http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6224846.stm

Quote :

"The sugar found in fruit such as apples and oranges can be converted into a new type of low carbon fuel for cars, US scientists have said. The fuel, made from fructose, contains far more energy than ethanol, the scientists write in the journal Nature. Separately, a British report on biofuels says all types of waste products, including plastic bags, can be used to make biodiesel fuel. Critics of biofuels made from plant crops say they drive up food prices. In both the European Union and the United States politicians have heartily embraced biofuels as a way of reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and dependency on imported oil. 'Waste' fuel Critics say that the current biofuels, both diesel made from palm oil and ethanol made from corn, encourage farmers to switch land to fuel production, driving up the price of food in the process. Now scientists at the University of Wisconsin-Madison say that a simple sugar called fructose can be converted into a fuel that has many advantages over ethanol. The impact on society we're hoping will be far wider than simply 'we can give you a fuel now with a tenfold reduction in its carbon footprint' Jeremy Tomkinson It is called dimethylfuran - it can store 40% more energy than ethanol, does not evaporate as easily and is less volatile. The scientists say that fructose can be obtained directly from fruits and plants or made from glucose. But more work needs to be done to assess the environmental impact of this new fuel. In Britain, researchers say that the technology now exists to create biodiesel not just from palm oil but from a range of materials including wood, weeds and plastic bags. This process is called biomass to liquid and experts say that within six years up to 30% of Britain's diesel requirements could be met from this source. Jeremy Tomkinson of the UK's National Non-Food Crops Centre said this next generation of biofuels could meet many needs beyond powering cars. "The impact on society we're hoping will be far wider than simply 'we can give you a fuel now with a tenfold reduction in its carbon footprint'. "Imagine now if chemicals that we use in the chemical industry also came from the same feed stock, the aircraft that we fly to New York in also runs on this? There's the big potential," he said. The biggest drawback to this process is cost. Setting up new production facilities is estimated to be 10 times higher than for current biofuel refineries. "

this is awesome

however i thought this was an interesting point:

Quote :

"Critics say that the current biofuels, both diesel made from palm oil and ethanol made from corn, encourage farmers to switch land to fuel production, driving up the price of food in the process."

[Edited on June 21, 2007 at 3:53 PM. Reason : asdf]

6/21/2007 3:53:05 PM

http://tinyurl.com/24chzl

6/21/2007 4:00:44 PM

^^you can add those to the thousands of alternative fuel ideas floating around out there.

Time will tell if they are feasible and practical, but I doubt they will be without massive subsidies.

6/21/2007 4:34:46 PM

Quote :

"add those to the thousands of alternative fuel ideas floating around out there."

that's a good thing tho, one of those is bound to be feasible.

6/21/2007 4:37:01 PM

The process for creating dimethylfuran is described in more detail here:

http://www.technologynewsdaily.com/node/7204

6/21/2007 4:57:32 PM

i want to be able to pee in my gas tank and drive around all day on it

6/21/2007 5:16:28 PM

^
Ur in a dream world.

6/21/2007 9:59:54 PM

^^ suddenly the town drunks would be sought after for their donations.
Got change ? .... Got pee ?

6/21/2007 10:10:59 PM

Quote :

"that's a good thing tho, one of those is bound to be feasible."

6/22/2007 1:26:34 AM

hydrogen is the only answer.

6/22/2007 5:03:06 AM

6/22/2007 9:49:07 AM

Quote :

"hydrogen is the only answer."

if by only you mean worst then yes, hydrogen is the only answer

do tell how you plan on getting the hydrogen without carbon emissions?

there goes reprocessing methane and the grid isnt clean buddy, the only way to do it with the grid is have a 100% nuclear and if we have that, then the electric car is the more viable option

6/22/2007 9:57:02 AM

There can't be an "only" answer. The oil industry is far too big as it stands. It's going to take many different solutions.

And this sounds like one of the more promising ones.

6/22/2007 9:59:57 AM

Quote :

"the only way to do it with the grid is have a 100% nuclear and if we have that"

I agree. In terms of the amount of energy that it can deliver, nuclear is the next logical step. Other sources such as solar and wind can certainly supplement the electrical grid, but as previously stated they're only as good as the areas in which they are built.

