Amensotep

Join Date 07/2006

Hydrogen Cars

Saving the environment, or gasoline's bigger brother?

I've been seeing a lot of buzz over cars that give off water vapor over the past few years. Now, admittedly, it's a nice idea to have a car that gives off what is considered a clean fuel. Alas, that's where the problem lies.

Now, let's assume that, by clean, they mean "a gas that won't contribute to global warming," a.k.a. greenhouse gases. Of course, any time we need to see the worst possible result of greenhouse gases, we can just take a look at Venus. Yeah, I certainly wouldn't want to visit there. However, there may be a slight problem with this idea of water vapor being clean.

Water Vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, which is why it is addressed here first. However, changes in its conentration is also considered to be a result of climate feedbacks related to the warming of the atmosphere rather than a direct result of industrialization. The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change, but as yet is still fairly poorly measured and understood.

Source: http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html

Oops. I think someone forgot to do their fact checking before trumping up hydrogen fuel cells.

Now, for real fun, one must understand that the water cycle is the whole core of the global warming argument. Earth gets warmer, more water wapor in the air, air continues to get warmer, and then comes the freeze. And what happens? Why, all of that water vapor helps drop the temperature immensely. Thus, the real danger of global warming is a killer ice age that humanity, and possibly all life on this planet, can't survive. Nevermind the fact life on this planet survived two or three of those killer ice ages before...

Oh, and the best part:

However, huge scientific uncertainty exists in defining the extent and importance of this feedback loop. As water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation (thus allowing less energy to reach the Earth's surface and heat it up). The future monitoring of atmospheric processes involving water vapor will be critical to fully understand the feedbacks in the climate system leading to global climate change. As yet, though the basics of the hydrological cycle are fairly well understood, we have very little comprehension of the complexity of the feedback loops. Also, while we have good atmospheric measurements of other key greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, we have poor measurements of global water vapor, so it is not certain by how much atmospheric concentrations have risen in recent decades or centuries, though satellite measurements, combined with balloon data and some in-situ ground measurements indicate generally positive trends in global water vapor.

Okay, for those of you who don't want to read all of that: Basically, they have no clue. We have a key element of the entire issue of global warming that is on par with how key gravity is to the issue of black holes and they understand less about it than they do about gravity. Which means that a lot of these equations they've been working to model global warming and its effects are missing important data that makes the results equal to trying to model a black hole while understanding only the phrase "what goes up must come down." And, top it all off, some of the people doing these models want to turn around and use a type of fuel cell that may compound a problem that their ignorance of this key item may prevent them from knowing the existance of.

Gee, anyone else see a problem with this? I mean, if increasing water vapor in the air as a result of greenhouse gases causes the whole mess that we're trying to prevent, then what would putting larger amounts of water vapor than even the most doomsdayish models of global warming predict (this is assuming all gasoline engines are replaced with hydrogen cells overnight) do to the environment? Seems to me that it would make gasoline seem tame. And, assuming those amounts, we might as well go ahead and carpet bomb the ice caps with fission warheads. Should have about the same results, give or take.

Oh, wait, I just noticed my source left out some information about plants (which are pretty worthless for increasing oxygen in the atmosphere, really). Well, in that case, let me try another. How about NASA? I know they're usually better about their facts.

Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. Not only are its infrared absorption features widespread and strong, but it also displays a significant continuum absorption. Thus, while not one of the "gases of concern" in the sense of anthropogenic modification, the feedbacks engendered by the higher water content of a warmer atmosphere (and, potentially, greater cloud cover) are an important element of these studies. Furthermore, water vapor, through continua centered at 100 and 1600 cm-1, is a crucial element in the radiative balance of the upper troposphere. TES routinely measures humidity (water vapor) profiles with a precision better than 10%.

Source: http://tes.jpl.nasa.gov/science/greenhouse.cfm

Scientists know that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide have risen sharply in recent years, but a study released today in Paris reports a surprising and dramatic increase in the most important greenhouse gas - water vapor - during the last half-century.

"Half the increase in the stratosphere can be traced to human-induced increases in methane, which turns into water vapor at high altitudes, but the other half is a mystery," said Mote. "Part of the increase must have occurred as a result of changes in the tropical tropopause, a region about 10 miles above the equator, that acts as a valve that allows air into the stratosphere."

A satellite record of relative humidity data for the upper troposphere shows a 2 percent increase during the last 20 years in the equatorial region. However, the uncertainty in this determination is too large to allow a clear conclusion as to whether this is part of a long-term trend.

Source: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2001/200104254688.html

Now, look at the date of this information. The second source is six years old. Why hasn't this been all over the news in my area? Considering the most important gas of the whole issue and one of the two key gases to maintaining Earth's temperature levels had a mysterious amount of increase, I would think this would be cause for a lot of concern. And turning around and increasing it even more withj hydrogen fuel cells just... I'm sorry, but I cannot express my opinion of that without slipping into profanity.

Seriously. It's a greenhouse gas that is the key to the whole global warming issue for Earth. It's also one of the gases we understand the least about in the atmosphere and people are wanting to replace gasoline cars with ones that give it off. And, worse, I can't find any models for this that don't end up making a Hollywood global warming movie look realistic, either. So, why are we doing this, again?

off-topic

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

Look, Hydrogen fuel-cell cars needn't emit water-vapor. If you collect and condense that water vapor, you get distilled water. The problem is gone. Anyway, Honda is now leasing fuel-cell cars, but I don't think they have condensation systems installed...

Successfully updated karma reason!

Keep in mind these cars are built to take in air from outside as part of the process. Keep in mind, also, that these systems are under a lot more strain than your average sewer and that you have to empty out the stored water. Now, just off the top of my head, you're going to have to figure out a way to either dispose of the liquid or fit the number of necessary filtration and cleansing systems into a car while maintaining fuel efficiency at a reasonable level so that it can remain safe for human consumption.

Let's examine the dumping scenario first. There are two options for it: Local environment or special system to port it back to the ocean.

Under local environment, you end up with more water in the ecosystem, even if temporary, and a resulting increase in the amount of water vapor in the local system. This basically takes us back to the first post, as we'd have exactly the same problems show up anyway. Thus, not viable.

Under porting it back to the ocean, there's a number of problems. Take the U.S. You need to build a system across the entire nation and have it maintained properly, as well as properly treated, before being dumped back in the ocean. If you don't, you're just porting a number of airborne toxins that will end up getting sucked into the system into the oceans and potentially causing just as much environmental damage as if you were still using gasoline vehicles. Considering the issues with roads that the U.S. has and how much of a project this would be, I would say it's also not viable.

Now, let's look at the human consumption route: Keep in mind the aforementioned toxins. Add in airborne diseases that could potentially be put in the water and survive long enough to be consumed by the driver. Considering this makes the current plague risks the U.S. has even worse in addition to increasing human consumption of airborne toxins, you would have to build special cleansing and filtration systems on par with a local water treatment plant into the car. The last I checked, these systems would be bulky enough to reduce the fuel efficiency of the car (more weight means less fuel efficiency, after all) enough to dramatically increase the amount of water the car ends up producing. Possibly to the point the average human couldn't drink it all and would be forced into potentially looking for dumping solutions.

Now, the above doesn't take into consideration engine wear and tear, for which you'd need even more filtration systems. The above does take into consideration realistic expectations of cleanness of water and realistic reflections on American air quality. Oh, and I'm not sure about this, but the cars may also come under the regulation of the FDA under this, due to the fact they are providing water for the driver and certain safety protocols would have to be regulated to keep greed from costing lives.

In all cases, you may also end up reducing the longterm viability of these vehicles, which in turn further increases potential resource waste. I am unsure of the effects on actual resource waste, but then that's not what my topic was about. Hopefully, it would have the opposite effect and end up reducing it.

Now, keep in mind all of this is off the top of my head. I have yet to look up the relevant sources on the net to further flesh out the above, and I do admit I may be off on what I have here.

Successfully updated karma reason!

So your recommendation is continued emphasis on taming the devil we know, i.e. hydrocarbon fueled vehicles, or

the development of greater load carrying humman powered vehicles, or

electrics, with a comensurate demand for development of national network of fast charging stations and increased generation, and a demand for moderately rare high density battery materials, or

ZPG, or

what?

Successfully updated karma reason!

I'm with you there, there is already research into cars with onboard electrolysers which condense the water vapour emitted from Hydrogen Fuels cells (and its more powerful, and more complex bigger brother the Hydrogen Internal Combustion Engine [ICE]) and then extract the hydrogen from the water and (in the case of Hydrogen ICE) burn it in the oxygen left over. This creates a very efficient method of in-car fuel recycling, whether it will work is another matter, but its a good idea.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Hydrogen go boom rember the hienburg big flame

Successfully updated karma reason!

WIllythemailboy

Join Date 03/2006

+70

Hydrogen go boom rember the hienburg big flame

Someone doesn't know their history - the Hindenburg burned because the skin paint contained iron oxide and powdered aluminum (google Thermite if you want to know how that works) and wasn't properly grounded against static electricity. Not that hydrogen doesn't have some serious safety issues, but gasoline does too.

I haven't seen anyone do the math on this, but consider: how much hydrogen would need to be burned to replace all the gas used in the world today? Converted back to water, how much vapor would be produced? Most importantly, how does this number compare to natural evaporation?

From some hasty estimation on my part:

Total US gasoline usage 388.6 million gallons/day (EIA estimate)
Energy density of gas 34.6 MJ/L (Wikipedia - not very reliable, but close enough)
Energy density of H2 143 MJ/Kg (Wikipedia)
H2 needed to replace gas 357.3 million Kg/day (do the math)
Water generated 3215.7 million Kg/day ~ 3.2 million metric tons/day

Now, the real kicker. Estimated global precipitation is 505,000 cubic km/year (Wikipedia), which translates to 1.38 x 10^14 metric tons a day. Somehow, I don't think the human contribution to this will matter all that much

*edit* Dang, the formatting I put into that table didn't work. Well, it's still kinda readable

Successfully updated karma reason!

Hydrogen go boom rember the hienburg big flame

i think you mean the Hindenburg.

modern containment mechanisms are much better, and hydrogen fuel cell -powered cars don't need to float, which means they can have even better containment.

the prototypes i'm familiar with aren't meant to recycle their water while in use IIRC. water can be converted to 2H2 + O2 using a photo-voltaic cell, but if that were meant to power a car directly while in use, it'd make more sense to simply use a solar car.

i've been in favor of introducing hydrogen fuel cells for a long time. i know they're not perfect, but they're a lot better than burning fossil fuels. my big concern is to not use them up, becuase fossil fuels can be useful for a lot more than just power generation.

the real problem isn't just cars, it's power. we could switch everyone to electric cars, but then we'd have the small problem of the polluting means by which we produce most of our electricity.

the best thing any of us can do, right now, is change our lifestyles. don't drive, walk or take a bike, or use public transportation if where you're going is too far to get there with your own muscle power. buy locally-grown foods; they're not transported to you on diesel engines from south america (or other parts of the world), and local growers usually employ more sustainable agricultural practices. reduce in-home electricity use: compact florescent bulbs, for example, are great; they don't cost an absurd amount, they're almost functionally identical to incandescent bulbs (they take a second to warm up, but other than that, i can't tell the difference), they last years (saving you time and money), and they use about a third of the electricity.

but the truth is, most pollution isn't coming from your average joe. most pollution is industrial. again i say, the issue is power--but this time i mean political, not electrical. that's not a bag i want to open for more than a second, in which i want to say: it's really not easy to find information about a company's environmental practices. sure, many companies flaunt one or two things they do that're good. but it's usually propoganda. there's no exhuastive measure by which i can use my consumer power to prefer green businesses.

so i've said my peace. i don't imagine i'll continue to participate in this discussion, though i'll probably follow it. the topic interests me greatly, but it also frustrates me because there's simply no easy solution--not yet, anyway.

Successfully updated karma reason!

As far as i am aware the only way of getting hydrogen in a usable state is by making it from petrol...

So as I see it a pretty much pointless exercise the world is running out of energy(in a usable form for machines). Sorry to spoil your day but its true, great social change is coming its inevitable. Wars (more commonly know as bringing democracy to the middle east)are bound to spread. Over energy, space, food and water.Then there is the whole host of natural disaster to deal with.

I do not believe there is a Deus ex machina. Of course there are things we can do now but whenever did big business listen to our concerns, after all they have spent the last 400 hundred years exploiting the poor!

Successfully updated karma reason!

As far as i am aware the only way of getting hydrogen in a usable state is by making it from petrol...

QTF. Hydrogen is NOT an energy source. It is an energy CARRIER, like a battery. Free hydrogen doesn't exist on this planet, it must be manufactured and the energy to do so must come from some other source. And of course the energy used in the making is more than the energy which you get out of it, that's just basic thermodynamics.

Hydrogen proponents are like the people in Who Killed The Electric Car lamenting that we missed the chance to end pollution and free ourselves from fossil fuel dependence . . . as if electricity just magically appears from wall socket. Same principle with hydrogen, all that nasty energy production isn't happening directly in the vehicle so people who don't know the laws of thermodynamics just assume it isn't happening, period.

So what if fuel cells only produce water vapour as a byproduct, producing hydrogen is an industrial process. If you've got the electricity available (from whatever source) you're better off just using it directly instead of pumping it into the technically nightmarish and energetically unfeasible white elephant that is hydrogen. But most people suck at science, think hydrogen is high tech and sexy, and goverments give out nice grants and tax rebates for it. So the farce goes on.

Successfully updated karma reason!

WIllythemailboy

Join Date 03/2006

+70

Very true, especially from the thermodynamic standpoint. The only thing hydrogen has going for it is storeability - it's damn hard and expensive to store electricity compared to any sort of combustable material. Both technologies currently have fueling issues - no present system gives the convenience of refilling your tank/batteries in the same time frame as filling with gas. Especially for us Americans, that's a significant consideration. We're pretty shallow that way

At this point, it's more a race to streamline and idiot-proof these systems. A charging system people can electrocute themselves on is hardly marketable. Neither is a H2 station any fool can blow themselves up in (not that gas doesn't have this problem, but it's strangely overlooked).

Mainly what we need to change (in terms of transportation, at least) is how readily available and convenient it is. If you commute an hour each day, you will be horribly wasteful no matter what you're driving. I'm not green enough to bike to work yet, but I haven't bought gas in the past month, either. How many others here can say that?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Couple of things. First, about the liquid H2O rather than gaseous H2O, when hydrogen is used in a fuel cell, the H2O is created on the spot. Therefore, it is pure.
Furthermore, no other byproducts are created by the fuel cell.
If you're going to say that the brand-spanking-new H2O molecules are poisonous because of a short-time exposure to air, why the hell can I drink water that's been around for years, after it's been sitting in an open container for days, without getting sick? And don't tell me chemicals; I can do this with well water from my tap, bottled water, or city water, and if I take it from a fast-flowing part of the stream, that would work too.

Second, presuming we can't use the water somehow, I don't understand how this water vapor is a problem. For one thing, we have numbers above. For another, have you ever been outside on a hot, humid day? A cold humid day?
Y'see, when it's hot and humid, you sweat just like any other day. The problem is that your sweat can't evaporate, meaning it doesn't require heat from your body (look up evaporative cooling) and it doesn't cool you. Why can't the sweat evaporate? Because there's too much water vapor in the air already.
When it's cold, there's no humidity. Why? Because when it's cold and the dew point (dependent on other factors) is below the current temperature (see, in my parts of the world, in the months of November through March or April), the water 'vapor' condenses at ground level, creating dew, or, in the case of the water vapor a hydrogen car may produce, mist. A very, very fine mist.

Another thing. Where the hell do you think we're getting this hydrogen from? We have to make it from something that exists on the planet. What's most common, there? Well, I'm pretty sure that'd be water. It happens to be one of the easier molecules to remove the Hydrogen from.
So, by taking water and making hydrogen out of it, then using that hydrogen to re-create water, we're introducing more water into the atmosphere?
I fail to see how this works. Please educate me.

Yes, it does take energy to separate the hydrogen atoms from the oxygen atoms in H2O. And no, we don't get as much energy back when we do the process the other way.
I agree that hydrogen cars and fossil fuel power plants are useless. But I don't like the idea of electric cars and fossil fuel power plants either. I'm a proponent of solar, wind, hydroelectric and nuclear (gasp!) power. Other 'green' forms, such as geothermal and whatever the tidal one is called, are also useful, but I think the first four are the ones that we can most readily make. And yes, I know there are disposal issues with nuclear power, but reclamation reactors and very strict disposal of the leftover waste after that is good enough for me (and before you ask, yes, if "strict disposal of the waste" is followed, I'd even allow it to be done in my backyard directly).
And when it comes down to the hypothetical "clean energy, now choose: Hydrogen or Electric," I pick Hydrogen. Or hybrid. I don't want to have to rely on batteries to run my car. I don't want to carry extension cords everywhere, I don't want to wait 12 hours while my batteries recharge, and I don't want to recharge every 150 miles. Hydrogen, once we have the infrastructure for it, could be as quick as gasoline. Or at least much much quicker than electricity. The beauty of it is that any hydrogen fill-up station could have hydrogen production facilities, as well, as it doesn't need the full refining process that current fossil fuels do.

Edit: Added last paragraph. And, gotta love "H-Twenty."

Successfully updated karma reason!

One other way to get hydrogen is use nuclear power to produce electricity and use the elelectricity to split water into hydrogen and oxegen like how subs get oxegen.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I think this was covered earlier but how is disposal a problem?. Either dump it on the ground to get collected by our current sewer system and put back into the environment, fillin gup our resiovoirs and lakes (drought prevention any one? Autrialia, South East US?) or pump it out of the car when you refill. The station can take the water and turn it back into hydrogen. That way, if there are safety concerns about the water being dirty having gone through a machine, all the water is now in a closed loop.

Successfully updated karma reason!

As far as i am aware the only way of getting hydrogen in a usable state is by making it from petrol...

As such, fossil fuels are also an energy carrier, storing solar fusion energy from way-back-when. That way, nearly all our energy is indeed solar fusion energy, the rest being the comparatively negligible amount of fission energy we manage to generate in nuclear power plants. Even the extremely pathetic amounts of antimatter we create are mere energy carriers - we input energy to create the antimatter and can release it upon annihilation. Nuclear sources are the only way to release energy from matter effectively, while we still have uranium and deuterium(should we harness fusion practically) on this planet. And then, using this energy will convert it into heat, wasting it and resulting in it either escaping into space or heating up the planet more.

Hydrogen can be created by breaking up water into oxygen and hydrogen. This will take electricity. This electricity can come from hydroelectric, hydel, photovoltaic, fission or someday, fusion power sources. The problem is setting this infrastructure up, which requires the input of money. But then you can also put that money into the increasing costs of fossil fuels and environment conservation efforts. This choice, of course, is up to governments and corporations.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The question regarding hydrogen, synthetic fuel, or straight electricity, is whether or not our energy budget can support them. Fossil fuels are eventually going to run out, and we are going to have to make a switch to solar, water, wind, and geothermal. Hydrogen or electric cars have nothing to do with the actual energy we can produce. So it boils down to this: Electric cars (as far as I know) are the most efficient, but the least convenient; once our green energy infrastructure is built up, will it be able to provide for our needs with a surplus? If so, then we can choose to use hydrogen vehicles; while we waste some energy producing the hydrogen, hydrogen vehicles are more convenient for the consumers.

This question isn't even an issue until we figure out the parent scheme though, getting rid completely of our fuel dependency.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Personally I'm a fan of building big windmills all throughout the Alaskan tundra. Winds up there average between 30-60mph. Everyone's all worried about "destroying the environment" up there--hello, there is no environment up there to destroy. And the eyesore the windmills cause is not a problem, because no one lives there. It would be like putting solar panels throughout the Sahara Desert. The big challenge I've always seen is, how in the world do you transmit the energy you just captured to where it's needed? Generating hydrogen is a good answer.

Additionally, there are huge freshwater reserves up there, and this is a good way of transmitting that fresh water down to southern California & Arizona where it's needed. I'm not sure that hydrogen couldn't be generated from saltwater, anyway; if that's the case, then this could be an indirect desalination process as well.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Longtime lurker, apologies if anything has already been mentioned, I've not read every post. This is mostly in reply to the b***s*** encountered in the first. I apologise also for British spelling.

Water is not added to that already in the water cycle from hydrogen fuel cells. There's only so much hydrogen on Earth and most of it is in the form of water. This is where most of the hydrogen for fuel cells is coming from, so no more water is actually added to the water cycle. Your point does not hold water, so to speak.

When a fossil fuel is burnt carbon dioxide that had been removed from the natural carbon cycle is reintroduced to it when there aren't the natural carbon sinks to deal with this 'new' CO2. Humanity is introducing carbon to the atmosphere at a greater rate than it can be absorbed by natural processes leading to a rise in atmospheric CO2.

If every car were to have its fossil fuel burning engine replaced overnight by an engine run on a hydrogen fuel cell that produces water vapour an equal amount of water would need to be removed from the water cycle, hence it would not produce the warming you predict. Increased amounts of water in the atmosphere can cool the planet by condensing into clouds which can reflect heat energy from the sun back into space, an effect called Global Dimming.

The energy loss associated with converting water into Hydrogen and Oxygen could feasibly be made up for with other clean energy sources like solar or wind power, through nuclear fission or by burning fossil fuels using the existing energy infrastructure. Even though carbon dioxide and other gases are still released into the atmosphere the amount is far smaller.

If the burning of fossil fuels were to cease completely in favour of using hydrogen, solar, wind, tidal, geothermal and nuclear fission power then greenhouse gas levels would stabilise and warming would hopefully stop. The issue now is we have caused the atmosphere to warm so much that many natural processes are releasing more greenhouse gases than they absorb. It is thought to already be too late to stop climate change, but changing out ways in the next 10 years or so could prevent Earth turning into Venus 2.

Successfully updated karma reason!

In 2008, Honda will begin leasing the first production hydrogen fuel cell car, the FCX Clarity. It is basically a Honda Civic with the internal combustion engine taken out and a hydrogen fuel cell put in place. They'll scale up production of the Clarity as more hydrogen fuel stations become available(which will happpen as other companies like Ford, GM and Toyota roll out there own fuel cell vehicles in due time). Once enough hydrogen stations pop up, they'll drop the lease program and begin selling them like their other normal cars.

Windmills in Alaska are a very good idea. Windmills take kinetic energy out of the atmosphere, indirectly taking heat away from the air and actually causing a Global Cooling effect! IMO, they're not that much of an eyesore either, unless you're crazy enough to continuously stare at them.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I don't know if you have seen windmill arrays, but when I have seen them in California (particularly in the Palm Springs area), they have been an eyesore. I would hate to see those things dotting places like Lake Tahoe, the Adirondacks, the Appalachians & the Smokies, etc.. Another good place I would like to see windmills are on all those off-shore oil rigs in the Gulf--I mean hello, like it gets hurricanes? I could see a windmill helping power the oil rig itself, increasing the life of the oil reserve underneath it (plus the oil companies score brownie points with the public).

What I like about windmills is, as global warming takes hold, the turbulent weather increases. They just need to be engineered to take 100mph+ winds and possibly flying debris. Up in the tundra you probably need some kind of de-icing material; that, or make the windmill so big that the coating of ice doesn't affect the foil shape much.

Successfully updated karma reason!

To replie to the first post : yes H-cars produce water ...but so do fossil fuel cars
( C8H18 + O2 => CO2 + H2O ) ( the white vapor when you start your car is water )
the idea behind hydrogen is that you produce it using “renewables”

Successfully updated karma reason!

"I don't know if you have seen windmill arrays, but when I have seen them in California (particularly in the Palm Springs area), they have been an eyesore. I would hate to see those things dotting places like Lake Tahoe, the Adirondacks, the Appalachians"

Yes, I've seen windmill arrays in California. Unless you stare at them spinning, I don't find them that irritating. But then, I don't really care about natural scenic stuff either. Just an opinion.

"Another good place I would like to see windmills are on all those off-shore oil rigs in the Gulf--I mean hello, like it gets hurricanes? I could see a windmill helping power the oil rig itself, increasing the life of the oil reserve underneath it (plus the oil companies score brownie points with the public)."

Indeed. The Principality of Sealand generates it's power with windmills. Windmills would be a good power source for any off-shore platform.

" They just need to be engineered to take 100mph+ winds and possibly flying debris. Up in the tundra you probably need some kind of de-icing material; that, or make the windmill so big that the coating of ice doesn't affect the foil shape much."

That can surely be done, but it's all about the investment. It must be easier than engineering a nuclear-powered aircraft-carrier.

Successfully updated karma reason!

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. If the H2O helps to cool the Earth, the CO2 is helping to heat it. And of course, that brings up the matter of trees. If there isn't enough space up in Alaska to fit both those trees and those windmills, the idea is blown. Cutting a tree to plant a windmill achieves nothing.

Successfully updated karma reason!

WIllythemailboy

Join Date 03/2006

+70

I think you misunderstood his post. He was commenting on the OP's concern about hydrogen cars releasing water vapor. Water is a major byproduct of burning gasoline, to the point that the Army is experimenting with a system that condenses and cleans the water from Humvee exhaust to make drinking water for the soldiers in said Humveee.

More importantly, this water generated by burning oil is water that was not already in the water cycle, so it could be considered to be adding additional greenhouse gas into the air - that is, if the amount added weren't so laughably small compared to what is already present.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Hydrogen powered cars are a stupid idea that will never come to pass on any large scale.

They are incredibly inefficient. As has been stated, it takes a lot of energy from other sources to convert water into hydrogen in the first place. In most cases, the power source used could just as well be used to power the car directly, or the electricity used to create the hydrogen could be used to do so. In addition, hydrogen is a pain to store. Fuel capacities for hydrogen cars is relatively small, and you'd have to compress it to tremendous pressures even then. I don't know about you, but I'd rather deal with fuel leaks than explosions.

Hydrogen will always be expensive as a power source. Always. And the storage problems will never go away completely, because it's a gas, and that's the way a gas is.

Electricity and alcohol are much better fuel source possibilities. I especially think electricity is the way to go. While it is true that you need another power source to make it, you can use any power source you please to do so. That means the source of our energy can change as our needs change, with clean energy sources becoming more prominent. Besides, you need electricity to produce hydrogen in the first place, so you might as well cut out the middle man. Electric cars, in the mean time, are getting more practical every day. The day will come when they will actually be as practical as gas cars.

Alcohol powered cars share the same flexibility, as you can get alcohol such as ethanol from many different sources. There is more to this, but I'd rather not go into it now. I suspect I will soon.

I do not, however, buy into this global warming histeria. World temperatures were much, much higher in the middle ages. They were also dropping over the last couple of centuries and are only now rising again. The fact is, we don't know how we are effecting our environment, if at all. Decades aren't even a blink in the life of our planet, and the climate is constantly in a state of flux anyway. Add to that the accompanying global warming on Mars and Venus and you have to wonder.

By the way, take a good look at Al Gore's chart tying CO2 levels to global temperatures. A really good look. You'll notice that temperatures always rise FIRST. Hmmm.

Successfully updated karma reason!

WIllythemailboy

Join Date 03/2006

+70

You raise some valid points. Hydrogen is less efficient than electricity in the fact that you lose energy making it, then again when it is used where electricity only loses when you use it. That's a basic principle of thermodynamics - a process with fewer steps is inherently more efficient. The one bonus hydrogen has is that it is a great storage medium, and storing electricity is a pain. Take a good look at an electric car, and compute how much of the cost of the car is batteries. Batteries wear out, so you'd be replacing thousands of dollars of batteries every couple years. Not to mention that batteries are bulky and heavy.

One potential hurdle for electric cars is infrastructure. Sure, most homeowners will have somewhere they can plug in, but what about me? I rent. I don't have a garage, nor do I have somewhere secure I could plug a car in. Most battery systems don't handle fast charging as well as trickle charging. Unless electric recharging become comparable to refilling a gas tank in terms of speed and convenience, it will always be at a disadvantage.

Stored hydrogen can be an explosion hazard, but under the same circumstances that gas or ethanol would be. Building the fuel tank is a non-trivial exercise, but it's not nearly the technical hurdle that battery systems are.

Ethanol presents other, even worse problems. Not only does the land used for fuel crops cut into food-production land, but the entire petroleum infrastructure will need to be rebuilt to handle it. While not truly acidic, it is far more corrosive than oil products, and the current pipelines, storage tanks, and distribution systems are not designed to deal with it. My brother is a mechanic, and replaces fuel systems and gas tanks on cars every day because the owner used E85 in a car that wasn't designed for it. The engine runs fine (for a while, anyway), but the metal parts corrode to junk faster than you'd believe. Gas stations have had to replace underground storage tanks because they started leaking from the same effect.

I share your distrust of the numbers behind some of the global warming science, but I see a useful benefit of the histeria. The world will run out of commerially viable fossil fuels eventually (when exactly is a debate) and it's better we have a head start on alternatives while we still have oil to burn during the research phase.

Successfully updated karma reason!