Hydrogen cars

[In...TP]

Pros and cons (cons will die as well as the pros)

[Ka.avik]

so will the pros -- the things blow up, or else they just burn hydrocarbons a little differently. Or at the very least they require carting around a liquid gas, which while not directly linked to blowing up, isn't exactly safe, either.

I'm going for solar panels for city-cars, and biodiesel for those who commute ...

[Nadiar]

They can actually make hydrogen that won't explode unless in the presence of a special 'filter' (I don't remember exactly how it works, I read a highly technical explanation, and walked away with "nanotech bubbles filled with hydrogen"

However, failing having an incredibly awesome and unlimited support of energy, its not really economical to create normal hydrogen, let along having a supply of hydrogen encapsulated in nano technology.

[In...TP]

Think wind, oil, electricity, nuclear, hydrogen.

[Nadiar]

Think wind, oil, electricity, nuclear, hydrogen.

What are you talking about? You might as well have just started the Captain Planet theme song, because what you said means nothing.

[In...TP]

It's abundant.

[Ka.avik]

It's abundant.....

. . . . .

So is vacuuity. Doesn't mean we can use it to locomote.

[In...TP]

I do not know vacuuity. Could you explain?

[Ka.avik]

Not without explaining that last insult.

Vacuuity is the aspect of containing a vacuum. I'm accusing you of posting ... emptiness.

Like the space, between stars. There is a lot of it, but that doesn't make it useful, here ... to us, now.

[In...TP]

Hydrogen is.

[mr. treat]

Hydrogen is.

wow, that's some deep shit.

added later: actually i've read about a process to saturate Mg metal with hydrogen gas that results in a greater hydrogen density than in the regular gas state, as well as being relatively safe to transport. now if only electrolysis of water wasn't so expensive...

[In...TP]

The price you pay for constipation.

[distraction tactics]

Hydrogen has many pros, the clearest con is manufacturing it which at this point requires using traditional methods of electric generation to do so. Pumping up coal power plants to power clean cars kind of defeats the purpose.

In a recent Scientific American article, they had a piece on nuclear power plants. Current plants make use of only about 5% of the potential energy stored in uranium, but the technology is in development (or already here just not being used) to 'recycle' the waste to make use of 95% of the potential energy. If negative public opinion about nuclear power could be reversed, along with government incentive to encourage it and private industry getting on board, it could definitely change our societies for the better and allow clean technologies to flourish.

[Architectonic]

wow, that's some deep shit.

added later: actually i've read about a process to saturate Mg metal with hydrogen gas that results in a greater hydrogen density than in the regular gas state, as well as being relatively safe to transport. now if only electrolysis of water wasn't so expensive...

There are also solar methods of obtaining hydrogen.
Of course, nuclear fusion and hydrogen fuel cells may be a winning combination. (assuming (hot) nuclear fusion is a reality)

Biodiesel isn't at all sustainable when we are talking about the huge amounts of energy that we require.

[Edmond Zedo]

(assuming (hot) nuclear fusion is a reality)
Walk outside tomorrow, and look up.

[Architectonic]

In a recent Scientific American article, they had a piece on nuclear power plants. Current plants make use of only about 5% of the potential energy stored in uranium, but the technology is in development (or already here just not being used) to 'recycle' the waste to make use of 95% of the potential energy. If negative public opinion about nuclear power could be reversed, along with government incentive to encourage it and private industry getting on board, it could definitely change our societies for the better and allow clean technologies to flourish.

No, we shouldn't use that Canadian nuclear technology to recycle much of the waste. We should pay Australians lots of money to 'store' the waste in the outback. :ph34r:

Seriously though, the major risks are the reduced safety (than those which use more refined fuel).
Another factor that bothers some people these days (at least when non-western countries are involved), reactors that can use/process the waste are remarkably similar to those used for the construction of nuclear weapons.

[dubbeltop]

Hydrogen, too little too late lets just concentrate on alternative fuels and good old horsies. Anyway within 2 years my energy bill has somehow trippled without any good reason its amazing that im still able to pay my other bills. So...thats my view oops.. must save energy bye...............

[distraction tactics]

Seriously though, the major risks are the reduced safety (than those which use more refined fuel).
Another factor that bothers some people these days (at least when non-western countries are involved), reactors that can use/process the waste are remarkably similar to those used for the construction of nuclear weapons.

I would say this is going to be one of our biggest concerns within the next 50 years if nuclear technology comes into (more) common use. The West, regardless of justification, is going to be hesitant to export this technology to third world and developing nations without strict controls. It's annoying to see the UN so undermined as it (or a like body), in my opinion, is the only way we're going to see any real progress on the issue.

[Xenophon]

I think there is a lot of misinformation about the prospects of hydrogen as a fuel. It is not a viable alternative fuel right now, and I don't think that it will ever be. The problem is not production, the problem is hydrogen storage. Hydrogen needs to be cooled to 5-10 degrees kelvin to become a liquid (-268 to -263 degrees celcius). That is pretty much an impossible task in a mobile application. And even in its liquid state, hydrogen has poor energy density when compared with any other liquid fuel. One way they have found to increase the energy density of hydrogen, is to dissolve it into the crystal structure of a metal. This increases the energy density, but greatly increases the mass. The fact is, there is no suitable way to store hydrogen for portable use, and there isn't anything on the horizon that looks like it will solve this problem. The best idea I have heard is dissolving it in carbon nanotubes, but I think that is a long way of.

The reason that hydrogen is so attractive is that it is easy to make a fuel cell to convert the chemical energy of hydrogen directly into electricity, thus bypassing the limits of the carnot cycle. This increase in efficiency is not due to hydrogen however, it is due to the structure of a fuel cell. I firmly believe that they are going to make fuel cells that run on a higher density fuel, and that will be the future of automotive fuel technology.

[Architectonic]

I was under the impression that the advantage of hydrogen was the energy per mass ratio.

How much volume would be required to store the hydrogen required for a decent range, Ie 500km+ using current fuel cell technology?

I thought the other major problem of current fuel cell technology is its reliance on rare catalysts (ie platnium).


Walk outside tomorrow, and look up.
Do you normally take things so literally, or was this an exception?
Naturally, I mean an economically efficient nuclear fusion process, conducted on earth.
(Besides, if you were smart, you would have realize that I could walk outside right now and look up...)

[Xenophon]

I was under the impression that the advantage of hydrogen was the energy per mass ratio.

How much volume would be required to store the hydrogen required for a decent range, Ie 500km+ using current fuel cell technology?

I thought the other major problem of current fuel cell technology is its reliance on rare catalysts (ie platnium).


Do you normally take things so literally, or was this an exception?
Naturally, I mean an economically efficient nuclear fusion process, conducted on earth.
(Besides, if you were smart, you would have realize that I could walk outside right now and look up...)
Energy to mass ratio may be decent, but energy to volume ratio is extremely poor. And when you have larger volume, you need larger tanks, etc, and then you have heavier equipment.

Edit: I don't know the specifics about how much space you would need to drive a hydrogen car 500km+, but i know that it is a lot. I'm too drunk to go and look it up.

[In...TP]

so will the pros -- the things blow up, or else they just burn hydrocarbons a little differently. Or at the very least they require carting around a liquid gas, which while not directly linked to blowing up, isn't exactly safe, either.

...
What's new?

[Nadiar]

Gasoline isn't explosive. Its just flammable.

[mr. treat]

106kg of saturated magnesium hydride will get you about 300 km.

[Architectonic]

106kg of saturated magnesium hydride will get you about 300 km.

What about the volume of hydrogen?

[Biff_Loman]

Walk outside tomorrow, and look up.

Yeah.

I was reading some Buckminster Fuller, and he seemed quite agitated at the thought of trying to achieve net energy producing terrestrial fusion reactions when, as he put it, "a giant fusion reactor is located a safe 93 million miles away from Earth."

[Architectonic]

"a giant fusion reactor is located a safe 93 million miles away from Earth."

Nuclear fusion isn't exactly unsafe, so what is the problem?

[In...TP]

A twenty-first century Pinto.

[Architectonic]

A twenty-first century Pinto.

What do you mean by that?

[In...TP]

Explosive could be a marketing point, come in and test drive "The Bomb".

[tinribz]

Electricity seems to be the most manageable form of energy and we already have an advanced infrastructure for it. Electric cars are already practical and available despite minimum investment in research.

There is so much natural cycled potential energy sources for electro conversion like tidal, sea temperature, hydro, magma.

For example there is an estuary in Wales where the sea level rises and falls 40m with the tide, they are planning a giant or series of lagoons for hydro conversion that will give reliable, sustainable, clean energy equivalent to 6% of the whole UK's current usage.

Why not build 50? Or is this too boring?

There must be other sources too? How else can we tap into the earth’s rotation?

[screamingflies]

electric cars fueled by nuclear reactors JAJAJJA like on sim-city, those nuclear power plants sure do the trick
building 50 would sure be expensive wouldnt it

[tinribz]

building 50 would sure be expensive wouldnt it The Severn Estuary one (and it was 40ft not m) was quoted at about 15 billion I think so about ?750 billion! How much are the fossil / conventional fuel industries worth though?

[Ka.avik]

When you can package a nuclear reactor in my trunk, let me know.

Until then, electric cars are for citiots who have to drive to pick up their mail.

I'll stick with BioDiesel, thank you.

[screamingflies]

no you could charge up some kind of battery with the power from a nuclear reactor is what i meant cant they develop something like that it seems like they could
anyway i really dont know