Steel 0
Recommended Posts
jumper03 0
[replyYou know that hydrogen comes from oil and natural gas, right?
Categorically wrong. Oil and gas contain only minimal amounts of hydrogen - carbon is the major component here. That's why living things - full of carbon- have to die and rot to make oil and natural gas. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and is most abundant on the Earth in the form of water. As for the amount of energy returned from electrolysis - we're getting better at that. There was an article in the MIT tech review a few months ago about it. I'll see if I can dig it up but it's getting better. Fuel cells are almost a reality - an economic reality. I'll take water as a byproduct over carbon monoxide any day.
Jump
Scars remind us that the past is real
jumper03 0
QuoteIChris
Atmosheric Physisist/Meteorologist for MIT
Fat People are Harder to Kidnap !!!
Are you in the Green building!?!?!
I'm down on the 12th floor! Thought I was the only nut around this place. Lets hook up sometime!!
Jump
Scars remind us that the past is real
billvon 3,118
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Categorically wrong. Oil and gas contain only minimal amounts of
> hydrogen - carbon is the major component here.
?? There is a reason they're called hydrocarbons. Methane, the simplest hydrocarbon, contains four hydrogens for every carbon. Right now, most hydrogen comes from oil, either through fractionation byproducts or hydrocarbon reforming (with natural gas, coke etc.)
> Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and is most
>abundant on the Earth in the form of water.
Unfortunately you cannot get it out of water without a lot of energy, so water is not a source of hydrogen fuel in terms of an energy supply. That's like saying water and air are a source of natural gas and oil. While it's true that carbon dioxide and water can be reformed to methane and other hydrocarbons, it's not a useful process since it takes so much energy.
>There was an article in the MIT tech review a few months ago about it.
Yeah, I read it. It talked about the problems of hydrogen as a fuel i.e. we don't have any. Another good article is
here. It talks about the illusion of free energy from hydrogen.
> hydrogen - carbon is the major component here.
?? There is a reason they're called hydrocarbons. Methane, the simplest hydrocarbon, contains four hydrogens for every carbon. Right now, most hydrogen comes from oil, either through fractionation byproducts or hydrocarbon reforming (with natural gas, coke etc.)
> Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and is most
>abundant on the Earth in the form of water.
Unfortunately you cannot get it out of water without a lot of energy, so water is not a source of hydrogen fuel in terms of an energy supply. That's like saying water and air are a source of natural gas and oil. While it's true that carbon dioxide and water can be reformed to methane and other hydrocarbons, it's not a useful process since it takes so much energy.
>There was an article in the MIT tech review a few months ago about it.
Yeah, I read it. It talked about the problems of hydrogen as a fuel i.e. we don't have any. Another good article is
here. It talks about the illusion of free energy from hydrogen.
[replyYou know that hydrogen comes from oil and natural gas, right
It does NOW. But it can also come from ethenol (corn) and the Ocean. Yes Saltwater is the largest source. Eventually there will be solar plants that will split the water water molecules (remember the Hydrolisys experiment in junior high school?) Then the fuel cells will make it back into water. Technically making the cars/homes solar powered.
billvon 3,118
>It does NOW. But it can also come from ethenol (corn) and the
>Ocean. Yes Saltwater is the largest source. Eventually there will be
> solar plants that will split the water water molecules (remember the
> Hydrolisys experiment in junior high school?)
If you have the solar generated electricity, why not just run the homes on the electricity? The power lines are there, and electric appliances are cheap. Why add a massive and lossy system, involving a hard to transport flammable gas, to do the same thing that power lines can do right now?
>Ocean. Yes Saltwater is the largest source. Eventually there will be
> solar plants that will split the water water molecules (remember the
> Hydrolisys experiment in junior high school?)
If you have the solar generated electricity, why not just run the homes on the electricity? The power lines are there, and electric appliances are cheap. Why add a massive and lossy system, involving a hard to transport flammable gas, to do the same thing that power lines can do right now?
