Okay... someone explain this to me.

a hydrogen engine can be used to turn a shaft (and thus move a car) and the byproduct is 99%water rigt?

If we're making Hydrogen from water (I might be wrong on that) then where are we getting the energy to take the hydrogen out of the water?

Seems to me we've got a circle. (Water-->Hydrogen&Oxygen, Hydrogen+Oxygen-->water) The 2nd law of thermodynamics says there's got to be some energy loss there...

What piece of the puzzle am I missing?

6/12/2007 11:35:14 PM

Making Hydrogen from water requires a ton of energy.

Hydrogen for cars is made from methane.

6/12/2007 11:37:18 PM

AHHHH..... that answers my question... THX!

6/12/2007 11:38:22 PM

You fail at your name.

6/12/2007 11:48:48 PM

if you use natural gas, you end up with a shitload of carbon dioxide

if you want a better way, the grid has to go completely nuclear to make the electric car viable

6/12/2007 11:49:27 PM

Right, but to be viable the electric car needs to run on batteries, not hydrogen.

6/13/2007 12:04:34 AM

well no shit

i would have said fuel cell if i meant hydrogen

6/13/2007 12:05:53 AM

once we get antimatter containment, we will be fine

6/13/2007 12:06:10 AM

Who holds back the electric car?

6/13/2007 12:06:49 AM

theres so much wrong in what you just said, i wouldnt even know where to start

6/13/2007 12:09:42 AM

if we just get rid of NASCAR, it would free up a lot of oil

6/13/2007 12:13:52 AM

[Edited on June 13, 2007 at 12:14 AM. Reason : and that about sums up everything in this thread]

6/13/2007 12:14:07 AM

6/13/2007 12:22:27 AM

that doesn't even make sense in the context of this thread

6/13/2007 12:25:05 AM

How about a car that runs on compressed air?



http://edition.cnn.com/2005/TECH/03/30/spark.air.car/

6/13/2007 12:32:42 AM

where are you going to get the power to compress the air?

6/13/2007 12:35:04 AM

we've talked about this stuff in class recently... very interesting technology

6/13/2007 1:49:15 AM

^^ If you'd read the article, you'd have answered your own question (first paragraph):

Quote :

"The engine, which powers a pneumatic-hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV), works alongside an electric motor to create the power source."

This is not a "what if." Such a car has existed for several years.

6/13/2007 8:26:03 AM

Electric cars were around in the 90's and there were long waiting lists for them, but GM "claimed no one wanted them" and crushed them, beacuse the gas market was still around. All car companies have patents for electric cars, they're just not going to do it until it's significally cheaper (on thier end) than gas. If you want to know more about electric cars, watch the movie, "Who Killed the Electric Car?" You'll be amazed at how stupid people are.

Also check out "tesla motors", and check out that car. Fully electric car with a 70 pound motor, and 250 mile range. Beats out a stock Ferrari or Lambo in regard to acceleration. Under 100k too.
http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php



-Oh and right now the thing about hydrogen cars is that it takes more energy to make the hydrogen cells, then the energy expended when the car is using the cell. Despite the fact the byproduct is only water, we still need to find more efficient ways to make the cells, ie nuclear or solar.

[Edited on June 13, 2007 at 8:48 AM. Reason : .]

6/13/2007 8:33:20 AM

i have a strong feeling that google could have answered this question

6/13/2007 9:42:37 AM

About electric cars? I know i'm just into them and wanted to share. It's crazy how much torque you can get from a fully electric motor. Just look at that chart. It makes all over cars look foolish.

6/13/2007 9:55:48 AM

Running a ICE on hydrogen is a much more feasible option than the fuel cell right now.

6/13/2007 10:19:41 AM

^yeah ICE hydrogen cars were invented in 1807, they have more power, but are more dangerous (back firing on a hydrogen ICE is far worse than gasoline). This will be the case until we can make hydrogen cells using clean energy not fossil fuels, because fuel cell cars are clearner than ICE cars.

