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.

 Just Tony wrote:
Yeah, boiling/condensing method would be ideal, and it wouldn't take much effort to refine the left over salt for use in those northern states that get frozen constantly. A few years ago Indiana had a salt shortage with ice storms a plenty. Cali could have had our money wholesale at that time.

Would be very useful though i just saw a scishow thing about salting roads and how its potentially not very good for the environment in the first place. especially after its washed away into all sorts of places.

also i figure since we have soo much sunlight couldn't we boil salt water in massive solar mirror towers, use the steam to generate energy then condense the steam into drinking water? im no engineer but that seems like a win win win. electricity salt and water.

I'm sure there's a way to incorporate all three into a system like that, but I'm suddenly reminded of a line from Commander Montgomery Scott: "The more complicated the plumbing, the easier it is to block up the pipes."


It'd have to be simplified on all fronts to prevent any... colorful malfunctions, keep it easy to repair.

The thing to remember about hydrogen is that, much like gasoline, it only burns at the proper stoiciometric ratios. (I hope I spelled that right...)

You can start all the sparks you like inside a tank full of hydrogen and it won't burn, much less explode. Why not? There's not enough oxygen to support combustion. Likewise, a small amount of hydrogen loose in the air won't sustain a fire, because there's not enough fuel.

Now that's not to say hydrogen can't burn or explode. Obviously it can and does... but only when the conditions are correct.

Saying hydrogen is too hard to deal with strikes me as a little incongruous with history. In the 30's airships used hydrogen quite regularly. Yes yes I know some of them exploded but the fact remains that 1930's technology could produce, store, transport and harness enough hydrogen to make massive airships work.

Our science and technology have advanced a tad since the 1930's, I must imagine the technology to produce and handle hydrogen must be at least a bit better now.

If we were to use hydrogen would there be accidents? Yes. Would there be injuries and even death occasionally? Yes.

Would it be on par with the accidents, injuries and deaths due to gasoline we have long had and accepted? I can't say.

On a related note, I can't say I can imagine some angry punk filling a bottle with hydrogen, sticking a rag in it, lighting it and starting a possibly devastating fire with it.

Hydrogen cars are not airships though. Cars are not driven by people who spend YEARS learning before they drive; nor are supported by a team of additional staff and a central control tower. Furthermore there are WAY more cars than there ever were airships.

So its not just a case that most drivers are not held to the same training standard; but that the roadways are far more choked with traffic. Heck many people will also drive in very bad weather even if they are not skillful drivers (because they gotta get to work/school/shops/etc...); whilst aircraft will remain grounded if the weather is too poor.

 Vulcan wrote:
The thing to remember about hydrogen is that, much like gasoline, it only burns at the proper stoiciometric ratios. (I hope I spelled that right...)

You can start all the sparks you like inside a tank full of hydrogen and it won't burn, much less explode. Why not? There's not enough oxygen to support combustion. Likewise, a small amount of hydrogen loose in the air won't sustain a fire, because there's not enough fuel.

Now that's not to say hydrogen can't burn or explode. Obviously it can and does... but only when the conditions are correct.

The thing is that if a hydrogen tank ruptures violently you are almost guaranteed to get an explosion because you'll achieve a proper ratio upon contact with the atmosphere and you will have plenty of ignition sources. And because hydrogen tanks are highly pressurized any rupture will rapidly loose the contents into the immediate vicinity.

Stoichiometric ratios are important yes. The issue is that what happens when a hydrogen fuel tank is ruptured in a car crash is pretty dang close to optimal. Its not like gasoline where an explosion after a crash, even a violent one, is unlikely. Sure, you will probably get ignition but it will not result in an explosion. Unlike hydrogen where ignition of any kind will almost certainly result in an explosion because it is so flammable that the ignition occurs fast enough to compress itself, on top of being carried in a tank that is itself highly pressurized. Gasoline on the other hand is kept uncompressed and burns far less vigorously. Its also in liquid form which is less flammable than its gaseous form. Hydrogen is stored in its most flammable state.

Its really a question of trade offs. A gasoline car will burn for some time but be slower to ignite and spread. A hydrogen car will explode almost immediately and much more violently but after that it'll be done.

This is why stunt explosions for movies are not representative of what happens when a car catches fire. Those are achieved with smaller explosives that turn large amounts of gasoline into an aerosol which then catches fire and creates an impressive fireball, and gasoline is used strictly because it burns slowly and gives more visual. Real explosives turn most of their fuel into a shockwave and not much in the way of any amount of fire, and are much deadlier for it.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
The thing to remember about hydrogen is that, much like gasoline, it only burns at the proper stoiciometric ratios. (I hope I spelled that right...)

You can start all the sparks you like inside a tank full of hydrogen and it won't burn, much less explode. Why not? There's not enough oxygen to support combustion. Likewise, a small amount of hydrogen loose in the air won't sustain a fire, because there's not enough fuel.

Now that's not to say hydrogen can't burn or explode. Obviously it can and does... but only when the conditions are correct.

The thing is that if a hydrogen tank ruptures violently you are almost guaranteed to get an explosion because you'll achieve a proper ratio upon contact with the atmosphere and you will have plenty of ignition sources. And because hydrogen tanks are highly pressurized any rupture will rapidly loose the contents into the immediate vicinity.

Stoichiometric ratios are important yes. The issue is that what happens when a hydrogen fuel tank is ruptured in a car crash is pretty dang close to optimal. Its not like gasoline where an explosion after a crash, even a violent one, is unlikely. Sure, you will probably get ignition but it will not result in an explosion. Unlike hydrogen where ignition of any kind will almost certainly result in an explosion because it is so flammable that the ignition occurs fast enough to compress itself, on top of being carried in a tank that is itself highly pressurized. Gasoline on the other hand is kept uncompressed and burns far less vigorously. Its also in liquid form which is less flammable than its gaseous form. Hydrogen is stored in its most flammable state.

Its really a question of trade offs. A gasoline car will burn for some time but be slower to ignite and spread. A hydrogen car will explode almost immediately and much more violently but after that it'll be done.

That is true.

If only there were some way for researchers to simulate such catastrophic failures and determine ways to prevent them. Some sort of... I don't know, crash test program for such research so we could find out just how dangerous hydrogen cars might - or might not - be.

I think the earlier point about how H2 is vastly harder to distribute than gasoline or electricity will be the nail in that coffin, not the danger of H2 exploding.

Well I am in Farming. Can Hydrogen power large tractors and pull massive plows thur hard soils. The problem with so many 'electric' cars and such is they forget that Trucks, massive excavators, tractors,& combines and even ware house vehicles need massive amounts of force. You will not get that with our current battery tech. Well perhaps if you want to multiply your food costs by 10's or more in costs.

Recently I traveled thru New England and saw all the old farmland filled with government subsidized solar panels.

Would those be there without taxpayer assistance?
What will we do when all the good land for food is taken up by renewables?

Overpopulation is driving the worlds energy needs. The West is stagnate or shrinking. The explosion of the next generations are coming from Asia, the middle east , Africa and latin America. THIS IS THE WORLDS TRUE elephant in the room.

Finding enough food and energy will be moot soon enough.

"overpopulation" is a loaded word. It isn't really true in the strictest sense. There is more than enough food production, and potential for more production, in the world to feed everybody. The problem is it isn't distributed where populations are exploding.

Overpopulation only exists in specific areas. Western civilization has far more food and resources than we need, so our populations are sustainable. Largely because most of the world's arable land is in North America, Europe, and the northern parts of Asia. Africa, South America, and southern Asia are places with exploding populations who do not have enough arable land to support them. The reason for the exploding populations is thanks to benefits of modern medicine reducing infant mortality, but these regions are still poor and economies revolving around unskilled labor which encourages larger families.

Western civilization did go through a phase like this too though. The Industrial Revolution saw a population explosion where, for a brief time, there was both high birth rates and low infant mortality which led to crowding and temporary resource shortages. A few wars and pandemics righted the overpopulation of that era, and unfortunately that is probably what will happen again before we see a shift.

 Grey Templar wrote:
"overpopulation" is a loaded word. It isn't really true in the strictest sense. There is more than enough food production, and potential for more production, in the world to feed everybody. The problem is it isn't distributed where populations are exploding.

Overpopulation only exists in specific areas. Western civilization has far more food and resources than we need, so our populations are sustainable. Largely because most of the world's arable land is in North America, Europe, and the northern parts of Asia. Africa, South America, and southern Asia are places with exploding populations who do not have enough arable land to support them. The reason for the exploding populations is thanks to benefits of modern medicine reducing infant mortality, but these regions are still poor and economies revolving around unskilled labor which encourages larger families.

Western civilization did go through a phase like this too though. The Industrial Revolution saw a population explosion where, for a brief time, there was both high birth rates and low infant mortality which led to crowding and temporary resource shortages. A few wars and pandemics righted the overpopulation of that era, and unfortunately that is probably what will happen again before we see a shift.

IIRC You could put the entire worlds population into the grand canyon easily.

also iirc population booms die down soon as a society becomes modernized as they are not popping out like 10 bebes because 2/3rds of them are going to die from a splinter.

 Desubot wrote:


also iirc population booms die down soon as a society becomes modernized as they are not popping out bebes because 2/3rds of them are going to die from a splinter.

See that is a theory that I do not know if I ascribe to. THAT has happened with Western Culture and western values and western religions. To ASSUME that other cultures with other values and other religions will behave the same is asking for disappointment.

The worlds population has doubled almost every hundred years of late. With that last doubling taking only 70 or so years. Those proposing the theories you noted assume that the world will only have 11 billion by 2050. Ive seen the seminars and the theories. I think it works on paper but not in real life....like communism.

 Grey Templar wrote:

The thing is that if a hydrogen tank ruptures violently you are almost guaranteed to get an explosion because you'll achieve a proper ratio upon contact with the atmosphere and you will have plenty of ignition sources. And because hydrogen tanks are highly pressurized any rupture will rapidly loose the contents into the immediate vicinity..

Not according to hydrogen car manufacturers. Supposedly, because the hydrogen is stored under super-high pressure, when the tank is ruptured the hydrogen instantly dissipates into the air. Toyota claim their hydrogen cells are safer than gasoline tanks.

 Desubot wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
"overpopulation" is a loaded word. It isn't really true in the strictest sense. There is more than enough food production, and potential for more production, in the world to feed everybody. The problem is it isn't distributed where populations are exploding.

Overpopulation only exists in specific areas. Western civilization has far more food and resources than we need, so our populations are sustainable. Largely because most of the world's arable land is in North America, Europe, and the northern parts of Asia. Africa, South America, and southern Asia are places with exploding populations who do not have enough arable land to support them. The reason for the exploding populations is thanks to benefits of modern medicine reducing infant mortality, but these regions are still poor and economies revolving around unskilled labor which encourages larger families.

Western civilization did go through a phase like this too though. The Industrial Revolution saw a population explosion where, for a brief time, there was both high birth rates and low infant mortality which led to crowding and temporary resource shortages. A few wars and pandemics righted the overpopulation of that era, and unfortunately that is probably what will happen again before we see a shift.

IIRC You could put the entire worlds population into the grand canyon easily.

also iirc population booms die down soon as a society becomes modernized as they are not popping out like 10 bebes because 2/3rds of them are going to die from a splinter.

You could fit everyone into Manhattan if you wanted to.

Population booms also don't immediately adjust to modernization and reduced infant mortality. It seems to take a generation or so, and usually some sort of catalyst which results in a die-off that gives everybody in general more resources(war/pandemic). Society is basically a generation behind in terms of adjusting the reproductive rate. Its why there is usually a big population boom every time there is an advancement in overall health/resources as everybody still maintains the old birth rates.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

The thing is that if a hydrogen tank ruptures violently you are almost guaranteed to get an explosion because you'll achieve a proper ratio upon contact with the atmosphere and you will have plenty of ignition sources. And because hydrogen tanks are highly pressurized any rupture will rapidly loose the contents into the immediate vicinity..

Not according to hydrogen car manufacturers. Supposedly, because the hydrogen is stored under super-high pressure, when the tank is ruptured the hydrogen instantly dissipates into the air. Toyota claim their hydrogen cells are safer than gasoline tanks.

Bald faced lies most likely. Instantly mixing into the air is another way of saying it instantly mixes with the oxygen and thus reaches optimal flammability even faster! Higher pressure will increase the flammability/explosive qualities, not reduce them.

If you are lucky enough that the crash doesn't ignite the hydrogen immediately it will dissipate quickly, but colliding metal creates sparks in abundance...

 Grey Templar wrote:

Bald faced lies most likely..

If that's the case, then every manufacturer is telling the same lies. Everything I can find online says that the fuel cells are next to indestructible, and in te unlikely event that they are damaged they're designed to vent rather than explode. And crash tests so far have been postiive: https://insideevs.com/euro-ncap-5-stars-hydrogen-fuel-cell-car/

I believe a lot of of the objections to new energy sources are based on 2 things.

One is the Nirvana fallacy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

The second is that a great many peolle have a huge interest in maintaining the petrochemical system and are using tremendous amounts of money to oppose changing it.

 admironheart wrote:

 Desubot wrote:


also iirc population booms die down soon as a society becomes modernized as they are not popping out bebes because 2/3rds of them are going to die from a splinter.

See that is a theory that I do not know if I ascribe to. THAT has happened with Western Culture and western values and western religions. To ASSUME that other cultures with other values and other religions will behave the same is asking for disappointment.

Counter-point: Japan

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
The thing to remember about hydrogen is that, much like gasoline, it only burns at the proper stoiciometric ratios. (I hope I spelled that right...)

You can start all the sparks you like inside a tank full of hydrogen and it won't burn, much less explode. Why not? There's not enough oxygen to support combustion. Likewise, a small amount of hydrogen loose in the air won't sustain a fire, because there's not enough fuel.

Now that's not to say hydrogen can't burn or explode. Obviously it can and does... but only when the conditions are correct.

The thing is that if a hydrogen tank ruptures violently you are almost guaranteed to get an explosion because you'll achieve a proper ratio upon contact with the atmosphere and you will have plenty of ignition sources. And because hydrogen tanks are highly pressurized any rupture will rapidly loose the contents into the immediate vicinity.

It's the pressure that's the danger, not ignition - damage to a pressurised hydrogen fuel tank is going to result in an explosion as the liquid hydrogen suddenly and rapidly boils. The same thing happens when a steam engine boiler ruptures or you poke a hole in a soft drinks bottle.

If hydrogen cannot be used as a direct combustion fuel safely couldlaefe amount of it be used to produce fuelcells to generate electricity to power vehicles?

speaking of vehicles I just recently noticed local school busses sporting "propane powered" stickers on their rears.

I think there are some experimental fuel cell powered cars already.

Propane fuelled vehicles have been a thing for at least 30 years. At this stage I'm not sure it can be classed as an alternative future energy. Quite a lot of petrol stations in Europe have LPG pumps for such vehicles.

I used to work at a company which supplied conversion kits to adapt petrol cars to run on LPG as an alternative or secondary fuel. In fact I once had the task of driving an LPG powered turbo-equipped ambulance from Aldbourne in Wiltshire to north London for a test. Which was fun, even though they didn't let me light up the roof.

Anyway, to get back to the topic, Propane isn't renewable but Methane could be if produced by bacterial fermentation of bilogical waste. (You know what I'm talking about.)

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
If hydrogen cannot be used as a direct combustion fuel safely couldlaefe amount of it be used to produce fuelcells to generate electricity to power vehicles?

speaking of vehicles I just recently noticed local school busses sporting "propane powered" stickers on their rears.

It can, and it is. Such vehicles still have a pressurised fuel tank to store the hydrogen in, though. Also, the pump nozzle is a locking bayonet connector (like a fire hose), so filling up is a little fiddlier.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think there are some experimental fuel cell powered cars already.

Propane fuelled vehicles have been a thing for at least 30 years. At this stage I'm not sure it can be classed as an alternative future energy. Quite a lot of petrol stations in Europe have LPG pumps for such vehicles.

I used to work at a company which supplied conversion kits to adapt petrol cars to run on LPG as an alternative or secondary fuel. In fact I once had the task of driving an LPG powered turbo-equipped ambulance from Aldbourne in Wiltshire to north London for a test. Which was fun, even though they didn't let me light up the roof.

Anyway, to get back to the topic, Propane isn't renewable but Methane could be if produced by bacterial fermentation of bilogical waste. (You know what I'm talking about.)

Cow farts.

Honestly I think it is brilliant. Cow farts are a huge issue for green house emissions. Lets get real - people aren't going to stop eating beef. If someone where to invent a cheap cow fart collection system that could collect the methane and store it for fuel. It would make a huge difference up to 30% of global warming is due to methane - most comes from cows.

Lets discuss what would actually work best?

Keeping cattle in domes with a methane collection system?
A methane collection diaper type system?
Any other ideas?

For the record, Caterpillar has been making LP powered large engines for a while now. I machine parts at the Lafayette plant specifically for the series of engines that they've adapted to run on gas.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Any other ideas?

I here there's a species of ape that numbers in the billions, and is present on every continent and ocean. We should find some way to utilize this literally untapped and clearly unending resource

 LordofHats wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Any other ideas?

I here there's a species of ape that numbers in the billions, and is present on every continent and ocean. We should find some way to utilize this literally untapped and clearly unending resource

Despite the numbers its sadly a protected species and can't be tampered with like that. Some group of judges got together and gave them rights, ideals, and all other manner of things that heavily restricts what can be done with them. About all you can legally do is take the bits of paper and common metals that they carry around with them, or plastic today. You can take that off them, though it can make them rather irate; but otherwise can't do a thing with them. More useless than a panda!

 LordofHats wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Any other ideas?

I here there's a species of ape that numbers in the billions, and is present on every continent and ocean. We should find some way to utilize this literally untapped and clearly unending resource

HAHA - well cows really put these apes to shame in the methane department.

This would really be a Win Win.

 Overread wrote:
Some group of judges got together and gave them rights, ideals, and all other manner of things that heavily restricts what can be done with them.

Damn philosophisers ruin everything.

And have an exalt XD

Saying you can fit the world's population into those island or whatever is very meaningless. The fact you could stuff all humanity into a small percentage of earth's surface if you put them shoulder to shoulder nuts to butts ignores the fact each human needs so much fresh water, so much food, so much living space, etc. Plus wah human generates so much garbage that needs to GE disposed of, modern humans need transportation systems like roads, etc. Alzomth emodern western lifestyle need electricity for all.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Lets discuss what would actually work best?

Keeping cattle in domes with a methane collection system?
A methane collection diaper type system?
Any other ideas?

While not cow farts, plenty of old landfills are getting tapped for methane these days. Hell, one out near me had pipes installed that weren't even tapped to prevent sinkholes. May as well make something out of old mistakes when we can.

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Lets discuss what would actually work best?

Keeping cattle in domes with a methane collection system?
A methane collection diaper type system?
Any other ideas?

While not cow farts, plenty of old landfills are getting tapped for methane these days. Hell, one out near me had pipes installed that weren't even tapped to prevent sinkholes. May as well make something out of old mistakes when we can.

IMO landfills are quite wasteful. 90% of that trash can be burned to produce energy (heck it's the perfect solution to cover solars down periods.) There isn't an electric dependent population that doesn't produce tons of trash daily.

 admironheart wrote:

Would those be there without taxpayer assistance?
What will we do when all the good land for food is taken up by renewables?

Why does it need to be good land for food? Deserts and rooftops pick up a lot of sunlight, I hear.