Silverstone

Yeah and we all know the problems with oil. For one, when it's all gone, it's gone.

The other is we have to keep invading middle eatern countries to keep up with the demand. Another is the fuels made from it are not clean burning fuels.

Another thought: Why in the 21st century are we powering everthing on this thick black goo that comes from the ground?

Hydrogen baby. Let's lead the world again in technology and make everyone follow our lead, you know like we did the last time when we converted the world to oil in the first place. Oil became the new Gold and then all the Arab countries got rich on it and started dictating to us. Lets use our brain power to take back control of the world. We need to control the world! ha ha ha ha ha (evil laugh) .

Silverstone

Maybe, maybe not. But why don't you give him the benefit of the doubt? I'm tired of people complaining about something and then when the President takes the advice of the people and advances their cause, they say "bullshit" and claim it's all for show. Well that's the way the world works if you haven't figured it out yet. You complain and protest either in the voting booth or otherwise and you get our representatives to do what you want them to. You don't criticize when you get your way. You criticize when you don't get your way. Don't be foolish. If he's doing the right thing now, give him credit. It's all the rage now to be a follower and bitch about everything he does. Grow some ***** and decide to not just follow everyone else. Speak up for your causes and applaud those that advance them. Whether heart felt or not, the pres is advancing a good cause now. And remember, that is all a pres can do. They can lead by their rhetoric but they cannot actually make the laws. That is the job of congress. Now don't go on a rant about the iraq war or anything else. We are talking about energy now.

SPEEDRATED

SPEEDRATED

yodaddy

in response to the reply that the converter was a plugin, read a little, you'll see that the pluggin is optional, the primary source is solar panels. to the other posters in this thread, it's about hydrogen powered cars, not politics. if you wan to bitch about political policies or opinions, start a thread about it in the lounge.

MikeC

I always find these websites deliberately make it difficult to find out how their method supposedly works. I spent a few minutes at their site but couldn't find much. If it's using solar panels then the entire thing is one big joke. A solar panel of a few feet square will produce a massive 80W. We need to produce 100s of 1000s of watts. It simply does not work with solar panels.

MikeC

I'm no expert on hydrogen but from what i've read it's not the answer. It's only an energy store like a rechargable battery so you have to get the energy from somewhere to produce the hydrogen. And it's not even terribly good at being an energy store, there is massive enefficiencies creating it, it's very difficult to store and it's energy density is very low.

Silverstone

All you need is a clean way to get the hydrogen or at least initially a convenient way that doesn't involve foreign oil. Iceland uses geothermal to split water and all their cars run on it. Fuel cells as pointed out by earlier posts is an extremely efficient way to use the energy contained in hydrogen. Hydrogen is the most prevalent substance in the universe. Research is advancing all the time and will eventually come up with all kinds of ways to get it. Right now the best way although not the cleanest would be to split natural gas. The US has as much Natural gas reserves as Iran has oil reserves. We would be the new Iran or Saudi Arabia in terms of reserves of energy substance. It is much easier to get hydrogen from natural gas than from water as I understand it. We could start there and advance to cleaner ways as they become avail thru research. You see so all your arguments have an answer. FYI, every substance, gasoline included is just a store of *potential* energy. Gasoline is like a battery as you say and no different than hydrogen in that respect. With all due respect and If you like to read, read some more and get back to me. No offense intended.

MikeC

All you need is a clean way to make hydrogen? You say that as if it's some sort of trivial task. What you're really saying is we need a clean source of energy to make hydrogen. Getting a clean source of energy in the quantities required is not going to be easy and add to the fact that hydrogen multiplies that energy need by something like 10 due to the massive inefficiencies involved in creating it. As you said the fuel cell is extrememly efficient at getting the energy out of hydrogen but you forgot to mention that creating hydrogen is extremely inefficient.

Hydrogen is not the most common substance on the earth, water is. Water does contain hydrogen but it's a very different thing. Water has very little energy in it so cannot run a car. In order to convert water to hydrogen huge amounts of energy need to be added.

It makes sense that converting natural gas to hydrogen is easier than water because you are converting one high energy substance to another, hence no or little energy would be required. There is only one way to convert water to hydrogen and that is to add huge amounts of energy to it. But why bother converting natural gas, why not just run cars on it?

Hydrogen or petrol is NOT a source of potential energy, unless it is sitting on top of a mountain. :-) Do some research on what potential energy is and get back to me. The word you were looking for was chemical energy.

Petrol is like a battery as you stated but at least currently not a rechargable battery.

MikeC

That is simply not true. Iceland have a handful of cars and busses that run on hydrogen but certainly nothing like all.

MikeC

Check out this link regarding iceland. It states why the same idea will be extremely difficult or impossible to implement in the US. The interesting thing is if they did do this in the US it would actually use more fossil fuels because the hydrogen is just produced from electricity which is mainly produced from coal in the US. Because of the massive inefficiencies creating hydrogen it's actually cleaner just to burn petrol. Apparently the US govt is testing some buses and they produce several times more pollution than existing buses.

Note the link is page 2 of 3 if you want to view the other pages.

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/technol...ccdrcrd/2.html

cosmicbang

Actually, hydrogen and petrol ARE sources of potential energy. (You are thinking of gravitational potential energy, which is but one form. Elastic, electrical, and chemical are also forms of potential energy.)

For research "on what potential energy is", take a look here:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfa...sofenergy.html

MikeC

Fair call, I stand corrected on that one. I only ever knew potential energy as energy due to the altitude of a mass.

Silverstone

Look Mike, I know you mean well but are you playing scientist or what? You don't seem to have the faintest grasp of scientific principles judging by the things you write. First you are comparing a basic element Hydrogen to a more complicated molecule that contains hydrogen, H2O. Then you say use Nat gas instead of hydrogen. Fuel cells use hydrogen, not natural gas. Now, Look up "Potential Energy" in an encyclopedia. Yes, a bowling ball on a mountain is stored potential energy but so is any energy bound up chemically. In fact all matter according to Einstein (E= MC squared) is potential energy locked up. Some forms like gasoline are just easier to convert to useable forms. Potential energy is a broad term which includes chemical and other forms of potential energy such as your mountain top example. What is your point about rechargeable? When you add hydrogen to your fuel cell you are recharging it. Technology is advancing and new fancier ways to get hydrogen will be coming online soon.

Sometimes it is better to keep quiet and have people think you are ignorant than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Just something to think about. Anyway I say this with all due respect. Afterall you can't be all bad. You own a RX7 don't you? I'm tired of arguing for hydrogen. I'm actually hoping scientists will come up with something even better. Whatever they come up with, I hope it helps us become energy independent here in the US.

Xeros

You know if it were that simple.....sure I would go forth and say okay I'll give it a chnace....but what the media pushes isn't exactly always true is it...especially form uber sources like FOX....You say he has doen sooo much for the Hydrogen power advancment...but what exactly has he done?

MikeC

I'm really finding your condensending tone quite rude, especially considering the number of incorrect points you've raised. Yes potential energy is a broader term than I understood it to be, I pointed this out in a previous post. This is the only thing I was wrong on and it was just an incorrect definition. I was comparing hydrogen to water because you stated hydrogen is the most prevalent substance on the planet when it is in fact water. I'm not sure what you don't understand about running cars on natural gas, it's going to be a lot easier to do this than convert the gas to hydrogen and get cars to run on hydrogen.

My point about hydrogen acting as a battery is that no matter what technology we eventually use it will be one form of "battery" or another. We get energy from somewhere, it could be coal, windmills, hydro electric or whatever and we have to find a way to store that energy inside a car. As far as batteries go hydrogen is highly inefficient and will multiply our required energy usage several times. We'd probably be better off just using an actual battery.

Could be good advice to follow considering all the errors in your posts. You've hardly responded to any of the points I raised:
- hydrogen is a highly inefficient energy store.
- hardly any cars (or is it none?) in iceland run on hydrogen
- iceland simply use electricity to make hydrogen so the idea is currently infeasible in the US
- why convert natural gas to hydrogen when cars could run on natural gas more easily.
- no clean methods currently exist in the quantities required to produce the electricity to produce hydrogen.

Also there were a whole lot of points raised in the article which didn't fill me with confidence about hydrogen's future, none of which you responded to.

MikeC

I probably didn't explain this too well. We start off with an energy form that is not usable inside a car and have to find a way to store it which is transportable and safe. For example hydro electric obvious has to be converted somehow to be stored inside the car. To make things simple assume we start off with electricity. We have to find a way to store the energy from the electricity to be used at a later time. One method obviously is to extract the hydrogen from water and retrieve that energy using a fuel cell. The problem with this is it is extremely inefficient to produce hydrogen from water so the energy we get back is only a fraction of what we put in. I'm not sure what the actual figure is but I think it's only 10% (someone will correct me I'm sure if i'm wrong :-) More than likely we will find a more efficient method of storing the energy.

cosmicbang

An article like that in a magazine such as Popular Mechanics can easily spin the issue either way. FWIW, Scientific American has taken the opposite position. If you really want to be informed you need to dig a little deeper. The Rocky Mountain Institute and Department of Energy are a couple places to start.

Electric storage batteries have their own dirty secrets and inherent problems which are often overlooked when promoting electric and hybrid vehicles.

Returning to the original topic. Hydrogen can be used in internal combustion engines. Personally, even though I drive electric golf carts occasionally, I get more enjoyment driving an inefficient, impractical, high-horsepower, internal combustion sports car.

Zero R

iTrader: (1)

I was under the impression VHTR's or GenIV reactors were going to be a viable source for clean hydrogen production. Still a few years away but so is running out of oil.

-S-

MikeC

That's true although this isn't the only article I've read on hydrogen. I've seen a *lot* of negative press for hydrogen and what I've seen that is positive has usually skipped over the issues. On the other hand there was a lot of press telling us oil was going to run dry in the 80s so they don't always get it right.

Silverstone

Sorry you think I'm rude but I get the impression that you are one of those guys that thinks he knows a hell of a lot more than he actually does. I have little patience for that kind of attitude.

Here are my answers to your points:

1. Hydrogen is very efficient as evidenced by its use by NASA in fuel cells and rocket fuel. They use it because they need an energy source where efficiency counts. It has already been pointed out accurately in prev posts that fuel cells are highly efficient.

2. About Iceland, Read this link:
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1518556

Maybe the word ALL was exaggerated but my point was valid as evidenced by the article.

3. Not only is hydrogen feasible but it is the primary area of focus in all the research on alternative fuels.

4. Natural gas might be a good stepping stone to hydrogen. We have a lot of it here in the US and Canada. Russia also has a lot. Luckily the middle east does not have much. Wouldn't it be great to turn the tables on them over there?

5. Did you know that plants, yes plants split water extremely efficiently. Nature always does it best doesn't it? This is an area of research to see if we can replicate the photosynthesis of plants to split water and get hydrogen. Also there is currently solar, geothermal, wind, and hydroelectric which are all clean methods to produce electricity and produce hydrogen. Hey if Iceland can do it don't you have any confidence in the country that put a man on the moon? Don't be so cynical and pessimistic.

MikeC

1. NASA needed a fuel that is efficient *once inside the shuttle*. The don't give a stuff how much energy they use to create that fuel or how much is wasted in the process because that all happens on the ground. NASAs requirements for a fuel will be totally different to that required for a car. Hydrogen *is* inefficient to produce.

2. As for the article, it states that iceland use three buses running on hydrogen. That is a long long way from all cars (wouldn't you agree all and zero are remarkably different? :-)

3. The primary area of focus? Do you have figures for that? The US spent more on promoting "healthy marriages" than hydrogen research last year. They also spent more on fossil fuel and nuclear research. The money spent on hydrogen research is what they spend in 9 days of war. Do you really think that shows much commitment?

4. Personally I think it's amusing the middle east has this power over the US. It certainly brings out the worst in your politicians and your people.

5. I doubt anything plants do is going to be efficient. I'd imagine they'd take in a significant amount of sunlight, many times more than the energy that would be retrieved.

TonyD89

iTrader: (10)

I 'm just going to throw some info out here.

I read an artical in 'American Enterprise" that talked about the reallities of hydrogen. In the article it said to run America today on hydrogen produced by electrolisys, you would have to increase the electrical output of the US by %50.

That's alot! The articles main theme was to make an arguement for revisiting nuclear fission as a source of electricity. And the point was made: Not if, but when.

I hear there is a new reactor design that uses a partical beam to keep the reaction going. The pile can never reach critical mass. Thus preventing melt down. Turn off beam. Reaction stops. It may be the FIRST way we will turn to get hydrogen.

Silverstone

Ok, mike. I know better than to cast my pearls before swine. Let's just agree to disagree and say that time will tell. Glad you think it is so amusing about the western world of which Ausies are a part is so beholding to middle-east interests. Shows how self flaggelating and masochistic you are. The US and Australia are strategic partners and what is bad for us is bad for you. I'm done with this topic so say whatever you want in a followup but don't expect me to read it. As a fellow RX7 owner you do have my respect. I disagree with many friends and still manage to remain friends. Perhaps on a different subject we would be agreeing whole-hearteldly. I'm going to get on to more entertaining topics now. But mark my words. Hydrogen is the future, unless we come up with something better than fuel cells.

KeloidJonesJr.

iTrader: (8)

Environmentalists need to...