Nuclear Hydrogen
03-11-2006, 11:41 PM
#26
i pwn therefore i am
Don't really wanna get into this whole discussion for the 8th time on this forum, but I will post this since I just saw it. Talk about GM's commitment to have hydrogen cars on the market between 2010-2015.
http://www.physorg.com/news11377.html
http://www.physorg.com/news11377.html
03-12-2006, 12:03 AM
#27
Senor Carnegrande
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 871
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only reason people have such a hardon for hydrogen is that you can refuel faster than a battery car. That's about it. (after all, who wants to sit at a gas station for 6 hours while your car charges up?) Before hydrogen, in the early 90's, I can remember all the fuss about California's mandate for 10% electric cars on the road by 1996 (lol). So, they gave up on that and switched to hydrogen.
But in the meantime, batteries have made impressive steps in terms of charging time, capacity, cost, life expectancy, etc. Then you've got to figure that hydrogen needs massive new infrastructure to generate it, plus refitted tanker trucks, pipelines, and gas stations. None of that is necessary with a fast-charging battery. We already have the infrastructure to deliver electric power to gas stations right now.
I think things will play out like this:
1) Hybrid cars gain popularity as gas prices rise and/or fluctuate.
2) People quickly figure out that the cost per mile is a good bit cheaper if you plug in at night. Carmakers start making plug-in hybrids.
3) After a few years, battery tech is coming along nicely., with increasing range and reduced chargup time.
4) Gas station owners begin to install chargers, to satisfy the demand for a plug-in capability away from home.
5) Once charging stations are reasonably widespread, people wonder why they even need to buy a car with the weight and expense of a gas motor at all. Carmakers begin introducing new budget models which are 100% electric.
6) Before long, all cars are electric only.
The same could pan out for hydrogen, maybe. The only way I could see that working is with gas/hydrogen cars for a while. That's the key, you have to have transition cars with dual fuel capability for a while, while gas stations retrofit. Any plan for just trying to foist hydrogen-only cars on the public right away will result in failure.
But in the meantime, batteries have made impressive steps in terms of charging time, capacity, cost, life expectancy, etc. Then you've got to figure that hydrogen needs massive new infrastructure to generate it, plus refitted tanker trucks, pipelines, and gas stations. None of that is necessary with a fast-charging battery. We already have the infrastructure to deliver electric power to gas stations right now.
I think things will play out like this:
1) Hybrid cars gain popularity as gas prices rise and/or fluctuate.
2) People quickly figure out that the cost per mile is a good bit cheaper if you plug in at night. Carmakers start making plug-in hybrids.
3) After a few years, battery tech is coming along nicely., with increasing range and reduced chargup time.
4) Gas station owners begin to install chargers, to satisfy the demand for a plug-in capability away from home.
5) Once charging stations are reasonably widespread, people wonder why they even need to buy a car with the weight and expense of a gas motor at all. Carmakers begin introducing new budget models which are 100% electric.
6) Before long, all cars are electric only.
The same could pan out for hydrogen, maybe. The only way I could see that working is with gas/hydrogen cars for a while. That's the key, you have to have transition cars with dual fuel capability for a while, while gas stations retrofit. Any plan for just trying to foist hydrogen-only cars on the public right away will result in failure.
03-12-2006, 12:41 AM
#29
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Lompoc, CA
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Krankor
Most interesting, but doesn't address my question. I'm talking about what you do with a nuclear plant at the end of its service life. You can't just go in with a wrecking ball...
There are three ways to get rid of a power plant:
"1. Dismantling -- Parts of the reactor are removed or decontaminated soon after the plant closes and the land can be used.
2. Safe Storage -- The nuclear plant is monitored and radiation is allowed to decay; afterward, it is taken down.
3. Entombment -- Radioactive components are sealed off with concrete and steel, allowing radiation to “decay” until the land can be used for other purposes."
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-...issioning.html
Easy is method 3: fill it with concrete and wait for it to cool down (a decade will do). Then slowly take it apart.
In the interim, the plant will be about as radioactive as a pile of coal (coal is radioactive, as well as Granite countertops, and Uraniumware. That's what I meant about eating off of it).
03-12-2006, 12:44 AM
#31
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Lompoc, CA
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SSJ 909
nice idea, but what do u think makes the power for the electricity?
03-12-2006, 12:47 AM
#32
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Lompoc, CA
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Krankor
Interesting...
You lost me here. If you can "burn" the plutonium in the reactor, than what is the "bigger problem"?
You lost me here. If you can "burn" the plutonium in the reactor, than what is the "bigger problem"?
03-12-2006, 01:01 AM
#33
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Lompoc, CA
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Krankor
So wait, am I understanding this correctly? You're saying that a single set of fuel rods in a nuclear reactor will last for 20 years?
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-co...1/gl91004.html
"modify surveillance intervals to be compatible with a 24-month fuel cycle"
Seems like 2 years is about right. The rods appear to have problems with the casing that implies a 2 year cycle. The high temperatures required for Hydrogen cracking may be yet more harsh on the fuel.
03-12-2006, 01:26 AM
#34
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Lompoc, CA
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BaronVonBigmeat
The only reason people have such a hardon for hydrogen is that you can refuel faster than a battery car. That's about it. (after all, who wants to sit at a gas station for 6 hours while your car charges up?) Before hydrogen, in the early 90's, I can remember all the fuss about California's mandate for 10% electric cars on the road by 1996 (lol). So, they gave up on that and switched to hydrogen.
But in the meantime, batteries have made impressive steps in terms of charging time, capacity, cost, life expectancy, etc. Then you've got to figure that hydrogen needs massive new infrastructure to generate it, plus refitted tanker trucks, pipelines, and gas stations. None of that is necessary with a fast-charging battery. We already have the infrastructure to deliver electric power to gas stations right now.
I think things will play out like this:
1) Hybrid cars gain popularity as gas prices rise and/or fluctuate.
2) People quickly figure out that the cost per mile is a good bit cheaper if you plug in at night. Carmakers start making plug-in hybrids.
3) After a few years, battery tech is coming along nicely., with increasing range and reduced chargup time.
4) Gas station owners begin to install chargers, to satisfy the demand for a plug-in capability away from home.
5) Once charging stations are reasonably widespread, people wonder why they even need to buy a car with the weight and expense of a gas motor at all. Carmakers begin introducing new budget models which are 100% electric.
6) Before long, all cars are electric only.
The same could pan out for hydrogen, maybe. The only way I could see that working is with gas/hydrogen cars for a while. That's the key, you have to have transition cars with dual fuel capability for a while, while gas stations retrofit. Any plan for just trying to foist hydrogen-only cars on the public right away will result in failure.
But in the meantime, batteries have made impressive steps in terms of charging time, capacity, cost, life expectancy, etc. Then you've got to figure that hydrogen needs massive new infrastructure to generate it, plus refitted tanker trucks, pipelines, and gas stations. None of that is necessary with a fast-charging battery. We already have the infrastructure to deliver electric power to gas stations right now.
I think things will play out like this:
1) Hybrid cars gain popularity as gas prices rise and/or fluctuate.
2) People quickly figure out that the cost per mile is a good bit cheaper if you plug in at night. Carmakers start making plug-in hybrids.
3) After a few years, battery tech is coming along nicely., with increasing range and reduced chargup time.
4) Gas station owners begin to install chargers, to satisfy the demand for a plug-in capability away from home.
5) Once charging stations are reasonably widespread, people wonder why they even need to buy a car with the weight and expense of a gas motor at all. Carmakers begin introducing new budget models which are 100% electric.
6) Before long, all cars are electric only.
The same could pan out for hydrogen, maybe. The only way I could see that working is with gas/hydrogen cars for a while. That's the key, you have to have transition cars with dual fuel capability for a while, while gas stations retrofit. Any plan for just trying to foist hydrogen-only cars on the public right away will result in failure.
1) Hydrogen hardon is fuel capacity per unit volume, cost of fuel storage per watt, fuel storage self degeneration, life of fuel storage device. Batteries totally suck, they are heavy, expensive, do not last the life of the car, and the charge falls off over time (park the car in the garage for a week and it goes dead.
2) We do not have the infrastructure to deliver the power that we need now, thats why we blackouts. A 1/2 hour commute at an average of 5 HP (geo metro no air flat land) cruising takes about 1.5 KW hours. Totally blue sky. Add acceleration, and all of that inefficient stuff and triple that number. Add another car to the house and double that. Pretty soon you're up to a few times the household's original needs. Imagine doubling the existing electric infrastructure for electric car charging. This at a time when we have not even kept up with normal needs for electricity consumption growth. Electric cars? How did anyone ever believe that the electric utilities could supply that much energy? From plant to home, the infrastructure was never planned for electric cars, let alone daily needs.
If you refer to any plan to foist anything on consumers that the infrastructure does not exist for as short sighted, then obviously California has no problem with that. I am surprised that the legislature doesn't save energy by legislating longer daylight hours.
Given the need for an order of magnitude improvement in just about every battery specification from cost to energy density, and the snails pace of improvement, batteries will be ready in about 45 years.
Last edited by silverx8; 03-12-2006 at 01:29 AM.
03-12-2006, 07:37 AM
#35
Senor Carnegrande
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 871
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Psst...click my link from the last post! 
Also, there's this list:
http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Battery/index.html
Of particular interest is the fast-charging Li-Ion batteries, the Fuji R1 (75~125 miles on a 5-minute charge), and the Europositron battery. I'm just speculating of course, but these all seem more feasible for mass consumption than the bulky million-dollar vehicles the major carmakers show off at auto shows. Especially since so many of them aren't even dual-fuel. Batteries are imperfect, but we can start making the transition today.
(Although your second link is very interesting! If they're legit, and their technology does what it claims... it would be hilarious if grassroots enthusiasts came up with a practical, workable way of making/using hydrogen before the major carmakers. I think the fundamental problem is, most carmakers seem to be hellbent on fuel cells, and not hydrogen per se. I wonder why.)
The part about increasing the capacity of the electric grid is somewhat true. Of course if you're talking about a cheap high performance battery (the europositron batteries or the EEStor capacitor), then gas stations can charge them up during the night, when electricity consumption is at it's lowest. Besides, it's not like the whole auto fleet is going to change over all at once.
And remember, any concerns about generating additional electricity will also apply to hydrogen as well. Unless you've found a huge reservoir of underground hydrogen that can be tapped.
Also, there's this list:
http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Battery/index.html
Of particular interest is the fast-charging Li-Ion batteries, the Fuji R1 (75~125 miles on a 5-minute charge), and the Europositron battery. I'm just speculating of course, but these all seem more feasible for mass consumption than the bulky million-dollar vehicles the major carmakers show off at auto shows. Especially since so many of them aren't even dual-fuel. Batteries are imperfect, but we can start making the transition today.
(Although your second link is very interesting! If they're legit, and their technology does what it claims... it would be hilarious if grassroots enthusiasts came up with a practical, workable way of making/using hydrogen before the major carmakers. I think the fundamental problem is, most carmakers seem to be hellbent on fuel cells, and not hydrogen per se. I wonder why.)
The part about increasing the capacity of the electric grid is somewhat true. Of course if you're talking about a cheap high performance battery (the europositron batteries or the EEStor capacitor), then gas stations can charge them up during the night, when electricity consumption is at it's lowest. Besides, it's not like the whole auto fleet is going to change over all at once.
And remember, any concerns about generating additional electricity will also apply to hydrogen as well. Unless you've found a huge reservoir of underground hydrogen that can be tapped.
Last edited by BaronVonBigmeat; 03-12-2006 at 07:42 AM.
03-12-2006, 12:39 PM
#36
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Lompoc, CA
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BaronVonBigmeat
Psst...click my link from the last post!
Also, there's this list:
http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Battery/index.html
Of particular interest is the fast-charging Li-Ion batteries, the Fuji R1 (75~125 miles on a 5-minute charge), and the Europositron battery. I'm just speculating of course, but these all seem more feasible for mass consumption than the bulky million-dollar vehicles the major carmakers show off at auto shows. Especially since so many of them aren't even dual-fuel. Batteries are imperfect, but we can start making the transition today.
(Although your second link is very interesting! If they're legit, and their technology does what it claims... it would be hilarious if grassroots enthusiasts came up with a practical, workable way of making/using hydrogen before the major carmakers. I think the fundamental problem is, most carmakers seem to be hellbent on fuel cells, and not hydrogen per se. I wonder why.)
The part about increasing the capacity of the electric grid is somewhat true. Of course if you're talking about a cheap high performance battery (the europositron batteries or the EEStor capacitor), then gas stations can charge them up during the night, when electricity consumption is at it's lowest. Besides, it's not like the whole auto fleet is going to change over all at once.
And remember, any concerns about generating additional electricity will also apply to hydrogen as well. Unless you've found a huge reservoir of underground hydrogen that can be tapped.
Also, there's this list:
http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Battery/index.html
Of particular interest is the fast-charging Li-Ion batteries, the Fuji R1 (75~125 miles on a 5-minute charge), and the Europositron battery. I'm just speculating of course, but these all seem more feasible for mass consumption than the bulky million-dollar vehicles the major carmakers show off at auto shows. Especially since so many of them aren't even dual-fuel. Batteries are imperfect, but we can start making the transition today.
(Although your second link is very interesting! If they're legit, and their technology does what it claims... it would be hilarious if grassroots enthusiasts came up with a practical, workable way of making/using hydrogen before the major carmakers. I think the fundamental problem is, most carmakers seem to be hellbent on fuel cells, and not hydrogen per se. I wonder why.)
The part about increasing the capacity of the electric grid is somewhat true. Of course if you're talking about a cheap high performance battery (the europositron batteries or the EEStor capacitor), then gas stations can charge them up during the night, when electricity consumption is at it's lowest. Besides, it's not like the whole auto fleet is going to change over all at once.
And remember, any concerns about generating additional electricity will also apply to hydrogen as well. Unless you've found a huge reservoir of underground hydrogen that can be tapped.
I have great hopes that the new batteries will work out. I was using the historic example of battery development. I was alive during the 70's when the idea of battery powered cars was rehashed during the last oil crisis. Since then we have gone from lead acid to nicad, to nimh, to lion.
http://www.mpoweruk.com/timeline.htm
I attended lectures by Heegar on the power of organic batteries (which turned into OLED's), the organic lithium ion, etc...
03-12-2006, 04:12 PM
#38
Klingon Grammarian
Originally Posted by silverx8
There are three ways to get rid of a power plant:
"1. Dismantling -- Parts of the reactor are removed or decontaminated soon after the plant closes and the land can be used.
2. Safe Storage -- The nuclear plant is monitored and radiation is allowed to decay; afterward, it is taken down.
3. Entombment -- Radioactive components are sealed off with concrete and steel, allowing radiation to “decay” until the land can be used for other purposes."
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-...issioning.html
Easy is method 3: fill it with concrete and wait for it to cool down (a decade will do). Then slowly take it apart.
In the interim, the plant will be about as radioactive as a pile of coal (coal is radioactive, as well as Granite countertops, and Uraniumware. That's what I meant about eating off of it).
"1. Dismantling -- Parts of the reactor are removed or decontaminated soon after the plant closes and the land can be used.
2. Safe Storage -- The nuclear plant is monitored and radiation is allowed to decay; afterward, it is taken down.
3. Entombment -- Radioactive components are sealed off with concrete and steel, allowing radiation to “decay” until the land can be used for other purposes."
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-...issioning.html
Easy is method 3: fill it with concrete and wait for it to cool down (a decade will do). Then slowly take it apart.
In the interim, the plant will be about as radioactive as a pile of coal (coal is radioactive, as well as Granite countertops, and Uraniumware. That's what I meant about eating off of it).
03-12-2006, 05:10 PM
#39
Registered
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: San Diego, Ca
Posts: 744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
03-28-2006, 04:01 PM
#41
I WAS BEES
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BaronVonBigmeat
Generators. Same for hydrogen too of course.
http://www.wired.com/news/technology...,54456,00.html
I have my ideas for farming and maintenance, but I lack the funding and the ear to listen. Besides my ideas are simple and probably flawed at best.
