NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm wondering why so many people think that hydrogen powered cars are a good thing. Do people not know the science behind the technology? It doesn't reduce dependence on oil...because the best place to get hydrogen is from oil. You can get it from methane, but you tend to find methane in the same places you find oil. You can get it from water, but you have to use more energy than you get to do that, so it makes no sense, whatsoever. It doesn't reduce pollution because byproducts from the refining process are still created. All it does is displace where the pollution is created. What are your thoughts?

Hydrogen...
the best non-solution to the energy crisis. :D

If you get it from water and you decompose the water into hydrogen and oxygen using electricity from nuclear power it eliminates both air pollution and dependance on foreign oil.

If you get it from water and you decompose the water into hydrogen and oxygen using electricity from nuclear power it eliminates both air pollution and dependance on foreign oil.
Only if you build 50 new power plants that are used ONLY (100%) for hydrogen extraction.

Only if you build 50 new power plants that are used ONLY (100%) for hydrogen extraction.
So what's wrong with that? I like nuclear power. I like clean air. I don't like paying unfriendly governments just so we can drive our cars.

If you get it from water and you decompose the water into hydrogen and oxygen using electricity from nuclear power it eliminates both air pollution and dependance on foreign oil.

But then you've got nuclear waste to condend with. I'd rather have air pollution.

So what's wrong with that? I like nuclear power. I like clean air. I don't like paying unfriendly governments just so we can drive our cars.

I could be wrong on this, but I'm pretty sure that Uranium tends to come from unfriendly governments.

So what's wrong with that? I like nuclear power. I like clean air. I don't like paying unfriendly governments just so we can drive our cars.

Plus, why not just make you're car nuclear powered? It'd be more energy efficient than using it to produce hydrogen.

But then you've got nuclear waste to condend with. I'd rather have air pollution.
Nuclear waste can be isolated, can't it? Keep it in stainless steel containers buried in concrete in remote areas under guard.

You can get hydrogen from water using a number of energy sources, such as nuclear, solar, wind, hydroelectric, etc. This has the effect of condensing broad, delocalized renewable energy sources into hydrogen fuel.

Plus, why not just make you're car nuclear powered? It'd be more energy efficient than using it to produce hydrogen.
Nope. A nuclear reactor is a heavy, large item. A small one would probably outweigh your car.

I don't like paying unfriendly governments just so we can drive our cars.

Why not convince your Senators and Congressmen to allow drilling for oil in Anwar, off the coast of California :eek:, off the coast of Florida :eek: :eek: God forbid the US become self sufficient in oil.

Oh, I agree with you. There is nothing wrong with nuclear power and I don't like paying unfriendly nations for oil. So, let us build nuclear plants and while they are being built start drilling.

I could be wrong on this, but I'm pretty sure that Uranium tends to come from unfriendly governments.
We have plenty of uranium bearing ores in the USA. Pitchblende comes to mind immediately. Also we can now build thorium fueled reactors. Thorium is quite plentiful everywhere.

Nuclear waste can be isolated, can't it? Keep it in stainless steel containers buried in concrete in remote areas under guard.

Yes.

You can get hydrogen from water using a number of energy sources, such as nuclear, solar, wind, hydroelectric, etc. This has the effect of condensing broad, delocalized renewable energy sources into hydrogen fuel.

Yeah, but solar panal superconductors (or maybe they're semiconductors, I don't remember) are EXTREMLY expensive, and difficult to make. That's why solar isn't a viable opion. I think nuclear is probably the most viable opion.

You can get hydrogen from water using a number of energy sources, such as nuclear, solar, wind, hydroelectric, etc. This has the effect of condensing broad, delocalized renewable energy sources into hydrogen fuel.

Yeah, but solar panal superconductors (or maybe they're semiconductors, I don't remember) are EXTREMLY expensive, and difficult to make. That's why solar isn't a viable opion. I think nuclear is probably the most viable option.

Why not convince your Senators and Congressmen to allow drilling for oil in Anwar, off the coast of California :eek:, off the coast of Florida :eek: :eek: God forbid the US become self sufficient in oil.

Oh, I agree with you. There is nothing wrong with nuclear power and I don't like paying unfriendly nations for oil. So, let us build nuclear plants and while they are being built start drilling.
Or we can keep doing what we're doing now. Help use up all of the world's oil, cause an oil crisis that cripples everyone else's economy and then bring ANWR, and the other N. American oil sources on line and watch our economy boom as we have access to cheap energy and everyone else is energy-poor.

Nope. A nuclear reactor is a heavy, large item. A small one would probably outweigh your car.

"EXIT" signs are nuclear powered. They certainly do not outweight my car.

We have plenty of uranium bearing ores in the USA. Pitchblende comes to mind immediately. Also we can now build thorium fueled reactors. Thorium is quite plentiful everywhere.

I didn't know we could build Thorium reactors. I don't imagine they use the same isotope of thorium that's a byproduct of uranium fission?

"EXIT" signs are nuclear powered. They certainly do not outweight my car.
There's a difference between a nuclear battery and a nuclear reactor. A nuclear battery, which is what I assume you're talking about, uses a small ammount of radioactive material laced with thermocouples to generate small ammounts of electricity for long periods of time. It won't run a car unless you have a huge one that wouldn't fit in a car. A nuclear reactor actually speeds up fission and heats water to run a turbine hooked up to a generator. It requires large ammounts of the dense element Uranium, heavy control rods, alot of heavy shielding, a reservoir of cooling fluid, and water to run the turbine. That makes for a big, heavy device.

There's a difference between a nuclear battery and a nuclear reactor. A nuclear battery, which is what I assume you're talking about, uses a small ammount of radioactive material laced with thermocouples to generate small ammounts of electricity for long periods of time. It won't run a car unless you have a huge one that wouldn't fit in a car. A nuclear reactor actually speeds up fission and heats water to run a turbine hooked up to a generator. It requires large ammounts of the dense element Uranium, heavy control rods, alot of heavy shielding, a reservoir of cooling fluid, and water to run the turbine. That makes for a big, heavy device.

I know. That was a joke. But, back to my original topic, do we all agree that hydrogen is not the solution?

I didn't know we could build Thorium reactors. I don't imagine they use the same isotope of thorium that's a byproduct of uranium fission?
They're a type of breeder reactor that converts thorium into a uranium isotope for fuel. India's planning to build a bunch of them.

Sorry guys for being so pessimistic.
As much as I hate petrol, gas, "petropolitics" and pollution (... I've moved outside of big cities to escape stinky air)...
I have serious doubts when it comes to hydrogen being a solution to either the fuel crisis and/or the energy crisis.
I've seen failed research, ineffective solutions that require huge amounts of electricity... not to mention bulky engines which require such a fine tuning that they constantly fail. Not to mention the costs (energy, materials) fo fuel cells. And keeping hydrogen gas in any tank proves to be complicated (hydrogen gas is highly reactive, and all known materials are quite permeable to hydrogen), freezing/pressure problems (more energy required!), and so on.

Not to mention that each time you accidentaly release H2 gas in the atmosphere, it evaporates into space and you've just lose it forever.

They're a type of breeder reactor that converts thorium into a uranium isotope for fuel. India's planning to build a bunch of them.

Nifty.

Sorry guys for being so pessimistic.
As much as I hate petrol, gas, "petropolitics" and pollution (... I've moved outside of big cities to escape stinky air)...
I have serious doubts when it comes to hydrogen being a solution to either the fuel crisis and/or the energy crisis.
I've seen failed research, ineffective solutions that require huge amounts of electricity... not to mention bulky engines which require such a fine tuning that they constantly fail. Not to mention the costs (energy, materials) fo fuel cells. And keeping hydrogen gas in any tank proves to be complicated (hydrogen gas is highly reactive, and all known materials are quite permeable to hydrogen), freezing/pressure problems (more energy required!), and so on.

Not to mention that each time you accidentaly release H2 gas in the atmosphere, it evaporates into space and you've just lose it forever.

I think you and me are on the same page.

First of all, the misconception of hydrogen seems to be that it is an energy source. It is no more an energy source then is a battery: it is simply a way of storing energy from other sources. This was said in many more words then this, but I must mention it.
Oil polutes horribly, and another qualm I have with the continued use of fossil substances as fuels, is how useful they are in other ways. The hydrocarbons are wonderfully used to make all sorts of polymers with different properties. We are burning what we should be researching and experimenting with in material sciences.
Nuclear has the radioactive waste, and putting it in barrels and cement does not work because the barrels decay before many of the isotopes, the cement breaks down quite easily, and there is still an immense amount of heat generated which ,when concentrated underground, can become quite explosive. One of the problems with their construction of Yukka Mountain's underground facilities is that it is on a faulting zone so will possible (and given the massive faulting, probably) be subject to geologic movement. This will disrupt many of their large barrels and cause spillage, and with the faulting and fracturing the material then enters the water table, ect. Second, if the faulting (or just leakage) causes water to flow into the area, the pressure would become so immense and is all underground that the resulting explosion would be as bad or worse then many an H-bomb, and would have fallout, essentialy, of everythign we tried to bury, all over the earth. An explosion so immense it would put mount saint hellens to shame, spew out more dangerous stuff then a whole bunch of nuclear meltdowns, spread that stuff further, and...you get the picture. At least CO2 we can get back out of the atmosphere via plants. Remote area? Not much better. Under guard? well, how long are you talking? This whole bush thing plans for 10000 years. Humans have enough trouble keeping things going on the scale of hundreds of years, when you talk 10,000 years you speak of the amount of time since the Epic of Gilgamesh was first written till now (aproxomately). We don't even have good records of those times even when they made them, both because that amount of time does a number on such things, and we can at times not even read the languages it is written in because languages change more quickly then people might think. I don;t think we can keep a program going that long: no nation lasts that long. If that area is ever 'taken over' it will indeed provide tons of weaponery, and trying to guard it now will only postpone the aquisition of that weaponry a few hundred years. Also, depending on the isotope (they are all present) the danger remains extreme for 100,000 to several billion years. So we can have CO2 or we can have dangerous elemenal materials.
I of course vouch that we should use neither. I espouse that research is what is needed: materials research in solar power and similar forms of capturing energy. Thermodynamically we can consider earth a system, but the only thing we find input is photonic energy, while the rest is simply draining off that which has collected there over the eons (or collected there many eons ago, like the isotopes we now mine. They have been shifted about, but there are not the forces on earth to create them... not even our sun's very center can). This is inevitably unstable. And you claim solar to be expensive and difficult. It is doable, however, even by ordinary people: one such person powered a house with solar pannels that he made himself in a single year with 10,000 dollars that would otherwise have cost, if buying them, 240,000 dollars. Basically, all we need is more and better research and development in the area, and some sort of policy to keep the price so that it is possible. Solar pannels are very long lived as well, this is well known. As I have always said, research is the way to go. In many other matters. I am hard pressed to think of a single non-sociologically or economically (which is simply a social construct anyway) based factor that could hinder the rise of the 'solar revolution' and indeed these are the same hindrances that keep so much other research from being done. We could speed things up so much, not necessarily with funding (that is dollar-economics, and not inherently important), but with materials, time, lack of hindrance, ect. Another fact: that person who put the pannels on the house for 10,000 dollars after spending a year making them? That person can now get a check from the power suppliers because he is putting electric potential energy back into the system (yes power lines work that way). The same goes for wind power. Put up a windmill in your back yard, and when not using it, switch off your lights, and your meter goes into negative numbers. You recieve a paycheck from the energy companies.
So while you claim solar to be expensive, you are looking at it economically, not scientifically or practically.
.... I am sure I will recieve a lot of flaming now. The more I write, the more chances I have to write something wrong... but that is often how learning goes. But with my new "Pannels on every roof" policy that I will enstate in my country, Basidiocarpia, I will show you all it can be done. Pannels on the roof, windmills in the yards, and research all around... hot cha!

I know. That was a joke. But, back to my original topic, do we all agree that hydrogen is not the solution?

'Solution'? No.

Better than the gas guzzlers we are using now? YES

I'm pretty sure that's the whole point of hydrogen. It is more fuel efficient. More miles per gallon on less fuel.

Drilling in nearby places will not provide a solution as those reserves will run out soon enough as well. Prices will likely not drop even if we do drill in those areas.

Hydrogen is the most plentlful substance in the universe and tonnes of the crap falls to earth every day (along with other things). The hydrogen is only released in the atmosphere as water when the engine is done with it and that stays on the planet.

Solar panels are fairly expensive (hundreds of bucks for each) but is certainly worth it in the long run. They generate electricity when it is overcast outside and you can sell any surplus energy you make back to the energy company. It reduces the amount of pollution the energy company makes on your behalf.

First of all, the misconception of hydrogen seems to be that it is an energy source. It is no more an energy source then is a battery: it is simply a way of storing energy from other sources. This was said in many more words then this, but I must mention it.
Oil polutes horribly, and another qualm I have with the continued use of fossil substances as fuels, is how useful they are in other ways. The hydrocarbons are wonderfully used to make all sorts of polymers with different properties. We are burning what we should be researching and experimenting with in material sciences.
Nuclear has the radioactive waste, and putting it in barrels and cement does not work because the barrels decay before many of the isotopes, the cement breaks down quite easily, and there is still an immense amount of heat generated which ,when concentrated underground, can become quite explosive. One of the problems with their construction of Yukka Mountain's underground facilities is that it is on a faulting zone so will possible (and given the massive faulting, probably) be subject to geologic movement. This will disrupt many of their large barrels and cause spillage, and with the faulting and fracturing the material then enters the water table, ect. Second, if the faulting (or just leakage) causes water to flow into the area, the pressure would become so immense and is all underground that the resulting explosion would be as bad or worse then many an H-bomb, and would have fallout, essentialy, of everythign we tried to bury, all over the earth. An explosion so immense it would put mount saint hellens to shame, spew out more dangerous stuff then a whole bunch of nuclear meltdowns, spread that stuff further, and...you get the picture. At least CO2 we can get back out of the atmosphere via plants. Remote area? Not much better. Under guard? well, how long are you talking? This whole bush thing plans for 10000 years. Humans have enough trouble keeping things going on the scale of hundreds of years, when you talk 10,000 years you speak of the amount of time since the Epic of Gilgamesh was first written till now (aproxomately). We don't even have good records of those times even when they made them, both because that amount of time does a number on such things, and we can at times not even read the languages it is written in because languages change more quickly then people might think. I don;t think we can keep a program going that long: no nation lasts that long. If that area is ever 'taken over' it will indeed provide tons of weaponery, and trying to guard it now will only postpone the aquisition of that weaponry a few hundred years. Also, depending on the isotope (they are all present) the danger remains extreme for 100,000 to several billion years. So we can have CO2 or we can have dangerous elemenal materials.
I of course vouch that we should use neither. I espouse that research is what is needed: materials research in solar power and similar forms of capturing energy. Thermodynamically we can consider earth a system, but the only thing we find input is photonic energy, while the rest is simply draining off that which has collected there over the eons (or collected there many eons ago, like the isotopes we now mine. They have been shifted about, but there are not the forces on earth to create them... not even our sun's very center can). This is inevitably unstable. And you claim solar to be expensive and difficult. It is doable, however, even by ordinary people: one such person powered a house with solar pannels that he made himself in a single year with 10,000 dollars that would otherwise have cost, if buying them, 240,000 dollars. Basically, all we need is more and better research and development in the area, and some sort of policy to keep the price so that it is possible. Solar pannels are very long lived as well, this is well known. As I have always said, research is the way to go. In many other matters. I am hard pressed to think of a single non-sociologically or economically (which is simply a social construct anyway) based factor that could hinder the rise of the 'solar revolution' and indeed these are the same hindrances that keep so much other research from being done. We could speed things up so much, not necessarily with funding (that is dollar-economics, and not inherently important), but with materials, time, lack of hindrance, ect. Another fact: that person who put the pannels on the house for 10,000 dollars after spending a year making them? That person can now get a check from the power suppliers because he is putting electric potential energy back into the system (yes power lines work that way). The same goes for wind power. Put up a windmill in your back yard, and when not using it, switch off your lights, and your meter goes into negative numbers. You recieve a paycheck from the energy companies.
So while you claim solar to be expensive, you are looking at it economically, not scientifically or practically.
.... I am sure I will recieve a lot of flaming now. The more I write, the more chances I have to write something wrong... but that is often how learning goes. But with my new "Pannels on every roof" policy that I will enstate in my country, Basidiocarpia, I will show you all it can be done. Pannels on the roof, windmills in the yards, and research all around... hot cha!

Well, solar power would be a nice energy source. But, even by your estimates, we're talkin $10000 per home to set it up. I don't have $10000. And we're not just just talkin America, or the West. We're talkin the world. That's a lot of homes. $10000, and a year of someone's time each. That's expensive. That's "not-doable" expensive.

(QUOTING: "Hydrogen is the most plentlful substance in the universe and tonnes of the crap falls to earth every day (along with other things). The hydrogen is only released in the atmosphere as water when the engine is done with it and that stays on the planet.

Solar panels are fairly expensive (hundreds of bucks for each) but is certainly worth it in the long run. They generate electricity when it is overcast outside and you can sell any surplus energy you make back to the energy company. It reduces the amount of pollution the energy company makes on your behalf."

Daaaang strait. I didn;t mean to sound anti hydrogen in my essay, because as a battery it is very effective. But that is what it is: a battery.
Also, while you may get more 'miles per galon' on hydrogen, you are not more efficient in the long run under the current system. Lets ignore the fact that most of the energy for the hydrogen stripping comes from fossil fuel sources, and simply focus on the use of methane as the source: we have to expend energy to strip that hydrogen off that methane, in an inherently inefficient process. Internal Combustion of Direact Fossil Fuels: 40% efficient. But hydrogen, if taking into account extraction energy and then energy lost in the engine it is used in, is probably not much more then that in the long run. Simple thermodynamics: the more times you do work on a system, the more entropy you have.
Other problems with hydrogen itself: it causes materials it comes in contact with to become brittle, it is a tiny molecule so leaks out easily, it is light so it leaks out at a rate determined by an exponential function inversely proportional to mass, and therefore mathematically equals helium in it's speed of escape, it has massive tunneling effect (wave function going 'outside the box' and essentialy no longer existing in it's containment, instead existing elsewhere).
Again I will reitterate that the only sources for the energy to break the hydrogen from it's source that are good on the long term are all sources from the sun. Reverting unused crop matter to methanol (CO2 removed from atmosphere, put into plants with... SUNLIGHT! Plants are natural solar pannels ^.^ And all the methanol we burn that comes from this method is put directly back into the atmosphere ONLY in quantities equal to that which plants took out ^.^ Matter neither created, nor destroyed ^.^), wind power (weather is primarily solar powered anyway ^.^), direct solar power, ect. I won;t neglect geothermal, that is usable too, though has it's faults. But if we are to have a sustainable use of hydrogen, we need better technology for transport, use, and creation of the hydrogen. Which means more research!

Well, solar power would be a nice energy source. But, even by your estimates, we're talkin $10000 per home to set it up. I don't have $10000. And we're not just just talkin America, or the West. We're talkin the world. That's a lot of homes. $10000, and a year of someone's time each. That's expensive. That's "not-doable" expensive.

Again, you are thinking economically. Do you know what gas would cost if it weren;t governmentally subsidized? Yet they won't subsidize pannels? There are TONS of ways we could easily make it completely feasable, and it is these preconceptions of how the world works based on how human activity has tended to go that is one of our greater hindrances to simply doing that which is necessary.

Nothing is ever going to be as cheap as oil. Ever. And that's because the job of converting solar energy to easily storable chemical bonds was made millions of years ago by billions of plants. If we had to make our own oil from scratch it would be stupidly expensive.

All other forms of energy storage, like hydrogen or whatever else we look into, will require us to invest in converting energy from one form to another. That's going to make energy more expensive.

Everybody knows this and that's why no one is looking for a cheap alternative to oil. There simply is none.

Solar energy combined with hydrogen fuel cells (not pure hydrogen) may be a solution, nuclear energy could be another one, methane from the sea floor another, etc. Most probably it will be a combination of these sources and different storage methods. Hydrogen will play a part, but perhaps just not that important.

'Solution'? No.

Better than the gas guzzlers we are using now? YES

I'm pretty sure that's the whole point of hydrogen. It is more fuel efficient. More miles per gallon on less fuel.

Drilling in nearby places will not provide a solution as those reserves will run out soon enough as well. Prices will likely not drop even if we do drill in those areas.

Hydrogen is the most plentlful substance in the universe and tonnes of the crap falls to earth every day (along with other things). The hydrogen is only released in the atmosphere as water when the engine is done with it and that stays on the planet.

Solar panels are fairly expensive (hundreds of bucks for each) but is certainly worth it in the long run. They generate electricity when it is overcast outside and you can sell any surplus energy you make back to the energy company. It reduces the amount of pollution the energy company makes on your behalf.

I havn't crunched the numbers, but I'd imagine hydrogen would be less fuel efficient due to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I realize that your not burning it, like you do with fossil fuels. But, like I said, I haven't crunched the numbers. And, hydrogen may be the most abundent element in the universe, but, here, on the planet Earth, it's all locked away in molecules. It takes energy to break bonds. It'd be nice if we could wizz off in our rocket ships and collect elemental hydogen from somewhere else, but that's not gonna happen.

Again, you are thinking economically. Do you know what gas would cost if it weren;t governmentally subsidized? Yet they won't subsidize pannels? There are TONS of ways we could easily make it completely feasable, and it is these preconceptions of how the world works based on how human activity has tended to go that is one of our greater hindrances to simply doing that which is necessary.

I may be thinking economically, but you're talking about covering the Earth in an expensive materirial that's tough to make. Think about it.

well oil not going to last for ever. 36 years or so.

(QUOTING: "Hydrogen is the most plentlful substance in the universe and tonnes of the crap falls to earth every day (along with other things). The hydrogen is only released in the atmosphere as water when the engine is done with it and that stays on the planet.

Solar panels are fairly expensive (hundreds of bucks for each) but is certainly worth it in the long run. They generate electricity when it is overcast outside and you can sell any surplus energy you make back to the energy company. It reduces the amount of pollution the energy company makes on your behalf."

Daaaang strait. I didn;t mean to sound anti hydrogen in my essay, because as a battery it is very effective. But that is what it is: a battery.
Also, while you may get more 'miles per galon' on hydrogen, you are not more efficient in the long run under the current system. Lets ignore the fact that most of the energy for the hydrogen stripping comes from fossil fuel sources, and simply focus on the use of methane as the source: we have to expend energy to strip that hydrogen off that methane, in an inherently inefficient process. Internal Combustion of Direact Fossil Fuels: 40% efficient. But hydrogen, if taking into account extraction energy and then energy lost in the engine it is used in, is probably not much more then that in the long run. Simple thermodynamics: the more times you do work on a system, the more entropy you have.
Other problems with hydrogen itself: it causes materials it comes in contact with to become brittle, it is a tiny molecule so leaks out easily, it is light so it leaks out at a rate determined by an exponential function inversely proportional to mass, and therefore mathematically equals helium in it's speed of escape, it has massive tunneling effect (wave function going 'outside the box' and essentialy no longer existing in it's containment, instead existing elsewhere).
Again I will reitterate that the only sources for the energy to break the hydrogen from it's source that are good on the long term are all sources from the sun. Reverting unused crop matter to methanol (CO2 removed from atmosphere, put into plants with... SUNLIGHT! Plants are natural solar pannels ^.^ And all the methanol we burn that comes from this method is put directly back into the atmosphere ONLY in quantities equal to that which plants took out ^.^ Matter neither created, nor destroyed ^.^), wind power (weather is primarily solar powered anyway ^.^), direct solar power, ect. I won;t neglect geothermal, that is usable too, though has it's faults. But if we are to have a sustainable use of hydrogen, we need better technology for transport, use, and creation of the hydrogen. Which means more research!

I'll tell you this, I like the use of quantum theory to shoot down hydrogen.

I may be thinking economically, but you're talking about covering the Earth in an expensive materirial that's tough to make. Think about it.
It doesn't have to be difficult. Plants have done it quite effectively. We just need to find out how they do it and develop something similar we can use.

Sure, it requires time, investment and research, but sitting on our ass is not going to take us anywhere.

It doesn't have to be difficult. Plants have done it quite effectively. We just need to find out how they do it and develop something similar we can use.

Sure, it requires time, investment and research, but sitting on our ass is not going to take us anywhere.

We know exacly how plants do it. We can't sythisize Chlorophyll. I'm not suggesting we sit on our ass, but this isn't a viable option. I'd be less pessimistic about fusion reactors that some kind of Chloro-solar thing.

We know exacly how plants do it. We can't sythisize Chlorophyll. I'm not suggesting we sit on our ass, but this isn't a viable option. I'd be less pessimistic about fusion reactors that some kind of Chloro-solar thing.
See? If we can't synthesize clorophyl then we don't know exactly how plants do it. It doesn't have to be clorophyl based, anyway, but a self sustainable system that will autoreplicate, store energy and release it on command. A tall order and certainly not something that will be done in the next 20 years, but I don't consider it unfeasible.

You can produce hydrogen with water and electricity. Water's easy enough to find and electricity can be produced without pollution. It's a problem of capital. Nobody's investing enough money in electricity production to produce anywhere near enough hydrogen to take the place of gasoline. But it could be done. In the US, "all we'd have to do" is triple our electricity production. That is not impossible.

See? If we can't synthesize clorophyl then we don't know exactly how plants do it. It doesn't have to be clorophyl based, anyway, but a self sustainable system that will autoreplicate, store energy and release it on command. A tall order and certainly not something that will be done in the next 20 years, but I don't consider it unfeasible.

But, plants use that energy to maintain themselves. If they give it up, they die. So the system may be self-sustainable, but it's incapable of releasing much energy. Even if we could do it, we'd have to cover acres upon acres of land in "green stuff" to light one bulb. And we do know exacly how plants do it. We know how they make chlorophyll. I was saying we can't.

I may be thinking economically, but you're talking about covering the Earth in an expensive materirial that's tough to make. Think about it.

No, i'm talking about finally taking the time to research ways to capture solar energy that is less expensive to produce or at least that can be produced on the necessary scale, or at least educating people in the ways of their production and hoping innovations occur, like the innovation of the 10,000$ pannel person. that being just one sort of example. Don't like that one? put up a windmill, they work too. Grow some crops, culture some bacteria with methanol as the primary byproduct, and get a big container. People do these things, they work, and what they take is knowledge and effort. And we are not covering the earth, we are simply covering some houses. A house can cost hundreds per month to power, not to mention oil heating being polluting, so the pannels have paid for themselves in a few years, and as well if someone has enough money to get a house built, they surely have enough to chip in for some good old pannels, aye? I saw a house once that had a partially panneled roof with a large number of siny electric motors, connected backwards, to a bunch of pinwheels. Pinwheels similar to those children play with. Not even a big clunky windmill, but a bunch of small pinwheels makeshiftly attached to motors and then to eachother. A person ingenously using both wind and power. I commend them.
I am also speaking of developing ways to produce these things I speak of in very efficient (both economically, if we must, and material-wise) ways. It can be done. With effort and ingenuity. We make more complex things then solar pannels and use them to play videogames. We just do not yet have any viable mass manufacture of what we can already produce yet, because there is limited demand, because of the expense... a self feeding hindrance. And there are so many ways to get out of this silly loop and just DO IT!

You can produce hydrogen with water and electricity. Water's easy enough to find and electricity can be produced without pollution. It's a problem of capital. Nobody's investing enough money in electricity production to produce anywhere near enough hydrogen to take the place of gasoline. But it could be done. In the US, "all we'd have to do" is triple our electricity production. That is not impossible.

How would you produce the electricity? That's the problem.

Or we can keep doing what we're doing now. Help use up all of the world's oil, cause an oil crisis that cripples everyone else's economy and then bring ANWR, and the other N. American oil sources on line and watch our economy boom as we have access to cheap energy and everyone else is energy-poor.Everyone else being poor does not make you rich. Wealth is not a zero sum thing.

No, i'm talking about finally taking the time to research ways to capture solar energy that is less expensive to produce or at least that can be produced on the necessary scale, or at least educating people in the ways of their production and hoping innovations occur, like the innovation of the 10,000$ pannel person. that being just one sort of example. Don't like that one? put up a windmill, they work too. Grow some crops, culture some bacteria with methanol as the primary byproduct, and get a big container. People do these things, they work, and what they take is knowledge and effort. And we are not covering the earth, we are simply covering some houses. A house can cost hundreds per month to power, not to mention oil heating being polluting, so the pannels have paid for themselves in a few years, and as well if someone has enough money to get a house built, they surely have enough to chip in for some good old pannels, aye? I saw a house once that had a partially panneled roof with a large number of siny electric motors, connected backwards, to a bunch of pinwheels. Pinwheels similar to those children play with. Not even a big clunky windmill, but a bunch of small pinwheels makeshiftly attached to motors and then to eachother. A person ingenously using both wind and power. I commend them.
I am also speaking of developing ways to produce these things I speak of in very efficient (both economically, if we must, and material-wise) ways. It can be done. With effort and ingenuity. We make more complex things then solar pannels and use them to play videogames. We just do not yet have any viable mass manufacture of what we can already produce yet, because there is limited demand, because of the expense... a self feeding hindrance. And there are so many ways to get out of this silly loop and just DO IT!

You know, it's easy to say, "just do it" when you're not the one that has to figure out how it's to be done. People who utilize solar power are to be commended. These things you mentioned work on the scale they're being used on. The problem is, they don't work on a large scale. Believe me, I'd love it if a few solar panals would get the job done. I'd love it if they could be produced cheaply. But that's not the way things are.

But, plants use that energy to maintain themselves. If they give it up, they die. So the system may be self-sustainable, but it's incapable of releasing much energy. Even if we could do it, we'd have to cover acres upon acres of land in "green stuff" to light one bulb. And we do know exacly how plants do it. We know how they make chlorophyll. I was saying we can't.

Part of plant sustainence is the plan;t growth, which binds the energy in the bonds of structural molecules. It is those that we harvest. And consider how hefty one corn stalk is (sans water), and consider reverting, lets say, half of that to methanol. That is enough to run a racecar (they use methanol) maybe once around a track, which if put in the little generator like the one my grandparents have for powering our house when the lights go out (theirs is gas powered, but consider if it were an methanol engine instead), is certainly enough to power a lightbulb for a significant amount of time. You would NOT need very much land to power an entire city block for a few months (against your lots of land per lightbulb qualm). As well, these dry husks of corn are normally laid strewn on the ground and left for the cows... and don;t get me started on how much more efficient a genetically engineered vegetarian society could be ^.^ But anyway, they go to waste anyway in many cases.

How would you produce the electricity? That's the problem.Of course that's the problem. That's what I was saying. One option would be to build an orbiting solar collector that would beam down energy to the surface as microwave radiation. The Earth's atmosphere eats the bulk of the energy from the sun before it hits the ground.

Actually, my favorite solution is for individuals to start producing their own electricity. Solar and wind power generation doesn't require super large investments. They're very scalable and nanotechnology should soon provide us with a much cheaper method of collecting solar energy.

You know, it's easy to say, "just do it" when you're not the one that has to figure out how it's to be done. People who utilize solar power are to be commended. These things you mentioned work on the scale they're being used on. The problem is, they don't work on a large scale. Believe me, I'd love it if a few solar panals would get the job done. I'd love it if they could be produced cheaply. But that's not the way things are.

"that's not the way things are" is one of the biggest copout answers I ever see people give. They don;t work on the large scale because that's the way things are. Not they won't. You have not espoused a known reason why they absolutely cannot that cannot be changed. You can figure out how it is done from technical books, and a plethora of websites, or were the information to be made generally public and supported in it's dispersal, anyone with the inclination to learn could. All you have given is reasons you are unwilling to try, not any good reason why it is impossible, any reason why they can;t be produced cheaply, any good reason why you yourself couldn't learn to do it. And my 'just do it' was a general one: many things may be needed, and each one is being used as excuses not to do the whole thing.

Part of plant sustainence is the plan;t growth, which binds the energy in the bonds of structural molecules. It is those that we harvest. And consider how hefty one corn stalk is (sans water), and consider reverting, lets say, half of that to methanol. That is enough to run a racecar (they use methanol) maybe once around a track, which if put in the little generator like the one my grandparents have for powering our house when the lights go out (theirs is gas powered, but consider if it were an methanol engine instead), is certainly enough to power a lightbulb for a significant amount of time. You would NOT need very much land to power an entire city block for a few months (against your lots of land per lightbulb qualm). As well, these dry husks of corn are normally laid strewn on the ground and left for the cows... and don;t get me started on how much more efficient a genetically engineered vegetarian society could be ^.^ But anyway, they go to waste anyway in many cases.

I have trouble believing that one stalk of corn can run a race car very far, but you may have a point on methanol. It may be doable, but I think it's probably be more exensive than what we have now. It'd also require a lot of land to grow fuel. If that land is farm land, it can't be nature. I'd rather have it be nature. Also, I don't think you're gonna get a lot of people on the GM thing. It definitly won't fly in Europe, and the only reason it does in the US is because people don't know how much of it goes on.

Of course that's the problem. That's what I was saying. One option would be to build an orbiting solar collector that would beam down energy to the surface as microwave radiation. The Earth's atmosphere eats the bulk of the energy from the sun before it hits the ground.

Actually, my favorite solution is for individuals to start producing their own electricity. Solar and wind power generation doesn't require super large investments. They're very scalable and nanotechnology should soon provide us with a much cheaper method of collecting solar energy.

Well, if we ever do that orbital microwave thing, then I moving to another planet. You don't read Asimov, do you?

Of course that's the problem. That's what I was saying. One option would be to build an orbiting solar collector that would beam down energy to the surface as microwave radiation. The Earth's atmosphere eats the bulk of the energy from the sun before it hits the ground.

Actually, my favorite solution is for individuals to start producing their own electricity. Solar and wind power generation doesn't require super large investments. They're very scalable and nanotechnology should soon provide us with a much cheaper method of collecting solar energy.

FINALY someone mentions nanotechnology! I didn't want to because people tend to flameme and say "oh but nanotechnology can;t do it" for some flipping reason. I AGREE WITH YOU in every aspect of those words!
Don;t forget the idea Azimov had, which was written into the book I, Robot (or the short stories therein (little affiliation with the movie, do NOT think of the movie, I do mean the book)): mercury is very close to the sun, and always has it's same face facing the sun... the energy it could collect and beam back to earth via a microwave laser (by laser I simply mean unifrequency beam, not necessarily of any particular construction: however it is done is how it is done ^.^) would be immense, and it is too hostile an environment for other use. ... ... We need robots ^.^ And we are producing them (or at least learning how).

Well, if we ever do that orbital microwave thing, then I moving to another planet. You don't read Asimov, do you?

You beat me to it, but I personally think the microwave thing a good idea. Heck, the risk would probably be less then having nuclear reactors around, and we already do that ^.^

How about NaBH4?

Works pretty much like H2 as a
proton donor,
is non-poiseness,
non-explosive (unless H2 - remember the Hindenburg!!!)
is water-soluable (forms a glue-like gel which can easily be stored in a tank)
turns into NaBO2 which also is non-poiseness,

Now, the only tricky part is that you've tackled some problems (transport & handling & safety) but the actual energy problem remains unsolved:

Although NaBO2 can be recycled into NaBH4 fairly easily, the energy to produce the protons to achieve that needs to come from somewhere and you'd have to transport all that stuff around.

As I'm not very fond of nuclear power plants (honestly, I dislike them!) I suggest that more research should go into alternative, renewable energy sources.

Despite all the setbacks (or prejudice for that matter) of the previous years, the newer solar technology has made valuable progress.
Wind turbines is another alternative. Decentralization is important as well.

Meh. I'm tired and will definitely not solve that problem tonight (or any time soon...). Hopefully someone else has some ideas :D

"that's not the way things are" is one of the biggest copout answers I ever see people give. They don;t work on the large scale because that's the way things are. Not they won't. You have not espoused a known reason why they absolutely cannot that cannot be changed. You can figure out how it is done from technical books, and a plethora of websites, or were the information to be made generally public and supported in it's dispersal, anyone with the inclination to learn could. All you have given is reasons you are unwilling to try, not any good reason why it is impossible, any reason why they can;t be produced cheaply, any good reason why you yourself couldn't learn to do it. And my 'just do it' was a general one: many things may be needed, and each one is being used as excuses not to do the whole thing.

Actually, I am in the process of learning these things now. I'm a physics student. And, "that;s the way things are" is not a cop-out. I can't change the rules or the universe. Nature works according to certain rules. Why? That's just the way things are.

You beat me to it, but I personally think the microwave thing a good idea. Heck, the risk would probably be less then having nuclear reactors around, and we already do that ^.^

You're talking about sending a microwave 100,000,000 miles through space and hitting a moving object a few meters wide, and you're telling me that's less dangerous than nuclear power?

I have trouble believing that one stalk of corn can run a race car very far, but you may have a point on methanol. It may be doable, but I think it's probably be more exensive than what we have now. It'd also require a lot of land to grow fuel. If that land is farm land, it can't be nature. I'd rather have it be nature. Also, I don't think you're gonna get a lot of people on the GM thing. It definitly won't fly in Europe, and the only reason it does in the US is because people don't know how much of it goes on.
It is actualy not too much of an exageration as far as how far a corn stalk can take you. I don;t have one to measure but lets say 1/10 galons (impropper unit of measurement for husk but no other possible at this time) of husk, so 1/20th galons of fuel? Were my car methanol using, that would be 2 miles. If we assume for some reason it is less energetic when burning, lets say half, then 1 mile. I just got to my college and back twice on a single corn stalk ^.^ And of course there are so many byproducts we can make use of. I am personally composting on the roof of my college (so it's out of the way) and captured some bottles of the gas produced for analysis. I will find their contents (when the propper teacher returns from vacation), this could be useful...
I thought I said not to get me started on the GM thing... I'll keep it short though:
Termites, and their symbiotic protist. The protist is the thing that extrudes the protein that can break down cellulose. Humans are very inefficient when eating plants because most cell walls are not broken down by us, so most nutriets are excreted unused. Insert the gene from the protist into our normal internal symbiotic e-coli or something, and you now have a way of producing the enzyme in yourself to gain maximum nutrients from the plants. You gain more proteins, more ionic solids, everything. And you break more cellulose down into more sugar, so you get a good source of sugars! Whether it 'will fly' or not is a social issue. Whether it is viable technology and may indeed someday be put to use when people get off their soap boxes and consider the benefits and lack of downfalls (or at least take the time to give it some experimentation (and again I say research) to see what those benefits and downfalls are for a proper analysis. They call them frankenfoods forgetting that frankenstein of the story was not inherently bad, and quite frankly (pun pun) wanted to be loved ^.^ A bad analogy, I know, but I find their fears, while not always silly, at least misplaced when they overgeneralize. Some GM is going toe wrong way, like engineering resistance so they can put on more pesticides, stuff liek that, but the potential for good is there and pending to be made use of.

Uhm. I don't like that too much. If you put it on people, won't they fry instantly? That sounds more like a weapon than a source of energy...

Oh, I'm all for GM. It was the social issue I was refering to. I think that needs to be taken into account. If people are unwilling to use a technology, then what's the point in developing it?

You're talking about sending a microwave 100,000,000 miles through space and hitting a moving object a few meters wide, and you're telling me that's less dangerous than nuclear power?

Good point, let's bounce it off something in orbit around venus ^.^ (kidding)
You are indeed correct, but we can detect and target and detect minute, as small as several meters, in solar bodies already. Hone the technology, and add safeguards like minor tracking beams before the major beam to ensure that it is targeting properly, with a relay shutoff or even a need for a signal from earth before the signal is sent, and you have yourself some viable power. And mercury is only about 60,000,000 kilometers away from earth at it's nearer point. Of course that means that at it's further point it is 120million miles away, but that could be the period of storage, and when it is closer could be the period of release.

Whats with people saying it can't be done because it currently can't be done? This is becoming a theme...

How about NaBH4?

Works pretty much like H2 as a
proton donor,
is non-poiseness,
non-explosive (unless H2 - remember the Hindenburg!!!)
is water-soluable (forms a glue-like gel which can easily be stored in a tank)
turns into NaBO2 which also is non-poiseness,
Here's the rhyme to the song:
"Yo man - Where does the boron go"


Besides, I wonder what the energy_release/carbon_atom (or energy_release/POLLUTING_STUFF) ratio is when burning this molecule. For example, 2xMethane (2xCH4) has a higher ratio than 1xEthane (C2H6).

Uhm. I don't like that too much. If you put it on people, won't they fry instantly? That sounds more like a weapon than a source of energy...

You know, I'm not too sure on that. That's why I didn't press the issue. But, that would be my concern. Ooops! We just fried Vegas from Mercury. Oh, well.

Actually, I am in the process of learning these things now. I'm a physics student. And, "that;s the way things are" is not a cop-out. I can't change the rules or the universe. Nature works according to certain rules. Why? That's just the way things are.

you have used rules of the universe sparingly in your arguments.

Good point, let's bounce it off something in orbit around venus ^.^ (kidding)
You are indeed correct, but we can detect and target and detect minute, as small as several meters, in solar bodies already. Hone the technology, and add safeguards like minor tracking beams before the major beam to ensure that it is targeting properly, with a relay shutoff or even a need for a signal from earth before the signal is sent, and you have yourself some viable power. And mercury is only about 60,000,000 kilometers away from earth at it's nearer point. Of course that means that at it's further point it is 120million miles away, but that could be the period of storage, and when it is closer could be the period of release.

Whats with people saying it can't be done because it currently can't be done? This is becoming a theme...

We can add similar safeguards to nuke plant, too. And we don't have to build stuff on Mercury to do it. I don't like the microwave for the same reason you don't like nuclear. Because safeguards fail, and disasters happen. Entropy. That's just the way the world is.

you have used rules of the universe sparingly in your arguments.

Which ones should I have refered to, but haven't?

We can add similar safeguards to nuke plant, too. And we don't have to build stuff on Mercury to do it. I don't like the microwave for the same reason you don't like nuclear. Because safeguards fail, and disasters happen. Entropy. That's just the way the world is.

... I feel as though you are correct ^.^ I agree ^.^

non-explosive (unless H2 - remember the Hindenburg!!!)

The hindenberg wasn't due to the hydrogen, it was due to the explosive varnish on the outside. They used to keep a trailling grounding wire that was designed to ground excess static electricity, but the outside of the balloon was a patchwork of fabric and metal links. If just one of those links was missing it would invite a spark which would set off the varnish.

I can't remember where I saw the documentary about it, but experiments were conducted which duplicated the varnish that was used at the time, as well as a small piece of fabric from the Hindenberg. The clincher was the color of the flames that eyewitnesses reported. According to the scientist who was the focus of the documentary, the flames were characteristic of the varnish being set ablaze, not hydrogen. The hydrogen would have caught fire eventually, but it was not the cause of the explosion.

Remember, half a tank of gasoline explodes just as easily as half a tank of hydrogen.

... I feel as though you are correct ^.^ I agree ^.^

Hey, at least we agree on something. I think most of our diagreement stems from the fact that I'm a physics person, and you're (I assume) a bio person. Bio almost always has a chemical explination, but in physics, that's just how it is. There is no explination. That's why we have so many laws and so few theories.

The hindenberg wasn't due to the hydrogen, it was due to the explosive varnish on the outside. They used to keep a trailling grounding wire that was designed to ground excess static electricity, but the outside of the balloon was a patchwork of fabric and metal links. If just one of those links was missing it would invite a spark which would set off the varnish.

I can't remember where I saw the documentary about it, but experiments were conducted which duplicated the varnish that was used at the time, as well as a small piece of fabric from the Hindenberg. The clincher was the color of the flames that eyewitnesses reported. According to the scientist who was the focus of the documentary, the flames were characteristic of the varnish being set ablaze, not hydrogen. The hydrogen would have caught fire eventually, but it was not the cause of the explosion.

Remember, half a tank of gasoline explodes just as easily as half a tank of hydrogen.

Yeah, but think about that much H near an open flame. That's scarry. It may have been the varnish that burned, but I bet it was the H that exploded.

The hindenberg wasn't due to the hydrogen, it was due to the explosive varnish on the outside. They used to keep a trailling grounding wire that was designed to ground excess static electricity, but the outside of the balloon was a patchwork of fabric and metal links. If just one of those links was missing it would invite a spark which would set off the varnish.

