hydrogen fuel cell car

[oleg]

OK, I had an insomnia and listen to G.W.Bush speach (3am Zulu). Amid all the rubbish about Irag there was an interesting part - $1.2*10^9 to develop a clean car. At first, it looks like a good idea - car that emits only H2O. But... nobody, even american president cancel the first law of thermodynamics. Where all that H2 will come from ?? To make it, USA will have to multiply energy production. I don't know, double, tripple or may be less ? There is no way it can come from renewable sources - no place to build dozens of Hoover Dam or thousands of windmills. And nobody would want to build dozens of nuclear plants in your neighborhood. At the end, USA will have to build a lot more of power plants, burn more oil/gas/coal than now and pollute Earth even more ! Second law of thermodynamics is still valid and whatever the evil of cars, they are quite efficient in converting the oil energy to car motion. Now we will have a multistep process, Oil->electricity->hydrogen->wheel spining. Please don't tell me it will decrease the end amount of CO2.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by oleg:
OK, I had an insomnia and listen to G.W.Bush speach (3am Zulu). Amid all the rubbish about Irag there was an interesting part - $1.2*10^9 to develop a clean car. At first, it looks like a good idea - car that emits only H2O. But... nobody, even american president cancel the first law of thermodynamics. Where all that H2 will come from ?? To make it, USA will have to multiply energy production. I don't know, double, tripple or may be less ? There is no way it can come from renewable sources - no place to build dozens of Hoover Dam or thousands of windmills. And nobody would want to build dozens of nuclear plants in your neighborhood. At the end, USA will have to build a lot more of power plants, burn more oil/gas/coal than now and pollute Earth even more ! Second law of thermodynamics is still valid and whatever the evil of cars, they are quite efficient in converting the oil energy to car motion. Now we will have a multistep process, Oil->electricity->hydrogen->wheel spining. Please don't tell me it will decrease the end amount of CO2.

It's quite reasonable actually. By concentrating the burning of fossil fuels to large electrical and H2 generation facilites you can retain stricter controls over the level of emmisions even if you don't reduce the overall use of fossil fuels. It's a lot harder to force compliance on 400 million cars than it is on a couple thousand power plants.

But I think your premise is a bit pessimistic. If people could be better educated about the safety of nuclear power generation it would help. And you might be right about the dams, but there are millions of places that windmills can be placed. And you don't even mention solar power. The biggest thing stunting the growth of these alternative fuels is not inaction by the government, but a lack of demand compared to the higher costs of developing them. Increasing the need for H2 to replace conventional gas powered vehicles would greatly increase that demand.

Geoschmo

[ January 29, 2003, 12:13: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[dumbluck]

Originally posted by oleg:
... no place to build ... thousands of windmills...

You've never been to western Kansas, have you? Nothing but flat, unobstructed views of the distant horizon, no matter which way you look. Oh, that speck on the horizon? That's the largest town for 100 miles, population 5000.

[ January 29, 2003, 12:16: Message edited by: dumbluck ]

[couslee]

Actually, windmills are used extensively towards the west cost. Indio, Ca. has a LOT of them providing power for the town. Also, they really don take up any more space than one of those large electrical cable towers. wind is abundant and free, and there is a lot of cheap open property in the high deserts. they also don't harm the environment, other than the trampling that would occur duing the construction phaze, which with a little effort, a lot can be avoided. The major set-back to them, is the construction cost. you have the framing, the prop, and the large generator for each one. so even if it was windy every day where they were set up, it would take quite a while before the break even point. even in areas know for wind, it is not always a given. they are a good long term investment, but with a lot of up-front cost. the other associated costs are maintenence on the generators (and labor for that, trucks, insurance, ect). and destruction from weather damage. IE lightning, tornadoes, hail. so there is also a risk involved. I think that if a group wanted to persue the endeavor, and not do it half-assed, they could turn a profit within a decade. and, once the black line was reached, they would be very profitable, even in the event of a bad storm. a large group of them spinning day and night produce a considerable amout of electricity. I personally would not hesitate to invest in such a project, but have not the funds to do so. oh well.

edit in:
another thing that can be done to increase profitability, is use them in conjunction with solar panels.

[ January 29, 2003, 12:23: Message edited by: couslee ]

[dumbluck]

[quote]Originally posted by dumbluck:

Originally posted by oleg:
[qb]... no place to build ... thousands of windmills...

You've never been to western Kansas, have you? Nothing but flat, unobstructed views of the distant horizon, no matter which way you look. Oh, that speck on the horizon? That's the largest town for 100 miles, population 5000.

On a serious note, I'm more inclined to think that Biodiesel is a better solution. Biodiesel is, in essense, identical to petrol based Diesel, but it's manufactured using Corn (or was it soybeans?), an acid, and a catalyst. The acid and catalyst can be recovered and used again, and IIRC, one could then refine the Biodiesel into Gasoline using the same methods as those for Petrol based products.

The advantage to this is that we aren't digging CO2 out of the ground and throwing it up into the atmosphere. Instead, we're pulling the CO2 out of the atmosphere to make the diesel, then throwing it back up into the atmosphere when we burn it. Thus there is no increase in greenhouse gasses, we're just recycling them.

edit: for a more short term fix: there is always ethenol(sp?). It's made from corn (I think Biodiesel comes from soybeans). Auto engines can burn up to a 20%(?) ethenol mixture with gas (gas=80%, ethenol=20%). With some minor modifications to engines, that ratio can be reversed (80% ethenol, 20% gas).

That won't solve all the problems, of coarse. But it would definately make a dent in the pollution levels, huh?

[ January 29, 2003, 12:27: Message edited by: dumbluck ]

[geoschmo]

And if we really run out of places to stick them (unlikely in the near future) there has been some work in Europe or soemwhere I believe converting old off shore oil rigs to windmills. This of course would increase the up front costs probably, but eventually they would break even too I am sure. And all that does is open up a great part of 4/5ths of the earths surface that noone is currenly using for anything else.

[ January 29, 2003, 12:26: Message edited by: geoschmo ]