Learning a Lesson

[jbox]

why isnt hydrogen applicable?

Because hydrogen is not a silver bullet like some people want it to be. Hydrogen is only viable if you also have solar, hydro, wind, geo, etc... power being used to create the fuel in the first place. And if battery technology improves by as little as 50% in the next couple of years there will be no point *at all* of worrying about hydrogen fuel cells since the *only* problem they actually solve is the range issue.

[AlanS17]

Well having electric cells doesn't solve the problem of fossil fuels. I think this was also touched on by SithMaster, though I don't feel like he clarifies it.

Where does the power come from to actually make the electric cells? For that matter, where does the power come from to make the cars? You need some sort of source energy - the kind of energy used to power electric companies and factories. Right now, that's primarily fossil fuels. Even though a lot of people freak out about the dangers of it, I really think atomic energy is a solution to a lot of our problems. Disposal can become an issue, but I think that's a much smaller task to tackle than depleting fossil fuels.

Of course solar, wind, hydro are all possibilities, but I think it would be difficult to generate the massive amounts of power using those technologies that you can get from atomic power. I think the biggest exception would be hydro power, but that's very dependent on how close you are to a large body of moving water.

[ChadTower]

To get hydrogen, you need to use fuel.  To  transport it, you need to use fuel.  When it sits in storage, you need to allow some evaporation for safety reasons.  So, from source to consumer, Hydrogen is only about a 20-25% proposition.

That's never going to fly in a large economy.

[danny_galaga]

To get hydrogen, you need to use fuel.  To  transport it, you need to use fuel.  When it sits in storage, you need to allow some evaporation for safety reasons.  So, from source to consumer, Hydrogen is only about a 20-25% proposition.

That's never going to fly in a large economy.

i fully agree with you. but hydrogen is not a 'new' technology. 'new' technologies to me implies technologies that havent been conceived yet. and since big business looks only at the bottom line at present and not what lies in the future, there isnt much incentive to develop 'new' technologies. i had a girlfriend who did a masters in busiess management who pointed out to me once that all economic models seem to be based on 'fishing in a river with infinite resources'. and that is how the oil situation is now. we are all of us behaving as if it is an infinite resource and so for the most part we plan the future with that erroneous concept.
  naturally i dont have an answer. i agree its not hydrogen. i dont know why people keep thinking it will change things. unless we develop a new technology to synthesise photosynthesis...

[SithMaster]

Maybe people think hydrogen is the next big thing because its the only thing that kinda resembles gasoline.  i remember reading (maybe 5 years ago havent kept up on the fuel ideas) that hydrogen fuel stations would be phased in or something like that for testing.

that and it was getting a lot of media coverage.

for general power generation i think the best method as of now is solar panels on rooftops of buildings.  problem is you have to get permission from your power supplier for the panels to be put up.

i agree atomic seems to be the best for massive scale generation but the waste will never be properly disposed.

maybe it will take another world war for a new form of renewable energy to be developed.  kind of like how in the second world war new innovations were made.  seems we always need a push.

why photosynthesis?  but you could have the right idea.  maybe manipulating some form of plant functions can be used.

[AlanS17]

unless we develop a new technology to synthesise photosynthesis...

We already have one. It's called solar power. 

[jbox]

Well having electric cells doesn't solve the problem of fossil fuels.

Huh, where did I say that? 

I said having better electric cells eliminates needing hydrogen cells, I didn't say it eliminated the problem of needing hydro, wind, solar and geo power. Not to mention the fact that many, many, many countries have plenty of coal, LPG, animal ---steaming pile of meadow muffin---'s and god knows what else to burn to make electricity, all of which reduces the importance of oil geopolitically even if it doesn't solve the (alleged) climate change problem. Actually, ironically the people who don't believe in human-causation should be more pro-electric because it means you finally cut off those anti-Christian, err, I mean "Pro-Freedom Allies" like Saudi Arabia. 

Seriously, apart from being emotionally important to chemisty and physics as "The First One", the only thing hydrogen really has going for it is the stupid amount of media coverage it gets, while companies developing (for example) new solar cells which increase the productivity by 200% or maybe reduce the cost by 40% by developing a process for printing cells using standard printer methodologies, don't get a mention because "solar technology is old news". 

Hydrogen is pushed so hard because if all of the "renewable energy" budget goes into hydrogen the same old energy companies will make a killing AT THE SAME TIME as being able to pretend they are fluffy bunnies who like to hug puppies and pick flowers. 

[AlanS17]

Well having electric cells doesn't solve the problem of fossil fuels.

Huh, where did I say that? 

I said having better electric cells eliminates needing hydrogen cells, I didn't say it eliminated the problem of needing hydro, wind, solar and geo power.

That's fine. Replace the word "electric" with the word "hydrogen". And I'm not just addressing oil. I'm addressing all fossil fuels as a non-renewable resource.

[ChadTower]

The best near term solution is BioDiesel.  That's where the politics prevent progress.

[AlanS17]

Are there ways to create biodiesel without recycling grease? That method doesn't lend itself well to mass-production.

[jbox]

Well, technically practically *anything* organic can be made into bio-diesel, but as you point out pretty much none of the suggested systems will ever break even. Bio-diesel, like hydrogen, is another technology that works best on the fringes (where it works *really* well), but ends up taking us backwards at the large scale because it doesn't solve any of the basic energy issues.

At the core of bio-diesel your "free" energy is in fact coming the sun, so you might as well go straight to solar and eliminate having *multiple* intermediate energy-losing transformations and focus your efforts on just improving that single transformation.

[danny_galaga]

unless we develop a new technology to synthesise photosynthesis...

We already have one. It's called solar power. 

without checking it carefully, photosynthesis is the process where by vegetative matter breaks down water into hydrogen and oxygen, to recombine with carbon. this happens at ambient temperature, which is quite impressive.

[ChadTower]

At the core of bio-diesel your "free" energy is in fact coming the sun, so you might as well go straight to solar and eliminate having *multiple* intermediate energy-losing transformations and focus your efforts on just improving that single transformation.

Can't currently be done on a large enough scale and there is almost zero effort in place to make it possible.

Plus Biodiesel would completely transform the US Midwest into incredibly valuable farming instead of the gov't subsidized inefficient farmland it is now.

[JONTHEBOMB]

Even though a lot of people freak out about the dangers of it, I really think atomic energy is a solution to a lot of our problems. Disposal can become an issue, but I think that's a much smaller task to tackle than depleting fossil fuels.

Nuclear waste stays radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years.  Unless we want fish with three eyes we should try to avoid nuclear energy.  We need to use more wind and solar power until we can no more.

At the core of bio-diesel your "free" energy is in fact coming the sun, so you might as well go straight to solar and eliminate having *multiple* intermediate energy-losing transformations and focus your efforts on just improving that single transformation.

Can't currently be done on a large enough scale and there is almost zero effort in place to make it possible.

Plus Biodiesel would completely transform the US Midwest into incredibly valuable farming instead of the gov't subsidized inefficient farmland it is now.

Instead of gasoline I think cars should use a combination of alternative resources.  Biodiesel could be used in states with warm climates.  The number of biodiesel cars could be limited by the government so fuel is not hard to come by.  Electric cars could be used in urban areas where people mainly travel short distances.  People who cannot use biodiesel or need a car to travel long distances could switch to ethanol or diesel fuels temporarily.  When electric car technology improves people using ethanol or diesel fuels could change to an electric car.

[jbox]

Maybe we can use blinky as the alternative fuel source? 
=>

[AlanS17]

Now you're using you head! 

[ChadTower]

Switch cars temporarily?  Not viable.  May as well tell them to get a balloon.

My friend has a turtle with two heads.  It seems just fine.

[shardian]

Hey everybody, chill out. I'll get Keanu Reeves on the phone, we'll play around with a big tub of water, a keyboard, and a lathe. Voila! Unlimited energy for everyone!


Oh, and about hydrogen. My senior project in college was to attempt to develop a small-scale, low cost hydrogen combustion engine. Not only is it not feasible, it is dangerous as hell. Could you imagine strapping a tank of hydrogen to every idiot on the road? Hehe, we had a backfire one time and me and my partner both almost pissed our respective pants.

It is possible to adapt current fuel injected cars to hydrogen fuel, but hydrogen burns hotter than gasoline. You have to add nitrogen to the fuel to lower the temperature of the combustion, otherwise your engine would be toast in no time. Development of hydrogen engines on a large, commercial scale will never happen. The only people keeping the hydrogen dream alive are people nieve to what it entails, or politicians trying to earn sympathetic votes.

[ChadTower]

Hydrogen engines are viable.  No one has disputed that.

Hydrogen replacing oil as automotive/home heating fuel is not viable, mostly because gathering and transporting hydrogen requires too much energy for it to be economically viable.  It is technologically feasible - it is not economically.

Hydrogen is actually safer than gasoline in terms of automotive accidents and the potential fuel related hazards.  Here is a good article explaining why.

[boykster]

AFAIK, most of the talk of hydrogen powered cars becoming mainstream is not using hydrogen as a source of combustion, but rather using it to produce electricity using fuel cell technology, then having electric cars that run off of these fuel cells.

 

[ChadTower]

You're one of the very first people I've heard, outside of an actual power grid genre discussion, mention that possibility.

EVERYONE I've talked to about hydrogen cars has assumed that the future is cars with tanks of Hydrogen fueling them.

[boykster]

That's interesting, I'm most familiar with GM's hydrogen projects including the AUTOnomy and the Hy-wire fuel cell powered vehicles.  not only do they not use internal combustion AT ALL, but they produce more electricity than they use, so the surplus can be transferred to storage arrays for other uses...

Oh, and this DOES include a hydrogen "fuel tank" on the vehicle...albeit in a bladder form rather than a rigid tank as we have now

IMHO, this is the future, not combustion.

http://www.gm.com/company/gmability/adv_tech/400_fcv/index.html

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/hy-wire.htm

http://archive.cardesignnews.com/autoshows/2002/paris/preview/gm-hywire/

[shardian]

EVERYONE I've talked to about hydrogen cars has assumed that the future is cars with tanks of Hydrogen fueling them.

That is because that is what all the auto companies and the government have been pursuing. Hydrogen combustion has about run its course now though.

Fuel Cell technology is still in its infancy. Once more people start investing in it, it will most likely become a viable source.

[shmokes]

I'm not sure that "EVERYONE" should be italicized or in caps.  I think people have been talking about hydrogen fuel cells and you have assumed they were talking about combustion when they actually weren't.  Fuel cells have been the darling of the media for years and I haven't heard squat about combustion.  All of the auto companies, from Honda and Toyota to GM and Ford have been making announcements about fuel cells and showing prototypes at the car shows.   Fuel cells have been all over the media.  You'd have to live in a cave to have missed the ongoing discussion.

[ChadTower]

I'm not sure that "EVERYONE" should be italicized or in caps.  I think people have been talking about hydrogen fuel cells and you have assumed they were talking about combustion when they actually weren't.  Fuel cells have been the darling of the media for years and I haven't heard squat about combustion.  All of the auto companies, from Honda and Toyota to GM and Ford have been making announcements about fuel cells and showing prototypes at the car shows.   Fuel cells have been all over the media.  You'd have to live in a cave to have missed the ongoing discussion.

How could you possibly know the people I've talked to?  And worse, try to make assumptions about what other people may or may not have said in conversations you didn't witness with people you didn't know?

[Vigo]

I'm not sure that "EVERYONE" should be italicized or in caps.  I think people have been talking about hydrogen fuel cells and you have assumed they were talking about combustion when they actually weren't.  Fuel cells have been the darling of the media for years and I haven't heard squat about combustion.  All of the auto companies, from Honda and Toyota to GM and Ford have been making announcements about fuel cells and showing prototypes at the car shows.   Fuel cells have been all over the media.  You'd have to live in a cave to have missed the ongoing discussion.

How could you possibly know the people I've talked to?  And worse, try to make assumptions about what other people may or may not have said in conversations you didn't witness with people you didn't know?

because you have been talking to people on the boards...and you have no idea what they were talking about because you never asked them to specify...

You don't know what EVERYONE was talking about...you assumed

shmokes didn't have to guess about your conversations, he just read this thread...

[ChadTower]

This isn't talking.  It's a text based message board.

Talking is verbal in my eyes.  And I have never once talked with anyone on this board about hydrogen cars.  I suppose that definition now includes such message boards but I don't usually consider them when I use the word talking.

[Vigo]

I hate when people play with semantics like that, its really childish...If you want to get literal about the word "talk", you should have at least looked the word up.
Talk Verb:
1) to communicate or exchange ideas, information, or knowledge. 
2) to consult or confer.
3) to spread rumor or gossip. 
4) to chatter. 
5) to employ speech. perform the act of speaking
6) to communicate ideas by means other than speech.
7) to make sounds imitative of speech.

Bottom line, what you discussed on this board is not null or void because of your alternate means of expression.

[ChadTower]

I actually did look up the word and conceded that it wasn't the best use of the word.  I went so far as to explain what I actually meant to say.  What more do you want, an apology for using the verb talk instead of specifically saying "people I have verbally spoken with in real life"?

[Vigo]

I just want you to know that shmokes does have a point, the people on the board will obviously think that you mean them in the EVERYBODY category you speak of, which really can be upsetting, because you didn't know what people on the board were talking about other than shardian, who has first hand experiance with hydrogen combustion engines. All in all, it was probably just a misconception by us since you didn't make clear your meaning, but yeah, if you only mean people you have verbally spoken with, you should say so if others on this board might think that you are talking down to them.

[More Cowbell]

Didn't anyone see the true purpose of Jondabobm's paper? He said it when he mentioned Swift's Modest Proposal. Jon want people to eat babies. Sick, Jonbomb.

[JONTHEBOMB]

More Cowbell,

Have you ever tasted baby?  Until you have I suggest you don't judge me as being sick.  By eating babies we can stop overpopulation of the world.



MMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmm baby