Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Hydrogen Based Fuel In 3-5 Years- 90P A G A L L O N


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 110
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by worst time buyer
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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... :unsure:

Edited by DarkHorseWaits
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by TheBigNothing
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.