OT All this crap about hydrogen cars

Page 1 of 3  
It will never happen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hype_about_Hydrogen
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ah ha, but it may be legislated. Ethanol, too, is a fiasco that was legislated. Even Gore said it was a mistake and gov'ts response is to increase it ;(
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Don't bet against it. The currently economically predominant methods for H2 production can be replaced by solar powered H2O hydrolysis. With no CO2 downside in production it is likely to be practical and competitive in the future. IIRC, there were also some interesting tech articles some years ago about the ability of the Wankel rotary to run on H2 with little modification. Ongoing progress in H2 storage has also been reported, solving that problem. Seems to me that H2 development has more potential than the costly struggles now in the labs with battery and fuel cell technology. I anticipate seeing a rotary powered racer blow the competition into the tules at Le Mans one of these years.
Joe
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The thing that will hold a H2 racer back is refueling time.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Joe wrote:

I'll bet against it. You're suggesting solar power to create electricity then use that electricity to hydrolyze H20 into H2. Then you have to use some of the electricity to compress the H2 so it's usable.
There is a basic law of physics that goes something like this: "You can't run this country, or an automobile, off of sunbeams!"
Let's check: A 2 x 4 foot solar panel makes 80 watts under ideal conditions and cost $400. 80 Watts would be reduced to 40W equivalent H2 power at 50% electrolysis efficiency.
40 watts is the equivalant of .05 Horsepower. A car needs about 30 HP to cruise. .05 HP out of 30HP saves about .16% of fuel.
An average car uses 461 gallons per year. The solar panel would save .77 gal per year (if driven only at noon on sunny summer days).
At $3.00 per gallon, it would pay for itself in 125 years. But solar panels wear out after 20 years or so.

As you said, that was years ago. Evidently the experimenters gave up.

The reasons for batteries is simple: Electricity is everywhere for recharging. There are NO hydrogen refueling stations.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 08:18:33 -0800, Smitty Two

The issue with hydrogen still remains. It is virtually all bound with oxygen (burned already) and "unburning" it uses a lot more energy than you get when you burn it again. It is really just a storage device and not particularly efficient at doing it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Feb 5, 9:06am, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

And even after cost effective cryogenic production/storage is accomplished you are still left with a problem of poor energy density. Gallon of H2 won't contain as much energy as a gallon gas. Energy density is what "News" ignores when hyping his "amazing air car" every few yers.
Harry K
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

solar is always going to be inefficient; it doesn't have the energy density to be practical. Nor the 24/7 availability (reliability?)of petroleum. "the sun doesn't always shine."
Same goes for wind power.
both solar and wind are only useful for unusual applications where other energy sources are not practical.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Well, it's not a "physics" problem. It's an engineering problem. Not having a law degree, rather an engineering degree, I will say that Bub is right on the money.

The existence theorem says otherwise.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Sunlight, millions of years and incredible geological pressure to "cook" and compress it into something useful. Otherwise we would be driving around in peat-powered automobiles. (-:
It would be interesting to know just how much energy it takes to create a gallon of gas, starting from the Carboniferous era when the plants died off to start the process (or whenever - I think the CE is when coal, not oil, began to form) up to the gas tank. I'll bet it's enormous.
-- Bobby G.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Smitty Two wrote:

Yep. People also scoffed at the notion of cold fusion when two Utah professors claimed they had done it. The "deniers" were correct. There are any number of historical fools who have claimed to have the solution for saving humanity. I'm reminded of the soy bean(?) fiasco in "Atlas Shrugged."
As to your notion that "expensive" = "immature technology," that's a simplistic answer designed to encourage pouring MORE money down a rat hole in the quest for the equivalent of perpetual motion. The physics is quite a different matter.
In an 8-hour summer day, at 40 degrees of latitude, the earth receives about 600 watts per sq meter of solar radiation. Assuming 50% conversion factor and the necessity to store for the evening and night, you'll end up with a bit less than 100 kwh per sq meter of available electricity. That's enough, in one day, to run a standard lightbulb for one hour (or, if CFLs, four bulbs for one hour). If you had ten sq meters of collectors, you could run that one bulb for ten hours. Forget about the TV.
(Physics DOES allow for greater efficiency in the above calculations by the simple expedient of moving the earth's orbit closer to the sun.)
No, the best way to save energy is to eliminate background music in shopping malls. Can you imagine how much energy it takes to pipe elevator music to the 50,000 shopping malls in this country?
Staggering!

That's no doubt true. It's often said that if someone invented aspirin today, the FDA would ban it in a heart-beat (or lack of a heart-beat).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

well we need to quit sucking on the mid east for energy, were sending them 1 billion dollars a day 365 billion a year for oil.
while we have 500 years of coal reserves here in the US and coal to gasoline technology.
we should of done this years ago so were not as dependent on others for energy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And the bottom line to allof this is that:
We will have alternate energy of some type. There will never be an energy source for vehicles as cheap and convenient as gas/diesel/natural gas. We will never eliminate crude oil use until it runs out. Energy cost is going to keep increasing.
Harry K
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Great idea! Start drilling, 25/8, in Alaska, the Gulf, and Santa Barbara, today. Make it a national priority!

We have a thousand years, or more, or Pt and Th, not that they'll help transportation much.

Yep. Kill the greenies!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Or at least kill enough of them such that they make it to the endangered species list.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Like alligators, you need to save a few of them for zoos, so we can all remember what they're like.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/6/2011 1:04 PM, HeyBub wrote:

If they become an endangered species, you won't even be able to yell "Shut the hell up!" at them because it will disturb them in their protected habitat. :-)
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The Daring Dufas wrote:

San Francisco is pretty easy to wall off. Further, most of the folks in SF do not breed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/6/2011 7:32 AM, HeyBub wrote:

How many times have we had this discussion? Solar /= electric. Electricity is just a very convenient way to move power around, but there are plenty of other ways to take advantage of free sunshine. We shoulda started building houses with sunrooms and heat masses and superinsulation 40 years ago, when we saw all this coming. No, solar is not the magic bullet, especially if you can only conceive of solar in term of photovoltaics, or steam plants run by acres of mirrors. But it is one of many different technologies that can answer part of the problem. The high-tech answers will take some R&D, and I agree that the gummint should not pound money down a rathole for expensive buildouts, but some R&D seed money is probably justifiable. But until the high-tech solutions become viable (if they ever do), we are fools for not taking advantage of the low-tech solutions as well, especially the ones with easily calculable cost-benefits numbers.
And, of course, reduce demand. Not to the point of living in a mud hut, but there is no useful purpose served by a lot of the electricity we use. There are mostly painless cuts almost everyone can make. To expand on your mall music example- why are their parking lots fully lit all night, in most cases that I have seen? If they turned off all but a few an hour after closing (so the rent-a-cops can still see), that alone would save a pile of electricity and money. And on a residential level- all these people with pole lights on their pole barns, that burn all night- how much does a timer or motion sensor cost? (a personal peeve of mine, since the only time I can see stars in this semi-rural subdivision is during a power failure. )
--
aem sends...

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I totally agree, new homes should be built to take advantage of GEOTHERMAL HVAC, passive solar heating and super insulation. My in laws built a home back in the 70s that is super insulated. House was 2700 sq ft in North Fl. Electric bill has only recently began to creep over the $100/month mark. Geothermal is relatively cheap to install during construction and will pay for itself in about 5 years, installed in established homes it may take about 10 years for the payoff but still a go deal.
Jimmie
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.