Hydro/Electro Repost

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Scourge

We're sure falling behind that modern utopia Germany. Sheesh. Whatever shall we do?

Dunno, start another war? Speed up our demise maybe?

 

[imported_Scourge]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Scourge

We're sure falling behind that modern utopia Germany. Sheesh. Whatever shall we do?

Dunno, start another war? Speed up our demise maybe?

Haha, I enjoy how you quite that part of my post and ignore the rest of it.

Also, you never responded to the fact that this same thing has been posted and talked about, at lengh, many times.

 

[Steeplerot]

China and india are sh1tholes, why would we want to dot our country with nukeplants like them?

We already have enough, and plenty of options, granted the big CEOs havent had enough $ yet I guess.

 

[shimsham]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Ok, so is it total bunk? He says he drove so many miles on a small amount of water. I know physics enough to know there is no free ride.

A good sign Germany has shut down its oldest nuclear reactor as part of the country's plan to phase out nuclear power by 2020.

And we go backwards, we are falling behind in everything it seems.

that should be closed down because its old and outdated, not because its nuclear.

where will the other 87.5% of their power come, assuming they make thier goals with wind power?

Text


id like to see this tech developed.

 

[Steeplerot]

Those sea snakes are great, thank for the link. I saw a thing about them a few months ago but no pictures.

Improvements come a lot of the time from actually using this stuff, like the improvements in nuke power.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
He might be able to power a car from batteries + gasoline which convert water into its parts and combusts it, but it basically doesn't make a difference at all... he's still driving a car powered by electricity and gasoline.

The water is pointless here. Hybrids are already using electricity + gasoline to drive.

There are some benefits to using hydrolysis. The biggest comes from the fact that power plants are very large and very efficient, while the limited size of automotive engines necessarily limits their efficiency.

As a rule of thumb, power plant efficiency may be anywhere from 25-40% (depending on lots of things), while an automobile engine is about 13% efficient. So, if I want to generate 100 MJ of power at a power plant, I have to put in about 278 MJ (assuming 40% efficiency, then a final 90% efficiency of the hydrogen fuel cell, which is pretty typical). If I want 100 MJ out of automobile engines, I have to put in 769 MJ of gasoline. In the end, we need 2.8 times more energy inputs to get the same output from a gasoline engine as we can get from an electrolytic fuel cell that draws power from power plants.

However, as in any cost analysis, one must also factor in the capital costs of startup and compare them with operating costs and life expectancy. This is where electrolytic fuel cell economies tend to fail. Think of the amount of gasoline we consume per day. Multiply that by 2.78 and that's the amount of fuel that we need to feed to power plants over and above what we feed them now. Then, consider that these plants don't even exist yet. Couple these issues with the need for additional infrastructure (a distribution system, new cars, et cetera) and the feasibility drops off dramatically.

Bottom line: electrolytic fuel cells sound good at first. Then, as you examine the details, the story starts to unravel pretty quickly. It's still quite possible that this will be the manner of fueling vehicles in the future, but it won't be for at least 20 years. Increasing output of nuclear power would be one catalyst that might increase the development of this form of economy. Otherwise, we'll be waiting for solar in particular to make some new advances to the point of economic feasability on a large scale.

 

[Kerouactivist]

I'm always back and forth on nuke. The waste is some really nasty stuff but, it is concentrated which has it's + and -'s..... I'm not really up too date on the advances that have been made with nuclear enough to know how safe, clean, and efficient it is.

I think solar has huge potential as the efficency of the panels gets better, but such a big part of it is conservation and just better build design or houses, cars, etc...

In one of those dream world type of statements..... If I were in charge type of things....

I would get rid of all oil subsidies....charge a higher price for the our natural resources that come off of our public lands and are basically given to corporations.....and use all that money and then some to fund university research into alternative fuel sources and various conservation research.....

On top of that, I would put a huge tax on gas guzzlers ....Have loan incentives for "walking" communities (that fit certain design requirements).... Maybe some sort of incentive program for people that live within a certain distance of their place of work....

There are a whole batch of just incentive oriented type of things that could be done to foster conservation... a tax on inefficient light bulbs....Tax breaks on recycled paper production etc... If married people with a bunch of kids get a tax break why not give breaks to people/companies who live a more eco-friendly lifestlye?
Hey and most places tax the heck out of alcohol and smokes...whats the difference really?

Hopefully once the oil crowd is out of office we might actually see some interesting things start happening...
I'm not holding my breathe though...

Alot of people may disagree with some of the things I've said, but I'm sure we could come up with some good ideas that a majority of folks out there could agree on....at least I would hope so....

 

[trenchfoot]

Hopefully once the oil crowd is out of office we might actually see some interesting things start happening...

ain't gonna happen unless we nationalize the industry, and what are the chances of that?

the oil industry is so much more powerful and flush with cash since their "man in control" took over, that they are able to squash and smother any threat to it's dominance over the energy business.

they've been playing "whack a weasel" on alternative energy sources for years simply by not investing in them. there's no logical reason why they would turn on themselves.

sorry steeplerot, i kind'a went off-topic here, but i think it needed to be said.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: tweaker2
the oil industry is so much more powerful and flush with cash since their "man in control" took over, that they are able to squash and smother any threat to it's dominance over the energy business.

they've been playing "whack a weasel" on alternative energy sources for years simply by not investing in them. there's no logical reason why they would turn on themselves.

Actually, oil companies own most of the patents and fund by far the majority of alternative energy research. They know that oil won't last forever and would love for their wealth to outlast oil. They didn't get where they are by being stupid.

 

[dullard]

Why must this video come on Anandtech at LEAST once a week for years on end? Arg.

That "HHO" is a battery, a place to store energy. It is not an energy source. A battery does not give you more energy than you put into it. In fact, it gives you less energy than you put into it.

You can make as many batteries as you want, of any type you want, but that doesn't solve our energy problem. If you have no energy to put into the battery, then how the hell do you use that battery?

The size of the battery (a few ounces of water in a car) is meaningless. Sure it may sound impressive, but again, the battery type/size does not impact our energy problem at all.

Don't get me wrong, a good battery can make many devices much better. And a good battery can make energy sources like wind and solar more useful. But it can not and will not replace energy sources. Zorba and others have it correct. Thermodynamics is proven time and time again; it is part of fundamental science knowledge. Thermodynamics states that a battery will not produce energy.

 

[K1052]

Ironically, fission generated heat is about the most efficient way to currently produce hydrogen from water. Since the thermal capacity of a nuclear plant is well known and outages can be much more reliably predicted than solar/wind/tidal nuclear is a superior option. Also, waste heat from the hydrogen separation process (since the reactor operates at much higher temps than conventional light water plants) could be used to heat steam loops generating electricity that would further increase the efficiency of the plant.

By arguing for hydrogen you are arguing for nuclear power Steep.

 

[Zorba]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
However, as in any cost analysis, one must also factor in the capital costs of startup and compare them with operating costs and life expectancy. This is where electrolytic fuel cell economies tend to fail. Think of the amount of gasoline we consume per day. Multiply that by 2.78 and that's the amount of fuel that we need to feed to power plants over and above what we feed them now. Then, consider that these plants don't even exist yet. Couple these issues with the need for additional infrastructure (a distribution system, new cars, et cetera) and the feasibility drops off dramatically.

While your post is very true, I am going add a little bit to it. Nowadays powerplants produce a lot less energy at night than they do durring the day. If a power plant was splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen at night, a powerplant could, at least in theory, produce roughly the same amount of energy all day and sotre access. Elimating the swings in demand would help powerplants run more efficiently.

 

[Steeplerot]

Hmm, this is a huge R. Well, thanks for kinda explaining how this works for those who took a moment.

There never is a free ride, I figured as much.

 

[5150Joker]

What's the efficiency of fusion reactors right now? Last I read they had one operating in Japan and were planning to build some more in Europe.

 

[zephyrprime]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
Please don't post non-news like this. It's just high school electrolysis. And the difficulty of hydrogen for vehicles is storage, not splitting. Also, why would you bother to electrolysize water to form hydrogen to burn on a car when you could just run directly off the electricity source that is being carried around on the car?

Really the video is kinda vauge, you have a link? Like I said in OP, I am skeptical of the whole thing, what the deal with this then? I guess I missed mr. wizard that day or something.

The video is vague but I guess I can't expect the nightly news to ever get into depth about anything. Anyway, from the video, the guys has some sort of big green box that he pours water into. He also says that he uses electricity to break down the water with electrolysis. So it sounds like this is really nothing more than simple electrolysis of water into hydrogen which can be accomplished with many chemistry kits that can be bought at toys r us (no joke). He doesn't mention that electrolysis isn't perfectly efficient and even if it were, you gotta get the electricity from somewhere. Using his method to do things, you'd have to carry around an electrical source and the electrolysis machine on your car. That'd add a lot of weight to the car and if you have to have an electrical source on the car, why not just run off it directly and obviate the need for inefficient internal combustion? If on the other hand he intends to premake the hydrogen instead of generating it on the car, then you'd have the storage problem which is the only thing that's really holding back fuel cell cars.