Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Shiny Things' started by MJSfoto1956, Dec 26, 2018.
Pipe dream. Nobody wants to throw away a third of their energy production.
Any fission reactor is dirty compared to fusion, so I'd call it mid term. Mid term, I have more hope for thorium cycle breeder reactors, to be honest.
Because there is no "market-driven" solar energy.
I would like to see your docs behind this statement.....and please don't link those by electric shills.
Now you clearly show that you have zero clue as to what you talk about....there are zero, none, nodda, zippo fusion power plants out in the real world making real power. It only has ever existed in "lab" or "test" type setups. UK is working on getting one going but to coin your term "pipe dream" A bunch of idiots have got the world so set in their head that putting a nuke anywhere is going to be the next nightmare.....and don't get me started on the brainless soviets....like they care about......well anything but a hand full of folks.
That's pretty well established science, combustion itself converts it mostly into things other than can be used for mechanical energy in an engine. So you're not going to get anywhere close to the efficiency of a battery/motor.
Plus hydrogen is a pain to create effective tanks for (even then it still leaks) and their necessary design limits the range. Then you have the issue if making a network to transport/store it.
I like the idea of small scale nuke plants, using current waste, each would power a small area or community on its own grid, with the ability to send power to neighboring grids if there is a problem.
That will save transmission losses, provide carbon free power and deal with existing nuke waste. Of course I am one of those "deniers" who does not think man caused global warming is a actual problem so my thoughts hold no value.
I think a great deal of this is myth.....we have propane and other forms of natural gas running buses and such for decades now....that tech is out there....even if hydrogen is a gas that is much more easy to have leave its container....they figured out cheap and easy ways to hold it 50 years ago.
You also site the vehicle itself as the entire lifespan of the production of that energy....where as this electric boondoggle people always....ALWAYS....leave out the small and insignifiant bits it takes to make it in the first place and get it there....then storage, filling, what to do with this stuff after it is wore out (batteries, controllers.....) all the shit the little electric pixies run through.....and the heat made by them.....there is quite a bit of waste there as well.
Nothing makes the power to weight like an IC engine, with the same fuel costs, and the same build costs.
The only...as in ONLY reason this electric thing is still going is because the guberment is propping it up.
I seem to remember a number of units sold being the cutoff point for getting guberment monies.....I want to say 120-140,000 units....and when I looked SEVERAL months ago Tesla was getting very close....and was already starting to lobby for that to be extended.....wonder why.....lets see what happens if that does end.
One other thing is pertty well established science....hydrogen has the highest energy density of anything on the planet....you would think it would be smart to figure out a way to use it.......wonder where we would be if the money that went to that idiot thing in the desert, or to peoples friends at solyndra went into real development.....but what am I thinking.
You said efficiency of the engine, energy density per volume is a whole different conversation.
And even there it's an issue because for buses you need a giant tank on top of the bus (like with NG) but it would be even harder to engineer due to the increased volume (size) needed per a given distance plus the difficulties of keeping hydrogen from escaping.
The advantage for electric vehicles comes in when you're designing it from the ground up as one. Many have a thicker frame on the bottom with the battery itself acting as a structural support. On something like a city bus this works really well because of all the area currently available in designs.
But for passenger cars this type of ground up design is very important and can provide the range that NG/H2 can't without taking up a lot of cargo and passenger space.
And battery tech keeps on advancing increasing the energy density further.
I just posted the links above.
That's why I said "long term". Pay attention, you dolt!
Propane is liquified. And it is not produced *from* electricity, it is just another form of fossil fuel. Hydrogen needs to be heavily compressed, and compression produces heat and therefore loses energy. So we have loss of energy when producing hydrogen from water, loss of energy when compressing it, and loss of energy when converting hydrogen back to electricity in the fuel cells. How is it not idiotic?
We've met the enemy, and it's our government!
Public EV charging infrastructure is growing fast, but a lack of charging is still blamed as an obstacle to electric-car adoption. What’s holding things up? According to Reducing EV Charging Infrastructure Costs, a study published yesterday by the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI), it’s not the cost of the hardware and software. The problem faced by charging networks and utilities is soft costs, like onerous permitting and regulations.
"Occupied" on Netflix. thought provoking stuff.
The volume needed for H2 is too large so you would still need a massive tank on the roof, larger than NG.
I guess not many people would feel safe on top of a very pressurized highly flammable gas?
Except it's all in progress. Hydrogen vehicles are coming, bigly. Battery electric will continue until the hydrogen refueling network is generally established. California will be getting 200 new H2 fueling stations within the next few years. Japan is dedicated to creating a hydrogen economy.
It is recognized that electric vehicle batteries present a potentially monstrous waste issue in the mid and long term. Battery maintenance is also an issue. The added weight of batteries result in comparatively rapid wear on tires. Then there's the mining of lithium issues. In addition, even with super charging, the charging times are significantly longer than refueling a H2 vehicle. As for H2 tanks, they are literally bullet proof now. Range for a typical H2 sedan are now in the high three hundreds to low 400 miles.
My understanding of fuel cells is that, at least early on, they had a problem with hydro-carbon based sources of hydrogen, of getting clogged up (contaminated). Maybe that isn't the case with 'pure' hydrogen?
There are other problems such as the heat generated and that they need to warm up before they are efficient. They do not work well with the typical cycle of jump in the car and take off, drive ten minutes and then shut down?
Japan is a lot smaller than the USA, so it will take a lot less time to create any infrastructure needed for any alternative fuel/energy.
There are batteries that work somewhat similar to fuel cells in that the electrolyte is replenished to recharge them. The electrolyte is held in a tank separate from the battery and when exhausted it can be removed and then refilled with recharged electrolyte. The exhausted electrolyte can be recycled by being recharged. This allows the vehicle to be "refueled" almost as fast as a petroleum based vehicle.
The future is electric - whether the electricity comes from a battery or a fuel cell remains to be seen.
Last year Texas used more green energy than it did coal. Natural gas is still their largest energy source though.
Drifter you're dreaming again if you think fuel cells are taking off.