Fishbone Glover Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Its a nice idea, but until it can be produced in the quantity required by solar energy, then it's a non-starter. I can see the potential of it as a means of distributing energy though. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tallguy Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Hydrogen is the energy CARRIER, the actual energy source is something else, to be decided. There will oviously be a loss between energy in and energy out; that's life. Energy storage mediums aren't the primary problem. Neither is absolute supply (see renewables for details). The problems are EROEI and speed of flow given the demand of a massive global population. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tallguy Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 The belief in perpetual motion machines is quite strong here on HPC So it would appear Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SleepyHead Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 (edited) Electric is the past. In fact it was around before diesel engines were invented. What a strange comment. Yes electric cars did exist at the dawn of the motoring age. Why does that make you doubt them? Surely that's proof they're feasible? Besides its the Lithium ion battery technology and the new cells in development that have changed the game. What a shame the world didn't listen to the likes of Nikola Tesla and others, and realise the potential of electric cars. we'd be 100 years on with their development, and we quite possibly wouldn't be facing the pollution problems we are. Edited January 28, 2011 by worst time buyer Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jonb Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Road congestion will be appalling at that price. No one will be able to move anywhere. There will be no alternative but to use road pricing to ration journeys if the reputed cost of this technology is really true. And as a poster said, where does the energy come from? Creating hydrogen uses energy, so hydrogen is just a way of storing energy untl it can be profitably used. What are we going to use as the energy source? I am wondering if solar power in the furnace of the sahara desert might be a good place, lots of energy there if you can harness the sun in some way. Yes, that would be a good way to get electricity. However, it is better to use that to displace existing fossil fuel sources for electricity generation than to use it as road fuel. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SleepyHead Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 New film coming in Spring 2011 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
@contradevian Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Think the nearest thing to it would be genetically modified algae that produces hydro carbons. http://www.oilgae.com/ How gae! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
LuckyOne Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 EROEI - how must energy you have to put in to get some out. It has to be positive or there is no point Speed of flow - It's no good if the EROEI is positive if the speed at which you can get hold of it does not meet the size of demand. This is why renewables are useless in terms of servicing the needs of 7 billion and rising. Absolute supply - It's no good if the EROEI and the speed of flow are good if it is going to run out sooner rather than later Oh, and one more thing, in terms of current transportation systems, it needs to be portable This is not an area that I know anything about (which may well be obvious from my question). Does electricity (in general as opposed to its use in cars) have a positive EROEI? Off the top of my head, I would have guessed that it was negative both in the production and transmission phases but that it caught on despite this weakness due to its incredible convenience. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jonb Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 What a strange comment. Yes electric cars did exist at the dawn of the motoring age. Why does that make you doubt them? Surely that's proof they're feasible? Besides its the Lithium ion battery technology and the new cells in development that have changed the game. What a shame the world didn't listen to the likes of Nikola Tesla and others, and realise the potential of electric cars. we'd be 100 years on with their development, and we quite possibly wouldn't be facing the pollution problems we are. It makes me doubt them because it shows that it isn't just an emerging technology that needs time to mature. We need a 5x to 10x increase in battery energy density from where we are to get a reasonable range, and at least a 500x decrease in charge times. Then we need to figure out how to make a 6.5kA electric cable as safe as a petrol hose. I just don't see that happening. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kurt Barlow Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Good to see the HPC Space Cadet unit in full flow Unless a limitless and cheap source of energy is found Hydrogen ain't going to happen on an industrial scale. Why? Even the best hydrolysis units are only about 75% efficient. To compress / refrigerate the hydrogen down to a transportable format you need to use approximately 40% of the energy in the fuel. You then have the efficiency of the engine / fuel cell Basically for every 10 units of electricity used you be lucky to get 4 usable units. Might as well go straight to electric vehicles Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DarkHorseWaits-NoMore Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 (edited) Don't worry, there's always the Low Energy Nuclear Reaction or LENR. 10Kw out for 400w input, I'm sure the claims are genuine this time... Edited January 28, 2011 by DarkHorseWaits Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SarahBell Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Road congestion will be appalling at that price. No one will be able to move anywhere. T The roads will crumble first Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JimDiGritz Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Show me the EROEI figures behind this "revolutionary" new technology. Otherwise don't bother waking me..... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Stars Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Might as well go straight to electric vehicles Efficiency isn't the biggest problem with batteries. This technology sounds like it might win over batteries in terms of practicality Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrPin Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Don't worry, there's always the Low Energy Nuclear Reaction or LENR. 10Kw out for 400w input, I'm sure the claims are genuine this time... That's great! Harry Potter coudn't have done it better! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
@contradevian Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Efficiency isn't the biggest problem with batteries. This technology sounds like it might win over batteries in terms of practicality Nothing wrong with the concept of electric vehicles as they stand now. However you won't be able to drive anywhere near as fast are as far as petrol (and might never be able to ). You will all get over it, in time. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
rxe Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 I do believe that "artificial" fuels will be the future, they may even be very similar to petrol and diesel. The nice thing about our existing fuels is that they are immensely energy dense, far more so than the most advanced battery, and that you can refine them by the ton. Even if we had cracked fusion, and electricity was too cheap to meter, electric cars would still be crap, as the batteries are hopeless. If we want to keep flying, then we're going to have to learn to make artificial jet fuel. Clearly the energy has to come from somewhere. However, if they have found a way to make petrol of of abundant raw materials at some reasonable efficiency, then that is probably better than hydrogen or batteries. They may well have found a way to turn biomass into petrol - algae would be reasonably efficient at capturing energy (photosynthesis), and with a small amount of additional energy, you might be able to make it burnable. God knows. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Stars Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Nothing wrong with the concept of electric vehicles as they stand now. However you won't be able to drive anywhere near as fast are as far as petrol (and might never be able to ). In which case another way to store the energy in the car might be better? You will all get over it, in time. There may be no need if we can produce a petrol-like fuel using electricity Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrFlibble Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Mankind needs to get with the programme of the future and that programme involves a lot less of everything, food, energy and money. Talk of man created energy that somehow delivers positive EROEI is complete tripe. TPTB need to stop fantasising about keeping all the cars running are start focusing their efforts towards creating walkable communities and more sustainable living arrangements. This won't happen until it's all too late, which is exactly what we have seen with the financial system, by which time we won't have the energy resources left to build the infrastructure we need, just like we have no real money left right now having pissed it all up the wall. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Stars Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Talk of man created energy that somehow delivers positive EROEI is complete tripe. That's a bit a strawman Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Gone baby gone Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Good to see the HPC Space Cadet unit in full flow Unless a limitless and cheap source of energy is found Hydrogen ain't going to happen on an industrial scale. Why? Even the best hydrolysis units are only about 75% efficient. To compress / refrigerate the hydrogen down to a transportable format you need to use approximately 40% of the energy in the fuel. You then have the efficiency of the engine / fuel cell They are using a novel way to store the hydrogen, that works at room temperature and at normal air pressure + does not require any new infrastructure at the final delivery stage, or modifications to the vehicles: http://www.cellaenergy.com/index.php?page=technology It's also energy dense enough to compete with and potentially surpass petrol. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tim123 Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Hydrogen takes more energy to produce than you get back from it. But if we generate it from "free" solar power that fact is irrelevent. tim Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Executive Sadman Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Me thinks its just a slow news day at the DM. The other day another tabloid said the italian acedemics had mastered cold fusion. By italian academics, they meant convicted frausters. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EmpiricalBear Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 (edited) The answer can only be in a technological fix. Humanity (or 95% of it) will not take 'less', its just not in its nature. It consumes and wants more. There is plenty of energy falling on the planet from space. You only need to cover a small amount of one of earth's desert with PV to create enough energy. So the problem is in the cost of the infrastructure to capture some of that energy and convert it into a portable form. While this would be expensive it would need to be compared with the cost of extracting ever reducing oil reserves, or cracking hydrocarbons from oil shale... I guess the energy input cost of that is pretty bad too. In this case the input efficiency would be less important if it came from an abundant source. Cost of infrastructure would be a big issue. However the ability to take solar in a remote sunny environment and turn it into a distributable form that matches the existing petroleum distribution network makes it a lot more interesting. So few new infrastructure costs once you had paid for the generation. Perhaps giant desert PV plants would generate this Hydride based fuel and ship it in pipelines and tankers... er a bit like petrol. So the distribution infrastructure, and the vehicles would already be in place. Not only that, its precisely the countries with large amounts of desert that have the distribution infrastructure - US, Saudi etc. The article is probably just based on the fantasies of a couple of deluded academics anyway. Edited January 28, 2011 by TheBigNothing Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Executive Sadman Posted January 28, 2011 Report Share Posted January 28, 2011 Me thinks its just a slow news day at the DM. The other day another tabloid said that italian academics had mastered cold fusion. By italian academics, they meant convicted fraudsters. fooks sake. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.