[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;33522822]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,[/QUOTE]
off the top of my head it's a 3x increase in water vapor emission
care to back up that exponentially there?
[editline]2nd December 2011[/editline]
it would significantly reduce air pollution in urban areas
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;33522822]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[/QUOTE]
It's hardly exponential, there's more hydrogen in petrol (by atoms) than there is carbon.
Yeah, see: even though water vapor's a greenhouse gas and all that, it's not exactly lethal to us.
The stuff that our current combustion reactions produce? That stuff is pretty toxic (producing nasty stuff like Ozone and Carbon Monoxide, and hell: Carbon Dioxide can cause significant problems if inhaled at a large concentration). While water vapor can cause temperature rises and do damage to the environment, it's a significantly lesser evil compared to the stuff that can do damage just by being inhaled.
So yeah, I'm all for using hydrogen.
It's 2x as much by energy unit with hydrogen fuel cells compared to octane, and 6.34x as much per fuel mass.
You do know that the majority Hydrogen has to be extracted from Hydrocarbons, right?
And that doing so generally produces a variety of nasty gases?
[QUOTE=Darth_GW7;33526582]You do know that the majority Hydrogen has to be extracted from Hydrocarbons, right?
And that doing so generally produces a variety of nasty gases?[/QUOTE]
this is assuming that we can use electrolysis from something renewable or mostly renewable
[QUOTE=Darth_GW7;33526582]You do know that the majority Hydrogen has to be extracted from Hydrocarbons, right?
And that doing so generally produces a variety of nasty gases?[/QUOTE]
Electrolysis of water?
[QUOTE=BrainDeath;33523213]It's hardly exponential, there's more hydrogen in petrol (by atoms) than there is carbon.[/QUOTE]
Then why are we talking about the environmental impact if according to you and Contag the effect is negligible in comparison?
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;33529989]Then why are we talking about the environmental impact if according to you and Contag the effect is negligible in comparison?[/QUOTE]
I suppose we've concluded this discussion then.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;33515093]and the radioactive waste...?[/QUOTE]
we can now easily dispose of it as we have now have the tech to do so (putting it in solid glass inside a lead barrel inside a constantly shifting salt cave
we could always use it to heat stuff if need be anyway
[editline]4th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=BrainDeath;33527176]Electrolysis of water?[/QUOTE]
you need energy to do that, and right now easiest way of making energy is hydrocarbons/nuclear fission
[QUOTE=Eltro102;33565059]you need energy to do that, and right now easiest way of making energy is hydrocarbons/nuclear fission[/QUOTE]
I remember dad talking about a design that harnessed lightning for electrolysis...
Basically amounted to a layer of water around a lightning rod. Lightning hits it and the current vaporizes the water into its baser elements.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;33580122]I remember dad talking about a design that harnessed lightning for electrolysis...
Basically amounted to a layer of water around a lightning rod. Lightning hits it and the current vaporizes the water into its baser elements.[/QUOTE]
That doesn't sound like something that would produce a lot of hydrogen. I'm not too sure about how much energy you could actually get out of lightning, but it sounds like a very hit-and-miss method of generating power.
Even if a strike could generate a large quantity of hydrogen, how long do you have to wait for the next strike? It's pretty unpredictable.
[QUOTE=Eltro102;33565059]we can now easily dispose of it as we have now have the tech to do so (putting it in solid glass inside a lead barrel inside a constantly shifting salt cave
we could always use it to heat stuff if need be anyway
[editline]4th December 2011[/editline]
you need energy to do that, and right now easiest way of making energy is hydrocarbons/nuclear fission[/QUOTE]
what about when there's lots, or the containers open
[QUOTE=st0rmforce;33580626]That doesn't sound like something that would produce a lot of hydrogen. I'm not too sure about how much energy you could actually get out of lightning, but it sounds like a very hit-and-miss method of generating power.
Even if a strike could generate a large quantity of hydrogen, how long do you have to wait for the next strike? It's pretty unpredictable.[/QUOTE]
The lightning was just an already present method of providing the means for electrolysis without putting much effort into making it. Granted, dissipating the excess energy would be... interesting to say the least.
Aren't we forgetting that the water we're putting into the air has been taken from somewhere else? (Unless you've just magically created hydrogen from nothing). We get water, get hydrogen from it, and then create more water. The amount of water stays the same.
Please correct me if I've made an error.
[QUOTE=cis.joshb;33683027]Aren't we forgetting that the water we're putting into the air has been taken from somewhere else? (Unless you've just magically created hydrogen from nothing). We get water, get hydrogen from it, and then create more water. The amount of water stays the same.
Please correct me if I've made an error.[/QUOTE]
Kind of, but nearly all of the earth's water is in liquid or solid form. This would be putting a lot more into the atmosphere on top of the natural evaporation that goes on anyway.
I suppose it would just increase the throughput of the planet's water cycle, which I guess would affect the normal weather patterns. The question is, how much? I'm not a meteorologist so I have no idea.
This just came up in my mind: what if we aren't alive, but just a chemical reaction that reacts on pulses. I mean, we don't have a way to be sure that we were alive a second ago, as that is only a memory.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
