Hydrogen can fuel the future
Discussion
Honda says it has solved the H2 storage problem by lining the tank with a special material, such as line acetylene tanks. Honda is also apparently producing H2 from natural gas, a prcess which seems to require less energy than water separation. They say they have a few such vehicles already running about. Their concern now is getting the H2 separation apparatus small and inexpensive enough for consumers to put in their houses, so as to fuel their own vehicles.
Damn clever, these Japanese...
Damn clever, these Japanese...
greybeard said:
Honda says it has solved the H2 storage problem by lining the tank with a special material, such as line acetylene tanks. Honda is also apparently producing H2 from natural gas, a prcess which seems to require less energy than water separation. They say they have a few such vehicles already running about. Their concern now is getting the H2 separation apparatus small and inexpensive enough for consumers to put in their houses, so as to fuel their own vehicles.
Damn clever, these Japanese...
Damn clever, these Japanese...
Yes, I read this too. Hydrogen can be prodiced from natural gas I recall, and Honda have created a box about 30cm square that extracts it from your regular gas supply. You carry on warming up curries, the hydrogen goes into your car for the next day.
All sounds too good to be true! Until, of course, you remember that we will run out of gas soon sometime. But hopefully then the demand for hydrogen and advances will have better ways of extracting and distributing it.
Let me try and dig out what I read on this....
ETA: www.channel4.com/4car/di/road+test/driving+impression/5114/2
Edited by hendry on Monday 4th December 21:00
Shit idea, bottom line.
The Environmental Scientists aren't properly down with thermodynamics and chemistry, hence their ideas are crap. That is the bottom line and the end of the discussion.
Sadly, the whole concept doesn't even stand up to debate, like man made global warming.
Even if they do come up with an alternative idea (we'll give them a bit of hope) in the context of geological time, it's a joke.
Enough said on this matter :lock:
The Environmental Scientists aren't properly down with thermodynamics and chemistry, hence their ideas are crap. That is the bottom line and the end of the discussion.
Sadly, the whole concept doesn't even stand up to debate, like man made global warming.
Even if they do come up with an alternative idea (we'll give them a bit of hope) in the context of geological time, it's a joke.
Enough said on this matter :lock:
I haven't seen so much pseudo-scientific, negative drivel since, well, since the last time the subject of Hydrogen came up on this forum... Everyone who has gone to the trouble of explaining how expensive Hydrogen is to produce using current techniques, is wasting everyone's time: obviously, worldwide electricity production has to be transformed into something efficient and sustainable - presumably, mass-scale solar production in the world's major deserts. Nobel-laureate Chemist Rick Smalley - a specialist in world energy production issues - calculated that about 4% of the area of the major equatorial deserts would be ample to supply far more than even the anticipated power needs for all human industry. Expensive - yes, but it, or something else that's sustainable, is necessary; otherwise we're scr*wed.
Hydrogen may have long-term storage and transportation problems, or it may not - ingenious humans have a history of overcoming endless "insurmountable" problems. Regardless, however; Hydrogen production via electricity, using solar power on a huge scale, has the potential to power clean, sustainable personal transportation. I'm only aware of one other proposed system - based on 'straight' electric cars - which offers the potential for long-term sustainability. This approach seems to have two essential problems - battery technology, and long-range transmission losses - and it seems to me that the battery problem may be more intractable, in the long run, since the chemical pollution caused by battery mass-production seems harder to eliminate.
Hydrogen may have long-term storage and transportation problems, or it may not - ingenious humans have a history of overcoming endless "insurmountable" problems. Regardless, however; Hydrogen production via electricity, using solar power on a huge scale, has the potential to power clean, sustainable personal transportation. I'm only aware of one other proposed system - based on 'straight' electric cars - which offers the potential for long-term sustainability. This approach seems to have two essential problems - battery technology, and long-range transmission losses - and it seems to me that the battery problem may be more intractable, in the long run, since the chemical pollution caused by battery mass-production seems harder to eliminate.
love machine said:
Shit idea, bottom line.
The Environmental Scientists aren't properly down with thermodynamics and chemistry, hence their ideas are crap. That is the bottom line and the end of the discussion.
Sadly, the whole concept doesn't even stand up to debate, like man made global warming.
Even if they do come up with an alternative idea (we'll give them a bit of hope) in the context of geological time, it's a joke.
Enough said on this matter :lock:
The Environmental Scientists aren't properly down with thermodynamics and chemistry, hence their ideas are crap. That is the bottom line and the end of the discussion.
Sadly, the whole concept doesn't even stand up to debate, like man made global warming.
Even if they do come up with an alternative idea (we'll give them a bit of hope) in the context of geological time, it's a joke.
Enough said on this matter :lock:
How pleased I am to read some real expert contribution to this topic. I am encouraged to hear that global warming isn't happening and that current fuel infrastructures are tapped into a limitless supply...
As far as I can see, the concept of hydrogen fuel celled vehicles makes some sense, the challenge being "efficeint" production of hydrogen - an ever-lasting commodity. Given that it will take a few years to sort the cars for this technology, it makes sense to do this in the hope that governments grasp the nettle down the line and work towards better ways of getting hydrogen to the people. It's all do-able, it will just cost. But we have to be putting SOME consideration to what we do when the fossil fuels run out, and if we act sooner then there may be a benefit to the air we breathe in the shorter-term too.
I even like the look of the Honda thingy...
The argument that Hydrogen production consumes more energy than it could possibly is pretty much irrelevant. Its akin to saying the the production of meat from cows isn't sustainable because the cows consume more energy than you would get from the meat. Ture, but when you want steak and chips its a totaly irrelevant argument.
A similar argument could be levelled at electric cars; batteries can never produce more energy than was put into them, and inevitably there will be losses, so what's the point? Not the best analogy I admit; electric cars - what is the point?
Nuclear power has the potential to produce vast amounts of electrical energy, so I don't see that as an issue. Plonk a hydrogen "cracker plant" next to every nuclear reactor. The "cost" of producing the hydrogen will be lost in the inevitable fuel tax levied, so it is a complete non issue.
On balance then, seems like something of a breakthrough. The thought of hydrogen leaking out and filling my garage doesn't seem too appealing though. Just imagine if some wag decides to name the first commercially available hydrogen powered car the Honda Hindenberg ...
A similar argument could be levelled at electric cars; batteries can never produce more energy than was put into them, and inevitably there will be losses, so what's the point? Not the best analogy I admit; electric cars - what is the point?
Nuclear power has the potential to produce vast amounts of electrical energy, so I don't see that as an issue. Plonk a hydrogen "cracker plant" next to every nuclear reactor. The "cost" of producing the hydrogen will be lost in the inevitable fuel tax levied, so it is a complete non issue.
On balance then, seems like something of a breakthrough. The thought of hydrogen leaking out and filling my garage doesn't seem too appealing though. Just imagine if some wag decides to name the first commercially available hydrogen powered car the Honda Hindenberg ...
victormeldrew said:
hendry said:
love machine said:
... Sadly, the whole concept doesn't even stand up to debate, like man made global warming. ...
... I am encouraged to hear that global warming isn't happening ...And your defence of LM's real point is what?
We can't do anything about volcanoes, but we can curb what crap we chuck into the air, can't we?
I have had my time driving round for the fun of it in TVRs, but I am interested in making life a little bit easier for all given that my average speed these days seems to be 18mph. I am reluctant to give up the freedom of a car, so accept that I probably need to do my 18mph in a car that isn't so "damaging" (and that takes many forms).
If us lot as petrolheads aren't showing some enthusiasm to make genuine valid alternatives work, we may end up being TOLD how it will all work instead. Rather a hyrdogen car and perhaps an old Bristol for weekend blatting than be robbed off both and be forced onto a tram for every journey.
hendry said:
victormeldrew said:
hendry said:
love machine said:
... Sadly, the whole concept doesn't even stand up to debate, like man made global warming. ...
... I am encouraged to hear that global warming isn't happening ...And your defence of LM's real point is what?
We can't do anything about volcanoes, but we can curb what crap we chuck into the air, can't we?
I have had my time driving round for the fun of it in TVRs, but I am interested in making life a little bit easier for all given that my average speed these days seems to be 18mph. I am reluctant to give up the freedom of a car, so accept that I probably need to do my 18mph in a car that isn't so "damaging" (and that takes many forms).
If us lot as petrolheads aren't showing some enthusiasm to make genuine valid alternatives work, we may end up being TOLD how it will all work instead. Rather a hyrdogen car and perhaps an old Bristol for weekend blatting than be robbed off both and be forced onto a tram for every journey.
Avocet said:
But if we make the hydrogen using "free" power like wind (or better still, tidal barrages) does it matter how inefficient the process is?
Yes, because these energy "sources" still cost an absoloute mint to set up in the first place and therefore don't produce "cheap" electricity. They make expensive electricity.
Andy
Stephen White said:
I haven't seen so much pseudo-scientific, negative drivel since, well, since the last time the subject of Hydrogen came up on this forum... Everyone who has gone to the trouble of explaining how expensive Hydrogen is to produce using current techniques, is wasting everyone's time: obviously, worldwide electricity production has to be transformed into something efficient and sustainable - presumably, mass-scale solar production in the world's major deserts. Nobel-laureate Chemist Rick Smalley - a specialist in world energy production issues - calculated that about 4% of the area of the major equatorial deserts would be ample to supply far more than even the anticipated power needs for all human industry.
Yeah, at 100% efficiency.
And you're talking about laying out a few hundred thousand square km of solar panels at 15% efficiency, with a capital cost of 50 times the world GDP. The point about consuming fuels is that they are relatively cheap. Once they get beyond a certain price no one can afford to buy them. This is why your average 14th century peasant didn't own a horse. They were simply too damned expensive (you need land for fodder crop to feed your horse).
Once fossil fuel gets to the point where you need more energy to get it out the ground than you get back from it, there is no point extracting it.
Its the same with your desert proposal. Once it gets too energy/labour intensive, then there is no point, as no one will be able to afford the energy being produced.
On another note, you might like to try and work out how much energy we can produce from non nuclear sources in the UK.
It is claimed that a good yeild of biomass from one hectare is about 10,000kg per season. Now if you assume this is wood like, then that would be 50,000kWh per season. Or an average of 137kWh per day. Which if you can magically turn into electricity is enough for about 15 houses.
Anyone know how many homes we've got and how much (set aside) land we've got.
Andy
1 gal of petrol consumes 32500w/h of energy to produce, this will take a Honda Insight 75miles on average.
1.53kg of H2 will take a Honda FCX the same distance FCX, BUT the hydrogen takes 173600w/h of energy to produce.
Granted if we rely on current technologies to produce the hydrogen then it would appear to be a dead end, using over 5x more energy to produce than the equivalent amount of petrol.
HOWEVER, the hydrogen relies on electricity to break down the atoms, this electricity can be obtained from one of the mainy reneable energy sources that are already proven, therefore the real word impact, if the proper investment is allowed, is zero, effectivley water in = water out.
1.53kg of H2 will take a Honda FCX the same distance FCX, BUT the hydrogen takes 173600w/h of energy to produce.
Granted if we rely on current technologies to produce the hydrogen then it would appear to be a dead end, using over 5x more energy to produce than the equivalent amount of petrol.
HOWEVER, the hydrogen relies on electricity to break down the atoms, this electricity can be obtained from one of the mainy reneable energy sources that are already proven, therefore the real word impact, if the proper investment is allowed, is zero, effectivley water in = water out.
victormeldrew said:
hendry said:
victormeldrew said:
hendry said:
love machine said:
... Sadly, the whole concept doesn't even stand up to debate, like man made global warming. ...
... I am encouraged to hear that global warming isn't happening ...And your defence of LM's real point is what?
We can't do anything about volcanoes, but we can curb what crap we chuck into the air, can't we?
I have had my time driving round for the fun of it in TVRs, but I am interested in making life a little bit easier for all given that my average speed these days seems to be 18mph. I am reluctant to give up the freedom of a car, so accept that I probably need to do my 18mph in a car that isn't so "damaging" (and that takes many forms).
If us lot as petrolheads aren't showing some enthusiasm to make genuine valid alternatives work, we may end up being TOLD how it will all work instead. Rather a hyrdogen car and perhaps an old Bristol for weekend blatting than be robbed off both and be forced onto a tram for every journey.
No he didn't. But "Shit idea, bottom line. Enough said on this matter :lock:" didn't add a stack to a debate about hydrogen fuel cell cars powering our future, which I think we both agree would have many positive effects outside of the whole catastrophic climate change debate (which I don't desire to debate).
I am sure his point was made fecetiously and I responded in the same way. Wouldn't it add more to this topic to discuss his supposition that hydrogen fuel cells are a non-flyer, which I went on to argue?
Edited by hendry on Tuesday 5th December 13:45
markelvin said:
therefore the real word impact, if the proper investment is allowed, is zero, effectivley water in = water out.
Whatever method you use to take energy from the environment is going to affect the environment. If you use solar power you put large areas of ground in the shade and could change the surrounding temperature distribution and climate conditions substantially. If you use tidal power you damp down the waves which may affect the ecosystem at the shore. If you use wind power you may effect the wind in the surrounding area, and I don't suppose all those birds that fly into your windmill will be too happy about being shredded.
If you put your solar power station at the equator then you're reproducing the current situation where a large proportion of the developed world is dependant on the countries that control the means of energy production.
Using fossil fuel isn't free of consequences, but neither are any of the alternatives.
Edited by GreenV8S on Tuesday 5th December 13:40
GreenV8S said:
markelvin said:
therefore the real word impact, if the proper investment is allowed, is zero, effectivley water in = water out.
Whatever method you use to take energy from the environment is going to affect the environment.
Using fossil fuel isn't free of consequences, but neither are any of the alternatives......
That's OK then, well keep burning fossil fuel & not worry about it!!!!
It's about minmising the impact on the environment that man causes, we live on a fantastic planet, that is on the verge of irreparble damage.
Wind turbines, water turbines, solar panels produce zero CO2 in operation.
Edited by markelvin on Tuesday 5th December 13:45
The BMW thing does seem a bit pointless though, as it burns hydrogen in an IC engine, producing harmfull emissions, albeit drastically reduced.
Honda have the way forward IMO. Sure, current hyrdogen production is still harmful, but then we can kick the government for polluting for once through a crap energy strategy, rather than take the rap ourselves. I'd be happy knowing my part was clean and that the World's experts and accountants were then working on a way to get the clean energy to me more efficeintly.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff