http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electric-car/index?dcp=ppn.39666654.&dcc=0.216878497#/leaf-electric-car/index

I feel like going into the woods and looking for a bear to kill me before I am forced to have a conversation with someone who is driving one of these.

Then you should act on that.

There is nothing wrong with such a vehicle and I agree with MGS.

Just because you don't like it does not mean it isn't a viable and sound option.

Wait a second, if most people driving hybrids are... you know, then people driving this... OH NOES!

"I don't talk to people who drive electric cars cause its gay!" <- accurate paraphrasing

warpcrafter wrote:http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electric-car/index?dcp=ppn.39666654.&dcc=0.216878497#/leaf-electric-car/index

I feel like going into the woods and looking for a bear to kill me before I am forced to have a conversation with someone who is driving one of these.

What is the world coming to!?!?

Companies acting on emissions targets? Sacrelige I tell you!

Everyone knows that cars should be powered using pure crude oil squeezed from the feathers of seagulls!!

Seriously. What problem have you got with electric cars?

It's not as if Nissan is going to come to your house with death-squads to force you to purchase one.

Sounds like a pretty decent vehicle to me. Although to be fair I'm not a driver and know very little about cars.

Goliath wrote:
It's not as if Nissan is going to come to your house with death-squads to force you to purchase one.

Nissan Death Squad wrote:We have come for your convential motor vehicle.

This car seems... impracticle. I'll wait for my nuclear powered hover car, thanks.

The hippies win. . . what exactly? Was there some sort of competition? Oh wait, that's right. PROGRESS IS BAD.

We are in a WAR ON COMMON SENSE.

Right, guys? I mean, we can't have those damn hippie tree hugger types threatnin' our god fearin' American economy with technology nonsense.

Someone call the Fabricator General, there's been a tech-heresy.


*Edit*
The Nisan Death Squad comment made me chuckle. Sigged.

Have faith. Nissan also makes the Titan. The guys driving Titans will run over the guys Leafs (Leaves?) and not even notice.

Ah! But the Titan runs on gas so is fine.

Just wait until the OP finds we have had solar powered calculators for a while now, he'll have a fit!

I have a solar powered tanning bed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And hippies can't afford them: LEAF SL
starting at $33,720

Pfe!!! i don't see the problem on it... sooner or later the world will empty of petroleum... so... what's the probem??? sooner or later all who wants a car or any vehicle will need to purchase one of those... unless someone find another option...

Bah! If it aint a huge gas guzzlin truck or a badass muscle car, then those [see forum posting rules] pussy hippies have already won! We need to take back America for the good god-fearin-gas-guzzlin true Americans. I never liked grizzly bears anyway. It's us or them man.

I prefer my feet rather than a "fancy" electro-car anyway... not to mention i don't like cars but i agree with you somehow... i like motorcycles, but the idea of a electro-cycle that don't roar (or at least a crappy PRRRRRRRR!!!!!!) when pushing the throttle frightens me...

Black Corsair wrote:unless someone find another option...

Like oh, I don't know. . . people could do something crazy like riding bikes or something instead of taking the 3mpg IMMA AMURICAN HURRR SOOPER TRUK if just going down the road.

Or if you're feeling really out there you could just. . . walk.

But that won't happen because this is AMURICA.

rubiksnoob wrote:

Black Corsair wrote:unless someone find another option...

Like oh, I don't know. . . people could do something crazy like riding bikes or something instead of taking the 3mpg IMMA AMURICAN HURRR SOOPER TRUK if just going down the road.

Or if you're feeling really out there you could just. . . walk.

The only problem i see really is that the two parts look only for their own interests... let me explain... i'm sure if the people who design vehicles and such stuff and those "ecologists" worked together, surely now we had a option liked by all parts non contaminating but still making that noise most of us love (me included) but NOOOOO!!!!! for this reason we always see options that will have lovers and antagonists.... nothin liked for everyone... and i'm sure that's possible.....
Don't Adrees only to America... this thing happens everywhere..




If not... well personally i enjoy walking more healthy is...

The key question is how many guns can you fit in a Leaf and what does the weight do to the range?

Kilkrazy wrote:The key question is how many guns can you fit in a Leaf and what does the weight do to the range?

Well as long as the gun range is still within the car's range, it shouldn't pose too much of a problem.

rubiksnoob wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The key question is how many guns can you fit in a Leaf and what does the weight do to the range?

Well as long as the gun range is still within the car's range, it shouldn't pose too much of a problem.

Truly sneaky sure no need to care for engine's noise

The electric car and other fossil fuel independent vehicles (FFIVs) are a natrual progression from the dwindling resources of oil are utterly gone and we have to take that step anyway to get something to run on something else.

rubiksnoob wrote:

We are in a WAR ON COMMON SENSE.

And the idiots are winning...

I personally believe that the west needs to go to electric cars so as to ween us off of our dependence on certain undesirable countries that want to hold us hostage to their oil. Not to mention the rise of fundamentalist Islamic states. I am certainly not a hippy.

GG

Lack of mass transit is a huge problem in the states. Outside of the North East and Chicago, there really isn't a good system. I'd love to be able to ride the train to work here in Houston. But since I don't live in the Medical Center or work at the Astrodome, our only train doesn't help me much.

I'd take a bike, but my commute is 30 miles. I'd live near my plant, but I don't want to get shot or mugged every other day.

So, I'm stuck driving a car. I have a Prius hybrid and I get 45-50 MPG, depending on the weather and my lead foot.

I didn't get it for the environment. "feth the envrionment, I don't have kids" is my motto. I got it to save money and *somewhat* reduce my use of petroleum products supplied by fundamentalist Islamic states and Venezuela (feth that dickhole).

I'm no hippy, either.

Oh right, Chicago still has a public transit system!

Get a motorbike and you'll get there quicker just by terrorising everyone to get out of your way.

Elmodiddly wrote:Get a motorbike and you'll get there quicker just by terrorising everyone to get out of your way.

That's nearly a suicidal proposition in Houston, AKA "The land of the soccer moms with battle barges that put on make up while they steer with their implants."

Edit: A bit more PC...

Sounds like most of the UK drivers anyway. My commute on Fridays and Sundays was about 160miles and was really good in warmer weather. Anything below 5 degrees C and it gets painful though on a bike! Overtook lots of people even a chap reading a book (!) whilst driving and one person sat in the middle lane trying to hit his girfriend and they literally fought whilst driving.

rubiksnoob wrote:

Black Corsair wrote:unless someone find another option...

Like oh, I don't know. . . people could do something crazy like riding bikes or something instead of taking the 3mpg IMMA AMURICAN HURRR SOOPER TRUK if just going down the road.

Or if you're feeling really out there you could just. . . walk.

But that won't happen because this is AMURICA.

For ten years I lived in a house that was seven minutes away from the nearest gas station and fourteen minutes away from the nearest grocery store. It was thirty five minutes away from my college and our family's church.

A bike was not an option. Much less my feet.

malfred wrote:I have a solar powered tanning bed.

sigged

I personally don't see the problem with electric cars, Crude Oil will only be around for so long before we've used it all, what will we be using to power cars once we run out of crude oil?

"range - 100 miles/charge based upon US EPA LA4 City cycle*"






*Based upon US EPA LA4 city cycle conducted in laboratory tests. See http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml Battery capacity decreases with time and use. Actual range will vary depending upon driving/charging habits, speed, conditions, weather, temperature, | and battery age.




So basically 100 miles/charge if you are really lucky on a good day with the wind behind you with a brand new car

Edit: Even better, I just clicked on the "performance" tab, and now have a blank page

Probably better to wait for the chevy volt, which gets 100 miles on a charge and has a 5 gallon gas tank. The leaf is great for urban and suburban short trips though.

Hydrogen fuel cell power superior, wussy battery power inferior.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:Probably better to wait for the chevy volt, which gets 100 miles on a charge and has a 5 gallon gas tank. The leaf is great for urban and suburban short trips though.

Only Shuma would buy a Chevrolet though...

malfred wrote:Oh right, Chicago still has a public transit system!

Kind of. It's kind of stripped down as far as the routes go if you aren't immediately downtown or going on one of 3 extremely populated routes, and it's pretty overpriced. I kind of hate it actually and I am a long-time public transit fan. The Northwest had better (and cheaper) transit by far when I was there. It's probably because that's where all those eco-friendly hippies like to live. There's also a lot more bike lanes and provisions for cyclists in general up there in the rainy states too. I am also not a hippy as I kind of don't like the Grateful Dead and think Marijuana is stupid. I don't think the word should be considered insulting though.

over $30,000.00
Under $6000.00


Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Frazzled wrote:Hydrogen fuel cell power superior, wussy battery power inferior.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:Probably better to wait for the chevy volt, which gets 100 miles on a charge and has a 5 gallon gas tank. The leaf is great for urban and suburban short trips though.

Only Shuma would buy a Chevrolet though...

My last car was a Chevy! The uhh... The engine exploded.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Hydrogen fuel cell power superior, wussy battery power inferior.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:Probably better to wait for the chevy volt, which gets 100 miles on a charge and has a 5 gallon gas tank. The leaf is great for urban and suburban short trips though.

Only Shuma would buy a Chevrolet though...

My last car was a Chevy! The uhh... The engine exploded.

Exactly. Buy American! Buy a Honda!

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Hydrogen fuel cell power superior, wussy battery power inferior.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:Probably better to wait for the chevy volt, which gets 100 miles on a charge and has a 5 gallon gas tank. The leaf is great for urban and suburban short trips though.

Only Shuma would buy a Chevrolet though...

My last car was a Chevy! The uhh... The engine exploded.

Exactly. Buy American! Buy a Honda!

Seriously, the engine actually exploded.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Hydrogen fuel cell power superior, wussy battery power inferior.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:Probably better to wait for the chevy volt, which gets 100 miles on a charge and has a 5 gallon gas tank. The leaf is great for urban and suburban short trips though.

Only Shuma would buy a Chevrolet though...

My last car was a Chevy! The uhh... The engine exploded.

Exactly. Buy American! Buy a Honda!

Seriously, the engine actually exploded.

And seriously, buy American, buy a "foreign" car. I worked at a factory that made seats for Toyota. And oddly enough, those are something like 60% American made, where as Chevys are around 30%

Exactly.

Thing is, if you don't like non-petrol cars, don't buy one. The rest of us that don't base our egos on the amount of fuel burned by our cars will get newer cars, that aren't that expensive to run, and that'll leave more petrol for those of you that really care about that kind of stuff.



That said, like Frazzled I'm a little skeptical of electric cars, and am basically waiting for hydrogen.

The problem with electric cars, is that unless the electricity come from a clean source, as opposed to coal power, then it isn't really better for the environment. But it is cheaper, so thats sort of an improvement.

Another issue with battery powered cars is: What do you do with the batteries after their lives of maintaining charges are over? You get a new one, where does the old one go? To the dump, to leak heavy metals into the aquifer.

I like the idea of this: http://www.watertogas.com/

Instead of using Hydrogen to create electricity, use hydrogen to power your car, and emit water vapor. Rids us of a middle man (i.e. the source of Hydrogen).

The Volt is one car I will never buy, the Government can't bribe me with their $7,500 tax credit to buy it.

Can't we get a car powered by hate and souls?

Mike Noble wrote:The problem with electric cars, is that unless the electricity come from a clean source, as opposed to coal power, then it isn't really better for the environment. But it is cheaper, so thats sort of an improvement.

Definitely. It might change if we look at decentralised solar power (sticking solar panels on our roofs) and using that to charge our cars, but if we're just relying on power from the local power plant then there's no point. Well, it's cheaper like you said, but the cost savings to the individual only exist because power to the home is typically subsidised, while petrol is taxed. Which across an economy is no saving at all.

Hydrogen, on the other hand, makes all kinds of sense, once we have the sustainable energy systems in place to seperate it from water.

sebster wrote:

Mike Noble wrote:The problem with electric cars, is that unless the electricity come from a clean source, as opposed to coal power, then it isn't really better for the environment. But it is cheaper, so thats sort of an improvement.

Definitely. It might change if we look at decentralised solar power (sticking solar panels on our roofs) and using that to charge our cars, but if we're just relying on power from the local power plant then there's no point. Well, it's cheaper like you said, but the cost savings to the individual only exist because power to the home is typically subsidised, while petrol is taxed. Which across an economy is no saving at all.

Hydrogen, on the other hand, makes all kinds of sense, once we have the sustainable energy systems in place to seperate it from water.

Look at my link, it's at a much smaller scale, but it does work.

Stormrider wrote:Look at my link, it's at a much smaller scale, but it does work.

Oh, I know it's doable right now. The point is getting it to be commercially viable then getting it actually rolled out.

I would imagine stuff like this has been kept quiet by oil companies for a while now, if something like that (Brown's Gas) became universally used by car owners in the US, the oil comapnies would be out quite a bit of money.

I like oil companies too, they employ a lot of people, they pay lots of taxes, they provide an essential service, but they are also looking out for themselves when it comes down to it, and I don't begreudge them for it.

Stormrider wrote:I would imagine stuff like this has been kept quiet by oil companies for a while now, if something like that (Brown's Gas) became universally used by car owners in the US, the oil comapnies would be out quite a bit of money.

I like oil companies too, they employ a lot of people, they pay lots of taxes, they provide an essential service, but they are also looking out for themselves when it comes down to it, and I don't begreudge them for it.

I think a lot of the conspiracy about oil companies keeping new tech secret is pretty fantastical conspiracy stuff, to be honest. Not because I believe oil companies are nice companies that only ever do good things (BP & Nigeria, anyone?) but because it's extremely difficult to shut down a new technology, especially when other, major players in the business world would benefit tremendously from such technologies (car companies, for instance).

Electricity and hydrogen cars have taken time to develop because the technology is hard to bring to market. I really think it is that simple.

I am no conspiracy theorist, but that's just my feelings about the technology and it's lack of exposure. The oil companies are not actively keeping it down, but aren't helping it either.

Stormrider wrote:I am no conspiracy theorist, but that's just my feelings about the technology and it's lack of exposure. The oil companies are not actively keeping it down, but aren't helping it either.

I certainly agree with that, companies rarely advance technology unless they stand to profit from it. Which is almost all the conceptual research goes on at the university level, and is then farmed out to companies once possible applications have become known.

sebster wrote:Thing is, if you don't like non-petrol cars, don't buy one. The rest of us that don't base our egos on the amount of fuel burned by our cars will get newer cars, that aren't that expensive to run, and that'll leave more petrol for those of you that really care about that kind of stuff.



That said, like Frazzled I'm a little skeptical of electric cars, and am basically waiting for hydrogen.

He thinks hydrogen is a viable alternative and not a political boondoggle used by the big three during the bush years to look like they were researching advanced technologies while intentionally researching a dead end.

Hydrogen research has rapidly dried up over the last few years as the truth of the uneconomical energy trail, massive infrastructure retrofit, and sheer danger of it all came to light (same with biofuels, though that one was never even close to serious in the first place). While it was failing battery research marched on thanks to rapid advances in mobile tech markets (its the same batteries in the end). All we need to do is hit an energy density comparable to gasoline within the batteries (experts think it'll come down within the next 15 years) and we're all set.

ShumaGorath wrote:Hydrogen research has rapidly dried up over the last few years as the truth of the uneconomical energy trail, massive infrastructure retrofit, and sheer danger of it all came to light (same with biofuels, though that one was never even close to serious in the first place). While it was failing battery research marched on thanks to rapid advances in mobile tech markets (its the same batteries in the end). All we need to do is hit an energy density comparable to gasoline within the batteries (experts think it'll come down within the next 15 years) and we're all set.

No, we would need to find a way to power and re-supply all those vehicles with sustainable energy, or at least energy that is no more polluting than current petrol engines. Which requires an infrastructure refit on the same scale as hydrogen. Seriously, once you consider the nuclear, solar and tidal plants that will have to be built to replace the coal plants, having a petrol station change tanker types is no big deal.

And yeah, hydrogen is a way off, because the tech isn't there to make it commercially viable at this point, but the underling efficiencies of that system are undeniable. On the other hand, electricity has managed to get affordable cars onto the roads, but it still relies on powering cars with energy that comes almost entirely from polluting energy sources.

WarOne wrote:Can't we get a car powered by hate and souls?

I like the cut of his jib. I'll contribute to the start-up.

Oh, and Electric Cars have been viable for a good long while, it's just that the Big Three are heavily invested in oil, so it doesn't make sense for them to sell you something that bypasses that fuel system.

Further more, if you want to be extra pissed at the big three, listen to this podcast: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/403/nummi

No, we would need to find a way to power and re-supply all those vehicles with sustainable energy, or at least energy that is no more polluting than current petrol engines.

Why? It's clear that it's economics and not environmentalism that decides the prevalent energy technologies in consumer markets, and comparatively for cost a conversion to hydrogen is vastly less feasible or economical then one to pure electricity.

Which requires an infrastructure refit on the same scale as hydrogen. Seriously, once you consider the nuclear, solar and tidal plants that will have to be built to replace the coal plants, having a petrol station change tanker types is no big deal.

Who said we're switching all the old coal plants out? Hydrogen is an inefficient middle man for that energy in the first place which is the crux of the issue. Relying on a massive infrastructural overhaul to predate the adoption of a consumer technology which is predicated on an overhaul that has no function without the consumer technology adoption seems silly to me. It's like waiting for the chicken to have an egg so that you can have a chicken to hatch the egg the first chicken came from. It's circular.

And yeah, hydrogen is a way off, because the tech isn't there to make it commercially viable at this point, but the underling efficiencies of that system are undeniable.

Undeniable? Which part? The part where hydrogen energy storage is an inefficient and lossy process that creates dangerous and high maintenance fuel storage requirements, or the part where there is essentially no continuing research into the field because science has let the horse finally die now that other techs have superseded it?

On the other hand, electricity has managed to get affordable cars onto the roads, but it still relies on powering cars with energy that comes almost entirely from polluting energy sources.

That same energy grid that is fueling the hydrogen storage plants could also just travel down a wire and power cars directly via electric storage. The methodology by which the energy is generated is irrelevant in the end of line energy storage process, and right now, without further research pure electrical storage is a cleaner and safer alternative with promise of having higher energy densities in the future as well.

ShumaGorath wrote:Why? It's clear that it's economics and not environmentalism that decides the prevalent energy technologies in consumer markets, and comparatively for cost a conversion to hydrogen is vastly less feasible or economical then one to pure electricity.

Yes, it is economics, it's just that it's a bad economic model built around ignoring a key externality. With electric cars we have people charging the batteries cars with power generated largely from coal powered plants. Which in terms of emissions leaves us no better off, and probably worse off, than we'd be with petrol burning cars. If we were to invest in locally generated power such as solar panels this would change considerably, but we aren't.

In contrast, hydrogen has the primary advantage of not relying on a power network for distribution.

Who said we're switching all the old coal plants out?

It's something we have to do, and the sooner the better. That coal is an unsustainable tech for our energy generation needs is something everyone really should know by now.

Hydrogen is an inefficient middle man for that energy in the first place which is the crux of the issue. Relying on a massive infrastructural overhaul to predate the adoption of a consumer technology which is predicated on an overhaul that has no function without the consumer technology adoption seems silly to me. It's like waiting for the chicken to have an egg so that you can have a chicken to hatch the egg the first chicken came from. It's circular.

Umm, are you claiming that we can't ever build infrastructure up before demand is realised... in a thread talking about cars (which rely on roads, and use petrol stations)... in a discussion on the internet (which relies on satellite communications

And no, hydrogen is not an inefficient middle man. It's a form of energy storage. By the logic of your argument the battery in an electric car is also an inefficient middle man. Which, obviously, makes no sense, because at some point we need one form of energy capture or another.

Now you have to consider the inefficiences of producing power from coal or other source, then losing up to 70% of that in transferring it through the grid and to the home. Or you can produce the energy on site, use it turn water into hydrogen, then lose none of that energy as the hydrogen is taken to the source.

Undeniable? Which part? The part where hydrogen energy storage is an inefficient and lossy process that creates dangerous and high maintenance fuel storage requirements, or the part where there is essentially no continuing research into the field because science has let the horse finally die now that other techs have superseded it?

Umm, except research is on-going. You're confusing a few manufacturers saying they've stopped research for now as it is not viable with current tech for commercial vehicles, with research being entirely abandoned.

That same energy grid that is fueling the hydrogen storage plants could also just travel down a wire and power cars directly via electric storage. The methodology by which the energy is generated is irrelevant in the end of line energy storage process, and right now, without further research pure electrical storage is a cleaner and safer alternative with promise of having higher energy densities in the future as well.

Except you lose up to 70% of the power. Now, when you look at something like solar power, it makes no commercial sense, and likely never will, to have large vats of solar power creating energy then putting it in the network, only to see most of it disappear before it reaches the household. But if you consider that same solar plant, located next to a fresh water source, or next to an ocean and a desalination plant, using the energy created to produce hydrogen, then that hydrogen being transported at no loss, regardless of the distance travelled.

Stormrider wrote:Another issue with battery powered cars is: What do you do with the batteries after their lives of maintaining charges are over? You get a new one, where does the old one go? To the dump, to leak heavy metals into the aquifer.

Maybe batteries could be recycled, like in Europe.

Yes, it is economics, it's just that it's a bad economic model built around ignoring a key externality. With electric cars we have people charging the batteries cars with power generated largely from coal powered plants. Which in terms of emissions leaves us no better off, and probably worse off, than we'd be with petrol burning cars. If we were to invest in locally generated power such as solar panels this would change considerably, but we aren't.

In contrast, hydrogen has the primary advantage of not relying on a power network for distribution.

Except it does. Hydrogen is created and stored via an electrolytic process that requires significantly more energy then is actually stored within the hydrogen itself. This is a key factor that you seem to be missing, you still need that exact same infrastructure for hydrogen. The hydrogen storage is a direct result from a very power intensive process. It is that exact process that makes it unworthy as an energy storage medium in consumer vehicles. It's no better then gasoline, as right now the production of hydrogen for fuel uses more gasoline energy then the end result hydrogen gives. It's lossy.

It's something we have to do, and the sooner the better. That coal is an unsustainable tech for our energy generation needs is something everyone really should know by now.

Coal isn't unsustainable. There are massive coal reserves in almost every country on the planet. We have a nigh infinite amount of it to use. It's not particularly environmentally friendly, but sustainability is not equivalent to environmentally friendly.

Umm, are you claiming that we can't ever build infrastructure up before demand is realised... in a thread talking about cars (which rely on roads, and use petrol stations)... in a discussion on the internet (which relies on satellite communications

Roads existed before cars because cart pathways were roads. Roads have existed for thousands of years. The internet does not require satellite communications. In fact the vast vast majority of internet traffic never sees a satellite. Radio satellites don't have that kind of bandwidth. These are bad comparisons.

And no, hydrogen is not an inefficient middle man. It's a form of energy storage.

Yes. Storage is a middleman. Hydrogen happens to be one that has time and time again been proven to be inefficient for all but pure energy density.

By the logic of your argument the battery in an electric car is also an inefficient middle man. Which, obviously, makes no sense, because at some point we need one form of energy capture or another.

It's a more efficient middleman because there is far less energy loss in a li-on battery stack plugged into the grid then there is in the capture, storage, and transport of hydrogen. One is plug and play, the other requires moving parts and sizable facilities (that do not yet exist) before it ever interacts with the car.

Now you have to consider the inefficiences of producing power from coal or other source, then losing up to 70% of that in transferring it through the grid and to the home. Or you can produce the energy on site, use it turn water into hydrogen, then lose none of that energy as the hydrogen is taken to the source.

This is a fallacious argument. That same local energy storage method could be used to power pure electric battery cars. It's exactly the same. The only difference is the storage tech and the tech required to convert that power. With batteries no tech is really required to convert to storage with hydrogen largescale, dangerous, and inefficient equipment is required to go from solar panels to fuel cells. That is the simplest difference, one has a middleman, the other doesn't. Whatever your power source is is irrelevant.

Umm, except research is on-going. You're confusing a few manufacturers saying they've stopped research for now as it is not viable with current tech for commercial vehicles, with research being entirely abandoned.

No I'm just comparing pre and post 2008 research funding at a national level.

Except you lose up to 70% of the power. Now, when you look at something like solar power, it makes no commercial sense, and likely never will, to have large vats of solar power creating energy then putting it in the network, only to see most of it disappear before it reaches the household. But if you consider that same solar plant, located next to a fresh water source, or next to an ocean and a desalination plant, using the energy created to produce hydrogen, then that hydrogen being transported at no loss, regardless of the distance travelled.

I don't understand how you are teleporting the hydrogen to its destination. How is it a lossless process to use energy in a lossy process to create and store hydrogen, which requires energy to keep stored (remember, it has to be cold) and then you have to transport it to refueling stations, where it then has to be stored (and kept cold) before being placed in cars where it then has to be kept cold as it is being used. It is not a "no loss" process. It's not even close.

Hydrogen has been called one of the least efficient and most expensive possible replacements for gasoline (petrol) in terms of reducing greenhouse gases; other technologies may be less expensive and more quickly implemented.[42][43] A comprehensive study of hydrogen in transportation applications has found that "there are major hurdles on the path to achieving the vision of the hydrogen economy; the path will not be simple or straightforward".[4] The Ford Motor Company has dropped its plans to develop hydrogen cars, stating that "The next major step in Ford’s plan is to increase over time the volume of electrified vehicles".[44]
An accounting of the energy utilized during a thermodynamic process, known as an energy balance, can be applied to automotive fuels. With today's technology, the manufacture of hydrogen via steam reforming can be accomplished with a thermal efficiency of 75 to 80 percent. Additional energy will be required to liquefy or compress the hydrogen, and to transport it to the filling station via truck or pipeline. The energy that must be utilized per kilogram to produce, transport and deliver hydrogen (i.e., its well-to-tank energy use) is approximately 50 megajoules using technology available in 2004. Subtracting this energy from the enthalpy of one kilogram of hydrogen, which is 141 megajoules, and dividing by the enthalpy, yields a thermal energy efficiency of roughly 60%.[45] Gasoline, by comparison, requires less energy input, per gallon, at the refinery, and comparatively little energy is required to transport it and store it owing to its high energy density per gallon at ambient temperatures. Well-to-tank, the supply chain for gasoline is roughly 80% efficient (Wang, 2002). The most efficient distribution however is electrical, which is typically 95% efficient. Electric vehicles are typically 3 to 4 times as efficient as hydrogen powered vehicles.[46]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy

Your arguments for efficiency are totally bunk.

Perhaps I wasn't being clear. I was referring to its name. THE LEAF!!!

I like hydrogen power, however it has to be pointed out that electric has various advantages.

1. Whatever the generation source, the electricity is all just electricity.

2. The national infrastructure for electricity distribution is in place, right to the consumer's home.

3. It saves a conversion stage of the cycle of Power to electricity / electricity to hydrogen / hydrogen to power.

The main downside of electric is that it is impossible to recharge a battery very quickly, whereas you can refill your fuel tank in a couple of minutes.

You could get round this by providing quick-change batteries. Car manufacturers would need to make their batteries standardised and compatible. Each battery would need a chip to record its charge/discharge life.

You would drive into the garage, and swap your mostly discharged batteries for fully charged, paying a fee based on the amount of electricity and the relative lifetime of the batteries.

ShumaGorath wrote: Hydrogen is created and stored via an electrolytic process that requires significantly more energy then is actually stored within the hydrogen itself. This is a key factor that you seem to be missing, you still need that exact same infrastructure for hydrogen. The hydrogen storage is a direct result from a very power intensive process. It is that exact process that makes it unworthy as an energy storage medium in consumer vehicles. It's no better then gasoline, as right now the production of hydrogen for fuel uses more gasoline energy then the end result hydrogen gives. It's lossy..

Hydrogen powered vehicles and hydrogen production is being researched as we speak. Don't forget battery research has been going on ever since the first battery was made and sold so has the advantage at the moment. Hydrogen burning vehicles and hydrogen fuel cells are already on the market such as buses. Motorbikes are being researched as well as planes of all things. The research, development and investment is already there with even huge companies such as Boeing performing lots of research and building vehicles such as their new Phantom Eye UAV. We are a lot more further up the hydrogen research and production chain as a viable source than you suggest.

Coal isn't unsustainable. There are massive coal reserves in almost every country on the planet. We have a nigh infinite amount of it to use. It's not particularly environmentally friendly, but sustainability is not equivalent to environmentally friendly.

That is easily the worst argument for coal I have ever heard. How can you say coal is sustainable? We dig it out of the ground. It doesn't get miraculously replaced a year later, it's a hole in the ground. We can't make new coal. Pits have closed in many areas around the world because they have run out and mines having to be dug deeper and deeper alll the time to follow the seams or find new ones. Which makes it more dangerous every year.

Coal-fired power plants emit mercury, selenium, and arsenic just by the burning, not the cleaning of coal which also creates lots of waste to the tune of millions of tons of waste each year and is the largest contributer to CO2 levels. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2007/IowaCoal_20071105.pdf.

Hydrogen powered vehicles and hydrogen production is being researched as we speak. Don't forget battery research has been going on ever since the first battery was made and sold so has the advantage at the moment. Hydrogen burning vehicles and hydrogen fuel cells are already on the market such as buses. Motorbikes are being researched as well as planes of all things. The research, development and investment is already there with even huge companies such as Boeing performing lots of research and building vehicles such as their new Phantom Eye UAV. We are a lot more further up the hydrogen research and production chain as a viable source than you suggest.

Most of that research and investment occurred before the new scientific initiatives under Obama, which saw the funding skew heavily towards all electric research and biofuels. Hydrogen didn't cease, but it's taken a major hit, for a space of years it was the vogue new technology of the future, but the reality of it came crashing down fairly hard. It lacks the serious research and investment needed for development that all electric or biofuels (which are a big bio research field now, separate from the search for replacement car fuels) have.

I can't really speak to the UKs research inititives, but the U.S., China, and Japan are sinking billions into battery research and this is entirely separate from the billions every electronics and car manufacturer is pouring in too.

That is easily the worst argument for coal I have ever heard. How can you say coal is sustainable? We dig it out of the ground. It doesn't get miraculously replaced a year later, it's a hole in the ground. We can't make new coal. Pits have closed in many areas around the world because they have run out and mines having to be dug deeper and deeper alll the time to follow the seams or find new ones. Which makes it more dangerous every year.

Coal has about 147 years in the generally respected reserves to production measurement of lifespan (at current trends). This is only from currently known and proven (i.e. mined) reserves and a large portion of the planet has not been sufficiently explored to provide an accurate assessment (that number is likely to dramatically rise). We aren't going to run out any time soon and a century and a half is more then long enough to consider the resource "practically" infinite at this point. We will never use it all before replacing it as an energy generator.

Coal-fired power plants emit mercury, selenium, and arsenic just by the burning, not the cleaning of coal which also creates lots of waste to the tune of millions of tons of waste each year and is the largest contributer to CO2 levels. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2007/IowaCoal_20071105.pdf.

Yes, they aren't environmentally friendly. I already acknowledged this.

Nikola Tesla created a free energy device in the 1920's, but then J. P. Morgan didn't allow it to be put into production for the simple reason that he couldn't put a meter on it and suck money out of us every month. If Tesla's inventions would have gone into practical applications as they were developed, our life now would be like Star Trek/Star Wars. Thanks, you global elite sonsabitches, thanks a lot.

What we need is Ed Begley Jr.'s car that runs on ones own sense of self-worth.

ShumaGorath wrote:Except it does. Hydrogen is created and stored via an electrolytic process that requires significantly more energy then is actually stored within the hydrogen itself. This is a key factor that you seem to be missing, you still need that exact same infrastructure for hydrogen. The hydrogen storage is a direct result from a very power intensive process. It is that exact process that makes it unworthy as an energy storage medium in consumer vehicles. It's no better then gasoline, as right now the production of hydrogen for fuel uses more gasoline energy then the end result hydrogen gives. It's lossy.

Any form of storage of energy will result in a net loss. It has to.

The issue, again, is that the underlying model for hydrgoen is to rely on large scale, but intermittent energy sources, such as solar, wind and the like, which we can put anywhere in the world, because once converted to hydrogen there's no loss of power when it's transported elsewhere in the world. That's the key to hydrogen as a fuel source.

The technology isn’t there right now, but compare that to electric cars, dependant on power run through the grid

Coal isn't unsustainable. There are massive coal reserves in almost every country on the planet. We have a nigh infinite amount of it to use. It's not particularly environmentally friendly, but sustainability is not equivalent to environmentally friendly.

Yes, power generation that produces as much carbon as coal is unsustainable. Are you actually arguing we can sustain a system built around electric cars powered by coal burning power plants? Seriously?

Roads existed before cars because cart pathways were roads. Roads have existed for thousands of years. The internet does not require satellite communications. In fact the vast vast majority of internet traffic never sees a satellite. Radio satellites don't have that kind of bandwidth. These are bad comparisons.

Roads suited to carts existed, over time we increased the quality of our roads to better suit them to the increasingly advanced and increasingly large number of cars we put on them. With computers you can replace satellites with fibre optic cable or whatever else you’d like.

You're being silly, arguing minutiae on specific examples and ignoring the plain, basic and unavoidable truth – we are capable of adapting our infrastructure to suit new systems. We do it all the time. We are capable of building infrastructure to support new technology coming in to the market. We do it all the time.

It's a nonsense argument to claim that you can't have one without the other.

It's a more efficient middleman because there is far less energy loss in a li-on battery stack plugged into the grid then there is in the capture, storage, and transport of hydrogen.

Except you’re ignoring the loss of energy in getting the energy from the source to the battery, where there is immense loss of power, and it’s a loss that no future tech could ever reduce.

This is a fallacious argument. That same local energy storage method could be used to power pure electric battery cars. It's exactly the same. The only difference is the storage tech and the tech required to convert that power. With batteries no tech is really required to convert to storage with hydrogen largescale, dangerous, and inefficient equipment is required to go from solar panels to fuel cells. That is the simplest difference, one has a middleman, the other doesn't. Whatever your power source is is irrelevant.

It isn’t fallacious, and you really need to start reading what’s being said. The difference is that power generation for hydrogen doesn’t have to be near the final intended use, for electric it does. You can’t put a giant vat of wind turbines in the middle of Arizona, then run power cables all the way the LA – you’ll lose so much power along the way it just isn’t worth bothering with. But you can place a hydrogen plant out there, and yeah you’ll lose much of that energy in conversion (but we can still expect advances that will significantly reduce those losses) but you can then transfer that energy to the point of its intended use without any further loss.

No I'm just comparing pre and post 2008 research funding at a national level.

So what you’re saying is there’s less research than what there was, once the government incentives were removed. Duh.

I don't understand how you are teleporting the hydrogen to its destination. How is it a lossless process to use energy in a lossy process to create and store hydrogen, which requires energy to keep stored (remember, it has to be cold) and then you have to transport it to refueling stations, where it then has to be stored (and kept cold) before being placed in cars where it then has to be kept cold as it is being used. It is not a "no loss" process. It's not even close.

Are you comparing losses from the transport of pressurised gas via pipe or road to the transfer of energy over a grid? Come on.

Your arguments for efficiency are totally bunk.

The same claims, and worse, were made about electricity 10 and 15 years ago.

More to the point, why have you come into this thread to be so antagonistic? Did a hydrogen car run over your dog, or something?

You’ve taken a really weird, antagonistic tone. I mean, no-one here is claiming we have to stick with petrol and it’ll last us until the end of times or anything, this isn’t ideological. It’s a debate over which tech is best… and yet from your first post you were so aggressive. What’s up?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

warpcrafter wrote:Nikola Tesla created a free energy device in the 1920's, but then J. P. Morgan didn't allow it to be put into production for the simple reason that he couldn't put a meter on it and suck money out of us every month. If Tesla's inventions would have gone into practical applications as they were developed, our life now would be like Star Trek/Star Wars. Thanks, you global elite sonsabitches, thanks a lot.

It's an odd thing, that people invent these fantastical conspiracies where businessmen hide away incredible (and in this case impossible) technologies because there's no money in it. I mean, we have so many real instances of business doing bad things, why invent silly ones?

I think Shuma is suggesting that we bypass all this environmental crap and drive around in coal-fired cars, no?

warpcrafter wrote:http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electric-car/index?dcp=ppn.39666654.&dcc=0.216878497#/leaf-electric-car/index

I feel like going into the woods and looking for a bear to kill me before I am forced to have a conversation with someone who is driving one of these.

On what grounds do you base this arguement?


Gas where I live is $3.35 on average. Electric sounds good to me, plus much easier to park in the city than stupid SUV. lol driving around in circles @ Dolores park in my ex's Honda Pilot looking for a space......for 30 minutes. GG

Small electric car = good.

As for your inevitable "slow" comment, you should check out some of the lithium ion battery powered drag racers. FYI, electric motor = instant torque. No need to spin up the RPM. VERY effecient motor, sadly still fueled off coal/nuclear/hydro power grid so not 100% clean. Plus batteries very very nasty....hard to dispose of.



The Leaf is a SAD shadow of the Saturn EV1. GM did a fantastic job of killing the electric car in the early 90's. As did close minded people such as yourself that would much rather spend obnoxious amounts of money powering a gasoline internal combustion engine. FYI VERY inefficient. Mostly heat pump, loses tons of energy through heat radiation that would be better harnessed in the combustion process.

Retort please?

WarOne wrote:Can't we get a car powered by hate and souls?

jajajajaja sounds cool!!! if i had one souls i don't know... but hate .... an infinitiy of it... no need to stop

anyway, some post before has a lot of reason.... maybe electric car are "clean" but what about the wastes of power sources, acid of battery is toxic....

rubiksnoob wrote:

Black Corsair wrote:unless someone find another option...

Like oh, I don't know. . . people could do something crazy like riding bikes or something instead of taking the 3mpg IMMA AMURICAN HURRR SOOPER TRUK if just going down the road.

Or if you're feeling really out there you could just. . . walk.

But that won't happen because this is AMURICA.

Shocking logic!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WarOne wrote:Can't we get a car powered by hate and souls?

Easy, buy an old Jag or a Twin Turbo Nissan 300ZX. worst cars in the universe to work on. The Jag's have an ass backward electric system and LOTS of gold plated terminals. $$$ The TT 300 was the most cramped engine bay I've ever had the displeasure of stick a wrench into. Much worse than the damn Porshce that had to have the engine partially dropped out in order to change the oil.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SilverMK2 wrote:"range - 100 miles/charge based upon US EPA LA4 City cycle*"

So basically 100 miles/charge if you are really lucky on a good day with the wind behind you with a brand new car

Edit: Even better, I just clicked on the "performance" tab, and now have a blank page

Hi there. Most of the world's population lives in dense metro areas where you are very unlikely to need to travel more than 100 miles in any direction. Proper infrastructure will have charging stations all over just like stoopid nasty gas stations. Please tell me the last time you were 100 miles from a refueling station? Now if you are talking about going out in the wilderness, YES I support internal combustion, but only diesel. Y you ask? EFFICIENT! that's y.

For engine noobs.

Diesel Engines: Because diesel engines have much higher compression ratios, a diesel engine doesn’t utilize spark plugs. As I’m sure you remember from chemistry class, as gases are compressed, their temperature will increase, and diesel engines have such a high compression ratio that the heat produced by the compression is enough to ignite the fuel/air mixture. Here is what the typical stroke cycle looks like for a diesel powered engine:

1. Air is forced into the cylinder, and is compressed.
2. As this is going on, diesel fuel is sprayed into the cylinder.
3. The compression causes the diesel fuel to ignite, causing the piston upwards, which gives the car energy.
4. Burned mixture forced out as exhaust.

Of the two fuels, diesel tends to get better gas mileage
than gasoline because it has a higher density, which leads more energy per each explosion within the cylinder.

Derp derp derp, less parts = more efficient? SHOCKING! Also, you can run a diesel engine on pretty much any liquid (within reason) old grease? NO PROBLEM! Literally refuel at Mcdonalds. Hell, you get free sometimes because bizz has to pay disposal fee.

Performance? Yeah cause a damn Honda Fit is a performance MONSTER owaititsucks (hello, not all cars are built for speed) but it runs on GASSSSS!!!!!!!(bloodofdeadlizards)

Personally I own a mid range gasoline engine for multi use stuff....plus they are fun to drive. Hard to find performance diesel stateside. I rock a VW GTI VR6......rocks for hill climbing, plus its easy to park. Limited slip diff and ETC make for FUN times up on Grizzly Peak Road. Its also paid for, which is a big sticking point for a broke ass like me. I'd trade it for a Leaf instantly though. Without a second thought.

I'd kick Jesse Ventura in the teeth for a Saturn EV1, but they are all crushed in a box out at the GM proving grounds.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

filbert wrote:I think Shuma is suggesting that we bypass all this environmental crap and drive around in coal-fired cars, no?

Werd, lets go balls out Steampunk!




Automatically Appended Next Post:

warpcrafter wrote:Nikola Tesla created a free energy device in the 1920's, but then J. P. Morgan didn't allow it to be put into production for the simple reason that he couldn't put a meter on it and suck money out of us every month. If Tesla's inventions would have gone into practical applications as they were developed, our life now would be like Star Trek/Star Wars. Thanks, you global elite sonsabitches, thanks a lot.

Dude, Tesla's energy system required a station every 50 miles...the reason that DC won out is because its more easily transmitted over distance.

I watched that History Channel special too, plus took a course on alternate energy for civilian vehicles and the infrastructure needed to support them. Tesla was cool, but his system tanked for a good reason.

HYDROGEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Stupid idea. We have to build an entire new infrastructure to support it. Money that would be much more effeciently spent on long distance rail based mass transit. Move more people farther with less fuel, plus less congestion. We can power that off the current grid while exploring alternate fuel (I support nuclear), and also weaning our society off of MUST HAVE 4 fething CARS IN THE GARAGE.

Please reference "The Hydrogen Highway" for Arnold's idiotic vote pandering and blatant cronyism with corporate interests.

Peter Wiggin wrote:(I support nuclear)

Oh dear God in heaven. Now you've done it. You're going to get the damned hippies on demanding that you go to Chernobyl and giving spurious claims about how nuclear power is BAD.

Hydrogen fuels either in liquid or cell forms, I believe, will be the new tech to get a massive boost. Whilst it is already being used I think the next couple of years it will go mainstream.

Stormrider wrote:Another issue with battery powered cars is: What do you do with the batteries after their lives of maintaining charges are over? You get a new one, where does the old one go? To the dump, to leak heavy metals into the aquifer.

I like the idea of this: http://www.watertogas.com/

Instead of using Hydrogen to create electricity, use hydrogen to power your car, and emit water vapor. Rids us of a middle man (i.e. the source of Hydrogen).

The Volt is one car I will never buy, the Government can't bribe me with their $7,500 tax credit to buy it.

Sorry thats what I meant. Hydrogen fuel cells. But either works. Its all about the hydrogen baby.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WarOne wrote:Can't we get a car powered by hate and souls?

Thats how mine works. I get 40 miles to the soul.

Elmodiddly wrote:
Hydrogen fuels either in liquid or cell forms, I believe, will be the new tech to get a massive boost.

Its all about the hydrogen baby.

HYDROGEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Stupid idea. We have to build an entire new infrastructure to support it. Money that would be much more effeciently spent on long distance rail based mass transit. Move more people farther with less fuel, plus less congestion. We can power that off the current grid while exploring alternate fuel (I support nuclear), and also weaning our society off of MUST HAVE 4 fething CARS IN THE GARAGE.

Please reference "The Hydrogen Highway" for Arnold's idiotic vote pandering and blatant cronyism with corporate interests.

warpcrafter wrote:Nikola Tesla created a free energy device in the 1920's, but then J. P. Morgan didn't allow it to be put into production for the simple reason that he couldn't put a meter on it and suck money out of us every month. If Tesla's inventions would have gone into practical applications as they were developed, our life now would be like Star Trek/Star Wars. Thanks, you global elite sonsabitches, thanks a lot.

Er...ok...Captain Conspiracy Away!!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

filbert wrote:I think Shuma is suggesting that we bypass all this environmental crap and drive around in coal-fired cars, no?

Steam Punk is Real!!!

Pimp my Ride!



Me driving and the wife in the back, frantically shovelling coal!

Plus she can make you a full fried breakfast on the shovel as you are steaming to work! Bargain.

The problem with Hydrogen and bio fuels is the ratio of energy for what it takes to make the fuel vs. the energy you get out of them. The gumment subsidised the hell out these to keep the costs down, but that will eventually end (if not already). Put a nail in this coffin, please.

Neither of these hold a candle to gasoline. (By the way, keep your candles away from gasoline. It's flammable, dumbass!)

Solar power is cute and gets the granola chicks to take off their panties, but you'd have to cover every square inch of the US to generate enough power to get rid of fossil fuels (not that anyone would notice if you covered North Dakota). If we could make these more efficient, that would be swell.

Fuel cells seem to be the best short-mid term solution for reducing oil dependency.

All fuels give a crap ratio irrespective of whether it is gas, diesel, hydrogen etc you loose no matter which way this is spun on a energy in/out ratio. Fuels that are burnt are burnt and then gone and need more to replace to keep the cycle going.

The only ones which do come out as winners are wind, solar, pedal power and wave energy as the input once they have been made is just in maintenance.

Until we replace the coal fired generators to cheaper or as free as possible methods we will always be in a losing position.

Geothermal.

Kilkrazy wrote:Geothermal.

I thought it was a non-starter due to the heavy corrosion and maintenance required for the machinery?

Frazzled wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:Nikola Tesla created a free energy device in the 1920's, but then J. P. Morgan didn't allow it to be put into production for the simple reason that he couldn't put a meter on it and suck money out of us every month. If Tesla's inventions would have gone into practical applications as they were developed, our life now would be like Star Trek/Star Wars. Thanks, you global elite sonsabitches, thanks a lot.

Er...ok...Captain Conspiracy Away!!!

Wow, just wow.... You dragged yourself away from American Idol long enough to post on Dakka? There might be a Human Being trapped within that soulless corporate drone after all.

filbert wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Geothermal.

I thought it was a non-starter due to the heavy corrosion and maintenance required for the machinery?

It works fine in Iceland.

http://www.energy.rochester.edu/is/reyk/

Also there are different types of geothermal, for example exploiting the temperature difference between ground layers.

warpcrafter wrote:There might be a Human Being trapped within that soulless corporate drone after all.

'Fraid not.

Kilkrazy wrote:

filbert wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Geothermal.

I thought it was a non-starter due to the heavy corrosion and maintenance required for the machinery?

It works fine in Iceland.

http://www.energy.rochester.edu/is/reyk/

Also there are different types of geothermal, for example exploiting the temperature difference between ground layers.

Maybe we should all club together and buy Greenland and dig a huge hole there. Energy crisis solved!

Kilkrazy wrote:It works fine in Iceland.

http://www.energy.rochester.edu/is/reyk/

Also there are different types of geothermal, for example exploiting the temperature difference between ground layers.

As you say it is used for different purposes depending upon the type of energy but Iceland is quite unique in that it has a lot of fissures which are easily tapped and the energy provided is enough for most of their needs. Over half of their poluation in the whole country lives in Reykjavik which is another reason for it working so well.

The UK only has 3 geothermal sources 2 of which are being built as we speak. There is talk of some of the offshore oil rigs being coverted to run geothermal energy once the oil becomes too difficult to extract http://www.healergeorge.com/geothermal/index.html

warpcrafter wrote:Nikola Tesla created a free energy device in the 1920's, but then J. P. Morgan didn't allow it to be put into production for the simple reason that he couldn't put a meter on it and suck money out of us every month. If Tesla's inventions would have gone into practical applications as they were developed, our life now would be like Star Trek/Star Wars. Thanks, you global elite sonsabitches, thanks a lot.

warpcrafter wrote:Nikola Tesla created a free energy device in the 1920's, but then J. P. Morgan didn't allow it to be put into production for the simple reason that he couldn't put a meter on it and suck money out of us every month. If Tesla's inventions would have gone into practical applications as they were developed, our life now would be like Star Trek/Star Wars. Thanks, you global elite sonsabitches, thanks a lot.

kronk wrote:The problem with Hydrogen and bio fuels is the ratio of energy for what it takes to make the fuel vs. the energy you get out of them.

Uh oh, someone has done their homework! Very good sir, horribly inefficient. GREAT PR CAMPAIGN THOUGH!!!!!!!!!! America loves hydrogen. noobfart America


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rubiksnoob wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:Nikola Tesla created a free energy device in the 1920's, but then J. P. Morgan didn't allow it to be put into production for the simple reason that he couldn't put a meter on it and suck money out of us every month. If Tesla's inventions would have gone into practical applications as they were developed, our life now would be like Star Trek/Star Wars. Thanks, you global elite sonsabitches, thanks a lot.

Its true, only problem was that you couldn't transmit AC over long distances with any degree of efficiency.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:

filbert wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Geothermal.

I thought it was a non-starter due to the heavy corrosion and maintenance required for the machinery?

It works fine in Iceland.

http://www.energy.rochester.edu/is/reyk/

Also there are different types of geothermal, for example exploiting the temperature difference between ground layers.

Indeed it does! Iceland has disproportionally large area's that are farmable with geothermal. Not everywhere will have that, and the cost of energy increases with transmission distance. Use geothermal when possible, as with win, tidal, and solar. Otherwise NUCLEAR!

Then we just nuke Iraq and use it as dump for radioactive waste. Hello derp derps, nuclear wasteland is nuclear...oh no more waste!

Could also maybe idunno....research fusion more? Not physicist....only drawing at straws. Yucca Mntn is fail.

Any form of storage of energy will result in a net loss. It has to.

Yes, and that energy loss in hydrogen production is as much as 40%, compared to an average of 5% in pure electric battery storage.

The issue, again, is that the underlying model for hydrgoen is to rely on large scale, but intermittent energy sources, such as solar, wind and the like, which we can put anywhere in the world, because once converted to hydrogen there's no loss of power when it's transported elsewhere in the world. That's the key to hydrogen as a fuel source.

The technology isn’t there right now, but compare that to electric cars, dependant on power run through the grid

Except for the massive energy loss in hydrogens creation and transportation. Are you really arguing that if we use small scale sustainable power plants and hydrogen production centers there is a benefit that we somehow lose if we use those same small scale power plants and go directly to batteries? Wasn't your big argument the failures of the U.S. grid to push power over lengthy distances? I'm pretty sure it's a fallacious argument to claim a universal benefit only benefits your side of the argument.

Yes, power generation that produces as much carbon as coal is unsustainable. Are you actually arguing we can sustain a system built around electric cars powered by coal burning power plants? Seriously?

Yeah. It won't be pleasant, but it's a fuel thats going to last a while. I'm also not advocating for it, I'm simply aware of the fact that good intentions and 'hydrogen!' isn't going to make the coal power industry disappear.

Roads suited to carts existed, over time we increased the quality of our roads to better suit them to the increasingly advanced and increasingly large number of cars we put on them. With computers you can replace satellites with fibre optic cable or whatever else you’d like.

Arpanet was deployed the same year that we put a man on the moon. It has never and never will use satellites as its main medium of data transportation. They are ill suited as a medium.

You're being silly, arguing minutiae on specific examples and ignoring the plain, basic and unavoidable truth – we are capable of adapting our infrastructure to suit new systems. We do it all the time. We are capable of building infrastructure to support new technology coming in to the market. We do it all the time.

Not when that new infrastructure has no use before a consumer adoption of a major technology when that consumer adoption is impossible without the infrastructure. The government would have to step in and mandate for distributed hydrogen storage. It's not going to do that for a myriad number of reasons. The invisible hand certainly isn't going to do it.

It's a nonsense argument to claim that you can't have one without the other.

No, it's just realistic.

Except you’re ignoring the loss of energy in getting the energy from the source to the battery, where there is immense loss of power, and it’s a loss that no future tech could ever reduce.

So hydrogen is viable because we upgrade the power grid and create a new industry for it's transport, but electric isn't because of our old grid. Do you not see how bad that argument is? The new grid would benefit both, and once that "new sustainable energy infrastructure" is in place you now have the choice between ~40% energy loss in the creation, transportation, and sotrage of hydrogen vs ~5% energy loss from electric. This argument is fundamentally flawed.

It isn’t fallacious, and you really need to start reading what’s being said. The difference is that power generation for hydrogen doesn’t have to be near the final intended use, for electric it does.

Yes, yes it does. Unless you are advocating for backyard hydrogen plants, in which case the energy is still traveling down the grid to get there.

You can’t put a giant vat of wind turbines in the middle of Arizona, then run power cables all the way the LA – you’ll lose so much power along the way it just isn’t worth bothering with. But you can place a hydrogen plant out there, and yeah you’ll lose much of that energy in conversion (but we can still expect advances that will significantly reduce those losses) but you can then transfer that energy to the point of its intended use without any further loss.

Hydrogen storage requires consistent energy input and it's a system that loses energy via thermal loss rapidly. Thats simply not true.

So what you’re saying is there’s less research than what there was, once the government incentives were removed. Duh.

Glad we cleared that up.

Are you comparing losses from the transport of pressurised gas via pipe or road to the transfer of energy over a grid? Come on.

And you are arguing the supremacy of a process with an inbuilt energy loss against one that is location specific and predicated on the continued existence of massive inefficiencies in the U.S. energy grid. Not all power grids are so dysfunctional while all hydrogen plants are. If you want to argue that efficiency would rise over time, the same argument can be applied to that of electric grids, which as a matter of necessity will grow more efficient over the next century. Beyond even that, if we've moved to a sustainable energy grid does it matter what the efficiency rate is? If it's powerful enough to do both, wouldn't the better option be the one with higher energy densities, more compact storage mediums, and better levels of safety? Right now batteries win out in two out of three areas, as while they lack energy density they are far easier to miniaturize then hydrogen electricity generators in vehicles while not running the rick of exploding massively in the car or at the pump (though they will certainly catch on fire real fast!).

The same claims, and worse, were made about electricity 10 and 15 years ago.

They were also made about hydrogen. Interesting thing to note though, is that batteries have actually improved while hydrogen is about the same as it's been since they started putting it in ships and space shuttles.

More to the point, why have you come into this thread to be so antagonistic? Did a hydrogen car run over your dog, or something?

You’ve taken a really weird, antagonistic tone. I mean, no-one here is claiming we have to stick with petrol and it’ll last us until the end of times or anything, this isn’t ideological. It’s a debate over which tech is best… and yet from your first post you were so aggressive. What’s up?

You aren't used to being on the other side of the argument from me sebster. This is how it generally goes, also I wanted to use the laughing horse picture in something.

If people would change their light bulbs to energy saving, switch off the TV and use less air conditioning, plenty of electricity would be saved without having to build a new national grid or converting to a hydrogen economy.

Local initiatives in the UK have achieved savings of 25% of electricity used without government support, literally by local groups deciding to do the things I mentioned.

Cars don't have to be built of steel. They could be built of lightweight composite materials and would use a lot less fuel.

Also, fusion, superconductors and new technologies for batteries.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Stormrider wrote:Another issue with battery powered cars is: What do you do with the batteries after their lives of maintaining charges are over? You get a new one, where does the old one go? To the dump, to leak heavy metals into the aquifer.

Maybe batteries could be recycled, like in Europe.

A battery can only be recycled so many times before its life dries up. Not to mention the mining needed to find the minerals to mal the batteries.

kronk wrote:Solar power is cute and gets the granola chicks to take off their panties, but you'd have to cover every square inch of the US to generate enough power to get rid of fossil fuels (not that anyone would notice if you covered North Dakota). If we could make these more efficient, that would be swell.

It's a common mistake to look at each alternate energy source, and consider if it could make up the entirety of our future energy needs, then declare each tech found wanting.

Solar power can't supply all our future energy costs. But it's massive advantage - being able to be produced easily at the source, makes it viable for a significant proportion of our energy needs. It then becomes part of a broad range of energy sources.

ShumaGorath wrote:Except for the massive energy loss in hydrogens creation and transportation. Are you really arguing that if we use small scale sustainable power plants and hydrogen production centers there is a benefit that we somehow lose if we use those same small scale power plants and go directly to batteries? Wasn't your big argument the failures of the U.S. grid to push power over lengthy distances? I'm pretty sure it's a fallacious argument to claim a universal benefit only benefits your side of the argument.

Except the current model for the electric car is to recharge the battery from a socket in your house. Are you now arguing for batteries charged and physically carried to points of sale?

Yeah. It won't be pleasant, but it's a fuel thats going to last a while. I'm also not advocating for it, I'm simply aware of the fact that good intentions and 'hydrogen!' isn't going to make the coal power industry disappear.

Except no-one claimed 'hydrogen!' is going to make coal disappear. Huge investment and significant tech improvements will allow us to stop using coal. The reality is many of the new energy techs will have to

Arpanet was deployed the same year that we put a man on the moon. It has never and never will use satellites as its main medium of data transportation. They are ill suited as a medium.

You've just argued the same pointless minutiae, and ignored the basic argument. Stop it, it's childish.

Not when that new infrastructure has no use before a consumer adoption of a major technology when that consumer adoption is impossible without the infrastructure. The government would have to step in and mandate for distributed hydrogen storage. It's not going to do that for a myriad number of reasons. The invisible hand certainly isn't going to do it.

Except that it happens all the fething time. Building new business networks in anticipation of a new market is what the markets do well.

Here in Australia in the 80s there was a push to use LPG as an alternate fuel. Over a couple of years we saw petrol stations put LPG pumps in place of their accord, in anticipation of the future market.

So hydrogen is viable because we upgrade the power grid and create a new industry for it's transport, but electric isn't because of our old grid. Do you not see how bad that argument is? The new grid would benefit both, and once that "new sustainable energy infrastructure" is in place you now have the choice between ~40% energy loss in the creation, transportation, and sotrage of hydrogen vs ~5% energy loss from electric. This argument is fundamentally flawed.

No, not because it's an old grid, but because it is a grid at all. No grid, no matter how new, can simply remove the loss of power when it's moved over long distances. That's basic science.

Yes, yes it does. Unless you are advocating for backyard hydrogen plants, in which case the energy is still traveling down the grid to get there.

Not if you transport that actual hydrogen. As I've mentioned multiple times. Please read.

Hydrogen storage requires consistent energy input and it's a system that loses energy via thermal loss rapidly. Thats simply not true.

That is not what I've been told about the issue. While energy loss is inevitable in any system, the loss from the transport of hydrogen is miniscule in comparison to the transport of energy over an electrical grid.

And you are arguing the supremacy of a process with an inbuilt energy loss against one that is location specific and predicated on the continued existence of massive inefficiencies in the U.S. energy grid. Not all power grids are so dysfunctional while all hydrogen plants are. If you want to argue that efficiency would rise over time, the same argument can be applied to that of electric grids, which as a matter of necessity will grow more efficient over the next century.

While the electrical grid will no doubt improve, there are basic limits on that improvement. Shipping energy over power lines is incredibly wasteful, and new models need to be developed that sidestep that waste.

They were also made about hydrogen. Interesting thing to note though, is that batteries have actually improved while hydrogen is about the same as it's been since they started putting it in ships and space shuttles.

Yes, and it changed very quickly from one to the other. Technologies are constantly impossible or decades away, until the tech breakthroughs amass, and the market changes just a little, then suddenly we're a few years from commercial viability.

You aren't used to being on the other side of the argument from me sebster. This is how it generally goes, also I wanted to use the laughing horse picture in something.

I'm more bemused that you'd be this much of an ass in a tech debate. I mean, politics is politics and it's going to be rough and tumble, but this is just talking about two competing techs. It's very weird.

Except the current model for the electric car is to recharge the battery from a socket in your house. Are you now arguing for batteries charged and physically carried to points of sale?

Are we arguing past eachother here? I thought your initial argument was a small scale local distribution method for hydrogen powered by sustainable energy alternatives. I was positing that that same local small scale energy system could recharge batteries with virtually no loss, skipping the hydrogen creation process entirely.

Except no-one claimed 'hydrogen!' is going to make coal disappear. Huge investment and significant tech improvements will allow us to stop using coal. The reality is many of the new energy techs will have to

And your argument was that:

No, we would need to find a way to power and re-supply all those vehicles with sustainable energy, or at least energy that is no more polluting than current petrol engines. Which requires an infrastructure refit on the same scale as hydrogen. Seriously, once you consider the nuclear, solar and tidal plants that will have to be built to replace the coal plants, having a petrol station change tanker types is no big deal.

I'm simply arguing that what we need to do is not what we will do. You're a worldly fellow, you should know that coal fired powerplants are actually rapidly rising in number globally thanks to emerging economies like china and india. This is all an irrelevant aside anyway.

You've just argued the same pointless minutiae, and ignored the basic argument. Stop it, it's childish.

Forgive me for not accepting two of the worst examples (both being totally illogical) I've heard in quite some time.

Except that it happens all the fething time. Building new business networks in anticipation of a new market is what the markets do well.

Here in Australia in the 80s there was a push to use LPG as an alternate fuel. Over a couple of years we saw petrol stations put LPG pumps in place of their accord, in anticipation of the future market.

Yep, a quick and easy gas pump retrofit in anticipation of a government mandated push is identical to a massive multinational infrastructural change requiring the adoption of alternative energy standards, the creation of thousands of hydrogen refineries, the construction of transportation and safety methods and standards, followed by the total replacement of several hundred thousand gas pumps all before hydrogen vehicles become commercially viable. Yeah, these are real similar.

Not if you transport that actual hydrogen. As I've mentioned multiple times. Please read.

Although molecular hydrogen has very high energy density on a mass basis, partly because of its low molecular weight, as a gas at ambient conditions it has very low energy density by volume. If it is to be used as fuel stored on board the vehicle, pure hydrogen gas must be pressurized or liquefied to provide sufficient driving range. Increasing gas pressure improves the energy density by volume, making for smaller, but not lighter container tanks (see pressure vessel). Achieving higher pressures necessitates greater use of external energy to power the compression. Alternatively, higher volumetric energy density liquid hydrogen or slush hydrogen may be used. However, liquid hydrogen is cryogenic and boils at 20.268 K (–252.882 °C or –423.188 °F). Cryogenic storage cuts weight but requires large liquification energies. The liquefaction process, involving pressurizing and cooling steps, is energy intensive. The liquefied hydrogen has lower energy density by volume than gasoline by approximately a factor of four, because of the low density of liquid hydrogen — there is actually more hydrogen in a liter of gasoline (116 grams) than there is in a liter of pure liquid hydrogen (71 grams). Liquid hydrogen storage tanks must also be well insulated to minimize boil off. Ice may form around the tank and help corrode it further if the liquid hydrogen tank insulation fails.
The mass of the tanks needed for compressed hydrogen reduces the fuel economy of the vehicle. Because it is a small molecule, hydrogen tends to diffuse through any liner material intended to contain it, leading to the embrittlement, or weakening, of its container.
Distinct from storing molecular hydrogen, hydrogen can be stored as a chemical hydride or in some other hydrogen-containing compound. Hydrogen gas is reacted with some other materials to produce the hydrogen storage material, which can be transported relatively easily. At the point of use the hydrogen storage material can be made to decompose, yielding hydrogen gas. As well as the mass and volume density problems associated with molecular hydrogen storage, current barriers to practical storage schemes stem from the high pressure and temperature conditions needed for hydride formation and hydrogen release. For many potential systems hydriding and dehydriding kinetics and heat management are also issues that need to be overcome.

That is not what I've been told about the issue. While energy loss is inevitable in any system, the loss from the transport of hydrogen is miniscule in comparison to the transport of energy over an electrical grid.

You should read a bit more into the issue then, and again, I accept the loss to electric via the energy grid, but that loss does not exceed the direct energy loss incurred in mass hydrogen manufacture due to the lossy nature of the process. Bare in mind that once you've reaved that 90% level of loss (an extreme rarity) due to the energy grid, it's not like you're getting that power back by not plugging in. It's lost due to impedance in travel, and it's going to disappear regardless. Most energy grids don't have storage mediums for the power they generate so what goes out, typically just circles the wires until it's gone anyway.

While the electrical grid will no doubt improve, there are basic limits on that improvement. Shipping energy over power lines is incredibly wasteful, and new models need to be developed that sidestep that waste.

I don't think switching to an incredibly wasteful energy storage medium like hydrogen, which comes inbuilt with many other dangers (ignoring the infrasructural issues) is the answer.

Yes, and it changed very quickly from one to the other. Technologies are constantly impossible or decades away, until the tech breakthroughs amass, and the market changes just a little, then suddenly we're a few years from commercial viability.

Which makes it strange that you would hold so dearly onto one tech that is currently less efficient and more harmful to the environment then straight gasoline as it's replacement.

I'm more bemused that you'd be this much of an ass in a tech debate.

Then don't tell me that cars predated roads and that the internet needed satellites to prove some hackneyed chicken and egg theory concerning unprecedented rapid infrastructural change being the easy purview of the markets. Don't tell me I'm being childish. Most importantly though, don't keep restating the same argument repeatedly while ignoring my own then calling me out for ignoring your points. I've argued as I always have, I don't change my methods much. You've been much less respectful then your normal posting habits.

I mean, politics is politics and it's going to be rough and tumble, but this is just talking about two competing techs. It's very weird.

I don't see the difference, really. Infrastructural technologies are as much a political football as freedom of speech issues or tax laws. In the end the debate over energy and automotive techs impacts my life significantly more then the debate on wether or not Julian Assange gets thrown in a well or given a ribbon.

kronk wrote:Solar power is cute and gets the granola chicks to take off their panties, but you'd have to cover every square inch of the US to generate enough power to get rid of fossil fuels (not that anyone would notice if you covered North Dakota). If we could make these more efficient, that would be swell.

Actually, the total surface area would be about the size of California according to some random study I read. We also have a very big desert in the southwest that gets quite a bit of sunlight.

I mean yeah....you'd have to build massive infrastructure, but I'd rather see things go this way than YAY HYDROGEN DERP DERP.


Oh god, Shuma and Sebester are writing each other novellas.

Peter Wiggin wrote:

kronk wrote:Solar power is cute and gets the granola chicks to take off their panties, but you'd have to cover every square inch of the US to generate enough power to get rid of fossil fuels (not that anyone would notice if you covered North Dakota). If we could make these more efficient, that would be swell.

Actually, the total surface area would be about the size of California according to some random study I read. We also have a very big desert in the southwest that gets quite a bit of sunlight.

I mean yeah....you'd have to build massive infrastructure, but I'd rather see things go this way than YAY HYDROGEN DERP DERP.


Oh god, Shuma and Sebester are writing each other novellas.

Problem, when you have to transport electricity from the panels, it needs to be converted from DC to AC electric, which results in a pretty significant loss in energy.

Stormrider wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:

kronk wrote:Solar power is cute and gets the granola chicks to take off their panties, but you'd have to cover every square inch of the US to generate enough power to get rid of fossil fuels (not that anyone would notice if you covered North Dakota). If we could make these more efficient, that would be swell.

Actually, the total surface area would be about the size of California according to some random study I read. We also have a very big desert in the southwest that gets quite a bit of sunlight.

I mean yeah....you'd have to build massive infrastructure, but I'd rather see things go this way than YAY HYDROGEN DERP DERP.


Oh god, Shuma and Sebester are writing each other novellas.

Problem, when you have to transport electricity from the panels, it needs to be converted from DC to AC electric, which results in a pretty significant loss in energy.

That loss is pretty much consistent with any process though.

Peter Wiggin wrote:

kronk wrote:Solar power is cute and gets the granola chicks to take off their panties, but you'd have to cover every square inch of the US to generate enough power to get rid of fossil fuels (not that anyone would notice if you covered North Dakota). If we could make these more efficient, that would be swell.

Actually, the total surface area would be about the size of California according to some random study I read. We also have a very big desert in the southwest that gets quite a bit of sunlight.

I mean yeah....you'd have to build massive infrastructure, but I'd rather see things go this way than YAY HYDROGEN DERP DERP.


Oh god, Shuma and Sebester are writing each other novellas.

Well if you could seal off New Mexico and fill it up I'd be ok with that.

Stormrider wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Stormrider wrote:Another issue with battery powered cars is: What do you do with the batteries after their lives of maintaining charges are over? You get a new one, where does the old one go? To the dump, to leak heavy metals into the aquifer.

Maybe batteries could be recycled, like in Europe.

A battery can only be recycled so many times before its life dries up. Not to mention the mining needed to find the minerals to mal the batteries.

I mean they can be broken up into their constituent parts, and the materials used to make something else. Lots of countries do this for all sorts of items.

@sebster: I'm not saying we shouldn't have solar power or wind power at all, though. Don't get me wrong. Every little bit helps.

It's just that neither are the messiah that shall deliver us from oil dependence that some people claim. (Not saying that you are claiming that.)

Kilkrazy wrote:

Stormrider wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Stormrider wrote:Another issue with battery powered cars is: What do you do with the batteries after their lives of maintaining charges are over? You get a new one, where does the old one go? To the dump, to leak heavy metals into the aquifer.

Maybe batteries could be recycled, like in Europe.

A battery can only be recycled so many times before its life dries up. Not to mention the mining needed to find the minerals to mal the batteries.

I mean they can be broken up into their constituent parts, and the materials used to make something else. Lots of countries do this for all sorts of items.

Ah, right-o then.