Hydrogen future

[boutons_deux]

Over one and a half million hydrogen powered vehicles could be on UK roads by 2030

http://www.altenergymag.com/emagazine/2013/02/the-future-of-hydrogen-powered-cars/2040



Today, 95% of the hydrogen produced in the U.S. is made via natural gas reforming in large central plants. (The hydrogen produced is used predominantly for petroleum refining and ammonia production for fertilizer).


http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/production/natural_gas.html


So the US oilcos exporting liquified NG means exporting a proven, current source of hydrogen. There Otta Be A Law

[TeyshaBlue]

Really? Companies should not be able to export product?

If you're making that argument within the framework of nationalization of oil, I can understand that. But outside of nationalization, that makes zero economic sense.

[boutons_deux]

Really? Companies should not be able to export product?

If you're making that argument within the framework of nationalization of oil, I can understand that. But outside of nationalization, that makes zero economic sense.

Exporting a critical BUT KNOWN LIMITED energy resource is suicidal, esp when the 99% is getting fucked by fracking industry not paying for externalities.

You right-wing kids like to bitch about "boomers don't think of our kids' future" when pimping deficit reduction (by fucking over the 99%), but don't GAF when UCA short-term profits trump the long-term future.

[Drachen]

Over one and a half million hydrogen powered vehicles could be on UK roads by 2030

http://www.altenergymag.com/emagazine/2013/02/the-future-of-hydrogen-powered-cars/2040



Today, 95% of the hydrogen produced in the U.S. is made via natural gas reforming in large central plants. (The hydrogen produced is used predominantly for petroleum refining and ammonia production for fertilizer).


http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/production/natural_gas.html


So the US oilcos exporting liquified NG means exporting a proven, current source of hydrogen. There Otta Be A Law

Additionally, why would you do that instead of, you know, just burning the nat gas in the engine? Hydrogen doesn't make sense unless we aren't using fossil fuels to make it

[boutons_deux]

"we aren't using fossil fuels to make it"

wind/solar to produce energy to produce hydrogen

there is already a precedent where a community, in CA?, refused to let a BigNastyCorp like Nestle or Coke suck down their aquifer to make bottled water to ship out of their community, at a rate far exceeding the community's (sustainable) withdrawal rate. I think there have been several similar cases.

[Drachen]

"we aren't using fossil fuels to make it"

wind/solar to produce energy to produce hydrogen

there is already a precedent where a community, in CA?, refused to let a BigNastyCorp like Nestle or Coke suck down their aquifer to make bottled water to ship out of their community, at a rate far exceeding the community's (sustainable) withdrawal rate. I think there have been several similar cases.





Right, so this has nothing to do with the NatGas that you spoke about in your OP. Thank you for destroying your own point. Only 5 posts in too!

[boutons_deux]

Right, so this has nothing to do with the NatGas that you spoke about in your OP. Thank you for destroying your own point. Only 5 posts in too!

sure it does, an extensive infrastructure exists for producing hydrogen from NG.

It would be great, MUCH BETTER, if wind/solar could be used to product hydrogen directly from water.

[Drachen]

sure it does, an extensive infrastructure exists for producing hydrogen from NG.

It would be great, MUCH BETTER, if wind/solar could be used to product hydrogen directly from water.

Right, and until we can, there is no reason that we should be using hydrogen to power our cars.

[TeyshaBlue]

Exporting a critical BUT KNOWN LIMITED energy resource is suicidal, esp when the 99% is getting fucked by fracking industry not paying for externalities.

You right-wing kids like to bitch about "boomers don't think of our kids' future" when pimping deficit reduction (by fucking over the 99%), but don't GAF when UCA short-term profits trump the long-term future.

Ummm...so we would be the only nation to not export petroleum. yeah, I can see the economic benefits of this. Not.

The 99%, as I have demonstrated on multiple occasions, are reaping the benefits of increased production through techniques like fracking. Your, completely unsubstantiated, claim that fracking is fucking the 99% is ludicrous. Are there cases where fracking is injurious? Of course there are. There are cases where virtually any completion activity is injurious. You left wing kids like to bitch about "fracking" but cant quantify it's effects so instead, you preach fear thru innuendo. Sounds like you belong to the GOP to me.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I wouldn't worry about here too much. The Texas RR commission is up there ass about poor shielding on the wells allowing that shit to get int to the water stream or poor holding tanks. We will miss the brunt of the worst sideeffects hopefully although we should remain vigilant.

The ones that are going to get fucked are going to be the latin americans. They do not have the environmental controls and I would not be the least bit surprisied if the BP and Shell's of the world do what they did before and not use holding tanks or other safety precautions and leave a big shitpile left behind when they are done. Fracking is dirty business even when done well.

--LOVE THAT PUN--

[boutons_deux]

"Texas RR commission"

yeah, we can be sure their huge oilco-corrupted, huge staff is feverishly inspecting fracking wells.

[boutons_deux]

"only nation to not export petroleum"

they're all gonna have "sellers regret" when oil and gas run short.

"fracking is fucking the 99% is ludicrous"

people with poisoned wells, destroyed property, destroyed QoL, etc, aka externalities, aren't being compensated even if NG consumers are getting a good deal for paying for NG without the cost of externalities. And when we have to drill deeper for "fossil" water, it'll be poisoned by fracking poisons.

[TeyshaBlue]

"Texas RR commission"

yeah, we can be sure their huge oilco-corrupted, huge staff is feverishly inspecting fracking wells.




Don't know bout now, but when I was in the biz you did not fuck with the RRC.

[boutons_deux]

Don't know bout now, but when I was in the biz you did not fuck with the RRC.

And I'm really convinced that the RRC really fucks with frackers, just like TCEQ really fucks with the oilcos.

[Wild Cobra]

Yep.

Making hydrogen outside of using natural gas is just too expensive. May as well use the NG in vehicles instead.

[boutons_deux]

The CNG model, at $26,925, is $5,650 more than a gasoline Civic EX,

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/autos/reviews/healey/story/2011-11-10/civic-cng-test-drive/51159408/1

So how many miles to offset the $5600 premium of ng engine vs gasoline engine?


3. CNG cars are cheaper to run than conventional vehicles.

As petroleum prices erratically jump up and down and up again, it's tempting to look at compressed natural gas as an economic alternative. Buyer beware: the math is tricky.

Since CNG is normally sold as a gas rather than a liquid, it isn't measured in gallons, but can be converted on an energy basis that equals a gallon of gasoline. The term used for this conversation is GGE, or "gallon of gasoline equivalent."

When gasoline was about $2.25, the average price of CNG in the United States was $1.99 per GGE. While a 24 cent-per-gallon price advantage sounds attractive, CNG vehicles have lower fuel efficiency than hybrid vehicles. A Civic GX, for example, averages 32 mpg, while a Civic Hybrid is rated at 43 mpg. So while a GGE of CNG is cheaper, the Civic GX needs more fuel to operate, and therefore costs per mile are actually higher.

http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center-article_114/

[TeyshaBlue]

And I'm really convinced that the RRC really fucks with frackers, just like TCEQ really fucks with the oilcos.

Well, in the absence of any data (cite?), experiential data trumps.

[boutons_deux]

Commission That Oversees Drilling Is Being Overhauled, Even in Name

Its old mainframe computer system will be upgraded with modern digital storage, clearing the way for a more user-friendly Web site. Decades-old regulations are getting updated to reflect the rapid spread of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.

Its old mainframe computer system will be upgraded with modern digital storage, clearing the way for a more user-friendly Web site. Decades-old regulations are getting updated to reflect the rapid spread of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.

The drilling boom, along with increased scrutiny from the public, the Legislature and federal regulators, has also forced the commissioners’ hand. Oil production in Texas rose by 18 percent between 2010 and 2011. That has strained the permitting and inspection capabilities of the commission, whose budget (http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/GAA/General_Appropriations_Act.pdf) — $71.1 million this fiscal year, down from $74.7 million last year — has not kept up.

Another area of improvement is the drilling rules, most of which were written long before the spread of fracking. The commission is working on a rule (http://www.texastribune.org/2012/12/10/texas-regulators-prepare-major-drilling-rule-chang/) that would tighten safety requirements for oil and gas wells. It is an important area, known as well integrity, that Texas regulators have essentially left alone for more than 30 years, according to Scott Anderson, an Austin-based senior policy adviser with the Environmental Defense Fund.
Another rule in the works would make it easier to recycle water from oil and gas wells — a much-discussed issue in the drought-ravaged state. The commission is also working on tightening oversight of “disposal” wells, where chemical-laced waste from fracking processes gets buried.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/25/us/railroad-commission-of-texas-is-getting-overhaul.html?_r=0

Doesn't sound like the business-friendly TRRC is a bad ass regulator with tough rules and stringent enforcment. This is fucking oilco-owned Texas, after all.

[mavs>spurs]

keep up the improvement faggot

[TDMVPDPOY]

they just found a basin down here...worth $20trillion, but the hippies wont allow any drilling...lol fkn hippies

[boutons_deux]

Well, in the absence of any data (cite?), experiential data trumps.

no, it doesn't. Texas govt is "business friendly", and especially VERY friendly to its owners, the oil industry.

[Wild Cobra]

The CNG model, at $26,925, is $5,650 more than a gasoline Civic EX,

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/autos/reviews/healey/story/2011-11-10/civic-cng-test-drive/51159408/1

So how many miles to offset the $5600 premium of ng engine vs gasoline engine?


3. CNG cars are cheaper to run than conventional vehicles.

As petroleum prices erratically jump up and down and up again, it's tempting to look at compressed natural gas as an economic alternative. Buyer beware: the math is tricky.

Since CNG is normally sold as a gas rather than a liquid, it isn't measured in gallons, but can be converted on an energy basis that equals a gallon of gasoline. The term used for this conversation is GGE, or "gallon of gasoline equivalent."

When gasoline was about $2.25, the average price of CNG in the United States was $1.99 per GGE. While a 24 cent-per-gallon price advantage sounds attractive, CNG vehicles have lower fuel efficiency than hybrid vehicles. A Civic GX, for example, averages 32 mpg, while a Civic Hybrid is rated at 43 mpg. So while a GGE of CNG is cheaper, the Civic GX needs more fuel to operate, and therefore costs per mile are actually higher.

http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center-article_114/



For people like you, who do nothing but complain about the pollution, cost is not a factor and articles like that often lie. It's about being green...

[boutons_deux]

For people like you, who do nothing but complain about the pollution, cost is not a factor and articles like that often lie. It's about being green...

WTF?

"3. CNG cars are cheaper to run than conventional vehicles." was a MYTH being debunked.

[Wild Cobra]

WTF?

"3. CNG cars are cheaper to run than conventional vehicles." was a MYTH being debunked.

And I'm saying people like you don't care that they cost more.

[boutons_deux]

And I'm saying people like you don't care that they cost more.

You Lie.

I just passed on a new Camry Hybrid because there were no savings until about 140K miles, plus the battery was guaranteed to only 100K miles. Adding battery replacement cost to the hybrid purchase premium makes no sense.

[TeyshaBlue]

no, it doesn't. Texas govt is "business friendly", and especially VERY friendly to its owners, the oil industry.

I was in the oil industry. It was not friendly. It was like arm wrestling Hulk Hogan.

[Drachen]

I was in the oil industry. It was not friendly. It was like arm wrestling Hulk Hogan.

So the regulations were fake?

[boutons_deux]

I was in the oil industry. It was not friendly. It was like arm wrestling Hulk Hogan.

Not believable, if only well before RickyBobby began polluting the TX bureaucracy with 1000s of Repug hackers, operatives, patronage

[TeyshaBlue]

So the regulations were fake?

Can you take Hogan? Give it a shot and let me know how that turns out for ya.:lol

Good day, Mr. Kaufman.:lol:lol

[boutons_deux]

you expect us to believe the RickyBobby's RRC/TCEQ would let human and environmental health trump oilco profits?

[TeyshaBlue]

Not believable, if only well before RickyBobby began polluting the TX bureaucracy with 1000s of Repug hackers, operatives, patronage

You do understand that these revisions, improvements and additional regulations are happening on Perry's watch, right?

lol at operatives and hackers.

[TeyshaBlue]

you expect us to believe the RickyBobby's RRC/TCEQ would let human and environmental health trump oilco profits?

I'll wait and see. You go ahead with your assumptions and such.

[boutons_deux]

You do understand that these revisions, improvements and additional regulations are happening on Perry's watch, right?

lol at operatives and hackers.

we'll see if ANYTHING is enforced. My guess if RB's RRC will enforce as heavily as SEC polices the financial sector.

[boutons_deux]

Rick Perry Is Big Oil’s $11 Million Man (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/08/15/295888/rick-perry-is-big-oils-11-million-man/)


http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/rick_perry_industry_chart.png

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/08/15/295888/rick-perry-is-big-oils-11-million-man/

OK, I give up. Now you've really convinced me that RickyBobby's RRC visits regulatory/enforcement hell on frackers.

[TeyshaBlue]

Rick Perry Is Big Oil’s $11 Million Man (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/08/15/295888/rick-perry-is-big-oils-11-million-man/)


http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/rick_perry_industry_chart.png

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/08/15/295888/rick-perry-is-big-oils-11-million-man/

OK, I give up. Now you've really convinced me that RickyBobby's RRC visits regulatory/enforcement hell on frackers.

Wow. Thinkprogress figured out the #1 economic engine in Texas also is a top contributor. That's some kwality analysis right there.

Also don't mean shit.

[TeyshaBlue]

lol at searching thinkprogress.borg for a 2 year old article. The site linked to from that piece does not produce the data that tp says it does. Go figure.

[boutons_deux]

the money ain't old, and the same contributors have certainly kept floating RB in $Ms.

quid-pro-quo blatant corruption (just like DC): they get regulatory relief, and $19B/year in tax expenditures.

[TeyshaBlue]

I certainly don't disagree with the money flow. But you've got to make the case for regulatory relief via some kind of granularity...ie. evidential data of individuals acting in concert. Just saying it looks fishy don't make it fishy. People (the inspectors and analysts within the TRC) are known to act as individuals.

[Wild Cobra]

You Lie.

I just passed on a new Camry Hybrid because there were no savings until about 140K miles, plus the battery was guaranteed to only 100K miles. Adding battery replacement cost to the hybrid purchase premium makes no sense.
If I'm wrong about you in this case, then so be it. There are people however that will pay the extra just to have green pride.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yep.

Making hydrogen outside of using natural gas is just too expensive. May as well use the NG in vehicles instead.

Says the guy that pimps natural gas boiler brochures. Hydrogen is made by electrolysis and solar and PV diodes by nature create voltage. You can literally connect a PV cell into tap water and create hydrogen gas from the potential. Compare that to boiling water with natural gas and using that to turn magnets and then creating a DC voltage and it's not very difficult to discern which method is more efficient. Much easier if you consider the energy requirements of fracking gas.

You can just set up PV banks in your home and let them fill a storage container all day and have q whole lot of fuel. There are setup costs but it's pretty damn pricey to have Hank Hill show up at your house.

The problem with H has primarily been NOx emissions which has relegated acceptable reactions to fuel cells however there has been a lot of work on both efficiency and emissions. For example:

http://pid.sagepub.com/content/227/1/99


The efficiency maps of the hydrogen engine demonstrate a peak brake thermal efficiency of 45.5% together with nitrogen oxide maps showing emissions of less than 0.10 g/kW h in much of the operating regime. In order to evaluate the driving-cycle nitrogen oxide emissions, the engine maps were fed into a vehicle simulation assuming a midsize sedan with a conventional (non-hybrid) powertrain. With a 3.0 l hydrogen engine, nitrogen oxide emissions from a Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule cycle are 0.017 g/mile which fulfills the project goal and are even sufficiently low to meet the Super-Ultra-Low-Emissions Vehicle II emissions specification. The city or highway fuel economy, normalized to gallons of gasoline, is 32.4/51.5 mile/gal(US) for a combined average of 38.9 mile/gal(US), exceeding the 2016 Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard. Further vehicle simulations were performed to show the effect of engine downsizing. With a smaller 2.0 l engine, nitrogen oxide emissions increase to 0.028 g/mile, which still exceeds the US Department of Energy target together with the benefit of a fuel economy improvement to 45.4 mile/gal(US) (combined).

The other concern is storage and various uses of nanotechnology have been applied to the problem with more than a little success.

The problem has never been hydrogen production. Distribution, storage, efficiency, emissions sure. But never production. Stick to your checklist or google harder next time.

[Drachen]

If I'm wrong about you in this case, then so be it. There are people however that will pay the extra just to have green pride.

I am sure that there are some who do things just to have green pride. Then there is another category who can afford to pay significantly more for the benefit of being environmentally copasetic and therefore do so. Most of us fall into a category where we really would like to be in the second category but don't have that ability and so we look for the most environmentally beneficial solution to (x) problem that we can while making as much financial sense as we can.

[Drachen]

Says the guy that pimps natural gas boiler brochures. Hydrogen is made by electrolysis and solar and PV diodes by nature create voltage. You can literally connect a PV cell into tap water and create hydrogen gas from the potential. Compare that to boiling water with natural gas and using that to turn magnets and then creating a DC voltage and it's not very difficult to discern which method is more efficient. Much easier if you consider the energy requirements of fracking gas.

You can just set up PV banks in your home and let them fill a storage container all day and have q whole lot of fuel. There are setup costs but it's pretty damn pricey to have Hank Hill show up at your house.

The problem with H has primarily been NOx emissions which has relegated acceptable reactions to fuel cells however there has been a lot of work on both efficiency and emissions. For example:


This is a great solution, but my problem with it why not just take that electricity and put IT directly into a car rather than converting it one more time into hydrogen. Before you say that batteries arent there yet, you listed a small host of problems with hydrogen. Might as well put the research into batteries.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This is a great solution, but my problem with it why not just take that electricity and put IT directly into a car rather than converting it one more time into hydrogen. Before you say that batteries arent there yet, you listed a small host of problems with hydrogen. Might as well put the research into batteries.

Why not research both? Researching 'batteries' is great and all but I would prefer taking each proposal on it's merits.

Making hydrogen is mindlessly easy.

[Drachen]

Why not research both? Researching 'batteries' is great and all but I would prefer taking each proposal on it's merits.

Making hydrogen is mindlessly easy.

What would be the verbiage to use if you take something that is mindlessly easy and subtract a step from it?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What would be the verbiage to use if you take something that is mindlessly easy and subtract a step from it?

You tell me.

Engineering hurdles for H2 are being overcome. A battery stores energy, it does not create it.

[Wild Cobra]

This is a great solution, but my problem with it why not just take that electricity and put IT directly into a car rather than converting it one more time into hydrogen. Before you say that batteries arent there yet, you listed a small host of problems with hydrogen. Might as well put the research into batteries.
Fuzzy doesn't care. He will bring anything into a conversation that he thinks will disagree with what I say.

It takes something like 44 kwh of electricity to make about 1 gallon of gasoline equivalent through the method Fuzzy mentions. That is just the electricity. That's not a bad price, for in the future when refined fuels go up in price. There are probably few places that equates to more than $5.00 a gallon equivalent, but then there is equipment and maintenance costs if you plan to make it yourself. Profits will make a hydrogen duel station at least twice the electrical costs.

Back to reality. The problem with hydrogen is safety and storage. If a fuel cell is used, I don't think they have yet, worked out the membrane problems and cost.

I don't see hydrogen being practical any time soon. NG is in my view, the best alternative, and I would like to see methane fuel cells developed for that purpose.

Now since there is a push to sequester CO2, why not make methane out of it, using the Sabaier Reaction, or similar method. That would count for something in the eyes of the green people.

[boutons_deux]

Public Editor Slams NY Times Tesla Story, After Overcoming ‘Confirmation Bias’

As Rocky Mountain Institute put it:


… this much ado about range anxiety is a distraction from the real sweet spot and potential of EVs today. U.S. drivers average 13,476 miles per year; that’s 37 miles per day, according to the Office of Highway Policy Information. The most recent National Household Travel Survey by DOT’s Federal Highway Administration puts that number even lower—a scant 29 vehicle miles per day, with an average trip length less than 10 miles.


http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/02/21/1617231/public-editor-slams-ny-times-tesla-story-after-overcoming-confirmation-bias/

[Drachen]

Well Hyundai is making a fuel cell car now.


Hyundai today announced plans to begin mass production of hydrogen fuel cell cars, as part of an effort to spearhead the development of zero-emission vehicles. As Korea's Yonhap News Agency reports, Hyundai will begin producing hydrogen-powered versions of its Tucson ix SUV at its Usan plant in South Korea on Friday, in the hopes of selling 1,000 models across the world by 2015.

According to Hyundai, the hydrogen-based Tucson ix can run for about 370 miles before being refueled. It also presents obvious environmental benefits, emitting only water vapor as it converts hydrogen into electricity. If widely adopted, the technology could decrease reliance upon internal combustion engines, thereby lowering emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.

"THE DAWN OF 'AN ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY ERA'?

"We expect to realize an environmentally friendly era more quickly through the mass production of hydrogen fuel cell cars for the first time in the world," Hyundai Motor Vice Chairman Kim Eok-jo said at a ceremony Tuesday. The company added that it plans to ship 15 models for municipal use in Denmark and two other units to Sweden as early as this April.

Competitors like Daimler-Benz and General Motors are also working on hydrogen fuel cell cars, but Hyundai says it's at least two years ahead of the market, due in large part to its proprietary technology. As with any new transport technology, however, Hyundai's hydrogen future faces some obstacles, with a current dearth of fueling stations being perhaps the most blatant. Ulsan Mayor Park Maeng-woo praised the company's announcement as a "milestone event" on Tuesday and promised to install more fueling stations across the city, though he declined to offer details. According to Yonhap, there are currently just 13 stations across all of South Korea.

According to Bloomberg, the car's performance also lags behind its gasoline-powered competition. The Tucson ix's engine is rated at 134 horsepower, and accelerates from zero to 60 miles per hour in just over 12 seconds. Bloomberg did praise the car's smooth driving experience, but stressed that its long-term success will likely depend on its price point. Current estimates place the Tucson ix's sticker price as high as $200,000 (compared to the $19,935 retail price of the standard Tucson), though manufacturers say technological advancements should bring that down to around $50,000 by 2015.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/26/4031050/hyundai-begins-production-of-hydrogen-fuel-suv-tucson

[boutons_deux]

New Way to Split Water Molecules Into Hydrogen and Oxygen: Breakthrough for Solar Energy Conversion and Storage?

Using the power of the sun and ultrathin films of iron oxide (commonly known as rust), Technion-Israel Institute of Technology researchers have found a novel way to split water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen. The breakthrough, published this week in Nature Materials, could lead to less expensive, more efficient ways to store solar energy in the form of hydrogen-based fuels. This could be a major step forward in the development of viable replacements for fossil fuels.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121112095943.htm

[admiralsnackbar]

"we aren't using fossil fuels to make it"

wind/solar to produce energy to produce hydrogen

there is already a precedent where a community, in CA?, refused to let a BigNastyCorp like Nestle or Coke suck down their aquifer to make bottled water to ship out of their community, at a rate far exceeding the community's (sustainable) withdrawal rate. I think there have been several similar cases.




Processing fresh water to produce hydrogen is like processing corn to produce ethanol, only multiplied by 10K of stupidity. You don't sacrifice necessary conditions (increasingly scarce resources necessary for life) and use them to create sufficient conditions for commerce. The only sensible source for hydrogen is the ocean.

[boutons_deux]

Processing fresh water to produce hydrogen is like processing corn to produce ethanol, only multiplied by 10K of stupidity. You don't sacrifice necessary conditions (increasingly scarce resources necessary for life) and use them to create sufficient conditions for commerce. The only sensible source for hydrogen is the ocean.

Using ground/surface water to produce hydrogen fuel ( to produce water! ) is 1 billionth the stupidity of fracking/uranium/metal fuckers poisoning billions of gallons of fresh water which contaminates billions of gallons of fresh water, esp in the parched West.

[admiralsnackbar]

Using ground/surface water to produce hydrogen fuel ( to produce water! ) is 1 billionth the stupidity of fracking/uranium/metal fuckers poisoning billions of gallons of fresh water which contaminates billions of gallons of fresh water, esp in the parched West.

Stupid doesn't trump stupid, its just more stupid for the pile.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Processing fresh water to produce hydrogen is like processing corn to produce ethanol, only multiplied by 10K of stupidity. You don't sacrifice necessary conditions (increasingly scarce resources necessary for life) and use them to create sufficient conditions for commerce. The only sensible source for hydrogen is the ocean.

Yup but there is a ton of usable water in the ocean and other sources. Hydrogen is much, much lighter then the other elements that electrolysis pulls and amongst other things hydrogen oxidation produces fresh water. In that it is not like producing ethanol where the by product after consumption is not corn.

[boutons_deux]

Stupid doesn't trump stupid, its just more stupid for the pile.

a little stupid certainly trumps super mega stupid.

And wouldn't seawater have to be purified by heavy filtering then reverse osmosis?

[Wild Cobra]

New Way to Split Water Molecules Into Hydrogen and Oxygen: Breakthrough for Solar Energy Conversion and Storage?

Using the power of the sun and ultrathin films of iron oxide (commonly known as rust), Technion-Israel Institute of Technology researchers have found a novel way to split water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen. The breakthrough, published this week in Nature Materials, could lead to less expensive, more efficient ways to store solar energy in the form of hydrogen-based fuels. This could be a major step forward in the development of viable replacements for fossil fuels.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121112095943.htm
Another wait and see time, to see if this so-called break-thru pans out.

[admiralsnackbar]

In that it is not like producing ethanol where the by product after consumption is not corn.

A very good point.

[admiralsnackbar]

a little stupid certainly trumps super mega stupid.

And wouldn't seawater have to be purified by heavy filtering then reverse osmosis?

Can't argue with you, TBH. Now that the coffe's worn off, it's pretty clear my last few responses were under-cooked and needlessly brusque.

As to your second point... I honestly wouldn't know.

[Nbadan]

All this shit is obsolete if this shit pans out...

Lockheed's Skunk Works promises fusion power in four years
Evan Ackerman
Friday, February 22, 2013 - 3:22pm


Until someone figures out a way to manufacture antimatter, fusion is by far the cleanest and most abundant source of power we can hope to harvest. We've known this for a long time, but fusion is hard, and it's expensive to build the giant lasers or toroidal plasma containment systems that are needed to get it to work. By most estimates, we're something like 40 years away from an operational fusion power plant.

"Most estimates" do not, apparently, include research being done at Lockheed Martin's secretive advanced development center, Skunk Works. At Google's Solve For X, Charles Chase describes what his team has been working on: a trailer-sized fusion power plant that turns cheap and plentiful hydrogen (deuterium and tritium) into helium plus enough energy to power a small city. It's safe, it's clean, and Lockheed is promising an operational unit by 2017 with assembly line production to follow, enabling everything from unlimited fresh water to engines that take spacecraft to Mars in one month instead of six.

Lockheed's fusion power plant uses radio energy to heat deuterium gas inside tightly controlled magnetic fields, creating a very high temperature plasma that's much more stable and well confined than you'd find in something like a tokamak.

Chase didn't give a whole lot more technical detail, but he seemed confident in predicting a 100mW prototype by 2017, with commercial 100mW systems available by 2022, implying that all global energy demands will be able to be met by fusion power by about 2045. No more oil, no more coal, no more nuclear, and not even any solar or wind or hydro will be necessary (unless you're into that sort of thing): fusion has the potential to produce as much affordable clean power as we'll ever need, for the entire world. That's wild, and we may see it happen in less than a decade. That is, if Lockheed Martin's plans come to fruition, which we certainly hope they do.


http://www.dvice.com/2013-2-22/lockheeds-skunk-works-promises-fusion-power-four-years

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The problem with electrolysis of seawater in the past was chlorine gas and other fun gas byproducts due to the salts. What you want is O2 at the anodes but most of the technology up until about 40 years ago was centered around production of chlorine. They now have anodes that generate O2. I think that was developed in the 1980s. The main issue is corrosion for obvious reasons.

[Wild Cobra]

The problem with electrolysis of seawater in the past was chlorine gas and other fun gas byproducts due to the salts. What you want is O2 at the anodes but most of the technology up until about 40 years ago was centered around production of chlorine. They now have anodes that generate O2. I think that was developed in the 1980s. The main issue is corrosion for obvious reasons.
And cost.

44 KWH per gallon of gasoline equivalent.

[admiralsnackbar]

Does anybody know the going life-cycle for top-shelf solar cells these days? The last time I looked into it (jesus... a long long time ago now), they were incapable of generating energy equivalent to what went into their manufacture. I guess I'm asking whether they live long enough to "pay for themselves," or are still subject to the law of entropy for all practical concerns.

[Wild Cobra]

Does anybody know the going life-cycle for top-shelf solar cells these days? The last time I looked into it (jesus... a long long time ago now), they were incapable of generating energy equivalent to what went into their manufacture. I guess I'm asking whether they live long enough to "pay for themselves," or are still subject to the law of entropy for all practical concerns.
My understanding is that solar cells have already historically lasted far longer than projected. If you have sunny skies and enough year round sun, they are probably very practical as an investment.

Ask CC. He's done research in this area.