• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

"Hydrogen is an energy conveyor, not an energy source"

It means that unless we find a hydrogen mine, or send spaceships out to scoop up interstellar hydrogen and bring it back to earth, using hydrogen for cars only moves the pollution from the cities to the hydrogen production facilities.

Mind you, if we use "clean" energy like hydroelectric, and get hydrogen from electrolysis, this CAN mean that hydrogen cars are indeed zero-emissions...but the vast majority of power is produced from coal/oil/gas plants (which pollute) and the hydrogen is usually obtained from the water-gas shift reaction (which releases CO2).
 
Well yeah. You must have an energy source to make it, but you get to pick how you do so. Not just that, but it's faster to fill up on hydrogen than electricity. It's a storage medium superior to batteries, and inherently more efficient than an engine that is limited by Carnot's Law.

Nuclear, wind, wave. All can be used to make hydrogen.
 
Basically, popular culture had me somehow convinced that Hydrogen was moer of an energy source, but it seems as if it is only a medium for energy storage.

Basically, I was being a dumbass and discounting the Laws of thermodynamics.

Energy input--->Hygrogen storage----->energy input----->output
 
Originally posted by: jagec
It means that unless we find a hydrogen mine, or send spaceships out to scoop up interstellar hydrogen and bring it back to earth, using hydrogen for cars only moves the pollution from the cities to the hydrogen production facilities.

Mind you, if we use "clean" energy like hydroelectric, and get hydrogen from electrolysis, this CAN mean that hydrogen cars are indeed zero-emissions...but the vast majority of power is produced from coal/oil/gas plants (which pollute) and the hydrogen is usually obtained from the water-gas shift reaction (which releases CO2).
Click to expand...

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Well yeah. You must have an energy source to make it, but you get to pick how you do so. Not just that, but it's faster to fill up on hydrogen than electricity. It's a storage medium superior to batteries, and inherently more efficient than an engine that is limited by Carnot's Law.

Nuclear, wind, wave. All can be used to make hydrogen.
Click to expand...

yeah.
 
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Well yeah. You must have an energy source to make it, but you get to pick how you do so. Not just that, but it's faster to fill up on hydrogen than electricity. It's a storage medium superior to batteries, and inherently more efficient than an engine that is limited by Carnot's Law.

Nuclear, wind, wave. All can be used to make hydrogen.
Click to expand...

Aren't all engines limited by carnot's law?

Anyway, yes H2 is an energy storage medium. The truth is, there isn't much free hydrogen left on the planet, as over the millenia it escaped into space. The escape velocity of hydrogen, is AFAIK, too low for earth's gravitational field to hold it, to put it simply. So we can 'produce' hydrogen by seperating it from other particles. The only two ways I'm aware of are through burning natural gas (maybe other hydrocarbons as well) -- clearly this is not really preferable to simply burning gasoling in our cars, but it would ease the transition to H2 vehicles. The other method is electrolysis, in which you exctract H2 from H2O (water) using electricity. The advantage of this is that you can use nuclear, and some day fusion power to generate the necessary electricity.
 
The only way to economically produce Hydrogen is via Nuclear power. The number of Nuke plants needed for this to create a reasonable supply is ridiculous and it isn't going to happen.

Hydrogen isn't made via electrolysis today because you lose energy on the deal.

Not to mention the infrastructure changes needed even if we did have the power available.
 
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Well yeah. You must have an energy source to make it, but you get to pick how you do so. Not just that, but it's faster to fill up on hydrogen than electricity. It's a storage medium superior to batteries, and inherently more efficient than an engine that is limited by Carnot's Law.

Nuclear, wind, wave. All can be used to make hydrogen.
Click to expand...

...except that it will take a LOT more development to get portable fuel cells anywhere near the efficiency needed for them to be a real alternative.

Right now heat engines are more efficient, even though they are limited by the Carnot cycle. A large-scale power plant can achieve 60% efficiency, which isn't possible with today's fuel cells. True, cars are much less efficient, but the interim solutions like hybrid vehicles allow us to take advantage of the decades of improvements to the internal combustion engine. Just because fuel cells CAN reach higher efficiencies than heat engines doesn't mean they DO.

Also, you can carry more energy around in hydrogen than you can in electricity, but it's still NOTHING compared to the liquid fuels.
 
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Well yeah. You must have an energy source to make it, but you get to pick how you do so. Not just that, but it's faster to fill up on hydrogen than electricity. It's a storage medium superior to batteries, and inherently more efficient than an engine that is limited by Carnot's Law.

Nuclear, wind, wave. All can be used to make hydrogen.
Click to expand...

Aren't all engines limited by carnot's law?

Anyway, yes H2 is an energy storage medium. The truth is, there isn't much free hydrogen left on the planet, as over the millenia it escaped into space. The escape velocity of hydrogen, is AFAIK, too low for earth's gravitational field to hold it, to put it simply. So we can 'produce' hydrogen by seperating it from other particles. The only two ways I'm aware of are through burning natural gas (maybe other hydrocarbons as well) -- clearly this is not really preferable to simply burning gasoling in our cars, but it would ease the transition to H2 vehicles. The other method is electrolysis, in which you exctract H2 from H2O (water) using electricity. The advantage of this is that you can use nuclear, and some day fusion power to generate the necessary electricity.
Click to expand...

Still, it is one finite power source powering the creation of a seemingly infinite supply. It has to end.


Basically, we need methods of using small bits of energy to distabalize sources with high amoutns of potential energy, like tipping a refrigerator on its edge from a 10story building.

If we can devise or discover fission type processes that produce much more energy than they require to initiate, and could effectively store it, we'd be set.

Fusion with deuterium :thumbsup:
 
This is an odd post, as I was just talking about the future of fuel with a guy at work today. He was telling me he had read in the paper today that "they" estimate the earth only has enough oil to last the entire world another 75 years. So I was telling him about how hydrogen was the next big thing, and how it would basically get figured out to where we'd have an infinite supply of power once the technology came to store and use it properly. After reading this article, I'm kind of worried. Although I have faith in our scientists around the globe, time is ticking down, and we need a solution fast.
 
Originally posted by: jagec
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Well yeah. You must have an energy source to make it, but you get to pick how you do so. Not just that, but it's faster to fill up on hydrogen than electricity. It's a storage medium superior to batteries, and inherently more efficient than an engine that is limited by Carnot's Law.

Nuclear, wind, wave. All can be used to make hydrogen.
Click to expand...

...except that it will take a LOT more development to get portable fuel cells anywhere near the efficiency needed for them to be a real alternative.

Right now heat engines are more efficient, even though they are limited by the Carnot cycle. A large-scale power plant can achieve 60% efficiency, which isn't possible with today's fuel cells. True, cars are much less efficient, but the interim solutions like hybrid vehicles allow us to take advantage of the decades of improvements to the internal combustion engine. Just because fuel cells CAN reach higher efficiencies than heat engines doesn't mean they DO.

Also, you can carry more energy around in hydrogen than you can in electricity, but it's still NOTHING compared to the liquid fuels.
Click to expand...

Still efficiency right now requires a GREAT DEAL of input....carnot
 
I believe a hydrogen powered world will go hand-in-hand with the development of efficient fusion reactors and anti-matter energy production systems in the further future. Currently hydrogen cars are very dirty once all steps in production are taken into account. A self sufficient fusion plant that produces its own hydrogen fuel will happen. For now, fission reactors can produce the required energy for hydrogen production.
 
Still, it is one finite power source powering the creation of a seemingly infinite supply. It has to end.
Click to expand...

Could you please clarify this statement? I really don't understand what you're saying here. Creating an infinitel supply of what?
Basically, we need methods of using small bits of energy to distabalize sources with high amoutns of potential energy, like tipping a refrigerator on its edge from a 10story building.
Click to expand...
We have such a metod, 'fire' AKA, a self sustaining exothermic reaction. We have used it every day since we wandered out of the caves, and that is essentially all an internal combustion engine is doing.

If we can devise or discover fission type processes that produce much more energy than they require to initiate, and could effectively store it, we'd be set.

Fusion with deuterium :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

We have a 'fission type' process that produces much more energy than it takes to initiate: nuclear fission. How can we store it? Also answered: hydrogen.

Still efficiency right now requires a GREAT DEAL of input....carnot
Click to expand...
Actually, it requires a TINY amount of energy input: a spark. Even if you factor in the costs of refining and transporting, we are getting out a lot of energy for nearly no input energy.

Also, if you conisder the outputs of 'alternative' energy sources, you immediately realize that they cannot hope to fuel the hydrogen economy. Despite what the article implies, it is a fact that once the cost of building a nuclear plant is paid off, it is by far the cheapest source of energy we have.
 
Originally posted by: Goosemaster
I am interested in finding more about this.


So what does ths say about pure hygrogen gas?
Click to expand...

You werre watching the Hiostory channel too! AWESOME SHOW! I jsut put a post up in P&N. regarding hte show.

hydrogen isn't farmed like oil, it simply is an energy transport. You still have to gerent the energy.
 
Heat engines have theoretical limitations, as does everything. What could be done with fuel cells/electric motors exceeds that of internal combustion engines.

I assume we are talking potentials here. If you say that next year every auto must use hydrogen, then there are many problems unresolved to most peoples satisfaction.

What if the US spent the same money on alternative fuels and associated technologies as they are on the Iraq war? I suspect within a decade we would be well on our way towards energy independence and hydrogen could be a big player.

Alas, we never will.
 
Originally posted by: everman
I believe a hydrogen powered world will go hand-in-hand with the development of efficient fusion reactors and anti-matter energy production systems in the further future. Currently hydrogen cars are very dirty once all steps in production are taken into account. A self sufficient fusion plant that produces its own hydrogen fuel will happen. For now, fission reactors can produce the required energy for hydrogen production.
Click to expand...

The product of a fusion plant is HELIUM, not more hydrogen. H + H + Fusion = He

We'll still have the ability to use the electric output to crack more hydrogen for fuel from water, but we are using the hydrogen fuel and ultimately, theoretically, we'll run out of all terrestrial sources of hydrogen too.
 
Originally posted by: So
Still, it is one finite power source powering the creation of a seemingly infinite supply. It has to end.
Click to expand...

Could you please clarify this statement? I really don't understand what you're saying here. Creating an infinitel supply of what?
Basically, we need methods of using small bits of energy to distabalize sources with high amoutns of potential energy, like tipping a refrigerator on its edge from a 10story building.
Click to expand...
We have such a metod, 'fire' AKA, a self sustaining exothermic reaction. We have used it every day since we wandered out of the caves, and that is essentially all an internal combustion engine is doing.

If we can devise or discover fission type processes that produce much more energy than they require to initiate, and could effectively store it, we'd be set.

Fusion with deuterium :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

We have a 'fission type' process that produces much more energy than it takes to initiate: nuclear fission. How can we store it? Also answered: hydrogen.

Still efficiency right now requires a GREAT DEAL of input....carnot
Click to expand...
Actually, it requires a TINY amount of energy input: a spark. Even if you factor in the costs of refining and transporting, we are getting out a lot of energy for nearly no input energy.

Also, if you conisder the outputs of 'alternative' energy sources, you immediately realize that they cannot hope to fuel the hydrogen economy. Despite what the article implies, it is a fact that once the cost of building a nuclear plant is paid off, it is by far the cheapest source of energy we have.
Click to expand...

What I meant was that our fossil fuels and uranium are not enldless in supply. I realize that our energy sources are very efficient, but they still lossy. We need to find away to make potentially weak sources effective.


oh, and It's "fun" to try to get to Carnot's e=1😀
 
The one thing I HATE about hydrogon.

Why are people ignoring capacitive storage. Capacitors get smalelr and smaller all of the time. They are going to be able to store rediculous amounts of energy 10 years from now.
 
The thing is, the abiatic process has always baffled me. When you have a massive difference in temperatures, you defintiely get a more efficient engine, but I would always seek to reuse or at least make some use of the energy released in the exothermic reaction at the end.
 
Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004
The one thing I HATE about hydrogon.

Why are people ignoring capacitive storage. Capacitors get smalelr and smaller all of the time. They are going to be able to store rediculous amounts of energy 10 years from now.
Click to expand...

Capicitors are ignored because they are not a reasonable answer, the energy stored in a capacitor is far smaller than the energy in most batteries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top