogen is incredibly inefficient. We have been making some breakthroughs though, and getting closer to overcoming that inefficient gap.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090406102555.htm

[Web Rider]

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.

 

Well, unless you consider the danger of tearing holes in the fabric of space-time and destroying the universe an emission of concern.

[Tommycat]

Actually, gotta appologize. Somehow I must have misread the first post.

 

My appologies DY. I thought you were talking about a hydrogen burning car and calling it a fuel cell car(I must have been more tired than I thought... or I need glasses... I am getting older...).

[RedHawke]

Some tidbits about Hydrogen production... there is a station constructed by our Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) that is completely off the grid, self-powered and produces its own hydrogen via solar power and water. This station is used to fuel the Hydrogen Fuel cell vehicles that they are currently testing.

 

This fuel source is viable, and so are the vehicles. I know I used to drive one, daily.

 

And I was an "Internal combustion accept no substitutes!" kind of person before.

 

All the data that you read about Hydrogen being hard to produce or more harmful are likely backed by interests that do not want to see this change. The gas companies stand to lose big if we were to change from gasoline for our vehicles. So be wary of who actually wrote what you are reading and who sponsored it as far as other sites and even textbooks.

 

Just my

[Darth_Yuthura]

Actually, gotta appologize. Somehow I must have misread the first post.

 

My appologies DY. I thought you were talking about a hydrogen burning car and calling it a fuel cell car(I must have been more tired than I thought... or I need glasses... I am getting older...).

 

Thank-you. No hard feelings now.

 

Some tidbits about Hydrogen production... there is a station constructed by our Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) that is completely off the grid, self-powered and produces its own hydrogen via solar power and water. This station is used to fuel the Hydrogen Fuel cell vehicles that they are currently testing.

 

This fuel source is viable, and so are the vehicles. I know I used to drive one, daily.

 

Unfortunately, you cannot really look to one station and call it viable. Your one station... how much did it cost to construct? How much does the hydrogen fuel cost?

 

A nuclear breeder reactor is MANY times more efficient than a conventional heavy-water reactor, but because it costs twice as much, it is not economically feasible as a conventional reactor. That comes from the interest placed upon borrowed money and a low return on its investment. Even though solar may be free, its capital cost is so enormous that its interest expense almost makes it too expensive to make economic sense.

 

Although your single station exists and produces zero emissions, it likely was a terrible business investment for those who built it. In America, the first priority is to make the most profit from the smallest investment. The environment often comes second.

 

I have advocated for the split-cycle engine months ago and made the same argument that before doing a radical shift, the best alternative is to perfect what we already have. The split-cycle engine is a newer version of the internal combustion engine that pushes fuel efficiency from about 30% to 35% + cheaper potential energy storage than electric hybrid.

[True_Avery]

Some tidbits about Hydrogen production... there is a station constructed by our Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) that is completely off the grid, self-powered and produces its own hydrogen via solar power and water. This station is used to fuel the Hydrogen Fuel cell vehicles that they are currently testing.

 

This fuel source is viable, and so are the vehicles. I know I used to drive one, daily.

 

And I was an "Internal combustion accept no substitutes!" kind of person before.

 

All the data that you read about Hydrogen being hard to produce or more harmful are likely backed by interests that do not want to see this change. The gas companies stand to lose big if we were to change from gasoline for our vehicles. So be wary of who actually wrote what you are reading and who sponsored it as far as other sites and even textbooks.

 

Just my

True, but it still does not entirely answer the problem of the inefficiency of the energy conversion.

 

Seems like a fair idea though if its working. If you can convince a company/group/etc to run a wind/solar/etc powered hydrogen station then I'm all for the idea.

 

If we are using a nuclear power plant, however, it doesn't seem to make hydrogen much better or worse than gasoline.

 

I, personally, have not seen much good evidence that it is dangerous, but it is still fact that it is inefficient as a source -unless- you pull the electricity from a "free" source, like wind or sun.

 

I've been wanting solar panels on every roof anyway, so the closer we can get to that the more hydrogen becomes a more valid source of energy.

[Q]

Not saying the hydrogen battery would be bad. Saying that getting the molecule in the first place takes more energy to initially get then you receive when using the molecule.

 

But, compared to Gasoline, nothing is currently more "efficient" considering it comes out of the ground and all we really have to do is dig, find, and pump.

You're forgetting an important step in the process. You didn't think that it came out odf the ground as gasoline, did you? Fractional distillation requires boiling all of that crude oil, which requires energy; lots of energy, which is usually acquired by burning something dirty.

The engine's aren't environmentally friendly, but how friendly are the plants using tons of energy to get relatively small amounts of hydrogen?

That's why I stated that establishing a massive, non-emissive power grid should be the first priority.

True, but outside of wind power what do you suggest?

Well, for the coasts, tidal hydroelectric power looks pretty good to me, now that engineers are figuring out how to build the generators so that their environmental impact is minimal. Make no mistake: it would be a massive undertaking, but the potential power generation is astronomical, emission-free and a hell of a lot more reliable than wind or solar power. For the inland areas, nuclear energy is still the best option.

Except it isn't 0 emissions. The car may let out water, but I doubt the nuclear power plant was as friendly when the electricity generally inefficiently cunjured up some hydrogen.?

Modern nuclear power plants are far safer and more efficient than they were just a few decades ago. And the waste that everyone is so afraid of can be reprocessed into new fuel so that the net amount is minimized. It can then be safely stored, for centuries if necessary, until our descendants have the capability to either render it inert or even take it off-planet and send it into the sun if necessary. Ask the French about how great it is. They have such an abundance of power that they sell it to neighboring countries.

Now, that isn't to say I'm against research into it. With our current technology, obviously, getting hydrogen is incredibly inefficient. We have been making some breakthroughs though, and getting closer to overcoming that inefficient gap.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090406102555.htm

Cool. Interesting read. I always wondered if some sort of catalyst could be developed to help the process along. We're getting there. I'm totally with RH in believing that hydrogen is the future, and that some powerful, greedy people might not want that to happen, but maybe within our lifetimes we'll see the end of our dependence on fossil fuels. I for one would die happier that way.

 

 

EDIT: The split cycle engine that D_Y is referring to is also known as the Scuderi Engine. It's efficiency is derived from how it generates a power stroke with every turn of the crankshaft instead of every other turn like with a conventional four-stroke cycle engine. It would probably be a good solution for the short-term, and is certainly compatible with existing automobile design, but I don't know how much more efficient it would be than a four-stroke cycle engine in real-world usage.

[True_Avery]

Modern nuclear power plants are far safer and more efficient than they were just a few decades ago. And the waste that everyone is so afraid of can be reprocessed into new fuel so that the net amount is minimized. It can then be safely stored, for centuries if necessary, until our descendants have the capability to either render it inert or even take it off-planet and send it into the sun if necessary. Ask the French about how great it is. They have such an abundance of power that they sell it to neighboring countries.

Well, that is my main problem with power plants. You say they are efficient and such, but the waste, while -some- of it can be reused, is... stored. It renders the area it is being kept in a radioactive mess, and that waste can also be processed into weapons. While not a problem here, that seems to be our main problem with Iran right now.

 

Its fantastic power, but using them to create Hydrogen hardly makes it an emission or environmentally friendly process. Now, is you use coast, wind, solar, etc power on the other hand I have little problem as tons of dangerous energy isn't being wasted.

 

Cool. Interesting read. I always wondered if some sort of catalyst could be developed to help the process along. We're getting there. I'm totally with RH in believing that hydrogen is the future, and that some powerful, greedy people might not want that to happen, but maybe within our lifetimes we'll see the end of our dependence on fossil fuels. I for one would die happier that way.

Least it shows there is a good amount of research and thought being placed into the idea.

[Tommycat]

I'm more of a no replacement for displacement gasoline guy, but I know darn good and well that it isn't a safe bet to keep thinking the gas will always flow. Granted, most of what I do can be translated to running alcohol(mostly fuel lines carb and intake gaskets). but still... lets face it, I'm a dinosaur. My kind of vehicle is out.

[Q]

Well, that is my main problem with power plants. You say they are efficient and such, but the waste, while -some- of it can be reused, is... stored. It renders the area it is being kept in a radioactive mess,

No arguments here. Unfortunately, people have been allowed to be very careless with the stuff over the past 60 years and AFAIK the Department of Energy has put a stop to that. The DoE, which is now responsible for it all, is in the process of cleaning up those sites and consolidating all of the waste into new, secure, long-term facilities so that kind of thing won't happen again. This is supposed to be completed by 2025.

and that waste can also be processed into weapons. While not a problem here, that seems to be our main problem with Iran right now.

That portion of waste that can be processed into weapons is what I said earlier can be reprocessed into new fuel, solving that problem. The US has never seriously dealt with reprocessing, which was stupid, of course, and one of the reasons why we have so much waste in the first place. The other stuff is all going to be under lock and key and guarded by the federal government.

Its fantastic power, but using them to create Hydrogen hardly makes it an emission or environmentally friendly process. Now, is you use coast, wind, solar, etc power on the other hand I have little problem as tons of dangerous energy isn't being wasted.

Maybe best solution would be to use hydro, wind and solar wherever they can be practical and only use nuclear to fill in the gaps where there is no other practical option.

Least it shows there is a good amount of research and thought being placed into the idea.

Well, the clean electricity problem has to be tackled first, but I think it will be the future of transportation if we want to drive clean cars. And don't worry, Tommy; I'm sure that there will be a way to soup up HFC cars, too.

[Tommycat]

And don't worry, Tommy; I'm sure that there will be a way to soup up HFC cars, too.

Oh trust me, so long as there are wheels on the car, I'll be trying to make them turn faster.

[Darth_Yuthura]

There is another issue to address that really is at the root of the 'hydrogen economy:' the difficulties in transitioning from one source of energy to another. Let's face it, no one would pay more for a vehicle powered by hydrogen under the conditions we have today. People will want gasoline-powered vehicles and any transition to another fuel source will be expensive. Hydrogen isn't like a liquid fossil fuel to store and handle, so the safety codes and gas station tanks and equipment would demand more new designs and implementation than something like gasohol.

 

Ethanol is way too unrealistic for practical use of a large scale in the US and with corn, but there are situations where it would make sense to use biodiesel fuel using waste products. That is only a way to make use of something that otherwise would have been lost, but unrealistic on a large scale. Vegetable oil is expensive compared to gasoline, but when it is to be disposed of; what little there is happens to be a good way to scavenge a little more energy that wasn't there before.

[Tommycat]

Actually DY, FCV is a good transition as it will run on petrochemicals though the emissions are not as clean as if it is on hydrogen(though still cleaner than the cleanest hybrid). You're actually hitting apon the "not readily available" part of my earlier post. There are very few hydrogen refueling locations.

[Q]

There is another issue to address that really is at the root of the 'hydrogen economy:' the difficulties in transitioning from one source of energy to another. Let's face it, no one would pay more for a vehicle powered by hydrogen under the conditions we have today. People will want gasoline-powered vehicles and any transition to another fuel source will be expensive. Hydrogen isn't like a liquid fossil fuel to store and handle, so the safety codes and gas station tanks and equipment would demand more new designs and implementation than something like gasohol.

There is a notoriously well-known marketing ploy that would be of good use here. It's called pigeon-holing, and it works by making any alternatives either unavailable or impractical. The market does it all time. Examples of this strategy are readily available, like forcing American consumers to buy Chinese goods, making CRTs unavailable so that people have to buy LCDs, and the most infamous example here on LF, LA's insistence on developing a ****ty MMO and pushing it on us in place of the SP KotOR 3 that most of us wanted (sorry, Avery ). Is it ethical? Not really. Will it be necessary? Well, in this case, yes.

Ethanol is way too unrealistic for practical use of a large scale in the US and with corn, but there are situations where it would make sense to use biodiesel fuel using waste products. That is only a way to make use of something that otherwise would have been lost, but unrealistic on a large scale. Vegetable oil is expensive compared to gasoline, but when it is to be disposed of; what little there is happens to be a good way to scavenge a little more energy that wasn't there before.

No arguments here about ethanol, but biodiesel has the potential to be cheaply produced from certain strains of algae far more efficiently than any seed crop, making it a possible and even realistic replacement for petroleum in the short-term using current technology.

[Darth_Yuthura]

Actually DY, FCV is a good transition as it will run on petrochemicals though the emissions are not as clean as if it is on hydrogen(though still cleaner than the cleanest hybrid). You're actually hitting apon the "not readily available" part of my earlier post. There are very few hydrogen refueling locations.

 

That's not what I was emphasizing. When I was arguing for maglev instead of high speed rail, the idea was shunned because it was way too radical compared to the more standard 'wheels on tracks' concept.

 

The electrical infrastructure for electric hybrids or light rail are very much available today. It would involve setting up a new infrastructure for electric trains or recharge stations at parkways, but it would be relatively easy in comparison to starting a whole new, unrelated system from scratch. You would have to construct electrolysing devices on a massive scale before you could even consider mass-producing hydrogen vehicles. That in itself would be almost like constructing a new system of power plants to replace all those in the US. Setting up a massive new infrastructure very different from what is currently used would be astronomical.

 

Hydrogen historically has not been used on a massive scale and would not be easy to implement... or cheap for that matter... when it comes to becoming THE energy of the future for automobiles. As of today, it's not even close to the feasibility of batteries being gasoline's replacement. There is simply no infrastructure of any kind for hydrogen, but there is already one in place for electricity that simply has to be expanded.

[Q]

Yeah, if batteries were to suddenly see a radical improvement, you can bet that I'd be advocating those for powering cars.

[Tommycat]

Actually DY the difference is huge. FCV's CAN run on existing petrochemical fuels. This means that the argument that it would be impractical because there is no supporting infrastructure is a bit off. For the FCV you are able to reuse the existing gas stations until such time as hydrogen itself is more readily available.

 

Of course, nobody has mentioned yet that the development of the FCV does not preclude using electric vehicles on the same roadways.

[RedHawke]

Unfortunately, you cannot really look to one station and call it viable. Your one station... how much did it cost to construct? How much does the hydrogen fuel cost?

Yes you can call it viable, it is called a prototype and they normally come in unique units or small runs of units. And I believe I answered this before, to you in your other thread full of misinformation about hydrogen... like your posts here in this thread.

 

Sorry folks, we in the program have heard your types of statements countless times, it is amazing how much effort the ones who stand to lose will spend to keep their strangle-hold on their monopolies. Mark well the source of your information, and who pays their bills.

[Darth_Yuthura]

I was not referring to the stations; I was referring to the facilities that would have to produce the hydrogen and how it would be distributed throughout regions. Hydrogen is a gas at room temperature and needs to be pressurized. That's not remotely close to gasoline storage and transportation demands.

 

Yes you can call it viable, it is called a prototype and they normally come in unique units or small runs of units. And I believe I answered this before, to you in your other thread full of misinformation about hydrogen... like your posts here in this thread.

 

Sorry folks, we in the program have heard your types of statements countless times, it is amazing how much effort the ones who stand to lose will spend to keep their strangle-hold on their monopolies. Mark well the source of your information, and who pays their bills.

 

How expensive would it be for the various production facilities, pipelines, stations, additional power plants, and vehicle repair facilities? There is a very significant difference between gasoline and hydrogen/powered cars and it would require specialized training where a split-cycle engine upgrade follows the same principles as the four-cycle design. The simpler one can make a technology or system, the less likely there would be complications. Where would Redhawke have gone if he theoretically owned his vehicle and it broke down? If there weren't many hydrogen vehicles on the road, finding a mechanic would have been difficult to find.

 

Prototype, huh? So how much did that hydrogen fuel cost you? Let me guess... you either spent big, or you paid an artificially-generated price. I would be greatly interested in knowing the details that you haven't mentioned before about your evaluation of the vehicle you tested.

 

How much was the fuel? What was the fuel rating per gallon of hydrogen? How many vehicles could that one station with the non-emissive power source provide for daily? How much were the solar panels that powered that station? How much energy was lost in the hydrolysis process and how much did you get from the fuel cell on your vehicle? Little details like this would be easier for you to answer than me, but anything like this that you could also add would be appreciated. Hydrogen may be more realistic for the future than gasoline, but for it to be viable, it must first be economic.

[Hawkstrong16]

Hydrogen may be more realistic for the future than gasoline, but for it to be viable, it must first be economic.

 

For Us to use it in the future, We need to be doing what we're doing right now. Do you think they got the internal combustion engine right on the first try? Or even the 100th? No they did not! Even now they are still working on making it better.

 

We may not see Hydrogen for fuel Right now but it will happen. It will be expensive to produce at first. But In the long run I think that it will be cheaper and much more economic.

I may not know as much about all this as the rest of you. But its just my two cents

[Tommycat]

I'll hold off judgment on the split cycle until I see HP/TQ/fuel econ ratings versus a similar displacement engine in two identical vehicles. I still see it as problematic as it still relies very heavily on gasoline(and or diesel) for power.

 

Then I'll want to see how well it does on a race course. But that's just me.

[Q]

I'm interested in it's power and MPG ratings as well. As far as performance is concerned, remember that it delivers a power stroke for every turn of the crankshaft, so a souped-up model would be a real high-revving monster.

[Tommycat]

well high revving depends on the point at which you start getting valve float

remember too that every stroke is also a compression stroke and has friction from not one, but 2 full pistons.

[mimartin]

I was not referring to the stations; I was referring to the facilities that would have to produce the hydrogen and how it would be distributed throughout regions. [/Quote]

 

Some tidbits about Hydrogen production... there is a station constructed by our Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) that is completely off the grid, self-powered and produces its own hydrogen via solar power and water. This station is used to fuel the Hydrogen Fuel cell vehicles that they are currently testing.

From what I'm reading, the station produces it own hydrogen. There is no need for distribution. It sounds to me that the only cost after construction would be maintenance and paying the water bill. Unless someone figures out a way to charge us for sunlight.