Like the illusion of Wall Street, with its vast and powerful investment banks, now shuttered, China too is an illusion perpetuated by the Globalists that gave us the 15,000 mile Caesar salad, poisoned cat food and lead based paint on babies' pacifiers. Like the illusion that money would come from thin air to always push housing prices higher, China has spent a generation pursuing its illusion. Pursuing an unattainable dream to be like the West, while 6000 years of its carefully shepherded top soil blows into the sea.
Just a quick question. Whatever the actual quantity of hydrogen used in that test how much energy did it take to extract that hydrogen in the first place? EROEI.
Impressive, but the story leaves a lot of unanswered questions. Were they using liquid hydrogen or compressed? If compressed, how many atmospheres, as Devil asks? I think what we need to know here is how much energy, measured in calories or whatever, was actually used to move this vehicle (calling it a car would be a stretch). And then, how much energy was expended to create that energy, what was the EROEI just for the fuel?
Once we know those answers, then we can begin talking about the possibilities this holds for the future. Ballard has credibility, but the company has run into some serious problems because it can't show the practical, real-world feasibility of its products.
Impressive performance can be obtained by just about any traditional powerplant as long as mass, rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag are minimized and you don't want to accelerate very fast. Today's hybrid technology could be better IMO if smaller IC engines were used.
Joined: May 21, 2004 Posts: 198 Location: East Coast USA
Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2005 7:37 pm Post subject: Silicon as an Energy Carrier: Better than Hydrogen?
This Deutsche Bank research report discusses the potential use of ordinary sand to be coverted into pure silicon at a solar or other renewable power station. Silicon as an intermediary between renewable energy and hydrogen
The silicon functions as an energy carrier (much in the way that hydrogen does, only easier to store and transport), which can be combined with ordinary air to release its stored energy. The overall efficiency of the cycle is comparable to that of the water --> hydrogen --> water cycle. In addition, the silicon can be used to synthesize ammonia-based fertilizers that presently require natural gas as a feedstock.
I think that this technology might actually have promise for the future. Perhaps Saudi Arabia, with its sand and sunshine, will remain the world's energy Mecca (pun intended) even after its oil is depleted.
Interesting read. _________________ www.searchingforthetruth.com
The truth that is suppressed by friends is the readiest weapon of the enemy.
- Robert Louis Stevenson
the sloar power aspect seems most viable.
on windy days you won't need the fuel cell, thats what the sails are for, right?
The questions are:
A) can this system work on only solar?
B) does the fuel cell use platinum?
C) (as stated above by taskforce)
D) Cost vs. Bio-diesel
E) Filtering of sea water, how much energy does that take?
F) Would not an array of solar do better than just 2 pannels?
Quote:
Self-sufficiency doesn't come cheap, though: HaveBlue's system will run $300,000 to $550,000. (Boat sold separately.)
I think I'll buy a porche and a sailboat and still be ahead. _________________ With Love to all, and Malice to none.
"A people is conquered not when they lose a war, but when they adopt the song and customs of the enemy"
-Chacham S
Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2005 9:19 pm Post subject: Hydrogen storage and distribution issues makes it a loser
I am reading a book, The Hype about Hydrogen, by Joseph J. Romm. Its a down to earth book, not so exciting to read but it seems well researched.
One interesting point made, which would apply even if hydrogen were abundantly available, and if fuel cells were cheap and reliable, is that the fuel handling challenges with hydrogen are huge.
Looking at high pressure gaseous storage, for instance, a tank pressurized at 5,000 psi would have to be ten times the volume of a gasoline tank to provide the same range for a tank fill as gasoline today. Imagine the strength of material it would take to safely do that. Such pressure tanks always have to be cylindrical, so now we have a major design challenge for a car, maybe even a practical impossibility. And, the cost is monster too, Romm speculates that the tank alone would cost $2,400. (That figure is approximately the manufacturers cost of the engine and transmission sub-assembly in a typical car today, net of fixed investment!)
If we go above this pressure level to say 10,000 psi, the volume of the tank goes down, so the tank would 'only' be five times the size but the material strength needs go way up. But, even worse, the energy consumed just in compressing the hydrogen would be immense. At current rates of CO2 released by the electrical utilities, the result would be that just the hydrogen compression demand would produce one-third the CO2 released that burning gasoline in the same car does today.
Then there is liquification. But, that has no net benefit in CO2 release, the massive multi-stage compression effort to liquify the hydrogen would equal its energy value. And, as NASA finds with rockets, liquid hydrogen has a "boil-off" rate of 4% per day. If you fill up the tank and park the car, you'd find that in say a week, you'd only have three-quarters of tank left. So, there would be a large amount of wastage.
One thing I have always been puzzled by the hydrogen "vision" is just what it offers that electrical battery vehciles would not acheive in a simpler manner. In essence, hydrogen just seems to end up being an energy transfer medium, so why not just put our efforts into battery powered cars. Hydrogen power does not seem to offer anything better in terms of range, relative to batteries, due to the low energy density. And, the whole balance of the electrical components for vehicle use are well understood, as is the electrical distribution investment.
From my point of view, the inventive effort going into fuel cells today is out of step. It would be like Thomas Edison working night and day in 1650 to develop a bulb, but with no steam engine as prime mover or even the electromagnetic generator to go with that. It would have only been good for flashlights.
Good points. Nanotechnology would help the battery problem of size (R&D into nanotube batteries which would be much more efficient than current ones is already going on, I understand). Maybe I should consider this a major soft landing technology. I still think hydrogen will have its uses, however, but I am changing my mind about the hydrogen car/electric car "balance". Thanks for the info!
Denny, There are already several threads on hydrogen that cover these issues. Do NOT start new threads on subjects already posted, add to the exisiting threads. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 1:21 pm Post subject: Natural Gas Vehicle as interim stage toward hydrogen
This is a link to a report by INFORM, a non-profit environmental firm which has some strlong recommendations for natural gas vehicles, for the present day reduced emission perspective and as there are elements of the technology that lend themslevs to future adaptation for a hydrogen delivery infrastructure.
Interesting background information, not all new for sure for most Peakoil participants, but neatly summarized in one place. The Transportation Boom in Asia
Joined: Oct 12, 2004 Posts: 1647 Location: Davis, California
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 1:41 pm Post subject:
The North American continent is for the most part in decline with regards to natural gas. LNG tankers are in short supply and already contracted out for most of the year. We have 3 LNG terminals, while we need 50 to meet demand.
For other parts of the world, it could be a transition fuel, but for the US, I don't think it will fly that well. _________________ Joseph Stalin "It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. "
NG is essentially methane and essentially fossil fuel (I'll except the small biogas production). Methane is CH4. See that C? That means carbon. When you burn the stuff, you get the following reaction: CH4 + 2O2 > CO2 + 2H2O. OK, CO2 = carbon dioxide = greenhouse gas = climate change. Get the picture?
Worse, NG processing, transport and distribution is leaky. In reality, an estimated 5% is emitted. In terms of greenhouse gas, one kg of CH4 that escapes has the same effect as an average 35 kg of CO2.
Result of your suggestion: a significant increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, more climate change.
We MUST cut down on NG use, not increase it. _________________ Devil
Yes, methane is CH4. But the ratio of hydrogen to carbon is much more than in petroleum. So, powering vehicles by natural gas releases less CO2 than any form of petroleum.
Its also interesting that one of the technologies mentioned, by Cummins Westport, uses a more efficient thermodynamic cycle than most internal cumbustion engines by injecting natural gas, in place of fuel oil, into the cylinders of what would otherwise be a diesel engine. Thus its efficiency is far better than an Otto cycle engine, but avoids the particulate soot and higher CO2 emissions of a diesel.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Batteries have problems too, but atleast the technology, production are there... hydrogen=hype
