More nonsense: Hydrogen for an alternate energy source

Darth_Yuthura · June 15, 2009

Throughout this entire debate, there's been something that truly has never been addressed: costs. Yeah, it had been thrown about time and again, but has never actually been answered.

I asked Redhawke what he paid for his hydrogen fuel and the answer was never given. He didn't pay for it... then who did? How can so many be advocating for this glorious hydrogen future when no one has the vaguest idea what the fuel/stations/R&D/infrastructure costs will surmount to? Whenever the electric hybrid comes into the news, everyone cheers on a good step in the right direction, but if that means adding on another $8,000 to the price of the vehicle, how many will be glad to see this?

Right now there are many alternative solutions to transportation energy problems that have been proven to work, but involves steps that interfere with the American lifestyle. Reducing the number of times that people have to drive by carpooling is simple and effective in itself. Promoting mass transit allows the US to power transportation with electricity and from that, various alternative sources. It's an effective economic step to freeing us from dependence on foreign oil; but hydrogen supports actually want us to depend even more so on dirty fuels, or pay through the nose for unreliable (if clean) alternate sources. Don't proclaim that hydrogen is clean... it's only as clean as the energy that produces it. And before pointing to solar or wind, don't forget those combined form less than 1% of the power grid.

Any hydrogen solution (if it works at all) will inevitably add to the US power grid demand (As you must back hydrogen with another power source) And because you still only get 50% back what you invest in hydrogen, that would mean the US will have to increase its electrical output by over 50% (as 30% of our energy demands are for transportation and that energy is independent of the power grid, you have to substitute oil for another source) If all cars are powered by hydrogen, then where is this additional energy supposed to come from?

If anyone says from solar, then you might as well just use that energy for the US power grid and skip the hydrogen process altogether, as it will result in less squandered energy due to the fractional return from the fuel cell.

If anyone has a better idea, I'd like to hear it.

Bimmerman · June 15, 2009

Throughout this entire debate, there's been something that truly has never been addressed: costs. Yeah, it had been thrown about time and again, but has never actually been answered.

I asked Redhawke what he paid for his hydrogen fuel and the answer was never given. He didn't pay for it... then who did? How can so many be advocating for this glorious hydrogen future when no one has the vaguest idea what the fuel/stations/R&D/infrastructure costs will surmount to?

About $500k per station is the grant that CA is currently offering to new hydrogen stations. I will double check that at work tomorrow. That money is intended to completely cover all costs from construction and infrastructure for the station. The cost of hydrogen itself is on par with the cost of gasoline, just measured in $/kg instead of $/gal or $/L.

Whenever the electric hybrid comes into the news, everyone cheers on a good step in the right direction, but if that means adding on another $8,000 to the price of the vehicle, how many will be glad to see this?

Hybrids.....are a step in the wrong direction frankly. They reduce fuel consumption, yes, but push the boundaries of what is possible with the electric motors and drivetrain, not what is possible with the gasoline. Ford has a new gasoline motor that makes stupid silly amounts of horsepower and torque, and gets frankly astonishing fuel mileage on par with a hybrid, all with better emissions. Hybrids are the status symbol for the ecologically gullible.

Adding $8k to the price tag of a car, or something similar, will not fly unless the fuel savings from the hydrogen fuel pay that cost down. Hybrids have an identical issue, just the cost of the hybrid feel-good badge is less than $3k in most cases. People love to save the planet, but money in the wallet is more important for nearly anyone.

Right now there are many alternative solutions to transportation energy problems that have been proven to work, but involves steps that interfere with the American lifestyle. Reducing the number of times that people have to drive by carpooling is simple and effective in itself. Promoting mass transit allows the US to power transportation with electricity and from that, various alternative sources. It's an effective economic step to freeing us from dependence on foreign oil; but hydrogen supports actually want us to depend even more so on dirty fuels, or pay through the nose for unreliable (if clean) alternate sources. Don't proclaim that hydrogen is clean... it's only as clean as the energy that produces it. And before pointing to solar or wind, don't forget those combined form less than 1% of the power grid.

Out of curiosity, where do you live? For the vast majority of american citizens, myself included, mass transit is useful only in big cities, where few people actually live. Most people commute to work via cars since they live hours outside of their jobs where the good houses are. No incentive for public transportation will change that. Furthermore, most big cities have buses that go just about everywhere....why complicate everything by adding rail?(we have amazing bus service in the Denver metro area, and limited light rail.) Mass public transit works inside the city, and for getting around inside said city from work to coffee or what have you, but from home to work, it is frankly silly.

That doesn't even begin to take into account the huge amounts of wasted time, wasted energy, as well as physical and mental stress and exhaustion, from using mass transit. I love my car, I love driving, and it is frankly faster, quicker, less tiring, more fun, and more convenient and comfortable to use. Mass transit is great for people who live in the big city. For everyone else.....it's more of a pain than a boon.

Any hydrogen solution (if it works at all) will inevitably add to the US power grid demand (As you must back hydrogen with another power source) And because you still only get 50% back what you invest in hydrogen, that would mean the US will have to increase its electrical output by over 50% (as 30% of our energy demands are for transportation and that energy is independent of the power grid, you have to substitute oil for another source) If all cars are powered by hydrogen, then where is this additional energy supposed to come from?

This isn't the first time I've said this-- you need to specify clearly what you mean by "hydrogen." Do you mean electrohydrolysis? Do you mean combusting? Fuel cells? Please specify.

I will assume you mean using energy from power plants to split the hydrogen and oxygen from water into their respective gaseous forms. Please cite where your statistics are coming from; they seem bogus to the extreme. I am also not sure at all what you are talking about with the power demands and grid and output and hydrogen: your paragraph makes no sense.

If you mean that gaseous hydrogen requires more energy to produce, from breaking the strong covalent bonds inside the water molecule, than it returns in either consumption or fuel-cell use, you are correct. There are ways of producing hydrogen that are not a net negative, such as aluminum-gallium catalytic conversion of water to gaseous hydrogen and oxygen. Unfortunately, these types of proven processes are in the laboratory experimental stage, not the production stage.

If what you mean is that gaseous hydrogen requires energy to produce, and that we need a source of energy to do so, understand that few power plants in this country operate at 100% capacity. Some operate at or above (CA in particular), but many do not. The best way is to simply build nuclear plants, as that achieves clean energy (no debate please, it's more than clean enough and that's not the point of the thread) and no dependence on fossil fuels.

If anyone says from solar, then you might as well just use that energy for the US power grid and skip the hydrogen process altogether, as it will result in less squandered energy due to the fractional return from the fuel cell.

If anyone has a better idea, I'd like to hear it.

Nuclear.

What do you mean by "fractional return from the fuel cell?" It makes enough power to move the car, or power the shuttle, or ....blah. What it is not is a net positive source of power, nor will it ever be when the source of the hydrogen is hydrolysis.

Darth_Yuthura · June 16, 2009

This isn't the first time I've said this-- you need to specify clearly what you mean by "hydrogen." Do you mean electrohydrolysis? Do you mean combusting? Fuel cells? Please specify.

It's irrelevant to the issue I was bringing up. I am going to give a rhetorical statement that I know people must already have figured out, but just so they know where I am...

Hydrogen is not in itself an energy source like coal, nuclear, or solar. It is a method by which energy can be transfered from a source to its destination. It must be backed by another form of energy and no matter what form that is, any method you use will have a net loss of energy. When you use a chemical reaction to power your vehicle, you will get less energy back than what you used to produce the fuel in the first place.

My source is two years old, so maybe the production methods have improved, but in 2007, the net return was about 54% of what was invested to produce the hydrogen fuel.

What do you mean by "fractional return from the fuel cell?" It makes enough power to move the car, or power the shuttle, or ....blah. What it is not is a net positive source of power, nor will it ever be when the source of the hydrogen is hydrolysis.

Bad wording. You only get a fraction of the energy you originally invested into the hydrogen fuel. There is always going to be a net loss from changing one form of energy to another (solar to electrical, electrical to chemical(hydrogen), chemical back to electrical(fuel cell), electrical to kinetic energy) Might as well just go right from solar to electrical and skip the hydrogen fuel altogether. You only lose about 3% of electricity for each 1000 km it has to be transmitted.

And these powerplants that don't operate so efficiently... that has to also be taken into account if you are outputting hydrogen with that electricity from a power plant. And so how does this 100% powerplant capacity thing make any difference? It would just mean having to build more power plants in order to produce the hydrogen you are advocating for. It might be a means to harness this excess energy that otherwise would be wasted, but beyond that, nothing about it makes sense.

Bimmerman · June 18, 2009

It's irrelevant to the issue..

No, it is absolutely relevant.

...I was bringing up. I am going to give a rhetorical statement that I know people must already have figured out, but just so they know where I am...

Hydrogen is not in itself an energy source like coal, nuclear, or solar. It is a method by which energy can be transfered from a source to its destination.

Please listen to me this time.

What you describe is fuel. "A method of transferring energy" is the definition of fuel. Fuel in the sense of stored potential energy to thermal, sonic, light, kinetic, electric energy. Batteries fall under this definition as well.

Gaseous hydrogen is a fuel, analogous to coal, nuclear, or sunlight.

Gaseous hydrogen can be combusted. So can coal.

Gaseous hydrogen can be combined with gaseous oxygen to create water and electricity. Coal can be liquified and burned in liquid form. Uranium can be split via nuclear fusion to produce byproducts and electricity.

Coal is burned as a fuel to heat water inside the coal-fired power plants. Hence the term "coal fired."

Hydrogen itself, a single molecule that is, does not exist in nature. It does not come in solid or liquid form. It is not a thing. It is a fuel upon which a process must be performed in order to transfer energy.

It must be backed by another form of energy and no matter what form that is, any method you use will have a net loss of energy.

So mining coal and combusting the coal to heat water to spin turbines and compressors to generate electricity is a net loss of energy? Nuclear power is a net loss of energy? Burning gasoline in your lawn mower is a net loss of energy? Um......no.

What IS a net loss is the hydrolysis performed on water to obtain H2 and O2. That is a net loss of energy for the chemical reaction. It does not happen spontaneously in nature, and therefore there must be a net energy input for it to happen. It is also true that less enegy is recovered upon combustion of said H2 than was required to break the H-O bonds. Absolute, verified fact. Fuel cells, whether in cars, the space shuttle, or your toaster, operate at a lower loss, as the energy recovered from recombining H-O is closer to that required to break the bonds.

When you use a chemical reaction to power your vehicle, you will get less energy back than what you used to produce the fuel in the first place.

False. Absolutely false.

Gasoline combustion is a net positive energy. Otherwise it would not have ever been profitable. The production, transport, refining, and purchase all cost a good deal in terms of energy and money, but the energy released upon combustion is far higher and is greatly positive. Well to wheel efficiency is positive, not negative. Therefore, your statement is false and misinformation.

It's true for hydrolysis to produce hydrogen, but is false again for the catalytic conversion of water to H2 and O2. That happens above a certain temperature, and requires significantly less energy to raise the catalyst above 50°C than is released upon H2 combustion or fuel cell shenanigans. This is still lab research stuff, and not likely to come to market anytime soon, but still invalidates your point. Using hydrogen to fuel the car of the future, regardless of powertrain configuration, is not necesarily a net negative.

My source is two years old, so maybe the production methods have improved, but in 2007, the net return was about 54% of what was invested to produce the hydrogen fuel.

Post it. Numbers can be skewed to mean almost anything. The hydrogen fuel industry is in its infancy, and as a result it will cost a lot to develop anything that is not a negative ROI for a while. That doesn't mean it isn't worth pursuing. Furthermore, many powerplants are producing excess energy, so even hydrolysis is a viable option.

Bad wording. You only get a fraction of the energy you originally invested into the hydrogen fuel. There is always going to be a net loss from changing one form of energy to another (solar to electrical, electrical to chemical(hydrogen), chemical back to electrical(fuel cell), electrical to kinetic energy) Might as well just go right from solar to electrical and skip the hydrogen fuel altogether. You only lose about 3% of electricity for each 1000 km it has to be transmitted.

Yes and no. You are correct in that there are losses. That is what companies spend thousands of dollars on engineering R&D in order to reduce these losses. Solar is a joke. It only works profitably in a select few environments on earth. Who in their right mind would buy a solar powered car, house, bus, city, computer in the Pacific Northwest? If 54% (from your missing source) is what you consider a fraction, than you must think a 35% thermally efficient power plant is atrocious.

And these powerplants that don't operate so efficiently... that has to also be taken into account if you are outputting hydrogen with that electricity from a power plant. And so how does this 100% powerplant capacity thing make any difference? It would just mean having to build more power plants in order to produce the hydrogen you are advocating for. It might be a means to harness this excess energy that otherwise would be wasted, but beyond that, nothing about it makes sense.

I don't think you understand my point. Because plants don't run at 100% capacity, there is the headroom to create hydrolysis "plants," to coin a term, that would not require additional power plants or sacrifices on anyone's part. In the case of nuclear power, upping the load on the plant (read: percent of max capacity) doesn't even consume more resources.

Would commercial hydrolysis plants require the conventional powerplants to consume more fuel? Absolutely. Keep in mind that gasoline refineries don't magically operate without power, that steel works don't melt steel without power and fuel, that your computer doesn't run without power, that our entire society runs on electricity. If the powerplant is operating below capacity, or in many cases, producing a surplus of energy, adding another load to the line will not accidentally the whole earth.

Darth_Yuthura · June 18, 2009

So mining coal and combusting the coal to heat water to spin turbines and compressors to generate electricity is a net loss of energy? Nuclear power is a net loss of energy? Burning gasoline in your lawn mower is a net loss of energy? Um......no.

That was not what I was suggesting and you know it. You get less energy back from hydrogen in a fuel cell or combustion than what you used to produce it in the first place. Hydrogen returns less energy from your automobile... much less than what you invested into producing the fuel in the first place. You might as well have just used electricity and you would have had a lot less energy lost in the transfer.

False. Absolutely false.

True absolutely true.

But that also applies to electricity. The difference is that you lose a lot less in the transfer of electricity from the power plant to your home than producing hydrogen fuel with that same electricity and getting even less back than what you invested in the first place.

The ONLY advantage the hydrogen has is that it can be stored where electricity cannot on a large scale.

Would commercial hydrolysis plants require the conventional powerplants to consume more fuel? Absolutely. Keep in mind that gasoline refineries don't magically operate without power, that steel works don't melt steel without power and fuel, that your computer doesn't run without power, that our entire society runs on electricity. If the powerplant is operating below capacity, or in many cases, producing a surplus of energy, adding another load to the line will not accidentally the whole earth.

So you are suggesting that we actually increase our demand for energy in a time when it is becoming increasingly more expensive? There are more subtle ways to deal with our energy crisis that don't require going to extreme lengths as switching to hydrogen power. The best thing would be to find inefficiencies and correct them before demanding more energy altogether.

What I've come to expect of supply/demand, all the focus is on increasing supply indefinitely with little or little concern with on decreasing demand. Hydrogen has an advantage of capturing squandered electricity that is not used during peak demand, but even a 60% RoI is that much energy that otherwise would have been lost. Any ideas that the US switch to hydrogen for most of its transportation needs are really not seeing that there are far easier and more effective steps that should be taken first.

Bimmerman · June 18, 2009

DY, let's agree to disagree. I'm clearly not convincing you, you're clearly not convincing me, and I bet both of us have other things to spend our mental energies on. I'm done with this thread, and I stand by everything I wrote.

Jae Onasi · June 19, 2009

Hydrogen is not in itself an energy source like coal, nuclear, or solar.

Horse hockey. I've put a number of links in this post--please click them so you can learn more about hydrogen. It combusts readily just like other fuels--see the Hindenberg disaster. Hydrogen is the single most common element in the universe. You can actually pull hydrogen directly from the air itself and from numerous other sources besides electrolysis. In fact, the most common way hydrogen is created in industry is pulling hydrogen atoms off of methane via steam reforming. Hydrogen is a byproduct of the reaction of acids and bases (remember your basic chemistry....). We don't need to rely on water electrolysis to create hydrogen. The reason it's used as an energy carrier right now instead of an energy source is that at this time, it takes more energy to create it than burn it. However, there are numerous processes being tested that would make hydrogen production far more energy effective. The reason it's being pursued so seriously is because it burns without the carbon emissions that burning petrochemicals create.

Bimmerman · June 19, 2009

Horse hockey. I've put a number of links in this post--please click them so you can learn more about hydrogen. It combusts readily just like other fuels--see the Hindenberg disaster. Hydrogen is the single most common element in the universe. You can actually pull hydrogen directly from the air itself and from numerous other sources besides electrolysis. In fact, the most common way hydrogen is created in industry is pulling hydrogen atoms off of methane via steam reforming. Hydrogen is a byproduct of the reaction of acids and bases (remember your basic chemistry....). We don't need to rely on water electrolysis to create hydrogen. The reason it's used as an energy carrier right now instead of an energy source is that at this time, it takes more energy to create it than burn it. However, there are numerous processes being tested that would make hydrogen production far more energy effective. The reason it's being pursued so seriously is because it burns without the carbon emissions that burning petrochemicals create.

Exactly on the money! In the course of my job, I see emissions tests from internal combustion hydrogen vehicles. The air going into the car has higher levels of pollutants than what comes out; the car, with a 6L V12, actually cleans the air as it drives. That is why it is pursued so seriously. Once a hydrogen internal combustion infrastructure is set up and operational, a switch to fuel cells becomes that much more probable and feasible.

Darth_Yuthura · June 19, 2009

Horse hockey. I've put a number of links in this post--please click them so you can learn more about hydrogen.

'Hydrogen' on wikipedia?

I've seen various sources that show the energy density of various fuels. Hydrogen actually has a higher energy density than most car fuels at a whopping 120 MJ/kg compared to gasoline at 45, diesel at 48, and methane at 55. Ethanol is horrible at only 30 MJ/Kg of mass. Hydrogen clearly has a higher energy density than many of these fuels we use today, but the matter is how much energy does it take to produce one Kg of compressed Hydrogen? 300 Mega Joules to get back only 120 at best from the fuel cell?

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/alternative-fuels/fuel-cell3.htm

Here's a source I would point to which advocates how clean fuel cells are, yet it didn't address how you're supposed to actually produce it in the first place. Why didn't they include how much energy was lost in the original conversion process to make the hydrogen fuel?

