Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The hydrogen issue is the best alternative if you think about it but it depends on if we're talking about fuel cell (far future due to heat issues and others) or internal cumbustion (a variant of engines already using petroleum engines but converted to use hydrogen).

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

BMW already has a production car with about 100 units being tested right now.
http://www.bmw.com/com/en/insights/technology/efficient_dynamics/phase_2/clean_energy/bmw_hydrogen_7.html

Here's a fed site with some interesting pros and cons; keep in mind this is based on fuel cell and not hydrogen gas cars.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/hydrogen.shtml

It all just boils down to cost though; fossil engined cars are just so much cheaper to produce now than alternatives. Infrastructure isn't a huge issue because hydrogen could be pumped at any place that already offers CNG; not a ton of these places but, at least in my area, not hard to find.

agnosto wrote: fuel cell (far future due to heat issues and others)

Solid oxide fuel cell technology looks promising as it operates at a high temp.

agnosto wrote:It all just boils down to cost though; fossil engined cars are just so much cheaper to produce now than alternatives. Infrastructure isn't a huge issue because hydrogen could be pumped at any place that already offers CNG; not a ton of these places but, at least in my area, not hard to find.

You also need places that produce hydrogen as well as fuel stations.

Vandil wrote:

agnosto wrote: fuel cell (far future due to heat issues and others)

Solid oxide fuel cell technology looks promising as it operates at a high temp.

I can't remember how hot these things run but I read something about them being too hot to put in a car because it'd melt the plastic. Maybe a Delorean though

Soup and a roll wrote:

biccat wrote:In the second, the voiceover says the motor only consumes 20% of it's output. This is impossible.

I find your lack of faith disturbing. You will not be welcome in our Aussie-powered utopia.

I for one welcome our new Aussie powered utopia overlords.

agnosto wrote:

Vandil wrote:

agnosto wrote: fuel cell (far future due to heat issues and others)

Solid oxide fuel cell technology looks promising as it operates at a high temp.

I can't remember how hot these things run but I read something about them being too hot to put in a car because it'd melt the plastic. Maybe a Delorean though

They run incredibly hot up to 1000°C but they are small. Right now they just don't last long enough to meet the DOE target for transportation systems.

SilverMK2 wrote:

agnosto wrote:It all just boils down to cost though; fossil engined cars are just so much cheaper to produce now than alternatives. Infrastructure isn't a huge issue because hydrogen could be pumped at any place that already offers CNG; not a ton of these places but, at least in my area, not hard to find.

You also need places that produce hydrogen as well as fuel stations.

Its possible to generate hydrogen in mass quantities more efficiently and economically sound than with the current fossil fuel system, overall, when you consider the cost in human lives and money spent in wars to secure oil sources and wild fluctuations in the price and market due to regional instability, piracy and other factors.

Cities could even use waste to produce it:
"Hydrogen can also be made from urine. Using urine, hydrogen production is 332% more energy efficient than using water.[12][13] The research was conducted by Geraldine Botte from the Ohio University. Recently, Dr. Shanwen Tao of the Heriot-Watt University has invented a Carbamide Power System Fuel Cell that can immediately convert urine into electricity.[14]"

Need power for your car? Pee in the tank.

The problem is initial outlay to develop the means of production that doesn't exist whereas the standing oil-based production is already in use. People don't want to spend money to try something new when they can just spend X dollars to keep using the old, comfortable system; this is why we have cars using technology that is basically over 100 years old (which is the internal combustion engine).




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vandil wrote:
They run incredibly hot up to 1000°C but they are small. Right now they just don't last long enough to meet the DOE target for transportation systems.

Cook your dinner and drive at the same time! With the optional incinerator attachment, you can burn household waste or the occasional dead animal.

Hydrogen is not the answer. The methods of production for it won't support anything like coversion of the US auto fleet to using it. At best the hydrogen economy is just a lot of misdirected enthusiasm and rose colored thinking. At worst its and intentional distraction to make it look like something is being accomplished while doing nothing substantial.

It's a byproduct from hydrocarbon production but if you want to move to a true hydrogen economy one of the biggest uses of hydrocarbons, fuel, goes away. The waste stream hydrogen from what's left won't be sufficient. Alternately you can get it from natural gas, except that natural gas is already a premium fuel used in home heating and power generation. Again, there's simply not enough natural gas to both fuel our vehicles and our power plants and homes. What hydrogen you could get from that stream would be very expensive and exposed to weekly price swings depending upon power plant load.

Alternately you can electrolysis but now you need a lot of power generation to support it on the scale you need.

So the two major sources of hydrogen (natural gas and electrolysis) both require major expansions of the power industry. For natural gas production of hydrogen you either have to land coal fired or nuclear generation. Since I doubt anyone will go for coal if we're greening things up that leaves nukes. Same issue with electrolysis for hydrogen production. You'll wind up having to radically expand the power generation capacity of the country with nukes.

So now you have to ask, why are we wasting all the time and effort to build all these nukes just to eat the inefficiencies and environmental impact of getting our hands on large quantities of hydrogen. Instead just build electric cars and be done with it. Hell, with electric cars the impact on the grid isn't even as bad as the hydrogen economy because you can mandate off-peak recharging of cars and make use of installed capacity that would otherwise be ramped down to lower loads at night reducing the number of new plants you need to build. Now there are still issues with long distance power transmission and the fractious nature of the existing grid but in any scenario that's not "just keep doing what we're doing," those are issues that have to be dealt with.

Because hydrogen as a fuel source is significantly better in terms of actually being able to get somewhere? Also in terms of resources commited, since it uses pre-existing technology and does not require a massive increase in such areas such as battery manufacturing that electric vehicles would require?

Batteries only have a very short lifespan before they drop below a certain efficiency, meaning you would need to constantly replace them. And the materials that make them are not cheap or pleasant or eco-friendly.

Hopefully if they ever get fusion power working we will have all the electricity we need to run hydrogen production plants.

We can also use algae (that handy little thing) to produce hydrogen with very little energy input required.

Ah, bacteria, is there nothing you cannot do if given the proper genetic tampering?

The answer is no.

Melissia wrote:Ah, bacteria, is there nothing you cannot do if given the proper genetic tampering?

The answer is no.

Very true. I've genetically altered bacteria before. It is not as exciting as in the movies though. Was kind of hoping it would take over the lab and I would have to fend it off with a lab stool, but it just sat there, growing in a petri dish.

Tyyr wrote:
So now you have to ask, why are we wasting all the time and effort to build all these nukes just to eat the inefficiencies and environmental impact of getting our hands on large quantities of hydrogen. Instead just build electric cars and be done with it. Hell, with electric cars the impact on the grid isn't even as bad as the hydrogen economy because you can mandate off-peak recharging of cars and make use of installed capacity that would otherwise be ramped down to lower loads at night reducing the number of new plants you need to build. Now there are still issues with long distance power transmission and the fractious nature of the existing grid but in any scenario that's not "just keep doing what we're doing," those are issues that have to be dealt with.

Because an internal combustion hydrogen engine wouldn't require new plants or retooling as the difference in engine design is miniscule, comparatively. A fuel cell engine would be able to utilize the same plant as those that make electric cars.

Why electric is a bad idea.
I don't know about other countries but the electric infrastructure in the US can't take much more load, on or off peak; evidenced by rolling black-outs on both coasts in recent years.

If you want electric, convince the government that nuclear energy is a good idea and then also convince them to invest a great deal more money in the infrastructure.

Maybe if the electricity was solar powered, they would be good for the environment, but if we get it from coal and oil, then electric vehicles/hybrids just don't work.

Mike Noble wrote:Maybe if the electricity was solar powered, they would be good for the environment, but if we get it from coal and oil, then electric vehicles/hybrids just don't work.

Solar panels are actually quite bad for the environment in terms of their production and so on. Solar furnaces are far better. Kind of like reverse geothermal power

^ Well if it comes from the sun, I call it solar really.

There's simply no use for the current generation of electric cars.

If you live in a rural or suburban areas, you're going to need a lot more range than these cars can provide.

If you live in an urban area, you've got public transit available for your short trips already. And, you are going to have issues charging your car when the nearest parking spot you found is a block away.



I don't understand why people aren't more accepting of solar powered cars. My car is solar powered and I love it! You just need to have a high enough storage density, and you'll be fine.
I use the following process:
Take some light from the sun and mix it with Carbon Dioxide and Water using Chlorophyll to turn it into carbohydrates.
Take the product and bury it underground.
Come back a few million years later, dig it up, and refine it.
You can now burn this substance in a conventional Internal Combustion Engine to provide 100% solar powered transport!

Grakmar wrote:There's simply no use for the current generation of electric cars.

If you live in a rural or suburban areas, you're going to need a lot more range than these cars can provide.

If you live in an urban area, you've got public transit available for your short trips already. And, you are going to have issues charging your car when the nearest parking spot you found is a block away.



I don't understand why people aren't more accepting of solar powered cars. My car is solar powered and I love it! You just need to have a high enough storage density, and you'll be fine.
I use the following process:
Take some light from the sun and mix it with Carbon Dioxide and Water using Chlorophyll to turn it into carbohydrates.
Take the product and bury it underground.
Come back a few million years later, dig it up, and refine it.
You can now burn this substance in a conventional Internal Combustion Engine to provide 100% solar powered transport!

Assuming your city actually HAS public transportation.

Texas, being a republican state, has a tendency to cut funding for public transit faster than they reach for education funds to fund whatever pet projects they have.

I like the idea of electric cars .. but just the idea. Gonna be a long long time before they're at the point where they can be really useful.

SilverMK2 wrote:Because hydrogen as a fuel source is significantly better in terms of actually being able to get somewhere?

And it's still inferior to straight up gasoline. You're going to take a hit no matter what you do.

Also in terms of resources commited, since it uses pre-existing technology and does not require a massive increase in such areas such as battery manufacturing that electric vehicles would require?

Pre-existing technology? You can't just pump hydrogen gas into an internal combustion engine and expect it to work. You're going to have to redesign cars every bit as much as with electric. You're also going to have to install a completely new fuel distribution infrastructure.

And if you're going to start using hydrogen on the proposed scale you're going to be building a massive amount of new infrastructure regardless.

Batteries only have a very short lifespan before they drop below a certain efficiency, meaning you would need to constantly replace them. And the materials that make them are not cheap or pleasant or eco-friendly.

Batteries can be recycled. It's not a perfect pancea but they can. And as for the expense, what's a new fuel cell run you? Hydrogen tank? The cost for a hydrogen powered car is going to be well elevated from a gasoline or diesel powered one as well. Burning hydrocarbons are delightlyfully powerful, cheap, and entrenched. Going in any direction is going to entail expense.

Hopefully if they ever get fusion power working we will have all the electricity we need to run hydrogen production plants.

Yeah... ok that's fantastic but when you're planning out environmental policy for right now, you can't really bet on a technology that may or may not be commercially viable at some indeterminate time in the future. Although the EPA does love to try and do that.

We can also use algae (that handy little thing) to produce hydrogen with very little energy input required.

If they can then wonderful, but again, you have to start working and moving towards the goal at some point. You can't do any real work if you're going to base the whole thing off a pie in the sky technology that hasn't been proven viable yet. Algae is all the rage right now but I can't recall seeing anything ready for commercial prime time.

agnosto wrote:Because an internal combustion hydrogen engine wouldn't require new plants or retooling as the difference in engine design is miniscule, comparatively. A fuel cell engine would be able to utilize the same plant as those that make electric cars.

Just like you can use most of those plants to build electric cars. And sorry, but a hydrogen powered car is going to need all new plants and tooling since you're not going to keep building the same thing you always have. Besides, the cost of the automobile plants is nothing comparitively.

Why electric is a bad idea.
I don't know about other countries but the electric infrastructure in the US can't take much more load, on or off peak; evidenced by rolling black-outs on both coasts in recent years.

Rolling blackouts? Where? There have been some actual blackouts but those were not load related blackouts but issues with the way the grid was actually managed. The infrastructure can handle electric vehicles provided they charge during off peak hours when the grid is running at a low point anyways. Provided that the grid can handle it. The peak day load is dramatically higher than that experienced at night.

I'm not suggesting that the grid doesn't need dramatic sweeping improvements but that has to happen no matter what you do going forward unless you want to just keep doing the same thing.

If you want electric, convince the government that nuclear energy is a good idea and then also convince them to invest a great deal more money in the infrastructure.

If you want reliable clean power you need to be convincing the governement to support nuclear because that's about the only way you're going to get it. Hydrogen isn't plug and play, you can't just utilize the existing infrastructure and change out your 4 banger for a fuel cell. If you could we'd have all been driving hydrogen fuel cell powered cars for a decade now. The infrastructure issues for hydrogen are HUGE and pretending they are minimal is just flat wrong. If it were that simple we'd already be in hydrogen powered cars.

Tyyr wrote:And it's still inferior to straight up gasoline. You're going to take a hit no matter what you do.

I am given to understand that a hydrogen powered car has a comperable range to a petrol car, certainly the newer ones.

Pre-existing technology? You can't just pump hydrogen gas into an internal combustion engine and expect it to work. You're going to have to redesign cars every bit as much as with electric. You're also going to have to install a completely new fuel distribution infrastructure.

And if you're going to start using hydrogen on the proposed scale you're going to be building a massive amount of new infrastructure regardless.

Pre-existing technology in terms of electric motors, fuel tanks, etc. In order to get an electric car which has the same refueling time, the same range, etc as a hydrogen powered or petrol powered car, you would need a significant advance in technology.

Batteries can be recycled. It's not a perfect pancea but they can. And as for the expense, what's a new fuel cell run you? Hydrogen tank? The cost for a hydrogen powered car is going to be well elevated from a gasoline or diesel powered one as well. Burning hydrocarbons are delightlyfully powerful, cheap, and entrenched. Going in any direction is going to entail expense.

Sure, in the immediate term they will be far more expensive. But then again, what did your PC cost you back in the day? How much is your original PS3 retailing for now?

Every new technology has a stupid price dag when it comes out. As it becomes more common, or the technology/manufacturing/etc improves the price comes down.

Yeah... ok that's fantastic but when you're planning out environmental policy for right now, you can't really bet on a technology that may or may not be commercially viable at some indeterminate time in the future. Although the EPA does love to try and do that.

Seriously, you are wanting to take speculative thinking and try to say I am basing some kind of concrete planning on them? Read my other posts - I've mentioned that infrastructure needs to be built, methods of hydrogen production need to be found, etc.

If they can then wonderful, but again, you have to start working and moving towards the goal at some point. You can't do any real work if you're going to base the whole thing off a pie in the sky technology that hasn't been proven viable yet. Algae is all the rage right now but I can't recall seeing anything ready for commercial prime time.

*points to line above about reading my other posts and seeming to think that speculation = concrete plan for the future*

Building national infrastructure for hydrogen is estimated to cost less than a billion dollars, that actually is pretty trivial on the scale American government and business tend to spend money.

Hydrogen production could be handled with coal to hydrogen in the US for a couple centuries (we have a lot more coal than oil).

The principle issue holding hydrogen cars back is one of fuel storage. You can't hold much hydrogen in a pressure tank, and it tends to leak, even with a high quality tank. Nobody wants a car that only gets ~40 miles per fuel up and goes dry if you don't drive for a couple weeks. And nobody can afford a car that has the systems necessary for liquid hydrogen storage.

Call me part of the "problem" if you like,but...until I find an "electric eco-friendly" car like this..I'll pass.

SilverMK2 wrote:I am given to understand that a hydrogen powered car has a comperable range to a petrol car, certainly the newer ones.

Pre-existing technology in terms of electric motors, fuel tanks, etc. In order to get an electric car which has the same refueling time, the same range, etc as a hydrogen powered or petrol powered car, you would need a significant advance in technology.

If range is your only consideration then yeah, existing electric vehicles don't have the range you need for really long trips. I can't argue with that but we have electric cars with ranges that aren't that far off an economical gasoline powered car. However Tesla motors already produces automobiles with ranges over 100 miles, some with 200+ mile ranges. The Leaf can go a bit over a 100 on a charge. So they aren't quite there yet for sure, but they aren't an order of magnitude off. Your average gasoline car can go between 300 and 400 miles on a full tank. With electric cars with ranges of 200+ miles in production it's not really that far off right now.

I need to look into hot charging, if its possible to charge these kind of batteries quickly. If it is then you may see charging stations pop up along highways the way gas stations do right now. Or see places like McDonalds add charging stations so you can charge while you eat.

Even the Volt with its dinky 40 mile range is more than enough for a lot of people's daily commutes. It'd do the job for me.

Sure, in the immediate term they will be far more expensive. But then again, what did your PC cost you back in the day? How much is your original PS3 retailing for now?

Every new technology has a stupid price dag when it comes out. As it becomes more common, or the technology/manufacturing/etc improves the price comes down.

I don't disagree with you. I just disagree with the idea that hydrogen powered vehicles are going to cost the same as existing gasoline powered vehicles but electric cars will never be cheaper than they are right now. Both technologies are going to start off expensive as all hell but get cheaper with time. Both of them.

Seriously, you are wanting to take speculative thinking and try to say I am basing some kind of concrete planning on them? Read my other posts - I've mentioned that infrastructure needs to be built, methods of hydrogen production need to be found, etc.

Ok fine. It's another strike against the hydrogen ecnomoy idea. Electric cars are something you can put on the road now, with the existing infrastructure. The hydrogen economy requires far more infrastructure and technological development and I'm not at all convinced there's any benefit that it has over simply going all electic. To me the hydrogen economy just adds in a middleman that's not needed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Requia wrote:Building national infrastructure for hydrogen is estimated to cost less than a billion dollars, that actually is pretty trivial on the scale American government and business tend to spend money.

Who are you getting your numbers from and how much weed do they smoke on a daily basis?

It's the slow speed of charging rather than the range. If you could charge an electric car as fast as you put petrol into a normal one, it would not be a problem. The problem is that faster charging needs a higher voltage, special power supply. Even then, conventional batteries can't be charged in just a few minutes.

I'm not really expecting to recharge the car in the same amount of time I can put gas in my current one. However if you can charge them in between half an hour and an hour it become feasible to put charging stations outside things like malls or restaurants.

Requia wrote:Building national infrastructure for hydrogen is estimated to cost less than a billion dollars, that actually is pretty trivial on the scale American government and business tend to spend money.

Where did you read that?

Also, are we talking about a business gradually developing the infrastructure, or the government building it as a matter of civil infrastructure? If its the latter, there are going to massive political hurdles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyyr wrote:I'm not really expecting to recharge the car in the same amount of time I can put gas in my current one. However if you can charge them in between half an hour and an hour it become feasible to put charging stations outside things like malls or restaurants.

That's an option even if a full charge can't be maintained.

I've also heard ideas regarding making a certain portion of the batteries in any given car modular so they can be swapped out at certain locations.

Electric Cars are Stoooopid and barely more environmentally friendly than an economical European diesel car ~70Mpg. BTW for any americans 'Diesel' is the stuff they put in trains and Big Rigs, in Europe we have cars that run on it.....

dogma wrote:

Requia wrote:Building national infrastructure for hydrogen is estimated to cost less than a billion dollars, that actually is pretty trivial on the scale American government and business tend to spend money.

Where did you read that?

Also, are we talking about a business gradually developing the infrastructure, or the government building it as a matter of civil infrastructure? If its the latter, there are going to massive political hurdles.

Scientific American (I believe the number was 700 something million, dunno where I put my back issues). I think i might be talking about things a bit differently than the rest of the thread though. This is for sufficient infrastructure to make it practical to buy a fuel cell car for 90% of Americans (I think the target was a refueling station within 3 and half miles in cities, and one every 70 miles on major highways), but would only support a small number of Americans actually doing so. The idea is that as fuel cell car sales slowly rise, more and more infrastructure would be built because it's profitable to do so at the same level of investment as building a new gas station or new refineries (rather than dropping money on a national scale).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for political hurdles, there are never really any significant ones to giving money to big business. Just pay the existing gasoline distributors to do it (It's how we got broadband internet).

Requia wrote:
Scientific American (I believe the number was 700 something million, dunno where I put my back issues). I think i might be talking about things a bit differently than the rest of the thread though. This is for sufficient infrastructure to make it practical to buy a fuel cell car for 90% of Americans (I think the target was a refueling station within 3 and half miles in cities, and one every 70 miles on major highways), but would only support a small number of Americans actually doing so. The idea is that as fuel cell car sales slowly rise, more and more infrastructure would be built because it's profitable to do so at the same level of investment as building a new gas station or new refineries (rather than dropping money on a national scale).

Ah, ok, that makes more sense.

Requia wrote:
As for political hurdles, there are never really any significant ones to giving money to big business. Just pay the existing gasoline distributors to do it (It's how we got broadband internet).

There has been a lot of opposition to any financed move away from petroleum, or towards "green" technology; even when its been directed at big businesses.