Mazda to RG- Hydrogen is coming !!!
#101
My bet is Plug In Hybrids begin to ramp up by 2010 making a small yet efficient powerplant as a back up charge system all the more important.
In a free market 3 things will determine the outcome; Cost, cost amd cost.
Initial capital cost.
Operating cost.
Alternative cost.
We have every reason to believe gas will reach $4-5 a gallon by 2010, maybe more if we decide to invade Iran.
#102
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin
Posts: 2,643
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but then the problem with electric cars is that we need a clean way to generate the energy at powerplants without using fossil fuels, cause we still rely on those a lot
#103
Originally Posted by chetrickerman
but then the problem with electric cars is that we need a clean way to generate the energy at powerplants without using fossil fuels, cause we still rely on those a lot
Windenergy is already below 10 cents/kWh.
Solarthermal is in the range of 20 cents/kWh.
These guys claim, they can even reach 10 cents/kWh with solarthermal http://www.ausra.com/ (power the entire US with a giant plant in the Nevada desert).
Assuming you were to pay 20 cents / kWh for your electricity.
An electric driven Tesla roadster requires 0.176 Wh / mile. So driving 300 miles would require 53 kWh and cost $10.6 at 20 cents/kWh.
Even if you were to place more costly photovoltaics directly on your roof the price might be double that, so 300 miles would cost $21.2.
The space available on a single parking space covered with photovoltaics would produce over 10 kWh per day on average (in California) - enough to drive 60 miles a day.
Thinfilm photovoltaics might eventually reduce costs of solar power to a level that any house owner can independently produce the power needed to power their car and home.
http://www.oerlikon.com/solar
http://www.appliedmaterials.com/news..._strategy.html
#105
Yes, but there are solutions out there and even clean electricity is already less expensive than gasoline.
Windenergy is already below 10 cents/kWh.
Solarthermal is in the range of 20 cents/kWh.
These guys claim, they can even reach 10 cents/kWh with solarthermal http://www.ausra.com/ (power the entire US with a giant plant in the Nevada desert).
Assuming you were to pay 20 cents / kWh for your electricity.
An electric driven Tesla roadster requires 0.176 Wh / mile. So driving 300 miles would require 53 kWh and cost $10.6 at 20 cents/kWh.
Even if you were to place more costly photovoltaics directly on your roof the price might be double that, so 300 miles would cost $21.2.
The space available on a single parking space covered with photovoltaics would produce over 10 kWh per day on average (in California) - enough to drive 60 miles a day.
Thinfilm photovoltaics might eventually reduce costs of solar power to a level that any house owner can independently produce the power needed to power their car and home.
http://www.oerlikon.com/solar
http://www.appliedmaterials.com/news..._strategy.html
Windenergy is already below 10 cents/kWh.
Solarthermal is in the range of 20 cents/kWh.
These guys claim, they can even reach 10 cents/kWh with solarthermal http://www.ausra.com/ (power the entire US with a giant plant in the Nevada desert).
Assuming you were to pay 20 cents / kWh for your electricity.
An electric driven Tesla roadster requires 0.176 Wh / mile. So driving 300 miles would require 53 kWh and cost $10.6 at 20 cents/kWh.
Even if you were to place more costly photovoltaics directly on your roof the price might be double that, so 300 miles would cost $21.2.
The space available on a single parking space covered with photovoltaics would produce over 10 kWh per day on average (in California) - enough to drive 60 miles a day.
Thinfilm photovoltaics might eventually reduce costs of solar power to a level that any house owner can independently produce the power needed to power their car and home.
http://www.oerlikon.com/solar
http://www.appliedmaterials.com/news..._strategy.html
#106
The key is to update everything, namely getting rid of fossil fueled power plants. That'll pave the way for either battery powered or hydrogen generation. If American companies would quit looking towards the next quarter and instead into decades we'd be better off.
I like the H-RE because it can help bridge the infrastructure gap with its duel fuel ability.
#107
Registered
Diesel? The problem with diesel is that it burns too slowly, limiting your revs. Stationary diffusion flames aren't the best for high output because of this, and engines that burn fuel using this kind of mechanism lag noticeably behind engines that burn similar fuel using a traveling flame front in terms of power/displacement. I'm not sure what you were going for with that example...
Who cares if it can't rev to 10000 rpm? It makes more power than gasoline and at lower rpms. That means less stress on rotating parts. Diesel engines can be made to hit 6000 rpms now anyways which is plenty high for any street car. They can also be made light as new ones are starting to be made out of aluminum. Diesel fuel burns slower which means the flame front is easier to control but in addition as you've tried to argue with hydrogen, diesel fuel has more energy potential than gasoline. rpm limits are almost irrelevant too. The only thing that matters is average power through the usable powerband and diesel wins over gasoline. I'm not sure why you don't see this. Don't tell Audi this though. They couldn't win on the track if they knew!
Both fuels will absolutely kick hydrogen's *** all day long in this department. It's not even close. It would actually be a joke to even try. Hydrogen is nice on paper and in our dreams but sadly it is impossible to make it a viable replacement in an internal combustion engine. Use it to store energy to be used in electic power generation but don't use it as a gasoline replacement in engines. It doesn't work good. There is not one single credible source to prove otherwise. It plains sucks when used that way.
When you figure out a way to instantly separate hydrogen and oxygen into their gaseous states from water as it's being injected into an engine and then light it, then you've got a power source that is worth looking at as any water source would be a fuel supply. There has been claims that it has been done but coincedentally enough those people have either died or not gone public for fear of death. At least this is what conspiracy theorists want you to think. One such gentleman that is pushing this also claims that the WTC towers were imploded by the government so that doesn't lend much credibility to the claim. That would be a worthwhile exploit to pursue though.
Then we've got the last issue. I don't care who finds the next big fuel or makes some crazy breakthough. One thing will always remain a constant. It will always stay expensive for us to drive our cars! What do you think governments would do if we no longer used gasoline? They'd heavily tax whatever fuel we were using. What if we could use water? They can't tax that. They'd tax use per mile driven or make every road a tollway. It will never be cheap to drive.
Since we know financial reasons are not valid reasons to pursue alt. fuel sources, it really comes down to 2 things. The most important reason in my opinion is to get rid of our dependence on foreign oil. That outweighs ANY other reason! Don't give the middle east any more money and no more reason to have to interact with the outside world. The second benefit is emissions. I don't believe global warming is manmade (because it's not and there is no credible evidence to suggest it is) but I do believe we should pollute less. Please don't start a global warming debate here. I'll close it anyways. Less pollution is a benefit to our lives. Pollution and no middle east are the real driving forces behind alternative fuels. It has nothing to do with driving cheaper. That will never happen. Enjoy it where it is. It can only get more expensive. When we can get these 2 things to happen without losing performance, which we can't do with hydrogen, then you'll know we got it right. Too bad we won't see this in any of our lifetimes!
#109
I got nothing good to say
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Tysons Corner, VA
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#113
Registered User
in the 1970s when V8 Camaros had 150hp. And just like then, there'll be another dive in power when the next fuel crunch hits.
The key is to update everything, namely getting rid of fossil fueled power plants. That'll pave the way for either battery powered or hydrogen generation. If American companies would quit looking towards the next quarter and instead into decades we'd be better off.
I like the H-RE because it can help bridge the infrastructure gap with its duel fuel ability.
The key is to update everything, namely getting rid of fossil fueled power plants. That'll pave the way for either battery powered or hydrogen generation. If American companies would quit looking towards the next quarter and instead into decades we'd be better off.
I like the H-RE because it can help bridge the infrastructure gap with its duel fuel ability.
#114
I got nothing good to say
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Tysons Corner, VA
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And why hasnt he been assasinated yet?
Last edited by DemonRX-8; 11-12-2007 at 10:22 AM.
#115
Administrator
Thread Starter
very soon you will be able to drive from the california/mexico border all the way to the olympics in canada on a "hydrogen highway and gm and honda both have in home hydrogen fueling devices
http://www.cleantechblog.com/2007/04...spans-800.html
http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/blog/...-hydrogen.html
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...hydrogen_N.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...-equinox_N.htm
http://www.newsday.com/technology/ny...,6531690.story
doubled the efficiency and the storage is clearly there
there were also drop tests etc mentioned in the paper article
hydrogen costs the same to fill up now as gasoline. that was in an article i read yesterday cant find the online link right now
but they are getting there. in order to get there SOMEONE has to actually work on them. imagine if everyone when otto was making hios first couple engines said "eh its not really there." or for that matter said that about anything- might as well not do anythign innovative
we produce huge amounts of hydrogen in this country already. allot of it is made in the petroleum industry to remove sulfur from gasoline. lessen the amount of gasoline we use and that H can be moved intousage AS fuel too.
http://www.cleantechblog.com/2007/04...spans-800.html
http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/blog/...-hydrogen.html
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...hydrogen_N.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...-equinox_N.htm
http://www.newsday.com/technology/ny...,6531690.story
doubled the efficiency and the storage is clearly there
Safety concerns. The hydrogen in the Equinox is less than 10,000 pounds per square inch of pressure, which GM executives acknowledge might raise the spectre in consumers' minds of a Hindenburg blimp-like hydrogen gas explosion. But GM says a fuel-cell Equinox underwent frontal and side-impact crash tests in its laboratories. "We passed those tests with no leaks or damage to the hydrogen-storage system," said Nick Zielinski, chief engineer for the vehicle. Even if hydrogen is released, he said, it tends to rise and dissipate, not puddle beneath the vehicle as gasoline does.
there were also drop tests etc mentioned in the paper article
hydrogen costs the same to fill up now as gasoline. that was in an article i read yesterday cant find the online link right now
but they are getting there. in order to get there SOMEONE has to actually work on them. imagine if everyone when otto was making hios first couple engines said "eh its not really there." or for that matter said that about anything- might as well not do anythign innovative
we produce huge amounts of hydrogen in this country already. allot of it is made in the petroleum industry to remove sulfur from gasoline. lessen the amount of gasoline we use and that H can be moved intousage AS fuel too.
#116
Registered
You'd leard something if you read the words. They are all true. When hydrogen is finally proven as the joke that it is, you'll see then. It will NEVER get wide distribution and will NEVER be a widely accepted fuel. I already said what it will take to make it worth using and that is instant conversion from water (with O2) in real time. If you can't do that, you can't make it a viable alternative.
#117
Registered User
You'd leard something if you read the words. They are all true. When hydrogen is finally proven as the joke that it is, you'll see then. It will NEVER get wide distribution and will NEVER be a widely accepted fuel. I already said what it will take to make it worth using and that is instant conversion from water (with O2) in real time. If you can't do that, you can't make it a viable alternative.
#121
printf("</%i pistons",3);
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: I'm a yankee trapped in Houston!!
Posts: 654
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While chemestry was never one of my strong points, we've proven that we have the technology to rip molecular structures apart as well as rebuild them. Hell, isn't that where we get our Hydrogen fuel - just water (H2O) with the Oxygen removed from it?
Now I did no research on this; it was just a thought that crossed through my head while reading this debate; so feel free to teach me where my idealism doesn't work in the real world...
Is there nothing that can be added to regular gasoline - either before or after it's ignited - to change what the exhaust is comprised of? Someone earlier said that gasoline emitions are X parts water, Y parts poison ****. Well, is there something that can be bound to gasoline to turn those Y parts poison **** into something not poisonous?
Actually, isn't that what our catylitic converters are for? Why are we looking for alternative fuels then? Clearly the problem doesn't lie with our fuels - it's our cats that are the problem! Why aren't the scientists looking for more effective ways to alter the emissions before they leave the car? Can't we make more efficent cats? Or perhaps cats are the wrong way to go...
...let's say there exists a special gas mixture A, that when mixed with a CONTROLLED amount of ignited gasoline, results in X parts water, 0 parts poison ****, and Y parts misc non-toxic gases. It wouldn't require some massive infrastructure change, either. Just fill up 2 tanks of gas while you're at the station. 15 gallons of premium and 3 gallons of mixture A, please!
I realize that it's not the best idea ever, but it makes more sense than setting some arbitrary date in the future for all automotive companies to meet so that our make-shift brand-new ethanol/hydrogen/whatever infrastructure can pathetically hope to make a difference!
Also, in a day & age where we can clone sheep, regrow skin for burn victims, design working nano-computer prototypes, and build indoor ski slopes in the middle of the desert, how hard could it be to create synthetic gasoline? Do we REALLY need oil? I don't get that at all. Oil does not contain some super-rare molecules in it, so why do we really need it? As far as my limited knowledge of chemistry tells me combustion works like so:
Substance A + combustion = Substance B + water
Substance B is the exhaust fumes that go up into our atmosphere. We've been burning this **** for how long now? Everything we need to 'make' oil can be found in a deep breath. I mean, we have the technology to rip water apart, right? That's what electrolosis is, no? That's how we get Hydrogen, correct? How could ripping air apart be any harder?
I remember learning something in 5th grade about where fossil fuels come from. Something like dead animals, swaps, plants, and other stuff gets trapped underground and is compressed for many many years, eventually becoming coal or oil or something like that. Have we as a species not developed the technology to crush stuff? How is that even possible? We can break the sound barrier, travel into outer space for prolonged periods of time, use magnets to launch a pice of metal through 10 inches of titanium tank armor plating, and calculate the first million digits of Pi in less than a minute on our home computers... but we can't apply large amounts of pressure to something??
Either my knowledge of chemistry & biology is severely lacking, or people just like doing things the hard way.
Now I did no research on this; it was just a thought that crossed through my head while reading this debate; so feel free to teach me where my idealism doesn't work in the real world...
Is there nothing that can be added to regular gasoline - either before or after it's ignited - to change what the exhaust is comprised of? Someone earlier said that gasoline emitions are X parts water, Y parts poison ****. Well, is there something that can be bound to gasoline to turn those Y parts poison **** into something not poisonous?
Actually, isn't that what our catylitic converters are for? Why are we looking for alternative fuels then? Clearly the problem doesn't lie with our fuels - it's our cats that are the problem! Why aren't the scientists looking for more effective ways to alter the emissions before they leave the car? Can't we make more efficent cats? Or perhaps cats are the wrong way to go...
...let's say there exists a special gas mixture A, that when mixed with a CONTROLLED amount of ignited gasoline, results in X parts water, 0 parts poison ****, and Y parts misc non-toxic gases. It wouldn't require some massive infrastructure change, either. Just fill up 2 tanks of gas while you're at the station. 15 gallons of premium and 3 gallons of mixture A, please!
I realize that it's not the best idea ever, but it makes more sense than setting some arbitrary date in the future for all automotive companies to meet so that our make-shift brand-new ethanol/hydrogen/whatever infrastructure can pathetically hope to make a difference!
Also, in a day & age where we can clone sheep, regrow skin for burn victims, design working nano-computer prototypes, and build indoor ski slopes in the middle of the desert, how hard could it be to create synthetic gasoline? Do we REALLY need oil? I don't get that at all. Oil does not contain some super-rare molecules in it, so why do we really need it? As far as my limited knowledge of chemistry tells me combustion works like so:
Substance A + combustion = Substance B + water
Substance B is the exhaust fumes that go up into our atmosphere. We've been burning this **** for how long now? Everything we need to 'make' oil can be found in a deep breath. I mean, we have the technology to rip water apart, right? That's what electrolosis is, no? That's how we get Hydrogen, correct? How could ripping air apart be any harder?
I remember learning something in 5th grade about where fossil fuels come from. Something like dead animals, swaps, plants, and other stuff gets trapped underground and is compressed for many many years, eventually becoming coal or oil or something like that. Have we as a species not developed the technology to crush stuff? How is that even possible? We can break the sound barrier, travel into outer space for prolonged periods of time, use magnets to launch a pice of metal through 10 inches of titanium tank armor plating, and calculate the first million digits of Pi in less than a minute on our home computers... but we can't apply large amounts of pressure to something??
Either my knowledge of chemistry & biology is severely lacking, or people just like doing things the hard way.
Last edited by ½mv²; 11-12-2007 at 12:29 PM.
#123
Registered User
While chemestry was never one of my strong points, we've proven that we have the technology to rip molecular structures apart as well as rebuild them. Hell, isn't that where we get our Hydrogen fuel - just water (H2O) with the Oxygen removed from it?
Now I did no research on this; it was just a thought that crossed through my head while reading this debate; so feel free to teach me where my idealism doesn't work in the real world...
Is there nothing that can be added to regular gasoline - either before or after it's ignited - to change what the exhaust is comprised of? Someone earlier said that gasoline emitions are X parts water, Y parts poison ****. Well, is there something that can be bound to gasoline to turn those Y parts poison **** into something not poisonous?
Actually, isn't that what our catylitic converters are for? Why are we looking for alternative fuels then? Clearly the problem doesn't lie with out fuels - it's out cats that are the problem! Why aren't the scientists looking for more effective ways to alter the emissions before they leave the car? Can't we make more efficent cats? Or perhaps cats are the wrong way to go...
...let's say there exists a special gas mixture A, that when mixed with a CONTROLLED amount of ignited gasoline, results in X parts water, 0 parts poison ****, and Y parts misc non-toxic gases. It wouldn't require some massive infrastructure change, either. Just fill up 2 tanks of gas while you're at the station. 15 gallons of premium and 3 gallons of mixture A, please!
I realize that it's not the best idea ever, but it makes more sense than setting some arbitrary date in the future for all automotive companies to meet so that our make-shift brand-new ethanol/hydrogen/whatever infrastructure can pathetically hope to make a difference!
Also, in a day & age where we can clone sheep, regrow skin for burn victims, design working nano-computer prototypes, and build indoor ski slopes in the middle of the desert, how hard could it be to create synthetic gasoline? Do we REALLY need oil? I don't get that at all. Oil does not contain some super-rare molecules in it, so why do we really need it? As far as my limited knowledge of chemistry tells me combustion works like so:
Substance A + combustion = Substance B + water
Substance B is the exhaust fumes that go up into our atmosphere. We've been burning this **** for how long now? Everything we need to 'make' oil can be found in a deep breath. I mean, we have the technology to rip water apart, right? That's what electrolosis is, no? That's how we get Hydrogen, correct? How could ripping air apart be any harder?
I remember learning something in 5th grade about where fossil fuels come from. Something like dead animals, swaps, plants, and other stuff gets trapped underground and is compressed for many many years, eventually becoming coal or oil or something like that. Have we as a species not developed the technology to crush stuff? How is that even possible? We can break the sound barrier, travel into outer space for prolonged periods of time, use magnets to launch a pice of metal through 10 inches of titanium tank armor plating, and calculate the first million digits of Pi in less than a minute on our home computers... but we can't apply large amounts of pressure to something??
Either my knowledge of chemistry & biology is severely lacking, or people just like doing things the hard way.
Now I did no research on this; it was just a thought that crossed through my head while reading this debate; so feel free to teach me where my idealism doesn't work in the real world...
Is there nothing that can be added to regular gasoline - either before or after it's ignited - to change what the exhaust is comprised of? Someone earlier said that gasoline emitions are X parts water, Y parts poison ****. Well, is there something that can be bound to gasoline to turn those Y parts poison **** into something not poisonous?
Actually, isn't that what our catylitic converters are for? Why are we looking for alternative fuels then? Clearly the problem doesn't lie with out fuels - it's out cats that are the problem! Why aren't the scientists looking for more effective ways to alter the emissions before they leave the car? Can't we make more efficent cats? Or perhaps cats are the wrong way to go...
...let's say there exists a special gas mixture A, that when mixed with a CONTROLLED amount of ignited gasoline, results in X parts water, 0 parts poison ****, and Y parts misc non-toxic gases. It wouldn't require some massive infrastructure change, either. Just fill up 2 tanks of gas while you're at the station. 15 gallons of premium and 3 gallons of mixture A, please!
I realize that it's not the best idea ever, but it makes more sense than setting some arbitrary date in the future for all automotive companies to meet so that our make-shift brand-new ethanol/hydrogen/whatever infrastructure can pathetically hope to make a difference!
Also, in a day & age where we can clone sheep, regrow skin for burn victims, design working nano-computer prototypes, and build indoor ski slopes in the middle of the desert, how hard could it be to create synthetic gasoline? Do we REALLY need oil? I don't get that at all. Oil does not contain some super-rare molecules in it, so why do we really need it? As far as my limited knowledge of chemistry tells me combustion works like so:
Substance A + combustion = Substance B + water
Substance B is the exhaust fumes that go up into our atmosphere. We've been burning this **** for how long now? Everything we need to 'make' oil can be found in a deep breath. I mean, we have the technology to rip water apart, right? That's what electrolosis is, no? That's how we get Hydrogen, correct? How could ripping air apart be any harder?
I remember learning something in 5th grade about where fossil fuels come from. Something like dead animals, swaps, plants, and other stuff gets trapped underground and is compressed for many many years, eventually becoming coal or oil or something like that. Have we as a species not developed the technology to crush stuff? How is that even possible? We can break the sound barrier, travel into outer space for prolonged periods of time, use magnets to launch a pice of metal through 10 inches of titanium tank armor plating, and calculate the first million digits of Pi in less than a minute on our home computers... but we can't apply large amounts of pressure to something??
Either my knowledge of chemistry & biology is severely lacking, or people just like doing things the hard way.
#124
Okay, I see what you mean. However, muscle cars came after the combustion engine was developed. You'd have to go into 1920s where a 3 liter Bentley that only made 100hp and a 7 liter Mercedes made ~300 hp (and those were race cars). Where does 7 liters get you now? Don't forget, everybody was developing the gasoline engine. Today, not only are these alternate engines in their infancy, but few companies are working on the same type. there's progress to be made.