Chevy Sequel achieves 300 miles on one tank of hydrogen with no emissions (0-60 in 10 seconds to boot)

Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10716
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Chevy Sequel achieves 300 miles on one tank of hydrogen with no emissions (0-60 in 10 seconds to boot)

September 14, 2006
The Chevrolet Sequel: a new kind of eco-friendly vehicle
by Guillaume Rivard , Auto123.com

No one can deny General Motors' willingness to lessen the burden on Mother Nature by building more eco-friendly vehicles. You just have to look at innovations like Displacement on Demand as well as production of hybrid and E85-compatible models.

Four years ago, the world's largest automaker challenged itself to completely reinvent the automobile. The first concrete result was showcased at the 2005 Detroit Auto Show. The Chevrolet Sequel concept was described as "the most technologically advanced automobile ever built".

This week, GM announced a driveable version of this five-passenger crossover SUV.

"We're proving that advanced technology can remove the automobile from the environmental debate and reduce our dependence on petroleum," said Larry Burns, GM vice president, research & development and strategic planning. "Chevy Sequel clearly shows that our vision for the future of the automobile is real and sustainable."

The Sequel is the first vehicle in the world to successfully integrate a hydrogen fuel cell driving system with a host of advanced technologies such
(Photo: General Motors)
as steer-and brake-by-wire controls, wheel hub motors, lithium-ion batteries and lightweight all-aluminum body and structure. Its skateboard-like platform houses the main propulsion, braking and chassis components. Above all, it runs on clean, renewable hydrogen and emits only water vapor.

Compared to other fuel cell vehicles, the Sequel is reportedly quicker, more sure-footed and easier to handle and to build. It has an unprecedented range of 300 miles between fill-ups and, thanks to 70 % more torque, takes only 10 seconds to accelerate from 0 to 60 mph.

http://www.auto123.com/en/info/news/news,view.spy?artid=69067

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
    Very cool post

    Very cool post Vastet. I heard in a podcast last week (forget which one), there are even more advancements in hydrogen fuel cells coming very shortly. I can't wait but I am sure the vehicles will be expensive as hell for while until the thechnology becomes more commonplace.


djneibarger
Superfan
djneibarger's picture
Posts: 564
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
speaking of which, have you

speaking of which, have you heard about the new interactive touch-screen table tops? you can read the paper online while you're eating breakfast, or look at digital photos, and get this: you can lay your cell phone on the table top and drag-and-drop song files into it.

too damn cool. but they start at $10000... 

www.derekneibarger.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger "all postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." -christopher hitchens


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10716
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I remember when cell phones

I remember when cell phones cost a couple grand. And were 5 times bigger at the same time. All this uber cool shit is only a decade or two away from mass establishment. Technology is moving so damn fast. This has got to be one of the most if not the most exciting times in the history of life on earth to exist within. It's sad the experience is somewhat corrupted with all the crap going on.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Master Jedi Dan
Master Jedi Dan's picture
Posts: 289
Joined: 2007-05-30
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:

speaking of which, have you heard about the new interactive touch-screen table tops? you can read the paper online while you're eating breakfast, or look at digital photos, and get this: you can lay your cell phone on the table top and drag-and-drop song files into it.

too damn cool. but they start at $10000...

Unfortunately, the Microsoft Surface won't be out for another few years, and they have yet to give it a real practical use... plus, very few people have $15,000 lying around to go buy something that looks cool.

In response to the main post, yes, GM and other companies have test cars that get great mileage, but they have much bigger problems on hand right now to focus very much on this subject, like unions, competition, layoffs, and closing factories, etc.

And besides, how soon are we going to be able to convert all the gas stations to hydrogen or some other fuel?  (hint: there's a lot of them)

Atheism is a non-prophet organization.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Ok, I hate to be the wet

Ok, I hate to be the wet blanket, so hopefully I'm just ignorant...

Before humans, there was Carbon Dioxide. Then, we learned how to keep ourselves alive for more than double our "natural" lifespan, and learned how to almost completely end infant mortality. While we were at it, we invented the internal combustion engine. As a result, we added trillions of tons of excess Carbon Dioxide to the atmosphere, and now we're in danger of melting the polar ice caps and fucking everything up by deluging all the coastal areas of the world...

So, we're going to make cars that emit water.

Which will be in the atmosphere by the trillions of tons.

In excess of what is naturally there.

So that we don't end up with flooded coastlines.

 

I'm seeing a problem here.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
P.S.  Don't get me

P.S.  Don't get me wrong... I know that combustion exhaust is worse than water vapor.  I'm just pointing out that ANY waste on a scale concurrent with our current consumption is likely to cause big problems.

It seems like reducing consumption and searching for alternatives to cars for everybody are necessary additions to any plan for saving the earth from people.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
 I thought the process was

 I thought the process was take  hydrogen out of water combust and then back into water... That would leave a net gain of 0 water.  I could be completely wrong here.

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Well, that would make a lot

Well, that would make a lot of sense.

Can't be the way it works, though. It's too logical.

There's got to be a catch.

{edit: Oh, I bet I know.  They have to use gigantic amounts of fossil fuels to extract the hydrogen, right?}

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
Magus wrote: I thought the

Magus wrote:
I thought the process was take hydrogen out of water combust and then back into water... That would leave a net gain of 0 water. I could be completely wrong here.

 

Nope - Hydrogen and oxygen go into the fuel cell and the products are electricty and water.

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
Vorax wrote: Magus wrote:

Vorax wrote:

Magus wrote:
I thought the process was take hydrogen out of water combust and then back into water... That would leave a net gain of 0 water. I could be completely wrong here.

 

Nope - Hydrogen and oxygen go into the fuel cell and the products are electricty and water.

  I guess these guys are waste their time then http://www.physorg.com/news98556080.html

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
Magus wrote: Vorax

Magus wrote:
Vorax wrote:

Magus wrote:
I thought the process was take hydrogen out of water combust and then back into water... That would leave a net gain of 0 water. I could be completely wrong here.

 

Nope - Hydrogen and oxygen go into the fuel cell and the products are electricty and water.

I guess these guys are waste their time then http://www.physorg.com/news98556080.html

Not at all, that's just a different approach then the standard one - the big fear with fuel cell cars is that all these vehicles will have to transport hydrogen (tends to be explosive) around and that we don't have any infrastructure setup to have hyrdrogen pump stations for the cars.

Their approch is reversing the process...extract hydrogen and oxygen from water instead of putting them together to make water.

Good luck to them I say - it would be a MUCH better process if it can be efficient and we already have lots of ways to dispense water, we wouldn't need anymore infrstructure then a garden house. 

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10716
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The infrastructure is

The infrastructure is already being laid out. I don't know the exact number of hydrogen stations out there, but I know they exist. There's one or two in Vancouver and a few in California that I know of specifically. It won't be like flipping a switch, but they will become more and more common as the years go by.

As for water being the exhaust, it's easy enough to recycle it instead of putting steam into the atmosphere. Fill up your water bottle from the exhaust. Sticking out tongue

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: The

Vastet wrote:
The infrastructure is already being laid out. I don't know the exact number of hydrogen stations out there, but I know they exist. There's one or two in Vancouver and a few in California that I know of specifically. It won't be like flipping a switch, but they will become more and more common as the years go by. As for water being the exhaust, it's easy enough to recycle it instead of putting steam into the atmosphere. Fill up your water bottle from the exhaust. :P

Agreed, but the problem is it is going to cost billions and take decades to equal the infrastructure in place now.  This is the biggest hurdle to overcome because without the infrastrcture in place, it's not practical to own the cars...it's a catch 22...it's not practical to have the infrastructure if the cars aren't there to supply.

What those guys are working on could eliminate the need for the infrastructure (or reduce it in a hugely substantial way)...you could fuel up with a cup of water from your kitchen sink. 

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10716
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Vorax wrote: Vastet

Vorax wrote:

Vastet wrote:
The infrastructure is already being laid out. I don't know the exact number of hydrogen stations out there, but I know they exist. There's one or two in Vancouver and a few in California that I know of specifically. It won't be like flipping a switch, but they will become more and more common as the years go by. As for water being the exhaust, it's easy enough to recycle it instead of putting steam into the atmosphere. Fill up your water bottle from the exhaust. :P

Agreed, but the problem is it is going to cost billions and take decades to equal the infrastructure in place now.  This is the biggest hurdle to overcome because without the infrastrcture in place, it's not practical to own the cars...it's a catch 22...it's not practical to have the infrastructure if the cars aren't there to supply.

What those guys are working on could eliminate the need for the infrastructure (or reduce it in a hugely substantial way)...you could fuel up with a cup of water from your kitchen sink. 

I view the scenario as analogous to gaming systems. When a system first comes out, it costs an arm and a leg(most of the time anyway). Even though it costs the user an arm and a leg, it's costing the company an arm and a leg as well, since they can lose up to a few hundred per console per sale. It also doesn't have many games, upgrades, or accessories available. What few games it does have are by no means system sellers. A few people always buy the system because of vanity. The ability to say they bought it on launch day. Or perhaps they're taking advantage of new features for a system(the PS2's DVD player was a huge factor in tossing the formerly beloved VCR out the door).
This is rather equal to the few environmentalists who will purchase these cars just because they are available. By purchasing the cars, they create demand for fuel. Not much demand, but some. Because this early infrastructure has been set up by supply and demand, it allows the costs of the system to go down. It convinces other companies to make games for them(set up hydrogen stations). Much like a processor goes down in price, so too does anything mass manufactured(cars get cheaper).

Now considering the price difference(not to mention the overall customer targetting) between a gaming system and a car, it's obviously going to take a lot longer for the hydrogen cars to start rolling off the assembly lines like SUV's do today in comparison to a gaming system setting up a stable user base. In a decade there will maybe be one or two hydrogen fuel stations in every major city. A decade or two after that and it'll have become mainstream.

So while the idea of filling up your tank with water could speed up the process significantly, it will happen fairly cheaply in the long run anyway. It doesn't cost much when you take little steps. It can even make you money, since by the time the 200,000th system sells off the shelf the gaming company has started to make a profit on their system instead of selling at a loss.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


naghtyvampiregod
Posts: 1
Joined: 2007-06-10
User is offlineOffline
hydrogen problems

While I love the idea of a hydrogen fueled car (renewable resource, energy independence, H2O  as an emission), there is a reason that Iceland is leading the world in hydrogen fuel tech. Iceland can use the natural geothermic energy available to them to generate hydrogen, unfortunately most of the processes we have available to generate pure hydrogen take about as much energy to produce as they yield. Of course this problem could be solved with nuclear energy but that is another issue.


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Welcome,

Welcome, naghtyvampiregod.

When you have a few minutes, we'd love it if you'd hop over to the  General Conversation, Introductions and Humor forum and introduce yourself.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Nodody has asked the

Nodody has asked the OBVIOUS question - where did this hyrodgen come from? How was it produced?

YES, when hydrogen burns, it IS clean, but making hydrogen as it stands is ridiculously expensive and harms the environment just as much, if not more than, comparable fuel sources.

Traditionally, H2 is made by steam reformation of natural gas (which begs the question, why not just use the natural gas, rather than waste energy refining it?). Syn gas formation requires a great deal of energy to produce steam (typically from coal fired power plants in the US) and produces pollutants like carbon monoxide as a direct byproduct. Other traditional methods of manufacture produce carbon dioxide as a direct byproduct. There are also a few ways to biologically produce it, but they are not effiecient either.

The point is that in ALL cases, hydrogen requires MORE energy to produce than the net product can deliver, and is comparatively more energy costly than traditional fossil fuel power.

Unless we get fusion power plants working or some other amazing tech breakthrough, H2 power is a pipe dream.

Far more practical and reasonable and workable alternative fuels are already becoming a reality. Hydrogen is a curiousity at best, at least for now.

Notice how every article you read on H2 typically neglects to mention this fact. I have no idea why, other than the media wanting the story to sound jucier than it really is.

New and innovative is not necessarily better or even practical.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
And for the record, 0-60 in

And for the record, 0-60 in 10 seconds SUCKS. It's MUCH worse than the most lumbersome passenger vehicles on the market.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10716
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
0-60 in ten seconds only

0-60 in ten seconds only sucks if you're racing. It's quite acceptable for normal driving.

And there are tonnes of initiatives finding out how and making cheaper and cleaner ways of producing hydrogen. Many of them using solar energy.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


qbg
Posts: 298
Joined: 2006-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

Notice how every article you read on H2 typically neglects to mention this fact. I have no idea why, other than the media wanting the story to sound jucier than it really is.

Could it possibly be that the main attraction to hydrogen in the majority's mind is that it is cleaner (or so they think) and hydrogen is cheaper than truly clean alternatives, thus providing a good market for business to look into (after all, businesses live on growth); the wide recognition of how unclean hydrogen would be devastating for this market, thus causing the death of a growth opportunity if no other similar technology is cost effective enough. The major media may decide to not cover this aspect of the story due their ownership by a corporation that may have ties to this kind of research.

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
H2 even close to as unclean

H2 isn't even close to as unclean to produce as petroleum ...it sounds like you being buying into some "religious" facts produced by the petroleum industry.... Infact, research who the largest user of H2 is today...the petroleum industry! It is used extensively in the refinement process of petroleum.

There are numerous ways to produce H2 ranging from extraction from water all the way to microbes that produce it as a byproduct. It is FAR more environmentally friendly to produce and consume then petroleum products. H2's fesability isn't in question, what is in question about H2 is how do you distribute it and how do you replace the millions and millions of machines that rely on petroleum today. The petroleum industry will loose billions worth of investment in oil rigs, refineries, distribution channels, etc...that's the real reason "H2 is unclean" ...honestly, that statement is funny - Hydrogen is the most abudent element in the universe - there are numerous ways to produce it without even producing bad biproducts - thermal energy, solar energy and microbes being just a few examples.

 

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Vorax wrote: H2 isn't even

Vorax wrote:

H2 isn't even close to as unclean to produce as petroleum ...it sounds like you being buying into some "religious" facts produced by the petroleum industry.... Infact, research who the largest user of H2 is today...the petroleum industry! It is used extensively in the refinement process of petroleum.

Hydrogen is used in a limited fashion in petrol refinement, but that does not make making H2 clean or efficient.

Did you even read what I wrote?

NO way of producing hydrogen is energy effiecient - it ALWAYS takes MORE energy to make H2 than the H2 can provide - no matter how you make it.

Whether you crack fossil fuel or go the even more energy intensive route of electolysis, you will be putting more in than you get out.

Unless the energy you are putting in is essentially clean and essentially free (and it is not, not now anyway), powering the world with H2 is insane.

The only clean way to make H2 is to crack water, which is even MORE energy intensive than cracking hydrocarbons. If the energy you use to crack that water is derived from fossil fuels, what are you gaining? Nothing, in fact, you're digging a deeper hole.

Making H2 from water from hydro or nuclear or wind or solar power would be cleaner than what we do now, but that's NOT the sort of infrastructure we have in place. It would be impractical and inefficient to replcace such.

Oil refineries can easily make the switch to ethanal or biodiesle production, without us having to build nuke plants or develope fusion. Solar and wind power generation is frankly not capable of supplying the power we would need to make such a switch, not now or in the very near future anyway.

This is not the case for things like oil or natural gas, etc. 

I'm not speaking in a "religious" manner here, this is MY industry. I'm heavily involved in developing new technolgies for alternative fuels, sequestering emmissions, etc. This is what I do for a living. I'm being frank about what the actual energy costs are, how things are actually produced and what is actually feasible given the current infrastructure.

Quote:
There are numerous ways to produce H2 ranging from extraction from water all the way to microbes that produce it as a byproduct. It is FAR more environmentally friendly to produce and consume then petroleum products.

No, it is NOT, if you get the energy to make the H2 from fossil fuel, which is typically the case. I ANY case, there is ALWAYS a net energy LOSS - you WILL put MUCH MORE energy into making the H2 than the H2 will produce, especially when compared to the alternatives like traditional fuels, ethanol, bio-D, etc. As an engineer without a limitless no cost fuel source, that makes me cringe. It should make you cringe too. It's just a bad idea.

Quote:
H2's fesability isn't in question,

Fuck yes it is. Pay attention.

 

Quote:
what is in question about H2 is how do you distribute it and how do you replace the millions and millions of machines that rely on petroleum today.

 And what do you think THAT would cost? Are you really this thick? You have NO concept of the economics and technology involved?

Quote:
The petroleum industry will loose billions worth of investment in oil rigs, refineries, distribution channels, etc...that's the real reason "H2 is unclean" ...honestly, that statement is funny - Hydrogen is the most abudent element in the universe - there are numerous ways to produce it without even producing bad biproducts - thermal energy, solar energy and microbes being just a few examples.

 

That's right, my opinon is based solely on me cock sucking the oil industry. You're clueless. You really are.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Vorax
Vorax's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2007-05-29
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Vorax wrote:

H2 isn't even close to as unclean to produce as petroleum ...it sounds like you being buying into some "religious" facts produced by the petroleum industry.... Infact, research who the largest user of H2 is today...the petroleum industry! It is used extensively in the refinement process of petroleum.

Hydrogen is used in a limited fashion in petrol refinement, but that does not make making H2 clean or efficient.

Did I claim it did? err...umm..nope, I didn't.

Quote:
Did you even read what I wrote?

Obviously you didn't read what I wrote.

 

Quote:
NO way of producing hydrogen is energy effiecient - it ALWAYS takes MORE energy to make H2 than the H2 can provide - no matter how you make it.

Grats, you understand basic physics! What you don't seem to understand (or are ignoring) is that petroleum is a limited resource. Finding more efficient ways to utilize it is more bandaids and only slows the production of green house gases - it isn't a solution. It will run out...you have already lost this argument.

 

Quote:
Whether you crack fossil fuel or go the even more energy intensive route of electolysis, you will be putting more in than you get out.

Yes, but the point is where does that initial energy you are putting in come from? In a car today, the energy comes from gas and is consumed upon ignition, wind power or solar power gathered before hand can't be used, but it can be for hydrogen. Petroleum is running out.

Quote:
Unless the energy you are putting in is essentially clean and essentially free (and it is not, not now anyway), powering the world with H2 is insane.

Not powering the world, powering cars. Petroleum is running out.

Quote:
The only clean way to make H2 is to crack water, which is even MORE energy intensive than cracking hydrocarbons. If the energy you use to crack that water is derived from fossil fuels, what are you gaining? Nothing, in fact, you're digging a deeper hole.

There is work under way now to develop ways of producing hydrogen as cheaply as gasoline. The transportation and storage will aslo be solvable. In the end it may be as cheap as gasoline is now, or it may cost 5 times as much, but even in that case, it's a win. Petroleum is running out.

Quote:
Making H2 from water from hydro or nuclear or wind or solar power would be cleaner than what we do now, but that's NOT the sort of infrastructure we have in place. It would be impractical and inefficient to replcace such.

Irrelevant that's the petrolum industries problem. All it means, is we need a new industry. Petroleum is running out.

Quote:
Oil refineries can easily make the switch to ethanal or biodiesle production, without us having to build nuke plants or develope fusion.

Great! Now, where will all this ethanol come from? Think land mass required to produce the high sugar crops needed (got a contient we don't need somewhere?), not about ethanal produced from petroleum extraction.

I'm not saying solving the problem is going to be cheap or easy, but bandaids are not a solution, they are only buying time. Petroleum is running out.

Quote:
Solar and wind power generation is frankly not capable of supplying the power we would need to make such a switch, not now or in the very near future anyway. This is not the case for things like oil or natural gas, etc.

Yes, it can't produce engough yet. We don't have the infrastructure - that doesn't mean we shouldn't look to develop it. Oil and natrual gas are still petroleum based. Petroleum is running out.

Quote:
I'm not speaking in a "religious" manner here, this is MY industry. I'm heavily involved in developing new technolgies for alternative fuels, sequestering emmissions, etc. This is what I do for a living. I'm being frank about what the actual energy costs are, how things are actually produced and what is actually feasible given the current infrastructure.

I know you are being frank but I'm not talking about what we can do now, I'm talking about something we all have to face for the future - petroleum is running out.

 

Quote:
No, it is NOT, if you get the energy to make the H2 from fossil fuel, which is typically the case. I ANY case, there is ALWAYS a net energy LOSS - you WILL put MUCH MORE energy into making the H2 than the H2 will produce

See the link above. I'm in R&D, not for this industry, but I understand the process. My job is to find new ways of doing things that haven't been thought of before - that's what hydrogen production needs and is getting and there are a lot of people working on it and progress is being made.

Quote:
, especially when compared to the alternatives like traditional fuels, ethanol, bio-D, etc. As an engineer without a limitless no cost fuel source, that makes me cringe. It should make you cringe too. It's just a bad idea.

Think 100 years from now, what do you see running the cars on this planet? I'm betting Hydrogen. Why? Petroleum is running out.

Quote:
Quote:
H2's fesability isn't in question,

Fuck yes it is. Pay attention.

The long term feaability of ethanol is in greater question then hydrogen...well, unless we take over South America and use it as a crop continent for producing ethanal...hmm...I think they might not like that.

Quote:
Quote:
what is in question about H2 is how do you distribute it and how do you replace the millions and millions of machines that rely on petroleum today.

And what do you think THAT would cost? Are you really this thick? You have NO concept of the economics and technology involved?

Do you actually read thse threads or do you have your head so far up your ass that you think you don't need to? Read my posts earlier in this topic. I POINTED THIS OUT AS THE PROBLEM.

Here, I'll make it easy for you...this was in response to Vastet

Vorax wrote:
Agreed, but the problem is it is going to cost billions and take decades to equal the infrastructure in place now. This is the biggest hurdle to overcome


Quote:
That's right, my opinon is based solely on me cock sucking the oil industry. You're clueless. You really are.

No your opinion is based on solving a short term problem, but you aren't seeming to acknowledge the long term problem: Petroleum is running out.

I'm not clueless, I'm just not choosing to ignore the fundamental problem like you are.

"All it would take to kill God is one meteorite a half mile across - think about why." - Vorax

Visit my blog on Atheism: Cerebral Thinking for some more food for intelligent thought.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Vorax

Vorax wrote:
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
Vorax wrote:

H2 isn't even close to as unclean to produce as petroleum ...it sounds like you being buying into some "religious" facts produced by the petroleum industry.... Infact, research who the largest user of H2 is today...the petroleum industry! It is used extensively in the refinement process of petroleum.

Hydrogen is used in a limited fashion in petrol refinement, but that does not make making H2 clean or efficient.

Did I claim it did? err...umm..nope, I didn't.

Quote:
Did you even read what I wrote?

Obviously you didn't read what I wrote.

Quote:
NO way of producing hydrogen is energy effiecient - it ALWAYS takes MORE energy to make H2 than the H2 can provide - no matter how you make it.

Grats, you understand basic physics! What you don't seem to understand (or are ignoring) is that petroleum is a limited resource.

Grats, you understand the concept of limitied supply. What you don't seem to understand is what is involved in making major technology transitions.

Quote:
Finding more efficient ways to utilize it is more bandaids and only slows the production of green house gases - it isn't a solution. It will run out...you have already lost this argument.

It will run out, in the long term. In the mean time, we can find more efficient and cleaner ways of using it until a truely economic clean alternative comes along. This simply makes sense, and H2 is not a good alternative in this scenario for the reasons I've already posted.

Reducing emissions and making current technology cleaner is a much more feasible, immiediate and logical course of action in the mean time. This would involve, for example, supplying oxygen enriched air to coal power plants (coal is a ridiculously adundant resouce that powers most of the US and other countries like Austrailia) to gain efficiency and reduce emmissions. We could supply nitrogen enriched air to diesle engines to do the same thing. We could even sequester at least part of the emmissions we do produce. These are technoligies and others like biofuels I'm personally working on, and they are promising, economical, and easily implemented in the existing infrastructure.

Using H2 as a fuel source is NOT cleaner, is NOT economical, and would require revamping current tech and infrastructure to a ridiculous degree. It is NOT a viable alternative today or in the very near future - period.

What did you not understand about that?

Quote:
Quote:
Whether you crack fossil fuel or go the even more energy intensive route of electolysis, you will be putting more in than you get out.

Yes, but the point is where does that initial energy you are putting in come from? In a car today, the energy comes from gas and is consumed upon ignition, wind power or solar power gathered before hand can't be used, but it can be for hydrogen. Petroleum is running out.

Again you miss the point. Solar and wind are decades out before they could be implemented on a large enough scale to make a difference.

We are much better off working with what we already have while these other technologies reach maturity.

Quote:
Quote:
Unless the energy you are putting in is essentially clean and essentially free (and it is not, not now anyway), powering the world with H2 is insane.

Not powering the world, powering cars. Petroleum is running out.

No shit. It ISN'T going to run out tomorrow or in the next decade or two though. The question is what do we do in the mean time?

We sure as shit don't start mass producing cars that run on H2. We start with hybrids that make better use of the fuels we already use. We start with making what we already do cleaner and more efficient. We start with what we already have.

This is the only way to approach the situation in a logical and economical fashion.

While we do that, we continue to work on fusion, we continue to make solar cells more efficient and economical.

We don't scrap what we already have for pipe dreams and unproven technologies. 

Quote:
Quote:
The only clean way to make H2 is to crack water, which is even MORE energy intensive than cracking hydrocarbons. If the energy you use to crack that water is derived from fossil fuels, what are you gaining? Nothing, in fact, you're digging a deeper hole.

There is work under way now to develop ways of producing hydrogen as cheaply as gasoline. The transportation and storage will aslo be solvable. In the end it may be as cheap as gasoline is now, or it may cost 5 times as much, but even in that case, it's a win. Petroleum is running out.

And when will this technology reach maturity? When it does, if it does, by all means, fire up the hydrogen cars.

Until then, it is insanity to assume this is anything more than an interesting alternative that may be available in 50 years or so. What do we do in the mean time?

Petrol is running out, it isn't running out tomorrow. There is no need to act like Chicken Little here. The sky may be falling, but it's going to take a long time to impact.

The problem must be approached in a logical and economical fashion. H2 does not fit that picture today. Get back to me in a few decades. 

Quote:
Quote:
Making H2 from water from hydro or nuclear or wind or solar power would be cleaner than what we do now, but that's NOT the sort of infrastructure we have in place. It would be impractical and inefficient to replcace such.

Irrelevant that's the petrolum industries problem. All it means, is we need a new industry. Petroleum is running out.

Are you insane? You talk as if changing the way the world powers itself is a simple manner, if only money weren't an object. Money IS a object though. Economics MUST be considered here, as well as the time it would take to make such a transition and the fact that what we'd be transitioning to is not a mature technology.

If wind or solar or H2 were economically viable compared to fossil fuels, we'd have a hell of a lot more companies using and selling power from said sources. We don't. This should tell you something.

It takes time for a technology to prove itself and become economical. When Ford rolled out his first motor cars it took decades for people to give up their horses.

You don't seem to have a realistic concept of how technolgy is implemented or the practical considerations involved.

Quote:
Quote:
Oil refineries can easily make the switch to ethanal or biodiesle production, without us having to build nuke plants or develope fusion.

Great! Now, where will all this ethanol come from?

Corn, sugar cane, wood, pretty much any organic matter.

Quote:
Think land mass required to produce the high sugar crops needed (got a contient we don't need somewhere?), not about ethanal produced from petroleum extraction.

That is a concern, but considering how much land we really do have and how much organic material we simply landfill when we could turn it into fuel, it does become a realistic and logical interim solution.

Have you any idea of the area solar arrays would require to replace existing coal fired power plants?

Space is something we do have an adundance of now, but like anything else, it will eventually be at a premium - just the the petrolium you keep reminding me is running out.

Quote:
I'm not saying solving the problem is going to be cheap or easy, but bandaids are not a solution, they are only buying time. Petroleum is running out.

Time is what we need though. Time to develope truely clean and truely economic alternatives. Time to let these technologies mature.

Quote:
Quote:
Solar and wind power generation is frankly not capable of supplying the power we would need to make such a switch, not now or in the very near future anyway. This is not the case for things like oil or natural gas, etc.

Yes, it can't produce engough yet. We don't have the infrastructure - that doesn't mean we shouldn't look to develop it.

I never said we shouldn't work to develop it, quite the opposite. I said we shouldn't implement it until it is economical and feasible to do so - that will be when the technology is mature and proven. 

 

Quote:
Oil and natrual gas are still petroleum based. Petroleum is running out.

My patience is running out.

Quote:
Quote:
I'm not speaking in a "religious" manner here, this is MY industry. I'm heavily involved in developing new technolgies for alternative fuels, sequestering emmissions, etc. This is what I do for a living. I'm being frank about what the actual energy costs are, how things are actually produced and what is actually feasible given the current infrastructure.

I know you are being frank but I'm not talking about what we can do now, I'm talking about something we all have to face for the future - petroleum is running out.

Ugh. I'm looking to the future to obviously, but I'm more concerned with tomorrow than 100 years from now. I can do something about tomorrow, today.

We need to be thinking about the short term and the long term at the end of the day, and I am.

Quote:
Quote:
No, it is NOT, if you get the energy to make the H2 from fossil fuel, which is typically the case. I ANY case, there is ALWAYS a net energy LOSS - you WILL put MUCH MORE energy into making the H2 than the H2 will produce

See the link above. I'm in R&D, not for this industry, but I understand the process. My job is to find new ways of doing things that haven't been thought of before - that's what hydrogen production needs and is getting and there are a lot of people working on it and progress is being made.

Great to hear they are making progress. Shall we twiddle out thumbs in the mean time?

Quote:
Quote:
, especially when compared to the alternatives like traditional fuels, ethanol, bio-D, etc. As an engineer without a limitless no cost fuel source, that makes me cringe. It should make you cringe too. It's just a bad idea.

Think 100 years from now, what do you see running the cars on this planet? I'm betting Hydrogen. Why? Petroleum is running out.

In 100 years, I'd hope we'd have fusion, but I'm not going to count on it. Until we have a truely clean and limitless power source, I thin we ought to work dilligently on making what we DO have better and cleaner.

I'm all for working to devolpe things like fusion, but we need to be practical in the mean time.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
H2's fesability isn't in question,

Fuck yes it is. Pay attention.

The long term feaability of ethanol is in greater question then hydrogen...well, unless we take over South America and use it as a crop continent for producing ethanal...hmm...I think they might not like that.

Ethanol or biofuel was never proffered as a permanent solution. It is, however, something that can do us a lot of good in the next 50 years or so. It is easy to implement, uses the infrastructure we already have, and is pretty economical - what's not to like?

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
what is in question about H2 is how do you distribute it and how do you replace the millions and millions of machines that rely on petroleum today.

And what do you think THAT would cost? Are you really this thick? You have NO concept of the economics and technology involved?

Do you actually read thse threads or do you have your head so far up your ass that you think you don't need to? Read my posts earlier in this topic. I POINTED THIS OUT AS THE PROBLEM.

Yes, but I don't think you appreciate the magnitude of said problem or the reality of the situation.

Quote:
Here, I'll make it easy for you...this was in response to Vastet
Vorax wrote:
Agreed, but the problem is it is going to cost billions and take decades to equal the infrastructure in place now. This is the biggest hurdle to overcome

I love how even you point out it's going to be decades in coming. What do you suggest we do in the mean time? And you say my head is up my ass?


Quote:
Quote:
That's right, my opinon is based solely on me cock sucking the oil industry. You're clueless. You really are.

No your opinion is based on solving a short term problem, but you aren't seeming to acknowledge the long term problem: Petroleum is running out.

No, sir. Reread my original post. All I did was point out the shortcomings of H2 as of today. I never suggested that we should no continue to work of things like fusion and H2, I mearly said that we have decent, economicl, and easily implemented alternatives at hand while we wait for the panacea - if it ever comes.

I'm not a fan of waiting.

Quote:
I'm not clueless, I'm just not choosing to ignore the fundamental problem like you are.

For fuck's sake, when did I ever ignore the fundamental problem?

You saw me bashing H2 and you went on a tirade without realizing who you were speaking to or fully understanding my position.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.