[Al_The_Man]

....and the countries that rely on them!
Not sure if this has been posted before?
GM Hy-Wire "Car of the Future"
Al.

[TarHeelTom]

....and the countries that rely on them!
Not sure if this has been posted before?
GM Hy-Wire "Car of the Future"
Al.

This cars consumes hydrogen. One thing they don't point out is the the energy density of hydrogen is much less than that of gasoline. This car MIGHT travel 100 miles on a full tank.

Someone, probably the oil companies, is going to have to manufacture hydrogen in large quantities, pipe it, then truck it to local stations. The station will have to have a large paved area to accommodate cars, and pumps and meters and fueling hoses to add hydrogen to the cars. Gee, that sounds a lot like a modern filling station, doesn't it!

I suspect (but don't know) that there is no economy of scale in operating huge hydrogen "distilleries", so there will probably be a plant near every major city and most large towns, and quite possibly located near each nuclear power plant. The hydrogen plant is a good neighbor for a nuke plant, as the nuke plant really needs to run at 100% output 24/7/12. The hydrogen plant can utilize the excess electrical power whenever it is available.

I therefore predict that the oil companies will become energy companies serving the same customers they are now serving, but with a slightly different product.

By the way, the "no pedals" won't make it to the final product, as we will always need a way to brake when the last bit of electricity has been produced and the hydrogen tank is empty. But still a neat concept car.


Tom

[Ark1]

With all that thinking.

First off Hydrogen does not occur naturally anywhere on the planet.

Next Hydrogen and Oxgen bonds in water are very strong.

Meaning, it takes 4 times the energy that you get out of hydrogen to liberate it from water and that is where the whole thing falls apart.

Until the price of oil or gas equal the price of liberated hydrogen, the concept is going nowhere.

Maybe in time newer technologies will get past this, but currently, we aren't there.

Ark!

[TarHeelTom]

Until the price of oil or gas equal the price of liberated hydrogen, the concept is going nowhere.

Ark!

I read recently that China bought more new cars in 2010 than we did in the US. China is building "Interstate" highways at a tremendous rate. (These highways are almost an exact duplicate of our Interstate system.) China is therefore becoming very thirsty for gas and oil.

For this one reason alone, it appears that the price of oil will increase rapidly in the near future.

Your condition may come true a lot sooner than you think.

We need to continue working forward on many different alternative energy sources now, as it is really hard to predict with any certainty which of those sources will be the most economical and practical in the future. One never knows in advance what small breakthrough will tilt the balance drastically in the future.

Perhaps some high school or college student will discover that in the presence of a certain chemical compound hydrogen can be produced at only 10% of your stated figure.

Go back and watch the movie "Back to the Future" again. While that was Sci-Fi, things like that tend to come true. Breakthroughs happen often.

Not many years ago an overseas airliner had to carry 3 separate navigation systems, costing about $35,000 per system, for the cheapest system. These particular systems worked very very well, but had to be powered continuously, as lose power for a couple of seconds, and the system forgot where it was, and could NOT relocate itself. There were several different similar systems in use, and they all suffered from the lack of the ability to find themselves from scratch.

Then, all of a sudden, pilots started carrying their own portable GPS receivers in their flight cases. These things cost only about $300 each, and could find themselves in under two minutes after turning on the power.

One small change made all the difference in price. The early systems required a very accurate clock to be carried in the aircraft. Cesium (atomic) clocks were used, and they were expensive. The GPS system moved the atomic clock from the aircraft to the satellite, requiring only 24 clocks total, instead of three in each aircraft.

Now you can buy a good GPS receiver for $300 or less, but also get a GPS receiver in almost every cell phone, as well as in many cars, etc etc etc.

You can buy a small yellow box called a "Spot", which contains a GPS receiver and a cell phone transmitter. When asked to do so, the Spot transmits your position every 30 minutes and your backup team (wife, employer, or whoever) can watch your progress on the internet. The Spot costs only about $100, and will run several days on a battery.

Technology is moving fast. You can't depend on the status quo remaining the status quo forever.

Tom

[Ark1]

We can liberate hydrogen for less than the price of oil, still not going to happen.

At the current demand of consumption the Alberta Oil sands has a 300 year supply of oil. I don't think I will see hydrogen powered cars in my life time and I am 55.

Ark1.

[fizzissist]

The future of energy is not what you think it is

"Are we living at the beginning of the Age of Fossil Fuels, not its final decades? The very thought goes against everything that politicians and the educated public have been taught to believe in the past generation. According to the conventional wisdom, the U.S. and other industrial nations must undertake a rapid and expensive transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy for three reasons: The imminent depletion of fossil fuels, national security and the danger of global warming.

What if the conventional wisdom about the energy future of America and the world has been completely wrong?...."

..."In 2010 a Cornell University ecology professor and anti-fracking activist named Robert Howarth published a paper making the sensational claim that natural gas is a greater threat to the climate than coal. Howarth admitted, "A lot of the data we use are really low quality..."
Everything you've heard about fossil fuels may be wrong - War Room - Salon.com

[Eurisko]

Hydrogen production doesn't require huge sprawling facilities. It can be produced on site at refueling stations...

DOE Permitting Hydrogen Facilities: On-Site Hydrogen Production

[Geof]

Hydrogen production doesn't require huge sprawling facilities. It can be produced on site at refueling stations...

DOE Permitting Hydrogen Facilities: On-Site Hydrogen Production

The ridiculous aspect about reforming natural gas to produce hydrogen is that it is energetically more efficient to run an automobile engine directly on the natural gas. In addition internal combustion engines are far far cheaper than fuel cells.

[fizzissist]

Hydrogen production doesn't require huge sprawling facilities. It can be produced on site at refueling stations...

DOE Permitting Hydrogen Facilities: On-Site Hydrogen Production

Uh huh. Sure. With a cute little windmill on top of each pump generating the hydrogen, compressing it, and pumping it into the cute little cars that line up for a refill.

Doesn't anyone recognize that to create a hydrogen fuel it takes a lot of energy? What I'd love to see is hydrogen refueling stations each with their own diesel generator running the conversion. Better yet, like Geoff says.......convert the hydrogen using natural gas.

Ignore that man behind the curtain with the efficiency losses!

[Eurisko]

The ridiculous aspect about reforming natural gas to produce hydrogen is that it is energetically more efficient to run an automobile engine directly on the natural gas. In addition internal combustion engines are far far cheaper than fuel cells.

Very true, Geof. But with the increased demand for oil & gas, we may start getting serious about alternative fuels. Probably when gas sells for upwards of $10.00 a gallon. At those prices, a cheap combustion engine will be too expensive to run

[Geof]

Very true, Geof. But with the increased demand for oil & gas, we may start getting serious about alternative fuels. Probably when gas sells for upwards of $10.00 a gallon. At those prices, a cheap combustion engine will be too expensive to run

Your logic escapes me. It does not matter what the cost of gasoline is, it will always be more energetically efficient to use natural gas directly as a fuel rather than reform it to hydrogen.

[Eurisko]

Your logic escapes me. It does not matter what the cost of gasoline is, it will always be more energetically efficient to use natural gas directly as a fuel rather than reform it to hydrogen.

But, natural gas is also a limited resource! Natural gas prices will skyrocket too! Hydrogen can be produced using renewable energy sources (solar, wind, geothermal), through electrolysis of water. It is not the efficiency of the conversion that matters, it is the final cost of the fuel that is being used. If hydrogen can be produced cheaply enough (without using natural gas in the conversion) it may just be "the fuel of the future".

Of course, we may all have "Mister Fusion" home energy appliances by then...

[fizzissist]

A cubic meter of hydrogen contains about 10,000 Btu, whereas a cubic meter of
natural gas contains about 30,000 Btu. Natural gas starts off with a 3x advantage.

It takes about 5 kWh of electricity to generate 1 cubic meter of hydrogen.

The most efficient way to generate that electricity is with nuclear power, and coal second. Using nuclear to create heat and oxygen to create hydrogen from coal is probably the most viable way I can see right now.

[Geof]

.... If hydrogen can be produced cheaply enough (without using natural gas in the conversion) it may just be "the fuel of the future"....

IF!!!!

If pigs had wings they would possibly fly. Do you know what fraction of the world's energy supply is obtained from "renewable resources"? Do you know what fraction of these renewable resources are hydroelectric? Solar, wind and geothermal are practically irrelevant.

[Boltz]

Fizzy, what you say is true, however, you should also mention that the plan to do this involves Gen IV reactors, and the earliest these designs are likely to be available for construction is 2030. It's a laudable goal, but if one extrapolates the current trends in pricing and efficiency for solar PV, one wonders if Gen IV will still be relevant by then.

A cubic meter of hydrogen contains about 10,000 Btu, whereas a cubic meter of
natural gas contains about 30,000 Btu. Natural gas starts off with a 3x advantage.

It takes about 5 kWh of electricity to generate 1 cubic meter of hydrogen.

The most efficient way to generate that electricity is with nuclear power, and coal second. Using nuclear to create heat and oxygen to create hydrogen from coal is probably the most viable way I can see right now.

[Eurisko]

Geof, as the cost of energy increases beyond our ability to pay, we will be forced to embrace any energy source that does the job cheaper. You're correct that renewable energy represents only a small fraction of our consumption. I believe that will change. Economic necessity will demand it.

[Ark1]

Ontario has gone on a blitz to embrace renewable energy. To make it viable to produce the province is paying producers $80.4 cents a Kilowatt hour. Remember that is only a fraction of our power grid. In return as of May 1st, 2011 our electricity day time rate has soared to 10.7 cents a kilowatt hour plus 6 cents a kilowatt hour for delivery, plus tax of 13%, this brings the kilowatt hour price to 18.87 cents per per kilowatt hour. It is expected that the price will rise another 43% by 2015 as more solar comes on line. At these rates Ontario Manufactors are leaving as they cannot be competitive in the market place. We may be GREEN but we won't have any jobs to purchase electricity with.


Also stated here was that 5 Kilowatts can liberaet 10,000 BTU's of hydrogen, At these electricity rates, you won't go vary far on 94 cents of hydrogen. Current Natural gas prices for 10,000 BTU's of natural gas is about 10 Cents. Hydrogen is not going to happen, Gasoline is still alot cheaper.

Ark1.

[Geof]

Geof, as the cost of energy increases beyond our ability to pay, we will be forced to embrace any energy source that does the job cheaper.....

Again your logic is faulty. If an energy source exists that does the job cheaper then the cost of energy has not been increased beyond our ability to pay.

Furthermore you are missing my point which is that it is ridiculous to use any energy source in an inefficient manner. Converting natural gas to hydrogen simply wastes a portion of the energy to no useful purpose. And please don't come back and say hydrogen fuel cells driving electric motors are more efficient than an internal combustion engine. That is true but the better efficiency there does not compensate for the losses in the reforming process that provides the hydrogen from the natural gas.

[fizzissist]

Why not take the "green" to the logical extreme? You'll really save the planet by not using gasoline, hydrogen, electricity, or horses if you simply walk wherever you want to go.

Silly? Not really. It's the ultimate in cost, where instead of money you spend time and comfort. You're still expelling CO2 and methane (presuming a bean & cheese fuel source), but not putting a burden on earth's resources by causing the unnecessary manufacture of vehicles and infrastructure to support an efficient transportation system.

Much of the 3rd world already enjoys (or sacrifices, as you prefer) this method of transport. Look where it's got 'em.

To argue in favor of an ever increasing cost-inefficient transportation and manufacturing environment, this is exactly where you're heading. We didn't get where we are by wasting money, and in this case, wasting money that makes a small segment of society very, very wealthy.

[Boltz]

We didn't get where we are by wasting money, and in this case, wasting money that makes a small segment of society very, very wealthy.

Fizzy, this implies that you believe that a small segment of society becoming very, very wealthy is a bad thing? That perhaps this small financial elite is becoming filthy rich at the expense of the rest of us, and you consider this to be a bad thing?

The way I read your statement, the real crux of your argument is that the concentration of wealth at the top is intrinsically bad.