Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Gideon Eisenhorn
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 12:56:00 -
[1]
Ok we have hydrogen fuel cells for cars coming soon(tm) hopefully..
But I dont see why it can't be scaled up for power plants to generate electricity?!
Anyone have any answers?
|
Shirley Serious
Amarr Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 13:10:00 -
[2]
fuel cells are more for portable storage of electricity. Like batteries.
Yes. Yes, I am. |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 13:14:00 -
[3]
Because GENERATING hydrogen right now costs more in terms of electric power than you can get back out of it by burning it. The hydrogen cars are not a "wonder alternate energy source", they're simply less polluting than regular fuel burning cars, and we CAN store and haul the hydrogen from one place to another (unlike elecric power, which pretty much has to be consumed almost immediately after it's produced, as we have no realiable way of storing it).
Basically, the hydrogen cars are just huge chemical rechargeable batteries with a very decent energy storage density. For all intents and purposes, they're not much different from a pure electric car (just lighter and/or with more autonomy, but more expensive per unit of distance travelled, energy-wise)... at least they don't pose an environmental issue like electrolytic accumulators do when they lived out their life cycle.
_ Create a character || Fit a ship || Get some ISK |
ToxicFire
Phoenix Knights
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 13:17:00 -
[4]
Technically there isn't a reason they can't work on a larger scale, however production of the production of and storage of the hydrogen becomes an issue, mostly because currently the biggest production method of hydrogen is via electrolysis requiring electricity, which is why alot of these green cars (there have been fuel cell cars on the road for some years now) aren't truely green as the hydrogen they use is often produced using non green electricity. ------------------------------------------ Sig removed as it lacks EVE-related content. Mail [email protected] if you have questions. -Hango
|
Reven Cordelle
Caldari School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 13:24:00 -
[5]
The amount of Hydrogen needed to run a powerstation on a fuel cell would cost more than the electricity it produced.
Thats the problem with Hydrogen at the moment, there isn't a cheap, easy way of getting hold of a lot of it.
Its most likely that Hydrogen Fuel Cell cars will actually cost more to run than regular vehicles initially - much like the Toyota Prius, they will be sold to the buyer as a massive feel-good motive that they are saving the planet...
We are still battling to find energy sources that are cheap as well as "green".
Right now, any green alternative still costs more than the "dirty" current method. Green energy sources usually have massive initial costs that struggle to pay themselves off in the first year via money saved on fuel. Either that, or they are unreliable at providing solid, consistent energy.
If anything, the electric car would still be a step in the right direction. With electricity generated from Nuclear Power - You cut down on greenhouse gasses substantially.
Unfortunately the only decent electric car we've seen so far has been the Tesla Roadster. Since this beast only has 2 seats and has limited use other than cruising - the $98,000 initial base-model cost makes it barely worth considering compared to say, a 2nd hand Mazda MX-5 (I chose the MX-5 as it looks relatively similar).
We also need to factor in the amount of taxes lost on fuel if we start driving cars that don't use the muchly taxed gasoline. Anyone could jimmy a windmill to slowly generate electricity and end up driving a car that costs nothing to fuel.
This is more of an issue in the UK where tax is 75% of the final price of Gasoline. Imagine taking away that much money, you have huge issues with the cost of running the country. (Well, Gordon Brown wouldn't be able to afford to decorate another kitchen on Government Expenses either way).
|
Of Montreal
Gallente CRICE Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 13:47:00 -
[6]
wouldn't hydrogen fuel cells just pump more green house gases into the atmosphere? If fact it would pump more water vapor into the atmosphere which is by far the largest greenhouse gas. Look at one of the warmest years on record, 1998 if you look at te temps from that year you can see a large spike around the same time as el nino, when water vapor was getting pumped into the atmosphere on a large scale.
|
ToxicFire
Phoenix Knights
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 13:57:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Of Montreal wouldn't hydrogen fuel cells just pump more green house gases into the atmosphere? If fact it would pump more water vapor into the atmosphere which is by far the largest greenhouse gas. Look at one of the warmest years on record, 1998 if you look at te temps from that year you can see a large spike around the same time as el nino, when water vapor was getting pumped into the atmosphere on a large scale.
Global warming is also a perfectly natural cycle along with ice ages, just we're accelerating it which is the key thing thats never really got across. ------------------------------------------ Sig removed as it lacks EVE-related content. Mail [email protected] if you have questions. -Hango
|
Kalam Orlong
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 14:01:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Of Montreal wouldn't hydrogen fuel cells just pump more green house gases into the atmosphere? If fact it would pump more water vapor into the atmosphere which is by far the largest greenhouse gas. Look at one of the warmest years on record, 1998 if you look at te temps from that year you can see a large spike around the same time as el nino, when water vapor was getting pumped into the atmosphere on a large scale.
combustion of hydrocarbons releases carbon dioxide and water. |
Of Montreal
Gallente CRICE Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 14:02:00 -
[9]
Originally by: ToxicFire Edited by: ToxicFire on 09/01/2009 13:59:12
Originally by: Of Montreal wouldn't hydrogen fuel cells just pump more green house gases into the atmosphere? If fact it would pump more water vapor into the atmosphere which is by far the largest greenhouse gas. Look at one of the warmest years on record, 1998 if you look at te temps from that year you can see a large spike around the same time as el nino, when water vapor was getting pumped into the atmosphere on a large scale.
Global warming is also a perfectly natural cycle along with ice ages, just we're accelerating it which is the key thing thats never really got across.
In reality the amount of water vapor added by the uptake of fuel cells would be negligible compared to the amount added by the expansion of the worlds population in the past 50 years expelled while breathing.
yeah I get all that, just trying to point out how hypocritical people are by thinking hydrogen fuel is any better for our environment. Considering it does the exact same thing as gasoline powered cars which is emit greenhouse gases. |
Brea Lafail
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 14:05:00 -
[10]
Originally by: ToxicFire currently the biggest production method of hydrogen is via electrolysis
Common misconception. Most commercially available hydrogen is extracted from hydrocarbons (fossil fuels) and releases just as much carbon as if the fuel was simply burned. The supposed benefits are that it's easier to sequester the carbon if it's generated at a central location and the possibility of a higher chemical energy -> work transfer efficiency.
As for power generation, there's talk about putting high-temperature fuel cells into homes to supplement their energy needs. It would be something on the scale of a residencial furnace or water heater. I believe the PM of Japan has one in his home.
The biggest barriers to large-scale fuel cell deployment (in my opinion) are the high costs of producing fuels cells, most are built by hand using some rather expensive materials, and that we currently do not have facilities to produce the amount of hydrogen required. |
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 14:18:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Akita T on 09/01/2009 14:19:39
Originally by: Of Montreal Considering it does the exact same thing as gasoline powered cars which is emit greenhouse gases.
Have you gone bonkers ? Since when are CLOUDS a greenhouse gas ? You know... water vapour ? Gasoline powered cars DO emit greenhouse gasses, mostly CO2 (and a lot of particles, and carbon monoxide, and a lot of other stuff). Hydrogen cars mostly put out water. Which ISN'T a "greenhouse gas". Not by any possible definition.
Now... the way we currently OBTAIN the hydrogen, that's another story, and it's a bad one. _ Create a character || Fit a ship || Get some ISK |
Kalam Orlong
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 14:25:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Of Montreal Considering it does the exact same thing as gasoline powered cars which is emit greenhouse gases.
Have you gone bonkers ? Since when are CLOUDS a greenhouse gas ? You know... water vapour ? Gasoline powered cars DO emit greenhouse gasses, mostly CO2 (and a lot of particles, and carbon monoxide, and a lot of other stuff). Hydrogen cars mostly put out water. Which ISN'T a "greenhouse gas". Not by any possible definition.
um, water vapor and clouds (clouds not being a gas) both have a significant greenhouse effect.
from here
Quote:
Water vapor is a naturally occurring greenhouse gas and accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66% for water vapor alone, and between 66% and 85% when in factoring clouds.[5] Water vapor concentrations fluctuate regionally, but human activity does not directly affect water vapor concentrations except at local scales (for example, near irrigated fields).
the thing is that the natural abundance in the atmosphere of water is on average 1%, and CO2 is 0.04%, so to impact the natural amount of water present in the atmosphere in to the same ratio as you could affect the CO2 amount you would need to pump out 25 times as much water as CO2.
|
Of Montreal
Gallente CRICE Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 14:38:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 09/01/2009 14:19:39
Originally by: Of Montreal Considering it does the exact same thing as gasoline powered cars which is emit greenhouse gases.
Have you gone bonkers ? Since when are CLOUDS a greenhouse gas ? You know... water vapour ? Gasoline powered cars DO emit greenhouse gasses, mostly CO2 (and a lot of particles, and carbon monoxide, and a lot of other stuff). Hydrogen cars mostly put out water. Which ISN'T a "greenhouse gas". Not by any possible definition.
Now... the way we currently OBTAIN the hydrogen, that's another story, and it's a bad one.
Quick lazy link Water vapor is the most abundant green house gas. Why the hell would you think it wasn't? So yeah you're wrong.
|
Tacyon
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 14:40:00 -
[14]
Hate to break this to ya, but I think OP was trolling.
|
Brea Lafail
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 14:44:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Tacyon Hate to break this to ya, but I think OP was trolling.
Still not seeing it.
|
Kalam Orlong
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 14:52:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Of Montreal
Quick lazy link Water vapor is the most abundant green house gas. Why the hell would you think it wasn't? So yeah you're wrong.
as it is the most abundant, it is also the one we have the least effect on unless we scale up our emissions by orders of magnitude.
so if the choice of emmission is [CO2 and water] or only [water] then it should be clear which is the better fuel. |
Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 14:55:00 -
[17]
You need the power plants to produce the hydrogen. |
ReaperOfSly
Gallente Zetsubou Corp
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 20:30:00 -
[18]
If we were somehow able to acquire hydrogen cheaply, then I'm sure you could. Like mining Jupiter or something. But as it is, the only way to make hydrogen in decent quantities is electrolysis on water - which costs more in energy than you get by burning the hydrogen. It's a simply system: Water -> hydrogen + oxygen -> water. There's no way to extract energy from that. |
Taua Roqa
Minmatar Silhouette Soliloquy
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 20:58:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Taua Roqa on 09/01/2009 21:01:48 cos we get our hydrogen from energy produced by burning fossil fuels.
the only feasible way to get hydrogen is from renewable energy (**** tons of windfarms in the sea turning it into hydrogen basically). and no, not nuclear, that's even worse for sustainability than fossil fuels.
of course the reshaping of a fossil fuel consumption based economy into an economy of infinately stable and clean energy will mark the end of the first stage of the evolution of mankind into something greater. it's truly ****ing massive when you spend some time thinking about it.
|
Eran Laude
Gallente The Aduro Protocol
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 21:13:00 -
[20]
Considering the time it has taken to develop hydrogen fuel cells [still not efficient enough to be used in vehicles yet, and not likely to be for a few more years at least], it would probably be more economical to continue research on nuclear fusion - projected to take 50 years at most to become efficient and - than to invest tens of billions of Dollars and Euros in something that would need to be researched on a similar timescale, not be as sustainable and probably wind up being more expensive in the long run. It's doubtful whether you can ever make hydrogen efficient on a power plant level anyway, especially in comparison to the raw potential of Nuclear Fusion.
By all means continue trying to make it work at a vehicular level, but to power a city? Not worth it.
|
|
Taua Roqa
Minmatar Silhouette Soliloquy
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 21:20:00 -
[21]
Nuclear Fusion is out of our league for now, perhaps in 500 years sure, but it's really not something to jump into from burning dead animals.
|
Eomar
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 21:43:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Taua Roqa (**** tons of windfarms in the sea turning it into hydrogen basically). and no, not nuclear, that's even worse for sustainability than fossil fuels.
Researched the energy and material cost of manufacturing windfarms?
Its doesnt make for good reading.
Add to that the inherent problems with wind generated power (including thier unpredictability). For large scale domestic purposes windfarms are WORSE for the environment simply because they cost a huge amount to manufacture, and even when theyre online and spooled up you still need a normal powerstation on standby to cope with the dips in production.
Nuclear power is a actually a very viable alternative in the short to medium term, especially given the massive improvements in efficiency achieved since the first plants went online.
Long term, as you say, its no more sustainable than hydrocarbons, but its better than the current alternatives.
Solar power is another option, but efficient solar (electric) panels arent exaclt ygood for the planet either, they use all sorts of exotic materiels.
Hydro power, ie dams and wave generators again do massive amounts of damage and it doesnt upscale particularly well.
Overall we're in a real ****ty situation for the long term, we all seriously need to cut down on our energy usage, utilising whats left of our rapidly dwindling natural resources as cleanly as we can and looking seriously at viable alternatives.
by viable I dont mean whatever ****wit notion the greenlobby have dragged onto the bandwagon this week.
Its not about saving the planet btw. the planet can shrug us off and not even notice, its ecosystem is far more rugged than some people would have you believe. yes some species will die, certainly humanity will, but species dying has been going on since way before we were around, and will continue to do so long after we shuffle off.
There was a notion a while back to use spaceborne solar collectors to beam energy back to the planet via laser, that might work if it gets enough funding..
fusion power.. not totally a dead dream ..
all it needs really is some bright spark having a eureka moment and inventing the next wheel. something thats not happened in a long long time. at the beginning of the 1900s it was horse and cart. 60 years later it was man on the moon.
what have we had since then thats not a refinement of older ideas?
|
Taua Roqa
Minmatar Silhouette Soliloquy
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 21:52:00 -
[23]
aye wind turbines cost a lot of energy to make :/ and i'm talking tens of millions of them lol, but as you say, the really important thing
"we all seriously need to cut down on our energy usage, utilising whats left of our rapidly dwindling natural resources as cleanly as we can and looking seriously at viable alternatives."
amen to that ^_^ |
Atomos Darksun
Damage Incorporated.
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 22:07:00 -
[24]
Gogo gadget solar power research!
Modern day ones are ~7% efficient. That leaves a LOT of room for improvement.
Originally by: Amoxin My vent is talking to me in a devil voice...
CONVERT TO LINKIFICATION! http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameb |
Nebulous
Minmatar Mirkur Draug'Tyr Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 22:09:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Eomar what have we had since then thats not a refinement of older ideas?
Not much and do you know why? It's because of money, money is technologies biggest enemy, many believe the opposite but that is completely untrue, research is limited to how much rescourse can be used and the rescource must be bought with money, if the pot is limited then technology gets held back.
The ancient and barely above cavemen society of money based economy is what is holding the human race and technology back, if the world had adopted a form of technology, science or rescource based economy in the early to mid 1900's then the world would be a much more advanced place now, many monetary system critics in the early 1900's predicted the fall of the monetary system in or around the 1940's and we would have been left with no other option than to have switched to an alternate economic idea, however what happened in the 40's? WW2 is what happened and it was this that put life back into the worlds failing economic money rotating systems. Pleas see the quote below.
"At the beginning of World War II the U.S. had a mere 600 or so first-class fighting aircraft. We rapidly overcame this short supply by turning out more than 90,000 planes a year. The question at the start of World War II was: Do we have enough funds to produce the required implements of war? The answer was No, we did not have enough money, nor did we have enough gold; but we did have more than enough resources. It was the available resources that enabled the US to achieve the high production and efficiency required to win the war. Unfortunately this is only considered in times of war."
So basically to the OP, if you wan't a world with renewable clean energy we need to ditch money, as long as there is profit to be made from the burning of fossil fuels then the worlds governments will only half heartedly invest in alternatives.
*Rant off*
|
Jacob Mei
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 23:05:00 -
[26]
Hydrogen is -NOT- an energy source. It is an energy -carrier-.
Energy source: Generates energy. Things like Wind, wave and I suppose dam's are energy sources.
Energy carrier: Stores energy like a battery. Things like oil, coal and hydrogen are energy carriers.
Because Hydrogen is an energy carrier it requires energy to be put into it for storage and then to be used. For it to be a viable replacement to fossel fuels (our current energy carriers) is needs to be more effient and cost effective to store its energy which at present time it is not.
Hydrogen is not the magic bullet that the media and enviromentalists paint it to be. |
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 23:24:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Akita T
Hydrogen cars mostly put out water. Which ISN'T a "greenhouse gas". Not by any possible definition.
mmmm... are you sure?
"In order, Earth's most abundant greenhouse gases are:
* water vapor * carbon dioxide * methane * nitrous oxide * ozone * CFCs
When these gases are ranked by their contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:
* water vapor, which contributes 36û70% * carbon dioxide, which contributes 9û26% * methane, which contributes 4û9% * ozone, which contributes 3û7%
The major non-gas contributor to the Earth's greenhouse effect, clouds, also absorb and emit infrared radiation and thus have an effect on radiative properties of the greenhouse gases"
|
Qui Shon
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 23:59:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Eomar
There was a notion a while back to use spaceborne solar collectors to beam energy back to the planet via laser, that might work if it gets enough funding..
Or other wavelenghts, like microwave, which I believe is easier to scale. But, that gives a whole new meaning to Reagans old Star Wars thinking. I mean, you just adjust the things a little, fry a few enemy cities if you feel like it. Is powerblock A going to be okay with powerblock B having these things? Or what if it veeres of course by accident or sabotage? |
Xen Gin
Universal Mining Inc Forged Dominion
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 02:54:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Akita T
Hydrogen cars mostly put out water. Which ISN'T a "greenhouse gas". Not by any possible definition.
mmmm... are you sure?
"In order, Earth's most abundant greenhouse gases are:
* water vapor * carbon dioxide * methane * nitrous oxide * ozone * CFCs
When these gases are ranked by their contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:
* water vapor, which contributes 36û70% * carbon dioxide, which contributes 9û26% * methane, which contributes 4û9% * ozone, which contributes 3û7%
The major non-gas contributor to the Earth's greenhouse effect, clouds, also absorb and emit infrared radiation and thus have an effect on radiative properties of the greenhouse gases"
OK, Wiki, Use a better source, but even if you had slightly read one sentence more you would have seen.
"The contribution to the greenhouse effect by a gas is affected by both the characteristics of the gas and its abundance. For example, on a molecule-for-molecule basis methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but it is present in much smaller concentrations so that its total contribution is smaller.
It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes an exact percentage of the greenhouse effect, because the influences of the various gases are not additive." ------
Originally by: Rifter Drifter News just in..
Games are a pastime.. not a way of life.
If your not enjoying, stop playing, and don't post about it.
|
Benilopax
Gallente Pulsar Combat Supplies Alternative Realities
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 03:08:00 -
[30]
I read somewhere that Iceland may use their abundance of geothermal energy to create hydrogen fuel cells and use this industry to get their economy back on track. Anyone heard more on this or have a report on it? -----------------------------------
It is I, the Living Exploit!
Messing up the game since Nov 04. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |