[uzziah]

i don't have a lot of hope in hydrogen as the fuel of the future


for me i'll lay my best on solar capture and electric-powered everything


improving solar efficiency is big in my eyes. after seeing "who killed the electric car" my thoughts about hydrogen's innefictiveness are more confirmed

that being said, any alternative is good. go science!


it seems to me a misstep to start with a transport mechanism (hydrogen) and work backwards to capturing energy in an enviromentally firendly way

 

[mrdelayer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davesrose /img/forum/go_quote.gif Bingo! mrdelayer, it's not semantics to ask "where do we get hydrogen"? This fundamental question has not been answered by those dismissing current alternative fuels in favor of something that is at least 20 years in the future. Basic science tells us that the best source of hydrogen is in water. It's very simple to extract hydrogen....but unfortunately it takes electricity to do that (electrolysis). Currently we can use renewable resources like solar, geothermal, etc etc. But imagine if the whole country were only running on hydrogen fuel cells. That places a lot of demand in obtaining more hydrogen. This country is anti-nuclear, and we have large coal mines. Guess what natural resource we're most likely to use in producing enough hydrogen? Coal is a worst greenhouse gas emmiter then gasoline....so I can't see how it would help with emmisions given our current technologies.

Electrolysis works, but need I mention again the sulfur-iodine cycle? It works better. And this country is hardly anti-nuclear. 104 reactors and more being planned as I type this message. 20% of our electricity is generated in nuclear plants.

Quote:

Originally Posted by uzziah /img/forum/go_quote.gif improving solar efficiency is big in my eyes. after seeing "who killed the electric car" my thoughts about hydrogen's innefictiveness are more confirmed that being said, any alternative is good. go science!

"Who Killed the Electric Car?" is a terrible excuse for a documentary. I'm surprised Michael Moore didn't write it. Go do some research, and you'll find out a lot about the EV1 project WKTEC didn't tell you, and that hydrogen fuel cells are already in place. There are buses in Europe which run on hydrogen. I drove a hydrogen-powered car today. (And it feels just like a regular car, too, but a lot quieter.)

 

[uzziah]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrdelayer /img/forum/go_quote.gif When it's what's making my car go, it's the source of energy for that car. Now you're just arguing semantics. Hydrogen cars, while not the end-all, be-all, solution for all our problems some would like you to believe they are, are a good solution in the meantime. Solar, geothermal, wind, hydroelectricity are all viable solutions for renewable energy. And nuclear works and works well, nonrenewability and all.

i'm not sure what you're smoking, but:


1. no, it's not just semantics; he's making a valid point about hydrogen being an energy carrier

2. hydrogen is hardly a good soution in the "meantime". i think you've got things mixed. hybrid cars are a good solution in the meantime; hydrogen isn't remotely on the map as a reasonable auto-fuel. IN FACT, cars are probably the worst possible place to put fuel cells; try underground out in the desert; but again that removes the point


in my mind, the next logical step is the PLUG IN HYBRID. this is a great idea now IMHO. you have a hybrid car that if you choose you can plug in at night. charge up some large batteries. perhaps it goes 60miles before EVER NEEDING TO USE THE GAS ENGINE. most days you'd probably never need to use gas, but it's there if you need it. no need to fill up your car all the time is also a big plus.

now, the big problem with that is the same damn big problem with hydrogen fuel cell. WHERE THE **** IS THE ENERGY COMING FROM? now, to my knowledge, using electric cars is still quite a bit better for the environment than combustion, EVEN if you're powered by coal plants; but that's hardly an end-goal, coal plants need to be replaced eventually, and hopefully sooner rather than when we actually ****ing run out of coal.


so it all comes back to HOW DO WE PRODUCE ENERGY? other than the space-dreams of fusion and what-not, i think that right now we already have the two most viable options, solar and wind. oh, and don't forget water. that's something we've been tapping for a long long time. BUT water has been taped-out. it's unsightly, it ****s up beautiful river ways, and it can't remotely cover our need.

but solar and wind are good. as far as wind my main problems are that, it's unsightly, talk to the basque's and they'll tell you it's destroying the beauty of their countryside. even when i drive out to joshua tree in CA, it's hardly picturesque on the freeway, but i find the windmills ugly. now, this really isn't the biggest problem. the biggest problem is that there's not much more we can do to create efficiency, and the amount of windmills you'd need to start powering cities is enormous.


now, solar on the other hand i think has the real promise. there's plenty of development being done to increase efficiency on photo voltaic cells and i think that is the holy grail. i see the eventual solar-conversion in two ways: 1. massive arrays in the desert etc. , but more importantly:
2. individual home arrays; i.e. solar panels on your roof. think this is odd or unusual? let me tell ya, solar-panels on the roof is the best ****ing thing going for alternative energy IMHO. it's not perfect, and it depends where you live, but it's a great start


so.

1. increased solar cell efficiency
2. increased battery performance
3. electric cars


that's where i think we should head. i don't know of any better reasonable plan to alternative-energy dominance.

 

[uzziah]

oh, and of course in the real world it's all about money. but it's hardly that far off to think that solar could dominate. folks who put in panels on their roof are often have payed for their cost, and are selling power back to the power company within several years. this isn't science-fiction folks, that's what big oil wants us to think, let's not be tricked

 

[mrdelayer]

Those who continue to ask where the energy is coming from could do well to read the rest of my posts instead of stopping at OMG HYDROGEN IS NOT AN ENERGY SOURCE IT IS AN ENERGY CARRIER.

 

[uzziah]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrdelayer /img/forum/go_quote.gif "Who Killed the Electric Car?" is a terrible excuse for a documentary. I'm surprised Michael Moore didn't write it. Go do some research, and you'll find out a lot about the EV1 project WKTEC didn't tell you, and that hydrogen fuel cells are already in place. There are buses in Europe which run on hydrogen. I drove a hydrogen-powered car today. (And it feels just like a regular car, too, but a lot quieter.)

it was hardly a great documentary, extremely biased (biased isn't even the word, one-sided might do it), but none the less there were interesting points made; for me especially with the fellow who was designing new ways of making batteries and solar panels, for instance some that act as shingles for a roof.


but yes, they hardly gave the hydrogen car a chance. the issue was glanced over and repudiated without much thought or consideration.


and yes, the cars didn't sell, and i'm not going to wave a flag for the EV1, but i do think something's very wrong when big oil and big auto have the ear of our government. it didn't take a documentary to bring that to light of course, but there are big cogs at work here, and they want to sell oil.

 

[mrdelayer]

Big oil and big auto also have a huge share of future energy research. Not just hydrogen, either. Because they realize they'll be screwed in a few decades without it.

All big companies and industries have the ear of the government, really. How many times was Microsoft supposed to break up into smaller pieces? ;D

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrdelayer /img/forum/go_quote.gif Those who continue to ask where the energy is coming from could do well to read the rest of my posts instead of stopping at OMG HYDROGEN IS NOT AN ENERGY SOURCE IT IS AN ENERGY CARRIER.

Why should we, when you still haven't read the points I and rb67 raised about nuclear energy?? We have not been serious about nuclear energy because we do not reprocess our spent fuel. Look at France, who's 80 percent nuclear. We're very coal though: 54% of our power is coal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrdelayer /img/forum/go_quote.gif Electrolysis works, but need I mention again the sulfur-iodine cycle?

Did you even bother to read the wikipedia link you posted.....in case you didn't:

Quote:

Considerable additional research must occur before the sulfur-iodine cycle can become a viable source of hydrogen. The first commercial generation IV reactors are expected around 2030.

So look us up in 23 years.....when we might have developed sulfer-iodine reactors

 

[Ice Max]

I'm blind and thought this thread was gonna be about the head-fi member hydrocity

 

[mrdelayer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davesrose /img/forum/go_quote.gif Why should we, when you still haven't read the points I and rb67 raised about nuclear energy?? We have not been serious about nuclear energy because we do not reprocess our spent fuel. Look at France, who's 80 percent nuclear. We're very coal though: 54% of our power is coal. Did you even bother to read the wikipedia link you posted.....in case you didn't: So look us up in 23 years.....when we might have developed sulfer-iodine reactors

That's at the current rate of development of technology and all that, which is bound to increase severely. Nuclear fuel reprocessing is in the process of being implemented in the United States. You do have to give these things time, you know. You can't just wave a magic wand and reprocess your spent fuel.

Did you bother to read the points rb67 and I raised about hydrogen?

 

[uzziah]

i'm gonna stop talking now, but first: any attempt, no matter how far-fetched or unpractical, to create a cleaner earth is admirable. not always the politics behind it, but a step in the right direction is still a step

 

[mrdelayer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by uzziah /img/forum/go_quote.gif any attempt, no matter how far-fetched or unpractical, to create a cleaner earth is admirable. not always the politics behind it, but a step in the right direction is still a step

And you have hit the nail on the head.

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrdelayer /img/forum/go_quote.gif That's at the current rate of development of technology and all that, which is bound to increase severely. Nuclear fuel reprocessing is in the process of being implemented in the United States. You do have to give these things time, you know. You can't just wave a magic wand and reprocess your spent fuel. Did you bother to read the points rb67 and I raised about hydrogen?

Of course I can read your assertions....your one sentence paragraphs are very easy to read and grasp.

The fact still remains that you need conventional fuels to obtain hydrogen....when this sulfur-iodine cycle is at least 20 years down the road. Seems more appropriate to be looking at current alternative fuels. We have been asleep at the wheel for nuclear energy for thirty years, and that is the main reason why we don't have reprocessing capabilities (you know how politics makes it so that it takes forever for things to happen).

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005_...-VonHippel.asp

So energy conservation is probably the best way we can reduce air pollution. I'm not anti-hydrogen per say: I just see that politicians like to latch on to it so that they can dismiss alternative fuels. Seems sane to be encouraging current alternative fuels that we have the technology for.

 

[mrdelayer]

Actually, at a seminar at the Hydrogen Convention, one of the engineers from General Atomics stated that the S-I cycle is closer than it seems. And energy conservation won't happen as long as we still have people who buy Hummers and other gas-guzzlers.

 

[Trippytiger]

I remain utterly perplexed as to how anyone can truly believe that hydrogen is a viable fuel source for cars. And I'm not trying to be snarky or mean - I am genuinely confused. All I can see in hydrogen is a myriad of problems, and yet there are clearly many engineers and scientists far more educated than I who seem to be lining up behind it. But why?

I guess it's already been established in this thread that hydrogen isn't an energy source, but an energy currency, which is good. That's an important distinction; if it wasn't, there would be no issue. No point in me talking about that.

The big problems that I see with using hydrogen in cars are distribution and storage. There is no distribution infrastructure for fuels that exist in a vapour state! It would require absolutely massive investment to build hydrogen refueling stations all over the world, whereas there is already an abundance of such stations for fuels that exist in a liquid state within a reasonable range of temperatures and pressures. This alone is enough for me to write off hydrogen-powered cars as a possibility.

Personally, I see more of a future for ethanol and batteries in automotive applications. Ethanol, while expensive and inefficient compared to fossil fuels right now, is bound to improve in both those respects as cellulose ethanol technology ramps up. More importantly, ethanol can be basically used as a drop-in replacement for gasoline in gas stations because it is, handily, a liquid at most temperatures it's bound to encounter. Plus, it's more-or-less carbon neutral, which is a big bonus. And batteries, of course, have a distribution infrastructure in the form of the electrical grid. All that we're waiting on is for battery technologies to reach a more useful energy density.

Ultimately, I think I'll be driving an ethanol or biodiesel plug-in hybrid (a la the Chevy Volt), or even a battery-electric car before a hydrogen powered car. But, my honest question to those who believe otherwise is, why do you see hydrogen prevailing over the alternate fuels I mentioned? What makes hydrogen worth the investment required to make it viable?