6/13/2007 10:32:45 AM

the best case scenario is finding a way of converting solar energy into chemical potential, making batteries out of it, and running vehicles on those batteries. when the battery becomes waste, put the waste on a similar battery powered rocketship and shoot it into the sun.

this is doable. i know because i worship the Sun God and he told me so ok.

6/13/2007 10:45:16 AM

^Yeah dude the sun is the most powerful thing known to man, and we aren't harnessing artificial power from it. So yeah the best thing possible would be taking energy straight from the sun, sticking it in batteries and using that. Then shooting shit back into the sun to make more energy. In a couple decades we'll make cheaper/better solar panels, and that's all we should be using. It's kinda silly when you think about it. We're burning dead organisms (fossil fuels) which pollutes the world, and sucks at efficiency, while we could be taking in billions and trillions times more energy by harnessing the sun.

[Edited on June 13, 2007 at 10:59 AM. Reason : .]

6/13/2007 10:58:33 AM

Generating energy is not all that difficult. Efficient energy storage is the key in personal transportation.

Batteries are heavy, inefficient and slow to charge. Storing energy in chemical form has it's limitations.

Alternative energy storage methods such as flywheels and compressed air have proven to work in large-scale and niche applications. If something more practical and efficient were to replace the battery as the primary power source and storage unit, electric cars would be a lot more practical.

6/13/2007 11:12:35 AM

interesting that this came up, since I just talked about it in the soap box.

I hate to use such a fanatical sounding site as a source, but his site is replete with real sources, so I'm going to anyway
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/SecondPage.html

Oil will run out.
Biofuels are, so far, completely unrealistic.
Even if we could use hydrogen, you need a catalyst, like gold or platinum, which are finite.
Solar panels use silver, which is finite.

An alternative energy source that actually is renewable would be great, but the reality is that nothing is. We will eventually run out of all possible means and have to keep coming up with new ones, and it will get to the point that we need to come up with new ones more and more quickly, and then we'll be fucked.

Hydrogen is a joke - will never happen. Requires too much energy and needs platinum as a catalyst.

A single hydrogen fuel cell requires approximately 20-50 grams of platinum. Let's say we want to replace 1/4 of the world's petroleum powered cars with hydrogen fuel cell powered cars. Twenty-to-fifty grams of platinum per fuel cell x 210 million fuel cells equals between 4.2 billion and 10.5 billion grams of platinum required for the conversion. Unfortunately, world platinum production is currently at only about 240 million grams per year, most of which is already earmarked for thousands of indispensable industrial processes.
http://www.purchasing.com/article/CA263497.html
Oh, and you'd have to get most of it from South Africa. Good luck with that.
http://www.southafrica.info/doing_business/economy/infrastructure/energy-fuelcell.htm
Some experiments are being done with Aluminum, but that's finite as well, and it requires significant energy to get it out of the ground and process.



Solar would be great, except that you need Silver, and that's running out as well.
It would take every single one of California's 13,000 wind turbines operating at 100% capacity (they usually operate at about 30%) all at the same time to generate as much electricity as a a single 555-megawatt natural gas fired power plant.
http://canadafreepress.com/2005/driessen012905.htm

The numbers for solar are ever poorer. For instance, on page 191 of his book The End of Oil: On the Edge of a Perilous New World, author Paul Roberts writes: " . . . if you add up all the solar photovoltaic cells now running worldwide (2004), the combined output - around 2,000 megawatts - barely rivals the output of two coal-fired power plants." Robert's calculation assumes the solar cells are operating at 100% of their capacity. In the real world, the average solar cell operates at about 20% of its rated capacity. This means the combined output of all the solar cells in the world is equal to less than 40% of the output of a single coal fired power plant.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GA15Dj01.html



[Edited on June 13, 2007 at 11:29 AM. Reason : k]

6/13/2007 11:25:54 AM

Just because we haven't figured out how to do something efficiently now doesn't mean we won't figure it out in a few decades. Solar power is the end-all only way to get lasting energy in this solar system. Yes solar panels may be inefficient now, but all life forms on earth use energy from the sun, and it'll just take us a while to figure out how to use it artificially for ourselves. For example solar panels don't always require silver. Photovoltaic Modules can (and are being tested) to not require silver and in the near future could possibly be made out of organic matterials. Hell i wouldn't be surprised in a few decades if we figure out how to grow plants that convert the sun into energy we can use. Using natural photosynthesis for energy.

