[QUOTE=Dr Magnusson;33416475]The problem is that it takes a lot of energy to split H[SUB]2[/SUB]O, which is the energy that is expelled when the hydrogen and oxygen atoms are excited and bind again. The reason why hydrogen fuel-cells are interesting is that they could potentially be refilled from a central source, which would allow for much grander and more effective plants. Much like centralized electricity generation. We just need to find a strong renewable source of energy and make the hydrogen extraction process as efficient as possible.
The process of replacing the fuel system the entire world automobile runs on is not something that happens overnight.
Like fossil fuels?[/QUOTE]
Gasoline and diesel aren't actually all that explosive in their liquid states, it's when they became vaporized that they become explosive. Hydrogen on the other hand is a highly reactive gas.
[editline]24th November 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Dr Magnusson;33418134]To put the water emissions in perspective, let's look at the Honda FCX Clarity. It's a hydrogen fuel-cell car, and has been in production since 2008.
Its tank holds [I]3.92kg[/I] of compressed hydrogen gas.
It has a range of 240 miles ([I]386km[/I])
The mass of an oxygen atom is [I]15.9994u[/I], and the hydrogen atom is 1.00794u Hence, H[SUB]2[/SUB]O is [I]18.01528u[/I].
Since the ratio of H[SUB]2[/SUB]O is [I]18.01528u/1.00794u = 17.87337u[/I], and we know that for every two hydrogen atoms, the solution will contain one oxygen atom, we can find the total weight of the resulting solution by multiplying that ratio, by half the mass of the hydrogen component: [I]17.87337u*(3.92kg / 2) = 35.03kg[/I] of H[SUB]2[/SUB]O.
If you divide that by the range of the car you'll get the water emissions: [I]35.03kg/386km = 0.09kg/km[/I] - or 90ml/km.
That's about 3/11 of a standard European beverage can, dumped over an entire kilometer.
Sources:
[url]http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/specifications.aspx[/url]
[url]http://www.convertunits.com/molarmass/[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beverage_can#Capacity[/url][/QUOTE]
From one car. Multiply that by the number of cars you're likely to see in a highly congested urban area.
[editline]24th November 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;33416508]He's not talking about putting nuclear reactors in cars, he's saying use Thorium nuclear power stations to electrolyse the water.
Uh no? Just stick it in pressurised canisters like we do with every other gas.[/QUOTE]
Pressurized hydrogen would be its own problem, depending on the pressure that it's stored under. You'd have to either develop a new storage tank or reinforce the fuck out of where-ever a standard cylinder would be stored lest you have a rocket on your hands in the event of a crash.
Given what you have said, I would go with replacing it all with hydrogen in a single stroke. It's much greener and the impact of water emissions could be nullified by better road design, [B]especially[/B] with the crumbly infrastructure of the U.S.
However, going outside of the present argument, I find that the best type of energy for cars would be electric. This narrows our energy problems down. Finding a solution for renewable electricity would be the same as renewable fuel for cars. I trust many of you have seen the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car?", if you haven't I think large portions, if not all of it are on YouTube. It is worth watching. It would also help keep prices lower since currently gasoline is a major part of our lives. Gas is used in delivery trucks, buses, and pretty much a majority of everything with wheels that isn't a kids toy or college project. When the price of gas goes up, the price of everything else goes up in response. Eliminating that factor by switching to anything, hydrogen, solar power, electricity, will help economies greatly.
[QUOTE=Dr Magnusson;33418134]To put the water emissions in perspective, let's look at the Honda FCX Clarity. It's a hydrogen fuel-cell car, and has been in production since 2008.
Its tank holds [I]3.92kg[/I] of compressed hydrogen gas.
It has a range of 240 miles ([I]386km[/I])
The mass of an oxygen atom is [I]15.9994u[/I], and the hydrogen atom is 1.00794u Hence, H[SUB]2[/SUB]O is [I]18.01528u[/I].
Since the ratio of H[SUB]2[/SUB]O is [I]18.01528u/1.00794u = 17.87337u[/I], and we know that for every two hydrogen atoms, the solution will contain one oxygen atom, we can find the total weight of the resulting solution by multiplying that ratio, by half the mass of the hydrogen component: [I]17.87337u*(3.92kg / 2) = 35.03kg[/I] of H[SUB]2[/SUB]O.
If you divide that by the range of the car you'll get the water emissions: [I]35.03kg/386km = 0.09kg/km[/I] - or 90ml/km.
That's about 3/11 of a standard European beverage can, dumped over an entire kilometer.
Sources:
[url]http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/specifications.aspx[/url]
[url]http://www.convertunits.com/molarmass/[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beverage_can#Capacity[/url][/QUOTE]
I think i've seen my car leak more than that while just sitting there. And that was more dangerous liquids like oil and washer fluid. Car's leak stuff all the time, not to mention the older models that you have to put water in the radiator. This would actually be quite a non issue.
Avatar fits.
[QUOTE=Dr Magnusson;33418134]To put the water emissions in perspective, let's look at the Honda FCX Clarity. It's a hydrogen fuel-cell car, and has been in production since 2008.
Its tank holds [I]3.92kg[/I] of compressed hydrogen gas.
It has a range of 240 miles ([I]386km[/I])
The mass of an oxygen atom is [I]15.9994u[/I], and the hydrogen atom is 1.00794u Hence, H[SUB]2[/SUB]O is [I]18.01528u[/I].
Since the ratio of H[SUB]2[/SUB]O is [I]18.01528u/1.00794u = 17.87337u[/I], and we know that for every two hydrogen atoms, the solution will contain one oxygen atom, we can find the total weight of the resulting solution by multiplying that ratio, by half the mass of the hydrogen component: [I]17.87337u*(3.92kg / 2) = 35.03kg[/I] of H[SUB]2[/SUB]O.
If you divide that by the range of the car you'll get the water emissions: [I]35.03kg/386km = 0.09kg/km[/I] - or 90ml/km.
That's about 3/11 of a standard European beverage can, dumped over an entire kilometer.
Sources:
[url]http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/specifications.aspx[/url]
[url]http://www.convertunits.com/molarmass/[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beverage_can#Capacity[/url][/QUOTE]
which is all well and good until you get here
[img]http://media1.android-apps.com/images/pname/d/appinventor.ai_alexdot77ggg.JacksonvilleFloridaTrafficCameras/image1.png[/img]
where car's are burning fuel sitting still in traffic, and there's tens of thousands of them travelling over the same piece of roadway very slowly
P.S. that pic is of I-295 in Jacksonville, Florida. and it looks like that every day,from 7-9 AM and from 4:30-6PM
[QUOTE=DylanWilson;33434234]which is all well and good until you get here
[img]http://media1.android-apps.com/images/pname/d/appinventor.ai_alexdot77ggg.JacksonvilleFloridaTrafficCameras/image1.png[/img]
where car's are burning fuel sitting still in traffic, and there's tens of thousands of them travelling over the same piece of roadway very slowly
P.S. that pic is of I-295 in Jacksonville, Florida. and it looks like that every day,from 7-9 AM and from 4:30-6PM[/QUOTE]
Sitting still in traffic means idling engines, which means low(er) H2O emission.
Given that the average car travels 14,000 kilometers, with 800 million cars, we'd be generating about a trillion liters of water a year.
About 570,000 trillion liters of water evaporate each year as part of the hydrosphere. About 70,000 trillion of that is based on land.
It doesn't seem like it would have that much an impact, at least in terms of climate change considering the meager increase. This also assumes no condensation, no effect of (slightly) increased cloud cover and a bunch of other stuff.
In regards to the political ramifications - I would not like to live in an oil-dependent state, but fortunately for them the petrochemical industry is pretty much essential to modern civilization. It just means that the raw feedstock for plastics and drugs and so on will be quite a bit cheaper.
The argument from problematic H[SUB]2[/SUB]O emissions would only be relevant, if the current fuel of choice wasn't already spewing out much more dangerous gasses.
[QUOTE=Dr Magnusson;33450840]The argument from problematic H[SUB]2[/SUB]O emissions would only be relevant, if the current fuel of choice wasn't already spewing out much more dangerous gasses.[/QUOTE]
not to be that guy but water is the most potent greenhouse gas.
but burning petrol produces plenty of that anyway so your point is still valid.
nevertheless, hydrogen fuel is still not that useful because its production will produce greenhouse gases in energy generation costs
Hydrogen cars are all well and good, but hydrogen is almost always attached chemically to something else, meaning we have to apply more energy extracting it than we get out of it. So I suggest we mine Jupiter for gasses, including Hydrogen which should be closest to the surface as it is the least dense gas possible.
[QUOTE=Thoughtless;33452130]Hydrogen cars are all well and good, but hydrogen is almost always attached chemically to something else, meaning we have to apply more energy extracting it than we get out of it. So I suggest we mine Jupiter for gasses, including Hydrogen which should be closest to the surface as it is the least dense gas possible.[/QUOTE]
lol.
[QUOTE=Thoughtless;33452130]Hydrogen cars are all well and good, but hydrogen is almost always attached chemically to something else, meaning we have to apply more energy extracting it than we get out of it. So I suggest we mine Jupiter for gasses, including Hydrogen which should be closest to the surface as it is the least dense gas possible.[/QUOTE]
Mine on an entirely gaseous planet you say...
Huh
[QUOTE=Mr. Bleak;33452371]Mine on an entirely gaseous planet you say...
Huh[/QUOTE]
Well ... yeah.
Not mine in the traditional sense but it's still perfectly possible to siphon off some gas.
[QUOTE=Thoughtless;33452130]Hydrogen cars are all well and good, but hydrogen is almost always attached chemically to something else, meaning we have to apply more energy extracting it than we get out of it. So I suggest we mine Jupiter for gasses, including Hydrogen which should be closest to the surface as it is the least dense gas possible.[/QUOTE]
..okay
Don't think of hydrogen as an overall source of energy. Water undergoes electrolysis at a base-load power site (hello thorium reactor), hydrogen is pressurized and sent to pumping stations.
Think of hydrogen as a store of energy, kind of like a battery.
Also, at Jupiter pressures, hydrogen isn't going to be much of a gas
[editline]27th November 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mr. Bleak;33452371]Mine on an entirely gaseous planet you say...
Huh[/QUOTE]
Jupiter is composed of elements that are their gaseous phase at standard temp and pressure here on Earth.
That's a little bit like saying "hey why don't the comets composed of ice melt?"
[QUOTE=Turnips5;33410407]Use thorium-fuelled reactors to produce the electricity needed for electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen to use in vehicles.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Contag;33456671](hello thorium reactor)
[/QUOTE]
The price of hydrogen would be huge if from obtained from new nuclear power plants (and you'd divert load to coal plants to use current ones) due to plant construction and hydrogen transport costs.
The cheapest, most resilient and most flexible method is to source it from a variety of decentralized feed-stocks powered by a variety of decentralized renewables varied region to region.
[IMG]http://i41.tinypic.com/v30nr7.png[/IMG]
There still seems to be a fairly significant amount of hydrogen transport there.
also wave power is shit, tidal power is shit, solar power is shit, biomass is relatively shit, wind power is shit and so on for the purposes here
using natural gas kind of defeats the purpose
also if we lived in a world where we had an autonomous hydrogen center I would be delighted
but we won't for a while
[editline]27th November 2011[/editline]
The costs for a LFTR reactor are expected to be [I]much[/I] less due to lower cost of thorium and inherent safety characteristics of the reactor type.
[QUOTE=Contag;33459787]also wave power is shit, tidal power is shit, solar power is shit, biomass is relatively shit, wind power is shit and so on for the purposes here[/QUOTE]
care to back up these baseless statements
About water vapour being a strong greenhouse gas:
Unlike CO2 water is part of the massive cycle of evaporation-condensation-precipitation, while an amount of vapour will stay in the atmosphere another amount will come down as some sort of precipitation. It's like ethanol having 'carbon neutral', hydrogen extracted from water is 'vapour neutral' so long as we replace some amount of water that evaporates in a day to an amount of water produced by burning hydrogen.
About Storage:
metal alloys are being developed that can effectively hold hydrogen like a sponge, I'm not up to speed about their development but what I know is that the alloys can hold hydrogen atoms in interstitial positions in the metallic lattice and free them when a bit of heat is applied to the block.
The only problem is the density of the alloy block and the amount of hydrogen stored per cubic centimeter of alloy, but it is a step forward in safe, unpressurized storage.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;33466036]care to back up these baseless statements[/QUOTE]
No because they're true. I typed up a big long post and then opera was a pain in the ass so here's the far briefer version
tidal power = limited locations unlike reactors which can go most places
wind power = possible environmental issues, but not the worst option
wave power = a complete joke, I can crank out about as much electricity with a hand crank
solar power = good for homes on a decentralized level but not for massive industrial needs like a hydrogen economy demands
[QUOTE=Contag;33467016]
solar power = good for homes on a decentralized level but not for massive industrial needs like a hydrogen economy demands[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS10[/url]
And people don't get it that there isn't one ideal renewable, but each used in it's ideal environment is the way forward, and If Hydrogen is made in places like Iceland where energy is very cheap, it could be shipped around the world.
Also my post about mining Jupiter wasn't 100% serious.
[QUOTE=Thoughtless;33467153][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS10[/url]
And people don't get it that there isn't one ideal renewable, but each used in it's ideal environment is the way forward, and If Hydrogen is made in places like Iceland where energy is very cheap, it could be shipped around the world.
Also my post about mining Jupiter wasn't 100% serious.[/QUOTE]
[quote]The [B]11 megawatt [/B](MW) solar power tower produces electricity with 624 large movable mirrors called heliostats[/quote]
Conventional nuclear plants generate about 1,000 MW
Contag, your local LFTR rep
[QUOTE=Contag;33467283]Conventional nuclear plants generate about 1,000 MW
Contag, your local LFTR rep[/QUOTE]
It's a start.
[QUOTE=Thoughtless;33467446]It's a start.[/QUOTE]
Absolutely, I don't think there is any single energy panacea at the moment that deserves all the funding. It is also necessary to note that that specific installation is being expanded to 300 MW in the next few years.
I do think that energy generation technology is needs-specific, and that liquid fluoride thorium reactor technology currently presents the most compelling case as a solution for the needs of a hydrogen economy, though.
[QUOTE=Contag;33459787]There still seems to be a fairly significant amount of hydrogen transport there.[/quote]
Nowhere near as much would be needed.
[QUOTE=Contag;33459787]also wave power is shit, tidal power is shit, solar power is shit, biomass is relatively shit, wind power is shit and so on for the purposes here[/quote]
Nuclear power is shit. That's why it's practically stagnant.
[QUOTE=Contag;33459787]using natural gas kind of defeats the purpose[/quote]
Steam reforming of natural gas is the cheapest and lowest emission way to harness hydrogen. A decentralized system lets us utilize it fully rather than ignoring it entirely.
[QUOTE=Contag;33459787]also if we lived in a world where we had an autonomous hydrogen center I would be delighted
but we won't for a while[/quote]
This is what it means by that.
[quote]3.5. Autonomous hydrogen centers
With the move to a main grid with a highly distributed and varied energy input from renewables and cogeneration plants, every effort would be made to limit further extensions of this grid. Instead, wherever feasible new residential, commercial, industrial and agricultural developments in areas not already served by the grid would be supplied by standalone energy supply and storage centers, namely ‘autonomous hydrogen centers’ (AHCs), drawing upon local RE sources (Fig. 5). Such sources would supply end-uses in all sectors directly so far as possible. Surpluses over direct demand would be converted to hydrogen for local and transiting road transport, and agricultural and industrial mobile machinery; and used in small-scale fuel-cell power plants to supply back-up electricity, and heat as well if needed, to houses, other buildings and agricultural and industrial enterprises, to guarantee continuous energy supply [44].
AHCs would be distributed throughout the more remote and low population density areas of a country, or integrated into new residential and commercial development sites, agricultural and industrial facilities located some distance from the centralized electricity grid. Since the full unsubsidized cost of grid extension is already very high (some $10 000 per km in most parts of Australia, for instance), the minimum distance from the grid beyond which it may become viable to construct an AHC for a new development may often be only several kilometres. Electricity for direct use would be produced from solar and wind power, with excess over demand being used to produce hydrogen by electrolysis of fresh water. Hydrogen would also be produced from local non-food biomass resources as at IHCs, and possibly in time by photolysis of fresh water directly from solar radiation.
The hydrogen would be stored in underground natural or artificial reservoirs, small-to-medium scale solid-state storages, and/or high-pressure compressed gas facilities depending on technological development of these alternative storage technologies and local conditions.
[url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319911022841]Source.[/url][/quote]
[QUOTE=Contag;33459787]
The costs for a LFTR reactor are expected to be [I]much[/I] less due to lower cost of thorium and inherent safety characteristics of the reactor type.[/QUOTE]
The cost of fuel and what I assume means accident/proliferation risk barely factor into the cost of nuclear power. One of the biggest costs is the huge insurance needed to cover it's inherent financial risk, something that a brand new fuel cycle is likely to amplify.
[QUOTE=flyschy;33470235]Nuclear power is shit. That's why it's practically stagnant.[/QUOTE]
This isn't how you debate.
the main way of storing hydrogen I think will be a combination of carbon nano tanks and palladium nano-tanks (which can somehow store over 8 times its mass in hydrogen), which will help negate the risk of your car becoming a bomb
personally I think that we should work more towards the nuclear option, with fission or possibly fusion powered cars
[editline]30th November 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=flyschy;33470235]
Nuclear power is shit. That's why it's practically stagnant.
[/QUOTE]
no, nuclear power is stagnant because the majority are shit scared of something bad happening
over the last ~70 years, there has been <100 deaths from radiation poisoning from major nuclear accidents
the other main problem with nuclear power is that uranium is expected to run in the near future (correct me if im wrong), around ~80 years from now
[QUOTE=flyschy;33470235]Nuclear power is shit. That's why it's practically stagnant.[/QUOTE]
i literally cannot wrap my mind around such a blatant contradiction
if nuclear power were shit then surely money would be funnelled into making it not shit, thus making it not stagnant?
[QUOTE=Eltro102;33505246]the main way of storing hydrogen I think will be a combination of carbon nano tanks and palladium nano-tanks (which can somehow store over 8 times its mass in hydrogen), which will help negate the risk of your car becoming a bomb
personally I think that we should work more towards the nuclear option, with fission or possibly fusion powered cars
[editline]30th November 2011[/editline]
no, nuclear power is stagnant because the majority are shit scared of something bad happening
over the last ~70 years, there has been <100 deaths from radiation poisoning from major nuclear accidents
the other main problem with nuclear power is that uranium is expected to run in the near future (correct me if im wrong), around ~80 years from now[/QUOTE]
and the radioactive waste...?
Question, how is the hydrogen being used in the vehicles? Is it a direct hydrogen combustion to produce force or is it burning the hydrogen to produce electricity?
[editline]30th November 2011[/editline]
In either case, the water exhaust could be collected and stored onboard, and then dumped somewhere when you refuel on Hydrogen. Make the fuel valve double as a water dump, excessive exhaust problem solved.
The water produced from burning hydrogen is a non-issue: FYI burning hydrocarbons also yields water vapour.
[QUOTE=BrainDeath;33522113]The water produced from burning hydrogen is a non-issue: FYI burning hydrocarbons also yields water vapor.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but we're talking about replacing every single motorized vehicle on the planet with Hydrogen burning vehicles. The amount of water vapor produced would increase exponentially in a before-after case, therefore some practical method of controlling the amount of stuff that is spewing out the back of our cars. Hence my suggestion to collect the vapor before it is expelled, don't even let it get out of the car.
Run the exhaust vapor through a condenser and collect it on board, then dump it off at your local CITGO or SHELL or whatever sells Hydrogen in our lovely hypothetical universe here. From there they could probably even sell the water back to the fuel processors or the water company or something, but being able to return something to the fuel system would add a new spin on the marketing side of the whole thing.
"Get fuel points for every gallon of water returned to us!"
With that system solidly in place, the only water vapor that should be expelled would be from maintenance or car accidents. Returning the pure water back to the fuel plants should cut down on water intake [I]aaaand[/I] add an extra level of jobs for the fuel delivery industry.
SO Collecting water vapor on board:
vastly reduces the environmental impact
adds a marketing twist for fuel distributors
adds more jobs for fuel delivery drivers
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