QuoteIf you have the solar generated electricity, why not just run the homes on the electricity? The power lines are there, and electric appliances are cheap. Why add a massive and lossy system, involving a hard to transport flammable gas, to do the same thing that power lines can do right now?
Hydrogen is less flammable than gasoline unless it is properly mixed 2 to 1 with Oxygen--which it is not in regular air. If a hydrogen truck crashes and leaks... So what. It will evaporate. Just don't smoke a cigarette for an bit. everything will be fine. Powerlines are far more "lossy" than converting hydrogen. Do you know how much energy is constantly being wasted over powerlines?
Besides. If there were no powerlines It would be worth it right there.
billvon 3,118
>Hydrogen is less flammable than gasoline unless it is properly mixed
> 2 to 1 with Oxygen--which it is not in regular air.
It's about as flammable as natural gas in regular air. I had a tank a while back that I was fooling with, and it burns with a light blue flame in regular air. Easy to light, and of course the main product is steam. Some NOx, but not too much.
>If a hydrogen truck crashes and leaks... So what. It will evaporate.
Well, sure - same with a natural gas truck. As long as all the gas leaves before there's an ignition source anywhere, no problem. In any case, it won't be very economical to use trucks to ship hydrogen. Since hydrogen is much less dense than any other fuel, a truck that tried to move a load of hydrogen 800 miles would use all the hydrogen to power itself, and arrive empty. A gasoline truck, by comparison, would only use 3% of its load.
(And yes, I'm aware that both really run on diesel. But if you are using all that diesel to get a small amount of energy to the destination, why not just use the diesel and save money on the truck and the hydrogen?)
>Powerlines are far more "lossy" than converting hydrogen. Do you
>know how much energy is constantly being wasted over powerlines?
About 10% of the generated energy; the grid in CA at least is around 85-90% efficient from generator to final distribution transformer. And it's going up as high voltage DC lines come on-line.
>Besides. If there were no powerlines It would be worth it right there.
So massive aerial pipes are better than powerlines? Since hydrogen is much less dense than natural gas, the pipelines would have to be much larger than those used for natural gas (if you want to transport the same amount of energy, that is.)
> 2 to 1 with Oxygen--which it is not in regular air.
It's about as flammable as natural gas in regular air. I had a tank a while back that I was fooling with, and it burns with a light blue flame in regular air. Easy to light, and of course the main product is steam. Some NOx, but not too much.
>If a hydrogen truck crashes and leaks... So what. It will evaporate.
Well, sure - same with a natural gas truck. As long as all the gas leaves before there's an ignition source anywhere, no problem. In any case, it won't be very economical to use trucks to ship hydrogen. Since hydrogen is much less dense than any other fuel, a truck that tried to move a load of hydrogen 800 miles would use all the hydrogen to power itself, and arrive empty. A gasoline truck, by comparison, would only use 3% of its load.
(And yes, I'm aware that both really run on diesel. But if you are using all that diesel to get a small amount of energy to the destination, why not just use the diesel and save money on the truck and the hydrogen?)
>Powerlines are far more "lossy" than converting hydrogen. Do you
>know how much energy is constantly being wasted over powerlines?
About 10% of the generated energy; the grid in CA at least is around 85-90% efficient from generator to final distribution transformer. And it's going up as high voltage DC lines come on-line.
>Besides. If there were no powerlines It would be worth it right there.
So massive aerial pipes are better than powerlines? Since hydrogen is much less dense than natural gas, the pipelines would have to be much larger than those used for natural gas (if you want to transport the same amount of energy, that is.)
QuoteSince hydrogen is much less dense than any other fuel, a truck that tried to move a load of hydrogen 800 miles would use all the hydrogen to power itself, and arrive empty. A gasoline truck, by comparison, would only use 3% of its load.
Where the heck did you get that wacked info? LIQUID hydrogen is plenty dense and transportable by vehicle. And, fuel cells using liquid hydrogen have 2-3 times the fuel economy as internal combustion engines.
Page 4
http://www.energy2002.ee.doe.gov/Presentations/transportation/s3-Chizek2.pdf
edited to add: Arial Pipes???? No way. Exchange the canister at the gas station like you do with a propane tank for your grill every few weeks.
billvon 3,118
>LIQUID hydrogen is plenty dense and transportable by vehicle.
Liquid hydrogen is a bit more dense, but there are a few practical problems transporting a liquid that must remain at -253C. Even then, it's just not that dense.
I think you're confusing energy density with specific energy. The specific energy of hydrogen is very high (that's joules/kg) which is one reason it's such a great rocket fuel. It's energy density is very low. Diesel fuel is around 35 MJ/liter; gasoline is 32 MJ/liter; liquid hydrogen is around 9 MJ/liter. That means to transport the same energy a truckful of diesel can carry you'd need 4 trucks of LH2.
>And, fuel cells using liquid hydrogen have 2-3 times the fuel
>economy as internal combustion engines.
If we could dig liquid hydrogen out of the ground I'd agree. Unfortunately, when you have to first make the hydrogen from water, then compress and refrigerate it, you end up using incredible amounts of energy.
Liquid hydrogen is a bit more dense, but there are a few practical problems transporting a liquid that must remain at -253C. Even then, it's just not that dense.
I think you're confusing energy density with specific energy. The specific energy of hydrogen is very high (that's joules/kg) which is one reason it's such a great rocket fuel. It's energy density is very low. Diesel fuel is around 35 MJ/liter; gasoline is 32 MJ/liter; liquid hydrogen is around 9 MJ/liter. That means to transport the same energy a truckful of diesel can carry you'd need 4 trucks of LH2.
>And, fuel cells using liquid hydrogen have 2-3 times the fuel
>economy as internal combustion engines.
If we could dig liquid hydrogen out of the ground I'd agree. Unfortunately, when you have to first make the hydrogen from water, then compress and refrigerate it, you end up using incredible amounts of energy.
When Mt. St. Helens and Chiconal blew up, they put huge amounts of particulate matter into the atmoshere. I am wondering how much of that is measured when they are talking about pollution.
You have mentioned that you have a solar energy system. Do you have storage batteries? How long before they need replaced? What is their size?
When I worked for a power company, we had uninterrupted power source batteries to run a pumping station at minimal levels. They took up a room. Obviously, we are not talking about that type of need, but these questions came to mind.
You have mentioned that you have a solar energy system. Do you have storage batteries? How long before they need replaced? What is their size?
When I worked for a power company, we had uninterrupted power source batteries to run a pumping station at minimal levels. They took up a room. Obviously, we are not talking about that type of need, but these questions came to mind.
billvon 3,118
>You have mentioned that you have a solar energy system. Do you
>have storage batteries?
Yes, as part of a backup power system. The two systems are not usually connected. The solar system puts power back into the grid, and the batteries are only used during blackouts. I can connect the two systems manually if need be for long blackouts.
>How long before they need replaced?
~20 years. They are essentially float-charged forever, which is ideal. They're also telecom backup batteries designed for long life. (no free electrolyte, sealed cells, metal case etc.)
>What is their size?
Right now I have 8 batteries in a seismic rack. Each is about 6" x 8" x 24" long and weighs about 120 lbs.
>have storage batteries?
Yes, as part of a backup power system. The two systems are not usually connected. The solar system puts power back into the grid, and the batteries are only used during blackouts. I can connect the two systems manually if need be for long blackouts.
>How long before they need replaced?
~20 years. They are essentially float-charged forever, which is ideal. They're also telecom backup batteries designed for long life. (no free electrolyte, sealed cells, metal case etc.)
>What is their size?
Right now I have 8 batteries in a seismic rack. Each is about 6" x 8" x 24" long and weighs about 120 lbs.
QuoteLiquid hydrogen is a bit more dense, but there are a few practical problems transporting a liquid that must remain at -253C. Even then, it's just not that dense.
And it burns 30% of its equivalent stored energy compressing it to liquid. If we hit the upper end of the 2-3 times the effiency of IC engines, it is right about where we are now. I don't see a problem with that? Do you?
QuoteIt's energy density is very low. Diesel fuel is around 35 MJ/liter; gasoline is 32 MJ/liter; liquid hydrogen is around 9 MJ/liter. That means to transport the same energy a truckfull of diesel can carry you'd need 4 trucks of LH2.
Yes but those numbers are by volume. It costs less to transport a lighter payload. If you go by density... Hydrogen is 33.3 Kwh/kg. gasoline is only 12.7 Kwh/kg and Diesel weighs in last at 11.6kwh/kg
Because Liquid hydrogen is so light, yes it might take more trucks to haul, but the tanks can be bigger, and it will take less energy to operate the trucks. Plus it would create more jobs!!
billvon 3,118
>I don't see a problem with that? Do you?
Not at all. Don't get me wrong; it's a good fuel. There's a reason spacecraft use it, because it packs a lot of energy in very little mass. It's just hard to make and store and takes a lot of energy to do so. Compared to oil, which just comes out of the ground, it is simply not an energy _source._ It's a good energy _carrier_ if you want to fuel a spacecraft with it. For ground vehicles, it's again not an energy source, but can be a replacement for batteries in electric vehicles if you have the extra energy to "charge" the vehicle.
Problem is right now we don't have that extra energy. It would surely be an environmental disaster to burn coal to generate power to make hydrogen to run fuel cells to provide electricity for car motors; there are so many inefficient steps there that you'd have to burn massive amounts of coal, the dirtiest fuel we have, to drive the cars. Perhaps the future will bring high temperature fission reactors capable of generating the very high temps needed to dissociate water themally; when that happens, hydrogen may become a decent way to transport that energy. I think it may be more likely that we'll make natural gas that way instead (hydrogen + atmospheric carbon dioxide = water + methane) since we already have natural gas pipelines, tankers, fueling stations and cars. But it would still be a step forward.
>Because Liquid hydrogen is so light, yes it might take more trucks to
> haul, but the tanks can be bigger, and it will take less energy to
> operate the trucks. Plus it would create more jobs!!
Well, heck, a forest fire creates more jobs. The question becomes - how much of our energy (money and time) as a nation do we want to spend trying to switch to a hydrogen infrastructure before we solve the very basic problem of having no hydrogen to begin with?
Not at all. Don't get me wrong; it's a good fuel. There's a reason spacecraft use it, because it packs a lot of energy in very little mass. It's just hard to make and store and takes a lot of energy to do so. Compared to oil, which just comes out of the ground, it is simply not an energy _source._ It's a good energy _carrier_ if you want to fuel a spacecraft with it. For ground vehicles, it's again not an energy source, but can be a replacement for batteries in electric vehicles if you have the extra energy to "charge" the vehicle.
Problem is right now we don't have that extra energy. It would surely be an environmental disaster to burn coal to generate power to make hydrogen to run fuel cells to provide electricity for car motors; there are so many inefficient steps there that you'd have to burn massive amounts of coal, the dirtiest fuel we have, to drive the cars. Perhaps the future will bring high temperature fission reactors capable of generating the very high temps needed to dissociate water themally; when that happens, hydrogen may become a decent way to transport that energy. I think it may be more likely that we'll make natural gas that way instead (hydrogen + atmospheric carbon dioxide = water + methane) since we already have natural gas pipelines, tankers, fueling stations and cars. But it would still be a step forward.
>Because Liquid hydrogen is so light, yes it might take more trucks to
> haul, but the tanks can be bigger, and it will take less energy to
> operate the trucks. Plus it would create more jobs!!
Well, heck, a forest fire creates more jobs. The question becomes - how much of our energy (money and time) as a nation do we want to spend trying to switch to a hydrogen infrastructure before we solve the very basic problem of having no hydrogen to begin with?
Zenister 0
QuoteAfter all, the earth survived a LONG time without humans; it can continue to rebuild and replinish itself.
and it will survive for a long time after, so its ok to do anything we wish since it only accelerates the time in which the planet does better off without us..
anyone who says that humans dont have a significant impact on our environment both on a local and global scale really needs to get out more...its not hard to see significant changes in some regions in as little as 10 years...that may or may not be part of a larger pattern difficult to perceive in our small timeframe, but there are certainly ways in which we make it more or less severe in its effects on our lives..
____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.
QuoteThe question becomes - how much of our energy (money and time) as a nation do we want to spend trying to switch to a hydrogen infrastructure before we solve the very basic problem of having no hydrogen to begin with?
I believe the plan is to...
1) Build a few liquid hydrogen stations... hydrogen will be extracted from natural gas.
2) Get people off the gasoline cars... while converting the consumer end of everything to liquid hydrogen.
3)After everyone is using hydrogen cars, turn the developmental $$ over to a better source for the hydrogen and converting the back end of the infrastructure.
a.)developing more efficient solar power and using sea water
b.)Using nuclear fission or fusion energy to convert sea water.
c.)Something else not thought of yet.
billvon 3,118
I like this plan better:
1) Increase the number of CNG fueling stations; we already have some of them.
2) Get people off gasoline cars, either into CNG IC engine cars (we have those now) or fuel cell cars (with a methane reformer.) We already have CNG cars, trucks and buses.
3) Once everyone is using NG cars, start manufacturing methane from water and atmospheric CO2. That way there is no net gain or loss of water or CO2 from the ecosystem.
1) Increase the number of CNG fueling stations; we already have some of them.
2) Get people off gasoline cars, either into CNG IC engine cars (we have those now) or fuel cell cars (with a methane reformer.) We already have CNG cars, trucks and buses.
3) Once everyone is using NG cars, start manufacturing methane from water and atmospheric CO2. That way there is no net gain or loss of water or CO2 from the ecosystem.
And where's the next step? Why should we stop there?
Fuel cells are most efficient with pure hydrogen. At some point we have to stop letting old technology/infrastructure drag down the new. This is an opportunity to throw out the old and build all new. Something we need to do.
If you used high efficiency solar cells with sea water for hydrolysis there would still be no net gain/loss of either elements.
If you are using CNG you are still dealing with pressurized tanks, yes not as high pressure, but still pressurized. You mind as well go all the way and make them Hydrogen.
And if ya really like methane... we can just stick hoses up all the cows asses in the country. They are very efficient in producing it. And, that would actually solve another problem with greenhouse gasses.
Fuel cells are most efficient with pure hydrogen. At some point we have to stop letting old technology/infrastructure drag down the new. This is an opportunity to throw out the old and build all new. Something we need to do.
If you used high efficiency solar cells with sea water for hydrolysis there would still be no net gain/loss of either elements.
If you are using CNG you are still dealing with pressurized tanks, yes not as high pressure, but still pressurized. You mind as well go all the way and make them Hydrogen.
And if ya really like methane... we can just stick hoses up all the cows asses in the country. They are very efficient in producing it. And, that would actually solve another problem with greenhouse gasses.
jumper03 0
Quote?? There is a reason they're called hydrocarbons. Methane, the simplest hydrocarbon, contains four hydrogens for every carbon. Right now, most hydrogen comes from oil, either through fractionation byproducts or hydrocarbon reforming (with natural gas, coke etc.)
So 4 to 1 - 4 moles of hydrogen weigh 4 grams, 1 mole of carbon weighs 12 grams that comes out to be 75% carbon by my reckoning.....
electrolysis is the better source of hydrogen.
Scars remind us that the past is real
billvon 3,118
>So 4 to 1 - 4 moles of hydrogen weigh 4 grams, 1 mole of carbon
> weighs 12 grams that comes out to be 75% carbon by my
> reckoning.....
By weight, yes, since hydrogen is so light, but not by energy. Those 4 hydrogen contain 62% of the energy you get out of combustion of the methane molecule; only 38% comes from the heavier carbon.
>electrolysis is the better source of hydrogen.
It would be if we had a lot of excess (and free) electricity.
> weighs 12 grams that comes out to be 75% carbon by my
> reckoning.....
By weight, yes, since hydrogen is so light, but not by energy. Those 4 hydrogen contain 62% of the energy you get out of combustion of the methane molecule; only 38% comes from the heavier carbon.
>electrolysis is the better source of hydrogen.
It would be if we had a lot of excess (and free) electricity.
[reply>electrolysis is the better source of hydrogen.
It would be if we had a lot of excess (and free) electricity.
It would be if we had a lot of excess (and free) electricity.
It will be when we develop solar cells that are 80-90% efficient.
Edit to add:
Oh and lets not forget about one other source of energy that scientists are starting to fart around with... Matter/Anti-matter
Maybe warp engines are right around the corner.
billvon 3,118
>Fuel cells are most efficient with pure hydrogen.
Fuel cells use pure hydrogen. CNG cars just reform the methane into hydrogen before being used in the fuel cell.
>At some point we
> have to stop letting old technology/infrastructure drag down the new.
> This is an opportunity to throw out the old and build all new.
> Something we need to do.
Why, if it gives you no benefits beyond being really cool? (which it is.)
>If you used high efficiency solar cells with sea water for hydrolysis
>there would still be no net gain/loss of either elements.
High efficiency solar cells are around 18% efficient and cost $4/watt. That means, for even a medium sized filling station, you'd need around an acre of solar panels at a cost of $17 million for the solar panels alone. Would you be willing to pay $200 to fill your tank? If not, who will? The government?
>If you are using CNG you are still dealing with pressurized tanks, yes
> not as high pressure, but still pressurized. You mind as well go all
> the way and make them Hydrogen.
Why? To hold the same amount of hydrogen, a pressurized tank has to be under approx 4 times the pressure compared to CNG. That means a more expensive and much more dangerous tank. Methane storage is safer than gaseous hydrogen storage.
And if you want to hold liquid hydrogen, you either have a massive, vacuum-insulated dewar flask to hold it (and you deal with it boiling off after a week or so) or you have an even larger refrigeration system that takes power to run - and you have to run it all the time, so in a week the fuel is also gone.
>And if ya really like methane... we can just stick hoses up all the
> cows asses in the country. They are very efficient in producing it.
> And, that would actually solve another problem with greenhouse gasses.
Yeah, but the cows wouldn't like it. A better idea might be to put their waste in a methane anaerobic digester and get methane that way. Many farms already do this. You can then compost the sludge that comes out the other end.
You can get methane from renewable sources like digesters or you can get it out of the ground. If you like making fuels (like hydrogen) it's just as easy to make methane. There is already a transport system in place. If you make it with atmospheric CO2 it's as clean as hydrogen. It's safer to use, easier to transport, and easier to compress. It's not as cool as hydrogen, but sometimes that's not the only factor.
Fuel cells use pure hydrogen. CNG cars just reform the methane into hydrogen before being used in the fuel cell.
>At some point we
> have to stop letting old technology/infrastructure drag down the new.
> This is an opportunity to throw out the old and build all new.
> Something we need to do.
Why, if it gives you no benefits beyond being really cool? (which it is.)
>If you used high efficiency solar cells with sea water for hydrolysis
>there would still be no net gain/loss of either elements.
High efficiency solar cells are around 18% efficient and cost $4/watt. That means, for even a medium sized filling station, you'd need around an acre of solar panels at a cost of $17 million for the solar panels alone. Would you be willing to pay $200 to fill your tank? If not, who will? The government?
>If you are using CNG you are still dealing with pressurized tanks, yes
> not as high pressure, but still pressurized. You mind as well go all
> the way and make them Hydrogen.
Why? To hold the same amount of hydrogen, a pressurized tank has to be under approx 4 times the pressure compared to CNG. That means a more expensive and much more dangerous tank. Methane storage is safer than gaseous hydrogen storage.
And if you want to hold liquid hydrogen, you either have a massive, vacuum-insulated dewar flask to hold it (and you deal with it boiling off after a week or so) or you have an even larger refrigeration system that takes power to run - and you have to run it all the time, so in a week the fuel is also gone.
>And if ya really like methane... we can just stick hoses up all the
> cows asses in the country. They are very efficient in producing it.
> And, that would actually solve another problem with greenhouse gasses.
Yeah, but the cows wouldn't like it. A better idea might be to put their waste in a methane anaerobic digester and get methane that way. Many farms already do this. You can then compost the sludge that comes out the other end.
You can get methane from renewable sources like digesters or you can get it out of the ground. If you like making fuels (like hydrogen) it's just as easy to make methane. There is already a transport system in place. If you make it with atmospheric CO2 it's as clean as hydrogen. It's safer to use, easier to transport, and easier to compress. It's not as cool as hydrogen, but sometimes that's not the only factor.
QuoteHigh efficiency solar cells are around 18% efficient and cost $4/watt.
Really? Wow. $4 per watt/hour? If so Man do I have some solar cells to sell you! I can buy a unconcentrated panel that will generate 1 watt as long as the sun shines on it for $35. Now, put that in a nice sunny place, average 9 hours of sun a day for 300 sunny days. So, in one year that panel will cost 1.3 cents per watt hour. I am sure it will last several years so you can divide that by a few more times... and add a few mirrors and a sun tracker and divide a few more times. WOW!
Plus, all of this energy conversion is going to take place in 15,20, or 50 years from now.
Bill, I am going to point out one fault with your arguments thus far. ESPECIALLY the solar cell one.
You cannot hold back ideas based on todays limited technology. You are obviously a brilliant person, open your mind and think ahead and out of the box.
Solar cell technology has been getting more efficient and cheaper with relatively little funding. What if we actually funded it?
BTW Boeing has created cells that test 34% efficient in a lab for use in satellites. And they say sunlight can be concentrated on a cell as much as 500 times.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/biztech/04/14/better.photovoltaics.ap/
There is currently work on the technology to build multi-layer cells that can theoretically achieve 70%
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20021020210743data_trunc_sys.shtml
And the boil off/refrigeration would be an issue only if your tank leaks. Otherwise, the pressure within the tank will keep the hydrogen condensed, at least as long as you kept your tank full. But that is no different that a gasoline filled gas tank. That evaporates if you have an almost empty tank too.
sundevil777 102
If you are in favor of higher fuel efficiency standards, fine, but don't just pick on SUV's. Many of them are more efficient than many cars. I think greenies pick on the 'evil' SUV because they don't like the fact that people like the ego boost they get from their SUV. At least be fair and pick on all vehicles with much bigger engines than needed. Including trucks, vans, and sports cars.
People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am
Anyway I don't hear anybody talking about the serious environmental problem that I believe we need to address. Those freakin ants. Imagine frapping in and landing in a pile of ants. You wait for 3 seconds to catch your breath and suddenly the stinging of the ants brings you much more pain that the fall itself. This is already a possibility. The sad fact is that the problem is only getting worse. You can't do away with these freakin things. I kill them every summer, or so I think, and then the next summer they come back, only in larger numbers.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites