| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/18/2006 10:02:51 PM · #26 |
But what if someone were to come up with an efficent way to separate the H from the O?
|
|
|
|
05/18/2006 10:04:20 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
But what if someone were to come up with an efficent way to separate the H from the O? |
They would be one rich man/woman if they were to patent it.
|
|
|
|
05/18/2006 10:25:15 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by SamDoe1:
Edit to add: Geothermal energy is very efficient, just that the locations that would be or are suitable to install a geothermal generator are not very common. |
And the sites often move and/or go dormant. |
|
|
|
05/18/2006 10:34:44 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
But what if someone were to come up with an efficent way to separate the H from the O? |
it is easy, if you have read my last post all you need is water, natural gas, understanding steam-reforming, something that could reach temperatures up to 700-1100 C, and methane (high explosive stuff, but we act like gasoline is not explosive); to get more out of this formation all you need is carbon monoxide through water-gas shift reaction. *laughing sarcastically* |
|
|
|
05/18/2006 11:03:05 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by noodleboy:
Originally posted by LoudDog:
But what if someone were to come up with an efficent way to separate the H from the O? |
it is easy, if you have read my last post all you need is water, natural gas, understanding steam-reforming, something that could reach temperatures up to 700-1100 C, and methane (high explosive stuff, but we act like gasoline is not explosive); to get more out of this formation all you need is carbon monoxide through water-gas shift reaction. *laughing sarcastically* |
It's that source of temperatures of 700-1100 C which is the bugaboo in this plan. Any and everything you do to break water (or really any molecule) apart will take more energy than you can recover by recombining the atoms later; that enery is lost as waste heat. |
|
|
|
05/18/2006 11:04:49 PM · #31 |
So, really the only answer to using water (albeit hard water) as fuel is to perfect cold fusion?
|
|
|
|
05/18/2006 11:26:23 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
So, really the only answer to using water (albeit hard water) as fuel is to perfect cold fusion? |
Pretty much but you could use it as energy storage. More and more homes will be using it as part of a system with solar panels generating electricity during the day with part of it recharging batteries and part generating hydrogen from water. The hydrogen is then burned at night or when demand is high to generate electricity for the home. The resulting water is returned to the tank to begin the process again the next day. |
|
|
|
05/18/2006 11:42:43 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by SamDoe1:
That and you would need to store quite a bit of hydrogen to run a car motor and I'm not sure if a car can hold that much of it in a fuel tank. Hence the use of a bus, it's much much larger than a car. |
Not to mention that hydrogen is extremely explosive, much more so than gasoline. If one were to get in a wreck with a tank of hydrogen, the car would most likely explode.
|
|
|
|
05/19/2006 12:08:43 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by SamDoe1:
That and you would need to store quite a bit of hydrogen to run a car motor and I'm not sure if a car can hold that much of it in a fuel tank. Hence the use of a bus, it's much much larger than a car. |
Not to mention that hydrogen is extremely explosive, much more so than gasoline. If one were to get in a wreck with a tank of hydrogen, the car would most likely explode. |
There's been significant work (continuing since the 1960s) on developing exotic metal alloys which "soak up" hydrogen at low pressure, eliminating the explosiveness potential. There's a lot more better research going on now, including a guy who's invented a ceramic-based solar cell which is not as efficient as silicon cells, but are way cheaper to make, keep functioning if damaged, and work in the rain -- these are covered in the show listed below.
Go to PBS and check out Scientific American Frontiers -- this is a show they just did on hydrogen technologies, including the Icelanders' plan to use geothermally-generated electricity to electrolyze water into hydrogen.
The only truly "unlimited" source is solar, as heat and electricity. Even using solar via the photosynthetic route (e.g. ethanol) runs into problems with greenhouse gasses and other pollutants.
BTW: The effects of CO2-induced global warming seem to have actually been mitigated by the presence of particulate pollutants in the atmosphere. As we apply more controls to those polluters (diesel, coal, and wood-burning primarily) and "clean up" the atmosphere, we can expect the rate of the greenhouse effect to increase. See this episode of NOVA for more details.
Message edited by author 2006-05-19 00:13:19. |
|
|
|
05/19/2006 12:15:56 AM · #35 |
Interesting. Thanks for the links.
|
|
|
|
05/19/2006 12:24:58 AM · #36 |
Cool stuff...
Didn't I see somewhere on the net recently though that Peugeot had made a small water powered fire truck out of a 206?
I think it was on gizmag...?
Is hydrogen extraction the only way to get usable fuel from water? |
|
|
|
05/19/2006 12:30:10 AM · #37 |
| "Burning" is the combination of "something" with oxygen; in water, that has already happened, and it's a very stable molecule -- as pointed out, you have to apply a great deal of energy to a water molecule to break it apart into hydrogen and oxygen. When you recombine them, you recover some of the heat, and are left (again) with water as the byproduct of the combustion. |
|
|
|
05/19/2006 12:40:10 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
"Burning" is the combination of "something" with oxygen; in water, that has already happened, and it's a very stable molecule -- as pointed out, you have to apply a great deal of energy to a water molecule to break it apart into hydrogen and oxygen. When you recombine them, you recover some of the heat, and are left (again) with water as the byproduct of the combustion. |
Water is the byproduct of even burning of gasoline. Gasoline or petroleum, minus any additives, is a structure of carbon and hydrogen chains. When this breaks down (burns) and is combined with oxygen, the O2 breaks apart. This causes one of the oxygen atoms to combine with a carbon atom (carbon monoxide) and the other combines with two hydrogen atoms (H2O - water). This is why a lot of the time you will see water coming out of the tail pipe of a car. This is a sign that the engine is working efficiently.
Message edited by author 2006-05-19 00:43:33.
|
|
|
|
05/19/2006 12:46:20 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
There are more efficient strategies for powering vehicles. |
This makes me wonder that after so many decades of evolution, why aren't there much innovation in this segment? But I think hybrid engine cars are a good start  |
|
|
|
05/19/2006 01:33:52 AM · #40 |
hybrid engines are a cop out, the easy way out. Hybrid tech has been around since the 1930's. It only halfway deals with the problem.
|
|
|
|
05/19/2006 01:38:19 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by kirbic:
There are more efficient strategies for powering vehicles. |
This makes me wonder that after so many decades of evolution, why aren't there much innovation in this segment? But I think hybrid engine cars are a good start |
The fossil fuel infrastructure is entrenched worldwide. To make any alternative really viable, it will need to adapt easily to that existing infrastructure.
Compared to that, making a hydrogen car is cake.
Hybrids still pollute, they just make better use of the energy consumed while idling and or braking. They may be a step in the right direction, but are just a stop along the way.
Message edited by author 2006-05-19 01:40:43. |
|
|
|
05/19/2006 02:27:06 AM · #42 |
Nuclear power is the way to go!
imagine a tiny drop of uranium in your camera that can provide juice for it's entire life-span! :) |
|
|
|
05/19/2006 03:03:27 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by crayon:
Nuclear power is the way to go!
imagine a tiny drop of uranium in your camera that can provide juice for it's entire life-span! :) |
Nuclear power is the way to go in my opinion. It's efficient and mostly clean. Just need to find a place to put all that radioactive waste. My thoughts on waste management: shoot it into the sun. :)
As far as nuclear powered cameras go...I think the lead shielding and all kinds of other equipment might make for some heavy cameras.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 11/26/2025 09:28:54 AM EST.
