| N_Jay |
Much like my "I could be wrong about Hybrids" thread, I have not changed my mind, just want to keep everyone up to speed on the slow advances in alternative energy.
http://www.sciencentral.com/article...le_id=218393047
I'm guessing that is this scales, we are 15 to 35 years away from significant production. |
|
|
| krygny |
| As a member of People for the Ethical Treatment of Amoebas, I'll point out that we have no right to enslave and abuse micro-organisms for our own greedy and petty pursuits. |
|
|
| dgipalo |
quote:
Originally posted by krygny
As a member of People for the Ethical Treatment of Amoebas, I'll point out that we have no right to enslave and abuse micro-organisms for our own greedy and petty pursuits.
At the risk of being labeled an eukaryote bigot, these would be 'only' bacteria. True nuclear Amoeba are not harmed by the process. :D :rolleyes:
The interesting thing about the story is how they got the bacteria to emit the H2. I would think that the normal aerobic carbohydrate metabolism would FIRST consume the H2, rather than giving it off as a byproduct. Can't help but wonder how that sort of production would scale. |
|
|
| rocky |
I read H2 and my first thought was that small Hummer
Seriously though, its the use of CNG to make Hydrogen for the Fuel cell that bugs me. Converting one substance to another must require energy. So this seems an inefficient method of providing fuel.
http://world.honda.com/news/2007/40...Energy-Station/
If the kids were all grown up and gone, I'd seriously look at the Honda Civic GX. There are a number of refueling stations nearby. It would merely take getting it back to Mass from NY to pull off. |
|
|
| robrecht |
quote:
Originally posted by dgipalo
At the risk of being labeled an eukaryote bigot, these would be 'only' bacteria. True nuclear Amoeba are not harmed by the process. :D :rolleyes:
I think you must be some kind of schizophrenic antiprokaryote! :15: |
|
|
| sblvro |
| :rolleyes: thanks for micromanaging the alternative fuel issue:D |
|
|
| N_Jay |
quote:
Originally posted by rocky
Seriously though, its the use of CNG to make Hydrogen for the Fuel cell that bugs me. Converting one substance to another must require energy. So this seems an inefficient method of providing fuel.
Yep, one of many stupid ideas people are putting forward in the quest for hydrogen cars.
quote:
Originally posted by rocky
If the kids were all grown up and gone, I'd seriously look at the Honda Civic GX. There are a number of refueling stations nearby. It would merely take getting it back to Mass from NY to pull off.
No, No, don't do that.
In all this alternative energy crap, people are not watching which energy sources are best for which applications.
NG is cheap because transportation uses very Little, allowing it to be an economical fuel for direct heating application, such as many industrial uses, domestic heating, cooking, etc.
If it becomes a transportation fuel (which is NOT an efficient use) its price will go up to be the same per energy unit as gasoline and diesel, and we will all end up paying more for other uses, many of them transferring to less efficient electrical energy.
Be truly green, and fight the unthinking "Greenies"! |
|
|
| mikey159 |
quote:
Originally posted by N_Jay
Yep, one of many stupid ideas people are putting forward in the quest for hydrogen cars.
No, No, don't do that.
In all this alternative energy crap, people are not watching which energy sources are best for which applications.
NG is cheap because transportation uses very Little, allowing it to be an economical fuel for direct heating application, such as many industrial uses, domestic heating, cooking, etc.
If it becomes a transportation fuel (which is NOT an efficient use) its price will go up to be the same per energy unit as gasoline and diesel, and we will all end up paying more for other uses, many of them transferring to less efficient electrical energy.
Be truly green, and fight the unthinking "Greenies"!
But then maybe the oil and gas companies wouldn't be free burning it off on the top of their stacks! I talked to an oil company exec one time and he said they burn it because it isn't cost effective to conserve it. When the price goes up, there will be more available. How much more is a topic for discussion in other places. |
|
|
| mikey159 |
quote:
Originally posted by rocky
I read H2 and my first thought was that small Hummer
Seriously though, its the use of CNG to make Hydrogen for the Fuel cell that bugs me. Converting one substance to another must require energy. So this seems an inefficient method of providing fuel.
http://world.honda.com/news/2007/40...Energy-Station/
If the kids were all grown up and gone, I'd seriously look at the Honda Civic GX. There are a number of refueling stations nearby. It would merely take getting it back to Mass from NY to pull off.
If the Government were really serious about Hydrogen fueled vehicles they'd just pass a Federal Law allowing any dealership in the US selling hydrogen fueled vehicles to have their own tank and refilling setup. This would give us two things, more cars NOW, and second more places to get the fuel. A new revenue source for the dealerships is a side benefit. As the number of vehicles increases the Feds could back off and let the local jurisdictions handle the licensing and placement of public stations. Say more than two suppliers within a 15 mile diameter of each other, as an example, and the Fed rules would be superseded by local rules.
And the Nazis in WWII made "heavy water" with lime and electricity. They basically added lime to regualr water, added some electricity and hydrogen bubbled out the top. The actual formulas are waaay beyond what I know but if the electricity were solar generated, it would seem to be a cheap source of hydrogen. In the movie "The Heroes of Telemark" you can see it happenning in the background. "Heavy water" is good for nuclear reactors, but it is a naturally occuring compound. The Nazis just encouraged it's production. |
|
|
| N_Jay |
quote:
Originally posted by mikey159
But then maybe the oil and gas companies wouldn't be free burning it off on the top of their stacks! I talked to an oil company exec one time and he said they burn it because it isn't cost effective to conserve it. When the price goes up, there will be more available. How much more is a topic for discussion in other places.
The stuff they flare off is very low quantities of very low quality gas.
It is not a significant issue.
And yes, at some point it might make sense to either capture refine and sell that gas, but more likely it will be redirected towards internal uses and co-generation. Of course by that point it will be too expensive to "waste" NG on things like drying cloths. |
|
|
| N_Jay |
quote:
Originally posted by mikey159
If the Government were really serious about Hydrogen fueled vehicles they'd just pass a Federal Law allowing any dealership in the US selling hydrogen fueled vehicles to have their own tank and refilling setup.
PLEASE, I hope they never get that serious!
It will do nothing for the real issues with hydrogen fueled vehicles and will only hide those problems from the consumer.
quote:
Originally posted by mikey159
This would give us two things, more cars NOW, and second more places to get the fuel.
But does nothing to address the basic lack of efficiency of the entire energy cycle of these cars.
quote:
Originally posted by mikey159
A new revenue source for the dealerships is a side benefit. As the number of vehicles increases the Feds could back off and let the local jurisdictions handle the licensing and placement of public stations. Say more than two suppliers within a 15 mile diameter of each other, as an example, and the Fed rules would be superseded by local rules.
You seem to be of the belief that lack of fuel retailers IS the problem?
The very last thing we need is the feds sticking there noses in and fixing the wrong problem.
quote:
Originally posted by mikey159
And the Nazis in WWII made "heavy water" with lime and electricity. They basically added lime to regular water, added some electricity and hydrogen bubbled out the top.
No they did not.
Electrolysis is used to separate the natural Heavy Water, not to make any.
quote:
Originally posted by mikey159
The actual formulas are waaay beyond what I know but if the electricity were solar generated, it would seem to be a cheap source of hydrogen.
Yes, we can tell.
It does not mater where the electricity comes from, the amount of energy retrieved from the use of the hydrogen produced will always be less than the energy put in.
Currently solar generation is one of the most expensive methods to make electricity.
quote:
Originally posted by mikey159
In the movie "The Heroes of Telemark" you can see it happenning in the background. "Heavy water" is good for nuclear reactors, but it is a naturally occurring compound. The Nazis just encouraged it's production.
AH, movies are interesting, science class is boring.
AND here is where we sit. |
|
|
| quietdragon |
quote:
Originally posted by N_Jay
Be truly green, and fight the unthinking "Greenies"!
I had previously read that hydrogen is not a viable fuel because it doesn't occur naturally and must be "manufactured" from primary sources. In my own mind I had dismissed it as being part of the solution.
I recently had the chance to listen to David Sanborn Scott explain the ideas in his new book entitled Smelling Land.
I found his ideas very interesting and compelling. His thesis is that hydrogen is the best medium or currency (I can't remember the exact word he uses) for storing energy for the purposes of transporting energy from the site where energy is produced to where it is consumed.
You can hear an extended interview with him where he talks about his book and his ideas: |
|
|
| N_Jay |
quote:
Originally posted by quietdragon
I had previously read that hydrogen is not a viable fuel because it doesn't occur naturally and must be "manufactured" from primary sources. In my own mind I had dismissed it as being part of the solution.