I can't remember where I saw the documentary about it, but experiments were conducted which duplicated the varnish that was used at the time, as well as a small piece of fabric from the Hindenberg. The clincher was the color of the flames that eyewitnesses reported. According to the scientist who was the focus of the documentary, the flames were characteristic of the varnish being set ablaze, not hydrogen. The hydrogen would have caught fire eventually, but it was not the cause of the explosion.

Remember, half a tank of gasoline explodes just as easily as half a tank of hydrogen.

I know. I believe it was some kind of aluminum-derivate that burned really well? Anyway, I saw lots of documentaries about it and thank you for your answer to that (and still believe that had it been filled with helium it wouldn't have been as bad).

Just don't check the fill level with a lighter (like some idiot did again last month around here... Whooof!)

Hey, at least we agree on something. I think most of our diagreement stems from the fact that I'm a physics person, and you're (I assume) a bio person. Bio almost always has a chemical explination, but in physics, that's just how it is. There is no explination. That's why we have so many laws and so few theories.

You are indeed correct. I am indeed a bio person... sort of... I am a bio major, which a chem minor, geo minor, and physics minor, but all my physics courses for the physics minor are bring packed, ironically, into the coming year. I.E. I haven;t taken them yet ^.^ Having taken things that are generaly completely based on chemistry (bio, geo, and chem) for three years is going to make physics a bit of culture shock for me I guess ^.^ But nonetheles wonderful. Physics is great!

You are indeed correct. I am indeed a bio person... sort of... I am a bio major, which a chem minor, geo minor, and physics minor, but all my physics courses for the physics minor are bring packed, ironically, into the coming year. I.E. I haven;t taken them yet ^.^ Having taken things that are generaly completely based on chemistry (bio, geo, and chem) for three years is going to make physics a bit of culture shock for me I guess ^.^ But nonetheles wonderful. Physics is great!

Well, you're schedual is packed, isn't it? Physicists tend to be less worried about experiments then other scientists. When I took bio and chem, it was all about things learned from experiments. In physics, we tend to learn more from doing math to things we already know. Then we do an experiment to see if we're right.

I find a good source of bio-fuels would be algae instead of corn, it grows much faster and can live on sewage.

Also, alternate engine designs such as the Quasiturbine (http://www.quasiturbine.com) hold promise in making more efficient use of fuels.

If it wasn't for the fact that people can't drive worth a shit (cellphones.....) the safety issues of having a small car would be overcome, and as they became more popular we'd see much smoother traffic and less pollution.

Really, with all the existing options out there we could solve a great deal of problems, although people would (god forbid) have to sacrifice some comfort and routine to get the solutions working. Most people are still barely concerned about the environment, almost no one is making a strong personal effort to do good because it would be considered weird. Thats one of the big problems.

Hydrogen powered cars are the cars of the future and have been for the past thirty years. Ever since I was a little kid there have been hydrogen cars being developed. Let me explain how it works. Every now and then, people complain, "Oil is going to run out! We need to do something!" Then the government makes noises about doing something. The oil industry doesn't want anyone to actually do anything like produce more fuel efficent cars so they work with the automotive industry to develop something entirely different, a hydrogen powered car to make it look like they are doing something. Of course they get funds from the government to pay for this waste of cash. Basically your taxes are being used to pay for the PR of oil and automotive companies. Hydrogen cars are completely safe for oil companies to develop because no service station sells hydrogen. It's a con.

I'm wondering why so many people think that hydrogen powered cars are a good thing. Do people not know the science behind the technology? It doesn't reduce dependence on oil...because the best place to get hydrogen is from oil. You can get it from methane, but you tend to find methane in the same places you find oil. You can get it from water, but you have to use more energy than you get to do that, so it makes no sense, whatsoever. It doesn't reduce pollution because byproducts from the refining process are still created. All it does is displace where the pollution is created. What are your thoughts?

The answer to that is simple really. We are looking for a portable fuel source for automobiles. Batteries aren't quite cutting it(yet). Now the obvious problem with gasoline is that it can ONLY be derived from fossil fuels.

However hydrogen, while requiring considerably more energy to manufacture than it produces, can be created by ANY source of electricity. Nuclear, solar, wind, microwave, or even fusion. That is why it is such a popular solution. NOT because of it's efficiency, but the fact that it doesn't NEED to be produced from oil.

Hydrogen powered cars are the cars of the future and have been for the past thirty years. Ever since I was a little kid there have been hydrogen cars being developed. Let me explain how it works. Every now and then, people complain, "Oil is going to run out! We need to do something!" Then the government makes noises about doing something. (...)
So true!!!!
And car makers / petrol companies can make very cute full page color publicities in National Geographics, showing hydrogen engine "blueprints" and windmills as a background to a little kid holding a teddy bear.

We'll probably have to switch to biodiesels (sunflower, peanuts) and ethanol (beets, corn) before long. And reduce our car pool *tenfold* (because we can't produce enough of this stuff for all these cars).

Or we can keep doing what we're doing now. Help use up all of the world's oil, cause an oil crisis that cripples everyone else's economy and then bring ANWR, and the other N. American oil sources on line and watch our economy boom as we have access to cheap energy and everyone else is energy-poor.

I used to think that way until I came to the realization it will be many, many generations before we run the rest of the world runs out of oil. In fact, it might be the next ice age before that happens and by that time, I'll probably be making new oil. :D

There have been car engines around for almost 40 years that could travel hundreds of kilometres on a few cents worth of gasoline, but the designers are either paid off hugely by auto manufacturers to back off, or else they have accidents. I remember a research physicist in Victoria when I was a kid who built an engine that took him from Victoria to Nanaimo on 7 cents worth of gasoline. He didn't last very long. *cue spooky music*

I know. That was a joke. But, back to my original topic, do we all agree that hydrogen is not the solution?

NO! More imput on the advantages/disadvantages of hydrogen as a fuel for vechiles please.

Again, you are thinking economically. Do you know what gas would cost if it weren;t governmentally subsidized?

Are we talking gasoline here? Subsidized by what government? Do you know what the government tax on gasoline is?

You can produce hydrogen with water and electricity. Water's easy enough to find and electricity can be produced without pollution. It's a problem of capital. Nobody's investing enough money in electricity production to produce anywhere near enough hydrogen to take the place of gasoline. But it could be done. In the US, "all we'd have to do" is triple our electricity production. That is not impossible.

Wouldn't it be less expensive to produce an alcohol fuel from agricultural products? Renewable, inexpensive, and less polluting than fossil fuel. :confused:

If someone ever comes up with an hydrogen fuel cell that seems to work well, i'll want to know:

1) is it reusable, or disposable? if reusable, how many times?
2) how much does it cost to make the cell? how much energy is required?
3) does it contain dangerous or harmful chemicals/compounds?
4) can it be stored at normal room temperature (without having to freeze/plug it when unused)?
5) what's the autonomy? what's the refill delay / change delay?
6) what's the weight of the cells / car engine? what's the total volume?
7) how will they store the hydrogen before it goes into my cell?
8) what amount of energy is required to extract this hydrogen?
9) will my car's hydrogen engine blow up or refuse to start every now and then? will it wear off slowly or quickly?
10) where does the hydrogen comes from? what kind of energy is used to extract it? is it costly?
11) in case of a minor accident, will I go boom? will my engine be totally wasted?
12) is this cell any better than other energy cells / fuel cells? would it be better to have tramway wires and have our cars "plugged into the network" half of the time, instead of carrying "bottled electricity"?

The answer to that is simple really. We are looking for a portable fuel source for automobiles. Batteries aren't quite cutting it(yet). Now the obvious problem with gasoline is that it can ONLY be derived from fossil fuels.

However hydrogen, while requiring considerably more energy to manufacture than it produces, can be created by ANY source of electricity. Nuclear, solar, wind, microwave, or even fusion. That is why it is such a popular solution. NOT because of it's efficiency, but the fact that it doesn't NEED to be produced from oil.

I agree that effficiency isn't the issue, unless the efficiency is negative. If that's the case, your using more energy than you produce. Unfortunatly, the only thing that has been thought of that we can get H from that does not have negative efficiency is...fossil fuels.

There have been car engines around for almost 40 years that could travel hundreds of kilometres on a few cents worth of gasoline, but the designers are either paid off hugely by auto manufacturers to back off, or else they have accidents. I remember a research physicist in Victoria when I was a kid who built an engine that took him from Victoria to Nanaimo on 7 cents worth of gasoline. He didn't last very long. *cue spooky music*

I am now 62. I heard that myth 50 years ago. Wish it were true. :(

I agree that effficiency isn't the issue, unless the efficiency is negative. If that's the case, your using more energy than you produce. Unfortunatly, the only thing that has been thought of that we can get H from that does not have negative efficiency is...fossil fuels.

Batteries also have negative efficiency. We are willing to sacrifice efficiency for portability.

Wouldn't it be less expensive to produce an alcohol fuel from agricultural products? Renewable, inexpensive, and less polluting than fossil fuel
It would have to come from either a source of natural oil (which makes biodiesel) or a sugar/starch that we can ferment into ethanol.

For biodiesel, northern regions can produce it from sunflower oil. Southern regions can produce it from peanut oil.

For ethanol, there is much choice. Any root will do (beet, potato, turnip), as well as corn (both grains and stem, leaves). Problem is, if it's a starch, it requires boiling first (to break it down). So it's less energy friendly. Beets and corn are a good choice. But beets are not surface-efficient, and corn require a lot of fertilizers and water.

In any way, we couldn't be able to produce a volume that's even 1/10 of the actual petrol usage. Don't forget that if we use our farm land to produce fuel, we don't necessarily produce food at the same time. So an ideal production of 1/100 of the actual oil/gaz use is probably realistic. Imagine how hard it would hit our lifestyles. We'd have to forget personal cars. Use trains, long distance buses, public transit. Which are currently underdeveloped in North America, by the way.

I think a dual power electric-biodiesel train network would help A LOT in North America. Add tramway-metro duos in most big cities and you get a partial solution. Time to change how we live.

Batteries also have negative efficiency. We are willing to sacrifice efficiency for portability.

That's not what I ment. Maybe I didn't explain well enough. I was talking about the entire energy process, not just the storage device. We've been debating production sources. I was refering to the fact that if you get your H from water, then you end up losing energy (negative efficiency throughout the entire process). The best place to get H from is fossil fuels. I'm not aware of a third alternative. So, it would seem that fuel cells would not reduce dependence on fossil fuels.

It would have to come from either a source of natural oil (which makes biodiesel) or a sugar/starch that we can ferment into ethanol.

For biodiesel, northern regions can produce it from sunflower oil. Southern regions can produce it from peanut oil.

For ethanol, there is much choice. Any root will do (beet, potato, turnip), as well as corn (both grains and stem, leaves). Problem is, if it's a starch, it requires boiling first (to break it down). So it's less energy friendly. Beets and corn are a good choice. But beets are not surface-efficient, and corn require a lot of fertilizers and water.

In any way, we couldn't be able to produce a volume that's even 1/10 of the actual petrol usage. Don't forget that if we use our farm land to produce fuel, we don't necessarily produce food at the same time. So an ideal production of 1/100 of the actual oil/gaz use is probably realistic. Imagine how hard it would hit our lifestyles. We'd have to forget personal cars. Use trains, long distance buses, public transit. Which are currently underdeveloped in North America, by the way.

I think a dual power electric-biodiesel train network would help A LOT in North America. Add tramway-metro duos in most big cities and you get a partial solution. Time to change how we live.

Thank you for breaking this down. I could feel that there was something wrong with bio-fuel, but I could figure what.

That's not what I ment. Maybe I didn't explain well enough. I was talking about the entire energy process, not just the storage device. We've been debating production sources. I was refering to the fact that if you get your H from water, then you end up losing energy (negative efficiency throughout the entire process). The best place to get H from is fossil fuels. I'm not aware of a third alternative. So, it would seem that fuel cells would not reduce dependence on fossil fuels.

We're not looking at Hydrogen as an energy source. We're looking at hydrogen as a portable energy source. The real issue is NOT efficiency of hydrogen's production. The issue is whether hydrogen can produce enough energy for it's mass and volume to reasonably power a car conveniently. And it can. There are still a few details to work out, such as storage method. *nod*

But the important thing to remember is that we are not looking for a solution to our ENERGY woes. We're looking at hydrogen as a solution to our GASOLINE woes ONLY.

It would have to come from either a source of natural oil (which makes biodiesel) or a sugar/starch that we can ferment into ethanol.

For biodiesel, northern regions can produce it from sunflower oil. Southern regions can produce it from peanut oil.

For ethanol, there is much choice. Any root will do (beet, potato, turnip), as well as corn (both grains and stem, leaves). Problem is, if it's a starch, it requires boiling first (to break it down). So it's less energy friendly. Beets and corn are a good choice. But beets are not surface-efficient, and corn require a lot of fertilizers and water.

In any way, we couldn't be able to produce a volume that's even 1/10 of the actual petrol usage. Don't forget that if we use our farm land to produce fuel, we don't necessarily produce food at the same time. So an ideal production of 1/100 of the actual oil/gaz use is probably realistic. Imagine how hard it would hit our lifestyles. We'd have to forget personal cars. Use trains, long distance buses, public transit. Which are currently underdeveloped in North America, by the way.

I think a dual power electric-biodiesel train network would help A LOT in North America. Add tramway-metro duos in most big cities and you get a partial solution. Time to change how we live.4

If I can make alcoholic drinks from grain, why can't I make fuel from grain?

Oh, and quit paying farmers to not grow crops.

We're not looking at Hydrogen as an energy source. We're looking at hydrogen as a portable energy source. The real issue is NOT efficiency of hydrogen's production. The issue is whether hydrogen can produce enough energy for it's mass and volume to reasonably power a car conveniently. And it can. There are still a few details to work out, such as storage method. *nod*

But the important thing to remember is that we are not looking for a solution to our ENERGY woes. We're looking at hydrogen as a solution to our GASOLINE woes ONLY.

That is the question I intended to address when I started this thread, but it has spirled into an energy production discussion. If we can get plenty of energy, then, sure, H cars are viable. But, if the goal is to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, then H isn't the solution. Fuel companies will get H from oil before water, because it's less expensive to do so.

If I can make alcoholic drinks from grain, why can't I make fuel from grain?

Oh, and quit paying farmers to not grow crops.
You can use grain, actually. They contain starch. You can use the whole plant, too. (All of it can be fermented). It's actually quite decent. But they don't give the best possible ratio. If you have the water and you can handle the pollution, then corn beats any other option. It gives a lot of volume per square km, and gives a high starch level.
In the case of oil, sunflower is a good choice. It's easy to grow, surface-efficient, and easy to grab & transform.
And it's cute, too.

That is the question I intended to address when I started this thread, but it has spirled into an energy production discussion. If we can get plenty of energy, then, sure, H cars are viable. But, if the goal is to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, then H isn't the solution. Fuel companies will get H from oil before water, because it's less expensive to do so.


Not for much longer if the price keeps rising. :p

If someone ever comes up with an hydrogen fuel cell that seems to work well, i'll want to know:

1) is it reusable, or disposable? if reusable, how many times?
2) how much does it cost to make the cell? how much energy is required?
3) does it contain dangerous or harmful chemicals/compounds?
4) can it be stored at normal room temperature (without having to freeze/plug it when unused)?
5) what's the autonomy? what's the refill delay / change delay?
6) what's the weight of the cells / car engine? what's the total volume?
7) how will they store the hydrogen before it goes into my cell?
8) what amount of energy is required to extract this hydrogen?
9) will my car's hydrogen engine blow up or refuse to start every now and then? will it wear off slowly or quickly?
10) where does the hydrogen comes from? what kind of energy is used to extract it? is it costly?
11) in case of a minor accident, will I go boom? will my engine be totally wasted?
12) is this cell any better than other energy cells / fuel cells? would it be better to have tramway wires and have our cars "plugged into the network" half of the time, instead of carrying "bottled electricity"?

These are good questions. If anyone knows the answers, chime in.
1. I know that NASA uses fuel cells on the space shuttle. They're almost certainly reusable, and they provide drinking water for the astronauts.
2. ??
3. I don't believe so.
4. That's a real good question that I'd be interested in seeing the answer to.
5. I imagine about the same as an interal combusion car.
6. From what I understand, it's not that heavy. As for volume..it fits in a car..
7. Damn fine question.
8. Depends on the source.
9. I'd be afraid of blowing up...but I don't know.
10. We've debated this quite a bit here.
11. Good question. If the fuel tank is punctured, will it explode?
12. I wouldn't imagine that it would be better to have a method for "plugging your car in" as it's moving. Power lines are terribly inefficient. Although, it would eliminate the need to carry fuel.

What do you guys think?

Not for much longer if the price keeps rising. :p

Actually, I think that, no matter how expensive gasoline gets, it would still be cheaper than getting it from water. Oil is energy that comes out of the ground. All you've gotta do is go get it. H has to be seperated from molecules. And you need to put more energy into breaking those bonds than you get out of the H in a fuel cell. If that H was used in a fusion reactor of some kind, that's a different story. But, as of yet, we can't do that.

You can use grain, actually. They contain starch. You can use the whole plant, too. (All of it can be fermented). It's actually quite decent. But they don't give the best possible ratio. If you have the water and you can handle the pollution, then corn beats any other option. It gives a lot of volume per square km, and gives a high starch level.
In the case of oil, sunflower is a good choice. It's easy to grow, surface-efficient, and easy to grab & transform.
And it's cute, too.


That's all fine and dandy... except...

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/node/8353 as this science article, based on a study from Cornell University says, it takes more energy input in the form of fuel to power the farm equipment and then convert the biomass into either ethenol or biodiesel than one can get out of the fuel produced. It's a net energy loss, at least with current methods.

That's all fine and dandy... except...

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/node/8353 as this science article, based on a study from Cornell University says, it takes more energy input in the form of fuel to power the farm equipment and then convert the biomass into either ethenol or biodiesel than one can get out of the fuel produced. It's a net energy loss, at least with current methods.
Yep. 100% agreed. All of these solutions are less than perfect.
But still, we need to either produce liquid fuel, or find something else.
Maybe we'll find or engineer better yeasts and bacterias that can do a better job at degrading starch and cellulose. Who knows?

What's funny is that nature had millions of years and no energy limit to produce the fossil fuel. That's a bit unfair, eh?

That's all fine and dandy... except...

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/node/8353 as this science article, based on a study from Cornell University says, it takes more energy input in the form of fuel to power the farm equipment and then convert the biomass into either ethenol or biodiesel than one can get out of the fuel produced. It's a net energy loss, at least with current methods.

Ahh! Thank you for posting this.

Actually, I think that, no matter how expensive gasoline gets, it would still be cheaper than getting it from water. Oil is energy that comes out of the ground. All you've gotta do is go get it. H has to be seperated from molecules. And you need to put more energy into breaking those bonds than you get out of the H in a fuel cell. If that H was used in a fusion reactor of some kind, that's a different story. But, as of yet, we can't do that.
Um, don't forget about finding the oil, transporting it, and refining it.

Um, don't forget about finding the oil, transporting it, and refining it.

True, but I was saying that oil is easily accessable. H is not. I should be more clear when I write, eh.

a small solar cell (maybe covering a vehicle or buildings roof) can easily provied enough electricty to electrol water into hydrogen and oxygen, and Solar cells are not as expensive as many people seem to think. Natural gas is another source of hydrogen. It can be burned for electricity and one of the only by products (hydrogen as it were) could be used to further produce electricty in hydrogen fuel cells.

and what about batteries? they can also produce enough electricity to electrolys water. so could geothermal and wind power.

Personally I would burn natural gas and use alternative power sources to get my Hydrogen, feel free to pollute the planet in a search for cleaner energy, there are however, better ways.

These are good questions. If anyone knows the answers, chime in.
1. I know that NASA uses fuel cells on the space shuttle. They're almost certainly reusable, and they provide drinking water for the astronauts.
2. ??
3. I don't believe so.
4. That's a real good question that I'd be interested in seeing the answer to.
5. I imagine about the same as an interal combusion car.
6. From what I understand, it's not that heavy. As for volume..it fits in a car..
7. Damn fine question.
8. Depends on the source.
9. I'd be afraid of blowing up...but I don't know.
10. We've debated this quite a bit here.
11. Good question. If the fuel tank is punctured, will it explode?
12. I wouldn't imagine that it would be better to have a method for "plugging your car in" as it's moving. Power lines are terribly inefficient. Although, it would eliminate the need to carry fuel.

What do you guys think?

sry fer the double post, but maybe I can fill in some blanks:

1. Currently, an efficient fuel cell suitable for automobile use can run easily for 5000 hours and can be 'recharged' afterwards (Internal Combustion engines run for between four and seven thousand hours on average)
2. currently, cells cost (as far as I can tell) about 3000 YSD per Kw, ICE's cost much less but require more money in upkeep and for fuel (when an ICE breaks it must be repaired by a skilled laborer, when a HFC breacks, the offending cell can easily be replaced by almost any joe shmoe off the street)
3. no.
4. yes, at this time HFC's suitable for powering cars can be safely and efficiently be used and stored between 0 and 80 degrees celsius.
5. not entirely sure what you mean by autonomy but reffilling a tank of hydrogen is much faster than refilling a tank of gasoline and replacing a HFC is much easier and faster than replacing an ICE
6. total volume is about the same but at this time weight is a minor problem
7. a slightly midified gas tank can be used, or a standard gas tank can be used to store water which can be electrolysed into oxygen and hydrogen as needed making storage a moot point
8. less than getting oil into gasoline (depending on the source)
9. no, your fuel cell will always start and will only explode under situations exceeding those found in any current laboratory experiment (to my knowledge, no hydrogen fuel cell or its related parts has ever exploded)
10. there are many possible sources, including space dredges (not anytime soon) most current possibilites would become cheaper quicly with increased use and will last longer than our oil reserves
11. again, no, fuel cells are not known to explode and even if you store pure hydrogen in your vehicle, the crash speeds would have to far exceed legal limits (on both sides in a head to head crash) to increase the chance of an explosion.
12. even as long ago as twenty years Hydrogen fuel cells were more efficient, less costly and in gneral better suited to vehicular use than 'being plugged into the net' which would require extensive construction, a heavy increase in the need for oil or other sources of electricity and would prevent vehicles from exiting established routes (I.E. go 'off roading') and as for 'plugging in' it would again increase the need for a source of cheap power and currently would not even provide the same durability, reliabilty and driving time as an ICE.

H cars aren't a viable option for oil replacement. There are only 7.7 billion grams of proven platinum in the world, and it takes 20 grams to make one H fuel cell costing upwards of $1,00,000 which needs to be replaced after 200 hours of use. So, if you take the 700 million vehicles in operation today and try to replace those ICEs with HFCs, you end up mining the entire world supply of platinum while at the same time not replacing the ICE of every vehicle - not to mention the huge amounts of oil (and freshwater) it takes to mine and refine that platinum into a useable resource.

Also, you have to consider that H is the smallest element known to man. Even if we find a way to create it, how are we going to create a container with a sufficiently "tight" bond between its own elements to store said H in? Even the liquid hydrogen tanks we currently use for vehicles have a boil-off rate of 3-4% per day.

Getting hydrogen from water - via electrolysis - provides only about 1.3 units of energy returned for the amount of energy used to produce it. When you consider the fact that oil provides us with an effective energy return rate of 30 - that is, 30 units of energy for each 1 unit put in - electrolysis goes into the garbage.

Ethanol is not a viable alternative, because we would need to cover something approaching 100% of the earth's farmable land to grow the corn that would replace the amount of oil we now use - which stands currently at 83.5 million barrels of oil per day for the United States alone. 11 acres of corn would be needed to power one car for 10,000 miles - a below-average year's worth of driving - while the same amount of corn could feed seven people for the same amount of time. Also, ethanol currently needs 6 units of energy to be put into it before it can produce one unit of comparable energy. A net energy loss means that it isn't viable simply by sheer numbers, let alone the huge need for supplies.

Solar power is not a viable alternative. The amount of energy that a single offshore oil rig produces in one day - say 12,000 barrels of oil - is equivalant to 36 square miles of solar panels. If that doesn't sound like very much, consider the fact that only about 10 square miles of functioning solar panels exist in the entire world. (Incidentaly, that also translates to about 10,000 wind turbines.)

Nuclear power is not a viable alternative. The US has, currently, enough uranium to power existing reactors only for the next 25-40 years. The world total supply of uranium is fading and the price has skyrocketed as China and India industrialize and make use of nuclear power. Also, imagine trying to retrofit 700 million cars, along with tens of millions of planes and boats, to run on nuclear power. Even if nuclear batteries can be made viable for use in personal vehicles, it doesn't answer the question of what we'll do when we run out of uranium.

Sorry to be so pesimistic, but there simply isn't any way at all to retrofit the number of vehicles on the road today with alternative energy sources, not to mention the huge amounts of energy required to run everything else in the world.

I think they've designed a new type of H cell that doesn't need platinum. The only problem is that it doesn't start at temperatures less than 10C.

The only way that we're ever going to advance solar/wind technology is by just building them and then as the industry grows, new production methods are found and costs drop.

However, it's much easier for countries like us in the UK / Denmark / Ireland since we have huge sea borders for offshore stuff. Big countries like the USA don't compared to the size of their counrty. A lot of people forget that when they say 'build wind farms.'

Some boring predictions:

1. Oil will gradually become more expensive. As it does more sources of burnable liquid come online, eg. tars, oil sands, coal liquification etc. the exact mix depending on whatever is cheapest. As prices go up people use less oil. As a result of more low grade sources being exploited and people using less no great crisis occurs due to a sudden lack of oil.

2. People start buying hybrid cars to save on fuel costs. As burnable liquids become more expensive cars will make more and more use of electricity. Presumably grid power will be cheaper than burnable liquid and so you will charge your car on off peak electricity at night to save money. Around town you will rely more on the electric engine and you'll only burn fuel for extra power.

3. I expect that energy storage devices will improve and all electric cars will become very practical. I think in ten to fifteen years all electric cars will start being produced and used in areas with high gasoline costs and/or strict emmission controls. Grid power will come from hopefully environmentally friendly coal burning power plants, nuclear plants, and some from renewable sources. Coal and nuclear will provide plenty of power until something we haven't mastered yet (perhaps fusion) replaces them.

4. No one uses hydrogen cars except members of the hydrogen car fan club.

Corn is crap, algae is where its at!

http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

I think it also brings up the point of needing a new station infrastructure to handle hydrogen distribution.

And still no comments on the Quasiturbine (http://www.quasiturbine.com)? More efficient conventional engines are a very appealing idea...

And still no comments on the Quasiturbine? More efficient conventional engines are a very appealing idea... I had a look at your link and it looks like what we would call a Wankell rotary engine back when we were kids.

The Wankell rotary engine never caught on, probably because the word Wank figured prominately in its name. Why they are now nameing it after a hunchback who rang bells is beyond me, but then I don't work in marketing.


P.S. Please feel free to write long detailed posts explaining the actual differences between a Wankell rotary engine and a Quasiturbine. I may even read them.

Please do the reading for yourself?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_engine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasiturbine

Anyway, I'd still like to know what you guys think of NaBH4 as an alternative to "pure" H2.

If you haven't heard of it - read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabh4

Okay, so the Wankel engine and the Quasiturbine are totally different (except for the fact they both have circular spinny bits). I'm sorry! I just wanted to make bad jokes about their names!

I have no opinion about NaBH4, but then I'm a boring guy who thinks hydrogen cars will never become popular due to competition from hybrid and electric cars. There are still plenty of oil like substances that can be squeezed out of this planet so there probably won't be a big rush for hydrogen cars. By the time oil prices are high enough to make hydrogen seem reasonable electrical storage devices will probably have improved and electric cars have the advantage of requireing less additional infrastructure. (Additional coal burning, nuclear, etc. power plants, will be needed for both hydrogen and electric cars, but electric cars won't need hydrogen service stations.)

You can get it from water, but you have to use more energy than you get to do that, so it makes no sense, whatsoever.


It makes sense when small-scale, cheap, "soft" technologies are used to store energy from renewable sources (wind...) as hydrogen.

But, plants use that energy to maintain themselves. If they give it up, they die. So the system may be self-sustainable, but it's incapable of releasing much energy. Even if we could do it, we'd have to cover acres upon acres of land in "green stuff" to light one bulb. And we do know exacly how plants do it. We know how they make chlorophyll. I was saying we can't.
How about we take all the parts of the plants that we don't currently eat, like corn stalks, wheat stems, rhubarb leaves, etc. and convert them into oil and natural gas through thermal depolymerization. That way we not only feed ourselves, but we also supplement our energy supply while reducing waste.

Only if you build 50 new power plants that are used ONLY (100%) for hydrogen extraction.

Hydrogen can be derived from Methane:

Methane can be harvested; not only from natural gas, and patroleum biproducts; but also from land-fills, wastewater-sludge, and livestock waste.

And there is more than enough energy to remove it from water; it is already produced as a bi-product in O2 generators, and it does not require massive ammounts of energy to remove it; give me a car battery, a water supply, and some lemon juice; and I can produce several liters a day for a week in my kitchen.

I used to think that way until I came to the realization it will be many, many generations before we run the rest of the world runs out of oil. In fact, it might be the next ice age before that happens and by that time, I'll probably be making new oil. :D
Not according to some of the stuff I've read and heard. Some experts beleive middle eastern oil production has peaked. All new wells that come online are costing more money per barrel of oil produced. That means we're looking at the end of cheap oil.

There have been car engines around for almost 40 years that could travel hundreds of kilometres on a few cents worth of gasoline, but the designers are either paid off hugely by auto manufacturers to back off, or else they have accidents. I remember a research physicist in Victoria when I was a kid who built an engine that took him from Victoria to Nanaimo on 7 cents worth of gasoline. He didn't last very long. *cue spooky music*
Bullshit. Science can't be suppressed. Look at it this way. Who has more resources to keep a piece of technology secret through payoffs and assasinations, the US government or GM? Now look at how many people know how to make an atomic bomb. I call bullshit on your little conspiracy theory.

11. again, no, fuel cells are not known to explode and even if you store pure hydrogen in your vehicle, the crash speeds would have to far exceed legal limits (on both sides in a head to head crash) to increase the chance of an explosion.
Hi! I'm sorry that my Question #11 wasn't precise enough.
I was mostly concerned by the engine itself. From what I've seen, hydrogen engines and turbines look much more complex than petrol engines. The look more fragile, too, with all these small pieces. So will these engines be reliable in a cold winter, on a bumpy road, after a small collision? I think it's an important question. Many complex technologies are proven to require too much maintenance (just look at the Space Shuttle's fragility, when compared to any Russian piece of flying metal).
I wouldn't want to invest in painfully costly engines which require constant and costly maintenances, and with dozens of red lamps which will start buzzing every now and then on the display panel.

By the way, I *love* Stirling Engines, even though they're probably useless in cars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine

a small solar cell (maybe covering a vehicle or buildings roof) can easily provied enough electricty to electrol water into hydrogen and oxygen, and Solar cells are not as expensive as many people seem to think. Natural gas is another source of hydrogen. It can be burned for electricity and one of the only by products (hydrogen as it were) could be used to further produce electricty in hydrogen fuel cells.

and what about batteries? they can also produce enough electricity to electrolys water. so could geothermal and wind power.

Personally I would burn natural gas and use alternative power sources to get my Hydrogen, feel free to pollute the planet in a search for cleaner energy, there are however, better ways.
1 Can a small solar cell covering the roof of a car generate enough hydrogen to propel the car? No. Not unless the cell is allowed to decompose water for several days prior to a few minutes of driving.

2 Natural gas, when burned, produces CO2 and H2O. Not hydrogen, water. Splitting that water into H2 and O2 requires more energy. You actually would get a more efficient energy source from just burning the gas rather than trying to extract the hydrogen from it.

3 Batteries don't produce energy, they store it.

Hydrogen can be derived from Methane:

Methane can be harvested; not only from natural gas, and patroleum biproducts; but also from land-fills, wastewater-sludge, and livestock waste.

And there is more than enough energy to remove it from water; it is already produced as a bi-product in O2 generators, and it does not require massive ammounts of energy to remove it; give me a car battery, a water supply, and some lemon juice; and I can produce several liters a day for a week in my kitchen.
How do you charge the battery? You're actually using up more energy from the battery than you get back in hydrogen.

3 Batteries don't produce energy, they store it.

Exactly. And in a real sense, hydrogen is merely a means to store energy that you produce by other means.

A sealed hydrogen fuel cell is a good example of a power storage device.

How do you charge the battery? You're actually using up more energy from the battery than you get back in hydrogen.

Battery can be charged from more available energy sources; than can be used to drive an independent automobile...

An oil refinery uses more power than can be derived from the petroleum products it produces; yet we still use gasoline... Why? Because gasoline is an easier and more reasonable source for driving the vehicle; than is the massive boilers used in oil refineries...

We can use electrinicty from multiple sources, to produce hydrogen, as a fuel, for driving automobiles...

Why don't you just lug million pound nuclear reactors around on your vehicle to provide motive energy; since you seem not to realize any type of "container" for energy will automatically be subject to the same thermodynamic laws, which you use to shoot down the idea with. Including whatever "container"/"fuel" you're presently using.

The point is, I can use a car battery, or any other energy source (prefferably just electricity from a power-planet) to produce hydrogen to be used as a fuel for an automobile. The "Hydrogen" is just a "container"/"fuel" for that energy, as an alternative to other "containers"/"fuels".

If you run off of gasoline; you use more power to produce the gasoline, than what you get out of it....

If you use hydrogen, you use more power to produce the hydrogen, than what you get out of it....

If you use electrical batteries; you use more power to charge the battery, than what you get out of it....

This is called thermodynamics; and no matter WHAT your idea is; it will be subject to this same physical law....

The fact that to contain energy, or produce fuel; takes more energy than is derived in work from usage of that produced "fuel"/"container" is a physical reality that EVERYTHING is subject to.

Regardless whether you're using solar power, hydrogen combustion/fuel cells, gasoline, diesel, nuclear power; you're subject to having less resultant energy than you put in the system in the first place.... Welcome to real life my friend...

Battery can be charged from more available energy sources; than can be used to drive an independent automobile...

An oil refinery uses more power than can be derived from the petroleum products it produces; yet we still use gasoline... Why? Because gasoline is an easier and more reasonable source for driving the vehicle; than is the massive boilers used in oil refineries...

We can use electrinicty from multiple sources, to produce hydrogen, as a fuel, for driving automobiles...

Why don't you just lug million pound nuclear reactors around on your vehicle to provide motive energy; since you seem not to realize any type of "container" for energy will automatically be subject to the same thermodynamic laws, which you use to shoot down the idea with. Including whatever "container"/"fuel" you're presently using.

The point is, I can use a car battery, or any other energy source (prefferably just electricity from a power-planet) to produce hydrogen to be used as a fuel for an automobile. The "Hydrogen" is just a "container"/"fuel" for that energy, as an alternative to other "containers"/"fuels".

If you run off of gasoline; you use more power to produce the gasoline, than what you get out of it....

If you use hydrogen, you use more power to produce the hydrogen, than what you get out of it....

If you use electrical batteries; you use more power to charge the battery, than what you get out of it....

This is called thermodynamics; and no matter WHAT your idea is; it will be subject to this same physical law....

The fact that to contain energy, or produce fuel; takes more energy than is derived in work from usage of that produced "fuel"/"container" is a physical reality that EVERYTHING is subject to.

Regardless whether you're using solar power, hydrogen combustion/fuel cells, gasoline, diesel, nuclear power; you're subject to having less resultant energy than you put in the system in the first place.... Welcome to real life my friend...
1 Yep, but batteries are inherently inefficient. You trade energy loss for portability.

2 Nope. If the ammount of energy used by a refinery exceeded the ammount of energy stored in the petrolium it produced the gasoline would cost tens or hundreds of dollars per gallon.

3 Electricity isn't free. You need to generate it. The cheapest ways are through fossil fuels and nuclear.

4 You've got this wrong. We don't really "produce" gasoline as much as purify it. It's already in the crude oil. Sometimes we crack longer hydrocarbons in the petrolium into gasoline, but we dont' produce the hydrocarbons.

5 The energy in Uranium and Thorium is the same situation. That energy is there already. We just dig it up and purify it.

Using hydrogen instead of fossil fuels or electricity to run a car is adding another energy wasting step. It's inherently less efficient than gasoline or electric power.

How do you charge the battery? You're actually using up more energy from the battery than you get back in hydrogen.
Yup. That's because of these pesky thermodynamics. :D

But I do agree that in order to STORE energy, we have to WASTE a lot of it. But storage itself is a valuable goal. You can't do everything "real-time" and "mobile" on windmills, solar panels and hydro-electricity. So it's all about the amount of energy we can afford to waste, in order to get this real-time usage and this mobility.

I hope someday we'll have solar panels and/or heat collectors on houses, and maybe windmills for clusters of homes / city areas. Connect these to a large-scale electricity grid, and you can actually balance the power usage quite well.

Domestic (non mobile) easy-to-recharge cells might be a good solution for the future, too.

4 You've got this wrong. We don't really "produce" gasoline as much as purify it. It's already in the crude oil. Sometimes we crack longer hydrocarbons in the petrolium into gasoline, but we dont' produce the hydrocarbons.

That was Tekania's point. If you had to make gasoline from scratch you would need to invest more energy than you would get out of it. Gasoline is so cheap as an energy source because all that investment was not made by us, but there was one.


5 The energy in Uranium and Thorium is the same situation. That energy is there already. We just dig it up and purify it.

And convert it to a form we can put in our cars and use. Same with solar, wind or geothermal. The energy is there, we just need to harvest it. That's not particularly hard or expensive, but the real trick is to convert it to a way we can easily store and use when needed.

1 Yep, but batteries are inherently inefficient. You trade energy loss for portability.

2 Nope. If the ammount of energy used by a refinery exceeded the ammount of energy stored in the petrolium it produced the gasoline would cost tens or hundreds of dollars per gallon.

3 Electricity isn't free. You need to generate it. The cheapest ways are through fossil fuels and nuclear.

4 You've got this wrong. We don't really "produce" gasoline as much as purify it. It's already in the crude oil. Sometimes we crack longer hydrocarbons in the petrolium into gasoline, but we dont' produce the hydrocarbons.

5 The energy in Uranium and Thorium is the same situation. That energy is there already. We just dig it up and purify it.

Using hydrogen instead of fossil fuels or electricity to run a car is adding another energy wasting step. It's inherently less efficient than gasoline or electric power.

Except you're missing several key points....

Fossil Fuels are non-renewable....

I'm not adverse to Nuclear Power... Hydrogen as a fuel for vehicles is my point...

Raw electricity is less "waste" in raw energy consumption; however storage is the problem; you can store more "capacity" using the Hydrogen, than could be derived from the batteries (allowing longer trips between "refuel"/"recharge")... This is why gasoline is still used more so than electic vehicles.... Because of distance constraints (and why gas-electic/diesel-electric hybrids are preffered over pure electric vehicles) There is less energy loss using the gas/diesel engine to drive a generator; transmit the energy over wires to motors, to drive the wheels, than the resultant loss of energy in all the mechanics between the engine and wheels of a normal vehicle).

Hydrogen powered vehicles, are using a renewable fuel, in place of a non-renewable resource... The preffered types would be hydrogen-electric hybrids... Using cracked hydrogen, made in plants, as a fuel for driving an engine that drives an electric motor.

Gasoline, still uses more energy to "produce" than is derived from burning it to drive automobiles.... We're managing to use up several billion years worth of stored bio-mass energy in a couple of centuries.... And who knows how much longer it will last...

Except you're missing several key points....

Fossil Fuels are non-renewable....

I'm not adverse to Nuclear Power... Hydrogen as a fuel for vehicles is my point...

Raw electricity is less "waste" in raw energy consumption; however storage is the problem; you can store more "capacity" using the Hydrogen, than could be derived from the batteries (allowing longer trips between "refuel"/"recharge")... This is why gasoline is still used more so than electic vehicles.... Because of distance constraints (and why gas-electic/diesel-electric hybrids are preffered over pure electric vehicles) There is less energy loss using the gas/diesel engine to drive a generator; transmit the energy over wires to motors, to drive the wheels, than the resultant loss of energy in all the mechanics between the engine and wheels of a normal vehicle).

Hydrogen powered vehicles, are using a renewable fuel, in place of a non-renewable resource... The preffered types would be hydrogen-electric hybrids... Using cracked hydrogen, made in plants, as a fuel for driving an engine that drives an electric motor.

Gasoline, still uses more energy to "produce" than is derived from burning it to drive automobiles.... We're managing to use up several billion years worth of stored bio-mass energy in a couple of centuries.... And who knows how much longer it will last...
Ok, I think I get your point now.

if we all drove hyrdogen cars, africa wouldnt be in dehydration

its sorts everyones quarrels

LOL you obviously DO NOT understand ANYTHING about hydrogen

1) Best source of hydrogen=WATER LOOL, wonder why they call it H2O
2) Nuclear Power is by far the best way, and 50+ nuclear stations i frigging doubt it, think how many coal plants we have, and dont give me the nuclear meltdown garbage and the 'nuclear waste' Most dangerous nuclear waste CAN BE RECYCLED, and meltdown odds are so small they are almost impossible, most of France's electricity is nuclear, Dont try and argue, i know a nuclear scientist, ill let you argue with him
3) Electric powered cars are just as bad, why, they need power to charge!AKA Coal powerplants are used to charge them so what is the point
4) Hydrogen IS THE ONLY easily accesable renewable energy source that can power a jet fighter
5) There isnt any hydrogen in oil.....
6) In about 30 years (approx) fuel will run out, that means no tarmac, plastic, many beauty products, kerosin,parrafin ect ect, and also, prices will be rising huge amounts until it runs out, and when it runs out, unless the government start preparing now, entire countries will riot
7) I think hydrogen is a great idea, along with all non polluting energy sources, after all, its fossil fuels that are killing us of with Polloution and global warming, and personally i find it a relief that petrol will run out, as it will mean that most of the polloution will be gone, and soon after oil natural gas will go, its a pity coal will last 200-300 years

Ok, I think I get your point now.

Exactly...

Hydrogen, however, to illustrate, would not be a viable alternative to hardline electrical power consumption... Since it defeats the purpose, and would use up more energy tranfering to localities, than could be driven over the lines in the first place...

I'm not adverse to nuclear power, solar power, or other forms of electrical generation for "hard-wired" usage..... merely that as a motive for moving an independent vehicle, which has to carry it's "fuel"/"energy" with it over distances.

There are "alternatives", but they just aren't practical.

Solar cars are nice; but you couldn't use one to drive heavy loads.

Pure-electic cars are nice; but they lack much distance (you might get 100 or so kilometers on a single charge).

Natural Gas is iffy, as it's unknown if enough methane could be harvested from other sources (outside of petroleum) for it to work over the long run; and presently relies heavily on petroleum...

Bio-Diesel is nice; but it produces the same ammounts, or more, of greenhouse emitions (just more typically NO2 as opposed to CO2/CO, and NO2 is a "more potent" greenhouse gas than CO/CO2)

So, I tend to lean to Gas/Diesel-Electic hybrid; and Hydrogen-Electric hybrid technologies to drive automobiles... Prefferably something renewable like hydrogen-electric hybrid engines/generators... As the technology standard of the future for such devices.... At least till someone invents a better idea...

LOL you obviously DO NOT understand ANYTHING about hydrogen

1) Best source of hydrogen=WATER LOOL, wonder why they call it H2O
2) Nuclear Power is by far the best way, and 50+ nuclear stations i frigging doubt it, think how many coal plants we have, and dont give me the nuclear meltdown garbage and the 'nuclear waste' Most dangerous nuclear waste CAN BE RECYCLED, and meltdown odds are so small they are almost impossible, most of France's electricity is nuclear, Dont try and argue, i know a nuclear scientist, ill let you argue with him
3) Electric powered cars are just as bad, why, they need power to charge!AKA Coal powerplants are used to charge them so what is the point
4) Hydrogen IS THE ONLY easily accesable renewable energy source that can power a jet fighter
5) There isnt any hydrogen in oil.....
6) In about 30 years (approx) fuel will run out, that means no tarmac, plastic, many beauty products, kerosin,parrafin ect ect, and also, prices will be rising huge amounts until it runs out, and when it runs out, unless the government start preparing now, entire countries will riot
7) I think hydrogen is a great idea, along with all non polluting energy sources, after all, its fossil fuels that are killing us of with Polloution and global warming, and personally i find it a relief that petrol will run out, as it will mean that most of the polloution will be gone, and soon after oil natural gas will go, its a pity coal will last 200-300 years
There's plenty of hydrogen in oil. It's a bunch of hydrocarbons for fuck's sake. That means it's molecules made of carbon and hydrogen. One molecule of octane has like 18 hydrogen atoms stuck to it. It's just not worth breaking up the molecule when you can burn the whole thing.

We can make oil and gas out of any organic waste. Farm waste, sewage, kitchen trash, etc. It's just not as cheap as oil from the ground.

When petrolium's gone energy prices will skyrocket. Economies will tank and people will die. Food prices will become so high that famines will arise in many poor countries. Don't be so anxious for the oil to run out before we've got a good replacement in position to take over.

I'm wondering why so many people think that hydrogen powered cars are a good thing. Do people not know the science behind the technology? It doesn't reduce dependence on oil...because the best place to get hydrogen is from oil. You can get it from methane, but you tend to find methane in the same places you find oil. You can get it from water, but you have to use more energy than you get to do that, so it makes no sense, whatsoever. It doesn't reduce pollution because byproducts from the refining process are still created. All it does is displace where the pollution is created. What are your thoughts?


You think you know the science behind it?!

Who died and made you head scientist? If you have not studied hydrogen powered cars extensively, you probably don't know as much as those scientists who spend their lives researching, testing, and retesting it!

Hydrogen is easily found in the ocean NOT paired with oxygen. Did you know that? And a lot of it is in the form of its isotope, tridium! Thats hydrogen with 2 extra neutrons. Now, how hard is it to get those neutrons off of it? Not hard at all. But, the other thing is, we may not even need to take them away!

You would be supprised how much tridium can be found in the ocean.

Now, about those by-products created. I'm sure we can find something to do with them. When oil is refined to make kerosene, the by-product is gasoline. Before cars were ever made, the gas was thrown on fields and burnned because we had no use for it. A by-product of gasoline is plastic. So in order to keep plastics, everyone is ging to have to recycle, or we are going to have to have some things that still run on gas.

I'm sure we can find something to do with all of the elements that are created through the hydrogen gathering. Maybe when a volcano produces a chemical change, or when it rains, we should worry where the elements are all going to make sure the environment is in perfect balance.


I hug trees, but I don't hump them cause then you get splinters! :eek:

Solar panels would be very cheap if they are mass produced, as is the thing with most technology

The first petrol car, think how much THAT must have cost when it was only just out of develpment

Now we could buy and old petrol car for £300 DOWNWARDS, im sure solar panels will be $10 if they are mass produced

Hydrogen is easily found in the ocean NOT paired with oxygen. Did you know that? And a lot of it is in the form of its isotope, tridium! Thats hydrogen with 2 extra neutrons. Now, how hard is it to get those neutrons off of it? Not hard at all. But, the other thing is, we may not even need to take them away!
1) it's TRITIUM, no, even better: DEUTERIUM

2) sorry to blow your bubble, but deep-water deuterium is bound with oxygen, and the molecule is called HEAVY WATER

3) heavy water is quite rare, it is a bitch to refine; it is mostly used as a neutron slower, in classical nuclear reactors

LOL you obviously DO NOT understand ANYTHING about hydrogen

1) Best source of hydrogen=WATER LOOL, wonder why they call it H2O

Got that right.... But there are other sources.... Methane (CH4)...


2) Nuclear Power is by far the best way, and 50+ nuclear stations i frigging doubt it, think how many coal plants we have, and dont give me the nuclear meltdown garbage and the 'nuclear waste' Most dangerous nuclear waste CAN BE RECYCLED, and meltdown odds are so small they are almost impossible, most of France's electricity is nuclear, Dont try and argue, i know a nuclear scientist, ill let you argue with him

I've worked next to a nuclear reactor, so I know too... I like nukes...


3) Electric powered cars are just as bad, why, they need power to charge!AKA Coal powerplants are used to charge them so what is the point


Gas-Electric hybrids, or better yet, Hydrogen-Electric Hybrids..... You loose alot of power in the mechanics between the engine and wheels; than you'ld lose over the transmission, drive shaft, differential, and axels...


4) Hydrogen IS THE ONLY easily accesable renewable energy source that can power a jet fighter

Agreed.... We've actually already used it in experimental craft like the CL-400 "Suntan"...


5) There isnt any hydrogen in oil.....


On this you're wrong, oil is a mixture of several hundred hydrocarbons.... And guess what elements hydrocarbons are composed of....

Including (but not limited to):
Methane (CH4)
Ethane (C2H6)
Propane (C3H8)
Butane (C4H10)
Octane (C8H18) [or did you miss all the "octane" rating they give gasoline/petrol?)


6) In about 30 years (approx) fuel will run out, that means no tarmac, plastic, many beauty products, kerosin,parrafin ect ect, and also, prices will be rising huge amounts until it runs out, and when it runs out, unless the government start preparing now, entire countries will riot

It will run out, but may take longer than 30 years, depending...


7) I think hydrogen is a great idea, along with all non polluting energy sources, after all, its fossil fuels that are killing us of with Polloution and global warming, and personally i find it a relief that petrol will run out, as it will mean that most of the polloution will be gone, and soon after oil natural gas will go, its a pity coal will last 200-300 years

Gas running out does not mean an end to pollution... It's not some global utopia.... It will take centuries before the effects dissipate...

We cannot 'make' fossil fuels out of sewage ect ect, why? because there isnt a machine in the known universe that can cause the pressure of the ENTIRE EARTH over 300 MILLION YEARS in a feasable amount of time ( under 1 million years) And why would oil running out effect farming, in third world countries farming is done by hand, so in what ways is it effected, true it would be impossible to import/export things, but :/ anyway i prefer starving to death than dying from Immense heat/Polloution/Fumes/Extreme Weather caused by global warming which in turn is caused by fossil fuels

We cannot 'make' fossil fuels out of sewage ect ect, why? because there isnt a machine in the known universe that can cause the pressure of the ENTIRE EARTH over 300 MILLION YEARS in a feasable amount of time ( under 1 million years) And why would oil running out effect farming, in third world countries farming is done by hand, so in what ways is it effected, true it would be impossible to import/export things, but :/ anyway i prefer starving to death than dying from Immense heat/Polloution/Fumes/Extreme Weather caused by global warming which in turn is caused by fossil fuels
You dont' know what you're talking about. www.changingworldtech.com

They've already got two facilities. One outside of Philadelphia, one in Missouri.

We cannot 'make' fossil fuels out of sewage ect ect, why? because there isnt a machine in the known universe that can cause the pressure of the ENTIRE EARTH over 300 MILLION YEARS in a feasable amount of time ( under 1 million years) And why would oil running out effect farming, in third world countries farming is done by hand, so in what ways is it effected, true it would be impossible to import/export things, but :/ anyway i prefer starving to death than dying from Immense heat/Polloution/Fumes/Extreme Weather caused by global warming which in turn is caused by fossil fuels

fossil fuels are composed of decomposed bio-mass material..... Hydrocarbons are naturally produced during decomposition of living matter, and from bio-mass waste from living organisms.... We cannot "manufacture" "fossil fuel" from it; but we can harvest many of the hydrocarbons which are found in fossil-fuels from bio-mass waste products (such as maneuer, and wastewater-sludge from sewage processing plants)...

It's the "hydrocarbons" themselves, which readily combust, which are the primary source of derived energy from the combustion of fossil-fuels....

We're merely using the "fossil-fuel" in this case, before it has become a "fossil".... It's just "fuel", "bio-mass" fuel...

Hi! I'm sorry that my Question #11 wasn't precise enough.
I was mostly concerned by the engine itself. From what I've seen, hydrogen engines and turbines look much more complex than petrol engines. The look more fragile, too, with all these small pieces. So will these engines be reliable in a cold winter, on a bumpy road, after a small collision? I think it's an important question. Many complex technologies are proven to require too much maintenance (just look at the Space Shuttle's fragility, when compared to any Russian piece of flying metal).
I wouldn't want to invest in painfully costly engines which require constant and costly maintenances, and with dozens of red lamps which will start buzzing every now and then on the display panel.

Ah I misunderstood. Thats a very good question but really, a Hydrogen fuel cell is fairly cheap to repair and is no more susceptible to damage than an Internal Combustion Engine. the only truely 'fragile' part of the cell is the actual 'stack' which is made up of thin metal/composite wafers which are fairly inexpensive and replacine one is simply a matter of unscrewing the stafk, sliding off the damaged plate and sliding a new one into its place, or, if replacement wafers are not available, the engine can run short afew wafers with a slight decrease in available power. And as I mentioned, the engines currently available remain cost efficientfrom freezing to well above the highest recorded natural temperature. and smaller hydrogen electric engines called CHE (Combined heat and electricity) are reliable to well below freezing and can be used to heat the main engine when temperatures start nose diving. I don't believe HFC's are any more or less prone to accidental damage than an ICE.

Heres my idea, how about MAGNETS?

Solar panels on the roof of the vehicle to provide the initial forwrd/backward motion and gravity wouldnt be a problem as its all based on magnets

Any good? Please dont flame me IAm not a scientist, just someone with a scientific-esque mind.

Please explin if its a rubbish idea WHY its rubbish! :)

Nope. A nuclear reactor is a heavy, large item. A small one would probably outweigh your car.

Actually in my science class my teacher showed us an example of what theyre trying to make and its only the size of a tic tac and should have enough energy to run a car for 10 years before you have to get a new one, and the only thing you need to do to protect from radiation is have it in some type of cement structure and even that is only for the strongest of radiation, alpha radiation can be blocked by paper and beta radiation can be blocked by aluminum

its just how the car would get the energy from the nuclear 'pill' that is the problem, you wouldnt put a nuclear reactor in your car

Heres my idea, how about MAGNETS?

Solar panels on the roof of the vehicle to provide the initial forwrd/backward motion and gravity wouldnt be a problem as its all based on magnets

Any good? Please dont flame me IAm not a scientist, just someone with a scientific-esque mind.

Please explin if its a rubbish idea WHY its rubbish! :)
How would you use magnets to move the car?

BTW, electric motors use magnets to generate motion. The only catch is that the magnetic field can't be steady or the motor comes to rest at a point where attractive and repulsive forces are balanced. That's where the electricity comes in. Electricity can be pulsed through the coils to create temporary jolts of magnetism.

Heres my idea, how about MAGNETS?

Solar panels on the roof of the vehicle to provide the initial forwrd/backward motion and gravity wouldnt be a problem as its all based on magnets

Any good? Please dont flame me IAm not a scientist, just someone with a scientific-esque mind.

Please explin if its a rubbish idea WHY its rubbish! :)

1. Gravity is not magnetism, they are seperate forces. Gravity is a product of mass; magnetism is a product of polarity.

2. How do solar panels provide initial momentum. Solar panels just use a photon sensitive material to produce electricity from light.

3. Magnets need something to push against; the earth magnetic field; while large; is not strong enough to lift an object of appreciable mass (like a car). So it would require reworking the entire road system.... And the vehicles would be confined to ROADS alone; any vehicle needed to go "off-road" like construction equipment, and the like, would not be applicable to the system...

1 Can a small solar cell covering the roof of a car generate enough hydrogen to propel the car? No. Not unless the cell is allowed to decompose water for several days prior to a few minutes of driving.

2 Natural gas, when burned, produces CO2 and H2O. Not hydrogen, water. Splitting that water into H2 and O2 requires more energy. You actually would get a more efficient energy source from just burning the gas rather than trying to extract the hydrogen from it.

3 Batteries don't produce energy, they store it.

1. currently available solar cells can produce enough energy to split enough water to make using it an effective way to power a car and cover an area not much larger than the dimensions of currently available vehicles small enough to be powered by the hydrogen produced

2. I said, burn it to get electricity and then harvest Hydrogen, which is produced in a more easily extractable form than from water.

3. Batteries 'store' energy from chemical reactions that take place witin the battery itself, they don't take power off the grid unless your reharging a battery off a wall socket.

Actually in my science class my teacher showed us an example of what theyre trying to make and its only the size of a tic tac and should have enough energy to run a car for 10 years before you have to get a new one, and the only thing you need to do to protect from radiation is have it in some type of cement structure and even that is only for the strongest of radiation, alpha radiation can be blocked by paper and beta radiation can be blocked by aluminum

its just how the car would get the energy from the nuclear 'pill' that is the problem, you wouldnt put a nuclear reactor in your car
You must have misunderstood what your teacher was saying. A nuclear reactor must have a minimum ammount of fuel in it. The fuel must emit neutrons. Neutrons penetrate shielding quite well. Neutrons absorbed by the nucleii of atoms make those atoms into radioactive isotopes. If you don't have enough shielding your car is a neutron bomb. If you don't have enough fuel (several tens to hudreds of kilograms I reckon) you don't get enough energy to do anything.

Actually in my science class my teacher showed us an example of what theyre trying to make and its only the size of a tic tac and should have enough energy to run a car for 10 years before you have to get a new one, and the only thing you need to do to protect from radiation is have it in some type of cement structure and even that is only for the strongest of radiation, alpha radiation can be blocked by paper and beta radiation can be blocked by aluminum

its just how the car would get the energy from the nuclear 'pill' that is the problem, you wouldnt put a nuclear reactor in your car

"small" yes, but "small" is relative. Nuclear powered automobiles are nice; but the smallest one made was the size of a Ford Ranger, and weighed more than 10 tons.... More than "Cement" is needed to containment of radiation. While Cement stops most of the beta and alpha particulate radiation, it does nothing to gamma and neutron...... Lead is needed for Gamma, and the most effective screen against neutron is, ironically, petroleum......

Heres my idea, how about MAGNETS?

Solar panels on the roof of the vehicle to provide the initial forwrd/backward motion and gravity wouldnt be a problem as its all based on magnets

Any good? Please dont flame me IAm not a scientist, just someone with a scientific-esque mind.

Please explin if its a rubbish idea WHY its rubbish! :)

arrfghh, more multi posting, this is why I don't normally respond on larger threads...

the problem is not an obvious one but it lies in the laws of conservation of energy. You couldn't produce more, or an equal amount of energy from the movement of the car that went in to making the car move in the first place, at most you'd be postponing the car stopping by a few feet

3. Batteries 'store' energy from chemical reactions that take place witin the battery itself, they don't take power off the grid unless your reharging a battery off a wall socket.

Most prefferential types are "rechargable"; and they still use "chemical" storage methods; just the process is reversable, with applied electricity (storage); though degrades over use (recharges)....

1. currently available solar cells can produce enough energy to split enough water to make using it an effective way to power a car and cover an area not much larger than the dimensions of currently available vehicles small enough to be powered by the hydrogen produced

2. I said, burn it to get electricity and then harvest Hydrogen, which is produced in a more easily extractable form than from water.

3. Batteries 'store' energy from chemical reactions that take place witin the battery itself, they don't take power off the grid unless your reharging a battery off a wall socket.
1 How long do they take to split enough water to power a car? Days of splitting for a few miles of driving is the correct answer.

2 Ok, but you're still burning fossil fuels.

3 Where do you think the energy to produce those chemicals? If you want to build a lithium cell you need to get lithium from minerals. That takes alot of energy. You want a simple copper/zinc cell? Still gotta get pure copper and zinc. That costs energy too.

I see, I knew I'd probably get something wrong and it was 7th grade so my information was a little dumbed down

last one, then I'm throwing myself off a cliff in despair at humanities lack of anything closely resembling a future I would eant to live in.

sadly, I hae become so enraged that I will have to utilize excessive caps

1. i said EFFECTIVE WAY TO POWER A CAR!!!!!! that means not 'several days=several miles' that means 'several hours=a full tank of gas'

2. (I have to use red for this one) NATURAL GAS IS NOT A FOSSIL FUEL

last one, then I'm throwing myself off a cliff in despair at humanities lack of anything closely resembling a future I would eant to live in.

sadly, I hae become so enraged that I will have to utilize excessive caps

1. i said EFFECTIVE WAY TO POWER A CAR!!!!!! that means not 'several days=several miles' that means 'several hours=a full tank of gas'

2. (I have to use red for this one) NATURAL GAS IS NOT A FOSSIL FUEL
1 Pipe dream. Ever see the races they stage with solar powered cars? Those cars are completely covered with solar cells. They hold one person. They're ultra light, ultra streamlined, and still only reach top speeds of like 45MPH. How is that a realistic alternative to real cars?

2 Yes it is. It's pumped out of wells just like petrolium. Just because it can be produced in other ways doesn't change that.

We only need to build one of these for every human (and possibly every cow) on earth.

http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?CY=ep&LG=en&IDX=GB2289222

Then we can collect the resultant methane, and use it.

Fully renewable - we only need to eat boiled eggs, cabbage, and baked beans - all fairly economical foods.

1 Pipe dream. Ever see the races they stage with solar powered cars? Those cars are completely covered with solar cells. They hold one person. They're ultra light, ultra streamlined, and still only reach top speeds of like 45MPH. How is that a realistic alternative to real cars?
I agree!

Yeah, we could move to the desert (the only place where solar-powered cars actually work well) and keep our modern lifestyle. Like, swimming pools, big malls and A/C units.
Besides, after all the petrol has been sucked up, these desert pieces of real estate will be quite affordable.

I'm wondering why so many people think that hydrogen powered cars are a good thing. Do people not know the science behind the technology? It doesn't reduce dependence on oil...because the best place to get hydrogen is from oil.
Not really.

You can get it from methane, but you tend to find methane in the same places you find oil.
Not really.

You can get it from water, but you have to use more energy than you get to do that, so it makes no sense, whatsoever.
Actually, the energy used to decompose the water is less than the energy provided from the hydrogen use. You don't need much electricity to decompose water.

It doesn't reduce pollution because byproducts from the refining process are still created. All it does is displace where the pollution is created. What are your thoughts?
Yes, it does, because if all the energy sources used to produce the hydrogen were using hydrogen, you would have clean energy.

Your argument is flawed because you could say the same thing about natural gas replacing oil or coal.

Not really.



Actually, the energy used to decompose the water is less than the energy provided from the hydrogen use. You don't need much electricity to decompose water.


Yes, it does, because if all the energy sources used to produce the hydrogen were using hydrogen, you would have clean energy.


Congratulations. You've just violated the laws of thermodynamics. You've proven physics to be completely wrong and invented a perpetual motion machine.

Or maybe your science and math just isn't up to par.

It takes about ~121 kWh to produce ~4700L (at room temperature, and sea level) from ~1 gallon of water.... Absolute comsumption of that hydrogen will give you about ~32kWh... (on a side note; this is about what you get from gasoline at present, assuming hybrid technologies; though it only takes ~20kWh to produce a single gallon of gasoline)...

While it "costs" more energy to "produce" (in the sense of electrolysis, vs. refining), the per-unit energy is higher with hydrogen than gasoline; which effectively means a hydrogen-combustion hybrid, or fuel-cell driven vehicle would have further range per unit-volume of fuel carried... (mostly due to the fact that hydrogen is much more reactive to oxygen than hydrocarbons are....)... And it packs the advantage of having a virtually exhaustless supply of fuel available w/ completely clean emitions...

H cars aren't a viable option for oil replacement. There are only 7.7 billion grams of proven platinum in the world, and it takes 20 grams to make one H fuel cell costing upwards of $1,00,000 which needs to be replaced after 200 hours of use. So, if you take the 700 million vehicles in operation today and try to replace those ICEs with HFCs, you end up mining the entire world supply of platinum while at the same time not replacing the ICE of every vehicle - not to mention the huge amounts of oil (and freshwater) it takes to mine and refine that platinum into a useable resource.

Also, you have to consider that H is the smallest element known to man. Even if we find a way to create it, how are we going to create a container with a sufficiently "tight" bond between its own elements to store said H in? Even the liquid hydrogen tanks we currently use for vehicles have a boil-off rate of 3-4% per day.

Getting hydrogen from water - via electrolysis - provides only about 1.3 units of energy returned for the amount of energy used to produce it. When you consider the fact that oil provides us with an effective energy return rate of 30 - that is, 30 units of energy for each 1 unit put in - electrolysis goes into the garbage.

Ethanol is not a viable alternative, because we would need to cover something approaching 100% of the earth's farmable land to grow the corn that would replace the amount of oil we now use - which stands currently at 83.5 million barrels of oil per day for the United States alone. 11 acres of corn would be needed to power one car for 10,000 miles - a below-average year's worth of driving - while the same amount of corn could feed seven people for the same amount of time. Also, ethanol currently needs 6 units of energy to be put into it before it can produce one unit of comparable energy. A net energy loss means that it isn't viable simply by sheer numbers, let alone the huge need for supplies.

Solar power is not a viable alternative. The amount of energy that a single offshore oil rig produces in one day - say 12,000 barrels of oil - is equivalant to 36 square miles of solar panels. If that doesn't sound like very much, consider the fact that only about 10 square miles of functioning solar panels exist in the entire world. (Incidentaly, that also translates to about 10,000 wind turbines.)

Nuclear power is not a viable alternative. The US has, currently, enough uranium to power existing reactors only for the next 25-40 years. The world total supply of uranium is fading and the price has skyrocketed as China and India industrialize and make use of nuclear power. Also, imagine trying to retrofit 700 million cars, along with tens of millions of planes and boats, to run on nuclear power. Even if nuclear batteries can be made viable for use in personal vehicles, it doesn't answer the question of what we'll do when we run out of uranium.

Sorry to be so pesimistic, but there simply isn't any way at all to retrofit the number of vehicles on the road today with alternative energy sources, not to mention the huge amounts of energy required to run everything else in the world.

I've often wondered how long the world's supply of Uranium could last. Thanks for posting this.

I think they've designed a new type of H cell that doesn't need platinum. The only problem is that it doesn't start at temperatures less than 10C.

The only way that we're ever going to advance solar/wind technology is by just building them and then as the industry grows, new production methods are found and costs drop.

However, it's much easier for countries like us in the UK / Denmark / Ireland since we have huge sea borders for offshore stuff. Big countries like the USA don't compared to the size of their counrty. A lot of people forget that when they say 'build wind farms.'

Well, the US has lots of desert space that no one uses. And the sun's always shining there. Good place for solar panals.

How about we take all the parts of the plants that we don't currently eat, like corn stalks, wheat stems, rhubarb leaves, etc. and convert them into oil and natural gas through thermal depolymerization. That way we not only feed ourselves, but we also supplement our energy supply while reducing waste.

In that post I was saying that we can't use plants to generate solar power. Of course we could use them to make oil. Lots of people have been discussing that here.

hydrogen is the most plentiful element (to our knowledge) in the universe. it is illogical to believe that there is no effective way of harnessing its energy with less problems than far more complex substances. the problem is that we have not found the most effecient way in harnessing its power - the focus should be in finding new, undiscovered ways of harnessing energy instead of focusing on complaining how the methods we currently understand and employ will not make the cut.

You think you know the science behind it?!

Who died and made you head scientist? If you have not studied hydrogen powered cars extensively, you probably don't know as much as those scientists who spend their lives researching, testing, and retesting it!

Hydrogen is easily found in the ocean NOT paired with oxygen. Did you know that? And a lot of it is in the form of its isotope, tridium! Thats hydrogen with 2 extra neutrons. Now, how hard is it to get those neutrons off of it? Not hard at all. But, the other thing is, we may not even need to take them away!

You would be supprised how much tridium can be found in the ocean.

Now, about those by-products created. I'm sure we can find something to do with them. When oil is refined to make kerosene, the by-product is gasoline. Before cars were ever made, the gas was thrown on fields and burnned because we had no use for it. A by-product of gasoline is plastic. So in order to keep plastics, everyone is ging to have to recycle, or we are going to have to have some things that still run on gas.

I'm sure we can find something to do with all of the elements that are created through the hydrogen gathering. Maybe when a volcano produces a chemical change, or when it rains, we should worry where the elements are all going to make sure the environment is in perfect balance.


I hug trees, but I don't hump them cause then you get splinters! :eek:

Well, I didn't think I sounded that "know it all". I'll freely admit that I don't know everything. But, I'll tell you this, I know a hell of a lot more than hell of a lot of people. And, yes, H can be found in any water not bonded to oxygen. But, it only exists like that for a very short period of time before it binds to a OH-. A assume that's what you're talking about.

We cannot 'make' fossil fuels out of sewage ect ect, why? because there isnt a machine in the known universe that can cause the pressure of the ENTIRE EARTH over 300 MILLION YEARS in a feasable amount of time ( under 1 million years) And why would oil running out effect farming, in third world countries farming is done by hand, so in what ways is it effected, true it would be impossible to import/export things, but :/ anyway i prefer starving to death than dying from Immense heat/Polloution/Fumes/Extreme Weather caused by global warming which in turn is caused by fossil fuels

If we can create enough pressure to make diamonds, I would think we can make to amount of pressure your talking about.

hydrogen is the most plentiful element (to our knowledge) in the universe. it is illogical to believe that there is no effective way of harnessing its energy with less problems than far more complex substances. the problem is that we have not found the most effecient way in harnessing its power - the focus should be in finding new, undiscovered ways of harnessing energy instead of focusing on complaining how the methods we currently understand and employ will not make the cut.

Well, when you invent the device that can mine H out of the stars and nebulas lightyears away, then I'll stop complaining. (By the way, if you think that can be done, we can talk about relitivity.)

Well, when you invent the device that can mine H out of the stars and nebulas lightyears away, then I'll stop complaining. (By the way, if you think that can be done, we can talk about relitivity.)

firstly, hydrogen is plentiful enough as it is on earth, so there is no need to mine it from other cosmic locations. as you most likely know, energy cannot be created nor destroyed, thus the utilization of hydrogen would in effect yeild hydrogen as an emission when the energy was harnessed and put to use. therefore, the hydrogen atom would not be destroyed and would be available to be used again either by man or by nature in whatever manner the atoms own path in space led it to. secondly, on the subject of relativity, since time is a dimension in itself, it is theoretically possible to manipulate it in the universe, for the universe is the sum of all the known dimensions. recent findings of worm holes and such would satisfy the equation such that the problem with traversing massive distances in an instant would be possible. obviously science is not at the point yet to harness this ability but if one cannot look to the future then that future can never be completed.

firstly, hydrogen is plentiful enough as it is on earth, so there is no need to mine it from other cosmic locations. as you most likely know, energy cannot be created nor destroyed, thus the utilization of hydrogen would in effect yeild hydrogen as an emission when the energy was harnessed and put to use. therefore, the hydrogen atom would not be destroyed and would be available to be used again either by man or by nature in whatever manner the atoms own path in space led it to. secondly, on the subject of relativity, since time is a dimension in itself, it is theoretically possible to manipulate it in the universe, for the universe is the sum of all the known dimensions. recent findings of worm holes and such would satisfy the equation such that the problem with traversing massive distances in an instant would be possible. obviously science is not at the point yet to harness this ability but if one cannot look to the future then that future can never be completed.

Well, hey, you were the one talking about space-hydrogen. And (not that it's relevent to the topic) but I don't believe there are any wormholes within traveling distence of Earth. Also, (not that it's relevent to the topic) I'm not aware of any way of manipulating the spacial dimentions, much less time. And (a minor point) the universe is not the sum of all known dimentions, it's all of them, whether they're known or not.

I'm wondering why so many people think that hydrogen powered cars are a good thing. Do people not know the science behind the technology? It doesn't reduce dependence on oil...because the best place to get hydrogen is from oil. You can get it from methane, but you tend to find methane in the same places you find oil. You can get it from water, but you have to use more energy than you get to do that, so it makes no sense, whatsoever. It doesn't reduce pollution because byproducts from the refining process are still created. All it does is displace where the pollution is created. What are your thoughts?
We have a bunch of cars and about 4 buses on the road that use hydro power and I think two hydro stations that people use to get hydro.
It wokes just fine, the cars drive just as fast as regular cars and send steam into the air not pollution. Most Icelandic cars will be hudro powerd in about 30 or 40 years.

firstly, hydrogen is plentiful enough as it is on earth, so there is no need to mine it from other cosmic locations. as you most likely know, energy cannot be created nor destroyed, thus the utilization of hydrogen would in effect yeild hydrogen as an emission when the energy was harnessed and put to use. therefore, the hydrogen atom would not be destroyed and would be available to be used again either by man or by nature in whatever manner the atoms own path in space led it to. secondly, on the subject of relativity, since time is a dimension in itself, it is theoretically possible to manipulate it in the universe, for the universe is the sum of all the known dimensions. recent findings of worm holes and such would satisfy the equation such that the problem with traversing massive distances in an instant would be possible. obviously science is not at the point yet to harness this ability but if one cannot look to the future then that future can never be completed.

Ther is an energy cost put into (by us) to gather hydrogen for use; which is higher than the energy cost put into (by us) refining petroleum.... so regardless it is not a perfect system.

It takes about 20 kWh (kilo-Watt-Hours) to refine one gallon of petrol; to extract the same comparible value of hydrogen (4700 liters) it takes 121 kWh; cost to us in production for petrol is a net gain of about 8.8 kWh; hydrogen has a net loss of 89 kWh.... H2's primary advantage is that it is:

1. Renewable
2. Clean

I've talked further on this issue in earlier posts.... Though I support it's use (prefferably for Fuel-Cells or Hybrids) in driving vehicles as a replacement for gasoline...