Electric & Hydrogen ,hybrids too inefficient. Use hydrogen for hydocracking feedstock?
A lot of Energy is lost, with each conversion. I mean that the more steps you take, then the more energy will be needed to drive the conversion process? Also producing more CO2. This link has (plausible, alarming)FIGURES for waste at each step. His idea: producing fuel oil by reacting hydrogen with coal (hydrocracking) would be much less wasteful, than liquifying the hydrogen, and using it as a fuel. Or converting it to electricity , and charging electric cars with it.
http://www.recoverybydiscovery.com/hydrogen.htm
Compressed air might be more practical than batteries, since the volume increases faster than the weght. The article doesn't discuss the energy lost compressing air, I think it'd be at least as much as charging a battery. but the tank wouldn't cost as much ,wear out as fast, be so affected by cold, and not a toxic mess.
The article discusses using waste heat from an electricity – generating power plant, to increase hydrogen electrolisis efficiency to 50%. also, the waste heat would be a big saving on the "hydrocracking" process.
The alternative to finding a practical method of powering our civilisation is to wait for most people to die, and then there will be enough land for the remainder to become subsistence farmers. It seems obvious to me that hydrogen and batteries will never be practical. the article explains it well.
i agree about drilling ANWR, and using nuclear power. Imagine the oil that the navy has saved, with nuclear powered ships. Those nuclear aircraft carriers only need to refueled once in their lifetime. I disagree about the CO2 hazards, and think it'd be a real shame to let AGW, or the fantasy of hydrogen fuel distract us.
Related posts:
- Electric Cars: Why They are the Best Alternatives Electric cars, as the name indicates, are vehicles that...
- Use an Electric Car Kit An electric car kit is a kit that either...
- Electric Vehicles Have Batteries, How Do You Know if They Using a sealed lead acid battery quick capacity test...
- Electric Cars and Rising Gasoline Prices Rising gasoline prices may just make other forms of...
- The Electric Car Crapshoot Al Gore, Rick Wagoner, Tom Friedman, our President Elect, Barack...
Tagged with: agw • batteries • charging a battery • civilisation • coal • Electric Cars • electricity • fuel oil • generating power • hydrocracking • hydrogen fuel • nuclear aircraft carriers • nuclear power • power plant • quot • remainder • shame • subsistence farmers • toxic mess • waste heat
Filed under: Electric Car Conversion
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
The key point of the various people that have studied the hydrogen economy is this:
Unless we use methanehydrates, hydrogen is a power container, not a power source. When used as a power container, there is a massive amount of energy wasted in making it, a massive amount of energy wasted in transporting it, and a massive amount of energy wasted in using it. The end result is that producing hydrogen from water will be the least efficient use of any energy source compared to what we could have done with it. This includes producing hydrogen for hydrocracking.
It will always be more efficient to use the electricity to run our houses, charge our cars, or plant biofuels than to make hydrogen to then do those things. It will always be more efficient to dump the coal into a furnace and use the electricity directly, than to produce hydrogen to hydrocrack the coal or heavy oils into methane and use the methane.
However, if we find some efficient means to produce hydrogen (i.e. ultimately without electricity), it will be most efficient to use it to hydrocrack heavy oils, coal, or charcoal to produce something like compressed natural gas or liquid propane, and then use it in our cars or kitchens.
you're still using coal and producing CO2, which you don't want to do.
the link is to some degree bush bashing, which i should confess i've engaged in. no, it's not in the cards. just like large scale ethanol isn't in the cards. but ethanol uses just as much oil to produce as it saves, so you give a bonus to farmers, and don't reduce the need for oil either. everybody wins. well, except you, that is.
i think fusion is still too far off. containing a 10,000,000 (or is it 100,000,000) degree reaction just ain't all that easy.
i think we've not yet figured out what we're going to be doing. i'd suspect that what ever it is, it will use out current gasoline infrastructure. i'd guess that we'll be using atomic energy to produce something that we can pour into gas tanks to power cars. but that's just my guess.
okay, "For the cores of main-sequence stars, the relevant temperatures are between 10 and 30 million degrees."
if you say so…at this point we [regular citizens] have little control over anything much less what fuel we will use in the future….all i want is that there IS fuel…i say drill ANWAR and every where else in the USA,,,build some nukes, some solar,some wind farms,some clean coal ,,and oil shale/tar sands,,,i know all the talk of all the oil we get from [fill in blank] will only give us…[fill in blank] months.years of power…so? any power helps,,,and the excuse "it will take 10 yrs to get oil from{fill in blank] all the more reason to start today
how about compressed air
Possible, but I prefer nuclear power and electric cars.
By using electric cars for commuting, we could reduce co2 emissions by over 65%.
The ONLY way ethanol requires as much oil to make as normal fuelling methods is with CORN ethanol. Sugar cane and sugar beet are far more efficient, as are ALL forms of cellulose generated ethanol. And all that needs to get started is a few crushed termites!