Hydrogen WTF

Damn True · Apr 14, 2005

Although: "Moreover, it takes roughly six kilowatt hours of electricity to liquefy each pound of hydrogen. Generated in a coal-fired plant, that quantity of electrical energy creates about as much carbon dioxide as you'd get by burning half a gallon of gasoline, which contains the same energy as that pound of liquid hydrogen."

While H2 is not a panacea right now it and hybrids are all we have. The benefit to H2 is that it stands to do a lot in terms of reducing dependance on foreign oil. But at what cost?

Damn True · Apr 14, 2005

I don't disagree. But hybrids still need gasoline (though much less).
I think the first step is to get the oil out of the system. Once that happens the industries will be free to operate independantly.

Until then the auto industry will offer only token efforts of no real practicality and with an intentionaly narrow market.

RhinofromWA · Apr 14, 2005

As far as other forms of electicity ....I saw a HUGE wind farm in Eastern WA that was in the middle of no where and at PEAK capacity could power a small city....problem is the amount if towers it takes to power a city makes the reallity of using it as a substitute to fuel burning energy really not feasible. Wind doesn't blow...no juice....doesn't blow strong enough....no juice.

Solar energy is another idea that falls short....we just don't have the means to gather enough energy to make them viable alternatives.

clancy98 · Apr 14, 2005

Yeah, its like, the government has this car that runs on water, man...

It runs on WATER!

ALEXIS_DH · Apr 15, 2005

nuclear power!!...

i see hydrogen more like an "energy container" in which you pour energy making it, and then release it in a car, or whatever...
whether or not the hydrogen doesnt contaminate at the endpoint is of little relevance... it just matter how clean is the energy stored in the first place.

if its gonna be coal, then its messed up.. if its nuclear, then its kinda better...

ohio · Apr 15, 2005

Damn True said:
Although: "Moreover, it takes roughly six kilowatt hours of electricity to liquefy each pound of hydrogen. Generated in a coal-fired plant, that quantity of electrical energy creates about as much carbon dioxide as you'd get by burning half a gallon of gasoline, which contains the same energy as that pound of liquid hydrogen."

Coal has the worst CO2 ratio of any fuel. That hydrogen could just as easily, and more likely be produced, through other power production methods. Like Alexis said, Hydrogen is just a liquid battery. The power does have to come from some other source first... but even hydrocarbon-based plants are more efficient than small IC engines, let alone hydro-electric, nuclear, or wind/solar/thermal.

That being said, an hydrogen economy is a pipe dream right now, designed to distract us from any immediate measures we should be taking. The first step isn't removing fossil fuels. The first step reducing dependency, using them more efficiently. The last step is removing them when a superior (in performance/convenience/price, not just environmentally... people don't care about the environment) product is finally available. Tax the fack out of gasoline and let the market take care of the rest.

Damn True · Apr 15, 2005

ohio said:
Coal has the worst CO2 ratio of any fuel. That hydrogen could just as easily, and more likely be produced, through other power production methods. Like Alexis said, Hydrogen is just a liquid battery. The power does have to come from some other source first... but even hydrocarbon-based plants are more efficient than small IC engines, let alone hydro-electric, nuclear, or wind/solar/thermal.

Um...I was quoting the article, and I followed that up with "While H2 is not a panacea right now it and hybrids are all we have. The benefit to H2 is that it stands to do a lot in terms of reducing dependance on foreign oil. But at what cost?" That cost is that we have to use some other form of energy to produce the energy that is stored in H2. Hydro and Nuke is the only viable alternative to fossil. Wind/solar/thermal are are jokes. At this point none of them is a cost effective alternative.

That being said, an hydrogen economy is a pipe dream right now, designed to distract us from any immediate measures we should be taking. The first step isn't removing fossil fuels. The first step reducing dependency, using them more efficiently. The last step is removing them when a superior (in performance/convenience/price, not just environmentally... people don't care about the environment) product is finally available. Tax the fack out of gasoline and let the market take care of the rest.

That's one school of thought, but IMO a huge gamble. The risk in doing this is that if you tax the heck out of oil you stand to seriously destabilize scores of industries. Absolutely everything is in some way connected to oil.
If you tax the oil at excessive rates the auto industry will be seriously hurt. Beyond the loss of jobs, the larger impact is that the current trend of the large auto makers buying up the smaller ones will continue on an even greater scale. Instead of having 6 or so companies that run the whole industry we will have probably two, maybe three. The risk in that is that with less competition there is less incentive to innovate. Those companice will know that if they don't rock the boat they can count on roughly 1/3 of the market revenue. They won't rock the boat.

The same scenario can be applied to every industry that uses oil. From apples to z/OS.

mack · Apr 15, 2005

My Dad's good long time friend owns a company that does the platinum coatings on fuel cells, and he used to work for them... Here is about what i know from hanging around them all the time...

1.) There allot of money, ALLOT. Each fuel cell has a platinum coating, and these coating are $$$.

2.) Hydrogen blows up, and is very tricky to transport in cars SAFELY... Its like having a pack of dynamite in your trunk. And you thought the pinto was bad.

3.) They dont work in certain climates, period.

4.) It is easier to run the contry on nuclear power and grow ethanol and put it in hybrid cars.

5.) There is no such thing as a free lunch. Even with Ethanol, you still need nuclear power because is as well takes more energy to make it. The only reason to keep using hyrdocarbon fuels is because we have the infatructure to do so, and as we all know, no one likes battery powered cars. :stosh:

The only way it would make sense to use hyrdogen is if we found/engineered some sort of 'hydrogen fixing' bacteria. But we havent found any yet. :monkey:

And we wouldnt get those Kirr-Mcgee ads any more

ink:

Ohio has the right idea. What we really need to do is to get these frigen SUV's off the road and tighten up on trick-ass-bitch yuppies and soccer moms. :thumb:

ohio · Apr 15, 2005

mack said:
Ohio has the right idea. What we really need to do is to get these frigen SUV's off the road and tighten up on trick-ass-bitch yuppies and soccer moms.

Uh, that's not my idea... while I have my issues with SUVs, I'd like to see them disappear from a combination of market forces and social pressure (people stop viewing them as "cool"), but not direct gov't regulation of SUVs.

Also, I don't see your connection between ethanol and nuclear. Why does ethanol require nuclear power? Two entirely unrelated energy sources.

Anyway, every type of power plant has it's limitations and downsides, and changes don't occur overnight, but we could certainly be moving faster towards a cleanrer and more diversified power grid. We could ensure that industries pay market prices for their electricity (hello, california), and we could establish a better costing methodology for the true impact of our gasoline consumption that would be reflected in a gradually increasing gas tax, that should subsidize NEAR-TERM alternative energy technology development.

ioscope · Apr 15, 2005

TDI

Turbo Deisel Injected
50mpg
Runs on Biodeisel
Power of a V6 engine

And think if you made it as weak as those little hybrid cars!
And put in a deiselelectric generator for electirc powered parking/urban driving etc.

Maybe the idea was just too efficient.

RhinofromWA · Apr 15, 2005

Nuclear power in its current state is not a solution it is as much of a problem as gasoline. The spent fuel rods simply can not be stored safely and we are already facing a big problem with the waste from the plants. Out of site and out of mind doesn't really work with the half lifes spent plutonium has....seeping into our soil and ground water....affecting humans and animals.

Solar energy is just plain insufficient on a large scale to replace nuclear, etc.

Wind power is also inadaquate to power much on a large scale.

Though in WA we have access to kick a$$ water power (the Columbia river) it is blamed with killing the wild salmon....

I doubt "thermal" power can do as well as the ones mentioned above.

What is the answer? I don't know. (just being honest)

RhinofromWA · Apr 15, 2005

ioscope said:
TDI

Turbo Deisel Injected
50mpg
Runs on Biodeisel
Power of a V6 engine

And think if you made it as weak as those little hybrid cars!
And put in a deiselelectric generator for electirc powered parking/urban driving etc.

Maybe the idea was just too efficient.

Buddy in Eburg has one (less than a year old...station wagon style jetta) of those. "Power of a V6" is an overstatement. :roilleyes:

syadasti · Apr 16, 2005

RhinofromWA said:
Buddy in Eburg has one (less than a year old...station wagon style jetta) of those. "Power of a V6" is an overstatement. :roilleyes:

Yeah its too bad the new Audi Allroad puts the Hemi Magnum to shame using 20% less fuel even with the cylinder deactivation technology:

allroad quattro concept is its 4.0-liter TDI V8 engine—the first eight-cylinder direct-injection turbodiesel in Audi’s new generation of V engines.

With 480 lb-ft of torque on tap at just 1600 rpm and 290 horses at 3200 rpm, the engine should surely propel the allroad concept with authority....0-to-62-mph time of 6.4 seconds—and perhaps more impressive, a 50-to-75-mph time of 4.9 seconds, which matches the performance of the S4, says Audi.

RhinofromWA · Apr 16, 2005

syadasti said:
Yeah its too bad the new Audi Allroad puts the Hemi Magnum to shame using 20% less fuel even with the cylinder deactivation technology:

And?

I was refering to the VW TDI that was being marked as a "power of a v6"

An anemic 2.9L Ford maybe......

ALEXIS_DH · Apr 16, 2005

RhinofromWA said:
And?

I was refering to the VW TDI that was being marked as a "power of a v6"

An anemic 2.9L Ford maybe......

damn... y´all really think a 3 liter engine is anemic????? :confused:

i used to think power and displacement mattered the most in performance terms... but now i think the feeling of speed in a car has a lot more to do with the suspension, and a bit of brakes rather than brute displacement or boost....

carving an apex at 50mph+ with little body roll in a car that rails is waaaay more awesome than having an extra 100hp that knocks off half a second of a quarter mile time....

RhinofromWA · Apr 16, 2005

ALEXIS_DH said:
damn... y´all really think a 3 liter engine is anemic?????

i used to think power and displacement mattered the most in performance terms... but now i think the feeling of speed in a car has a lot more to do with the suspension, and a bit of brakes rather than brute displacement or boost....

carving an apex at 50mph+ with little body roll in a car that rails is waaaay more awesome than having an extra 100hp that knocks off half a second of a quarter mile time....

my old Ford Ranger Pick-up was pretty week...you had to rapppp the piss out of it to make good power. It was a "mellow" motor.

Didn't corner very well either.

Did sub 18sec in the 1/4 mile. :rolleyes:

(I actually raced it at the Seattle International Raceway once to get those numbers) Got 20 mpg in the city and 24-25 if I drove 55mph on the freeway....21 at 70mph :mumble:

BUt yes a choked small v-6 is what the TDI might be compared to if it had to be compared to a V-6. I just wasn't as impressed as I was expecting after hearing som much about the TDI. It was decent but nothing to jizz all over about. It was really soft on the bottom and did not accelerate worth beans.

PS- My '00 Dakota P-up is a little better. It has a 3.9L V6 but a much heavier truck to pull around. Gets just about the same gas mileage.

syadasti · Apr 16, 2005

RhinofromWA said:
BUt yes a choked small v-6 is what the TDI might be compared to if it had to be compared to a V-6. I just wasn't as impressed as I was expecting after hearing som much about the TDI. It was decent but nothing to jizz all over about. It was really soft on the bottom and did not accelerate worth beans.

Thats the old version though...

The new v5 Golf with the 2L Piezo TDI (125Kw) does 0-60 mph in about 7 seconds with DSG and gets over 40mpg combined.

Thats faster than most V6 vehicles and probably almost twice the avg. combined mpg - all without hybrid technology. When VW comes out with the hybrid diesel version, they'll put toyota to shame.

In a few years when they have all the VW gremlins worked out and maybe a 4motion version, I'd consider one for sure :thumb:

budgetrider · Apr 16, 2005

Screw Hydrogen, screw hybrid. Electric with a nuclear powerplant in your neighborhood is the way to go. Electric can go faster and is more powerful than any hydrogen hummer crap. Read this

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2004/11/

800hp electric!

genpowell71 · Apr 16, 2005

So please tell me how we're going to get rid of all these SUV's on the road. My wife owns an explorer and I she loves it. Its not a gas guzzling thing, and gets decent gas mileage. BUT... My neighbor owns a Yukon that drinks gas like I drink Captain Morgans. I agree with the need to remove the larger SUV's. But not all of them are gashogs...

RhinofromWA · Apr 16, 2005

syadasti said:
Thats the old version though...

The new v5 Golf with the 2L Piezo TDI (125Kw) does 0-60 mph in about 7 seconds with DSG and gets over 40mpg combined.

Thats faster than most V6 vehicles and probably almost twice the avg. combined mpg - all without hybrid technology. When VW comes out with the hybrid diesel version, they'll put toyota to shame.

In a few years when they have all the VW gremlins worked out and maybe a 4motion version, I'd consider one for sure

This one can't be a much more than a year old. :think:

I am sure if you rev the piss out of it it ould move....but then so will a Geo Metro.

I hope they make a better one than what my buddy has....I mean it is cool and all but as far as talking it up as a power house...not exactly worthy of that.

RhinofromWA · Apr 16, 2005

budgetrider said:
Screw Hydrogen, screw hybrid. Electric with a nuclear powerplant in your neighborhood is the way to go. Electric can go faster and is more powerful than any hydrogen hummer crap. Read this

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2004/11/

800hp electric!

Sweet the biggest issues I have with electric cars are...

1- Time to recharge. For commuting only it would be awsome but you can't drive across country because the time it takes to recharge the batteries. I guess you could have some sort of "gas station" where they replace the batteries while taking yours and recharging them. :think:

From the article:

At this point, the Eliica requires 10 hours to charge fully and carries a hefty pricetag: some $320,000.

2- Range. Like mentioned above. Most full electric cars are realistically limited to use within the reach of thier batteries because you can't just stop in a full up a battery.

Hydrogenfuel cell is a quickly rechargable "battery" that is something big it has going for it.

ALEXIS_DH · Apr 16, 2005

budgetrider said:
Screw Hydrogen, screw hybrid. Electric with a nuclear powerplant in your neighborhood is the way to go. Electric can go faster and is more powerful than any hydrogen hummer crap. Read this

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2004/11/

800hp electric!

dude 800hp electric is at least 1.3 Megawatt.. and that is a chitload of electric energy..

think about this,, chernobyl put out 1GW of electricity... thats only enough for 600 such cars running!!!!!... let alone the batteries you need to store all that energy...

RhinofromWA · Apr 16, 2005

ALEXIS_DH said:
dude 800hp electric is at least 1.3 Megawatt.. and that is a chitload of electric energy..

think about this,, chernobyl put out 1GW of electricity... thats only enough for 600 such cars running!!!!!... let alone the batteries you need to store all that energy...

Don't know much about all dem fancy numbers...(do we have a redneck smilie?

)

But yeah the range has got to be pretty damn small on that rig.....though that is not what it was made for....it couldn't really be marketed for personal use.

If you go full electric....what are all the car audio freaks going to do? (simulated bass) BOOM-Ba BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM-ba, Booooooom-Booooooom pa, Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooommmmmmmmmmmm dead car....time to push home.

Damn True · Apr 16, 2005

syadasti said:
Yeah its too bad the new Audi Allroad puts the Hemi Magnum to shame using 20% less fuel even with the cylinder deactivation technology:

Not according to EPA estimates. Besides, the Audi goes for nearly $50k loaded @ 16 mpg / 21 mpg

http://www.edmunds.com/new/2005/audi/allroadquattro/wagon/midsize/index.html?tid=edmunds.n.pricemindex.content.num2.0.*

and the Magnum costs $33k loaded @ 17 mpg / 24 mpg

http://www.edmunds.com/new/2005/dodge/magnum/wagon/large/index.html?tid=edmunds.n.pricemindex.content.num4.0.*

syadasti · Apr 16, 2005

Damn True said:
Not according to EPA estimates. Besides, the Audi goes for nearly $50k loaded @ 16 mpg / 21 mpg

EPA has no listing for this allroad and thats the old petrol version - this is the new concept version with a V8 TDI engine:

http://www.autoweek.com/article.cms?articleId=102104

Toshi · Apr 16, 2005

ALEXIS_DH said:
dude 800hp electric is at least 1.3 Megawatt.. and that is a chitload of electric energy..

think about this,, chernobyl put out 1GW of electricity... thats only enough for 600 such cars running!!!!!... let alone the batteries you need to store all that energy...

if you had read the article you would see that "The Eliica uses 8 60kW in-wheel drive motors to provide the equivalent of 800 hp."

480 != 1000+

:nuts:

Damn True · Apr 16, 2005

ALEXIS_DH said:
dude 800hp electric is at least 1.3 Megawatt.. and that is a chitload of electric energy..

think about this,, chernobyl put out 1GW of electricity... thats only enough for 600 such cars running!!!!!... let alone the batteries you need to store all that energy...

Lets see if we get conservative and run cars with a 1/4 of that power we would be able to run 2400 cars for each 1GW powerplant. There are roughly 35,484,453 people in the state of CA if we assume 1/2 that number owns a car we would need I think something like 7,000 1GW nuclear powerplants just for CA.

By comparison there are 25,000 McDonalds locations WORLDWIDE.

ALEXIS_DH · Apr 16, 2005

Toshi said:
if you had read the article you would see that "The Eliica uses 8 60kW in-wheel drive motors to provide the equivalent of 800 hp."

480 != 1000+

:nuts:

lol.. i thought they were taking about 800hp REAL flywheel equivalent hp in terms of MECHANICAL ENERGY...

that nomenclature of hp is ridiculous.. then I can put the power of my toyota yaris in terms of the chemical energy contained in the consumption of fuel as meassured by my fuel pump!!!.. then i could say "i have a 500hp toyota yaris"!! because my engine is driking that equivalent of energy in terms of the energy contained in the gasoline!!
or better yet, in terms of the absolute e=mc2 energy contained in the gasoline my car consumes!, then i would have a car with a gazzillion hp!!!!!
:eviltongu

and still 480KW is a chitload of energy...

valve bouncer · Apr 17, 2005

I've been seeing heaps more hybrids on the road here lately. And not just those fugly Honda things, normal cars with the hybrid badges.

Toshi · Apr 17, 2005

valve bouncer said:
I've been seeing heaps more hybrids on the road here lately. And not just those fugly Honda things, normal cars with the hybrid badges.

i kinda want one as a commuter car somewhere off in the hazy future. i suppose the whole battery replacement thing will be worked out by then... :think:

budgetrider · Apr 18, 2005

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0503/05032903tosh1minbatt.asp

Lithium ion batteries are about to recharge 60x faster than they do now. So the Ellica which takes 10hrs to recharge now would take 12 minutes to recharge to 80% capacity if it used the new type of Lithium ion batteries.

Even the US military has given up on Hydrogen. Their latest unmanned robotic SUV reconassaince thing that can shoot guns and kill people as well as pick up the kids from soccer practice uses a couple of 60kW motors and a small hybrid engine. Hydrogen's power to weight ration was just too crappy.
(Sorry I lost the link where I read it)

RhinofromWA said:
Sweet the biggest issues I have with electric cars are...

1- Time to recharge. For commuting only it would be awsome but you can't drive across country because the time it takes to recharge the batteries. I guess you could have some sort of "gas station" where they replace the batteries while taking yours and recharging them. From the article:

2- Range. Like mentioned above. Most full electric cars are realistically limited to use within the reach of thier batteries because you can't just stop in a full up a battery.

Hydrogenfuel cell is a quickly rechargable "battery" that is something big it has going for it.

blue · Apr 20, 2005

Hydrogen can easily be made as a byproduct of Nuclear Power.

If this country could get its ass back into gear start relying on Nuclear power, we'd be set...

Toshi · Apr 21, 2005

when we figure out a way to offshore our nuclear plants... superconducting cable run through the pacific and indian oceans? :think:

Jr_Bullit · Apr 21, 2005

Seems like dudes article is full of misinformation...hydrogen doesn't require the use of fossil fuels to be produced:

http://www.hydrogenus.com/h2-production.asp

Damn True · Apr 21, 2005

Toshi said:
when we figure out a way to offshore our nuclear plants... superconducting cable run through the pacific and indian oceans?

Dude, that is hilarious on a couple of fronts.

Im sure if you said that in the right group you'd get total agreement from NIMBY types.

Gosh, would that be the ultimate terrorist target or what?

Hydrogen WTF

the teste

Monkey Pimp

the teste

Monkey Pimp

Brevity R Us

Monkey

Tirelessly Awesome

The Fresno Kid

Monkey Pimp

Turbo Monkey

The Fresno Kid

Turbo Monkey

Brevity R Us

Brevity R Us

i heart mac

Brevity R Us

Tirelessly Awesome

Brevity R Us

i heart mac

Monkey

Turbo Monkey

Brevity R Us

Brevity R Us

Tirelessly Awesome

Brevity R Us

Monkey Pimp

i heart mac

butthole powerwashing evangelist

Monkey Pimp

Tirelessly Awesome

Master Dildoist

butthole powerwashing evangelist

Monkey

boob hater

the teste

butthole powerwashing evangelist

the teste

I'm sooo teenie weenie!!!

the teste

Monkey Pimp