|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/07/2005 04:07:33 PM · #26 |
There are alternatives to the internal combustion engine out there that could make oil unneeded. As the price of fuel goes up it will become more economically viable to do the research. At about $2/gallon in the US, fuel is still a bargan so few companies are paying engineers to seek out alternatives.
Don't worry, simple economics say that as the quantity of fuel goes down, the price of fuel goes up and more money will be spent on an alternative.
I'm sure Honda and Toyota already have at least a few people on it. Big three seems to be a little slow on stuff like that, but they might have a few people digging into it also.
|
|
|
|
03/07/2005 05:10:58 PM · #27 |
What everyone forgets is that there are potential downsides to every alternative:
For example: If we were to build massive tidal power plants, would we not be creating a dampening effect on the tides over and above that which already exists? What are the long term effects of that additional damping - lower average tides? slower tidal currents? perhaps even a slowing of the earth's rotation? Why aren't the scientists raising alarms about these potential dangers?
For example: If we were to build massive solar power plants, would we not be creating a cooling effect on the earth by converting the sun's energy to electricity rather than letting it take its normal course in being converted to heat or bieng used in the process of photosynthesis? What are the long term effects of that reduction in heat and/or photosynthesis? Global cooling? Decreased greenhouse gasses? Less food? Decreased wind currents? Altered ocean currents? Why aren't the scientists raising alarms about these potential dangers?
For example: If we were to build massive windmill driven power plants, would we not be creating a decrease in global air movements due to the dampening caused by the windmills? What are the long term effect of that decrease? Global warming due to reduced evaporation? Shifts in the JetStream? Altered weather? Why aren't the scientists raising alarms about these potential dangers?
|
|
|
|
03/11/2005 07:26:29 PM · #28 |
|
|
|
03/11/2005 08:51:52 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Maverick:
Assuming this to be true, the peak is projected to be 2005 +/- 5 years. |
Pretty big assumption here but this is what I would expect coming from our universities. I won't believe it until the last drop of oil is sucked
out of the North Slope. By the way, how are the Alaskan caribou doing since we put in that nasty old pipeline? |
|
|
|
03/12/2005 01:15:55 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
I think that a lot of what is available to read on the subject is anti-hydrogen propaganda. And a lot is well-meaning but very pessimistic. |
There is alot of partisans on all sides...so wadeing thru the muck to get to the truth is not easy.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Example - the idea of manufacturing hydrogen from methane, while a technological reality, misses the point of any upcoming hydrogen revolution completely.
To be truly useful, hydrogen production should not be tied to carbon fuels, it should be very low cost, and perhaps most importantly, it should be decentralized. That is, not produced in huge plants as is electricity.
|
I pretty much agree - one thing you are missing is that hydrogen is a gas. a very light gas (un-dense...missing a key word in my vocabulary for this instance). What takes a lot of energy is compressing the gas or liquifying it. I read an article on a car mag this past week about using H for fuel in cars - getting a range over 150 miles is tough cuase the tank has to be soooo huge. To liquify it it has to be kep[t at some ungodly cold temp (-450F or so). that takes refrigeration units. Also, there is the issue of fuel leakage through fittings, etc.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Although, to make "free" hydrogen right now, all you have to do is electrolyse water using the electricity you could produce at dams, wind, geothermal, etc *at night*. Right now, if there is low demand, these facilities shut down, because there is no way to store that electricity. Hydrogen production is a perfect way to store that potential energy.
|
excellent idea!
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Another way to make hydrogen, and a good example of the "decentralized" concept, is to generate hydrogen using solar fuel cell. Sunlight hits a membrane and an electolytic reversible reaction takes place, all without a change of phase. Which means it is efficient.
So, you make hydrogen on the roof of your house, on the outer surface of your car - using free sunlight.
|
I bet that will be SLOW. And again, you have to compress it or store it in a huge tank or gas bag - and no, i don't want the Hindenburg in my back yard so i can cook some weenies.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
So, every household, every one of the 100 million cars on our roads, every place a community puts up a panel, every stream, every wind generator, etc becomes a small hydrogen generator, if we go that route.
Every parking meter can have fittings to recharge your car - or vice versa, your car powers it = the community electricity or hydrogen grid.
|
Why spend the enrgy converting electricity ffrom the sun into H, then compressing it etc. Just use the electricity directly, store is in battereies or as heat in big storage tanks or as steam (to heat your house or turn turbines, or reclaim the heat for cooking or dometic hot water)
|
|
|
|
03/12/2005 01:16:36 AM · #31 |
Gas prices at the pump are up 10 cents since monday.
|
|
|
|
03/12/2005 10:23:59 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Why spend the enrgy converting electricity ffrom the sun into H, then compressing it etc. |
I don't think that the need for compression of H2 is something that is always in the equation.
There are mineral crystals that absorb (store) large amounts of H2 and release it at a controlled rate. For an auto, you don't NEED liquified or compressed H2, even if you want to burn straight H2 in an internal combustion engine.
But, with fuel cell technology, you don't have to use such an engine, unless you want to. These fuel cells directly convert sunlight to H2 and O2. But when you recombine the gases, ( run the cells in backwards mode) they produce electricity, which can drive the electric motor of your car.
Would the process to convert sunlight to H2 be slow? Yes, just as you said. But then again, the car is just sitting there in the sun while the commuter works for 8 hours.
So, for 8 hours, the fuel cell panels which cover every square inch of the body of the car make fuel for the return trip home, in my fantasy hydrogen car.
Even if the sun isn't out, the car is always hooked up to its parking meter/ electrical outlet/H2 gas pipeline, either fueling up or acting like a donor generator back to the grid.
The company you work at has huge solar/fuel cell panels collecting energy all day, feeding H2 or electricity to your parking meter.
Your home house is busy generating away all day, too, ready to replenish the hydrogen stores you need for your car, your furnace, your hot water heater, your electric bill.
So, I don't think the idea that we need a "Hindenburg" sized zeppelin device is part of the equation.
PS - what a terrible example! :D :D :D
The Hindenburgh, as you probably know, but most folks don't, was NOT an example of the dangers of H2 gas catching fire.
What was burning so vividly was decidedly not H2 - it was the structure's fabric skin, which was permeated with the equivalent of dried rocket fuel.
The idea that H2 technology must inherently defeat the absolute need for heavy and dangerous liquified H2 cannisters, is - in my opinion - another example of how the available literature out there is distorting the dialogue.
Having a H2 economy is NOT going to be the same as the gasoline economy we have now.
It will necessarily be more socialistic in nature - Hear the Gasps of the Free Market Patriots!
But it could provide endless, cheap, nonpolluting energy to meet our transportation, power generation, and heating/cooling needs. Without the need to deal with carbon fuels and the geopolitical and environmental problems involved there.
Every day we get closer to the point where a serious discussion of these choices becomes inevitable, I think. :)
Message edited by author 2005-03-12 10:25:18. |
|
|
|
03/17/2005 08:02:51 PM · #33 |
|
|
|
03/17/2005 08:13:37 PM · #34 |
Happened in Texas in the 70s too (basically anyone with an oil pump was allowed to pump at full capacity). Not too much oil coming out of Texas anymore.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 08:26:09 PM · #35 |
Regardless of the impact of the loss of an Oil-Driven ecomomy (food, cars, plastics) these changes can only bode well for all of us. Initially, the investment is large, but new jobs manufacturing the technologies, supporting the infrastructures needed and maintaining the new products that use them would solve many of the economic problems that America and a number of other countries are now facing due to decreased manufacturing demands.
Our global stagnation and reliance on this energy source is the global economy's downfall.
At the risk of losing a patent opportunity, require every houshold to put a hotwater heater sized turbine in their basement that generates turbine electricity whenever the tap is turned on or the shower is running. Think of the savings alone, then combine that with placing each and every turbine on the power grid. California's rolling power outages would cease to exist. Would it cost money? Yes. Would it pay for itself in the long run - you better believe it. The pollution and oil saved from this one requirement would ensure that automobiles would have petrolium power in plenty of reserve.
Add a requirement of 2 photvoltaic cells on each new home construction, with battery cells and conversion process (10k investment over what you would have paid for the new construction) drop that on the power grid as well and soon your country can tell OPEC what they are going to sell a barrel of oil for, rather than the other way around. |
|
|
|
03/17/2005 09:31:22 PM · #36 |
|
|
|
03/17/2005 10:09:44 PM · #37 |
I agree, that would help. Unfortunately we're instead drilling in Alaska for roughly a year's supply worth of oil. Hopefully soon we'll see some more energy conservative mandates.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 10:18:47 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Arcanist:
Regardless of the impact of the loss of an Oil-Driven ecomomy (food, cars, plastics) these changes can only bode well for all of us. Initially, the investment is large, but new jobs manufacturing the technologies, supporting the infrastructures needed and maintaining the new products that use them would solve many of the economic problems that America and a number of other countries are now facing due to decreased manufacturing demands.
Our global stagnation and reliance on this energy source is the global economy's downfall.
At the risk of losing a patent opportunity, require every houshold to put a hotwater heater sized turbine in their basement that generates turbine electricity whenever the tap is turned on or the shower is running. Think of the savings alone, then combine that with placing each and every turbine on the power grid. California's rolling power outages would cease to exist. Would it cost money? Yes. Would it pay for itself in the long run - you better believe it. The pollution and oil saved from this one requirement would ensure that automobiles would have petrolium power in plenty of reserve.
Add a requirement of 2 photvoltaic cells on each new home construction, with battery cells and conversion process (10k investment over what you would have paid for the new construction) drop that on the power grid as well and soon your country can tell OPEC what they are going to sell a barrel of oil for, rather than the other way around. |
Hmm. While the photovolaic cells sound like a good idea ( as well as wind turbines in areas that have sufficient wind ), the turbine in the basement plan sounds like the old something for nothing shell game.
Unless the water is coming from a substantial gravity feed, artesian well, or geyser, SOMETHING has to be creating the pressure to push the water through the pipes. If you put a turbine in the way of the flow, the something that produces the pressure in the first place has to work harder to keep that pressure up - and that takes more energy. So, you "create" energy in your house, but it "takes" more energy at the municipal pumping station - and someone has to pay for the increased energy in the form of water bills - water bills that are probably increased by significantly more than what you receive from selling the energy you "create" in your basement.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 10:52:50 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
I don't think that the need for compression of H2 is something that is always in the equation.
There are mineral crystals that absorb (store) large amounts of H2 and release it at a controlled rate. For an auto, you don't NEED liquified or compressed H2, even if you want to burn straight H2 in an internal combustion engine. |
hydrogen is the least dense element. to be able to take enough fuel/energy with you in your car, regardless of what the 'engine' is, the "tank" of hydrogen needs to be HUGE. You could drag a balloon of it uncompressed. you can compress it into a liquid. you can store it in another form - water for example - and 'crack' the molecule as you need it for fuel. Right now this works, but takes too long. The most common ways to get hydrogen now is to 'crack' hydrocarbon fuels - the hydro part there is hydrogen. So you can turn gasoline into a hydrogen fuel...but all the conversion takes more energy than you end up with.
I suspect water would be a great source. But no one is going to make a maching to turn water into fuel, as water is damn near free (rain is free) so there is no econimic incentive to do it.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Would the process to convert sunlight to H2 be slow? Yes, just as you said. But then again, the car is just sitting there in the sun while the commuter works for 8 hours.
So, for 8 hours, the fuel cell panels which cover every square inch of the body of the car make fuel for the return trip home, in my fantasy hydrogen car.
|
Won't work on rainy days, cloudy days, snowy days. Don't park in a parking garage at work, or your garage at home - or under a tree.
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Even if the sun isn't out, the car is always hooked up to its parking meter/ electrical outlet/H2 gas pipeline, either fueling up or acting like a donor generator back to the grid.
|
Again, hooked to the grid to get electricity to make H is a net energy loser. Donating back into teh grid via solar energy is a maybe. However, if the car is sitting turning some liquid into H gas, you need to store that gas - either a ballon or compress it into a tank.
[/quote]
The company you work at has huge solar/fuel cell panels collecting energy all day, feeding H2 or electricity to your parking meter.
Your home house is busy generating away all day, too, ready to replenish the hydrogen stores you need for your car, your furnace, your hot water heater, your electric bill. [/quote]
In theory some of this is feasible, in reality much of it is feasible NOW. You can get solar cells and put them on your house right now. convert all your appliances to electricity. If what you theorize is correct, you should be able to supply all your energy needs - generate excess during the day you sell to the utility, and you buy back at night. You can also use wind generation too. This technology is on the shelf right now. I'd say .000001% of americans are using it. I'd say .00001% are making solar hot water, a technology that is 30+ years old (as on the market for home installation)
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Every day we get closer to the point where a serious discussion of these choices becomes inevitable, I think. :) |
True, but there are many many forces at work, all beyond the individuals control that will have their way/say before 'we' do.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 11:07:54 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
...there are many many forces at work, all beyond the individuals control that will have their way/say before 'we' do. |
Not true. Count how many individuals have contributed already to this thread or read and agree and have not posted. If we all would just decide to put people in office who agreed with these philosophies (and could still run the country/protect it) it would happen 'overnight'. Unfortunately, we sell our desires for more 'practical' thought from our politicians and therefore choose to live with delay. |
|
|
|
03/17/2005 11:48:35 PM · #41 |
| Daimler-Chrysler has announced yesterday that they will be bringing to market by 2012 the first of their hydrogen fuel-cell cars. There are some bugs to be worked out, but have 6 years to do that in. In the meantime an infrastructure needs to be built to support this kind of vehicle. Shell Oil is committing to fuel-cell technology as are other automobile companies. |
|
|
|
03/17/2005 11:55:05 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Arcanist:
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
...there are many many forces at work, all beyond the individuals control that will have their way/say before 'we' do. |
Not true. Count how many individuals have contributed already to this thread or read and agree and have not posted. If we all would just decide to put people in office who agreed with these philosophies (and could still run the country/protect it) it would happen 'overnight'. Unfortunately, we sell our desires for more 'practical' thought from our politicians and therefore choose to live with delay. |
I did not elect, nor can i, those that control the oil industry. I have no power over OPEC, nor do the individuals on this forum. I did not vote for Bush, this time or the last time. My car gets 26mpg. I try to think first and act second. Tooooooo many people don't.
|
|
|
|
03/27/2005 12:45:33 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
[quote=gingerbaker]
I don't think that the need for compression of H2 is something that is always in the equation.
There are mineral crystals that absorb (store) large amounts of H2 and release it at a controlled rate. For an auto, you don't NEED liquified or compressed H2, even if you want to burn straight H2 in an internal combustion engine. |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
hydrogen is the least dense element. to be able to take enough fuel/energy with you in your car, regardless of what the 'engine' is, the "tank" of hydrogen needs to be HUGE. |
I disagree. As I said, there is a technology available, tho not yet perfected, to store the H2 very efficiently in a mineral crytal tank. The crystals bind the H2 like a sponge, and release it slowly. The tank need not be huge at all.
.
.
.
.
.
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
You could drag a balloon of it uncompressed. you can compress it into a liquid. you can store it in another form - water for example - and 'crack' the molecule as you need it for fuel. Right now this works, but takes too long. |
It takes too long? As I described in a previous post, production of H2 from water is something that could go on 24/7 on an individual, local, and regional scale. And solar fuel cells do it immediately, and very efficiently, right at the car or roof or panel.
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
The most common ways to get hydrogen now is to 'crack' hydrocarbon fuels - the hydro part there is hydrogen. So you can turn gasoline into a hydrogen fuel...but all the conversion takes more energy than you end up with. |
.
.
.
.
Again, I thought I addressed this issue. Making hydrogen from hydrocarbon fuel is insane - The whole point of hydrogen, in my opinion, is to never use another drop of hydrocarcon for fuel!
.
.
.
.
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
I suspect water would be a great source. But no one is going to make a maching to turn water into fuel, as water is damn near free (rain is free) so there is no econimic incentive to do it. |
Yet, people have already invented a machine to turn water into fuel. It is called a solar fuel cell. Or you could use a simple electrolyser.
There is, I believe, an enormous economic incentive to do it. First of all, someone is going to make a trillion dollars a year selling these things around the world. (Eventually! :D )
Secondly, if the math to calculate the costs of hydrocarbon fuel burning actually included ALL the true costs involved, like pollution costs, medical costs of pollutiuon, and the cost of global warming, the economic benefits of going hydrogen would be dramatic.
.
.
.
.
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Again, hooked to the grid to get electricity to make H is a net energy loser. |
Is it an energy loser if the electricity used was made by a solar source? Or if it was made by a nuclear power plant or a hydroelectric dam at night, when all its potential energy production is currently untapped because it can't be stored as hydrogen gas cracked from water? Is it not a financial gain to use "clean" hydrogen or electric power instead of "dirty" hydrocarbon-derived power at any time?
.
.
.
.
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Donating back into teh grid via solar energy is a maybe. However, if the car is sitting turning some liquid into H gas, you need to store that gas - either a ballon or compress it into a tank.
|
Again, the crystal idea gets around that.
.
.
.
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
In theory some of this is feasible, in reality much of it is feasible NOW. You can get solar cells and put them on your house right now. convert all your appliances to electricity. If what you theorize is correct, you should be able to supply all your energy needs - generate excess during the day you sell to the utility, and you buy back at night. You can also use wind generation too. This technology is on the shelf right now. I'd say .000001% of americans are using it. I'd say .00001% are making solar hot water, a technology that is 30+ years old (as on the market for home installation) |
You say that the technology works, but is actually unsuccesful because no one uses it. Ahh, the oldest argument of the oil industry. Alternatives to carbon are always to be unsuccesful, because the "free market" would have already proven them a success!
When, in the future, we are FORCED to not use carbon fuels, because they are all gone(!), we will look back at this argument you presented and shake our heads.
If we ever had a progressive government in this country that was serious about alternative fuels, we would soon all bve using them.
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
[quote=gingerbaker]
Every day we get closer to the point where a serious discussion of these choices becomes inevitable, I think. :) |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
True, but there are many many forces at work, all beyond the individuals control that will have their way/say before 'we' do. |
Agreed, to an extent. But government is supposed to by and for "the people" I thought. ;D ;D
Message edited by author 2005-03-27 12:52:29. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 03:57:30 PM  |
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: 08/27/2025 03:57:30 PM EDT.
|
