Hybrids kinder to our world

[brodfloyd]

Originally Posted by HSE2

That’s not entirely correct.

"More than 95 percent of hydrogen produced today is by the Steam Methane Reformation (SMR) of fossil fuels such as oil, coal, and natural gas, a process that liberates massive amounts of carbon dioxide and other pollutants to the atmosphere. The SMR process provides a net energy loss of 30 to 35% when converting methane into hydrogen since a great deal of fossil energy or electrical power is required to operate the process. Hydrogen is also produced by electrolysis, a process that uses electricity to convert water into hydrogen and oxygen. Although electrolysis itself can be quite efficient in converting electricity into hydrogen, the electricity used for electrolysis is often primarily generated from fossil fuels. Therefore, traditional hydrogen production methods result in a net increase in air pollution and are highly inefficient from an energy conversion perspective.

Solar hydrogen production provides a net energy gain when converting methane into hydrogen since the energy used to drive the process is from the sun, says SHEC. Since SMR is not typically cost-effective at small to moderate production levels, SHEC's technology is particularly attractive for smaller and distributed hydrogen production. The environmental benefits of generating hydrogen using renewable energy include significant greenhouse gas reductions, and the reduction of smog precursors, acid gases, and mercury as a result of reduced local need for oil, coal, and natural gas.

To add even greater value, the process has the ability to use a renewable source of methane and carbon dioxide, such as biogas from municipal wastewater plants and landfill gas. Renewable methane generated from biomass results in no net increase of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere when the methane is converted into hydrogen by SHEC's solar hydrogen generator.

The next generation of solar hydrogen involves direct water splitting with only water as the primary feed component. According to SHEC scientists, six of the ten steps needed for this process are already integrated into the current system."

Source: renewable energy access.

In addition to this there is a trial being conducted in the UK using wind power to make Hydrogen for London buses.

Hydrogen will be the next fuel source it’s just what form it will take.

It may not be entirely correct, but 95% is good enough for me

[cogdoc]

Hybrids rock. More, we need more.

I need their fuel....

[Gammaboy]

Originally Posted by cogdoc

Hybrids rock. More, we need more.

I need their fuel....

I need it more :P

[Mechan1k]

Stuff this Hybrid crap ... one of my work mates just bought a VW Golf Sportline TDI ... this thing goes pretty good for a 4 cyl (320Nm of torque) ... and his 55L tank of diesel lasts him 1000km ... and that's flogging the guts out of it.

Does 0-100 in 8 seconds (or close to it) ... nice car.
And the new Turbo Diesels emmissions are apparently better than Oz petrol powered vehicles.

I went for a drive in it ... you get shoved back in your seat hard ... and it has all the nice interior bits and pieces that Australian cars just don't have/think about.

I can see turbo diesels taking off more and more than hybrid vehicles ... yes the cost of of diesel is high at the moment ... but the economy is excellent ... and power is not too shabby either.

[HSE2]

Originally Posted by brodfloyd

It may not be entirely correct, but 95% is good enough for me

The fact is Hydrogen can be manufactured using 100% non polluting renewable resources that are continuing to evolve. You mentioned the future and there not being a clean or green way to produce it. Clearly that isn't correct. While current practices revolve around what is easy and economical, in the context of the future and what is or might be achievable I suspect you’re not close to being 95. Bubble or not.

[brodfloyd]

Originally Posted by HSE2

The fact is Hydrogen can be manufactured using 100% non polluting renewable resources that are continuing to evolve. You mentioned the future and there not being a clean or green way to produce it. Clearly that isn't correct. While current practices revolve around what is easy and economical, in the context of the future and what is or might be achievable I suspect you’re not close to being 95. Bubble or not.

it can be but it isnt!!! cos its not cost effective and wont be for a long while. Get off ur high horse. I was pointing out the facts as they are now. NOW, 95% of hydrogen is produced in an unclean way and leaves the same environmental impact as using fossil fuels. and the new techonologies cost to much NOW for them to be used by the mainstream and the amount of resources (money, time, materials) that go into producing these new (green) techologies are huge compared to the yeild they produce and that is why 95% is made the way it is today.

do u just sit around all day reading ppls posts then googling key words to refute peoples posts? Ur a clown, u do this all the time, get a new activity

[brodfloyd]

Originally Posted by brodfloyd

sorry to burst ur bubble guys who think that hydrogen is the clean way of the future, but hydrogen is very very expensive to produce. and very resource heavy to produce, as there is no simple, cheap and clean way to at home way to split water molicules in into H2 (hydrogen gass) and O (oxigen).
And how do they produce it??? by using electricity
how do they get electricity? by burning fossil fuels
The only "green way" to get around is to walk, because even a building a pushbike harms the environment, and u would have to walk naked because making and cleaning clothes hurts the environment too.

Basically there is no green way to do anything, so i'll stick with my 1966 Dodge plymoth 440 that gets one mile per gallon :P, and by dodge plymoth i mean honda prelude

where do i say that there is no way to make hydrogen cleanly in the future??? nowhere. i did said there is no simple, cheap and clean way presently to do it at home, if there were 95% of it wouldnt be made the way it is. would there??? I dont believe hydrogen to be the future, nor battery cells.

diesel, natural gass and LPG are far cheaper and easier to find, refine and use (cleanly) and we do have stocks that will last longer than our current petrol quality crude will last.

[HSE2]

Originally Posted by brodfloyd

it can be but it isnt!!! cos its not cost effective and wont be for a long while. Get off ur high horse. I was pointing out the facts as they are now. NOW, 95% of hydrogen is produced in an unclean way and leaves the same environmental impact as using fossil fuels. and the new techonologies cost to much NOW for them to be used by the mainstream and the amount of resources (money, time, materials) that go into producing these new (green) techologies are huge compared to the yeild they produce and that is why 95% is made the way it is today.

do u just sit around all day reading ppls posts then googling key words to refute peoples posts? Ur a clown, u do this all the time, get a new activity

You want to run around insulting people like a child do you? Well I assume I have the right of reply. Did you expect I would leave this alone?

So here it is and you will note it does so without insult.

You clearly said that you had a bubble to burst with regards to FUTURE alternatives in said topic. You can try and justify your change of position anyway you like but quoting yourself isn't doing you a service, that’s just humerus.

If you are talking about now obviously hydrogen isn't viable. One point that makes it so is demand and currently there isn’t is there? Perhaps when Arnie gets his Hydrogen filling stations. ;)

To return to your original point: the people you are actually talking about busting bubbles are about 90 plus percent of manufacturers out there today investing billions of dollars in FUTURE technologies because petroleum product will in fact become less viable then what you mention. The prediction is that by 2015 cell phones will have hydrogen-powered batteries. That's the bubble you are trying to burst. That’s the subject matter you have interjected into. Not my opinion, but it would seem you are questioning the view of multinational conglomerates. Someone has it terribly wrong by your account. Now according to you these people have ignored peak oil and are working on technologies that actually still require fossil fuel.

That’s pretty smart.


Now why anyone would be looking at alternatives that rely on current practices and technologies escapes me and obviously companies such as Ford GM BMW and Mercedes. If by diesel you are referring to BIO DIESEL you have a point but the rest of you spiel ignores what peak oil is about and the influence it will/could have on the commodities you view as the future or now. (Insert whichever point of view you want to protect this hour)

Now the day I take advice from you on activities or other will be a cold one. Jumping down someone throat because they provided a counter to yours isn’t normal behaviour and is void of class. If I have misunderstood you point of view then I am sorry. Should you still wish to insult me needlessly then PM me and I will take a very strong interest in your views, nothing like what you have seen in public.

However to answer your question no I don’t sit around googling key words to refute peoples posts. I do however google to make direct quotes to support a counter point of view to re enforce a particular point. You made the mistake of talking about the future while applying today’s work practice and technologies. To a normal person that’s an interesting perspective to take, one thankfully the people responsible for delivering this alternative doesn’t employ. There is a vast difference in posting an opinion or posting a statement that looks thin on facts or understanding. That’s how your comments came across. Burning fossil fuels isn’t the only way Hydrogen can be produced and your statement didn’t seem to allow for that. I provided a quote that supported what you were saying today while showing tomorrow will most likely be very different in the spirit of furthering discussion and understanding about what is going on today for the sake of tomorrow. The view you expressed seemed to be narrow; all I did was expand it. As per forum rules all insults can be sent straight to PM.

[cogdoc]

sandpit anyone?

[HSE2]

why are you selling them? Constructive comment

[ltd]

Originally Posted by RED_EL_XR8

8 years battery life, I'll believe that when I see it.

Exactly, I spoke to a colleague who is working on a LPG conversion that uses your existing computer, doesn't run lean, doesn't run hot or damage your valve seats and develops about 5-10% more power than petrol; anyway he was saying that the real problem with hybrids is the battery life. Apparently if you get 4-5 years out of em you should be really happy. At a cost ranging between 3000-5000 it starts to erode the cost benefits. Especially when you consider the car is cost prohibitive anyway. 40K+ for a corolla? Yeah Right!

[ltd]

Originally Posted by HSE2

You want to run around insulting people like a child do you? Well I assume I have the right of reply. Did you expect I would leave this alone?

So here it is and you will note it does so without insult.

You clearly said that you had a bubble to burst with regards to FUTURE alternatives in said topic. You can try and justify your change of position anyway you like but quoting yourself isn't doing you a service, that’s just humerus.

If you are talking about now obviously hydrogen isn't viable. One point that makes it so is demand and currently there isn’t is there? Perhaps when Arnie gets his Hydrogen filling stations. ;)

To return to your original point: the people you are actually talking about busting bubbles are about 90 plus percent of manufacturers out there today investing billions of dollars in FUTURE technologies because petroleum product will in fact become less viable then what you mention. The prediction is that by 2015 cell phones will have hydrogen-powered batteries. That's the bubble you are trying to burst. That’s the subject matter you have interjected into. Not my opinion, but it would seem you are questioning the view of multinational conglomerates. Someone has it terribly wrong by your account. Now according to you these people have ignored peak oil and are working on technologies that actually still require fossil fuel.

That’s pretty smart.


Now why anyone would be looking at alternatives that rely on current practices and technologies escapes me and obviously companies such as Ford GM BMW and Mercedes. If by diesel you are referring to BIO DIESEL you have a point but the rest of you spiel ignores what peak oil is about and the influence it will/could have on the commodities you view as the future or now. (Insert whichever point of view you want to protect this hour)

Now the day I take advice from you on activities or other will be a cold one. Jumping down someone throat because they provided a counter to yours isn’t normal behaviour and is void of class. If I have misunderstood you point of view then I am sorry. Should you still wish to insult me needlessly then PM me and I will take a very strong interest in your views, nothing like what you have seen in public.

However to answer your question no I don’t sit around googling key words to refute peoples posts. I do however google to make direct quotes to support a counter point of view to re enforce a particular point. You made the mistake of talking about the future while applying today’s work practice and technologies. To a normal person that’s an interesting perspective to take, one thankfully the people responsible for delivering this alternative doesn’t employ. There is a vast difference in posting an opinion or posting a statement that looks thin on facts or understanding. That’s how your comments came across. Burning fossil fuels isn’t the only way Hydrogen can be produced and your statement didn’t seem to allow for that. I provided a quote that supported what you were saying today while showing tomorrow will most likely be very different in the spirit of furthering discussion and understanding about what is going on today for the sake of tomorrow. The view you expressed seemed to be narrow; all I did was expand it. As per forum rules all insults can be sent straight to PM.

Wow. I read BMW have developed a Hydrogen powered engine for the 7 series, and I know for a fact that Pratt & Whitney (dependable engines) have developed a Hydrogen powered Jet Engine based on a CFM6 core. As the Hydrogen burns a few hundred degrees hotter than jet fuel they have achieved about a 30% gain in power for a 58000lb thrust engine. They have it running up at about 90000lbs of thrust, and its clean and green. These companies obviously see a future in Hydrogen.

Problem they, and car manufacturers have is that you need a hell of a lot of electricity to make Hydrogen, and as it isn't as dense as crude oil based fuels you need to have a bigger tank, wing etc. There is still alot of speculation as to how to produce the necessary power such as through nuclear powered stations, but they are very expensive to setup. They are cheap as to run but the setup cost is extremely high. In the next 10-20 years though economists are tipping that we will see a higher proliferation of nuclear power plants as a result of rising fossil fuel costs.

[HSE2]

I think sometime over the weekend Ford released information that they are working on, or will have shortly, an engine that can run on 80% ethanol.

Ford are one of the few companies that seem to be working on just about all the alternatives. From memory they have stated they believe liquid hydrogen as a short term solution while BMW seem to be staking their life on it. Currently Liquid hydrogen has numerous limitations mainly because of the storage technology. Currently and this is from memory these type of engines have a range of about 150 miles on a tank, which means you need refueling stations every where. The hydrogen needs to be stored under extreme pressure and temperature. For this reason liquid hydrogen filling stations have the ability to fill the car automatically via a robot arm. The nozzle is not dissimilar to LPG. Again from memory these tanks cost about $20000 USD each (car). I could be wrong on this point but the success depends on a getting a particular type of metal that has hydrogen adsorbing properties into the tank. This allows more hydrogen to be storage in smaller spaces. Building tanks that can stand extremely high pressure is another alternative. From what I understand about BMW’s engines they aren't doing a hell of a lot to allow them to run on either petrol or liquid hydrogen and state that as the big advantage.

Back up the page I provided a quote that showed Mercedes view on the subject and they completely disagree with how BMW plan to use hydrogen. They submit the combustion engine will be dead in the next generation. In BMWs case we won’t have long to wait because they claim that they will have this engine in a production 7 series in the current model cycle. Places like California seem to be committed to the refueling stations as part of a commitment to zero emissions.

There are some statistics about the place on the cost of producing hydrogen on a comparative basis. It takes into account distance traveled per unit and range per unit v kw to produce based on off shore wind generation for a public transport model. The off shore part gets canned but the figures provide interesting reading on a cost per kW basis against I believe the cost of running a London bus on diesel. The consensus seems to be nuclear or a new process, that’s above my head, using solar generation.