posted
The real technology battle is finding a way to create Hydrogen for the cells without using more fossil fuels. Otherwise it's all a moot point.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure if the infrastructure will be a big problem conceptually. The technology is there, and they will probably just integrate it into the existing gas station infrastructure, which would start getting less and less business as FC cars catch on.
The problem with that is funding and timing. They have to all be set up before the release of the cars. No one will buy a fuel efficient car they have to drive 50 miles to fill up. And the cost to put a station every 10 miles all across urban, and suburban America (not to mention rural) will be phenomenal. Government will have to pony up the dough for at least part of that too.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to the article, it claims 10-20% leakage/depletion as a result of totally switching to Hydrogen. But that includes powering homes too. We'll never power everything with hydrogen. There's too many other power sources out there. I doubt if hydrogen will be used to power buildings at all.
And for the next 70 years we'll see a mixture of gas, gas/electric hybrids and fuel cells. I think it will all balance out if we can find a way to make it work economically and environmentally.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Having hydrogen stations the same way we have gas stations now is far too hazardous. You'd have to have an engineer on-site at every single station. You can't have tanks of pressurized hydrogen just sort of standing around, and you can't really put them in the ground safely either. Generating the hydrogen on-site would also require constant engineering supervision. You couldn't pay high school grads $10 an hour to keep tabs on a pressurized hydrogen tank or a reactor (electrolytic or reforming).
I've said it before, and I'll say it again now: the solution is not to replace the engine in a car with some other mechanism, the solution is to dispense with the ludicrous notion of one car per person.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:the solution is to dispense with the ludicrous notion of one car per person.
Before you combat that, you have to get people on board with only one car per person. Many people have several. Then try to drop it below that. But here are your obstacles: Auto Industry, UAW (you'll never get Michigan's approval), and the Japanese Lobby. Those are all powerful, not to mention you have to combat 300 million Americans who want the right to be able to own a car.
The best way to do it is a car tax, I mean a huge car tax, several thousand per veicle. Then a gas tax, a huge gas tax, 50 cents a gallon. That will discourage unneeded driving and extra cars. Then you funnel the billions of dollars earned back into R&D to come up with replacements to the internal combustion engine and ways to change life as we know it.
Let me know how it goes.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unless there is a MASSIVE changeover to alternative power production, ya hafta burn a heckuvalot MORE fossil fuels to produce that hydrogen than the amount ya would use by just continuing to use fossil fuels directly.
It's both easier and more sensible than trying to build a safe hydrogen distribution network. Hydrogen, if it can be produced in an efficient manner, would be wonderful for public transit -- one or two big central fuelling depots could be safely constructed and maintained.
The other thing is that the existing petrochemical pipeline distribution network isn't capable of handling hydrogen. Much, MUCH too dangerous.
You're really trivializing the massive engineering challenges facing hydrogen. A lot of people do it, and it never fails to irritate me. Sorry if I sound cranky.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing, if fossil fuels are being burned in large, centralised plants, you can do it a lot more cleanly than spreading the burning over an enormous amount of tiny car engines. It's a lot easier and cheaper to impose emissions controls on a few hundred hydrogen production refineries than on several hundred million cars.
The other thing is, if you're doing it in a centralised plant, you don't need fossil fuels anyway, you can use hydro or nuclear power that isn't very convenient to spread around in cars.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did point out that alternative power could be used to produce hydrogen, KoM, and that it would take a MASSIVE increase in alternative power production.
1) There aren't all that many river sites suitable for hydroelectric power production left. 2) Damming a river produces a huge change in the riparian ecology; for the negative if ya like preserving species. 3) Due to decomposition of vegetation and other organic material during reservoir-filling, new dams produce more greenhouse gases than fossil fuel powerplants for the same amount of electrical power. Especially methane, which is a vastly more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. 4) Even old dams slow down and block the flow of organic material: eg leaves, twigs, branches, etc falling into streams and rivers just get water logged and sink to the bottom. And decays, producing greenhouse gases. Similarly, slowed movement of nutrients feed a growth in the total amount of algae/etc, which eventually die and decay. And water levels decrease, allowing new vegetation to grow on the newly exposed banks, which will decay when the reservoir is refilled.
5) If there were a changeover to nuclear, the supply of uranium-235 would run out long before the projected end of cheap fossil fuels. 6) Plutonium breeder reactors have a whole heckuvalotta other MAJOR*problems which need to be fixed before they can become suitable replacements for uranium-fueled powerplants.
7) Even if 100% of current electrical power production were to be used, and there was 100% efficiency in converting electical power into hydrogen fuel, and fuel cells were 100% efficient in converting hydrogens potential power into electricity, there still wouldn't be enough hydrogen produced to fuel American cars. Drivetrains, rolling resistance, etc make cars very inefficient at converting power into forward motion. Private automobiles are intrinsicly less efficient than mass transit because of greater wind resistance per amount of carrying capacity.
8) Fuel cells are at best 50% efficient in converting hydrogen's potential power into electricity.
9) Using electricity directly is a very very very inefficient way to produce hydrogen.
10) Presently, the most efficient means of producing hydrogen is mixing methane** with superheated steam. Which produces hydrogen and carbon dioxide. Burn that hydrogen with oxygen from the air -- or combine them in a fuel cell -- and you get water. Which means that the net combustion product is water and carbon dioxide, the same as burning methane directly. One could use superheated steam and carbon (from coal) and essentially come up with the same end results, except there would be more carbon dioxide produced per amount of hydrogen. And I think the energy conversion efficiency is lower. 11) Converting methane&water to hydrogen wastes energy. Converting carbon&water to hydrogen wastes energy. Converting hydrogen to electricity wastes energy.
Overall) Accepting your choices of power production, KoM, hydrogen-as-fuel shifts where greenhouse gases are produced while increasing the total amount that is produced. In the case of nuclear power, you also add the nuclear waste disposal problem.
* And even more engineering problems would have to be overcome before a plutonium-fueled powerplant would be suitable as the heat source for thermo-chemical conversion of methane&water or carbon&water to hydrogen. The use of plutonium-fueled reactors to produce hydrogen is about like using fusion reactors: possible, but only somewhere off (maybe far off) in the nebulous future.
** Methane is the primary component of commercial natural gas. The remainder is a trace of a gas injected to odorize natural gas -- methane itself is odorless -- and unwanted contaminants.
posted
One thing people don't seem to have brought up in any of these threads is the personal costs of the changeover. I'm still driving a '92 model car, because I can't afford anything new, and I'm far from the only one. Even if the perfect hydrogen car were out there, how long would it be before most people were able to buy it?
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
More to the point, Mabus, producing a new automobile takes energy. How long would it take to make up for fuel&pollution costs of just making that new automobile? Add that production cost to the fuel&pollution cost of operating the new car. Then compare that total to the fuel&pollution cost of just running your present vehicle. In most cases, it is ecologically more responsible to keep your old car until it is suitable only for scrapyards or collectors -- ie when repair would cost more than the car's transportation value -- than to buy a "green"er new vehicle.
posted
And don't knock '92. Still haven't run across a better hatchback to put my skis/bike/etc into. Or a more energy efficient and less polluting one.
quote: You're really trivializing the massive engineering challenges facing hydrogen. A lot of people do it, and it never fails to irritate me. Sorry if I sound cranky.
No, actually I'm being skeptical of the American people's ability to accept change that is good for them. I know it will be incredibly difficult to switch over to hydrogen fuel cell cars, but I'm talking about a different problem. Before you can tackle the problem of a car changeover, you have to cover the problem of getting Americans to go along with it.
If they aren't up for the battle, you can't force them into it. Not when they are on the front lines. You're ahead of yourself, which I guess is okay, someone has to be thinking about that.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Our site gases technician didn't have a college degree. We needed an engineer any time we made a change to the system, but not just to move hydrogen from one place to another, or even to run an experiment with hydrogen.
As to the steam hydrogen reformer; remember, you are getting the hydrogen atoms from both the methane and the water. You get a lot more hydrogen than you would from either one alone, so the CO2 released is not directly comparable to burning methane alone.
I tried to find a link with the efficiency of steam-methane reformers, but couldn't find one. The figures I got from a friend at Praxair is about 80% of the energy from the methane is conserved in the hydrogen produced. I've also heard estimates of fuel cell efficency as high as 70%. Put those together and you should get a pretty efficient car.
Fuel cells are also being used to generate power for the grid right now. There are also hydrogen refueling stations running right now.
Please bear in mind, I'm not altogether sold on hydrogen and fuel cells, but a lot of really smart people are banking a lot of money on this, so I don't think it's cold fusion. It may not be a panacea, but I think it will play a role, so I'm reserving judgement.
And I agree with Twinky; the one car per person thing has got to go. We need to design our infrastructure around mass transit. Or walking distance.
(Could we start a thread about why the government pays for highways, but the railroads have to maintain their own tracks?)
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, the amount the government gives to amtrak is a pittance in comparison to the subsidies for highways, even adjusted for volume of traffic. This is because of the large automotive (and related) lobbies.
For instance, ever wonder why everything is transported across country in those inefficient semi trucks instead of mostly by train? That's why.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Obviously, people are working on ways to produce hydrogen in a clean, safe manner. The instability of hydrogen (IE, flamable as all get out) is an issue that needs to be addressed.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
People won't accept public transit until it is convenient. The best way to get started on the road to using clean fuel is to maximize rail/bus/etc.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Something I posted in a thread a couple of weeks ago that might be more relevant here:
quote:Just to throw in another alternative, what about using algae for biodiesel? (You may want to skip the first paragraph. It has a bit of a... slant.) The article goes over the benefits of biodiesel (it uses existing infrastructure, there are existing vehicles that can run on the stuff, zero net greenhouse emissions, etc.) and lays out a method to replace imported oil with algae farms in the desert. The focus is on transportation rather than generation of electricity, but that's a huge chunk of where our oil goes, so it's still very relevant.
The article does gloss over some problems, like the huge initial cost of the farms and the substantial upkeep costs (though the upkeep is considerably less than what we pay for oil currently). There's also the issue of the high-particulate emissions that diesel engines produce, though the author's pet idea of diesel-electric hybrids does go a long way towards reducing this one.
Any other problems/benefits/other consequences that I'm missing? Does this look possible? Politically feasible?
Another benefit of this approach is that the existing infrastructure would handle it nicely.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
We need to get something similiar to the French TGV or the Japanese bullet train working too. Fast, non polluting, easy mass transport. Amtrak is failing, it's more than people want to pay for what they get. Mag-Lev trains can compete with the air industry, and with some of the price hikes coming, it will be even easier.
It will increase tourism in some places. If I could take a 45 min train ride to Chicago from Detroit for $75 I'd do it a couple times a year, maybe go see a show there or something on a date. California has been toying with the idea for awhile. A lot of CA commuters drive north for skiing, or even commute between cities at great distances.
Fuel cell buses, Mag Lev trains, hybrid cars. That should be our goal for the next 50 years.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amtrak might have an easier time of it if the rail lines were maintained by the government like the highway system is. So would the other rail companies.
Also, what name you you give this Maglev train? Why not call it Amtrak? By any other name... or organization.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amtrak seems to have had some management issues in the last decade. But they do have the most experience with passenger carrying rail lines. I wouldn't care if we replaced Amtrak rail with Amtrak Mag-Lev. Call it AML. Or Super Amtrak. SuperTrak! I don't care, it just needs to be done.
Why spend the money reparing 19th century technology? Why not spend the money laying track on 21st century technology? Seems silly to me.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Why spend the money reparing 19th century technology? Why not spend the money laying track on 21st century technology?
Well, Amtrack isn't in a position to lay out the capital to restructure itself with new technology. The way it is right now, the government treats Amtrak like a failing system, and subidizes it just enough to keep it afloat. It needs a systemic change in order to actually make it work.
That's why I made the comparison to the highway system. If the government took over maintenance of the rail lines, they might well improve them in ways that are analogous to the highway system. The old roads didn't do the job, so they built super roads. In turn, the truck companies could build trucks that took advantage of the improved roads, and the trucking companies bought them. But the current trucking industry couldn't work on "Route 66."
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So you want the government to shell out billions of dollars to fix a rail system that is in shambles?
I see your point that the government should do more to improve mass transit, the same way it supports the highway system. But why should it rebuild Amtrak, and invest so much in it, when it really is an old technology? Why not take the money it would have put into modernizing Amtrak and put it into a newer, faster, cheaper, better system?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
East coast rail particularly would pay well. It could get rid of half the short flights in the country, making the airport system much less overcrowded. It could also cut a LOT of traffic on 95 if done right.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Why not take the money it would have put into modernizing Amtrak and put it into a newer, faster, cheaper, better system?
Wouldn't a "newer, faster, cheaper, better system" be what they would be creating by modernizing Amtrak?
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Could we start a thread about how many billions of dollars the government gives to Amtrak?
You're the one that brought up Amtrak. I only suggested that the government should maintain the rail lines.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Wouldn't a "newer, faster, cheaper, better system" be what they would be creating by modernizing Amtrak?
What do you mean by modernizing? If you mean paying billions just to get newer rails, then no, it will still cost the same (if not more to pay for the modernization) to move things just as slow. If by modernizing you mean creating a new Mag-Lev train system, then yes.
quote: You're the one that brought up Amtrak. I only suggested that the government should maintain the rail lines.
I was using Amtrak as an example and people (including you) latched on to it. So fine, drop Amtrak and talk about rails in general. Rail is old, rail is less efficient, rail should be done away with like horse and buggy. The government shouldn't spend any more money than it already has in helping an industry that's past it's time. Keep the rails lines safe enough until we get to better Mag-Lev lines, then let rail fade away into memory.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
edit: in comparison with roads, which we spend tons of money on, and we actually don't have enough data to know if it would be more or less efficient than maglev trains in the US; maintenance on maglev trains is significantly higher per mile of track, and the US has a lot more space to run track in than anywhere else. My prediction is that for certain runs maglev is more efficient, but that for cross country travel trains will be better.
The idea that newer always equals better choice is one of the great fallacies of the modern era.
posted
Alright, so it isn't the best for all circumstances. Have any studies even been done to prove one way or the other? I'm reasonable, and willing to admit that It's possible I'm wrong and my way isn't the best.
So fold a study on the potential uses for MagLev trains into a new national energy/environmental plan. Study it, get it figured out, and then wherever MagLev is better than rail, make it happen. And then, if all the avenues of MagLev are exhausted and rail is deemed the better choice, update the rails. At that point, yes I'd be totally in favor of the federal government updating the rail lines.
I think more people will frequent MagLev lines though due to the speed and relative safety. I think for the average passenger it would be more cost effective, and will bring cities closer together. I'd agree though that studies should be done to prove or disprove that assumption though.
Everyone write your senator, tell them to get to work!
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll just confess that everything I know about hydrogen engines is from that show with Alan Alda. They showed how in iceland they use geothermal energy to make hydrogen from water (releasing oxygen, though I don't know if it was diatomic). I know most electricity comes from fossil fuels or nuclear, though, so that kind of bites. But as for hydrogen being explosive, gasoline sort of is too.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Hydrogen is far more volatile though. It require a lot more safety precautions.
In some ways, yes. But actually since hydrogen is so light, it removes itself from the scene of an accident almost immediately. That was the first clue that led to the proof that the Hindenburgh disaster was caused by the dope on the skin. Hydrogen flames don't move downward.
The main thing is that you would have to avoid igniting the hydrogen immediately in the event of a release, and make sure that there is no enclosure for it to accumulate. Once it's gone, you're home free.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Transferring hydrogen to the vehicle under pressure is going to be tricky. The station attendant will have to wear insulated gloves like the propane guy uses to keep from freezing his fingers. This stuff will be under even more pressure and will be even colder. Joe Public will not be allowed to refuel his own vehicle.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Over the past two decades the energy efficiency of car transport (and its specific CO2 emissions) has improved slightly. This is the result of technological advances and the voluntary agreement with the car industry on the reduction of CO2 emissions from new passenger cars. There has been no improvement in the energy efficiency of road freight transport, partly because of low load factors. Trucks consume significantly more energy per tonne-km than rail or ship transport.
Ship and rail transport compares very favourably with road as regards energy efficiency per tonne-km. However, the energy efficiency of rail transport has changed little during the past two decades, suggesting that additional energy saving measures need to be explored even in the rail sector.
posted
How is this infrastructure change different than the large and timely infrastructure changes of past generations, railroads, highways, and ground phone lines?
quote: "Would be" is the operative term. Rail is the most efficient we have now.
Yes, and stagecoach was more efficient than rail in the 18th century too. We know how Japanese and French Mag-Lev trains work, we can study them. I honestly don't know which is better, and from what you've said, I highly doubt you do either.
Probably it will be a mix of both, Mag-Lev trains for high traffic routes that can easily and quickly move up and down a line. Ends up being safer and more cost effective. And frieght and passenger rail over long distances ends up being more efficient out in the middle of nowhere.
I think we can at least both agree that something should be done to test which is better. And the winner should be brought to fruition in America. We're falling behind the world in many ways, this shouldn't be one of them.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