I recently had the chance to listen to David Sanborn Scott explain the ideas in his new book entitled Smelling Land.
I found his ideas very interesting and compelling. His thesis is that hydrogen is the best medium or currency (I can't remember the exact word he uses) for storing energy for the purposes of transporting energy from the site where energy is produced to where it is consumed.
You can hear an extended interview with him where he talks about his book and his ideas:
In most applications, that is all it is, just a transport for energy from other sources.
The question then becomes is it the "best" transport, and why?
Most unthinking greenies never get to questions that deep. They just mindlessly regurgitate the drivel they are fed.
Hydrogen is less energy efficient than many liquid hydrocarbons per gallon/pound, and is more difficult and less safe to store and transport.
So why is it the dream fuel? Because the unthinking greenies have been sold on the false fact that it is non-polluting and only makes water.
Time to send some good chemistry and physics professors to all those darn liberal arts schools, and make the sciences mandatory! |
|
|
| quietdragon |
quote:
Originally posted by N_Jay
Hydrogen is less energy efficient than many liquid hydrocarbons per gallon/pound, and is more difficult and less safe to store and transport.
So why is it the dream fuel? Because the unthinking greenies have been sold on the false fact that it is non-polluting and only makes water.
I'd encourage you to take the time to listen to the podcasts. The author takes some effort to explain in scientific terms why he thinks hydrogen is a viable candidate to be an "energy currency". |
|
|
| mikey159 |
quote:
Originally posted by N_Jay
PLEASE, I hope they never get that serious!
It will do nothing for the real issues with hydrogen fueled vehicles and will only hide those problems from the consumer.
But does nothing to address the basic lack of efficiency of the entire energy cycle of these cars.
You seem to be of the belief that lack of fuel retailers IS the problem?
The very last thing we need is the feds sticking there noses in and fixing the wrong problem.
No they did not.
Electrolysis is used to separate the natural Heavy Water, not to make any.
Yes, we can tell.
It does not mater where the electricity comes from, the amount of energy retrieved from the use of the hydrogen produced will always be less than the energy put in.
Currently solar generation is one of the most expensive methods to make electricity.
AH, movies are interesting, science class is boring.
AND here is where we sit.
Ahh but I am guessing you missed the HUGE story on the Discovery Channel about the exact process and how much Heavy Water was actually still in the barrells sitting at the bottom of the Lake?
And yes you are correct, the Germans did not "make" Heavy Water, they seperated it causing Hydrogen to bubble off. THAT was the point of my comments, not the actual Technical Plans for "making" Heavy Water.
And over the long term solar can be cost effective, it is just not as cheap as burning a gallon of oil and probably won't be for a very long time. BUT if you and I invest in solar, I have, the costs WILL come down. |
|
|
| N_Jay |
quote:
Originally posted by mikey159
Ahh but I am guessing you missed the HUGE story on the Discovery Channel about the exact process and how much Heavy Water was actually still in the barrells sitting at the bottom of the Lake?
No I did not miss it. The ones that did not leak had the labeled amount.
But what does that have to do with anything?
quote:
Originally posted by mikey159
And yes you are correct, the Germans did not "make" Heavy Water, they seperated it causing Hydrogen to bubble off. THAT was the point of my comments, not the actual Technical Plans for "making" Heavy Water.[
Yes, its is called electrolysis and is one of the very common ways of separating hydrogen from water (making hydrogen).
As I said, it takes more energy in than you get worth of hydrogen out. There is no magic. It is well understood science, and there is no "fix" for the limitation.
(BTW, you were the one who brought Heavy Water into the discussion, not me)
quote:
Originally posted by mikey159
And over the long term solar can be cost effective, it is just not as cheap as burning a gallon of oil and probably won't be for a very long time.
Untill it is close, it is a poor source of power. And a big source of power is what is needed to dive any significant hydrogen production for transportation energy.
quote:
Originally posted by mikey159
BUT if you and I invest in solar, I have, the costs WILL come down.
I think not!
There is no shortage of investment in solar technology. There has not been a shortage for a very long time.
There is desperate need for some significant breakthroughs. These will happen slowly, but I believe there is little that additional investment will do to speed up the process.
There is no indication that investing in solar power is a "better" investment than other alternative energy and energy efficiency projects. |
|
|
| colorider |
| Moved to General OFF TOPIC |
|
|
|