If you didn't, one might ask how much energy was required to produce the hydrogen fuel and where that energy is supposed to come from.

Here's another article that addresses that issue. It assumes you get a 70% powerplant efficiency in producing hydrogen fuel. Then when you take into consideration the other 50% lost in conversion back to electricity, 35% loss due to compression, and another 10% for the battery to motor... you get numbers as low as 17% and 25% efficiency from the original source of energy to the kinetic energy for the vehicle.

That means you invest four times as much energy into hydrogen as you get back... at least when this article was written.

Bimmerman · June 19, 2009

Ugh.

Please post source #2 in which you get the numbers, you reference it but forgot to include it.

Regardless, there is no such thing as free energy; you cannot create energy. The maximum you can achieve is to break even. Otherwise you run counter to the fundamental physical law of conservation of mass and energy-- to sum it up, energy can be neither created nor destroyed. A final efficiency from powerplant and production source of around 25-30 is fantastic when you take all losses into account. (you have read both Jae and I's posts explaining that hydrolysis is far from the only source, yes? If not......)

Please understand that it may take a large investment of energy and money to create a hydrogen infrastructure, but it really is the way forward for cars. Electric cars will never be practical nor possible unless you are a commuter.....noone in their right mind will take a car with a 250 mi range and a 36hr recharge time on a cross country road trip, or even skiing. Gasoline burns and produces a great amount of energy, but it doesn't come close to breaking even. It is, however, profitable to drill, refine, sell, and consume.

Considering that the going rate for automotive H2 is the same price as gasoline for similar quantities (kg instead of gal), H2 is poised to soon begin spreading. It's the same price as gas, the consumer spends no more money to buy it, there is nothing different in fueling up the cars (youtube "top gear honda fcx clarity" or some combo of words)....the only bad thing is people getting their panties in a bunch over the irrelevant higher energy cost to produce hydrogen from hydrolysis.

People will pay for hydrogen. I don't see why it matters to you so much about where the energy to refine it comes from.....I don't see you arguing against supplying gasoline refineries with power; this is the same thing.

Darth_Yuthura · June 19, 2009

The price of energy is highly variable, I assume everyone already knows.

As the price of coal goes up, so would the cost for producing hydrogen. The price of uranium has gone up as well, but because it only represents 10% of the cost that go into nuclear fuel, the price change isn't going to be as steep. If the price of coal doubles, then how much would hydrogen cost then?

Besides, where do you get hydrogen's cost competing with gasoline?

If using solar energy, then the issue of how much energy is lost in the conversion is still very relevant. (What does it matter? It's free) No, you still have to deal with the interest on the capital investment for the solar panels. And remember that if there were a simple solution, it would already have been done.

Jae Onasi · June 19, 2009

'Hydrogen' on wikipedia?

Yep, it''s a good starting point for basic information. I could have quoted an MSDS on it and given you flammability ratings, but I assumed you haven't had the same number of years of chemistry.

Hydrogen clearly has a higher energy density than many of these fuels we use today, but the matter is how much energy does it take to produce one Kg of compressed Hydrogen? 300 Mega Joules to get back only 120 at best from the fuel cell?
(snipped)

Here's a source I would point to which advocates how clean fuel cells are, yet it didn't address how you're supposed to actually produce it in the first place. Why didn't they include how much energy was lost in the original conversion process to make the hydrogen fuel?

Right--that's why I said we need to work on making the hydrogen creation/extraction process more energy efficient in my previous post. If we can do that, we've just created a fuel source that burns without creating CO or CO2. I just wanted to point out that we aren't limited to water electrolysis to create hydrogen.

Bimmerman · June 19, 2009

The price of energy is highly variable, I assume everyone already knows.

And therefore all comparison is uselss? Methinks not.

As the price of coal goes up, so would the cost for producing hydrogen. The price of uranium has gone up as well, but because it only represents 10% of the cost that go into nuclear fuel, the price change isn't going to be as steep. If the price of coal doubles, then how much would hydrogen cost then?

Stop claiming that the cost of hydrogen is directly related to the price of coal. It's not. Coal fired powerplants are also not the only source of power in this country.

Besides, where do you get hydrogen's cost competing with gasoline?

....you didn't search youtube for the hydrogen fuel cell car test, did you?

No matter. Here it is, I implore you to actually watch it this time. Top Gear 2009 Test of the Honda FCX Clarity Fuel Cell Car. Top Gear is an internationally recognized and respected automotive authority. In this video, they drive the FCX and draw conclusions on it. How it relates to this discussion is when they fill the car up. They discover that a kg of H2 costs similar to a gallon of gasoline. (for the lazy, relevant footage is at 3 min mark)

In the video, the price of compressed liquid H2 is $5.00 / kg. As the FCX gets 270 miles to a tank, and an average of 72 miles/kg (Source), that works out to 3.75 kg per tank and $18.75 per tank. Still don't believe me that it is roughly equal to the cost of gasoline in Southern California?

Let's do a hypothetical. Say we take a 2010 Prius, which gets 50 mpg average. Let's restrict the range to the same 270 miles. That takes 5.4 gallons, and at $2.50 a gallon for regular gas, that yields $13.50 to travel 270 miles. As most cars average roughly half of that, I think it's a fair comparison.

If using solar energy, then the issue of how much energy is lost in the conversion is still very relevant. (What does it matter? It's free) No, you still have to deal with the interest on the capital investment for the solar panels. And remember that if there were a simple solution, it would already have been done.

Here's some info on the best competition for hydrolysis, and requires little energy to produce hydrogen gas: Source

You don't seem to understand that it is fully possible to build a hydrogen infrastructure and future without building more power plants. This is the point I've been driving home each time over power plants running well below maximum capacity; all it requires is more fuel to compensate for added load rather than building new plants. That's not a bad thing either. Electricity is a product. It costs money to transmit and generate, it costs money to use. Any facility generating hydrogen will be using, and paying for, energy. How is this a shock to anyone?

Heaven Net · July 4, 2009

In a nutshell, what is Hydrogen Engine Center’s (HEC) main technology and what are its principal applications?

Development of proprietary electronic controls and other technologies to allow for the use of hydrogen and other gaseous fuels for the generation of power. These technologies have applications in many areas, including but not limited to the distributed power industry, airport ground support, co-generation with certain manufacturing processes, buses, marine engines and agricultural irrigation pump systems.

Darth_Yuthura · July 6, 2009

And therefore all comparison is uselss? Methinks not.

Stop claiming that the cost of hydrogen is directly related to the price of coal. It's not. Coal fired powerplants are also not the only source of power in this country.

I already know that. I keep using coal as a reference because it is the most reliable source of energy in the US. Although I favor nuclear more, it does not constitute more than 15-20% of the power grid. However first generation American reactors are starting to be decommissioned, so that number will only drop unless more are build than are taken offline.

If not coal, then which source of energy should I compare it to? I could compare it to nuclear or natural gas, but they don't represent as much of the US power grid as coal. And please don't say solar or wind, as they are not yet a cheap, nor prominent source of energy in the US.

....you didn't search youtube for the hydrogen fuel cell car test, did you?

No matter. Here it is, I implore you to actually watch it this time. Top Gear 2009 Test of the Honda FCX Clarity Fuel Cell Car. Top Gear is an internationally recognized and respected automotive authority. In this video, they drive the FCX and draw conclusions on it. How it relates to this discussion is when they fill the car up. They discover that a kg of H2 costs similar to a gallon of gasoline. (for the lazy, relevant footage is at 3 min mark)

In the video, the price of compressed liquid H2 is $5.00 / kg. As the FCX gets 270 miles to a tank, and an average of 72 miles/kg (Source), that works out to 3.75 kg per tank and $18.75 per tank. Still don't believe me that it is roughly equal to the cost of gasoline in Southern California?

Let's do a hypothetical. Say we take a 2010 Prius, which gets 50 mpg average. Let's restrict the range to the same 270 miles. That takes 5.4 gallons, and at $2.50 a gallon for regular gas, that yields $13.50 to travel 270 miles. As most cars average roughly half of that, I think it's a fair comparison.

I did so and rejected it. Here is another site with a radically different cost.

http://hydrogendiscoveries.wordpress.com/2008/10/14/cost-of-hydrogen-per-kilogram-at-benning-road-station-in-washington-dc/

The consumer cost of hydrogen is not always an accurate way to measure its viability because there are so many financial variables and economic loopholes that can distort the costs that go into producing it. (What do I mean by 'actual costs?') I remember instances when tax credits and subsidies were given for shipments of American exported fuel that had ethanol mixed in and even with 1% gasohol (90% gasoline 10% ethanol) added where the entire tanker qualified for that credit.

Macroeconomics is an extremely distorted system riddled with price floors, tax incentives, patent rights, cost-push inflation, and various other concepts that only make economic sense on a microscopic scale. It may make sense to the growth of certain corporations, but it makes no sense when you invest much more energy into hydrogen fuel than you get back from the vehicles they go into.

Oh, and the site I saw maybe could represent 2% of US transportation demands at the very most. Many anti-gas people say that we can power cars with the waste vegetable oil you get from Mcdonald's instead... but fail to recognize that we don't eat that many french fries.

Still going on the price comparison. Where will all the energy you need to produce hydrogen supposed to come from? You cannot possibly assume that you can replace more than a quarter of the US transportation infrastructure with only the wasted electricity that you salvage through the hydrolysis process. You could almost completely replace gasoline if you were to power all cars with electricity. (Of course that is taking into consideration that you use all electricity when it is demanded and not waste any of it, otherwise you could almost completely power the transportation infrastructure with the grid's waste electricity alone)

You don't seem to understand that it is fully possible to build a hydrogen infrastructure and future without building more power plants. This is the point I've been driving home each time over power plants running well below maximum capacity; all it requires is more fuel to compensate for added load rather than building new plants. That's not a bad thing either. Electricity is a product. It costs money to transmit and generate, it costs money to use. Any facility generating hydrogen will be using, and paying for, energy. How is this a shock to anyone?

look to the bottom of the link.

86% electricity grid to vehicle efficiency vs 25% hydrogen.

So if you demand more energy to produce hydrogen than just using the energy to charge a battery altogether, why bother with the hydrogen at all?

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

I'm sorry, but you must have another source of power to have a hydrogen infrastructure. We in the US have many power plants that are not being used to their fullest capacity and we would do best to switch to hybrid vehicles first to use as much of that wasted electricity as possible before we even consider investing in something that is far less efficient.

Bimmerman · July 9, 2009

I already know that. I keep using coal as a reference because it is the most reliable source of energy in the US. Although I favor nuclear more, it does not constitute more than 15-20% of the power grid. However first generation American reactors are starting to be decommissioned, so that number will only drop unless more are build than are taken offline.

If not coal, then which source of energy should I compare it to? I could compare it to nuclear or natural gas, but they don't represent as much of the US power grid as coal. And please don't say solar or wind, as they are not yet a cheap, nor prominent source of energy in the US.

Solar. Wind.

Just kidding. Let me ask you this: Why do you keep insisting that the consumer cost of gaseous or liquid hydrogen for vehicle consumption is directly related to the cost of energy from a coal-fired or alternative-fueled power plant?

By that line of thinking, the cost of absolutely everything is directly related to the cost of energy stemming from a coal fired power plant. This is the point you don't seem to comprehend: gasoline requires energy and money to refine. So does hydrogen. If they both require energy, one vastly moreso (gasoline) than the other, why has the price of gasoline skyrocketed way in excess of the increasing cost of coal or etc energy? Your metric for hydrogen costs is inherently and deeply flawed.

The cost of energy is not even close to the only cost for hydrogen. Same with gasoline. Why do you keep insisting this is so? Hydrogen does not fuel any power plants. The cost of hydrogen, therefore, is in no way even closely related to the cost of coal. Seriously, stop trying to say it is.

I did so and rejected it. Here is another site with a radically different cost.

http://hydrogendiscoveries.wordpress.com/2008/10/14/cost-of-hydrogen-per-kilogram-at-benning-road-station-in-washington-dc/

Let me get this straight....you looked at video proof of the cost of hydrogen in Los Angeles as of December 14, 2008 (airing of the episode), and compared it with the cost of hydrogen in Washington, DC, from September 4, 2008? You then, upon finding said conflicting sources, chose the earlier source in a different market as true, and the video proof as false? Absolute Genius, that.

Here's why that is a very poor way to discount my evidence, using the cost of Gasoline for both the DC and LA markets over the past year. (source = http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx?time=24, choose any two cities and time frame)

Look at the graph for a minute. Now, take a look at the price of gasoline in September, 2008 in DC. It is roughly $3.66/gal. For LA, same time, it is roughly $3.80/gal. Now, fast forward to December, 2008. DC cost: $1.92/gal. LA cost: $1.75/gal.

Now let's do what you just did. September, DC compared with December, LA: $3.66/gal vs $1.75/gal.

Wow, there's a big difference! The massive decline in cost for gasoline reflects the housing crisis, credit crisis, and the economic crapshoot. The cost of hydrogen would logically fall as well; the cost of damn near everything did. Do you see why your evidence is flawed?

Using the exact same percent difference in gasoline cost (1.75/3.66 = 47.8%), and using it to reduce the cost of hydrogen for different markets and times, we get that the $8.18/kg of H2 in DC on Sept 4, 2008 should be $3.91/kg in LA on Dec 14, 2008. Wow, the Top Gear guys got ripped off at $5.00/kg!!

Regardless, if you took the time to actually read the article you hotlinked, you would notice that they say it takes the hydrogen car $8.18 to travel the same 60 miles that would cost an average 24mpg sedan $9.35. Your article actually proves my point (thanks!): the cost of hydrogen is comparable to conventional fuel. It may cost more per fuel unit, yes, but it costs similar in running costs for a given distance, and far less in maintenance on drivetrain parts due to inherent design (no moving engine parts). Did you read the article or just see that the $8.18 was greater than my $5.00 and therefore I am wrong, without even thinking about it?

The consumer cost of hydrogen is not always an accurate way to measure its viability because there are so many financial variables and economic loopholes that can distort the costs that go into producing it.

No, it is a very valid way. Consumers pay for the fuel, which is sold at a certain price after all economic factors are taken into account. Tax credits, subsidies, investment (private and public), refinery cost (for what unfortunately won't be the last time, it's not just hydrolysis!!!!!!!!!), shipment and transportation cost, profit, wages, infrastructure, taxes, maintenance, etc, are all part of that price you pay at the pump. If the company can not profitably sell the fuel at a price consumers can afford, they will go out of business. Nobody sells at a loss without some means for expected recovery.

The cost may be kept artificially low to generate demand, after which point the increased volume reduces refinery and manufacturing and just about all costs to where they generate significant profits (see oil companies for a perfect example, or for that matter, any large company that builds and markets goods. Profit through volume). A company must do this in the beginning in order to create a customer base from which to grow. This is why the start up cost for any new business, product, or company is so high. The initial investment (tax benefits, subsidies, private/public dollars, etc) pays for the initial few years until enough people buy and use the product for it to become profitable.

(What do I mean by 'actual costs?') I remember instances when tax credits and subsidies were given for shipments of American exported fuel that had ethanol mixed in and even with 1% gasohol (90% gasoline 10% ethanol) added where the entire tanker qualified for that credit.

Sleazy, yes. Not really relevant at all, absolutely.

Macroeconomics is an extremely distorted system riddled with price floors, tax incentives, patent rights, cost-push inflation, and various other concepts that only make economic sense on a microscopic scale. It may make sense to the growth of certain corporations, but it makes no sense when you invest much more energy into hydrogen fuel than you get back from the vehicles they go into.

Um....wow.

Let's break your statement down. You did read my last paragraph, yes? Good, so I don't need to repeat myself. Let's start from a different angle. Do you know what investment is? Investment is not just public and private dollars thrown at a company in the hopes that something happens. Governments often invest in something through the use of tax incentives, grants, and subsidies. Tesla Motors, an electric car company, has made liberal use of all three. Why should hydrogen be denied that? In any case, how is this bad? These governmental assistance items are exactly what is needed for a product to lift off the ground in anything beyond the microscopic scale.

Side note: you're against patent rights? You really don't know how stupid that point of view is, nor how vitally important patent rights are to the general economy and growth. The protection of intellectual property is a cornerstone of a person's ability and right to earn a living. If I invent a product that has the potential to change the world, shouldn't I have the right to prevent (via suing) the blatant copying of my invention by, say, the Chinese? If I don't, all the money, time, and energy I spent inventing, perfecting, and producing it have gone to waste, and I am left with nothing. The lack of intellectual property is a very communistic idea, young padawan. You're regurgitating material you read in a classroom again, aren't you?

And yet again, let's use gasoline or diesel fuels as an example for comparison with hydrogen. The energy used to recover the crude oil, refine it, and transport it is never recovered by the process of consuming it. Why do you expect hydrogen fuel to be any different? The reason gasoline and diesel are profitable, volume considerations aside, is because the companies make profit on every barrel sold when all taxes, subsidies, energy costs (i.e. your argument in its entirety), transportation, construction, maintenance, marketing, and more, are taken into account.

Are you truly naive enough to think that hydrogen will be any different? Oil companies used government tax benefits, incentives, subsidies, grants, and more to get started and create the infrastructure we have today to sell fuel to our hungry personal conveyance appliances. Why is it suddenly bad to extend the exact same helping hand to a far cleaner source of mobility?

Oh, and the site I saw maybe could represent 2% of US transportation demands at the very most. Many anti-gas people say that we can power cars with the waste vegetable oil you get from Mcdonald's instead... but fail to recognize that we don't eat that many french fries.

And, yet again, you don't list your source. Your statement is wondefully useless. Just because it's on the internet doesn't make it true. I have first hand knowledge of what I'm talking about, do you have anything beyond websites?

As for the biodiesel example, many people pointing out that we don't eat that many french fries fail to recognize that there are more than just a few restaurants using vegetable oil that goes to waste, i.e. italian, mexican, wendy's, etc etc. Biodiesel also can be created from any source of biological waste. As it is not relevant to our discussion, I won't go into it any further, except to say that in my hometown there are numerous biodiesel pumps at gas stations that are significantly cheaper than regular diesel or gasoline.

Still going on the price comparison. Where will all the energy you need to produce hydrogen supposed to come from?

Where does all the energy that is used to produce gasoline come from? The electric power grid connected to domestic power plants. They pay for the energy they use, just like anyone else. Just like hydrogen production and refinery facilities do. Why is it a shock to you that there is no free energy?

You cannot possibly assume that you can replace more than a quarter of the US transportation infrastructure with only the wasted electricity that you salvage through the hydrolysis process.

No, I do not, especially since your point is absolutely nonsensical. "The wasted electricity salvaged through the hydrolysis process" makes no sense, as the definition of nonsensical would indicate. I am going to assume that you mean "using the energy supplied to the electrical grid that isn't used to power hydrogen production facilities." Notice how I was far less vague and did not use the word "hydrolysis?" As I, Jae, and others have pointed out time and time again, there are more options than just hydrolysis, which is the most expensive, most energy-consuming, and most time-consuming option available. Why the hell would anyone use it? Again, stop insisting that hydrogen production = hydrolysis, you just prove that you haven't read any of the posts that aren't yours.

As for the meaning behind your words, no I do not assume that. I know that the hydrogen production plants pay for the energy they use, and once the electrical grid can no longer sustain all the loads connected to it, be they houses, refineries, streetlamps, airports, office buildings, fountains, or steelworks, they will increase capacity by either renovating current plants to produce more power (eeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaasily possible due to the ancient plant designs we still have) or by adding sources to the grid.

To turn your question on you, you can't possibly assume that the construction of a hydrogen fuel production center will suddenly use all the energy in the electrical grid, prompting new plants to be built? You also can't possibly assume that they wouldn't pay for the energy they consume? Finally, you can't possibly assume that the electrical company would simply raise the cost for everyone rather than charge more for the loads using more energy? Have you ever paid an electrical bill?

You could almost completely replace gasoline if you were to power all cars with electricity. (Of course that is taking into consideration that you use all electricity when it is demanded and not waste any of it, otherwise you could almost completely power the transportation infrastructure with the grid's waste electricity alone)

No, you can't. Not even close.

Most current electric cars have a range of 50 miles. Let's be generous and say they have an effective range of 200 miles, to include the Tesla in our calculations. The Tesla, and all electric cars for that matter, have either a smart charging mode taking but a few hours, or a long lower amperage charging mode, taking upwards of 16 hours.

Aside from normal house-office-house commuting, how can you possibly think an electric car is a suitable replacement for the car you use today? If you live, like many do, an hour away from your job, that is approximately 30 miles when rush hour traffic is accounted for. Each way. That 60 mile there and back again commute is beyond the capabilities of nearly any electric car available for purchase today, save the hyper expensive Tesla roadster. Unless you live really close to the office, an electric car doesn't make sense.

Ask any parent how long their daily commute is, from home to school to work to lunch to work to school to soccer to grocery store to hardware store to home to bar to home, etc. Many people put over 25 miles on their car a day. Many put over 200 miles a day. How do you expect an electric car to manage that?

Furthermore, how do you expect to solve the recharging issue? Say your daily commute is 200 miles, but your car only makes it 100 without recharging. Your home docking station charges it in 5 hours, but your away-from-home (a la Tesla and others) charger takes 18 hours. Do you see the stupidity in this?

Finally, how do you take a road trip from Chicago to Detroit to visit relatives in an electric car? It takes about eight hours by conventional vehicle, but would take numerous days with an electric car due to charging time.

This is the primary reason nobody is seriously considering all electric vehicles for anything but inner city commuting. Fuel cells use hydrogen to create electricity; they are a mini power plant. Hydrogen combustion cars a la BMW's Hydrogen7, burn hydrogen to make pistons and crankshafts rotate and move the vehicle (also, for the Hydrogen7, it will burn Gasoline in case you can't find H2.). The emissions for these cars are absurdly clean. The Hydrogen7 was widely reported for cleaning the air as it drove. I have seen test results that confirm this fact. Fuel cells are even cleaner, as there is no combustion present.

Now, you will undoubtedly bring up the fact that the raw materials-tailpipe (i.e. everything lumped together) emissions aren't so clean. Compared to the identical measurement for gasoline vehicles, they are orders of magnitude different.

look to the bottom of the link.

86% electricity grid to vehicle efficiency vs 25% hydrogen.

So if you demand more energy to produce hydrogen than just using the energy to charge a battery altogether, why bother with the hydrogen at all?

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

That link says nothing about electrical grid to vehicle efficiency. Also I have a good feeling that the 25% efficiency will increase. However, it is pointless to discuss simply efficiencies. Electric vehicles aren't practical for numerous reasons, many of which I have stated above. Hydrogen is a much better alternative to pure electric vehicles, or even eco-cred gas/hybrid plug ins. Hydrogen cars have lower emissions, lower fuel consumption/higher fuel economy, and produce markedly more power per kilogram of fuel than gas/electric, diesel/electric, gas, or diesel cars. This is verified fact. Efficiency is not the end-all be-all, efficiency without sacrificing too much is. Hydrogen delivers that, the others do not.

Remember the vehement opposition you got in the Suburban Sprawl thread? That was due to your insistence that efficiency is paramount, and that comfort, convenience, and ease of living be damned. Same exact thing goes here. Electric cars are the most efficient, there is no denying that. They are NOT convenient, comfortable, or easy to live with. People don't want to be stuck 300 miles from anywhere. Engineers try to make things efficient. Engineers are useless if they do not also make them usable, practical, or attractive to purchasers. Electric cars, while engineering marvels, fail the first test: not usable in the real world for enough people.

I'm sorry, but you must have another source of power to have a hydrogen infrastructure.

Where do I say power plants would not provide the source? I'm sorry, but you are mistaken in your belief that we should avoid developing burgeoning technology due to it actually costing energy. Nothing is free.

We in the US have many power plants that are not being used to their fullest capacity and we would do best to switch to hybrid vehicles first to use as much of that wasted electricity as possible before we even consider investing in something that is far less efficient.

Hybrids are a band-aid. Diesels produce lower emissions and return equal or better fuel economy than hybrids do. Plug in hybrids are a band-aid on a band-aid. Diesel hybrids would actually be an intelligent move, but are still a band aid. Many plain gasoline cars in Europe get equal or better emissions and fuel economy than hybrids do, they just lack the elitist liberal eco-nazi cred and name recognition.

Why throw money at a solution that does nothing to alleviate our problems instead of throwing it at a solution that does?

Nedak · July 9, 2009

(This BBCode requires its accompanying plugin to work properly.)

It's extremely feasible and was developed a long long time ago.

The fact that people think that it's some sort of scam is absurd. Do research.

"Stanley Meyer died suddenly on 21 March 1998 after dining at a restaurant. An autopsy report by the Franklin County, Ohio coroner concluded that Meyer had died of a cerebral aneurysm, but conspiracy theorists insist that he was poisoned to suppress the technology, and that oil companies and the United States government were involved in his death"

mimartin · July 12, 2009

I've deleted the ad hoc post and requested that those resorting to ad hoc rewrite and resubmit them without the ad hoc. Any future personal attacks will result in more than merely a deleted post or two.

Darth_Yuthura · July 12, 2009

Okay I'm not trying to frustrate people; my interest is in the US getting its energy priorities in order. I will admit here and now that hydrogen will likely be what's fueling US cars in the year 2059, but that is not what is in its best interest today. There is going to be a complex and systematic withdrawal from the use of oil and an increase in the demand for electricity. Hydrogen should only come into the equation when electricity cannot substitute for a chemical fuel.

-------

Where does the energy come from that produces the hydrogen?

http://www.oilcrash.com/articles/steps.htm

It is dependent upon another source in order to work within an economy. This site probably explains all my concerns and I've checked with some of his sources to ensure he was credible.

If it is generated from the power grid, then hydrogen is 50% coal energy, 20% nuclear energy, 20% natural gas energy, 10% from other sources.

http://energyanalysis.org/2008/12/15/686/

Given that this is so, hydrogen fuel is NOT clean... it's just that the emissions don't originate from the vehicle. They originate from the source of the power plant that produces the fuel. Sorry, but energy isn't free. Even from perpetual sources, it is only going to become more expensive. (Interest on capital, repair, financial costs)

Even that precious coal I speak so highly of doesn't come cheap (10,000 tons/day per GW) And being the most dirty fuel there is (One plant emitting more waste per year than all the nuclear reactors in the US over 60 years), I don't support coal as much as nuclear, but it does represent a safety net by which we can tap into an abundant source of energy for hundreds of years.

As much as I would like wind and solar, they have proven to be somewhat... unreliable. And considering that they are outputting less than 1% with a maximum potential of 20% of the power grid. Beyond that and you will get unacceptably high levels of brownouts. The only real clean energy we can truly rely on is nuclear. It is also the most economic, but it is not favored by most US citizens who are still afraid of meltdowns, think they are the same first-generation reactors of the early 60's.

As for hydrogen...

The US will inevitably have to convert from oil to a substitute for transportation demands. As of today, demand and supply for oil are both increasing, but supply is rising slower than demand. When peak oil output is reached, the price for the fuel WILL skyrocket and it will have to be replaced. It is not a question of if, but when that happens. The issue before us is how to best make the transition from gasoline and diesel to a substitute.

Check the source below and evaluate scenario 6.

https://eed.llnl.gov/flow/pdf/ucrlTR204891.pdf

Compare it to scenario 8 and the difference in electrical output is drastically different. Nearly a 50% difference in electrical output from using hybrid vehicles than with hydrogen achieving greater than 50% efficiency. Oil dependence is higher in scenario 6 as well, but electrical demand increased by only 10%. (45 quads vs. 60 quads)

This source is difficult to interpret, so this will likely yield more questions than answers.

The difference between hydrogen and electricity is that hydrogen can be stored as potential energy where as electricity more or less has to be used as generated. When it is stored though, lithium hydride batteries achieve a 86% grid-to-motor efficiency where as hydrogen can be as low as 25%.

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

Darth Avlectus · July 13, 2009

Although I do value the environmental impact being minimized, I really weigh the economic viability most heavily. Nuclear is the more economic and environmentally friendly energy source. The limitation of nuclear is that it has a huge capital cost before it can produce electricity, but a lower operating cost.

Not biologically. I'm not an expert on Nuclear Science by any stretch, but I do know (from my hours of searches on Grolier/GME95 and Encarta '98 as a kid) that the types of radiation dealt with in nuclear is inoizing and non-ionizing or irradiative. If I had to guess, it is the irradiative that is the culprit for radiation poisoning with nuclear related stuff. (Ionizing being the combustive stuff that goes "kaboom"!).

Once it is spent, it is essetially poisonous waste emitting equally toxic radtion. With a tremendously huge half life. Not cost effective to refine, though it can be done--or so I hear. But most of the time it is just dumped. That is a real problem. We run out of space and need more and more.

Point is this stuff is poisonous in ways most of us probably can't even imagine and will make environments that it gets into a contaminated NIGHTMARE for a long long time. UN-ininhabitable for god only knows how long (like what, 25,000 years?). Nothing will be safe to eat or drink from there, or in there, and who knows what kinds of exposure you get by mere proximity or breathing the same air.

I think people are rightfully skeptical and dead set against having it stored in ther back yards. Like the whole Yucca Mtn. NV bit (which the way it has played out since the 70s, I think, is uber bull**** BTW).

So while it might be environmentally friendly, it isn't biologically friendly.

Hydrogen is like that to a degree, but can recharge faster and has a range similar to a gasoline-powered car. Problem is that it takes more energy to produce than is returned, not part of the transportation infrastructure, expensive, and many other issues.

Huh? If by hydrogen you mean gaseous, fine, except for the whole "charge" part. If you meant by the more battery-like Fuel Cell, you can charge those but that is not easily swapped in for from Gasoline--sounds to me you are not making the distinction between fuel cell and hydrogen gas.

First, hydrogen as a fuel cell source is decades in the future for a nationally viable infrastructure. I am fully aware of the Honda FCX and such, but there is no infrastructure to make them accepted, and they cost far too much. We need a dual-fuel, a "flex fuel" if you will, hydrogen and gasoline vehicle to create the demand for the infrastructure (i.e. BMW's Hydrogen 7). Only then will fuel cells take off.

Ah, but of course. 2 Fuels. The only real technical issue I see arising is the tuning of the vehicle's combustion to make it work best. This may not necessarily be so for Hydrogen gas and gasoline, but in other methods like diesel/food oil it will be. Still for the time being I agree, dual swap fueling would make a good bridge for the infrastructure. Eventually paving the way for fuel cell sper batteries in electric cars.

My proselytizing aside, the concept of hydrogen as a fuel is sound....generally. *brevity* (electrolysis and its associated downfalls quickly summed up as 1> efficiency:production ratio 2>delivery of fuel to combustion)

Yes, there are some major fundamental troubles with this process. Electrolysis.

Companies like Information Unlimited even sell it to DIY evil geniuses @ home wanting to do some R&D to help the process along of improving it and eliminating flaws. http://amazing1.com/hydrogen_fuel.htm

As a starting point of course.

I sincerely hope you mean electrolysis to get the hydrogen. It's only feasible when the plant is producing excess energy, as no matter how much you cross your fingers and pray, breaking the water molecules into H2 and O2 consumes more energy than you will gain.

Bingo. I'm afraid we're stuck here.

I agree in principle. However, the technology for realistic road-trip capable electric cars (not <40 mi ranges, that's pathetic) is a good ways off. Subways, electric buses, and electric trains are really the only good uses, as they follow predictable and planable routes, and have no need to store energy onboard.

Not to mention from an electrical/electronic standpoint battery/capacitance abilities along with other components introduces a whole world of problems that further complicate the issue on top of exponentially decreasing efficiency rate for transferral of power, power quality, etc.

All true. Furthermore, in an internal combustion engine, hydrogen makes significantly more power on less fuel than gasoline does. In simple terms, 600 hp where there was once 450 hp, same fuel economy or better. Granted, that requires tuning, fuel systems changes, etc etc.

I believe this pretty much answered (at least in part what should/could be done) Darth Yuthura's challenge about how we should expunge the faults, flaws, and inefficiencies as much as possible before moving forth to a new source of power for our infrastructure.

What is NOT feasable with hydrogen is converting the cars on the road to run it. Can it be done? Yes. Is it safe or cheap? No. Everyone on the planet agrees that Fuel Cells are the future. In order to get from here to there, we need to embrace a bridging technology--i.e. duel fuel IC hydrogen/gasoline cars. Once the infrastructure (and all the issues with standardizing it are worked out) exist, the hydrogen fuel cell and IC future will happen. Just don't expect it anytime soon.

QFT. That's how trends generally have changed from one to another--so I don't see why this cannot be the answer as well as a sign of the times.

I want to go more into it but right now it is 1:20 AM and I'm dozing off. G'nite, I'll check this later.

Darth_Yuthura · July 13, 2009

Once it is spent, it is essetially poisonous waste emitting equally toxic radtion. With a tremendously huge half life. Not cost effective to refine, though it can be done--or so I hear. But most of the time it is just dumped. That is a real problem. We run out of space and need more and more.

Point is this stuff is poisonous in ways most of us probably can't even imagine and will make environments that it gets into a contaminated NIGHTMARE for a long long time. UN-ininhabitable for god only knows how long (like what, 25,000 years?). Nothing will be safe to eat or drink from there, or in there, and who knows what kinds of exposure you get by mere proximity or breathing the same air.

The quantity of nuclear waste is very small compared to the output of energy you get from the fuel. In 60 years, the US has accumulated roughly 40,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel... that's about the size of a battleship. For the energy that those 100 or so reactors in the US have produced, the volume of waste is less than a single coal plant produces in one year... granted that fly ash isn't the same as gamma radiation, but nuclear waste products can be contained and confined to locations of choice.

Huh? If by hydrogen you mean gaseous, fine, except for the whole "charge" part. If you meant by the more battery-like Fuel Cell, you can charge those but that is not easily swapped in for from Gasoline--sounds to me you are not making the distinction between fuel cell and hydrogen gas.

I used 'recharge' because the literal definition applied to both kinds of vehicles. (As in charging a battery or refilling a tank)

Not to mention from an electrical/electronic standpoint battery/capacitance abilities along with other components introduces a whole world of problems that further complicate the issue on top of exponentially decreasing efficiency rate for transferral of power, power quality, etc.

I believe this pretty much answered (at least in part what should/could be done) Darth Yuthura's challenge about how we should expunge the faults, flaws, and inefficiencies as much as possible before moving forth to a new source of power for our infrastructure.

Thank-you, it's good to see someone not so much agreeing with me, but trying to bridge the gap between two separate lines of thought.

I would also have been for the idea of more mass transit, but most people are just going to flat-out refuse it. I think that it might have to come to establishing a system like a third rail to eliminate the need for onboard storage of electricity. I would be much more in favor of broadcasted energy than anything else, but that may be too idealistic to ever become a reality.

Nedak · July 13, 2009

I guess nobody likes my post. psh

Also, we can even run cars on air!

(This BBCode requires its accompanying plugin to work properly.)

But will the oil companies let that happen?

Darth Avlectus · July 13, 2009

^^^I actually meant to acknowledge your first post. While that's cool, I do not like how he called what was quite obviously electrolysis, a "fuel cell". Shame too, he was onto something good. Your post here reminds me of "Who killed the electric car", somewhat. Do you have other sources besides CNN? That would be cool if you did.

The quantity of nuclear waste is very small compared to the output of energy you get from the fuel. In 60 years, the US has accumulated roughly 40,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel... that's about the size of a battleship. For the energy that those 100 or so reactors in the US have produced, the volume of waste is less than a single coal plant produces in one year... granted that fly ash isn't the same as gamma radiation, but nuclear waste products can be contained and confined to locations of choice.

Very true, but with that solution lies some snags during the storage period of its effective half life:

a> containment methods will eventually degrade and require replacement (NOT a pretty prospect, especially considering what it entails in the first place)

b> site considerations; there is a good *reason* why Yucca Mtn. is still being fought tooth and nail--it's right on a HUGE fault line between 2 tectonic plates. Something is bound to happen in 25,000 years. I also have my doubts about the nuclear activity being neutralized when lava streams swallow the waste...also downhill and south of Yucca Mtn. is Las Vegas and Los Angeles...lava in that scenario is already bad enough hitting massively populated areas, do you really want to risk it now being radioactive lava?

c> Transporting it, there in the first place will be risky, take a long time, and will be very expensive regardless of success or (god forbid) failure.

I would say refine it because being economically inefficient far outweighs the risks otherwise, but unfortunately we're already in a hurt for money in this current economic climate. I don't want there to be riots over a 20% tax level, either.

I used 'recharge' because the literal definition applied to both kinds of vehicles. (As in charging a battery or refilling a tank)

Thank you for clarifying.

Thank-you, it's good to see someone not so much agreeing with me, but trying to bridge the gap between two separate lines of thought.

You're welcome.

I would also have been for the idea of more mass transit, but most people are just going to flat-out refuse it. I think that it might have to come to establishing a system like a third rail to eliminate the need for onboard storage of electricity.

Well, most people won't pay a state tax for something that doesn't even come close to where they live, enough to help them in any significant way. I.E. California. So many rural areas with citizens that pay taxes, yet the proposed and expensive rail system won't come near the majority of them outside the cities.

I would be much more in favor of broadcasted energy than anything else, but that may be too idealistic to ever become a reality.

Think of broadcasted energy this way:

For one, we know RF and EMF radiation can be harmful if we're exposed to it enough...If we had all of our power lines replaced by wireless radiative power (I'll get to the disparaging of efficiency in a moment), how many more times of exposure would we get on a constant basis, especially considering if we're already constantly exposed from our modern lifestyles? (hint it is exponential and on orders of magnitude larger)

The other thing: wireless induction to power things as opposed to direct contact. Sounds nice but unfortunately it is just not as efficient. Unless Tesla really did discover/develop a high lossless transmission method with a 94% efficiency as opposed to the roughly 80-87% efficiency of direct contact methods commonly employed--then we just have to discover how he did it IF he even did it at all.

I don't know why, but it just simply isn't as efficient.

If you wanted to test that theory of efficiency, there are power supply circuits available for things like fluorescent tubes or even gas lasers utilizing both direct and RF methods. While RF methods have little maintenance required over long periods of usage, that simply isn't worth it if the costs to run it more than make up for what you'd save on maintenance. Which really sucks, too. Which again totally ignores the fact that we're being bathed in this radiative energy that does, god only knows what.

The reason nothing is 100% efficient of course is that everything has some level of pure resistance to it and that loses are always inevitable.

Bimmerman · July 13, 2009

Okay I'm not trying to frustrate people; my interest is in the US getting its energy priorities in order. I will admit here and now that hydrogen will likely be what's fueling US cars in the year 2059, but that is not what is in its best interest today. There is going to be a complex and systematic withdrawal from the use of oil and an increase in the demand for electricity. Hydrogen should only come into the equation when electricity cannot substitute for a chemical fuel.

Neither am I, I apologize for the antagonizing. Let's bury the hatchet.

To be completely honest, I see hydrogen powering cars in the next 20-30 years rather exclusively, and for a while afterwards. After probably 30 years from now, electric car technology will have caught up to the point of being a suitable replacement for a gasoline car for all the reasons I currently malign them for.

However, until that point is reached (technological, not a set number of years), the only electric cars will be short range commuters, cars like the Chevy Volt (40mi electric range, and a gasoline generator onboard...call it a gasoline fuel cell-ish car), and "halo" cars like the Tesla Roadster and Model S. None of those are suitable replacements for the majority of Americans, but are good options for second or third cars (Volt excluded due to gasoline engine). I see the electric car being more a toy of the rich for a long time, at least until technology catches up with reality.

Where does the energy come from that produces the hydrogen?

http://www.oilcrash.com/articles/steps.htm

It is dependent upon another source in order to work within an economy. This site probably explains all my concerns and I've checked with some of his sources to ensure he was credible.

If it is generated from the power grid, then hydrogen is 50% coal energy, 20% nuclear energy, 20% natural gas energy, 10% from other sources.

http://energyanalysis.org/2008/12/15/686/

I don't dispute that. What I do dispute is the idea that hydrogen is another form of coal powered energy. I see it much the same way as any raw fuel; gasoline, coal, hydrogen, all require power/energy from some source to extract the raw materials from the earth, the air, the water, oil shale, cow farts, etc, and are thus all based on 50% coal, 20% nuclear, 20% NG, 10% other. To my way of thinking, claiming hydrogen is more dependent on a particular energy source than another is foolish, as any raw material requires processing/mining/"acquisition" to be usable (eg, uranium, coal, gas, crude oil, hydrogen, etc).

Given that this is so, hydrogen fuel is NOT clean... it's just that the emissions don't originate from the vehicle. They originate from the source of the power plant that produces the fuel. Sorry, but energy isn't free. Even from perpetual sources, it is only going to become more expensive. (Interest on capital, repair, financial costs)

Again, no dispute. It isn't clean if you look at the total emissions from the fuel source and its backing energy source. However, that same statement of mine works equally well for any fuel: gasoline, by the same metric, is far 'dirtier' than hydrogen. The difference is that while both have unavoidable power plant emissions, the emissions from the device consuming the fuel are several orders of magnitude different. In the case of combustion hydrogen, it cleans the air as it drives; in the case of fuel cells, it doesn't clean the air but doesn't emit anything aside from water and are thusly even cleaner than hydrogen combustion cars.

And yes, it will only become more expensive. However, as that is an unavoidable reality, it makes sense to invest in a relatively renewable fuel source for personal mobility so that we are no longer paying for a rapidly decreasing supply of energy that we cannot control. Initially, the energy cost to develop both fuels will be massively greater, but as gasoline use is phased out (aside from gearheads like me who hate even automatics, let alone hybrids or these newfangled things called "catalytic converters." That was a joke....on cat converters), the energy usage for hydrogen production will be about the same as it once was for gasoline.

Since hydrogen is a more efficient fuel, it would, in theory, not require as much to be refined, and thus less fuel supplied to stations and thus less energy consumed. That's highly idealistic though, but a remote possibility.

Even that precious coal I speak so highly of doesn't come cheap (10,000 tons/day per GW) And being the most dirty fuel there is (One plant emitting more waste per year than all the nuclear reactors in the US over 60 years), I don't support coal as much as nuclear, but it does represent a safety net by which we can tap into an abundant source of energy for hundreds of years.

I am all for nuclear power. My dad is a consultant on reactor engineering, and as a result I've been exposed to the engineering side of what goes into the things for a good while. The sheer amount of safety margins and studies that are done on our current reactors are mind-bottling, and has convinced me at least that they are beyond safe. Chernobyl was an antiquated design, even by standards back then. No US plant has ever been that same design. Too bad they went and screwed it all up for everyone.

As for coal, it is a very dirty fuel. I have toured our local power plant, and while it still emits rather iffy particles and massive amounts of CO2 (unavoidable due to the combustion of carbon based fuels.....nothing you can do or catalyze away really), it is a very clean and impressive facility. The real reason they still exist in the face of hydro, wind, solar, nuclear, etc plants is the insanely cheap price of coal. The plant itself doesn't care what powers it, all it needs is a certain amount of heat to be transferred to the working fluid in the turbine/compressor part of the system (for combustion/nuclear based plants.....understandably hydro, wind, solar work on different principles).

As much as I would like wind and solar, they have proven to be somewhat... unreliable. And considering that they are outputting less than 1% with a maximum potential of 20% of the power grid. Beyond that and you will get unacceptably high levels of brownouts. The only real clean energy we can truly rely on is nuclear. It is also the most economic, but it is not favored by most US citizens who are still afraid of meltdowns, think they are the same first-generation reactors of the early 60's.

See above. I agree with you on all counts.

An interesting thing I was shown by a coworker is a new solar plant being built in the Saharan Desert, which is purportedly able to power about a third of continental Europe. o_O

As for hydrogen...

The US will inevitably have to convert from oil to a substitute for transportation demands. As of today, demand and supply for oil are both increasing, but supply is rising slower than demand. When peak oil output is reached, the price for the fuel WILL skyrocket and it will have to be replaced. It is not a question of if, but when that happens. The issue before us is how to best make the transition from gasoline and diesel to a substitute.

Yup. No arguments yet.

Check the source below and evaluate scenario 6.

https://eed.llnl.gov/flow/pdf/ucrlTR204891.pdf

Let me stop you there. I get an 'invalid security certificate' when I try to access it....can you summarize the different scenarios? I can't analyze or do any comparisons as-is.

Compare it to scenario 8 and the difference in electrical output is drastically different. Nearly a 50% difference in electrical output from using hybrid vehicles than with hydrogen achieving greater than 50% efficiency. Oil dependence is higher in scenario 6 as well, but electrical demand increased by only 10%. (45 quads vs. 60 quads)

This source is difficult to interpret, so this will likely yield more questions than answers.

Yea....especially when I can't see it. Not blaming you, as that's a website issue on a secure server (https and .gov). Odd though that its not a public website considering its url.

The difference between hydrogen and electricity is that hydrogen can be stored as potential energy where as electricity more or less has to be used as generated. When it is stored though, lithium hydride batteries achieve a 86% grid-to-motor efficiency where as hydrogen can be as low as 25%.

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

Hydrogen is as much potential energy as gasoline. Technically, they are potential chemical energy, and are released into thermal energy when combusted, or in case of fuel cells, potential chemical -> electrical.

As for the efficiency issue.....always remember that it is just a number. Sacrificing usability for a massive increase in efficiency isn't a profitable decision unless the car itself is specifically designed to not be a replacement for your Camry or BMW or Ford. Cars like the Tesla Roadster get away with this, because it's a toy car....almost nobody will seriously try to daily drive a roadster, especially when filling up or recharging is such a time waster.

Efficiencies can be a great way to compare things, but ultimately meaningless. Say a current Ford Focus gets about 27mpg on average (more or less accurate). It is a very small hatchback that is designed for urban commuting and 1-2 people max, not for lugging things. My Subaru Legacy Wagon gets about 23mpg average when I'm not driving like I stole it (admittedly rare....what's the point of a redline if the engine never sees it?). This car carries 4-5 people in comfort, can carry 5 people worth of skis and gear, or bikes, or pull a lightweight trailer, has awd, and is unstoppable in snow. If you need such utility, doesn't the lowered ultimate fuel efficiency seem worth it? Another example: my race car gets about 20mpg average because I only drive it like I stole it despite its age. It has no rear seat anymore, harnesses, ultra sticky tires, a stiff suspension, and IIRC about 1.5 working speakers. It really isn't that useful for carrying anything of consequence, but gets over 74% of the efficiency of the hypothetical Focus.

Do you see what I mean by ultimate efficiency being less important that projected vehicle use? Electric cars are short range commuting cars now, and for the foreseeable future. Hydrogen cars already are acceptable replacements for conventional cars, aside from the whole lack of H2 pumps in most cities.

Ah, but of course. 2 Fuels. The only real technical issue I see arising is the tuning of the vehicle's combustion to make it work best. This may not necessarily be so for Hydrogen gas and gasoline, but in other methods like diesel/food oil it will be. Still for the time being I agree, dual swap fueling would make a good bridge for the infrastructure. Eventually paving the way for fuel cell sper batteries in electric cars.

Yup. Actually the Hydrogen 7 is a fully working vehicle produced on the regular assembly line. The car's 6L V12 outputs under 300hp, which is far from fantastic considering the same motor on gasoline makes 444hp, but this motor is tuned to run both fuels. Because both hydrogen and gasoline operate on the same Otto combustion cycle, this is possible. Diesel/hydrogen isn't possible due to the different combustion cycles, though diesel/food oil/biodiesel is possible and common actually. Not really the same though, I don't know of anyone doing a dual fuel on a diesel though.

The BMW engineers have stated numerous times that if they were not required to run both fuels (there is a video on youtube of Jay Leno driving this car on both fuels), they could massage nearly 600hp from the engine with identical or better fuel economy. 444 vs 600, same economy, sign me the hell up! It really is a matter of tuning for a dual fuel car.

Now, nobody needs 600hp except me, but scale down the motor and suddenly the anemic 1.2L motors in Europe actually have metaphorical....round objects...rather than praying for a tailwind.

Everyone agrees that a bridging technology is necessary for hydrogen to take off, but for whatever reason, only BMW is designing the bridging one; everyone else is perfecting fuel cells. That's great....but....that time is way off.

I would also have been for the idea of more mass transit, but most people are just going to flat-out refuse it. I think that it might have to come to establishing a system like a third rail to eliminate the need for onboard storage of electricity. I would be much more in favor of broadcasted energy than anything else, but that may be too idealistic to ever become a reality.

The only way I can think of that being feasible for the majority of Americans is to imbed such a third rail under the asphalt and have an array of inductors picking up the electric fields much like current electric buses and trains. The issue arises though, as that is a seriously MASSIVE amount of asphalt to tear up and modify. A physical third rail is also possible, but that eliminates freedom of movement...you basically have a very tiny train car.

Public transport, as I said in the ill-luck Suburban Thread, works very well in my town (many of our buses are natural gas powered also), so embracing electric buses is rather simple....but leaves ugly wires everywhere. I'm all for it, I just want the ability to drive for hours on end wherever I please for a good reason or none at all.

I guess nobody likes my post. psh :wink:

I did see it, and I had heard about it. I am very skeptical though, as no "water-car" has ever proved to be anything of consequence. Most simply waste time and lower mpgs.

Water intake injection, on the other hand, does work, but not the way you think. It is a common way to extract massive amounts of horsepower on forced induction motors (turbocharger, supercharger).

Due to the compression of the turbo/super, the air is heated. The compressed air is then usually piped to an intercooler, and then back to your intake. Often times, this is also supplemented by an alcohol/methanol/water injection system.

Rather than make the intake charge more flammable, what this does is supercool the intake charge. This makes the air denser, which means the engine combusts in a leaner state (more power for a given fuel quantity).

This has a huge effect on FI motors, but less so for NA (naturally aspirated) motors. There is an effect, but is about the same as driving on a cold/rainy day. You will make a tiny bit more horsepower, your engine will run a tiny bit better, and you may get one or two mpg better.

EDIT: Cool stuff on the air motor! I have seen something similar powering an Indian Tata Motors car. The only issues I see is the same as for electric cars- ultimate range (though compressed air is far more common than a 220V outlet at a gas station) and total emissions. The air gets compressed somewhere.... Cool stuff though. Also, bonus points if anyone can tell what year it is in that video. If you're an F1 nut, you'll see.

Think of broadcasted energy this way:
For one, we know RF and EMF radiation can be harmful if we're exposed to it enough...If we had all of our power lines replaced by wireless radiative power (I'll get to the disparaging of efficiency in a moment), how many more times of exposure would we get on a constant basis, especially considering if we're already constantly exposed from our modern lifestyles? (hint it is exponential and on orders of magnitude larger)

The other thing: wireless induction to power things as opposed to direct contact. Sounds nice but unfortunately it is just not as efficient. Unless Tesla really did discover/develop a high lossless transmission method with a 94% efficiency as opposed to the roughly 80-87% efficiency of direct contact methods commonly employed--then we just have to discover how he did it IF he even did it at all.

I don't know why, but it just simply isn't as efficient.

If you wanted to test that theory of efficiency, there are power supply circuits available for things like fluorescent tubes or even gas lasers utilizing both direct and RF methods. While RF methods have little maintenance required over long periods of usage, that simply isn't worth it if the costs to run it more than make up for what you'd save on maintenance. Which really sucks, too. Which again totally ignores the fact that we're being bathed in this radiative energy that does, god only knows what.

The reason nothing is 100% efficient of course is that everything has some level of pure resistance to it and that loses are always inevitable.

Way back when, a good friend and I set out to test Tesla's broadcastable energy. With all the scientific rigour of....a seventh grade science fair project....we designed, built, and tested a Tesla Coil to test our hypothesis of RF electricity transmission by attempting to light an LED a few inches away. We failed. Granted, we had issues with out materials, but the amount of energy we were broadcasting was enough to piss off our neighbors by interfering with their TV signal, but nothing close to enough to light the LED beyond sparking range. So we grabbed fluorescent tubes and pretended to be Jedi till we shattered a few, then played with sparks, then shut off the generator and Tesla coil.

Not really related, but damn it was a fun and cool project. The math was way over our heads....partial differential equations and such for the electric circuit analysis. Probably part of the reason we failed is that we had to use pre-made solutions, or try to use algebra to figure out seriously difficult math. The pre-made solutions required materials we didn't exactly have or could find easily.

Nevertheless, in seventh grade, my friend and I built a Tesla Coil, tried the RF transmission, and concluded that the energy it takes to run the coil is several orders of magnitude higher than what is recovered.

Also, on a rather random science tangent, this is why it will never work. The inverse square law: P ~ 1 / d^2. Power is proportional to the inverse of the square of the radius. Say you want to have 10W at a distance of 200 m from an emitter of some type (I am summarizing greatly in case readers don't have the background needed. I can go into more detail if needed as well..PM is probably better). So, assuming 100% transmission, we set up a proportion.

P2 / P1 = [ (1/d2^2) / (1/d1^2)]

or

P2/P1 = (D1/D2) ^2

Now, you/I see a problem with how I worded it. We will calculate the amount of power required 1 cm from the emitter; that will give you an idea of how much is required at the emitter itself.

P2 = 10W, D2 = 200m = 20000 cm, D1 = 1 cm

P1 = 4GW, or 4,000,000,000 W. This will never be feasible unless one could magically aim and direct electrical field energy.

If anyone wants more info, please PM me. This isn't really related to hydrogen, and yes I'm guilty of off-topicking

Darth_Yuthura · July 13, 2009

I would say the first best hurdle to overcome in improving fuel efficiency actually isn't the hybrid design, because it is significantly more expensive than standard cars; it's the split-cycle engine. This design incorporates a very cheap means to store potential energy as compressed air instead of electricity. This could eliminate the batteries altogether and potentially increase fuel efficiency of gasoline from the standard maximum of 25% to in excess of 30%. It is also a very simple change for a very significant improvement in engine design.

http://www.symscape.com/blog/split_cycle_engine

I think this is the most logical first step in the sequence of events to switching from oil to another fuel source. In that time, battery and alternate sources would have time to improve as well. It is still in its infancy, but it has not been made as big a deal as hybrid or even ethanol fuels.

More nonsense: Hydrogen for an alternate energy source

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Archived