11/28 Which one is more efficient?
1. Use electricity to generate hydrogen and burn it in a fuel-cell car.
\_ this is a very very inefficient process. Only country such as
Iceland where geothermal energy is plentiful can they afford
to do this. Here is a lesson for energy: The key for many
energy-related industries (including chemcial industry) is how
to generate *HYDROGEN* cheaply. And electrolysis water is one
of the most *EXPENSIVE* way of doing so. The cheapest way
to generate hydrogen is from natrual gas and petroleum. This
is one of the main reason why I don't really believe in
hydrogen fuel-cell cars, as I suspect the amount of energy
required to generate hydrogen is typically being ignored.
kngharv
\_ I just heard on the radio today that Honda has some $1M
prototype cars that run on hydrogen generated from water
electrolysis using solar power. So I was wondering why not
simply use the solar electricity to charge the batteries of
electric cars. Hence the efficiency question of #1 vs. #2.
--- OP
\_ in that context, then, it's a toss up, and we really
don't know which one is more efficient. Charging
batteries are horribly inefficient and this is why
we don't see any electric car on the street at first
place. The new trend of thought is use solar/wind to
generate hydrogen (hence, much easier to store) and
let various devices run on hydrogen. It's a relatively
new concept and it has a lot of kinks to work out.
Personally, I am very excited about this trend. kngharv
\_ There is a short blurb in Dec 2005 Scientific American
about some new solar cells being worked on that directly
generate hydrogen... still not as cheap as hydrogen from
natural gas though. Perhaps in time...
\_ this is the reason why I am so pissed at Bush and his
policy. The administration is doing everything to
lower the price of petro-based product (by invading
another country, relax the environment standard, etc)
instead of investing money on those solar/wind + hydrogen
based technology.
\_ Hydrogen isn't an energy source. It is a storage and
transport mechanism. The reason we don't use solar
and wind for main power is they aren't consistent
enough, solar cells are very toxic to produce and take
up large amounts of land, wind kills birds, and neither
can produce enough power to replace enough fossil fuels
to bother. They each have some limited uses but aren't
exactly new tech. Are you also pissed at Clinton,
Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, etc? What
serious steps did any of them take in that direction?
None. Because neither is economic and *never* can be
for large scale energy production. If we ran out of
oil tomorrow, we'd go nuclear and everything would be
wired electric, batteries, or both. The batteries
might be hydrogen, they might not.
\_ Silicon cells suck, yes. But the problem with
solar is completely a technology problem, not a
problem of not enough energy. The total area of the
U.S. that is paved by either roads or parkinglots
recieves enough power from the sun to satisfy our
energy needs. Making a system that is as cheap as
paint and as robust and safe as asfault that produces
electricity efficiently and converts it into some
convenient storage medium is a very very large
challenge, but it violates no laws of physics, and
that's what we should be srtiving for. It might
take decades, but I believe that if the U.S. focused
its physical sciences research in this direction it
would happen. I also think this will
happen by profit-driven corporate researchers without
the government if the government does nothing, but
it might take longer. It is silly to dismiss solar
just because the present technology is useless.
If we had to use 1800's technology, oil wouldn't
work for running our civilization either.
\_ So you want to have a huge federal program to
create solar tech sometime in the next few decades
that may or may not work? To the exclusion of
other technology? Money doesn't grow on trees.
\_ If we already know something definitely will
work before we look into it, it wouldn't be
called "research", would it? -- !PP
\_ Exactly. So you want to blow a few decades
of effort on something that may not come to
anything, yet up above you claim there is
no reason it can't work. So which is it?
\_ when I say solar/wind + hydrogen, I meant hydrogen
as a transporting/storing mechanism. and I repeat,
I am pissed at Bush because they choose to align
themselves with the old industry, at the expense of
environment (clear sky initiative, for example).
Frankly, last thing we want is to make petro-based
energy cheaper if we want to provide more incentive
for new, renewable energy, especially when war,
drill of national refuge, and allowing barf mercury
to the air is involved.
\_ We have the same mercury standard we've always
had. Are you aware the last minute (literally)
Clinton standard would have required levels lower
than mercury occurs naturally in many places?
That was political BS and too many people ate it
up. "Bush wants to poison us with mercury! ack!"
As far as the rest, Bush hasn't done anything any
differently than any other President going back
forever. Name the POTUS who has pushed for
artificially higher gas prices in an effort to
provide industry incentive to pursue alternative
energy research. If you want to hate Bush, go
ahead, there are a lot of reasons for it. What
you've stated isn't unique to Bush in any way. No
sane person would vote for someone who wanted
higher oil prices. That's the politics of the
extreme/green left. You can't name anyone in
Congress of either party ever in favor of that.
\_ Umm, wind is already competitive with other power
sources, and you really think wind turbines kill
more birds per year than fossil fuel production &
consumption?
\_ I'm just repeating the anti-wind rhetoric on
birds. Wind is *not* reliable as a nationwide
source of power. Not enough places have room
or enough consistent wind for it. At best it
will always remain a secondary source.
\_ Being a secondary source isn't bad. If wind
provides, say, 30% of the energy, that's a
pretty big dent on the whole problem already.
\_ 30% That would be a miracle. What is
the current % in places that support
wind power? I don't have the numbers but
I'd bet it's in the trivial below 2%
range.
\_ Or glass-wall highrise buildings, for that
matter.
2. Use electricity to charge the battery of an electric car and run it.
\_ you need to be careful about that statement, as you need to
taken account where is the electricity come from at first place
kngharv
\_ More completely:
1. Use some renewable or non-renewable resource to generate
electricity, and taking into account transmission costs to the
hydrogen plant, generate hydrogen. Then, taking into account
hydrogen transportation costs, use it to power a fuel-cell car.
(Note, you don't "burn" fuel, in a fuel cell, per se)
2. Yadda generate, yadda transmission costs all the way to charging
location (home? central?)
\3. Install an electric grid such cars get their power directly as long
as they are on the road. Kind of like bumper cars, or electric
powered buses (like you see in SF) or electric trains. Oh, were
we talking energy efficient or cost efficient? (this idea has huge
infrastructure costs)
\_ Energy efficiency. -- OP
\_ Though it could take more energy to construct a really
elaborate super-efficient system than you'd ever save over the
useful life of the system.
\_ 4. Ride Bike!
\_ 5. walk. |
http://csua.com/feed/