NationStates Jolt Archive

So I just read this horribly written novel about how this scientist comes up with a way to cheaply and easily produce and disperse hydrogen fuel, and he gets murdered, blah blah blah, by the oil and energy companies that want to suppress the new development until they have squeezed the last penny from the oil business.

Now, I realize how much power and control OPEC, the automobile industry, etc have, but do you think a clean alternative fuel would be utterly suppressed/controlled by these people?

Do they have this ability? Do you think it is happening now?

I personally don't see enough evidence of it myself, its nothing more than the usual babel about how the banks run the world and such

So I just read this horribly written novel about how this scientist comes up with a way to cheaply and easily produce and disperse hydrogen fuel, and he gets murdered, blah blah blah, by the oil and energy companies that want to suppress the new development until they have squeezed the last penny from the oil business.

Now, I realize how much power and control OPEC, the automobile industry, etc have, but do you think a clean alternative fuel would be utterly suppressed/controlled by these people?

Do they have this ability? Do you think it is happening now?


No, they don't need to squeeze every penny from the oil business. The oil companies only have to suppress the technology long enough to make sure that they and only they are in a position to profit most from the technology and that the profit/cost ratio tops oil production. Also, it'll be very important to make sure that there will be a constant demand for new product from them. The last thing they want is for people to buy a rig they can keep in their basement that can produce fuel for 20 years. They have to be the only producers.

Do they have the ability? Is it happening now? Heh. Hehehe. Hahahahaa!!! I think it's hilarious that there's still doubt. *nod*

The Lizardmen need all our hydrogen to power their inter-galactic DC-8.

So I just read this horribly written novel about how this scientist comes up with a way to cheaply and easily produce and disperse hydrogen fuel, and he gets murdered, blah blah blah, by the oil and energy companies that want to suppress the new development until they have squeezed the last penny from the oil business.

Now, I realize how much power and control OPEC, the automobile industry, etc have, but do you think a clean alternative fuel would be utterly suppressed/controlled by these people?

Do they have this ability? Do you think it is happening now?

Yes, this kind of shit does happen. I don't know if people really get killed that often, But oil companies use pretty ruthless business tactics and even lobby against competing technologies. Although, to be fair, a lot of pretty crappy technology has gotten government funding recently and alternative energy technologies are now subsidized just as much as the oil industry.

no.

the development of hydrogen fuel would not be the brilliant invention of one man but the overcoming of obstacles by many scientists and engineers.

No. Oil companies only sell oil because it makes them money. They have no inherent love of fossil fuels...fossil fuel sales just happen to make them a considerable amount of revenue, and if something else comes along that can generate cash flows for the company that are equal or superior to those they obtain from their fossil fuel extraction business, they're going to pursue them.

Do they have the ability? Is it happening now? Heh. Hehehe. Hahahahaa!!! I think it's hilarious that there's still doubt. *nod*

Hey, I agreed with your first bit about them wanting to be the only producers; that only makes sense. Since the switch will eventually come, they have to put themselves into a position to control the switch and the production to maintain their power and money flow, which I'm sure they don't want to lose.

But that part above, I'm not so sure about. Is there any proof? The conspiracy theorist in me complains loudly that we must have developed this technology by now, but then the realist takes over. Could a discovery of this magnitude have been supressed? If a scientist discovered it, wouldn't it have been published?

Problem is, hydrogen fuel fails atm. Don't forget that hydrogen is an energycarrier, not an energysource. And producing hydrogen is a highly inefficient process, using a lot of energy. And where does that energy still come from: dirty energy like coal and oil plants. Furthermore, a hydrogen economy might not be that good for the ozon-layer, maybe this (http://www.theozonehole.com/hydrogeneconomy.htm) article might clearify it a bit, but ofcourse that's just 1 article ;)
Anyway, ofcourse they won't supress this, they would rather jump on it like a hungry pack of wolfs. Oil can't be profitable forever, they simply need something new to continue making money.

We can - and do - use oil for an awful lot more than just fuel. Plastic is a wellknown example.
So oilcompanies would not go bankrupt if a superior and cheaper alternative fuelsource comes into play. They could in fact make *more* profit.

no.

the development of hydrogen fuel would not be the brilliant invention of one man but the overcoming of obstacles by many scientists and engineers.

While the development would be a confederacy of scientists and engineers, I could easily see the initial breakthrough being the work of a single lab. Right now the problem is we can't create hydrogen gas without dumping a whole lot of electricity into it (and where do we get electricity? fossil fuels). So if that initial problem is solved, then development and partnership can proceed. When I think of supression, I'm assuming it would be this initial breakthrough that is lost in the murky oil cartel netherworlds.

No. Oil companies only sell oil because it makes them money. They have no inherent love of fossil fuels...fossil fuel sales just happen to make them a considerable amount of revenue, and if something else comes along that can generate cash flows for the company that are equal or superior to those they obtain from their fossil fuel extraction business, they're going to pursue them.

Yeah, but the love of money is strong. You don't think they are making a killing with gas prices like they are now? They could easily just delay the unveiling of the alternative fuel until sales or prices start to plummet because people can't afford it any more, or the supply dwindles too much. And then they Presto! Chango! bring out this new fuel source and look like saviours of the world, when really, they were just squeezing the world for so long.

We can - and do - use oil for an awful lot more than just fuel. Plastic is a wellknown example.
So oilcompanies would not go bankrupt if a superior and cheaper alternative fuelsource comes into play. They could in fact make *more* profit.

Erotic oil wrestling is another great example! :D

I say we harness the power of Lunatic Goofballs' insanity

surely something of such boundless power could fuel all the cities in the world:D

I say we harness the power of Lunatic Goofballs' insanity

surely something of such boundless power could fuel all the cities in the world:D

http://world.honda.com/news/2008/4080416FCX-Clarity/

Well Honda are releasing the first hydrogen powered car for public sale by the end of this year. I think the Hydrogen revolution is here.

http://world.honda.com/news/2008/4080416FCX-Clarity/image/01_s.jpg

I say we harness the power of Lunatic Goofballs' insanity

surely something of such boundless power could provide enough power to go around the world:D

Hydrogen will never be a good fuel source in combustion engines.
why ???

because the only place to get enough hydrogen to fuel the world would be the oceans aka from water. However when you burn hydrogen you get water.
Law conservation of energy states energy can neither be created or destroyed.
So no matter what you will lose energy.

Next problem Hydrogen as a health risk Hydrogen is much more explosive and corrosive then gasoline you get some gasoline in your eyes you might go blind if you don't get it out fast enough. You get hydrogen in your eyes your whole face has likely already been dissolved.

Last problem environmental. can you imagine what would happen if every home car and factory were spewing out water vapor constantly??? Ever single major city in the world would have a rain cloud over the city 100% the time. massive floods and shifts in ecosystem would occur, not to mention that water vapor accounts for majority of the green house effect so that problem will still be there.

While the development would be a confederacy of scientists and engineers, I could easily see the initial breakthrough being the work of a single lab. Right now the problem is we can't create hydrogen gas without dumping a whole lot of electricity into it (and where do we get electricity? fossil fuels). So if that initial problem is solved, then development and partnership can proceed. When I think of supression, I'm assuming it would be this initial breakthrough that is lost in the murky oil cartel netherworlds.


so you imagine that the oil companies have spies in every lab in the world?

Hey, I agreed with your first bit about them wanting to be the only producers; that only makes sense. Since the switch will eventually come, they have to put themselves into a position to control the switch and the production to maintain their power and money flow, which I'm sure they don't want to lose.

But that part above, I'm not so sure about. Is there any proof? The conspiracy theorist in me complains loudly that we must have developed this technology by now, but then the realist takes over. Could a discovery of this magnitude have been supressed? If a scientist discovered it, wouldn't it have been published?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

1989:
Guy in garage: "We invented cold fusion!"
Department of Energy rep and future Haliiburton exec.:"Can you repeat it?"
"SOmetimes, sometimes not. We're trying to figure out why."
"Well, if you can't repeat it every time, it never happened."
"But we..."
"Can't hear you!" *hands over ears* "LALALALALALALALA!!!"

2004
Guy still in garage:"Cold fusion is getting better!"
Department of Energy rep and former Haliburton exec:"Can you repeat it?"
"Usually. We've managed to eliminate many of the causes of failure, but there are still a few that elude us. If we had more funding, maybe it won't take us another 15 year--"
"Well, if you can't repeat it every time, then it never happened. No funding for you! HAHAHAHA!!!"
"But we-"
"Can't hear you!" *hands over ears* "LALALALALALA!!!"

I say we harness the power of Lunatic Goofballs' insanity

surely something of such boundless power could provide enough power to go around the world:D

My insanity produces hazardous byproducts like peace, love and understanding. *nod*

Hydrogen will never be a good fuel source in combustion engines.
why ???

because the only place to get enough hydrogen to fuel the world would be the oceans aka from water. However when you burn hydrogen you get water.
Law conservation of energy states energy can neither be created or destroyed.
So no matter what you will lose energy.

Next problem Hydrogen as a health risk Hydrogen is much more explosive and corrosive then gasoline you get some gasoline in your eyes you might go blind if you don't get it out fast enough. You get hydrogen in your eyes your whole face has likely already been dissolved.

Last problem environmental. can you imagine what would happen if every home car and factory were spewing out water vapor constantly??? Ever single major city in the world would have a rain cloud over the city 100% the time. massive floods and shifts in ecosystem would occur, not to mention that water vapor accounts for majority of the green house effect so that problem will still be there.
Now where the hell did u get all thát from? Where are your (scientific) sources.

Hydrogen will never be a good fuel source in combustion engines.
why ???

because the only place to get enough hydrogen to fuel the world would be the oceans aka from water. However when you burn hydrogen you get water.
Law conservation of energy states energy can neither be created or destroyed.
So no matter what you will lose energy.

Next problem Hydrogen as a health risk Hydrogen is much more explosive and corrosive then gasoline you get some gasoline in your eyes you might go blind if you don't get it out fast enough. You get hydrogen in your eyes your whole face has likely already been dissolved.

Last problem environmental. can you imagine what would happen if every home car and factory were spewing out water vapor constantly??? Ever single major city in the world would have a rain cloud over the city 100% the time. massive floods and shifts in ecosystem would occur, not to mention that water vapor accounts for majority of the green house effect so that problem will still be there.


I like you. You're silly. :)

Now where the hell did u get all thát from? Where are your (scientific) sources.

Fear not! They do not exist!

Yeah, but the love of money is strong. You don't think they are making a killing with gas prices like they are now? They could easily just delay the unveiling of the alternative fuel until sales or prices start to plummet because people can't afford it any more, or the supply dwindles too much. And then they Presto! Chango! bring out this new fuel source and look like saviours of the world, when really, they were just squeezing the world for so long.

Actually, you'd be surprised but the answer is no. Oil prices are so high right now that gasoline margins are very low and in a few cases have dipped in to the negative; refiners are actually making very little money off of gasoline sales and it's been causing them to cut back on production in an effort to boost prices to make it profitable to produce gasoline from crude oil.

One thing people forget is that oil is a very, very low margin sector. These companies make their money on volume sales, not on per-barrel profit.

I say we harness the power of Kirchensittenbach's bigotry.

Surely something of such boundless power could provide enough power to go around the world. :D

Fixed :p

Now where the hell did u get all thát from? Where are your (scientific) sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#The_role_of_water_vapor
(33% to 66% largest source green house gas) you do realize hydrogen + oxygen = water right ?? because i don't feel like looking that up for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid
(notice how the vast majority of acids have hydrogen in them)

http://www.planetforlife.com/h2/h2swiss.html
okay other sources exist but natural gas is only 50% efficient at most petroleum is less and so is lesser still coal by 50% efficient means you sink in 100 watts of energy to produce 50 watts worth of hydrogen and thats at theoretical best.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrologic_cycle

now imagine 3 billion cars in the world producing water vapor as exhaust, you have pretty much made rain clouds over ever major center of population. the last one takes a leap of common sense I admit, but it shouldn't be too hard to follow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid
(notice how the vast majority of acids have hydrogen in them)

And?
Just because a number of acids are partially made of hydrogen doesn't mean that hydrogen is acidic.

Law conservation of energy states energy can neither be created or destroyed.
So no matter what you will lose energy.

Eeehm - why is that relevant ? We will not be able to make good use of *all* the energy: true. But that is the same for every storage medium or battery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#The_role_of_water_vapor
(33% to 66% largest source green house gas) you do realize hydrogen + oxygen = water right ?? because i don't feel like looking that up for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid
(notice how the vast majority of acids have hydrogen in them)

http://www.planetforlife.com/h2/h2swiss.html
okay other sources exist but natural gas is only 50% efficient at most petroleum is less and so is lesser still coal by 50% efficient means you sink in 100 watts of energy to produce 50 watts worth of hydrogen and thats at theoretical best.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrologic_cycle

now imagine 3 billion cars in the world producing water vapor as exhaust, you have pretty much made rain clouds over ever major center of population. the last one takes a leap of common sense I admit, but it shouldn't be too hard to follow.

Wow! It's like watching a Jerry Lewis movie but with science instead of sight gags! :D

And?
Just because a number of acids are partially made of hydrogen doesn't mean that hydrogen is acidic.

Every organic compond on earth has hydrogen in it. So don't touch me! I'll dissolve you on contact! :p

Invisible edit: That's not true, but it's almost true. There are a small handful of organic compounds that don't contain hydrogen, but close enough.

So I just read this horribly written novel about how this scientist comes up with a way to cheaply and easily produce and disperse hydrogen fuel, and he gets murdered, blah blah blah, by the oil and energy companies that want to suppress the new development until they have squeezed the last penny from the oil business.

Now, I realize how much power and control OPEC, the automobile industry, etc have, but do you think a clean alternative fuel would be utterly suppressed/controlled by these people?

Do they have this ability? Do you think it is happening now?

Nah, they're just buying up all the rights to alternate fuel sources so that when oil runs dry they still have us by the short hairs.

(33% to 66% largest source green house gas) you do realize hydrogen + oxygen = water right
You do realize that any hydrocarbon + oxygen = water + carbon dioxide, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid
(notice how the vast majority of acids have hydrogen in them)

And the vast majority of bases have hydroxide in them. Acids and bases react because of dissociated hydrogen ions. Which has nothing to do with combustion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
What does the law of conservation of energy have to do with anything?

now imagine 3 billion cars in the world producing water vapor as exhaust…

See above.

Edit: Wow, I'm slow today.

Every organic compond on earth has hydrogen in it. So don't touch me! I'll dissolve you on contact! :p

My personality is definitely made of hydrogen.

What does the law of conservation of energy have to do with anything?

I am guessing they did not realise that hydrogen fuel should be compared with batteries and fuel tanks - so storage devices - and not with primary energy sources.

As in: it will take more energy to make a hydrogen fuelcell than you can get out of it - but that does not matter, since the primary goal is to make the energy portable.

Every organic compound on earth has hydrogen in it. So don't touch me! I'll dissolve you on contact! :p

Invisible edit: That's not true, but it's almost true. There are a small handful of organic compounds that don't contain hydrogen, but close enough.

*touches LG*

*dissolves*

so you imagine that the oil companies have spies in every lab in the world?

Just the ones working on hydrogen fuel. :)
But that's not even necessary. If the notorious "they" get a whiff some alternative fuel that works, they could swoop down with their millions and either buy the lab outright, or buy the technology and patent it.

Hydrogen will never be a good fuel source in combustion engines.
That sounds like oh, "since man was born without wings he was never meant to fly". Just because it's not perfected now, doesn't mean it's not possible. Never is an absolute, which should be dealt sparingly.

because the only place to get enough hydrogen to fuel the world would be the oceans aka from water. However when you burn hydrogen you get water.
Law conservation of energy states energy can neither be created or destroyed.
So no matter what you will lose energy.
You would only lose energy if you put more energy into converting the water to hydrogen than you got out. That is currently true, which is why we need a breakthrough. You can't just use the law of conservation of energy to say that this will always be true.

Next problem Hydrogen as a health risk Hydrogen is much more explosive and corrosive then gasoline you get some gasoline in your eyes you might go blind if you don't get it out fast enough. You get hydrogen in your eyes your whole face has likely already been dissolved. .
"Jimmy, don't play with the hydrogen fuel". Ok, problem fixed.

Last problem environmental. can you imagine what would happen if every home car and factory were spewing out water vapor constantly??? Ever single major city in the world would have a rain cloud over the city 100% the time. massive floods and shifts in ecosystem would occur, not to mention that water vapor accounts for majority of the green house effect so that problem will still be there.
Why couldn't there be a trap of some sort that allows the vapor to condense, and when you fill up on hydrogen, you just let the water out into a container? We could then purify it and drink it. Or put it back into the ocean. Personally, I'd think a more humid city is better than a smog filled one.

The only problem I see is that we could possibly deplete the oceans of too much water.

*touches LG*
*dissolves*

The horrible truth behind LG's pieings REVEALED?

The horrible truth behind LG's pieings REVEALED?

LOL

First, hydrogen fuel cells are not combustion engines. They produce electricity through reduction and oxidation (redox) much like a battery.

Probably the most efficient way of producing hydrogen will be stripping it from alkanes (think petroleum) leaving carbon. Remember that ordinary gasoline engines also produce water vapor. Looks like oil companies will stay awhile.

Hydrogen has tremendous potential as a light, easily accessible fuel.

Just thought this discussion could use some, y'know, intelligence. ;)

Hydrogen will never be a good fuel source in combustion engines.
why ???

because the only place to get enough hydrogen to fuel the world would be the oceans aka from water. However when you burn hydrogen you get water.
Law conservation of energy states energy can neither be created or destroyed.
So no matter what you will lose energy.

Next problem Hydrogen as a health risk Hydrogen is much more explosive and corrosive then gasoline you get some gasoline in your eyes you might go blind if you don't get it out fast enough. You get hydrogen in your eyes your whole face has likely already been dissolved.

Last problem environmental. can you imagine what would happen if every home car and factory were spewing out water vapor constantly??? Ever single major city in the world would have a rain cloud over the city 100% the time. massive floods and shifts in ecosystem would occur, not to mention that water vapor accounts for majority of the green house effect so that problem will still be there.

First, hydrogen fuel cells are not combustion engines. They produce electricity through reduction and oxidation (redox) much like a battery.

Maybe I'm slow on the uptake, but I thought it was used for combustion. Could you show me a link explaining this process?

Just thought this discussion could use some, y'know, intelligence. ;)

They don't have those kind of discussions here.

So I just wrote a nice little post, but it said the Moderators had to look at it before they'd post it. WTF? It wasn't nasty at all; just pure discussion. :confused:

The horrible truth behind LG's pieings REVEALED?

My pies have hydrogen in them too. Mwahahahahaha!!!

So I just wrote a nice little post, but it said the Moderators had to look at it before they'd post it. WTF? It wasn't nasty at all; just pure discussion. :confused:

Read this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=511850).

So I just wrote a nice little post, but it said the Moderators had to look at it before they'd post it. WTF? It wasn't nasty at all; just pure discussion. :confused:

Such messages will go away once you reach 10 posts.

Last problem environmental. can you imagine what would happen if every home car and factory were spewing out water vapor constantly??? Ever single major city in the world would have a rain cloud over the city 100% the time. massive floods and shifts in ecosystem would occur, not to mention that water vapor accounts for majority of the green house effect so that problem will still be there.


Ever heard of condensing units?

Ever heard of condensing units?

Probably not, I mean, come on, he thinks hydrogen is an acid. :rolleyes:

Maybe I'm slow on the uptake, but I thought it was used for combustion. Could you show me a link explaining this process?

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/fuelcells/fc_types.html

I think most pages about this are going to be highly technical. This is just a random one.

They don't have those kind of discussions here.

Kidding! OK?

Thanks, though I do wish it didn't have to be that post in particular. pouts

Here's the gist.

When people say that hydrogen's not feasible, they should be saying it's not feasible currently. Back in the day, they didn't think planes were feasible either.

Currently, it takes more energy to produce hydrogen fuel than the energy the fuel will actually produce. That is exactly the problem they are trying to fix, so citing this problem as an anti-hydrogen arguement is sorta null.

As for the water vapor, they could equip every car with some sort of condenser, so that the water vapor turns back into water. When you fill up, you just dump out the water too. Perhaps it could be purified for drinking, perhaps it could just be sent back to the oceans.

The oceans are really my only concern, by and by. We could possibly deplete the water too much.

Currently, it takes more energy to produce hydrogen fuel than the energy the fuel will actually produce. That is exactly the problem they are trying to fix, so citing this problem as an anti-hydrogen arguement is sorta null.

Eeehm - why would they want to "fix" that ? It is irrelevant.
Batteries are also a more expensive source of energy than drawing it directly from a powerplant. Yet batteries are quite useful nevertheless.

The oceans are really my only concern, by and by. We could possibly deplete the water too much.

http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/rotflol.gif

As for the water vapor, they could equip every car with some sort of condenser, so that the water vapor turns back into water. When you fill up, you just dump out the water too. Perhaps it could be purified for drinking, perhaps it could just be sent back to the oceans.

I suppose the water will already be pure, so long as the engine is kept clean.
Also, the combustion of hydrogen would only produce about twice as much water for the same amount of energy, so the water vapor isn't really realistic concern. Most of it would condense fairly quickly, I imagine, and trying to haul it around in the vehicle would be really inefficient.

The oceans are really my only concern, by and by. We could possibly deplete the water too much.

LG already covered this point.
In his acidic secretions.

Batteries are also a more expensive source of energy than drawing it directly from a powerplant. Yet batteries are quite useful nevertheless.

It takes more energy to produce gasoline than it provides, but internal combustion engines can't run on crude oil...energy balance really is pretty meaningless in and of itself. It's the relative economic cost of energy that matters when determining whether it's a good idea to pursue a given source or not.

LG already covered this point.
In his acidic secretions.

Must be all that hydrogen in me. :)

Eeehm - why would they want to "fix" that ? It is irrelevant.
Batteries are also a more expensive source of energy than drawing it directly from a powerplant. Yet batteries are quite useful nevertheless.

Why wouldn't you want to fix it? Batteries are useful, sure, but we are looking for a cure for our energy crisis, not a band-aid. Building a hydrogen infrastructure would be incredibly costly, so for it to be worthwhile, you need to get a lot of bang for your buck.

Furthermore, where would the energy come from that's producing the hydrogen fuel? Electricity is commonly used, but to get the electricity we are burning fossil fuels. So if we shift to hydrogen and it produces less energy than it takes to make it, we might as well just cut out the middle-man (hydrogen) and stick with fossil fuels.

Though perhaps once it's up and running, you could just have hydrogen powering hydrogen plants.


As for my oceans, fine, go ahead and laugh. But when the Pacific is just a puddle don't come crying to me. :) Nah, I see the ridiculous-ness of the idea of depleting the oceans, but I would imagine that unless water was somehow making it's way back to the oceans, you would change sea levels by constantly pumping out the water for fuel.

Furthermore, where would the energy come from that's producing the hydrogen fuel? Electricity is commonly used, but to get the electricity we are burning fossil fuels. So if we shift to hydrogen and it produces less energy than it takes to make it, we might as well just cut out the middle-man (hydrogen) and stick with fossil fuels.

1) Fossil fuels will run out.
2) Not all electricity comes from fossil fuels. Plenty of renewable sources around.

Though perhaps once it's up and running, you could just have hydrogen powering hydrogen plants.

With the power of magic!

… I would imagine that unless water was somehow making it's way back to the oceans
:p

1) Fossil fuels will run out.
2) Not all electricity comes from fossil fuels. Plenty of renewable sources around.

Oh! I think I understand now. The hydrogen acts as a battery-- it stores the energy.

So, you could use wind, solar, etc, power to produce the "hydrogen battery". My objection was that if the renewable source of energy or the old source of energy, fossil fuels, produced more energy than the hydrogen, then we either a) use those sources rather than hydrogen b) develop a way to produce hydrogen that uses less energy than it produces. But if it's working as a battery, I can see how it could still be useful, even if (b) never happens.


With the power of magic!
I like magic.


:p

Blah. I know water always eventually gets back to the oceans. It just took a couple rounds of your silent mockery to get that through my head. :)

Blah. I know water always eventually gets back to the oceans. It just took a couple rounds of your silent mockery to get that through my head. :)

;)

Before the news came out, they would try. After it came out, what could they do? And really, what scientist would be stupid enough to tell the Oil companies?

As for my oceans, fine, go ahead and laugh. But when the Pacific is just a puddle don't come crying to me. :) Nah, I see the ridiculous-ness of the idea of depleting the oceans, but I would imagine that unless water was somehow making it's way back to the oceans, you would change sea levels by constantly pumping out the water for fuel.

At last estimate, the world uses 118 million barrels of oil a day. That's total. The amount distilled into petroleum and burned in automobiles as fuel is a small fraction of that amount. But just to be silly, let's pretend the whole amount is petroleum burned by cars. Let's further suppose that the amount of water needed to produce the equivalent amount of hydrogen was 5 times that volume. That's 590 million barrels of water or 69,200,000 cubic meters of water approximately per day. The major rivers of the world discharge approximately 1,100,000 cubic meters of water every second. It would take the major rivers of the world an extra 62 seconds to drain the excess water resulting in an increased flow of .073%

But let's suppose the rivers couldn't do that. We would drain the oceans at a rate of 69,200,000 cubic meters per day. At that rate, we would drain the oceans of the world at a rate that would lower sea level about eight inches every million years.

I think I'll wait a while to sell my beachfront property. ;)

At last estimate, the world uses 118 million barrels of oil a day. That's total. The amount distilled into petroleum and burned in automobiles as fuel is a small fraction of that amount. But just to be silly, let's pretend the whole amount is petroleum burned by cars. Let's further suppose that the amount of water needed to produce the equivalent amount of hydrogen was 5 times that volume. That's 590 million barrels of water or 69,200,000 cubic meters of water approximately per day. The major rivers of the world discharge approximately 1,100,000 cubic meters of water every second. It would take the major rivers of the world an extra 62 seconds to drain the excess water resulting in an increased flow of .073%

But let's suppose the rivers couldn't do that. We would drain the oceans at a rate of 69,200,000 cubic meters per day. At that rate, we would drain the oceans of the world at a rate that would lower sea level about eight inches every million years.

I think I'll wait a while to sell my beachfront property. ;)
What? You can't respond to bad science with credible science! How dare you?!

What? You can't respond to bad science with credible science! How dare you?!

Sorry. My sometimes my inner clown and inner physicist get together. We should consider ourselves lucky. Last time they got together, I built the poo cannon. :p

Some questions:
Was the book 'Gridlocked' by Ben Elton? There are two pages in there that rendered me helpless with laughter for about a week when I first read it.

Was there seriously a post up there saying that oil companies make very little money out of oil because it's so expensive?

Can anyone explain to me why the management of all the world's richest staircase manufacturers, who
practically have a license to print money because everybody uses stairs and they control the majority of the world's supply
have unreasonable and unchallenged global influence (in the form of, inter alia, both the President and Vice President of the USA)
wouldn't take relatively simple and effective steps to squash and delay new-fangled elevator technology if it appeared over the horizon?

1.The book was "The Green Trap" by Ben Bova. I don't recommend it. Thanks for the heads-up on Gridlocked too. :)

2.There was a post saying the oil companies aren't making money. I thought that odd too.

3. Nice analogy.

Sorry. My sometimes my inner clown and inner physicist get together. We should consider ourselves lucky. Last time they got together, I built the poo cannon. :p

I pity the poor saps required to provide the ammunition...

For the record, I dislike the conspiracy theorists. I consider their beloved explanation of why the world is as it is overly simplistic.
That said, I must admit that I believe sometimes there is something to it. When I was a kid, watching on tv the landings of passenger jets accompanied by clouds of smoke from the tires I thought, wow, they must spend a fortune on tires. I imagined that if the wheels were rotating when they touch the runway, the wear would be insignificant. It could be done easily by using wheels formed so that they start to rotate when lowered into the airflow.
Years later I bothered to check with the people in the know why this idea was never implemented. I wasn't so conceited to think that nobody thought of it before, I just assumed there is a good reason why this isn't viable - messing the airflow, addind too much drag or the like.
It turned out the idea was patented long ago by... Goodyear.
So it's quite likely for me that the oil companies would go a long way towards slowing the development of alternate energy sources. I wouldn't be surprised at all if it turned out that the cold fusion fiasco and resulting embarrassment was their doing, to scare the funding away from similar projects.

First, hydrogen fuel cells are not combustion engines. They produce electricity through reduction and oxidation (redox) much like a battery.

Probably the most efficient way of producing hydrogen will be stripping it from alkanes (think petroleum) leaving carbon. Remember that ordinary gasoline engines also produce water vapor. Looks like oil companies will stay awhile.

Hydrogen has tremendous potential as a light, easily accessible fuel.

Just thought this discussion could use some, y'know, intelligence. ;)

then I am sure you aware that taking hydrogen out of propane you lose 50% of the energy of propane. with petroleum you lose 70% of the energy, and with coal even more. of course if read the links i posted you would know this.
Yes Gasoline engines produce water Vapor but care to enlighten me on what % of emissions from a gasoline engine is water vapor???
I bet significantly less then 100% from a hydrogen based system,

Some questions:
Was the book 'Gridlocked' by Ben Elton? There are two pages in there that rendered me helpless with laughter for about a week when I first read it.

Was there seriously a post up there saying that oil companies make very little money out of oil because it's so expensive?

Can anyone explain to me why the management of all the world's richest staircase manufacturers, who
practically have a license to print money because everybody uses stairs and they control the majority of the world's supply
have unreasonable and unchallenged global influence (in the form of, inter alia, both the President and Vice President of the USA)
wouldn't take relatively simple and effective steps to squash and delay new-fangled elevator technology if it appeared over the horizon?




Because the oil companies are also in the alternative fuel R&D. they don't care if it is oil or ethanol they make money off of. that and it is good PR to invest in alternative fuels so long as it is Ethanol and not anything else.

Anyways trust the Oil industry to take care of you like they have been for the last 100 years.

Yes Gasoline engines produce water Vapor but care to enlighten me on what % of emissions from a gasoline engine is water vapor???

Assuming gasoline is composed entirely of octane:
2C8H18 + 25O2 -> 16CO2 + 18H2O

16CO2 = 16 * (12g + 2 * 16g) = 704g
18CO2 = 18 * (2 * 1g + 16g) = 324g
So about 31.5%. But as I posted earlier, hydrogen produces more energy / mass of exhaust.

Here's the math, which I didn't post before:

Enthalpy of combustion of octane/Exhaust of octane: ∆5430kJ/514g = 10.6kJ/g
Enthalpy of combustion of octane/Water vapor exhaust of octane: ∆5430kJ/162g = 33.5kJ/g
Enthalpy of combustion of hydrogen/Water vapor exhaust of hydrogen: ∆286kJ/18g = 15.9kJ/g

So hydrogen produces only roughly twice as much water vapor as octane (like I said before), but far less exhaust in total.

then I am sure you aware that taking hydrogen out of propane you lose 50% of the energy of propane. with petroleum you lose 70% of the energy, and with coal even more. of course if read the links i posted you would know this.
Yes Gasoline engines produce water Vapor but care to enlighten me on what % of emissions from a gasoline engine is water vapor???
I bet significantly less then 100% from a hydrogen based system,

The fact is, hydrogen fuel cells convert chemical energy into electricity (thence to usable motive force) with massively more efficiency than internal combustion engines. It follows that you would use massively less fuel to produce a given power, and so your H2O emissions may be lower, even without thinking about condensers. The ratio of H2O emissions to CO2/CO emissions should be around 1/1 by mole, although half that or so by mass (does it matter? CO2 is at least as bad). Most gasoline internal combustion engines have efficiency of around 20% (wikipedia).

Assuming gasoline is composed entirely of octane:
2C8H18 + 25O2 -> 16CO2 + 18H2O

16CO2 = 16 * (12g + 2 * 16g) = 704g
18CO2 = 18 * (2 * 1g + 16g) = 324g
So about 31.5%. But as I posted earlier, hydrogen produces more energy / mass of exhaust.

Whoops. Missed this the first time down. Redundance.

The fact is, hydrogen fuel cells convert chemical energy into electricity (thence to usable motive force) with massively more efficiency than internal combustion engines. It follows that you would use massively less fuel to produce a given power, and so your H2O emissions may be lower, even without thinking about condensers. The ratio of H2O emissions to CO2/CO emissions should be around 1/1 by mole, although half that or so by mass (does it matter? CO2 is at least as bad). Most gasoline internal combustion engines have efficiency of around 20% (wikipedia).

but you lose a lot more energy in making hydrogen since it isn't just under the ground like other fuel sources.

Redundance.

Where would we be without it? ;)

then I am sure you aware that taking hydrogen out of propane you lose 50% of the energy of propane. with petroleum you lose 70% of the energy, and with coal even more. of course if read the links i posted you would know this.

If you could oxidize propane to produce electricity I'm sure we would. Fuel cells are in general very, very efficient at converting chemical energy into a more usable form, compared with combustion, which wastes massive amounts of heat.

but you lose a lot more energy in making hydrogen since it isn't just under the ground like other fuel sources.

Yes it is. It's also in big pools on the surface along with it's good buddy, oxygen. In fact, sometimes just for fun, they go skydiving or rolling down mountains. :)

Yes it is. It's also in big pools on the surface along with it's good buddy, oxygen. In fact, sometimes just for fun, they go skydiving or rolling down mountains. :)

And sometimes they even do cross-country (http://fireflyforest.net/images/firefly/2006/August/Sabino-Canyon-flood-7-29-06.jpg).

No. Oil companies only sell oil because it makes them money. They have no inherent love of fossil fuels...fossil fuel sales just happen to make them a considerable amount of revenue, and if something else comes along that can generate cash flows for the company that are equal or superior to those they obtain from their fossil fuel extraction business, they're going to pursue them.Or something that offers them a more stable market future.

But that part above, I'm not so sure about. Is there any proof? The conspiracy theorist in me complains loudly that we must have developed this technology by now, but then the realist takes over. Could a discovery of this magnitude have been supressed? If a scientist discovered it, wouldn't it have been published?

They don't have to suppress it. All they have to do is what they've been doing in regards to climate change. The same thing Tobacco companies did regarding health concerns of smoking.

Fudge research, say it's perfectly safe, marginalize their detractors. With OPEC, it's basically making sure that alternatives remain uncompetitive through lack of government support and funding (no one is going to come up with fusion power all by their lonesome), and then when no one is looking, snap it up, patent it, and keep it under wraps until they can find a way to monopolize it.

So I just read this horribly written novel about how this scientist comes up with a way to cheaply and easily produce and disperse hydrogen fuel, and he gets murdered, blah blah blah, by the oil and energy companies that want to suppress the new development until they have squeezed the last penny from the oil business.

Now, I realize how much power and control OPEC, the automobile industry, etc have, but do you think a clean alternative fuel would be utterly suppressed/controlled by these people?

Do they have this ability? Do you think it is happening now?

I could see "Big Oil" lobbying to keep that kind of technology supressed or maybe banned, but they wouldn't resort to murder.

Coincidentally this thread reminds me of this movie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_killed_the_electric_car)

no i don't think they want to do that . its just not possible to change our world from carbon + + to carbon neutral. in years times. let us just say high prise of oil is to make us efficient and responsible of our action

I could see "Big Oil" lobbying to keep that kind of technology supressed or maybe banned, but they wouldn't resort to murder.

Coincidentally this thread reminds me of this movie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_killed_the_electric_car)
As Vet's already pointed out, they're in it for the cash and if this really worked and were really the future then they'd probably take it (maybe steal it) and use it for personal gain. You can't suppress a useful technology.

Also, the EV1 was killed by its own bad design. While it had fin acceleration for an electric it had terrible range, not enough heat in the winter, and a plethora of other problems. You might be able to say that it was never given a fair chance but if all you see when you look at its page in the books is a whole lot of red then you're going to cancel it.

Currently, it takes more energy to produce hydrogen fuel than the energy the fuel will actually produce. That is exactly the problem they are trying to fix, so citing this problem as an anti-hydrogen arguement is sorta null.

Well, it is a problem that cannot be 'fixed'. Oil has energy stored in it for free. It is an energy source in itself. Hydrogen has to be produced since it does not exist in a way it can be tapped like oil.

Imagine all the oil infrastructure (oil wells, pipes, tankers, refineries, gas pumps etc) all disappear tomorrow. A gallon of gas would cost you a lot more than what it is today.

The hope with Hydrogen is that, eventually we will find a way to mass produce and deliver it at a cost (economies of scale, innovative production, storage and delivery techniques etc) that the masses can adopt for daily use.

I also disagree that 'big oil' would actively collude and conspired to "suppress" Hydrogen energy ventures. If that thing is successful, the existing oil companies are the ones best poised to make profits out of those. They already have enormous infrastructure built that could be configured for the logistics of Hydrogen transport.

Personally, I believe that nuke power -> electricity -> battery charged electric cars are a better option for personal transport. Closed cycle nuke power generation can be clean...I think countries like France generate 3/4 of their power from nukes and has no problem doing so (somebody correct me if I am wrong). With improvements in battery tech...we can make the electric cars a viable mass production at least for smaller range inner city transport.

Imagine those small and cheap TATA nano type cars fitted with electric recharge-able batteries available for rent at street corners. It could eliminate the need to own and operate cars altogether within cities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

1989:
Guy in garage: "We invented cold fusion!"
Department of Energy rep and future Haliiburton exec.:"Can you repeat it?"
"SOmetimes, sometimes not. We're trying to figure out why."
"Well, if you can't repeat it every time, it never happened."
"But we..."
"Can't hear you!" *hands over ears* "LALALALALALALALA!!!"

2004
Guy still in garage:"Cold fusion is getting better!"
Department of Energy rep and former Haliburton exec:"Can you repeat it?"
"Usually. We've managed to eliminate many of the causes of failure, but there are still a few that elude us. If we had more funding, maybe it won't take us another 15 year--"
"Well, if you can't repeat it every time, then it never happened. No funding for you! HAHAHAHA!!!"
"But we-"
"Can't hear you!" *hands over ears* "LALALALALALA!!!"
The one instance I'm best acquainted with was at Georgia Tech. Turns out the thermometers weren't calibrated and led to some erroneous conclusions.

Fuel cells are probably the way forward, but some decent hybrids might be a good intermediate step. Ultracapacitors can store a large amount of energy and can be charged very quickly. That would be the way to recover power from the vehicle's kinetic motion. It would also reduce the amount of time charging at a station. Couple some ultracaps with a small diesel engine to keep the charge up, and you might have a very practical diesel-electric car.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

1989:
Guy in garage: "We invented cold fusion!"
Department of Energy rep and future Haliiburton exec.:"Can you repeat it?"
"SOmetimes, sometimes not. We're trying to figure out why."
"Well, if you can't repeat it every time, it never happened."
"But we..."
"Can't hear you!" *hands over ears* "LALALALALALALALA!!!"

2004
Guy still in garage:"Cold fusion is getting better!"
Department of Energy rep and former Haliburton exec:"Can you repeat it?"
"Usually. We've managed to eliminate many of the causes of failure, but there are still a few that elude us. If we had more funding, maybe it won't take us another 15 year--"
"Well, if you can't repeat it every time, then it never happened. No funding for you! HAHAHAHA!!!"
"But we-"
"Can't hear you!" *hands over ears* "LALALALALALA!!!"

Oh come on LG, we all know cold fusion is bullshit. It wasn't just the fact that they couldn't repeat it, but also because their science was bad, the radiation that they were detecting was actually coming from the equipment they were using themselves!

Assuming gasoline is composed entirely of octane:
2C8H18 + 25O2 -> 16CO2 + 18H2O

16CO2 = 16 * (12g + 2 * 16g) = 704g
18CO2 = 18 * (2 * 1g + 16g) = 324g
So about 31.5%. But as I posted earlier, hydrogen produces more energy / mass of exhaust.

you do realize hydrogen has 1/4 the potential energy of gasoline by volume.
so at roughly twice the efficiency you still have to use twice as much hydrogen. end result a lot more water vapor put in the system.
though we are referring to two different types of efficacy your referring to engine or motor efficiency, I am referring to production efficiency.
Gasoline you simply have to pump crude oil out of the ground then heat it up and take the various substances you want as they separate.

now apply this with when you use fossil fuels to make hydrogen only 1/3 the volume will be hydrogen. so in reference to gasoline you destroy 1 gallon of gasoline for 1/3 gallon of hydrogen that produces 1/4 the work of of the same volume of gasoline or 1/12 over all if you had left it as gasoline.

this doesn't even take into account that it takes more energy to get hydrogen out of crude oil then it takes to refine gasoline covalent bonds are harder to separate, then simply heating up crude oil and separating the various fuels.

Also the entire system loses efficiency in that fuel tanks have to be 4 times as large(actually 5 to account for thermal expansion since hydrogen is a gas but lets use 4) and the fuel tank needs to be thicker since hydrogen vapors are more explosive and tend to seep out of containers much more easily then gasoline.

not to mention taking the process of making hydrogen from hydro carbons releases the same amount of Co2 into the air as if you had just burned them.

Like I said the oil companies are looking out for the consumers best interest.

Like I said the oil companies are looking out for the consumers best interest.

If they were looking out for the consumer's best interest, they'd either be out of business or charities. The very nature of the profit motive itself isn't in the best interest of the consumer, let alone the negative externalities that stem from any business operation, especially in an industry as environmentally damaging as oil. These companies exist to make a profit for their owners, and all the consumer does is facilitate that end in the most effective manner.

If they were looking out for the consumer's best interest, they'd either be out of business or charities. The very nature of the profit motive itself isn't in the best interest of the consumer, let alone the negative externalities that stem from any business operation, especially in an industry as environmentally damaging as oil. These companies exist to make a profit for their owners, and all the consumer does is facilitate that end in the most effective manner.

with out the oil industry the world would starve. not just from lack of ability to transport food also because the fact that petrochemicals have double agricultural production since the 1950's.
but hey if killing 50% of the worlds population just so you can feel better about the environment is your thing then have at it shut down the oil industries.

with out the oil industry the world would starve. not just from lack of ability to transport food also because the fact that petrochemicals have double agricultural production since the 1950's.
but hey if killing 50% of the worlds population just so you can feel better about the environment is your thing then have at it shut down the oil industries.

:confused:

with out the oil industry the world would starve. not just from lack of ability to transport food also because the fact that petrochemicals have double agricultural production since the 1950's.
but hey if killing 50% of the worlds population just so you can feel better about the environment is your thing then have at it shut down the oil industries.

What the hell are you talking about?

I'm more focused on your ridiculous idea that the oil companies have some vested interest in the well-being of mankind and are motivated to produce and supply oil out of the goodness of their hearts. They're only selling oil because it makes money, and if they can't get the rates of return they need to cover their investment, they're not going to sell oil regardless of whatever potential effects oil shortages have on the people in that country.

That's why North Koreans are starving by the thousands and have to run machinery on charcoal; they can't afford oil because their dumbass of a president squandered all of their goodwill and foreign exchange on weapons, so nobody sells it to them.

I wouldn't put it past them.

you do realize hydrogen has 1/4 the potential energy of gasoline by volume.

When the hell has volume ever had anything to do with anything?

What the hell are you talking about?

I'm more focused on your ridiculous idea that the oil companies have some vested interest in the well-being of mankind and are motivated to produce and supply oil out of the goodness of their hearts. They're only selling oil because it makes money, and if they can't get the rates of return they need to cover their investment, they're not going to sell oil regardless of whatever potential effects oil shortages have on the people in that country.

That's why North Koreans are starving by the thousands and have to run machinery on charcoal; they can't afford oil because their dumbass of a president squandered all of their goodwill and foreign exchange on weapons, so nobody sells it to them.


the green revolution. petrochemicals double world agricultural out put. funded by Rockefeller aka Mr evil standard Oil. Yes oil companies make profit, but if your so anti profit you can do your work for the benefit of mankind aka just enough for food and shelter. Myself I will work for profit and not hold it against anyone for making money. Oil companies by nature of their existence benefit the world.

the green revolution. petrochemicals double world agricultural out put. funded by Rockefeller aka Mr evil standard Oil. Yes oil companies make profit, but if your so anti profit you can do your work for the benefit of mankind aka just enough for food and shelter. Myself I will work for profit and not hold it against anyone for making money. Oil companies by nature of their existence benefit the world.

I'm not anti-profit in the slightest. However, you're delusional if you think their reasons for supplying oil are anything other than the fact that a lot of people are willing to pay good money for it.

Making a profit is what they're supposed to do, nothing more and nothing less. It isn't a social aim or some kind of noble goal, just the natural expectation of investors to get a sufficient reward on their investment to justify putting money in to a company. That's neither an accomplishment nor a source of praise; if a for-profit corporation is not making a profit, they're not doing their job and deserve to go out of business.

the green revolution. petrochemicals double world agricultural out put. funded by Rockefeller aka Mr evil standard Oil. Yes oil companies make profit, but if your so anti profit you can do your work for the benefit of mankind aka just enough for food and shelter. Myself I will work for profit and not hold it against anyone for making money. Oil companies by nature of their existence benefit the world.

You do realize that the effect of oil on agricultural output is based on the use of petrol powered vehicles, yes?

Alternative energy vehicles would be able to be used for farming as well, having zero net effect on agriculture.

You do realize that the effect of oil on agricultural output is based on the use of petrol powered vehicles, yes?

Actually, oil companies sellings lots of oil makes plants happy, so they grow faster and bigger.
If we stop using oil, the plants will be sad! :(

Actually, oil companies sellings lots of oil makes plants happy, so they grow faster and bigger.
If we stop using oil, the plants will be sad! :(

http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/rotflol.gif

You do realize that the effect of oil on agricultural output is based on the use of petrol powered vehicles, yes?

Alternative energy vehicles would be able to be used for farming as well, having zero net effect on agriculture.

nice answer too bad your wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution#Production_increases

let me quote the important part.
Green Revolution techniques also heavily rely on chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, some of which must be developed from fossil fuels, making agriculture increasingly reliant on petroleum products.

anyways more hippie garbage today? I cant seem to find the reference but some is about 60% from petrol products if i remember correctly. Also regardless the source of these products, development was almost completely funded by Rockefeller(and hence big oil) at first.

nice answer too bad your wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution#Production_increases
Too bad the wikipedia article's reference for said passage doesn't actually back up what the article says
anyways more hippie garbage today? I cant seem to find the reference but some is about 60% from petrol products if i remember correctly. Also regardless the source of these products, development was almost completely funded by Rockefeller(and hence big oil) at first.
Come back when you can back up your claim.

anyways more hippie garbage today? I cant seem to find the reference but some is about 60% from petrol products if i remember correctly. Also regardless the source of these products, development was almost completely funded by Rockefeller(and hence big oil) at first.

Let me get this straight: the Green Revolution was originally triggered by fossil fuels, and because of that we have to keep using them despite the existence and increasing economic competitiveness of other alternatives? What, to show our thanks to the oil industry for pursuing the profit motive to its logical extent?

I don't even know what point you're trying to make here.

anyways more hippie garbage today? I cant seem to find the reference but some is about 60% from petrol products if i remember correctly. Also regardless the source of these products, development was almost completely funded by Rockefeller(and hence big oil) at first.

So by switching to using hydrogen fuel for vehicles, we will no longer be able to produce chemical fertizilers?

Actually, oil companies sellings lots of oil makes plants happy, so they grow faster and bigger.
If we stop using oil, the plants will be sad! :(

Or turn into Triffids. Providing us with vastly superior oil.
Of course, there are some tiny downsides.

So by switching to using hydrogen fuel for vehicles, we will no longer be able to produce chemical fertizilers?

Despite the fact that you can produce natural gas, which is the feedstock for chemical fertilizers, from biomass, hydrogen, bacteria, landfills, and untold other biological sources...sure.

So by switching to using hydrogen fuel for vehicles, we will no longer be able to produce chemical fertizilers?

Of course! :rolleyes:

Let me get this straight: the Green Revolution was originally triggered by fossil fuels, and because of that we have to keep using them despite the existence and increasing economic competitiveness of other alternatives?

This works with other revolutions as well, including the American Revolution, the French Revolution, and the Scientific Revolution.

When the hell has volume ever had anything to do with anything?
you will notice that gasoline is sold by volume(gallons or liters depending on your location.)

because when you make hydrogen from fossil fuels you get roughly 1/3 the volume of hydrogen from then the starting volume of fossil fuels. (natural gas gets a better ratio but has less starting energy).
also the same volume or amount of hydrogen produces 1/4 the energy or work at 100% efficiency.
so it takes roughly 12 liters of gasoline to make hydrogen that does 1 liter of gasoline worth of work. 6 liters of gasoline to make 1 liter of gasoline worth of work with hydrogen if you give hydrogen fuel cells double efficiency.
and 3 to 1 ratio if you give them 100% efficiency (which is not possible).

think like this propane cost half as much as gasoline. so you would think it would be cheaper to run my car off of propane. but I get twice as much energy out of gasoline aka i can drive my car twice as far. so the cost are the same as to use propane.

nice answer too bad your wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution#Production_increases

let me quote the important part.


anyways more hippie garbage today? I cant seem to find the reference but some is about 60% from petrol products if i remember correctly. Also regardless the source of these products, development was almost completely funded by Rockefeller(and hence big oil) at first.

http://www.foodfirst.org/media/opeds/2000/4-greenrev.html

Much of the reason why these "modern varieties"
produced more than traditional varieties was that they were more
responsive to controlled irrigation and to petrochemical fertilizers,
allowing for much more efficient conversion of industrial inputs into
food. With a big boost from the International Agricultural Research
Centers created by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations, the "miracle"
seeds quickly spread to Asia, and soon new strains of rice and corn were
developed as well.

there happy??? damn my hippie beating stick is over used.

you will notice that gasoline is sold by volume(gallons or liters depending on your location.)

Okay, I've got it all figured out! Those anti-profit hydrogen supporters are liars! They're going to make a fortune by selling hydrogen, uncompressed, at exorbitant prices! They must be stopped!

But seriously, yes. Gasoline is sold by volume. And this affects the chemical reactions that produce water vapor - which we were discussing - how?

Edit: I've also already shown the combustion energy for both octane and hydrogen, already shown that hydrogen produces roughly twice as much water vapor – and no other products – for the same amount of resultant heat energy. You seem to be now taking refuge in complaining about the "expense" and volume of hydrogen fuel, while completely ignoring its compressible nature. Please, go back to your "hydrogen is acid" argument. At least that was funny.

Wow! It's like watching a Jerry Lewis movie but with science instead of sight gags! :D

That doesn't necessarily make it a good thing, though. It might actually make things worse! But eh, that's pretty much the routine on this beautiful forum.

Let me get this straight: the Green Revolution was originally triggered by fossil fuels, and because of that we have to keep using them despite the existence and increasing economic competitiveness of other alternatives? What, to show our thanks to the oil industry for pursuing the profit motive to its logical extent?

I don't even know what point you're trying to make here.

it was funded by big oil (reference to the oil companies) for the benefit of mankind and tax deductions.
If you cease to remove petroleum from the ground for fuel, then the low price of non fuel petrochemicals will go away putting it out of the reach in those in the 3rd world(the ones who need it most). these chemicals are cheap because if they were not used as fertilizers they would largely be waste(same reason plastic is cheap). the reason the cheapness will go away is that those wishing to use petrochemicals for fertilizer will have to cover the cost of drilling and pulling it out of the ground, which right now is covered by those wishing to use it for fuel.

Okay, I've got it all figured out! Those anti-profit hydrogen supporters are liars! They're going to make a fortune by selling hydrogen, uncompressed, at exorbitant prices! They must be stopped!

But seriously, yes. Gasoline is sold by volume. And this affects the chemical reactions that produce water vapor - which we were discussing - how?

Edit: I've also already shown the combustion energy for both octane and hydrogen, already shown that hydrogen produces roughly twice as much water vapor – and no other products – for the same amount of resultant heat energy. You seem to be now taking refuge in complaining about the "expense" and volume of hydrogen fuel, while completely ignoring its compressible nature. Please, go back to your "hydrogen is acid" argument. At least that was funny.

because you have to use more hydrogen to get the same amount of energy.
which means more water vapor. even with the increased energy of a fuel cell you need 6 times the hydrogen to get the same amount of work. not to mention you used up 12times the amount of fossil fuels and released 12 times the amount of Co2 in the air(getting hydrogen from fossil fuels releases.

think like this. You get hydrogen from fossil fuels right.
fossil fuels are hydro carbons.
you pull the hydrogen out of the hydro carbons to use the hydrogen as fuel you lose the energy that was stored in the carbon. so no matter what when pulling hydrogen from fossil fuels for energy you will always come out behind in energy.

the other source for hydrogen is water. even using a fuel cell this does not make sense. because turning water to hydrogen and oxygen and then turning hydrogen and oxygen into water you will always come out at best at zero.

there are alternative fuels that are feasible hydrogen is just not one of them.

stuff about volume

The quantity of reactants and products in a chemical reaction has nothing to do with volume.

there are alternative fuels that are feasible hydrogen is not just one of them.

You seem to be under the impression that hydrogen is intended as a primary fuel source. This is not the case. Other sources of electricity can be used to synthesize hydrogen, which is then used as a convenient means of storing energy for use in vehicles. Hydrogen is not intended to be used as a source of energy, merely to store it.

Firstly, hydrogen isn't very good as an energy carrier. Sure, it can be argued that technology will improve ... but as long as it's a gas there will be problems. Just look at LPG: less carbon impact, a fraction of the price to use (going up now, but it had a run of decades when it was very cheap, and was barely adopted at all.) Conversion of petrol engines to LPG isn't that difficult -- yet, Fail. I think that's mainly because it's a gas, or at least turns to a gas when let down to atmospheric pressure.

So in a sense, no-one needs to suppress the hydrogen economy. It isn't there yet, and unless we find some way to keep it liquid or as pellets at standard temperature and pressure, it will never NEED suppressing.

To the subject, oil companies diversify a bit into other fuels but they'd be crazy to encourage any change which obsoletes their infrastructure and throws the field open to new players without the strategic alliances, trade secrets and headlock on industrial economies which the existing corporations enjoy.

I think their diversification into other fields of energy is more a matter of hedging than a serious gamble on the obsoleting of oil. They aren't going to push those other fuels forward, merely keep a stake in them.

As to whether they would assassinate researchers and such, it's very hard to say. It's a point of faith for me, that only the dumbest conspirators ever get caught. Just like common criminals: crime pays if you're good at it.

I think we'd be a lot better off trying to develop a closed-cycle energy carrier. Aerobic organisms have that: two chemicals (ATP and ADP) which can be converted into each other, with investment or release of energy.

ANY carrier which relies on one half of the fuel coming out of the atmosphere (oxygen) is never going to be ideal. The only advantage to it is that you only have to carry one half of the fuel components ... if we can make a dense enough energy carrier, that isn't necessary.

Petrol is certainly energy dense. Except in jets or racing-cars, the weight of fuel is an insignificant factor.

you will notice that gasoline is sold by volume(gallons or liters depending on your location.)

because when you make hydrogen from fossil fuels you get roughly 1/3 the volume of hydrogen from then the starting volume of fossil fuels. (natural gas gets a better ratio but has less starting energy).
also the same volume or amount of hydrogen produces 1/4 the energy or work at 100% efficiency.
so it takes roughly 12 liters of gasoline to make hydrogen that does 1 liter of gasoline worth of work. 6 liters of gasoline to make 1 liter of gasoline worth of work with hydrogen if you give hydrogen fuel cells double efficiency.
and 3 to 1 ratio if you give them 100% efficiency (which is not possible).



You know it's a real shame that gasses like hydrogen can't be compressed.

;)

think like this. You get hydrogen from fossil fuels right.
Wrong.
First Danish Hydrogen Energy Plant Is Operational (http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=48873)

Hydrogen is produced by using excess wind power to split water into oxygen and hydrogen through electrolysis. The oxygen is used in the municipal water treatment plant nearby to speed up the biological process. The hydrogen is stored in low-pressure storage tanks at 6 bars and fuels two PEM Fuel Cell Micro Combined Heat and Power (CHP) stations of 2 kilowatts (kW) and 6.5 kW, respectively.

Iceland's hydrogen buses zip toward oil-free economy (http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0501/14/autos-60181.htm)

The efficiency of the hydrogen fuel cells will decide if the ventures take off into the wider car market.
"The idea is that the buses should be twice as efficient as an internal combustion engine," said Jon Bjorn Skulason, general manager of Icelandic New Energy Ltd, which is in charge of seeking new applications for hydrogen like the bus fleet.

As Vet's already pointed out, they're in it for the cash and if this really worked and were really the future then they'd probably take it (maybe steal it) and use it for personal gain. You can't suppress a useful technology.

Also, the EV1 was killed by its own bad design. While it had fin acceleration for an electric it had terrible range, not enough heat in the winter, and a plethora of other problems. You might be able to say that it was never given a fair chance but if all you see when you look at its page in the books is a whole lot of red then you're going to cancel it.

Oh yes I can.

*goes back in time and smashes Gutenberg's printing press*

Oh yes I can.

*goes back in time and smashes Gutenberg's printing press*

Yeah, I nearly replied to that too. What are patents, but a legal way of suppressing a technology?

Perhaps we should attach obligations and not just rights to holding a patent. Use it or lose it.

Oh yes I can.

*goes back in time and smashes Gutenberg's printing press*
But it would just be invented by someone else a little later. And what'd stop him from building it again?

What are patents, but a legal way of suppressing a technology?
Patents exist so that designs can't be stolen, they protect intellectual property. Patents also help to prevent monopolies by in a way because without them the bigger company could just come along and take all the designs for all the neat shit and corner the market in all things. With patents they have to buy the design or hire the designer so they can have the rights to everything he or she dreams up.

Besides, everything that is patented can be viewed by the public, you just can't make your own copy and sell it without paying for the original.

Perhaps we should attach obligations and not just rights to holding a patent. Use it or lose it.
No, it's property, how it is used should be up to the owner.

Yeah, I nearly replied to that too. What are patents, but a legal way of suppressing a technology?

An intangible asset, to be amortized over the course of its useful life.

Perhaps we should attach obligations and not just rights to holding a patent. Use it or lose it.

I'm not too familiar with patent law, but I do believe that can happen.

An intangible asset, to be amortized over the course of its useful life.



I'm not too familiar with patent law, but I do believe that can happen.

Also, one might argue (if someone hasn't said it here already) that patents provide financial impetus to developers.

I used to work for an IP law firm. I don't know for sure, but I do believe you are right about the second part.

Wrong.
First Danish Hydrogen Energy Plant Is Operational (http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=48873)



Iceland's hydrogen buses zip toward oil-free economy (http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0501/14/autos-60181.htm)

http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/IntermediateHydrogen.html

Steam reforming is currently the least expensive method of producing hydrogen and accounts for about 95 percent of the hydrogen produced in the United States. It is used in industries to separate hydrogen atoms from carbon atoms in methane(CH4). Because methane is a fossil fuel, the process of steam reforming results in greenhouse gas emissions that are linked with global warming.

Electrolysis is a process that splits hydrogen from water. It results in no emissions but it is currently a very expensive process. New technologies are being developed all the time.


okay I am 95% right and 5% wrong. and not really if you read my whole quote not even that. but lets look at this convert wind to hydrogen thing.
Wind energy converted to electrical energy
electrical energy converts water to hydrogen energy
hydrogen converted to water and electrical energy. a lot more efficient way would be to put the electrical energy into a battery and run you car off of that.


aside from the horrendous efficacy problem caused by way too many steps.
The first time you pull in for a fill up and your told "sorry sir we can't give you hydrogen today since there wasn't very much wind this month" you would go and beg for Opec to come back.

you want alternative fuel here is the best bet. make batteries able to have a car last 2 or 3 days of normal driving(to and from work and maybe out to eat) . when you pull into a fill up station they yank out your old battery put in a new fully charged battery, they then proceed to recharge your old battery to give to someone else. You get this power from nuclear energy it is the only means by which you can ever expect to actually meet world energy needs and be emissions free.

you want alternative fuel here is the best bet. make batteries able to have a car last 2 or 3 days of normal driving(to and from work and maybe out to eat) . when you pull into a fill up station they yank out your old battery put in a new fully charged battery, they then proceed to recharge your old battery to give to someone else. You get this power from nuclear energy it is the only means by which you can ever expect to actually meet world energy needs and be emissions free.
This is what I'm thinking also...An exchangeable/rechargable battery driven electrical car fueled by clean energy - nuclear, hydro, solar and wind power.

Hydrogen is not fuel, it's a form of storing & transferring energy. Unless you use hydrogen as a component in nuclear fusion the energy balance of hydrogen will be negative.

Ironically though, the easiest way you could achieve an electric car with exchangable battery - in vein of current refuelling - would be a car driven with fuel cells. Well, as long as the hydrogen itself is produced using clean energy.... ;)

IF we were actually digging up free hydrogen and burning it, that would probably be disastrous. Worse than making CO2, since it's been a long long time since hydrogen was a major component of the atmosphere. At least there IS a carbon cycle!

We'd be creating water out of oxygen. The oceans are proof enough that that's a one-way process.

EDIT: When I try to be plain, I write an essay which no-one reads. When I try to be succinct, I write a cryptic puzzle like this one.
It's a serious post, and I can explain it if anyone is interested.

This is what I'm thinking also...An exchangeable/rechargable battery driven electrical car fueled by clean energy - nuclear, hydro, solar and wind power.

Hydrogen is not fuel, it's a form of storing & transferring energy. Unless you use hydrogen as a component in nuclear fusion the energy balance of hydrogen will be negative.

Ironically though, the easiest way you could achieve an electric car with exchangable battery - in vein of current refuelling - would be a car driven with fuel cells. Well, as long as the hydrogen itself is produced using clean energy.... ;)

fuel cells differ from batteries.
I find advances in Lithium-ion to be more promising they are ready have 99.9% charge/discharge efficiency which pretty much means efficiency is limited by the electric motor.
not to mention a whole lot less steps in making water into hydrogen and then making hydrogen in to water.

IF we were actually digging up free hydrogen and burning it, that would probably be disastrous. Worse than making CO2, since it's been a long long time since hydrogen was a major component of the atmosphere. At least there IS a carbon cycle!

We'd be creating water out of oxygen. The oceans are proof enough that that's a one-way process.

EDIT: When I try to be plain, I write an essay which no-one reads. When I try to be succinct, I write a cryptic puzzle like this one.
It's a serious post, and I can explain it if anyone is interested.

hydrogen is too light to exist as a free element. if it is not in fossil fuels and not in water it has left our atmosphere for space.

I find advances in Lithium-ion to be more promising they are ready have 99.9% charge/discharge efficiency which pretty much means efficiency is limited by the electric motor.

Where did you get that "fact" from?

Li-ion get hot when charging. Hot enough to exceed that 0.01 %.

Plus, they have a very limited lifetime, so you'd want to look at the energy involved in their manufacture or recycling.

hydrogen is too light to exist as a free element.

Yeah, free hydrogen escapes from the atmosphere. We get that.

if it is not in fossil fuels and not in water it has left our atmosphere for space.

You know, I think you're right about that.

Now, were you trying to say something?

Indri and Vetalia, sorry about that. Your posts were open on a tab I forgot to read.

Yeah, I nearly replied to that too. What are patents, but a legal way of suppressing a technology?
Patents exist so that designs can't be stolen, they protect intellectual property. Patents also help to prevent monopolies by in a way because without them the bigger company could just come along and take all the designs for all the neat shit and corner the market in all things. With patents they have to buy the design or hire the designer so they can have the rights to everything he or she dreams up.

Fine, but you are answering a quite different issue from what you raised in the first place, which was NOT who gets the money or who gets the credit for a design.

Your point was that "a good technology will out." Patents do NOTHING to ensure that, and CAN be used to suppress a technology.

Gee, it was easy to make you look stupid there. Like waving a red rag at a bull.

Apparently, you hold an individual or corporation's right to "intellectual property" over the rapid and optimal development of technology. To the extent that you'd just abandon your previous point and start raving about "theft of ideas" and "intellectual property."

I'm sorry, but I hold intellect above property. We are the intelligent, the enquiring animal. We don't have a thing over other animals but the knowledge (including the method of knowledge) we inherit from and share with other humans. That we are territorial ( still) is not terribly demeaning, but to cast the intellect, to cast knowledge, and to cast technologies which are vital to us all, into the mold of "it's mine, because I had it first!" really is.

Besides, everything that is patented can be viewed by the public, you just can't make your own copy and sell it without paying for the original.

It's also fair to say you can violate a patent, and until the "owner" notices, you can cash in all you like.

Corporate limitation being what it is, that could be millions or even billions in the pockets of every employee of the "stealing" corporation. What can the owner do? Shut them down. If they can afford the lawyers.

If the "owner" of that intellectual "property" doesn't then take up the slack and fill that market place they just used to law to render vacant, what is achieved ?

Nothing but destruction. Contraction of production, contraction of the market

A dead loss. Just like any punishment by law, the best you can hope for is that no action is taken. The crime is not committed, the punishment isn't necessary. Once the crime is committed it's all downhill, a demeaning and destructive process for every party.

Now, tell me again why patents and "intellectual property" are a higher priority than technological advancement by the human race as a whole.

No, it's property, how it is used should be up to the owner.

No, it's not property. Ideas are not property.

Yes, I see the romance of the golden age of invention. I dream myself of having a great idea and becoming rich from it with (or preferably without) work.

But that isn't now, that was a century ago. Science is becoming increasingly corrupted by commercial secrets ... to some extent, even patents are obsolete. The corporation has a mass of research data ... if you, a researcher, ever took their money then the only part of that data you can disclose is the part that was public already. What credit will you get for that?

Or you could prove in court that this information you disclose (perhaps even try to patent) was your independent work. Good luck with that, the corporation can throw a hundred times your net worth into the court-case, and they can pull stuff out of "commercial in confidence" R&D files to show you stole it from them or one of their loyal employees.

You know what a patent is, when you strip away that rubbish about owning ideas? It's a statement of intent.

Don't carry out the intent, lose the patent.

It's a serious post, and I can explain it if anyone is interested.
There is no need to, your post is perfectly sensible, I just had to read it twice and think for a few seconds.

Don't carry out the intent, lose the patent.

Amen!

http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/IntermediateHydrogen.html



okay I am 95% right and 5% wrong. and not really if you read my whole quote not even that. but lets look at this convert wind to hydrogen thing.
Wind energy converted to electrical energy
electrical energy converts water to hydrogen energy
hydrogen converted to water and electrical energy. a lot more efficient way would be to put the electrical energy into a battery and run you car off of that.


aside from the horrendous efficacy problem caused by way too many steps.
The first time you pull in for a fill up and your told "sorry sir we can't give you hydrogen today since there wasn't very much wind this month" you would go and beg for Opec to come back.

you want alternative fuel here is the best bet. make batteries able to have a car last 2 or 3 days of normal driving(to and from work and maybe out to eat) . when you pull into a fill up station they yank out your old battery put in a new fully charged battery, they then proceed to recharge your old battery to give to someone else. You get this power from nuclear energy it is the only means by which you can ever expect to actually meet world energy needs and be emissions free.

You said hydrogen comes from fossil fuels, implying that you could only manufacture hydrogen with the use of fossil fuels, I showed that you were wrong, it is most certainly possible to create pure hydrogen on a large scale through the use of renewable resources.

You said hydrogen comes from fossil fuels, implying that you could only manufacture hydrogen with the use of fossil fuels, I showed that you were wrong, it is most certainly possible to create pure hydrogen on a large scale through the use of renewable resources.

Yes and if you read 4 sentences down I explain how you also can get hydrogen from water. in that original post. If you are too lazy/dumb to read 10 sentences at a time Do not quote me. Because you will take it out of context.

The reason the first paragraph dealt exclusively with hydrogen from fossil fuels was because it is the only way to have a net positive energy gain from hydrogen (albeit less just using the fossil fuel itself)
the next paragraph down i briefly touched on why hydrogen from water is always a net energy loss.

Yes and if you read 4 sentences down I explain how you also can get hydrogen from water. in that original post. If you are too lazy/dumb to read 10 sentences at a time Do not quote me.

I was responding to 1 statement of yours, so you can quit with the insults.

Personally, I believe that nuke power -> electricity -> battery charged electric cars are a better option for personal transport. Closed cycle nuke power generation can be clean...I think countries like France generate 3/4 of their power from nukes and has no problem doing so (somebody correct me if I am wrong).
Even disregarding the problem from car accidents and poorly maintained control/safety systems, there is that little problem of leaving fissile nuclear material around (material that would probably be in the 7-15% enrichment) for anyone to take...

Sideote: Would a small reactor (that could fit into a car) need a a higher enriched uranium/other fissile material source or just the same?

That being said, some of the more efficient ways of extracting hydrogen (via electrolysis of water) come from performing the reaction with a temperature of 1000c, perfect for some newer reactor designs.

Ultracapacitors can store a large amount of energy and can be charged very quickly.
Some of the more advanced ultracapacitors under research (nanoenginered) would have energy/kg relatively close to a fuel-cell.

That's why North Koreans are starving by the thousands and have to run machinery on charcoal; they can't afford oil because their dumbass of a president squandered all of their goodwill and foreign exchange on weapons, so nobody sells it to them.
Well NK has managed to use those weapons (along with their conventional arsenal pointing a Seoul) to get many billions of processed fuel sent their way...

Or turn into Triffids. Providing us with vastly superior oil.
Of course, there are some tiny downsides.

I think that all the members of NSG could fit on to the Isle of Wight :p.

I was responding to 1 statement of yours, so you can quit with the insults.

I don't agree with either of you, but I must say your post with two marginally relevant quotes which read only "wrong" was rather rude. It's not like GaD just started it...

==========

Even disregarding the problem from car accidents and poorly maintained control/safety systems, there is that little problem of leaving fissile nuclear material around (material that would probably be in the 7-15% enrichment) for anyone to take...

Boy, did you read that wrong. Nuclear --> Electric --> Battery ... get it?

Nah, nuclear powered cars stopped being funky about the time China got the Bomb ;)

Sideote: Would a small reactor (that could fit into a car) need a a higher enriched uranium/other fissile material source or just the same?

Well, car-pooling of course! Instead of you and every other commuter driving to the office each day, you take it in turns. First you stay home, then your stay home, ... and after fourty five years it's finally your turn to drive everyone to the office, and you start up your Buck Rogers Streamlined Convertible and blow the whole town to hell!

Mmm, higher I guess. But that's not the only drawback. Fission creates plain heat, so you'd need a boiler. Definitely not cool if there's water restrictions ...

I don't agree with either of you, but I must say your post with two marginally relevant quotes which read only "wrong" was rather rude. It's not like GaD just started it...


How were they only marginally relevant? GaD stated:
think like this. You get hydrogen from fossil fuels right.
I pulled up two articles that proved him wrong.

Also, what do you mean you don't agree with me? I haven't stated what my position on this even is.

Even disregarding the problem from car accidents and poorly maintained control/safety systems, there is that little problem of leaving fissile nuclear material around (material that would probably be in the 7-15% enrichment) for anyone to take...

no..not fitting nuke reactors into cars.:eek:

One of the opposition to electric cars, at least in the US, is that the source of electricity is also fossil fuel. That's what I meant by nuke power plants providing electricity that you can tap for recharging your car battery.

fuel cells differ from batteries.

Not really. Batteries produce electric current from chemical reactions, fuel cells produce electric current from chemical reactions.

How were they only marginally relevant? GaD stated:

I pulled up two articles that proved him wrong.

Not really. You put up two articles illustrating hydrogen being 'got' from renewable sources. While that shows that hydrogen is not ONLY got from fossil fuels, it does NOT show that it is not got from fossil fuels.

Because I can see that sounds quibblesome, let me say this: if we were to convert to hydrogen fuel in place of petrol tomorrow, the vast bulk of the energy would come from fossil fuel. Except in France, where half of it would apparently come from nuclear power, or Iceland where it could be got from geothermal sources, wind etc. The rest of us would be burning dirty old coal just like we are now.

That's my position. Hydrogen is neutral as to the source of the energy. It is no better made from a windmill than a steam-engine.

Also, what do you mean you don't agree with me? I haven't stated what my position on this even is.

Then how could I possibly agree with you? I don't agree with either of you, like I said. To agree with you, I would need to have at least some delusion that I knew your position. I have none such, so while I may be inclined to agree with you, I really can't.

I'm pretty sure I'm making no sense here. It's a very bad sign when a sentence reads as well backwards as forwards, so goodnight and thanksfor your time.

So I just read this horribly written novel about how this scientist comes up with a way to cheaply and easily produce and disperse hydrogen fuel, and he gets murdered, blah blah blah, by the oil and energy companies that want to suppress the new development until they have squeezed the last penny from the oil business.

Now, I realize how much power and control OPEC, the automobile industry, etc have, but do you think a clean alternative fuel would be utterly suppressed/controlled by these people?

Do they have this ability? Do you think it is happening now?

Hydrogen isn't fuel, it's just a storage medium. If anything, they'll encourage it, in order to pretend that they're doing something. They'll use the fuel that was previously in the cars to manufacture the hydrogen.

Not really. You put up two articles illustrating hydrogen being 'got' from renewable sources. While that shows that hydrogen is not ONLY got from fossil fuels, it does NOT show that it is not got from fossil fuels.

Because I can see that sounds quibblesome, let me say this: if we were to convert to hydrogen fuel in place of petrol tomorrow, the vast bulk of the energy would come from fossil fuel. Except in France, where half of it would apparently come from nuclear power, or Iceland where it could be got from geothermal sources, wind etc. The rest of us would be burning dirty old coal just like we are now.

That's my position. Hydrogen is neutral as to the source of the energy. It is no better made from a windmill than a steam-engine.
His implication in the post I was responding to was that the only way to create pure Hydrogen was from or through the use of fossil fuels, I showed that this was not true, I certainly did not say that Hydrogen was only created from/through the use of renewable resources.
Then how could I possibly agree with you?

I didn't say that you did, you did however say that you did not agree with me. You do not know whether you agree with me or not. You assumed my position based on the fact that I attacked GaD's misrepresentation.

My actual position on it is that it is a good idea, just not economically feasible, at least not yet. It might become so with advances in fuel cell technology and with improvements in the methods of production.

But it would just be invented by someone else a little later. And what'd stop him from building it again?

Genocide?

As in: it will take more energy to make a hydrogen fuelcell than you can get out of it - but that does not matter, since the primary goal is to make the energy portable.


That is exactly the crux of the issue.

Make hydrogen and oxygen out of water using solar-powered hydrolysis. Who CARES how inefficient it is? The sky is raining soup, all we have to do is have a bucket to catch it in! Eventually, you'll have a pipeline of hydrogen that is being made from dawn to dusk every day of every week.

What do you do with all that oxygen? Sell it? Awesome.

Did you know hydrogen, being lighter than air, runs uphill? how's THAT for something you don't have to pump? You could literally supply water to a town at a high altitude without pumps, because if you send just hydrogen their way, it will run all the way to them...and...get this...you BURN the hydrogen, getting energy in the form of HEAT, or energy in the form of electricity AND heat AND water using a fuel cell...

...and you didn't have to pump any water! You just broke it down at the source, sent the "important part" (the hydrogen) on its merry way without any kind of necessity for a power assist, to its destination, where it's USED to create power and the "waste" product is WATER!

How cool is that?

And hydrogen doesn't have all the awful environment destroying stuff like lead, cadmium, or a whole bunch of other chemicals needed to make storage batteries, that have a finite shelf life and finite useful functional life, AND aren't as efficient as hydrolysis and fuel cell..and even if they were, the clean nature of hydrogen being broken off from water and reassembled into water at least partially outweighs the efficiency differential.

That, and fuel cell technology from 2006 to 2008 has made a LEAP of advancement in efficiency.

So instead of storage batteries for your solar house, you have a couple of big tanks of hydrogen that you can either use directly in a gas furnace or a gas stove (a flammable gas is a flammable gas - follow the directed protocols and it's as dangerous or as safe as you want it to be) that burns clean with no hydrocarbons and no smoke, OR you can run it through your fuel cells (with a computerized efficiency control if you so desire for optimal power output balanced against demand) and generate as much electricity as your hydrogen supply allows.

Sorry, I'm failing to see how this is win-win.

And hydrogen doesn't burn your face off. It's a colorless, odorless gas. You can hose it all over a person and it won't hurt him. Having been near a few hydrogen leaks in my time, I can honestly say I'd prefer to breathe hydrogen mixed in the atmosphere than propane or methane. It's LESS harmful, not more.

And finally, considering how much water cars are ALREADY putting out, taking out the hydrocarbons from their emissions and leaving in the water would actually be GOOD for the environment, not bad.

But hey, everybody's gotta have an opinion; Even if it's an uninformed one.

GP

Gabriel, your post got me all excited. "Yeah! All our energy problems are solved!"

However, the consensus has been that hydrogen would be used as energy storage rather than fuel in itself. I really don't know much about this, but from what I've read, it does seem like energy storage is the best hydrogen is good for.

Furthermore, the way you put it, there doesn't seem to be any reason we couldn't start switching to a hydrogen lifestyle now. If it is as easy as you write, then why haven't we heard anything about this miracle fuel?

Do you have any sources?

well REAL clean alternative TECNOLOGIES exist now. proven, reliable and practical. that are clean precisely because they don't involve burning anything.

hydrogen, is, or would be, the only truly clean FUEL, but is currently eonomically impractical, and may always be, owing to the realities of capturing it in a (relatively) safely usable form.

it makes really neat big go booms and holes in the ground when it does. say for instance when joe sixpack lights up while refilling from a pump with seals that leak just a little tiney bit because the economics of constantly insuring their perfection get to be just a wee bit beyond what is motivated by an emidiate gain profit motive.

the resualting orbital remains of said joe sixpacks being somewhat less then incouraging of others to morgage their wife and kids on a 30 year fixed to aquire said hydrogen burning vehicule.

=^^=
.../\...

Childhood dreams may soon come true: Engines that run on water (http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/33570/113)

West Lafayette (IN) - Researchers at Indiana's Purdue University have further developed a recently described technology that can break down water directly into hydrogen and oxygen without input power.

The announced process drives water across a plate which splits the water into its gas components. The collected gases can then be piped off and burned efficiently in a hydrogen powered engine. This process is claimed to produce absolutely no pollution whatsoever and can be used in a wide range of vehicles, even replacing the nuclear power plants in submarines, according to the researchers.

The original process was first announced by Purdue researchers in May of this year. It was based on the idea of taking an aluminum/gallium alloy and flowing water across it. The aluminum splits the water into hydrogen and oxygen without any input power. Basically, the oxygen is drawn to the aluminum and the hydrogen bubbles away to be collected. The gallium is present to prevent normal oxidation on the aluminum's surface, thereby keeping the source free from almost immediate contamination which normally occurs on aluminum during electrolysis. It's an interesting use of the material because gallium is even a waste byproduct of aluminum manufacturing.

Interesting to say the least.

Genocide?
So to suppress a useful technology you'd have to kill everyone. I guess it's possible and you wouldn't have to worry about covering it up after everyone is dead but you'd have a hell of a time trying to keep everything quiet before you're even halfway finished with the murder.

So to suppress a useful technology you'd have to kill everyone. I guess it's possible and you wouldn't have to worry about covering it up after everyone is dead but you'd have a hell of a time trying to keep everything quiet before you're even halfway finished with the murder.

I'll give everyone punch and pie, as a distraction...or maybe a free hat...

I'll give everyone punch and pie, as a distraction...or maybe a free hat...
FREE HAT! FREE HAT! FREE HAT! FREE HAT! FREE HAT! FREE HAT!

Childhood dreams may soon come true: Engines that run on water (http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/33570/113)

Interesting to say the least.

Er, as a rule of thumb Perpetual Motion Machines don't work.

In this case, the hydrogen is extracted by oxidizing aluminium. And how is aluminium got? By reducing (ie, removing the oxygen from) oxides of aluminium.

ie, it's still just a method of conversion, not a source of energy.

EDIT: That's canonical. I won't bump the thread to prove the point. The subject will come up again, hmm?

Er, as a rule of thumb Perpetual Motion Machines don't work.

In this case, the hydrogen is extracted by oxidizing aluminium. And how is aluminium got? By reducing (ie, removing the oxygen from) oxides of aluminium.

ie, it's still just a method of conversion, not a source of energy.

It's still interesting, more so if they can get it to work outside the lab.

Also, if you had read the article, you would have seen that their premise was as an actual fuel source (Hydrogen burning ICE is what the hydrogen would be going to)