Hydrogen autos - bit on CNN?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The reason everybody is on the Hydrogen bandwagon is because Hydrogen cars are true zero-emission cars.

But I seriously doubt anyone has ever done a scientific study to test the emissions that will be created by Hydrogen production facilities.

I think it all boils down to America's stubborn pride. A German invented the diesel engine. So America must invent and use a different engine (fuel cell).

Europe has been using biodiesel for years. But America is way behind in the curve. We'd rather use gas-electric hybrids (which still use a petroluem-based fossil fuel, hardly an answer to our dependence on foreign oil) and now Hydrogen vehicles.

Another small niche is Natural Gas and Propane powered vehicles. Again, these are fossil fuels. A band-aid for a broken leg approach.

The only solution is biofuels. Ethanol and Biodiesel. Natural fuels made by nature, and the least harmful to nature.
 
A fuel cell is "efficient" because the cycle of generating electricity directly is more efficient than burning fuel to generate heat, then mechanical power, then electricity. The ideal cycles are something like 90% fuel cell vs 25% combustion.

However, the "efficiency" is not that great when you have to crack the H2 from fossil fuel, or if you use the electricity to generate mechanical power (i.e. cars).

It makes sense for small/medium power plant that is local to where the electricity is used, and you can recoupe the waste heat for facility heating and carbon from H2 cracking for heating purposes. Michellin is using it in their Europe facility and gets very good result. You reduce the transmission lost and can run your generation based on your need.

What doesn't make sense is to haull 800lb of equipment so you can crack H2 from HC, then get electricity from H2, then use the electricity to move a car.

IMO a car should use battery power in the future, and we should focus on battery (Li-Pol), and quick charging (15 mins for 300 miles), along with weight reduction and aerodynamic.

Why o why can't someone mass produce Li-Pol battery for cheap?
 
IIRC, a May 2004 Sci Amer article (I've posted it somewhere else on this board) stated the following inefficiences from well to wheels:

- ICE auto 88% inefficient
- steam reformed hydrogen FC vehicle 78% inefficient

I ran across this article recently, lots of science behind the energy used for compression etc of hydrogen: Energy and the Hydrogen Economy
 
Pandabear,
search out the Vanadium redox battery.

Rather than charging it (which you can do), you can simply "fill up" with new electrolyte, and drop off your used for regeneration.
 
quote:

Don't underestimate the power of the greenie weenies. Look what they have done to the EPA. I work with a lot of young and not as young engineers and almost every one of them is brainwashed to the point that they just walk around chanting "hydrogen" regardless of any real proff of feasability. But hey if nuclear power comes back online then there will be abundant excess supply to generate hydrogen maybe, in about 30 years, until the nuclear fuel runs out 80 years later.

Agreed. Hydrogen sounds nice but you still need energy to convert energy, and until we get some more nuclear GP's online, there won't be enough power to convert water or seawater for extraction. This is where breeder reactors and PBR's shine. And nuclear power plants will be needed to charge the battery powered cars as well. France and South Africa lead the way in nuclear energy production but until we acquire some backbone to fight the misinformation the greenies dish out and educate the masses on nuclear power plants, we will continue to be a third world country with respect to nuclear power.

If the inventors of the hydrogen pellet car can make enough H fuel pellets with a high enough efficiency, this would seem to be the most advantageous way to proceed.
 
Lithium based rechargable chemistries are very expensive because of the research that is done to make them produce higher discharge rates and higher capacity. I'd rather see a NiMH chemistry in play because the NiMH chemistry holds more cycles and deals better with deep discharges. Lithium chemistries need many safe measure in place because if the voltage drops below a safe threshold the battery is unsafe to recharge and if the internal contents of the battery are exposed to air, a violent fire is the reaction. I have seen Lithium-based chemistries used in electric cars but they have had to have individual cell monitoring as they need to be charged in an isolated manner as they don't handle overvoltage and cannot take any overcharge without damage. This could be done either way in a controlled manner by the auto makers, but it has been done with NiMH chemistries with the final EV1's and many(if not all)of the hybrid vehicles. I will look into the Vanadium redox battery as suggested by shannow although there is nothing like charging at home and leaving the gas stations in the dust, so I shall see.
 
Is nuclear energy really the right answer? A nuclear power plant may technically be emission free, but what about all the left over nuclear waste? Right now we're just digging a big hole and burrying it in the ground. That's got to be REALLY great for the enviornment.
rolleyes.gif
 
TexasTDI,
Actually, that isn't true. Right now, nuclear waste is stored in cooling ponds at the site the waste was generated. So instead of having one spot in the nation to store the waste, we have thousands of unsecured cooling ponds with hazardous waste.
Nuclear power, in my opinion, is the best way to generate electricity. With oil and natural gas we breathe the waste, I prefer to bury waste in the ground than in my lungs. Part of the reason my natural gas bill has gone up 325 percent in the last 5 years is due to the large increase in natural gas power plants. Cleaner burning but still an emitter of greenhouse gasses.
 
quote:

So instead of having one spot in the nation to store the waste, we have thousands of unsecured cooling ponds with hazardous waste.



Great. So not only is Nuclear power a danger to the enviornment, it's also a potential danger to Homeland security.
pat.gif
thumbsdown.gif
 
A very large amount of power generated in the United States is from coal. Very cheap, but a large amount of pollution, most likely more pollution than burning anything else.

They have a large nuclear waste facility that is being built by boring a large hole into the center of a mountain and burying the waste inside completely isolating any radiation and preventing explosions. I watched it on the history channel(I think) a few years ago. In Europe they praise their nuclear power. I know we have at least one nuclear plant here in Minnesota.
 
My belief is that fuels should be used in a manner which best supports their transportability. To use a high grade fuel for a low grade application should be a criminal offence.

Oil should be used for transport...period. Maybe heating, but I'd prefer not.

Natural gas should be piped in for heating, at the location that the heat is required.

Propane is a mixed bag.

Coal should be used close to the source for power generation.

Nukes should be used to replace the greenhouse emissions from coal, and ultimately replacing it.

I work at a coal fired climate change facility. Every day of the week, we burn about 20,000 tonnes of coal (picture an area 100yardsx100yardsx8 feet deep), creating a 2 foot pile of ash that needs to be disposed of. There are another 4 such generators in my state.
 
In my area of East Texas we have a coal-burning electric plant, near Tatum.

Hopefully, we'll get the govt. contract for the first new "clean coal" plant. It would be built in the Rusk, TX area. My understanding is the pollutants are routed down into an underground salt dome instead of being released into the air. We already store propane, butane, etc, in underground salt domes.

Plants and trees are nature's filtration system. They can handle air-borne pollutants a lot easier than radiation.

Radiation is pure poison. TMK nature has no way of dealing with radiation.
 
TexasTDI, "clean coal" means 10-20% more coal consumed to do the same thing.

To get the sulfur out, they have to bake limestone, using energy, and releasing CO2. To catch the CO2, they have to use extraordinary amounts of energy to separate, and liquify it.

I'm more concerned at filling underground spaces, and ocean deep locations with liquid/solid CO2, as a sudden CO2 release IS death to every oxygen breathing animal anywhere.

Radiation can be kept exactly where we put it...if we place it wisely.
 
Since there isn't much going on in the alternative fuels section I feel like adding this. 108 nuclear plants in the United States. They provide 20% of the nations power.
 
I own a 2005 Prius, I will modify it to use as little carbon based fuel as possible... I salute toyota for each little step forward! They are making the other guys drool! Locals are just noticing that they are now paying more monthly in gasoline over the past few years than there monthly car paymnet. Older folks are now paying more monthly for fuel oil than they do on there 30 year home mortages! This is not good...

Nuclear energy plants exists today because they are government sponsored operation centers of waste and fraud. In my view they should begin decommisioning these operations as they surely have enough weapons to go around!
 
I firmly beleive the answer is simply to find and produce more oil and gas. We have been supposedly about to hit peak production since about 1860 or so. Today, the world has more petroleum reserves than any time in history with major recent oil field finds. In the US, our production has peaked but at least partly because access to land is restricted, think ANWAR, coastal FL, and CA. History seems to prove, or at least hint, that the predictions of finite oil deposits may be at odds with reality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top