TheSamba.com :: View topic

Mon Apr 02, 2007 9:11 pm

I ran across this recently and thought it would make a nice topic.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www....l%26sa%3DN

Anyone out there playing with hydrogen fuel cells?

Kahlil

Tue Apr 03, 2007 2:49 pm

playing is exactly what it is. hydrogen is now, and will always be the energy of the future. it takes 1.3 units of energy to generate 1 unit of hydrogen energy. thats a negative energy return. fossil fuels at present generate a positive return of about 30

Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:03 pm

Check out these You Tube links

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0f52n8JkYEs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=et004X1ir3k&mode=related&search=

Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:36 pm

steponmebbbboom wrote: playing is exactly what it is. hydrogen is now, and will always be the energy of the future. it takes 1.3 units of energy to generate 1 unit of hydrogen energy. thats a negative energy return. fossil fuels at present generate a positive return of about 30
What about using hydrogen as an energy collector for solar power-- electrolysis of seawater by solar driven DC current?

Rob

Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:46 pm

Quote: playing is exactly what it is. hydrogen is now, and will always be the energy of the future.

hes right you know , H power is pure bullshit.

Quote: What about using hydrogen as an energy collector for solar power-- electrolysis of seawater by solar driven DC current?

same return no matter what the source of electricity is. H would be just a bad deal for that solar energy. and by the way, solar energy is not free. photovoltaics have a lifespan of 40 years and when you consider the hgh cost of these panels, and do some math, you will find that it isnt all that cheap either. it is however, GREEN !

Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:52 pm

dansvans wrote: ... it is however, GREEN !

Well then it's comforting to know that rich people will be able to afford a nice green energy source for their H powered cars.
And in 10 years, they will be the only one's driving anyway... :lol:

Rob

Tue Apr 03, 2007 7:16 pm

yeah SURE, and while you are at it, beam me up scotty! just aint no good science behind that s**t

Tue Apr 03, 2007 7:37 pm

you cannot bend the laws of thermodynamics with dollars, no matter how many dollars you throw at it.

Wed Apr 04, 2007 5:46 am

I thought if you used 1.3 energy units of sunlight to get 1 energy unit of fuel for burning. That would be a good deal compared to burning 1.3 energy units of fuel to get 1 unit of burnable fuel. That's why I called it storable solar energy. But I haven't looked into it the cost of producing it, etc. That's why I asked.

Rob

Wed Apr 04, 2007 8:42 am

what i am saying is that if you have a unit of electricity, say 10,000 kilowatthours, from any source, you can choose to:

1) store it in batterys that are onboard an electric car OR,

2) use that electricity to split water, then store that hydrogen onboard a hydrogen car....

the electric car will go much further. thats the point. and since there is no magical way to change the amount of energy needed to get the H, the electric car will always be the wiser choice- even for the rich. people who are rich are that way cuz they make wise choices! they wont be choosing hydrogen.

consider that the hydrogen idea has been around for a long time and as hard as some have tried there has been no verifiable progress on the issue. and 10 years from now, the physics wont just magically work out just because the prez media machine says "think hydrogen".

Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:24 am

dansvans wrote: what i am saying is that if you have a unit of electricity, say 10,000 kilowatthours, from any source, you can choose to:

1) store it in batterys that are onboard an electric car OR,

2) use that electricity to split water, then store that hydrogen onboard a hydrogen car....

...the electric car will go much further. thats the point.

That makes perfect sense if the electric car is better. I was under the impression that the hydrogen was used to drive an internal combustion piston engine and have better power/performance, even if only say 100 mile range between refills. But I see your point. Like I say, I have not looked into this.

Rob

Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:42 am

Let's see some links/facts that back up your theories.

Thu Apr 05, 2007 10:04 am

If they can get nuclear power back, and use self regulating reactors so Homer Simpson can't melt it, at night when the demand is low, you split water to get the hydrogen.

They don't throttle a reactor up and down, they run it near 100% all the time. Diablo Canyon in California runs a bunch of pumps to push water 1000 ft up a mountain to a lake. At night when no one needs the power. Then the next afternoon when all the A/C is on, they drain the lake through the turbines and it is collected in the lake and pumped back that night.

If oil gets expensive enough, this would make sense. The bio fuels won't work, not enough land and water to grow that much fuel. Sunlight too diffuse, need square miles of panels to produce the same power as a reactor.

Thu Apr 05, 2007 11:31 am

Hydrogen is actually a viable source of energy, either through fuel cells or hydrogen as a fuel. First of all the clean concious of being green can offset the price difference for people with the cash to spare. For the rest of us we have been waiting on this technology for so long for the same reason there are so few all electric cars: storage. The fuel sources are useable, but to transport them there is still the problem of carrying your fuel. I could look up the numbers but wont, but the comparison between one lb of gas and one lb of battery and on lb of H2 in energy storage is something along the lines of 100:45:230. just kidding, those are completly made up, but that is the general idea. Why don't we use H2 then? Density. If you put in high pressure gas storage tanks it would still have a volume an order of magnitude lareger than that of an equivalent gas tank. and if it ruptures, its a FAB. No fun. If you store it as a liquid, the volume is much more practical, only a bit larger than an equivalent power gas tank, and lighter at that. however, if you wanted to make your one h2 (solar, water, grid power, whatever you care), you would be collecting a gas which you then must change to a liquid. Thats hard. Now in your car it is cryogenic, at rediculous temps (-400 degrees), and to use it you must first convert it to gas, then warm it. THis is a suprisingly dfifficult process. and now again you have the accident problem. If you crash not only is there spewing H2, but it is at -400deg, and is dangerous for that fact alone. Now if you think that H2 transportation is impossible, there is one NEW option. I emphasise new because everyone who has deemed H2 untransportable has probably changed thier mind once hearing of it. This wonder cure is called a hydride. This is a chemical that can absorb hydrogen atoms, and then release them later. This is usally in a poweder form, and can be kept in low pressure tanks, and can be recharged by merely adding H2 at a pressure no greater than what is in your tires. This compound is actually denser than liquid hydrogen, and can be transported in bottles that look like NOS tanks. To remove the H2 they need to be heated by an electric coil, and once the engine is running exhaust gasess for us would do. lets not talk about radiators here.
H2 is a proven fuel. transportation has always been an issue in terms of volume density. Electric has been an issue due to efficient storage in terms of wieght density. look at how little power your car battery has vs its wieght.
now if anyone wants to talk of a hydrogen assist, I hope to try and build/market those after college. Aye, am a a no-good kid growing up in out liberal school systems. take my information as you will, but please do your own research.

Thu Apr 05, 2007 11:33 am

Quote: If they can get nuclear power back, and use self regulating reactors so Homer Simpson can't melt it, at night when the demand is low, you split water to get the hydrogen.

but again, electricity from any source is better used to charge batteries at night for electric cars that plug in. some of the new hybrids coming up are going to have plug ins to extend their gas mileage.

Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:08 pm

ghostwagens wrote:
Definitely and interesting topic. I never did see anyone comment though on the picture. First thing that comes to mind is...
"Yes, I'd like a little bit of bus with my Hydrogen plant please" :)

steponmebbbboom wrote: playing is exactly what it is. hydrogen is now, and will always be the energy of the future. it takes 1.3 units of energy to generate 1 unit of hydrogen energy. thats a negative energy return. fossil fuels at present generate a positive return of about 30

Do I smell a Chem E in our midst here? Maybe another engineer. hehehe.

Only comment is that while your point is extremely valid and very realistic we also have to factor in whether or not a return of "30" is necessary based on environmental issues and how far that and money may affect the answer or solution.

Sometimes people get so fixated on other solutions they ignore simple ones. Using less fuel through smaller more efficient cars is just as valid if not more so than switching to another energy source or maybe switching to a fuel that gives us one third of the return that gas does. It might mean we all drive around at 50mph again but it would help to solve a growing problem without having to bend the laws of thermodynamics.

dansvans wrote: Quote: If they can get nuclear power back, and use self regulating reactors so Homer Simpson can't melt it, at night when the demand is low, you split water to get the hydrogen.

but again, electricity from any source is better used to charge batteries at night for electric cars that plug in. some of the new hybrids coming up are going to have plug ins to extend their gas mileage.

Don't forget though that the "hybrids" aren't as green as you'd think. Plug in power has to come from somewhere which lots of times includes coal and gas plants used to turn the turbines and generate the "clean" electricity. Although the concept and fact that the 3 and 4 cylinder engines burn less gas is a plus whether they really get much from the batteries or not.

I have heard though of mods people do to the hybrids with more batteries that have extended mileage well above 100 miles per gallon! Amazing.

Thu Apr 05, 2007 1:10 pm

dansvans wrote: Quote: If they can get nuclear power back, and use self regulating reactors so Homer Simpson can't melt it, at night when the demand is low, you split water to get the hydrogen.

but again, electricity from any source is better used to charge batteries at night for electric cars that plug in. some of the new hybrids coming up are going to have plug ins to extend their gas mileage.

The batteries make sense with shorter trips and light vehicles. Trucks, long distance trips are going to require something with a denser and easier refill. I read about Lithium Hydrates being used as a sponge to soak up hydrogen and lessen the Hindenburg fear. Somebody might come up with a way to make coal into fuel, like the germans did during WW2, using the excess nuclear energy. All will happen when the price of oil goes high enough.

Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:16 pm

Quote: It might mean we all drive around at 50mph again

Us bus owners are ahead of the game then. :lol:

Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:22 pm

fusername wrote: Hydrogen is actually a viable source of energy, either through fuel cells or hydrogen as a fuel. First of all the clean concious of being green can offset the price difference for people with the cash to spare. For the rest of us we have been waiting on this technology for so long for the same reason there are so few all electric cars: storage. The fuel sources are useable, but to transport them there is still the problem of carrying your fuel. I could look up the numbers but wont, but the comparison between one lb of gas and one lb of battery and on lb of H2 in energy storage is something along the lines of 100:45:230. just kidding, those are completly made up, but that is the general idea. Why don't we use H2 then? Density. If you put in high pressure gas storage tanks it would still have a volume an order of magnitude lareger than that of an equivalent gas tank. and if it ruptures, its a FAB. No fun. If you store it as a liquid, the volume is much more practical, only a bit larger than an equivalent power gas tank, and lighter at that. however, if you wanted to make your one h2 (solar, water, grid power, whatever you care), you would be collecting a gas which you then must change to a liquid. Thats hard. Now in your car it is cryogenic, at rediculous temps (-400 degrees), and to use it you must first convert it to gas, then warm it. THis is a suprisingly dfifficult process. and now again you have the accident problem. If you crash not only is there spewing H2, but it is at -400deg, and is dangerous for that fact alone. Now if you think that H2 transportation is impossible, there is one NEW option. I emphasise new because everyone who has deemed H2 untransportable has probably changed thier mind once hearing of it. This wonder cure is called a hydride. This is a chemical that can absorb hydrogen atoms, and then release them later. This is usally in a poweder form, and can be kept in low pressure tanks, and can be recharged by merely adding H2 at a pressure no greater than what is in your tires. This compound is actually denser than liquid hydrogen, and can be transported in bottles that look like NOS tanks. To remove the H2 they need to be heated by an electric coil, and once the engine is running exhaust gasess for us would do. lets not talk about radiators here.
H2 is a proven fuel. transportation has always been an issue in terms of volume density. Electric has been an issue due to efficient storage in terms of wieght density. look at how little power your car battery has vs its wieght.
now if anyone wants to talk of a hydrogen assist, I hope to try and build/market those after college. Aye, am a a no-good kid growing up in out liberal school systems. take my information as you will, but please do your own research.

My god you just dont get it.

NET ENERGY
NET ENERGY
NET ENERGY

you are feeding a dog steak and eating his alpo. who cares what it costs when you are WASTING energy to produce it? use the electricity for something else

Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:26 pm

Adventurewagen wrote: Only comment is that while your point is extremely valid and very realistic we also have to factor in whether or not a return of "30" is necessary based on environmental issues and how far that and money may affect the answer or solution.

and my only comment to YOU is that $200/b oil equals total economic collapse. Do you understand just how much our way of life depends on cheap, abundant oil? do you really think that we will just be /driving/ less? youre damn right we will be, well be doing a whole hell of a lot of things less. like eating.