Unfortunately, there's too much stigma on anything nuclear in this country. People seem to think that even the slightest amount of radiation will cause irrepairable environmental damage, and that simply isn't true.

6/22/2007 10:37:59 AM

Quote :

"Other sources such as solar and wind can certainly supplement"

Good idea until the 'not in may backyard' mentality pops up.

Quote :

"Wind energy stirs strong feelings in Western N.C. Concern over views prompts Blowing Rock council to ban windmills, even in backyards By Monte Mitchell JOURNAL REPORTER BLOWING ROCK The Blowing Rock Town Council has become the first local government in Northwest North Carolina to ban windmills. The decision by the town, whose economy depends on tourism, comes less than a year after Watauga County became the first county in the state to adopt an ordinance to regulate wind-energy systems. “I think appearance is extremely important in a small town like Blowing Rock,” said Town Councilwoman Rita Wiseman. She joined Tuesday’s unanimous vote to prohibit wind-energy systems, including residential-scale windmills. Appearance issues, including the protection of viewsheds, were the primary reasons for the board’s decision, Wiseman said. Most of the sites where windmills could have been built in Blowing Rock would have been visible from the Blue Ridge Parkway. The town’s actions are among a string of developments as people in the mountains grapple with how, or if, wind energy can be harnessed here. Scientists at Appalachian State University say that Ashe, Watauga, Avery, Haywood and Buncombe counties are the top five counties in Western North Carolina to develop wind energy."

http://tinyurl.com/ypebwn

The state is going to require utilities to produce ~10% of power using renewable resources. At the same time, local municipalities in prime areas are banning the use of some of those renewable resources.

Everyday I become more convinced that we're going to need rolling blackouts before realistic energy policies can be reached.

6/22/2007 10:53:05 AM

Quote :

"hydrogen is the only answer."

Hydrogen is not a practical transportation fuel and likely never will be.

It's pretty clear that the market is transitioning towards electric cars.

ICE -> Hybrid -> Plug-in Hybrid -> Battery Electric

The only thing holding electric cars back right now is battery technology. It's already a lot cheaper to power a car with electricity than gasoline. Storing that electricity is the tricky part.

6/22/2007 11:15:53 AM

Nope, all wrong. Hydrogen is already available and is the perfect fuel and its just a matter of time before technology makes it cheap and small enough to work. With HFI this is guaranteed to happen by 2020. I guarantee in 15 years oil will be virtually free again and only used in the third world because everyone will deman fuel cells.

Quote :

"do tell how you plan on getting the hydrogen without carbon emissions? there goes reprocessing methane and the grid isnt clean buddy, the only way to do it with the grid is have a 100% nuclear and if we have that, then the electric car is the more viable option "

I don't think you fully understand. Methane comes up now but its just a cheap substitute for hydrogen in fuel cells. Right now they could make gasoline fuel cell cars but it would be pointles.

Hydrogen is simply reacted with oxygen to form water and give off charge. The charge powers the car. The water flows out as exaust. End of story

Quote :

"The only thing holding electric cars back right now is battery technology. It's already a lot cheaper to power a car with electricity than gasoline. Storing that electricity is the tricky part."

The battery technology for using electricity to power cars is fuel cells. Hydrogen can be produced from water with electricity(water+electrolysis->hydrogen+oxygen. Then you simply reverse the reaction with the hydrogen you made to produce water and electricity. The first step will probably be done externally and kept at a station in the early years until technology makes it small enough to all be done in the car.

You start with water and electricity. You end with water and electricity. Of course its not 100% efficient but its clean and will become cheaper with time and focus. Fossil fuels will be cheap and illegal.

[quote]As for electricity generation, nuclear, hydroelectric and geothermal are the way we're headed. There could always be a solar breakthrough but right now it is so far away i'm not going to mention it.

Most of you probably don't know about this but all we have to do is setup turbines over some type of vent, volcano, guyser or any type of geothermal active area, dump water in and steam will shoot up producing cheap, easy and a virtually unlimited source of electricity. Supplement this with the fact that we've got tidal hydroelectrics that are already in the works to be powered by the moving in and out of tides as another cheap, plentiful source and nuclear that is already the best solution and electricity will not be an issue in the future.

