What do you think the environmental wackos will start complaining about? Increased water vapor? Damage to the earth as hydrogen is extracted?

What do you think are the most likely complaints that the leftist anti-corporate "environmentalists" will come up with when we finally do switch?

4/22/2006 9:58:28 AM

Probably the way in which the hydrogen is extracted.

4/22/2006 10:06:20 AM

hahaha do you really think that just because we burn hydrogen it's going to be a miracle fix-all?

4/22/2006 10:13:45 AM

let's see the switch happen first

4/22/2006 10:45:37 AM

Well, actually, I don't think hydrogen is the wave of the future. Even discovering fusion based power generation, electricity will not become free. Even at half todays electricity rates lithium battery powered cars are more cost effective than hydrogen vehicles (given electricity, a hydrogen vehicle has an energy efficiency of about 30%, a lithium powered vehicle can get higher than 75%).

So, the only question is mining and manufacturing sufficient quantities of automotive lithium batteries. You charge them at home, but on long trips the car still needs an alternate power source (either gasoline or hydrogen can fill this role, whichever is smaller/lighter).

All this makes a vehicle very expensive, but it pays for itself over time by consuming less electricity. Of course, if electricity falls substantially, say to 1/5th or less of current rates then hydrogen becomes the cheaper alternative as conserving electricity no longer justifies the added cost of manufacturing the vehicle.

So, the scale, best I can figure with guestimation:
At todays electricity rates, a pure gasoline engine remains competitive up to $3 a gallon (going diesel adds on top that, hybrid technology adds on top of that).
At half todays electricity rates the price of producing lithium falls, so does the price of energy, making it the winnar!
At 1/5th or less of current electricity rates the added cost of the lithium batteries is no longer justifiable, making fuel cells the winnar!

[Edited on April 22, 2006 at 11:03 AM. Reason : .,.]

4/22/2006 10:59:23 AM

Quote :

"You charge them at home, but on long trips the car still needs an alternate power source (either gasoline or hydrogen can fill this role, whichever is smaller/lighter). "

Why not make the batteries universaly exchangeable, similar to propane tanks for grills, where you don't neccesarily recharge the tank, you trade the tank in and just pay the cost of the propane in a new tank, so for example, you're driving down the road and your battery is getting on empty so you pull into the nearest station and take your battery inside and get a fully charged one. You just pay the cost of electricity (plus station profit of course). In the mean time, the station charges the battery you turned in to sell to someone else.

4/22/2006 11:07:54 AM

Let's not jump to conclusions.

4/22/2006 11:25:11 AM

I wouldn't call people who are generally working to promote sustainable environmental policy as "wackos", if anything they just have different values than you. On the right you have unsustainable development, waste and consumption of resources. On the left you have over restrictive conservation measures which stymies economic growth. The ideal mix is a sustainable solution the middle.

4/22/2006 11:44:21 AM

Hmm, that could work... But the price charged would also need to cover the risk premium for taking your battery (which might be used up and time for recycling).

This is a problem, obviously, because all propane tanks are the same volume and therefore the same storage capacity, completely interchangeable. A lithium battery has a limited life cycle and the storage capacity drops as it ages. New batteries cost upwards of $7,000, old batteries destined for recycling fetch less than $1,000.

This could be covered by giving each battery a unique ID which allowed it to be tracked through the system, allowing customers to be compensated for being handed an old battery in exchange for a new battery. Getting the batteries into the system is easily enough, they are sold with the car, so the car owner has already paid for a new battery.

Another possibility, you could make all batteries equal/interchangeable by putting circuitry inside the battery which caps its energy supply (it cuts out before it is fully drained). In this way, the customer can be guaranteed a fixed amount of energy, no matter the age of the battery, making it easier to price shop. Old batteries which cannot provide this amount of power are retired/recycled. Thus rendering the age of the battery meaningless to the user.

The price structure would break down: 70% goes to the station for electricity/handling, 20% goes to the battery manufacturer/distributer which covers wear to the batteries and makes sure batteries are always available for swapping on a national level.

A problem arrises when one starts charging at home... This could be fixed by putting circuitry inside the battery which tracks charges/recharges and then bills you for wear&tear when the battery is next swapped.


Another possibility, since the station most likely charged the battery, circuitry inside the battery knows roughly how much power it has absorbed/can provide, so we could charge you a variable price based upon this value + a fixed charge for battery processing. In effect charging by the kilowatt, but it will be more complicated than the above system because you still need to factor in the costs for battery wear.

4/22/2006 12:06:21 PM

Quote :

"Let's not jump to conclusions."

Exactly, we cant determine cost effectiveness for technology that hasn't even come to the market yet. <There's gonna be refinement over time so right now all there is is speculation.

Another new engine to come out recently is the compressed air engine. They have working cars in France that run on this engine and also in Australia where a guy made a very powerful light weight compressed air engine as well. If you guys wanna google that you can. I'm not in the mood to relay the specs but I'm sure you all will find it interesting was you look it up. I got my info from watching a tech show on the Science channel a while back. To me the compressed engine has the most promise in terms of wide spread manufacturing and energy efficiency.

[Edited on April 22, 2006 at 1:24 PM. Reason : <clarified]

4/22/2006 1:18:43 PM

Quote :

"Well, actually, I don't think hydrogen is the wave of the future."

i hate agreeing with you

4/22/2006 1:48:40 PM

Quote :

"compressed air engine"

The original fuel source is still electricity to drive the compressor. It is just a matter of degrees between that and any other system that involves stored electricity. If you can get the mileage without it being too much of an explosion risk then it might give lithium a run for its money.

Not to mention a compressed air tank can be re-filled quicker.

But I seriously doubt they can get reasonable mileage.

4/22/2006 2:17:31 PM

Well the cars made in France say that "In urban areas, the engine powers a five-seat vehicle with a range of approximately 200 km using 300 litters of compressed air (300 bar) stored in either carbon or glass fiber tanks."

It doesn't specify at what speed, but I would say that at open road the range would be less. But, considering that "A rapid recharge, using a high-pressure air pump, is also possible" and that "It uses about $2 worth of electricity to fill the tank with compressed air, and can power a car at speeds of up to 60 mph"; it looks like to me to be a viable cost effective alternative. Not to mention they also have compressed air engine hybrids that can utilize "petrol, diesel, natural or town gas, at very low consumption levels." This option would be for those who have to have their high speeds.

One more thing to note is that the engine doesn't need to be built with heavy metals such as iron. Not only is it small in size but it gives great torc. Lighter metals such as aluminum is capable of harnessing the energy quite well. Then again I'm not an expert on this technology, just an interested advocator.



[Edited on April 22, 2006 at 2:39 PM. Reason : http://www.electrifyingtimes.com/guynegre.html forgot the link, edited the painful sp.]

4/22/2006 2:32:14 PM

^

Quote :

"torc."

you lose

4/22/2006 2:46:27 PM

Ah, son of a...

Oh well heres some pics of the Aussie's engine







[Edited on April 22, 2006 at 2:58 PM. Reason : http://www.gizmag.com/go/3185/]

4/22/2006 2:51:08 PM

^^^^just do it like the propane tanks. Batteries are either usable or not usable. Everyone gets a usable battery. Batteries are tested before being recharged to make sure they can hold their charge. The cost of replacing unusable batteries is figured into the cost of recharging.

If you ignore all the possible problems caused by replacing a battery every week or so. For one thing, it would be labor intensive.

[Edited on April 22, 2006 at 3:14 PM. Reason : ^^^^]

4/22/2006 3:13:48 PM

Hydrogen is in no way a sustainable fuel for long-term use. The main source of acquiring it is through coal mining, I believe, which, well, that's sort of the problem in the first place. Electrolysis is incredibly inefficient, and the electricity would be better put to use in the form of a battery.

That being said, a diverse selection of automotive fuels is what's going to get us through the next hundred years until the next big thing. I am all for the research and development of alternative fuels, even ones with less promising outlooks such as hydrogen. So, yeah.

4/22/2006 4:21:02 PM

Hydrogen fuel is not viable for automotive use, and it may never be. What good is a fuel if you can't store it for shit? Hydrogen in gaseous form has a very low energy density, even compressed (which requires more energy). And how do you get the hydrogen in the first place? From steam reformation of methane or methanol. Those fuels have a higher energy density and are easier to store than pure H2, so why fuck with them?

Fuel cells have a future in stationary combined heating and power applications, because of the heat that is produced. As a power plant for a car, they will never be able to compete with an electric car because of fuel storage issues.

4/22/2006 10:11:35 PM

the wave of teh future is Propane. and Propane Accessories

4/22/2006 10:24:40 PM

Taste the meat, not the heat.

4/22/2006 10:25:05 PM

Quote :

"Even discovering fusion based power generation, electricity will not become free."

It should become close to free if we do things right. Fusion is an amazing power source.

4/22/2006 10:37:10 PM

I tell you what.

4/22/2006 10:38:14 PM

Quote :

"Fusion is an amazing power source"

yep. its the miracle power of tomorrow. Has been for 50 years.

4/22/2006 10:38:42 PM

And probably will be for another 50 years.

We'll get there sooner or later, though.

4/22/2006 10:43:10 PM

Quote :

"What do you think are the most likely complaints that the leftist anti-corporate "environmentalists" will come up with when we finally do switch?"

Quote :

"Probably the way in which the hydrogen is extracted"

The nuclear power plants used to make the H2

4/22/2006 11:58:11 PM

Quote :

"let's see the switch happen first"

bingo

4/23/2006 12:02:37 AM

Quote :

"let's see the switch happen first"

bingo

4/23/2006 12:03:01 AM

Quote :

"It should become close to free if we do things right. Fusion is an amazing power source."

I don't think so. A large fusion power plant is still going to have an army of people working in it, many of which are earning six figure salaries. Unless one plant is going to produce terrawatts worth of power, it ain't going to be cheap paying all these salaries, whatever the fuel source.

4/23/2006 12:31:10 AM

When we finally kick out all non-anglo-saxon protestants from the U.S., who will conservatives hate?

4/23/2006 1:28:25 AM

^ poor people

4/23/2006 1:34:54 AM

I guess that would have made for a shorter thread.

But just as crappy as this one.

[Edited on April 23, 2006 at 1:43 AM. Reason : .]

4/23/2006 1:42:35 AM