Hasta Lavista Gasoline!
- Thread starter maddogchen
- Start date
What is the point no one is going to buy more expansive fuel to run in a more expeansive car. Ignoring the problem that their is no easy way to get hydrogen.
Arnold gets a bad rap from some liberals that he doesn't deserve. In California, people assumed he was tied up with the religious right and anti-environmental (basically all those nasty neocon traits). Well he is fiscally conservative but quite liberal when it comes to the environment and other subjects. This is a good example of him being a moderate. We need more moderates in our country.
Maybe the price of gasoline will rise so high that hydrogen fuel is cheaper in 2010. And hopefully we'll find a cheap way to get hydrogen easily. Who knows (shrug). But at least there's some hope in the future to save our environment.
The problem is right now the only way we can get hydrogen is from oil products, or natural gas and isn't CA already pay sky high prices for natural gas.
Thats interesting, I wonder why the article didn't mention that, or offer more info...for those who know little about Hydrogen fuel like me.
There's other ways to get hydrogen including using electrolysis to seperate the hydrogen atoms from the oxygon atoms in water. I also recently read about a new reactor that could be used to derive hydrogen from methanol.
Or through electrolysis of water, which can be done without creating air pollution using nuclear power.
Well might as well burn methanol instead of converting it into hydrogen. It will have the same biproducts and would be more efficent then the conversion into hydrogen and then burning it.
This the Sand Thugs and the U.S. Politicians and Corporate Thugs in bed with them nitemare:
Hydrogen-Economy to replace Fossil Fuel Economy
Many people are now hopeful that a "hydrogen-economy" will soon replace our fossil fuel economy.
Obstacles to a hydrogen-economy
There are two obstacles to a hydrogen-economy.
It takes alot of volume (or energy) to store hydrogen - usually five times or so the volume, at reasonable pressures, needed to store an equivalent amount of energy with gasoline. One company that has made headway on solving this problem, however, is Dynetek (www.dyneteck.com).
There is no hydrogen infrastructure: Making the transition to a hydrogen economy might mean having to scrap the fossil fuel infrastructure that we have already developed. One company that has made progress on refueling equipment is Stuart Energy (www.stuartenergy.com).
Both of these problems might be surmounted by using synthetic fuels. For example, it is possible, using a catalyst, to combine water, carbon dioxide (extracted from the air), and renewable electricity to make fuels such as methanol, a carbon-based fuel. When this fuel is burned, water and carbon dioxide are produced. But because the carbon dioxide used initially to make the fuel was extracted from the air, the cycle is closed with respect to both water and carbon dioxide, and so won't contribute excess carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Fuel cells can already use such fuels (either by extracting the hydrogen from the fuel prior to the fuel cell, or even directly in certain types of fuel cells).
Hydrogen-Economy to replace Fossil Fuel Economy
Many people are now hopeful that a "hydrogen-economy" will soon replace our fossil fuel economy.
Obstacles to a hydrogen-economy
There are two obstacles to a hydrogen-economy.
It takes alot of volume (or energy) to store hydrogen - usually five times or so the volume, at reasonable pressures, needed to store an equivalent amount of energy with gasoline. One company that has made headway on solving this problem, however, is Dynetek (www.dyneteck.com).
There is no hydrogen infrastructure: Making the transition to a hydrogen economy might mean having to scrap the fossil fuel infrastructure that we have already developed. One company that has made progress on refueling equipment is Stuart Energy (www.stuartenergy.com).
Both of these problems might be surmounted by using synthetic fuels. For example, it is possible, using a catalyst, to combine water, carbon dioxide (extracted from the air), and renewable electricity to make fuels such as methanol, a carbon-based fuel. When this fuel is burned, water and carbon dioxide are produced. But because the carbon dioxide used initially to make the fuel was extracted from the air, the cycle is closed with respect to both water and carbon dioxide, and so won't contribute excess carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Fuel cells can already use such fuels (either by extracting the hydrogen from the fuel prior to the fuel cell, or even directly in certain types of fuel cells).
Hrm...still kinda doubtful. I think we should be concentrating efforts on hybrid rather than just making the full switch. People won't switch overnight, but if we improve technology so you can drive much further than 120 miles~ that will be much better.
I just think jumping from straight gasoline to fuel cell is a bit too unrealistic. Better to bank on hybridization while keep funding fuel cell research IMO
I just think jumping from straight gasoline to fuel cell is a bit too unrealistic. Better to bank on hybridization while keep funding fuel cell research IMO
This idea is just plain dumb. CA cities have some of the worst air quality in the nation. So Governor Schwarzenegger's solution is a vehicle that will have an unsubstantial presence on CA highways for at least another decade?!
CA has continually pushed car manufacturers to do better . . . despite little assistance from Reagan, Bush, and sometimes Clinton era officials. CA should continue to compel automakers to produce more fuel efficient AND cleaner vehicles. Why not leverage hybrids into the CA system? In all situations where it is practical, CA government vehicles should be hybrid. City government vehicles should be hybrid. CA should offer a substantial tax credit to CA car buyers of hybrids.
Despite the upfront costs to CA taxpayers, they will likely recoup much of the investment as gas prices fall secondary to falling demand. It would also make sense for CA to impose a single formulation of gasoline.
Hydrogen vehicles are definitely in our future but dumb arse Arnie essentially tossed away money (car tax) that might have financed his ambitious plan. If Schwarzenegger was smart he would enlist Honda and Toyota to join CA in producing hybrid and hydrogen vehicles. I think they will be far more reliable sources of R&D than Congress or the White House.
CA has continually pushed car manufacturers to do better . . . despite little assistance from Reagan, Bush, and sometimes Clinton era officials. CA should continue to compel automakers to produce more fuel efficient AND cleaner vehicles. Why not leverage hybrids into the CA system? In all situations where it is practical, CA government vehicles should be hybrid. City government vehicles should be hybrid. CA should offer a substantial tax credit to CA car buyers of hybrids.
Despite the upfront costs to CA taxpayers, they will likely recoup much of the investment as gas prices fall secondary to falling demand. It would also make sense for CA to impose a single formulation of gasoline.
Hydrogen vehicles are definitely in our future but dumb arse Arnie essentially tossed away money (car tax) that might have financed his ambitious plan. If Schwarzenegger was smart he would enlist Honda and Toyota to join CA in producing hybrid and hydrogen vehicles. I think they will be far more reliable sources of R&D than Congress or the White House.
Isn't it obvious BBD?
GM, the Saudi Sand Thugs and Politicians have the Gubenator in their back pocket. :|
GM, the Saudi Sand Thugs and Politicians have the Gubenator in their back pocket. :|
zephyrprime
Diamond Member
- Feb 18, 2001
- 7,512
- 2
- 81
I think that there will be a certain percentage of people that are willing to do this although not a whole lot at first. And how much does H2 cost anyway?
In AZ, there's talk of setting up solar collection panels to provide the electricity. It's one of the few benefits to living in the desert.
Which should just go on to the grid. To us solar power to turn the electricity into hydrogen would be a bad chose because solar power provides power during the same time frame that the max power usage.
The only time producing hydrogen would be econimicly and enviromentaly benifitial would be at a nuclear plant running in the middle of the night where it was producing excesive electricty and then it would make the most sence to burn the hydrogen on site to supplyment peck demand.
Who's to say that some of the electricity generated by solar panels wouldn't go back to the grid (if used in a large scale operation like how it sounds you're thinking of). I've searched azcentral.com for the article, but their search engine isn't bringing up what I'm looking for (I think they were hinting at using smaller, consumer-sized groups of cells to power the electrolytic process - but I'll keep searching).
I don't think that burning the hydrogen to produce electricity would gain much favor in AZ. As is the case elsewhere, no one wants a power plant in their back yard. Also, there's the problem with water shortages caused by both the drought and the population explosion here in the valley. While it's not affecting power plants now, planners are starting to take the water problem into consideration when trying to locate a new power source.
I assumed you where implying that the solar power could be used to produce hydrogen because that is what the thread is about. The problem with small scale production of hydrogen gas is that it would require some kind of a compresser and compressors to get hydrogen to a useful concentration will not be cheap.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter