lol, thats actually pretty damn funny.

9/27/2005 3:39:37 PM

I support the renewable fuels (from plants) as an alternative that could be implemented relatively quickly. I figure that it would give farmers something to do, as they could grow damn near any crop that oil can be produced from, and it's soluble with diesel (so I hear), so it could be dumped right into a fuel tank at a gas station. Biggest problem though with it - cold weather.

Also important, the money stays in the US. Even biodiesel blends keep a chunk of that $2.80/gallon in the US.

Quote :

"They put diarrheics in the Ethanol to dissuade people from drinking it."

hahahahha

I could imagine some 16 year-olds trying to be bad ass and paying for it.

[Edited on September 27, 2005 at 3:40 PM. Reason : gg]

9/27/2005 3:39:52 PM

I admit there is no standing infrastructure to support the production of hydrogen in vast quantities. The reason for this is mainly we dont have the investments/support from big corporations. We dont have the equipment to handle hydrogen in a production facility that creates it on a large scale. I'm not saying it couldn't be done. I believe it can and will enivably be done. It just takes experimentation to get a new form of energy become a practical fuel for our economy. They didn't start making nuclear power plants as soon as they figured out fission.

9/27/2005 3:40:13 PM

This is interesting, the first google response from "hydrogen production at home"

http://www.dangerouslaboratories.org/h2homesystem.pdf

[Edited on September 27, 2005 at 3:49 PM. Reason : production not power]

9/27/2005 3:49:13 PM

Quote :

"I wonder if there would be enough plant fuels if they made a bio-fuel hybrid electric. Would that even work?"

diesel hybrids are in the works, which you could then power with biodiesel.
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/000791.html
actually, they already exist, but not necessarily in the form of commuter vehicles. there are hybrid diesel vans in the works right now, and i'm not sure why not cars... but as I understand it, it IS possible, and I really really really hope it happens

Quote :

"and it's soluble with diesel (so I hear), so it could be dumped right into a fuel tank at a gas station"

not necessarily. biodiesel is soluble in diesel, but not pure oil. it has to be converted to biodiesel first. OR, regular oil can be pre-heated in an initial tank then pumped into the actual fuel tank without any modification of the oil itself. So either you modify the oil or you modify the engine. However, biodiesel is pretty cool.. it just can't get cold. You need preheating or additives or to mix it with regular diesel when it's cold out.

[Edited on September 27, 2005 at 4:18 PM. Reason : .]

9/27/2005 4:16:08 PM

if the government could lead by example and convert all their fleets to bio-diesel, that would really kickass. (referring to state, local, and federal here)

9/27/2005 4:42:38 PM

a lot of state and federal fleet vehicles do currently run on bio-diesel, e-85, propane and some busses have cng

9/27/2005 4:53:08 PM

MONORAIL!

9/27/2005 4:56:23 PM

Anyone know what blend of biodiesel they're running on? (B100 is pure biodiesel)

Quote :

"OR, regular oil can be pre-heated in an initial tank then pumped into the actual fuel tank without any modification of the oil itself"

That's how many of the "conversion" kits approach the problem. For most of the year, or in 'warm' climates, you can pour the oil straight into the fuel tank just as you would diesel. I'm currently working on a winter solution for my vehicle to keep the oil from gelling.


[Edited on September 27, 2005 at 5:00 PM. Reason : bling]

9/27/2005 4:57:42 PM

http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/infrastructure/locator.html

This locator shows a fair amount of fueling stations for BioDiesel in the triangle. Most are government only but there are some public ones. It doesn't indicate however what percentage blend.

I saw over the weekend in Knoxville that the public buses run on 100% biodiesel.

Not much ethanol here in Tennessee and even less in N.C. Although that is probably for the best. If the midwest is best for growing corn/soy for ethanol, keep it local to there.

I think you can also make biodiesel from wood, which is renewable, so that would be good for the northeast and northwest. In the southwest they can refine hydrogen via solar power in the desert.

9/27/2005 5:08:15 PM

I like this discussion. Biodiesel is a very attractive alternative for the oil burners, and vegetable oil is another possibility if the right equipment can be had. I think currently, there is no viable alternative to gasoline - the way things are at this moment. There are issues with all alternatives, but my opinion is that with some effort and investment, many of the alternatives will become feasible. Think of all the tobacco farmers living on government subsidies and tobacco buyout programs because the demand for tobacco has dropped with all the smoking lawsuits. These farmers would be prime candidates to start growing crops specifically for use as a base for biomass fuels. I think ethanol is an attractive alternative, but it has some drawbacks. I think these drawbacks can be overcome with various additive packages if someone were to spend some time on such things. I think the best use of resources is to work toward an alternative that will work with the internal combustion engines we know today; we don't need to reinvent the wheel, i.e. fuel cell technology and battery powered vehicles. The way I see it is gasoline has had around 100 years of development time to become what we know it today. Spend the same amount of time on an alternative, and I bet the drawbacks won't be issues anymore.

9/27/2005 5:13:48 PM

^^ I know of two biodiesel stations available to the public in the area right now. One is in Garner (I don't know the exact location), and the other is the BP on 64 near MacGregor village. I know the BP uses B20, and I think the other is the same.

9/27/2005 5:22:56 PM

Production Averages For Ten Common Oil Crops
Plant, Laitin Name, lb. oil/acre, kg. oil/hectare,
oil palm, Elaesi guineensis, 4,585 5,000
cocunut, Cocos nucifera, 2,070 2,260
jatropha, Jatropha curcas, 1,460 1,590
rapeseed, Brassica napus, 915 1,000
sunflower, Arachis hypogaea, 815 890
safflower, Carthamus tinctorius, 605 655
soybean, Glycine max, 345 375
hemp, Cannabis sativa, 280 305
corn, Zea mays, 135 145


Other sources include billions of pounds of animal fat produced from cattle farms and the like plus reusable oil from your school cafeterias and fast food restaurants. I think if we started cultivating the palm oil, the greatest oil producing tree which is native to Africa, we could supply the nations fuel thirst quite well. We could genetically alter the palm oil to grow in varied climates.

[Edited on September 27, 2005 at 5:32 PM. Reason : data from "From the Fryer to the Fuel Tank by Joshua Tickell"]

9/27/2005 5:29:51 PM

isnt palm oil production already killing a lot of rainforest?

9/27/2005 5:31:23 PM

That didn't cross my mind since i'm talking about US farmers growing it.

9/27/2005 5:33:53 PM

could we even grow it here?

9/27/2005 5:35:50 PM

Please read my post in it's entirety next time.

9/27/2005 5:41:48 PM

no i read the part about the happy magic gene manipulation

im talking about now

9/27/2005 5:44:35 PM

Quote :

"well we can't do it now, so we should never look into it."

For real. What shitty parameters for debate. Hydrogen power's gone a long way, and so have methods for prodicing power and hydrogen.

But ZOMG it's not as cheap as a product every American buys 15 gallons of each week!



I SAY GOV'NA, THEY'LL NEVER BE A PRACTICAL ALTERNATIVE TO THE HORSE.



[Edited on September 27, 2005 at 6:45 PM. Reason : .]

9/27/2005 6:33:50 PM

WHALE OIL

9/27/2005 6:53:25 PM

GASOLINE!

ITS GOOD ECONOMICALLY AND THERES PLENTY OF IT! COME ON NOW, WHY DO YOU WANT TO GIVE IT UP???

9/27/2005 7:07:17 PM

Quote :

"They put diarrheics in the Ethanol to dissuade people from drinking it. If someone actually did try to drink from the pump, they would be very sorry for it afterwards."

i guessed so. it was a joke.

9/27/2005 9:48:09 PM

our resource officers had guns

im from durham though

9/27/2005 9:56:21 PM

this is FUCKING REDICULOUS

as if i hadnt already been proven correct when i say hydrogen is easily extractably from water, and researchers contine to make it easier

http://www.ncsu.edu/

front page

http://www.ncsu.edu/news/press_releases/05_09/188.htm

Quote :

"‘Defective’ Nanostructures Make Breaking Water to Extract Hydrogen Easier FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE A water molecule interacts with a carbon nanostructure. A water molecule interacts with a carbon nanostructure. Scientists at North Carolina State University have discovered a nanoscale method for extracting hydrogen from water that requires only half the energy of current hydrogen production methods. The researchers discovered that “defective” carbon nanotubes make it easier to “break” water molecules and extract hydrogen. The discovery could have big implications, namely, lower hydrogen production costs, for industries looking to hydrogen as an alternative fuel. The scientists – NC State Department of Physics professor Dr. Marco Buongiorno-Nardelli; Dr. Keith Gubbins, W.H. Clark Distinguished University Professor of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering; post-doctoral researcher Milen Kostov; and students Erik Santiso and Aaron George – published their results in the Sept. 30 edition of Physical Review Letters. Carbon nanotubes are structures so small that it would take 1,000 of them stacked on top of one another to equal the thickness of a human hair. The nanotubes have many potential useful applications, one of them being the ability to facilitate chemical reactions. Buongiorno-Nardelli’s team discovered that naturally occurring defects in the nanotubes can increase the rate of a chemical reaction, because the atoms that form the defective nanotubes are essentially “incomplete,” thus making them more reactive. “Normally, when you talk about chemical reactions in carbon nanotubes, you’re imagining that these reactions are happening in perfectly formed nanostructures,” said Buongiorno-Nardelli. “But the reality is that these structures have defects – places where the carbon atom network is broken. And these defects can influence the chemical reaction.” And that is what the scientists discovered when they began running computer models to simulate what would happen if they used the defective nanostructures to break water molecules. The current method for extracting hydrogen from water involves heating water molecules to 2,000 degrees Celsius. The high temperature “breaks” the molecule, and hydrogen is released. “We studied water for many months and ran many different calculations, and we ended up showing that if you want to break a water molecule, you spend a lot less energy if you do it on this defective carbon material than if you do it by simply heating the molecule until it breaks,” Buongiorno-Nardelli said. “You can reduce the energy necessary by a factor of two – you can do it at less than 1,000 degrees.” However, there are still problems to solve before a truly catalytic process can be devised – for example, how to make this dissociation reaction a viable process for hydrogen production. The team hopes to collaborate with other scientists to design and construct a nanoscale chemical reactor that will one day lead to a cost- and energy-efficient way to produce hydrogen. “We think that nanotechnology can be used to produce more and better energy in an environmentally friendly way,” says Buongiorno-Nardelli. “Our experience with the water molecules so far leads me to believe we’re headed in the right direction.” - peake - Note to editors: An abstract of the paper follows. “Dissociation of Water on Defective Carbon Substrates” Authors: M.K. Kostov, E.E. Santiso and K.E. Gubbins, Center for High Performance Simulation and Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina. M. Buongiorno-Nardelli, Center for High Performance Simulation and Department of Physics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina and CCS-CSM Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Published: Sept. 30, 2005, in Physical Review Letters Abstract: Using calculations from first principles, we found that water can dissociate over defective sites in graphene or nanotubes following many possible reaction pathways, some of which have activation barriers lower than half the value for the dissociation of bulk water. This reduction is caused by spin selection rules that allow the system to remain on the same spin surface throughout the reaction."

9/29/2005 9:01:09 PM

We should make a car that ran on AIDS. We'd never run out and Africa would be rich as shit.

9/29/2005 9:08:09 PM

Quote :

"thats not the way science works. one paper cannot posit an entire area of research is meritless. the scientific oommunity has confidence in hydrogen."

Quote :

"as if i hadnt already been proven correct when i say hydrogen is easily extractably from water, and researchers contine to make it easier"

thats great. no one ever said it was hard to get hydrogen from water. You can get a diamond from a lump of coal too...

Its not a matter of getting the hydrogen. Its a matter of getting the ENERGY to create the hydrogen. There's this crazy thing called "efficiency" that means that you don't get all the energy back that you put into something. Thus, the whole idea of the impossibility of a perpetual motion machine. And thats the reason that you can't use a generator's output to power the turbine which turns the generator.

Thus, its not as simple as 1) pour water into tank. 2) Profit! The water doesn't magically turn into H2 and O2 at a whim. You gotta apply energy. And if you apply energy, you gotta HAVE that energy, which would mean ANOTHER POWER SOURCE. And NO, a battery won't do it. Because you can't try and charge the battery using the electrolysis output due to the aforementioned point about a generator. Thus, you gotta have something else to charge the battery...

but thx for being a moron. we love you all the same

9/29/2005 9:22:39 PM

how do you defend the argument that it also takes energy to get crude from the ground, transport it to refineries, refine it, and distribute using itself?

does anyone know what the current efficiency of this process is? Queti, maybe?

9/29/2005 9:31:41 PM

Quote :

"thats great. no one ever said it was hard to get hydrogen from water. You can get a diamond from a lump of coal too...but thx for being a moron. we love you all the same"

In a garden of advancement you are a fucking weed aaronburro. READ his post next time. It's not that hard.

Quote :

"Its not a matter of getting the hydrogen. Its a matter of getting the ENERGY to create the hydrogen."

Wtf, did you just skip the part about using carbon nanotubes to reduce the ENERGY required to separate hydrogen from water molecules.

Quote :

"“You can reduce the energy necessary by a factor of two – you can do it at less than 1,000 degrees.”"

/Celsius
~OMG we cant heat water up to 1,000 degrees Celsius @#%!!!! This shit is superscience, I cant believe we're even thinking about doing this OMF!!~
Seriously, where does your ignorance end?

9/29/2005 9:34:45 PM

Quote :

"how do you defend the argument that it also takes energy to get crude from the ground, transport it to refineries, refine it, and distribute using itself?"

Cookiepuss brings up a good question aaronburrito. Dont you think a fuel that is far more powerful in terms of combustion which can be supplied by a vast reservior such as our oceans is far far far far far more cheaper in terms of powering it's own refining in comparison from black shit found under the earth. Not only that, but take into consideration that the engines that combust this fuel not only produce water itself as an emission.

[Edited on September 29, 2005 at 9:45 PM. Reason : .]

9/29/2005 9:43:41 PM

You can heat water to 1000, it's called steam. Of course, that doesn't 'sound' more efficient than simple electrolysis. That said, electrolysis is a bitch when it comes to efficiency, less than 20% last I heard.

9/29/2005 9:43:42 PM

You'll be hearing higher numbers soon enough Lone Snark. Especially with the use of nano technology.

9/29/2005 9:46:16 PM

Quote :

"how do you defend the argument that it also takes energy to get crude from the ground, transport it to refineries, refine it, and distribute using itself?"

pretty damn easy. The energy we get from oil is already in the oil. All we have to do is get to the oil. Getting to the oil is instrinsicly different than getting hydrogen from water. In one case the product that we use to create energy has already been created. In the other it hasn't and we have to make the product from another product. Plus, the fact that hydrogen combustion produces WATER ought to tell you something about trying to use electrolysis to create hydrogen... And it ought to tell you that you expend more energy making hydrogen from water than you make from burning hydrogen. Thus, if you have the energy to create hydrogen from water, then from an efficiency standpoint you should use that power source to power your cars...

Now, if your power source is renewable, then thats another thing. But saying "put electrolysis in a car!" is stupid, because it won't work.

Quote :

"tf, did you just skip the part about using carbon nanotubes to reduce the ENERGY required to separate hydrogen from water molecules."

still doesn't matter. you will NEVER get more energy from burning hydrogen than you will have to expend to get hydrogen from the water. If the current electolysis efficiency is 2% (as in burning hydrogen gives you 2% of the energy it took to create the hydrogen), then inventing some process that makes it 20 times easier to get hydrogen via electrolysis doesn't change the bottom line: it takes more energy to make hydrogen from water than you gain by burning hydrogen.

Quote :

"OMG we cant heat water up to 1,000 degrees Celsius @#%!!!! This shit is superscience, I cant believe we're even thinking about doing this OMF!!~ Seriously, where does your ignorance end?"

it probably ended long before you will stop your ad hominem. have a taste of strawman too, while you are at it

Quote :

"Cookiepuss brings up a good question aaronburrito. Dont you think a fuel that is far more powerful in terms of combustion which can be supplied by a vast reservior such as our oceans is far far far far far more cheaper in terms of powering it's own refining in comparison from black shit found under the earth."

Where are these hydrogen deposits on earth again? I would LOVE to see them.

Quote :

"Not only that, but take into consideration that the engines that combust this fuel not only produce water itself as an emission."

So, let me get this straight. We have a source of fuel that is all over the place that we call "water." And somehow, SOMEHOW, we are going to take this "fuel," pour it into our cars and have it power our cars, and then it comes out again as "water." So, why don't we just take a hose from the exhaust and pump that water right back into the fuel tank? PERPETUAL ENERGY!!! YAAAAAAAAAY!!!

9/29/2005 10:28:02 PM

Quote :

"The energy we get from oil is already in the oil. All we have to do is get to the oil."

Doesn't it cost energy to drill the oil. What about the heating used to separate the different grades of crude. If you didn’t know heat is used to settle the heavier hydrocarbons to the bottom of the refinery tank as lighter hydrocarbons go to the top. That’s how we produce tar, grease, oil, then gas by the way.

Quote :

"Getting to the oil is instrinsicly different than getting hydrogen from water."

Its the same principle method.

Quote :

"Plus, the fact that hydrogen combustion produces WATER ought to tell you something about trying to use electrolysis to create hydrogen... And it ought to tell you that you expend more energy making hydrogen from water than you make from burning hydrogen. Thus, if you have the energy to create hydrogen from water, then from an efficiency standpoint you should use that power source to power your cars..."

“Expend more energy making hydrogen from water than you make from burning hydrogen” eh. Hydrogen is far more powerful than you think it is. That is why NASA is making rockets hydrogen engines for the next space shuttle. Your standpoint on efficiency is ludicrous in that you think we should run cars on electricity alone. Doesn’t electricity itself require energy to generate it. You said it your self, a generator can not run on its own output.

Quote :

"But saying "put electrolysis in a car!" is stupid, because it won't work."

I never said that, nor did anyone else. Electrolysis is the method of refining water into useable hydrogen gas. You’re also wrong in saying electrolysis cant be implemented into a car itself "because it won't work." Again you’re showing little faith in technology because this idea is already implemented in some electric hybrids. I can post the link if you want.

Quote :

"If the current electolysis efficiency is 2% (as in burning hydrogen gives you 2% of the energy it took to create the hydrogen)"

Dude you are not a hydrolysis expert, you have no evidence to support that this is where it stands, nor do you have evidence that this figure can not be improved. Quit acting like you know what you’re talking about, or post a legitimate link.

Quote :

"So, let me get this straight. We have a source of fuel that is all over the place that we call "water." And somehow, SOMEHOW, we are going to take this "fuel," pour it into our cars and have it power our cars, and then it comes out again as "water." So, why don't we just take a hose from the exhaust and pump that water right back into the fuel tank? PERPETUAL ENERGY!!! YAAAAAAAAAY!!!"

Your approach is so juvenile you have lost all credibility to start off with. Pleace stay away from scientific discussions before you further humiliate yourself.


[Edited on September 29, 2005 at 10:59 PM. Reason : .]

9/29/2005 10:58:46 PM

Quote :

"Doesn't it cost energy to drill the oil. What about the heating used to separate the different grades of crude. If you didn’t know heat is used to settle the heavier hydrocarbons to the bottom of the refinery tank as lighter hydrocarbons go to the top. That’s how we produce tar, grease, oil, then gas by the way."

oh. my. goodness. you really don't get it, do you? let me reiterate it:

Quote :

"Getting to the oil is instrinsicly different than getting hydrogen from water."

Quote :

" Its the same principle method. "

only... its NOT. With oil, we are expending energy to RETRIEVE the fuel. With hydrolysis, we are expending energy to CREATE the fuel. There is a MAJOR difference between retrieving and creating a fuel. As in, there is a MAJOR difference between your dog fetching the paper and your dog creating the newspaper from trees, ink, etc.

yes, we separate the oil, and in doing so we expend energy. However, we are NOT changing the molecular structure of the oil. we are changing the concentration of molecules that make up the oil. doing that is also fundamentally different than breaking up a molecule, in the same way that breaking up a mixture of peas and carrots into just peas and just carrots is fundamentally different than cutting each pea and each carrot in half and combining each half of a pea with a half of a carrot. Here's a little hint for you: E=m*c^2... If you can't tell me how that matters, then don't reply again. Although, I'll give you another hint: you were unknowingly using a result of E=m*c^2 in CH101 when you were working on chemical equations via all those funny numbers you had to play with to figure out the heat/energy emmitted by various chemical processes...

Quote :

"Hydrogen is far more powerful than you think it is. That is why NASA is making rockets hydrogen engines for the next space shuttle."

No, NASA uses hydrogen as a fuel AS OPPOSED TO GASOLINE because, pound per pound, hydrogen is more powerful than gasoline. That statement says NOTHING about water. It says something about the relative power of hydrogen and gasoline. Show me a NASA rocket, created or planned (not envisioned, but PLANNED), with ONLY water as a FUEL and no other power source and then we'll talk seriously about using water as a fuel in a system where water is the emission as well...

Quote :

"Your standpoint on efficiency is ludicrous in that you think we should run cars on electricity alone."

too bad thats not what I said. My statement of thermal efficiency is precisely why water is NOT a fuel.

Quote :

"I never said that, nor did anyone else. Electrolysis is the method of refining water into useable hydrogen gas. You’re also wrong in saying [hydrolysis] cant be implemented into a car itself "because it won't work." Again you’re showing little faith in technology because this idea is already implemented in some electric hybrids."

Thats great. its also STUPID, because you have to have both water and another power source in order to utilize hydrolysis, and in utilizing the other power source, you are putting a second layer of inefficiency into the process, especially when you consider that the hydrogen has to push not only the car, but also the added weight of the other power source. The hydrogen would do much better without that extra weight, and the other power source would provide more power to the engine ON ITS OWN than it does by first going through the process of hydrolysis. Performing hydrolysis OBOARD a car in order to use the hydrogen as a fuel in the manner described so far in this thread is pure tom-foolery.

Quote :

"I never said that, nor did anyone else."

oh really? check out page 1:

Quote :

"dont give me that shit unless youve done the research, water powered cars are the best bet for the future."

Quote :

" Dude you are not a hydrolysis expert, you have no evidence to support that this is where it stands"

HAHAHAHAHAHA! i don't HAVE to know the number. I postulated a hypothetical scenario for the SOLE PURPOSE of pointing out that increasing efficiency DOESN'T mean you all of a sudden take in less energy than you put out. A rudimentary understanding of thermodynamics would be enough for you to shut your fucking mouth. I don't need a link to know that.

Quote :

"nor do you have evidence that this figure can not be improved"

I never said that it couldn't be improved. In fact, I'll bet it can be improved. but, the thermal efficiency will NEVER be improved beyond 100%. In fact, it will NEVER even reach 100%. I don't recall the number off the top of my head, but I seem to recall that a good efficiency for a thermal process is what, 90%? And I picked a high number so as not to be too low (I hope)! But the point still stands, as long as the process remains below 100% efficiency, then you are LOSING energy. Thus, you don't implement onboard AS A FUEL SOURCE FOR AN ENGINE a system that requires more energy than it creates.

Quote :

" Your approach is so juvenile you have lost all credibility to start off with."

my approach only seems juvenile because you don't understand the fucking scientifically accpeted concepts you are saying are false. And trust me, its pretty fucking bad when I AM THE ONE who is calling you a dumbfuck due to science saying you are wrong.

Quote :

"Pleace stay away from scientific discussions before you further humiliate yourself. "

the ONLY person being humiliated in this scientific discussion is YOU! please, tell me what your major is. I'd love to know it. Then I'll tell you what major I was in for three fucking years, then you can maybe talk to me about understanding basic fundamentals of efficiency.

btw, I believe I referred to the process as "electrolysis" earlier. I'm gonna stop pwnting you for a second and pwn myself for saying that instead of "hydrolysis"

9/30/2005 1:08:48 AM

I only read the first part

breaking up molecules into atoms =/= breaking apart atoms

9/30/2005 1:13:53 AM

they are more similar than you think, Steve.

9/30/2005 1:22:42 AM

oh, right, carry on

9/30/2005 1:33:18 AM

I'm with ya, aaronburro.

Quote :

"However, there are still problems to solve before a truly catalytic process can be devised – for example, how to make this dissociation reaction a viable process for hydrogen production. The team hopes to collaborate with other scientists to design and construct a nanoscale chemical reactor that will one day lead to a cost- and energy-efficient way to produce hydrogen."

That article's good and all, but sounds like its at least 15 yrs away from practical use.

9/30/2005 9:18:28 AM

I too support the aaronburro.

But you might point it out another way to supercalo: after we have separated up the parts of crude oil, we then burn the fuels produced that no one wants to sell, to generate the heat necessary to continue separating the fuels.

From the separators stand-point, we put in crude oil, and out comes gasoline, butane, diesel, natural gas, and tar. Their is only an initial energy injection to get the whole process started, plus whatever electricity is used for command and control.

Alternatively, after you burn hydrogen, all you have is water. If you want hydrogen again you need to inject more electricity into the car.

My question is, if nickel metal batteries are readily recycleable, doesn't that mean there won't be a major environmental problem with their use and we don't need to worry about running out of the materials that go into the battery?

9/30/2005 10:24:11 AM

they're recyclable, but nothing's 100% recyclable. I don't know alot about the batteries, but you only get a portion of the original material back in recycling, so eventually, you'll still run out

9/30/2005 11:45:47 AM

^ Of course we are "eventually" going to run out. But as with most metals, even at a paltry 80% recycling rate the earth has enough proven reserves to last the next thousand years. So I wouldn't worry too much about it.

9/30/2005 12:13:43 PM

Quote :

"they're recyclable, but nothing's 100% recyclable. I don't know alot about the batteries, but you only get a portion of the original material back in recycling, so eventually, you'll still run out"

i'm not disagreeing with you, DG, because you are totally right. I am using parts of your statement to show how taking water, breaking up, and then putting it back into water again is equally fruitless as a sole power source for a car.

As another good point, though here is something to ponder: If we ignore the aforementioned arguments against hydrolysis onboard a car, lets think about it another way. What is the mass of water? ~18g/mol, right? What is the mass of the H2 we wish to derive from the water? ~ 2g/mol, right? That means that in our "fuel," itself, we are carrying around an extra 16g/mol of stuff we don't really need. Thats a ratio of 1:8 of useful material vs useless material. As anyone can tell you, your car gets worse mileage with a full tank of gas than it does with only two gallons. Thus, it would be so much smarter from a weight standpoint to carry around only hydrogen. Of course, hydrogen itself is not a happy thing to be carrying around all by its lonesome, so we would need to find another method of putting the hydrogen into a less volatile state...

9/30/2005 3:43:30 PM

^and hence another financial and technological hundle to jump....which goes back to my first or second post

9/30/2005 3:46:42 PM

And if the history of technology has taught us anything, it's that we're utterly incapable of jumping these hurdles.

Maybe we'll get lucky and find oil on Mars.

9/30/2005 3:55:25 PM

Quote :

"only... its NOT. With oil, we are expending energy to RETRIEVE the fuel. With hydrolysis, we are expending energy to CREATE the fuel"

thats completely bogus.

With oil, we need to input A TON OF ENERGY to get into a fuel form.

HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF FRACTIONAL DISTILITATION?

I CANT JUST PULL MY CAR UP TO AN OIL RIG CHIEF

oil ---(input energy) ---> gas -> ignition
water----(input energy)---> hydrogen -> ignition

(the cost of fractionally distilling oil is built into the price, k?)

Both are the same process. Seperating the hydrogens and oxygens in water is very simliar to seperating the different kinds of hydrocarbons in oil by distilling it fractionally.

Anyway, youre not a chemist so I wouldnt expect you to undestand that. One is breaking a molecule, one seperating molecules. The mechanism is different, but regardless, youre making compound A from compound B.

The point remains that it takes very little energy to get hydrogen from water compared to gas from oil.

Quote :

"~18g/mol, right? What is the mass of the H2 we wish to derive from the water? ~ 2g/mol, right? That means that in our "fuel," itself, we are carrying around an extra 16g/mol of stuff we don't really need. Thats a ratio of 1:8 of useful material vs useless material."

you just have no clue what your talking about. do you even know what volume of hydrogen gas you can get from 1 gram of water?



In one gram of water, 1/8 is hydrogen, and you can make 22.4 Liters of Hydrogen gas one freaking mol of hydrogen -- i mole of water weighing just 18grams

--that mean you are carrying several liter of gaseous fuel PER gram of water.

Quote :

"No, NASA uses hydrogen as a fuel AS OPPOSED TO GASOLINE because, pound per pound, hydrogen is more powerful than gasoline. That statement says NOTHING about water."

have you ever considered that maybe gas stations would be provided with carbon nanotubes, and they would just add water then setup of fueling station for hydrogen? its just a possibility

anyways -- youre missing the point ... the reason why water is so perfect is that with 20 gallons of it on board, youve only got an extra 160 pounds, nothing compared to the weight of the car, so dont give me this "OMF SO HEAVY" bullshit --

you would slowly exrtact the hydrogen from water AND BURN IT RIGHT AWAY, you wouldnt need advanced storage technology to keep things safe becuase you wouldnt store it. you would need to store just a little bit though. do you undstand now?

[Edited on September 30, 2005 at 4:21 PM. Reason : -]

9/30/2005 3:59:37 PM

^^I'm not saying its impossible to jump the hundle. Just saying its a hurdle.

^All true. Hydrogen will have to be in compressed liquid form for vehicles the way I see it.

9/30/2005 4:37:28 PM

i want a car that runs on crude oil like aaronburros

9/30/2005 4:56:15 PM

Hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in the next decade, and we're talking about using food to fuel our cars

9/30/2005 5:02:30 PM

i'm not weak

I'M ALTERNATIVELY POWERED

9/30/2005 5:05:30 PM

Quote :

"I'm not saying its impossible to jump the hundle. Just saying its a hurdle."

Then what's the point of this thread?

Are we not going to find alternative power sources because it'll be tough?

waaah

[Edited on September 30, 2005 at 6:10 PM. Reason : .]

9/30/2005 6:09:45 PM