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.

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.