Isnt much Australia and other countries dramaticaly short of fresh water?
AR
Eastern Australia is in a drought at the moment, however with global warming increasing and the melting clean polar icecaps below Australia, one would assume it wont be too much of a problem.
The new technology would reduce the output of greenhouse gases and prevent increased global warming. A small trade off.
The new technology would reduce the output of greenhouse gases and prevent increased global warming. A small trade off.
Greenhouse effect is still an issue, no one can prove or disprove it.
I,m not really considering the greenhouse effect. Although much of the earths water is very cold especially below the thermocline. Creating heat from it would probably add to global warming.
My concern is that as far as we know we are the only planet with free water. which is vital to all life on earth. Do you really want to turn that into gasses. perhaps Jupitor once had an idiot with ideas for making cash.
Do you really think that the world economy will allow that.
How much would you have to pay for water.
I personally wouldnt want to tell anyone if I had a real time hydrogen from water device you would probably become dead very fast.
Think of all the peole that make billions out of fuel production and sales do you really want to piss them off.
AR
My concern is that as far as we know we are the only planet with free water. which is vital to all life on earth. Do you really want to turn that into gasses. perhaps Jupitor once had an idiot with ideas for making cash.
Do you really think that the world economy will allow that.
How much would you have to pay for water.
I personally wouldnt want to tell anyone if I had a real time hydrogen from water device you would probably become dead very fast.
Think of all the peole that make billions out of fuel production and sales do you really want to piss them off.
AR
Sorry peole was an unintentional error and should read people
AND if we are going to talk about global warming, will you all stop cutting down trees. I suffer from breathing problems and I need all the oxygen I can get.
Remember Iceland was once covered in them but the natives kept cutting them down - fires-boats etc Now there are non, and what happens - all the soil is washed and blown away.
Get the idea if you fiddle with nature, nature will reciprecate.
AR
Remember Iceland was once covered in them but the natives kept cutting them down - fires-boats etc Now there are non, and what happens - all the soil is washed and blown away.
Get the idea if you fiddle with nature, nature will reciprecate. AR
Society has moderating rules, as does capitalism. These checks and balances would most likely be enough to bring about sensible use of power generation from water. And major companies go out of business often during the course of history, as do entire industries. It isn't too hard to condense water vapour into water if we ever wanted to reverse the process.
BUT
A very interesting point in that not only is there a limit to the energy derived from fossil fuels, but also a practical limit to the energy from water, due to the fact that we rely on a dynamic planet to sustain us. What would those natural geographers suggest would occur?
BUT
A very interesting point in that not only is there a limit to the energy derived from fossil fuels, but also a practical limit to the energy from water, due to the fact that we rely on a dynamic planet to sustain us. What would those natural geographers suggest would occur?
QUOTE (ARtone+Aug 26 2004, 12:56 AM)
My concern is that as far as we know we are the only planet with free water. which is vital to all life on earth. Do you really want to turn that into gasses. perhaps Jupitor once had an idiot with ideas for making cash.
N
o one is suggesting turning water into gas and then shipping it off into outer space!N
You turn water into oxygen and hydrogen so that you can burn the hydrogen (+oxygen) which releases energy originally captured from the sun and turning the gases back into guess what - WATER.
Hi Lith
I am sorry but after 60 years I am afraid I have seen exactly the opposite most of my life. People are greedy, companies have methods by which they make money and usually take great care to maintain those interests, governments have to create revenues to facilitate the maintainance of our lives.
I would be the first to aggree that something has to be done, the oil will not last forever but I say again the water resource must NOT be touched for this purpose.
I would suggest you watch the film called Soilent Green which shows the way we are heading. Atmospheric polution - devistation of forests - Overfishing - national destruction of farm animals - culling of wildlife - contamination of the sea -unnecesary waste of fuels - too many cars - weapon poliferation- weapon testing. The list goes on and on. Most of these contradict your first paragraph.
Although the film whose name I cant remember had major technical inacuracies Its overriding point that such devices would not be tolerated. Remember the figures involved are thousands of billions per year.
Ask a politician or a production company their opinion of such a device.
re your second opinion I will repeat again that major portions of the earth are very short of fresh water Desalination is a poor and expensive option.
AR
I am sorry but after 60 years I am afraid I have seen exactly the opposite most of my life. People are greedy, companies have methods by which they make money and usually take great care to maintain those interests, governments have to create revenues to facilitate the maintainance of our lives.
I would be the first to aggree that something has to be done, the oil will not last forever but I say again the water resource must NOT be touched for this purpose.
I would suggest you watch the film called Soilent Green which shows the way we are heading. Atmospheric polution - devistation of forests - Overfishing - national destruction of farm animals - culling of wildlife - contamination of the sea -unnecesary waste of fuels - too many cars - weapon poliferation- weapon testing. The list goes on and on. Most of these contradict your first paragraph.
Although the film whose name I cant remember had major technical inacuracies Its overriding point that such devices would not be tolerated. Remember the figures involved are thousands of billions per year.
Ask a politician or a production company their opinion of such a device.
re your second opinion I will repeat again that major portions of the earth are very short of fresh water Desalination is a poor and expensive option.
AR
Hi puck
I'm no chemist but your argument is not logical
If water is created by the sun adding energy to oxgen why do we have any oxygen at all?
water is H2O 2 parts hydrogen to 1 part oxygen. Removing the H2 and burning it may produce a minor amount of water but you cant simply just take the product apart and suggest you will end up with what you started with.
Can I ask what grade you are in?
AR
I'm no chemist but your argument is not logical
If water is created by the sun adding energy to oxgen why do we have any oxygen at all?
water is H2O 2 parts hydrogen to 1 part oxygen. Removing the H2 and burning it may produce a minor amount of water but you cant simply just take the product apart and suggest you will end up with what you started with.
Can I ask what grade you are in?
AR
Hi puck
I'm no chemist but your argument is not logical
If water is created by the sun adding energy to oxgen why do we have any oxygen at all?
water is H2O 2 parts hydrogen to 1 part oxygen. Removing the H2 and burning it may produce a minor amount of water but you cant simply just take the product apart and suggest you will end up with what you started with.
Can I ask what grade you are in?
AR
I'm no chemist but your argument is not logical
If water is created by the sun adding energy to oxgen why do we have any oxygen at all?
water is H2O 2 parts hydrogen to 1 part oxygen. Removing the H2 and burning it may produce a minor amount of water but you cant simply just take the product apart and suggest you will end up with what you started with.
Can I ask what grade you are in?
AR
Hi those of you that seem to have lost interest
A small amount of research has revealed that the Hydrogen engines are very ineficient due to heat build up.
They also need very pure water even distilled to work. There are obviously playing on the fringe scene which I suppose is ok.
Im trying to get a water to gas to water conversion rate to see how much water is produced in the burning oxo with hydrogen.
AR
A small amount of research has revealed that the Hydrogen engines are very ineficient due to heat build up.
They also need very pure water even distilled to work. There are obviously playing on the fringe scene which I suppose is ok.
Im trying to get a water to gas to water conversion rate to see how much water is produced in the burning oxo with hydrogen.
AR
If "we" really wanted to, "we" would not be using any oil. If we really can't do with out it "we" have no one to blame but ourselves. 
HI Boodah
Nor sure what you indicating with the "we" but feel free to contribute any suggestions
AR
Nor sure what you indicating with the "we" but feel free to contribute any suggestions
AR
Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to piss off those people who make billions out of the oil industry. Maybe they could be redeployed shepherding sheep around the desert like their grandfathers.
Carefull ray, that almost racist and frowned upon in the UK. I really dont think you can blame them. What would you do if oil started sprurting up from the garden fountain.
And suppose they said they were not selling it anymore, all the fringe ideas for energy would show how imiture they really are. What would you put in your car, now, not in say 15/20 years time.
AR
And suppose they said they were not selling it anymore, all the fringe ideas for energy would show how imiture they really are. What would you put in your car, now, not in say 15/20 years time.
AR
I hope we can find the balance in our energy needs.To exchange any resource to produce energy weii leave kind of biproduct.And this is why we need many differnt kinds of power productions and not rely on one large source.Not to mention easy to control prices.The idea of the use of sea tidal movement, good on coastal states. And some lower states can use sun mutilatlation though mirrors or a lens to focus on many apps. Wind and so on,If just a fraction of the money spent on oil exploration to make the technology relieable and efficient.
QUOTE (ARtone+Aug 26 2004, 10:42 PM)
Hi puck
I'm no chemist but your argument is not logical
If water is created by the sun adding energy to oxgen why do we have any oxygen at all?
water is H2O 2 parts hydrogen to 1 part oxygen. Removing the H2 and burning it may produce a minor amount of water but you cant simply just take the product apart and suggest you will end up with what you started with.
Can I ask what grade you are in?
AR
With all due respect AR you certainly proved you're no chemist I'm no chemist but your argument is not logical
If water is created by the sun adding energy to oxgen why do we have any oxygen at all?
water is H2O 2 parts hydrogen to 1 part oxygen. Removing the H2 and burning it may produce a minor amount of water but you cant simply just take the product apart and suggest you will end up with what you started with.
Can I ask what grade you are in?
AR
I won't even hazard a guess where you got the idea from that water is created by the sun adding energy to oxygen. What DOES happen when the sun adds energy is that the oxygen gets hotter
Puck's statement that
"You turn water into oxygen and hydrogen so that you can burn the hydrogen (+oxygen) which releases energy originally captured from the sun and turning the gases back into guess what - WATER."
is completely correct.
If you split a pound of water into its two components (hydrogen and oxygen) using the energy of sunlight you can release the oxygen into the atmosphere if you wish. The hydrogen can then later be burnt (recombined) with oxygen from the air and what you'll end up with is a pound of water. You end up with what you started with.
Now this isn't energy from nothing because what you've failed to see is that in effect the hydrogen and oxygen are stored energy from sunlight.
Perhaps puck should be asking what grade you are in.
Energy was made in the lab. on Dec 24th 2002. The inventor used a short length of pipe, and through its diameter he placed a string with weights on the end. The strings' length is about twice the diameter of the pipe and the weights are steel spheres that have a mass about one third that of the pipe or cylinder. Then; evenly wrap the string and weights around the cylinder and spin it. When you release the spheres they absorb all the motion of the cylinder. Video tapes and stop action photography show that the cylinder stops. Newtonian Physic (F=ma) REQUIRES that the motion of the spheres most increase to four time the original velocity. Do the math: Energy Quadruples. Data agrees with Newton.
Hi Limon,
Sounds like conservation of angular momentum to me.
z
Sounds like conservation of angular momentum to me.
z
Hi all,
Almost any energy source (except maybe nuclear with its waste problem) is preferable to the continued high usage of fossil fuels.
z
Almost any energy source (except maybe nuclear with its waste problem) is preferable to the continued high usage of fossil fuels.
z
In reference to angular momentum conservation: Galilaos' Pendulum proves that the lenght of the radius of rotation has nothing to do with Energy content. This is the pendulum where a pin changes the radius of rotation at the down swing point.
Hi downunder
You are right I'm no chemist
So let me try a different suggestion
One of oxygen properties is that in the right mixtures it is highly toxic so you want to dump tons of it into the allready poluted atmosphere? when all cars change to this crack pot idea. Oh yes lets remember the nasa disaster when a cabin filled with the stuff caught fire. So you want to make the planet burn easier and faster by dumping tons of oxo into the air.
Think again
Getting back to your chemistry set, you can not tell me that there is no net loss when the hydrogen is removed from water and burnt the stored energy has to have form which is modified by its burning.
That argument is like saying you can burn petrol and still have petrol afterwards.
AR
You are right I'm no chemist
So let me try a different suggestion
One of oxygen properties is that in the right mixtures it is highly toxic so you want to dump tons of it into the allready poluted atmosphere? when all cars change to this crack pot idea. Oh yes lets remember the nasa disaster when a cabin filled with the stuff caught fire. So you want to make the planet burn easier and faster by dumping tons of oxo into the air.
Think again
Getting back to your chemistry set, you can not tell me that there is no net loss when the hydrogen is removed from water and burnt the stored energy has to have form which is modified by its burning.
That argument is like saying you can burn petrol and still have petrol afterwards.
AR
Well, this is the first time I've ever replied to a forum, but I think this thread is really missing the point of hydrogen. It's not a new energy source, it's just a way of storing and / or transmitting energy. Which is nice because it gets away from the grid approach to transmitting it (with its problems of instantanious peaks and high storage costs) and also is enviromentally friendly. However, due to the inefficent nature of creating hydrogen, it will probably only be freasible in places with abundant energy (solar, nuclear..) so it's creation will be higly localized. And yes, this should mean that it'd be fairly easy to make sure your site has some water to be had near by (which doesnt need to be pure in any respect, since you'll be dissociating the molecules for crying out loud). And being that this planet is mostly water, I would think that would be easy (espcially with the only truely practical method for generation relying on nuclear power).
Finally, each produced hydrogen molecule will have a certain energy / monetary cost to it, so I would think its highly doubtful that large amounts of it will escape into the atmosphere without finding its way to a fuel cell or combustion engine, thus converting it back to water and eliminating all oxygen that was released in the creation process. So downunder was right in saying that there will be no net atmospheric oxygen increase.
Oh yeah, and AR, please stop letting your ignorance show. It's painful.
Finally, each produced hydrogen molecule will have a certain energy / monetary cost to it, so I would think its highly doubtful that large amounts of it will escape into the atmosphere without finding its way to a fuel cell or combustion engine, thus converting it back to water and eliminating all oxygen that was released in the creation process. So downunder was right in saying that there will be no net atmospheric oxygen increase.
Oh yeah, and AR, please stop letting your ignorance show. It's painful.
Hi all, I thought we went through this a month or so back - perhaps it got wiped.
I'm with z in that we need to reduce co2 production whatever the cost. If cars of the future run solely on hydrogen, electric batteries or biofuel then there will be no net increase in co2 from their use, as long as the generation is done through sustainable means. Of the three of these, hydrogen is viewed as the easiest to produce in sizable amounts and drip-sell to the public for ever more.
I'm with z in that we need to reduce co2 production whatever the cost. If cars of the future run solely on hydrogen, electric batteries or biofuel then there will be no net increase in co2 from their use, as long as the generation is done through sustainable means. Of the three of these, hydrogen is viewed as the easiest to produce in sizable amounts and drip-sell to the public for ever more.
A guy - queer name
I suggest you read up on the reports of hydrogen production one of which states that the water will not only have to be pure but de mineralised.
Also that the costs of production will far outway the benefits.
and you are still not defining how energy can be removed from water with no net loss, probably because you dont know, your just following all the other sheep no logic, even less brains.
Do yourself a favour, buy a horse and cart, you'll need it soon.
we live on a planet that has an extreamly fine balance. We have almost destroyed that balance, you no nothing, blinkered clowns want to make it worse.
Essentually what you are saying is that we could put you inside a large hermetically sealed container/room with a supply of water and an engine, plus a method of splitting the water into oxygen and hydrogen. The engine could be run Continuously for a period until you run out of food without any injury.
please say if this is your intention so that we can all have a laugh.
Have a look at the first web site hit:
http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/watercar/h20car2.htm
Ignore all the rubbish but notice they say
This engine was mounted on a lab bench in a garage area, with the door open for ventilation. On the floor were thirteen half-gallon containers linked together with tubes, all connected to a central, larger tube that ran directly to the carburetor of the motor.
It goes on to say:
A company representative pulled a rope to start the motor, and after a couple of tries, the motor caught and continued running. We watched the motor run for twenty minutes or so (it was really cold, with the doors open in the Toronto January winter, so we decided that twenty minutes was enough "proof of concept"). This engine, using water and salt as the primary fuel, and metal alloy as a catalyst, was definitely running!
I wonder why they needed ventilation ?
try thinking more and bumping your gums less and get you hair cut, better that you only sound like an idiot.
AR
I suggest you read up on the reports of hydrogen production one of which states that the water will not only have to be pure but de mineralised.
Also that the costs of production will far outway the benefits.
and you are still not defining how energy can be removed from water with no net loss, probably because you dont know, your just following all the other sheep no logic, even less brains.
Do yourself a favour, buy a horse and cart, you'll need it soon.
we live on a planet that has an extreamly fine balance. We have almost destroyed that balance, you no nothing, blinkered clowns want to make it worse.
Essentually what you are saying is that we could put you inside a large hermetically sealed container/room with a supply of water and an engine, plus a method of splitting the water into oxygen and hydrogen. The engine could be run Continuously for a period until you run out of food without any injury.
please say if this is your intention so that we can all have a laugh.
Have a look at the first web site hit:
http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/watercar/h20car2.htm
Ignore all the rubbish but notice they say
This engine was mounted on a lab bench in a garage area, with the door open for ventilation. On the floor were thirteen half-gallon containers linked together with tubes, all connected to a central, larger tube that ran directly to the carburetor of the motor.
It goes on to say:
A company representative pulled a rope to start the motor, and after a couple of tries, the motor caught and continued running. We watched the motor run for twenty minutes or so (it was really cold, with the doors open in the Toronto January winter, so we decided that twenty minutes was enough "proof of concept"). This engine, using water and salt as the primary fuel, and metal alloy as a catalyst, was definitely running!
I wonder why they needed ventilation ?
try thinking more and bumping your gums less and get you hair cut, better that you only sound like an idiot.
AR
Wow, these guys at Rothman have discovered generating hydrogen by dropping a piece of lithium into water? Where can i send them the hunderds of millions they need?
Ok...
Heat from a fuel cell is a GOOD thing. Heat can be recaptured and changed into a more usable source of energy. Ever heard of steam? Steam engines? Turbines? The more heat that a fuel cell creates, the more effecient you can make it. Fuelcells are far more effecient to internal combustion HEAT engines. Heat engines by defn' are no better then 40% effecient. Actually heat engines only give us about 18-20% effeciency. Nuclear power gives us about 22-25% effeciency. Coal and natural gas power is v. low effeciency in the teens I believe. Fuel cells are approximately 60-70% effecient. Now, since humans need energy to survive, which source would you want to use?
Phios
BTW, some companies have developed low heat fuel cells, but the effeciencies are less then the heat generating fuel cells.
Heat from a fuel cell is a GOOD thing. Heat can be recaptured and changed into a more usable source of energy. Ever heard of steam? Steam engines? Turbines? The more heat that a fuel cell creates, the more effecient you can make it. Fuelcells are far more effecient to internal combustion HEAT engines. Heat engines by defn' are no better then 40% effecient. Actually heat engines only give us about 18-20% effeciency. Nuclear power gives us about 22-25% effeciency. Coal and natural gas power is v. low effeciency in the teens I believe. Fuel cells are approximately 60-70% effecient. Now, since humans need energy to survive, which source would you want to use?
Phios
BTW, some companies have developed low heat fuel cells, but the effeciencies are less then the heat generating fuel cells.
QUOTE (ARtone+Dec 25 2004, 12:42 AM)
and you are still not defining how energy can be removed from water with no net loss, probably because you dont know, your just following all the other sheep no logic, even less brains.
AR...you're still not getting it. Energy from the sun is put INTO water to break it down into its constituent parts (hydrogen and oxygen). When the hydrogen and oxygen are recombined it generates heat which is then useable. The efficiency may not be high but after all, there's an awful lot of sunlight available that's otherwise wasted.Think of it this way...you have a photovoltaic cell that transforms sunlight into electrical energy. You can use that electrical energy to run an electric motor directly or charge up a battery to store it for later or you can use it for the electrolysis of water. If you electrolyse the water then you can collect and store as much hydrogen as you want for later use (much as you stored energy in a battery). The hydrogen should be thought of as stored sunlight energy.
BTW, your habit of ridiculing people you either don't understand or who disagree with you is childish and becoming quite tiresome.
Are you saying then that the energy available from the use of hydrogen is that which has been incorperated by its molecular seperation. That makes no sense either, why put another process between the collection of energy and its storage? Additional processes always incur additional loss.
Let me make it quite clear to you - unless I am satsified that any attempts to use hydrogen from water as a fuel will not result in further unbalancing of this ecosystem then I will ask and ask and do anything possible to prevent it or turn people away from its use.
I keep asking the same question because I am not getting explanations which are logical. If this process is so simple you seem to be having great difficulty in coming up with a reasonable explanation.
I would also suggest that the people who are serious about the use of hydrogen do not think the same as your post above.
And let me point out I never ridicule anyone who doesnt do that to me first. If you are so perfect why are all the questions not answered, including mine. Its is the acceptance of that said by comercial scientist who have this planet in the state its in.
Finally who gave you the right to be the arbiter of discussion and argument here?
AR
Let me make it quite clear to you - unless I am satsified that any attempts to use hydrogen from water as a fuel will not result in further unbalancing of this ecosystem then I will ask and ask and do anything possible to prevent it or turn people away from its use.
I keep asking the same question because I am not getting explanations which are logical. If this process is so simple you seem to be having great difficulty in coming up with a reasonable explanation.
I would also suggest that the people who are serious about the use of hydrogen do not think the same as your post above.
And let me point out I never ridicule anyone who doesnt do that to me first. If you are so perfect why are all the questions not answered, including mine. Its is the acceptance of that said by comercial scientist who have this planet in the state its in.
Finally who gave you the right to be the arbiter of discussion and argument here?
AR
C'mon folks - let's not squabble, we are all here to learn.
As to the issue, what I believe downunder is saying is that if solar-generated electricity is used to electrolitically split water, hydrogen is produced at the cathode and oxygen at the anode. If we only collect the hydrogen, there is a temporary increase in the oxygen:air ratio until the hydrogen is recombined with oxygen at our leisure. We could, of course, collect both gases resulting in no net change in that ratio.
I cannot explain the need for ventilation in your example, AR.
As to the issue, what I believe downunder is saying is that if solar-generated electricity is used to electrolitically split water, hydrogen is produced at the cathode and oxygen at the anode. If we only collect the hydrogen, there is a temporary increase in the oxygen:air ratio until the hydrogen is recombined with oxygen at our leisure. We could, of course, collect both gases resulting in no net change in that ratio.
I cannot explain the need for ventilation in your example, AR.
Hi Moseley
The problem is I dont believe it. I had read earlier that the energy is that added by the splitting but I coundnt believe that was what was being suggested, I considered that I was missing something. Obviously, I was crediting them with better inteligence than they now seem to have available.
Many of the articles talk of a new energy source and energy derived from water, they dont talk of the splitting of water as an energy storage interface. What needs to be considered is why, if this process gives much better performance, does it do that, and why other methods are so poor in comparison.
One has to remember you dont get owt for nowt.
Surprisingly or maybe not so, there seems little start to finish performance data - what is started with
what remains
gasses produced
energy requirements
performances
form of waste output water or steam
is same amount of water given out as was used to create hydrogen
What is required is a complete start to end analysis. Facts are required not commercial speculation.
work done earlier this year here in the UK suggests that the whole idea is unworkable on a nett gain basis. There are many claims to the cleanliness of water required.
The questions go on and on but the answers seem inconsistant and whooly.
AR
The problem is I dont believe it. I had read earlier that the energy is that added by the splitting but I coundnt believe that was what was being suggested, I considered that I was missing something. Obviously, I was crediting them with better inteligence than they now seem to have available.
Many of the articles talk of a new energy source and energy derived from water, they dont talk of the splitting of water as an energy storage interface. What needs to be considered is why, if this process gives much better performance, does it do that, and why other methods are so poor in comparison.
One has to remember you dont get owt for nowt.
Surprisingly or maybe not so, there seems little start to finish performance data - what is started with
what remains
gasses produced
energy requirements
performances
form of waste output water or steam
is same amount of water given out as was used to create hydrogen
What is required is a complete start to end analysis. Facts are required not commercial speculation.
work done earlier this year here in the UK suggests that the whole idea is unworkable on a nett gain basis. There are many claims to the cleanliness of water required.
The questions go on and on but the answers seem inconsistant and whooly.
AR
ARtone has a serious problem understanding peoples explainations.
there are a few issues that need to be discussed.
first, imagine coal. the theory behind coal is that millions of years ago a thick layer of organic material was buried and compressed over time. this turned what was once plant or animal matter into what we see as coal.
now, how were those plants first formed? well, they photosynthesized sunlight creating sugars and the building blocks of the organism. so coal is in fact a stored form of solar energy. the energy didnt come from the plant, it came from the sun.
next, think about burning that coal. once you burn it you will be releasing all of that stored solar energy, plus all of the carbon byproducts that may or maynot cause global warming (or cooling).
so burning coal and other "fossil fuels" isn't a very good idea.
ok, forget about fossil fuels for a second. we need to come up with a better solution. how about renewable energies like wind, solar, tidal forces, and hotsprings. all of these methods (beyond the construction of them) are clean, ie they don't produce a net pollution. they are simply harnessing what occurs naturally in our little closed system.
but, the sun doesn't always shine (obviously it does shine everyday, but not in the same spot due to cloud cover and the rotation of earth). also, the wind doesn't always blow at a rate which can be harnessed for electricity.
what everyone is trying to explain to you is that using one of these renewable and clean methods of electrical production can be then used to split the water molecule via electrolysis. it isn't a very complex idea to grasp. the wind blows, it turns a turbine, which produces electricity, which can be used to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. so in the end you have hydrogen created from a clean renewable source.
this is a very effective way of creating hydrogen and oxygen because you are using electricity produced from the sunlight or from the movement of air. now that you have your hydrogen and oxygen, you can recombine them at a more convienant time and place.
but why would you want to produce electricity only to use it up again splitting water? why wouldn't you want to just create the electricity and pump it into the grid?
mainly because you can't drive a car efficiently off electricity alone. we all hear about battery powered conversion kits for your car way back in the 70's and 80's. but these systems had to be continually recharged every 100 miles or so. this is ok for commuting to work or to go to the grocery store and back, but for the average traveller this isn't good enough. plus, all of the batteries required make it senseless to do so.
but what you can do with that renewable electricity from the sun or wind is split water. this process merely converts the wind or sun into hydrogen and oxygen for use somewhere else. for example, you can take the hydrogen and run it through a fuel cell in a car to produce electricity to run an electric motor. Sure there will be some loss of energy, but remeber, this energy was taken from a renewable source, so it really doesn't matter that there is a loss in the end, because the energy is clean (ie not from fossil fuels or nuclear reactors).
i don't see the problem in understanding all of this. it is in fact quite simply, and people do this everyday. in fact, norway is working on a project to fuel an entire island off this technology.
there are problems with a hydrogen based economy. some speculate that hydrogen gas that leaks from storage might cause problems with our atmosphere as it escapes. so there is a possible threat of that. also, as was stated earlier, the water that is being split has to come from somewhere and it has to be somewhat clean (although salts do increase the efficiency of the electrolysis process). but you must remember that the water split will ultimately be turned back into the same amount once ran through a fuel cell. the energy that is created does not come from the hydrogen, you must remember that the energy came from the sun or the wind.
i hope this is enough of an explaination for you. if not, i dont know what to tell you my friend.
there are a few issues that need to be discussed.
first, imagine coal. the theory behind coal is that millions of years ago a thick layer of organic material was buried and compressed over time. this turned what was once plant or animal matter into what we see as coal.
now, how were those plants first formed? well, they photosynthesized sunlight creating sugars and the building blocks of the organism. so coal is in fact a stored form of solar energy. the energy didnt come from the plant, it came from the sun.
next, think about burning that coal. once you burn it you will be releasing all of that stored solar energy, plus all of the carbon byproducts that may or maynot cause global warming (or cooling).
so burning coal and other "fossil fuels" isn't a very good idea.
ok, forget about fossil fuels for a second. we need to come up with a better solution. how about renewable energies like wind, solar, tidal forces, and hotsprings. all of these methods (beyond the construction of them) are clean, ie they don't produce a net pollution. they are simply harnessing what occurs naturally in our little closed system.
but, the sun doesn't always shine (obviously it does shine everyday, but not in the same spot due to cloud cover and the rotation of earth). also, the wind doesn't always blow at a rate which can be harnessed for electricity.
what everyone is trying to explain to you is that using one of these renewable and clean methods of electrical production can be then used to split the water molecule via electrolysis. it isn't a very complex idea to grasp. the wind blows, it turns a turbine, which produces electricity, which can be used to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. so in the end you have hydrogen created from a clean renewable source.
this is a very effective way of creating hydrogen and oxygen because you are using electricity produced from the sunlight or from the movement of air. now that you have your hydrogen and oxygen, you can recombine them at a more convienant time and place.
but why would you want to produce electricity only to use it up again splitting water? why wouldn't you want to just create the electricity and pump it into the grid?
mainly because you can't drive a car efficiently off electricity alone. we all hear about battery powered conversion kits for your car way back in the 70's and 80's. but these systems had to be continually recharged every 100 miles or so. this is ok for commuting to work or to go to the grocery store and back, but for the average traveller this isn't good enough. plus, all of the batteries required make it senseless to do so.
but what you can do with that renewable electricity from the sun or wind is split water. this process merely converts the wind or sun into hydrogen and oxygen for use somewhere else. for example, you can take the hydrogen and run it through a fuel cell in a car to produce electricity to run an electric motor. Sure there will be some loss of energy, but remeber, this energy was taken from a renewable source, so it really doesn't matter that there is a loss in the end, because the energy is clean (ie not from fossil fuels or nuclear reactors).
i don't see the problem in understanding all of this. it is in fact quite simply, and people do this everyday. in fact, norway is working on a project to fuel an entire island off this technology.
there are problems with a hydrogen based economy. some speculate that hydrogen gas that leaks from storage might cause problems with our atmosphere as it escapes. so there is a possible threat of that. also, as was stated earlier, the water that is being split has to come from somewhere and it has to be somewhat clean (although salts do increase the efficiency of the electrolysis process). but you must remember that the water split will ultimately be turned back into the same amount once ran through a fuel cell. the energy that is created does not come from the hydrogen, you must remember that the energy came from the sun or the wind.
i hope this is enough of an explaination for you. if not, i dont know what to tell you my friend.
Previous Poster -
Everything you state is essentially true, but you fail to recognize the extremely low eff of the methods you mention to provide energy separate the Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms from the water molecule, IN ADDITION to the HIGH energy demands of the process itself. Add the two together and you get a "no go" solution for mass transportation.
Do some calculations yourself and figure out approximately how many square meters of direct sunlight are required to equal the energy in 10 gallons of gasoline, even assuming a 25% automoble efficiency. You'll see that Hydrogen powered cars is a interesting idea, but it's rather naive to think it's a solution to our energy crisis since there is no way to attain the Hydrogen. Until Fusion is workable forget about Hydrogen cars.
Finally, you failed to mention or aren't aware that when you combust air, which contains almost 80% nitrogen, with Hydrogen, oxides of nitrogen (NOx) are formed and it can be argued that they are more hazardous than the large quantities of carbon dioxide produced by gasoline powered internal combustion engines.
Wind, solor, tidal, etc.. SHOULD be used, but simply directed into the grid. Eff will be maximized and a nutty Hydrogen distribution system WON'T have to be developed/integrated.
RIGHT now the key is CONSERVATION and gas/electric hybrid vehicles.
When people stop lugging around an extra ton of steel around with them (SUV's) we'll see some real improvement in our energy situation. F=ma, more mass means more force. Let's look for realistic solutions to our problems, i.e. conservation and workable new technologies.
Everything you state is essentially true, but you fail to recognize the extremely low eff of the methods you mention to provide energy separate the Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms from the water molecule, IN ADDITION to the HIGH energy demands of the process itself. Add the two together and you get a "no go" solution for mass transportation.
Do some calculations yourself and figure out approximately how many square meters of direct sunlight are required to equal the energy in 10 gallons of gasoline, even assuming a 25% automoble efficiency. You'll see that Hydrogen powered cars is a interesting idea, but it's rather naive to think it's a solution to our energy crisis since there is no way to attain the Hydrogen. Until Fusion is workable forget about Hydrogen cars.
Finally, you failed to mention or aren't aware that when you combust air, which contains almost 80% nitrogen, with Hydrogen, oxides of nitrogen (NOx) are formed and it can be argued that they are more hazardous than the large quantities of carbon dioxide produced by gasoline powered internal combustion engines.
Wind, solor, tidal, etc.. SHOULD be used, but simply directed into the grid. Eff will be maximized and a nutty Hydrogen distribution system WON'T have to be developed/integrated.
RIGHT now the key is CONSERVATION and gas/electric hybrid vehicles.
When people stop lugging around an extra ton of steel around with them (SUV's) we'll see some real improvement in our energy situation. F=ma, more mass means more force. Let's look for realistic solutions to our problems, i.e. conservation and workable new technologies.
if you notice i never did mention combustion. i was talking about fuel cells. combustion of hydrogen is ridiculous.
i do realize its not perfect, but you have to agree it is clean. i was talking about a clean alternative to fossil fuels, and this is a possibility. however inefficient it is still the cleanest alternative with our current technology.
i also understand that this couldn't be a universal answer to our energy needs. we need to realize that there are way to many people on this planet. but this method is good enough for farmers and ranchers.
you see, i am from north dakota. and it is rated as the windiest state in the nation. the wind blows in excess, and that excess could be transfered into hydrogen for ranchers and farmers to fuel their tractors, heaters, and cars. what the norwegians are doing is having a wind powered grid on their experimental island where the wind blows in excess as well. you see, only a fraction of the electricity created by wind is actually used, and the electricity in excess is used to store hydrogen to fuel their fuel cells. don't tell me it doesn't work, go to norway and tell them to stop because they are ones doing the impossible.
i do realize its not perfect, but you have to agree it is clean. i was talking about a clean alternative to fossil fuels, and this is a possibility. however inefficient it is still the cleanest alternative with our current technology.
i also understand that this couldn't be a universal answer to our energy needs. we need to realize that there are way to many people on this planet. but this method is good enough for farmers and ranchers.
you see, i am from north dakota. and it is rated as the windiest state in the nation. the wind blows in excess, and that excess could be transfered into hydrogen for ranchers and farmers to fuel their tractors, heaters, and cars. what the norwegians are doing is having a wind powered grid on their experimental island where the wind blows in excess as well. you see, only a fraction of the electricity created by wind is actually used, and the electricity in excess is used to store hydrogen to fuel their fuel cells. don't tell me it doesn't work, go to norway and tell them to stop because they are ones doing the impossible.
if you notice i never did mention combustion. i was talking about fuel cells. combustion of hydrogen is ridiculous.
I have not looked into fuel cells quantitatively. Can fuel cells of reasonable cost, size, and mass deliver the power (i.e. amps and volts) required for electic motors suitable for motivating 3000lb automobiles? I've heard a lot of talk, but not seen any actual calculations and examples.
i do realize its not perfect, but you have to agree it is clean. i was talking about a clean alternative to fossil fuels, and this is a possibility. however inefficient it is still the cleanest alternative with our current technology.
Yes, fuel cells are clean. But there is still the problem of producing the hydrogen safely and in a cost effective manner. Bond breaking is a highly energy costly process, which is why "finding" energy almost ready for use (needs to be refined) is currently the preferred method. Hydrogen used in fuel cells is NOT the energy source per se, but more a battery since bonds are first broken, requiring energy, then reformed, liberating energy via the fuel cell. We STILL need to acquire the energy and I haven't seen the calculations showing wind, solar, tidal, or whatever can put a dent into global crude consumption.
i also understand that this couldn't be a universal answer to our energy needs. we need to realize that there are way to many people on this planet. but this method is good enough for farmers and ranchers.
What percentage of "farmers and ranchers"? And what percentage of their total energy consumption of those that to? Let's keep the topic grounded in reality and not adjectives.
you see, i am from north dakota. and it is rated as the windiest state in the nation. the wind blows in excess, and that excess could be transfered into hydrogen for ranchers and farmers to fuel their tractors, heaters, and cars. what the norwegians are doing is having a wind powered grid on their experimental island where the wind blows in excess as well. you see, only a fraction of the electricity created by wind is actually used, and the electricity in excess is used to store hydrogen to fuel their fuel cells. don't tell me it doesn't work, go to norway and tell them to stop because they are ones doing the impossible.
So one "experimental island" with absolutely perfect conditions, population, conservation minded limited population actually, PROVES that wind power is the answer? Sorry if I'm more than a little skeptical about this.
Furthermore, what are the long range implications of large scale windfarms, both from a visual standpoint, and more important by changing local or possibly regional wind/weather patterns? We know from past experience with dams and such that you just don't change nature to suit your needs without affecting other parameters in the ecosystem, sometimes in a harmful manner that only is apparent years down the road.
As I said in my original post CONSERVATION is the key here. We, humanity as a collective whole, needs to learn to save energy. You don't simply "vote" for the environment, you LIVE it everyday in the actions and decisions you make. I think it comical when Democrats drive 2 or 3 ton vehicles when they don't need them. And Republicans that drive large vehicles "because they can" are also hipocrits of the highest order. I'm sorry to rant here but technology can't SOLVE the problem only people AND technology can solve the problem.
Wind power? Yes, let's use it where it makes sense.
Active Solar? Yes
Passive Solar? Yes, let's start making sure all homes incorporate passive solor as it only needs be designed in, with basically no extra cost in many cases only an orientation of the house has to occur.
Tidal? Yes again, but remember this isn't free either. "Sucking" tidal forces will eventually slow the rotation of the Earth, and yes I know this is inconsequential.
Solar and Wind are both Sun driven on the otherhand.
Unfortunately the majority of the people in the US are extremely wasteful. They only think about energy when they don't have any, or if prices rise. When they have it they waste it and think of it as a "right." They "scream" for more electricity and oil but "scream" again when there is talk of drilling in Alaska. Damn fools won't think to turn off a light or buy a less massive car, smaller house, etc...
BTW, I live in NJ.
Mark
I have not looked into fuel cells quantitatively. Can fuel cells of reasonable cost, size, and mass deliver the power (i.e. amps and volts) required for electic motors suitable for motivating 3000lb automobiles? I've heard a lot of talk, but not seen any actual calculations and examples.
i do realize its not perfect, but you have to agree it is clean. i was talking about a clean alternative to fossil fuels, and this is a possibility. however inefficient it is still the cleanest alternative with our current technology.
Yes, fuel cells are clean. But there is still the problem of producing the hydrogen safely and in a cost effective manner. Bond breaking is a highly energy costly process, which is why "finding" energy almost ready for use (needs to be refined) is currently the preferred method. Hydrogen used in fuel cells is NOT the energy source per se, but more a battery since bonds are first broken, requiring energy, then reformed, liberating energy via the fuel cell. We STILL need to acquire the energy and I haven't seen the calculations showing wind, solar, tidal, or whatever can put a dent into global crude consumption.
i also understand that this couldn't be a universal answer to our energy needs. we need to realize that there are way to many people on this planet. but this method is good enough for farmers and ranchers.
What percentage of "farmers and ranchers"? And what percentage of their total energy consumption of those that to? Let's keep the topic grounded in reality and not adjectives.
you see, i am from north dakota. and it is rated as the windiest state in the nation. the wind blows in excess, and that excess could be transfered into hydrogen for ranchers and farmers to fuel their tractors, heaters, and cars. what the norwegians are doing is having a wind powered grid on their experimental island where the wind blows in excess as well. you see, only a fraction of the electricity created by wind is actually used, and the electricity in excess is used to store hydrogen to fuel their fuel cells. don't tell me it doesn't work, go to norway and tell them to stop because they are ones doing the impossible.
So one "experimental island" with absolutely perfect conditions, population, conservation minded limited population actually, PROVES that wind power is the answer? Sorry if I'm more than a little skeptical about this.
Furthermore, what are the long range implications of large scale windfarms, both from a visual standpoint, and more important by changing local or possibly regional wind/weather patterns? We know from past experience with dams and such that you just don't change nature to suit your needs without affecting other parameters in the ecosystem, sometimes in a harmful manner that only is apparent years down the road.
As I said in my original post CONSERVATION is the key here. We, humanity as a collective whole, needs to learn to save energy. You don't simply "vote" for the environment, you LIVE it everyday in the actions and decisions you make. I think it comical when Democrats drive 2 or 3 ton vehicles when they don't need them. And Republicans that drive large vehicles "because they can" are also hipocrits of the highest order. I'm sorry to rant here but technology can't SOLVE the problem only people AND technology can solve the problem.
Wind power? Yes, let's use it where it makes sense.
Active Solar? Yes
Passive Solar? Yes, let's start making sure all homes incorporate passive solor as it only needs be designed in, with basically no extra cost in many cases only an orientation of the house has to occur.
Tidal? Yes again, but remember this isn't free either. "Sucking" tidal forces will eventually slow the rotation of the Earth, and yes I know this is inconsequential.
Solar and Wind are both Sun driven on the otherhand.
Unfortunately the majority of the people in the US are extremely wasteful. They only think about energy when they don't have any, or if prices rise. When they have it they waste it and think of it as a "right." They "scream" for more electricity and oil but "scream" again when there is talk of drilling in Alaska. Damn fools won't think to turn off a light or buy a less massive car, smaller house, etc...
BTW, I live in NJ.
Mark
i absolutely agree with the idea of conservation. that is the key. as a hunkpapa lakota i see the white folk use and abuse our land. the dammed the missouri on each reservation in north and south dakota, flooding millions of acres of indian land. i have seen them treat the soil as if it were in infinite supply(remember the dust bowl). many are christians and they say things like, "it doesnt matter what we do to the planet, because this life doesnt matter when compared to the enternity we will spend in heaven. plus, if we did ruin the planet god will fix it for us." this logic eludes my people. and we are the ones called primitive and savage.
i also agree that there (at the moment) isnt a single answer, and i didnt expect wind to solve all problems, but where i am from it can solve plenty. nodak has several coal burning plants and they are rotten. they might as well be burning styrofoam to turn their turbines. also, in nodak we have a thing called net-metering. which means if you have a wind, solar, or whatever type of generator at your house, and it produces more electricity than you use the excess electricity can run back into the grid and the power companies have to give you a fair price for it. for example, my father's neighbor to the south built 3 crude yet cost efficient turbines from used car parts. he claims, and i cant verify it, that he produced 250 watts per turbine at 10 mph, and up to 1000 watts at 20. in nodak on the prairie it is windy everyday. it blows a minumum of 10 mph. so this guy seemingly has figured out a way to power his ranch as well as get a little each month from the energy co-op. i think its a great idea.
you made a good point that houses with the proper orientation to the sun and under the right circumstances should incorporate solar arrays on the roof. a distributed gridof such a kind in a neighborhood could possibly generate enough electricity if and when there is a blackout. it couldnt run the AC but at least you could have enough for light and small appliances.
i do not claim to have the answer for everyone. on my reservation we are developing turbines to power our towns and casinos. at least we are making progress while the rest of the country keeps fighting over details. actions speak more than words. even if the world goes to shit and fossil fuels run out, my people will always have our land and we will be laughing while all the washichun will be begging from us. (indian humor, can you take a joke)
i also agree that there (at the moment) isnt a single answer, and i didnt expect wind to solve all problems, but where i am from it can solve plenty. nodak has several coal burning plants and they are rotten. they might as well be burning styrofoam to turn their turbines. also, in nodak we have a thing called net-metering. which means if you have a wind, solar, or whatever type of generator at your house, and it produces more electricity than you use the excess electricity can run back into the grid and the power companies have to give you a fair price for it. for example, my father's neighbor to the south built 3 crude yet cost efficient turbines from used car parts. he claims, and i cant verify it, that he produced 250 watts per turbine at 10 mph, and up to 1000 watts at 20. in nodak on the prairie it is windy everyday. it blows a minumum of 10 mph. so this guy seemingly has figured out a way to power his ranch as well as get a little each month from the energy co-op. i think its a great idea.
you made a good point that houses with the proper orientation to the sun and under the right circumstances should incorporate solar arrays on the roof. a distributed gridof such a kind in a neighborhood could possibly generate enough electricity if and when there is a blackout. it couldnt run the AC but at least you could have enough for light and small appliances.
i do not claim to have the answer for everyone. on my reservation we are developing turbines to power our towns and casinos. at least we are making progress while the rest of the country keeps fighting over details. actions speak more than words. even if the world goes to shit and fossil fuels run out, my people will always have our land and we will be laughing while all the washichun will be begging from us. (indian humor, can you take a joke)
Hi Fozzworth, I remember reading about how windy it is in N. Dakota - and how that resource is being used. It has to be a good idea.
I think all the sunnier parts of the world should be cloaked in photovoltaics, all coasts shrouded in tidal generators and all windy parts coated in turbines. Decent storage for car propuslion is the electric problem.
How do hydrogen fuel cells produce energy without 'combustion' of the hydrogen?
I think all the sunnier parts of the world should be cloaked in photovoltaics, all coasts shrouded in tidal generators and all windy parts coated in turbines. Decent storage for car propuslion is the electric problem.
How do hydrogen fuel cells produce energy without 'combustion' of the hydrogen?
Fozzworth,
I have a great deal of respect for Native Americans. There is no doubt in my mind that all cultures and races develop equally overall, but in different areas. Europeans moved ahead technologically, but philosophically, in many ways, the Native Americans, and MANY other native peoples were (are) very advanced. There is much to be said for understanding the meaning of the word "balance."
The fact that we are concerned about this and can have an intelligent dialog indicates our being on the same wavelength. Hopefully we can educate others to this reality and move towards a more peaceful existance with our natural resources.
I am fearful that the Chinese (one example) are moving into an industrial revolution like the one America had in the middle part of this century. Their growing demand for energy could cause alarming global problems in terms of war and pollution. When the lights turn out people care little for clean energy, regulations, and their neighbors.
I have a great deal of respect for Native Americans. There is no doubt in my mind that all cultures and races develop equally overall, but in different areas. Europeans moved ahead technologically, but philosophically, in many ways, the Native Americans, and MANY other native peoples were (are) very advanced. There is much to be said for understanding the meaning of the word "balance."
The fact that we are concerned about this and can have an intelligent dialog indicates our being on the same wavelength. Hopefully we can educate others to this reality and move towards a more peaceful existance with our natural resources.
I am fearful that the Chinese (one example) are moving into an industrial revolution like the one America had in the middle part of this century. Their growing demand for energy could cause alarming global problems in terms of war and pollution. When the lights turn out people care little for clean energy, regulations, and their neighbors.
Hi fozworth
I have no problems in the understanding whatsoever, its the belief thats the problem. I do not believe that the explosive energy of hydrogen fully re-constitutes the original amount of water as Downunder and many others suggest. while I will give you that some water is reconstituted the result is not the same as the original, It cant be if the conversion rates are as described.
Their is a QM reason why conversion rates are what they are and this is not negated by this process. If you dont believe, try the simple school experiment of converting water to hydrogen then exploding it and see the results. Its a very long time since my school days but I remember the results were inconsistant. It has to be done in an enviroment where all the products can be captured otherwise the results will be even worse.
I do understand, however that their are specialised uses for hydrogen fuel cells. which are fully acceptable, but fuel cells will never replace petrol.
Transport for the future needs to forget fuel driven engines whereby the current engine fuel is modified.
AR
I have no problems in the understanding whatsoever, its the belief thats the problem. I do not believe that the explosive energy of hydrogen fully re-constitutes the original amount of water as Downunder and many others suggest. while I will give you that some water is reconstituted the result is not the same as the original, It cant be if the conversion rates are as described.
Their is a QM reason why conversion rates are what they are and this is not negated by this process. If you dont believe, try the simple school experiment of converting water to hydrogen then exploding it and see the results. Its a very long time since my school days but I remember the results were inconsistant. It has to be done in an enviroment where all the products can be captured otherwise the results will be even worse.
I do understand, however that their are specialised uses for hydrogen fuel cells. which are fully acceptable, but fuel cells will never replace petrol.
Transport for the future needs to forget fuel driven engines whereby the current engine fuel is modified.
AR
Hi Mark
Well said
your concerns and facts seem to be unapreciated by most here. I think most of them want to make money out of stupid idea's. The electric car is without doubt the way forward we should be improving cars not the fuel.
AR
Well said
your concerns and facts seem to be unapreciated by most here. I think most of them want to make money out of stupid idea's. The electric car is without doubt the way forward we should be improving cars not the fuel.
AR
Hi AR,
The actual conversion rates are the same.
Two molecules of water are converted to two molecules of H2 and one molecule of O2. The two molecules of H2 and one molecule of O2 are then converted back to two molecules of water.
It is the energy conversion rates that are different. In practice it takes more energy to convert the water to hydrogen and oxygen than you can get from the recombination.
z
The actual conversion rates are the same.
Two molecules of water are converted to two molecules of H2 and one molecule of O2. The two molecules of H2 and one molecule of O2 are then converted back to two molecules of water.
It is the energy conversion rates that are different. In practice it takes more energy to convert the water to hydrogen and oxygen than you can get from the recombination.
z
Hi z thanks for that
but are you talking of burning the hydrogen in pure oxygen or in air?
AR
but are you talking of burning the hydrogen in pure oxygen or in air?
AR
Hi AR, all, the only reactive element of air is oxygen. Nitrogen, argon and co2 (the other major constituents) are pretty well inert by comparison and the hydrogen will happily react in the proportions z mentions to produce water. I suspect this is why our planet contains so much water and oxygen but no hydrogen.
Hi all, sorry about all my previous rubbish. I have just been reading about hydrogen fuel cells and they have nothing to do with combustion. The process is an electro-chemical recombination of hydrogen and oxygen via a proton-exchange membrane. This generates electricity to power a motor.
It seems there are cases where hydrogen is combusted to providde power but storage of enough of it to go far is hard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_car
discusses some of the details.
It seems there are cases where hydrogen is combusted to providde power but storage of enough of it to go far is hard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_car
discusses some of the details.
QUOTE (z+Dec 18 2004, 08:38 PM)
Hi all,
Almost any energy source (except maybe nuclear with its waste problem) is preferable to the continued high usage of fossil fuels.
z
Nuclear continues to get a bad rap... Waste is not the issue its cracked up to be (We might, for example, let the immediate waste stand in the open air for 6 mo.s (for the worst of the reactive to break down) and then vitrify the rest and, finally, dump it into one of the deep canyons of the Oceans. The current levels in our Oceans would remain virtually unchanged...Almost any energy source (except maybe nuclear with its waste problem) is preferable to the continued high usage of fossil fuels.
z
IFRs should be under construction now in order to avoid pain and suffering for Oil's wan. btw, Hydrogen (and oxygen) could be harvested from water from the ancillary heat generated by IFR (waste not, want not ;o)
hi,
The worst of the nuclear wastes have up to 25,000 year half-lives.
As well as the waste porblem, there is the terrorist problem.
z
The worst of the nuclear wastes have up to 25,000 year half-lives.
As well as the waste porblem, there is the terrorist problem.
z
QUOTE (z+Dec 28 2004, 10:02 PM)
hi,
The worst of the nuclear wastes have up to 25,000 year half-lives.
As well as the waste porblem, there is the terrorist problem.
z
The worst of the nuclear wastes have up to 25,000 year half-lives.
As well as the waste porblem, there is the terrorist problem.
z
Hi, back
IMHO, both of your concerns are unwarranted. Vitrification of source materials (as well as waste) enable a reactor to run without possibility of meltdown and preclude the problem of mounting dangerous waste. Vitirified waste 'tiles' could be stacked until relocated~ (obviously, virified source materials would have to be pulverized in order to let the more complex components break down a bit in open air containers, and then vitrified again for disposal)
Once waste is dumped into the Oceans' depths, I believe it would be far easier to acquire materials of interest to terrorists by other (already in place ;-) means. Further, the process required to harvest relatively little material of interest would be cost prohibitive.
Again, IMO Nuclear is the only currently viable opion to pick up the slack for fossil fuels waning supply. Cold fusion, even Zero point energy, look ever more interesting,,, boutique sources of energy (wind solar hydro geo) seem ever more able to step up to supplement need, but the bottom line is that we still depend on Oil about as much as we depend on water...
H esin
while I agree there are many sources of energy which can be tapped each has to be taken on its merits with proper evaluation.
There has been the mention of tidal forces and their use slowing the earth rotation, however tides are produced by the gravitational force from the moon lifting the seas and the land to a much lesser extent. I do not believe this would cause speed reduction.
There has been much talk mostly by me of the concerns re the use of our water.While the recombination formule presented by Z and others are correct, if the 65% performance efficiancy suggested by some is also correct, then the additional energy is coming from somewhere which is probably damage to the hydrogen molecules.
AR
while I agree there are many sources of energy which can be tapped each has to be taken on its merits with proper evaluation.
There has been the mention of tidal forces and their use slowing the earth rotation, however tides are produced by the gravitational force from the moon lifting the seas and the land to a much lesser extent. I do not believe this would cause speed reduction.
There has been much talk mostly by me of the concerns re the use of our water.While the recombination formule presented by Z and others are correct, if the 65% performance efficiancy suggested by some is also correct, then the additional energy is coming from somewhere which is probably damage to the hydrogen molecules.
AR
QUOTE (ARtone+Dec 29 2004, 12:38 PM)
H esin
while I agree there are many sources of energy which can be tapped each has to be taken on its merits with proper evaluation.
There has been the mention of tidal forces and their use slowing the earth rotation, however tides are produced by the gravitational force from the moon lifting the seas and the land to a much lesser extent. I do not believe this would cause speed reduction.
There has been much talk mostly by me of the concerns re the use of our water.While the recombination formule presented by Z and others are correct, if the 65% performance efficiancy suggested by some is also correct, then the additional energy is coming from somewhere which is probably damage to the hydrogen molecules.
AR
while I agree there are many sources of energy which can be tapped each has to be taken on its merits with proper evaluation.
There has been the mention of tidal forces and their use slowing the earth rotation, however tides are produced by the gravitational force from the moon lifting the seas and the land to a much lesser extent. I do not believe this would cause speed reduction.
There has been much talk mostly by me of the concerns re the use of our water.While the recombination formule presented by Z and others are correct, if the 65% performance efficiancy suggested by some is also correct, then the additional energy is coming from somewhere which is probably damage to the hydrogen molecules.
AR
I heartily agree with the case by case evaluation,,, practicability must rule in the end. There is no free lunch
I also agree with the renewable part of the tidal energy, however, water is amazingly 'adaptable' in its quest for the path of least resistance. We have much to learn about how to harness tidal force cost effectively and in an environmentally neutral manner.
".. is probably damage to the hydrogen molecules."
That's rich
thanks, I enjoyed that..Kick start the H2, O2 frenzy with just a bit of a spark and get oddles of heat energy for your efforts. The rub is you have to put back the same amount of energy to get back to H2, O2. The efficiency measure relates to the energy harvested vs. the energy needed to split them back out again,,, and is less then 100% because we live in less then a perfect environ and because we have not honed our skills well enough to approach 100% efficiency. ~regards
Hi guest
perhaps damage was the wrong word.
I assume your last para means that you do not believe in the damage, which is funny because in condensate experiments when the condensate is laser stirred too vigerously, it explodes with a lesser total result than it started with.
AR
perhaps damage was the wrong word.
I assume your last para means that you do not believe in the damage, which is funny because in condensate experiments when the condensate is laser stirred too vigerously, it explodes with a lesser total result than it started with.
AR
QUOTE (esin+Dec 29 2004, 12:00 PM)
Again, IMO Nuclear is the only currently viable opion to pick up the slack for fossil fuels waning supply. Cold fusion, even Zero point energy, look ever more interesting,,, boutique sources of energy (wind solar hydro geo) seem ever more able to step up to supplement need, but the bottom line is that we still depend on Oil about as much as we depend on water...
I agree that we will need nuclear energy for some time until a descent alternative is found. We just can't close all nuclear power centrals and replace them with fossil based centrals. Unfortunately, cold fusion, zero point energy, ... are not for anytime soon
Hi,
If the government would invest less than one percent of our tax dollar into installing wind and solar, it would go along way toward helping the situation. Also, the investment could be recouped by the government retaininmg ownership of the installations and selling the energy created at market value.
Article on Hydrogen:
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-12/p39.html
z
If the government would invest less than one percent of our tax dollar into installing wind and solar, it would go along way toward helping the situation. Also, the investment could be recouped by the government retaininmg ownership of the installations and selling the energy created at market value.
Article on Hydrogen:
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-12/p39.html
z
Hey, I tend to agree that nuclear is probably the way of the short term future. It's effects (with good managment) is highly localized and therefore predictable. Plus, with new possible safe sites of opperation (ie the moon) it would nullify most of the negative waste issues we have with it currently (although the oceanic cannon idea is pretty straightforward solution too).
The problem with wind is that there arent very many places that can support constant or atleast predictable power. And it ruins the country by being very noisy. But most of all its widespread, so its harder to predict the potiental sideeffects of it. Such as contributing to local warming, and possible global warming (http://www.ucalgary.ca/~keith/WindAndClimateNote.html).
And as for solar panels, I think they are still made from toxic materials and use more energy to be created, than they can deliver over their lifetime (atleast thats how they were a year ago). So you would still need some other source of energy to create them in the first place.
Anyhow, I'm probably wrong on this, but just thought I'd add my two cents.
Oh, also another good point on nuclear, it can create a lot of hydrogen very quickly compared to other methods of getting hydrogen from water :
http://www.eurekalert.org/features/doe/200...l-npm061404.php
The problem with wind is that there arent very many places that can support constant or atleast predictable power. And it ruins the country by being very noisy. But most of all its widespread, so its harder to predict the potiental sideeffects of it. Such as contributing to local warming, and possible global warming (http://www.ucalgary.ca/~keith/WindAndClimateNote.html).
And as for solar panels, I think they are still made from toxic materials and use more energy to be created, than they can deliver over their lifetime (atleast thats how they were a year ago). So you would still need some other source of energy to create them in the first place.
Anyhow, I'm probably wrong on this, but just thought I'd add my two cents.
Oh, also another good point on nuclear, it can create a lot of hydrogen very quickly compared to other methods of getting hydrogen from water :
http://www.eurekalert.org/features/doe/200...l-npm061404.php
Hi a guy,
There are enough well known wind power sites all over the US to provide all the power needed for the entire country. They just need to be developed.
New wind turbine designs are quiteer and much more effiecient than the older ones. Anyhow noise poution is preferable to fossil fuel and nuclear pollution and it can be filtered out.
Wind power in no way will contribute to global warming or climate change. This is el torro poo-poo from the present fossil fuel and nuclear industry.
Solar panels either don;'t contain any toxic materials or if they do they are only in minute levels. There's more toxicity in the mercury used in tooth fillings.
Solar panels will pay back the energy used to create them in 2-5 years depending on the specific type of panel. The have a guaranteed lifetime of at least 25 years and JPL testing has shown that they will probably last anywhere from 50-100 years or more.
z
There are enough well known wind power sites all over the US to provide all the power needed for the entire country. They just need to be developed.
New wind turbine designs are quiteer and much more effiecient than the older ones. Anyhow noise poution is preferable to fossil fuel and nuclear pollution and it can be filtered out.
Wind power in no way will contribute to global warming or climate change. This is el torro poo-poo from the present fossil fuel and nuclear industry.
Solar panels either don;'t contain any toxic materials or if they do they are only in minute levels. There's more toxicity in the mercury used in tooth fillings.
Solar panels will pay back the energy used to create them in 2-5 years depending on the specific type of panel. The have a guaranteed lifetime of at least 25 years and JPL testing has shown that they will probably last anywhere from 50-100 years or more.
z
hello,
i donno if this is going off course, but I've had this idea for ages..
when ice cubes melt in a glass of water, the water level goes down. Because ice takes up a large volume than the same mass of H2O in liquid form.
Now I do belive the north pole is all just ice floating in water. As for the south pole, i would say theres a bit of land under it, just a bit mind. So the "melting ice cube" theory wouldn't work for all of it, because some is sitting on land.
So should scientists not be trying to figure out how much of the melting ice is IN water, and how much is sitting on land in order to get a proper figure for sea level "rising"? I mean, for all we know it could drop instead!
i donno if this is going off course, but I've had this idea for ages..
when ice cubes melt in a glass of water, the water level goes down. Because ice takes up a large volume than the same mass of H2O in liquid form.
Now I do belive the north pole is all just ice floating in water. As for the south pole, i would say theres a bit of land under it, just a bit mind. So the "melting ice cube" theory wouldn't work for all of it, because some is sitting on land.
So should scientists not be trying to figure out how much of the melting ice is IN water, and how much is sitting on land in order to get a proper figure for sea level "rising"? I mean, for all we know it could drop instead!
Hi Andy,
I believe, from my reading, that all these factors are being taken into account.
z
I believe, from my reading, that all these factors are being taken into account.
z
I herd water is a good blocker of gamma radiation, why not build nuclear power stations under water?
QUOTE (ARtone+Dec 29 2004, 12:38 PM)
H esin
while I agree there are many sources of energy which can be tapped each has to be taken on its merits with proper evaluation.
There has been the mention of tidal forces and their use slowing the earth rotation, however tides are produced by the gravitational force from the moon lifting the seas and the land to a much lesser extent. I do not believe this would cause speed reduction.
There has been much talk mostly by me of the concerns re the use of our water.While the recombination formule presented by Z and others are correct, if the 65% performance efficiancy suggested by some is also correct, then the additional energy is coming from somewhere which is probably damage to the hydrogen molecules.
AR
It will take a LOOONG time for the rotation of the Earth to be appreciably slowed due to tidal forces.while I agree there are many sources of energy which can be tapped each has to be taken on its merits with proper evaluation.
There has been the mention of tidal forces and their use slowing the earth rotation, however tides are produced by the gravitational force from the moon lifting the seas and the land to a much lesser extent. I do not believe this would cause speed reduction.
There has been much talk mostly by me of the concerns re the use of our water.While the recombination formule presented by Z and others are correct, if the 65% performance efficiancy suggested by some is also correct, then the additional energy is coming from somewhere which is probably damage to the hydrogen molecules.
AR
But, it DOES happen. The same side of the moon always faces the Earth, it does NOT rotate in relation to the Earth because over the millenia tidal forces have stopped the rotation. And there is NO water on the moon. The frictional forces of the moon slowely "drained" the rotational intertia from the moon. By frictional, I am referring to the continuing bulging as the moon used to rotate.3
I still say our energy problems will first and foremost be reduced by personal responsibility. I am shopping for a new car now, and although it would be nice to drive around an SUV, I'm going for something less than 3000lb that will get an average of 25mpg or more. Perhaps an Acura RSX or VW Golf.
- Mark
Hi Andy,
I just read another article today.
If the all the mountain glaciers melt - a half a meter rise in sea level
If the all greenland ice sheet melts - an additional 7.5 meter rise in sea level
If the entire anartic ice sheet melts - an additional 65 meter rise in sea level
z
I just read another article today.
If the all the mountain glaciers melt - a half a meter rise in sea level
If the all greenland ice sheet melts - an additional 7.5 meter rise in sea level
If the entire anartic ice sheet melts - an additional 65 meter rise in sea level
z
well, has bits of ice started melting yet? Because i cant see any significant change.
change in water level i mean
suggest you read fully this US Geological Survey web page. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/ Note actual potential sea level rise is not 65 meters but somewhat north of 80 meters. Note rate of contraction of mountain glaciers in Glacier National Park, Montana.
Second point is, above sea level rises are based only on displacement additions from melting ice. Actual rises will be MUCH higher due to two additional factors.
1) Continental plate rebound. eg. remove all the ice from antartica and the whole continent will rise upward significantly. Might add another 25% ++.
2) if climate warms enough to melt antartic ice sheet, say 8 to 12 degC avg., as has happened at least twice in "geologically recent" past, then all the water presently in the oceans can be expected to expand a proportionate amount. Co-effic. of thermal expansion of water x average depth gets you a further serious increase in sea levels.
Ocean beachfront properties in Arkansas anyone?
Second point is, above sea level rises are based only on displacement additions from melting ice. Actual rises will be MUCH higher due to two additional factors.
1) Continental plate rebound. eg. remove all the ice from antartica and the whole continent will rise upward significantly. Might add another 25% ++.
2) if climate warms enough to melt antartic ice sheet, say 8 to 12 degC avg., as has happened at least twice in "geologically recent" past, then all the water presently in the oceans can be expected to expand a proportionate amount. Co-effic. of thermal expansion of water x average depth gets you a further serious increase in sea levels.
Ocean beachfront properties in Arkansas anyone?
AH! Surely this ice is ABSORBING heat to make it melt! Therefore, cooling the atmosphere!
The melting ice does absorb heat, but this doesn't actually cool the atmosphere, it just prevents it from warming up faster.
I think I read somewhere that sea level is rising 1 to 3 millimeters a year ( or maybe it was a decade)
z
I think I read somewhere that sea level is rising 1 to 3 millimeters a year ( or maybe it was a decade)
z
Hi All,
I hate to rain on your parade but...
As global temperatures rise glaciation will initially (paradoxically) increase in the Northern Hemisphere. This is because precipitation will increase. At the same time the velocity of the glacier's reid flow will also dramatically increase. This will temporarily extend the foot of the glacier. As temperatures continue to rise this foot will begin to rapidly shrink and eventually it will shrink right up to the top of its glacial valley. It depends where you are and at what altitude the glacier is at, as to which stage you are currently in. I notice that NOAA has predicted a real hot year coming up!
As to melting of the polar caps... The North Pole will go first because of rapidly advancing climatic influences due to man. More importantly will be the deep oceanic O2 levels which will dramatically alter due to failure of the ice shelves in both the north and south as drivers of the thermal processes in the deep. It is expected that major oceanic currents will no longer have the drivers of the ice shelves to "power" them. That is when a huge dieback will occur and most deep ocean life will perish when those areas of the ocean will not be able to support large quantities of life due to low O2 levels.
The increasing sea surface temperatures will then "bleach" coral reefs around the world (which is already happening) causing a dieback in life on reefs. Both these effects are underway at the moment simultaneously with the breaking up of huge sections of the southern iceshelf that has already occurred. This is only the beginning of the problems.
Loss of large sections of the southern iceshelf has removed a significant portion of the habitat for the krill in that region of the World which is the prime source of food for the rest of the food chain moving all the way up the major predators and the whales even into the northern continents.
This is the just the beginning of the problems. As the oceans get one or two meters deeper expect coral reefs to be submerged finishing them off as refuges for the last remaining large stores of shallow water fish. Many Oceanic states will disappear along with their unique habitats because this is the maximum height above sea level they are.
You guys in the Northern Hemisphere already know about the effects that over fishing has already caused to the Cod off Newfoundland's Grand Banks and the Mackerel, Haddock and Cod off England's Dogger Banks and others. The ecosystems are irreversibly damaged and those fish will not be coming back – other sea life not as palatable to man has moved in and filled the niche. That’s just the start eh! Remember the Cod Wars in the North Sea? How’s the fishing lately? I’ll bet Britain now wished they had not been so unpleasant to the Norwegians. They still got some theirs!
That is the value of conservation – you get to keep what’s yours.
This is long before the Antarctic melts.
I hate to rain on your parade but...
As global temperatures rise glaciation will initially (paradoxically) increase in the Northern Hemisphere. This is because precipitation will increase. At the same time the velocity of the glacier's reid flow will also dramatically increase. This will temporarily extend the foot of the glacier. As temperatures continue to rise this foot will begin to rapidly shrink and eventually it will shrink right up to the top of its glacial valley. It depends where you are and at what altitude the glacier is at, as to which stage you are currently in. I notice that NOAA has predicted a real hot year coming up!
As to melting of the polar caps... The North Pole will go first because of rapidly advancing climatic influences due to man. More importantly will be the deep oceanic O2 levels which will dramatically alter due to failure of the ice shelves in both the north and south as drivers of the thermal processes in the deep. It is expected that major oceanic currents will no longer have the drivers of the ice shelves to "power" them. That is when a huge dieback will occur and most deep ocean life will perish when those areas of the ocean will not be able to support large quantities of life due to low O2 levels.
The increasing sea surface temperatures will then "bleach" coral reefs around the world (which is already happening) causing a dieback in life on reefs. Both these effects are underway at the moment simultaneously with the breaking up of huge sections of the southern iceshelf that has already occurred. This is only the beginning of the problems.
Loss of large sections of the southern iceshelf has removed a significant portion of the habitat for the krill in that region of the World which is the prime source of food for the rest of the food chain moving all the way up the major predators and the whales even into the northern continents.
This is the just the beginning of the problems. As the oceans get one or two meters deeper expect coral reefs to be submerged finishing them off as refuges for the last remaining large stores of shallow water fish. Many Oceanic states will disappear along with their unique habitats because this is the maximum height above sea level they are.
You guys in the Northern Hemisphere already know about the effects that over fishing has already caused to the Cod off Newfoundland's Grand Banks and the Mackerel, Haddock and Cod off England's Dogger Banks and others. The ecosystems are irreversibly damaged and those fish will not be coming back – other sea life not as palatable to man has moved in and filled the niche. That’s just the start eh! Remember the Cod Wars in the North Sea? How’s the fishing lately? I’ll bet Britain now wished they had not been so unpleasant to the Norwegians. They still got some theirs!
That is the value of conservation – you get to keep what’s yours.
This is long before the Antarctic melts.
Cheers Elf, you make it sound so rosy. Certainly there do seem to be signs of glacial retreat and coral bleaching in most parts of the world and we are down to sole-of-shoe or tyre as seafood choices so I agree we have gone too far already.
How to stop people fishing or emitting CO2 is the challenge and unfortunately we are all too greedy and selfish for it to be likely. 4x4s and cheap air travel all the rage and fishing communities up in arms whenever it is suggested that they are emptying the oceans.
How to stop people fishing or emitting CO2 is the challenge and unfortunately we are all too greedy and selfish for it to be likely. 4x4s and cheap air travel all the rage and fishing communities up in arms whenever it is suggested that they are emptying the oceans.
Well howl your horses there! I thought the idea was that when the dinosaurs were alive, antartica was like, tropical! So where did all this water come from to make ice caps?! Like, if u increase the water lever by 60m - 80m, there'd hardly be any land left. Proof that the level was low? The whereabouts of bones would tell u.
And anyway, the world started as a molten ball of rock, then life "evolved", then a "meteor" hit, and killed the dinosaurs, then the ice age came, then the world heated right back up again.. and life survived. (i herd the meteor idea was disproved because of bees being alive before and then magically after too.)
So i dont belive CO2 will hurt it much. I mean, ok, its a bad thing lets keep cutting down as much as possible, but theres no need to go nuts.
One more thing, i herd a Volcano throws up more chemicals and crap into the air than cars could make in 1000 years! And volcanoes are natural.
And then some say the sun might just have got a bit hotter for a while, it is a big ball of fire, surely it fluxtuates?
And anyway, the world started as a molten ball of rock, then life "evolved", then a "meteor" hit, and killed the dinosaurs, then the ice age came, then the world heated right back up again.. and life survived. (i herd the meteor idea was disproved because of bees being alive before and then magically after too.)
So i dont belive CO2 will hurt it much. I mean, ok, its a bad thing lets keep cutting down as much as possible, but theres no need to go nuts.
One more thing, i herd a Volcano throws up more chemicals and crap into the air than cars could make in 1000 years! And volcanoes are natural.
And then some say the sun might just have got a bit hotter for a while, it is a big ball of fire, surely it fluxtuates?
This is hilarious!
Haven't any of you heard the expression "A little learning is a dangerous thing" ?
The truth is that psuedo scientific people (some with doctorates and international acclaim) make projections to support their pet thesis based on selecting the data to fit. It was warm enough a thousand years ago that the Vikings farmed Greenland, but back then no morons could blame it on the industrialized West. No harm done back done, either.
Haven't any of you heard the expression "A little learning is a dangerous thing" ?
The truth is that psuedo scientific people (some with doctorates and international acclaim) make projections to support their pet thesis based on selecting the data to fit. It was warm enough a thousand years ago that the Vikings farmed Greenland, but back then no morons could blame it on the industrialized West. No harm done back done, either.
Hi Jack,
You are missing the point. There was no greenhouse problem then. Things went back after the short hiatus. It is different now with a possible runaway greenhouse problem. It is the carbon atmospheric imbalance that is the real problem now. We can take short term hot spells due to solar variation. Bring them both together as it is now and you have double jeopardy.
Too little research eh!
Cheers
You are missing the point. There was no greenhouse problem then. Things went back after the short hiatus. It is different now with a possible runaway greenhouse problem. It is the carbon atmospheric imbalance that is the real problem now. We can take short term hot spells due to solar variation. Bring them both together as it is now and you have double jeopardy.
Too little research eh!
Cheers
Hi professor andy,
I see your point... So you don't mind the fact that next time around you may be descended from cockroaches instead of apes?
You are right about natural variations in solar flux and others have also pointed out about the emission of greenhouse gases by volcanoes. All that is correct. The issue is the present greenhouse gas problem is not a "natural" process and it is under our control and it may reach a stage where it "runs away" and leads to a situation similar to the one on our sister planet Venus. Alright it may not be that bad but lets just say it wipes out 90% of the wild species on earth (has happened several times before) and the ecosystems disappear, are you intending to sustain life on earth artificially using man made systems to create the various products we need to sustain life for us indefinitely or would you rather see our species become extinct and have things "naturally" be restored over one or two hundred million years?
I think the rats, cockroaches and ocean bottom dwelling life (this is their big chance) are rooting for you so choose well.
Cheers
I see your point... So you don't mind the fact that next time around you may be descended from cockroaches instead of apes?
You are right about natural variations in solar flux and others have also pointed out about the emission of greenhouse gases by volcanoes. All that is correct. The issue is the present greenhouse gas problem is not a "natural" process and it is under our control and it may reach a stage where it "runs away" and leads to a situation similar to the one on our sister planet Venus. Alright it may not be that bad but lets just say it wipes out 90% of the wild species on earth (has happened several times before) and the ecosystems disappear, are you intending to sustain life on earth artificially using man made systems to create the various products we need to sustain life for us indefinitely or would you rather see our species become extinct and have things "naturally" be restored over one or two hundred million years?
I think the rats, cockroaches and ocean bottom dwelling life (this is their big chance) are rooting for you so choose well.
Cheers
QUOTE (Jack+Jan 6 2005, 10:19 PM)
This is hilarious!
Haven't any of you heard the expression "A little learning is a dangerous thing" ?
The truth is that psuedo scientific people (some with doctorates and international acclaim) make projections to support their pet thesis based on selecting the data to fit. It was warm enough a thousand years ago that the Vikings farmed Greenland, but back then no morons could blame it on the industrialized West. No harm done back done, either.
What's funnier is how dangerous no learing at all is, Jack.
Haven't any of you heard the expression "A little learning is a dangerous thing" ?
The truth is that psuedo scientific people (some with doctorates and international acclaim) make projections to support their pet thesis based on selecting the data to fit. It was warm enough a thousand years ago that the Vikings farmed Greenland, but back then no morons could blame it on the industrialized West. No harm done back done, either.
Hi Moseley,
| QUOTE |
| How to stop people fishing or emitting CO2 You can't stop people fishing but you can protect and manage what you still have from being poached. That also means you can't be a poacher either. The emission of CO2 is not the problem it is the excess carbon. As I have said in other posts just "close" this carbon cycle by using non-fossil fuel such as alcohol and "outlaw" fossil fuels. It will mean an increase in cost by about 30% but isn't too much to pay considering what people put up with anyway. This would be a one off jump in cost and a small alteration to the jets of the automobiles that are already out there. Check this site out Iogen by the Shell Oil Company Burn as much fuel as you like and the CO2 will no longer increase in the atmosphere. It is a zero sum problem. You will need to do something about the existing problem though and that's why you will need new Physics. Cheers
Oh.... I forgot to say there is a page on that site about how this closed carbon cycle works in case you don't know. The Clean Fuel Cycle
This is about as painless as it can get. It just needs someone to pay for it.
Right - bio-fuel is a fine solution to no-net increase in CO2 but how much land needs to be harvested to provide fuel for say 3 billion cars? Brief research indicates 500 gallons per acre seems to be a sugar cane average (twice the alcohol production of corn, potatoes, 3x rice - corn has most useful by-products). So Britain, with 25 million cars doing 10, 000 miles per year at average 25 mpg (400 gallons each annually), needs 10 billion gallons per year. I reckon that is 20 million acres of sugar cane - 640 acres to a square mile - 31, 250 sq. miles. Obviously all these figures are estimates but we are unlikely to be self-sustaining.
I suspect we will need a multi-fuel approach, as well as growing and burying a whole load of trees to turn this around.
Well, some cars in south america (or somewhere) run on ethanol, but there just converted petrol cars. Perhaps if engines were designed specifically for ethanol they could be more efficiant? It would need to be pretty dam efficient like, but aren't petrol cars only 25% or something?
09/01/2005
Hi All, I better dot the “i”’s and cross the “t”’s. Yup... Spot-on about all that but you have forgotten that the increase in the cost of the fuel factors in the fact that it makes it profitable to utilize the waste product from standard farming practices and then some. Suddenly farmers can afford to grow "fuel". The free market will then take care of the rest. I don't know about other countries but farmers are being forced off farms because of low world market prices for their farm produce. At present there is not real market for alcohol fuel. The current small quantities needed can be addressed as a sort of by-product of industry. There is a small market for alcohol as a chemical and as a "foodstuff" but it is not sufficient to supply this huge demand. This is why the world needs to pay an appropriate price for it so it becomes a "new" market product. If it does not need to compete with the current very low cost of production of gasoline, it will thrive. This has a knock on effect of creating a lot of jobs on the land as "fuel" farmers. They will probably target crops that are fast growing and have an advantage there in "direct" alcohol production. I am sure that more of that bio-mass will be utilized for "dual" purposes. I would call all your attention to the fact that the cost of gas is "artificially" low (less than the cost of distilled water). Why is that? Because it does not factor in the cost to the Global Environment that someone will eventually have to pay for. Bio-Alcohol has no such cost so it is (long term) cheaper. Why use Alcohol? Because this is the least disruptive to the world automobile market. You can carry on will little or no change in that area. Gas Stations still pump gas (alcohol) and cars will need a small one off "conversion" but would otherwise be minimally affected by the changeover (no job losses). Sure there may be some problems with existing high power motor vehicles with a peak loss of power but this simply creates a new market for purpose built high power motor cars to utilize the new type of fuel more effectively. I would like mine red please! If people were really wanting it... Bio-gasoline could be produced for the enthusiasts to slot into that "specialist" market. There would be an extra cost to that as well but as long as these high performance vehicles were restricted in numbers as diesel vehicles are today for other "subtle" reasons then there will be no problems (I guess you understand that process). Sort of a "niche" market. Say... Double the cost of present fuel but you could do it (that’s a ball park estimate only) because the technology already exists. Where there is a profit the market will fill the gap (more jobs). It is just a case of paying the "real" cost of the product. This is not a restriction on how many cars you own (you could have two - one for going to work and the other specifically for demonstrating to your neighbours your exceptional capacity for consumption). Both "green" now. This also provides for "vintage" car market remaining intact. No one uses these older cars for driving to work every day they would rather lavish affection on them and keep them nice and warm and snug in their extended garage until that "special" day when they hold their "sacred" meetings where they and their friends worship together in the "holy car park". In the "rich" West this is alway happening so there is no problem there and car manufacturers will more likely accept this "small" change than a much bigger change to the system of outlawing all combustion vehicles in favour of the "slower" and more limited FULLY electric vehicles with their high maintenance and environmental costs. Of course you can still have "hybrid" types but, as now, they are more expensive. I saw the reference to fuel cells. Yes... But this is not acceptable in the third world and is still a developing technology and at a high cost. It will prove itself in the West first and has a bright future. But it is not yet here. By 2020 most of the gasoline cars will be in the third world and they will be pumping gas a lot faster than the West. This is why we must address that problem immediately. How will you get them to comply? You will need a new form of carbon credit tax to apply to imports from countries that refuse to comply. Very soon they will adopt the new fuel to avoid the export tax to the "rich" markets. The longer tem cost to them will be "minimal". Early adopters will have a significant economic advantage over slower competitors. Notice how there are jobs everywhere when you look carefully. No “magic pudding” here you are paying for it with the increased cost of the fuel. You shorten dole queues and provide a country lifestyle (farms) to those who prefer it, everywhere you pump bio-gas. A lot of unhappy farmers will suddenly see a future and the environment will be saved. Side salad...I also see a very big future for hydroponics too since this is a very efficient way to “grow” a large biomass without using huge acreage. It does require more energy so this is where you will need new sources of power long term. It is a “win-win” situation. Growth everywhere and save the environment to boot. It is political will that is the problem. They all know these technologies exist better than you do but there are a few individuals who seem to get more than a fair share of attention by a means other than the ballot boxes. Time to see the big picture instead of just a photo opportunity and a soundbyte. Cheers
As a funny aside you could grade the fuel by the crop it came from such as a good turnip year or from the the shady side of the hill.
Ill have a tank full of mango 2005. Sorry John but I feel happy for once, just got rid of that damn advertiser virus. http://www.benedelman.org/news/111804-1.html for info on the problem. Early indications are a popup asking you where you live. AR
Hi Elf
It may be cheap in your countries but here in the UK we are paying thhought the nazel regions. currently about 85 pence per litre. Average tankfull £32. Good hard drive £85. Whats the cost in Australia? AR
How about we get back to the good old days and just walk everywhere?
z,
Hey, I just read through your reply, and I was wondering where you got the info on how long it takes to recoup the manufactoring energy costs in producing solar cells. Maybe I'm a bit rusty with google, but I can't seem to find any info on that .And toxic materials are definitly in the manufactoring process of solar cells (semiconductor industries), as well as toxic doping agents, that while small in the actuall solar panel, do accumulate when you have enough solar panels to produce anywhere near the power that oil and coal does. (a field of mercury fillings without casketts would not be eco friendly) As for wind turbines, I think its pretty easy to see why they would warm up the local area, with only an effeiency of %40, and the shear number and close quarters of the wind turbines needed to produce power for the nation. As far as global implications are concerned, I don't think there is any way to know with the current state of atmosphereic science. Which is the what's good about nuclear in the first place, its localized and predictable. anyhow, just my um 4 cents yet again take it easy.
Hey Good Elf,
I thought that the land requirements for making ethanol where too outrageous to be anything but a boondoggle. I think something I read said something about 4 acres of land for just one average motorist, which is 4 acres that is taken away from food production and land thats arguably already overworked. (and being that corn is what is commonly used for ethanol production, its not good that corn is the most errosive and pesticide intensive crop there is) To try and cope with the large land requirements and bad ecological affects, I agree that hydroponics would be the way to go. But hydroponics isn't something that a mom and pop organization can throw together. It's only in the big leages cause of the easy transmission of pests and diseases, and the initial structure costs. And comming from a family with a farming / ranching past, its the cost of equipment that's killing the small time farmer. Farmers need new equipment, so they take out a loan. then to pay off the loan they grow more crop. The more crop they grow the less its worth (due to flooding the market), which puts them behind even farther on the payment of their loans, so they grow more crop the next year. This gets so bad that eventually you have the government step in and subsidize the farmers crop, then burn it off so that the market stablizes. The only way around this that I've seen is to have farmers with extremely large farms (ie corporations) so that they can accept equipment costs straight up and control prices due to their large market contribution. Not to mention that corporations usually have much better equipment and are much more afraid suits so they adhere to eviromental regulations much more than the local farmer. Ok, I'm out of cents Leme know if I'm off on a limb QUOTE (a guy+Jan 11 2005, 04:46 AM) Hey Good Elf, I thought that the land requirements for making ethanol where too outrageous to be anything but a boondoggle. I think something I read said something about 4 acres of land for just one average motorist, which is 4 acres that is taken away from food production and land thats arguably already overworked. (and being that corn is what is commonly used for ethanol production, its not good that corn is the most errosive and pesticide intensive crop there is) Leme know if I'm off on a limb I'm no elf, but I can help out. *Most* of our crop land is not used for human food at all, and we have more land that would be suitable for "lower quality" fuel crop than we currently use in food crop land. Indeed less than a fifth of the corn fields used in the US (where the crop is not exported --2/3rds of our corn crop is exported to other industrial nations) is for humans, the rest for animal feed and fuel. That said, ethanol production can be done using "agricultural waste" to cover much of our needs depending on the needs. A conversion to 10,20, 30, or even 85% ethanol powered fuels is certainly within reason and represents a huge change. Likewise, corn isn't the only crop it just gets the most attention. Sugar beets have been shown to be very good at it too, and even potatoes. Sugar cane produces more than double the ethanol corn does. Corn's allure is the non-ethanol byproducts it produces. Also, anti-ethanol zealots like to pick on corn. That said, the byproducts include livestock feed, and the corn cobs aren't used fo rethanol either, IIRC, so there is no competition between food or fuel with corn; it's both. Ethanol replacing 100% of the current petroleum fuels is unrealistic and it has nothing to do with crops. It has to do with the performance of it in the colder climates. An ethanol/gasoline mix would be needed in the colder climates for engine starting. I suppose, however, that one could make hybrids using ethanol or E85/E90/E95 blend driven engines. Indeed, I suspect GM will be working on or unveiling hybrids with an ICE running E85 in the near future. An E85 powered Suburban getting 10MPG already uses less gasoline than a Prius. A smaller V8 or V6 running E85 would of course use even less, and an E85/hybrid combo might use even less. Hybrids get much of their benefit in "city" driving.
Haha, I didn't mean to be discriminating against all non-Elfs
But you still only listed food crops as poptiential fuel crops. And taking corn going to feed lifestock is still going to feed humans in the end. So the fact that most corn isnt for imediate human consumption is somewhat irrelevant if the corn is going to end up being consumed by humans in the end. As far as wastes, what is actually wasted? I mean, in corn the only thing that is tilled under is the stock, and im pretty sure that the sugar content in that would be too low to make very much ethanol since so much is stored in the seeds. And a beet is a beet no matter where its grown. If its grown in a low quality field or a high quality field it would still be edable and return a profit. So if the land was capable of producing it (without hydroponics) then there would already be a farmer there producing beets. So i dont see how there could be an area where you could have produce more crops where you wouldnt affect current production. Not without just dumping tons of artifically fixed nitrogen in the soil which kills the soil then runs off into streams and creates huge dead spots in the ocean.
Hi aguy, arTone and ucntcme,
Thanks ucntcme for helping. That is interesting information and must be taken into account. I hope that there will be a technical solution to that. Just an (ill considered) thought what about a special injection into the fuel line of a "starter mixture" to get things warm then slowly change over in a minute or two to 100% alcohol? I think synthetic gasoline made from alcohol could be an assist there too. Iogen - Cellulose Ethanol by Shell That Iogen technology does not specifically utilize high sugar content (I guess that would be a bonus). We are not going to produce this stuff using "moonshine" stills dotting the countryside (I hope). The way this patented technology works is using waste matter left over from harvesting. The quantities of that are quite enormous. Aside from the usual fallow arrangements it should be possible to harvest crops then get those little "bugs" working on just about any cellulose based biomass. Even that old saw of what is hot and steaming and comes out of the back of Cows? The Cowes ferry of course. Oops a bit of a typo there!.. I think. For some time during the transition period this will be enough. In the end though more land will be needed under cultivation to keep up with demand. That's where you get more jobs. I am hoping that the cost of fuel can be kept at artificially high levels as it is now (just higher still) to prevent small croppers from going bust. If there was an oil cartel in the past there would need to be something similar to maintain the price of the product high enough to make the scheme viable. If the "free market" was to be the only solution then we would all go back to gasoline and we are "doomed". ArTone asked about the price of fuel in Australia. Well it's about $1 to $1.10 per liter depending on where you buy it. For Americans an Australian dollar is about $0.76US. You can fill a 35 liter tank (small to medium car) for about $35AUD (add $10 for a bigger car). At 40p to our dollar that would be 14 pounds a tankfull (don't have a pound sign on this keyboard). Sometimes cut-price fuel is currently available around 78 cents a liter here in Queensland where it is cheapest. You can fill up here in Australia any time you want, you are welcome, and it looks like it has almost become cost effective for you to drive here to get it. I must say this price in Australia includes a 30% Government surcharge and we also pay 10% GST to get that retail price. We think it is “unfair”.  In Britain I know you are paying "artificially" much higher than the market value of the fuel. You would need to take that up with your Government and the Common Market. It's not our fault. We have few producing oil fields in Australia (though we have plenty of natural gas and coal). And we get it mainly from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait as you all do only we pay greater freight costs to get it here (down under). "It's politics my boy". The price of gas is cheaper per liter than distilled water. I don’t know how but it is.  Cheers
Hi elf
Thanks for that not sure what that means in real money ha ha A thought occured yesterday how many of these hydrogen battery packs is going to take to fly a plane?AR
Hi all,
It also occurs to me that there is a lot of "fuel" in natural parks and wild lands that could be harvested if Iogen was being used. These areas could be "mown" for cellulose and simultaneously reduce fire risks. In the past "controlled burning" was the norm. The fires sometimes got out of hand. This may be a win-win situation. Oh "guest" what was that point about hydrogen packs? I have said that new technology will be needed such as fusion etc. With fusion energy hydrogen from electrolysis of water or even artificially produced av-gas from other biological processes could fuel planes. It is a problem but some short-term exemptions may be necessary until a workable system is in place. It will still work. If we wait till everything is in place it may be too late. Cheers
Hmm. I remember reading that it takes more energy to create ethanol than you get from the ethanol (energy to farm and then hydrolize). But the eco-benefits only come in when you consider that it does reduce your fossil fuel usage (while still needing a good amount of fossil fuel). So this seems to just be a fossil fuel rationing / CO2 sequestering strategy than anything else. So why not just have current fisson reactors create hydrogen to use in cars, and leave the fossil fuels to the production of plastics and only recycle current agricultural wastes to create ethanol for production/scientific/non-energy purposes? This would stop the creation of an industry thats based on the 'artifically cheap energy' of gas and escape the looming conflict thats bound to happen when a new energy source other than fossil fuels are used. Also, it keeps from exasterbating (probably misspelled there
) the current eviro problem due to over farming (the gulf has basically no life anywhere near the mississippi delta and contamination of the local water aquafirs of alot of farming states, as well as the draining of the same aquifers) whew, that was a mouth full Oh and great article on the Iogen stuff, really interesting and i stand corrected, since apparrently only 50% of the corn crop waste makes is needed to incorporate organic material back into the soil, there is alot of unneeded farm biowaste.
Hi Elf
If you no longer use standard fuel (petrol, aviation fuel etc) what are you going to use in planes. fuel cells? I doubt it. AR
Hi a guy,
Try searching for solar panel payback on google. There's loads oif info. z
Ar, you sure know how to show how little you know.. I thought I'd take a look at the thread you posted on hydrogen/salt burning engine.. These people had this on there site and I"ll just paste it here:
The environment is experiencing tremendous problems at the moment, and one of the most serious of these is that we are losing our oxygen. The oxygen content of the air is becoming so low that it threatens our very existence in some areas. The normal oxygen content of our air is 21 percent. But in some places it is only a fraction of that! In Tokyo, Japan, for example, the oxygen content of the air has dipped to 6 or 7 percent. If it reaches 5 percent, people will begin to die. Tokyo has even put oxygen disbursement centers on its street corners, so that people can get emergency oxygen if they need it. it here: 6 or 7 percent huh? If it dips to 5% were dead.. boy.. thats stating the obvious if I've ever read it. Ever wonder why people climb high mountains and get sick.. Its called Altitude sickness.. hmmm.. wonder what the oxygen content is there.. I know pressure has a part in the cause too. But still its alot higher then the 7 percent claimed.. and I believe you die around oh say 19% if I remember correctly. So his claims of content being so low.. is well.. ridiculous.. If you burn hydrogen, get it though your thick skull it makes water, I"m sure there will be some inefficiency's and maybe you'll make some OH- ions.. "Thats a guess" free hydrogen might likely be captured in water anyway as an acid. OH- a hydroxil ion is what makes things caustic so.. looks like a balancing act even if it is that way. I've read that it is that way so its a simple guess. And yes.. if Hydrogen leaks it can escape our atmosphere.. so a small loss.. But what your not "Getting" is that breaking down water into Hydrogen and Oxygen, and reburning them back to water is all a chemical reaction.. its not toxic, and if done right there's no loss.. WAKE UP AR! JEEZZZ
Hi there Hank - thanks for reminding me of my favourite Simpsons episode - You Only Move Twice - what a classic.
Hi AR, dunno if anyone else's thoughts have clarified this for you. Hope you are over the viruses that plagued you earlier in the year.
I am hoping that the cost of fuel can be kept at artificially high levels as it is now (just higher still) to prevent small croppers from going bust. If there was an oil cartel in the past there would need to be something similar to maintain the price of the product high enough to make the scheme viable. If the "free market" was to be the only shoesshoes then we would all go back to gasoline and we are "doomed".
QUOTE (ARtone+Jan 13 2005, 02:14 AM) If you no longer use standard fuel (petrol, aviation fuel etc) what are you going to use in planes. fuel cells? I doubt it. AR Hi AR , This article on an electric ducted fan indicates that flight will be going electric. The generation source for the electricity to power the motor isn't mentioned. It would seem that electric flight is being planned on. Until next time, DTW
Hi folks, this is my first post on this forum but I've been visiting this site for my tech fix for a couple months.
I've read this whole thread and I am surprised there are so many opinions and guesses being passed off as facts and viable options. As a chemist myself, I am trained to not make any claim that can't be backed up by evidence as all scientists are but that seems lost on the general public and I'm surprised to see so much of this on a site where I assumed only people in the science industry would be attracted to. Rather than try to restate a lot of facts, I will post a link to a site that has to do with a very real phenomenon called Peak Oil. It discusses the serious situation we are coming into as the demand for fossil fuel energy is outstripping our ability to recover it in sufficient amounts anymore and it also discusses the viability of all the alternative energy sources being tossed around in this thread. Please read the whole thing (2 pages) and tell me you're not just a bit concerned about the implications. http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ QUOTE (Moseley+Dec 26 2004, 12:24 PM) C'mon folks - let's not squabble, we are all here to learn. explain how energy is transfered and changed when you burn petrol in a car please As to the issue, what I believe downunder is saying is that if solar-generated electricity is used to electrolitically split water, hydrogen is produced at the cathode and oxygen at the anode. If we only collect the hydrogen, there is a temporary increase in the oxygen:air ratio until the hydrogen is recombined with oxygen at our leisure. We could, of course, collect both gases resulting in no net change in that ratio. I cannot explain the need for ventilation in your example, AR.
Oil is our lifeblood in terms of technological advances. With this in mind we have to create a different form of consumption for everyday users like people who drive. Hydrogen fuel by almost all studies performed seems to be the most viable solution to gasoline. It's also going to produce a lot less of those smog days where they tell you not to leave your house. This is assuming you don't live in a highly industrial area where you will still have the oil consumption going on.
Also saw this in another thread figured it belonged here: http://www.focusfusion.org/ http://www.opensourceenergy.org/txtlstvw.a...02-a69aca481e6a QUOTE (ARtone+Aug 26 2004, 12:56 AM) I,m not really considering the greenhouse effect. Although much of the earths water is very cold especially below the thermocline. Creating heat from it would probably add to global warming. The Earth has a limitless supply of water and buning it in engines or slowly reacting it with oxygen will recycle it, so dont get pissed off at hydrogen economy people.
My concern is that as far as we know we are the only planet with free water. which is vital to all life on earth. Do you really want to turn that into gasses. perhaps Jupitor once had an idiot with ideas for making cash. Do you really think that the world economy will allow that. How much would you have to pay for water. I personally wouldnt want to tell anyone if I had a real time hydrogen from water device you would probably become dead very fast. Think of all the peole that make billions out of fuel production and sales do you really want to piss them off. AR PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.
|