• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Hydrogen cars are the solution not drilling....

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,377
1
0
Originally posted by: Budmantom

Why should my tax dollers go to "helping out people" buy cars?

Our government should worry about security not worry about FORCING companies into making products.
That's easy to say now when you do not feel that the increased prices are effecting your life very much due to your high income or whatever. What you need to realize is that we need to solve this issue now before we get in over our heads.


Originally posted by: Budmantom
No it doesn't that's up to our government, your idea makes no financial sense... spending $600 on a lease. I'm all for hybrids when it's cost effective.
The kind of influence I want our government to have is to hasten the progress of cars such as hybrids so that they become cost effective. I think the problem is that you want solutions and you want them now just like everyone else but you don't want to pay for that fast progress even if it means saving a lot of money in the grand scheme of things.
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,434
84
91
Originally posted by: Jmman
Let me jump right on that $600 a month lease! For that kind of money, give me a Porsche and $4 gasoline. Seriously though, Hydrogen does have some great advantages like zero emissions etc, but manufacturing Hydrogen takes a lot of energy. That energy has to come from somewhere........
The energy can come from solar reflectors. There is plenty of space in Saudi Arabia to install them. They could provide us with cheap hydrogen for decades.
 

SlingXShot

Senior member
Jan 7, 2004
248
0
0
Originally posted by: dphantom
Hydrogen is one of many possible alternatives. But it is not an overnight solution. There is a significant enrgy INPUT to get hydrogen. There is a huge refueling infrastructrue that needs to be built.

All can be overcome, but I doubt we will be there in 1, 3 or even 5 years. In the meantime, we still need to develop oil, natural gas and next gen fission reactors to supply our growing energy needs.

Energy equates directly to wealth. Wealth equates to higher standards of living, healthier people, longer life spans etc... We need to develop all viable sources of energy certainly trying to focus on wind, wave solar and nuclear as less polluting than coal/oil/natural gas. But all will play a role for some time to come.
Ye but we going to run out of oil either way eventually. Hydrogen provides a permanent solution...
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: rudder
Originally posted by: Jmman
Let me jump right on that $600 a month lease! For that kind of money, give me a Porsche and $4 gasoline. Seriously though, Hydrogen does have some great advantages like zero emissions etc, but manufacturing Hydrogen takes a lot of energy. That energy has to come from somewhere........
The energy can come from solar reflectors. There is plenty of space in Saudi Arabia to install them. They could provide us with cheap hydrogen for decades.
To replace oil with hydrogen worldwide, the electricity needs are on a scale that boggles the imagination and solar isn't going to cut it.
 

pstylesss

Platinum Member
Mar 21, 2007
2,914
0
0
Anyone who doesn't think we need to approach this from both directions is an idiot. We need to develop alternative energy sources so we have something when oil starts to run out. We also need to drill in our own country and use our own resources to lower our costs and boost our economy and become self sufficient.

This needs to be done from both sides at the same time. This idea that we need to punish ourselves with higher prices because we haven't developed another energy source (when there really was no pressing need, innovation is born out of necessity you know) is ridiculous.

We can end our dependence on foreign oil in 5 years or so by using our own resources.
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,511
140
106
Originally posted by: SlingXShot
Originally posted by: dphantom
Hydrogen is one of many possible alternatives. But it is not an overnight solution. There is a significant enrgy INPUT to get hydrogen. There is a huge refueling infrastructrue that needs to be built.

All can be overcome, but I doubt we will be there in 1, 3 or even 5 years. In the meantime, we still need to develop oil, natural gas and next gen fission reactors to supply our growing energy needs.

Energy equates directly to wealth. Wealth equates to higher standards of living, healthier people, longer life spans etc... We need to develop all viable sources of energy certainly trying to focus on wind, wave solar and nuclear as less polluting than coal/oil/natural gas. But all will play a role for some time to come.
Ye but we going to run out of oil either way eventually. Hydrogen provides a permanent solution...
Eventually, we run out of everything including hydrogen. Hydrogen is not permanent, simply much longer term.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,377
1
0
Originally posted by: dphantom
Originally posted by: SlingXShot
Originally posted by: dphantom
Hydrogen is one of many possible alternatives. But it is not an overnight solution. There is a significant enrgy INPUT to get hydrogen. There is a huge refueling infrastructrue that needs to be built.

All can be overcome, but I doubt we will be there in 1, 3 or even 5 years. In the meantime, we still need to develop oil, natural gas and next gen fission reactors to supply our growing energy needs.

Energy equates directly to wealth. Wealth equates to higher standards of living, healthier people, longer life spans etc... We need to develop all viable sources of energy certainly trying to focus on wind, wave solar and nuclear as less polluting than coal/oil/natural gas. But all will play a role for some time to come.
Ye but we going to run out of oil either way eventually. Hydrogen provides a permanent solution...
Eventually, we run out of everything including hydrogen. Hydrogen is not permanent, simply much longer term.
What are you trying to say? Obviously nothing is permanent in every scenario. How does that knowledge apply to this problem?
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: ZeroIQ
Anyone who doesn't think we need to approach this from both directions is an idiot. We need to develop alternative energy sources so we have something when oil starts to run out. We also need to drill in our own country and use our own resources to lower our costs and boost our economy and become self sufficient.

This needs to be done from both sides at the same time. This idea that we need to punish ourselves with higher prices because we haven't developed another energy source (when there really was no pressing need, innovation is born out of necessity you know) is ridiculous.

We can end our dependence on foreign oil in 5 years or so by using our own resources.
Eh, I wouldn't go that far. I think we could provide a better balance of oil for ourselves along with oil from a place that is unstable and/or under constant conflict. We've been dropping our oil production for the last 30 years while increasing our oil imports and demand. That isn't healthy.

But, I don't think there is enough for us to be 100% free from foreign oil.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
181
106
Why not import India's air powered cars? 127 mile range, two minuite fill up at equiped stations or over night using it's built in compressor. Or bring back the EV-1, 60 mile range with lead acid batteries, with new tech would get 300-plus.
 

SlingXShot

Senior member
Jan 7, 2004
248
0
0
How about zero point energy? Or Element 115 (ununpentium) ? Antimatter?

May be in 100 years...

I am sure with a drop of antimatter you could run your car for like 10 years non stop. Then I am sure its useless for cars, this type of power could be more useful for other things.

Antimatter is said to be the most expensive substance in existence, with an estimated cost of $300 billion per milligram. This is because production is difficult (only a few atoms are produced in reactions in particle accelerators), and because there is higher demand for the other uses of particle accelerators. According to CERN, it has cost a few hundred million Swiss Francs to produce about 1 billionth of a gram.[8]
http://livefromcern.web.cern.c...n/antimatter/FAQ1.html

 

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
7,925
1
0
Something to keep in mind is that currently about 96% of our hydrogen comes from fossil fuels. It can be produced from hydrolysis, but this is very inefficient. There's a lot of research being done on it, I've read about using algae to produce hydrogen, and Gen IV nuclear reactors are supposed to incorporate high temperature electrolysis (they could produce electricity during the day, and then divert some of the heat for HTE at night when electricity demand is down). But with our current technology, it just doesn't make any sense, and it may never make sense. Even if you find a pretty efficient way to produce hydrogen, it seems to me it would be much more efficient to use the electricity to directly to power an electric motor, as opposed to converting it to hydrogen and then using that to power a motor at probably 30-40% efficiency.

IMO we should stick with biofuels and/or electric vehicles. The technology will be here soon and the necessary infrastructure changes will be minimal.
 

SlingXShot

Senior member
Jan 7, 2004
248
0
0
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Something to keep in mind is that currently about 96% of our hydrogen comes from fossil fuels. It can be produced from hydrolysis, but this is very inefficient. There's a lot of research being done on it, I've read about using algae to produce hydrogen, and Gen IV nuclear reactors are supposed to incorporate high temperature electrolysis (they could produce electricity during the day, and then divert some of the heat for HTE at night when electricity demand is down). But with our current technology, it just doesn't make any sense, and it may never make sense. Even if you find a pretty efficient way to produce hydrogen, it seems to me it would be much more efficient to use the electricity to directly to power an electric motor, as opposed to converting it to hydrogen and then using that to power a motor at probably 30-40% efficiency.

IMO we should stick with biofuels and/or electric vehicles. The technology will be here soon and the necessary infrastructure changes will be minimal.
The problem is that those batteries don't have a good charge and lot of electricity. They need to create batteries that are 4x more powerful that are cheap... I know there are some nice / fast electrical cars...but they cost insane amount of money. PLus charging your car takes longer than refilling with hydrogen.
 

SlingXShot

Senior member
Jan 7, 2004
248
0
0
Originally posted by: ultra laser
We use oil for a lot more than just powering our cars. Get educated and stop being ridiculous.
FU

That well crafted response will cost you a 3 day vacation.
bsobel


 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
48,192
8,778
126
Hydrogen is not the solution. EV is. And with enough research and investment, EV is closer to practical reality than hydrogen is.
 

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
7,925
1
0
Originally posted by: SlingXShot
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Something to keep in mind is that currently about 96% of our hydrogen comes from fossil fuels. It can be produced from hydrolysis, but this is very inefficient. There's a lot of research being done on it, I've read about using algae to produce hydrogen, and Gen IV nuclear reactors are supposed to incorporate high temperature electrolysis (they could produce electricity during the day, and then divert some of the heat for HTE at night when electricity demand is down). But with our current technology, it just doesn't make any sense, and it may never make sense. Even if you find a pretty efficient way to produce hydrogen, it seems to me it would be much more efficient to use the electricity to directly to power an electric motor, as opposed to converting it to hydrogen and then using that to power a motor at probably 30-40% efficiency.

IMO we should stick with biofuels and/or electric vehicles. The technology will be here soon and the necessary infrastructure changes will be minimal.
The problem is that those batteries don't have a good charge and lot of electricity. They need to create batteries that are 4x more powerful that are cheap... I know there are some nice / fast electrical cars...but they cost insane amount of money. PLus charging your car takes longer than refilling with hydrogen.
Using carbon nanotubes researchers have found a way to increase lithium-ion battery capacity tenfold. EEStor is supposed to be releasing a 52kWh (enough to go a good 150-200 miles I believe) supercapacitor that's supposed to offer five minute charge time. This is a huge breakthrough and is what will make the electric car feasible IMO.
 

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
7,925
1
0
Originally posted by: ultra laser
We use oil for a lot more than just powering our cars. Get educated and stop being ridiculous.
Crude isn't necessary to make plastics, it's just that up until recently it was cheap, so nobody bothered researching alternatives. Now that prices are increasing, there's a lot of research being done on bioplastics. I'm sure eventually they'll replace crude-derived plastic products.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,061
494
126
Not sure what a long term solution is. Possible electric but I think Hybrids are a good cross over technology for the next few decades.

The Volt looks like a good concept. 40-60 miles on battery then a gas engine fires up for anything longer. That way you can get longevity out of the car if you need it while being able to drive around the city without expending any gasoline.
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Not sure what a long term solution is. Possible electric but I think Hybrids are a good cross over technology for the next few decades.

The Volt looks like a good concept. 40-60 miles on battery then a gas engine fires up for anything longer. That way you can get longevity out of the car if you need it while being able to drive around the city without expending any gasoline.
Using Hybrids as cross-overs will work even better when we start seeing plug-in Hybrids.
 

Budmantom

Lifer
Aug 17, 2002
13,103
1
81
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: Budmantom

Why should my tax dollers go to "helping out people" buy cars?

Our government should worry about security not worry about FORCING companies into making products.

That's easy to say now when you do not feel that the increased prices are effecting your life very much due to your high income or whatever. What you need to realize is that we need to solve this issue now before we get in over our heads.


Originally posted by: Budmantom
No it doesn't that's up to our government, your idea makes no financial sense... spending $600 on a lease. I'm all for hybrids when it's cost effective.
The kind of influence I want our government to have is to hasten the progress of cars such as hybrids so that they become cost effective. I think the problem is that you want solutions and you want them now just like everyone else but you don't want to pay for that fast progress even if it means saving a lot of money in the grand scheme of things.
You mean by giving the oil companies tax breaks?? So that they can figure out a way for us to use less oil and for them to lose money.... I just can't figure out why the oil companies haven't figured out how to put themselves out of business.

This is our government your talking about, they will be the obstacle not part of the solution.

 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,547
1,053
126
I didn't bother reading all of the thread, but to summarize my thoughts on this :

(1)- Hydrogen fuel cell cars / power will be viable when a more efficient way of collecting hydrogen exists. It's not cost effective at this point.

(2)- Nuclear power + Electric is probably the cleanest and most efficient way of powering things. Tons and tons of upside to this route, and if we follow India's lead, we should be looking at bringing Thorium reactors online.
 

PingSpike

Lifer
Feb 25, 2004
21,501
406
126
It seems like hydrogen would require massive policy shifts in energy creation, creation of a completely new infrastructure and of course replacement of existing vehicles. An electric or plug in hybrid could be used now by the vast majority of Americans. I don't see how replacing you vehicle, building a new distribution infrastructure and building hydrogen generation plants is the easier solution then just replacing the car.

I agree a multi-pronged approach is best, but hydrogen cars are not the solution. I'm not even sure they are an integral part of the solution, at least not in the near term. (I'm talking next 2-3 decades).
 

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
7,925
1
0
Originally posted by: Arkaign
I didn't bother reading all of the thread, but to summarize my thoughts on this :

(1)- Hydrogen fuel cell cars / power will be viable when a more efficient way of collecting hydrogen exists. It's not cost effective at this point.

(2)- Nuclear power + Electric is probably the cleanest and most efficient way of powering things. Tons and tons of upside to this route, and if we follow India's lead, we should be looking at bringing Thorium reactors online.
I'm all for nuclear, we just need to change our legislation here in the US. We could be doing it so much more efficiently (breeder reactors, reprocessing spent fuel rods, etc.), but the feds are so worried about weapons proliferation. So then we end up using more fuel than we need, meaning more radioactive waste being put into the ground. The whole thing makes me facepalm.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,377
1
0
Originally posted by: Budmantom
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: Budmantom

Why should my tax dollers go to "helping out people" buy cars?

Our government should worry about security not worry about FORCING companies into making products.

That's easy to say now when you do not feel that the increased prices are effecting your life very much due to your high income or whatever. What you need to realize is that we need to solve this issue now before we get in over our heads.


Originally posted by: Budmantom
No it doesn't that's up to our government, your idea makes no financial sense... spending $600 on a lease. I'm all for hybrids when it's cost effective.
The kind of influence I want our government to have is to hasten the progress of cars such as hybrids so that they become cost effective. I think the problem is that you want solutions and you want them now just like everyone else but you don't want to pay for that fast progress even if it means saving a lot of money in the grand scheme of things.
You mean by giving the oil companies tax breaks?? So that they can figure out a way for us to use less oil and for them to lose money.... I just can't figure out why the oil companies haven't figured out how to put themselves out of business.

This is our government your talking about, they will be the obstacle not part of the solution.
Not really. To be honest, I am not entirely sure what the best way is for the government to do this. What I do know is I want to vote for the candidate who is motivated enough to find that answer and has not provided me with potential solutions which I disagree with. I am not against extra drilling if done in a way which I believe is proper, but there is no way that I am going to side with that option unless I am heavily convinced that the result of such drilling will be accompanied with some very serious moves to hasten progress that leads to getting America away from oil as much as possible.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY