So you want a Hydrogen car? (1164 hits)
Category: Science & EnvironmentalRating: 0.4 on 101 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Indoninja (View user info) at 2006-01-31 09:34:48 EST
Sounds great doesn't it?
No emissions, that has to be better for the environment right?
Wrong. There is NO clean cheap way to get clean hydrogen.
Let me throw out this analogy for you. Lets say you have a house with a gas stove. You want to heat up some soup. You could use the gas stove, but that is bad because it is gas and we love the earth and don't want to pollute. I know I will take my light bulb, it isn't polluting, and it is giving off heat, so I will use it to heat my soup. Yes it is less effecient, and will take longer, but I don't see or smell pollution, so it must be better?
The energy for that light bulb has to come from somewhere, the energy for hydrogen has to come somehwere. Yes it is the most abundant element, but it isn't found naturally in large quantaties in pure form. Right now the most efficient method still uses fossil fuels and is still inefficient compared to just using the fossil fuel, "converting a hydrocarbon fuel such as natural gas or gasoline into hydrogen to fuel such vehicles uses substantial energy and emits greenhouse gases." There are cleaner ways to produce hydrogen but the energy cost to produce them is even higher. In the end Hydrogen is less efficient and pollutes more.
I am sure someone will point out I am right wing, and therefore hate the environment and love oil. I care a lot about the environment. I don't like the energy policy in the US. But I find it extremely hard to agree or even throw my vote in with so called "green" groups because of their blind love for technology like this. It has a future, but right now IT DOESN'T WORK.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/enviro/EnviroRepublish_802512.htm
http://lfee.mit.edu/metadot/index.pl
User Reviews
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-02-01 12:03:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I live in CA. maybe it's different in other states, but most of the gas here has ethanol in it. It's an octane booster, and helps the gas burn cleaner. It's not as much ethanol as Gasohol, but it's still there. There are also other issues that caused the downfall of Gasohol, not just gas prices.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/g1/gasohol.asp
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-02-01 11:48:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-01-31 11:07:21 (#)
Ranking: 0
Well then maybe you can explain why back when Carter was president gasohol pumps were springing up all over the country, then suddenly Reagan was in the Whitehouse complete with Rummy, Cheney, and the usual suspects all buds of the Saudis and like magic dust, they were gone.
------------------------
gasohol is the gas equivalent to bio-diesel. Unless gas gets very expensive it is too costly to porduce. This wasn't a conspiracy, it was because yhe price of gas dropped.
Submitted by precision (user info) at 2006-01-31 23:48:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I run my ventfree fireplace logs on hydrogen...it has only cost me about $8 (as opposed to over $100 a month last year for natural gas) to heat my whole house this entire winter so far. The only reason it is so cheap is because I use a chemical method to produce the hydrogen/oxygen mix. A hydrogen car idea is a good one, but many years from being practical.
Submitted by Jacobt26 (user info) at 2006-01-31 19:45:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Thank god someone out here knows about this.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2006-01-31 18:41:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2006-01-31 09:59:00 (#)
Ranking: 0
You have a degree in engineering and economics?
It seems you spent hours researching this subject.
--------------------------------
Hahahaha
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-01-31 18:24:05 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-01-31 14:29:55 (#)
Ranking: 1
Is it just me or is Onion saying 'why don't we put perpetual motion machines in our cars?'
------
that's a bad idea - what happens when you want to stop?
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-01-31 16:17:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
And I don't see the point of generating electricity in order to produce Hydrogen, I recon electric cars will become feasible over the next decade or two.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-01-31 16:15:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
I don't think nuclear is a good idea, it pollutes a bit of the normal stuff and Nuclear waste is a bugger to store I think the future on a nuclear scale of 10-20 years is in many small power sources, individual wind turbines in peoples backyards, solar is becoming more popular as it slowly becomes more and more efficient, in chinese rural communities where almost every home has a collection of farmy animals biomass is becoming a big sucess. All the newset types of energy now don't rely on economies of scale so much, and I think a great many people will start generating their own, whether filtering hydrogen from rainwater, or solar, or windturbines or watermills or whatever.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-31 16:02:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-01-31 15:09:14 (#)
Ranking: 0
Again, I give you this link: http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_production_delivery.html
Even if hydrogen takes electricity to produce, we're going to still have to move toward nuclear over coal, which is cleaner and has no climatological impact, where coal and oil and natural gas do.
Even if what you say were true, I'd take hydrogen production using energy produced from nuclear power over driving vehicles with internal combustion engines that require oil procured from foreign (often hostile) nations, and burning coal to produce electricity for my A/C in my house.
------------------------------
What I say is true, the link there is interesting, and that technology shows promise, but doesn't seem ready, even from what they said. Mostly they are presenting papers on research, not even prototypes.
To get a Nuclear reactor up in running would require about 10 years, 5 at the lowest if we were to completely copy an older design. Changing to fuel cells will take a long time.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-01-31 15:09:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Again, I give you this link: http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_production_delivery.html
Even if hydrogen takes electricity to produce, we're going to still have to move toward nuclear over coal, which is cleaner and has no climatological impact, where coal and oil and natural gas do.
Even if what you say were true, I'd take hydrogen production using energy produced from nuclear power over driving vehicles with internal combustion engines that require oil procured from foreign (often hostile) nations, and burning coal to produce electricity for my A/C in my house.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-01-31 14:48:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Yes it was a joke.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-01-31 14:47:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You need to generate the energy anyway to start KH moving..its not going to create energy out of nowhere.
thinking about it, it could be used to make cars more energy efficient by harveting the energy from braking...but how the hell are you gonna fit one of them on each wheel in the car?
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-01-31 14:47:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-01-31 14:36:04 (#)
Ranking: 0
"but seriously, if they can get a little tiny battery to run a watch for months after a day why isn't it feasible?"
My watch is amazingly small compared to me, powering the watch.
You are suggesting that the car powers the thing which generates the power for the car.
Won't work, maybe one of those old crank handles they had on cars in the old old days and you could do it, take a lot of cranking for a long journey though.
Pedals would be better, of course in most cars you need your feet for accelarator/braking/clutch, but those could be controlled by hand with a few modifications...pedalling could be made easier by removing much of the weight, the fuel tank and engine, those spare seats you rarely ever use, you'd only really need 3 or maybe even two wheels. But an invention like that is just a pipe dream.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you probably intended this as a joke, which was funny, but for those who didn't get it.
DC just invented the Bicycle...again.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-01-31 14:43:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
No, but what I'm saying is that the amount of energy required ot power the watch for a long time can be generated my me moving my arm once, and I won't even notice the drag of the watch.
A car takes HUGE amounts of energy, you couldn't fit a kinetic harvester big enough inside your car AND you'd need something strong enough to set that KH moving fast enough for all the energy...it just wouldn't work.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-01-31 14:41:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
yeah i forgot to use my words sorry.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-01-31 14:40:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Of course its me powering the watch, its my movement that generates the energy
Where else did you think my watch got its power from?
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-01-31 14:40:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
or it's not your size powering the watch i should say.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-01-31 14:38:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
but it's not you that's powering the watch. if you sit there for a few minutes and shake the watch it only travels a few inches but gets a few days of power.
or an impeller, but like for air. fuck that i'm gonna get a jet engine on my car and just give up at ever being economical with fuel.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-01-31 14:36:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"but seriously, if they can get a little tiny battery to run a watch for months after a day why isn't it feasible?"
My watch is amazingly small compared to me, powering the watch.
You are suggesting that the car powers the thing which generates the power for the car.
Won't work, maybe one of those old crank handles they had on cars in the old old days and you could do it, take a lot of cranking for a long journey though.
Pedals would be better, of course in most cars you need your feet for accelarator/braking/clutch, but those could be controlled by hand with a few modifications...pedalling could be made easier by removing much of the weight, the fuel tank and engine, those spare seats you rarely ever use, you'd only really need 3 or maybe even two wheels. But an invention like that is just a pipe dream.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-01-31 14:32:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
no... seriously i'm trying to freaking find it. it was in highschool for christ's sake you think i paid enough attention to the video to catch the freakin name? on another note i did find a company in india that does kinetic engines in motorcycles, very little gas which either way would be an improvement.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-01-31 14:29:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Is it just me or is Onion saying 'why don't we put perpetual motion machines in our cars?'
Submitted by nahnoneofit (user info) at 2006-01-31 14:29:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
there are MANY, MANY ways we could have a mass produced, pollution free vehicle. it would take alot of fine-tuning but its obivously very possible.
the problem is humans are greedy sons of bitches, and nobody wants to spend the money on creating these vehicles.
think about it. nobody wants to spend the MONEY. nobody wants to give up their precious peices of paper they deem are worth something, in exchange for saving the planet.
so why aspire to save a race with that mentality in the first place?
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-01-31 14:27:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-01-31 14:09:02 (#)
Ranking: 0
better yet, a car that runs on a series of alternators that feed one another in a cycle, of course they would need an initial jump but once they were running they would just work in succession.
Brilliant!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's perpetual motion(movement, energy, whatever). This type of energy is never going to exist on this planet. If it were that easy, I don't think you would have been the first to think of it.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-31 14:13:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-01-31 14:07:52 (#)
Ranking: 0
but the initial spark from the batter does set a starter's insides spinning. we need to figure out the actual proportions a flywheel, or even series of them would need to be to get and keep a car running. it's easy enough to work out a brake system, but seriously, if they can get a little tiny battery to run a watch for months after a day why isn't it feasible? the car i was talking about i don't think was a flywheel. it was something alot more functional it seemed. i'm going to try and find it. but just through the motion of the car, technically the entire mass of the vehicle is one big ball of stored energy so the energy in the system to begin with is really greater than what's being used just to alternate power.
-------------------------------------------
Every time the car stops it loses all that power. Every time it sppeds up it needs more power. If the system is being used to generate power it needs more power. It needs that power from an external source, gas, a battery already charged, or a fuel cell.
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-01-31 14:09:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
how about cars that run on those little handcrank flashlights
or or or
better yet, a car that runs on a series of alternators that feed one another in a cycle, of course they would need an initial jump but once they were running they would just work in succession.
Brilliant!!
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-01-31 14:07:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
but the initial spark from the batter does set a starter's insides spinning. we need to figure out the actual proportions a flywheel, or even series of them would need to be to get and keep a car running. it's easy enough to work out a brake system, but seriously, if they can get a little tiny battery to run a watch for months after a day why isn't it feasible? the car i was talking about i don't think was a flywheel. it was something alot more functional it seemed. i'm going to try and find it. but just through the motion of the car, technically the entire mass of the vehicle is one big ball of stored energy so the energy in the system to begin with is really greater than what's being used just to alternate power. just hafta tap it.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-01-31 14:05:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
They have regenerative breaking and that's about it. I think they can install 3 pedal devices for passengers to produce electricity.
Submitted by nahnoneofit (user info) at 2006-01-31 14:03:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
one day, we could go to over planets or nebulae made of pure hydrogen and harvest, and birng it back to earth.
but by then we'll all have been burnt to a crisp by the suns ultraviolet rays because we destroyed the atmosphere.
or simply nuked oursleves.
or created massive world wide epidemics of psyhological and physiological diseases because of wanton use of medications that only make the strains and disorders stronger and morew resiliant to the bodies natural immunities.
or a super volcano, or a giant meteor, or a race of aliens.....
but yea, save the enviroment and shit... thatll help.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-01-31 13:53:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I want an Hydrogen Bomb.
I bet the NSA read that.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-31 13:53:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-01-31 13:32:53 (#)
Ranking: 0
ok wait exactly how does the second law of thermodynamics say you can't put an alternator into that system and have it work? i know this is a completely different scale but there are watch batteries that can carry months worth of charges just from a day of wearing it. an alternator just recycles the energy that's already in the car, so does the flywheel. it'd be a continuous cycle. i understand it needs to be perfected. but currently the only initial energe required to actually start your car is one spark to your starter and then proceeding sparks to the distributor and all that to make the car run. the battery is only needed for that first part. so if the energy's there at the beginning and it's recycled and stored the way a kinetic watch battery works why would it deplete?
--------------------------
The spark doesn't make the car run. The burning of the gas does.
The watch batteries work because the motion of your wrist compared to the weight of the hand on a watch is huge.
The flywheel can't spin by itself (to make a car move it must be very heavy) so we are talking about a lot of energy to get it started. Everytime you speed the car up you are going to have to spped the fly wheel up again (car goes faster when you slow down the wheel). Now if you are trying to charge the battery by tapping into the wheel's kinetic energy it won't work because they will keep sapping power from each other. There are no systems that creat more energy then put in.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-01-31 13:45:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
the good kinetic watches can store months of power from wearing the watch for one day. i'm not saying watches are on the same level, but considering all the time, effort and money we put into making things tiny and portable you think we'd be able to make something bigger for a car.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-01-31 13:41:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
A watch probably requires MUCH MUCH less power.
Think of it this way... use a bike pedal to power a small alternator to power a light bulb. As long as you spin the pedal, the light bulb will work. If you have a small battery on board, excess electricity will go to the battery to power the light bulb.
Now...
Instead of powering a light bulb, you have to power an electric oven. You are going to have to commit yourself to spinning that pedal much more quickly and even so, you'll never spin it fast enough to generate the output of that device. The battery will help you use the power at first, but it will be depleted and then, eventually, you will not have enough power for your oven to work.
Those watches generate much more power than it uses.
Am I wrong to think this?
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-01-31 13:37:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
walking is not practical.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-01-31 13:32:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
ok wait exactly how does the second law of thermodynamics say you can't put an alternator into that system and have it work? i know this is a completely different scale but there are watch batteries that can carry months worth of charges just from a day of wearing it. an alternator just recycles the energy that's already in the car, so does the flywheel. it'd be a continuous cycle. i understand it needs to be perfected. but currently the only initial energe required to actually start your car is one spark to your starter and then proceeding sparks to the distributor and all that to make the car run. the battery is only needed for that first part. so if the energy's there at the beginning and it's recycled and stored the way a kinetic watch battery works why would it deplete?
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-01-31 13:31:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
All cities should have stellar mass-transportation systems but MOST (if not ALL) do not.
In Seoul, Korea, you can take a subway across probably 80% of the city and wind up within 1/2 of a mile of where you need to be. Take a bus, and it will put you usually about 1/4 mile from where you need to be. It is CHEAP and is utilized by the masses and not just the folks with DUI's and people who can't afford cars. I think their system is incredible and I respect it alot because of how shitty the USA is in this aspect.
I think that California, the self-proclaimed "most progressive" state, is one of the most SHAMEFUL states in mass transportation. Not merely for the fact that it doesn't exist on a decent level, but I know why it doesn't exist that way...people don't/won't use it.
In Chicago it costs about 4X as much to travel on the subway/elevated train. It costs about 2-3X more to take a bus, and it costs around 5X as much to take a taxi. And it has little to do with the cost of living and alot more to do with regulation and/or competition.
You'd think that the worst traffic in the entire USA would demand something better of their progressive government, wouldn't you?
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-01-31 13:30:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I have a zero-impact and completely economical solution. It's called walking.
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2006-01-31 13:25:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Nah, I like my Hyundai.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-31 13:19:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Unless you mean a regular gas generator in there, but in that case it would just make it less effecient.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-31 13:17:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-01-31 13:11:00 (#)
Ranking: 0
car batteries currently get charged from the alternators. there's nothing to say you can't put an alternator into a kinetic system.
------------------------
In this case yes there is.
The second law of thermodynamics, if your car was to sit there. If you wanted your car to travel you would be breaking the first law of thermodynamics.
You can't have a car battery running a fly wheel that is running an alternator that is charging a battery.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-01-31 13:11:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
car batteries currently get charged from the alternators. there's nothing to say you can't put an alternator into a kinetic system.
Submitted by mush (user info) at 2006-01-31 13:00:35 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
great post captain obvious.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-31 12:57:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-01-31 09:55:25 (#)
Ranking: 0
ok even though this was in indo's retort. basically think about working on that? they may not work as well but of all the things that need improvement and development which would be easiest? something that requires chemical refinements and processes to add a liquid or gas fuel to an engine, or something that's entirely mechanical and is still only connected to a battery. they may not work as well as regular cars NOW, but as far as environmental and econimical advantages, developing a kinetic motor would probably be a lot easier and safer in the short and long term compared to any sort of engine where there's fuel being put into it at a pump. even if it is corn.
-------------------
Sorry inion, but you need to look into this a lot more, it is a good deal more complicated than a wheel and a battery. The battery doesn't just start it spinning it has to repeadedly spin the wheel again, which isn't that effecient. That battery will have to be charged somehow. And the size of the wheel becomes too large for use on anything truck sized (although here is potential in the future for smaller mini type cars).
I am not saying it is a dead end, or that it should be ignored, but auto companies aren't trying to block it, it is just that nobody can get an effecient one working.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-01-31 12:56:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
i could deal with a permanent camping trip. set me up somewhere near a clean fresh body of water and some trees and i'm good. i'd still rather have a car though. love those things.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-01-31 12:50:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
It will happen, but it is years off. Environmentalists are lying to the public to make them believe it is around the corner when it is more or less around the corner and a mile or two down the road.
That's the hazard with environmental looneys. They cry about global warming and then damn nuclear energy. Well, environmentalists, what should we do to provide power?
Hydroelectric - Dams have been ruled out because of environmental impact.
Nuclear - Nuclear powerplants are the devil and are viewed as WORSE than coal-powered plants!
Coal- One of the main culprits of hydrocarbon emissions, the environmentalists hate them.
Wind- GREAT! These are great free sources of power...only NOT IN MY BACKYARD! THEY ARE UGLY! And they kill birds and that makes PETA sad.
Solar- Expensive and impractical in most situations.
What DO the environmentalists want? I think humans living in tents without using power would be something they'd find reasonable.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-01-31 12:49:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-31 10:11:11 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-01-31 09:55:25 (#)
Ranking: 0
i remember this video in ap physics about a car that had basically a kinetic energy engine. it stored up energy to move with a little help from a regular car battery to get started and then to brake it just used a build up of that energy and put it to use in hydraulic pistons or something like that. that's psychotically low emission, if any i can't remember and went 0-60 in like 10 seconds which is decent for most midsized sedans. what're the chances that'll ever be marketed.
-------------------------------
Sorry, but they don't work as well as regular cars, much less hybrids.
http://www.upei.ca/~physics/p261/projects/flywheel1/flywheel1.htm
-------------------
ok even though this was in indo's retort. basically think about working on that? they may not work as well but of all the things that need improvement and development which would be easiest? something that requires chemical refinements and processes to add a liquid or gas fuel to an engine, or something that's entirely mechanical and is still only connected to a battery. they may not work as well as regular cars NOW, but as far as environmental and econimical advantages, developing a kinetic motor would probably be a lot easier and safer in the short and long term compared to any sort of engine where there's fuel being put into it at a pump. even if it is corn.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-31 12:37:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by w1ndsurfer (user info) at 2006-01-31 12:26:38 (#)
Ranking: -1
Actually THERE IS an easy way to make hydrogen. It's called a bunch of solar cells on the roof of a hydrolysis station. Cheap? Not really, but with government subsidizing(like the !#%#$ing oil companies get) it would work.
P.S. No I'm not a greenie leftist, I am a mostly right-wing libertarian. Politics should not be an issue here.
--------------------
Yeah it works, but it is very inneffecient, the energy would be better used directly on the house.
I am also pretty sure that they don't have materials that work in water for a long period of time, meaning they have to be replaced frequently.
I haven't been able to find any working prototypes that could feasibly produce the amount of hydrogen needed for a fuel cell car. Everything I have read points to that technology not being ready in the next couple of years.
Submitted by w1ndsurfer (user info) at 2006-01-31 12:26:38 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Actually THERE IS an easy way to make hydrogen. It's called a bunch of solar cells on the roof of a hydrolysis station. Cheap? Not really, but with government subsidizing(like the !#%#$ing oil companies get) it would work.
P.S. No I'm not a greenie leftist, I am a mostly right-wing libertarian. Politics should not be an issue here.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-31 12:22:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by cuberat (user info) at 2006-01-31 12:13:07 (#)
Ranking: -2
Right wing=greedy
It only doesn't work in your eyes because you aren't willing to pay a little more for it in the short run.
---------------------
No you dumb fuck it doesn't work because we don't have the technology.
Did you read what I wrote?
What don't you understand? Where are the benefits? You would pay more and cause more pollution with fuel cells. It is a lose-lose situation.
Submitted by MrSparkle847 (user info) at 2006-01-31 12:18:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Right now the most efficient method still uses fossil fuels
____________________
Of COURSE it's the most efficient; that's why we use it. Do you think that in such a country of instant gratification that we would settle for less?
Submitted by cuberat (user info) at 2006-01-31 12:13:07 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I am sure someone will point out I am right wing, and therefore hate the environment and love oil. I care a lot about the environment. I don't like the energy policy in the US. But I find it extremely hard to agree or even throw my vote in with so called "green" groups because of their blind love for technology like this. It has a future, but right now IT DOESN'T WORK.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right wing=greedy
It only doesn't work in your eyes because you aren't willing to pay a little more for it in the short run.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2006-01-31 12:04:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2006-01-31 10:46:54 (#)
Ranking: 2
My understanding was, and I may be totally mistaken, that if we used coal plants (and we have much cleaner plants, but let's assume coal) to produce the neccessary hydrogen, we'd still be polluting less than we are now, although the places where the pollution would be produced would be far more concentrated.
---------
There is a proposal for a site in my county to build a plant that converts coal and coal slag into diesel fuel. The plant is only in the planning stages, and their yearly production run of fuel is already sold. The greenies are going nuts over it though, because the process requires an excessive amount of water, which would draw down the aquifer...that and the high emissions from the coal. Basically, they're converting the BTU's in the coal into a liquid form.
Biodiesel is just vegetable oil mixed with lye that's filtered. It's a very, very feasable alternative, that has significantly less hydrocarbon emmissions. You can make the shit in your garage if you felt inclined to do so.
Submitted by resignator (user info) at 2006-01-31 11:23:58 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Hemp oil produced from cannibas seeds. Perfect renewable fuel source. It burns cleaner than gasoline and 1 acre of pot puts off more oxygen than 6 acres of trees. Not to mention you can use the other parts of the plant for producing clothing, plastics, paper goods, etc. I am truely suprised by how stupid most people are on the subject.
There are even strains of marijuana that contain less than 1% THC (the chemical that gets you high). You would essentially have to smoke a pound of the stuff to get off. Still illegal in the US though for many an asinine reason but mainly because of an ignorant, fearful public.
Hell even the surgeon general stated once that mary jane was the safest psychoactive drug known to man.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-31 11:22:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-01-31 11:07:21 (#)
Ranking: 0
Well then maybe you can explain why back when Carter was president gasohol pumps were springing up all over the country, then suddenly Reagan was in the Whitehouse complete with Rummy, Cheney, and the usual suspects all buds of the Saudis and like magic dust, they were gone.
-------------------------
I had never heard of that, but I would guess that OPEC saw they were being threatened and the upped production. I would be interested to now when exactly they were popping up and what the price of oil was when they disappeared.
Submitted by PokeyPecker (user info) at 2006-01-31 11:12:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
On occassion, I'll have intercouse with an apple, though I find the texture a bit rough.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-01-31 11:12:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Maybe we should be working on methane as a fuel source, god knows this administration is so full of shit that we should be completely free of foreign oil within the month.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-01-31 11:12:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I love these arguments on Ubersite.
Nobody knows anything about the subject matter but arguing back and forth spouting more and more ludicrous google searched info.
Retarded.
Enjoy.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-01-31 11:07:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm talking out of my ass?
Really?
Well then maybe you can explain why back when Carter was president gasohol pumps were springing up all over the country, then suddenly Reagan was in the Whitehouse complete with Rummy, Cheney, and the usual suspects all buds of the Saudis and like magic dust, they were gone.
Submitted by ChurleR (user info) at 2006-01-31 11:01:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
I'm much more interested in biodiesel, it's feasible, it works, and it is easily accessable.
The only problem with biodiesel is preparing enough for an entire population of a country. If we switched to feeding our cattle nothing but gas and used all of the excess soy and corn we're not really supposed to be feeding them for fuel... as well as taking all of the old fryer oil from restuarants and stuff... it might work out.
But I'm not a researcher, so I'm not working on the problem nor do I know the pure logistics of it. I've just seen a couple of cars that my brother has modded to burn biodiesel and it works freaking fantastically.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-31 10:58:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2006-01-31 10:46:30 (#)
Ranking: 0
I never said it was wrong. It just seems like you put about 20 min into this and came up with nothing. Any asshole can sit there and say "this wont work" and scratch his nuts all day. I look at problems and try to find solutions. Guess it's just a difference of opinion.
-----------
I put about five minutes of research into this. I have read about it in the past, whenever I see an article I look into it. But it only took me a minute to find multiple websites from places like MIT that say that right now fuel cells wouldn't be cleaner. If I had seen anything new that countered what I saw at MIT I would have read more. It is a fairly cut and dry argument, if I had thought it required more explanation I would have elaborated. I just wanted to put out some simple facts that counter the "Fuel Cell are the Coolest!1!" argument.
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2006-01-31 10:46:54 (#)
Ranking: 2
My understanding was, and I may be totally mistaken, that if we used coal plants (and we have much cleaner plants, but let's assume coal) to produce the neccessary hydrogen, we'd still be polluting less than we are now, although the places where the pollution would be produced would be far more concentrated.
----------
If you are looking at older cars with bad gas mileage there is probably some debate, but when compared with newer high MPG cars, and hybrids every site I looked at by any decognized expert had hybrids being better for the next 20 years. Now this is all speculation, the process for getting hydrogen might make leaps ahead, but for right now it is no contest.
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-01-31 10:55:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
They need to make cars that run on methane. Then I can just hook my ass up to the ignition system and *bam!* fuel for life.
Submitted by dove666 (user info) at 2006-01-31 10:48:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Mechanics can't figure out whats wrong with current propulsion systems most of the time, and now you want to introduce hydrogen eating engines? Doomed.
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2006-01-31 10:46:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
My understanding was, and I may be totally mistaken, that if we used coal plants (and we have much cleaner plants, but let's assume coal) to produce the neccessary hydrogen, we'd still be polluting less than we are now, although the places where the pollution would be produced would be far more concentrated.
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2006-01-31 10:46:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-31 10:06:11 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2006-01-31 09:59:00 (#)
Ranking: 0
You have a degree in engineering and economics?
It seems you spent hours researching this subject.
-------------
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-01-31 10:00:33 (#)
Ranking: 0
If he has a degree in econimics he should ask for his money back.
--------------------------------
Where are my economics wrong on this? It is pretty cut and dry, I think a high school kid could see how this wouldn't work.
--------------------------------
I never said it was wrong. It just seems like you put about 20 min into this and came up with nothing. Any asshole can sit there and say "this wont work" and scratch his nuts all day. I look at problems and try to find solutions. Guess it's just a difference of opinion.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-01-31 10:42:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.dieselveg.com/
£475 is about $900 I recon, if it costs 60% then you'd be inprofit in however long it would normally take you to spend $1500 on fuel.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-01-31 10:35:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Loki, I have no idea what was going on vis a vis diesel in 80s USA, but even to me it sounds like you're talking out of your arse.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-31 10:30:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Loki,
gasohol has nothing to do with fuel cells. If you mean alternative neergy in general, you can look at tons of cases where further use of wind, solar, and nuclear has not been explored.
I don't remember a big push during the reagan administration for a change. And how did Opec crush it, did they cut the price of oil?
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-01-31 10:24:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
If OPEC had not crushed the Carter administration's attempt to convert the country to gasohol then we would be a good 20 years further along with this sort of thing than we are now.
Oh was it OPEC or was it Reagan, now that I think about it I'm pretty sure it was Reagan who yanked the plug on alternative energy. I wonder if that explains all those pictures of Rummy with Saddam.
Submitted by ozzy (user info) at 2006-01-31 10:15:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.ubersite.com/m/83202
It would help if I link whored correctly.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2006-01-31 10:15:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Bio mass hydrogen generators. On the sea, with rotting seaweed.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-01-31 10:14:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Not here man, I just remember discussing stuuf with you before and you seem to have the same grasp of economics as...some kind of small furry animal that can't do economics
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-31 10:13:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by SilvrWolf (user info) at 2006-01-31 10:11:27 (#)
Ranking: 2
As an aside to the discussion on the other post, I agree about the problems inherent in the hydrogen refinement process. Although, a combination of solar and wind power could/would help reduce a lot of those problems. I do think that we're a LONG way off from making fuel cells feasible to the average consumer. The problem still lies in the implementation of the technologies and processes (we're on the same page with that, right?).
----------------------
Yep. It seems feasable, and will probably work in the future, but a fuel cell car made in the next year just won't be efficient if you take into account the fuel.
Submitted by SilvrWolf (user info) at 2006-01-31 10:11:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
As an aside to the discussion on the other post, I agree about the problems inherent in the hydrogen refinement process. Although, a combination of solar and wind power could/would help reduce a lot of those problems. I do think that we're a LONG way off from making fuel cells feasible to the average consumer. The problem still lies in the implementation of the technologies and processes (we're on the same page with that, right?).
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-31 10:11:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-01-31 09:55:25 (#)
Ranking: 0
i remember this video in ap physics about a car that had basically a kinetic energy engine. it stored up energy to move with a little help from a regular car battery to get started and then to brake it just used a build up of that energy and put it to use in hydraulic pistons or something like that. that's psychotically low emission, if any i can't remember and went 0-60 in like 10 seconds which is decent for most midsized sedans. what're the chances that'll ever be marketed.
-------------------------------
Sorry, but they don't work as well as regular cars, much less hybrids.
http://www.upei.ca/~physics/p261/projects/flywheel1/flywheel1.htm
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-31 10:08:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-01-31 09:58:52 (#)
Ranking: 1
There is no wilderness in the UK so yeah I'd convert them.
------------------------------------
I think the UK would be a great place to test a fleet of trucks with vegtable oil, I just don't know where you would get all the oil from (they may be throwing enough away now).
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-31 10:06:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2006-01-31 09:59:00 (#)
Ranking: 0
You have a degree in engineering and economics?
It seems you spent hours researching this subject.
-------------
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-01-31 10:00:33 (#)
Ranking: 0
If he has a degree in econimics he should ask for his money back.
--------------------------------
Where are my economics wrong on this? It is pretty cut and dry, I think a high school kid could see how this wouldn't work.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-31 10:03:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-01-31 09:49:16 (#)
Ranking: 1
And nuclear waste is hell of a problem.
----------------
So is air pollution, but at least nuclear waste can be contained.
I don't claim to know all the answers, I was just pointing out that fuel cells aren't a magical answer. Anything is going to have pro's and cons that need to be weighed and do go crazy about a new technology when you don't understand all the ramifications is ignorant.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-01-31 10:00:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
If he has a degree in econimics he should ask for his money back.
Submitted by congo (user info) at 2006-01-31 09:59:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
yep.
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2006-01-31 09:59:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You have a degree in engineering and economics?
It seems you spent hours researching this subject.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-01-31 09:58:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
There is no wilderness in the UK so yeah I'd convert them.
Submitted by ozzy (user info) at 2006-01-31 09:58:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.ubersite.com/m/83200
I warned you I'd do a parody on this issue.
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2006-01-31 09:55:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
i remember this video in ap physics about a car that had basically a kinetic energy engine. it stored up energy to move with a little help from a regular car battery to get started and then to brake it just used a build up of that energy and put it to use in hydraulic pistons or something like that. that's psychotically low emission, if any i can't remember and went 0-60 in like 10 seconds which is decent for most midsized sedans. what're the chances that'll ever be marketed.
Submitted by Axolotl (user info) at 2006-01-31 09:54:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Does it make me a bad person if I don't care?
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-31 09:52:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by MyNameIsTim (user info) at 2006-01-31 09:41:32 (#)
Ranking: -1
i think the point of the other post was that we need to do something to encourage the development of the technology necessary to make hydrogen cars feasible.
---------------------------
No the point of the other post was that oil companies were preventing the technology.
Look at any major university with a physics department, and I promise they are researching fuel cells and the fuel for them.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-31 09:50:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-01-31 09:38:54 (#)
Ranking: 1
Vegetable oil cars.
Renewable, cheap, low pollution.
I can see no problem with them.
------------------
I see them getting more popular in the states. Right now they have Bio-diesel plants. the problem with pure vegetable oil is complicated.
If you owned a fleet of trucks would you convert them? How would they re-fuel in the middle of the Us even if vegetable stations were available in big cities?
Eventually we will have better supply and distribution of it, but that takes time.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-01-31 09:49:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
And nuclear waste is hell of a problem.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2006-01-31 09:48:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-31 09:47:02 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2006-01-31 09:44:36 (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-01-31 09:41:55 (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2006-01-31 09:39:47 (#)
Ranking: 2
Couldn't you use solar power to get the Hydrogen?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah but solar power is insanely inefficient and expensive.
---
Cover the Sahara Desert in solar panels. Sorted. Or float them in the sea. Or on every house roof. Fuck it. Solar power everywhere.
------------------------------
Nuclear energy would help us out here, but most people ar eafraid of that
---
Haven't you seen The Hulk? Seriously though -i'd be fine with nuclear power.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-01-31 09:48:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Nuclear energy is like flying only more so, rarely goes wrong, but when it does its pretty disastrous
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-01-31 09:47:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2006-01-31 09:44:36 (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-01-31 09:41:55 (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2006-01-31 09:39:47 (#)
Ranking: 2
Couldn't you use solar power to get the Hydrogen?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah but solar power is insanely inefficient and expensive.
---
Cover the Sahara Desert in solar panels. Sorted. Or float them in the sea. Or on every house roof. Fuck it. Solar power everywhere.
------------------------------
Nuclear energy would help us out here, but most people ar eafraid of that.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2006-01-31 09:44:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-01-31 09:41:55 (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2006-01-31 09:39:47 (#)
Ranking: 2
Couldn't you use solar power to get the Hydrogen?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah but solar power is insanely inefficient and expensive.
---
Cover the Sahara Desert in solar panels. Sorted. Or float them in the sea. Or on every house roof. Fuck it. Solar power everywhere.
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-01-31 09:44:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
+2
I just want it known that I am +2ing both sides of this arguement.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-01-31 09:41:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2006-01-31 09:39:47 (#)
Ranking: 2
Couldn't you use solar power to get the Hydrogen?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah but solar power is insanely inefficient and expensive.
Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2006-01-31 09:41:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2006-01-31 09:39:47 (#)
Ranking: 2
Couldn't you use solar power to get the Hydrogen?
----
It would require too much energy. Though with recent advances in solar cells, maybe with an entire field of panals they could.
Submitted by MyNameIsTim (user info) at 2006-01-31 09:41:32 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
i think the point of the other post was that we need to do something to encourage the development of the technology necessary to make hydrogen cars feasible.
dirka dirka mohammad jihad
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2006-01-31 09:40:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Needs more Hindenberg.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2006-01-31 09:40:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Sorry, I didn't understand.
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2006-01-31 09:39:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Couldn't you use solar power to get the Hydrogen?
Submitted by ozzy (user info) at 2006-01-31 09:39:25 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Right.
That's it. I'm doing a pisstake post on this whole fossil fuel/ hydrogen/ energy debacle.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-01-31 09:38:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Correct Hydrogen cars are a ridiculous concept.
Vegetable oil cars.
Renewable, cheap, low pollution.
I can see no problem with them.
Submitted by Maddog (user info) at 2006-01-31 09:36:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
That's a very short sighted view.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2006-01-31 09:36:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Oil Jihad.