6/22/2007 12:00:03 PM

Quote :

"Hydrogen is not a practical transportation fuel and likely never will be."

you're pretty daft aren't you....

Hydrogen has issues at the moment, but eventually it will be. either used in fuel cells (once costs of them come down and become practical) or as a direct energy source

both cases need Hydrogen to also be stored safely, which there are several promising developments, one is a 'sponge' system in a tank.

i do agree that electric is perhaps a better alternative but still also has some issues....

Quote :

"Most of you probably don't know about this but all we have to do is setup turbines over some type of vent, volcano, guyser or any type of geothermal active area, dump water in and steam will shoot up producing cheap, easy and a virtually unlimited source of electricity. Supplement this with the fact that we've got tidal hydroelectrics that are already in the works to be powered by the moving in and out of tides as another cheap, plentiful source and nuclear that is already the best solution and electricity will not be an issue in the future."

that, is fucking retarded, and is impractical for a variety of reasons

[Edited on June 22, 2007 at 12:24 PM. Reason : s]

6/22/2007 12:22:07 PM

^^LOL, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Quote :

"Hydrogen is already available and is the perfect fuel and its just a matter of time before technology makes it cheap and small enough to work. "

Hydrogen is expensive to produce, transport and store. It's energy density is atrocious, the worst of all fuels being considered. There is more than 4 times as much hydrogen in a liter of gasoline than there is in a liter of pure liquid hydrogen. Try to wrap your mind around that fact. If you don't understand it, take a physics class. That means that even if we could safely store liquid hydrogen in a fuel tank (we can't), you would still need a huge tank to get the same range as a gas-powered car.

Quote :

"The battery technology for using electricity to power cars is fuel cells. Hydrogen can be produced from water with electricity(water+electrolysis->hydrogen+oxygen. Then you simply reverse the reaction with the hydrogen you made to produce water and electricity. The first step will probably be done externally and kept at a station in the early years until technology makes it small enough to all be done in the car. "

Do you know what the efficiency of hydrolysis is? It's around 13%. You would have to use HUGE amounts of electricity in order to produce enough hydrogen to power a car. The fact that you are even talking about that option shows that you don't know what you are talking about.

You should probably stop posting about hydrogen cars until you do a little more research.


[Edited on June 22, 2007 at 12:24 PM. Reason : 2]

6/22/2007 12:22:40 PM

Quote :

"Hydrogen has issues at the moment, but eventually it will be. either used in fuel cells (once costs of them come down and become practical) or as a direct energy source "

What is the point of using hydrogen? Tell me one advantage?

You cannot produce hydrogen gas cheaply and efficiently without having to use fossil fuels;

A distribution system would cost billions or even trillions of dollars to create.

There are no hydrogen storage systems which come close to having the volumetric energy density of gasoline.

Hydrogen embrittles its container (explodes pores in metals - forms brittle hydrates).

It is one of the most dangerous gases to handle - explosive from 4 - 96% concentration. This differs from gasoline in that hydrogen gas cannot be effectively contained for long periods of time. One small gas leak and you have a very explosive situation. You would have to store vehicles outside - no tunnel use etc.

The best way to store hydrogen is as gasoline - as there is more hydrogen in a gallon of Gasoline than in a gallon of liquid hydrogen.



[Edited on June 22, 2007 at 12:36 PM. Reason : 2]

6/22/2007 12:33:00 PM

Quote :

"Unfortunately, there's too much stigma on anything nuclear in this country. People seem to think that even the slightest amount of radiation will cause irrepairable environmental damage, and that simply isn't true."

regardless of perception, there is going to be a huge increase in the number of units built in this country...the new NRC licensing is going to make it easier and faster

about 20 units are planned in the southeast alone in the next 10-15 years at about 1200-1600 MW each

for an industry that has stagnated, that is huge

even more will happen once the first few get built under the new licensing...companies are just checking out to make sure that their are no potential problems

6/22/2007 12:38:40 PM

Potential problems include insuring the plants and obstuctionist lawsuits by environmental groups. These 2 factors have derailed most nuclear power plant constuction over the last 40 years or so.

6/22/2007 12:42:00 PM

Ok prawn star. You know more than the government who is investing billions into this technology simply because they haven't researcehd. Why don't you go tell them right now it will never work and is pointless since they haven't done thier research either. Also call the president and tell him to put an end to the HFI since you obviously know alot more about this than the people he is getting his information from. Hell, you'll probably even get a job on the highest level out of all this.

Quote :

"Hydrogen is expensive to produce, transport and store. It's energy density is atrocious, the worst of all fuels being considered. There is more than 4 times as much hydrogen in a liter of gasoline than there is in a liter of pure liquid hydrogen. Try to wrap your mind around that fact. If you don't understand it, take a physics class. That means that even if we could safely store liquid hydrogen in a fuel tank (we can't), you would still need a huge tank to get the same range as a gas-powered car. "

Pretty simple barriers that will be crossed as time passes. More efficient ways to use hydrogen, more efficient cars, easy storage etc. Like i said, as new ways of producing electricity take over electricity will become dirt cheap, thus producing hydrogen will become cheap. By this time there will be better ways to store hydrogen. It doesn't matter if there is more in gasoline. Gasoline is dirty and so 20th century. People won't know what it is in 100 years. Try to wrap your mind around THAT fact.

Quote :

"that, is fucking retarded, and is impractical for a variety of reasons "

not at all. get educated on the present-future of power.

Quote :

"There can't be an "only" answer. The oil industry is far too big as it stands. It's going to take many different solutions. "

Absolutely not, a fuel industry will only work with a primary fuel. Imagine trying to find a D station for your d car but your area only has mostly c stations. "up theres a D station...nope its an A station" Wouldn't work.

Quote :

"You should probably stop posting about hydrogen cars until you do a little more research. "

Again, we're not talking about today...down the road.

This is simple chemistry folks, and simple chemistry always wins.

o and don't forget the potential of creating hydrogen in the car just before you use it. the car takes in water as fuel. creates hydrogen and immediately uses that hydrogen to create electricity.
water....................hydrogenelectricity...water....and you never had to store hydrogen. further down the road than your first hydro cars but definately in the future.

[Edited on June 22, 2007 at 12:49 PM. Reason : IN A FLASH. 2020 will be 90% hydro watch]

6/22/2007 12:44:13 PM

Quote :

"Why don't you go tell them right now it will never work and is pointless since they haven't done thier research either. Also call the president and tell him to put an end to the HFI since you obviously know alot more about this than the people he is getting his information from. Hell, you'll probably even get a job on the highest level out of all this. "

Scientists have been saying that hydrogen as a transportation fuel is a dead end for years now. Big oil companies like to talk about hydrogen being the future because it's always "20-30 years away". Also, as stated previously, the only cheap source of hydrogen is by converting fossil fuels such as methane into hydrogen gas. This works well for oil companies since they are sitting on a lot of natural gas.

Quote :

"Pretty simple barriers that will be crossed as time passes."

You can't change the laws of physics. The physical properties of hydrogen show that it has terrible volumetric energy density, is incredibly difficult to store and inherently dangerous.

Quote :

"o and don't forget the potential of creating hydrogen in the car just before you use it. the car takes in water as fuel. creates hydrogen and immediately uses that hydrogen to create electricity. water....................hydrogenelectricity...water....and you never had to store hydrogen. further down the road than your first hydro cars but definately in the future."

Water isn't a fuel. Hydrogen can be a fuel, but to create hydrogen from water you must use massive amounts of electricity. Why fuck around with the inefficient process of breaking up water into hydrogen and oxygen when you can more easily and efficiently store electricity in a battery? With a high-capacity battery, you don't need an expensive fuel cell or any of the storage requirements needed for hydrogen.

This debate has been hashed and rehashed in scientific circles. The consensus is that hydrogen is impractical. Big oil and the automakers like to push fuel cells and hydrogen because it is always way out on the horizon, which enables them to keep the status quo. The reality is that hydrogen will never be practical. Electric cars will be practical in the near future.

[Edited on June 22, 2007 at 1:13 PM. Reason : 2]

6/22/2007 1:11:49 PM

Isn't nuclear fuel on the decline as well?

I remember reading somewhere that if all the electricity in the US was nuclear, we'd run out of the nuclear material in less than 100 years or something like that.

6/22/2007 1:12:37 PM

Quote :

"Ok prawn star. You know more than the government who is investing billions into this technology simply because they haven't researcehd. Why don't you go tell them right now it will never work and is pointless since they haven't done thier research either. Also call the president and tell him to put an end to the HFI since you obviously know alot more about this than the people he is getting his information from. Hell, you'll probably even get a job on the highest level out of all this."

i think it has been established that the president is a fucking dumbass and the people around him just use him as a pawn

Quote :

"o and don't forget the potential of creating hydrogen in the car just before you use it. the car takes in water as fuel. creates hydrogen and immediately uses that hydrogen to create electricity. water....................hydrogenelectricity...water....and you never had to store hydrogen. further down the road than your first hydro cars but definately in the future."

this right here completely discredits everything you have said...this scenario would violate fundamental laws of nature unless you have found a way to completely eliminate system losses

i really hope that you are not that stupid and are just trolling

Quote :

"Isn't nuclear fuel on the decline as well? I remember reading somewhere that if all the electricity in the US was nuclear, we'd run out of the nuclear material in less than 100 years or something like that."

nope...reprocessing is where it is at. less than 10% of the energy is harnessed the first time around in a plant. unfortunately the us government prohibits reprocessing because it creates weapons grade plutonium. this hasnt stopped the french though, they just lock up the plutonium

[Edited on June 22, 2007 at 1:20 PM. Reason : 

6/22/2007 1:14:49 PM

He's like the Earl of the soap box.

6/22/2007 1:17:01 PM

mr fusion?

6/22/2007 1:29:55 PM

Quote :

"Gasoline is dirty and so 20th century. People won't know what it is in 100 years. Try to wrap your mind around THAT fact."

Pretty sure they were saying that 100 yrs ago too

Who is this Howard guy and where'd he come from? He's mucking up pretty much very thread he posts in.

6/22/2007 1:31:24 PM

Quote :

"The battery technology for using electricity to power cars is fuel cells. Hydrogen can be produced from water with electricity(water+electrolysis->hydrogen+oxygen. Then you simply reverse the reaction with the hydrogen you made to produce water and electricity. The first step will probably be done externally and kept at a station in the early years until technology makes it small enough to all be done in the car."

you are a fucking moron. have you ever heard of this thing called "entropy?" what you are proposing is a perpetual motion machine, and those kinds of things are IMPOSSIBLE to build, no matter WHAT kind of technology you have.

let me put it to you simply: if you take water, break it up to form Hydrogen, then burn the hydrogen back into water, you LOSE ENERGY. period. end of story. there is NO WAY you will ever be able to generate Hydrogen on board a car and yield a net generation of power without any other process. and if you have another process on board that can create power, when why the hell would you waste it via entropy by creating Hydrogen?

serioudly, you have no fucking clue about that which you are talking. just shut up and go read up on the subject before you go spewing off any more bullshit

6/22/2007 1:35:44 PM

Quote :

"What is the point of using hydrogen? Tell me one advantage? You cannot produce hydrogen gas cheaply and efficiently without having to use fossil fuels; A distribution system would cost billions or even trillions of dollars to create. There are no hydrogen storage systems which come close to having the volumetric energy density of gasoline. Hydrogen embrittles its container (explodes pores in metals - forms brittle hydrates). It is one of the most dangerous gases to handle - explosive from 4 - 96% concentration. This differs from gasoline in that hydrogen gas cannot be effectively contained for long periods of time. One small gas leak and you have a very explosive situation. You would have to store vehicles outside - no tunnel use etc. The best way to store hydrogen is as gasoline - as there is more hydrogen in a gallon of Gasoline than in a gallon of liquid hydrogen. "

advantage - refueling / effective range, does not need 100% nuke power grid to become 'pollution free'

(both electric cars and fuel cell vehicles create a lot of production wastes but that's another issue)


to obtain hydrogen gas yes, you can get it from fossil fuels, thus stripping more out of the fuel than merely burning it. you can also get it from water (low efficiency i know), certain bacteria as a waste gas, out of the air.

distribution wise, this is more about storage / storage density.... the sponge thing i was talking about is a carbon (gasp) based sponge that can hold molecular hydrogen at much much higher densities and concentrations than just the compressed gas or liquid. this also effects your other safety issues that you had mentioned.

i'm not saying that electric isn't 'better' but it will be just about as difficult to actually implement as hydrogen power....

Quote :

"nope...reprocessing is where it is at. less than 10% of the energy is harnessed the first time around in a plant. unfortunately the us government prohibits reprocessing because it creates weapons grade plutonium. this hasnt stopped the french though, they just lock up the plutonium"

exactly, though there are now more advanced reprocessing methods that do not produce weapons grade material, the plutonium is mixed in with other fissile material and put back into the reactor (the mixing makes it just as hard to get out as it would be to create in the first place) (pyrometallurgical reprocessing is where it's at)

[Edited on June 22, 2007 at 3:16 PM. Reason : g]

6/22/2007 3:13:06 PM

Quote :

"advantage - refueling / effective range"

How do you figure that? Nevermind that the proper infrastructure for refueling isn't even in place.

Quote :

"does not need 100% nuke power grid to become 'pollution free'"

But it certainly helps. At the very least nuclear will probably contribute the greatest percentage of energy to hydrogen production.

Quote :

"(both electric cars and fuel cell vehicles create a lot of production wastes but that's another issue)"

The primary difference is that the energy that could have gone directly into the battery of an electric car gets re-routed to making hydrogen (and as a consequence of entropy, some gets lost along the way). If you're trying to argue that the chemicals that go into making the batteries themselves are highly toxic, I admittedly don't know enough to argue that point.

Quote :

"to obtain hydrogen gas yes, you can get it from fossil fuels, thus stripping more out of the fuel than merely burning it."

But the problem is that we're reaching (or have already reached) peak oil, to say nothing of the fact that we're RUNNING OUT of fossil fuels. After another 50-100 years, extracting hydrogen from fossil fuels won't be economically feasible. And it defeats the whole purpose of getting off of our fossil fuel dependence. In addition, yes you get all that hydrogen, but what do you think happens to all of that carbon in the fossil fuels? Odds are it gets released as CO2, which is another thing we're trying to avoid.

Quote :

"you can also get it from...certain bacteria as a waste gas, out of the air."

I haven't heard of that, although I've heard of something similar involving algae. While nature could probably handle making hydrogen more efficiently than we could, I can't imagine that it'd be appreciably faster or require considerably less energy.

Quote :

"distribution wise, this is more about storage / storage density.... the sponge thing i was talking about is a carbon (gasp) based sponge that can hold molecular hydrogen at much much higher densities and concentrations than just the compressed gas or liquid. this also effects your other safety issues that you had mentioned."

Again, I don't know enough about this to say whether or not it will help at all. Although it's certainly better than trying to store pure hydrogen by itself.

Quote :

"i'm not saying that electric isn't 'better' but it will be just about as difficult to actually implement as hydrogen power"

With the exception that battery technology is probably further along than hydrogen storage techniques and is only improving, whereas hydrogen-related technology is just barely taking off in terms of research.

6/22/2007 3:25:02 PM

Quote :

"i'm not saying that electric isn't 'better' but it will be just about as difficult to actually implement as hydrogen power...."

I disagree on this one. There are comercially viable electric cars out on the market right now, and they can refuel at any electrical outlet. With the exception of batteries, all the technology is there right now. There is nothing particularly complicated about an electric car aside from storing the electrical charge. The transition to battery-electric cars will be very simple once battery technology catches up with our power demands. Given the past progress of about 8% improvement each year in battery storage capacity, it's only a matter of time. And that's not even considering future advances in radical electrical energy storage devices such as high-speed flywheels, supercapacitors, etc.

Hydrogen fuel cell cars, on the other hand, need several huge breakthroughs in science and engineering before they become viable options.

6/22/2007 3:29:45 PM

Quote :

"o and don't forget the potential of creating hydrogen in the car just before you use it. the car takes in water as fuel. creates hydrogen and immediately uses that hydrogen to create electricity. water....................hydrogenelectricity...water....and you never had to store hydrogen. further down the road than your first hydro cars but definately in the future."

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH god i hope this guy is trolling.

6/23/2007 10:23:58 PM

^ no way. while we're at it, we'll just convert all cars, airplanes, train and boat engines into perpetual motion machines. It will solve everything!

6/23/2007 10:59:03 PM

Nobodys saying perpetual motion or 100% efficient machines but over time things improve and technologies breakthrough. I don't see why you guys can't grasp the fact that things won't always stay the same. Just because theres no way to do it now doesn't mean there will never be.

The chemistry is already there thats why the government is spending billions on the research and giving timetables on hydrogen.....not fucking fruit. you guys are laughing at hydrogen in a FRUIT FUEL THREAD.

ROFL

the people on the internets

6/23/2007 11:49:21 PM

Quote :

"The chemistry is already there thats why the government is spending billions on the research and giving timetables on hydrogen"

That is specious logic. By that reasoning we could conclude that because the Government is spending billions of dollars waging war in Iraq means we are going to win. Or we could conclude we need to build a bridge to no where, since the government is spending billions to build it.

I guess you have never heard of the Government doing something for political reasons or just being plain wrong?

[Edited on June 24, 2007 at 12:18 AM. Reason : .,.]

6/24/2007 12:17:41 AM

No but the government does choose the best one to do. We were most likely to succeed in Iraq than any other place we would have attacked (iran, nk) just like hydrogen is the best of all future fuels and unlike Iraq, a timetable has been given for Hydrogen. They give timetables when they know they can do soemthing.

6/24/2007 3:14:41 AM

I find it odd that you seriously believe a room filled with lawyers would pick the right future technology.

So, in your mind, everything the government does is right? Congress has never been wrong?

I suggest a book called Voodoo science, it has a chapter dedicaded to tricks and hucksters that managed to convince congress to back moronic technology. At one point, congress passed a bill ordering the patent office to grant a patent to a particularly convincing fraudster and his perpetual motion machine.

6/24/2007 10:02:23 AM

Congress has been wrong but they know alot more than the wolf web and i guarantee you orange juice cars won't be used before hydrogen.

[Edited on June 24, 2007 at 12:08 PM. Reason : lmao ORANGE JUICE REPLACES OIL]

6/24/2007 12:08:14 PM

i really hope that im seeing the best trolling here and you arent a fucking dumbass

6/24/2007 12:49:42 PM

Oh, I don't care about orange juice; all I know is that if congress is behind it, that means someone is getting rich at the expense of the rest of us.

[Edited on June 24, 2007 at 1:10 PM. Reason : .,.]

6/24/2007 1:09:43 PM

off topic so ill only shortly comment

Quote :

"Iraq means we are going to win."

we already 'won', the current insurgency is the 'war on terror' crap not the iraq war...

fuel cells have been in use since the 60's.... they just are not cheap/safe enough for a consumer vehicle. fuel source not withstanding...

Quote :

"but what do you think happens to all of that carbon in the fossil fuels? Odds are it gets released as CO2, which is another thing we're trying to avoid."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production

yes, it can produce co2, but when that's just about your only byproduct it's not that difficult to capture it at the 'end of the stack'

Quote :

"Carbon dioxide sequestering As part of the current scientific opinion that excess amounts of carbon dioxide produced by humans in the atmosphere lead to global warming, various methods of limiting or removing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have been suggested. Current debate on the subject mostly involves economic or political matters at a policy level. Methods of carbon dioxide extraction/separation include: 1. Aqueous solutions * Amine extraction * High pH solutions o For example, Carbon dioxide reacts with dissolved CaO, to form Calcite (CaCO3)[14] 2. Adsorption * Molecular Sieves * Activated Carbon[15][16] * Metal-organic frameworks (MOF's)[17] 3. Solid reactants * Serpentine, Olivine, Quicklime[18] 4. Membrane gas separation[19][20] 5. Regenerative Carbon Dioxide Removal System (RCRS) * The RCRS on the space shuttle Orbiter uses a two-bed system that provides continuous removal of CO2 without expendable products. Regenerable systems allow a shuttle mission a longer stay in space without having to replenish its sorbent canisters. Older lithium hydroxide (LiOH)-based systems, which are non-regenerable, are being replaced by regenerable metal-oxide-based systems. A metal-oxide-based system primarily consists of a metal oxide sorbent canister and a regenerator assembly. This system works by removing carbon dioxide using a sorbent material and then regenerating the sorbent material. The metal-oxide sorbent is regenerated by pumping air heated to around 200 °C at 7.5 standard cubic feet per minute through its canister for 10 hours.[21] 6. Algae Bioreactor Technology * Originally developed at MIT using power plant flue gas to support bio diesel feed stock, they use algae to process out the CO2. Commercial studies have been performed on over 2000 MW of power plants in the United States since 2001. As of March 2007, this is the only commercially installed technology for CO2 mitigation on active power plants. The largest test site for an Algae bioreactor system is connected directly to smokestack of Arizona Public Service Redhawk 1,040 megawatt power plant, producing renewable biofuels as a process by product. At commercial scale, this organic process holds the potential to "scrub" CO2 without the considerable solid and fluid waste issues associated with other technologies[22] 7. Underground geological storage. 8. Deep Ocean storage. At sufficiently high pressure, around 500 m depth, carbon dioxide forms a solid hydrate with water.[citation needed] 9. Terra preta - Charcoal enhanced soils * Amazon soils that are valued today for their rich agricultural abilities are found to contain charcoal that was put into the soils by Amazonians thousands of years ago. Plant and organic material converted to charcoal can be used to enhance soils and keep CO2 out of the atmosphere for thousands of years. Oak Ridge National Laboratory has found a way to further enhance charcoal's agricultural benefits and capture more CO2 by combining ammonia and fossil fuel exhaust to form ammonium bicarbonate in the charcoal lattices. The work by Oak Ridge National Laboratory is currently being commercialized by a corporation called EPRIDA, Inc.[23] "

the last 2 are really interesting... as hydrates can be used as a fuel, co2 recaptured and again interred deep to create more (there are already many many thousands of tons of this stuff on the ocean bottoms)

and relating back to someone who said plants wouldn't grow better with increased co2 "Plants can potentially grow up to 50 percent faster in concentrations of 1000ppm CO2 when compared with ambient conditions." (Blom, T.J.; W.A. Straver; F.J. Ingratta; Shalin Khosla; Wayne Brown (2002-12). Carbon Dioxide In Greenhouses. Retrieved on 2007-06-12.)

[Edited on June 27, 2007 at 12:35 PM. Reason : ,]

6/27/2007 12:29:05 PM

length issues...

Quote :

"or require considerably less energy. (for making h2 from algea and such)"

yes, it's primary source of energy is, the sun, they also intake co2....


the processes and chemicals to make batteries and fuel cells are toxic, yes, that's what i was getting at

Quote :

"hydrogen-related technology is just barely taking off in terms of research."

not exactly.... consumer hydrogen tech yes, hydrogen tech overall, no

6/27/2007 12:31:37 PM

Yes plants would grow much more, soil would become depleted making farming impossible, fresh water would become depleted and crucial earth systems would shut down

6/28/2007 2:58:34 AM

SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!!!1

6/28/2007 3:10:11 AM

^^ shouldn't things close to that already be happening right now, given the CO2 "problem" we currently have? :troll:

6/28/2007 9:22:34 PM

I dunno man. If i put my icecream in the sun it probably hasn't melted after a few seconds does that mean its safe?

6/28/2007 10:05:56 PM

But by the feature of ice cream, it will have started melting immediately; that's because ice has a poor heat transfer coefficient. As such, the outside molecules melted almost immediately upon being exposed to an above-freezing environment.

You may have just stumbled upon a bad metaphore. But I doubt it; you cannot argue everything is going to shit in 50 years and then 20 years later complain not enough time has passed to see any of the predicted effects.

6/29/2007 12:37:27 AM

setting them up

6/29/2007 12:39:54 AM