[Edited on June 13, 2007 at 11:36 AM. Reason : .]

6/13/2007 11:33:34 AM

The advantage of solar power is that it can be used locally to avoid the energy loss inherent in pushing current through a grid. I believe the estimate is that it takes 3.3 units of electricity at the power plant to get 1 unit to your home.

I agree that hydrogen cars are dead, but not from the reasons stated. Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) fuel cells do require platinum, but they are just 1 of many types of fuel cells out there. The problem with hydrogen cars is hydrogen. It has horrible energy density, it's incredibly difficult to store and transport, and it is expensive to produce.

[Edited on June 13, 2007 at 11:35 AM. Reason : 2]

6/13/2007 11:34:45 AM

^^ Oh, I totally agree, we could do it eventually... but you got any ideas where we could pick up a few extra decades? We don't have that long.

^ Of course you're right, the main problem IS hydrogen - getting it, storing it, etc. All I'm trying to get across is the idea of renewable fuels is a myth.

We could one day make solar panels from organic materials - but the materials have to be grown and processed, which requires energy, manpower, etc. All of this is POSSIBLE, of course, but you have to do it in the given span of time, which I don't see happening. We're barely into the first baby steps of replacing the oil economy, and we don't have but a few years to really get something off the ground.

[Edited on June 13, 2007 at 11:43 AM. Reason : .]

6/13/2007 11:41:27 AM

http://www.hemp4fuel.com/challenge.html
"IF all fossil fuels and their derivatives, as well as trees for paper and construction, were banned in order to save the planet, reverse the Greenhouse Effect, and stop deforestation;

THEN there is only one known annually renewable natural resource that is capable of providing the overall majority of the world's paper and textiles; meet all of the world's transportation, industrial and home energy needs, while simultaneously reducing pollution, rebuilding the soil, and cleaning the atmosphere all at the same time . . .

And that substance is - the same one that did it all before

Cannabis Hemp...Marijuana!"

Most people don't realize the original diesal engine ran on marijuana oil, and the primary fuel source in America between the 1800's and 1937 (hemp was banned) was hemp/marijuana oil.

It pretty much grows anywhere, has better crop yield than any other plant on earth, and has more potential energy then any other oil/plant source.

[Edited on June 13, 2007 at 11:45 AM. Reason : .]

6/13/2007 11:43:41 AM

Hemp's great. Where and how are you going to grow the gazillions of pounds of it necessary, though? It's a spectacular material and a very versatile plant - you can eat it, you can make clothes from it, you can get power from it, and some varieties are awfully fun to smoke... but I don't see how you could possibly grow enough for it to be the basis for our energy needs.

6/13/2007 11:44:45 AM

^^I like the promise of algae, which can be turned into biodiesel and / or ethanol. All you need to make a shit-ton of algae is water, CO2 and sunlight. We've got plenty of waste CO2 smoking out of our power plants and exaust pipes right now.

Quote :

"Biofuels are, so far, completely unrealistic."

I don't know what is so completely unrealistic about a fuel source which is already in production and may be used with current cars. Biofuels are a good supplement to our dwindling oil supplies.

It sounds like you are looking for a magic bullet, which doesn't exist. Efficiency, sustainability, and a combination of green energy sources in conjunction would go a long way towards weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels, but no 1 technology is the answer.

[Edited on June 13, 2007 at 11:48 AM. Reason : 2]

6/13/2007 11:48:16 AM

"HEMP IS THE NUMBER ONE biomass producer on planet earth: 10 tons per acre in approximately four months."

^^oh i know, i just meant if it were legal and people took advantage of it, i think because of the per acre yield we could supply enough energy.

[Edited on June 13, 2007 at 11:49 AM. Reason : .]

6/13/2007 11:49:07 AM

I don't know where that guy got his numbers, but algae and switchgrass are both more prolific than hemp.

6/13/2007 11:50:17 AM

Quote :

"It sounds like you are looking for a magic bullet, which doesn't exist. "

No, that's what society's looking for. My point is exactly what you're saying, that there isn't one.

Biofuels WORK just fine, but you have to grow the plants necessary. Even something like switchgrass and algae, which are easy to grow, would have to be grown on a MASSIVE scale. Also, it's not at all true that you just need CO2, water, and sun. You need to be able to transport the initial ingredients and the final products, process them, have the manpower to do all of that, and somehow have enough energy left over to power everything you grew the plants to power in the first place.

^^ Enough energy for what, the world? No way.

My main point is this - we will never, ever, ever again have the ability to produce energy on the scale we can with oil. Ever. Once the oil runs out, we may figure out a solution, but it's not going to allow anything like what we've gotten used to if we do.

[Edited on June 13, 2007 at 11:53 AM. Reason : .]

6/13/2007 11:52:07 AM

^^ i never said hemp was more prolific than algae and switch grass, i just said hemp is more efficient than both, and creates far more biomass per unit acre.

-and when i said number one biomass producer, i meant when grown hemp per unit acre creates more biomass than any other substance known to man.I can even tell you that from seeing all three being grown and one creates FAR more biomass than the other two.

[Edited on June 13, 2007 at 11:54 AM. Reason : .]

6/13/2007 11:53:11 AM

It appears I was confused about switchgrass. I had heard from it's proponents that it was the most efficient and highest-yielding crop around.

But I maintain that you can produce a lot more biomass from algae than from hemp. The unique aspect of algae is that because it is in water, you can supersaturate that water with carbon dioxide and drastically increase the yield. Some estimates say that you can produce more than 200 tons of biomass per acre pond annually. And algae is up to 50% oil, which makes processing into biodiesel much easier and more efficient.

[Edited on June 13, 2007 at 12:03 PM. Reason : 2]

6/13/2007 12:02:18 PM

George - will you come speak to my class please?

we spent a week discussing alternate energy sources during our environmental science and Biotechnology units. Discovery Channel showed "Future Cars" a few months back. It discusses and shows hydrogen, compressed air, biodesiel, solar, electric vehicles, etc..
You'd be how surprised how many high school students are fascinated by this technology. A few volunteered/job shadowed/interviewed with individuals in chatham county who were producing their own biodesiel.

carry on

6/13/2007 12:06:14 PM

Nuclear - with fuel reprocessing = lots and lots of power.... eventually fuel cells will be made cheap and mass produced enough, eventually fusion will and can replace fission as the primary energy source....

solar is nice but limited, geothermal, same, but more by location, wind, again limited.... all combined not even close yet.... all these plus nuclear = money....

6/13/2007 12:15:49 PM

Hah, I think I'd be a pretty depressing speaker

6/13/2007 12:16:24 PM

If fusion is actually possible, great.

Otherwise:

6/13/2007 12:17:01 PM

^^^^^ (probably legal highest yielding crop in the US) You've got to realize algae is grown in water, therefore no vertical limit. I don't know the comparison, but maybe they meant biggest biomass producer on land.

-There's that 200,000$ challenge online that says if you can prove hemp isn't the number 1 highest-yield most biomass crop on earth you get the cash. I've seen that contest referenced other places too, and no ones been able to do it. I don't know how algae stands up to this, but i assume the 200k contest wouldn't still be around if someone proved algae had a higher yield.

"Hemp hurds are 77% cellulose- a primary chemical feed stock (industrial raw material) used in the production of chemicals, plastics, and fibers. Depending on which U.S. agricultural report is correct, an acre of full grown hemp plants can sustainably provide from four to 50 or even 100 times the cellulose found in cornstalks, kenaf, or sugar cane (the planet's next highest annual cellulose plants)."

Popular Mechanics - February 1938
http://www.jackherer.com/popmech.html
How often do you hear "billion dollar crop" from the 30's. Then they made it illegal.


[Edited on June 13, 2007 at 12:41 PM. Reason : .]

6/13/2007 12:23:15 PM

hence reprocessing

most uranium fuel when 'spent' still contains 90% fuel and 10% fission products and byproducts that inhibit fission reactions....

reprocessing removes the un-fissionable (inhibiting agents) material (which is only highly radioactive for about 40 years... resulting in safer, and less, waste) then the remaining fuel can be put back into a reactor... rinse and repeat, you can even do it with much of our current core fuel waste...

currently there is enough uranium and wastes that if processed would last 90+ years (highly conservative estimate) with 0 additional mining.....

uranium can be extracted from seawater viably...

6/13/2007 1:18:17 PM

Quote :

" If you want to know more about electric cars, watch the movie, "Who Killed the Electric Car?" You'll be amazed at how stupid people are."

If you're interested in electric cars please don't watch that movie, its nothing but mostly fictional crap.

Quote :

"It's crazy how much torque you can get from a fully electric motor."

Right at 0 rpm yes, but it then quickly drops off.

Quote :

"We're burning dead organisms (fossil fuels) which pollutes the world"

C02 is the primary (and only if perfect) result of combustion, and IS NOT a pollutant.

Quote :

"IF all fossil fuels and their derivatives, as well as trees for paper and construction, were banned in order to save the planet, reverse the Greenhouse Effect, and stop deforestation"

Pleaes don't find a way to reverse the Greenhouse effect, b/c if you do all life on Earth will cease to exist.

6/13/2007 1:32:28 PM

90 years? Some of us might still be alive. We need something that will always be here. Solar is the only form of energy that is already pretty much covering the entire Earth, and we don't harness any of it. I think we'll find some way to do artificial photosynthessis using organic materials.

For example the energy from the sun on a sunny day is about 1,370 watts per square meter. (nasa.gov)

[Edited on June 13, 2007 at 1:37 PM. Reason : .]

6/13/2007 1:35:10 PM

^^hahaha, first of all no, the movie is no where near fiction.

second of all, you obviously know nothing about electric cars and torque.

Quote :

"Right at 0 rpm yes, but it then quickly drops off."

haha where'd you get that from? How is that "quickly" dropping off? 6000 rpm isn't "quickly", and it's still far better than an ICE motor.



Dude it's alright to admit ICE cars in relation to torque suck in comparison to an electric motor. So much more fun to drive, you got that instantaneous torque, far far far more powerful than your typical ICE car.

-oh and the greenhouse effect is the big argument. Duh we shouldn't "completely" reverse it, but we need to slow it down and regulate it. What do you think i'm stupid? You're the one who said torque from an electric motor drops after 0 rpm. You from mars?

[Edited on June 13, 2007 at 1:56 PM. Reason : .]

6/13/2007 1:37:01 PM

The Greenhouse effect is what keeps this planet habitable. Without it Earth would be a big block of ice. Well done

Who Killed the Electric Car might as well have been done by Michael Moore its so far off base.

You got me on the torque. And I have no issue with the Tesla car, its pretty sweet.

6/13/2007 1:58:20 PM

Quote :

"C02 is the primary (and only if perfect) result of combustion, and IS NOT a pollutant."

I used to say this, but a recent supreme court ruling has caused me to change my stance. Nowadays CO2 is considered a pollutant. And we both know that a hell of a lot more than just CO2 comes out of your exaust pipe.

6/13/2007 2:01:30 PM

^^You're still missing my point. I've taken 3rd grade bio, i know what the greenhouse effect is. Of course the planet requires the greenhouse effect to sustain life, but too much of anything is bad. We DO need to regulate the GH effect and prevent it from increasing CO2 levels and increases the temperature of the planet. You could make the argument that more CO2 means more plants! But there's been studies that show that increased CO2 does NOT help plant production because of results of increased temperature damaging the land and growing conditions.

^Yeah idiots who ride jet-skiis add to that. I read somewhere that the pollution that comes out of a Jet-skii in 2 hours, is more pollution than a typical car puts out after 130,000 miles. Not to mention that 25-30 percent of the oil you put in a jetskii goes right back into the water and air. They're really fun when you're riding them (i've done my share) but they're noise pollution, and hell when you're trying to kayak, canoe, or swim.

[Edited on June 13, 2007 at 2:08 PM. Reason : .]

6/13/2007 2:03:38 PM