Searching \ for '[OT]: Hydrogen Powered Car' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/power.htm?key=power
Search entire site for: 'Hydrogen Powered Car'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT]: Hydrogen Powered Car'
2002\07\22@003013 by Brooke Clarke

flavicon
face
Hydrogen is not a source of energy.  It is an energy storage method like a battery.  You can not drill into the ground and get hydrogen.  The energy you get by burning hydrogen is about the same as the energy it takes to separate the hydrogen out of water.

All the energy storage methods are dangerous in that they contain energy that might be released in an accident.  Whether it's a battery, a gyroscope, liquid fuel or a fuel gas they all contain energy.

Have Fun,

Brooke Clarke
http://www.prc68.com

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\07\22@163123 by Brendan Moran

flavicon
face
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> Hydrogen is not a source of energy.  It is an energy storage method
> like a battery.  You can not drill into the ground and get
> hydrogen.  The energy you get by burning hydrogen is about the same
> as the energy it takes to separate the hydrogen out of water.
>

My impression is that that is not quite accurate.  As far as I know,
though others on this list claim that it is not true, or impossible,
recent findings indicate that there are vast untapped naturally
replenishable supplies of hydrogen in the earth's crust.  As an
example of the hydrogen in the earth's crust, read further back in
this thread, and see the discussion of hydrogen disolved in oil, and
the problems that this causes.

- --Brendan

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBPTxrSQVk8xtQuK+BEQJ0hgCg5jHmqeR9UIcestyhCzx8lguKIFkAoN5v
2Y8IcsMoP6PEVszSI4iomqiA
=YFqH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\07\22@172233 by M. Adam Davis

flavicon
face
That is not entirely correct.  Taking H from water, for instance,
requires more energy than it gives out when it recombines back into
water, as you state.

However, nearly all modern fuels are hydrocarbons, and it takes
significantly less energy to break hydrogen from, say, methane, propane,
even liquid fuels such as diesel and gasoline than it takes to break it
from water.

The crackers they use to break heavier oils up to lighter fuels could
probably be modified to produce a larger amount of hydrogen than they
currently do.

Many fuel cells in the near future will depend on two major systems, one
to break gas piped to the home up into hydrogen, and the actual fuel
cell that uses the hydrogen.

Methane and other fuels can be produced from bacteria and rotting
vegitation, so it is possible to have cheaply acquired hydrogen.

And if there were a larger market for it (as I suspect there may be in
the future) then someone would come up with an even cheaper way to
produce it.

You can think of hydrogen as merely energy storage, but you might as
well go all the way to defining your base (zero) state (such as water)
and saying that anything that can be broken down to the zero state and
give off energy is energy storage and therefore dangerous.  Hydrogen is
simply at a very high potential with reference to the ground state, and
has a much stronger reaction when brought to the ground state - that's
what makes it dangerous, but also exactly why it's so much more useful
than other 'energy storage' materials which are at a much lower
potential.  It's like comparing lithium ion rechargable batteries with
nicad.  They tend to be more fragile to overcharging, and it's difficult
to get them bare without assuring the manufacturer that you know how to
handle them - but their density is so much larger that I doubt the
venerable nicad will be around for more than a few years.

-Adam

Brooke Clarke wrote:

{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\07\22@183432 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Brendan Moran wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>> Hydrogen is not a source of energy.  It is an energy storage method
>> like a battery.  You can not drill into the ground and get
>> hydrogen.  The energy you get by burning hydrogen is about the same
>> as the energy it takes to separate the hydrogen out of water.
>>
>
>My impression is that that is not quite accurate.  As far as I know,
>though others on this list claim that it is not true, or impossible,
>recent findings indicate that there are vast untapped naturally
>replenishable supplies of hydrogen in the earth's crust.  As an
>example of the hydrogen in the earth's crust, read further back in
>this thread, and see the discussion of hydrogen disolved in oil, and
>the problems that this causes.

It also occurs in coal and there is not enough of it to be useful, just
enough to blow the drilling rig straight to the moon or ignite an
underground fire in a coalmine. See previous posting for flammability
limits. Of course you know that you could cover all of mankinds energy
needs by collecting the sun's rays in one big mirror parked in a Lagrange
point and beam it down. Can you guess how long it would take to pay for
this at current rates ?

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\07\22@194638 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> Of course you know that you could cover all of mankinds energy
> needs by collecting the sun's rays in one big mirror parked in a Lagrange
> point and beam it down. Can you guess how long it would take to pay for
> this at current rates ?


My 58 seconds scrap of paper & fingers estimate is:

                       10 years.

Assumptions were $0.10 worth of power per world citizen per day,
1 trillion dollars project cost.
Multiply in head and round number to nearest power of 10 when it feels good.
E&OE.
Do not spindle staple or mutilate.
This email took longer to type than the calculation.
Your assumptions may vary.
Using a spreadsheet may avoid the counting-fingers errors I have undoubtedly
occurred.



           RM

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\07\22@203409 by M. Adam Davis

flavicon
face
I don't know, but I do know that when they have to reboot the computer
because they cut costs and used a  Visual Basic program to keep the
mirrors pointed on Microsoft Windows 98, it'll cut a mile wide path of
destruction across the continent it's pointed towards.  This might not
be a bad thing if the area  farmers wanted to slash and burn new fields
out of rainforest for themselves, though.  A few micro degrees of error
at the mirror assembly and you've got yourself a fire - I suspect the
practical considerations of such a large scale system (where distances
are measured in hundreds of miles with a resolution of inches) are
beyond the price point now.  The cost of getting it up there is
tremendous, the cost to operate it efficiently may well cost more than
assembly.

-Adam

Peter L. Peres wrote:

{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\07\23@021744 by Bill & Pookie

picon face
To prevent a bad case of sunburn of the earth,
coat the mirrors with the "black liquid".  And
have a little sighting mirror that would shine on
a earth target.  As long as the target receives
the beam, keep the black liquid transparent.  As
soon as it looses the beam, make it opaque.  This
would also allow the little  mirror to hunt for
the target without burning crop circles.

Bill

{Original Message removed}

2002\07\23@084817 by Eoin Ross

flavicon
face
Question - would we want or need extra energy coming into the atmosphere?
I could see it screwing with our climate.

A better solution to me is the fitting of solar panels to all houses - imagine the
reduction in load on the electrical grid and on non-renewable resources. Granted
they would not do away with the need to a grid or some generation capacity but
it would certainly lighten the load.

Peter L. Peres wrote:
> Of course you know that you could cover all of man kinds energy
>needs by collecting the sun's rays in one big mirror parked in a Lagrange
>point and beam it down. Can you guess how long it would take to pay for
>this at current rates ?
>
>Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\07\23@094535 by D. Jay Newman

flavicon
face
That's why most of the serious discussion I've seen of this topic has the
mirror used to generator power in orbit, then beam the power down in the
form of microwaves over a *large* area (a few square miles). If one chooses
the frequency carefully it wouldn't be absorbed by the atmosphere. And
the radiation density would be low enough that people could walk through
the target area with little or no harm. (Not that I'd suggest it, but...)

{Quote hidden}

--
D. Jay Newman                      !  Live fast,
spam_OUTjayTakeThisOuTspamsprucegrove.com                !    Die young,
http://www.sprucegrove.com/~jay/   !      And leave a flesh eating corpse!

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\07\23@101918 by Chris Wheeler

flavicon
face
Peter L. Peres wrote:
> Of course you know that you could cover all of man kinds energy
>needs by collecting the sun's rays in one big mirror parked in a Lagrange
>point and beam it down. Can you guess how long it would take to pay for
>this at current rates ?
>
>Peter

From: "Eoin Ross" <.....erossKILLspamspam@spam@CHEMSTATION.COM>
>Question - would we want or need extra energy coming into the atmosphere?
>I could see it screwing with our climate.

Not to mention a huge air storm as super heated atmosphere  expands away
from the beam and collector, and colder air rushes in at the bottom.

>A better solution to me is the fitting of solar panels to all houses -
imagine the
>reduction in load on the electrical grid and on non-renewable resources.
Granted
>they would not do away with the need to a grid or some generation capacity
but
>it would certainly lighten the load.

I agree.

I have worked at two places so far with VAST area of horizontal roof space.
I would not be terribly shocked if the total incidident light during the
middle of the solar day, exceeded the total use for for that building (1).
My current workplace has lots of roof over storage warehouses, that could be
retro fitted with panels and grid feed inverters. There of course is the
little matter of the outlay. Our local shopping centre has mounted two
fairly large solar arrays and are using it to offset the power use of the
lights as well as provding shade in the carpark.


(1) for building types: Storage and logistic warehouse and single layer
demountable buildings.


--
cW

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\07\24@122306 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Eoin Ross wrote:

>Question - would we want or need extra energy coming into the atmosphere?
> I could see it screwing with our climate.

It would likely screw less than what is being done now. For all your
worries wrt what humans do to the atmosphere consider the ratio between
the entire energy consumption of mankind and the impact of the sun energy
on the planet (the sun leaves about 1kW/m^2 in the atmosphere, another
reaches down here, and two more are reflected back out into space afaik).

Greenhouse gases are different because they act like a catalyst afaik.
More greenhouse gas = even more greenhouse gas etc. The direct impact of
waste heat etc from human activity is very minimal (excepting of course
things that live directly in the exhaust of some big power stations).

>A better solution to me is the fitting of solar panels to all houses -
>imagine the reduction in load on the electrical grid and on non-renewable
>resources. Granted they would not do away with the need to a grid or some
>generation capacity but it would certainly lighten the load.

It depends how many good days you have per year. There are areas where
this is not such a good idea.

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listservspamKILLspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2002\07\24@181114 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
This was offlist but maybe by mistake. Seems all to be relevant to present
thread so I'll comment onlist.


> >> Of course you know that you could cover all of mankinds energy
> >> needs by collecting the sun's rays in one big mirror parked in a
Lagrange
> >> point and beam it down. Can you guess how long it would take to pay for
> >> this at current rates ?

> >My 58 seconds scrap of paper & fingers estimate is:
> >                        10 years.

> Very funny. What is a world citizen ?

I menat the average consumption per capita worldwide taking into account all
situations and all uses. I only had 20 fingers and toes to count on and 58
seconds to do it in so my average may have been a "wee bit" out :-). As I
said, by all means plug in your oiwn assumption set.

> You can count on maybe 1 billion
> people to pay for this assuming no wars or other quarrels occur.

OK. But those billion will use 5 times as much as the average used by the
other  3.5 billion more or less by definition  so it doesn't change the
"average" figure.

> Now assume the sun produces 4kW/m^2 in space (maybe more in a
> heliosynchronous orbit around earth -- which implies that it will throw a
> shade on a moving spot on earth).

The Lagrange points are ahead or behind the parents orbital positions so it
should have no shadow.

>Assuming 1 billion people need this, and
> neglecting industrial use which outweighs human use by 8:1 in some
> industrialised countries,

I meant all use (even though my figures have no chance of actually being
rigt :-) ) so multiply your load dependent costs by 9. Or 5 or 3 or
whatever.

>you need roughly 1 billion square meters of
> mirror. 10^9 square meters. Which is a round dish of 18 km radius.
> Assuming it is very light (say 1g/m^2) it would weigh slightly over 10
> million tons. Assuming the price of a kg in orbit is $1000 you'd need $10B
> to put it there, and another $1B or so to make the remaining segments of
> the system, and another $10B to pay the banks. I don't know whence you
> came up with 30 times more.

OK. First increase most of the above from 2 to 9 times to cover all use as I
mentioned above.
That takes us up to between 40 and 200 billion.

I used a base figure of $US60 billion 1970 dollars for the Apollo project,
which developed Moon access ca[pabiolity more or less from scratch. The true
cost of a Shuttle Launch is forever buried in uncertainty but is possibly on
the $US200M to $US500M range. To get to the Lagrange points with substantial
mass we are probably going to have to (re)develop serious heavy lift
capabilities. Energiiiia and Sasturn 25 ?

Turn Apollo into modern costs and we are up to 100's of bullions of dollars.
The whole Apollo project effort would not, I flet in my 58 seconds, come
truly near what was required for this system. Then we have to develop the
ground station capability and actually build it. And so on.

All up I feel a trillion US dollars would be quite a bargain. Even at that
cost the payback period is probably acceptable.
This without any major political manipulation costs.

It may very well prove that learning to mine Lunar or asteroid resources
along the way would be much more cost effective. Rail launching material
made from Lunar regolith or using nuclear powered steam rockets using Moon
ice may well prove $ attractive. A further detour to get Helium 3 fusion
recators going using He3 from the Moon's top layer may also prove
worthwhile.

An the space elevator concept is sdaid to only cost about $50 billion
today's dollars to getstarted to working prototype stage. Even a minimalist
beanstalk would soom pay dividends here.

> BTW it would be interesting to know if light and microwaves would still
> pass the atmosphere after 10 million tons have been launched using our
> chemical rockets. It would probably mean something like 1 billion tons
> of fuel burned.

See above.

>The dish I calculated above would make 4TW at 100%
> efficiency. More realistically probably 1TW. It would be better if they'd
> build this from materials found in space, or in a less deep gravity well
> than earth.

Moon much friendlier. As teroids you actually have to brake to get there
(still takes energy alas).

> Oh, and you need to repeat the trick every 10 years at most. These things
> should tend to wear out.
>
> My numbers could be off as far as yours are ;-).

I think that should read "My numbers could be off as far as yours could be"
:-)
We could both happily say that methinks.


       Russell McMahon

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email .....listservKILLspamspam.....mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2002 , 2003 only
- Today
- New search...