what happens to our E30's if we run out of oil?

[BigD]

Let me rephrase: If all our cars were powered by hydrogen, an enormous amount of electricity would be required. Cumulatively.

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005/july13/hydrogen-071305.html

Here's an excerpt: "The cost of making hydrogen from wind is $1.12 to $3.20 per gallon of gasoline or diesel equivalent ($3 to $7.40 per kilogram of molecular hydrogen)?on par with the current price of gas"

So, yes, I agree that it's technically feasible. But it won't happen within our lifetimes.

Why do you need any diesel or gasoline? We have nuclear power, natural water force power and solar. All readily convertible to electricity, and in turn, hydrogen. I already quoted you what it would cost here using the electricity prices directly from BC Hydro, 3 CENTS per kilo of hydrogen.

[CarsSuck]

nuclear, hydroelectric, wind and solar make up a remarkably small portion of power production in the united states. Its all coal.

[MikeE30325i]

nuclear, hydroelectric, wind and solar make up a remarkably small portion of power production in the united states. Its all coal.

isnt there only around 40 more years of coal on the planet? at the rate we are taking it out of the ground

[CarsSuck]

i think its over 250 years in the united states alone. coal is good to go.

[MikeE30325i]

i think its over 250 years in the united states alone. coal is good to go.

oh shit, i never knew that. thanks

[MOTOREN]

i think its over 250 years in the united states alone. coal is good to go.

with acid precip issues of coal not to mention global warming issues, it's only a matter of time before a certain amount of legislation gets passed preventing coal use...it's not just acid rain stuff either, coal has mercury in it which likes to get into streams and of course drinking water supplies, plus you need energy to mine coal and an environment in which to do it, 250 years is optimistic thinking I'm afraid...

[Jand3rson]

MMmMMmMm....french fry exhaust FTW!!:roll:

Ok, I don't really see what's to roll your eyes about. Exhaust that won't kill you, a cheap fuel made from a nearly infinitely renewable resource, and MPG that makes all those earth-muffins in their Hybrids shed a tear for driving something so stupid looking. I would do it in a heartbeat. There are literally nearly NO downsides to biodiesel.

And then, I can still power the flux capacitor with Mr. Fusion.

[track6]

Ah, yes. The old Brown's gas scam. Do a google search, this has been covered time and time again over the past couple of decades. IT is not a viable technology and never will be. It's about as feasible as turning lead into gold.

I've read lots of articles for and against this technology. One site says it's a scam, the next says it's the greatest thing since the wheel. Are the true scammers just trying to stop development? I'm not educated enough in chemistry to argue one side or the other.

I'm not suggesting that a car can run completely on water. I'm suggesting that as a hybrid concept, it could significantly improve fuel economy. And the more people that pursue the concept, the sooner it will become commonplace.

As I said, a hybrid concept. Run the car on gas, using electricity generated to supplement a hydrogen generator to improve fuel economy. Maybe you go from 30 mpg to 50 mpg.

The only roadblock is replacing the network of gasoline stations with hydrogen and putting gas companies out of business. The only way this will happen is when oil becomes too expensive to be reasonable. BMW has been working on this for decades and in the 90's showed it's hydrogen E38 fleet. Now they're releasing a dual power car so you can run it on hydrogen if you find some but otherwise you can run it on gas. This is a clever way to ease people to switch.

Yeah, but that's the sell with "on board" generators. NO fueling stations, no dangerous tank on board, no infrastructure changes.
Just hydrogen on demand. As a supplement. As a means to motivate the auto manufacturers to get fuel efficient. The CAFE standards have been a cripple to the industry, not a help.

And as gas prices have risen lately, you've seen "engineering breakthroughs" from the car companies. Chevy is touting new "direct injection" that will improve economy by 15%. Uh, isn't that what diesels have done since the 70s? It's not an accident that suddenly Toyota has, what, 5 cars capable of 40+ mpg. Only one a hybrid?

I just don't buy it. Cars today are safer, cleaner, better built, and more dependable then they ever were before. But fuel economy is the same for decades.

[BigD]

Yeah, but that's the sell with "on board" generators. NO fueling stations, no dangerous tank on board, no infrastructure changes.
Just hydrogen on demand. As a supplement. As a means to motivate the auto manufacturers to get fuel efficient. The CAFE standards have been a cripple to the industry, not a help.

And as gas prices have risen lately, you've seen "engineering breakthroughs" from the car companies. Chevy is touting new "direct injection" that will improve economy by 15%. Uh, isn't that what diesels have done since the 70s? It's not an accident that suddenly Toyota has, what, 5 cars capable of 40+ mpg. Only one a hybrid?

I just don't buy it. Cars today are safer, cleaner, better built, and more dependable then they ever were before. But fuel economy is the same for decades.

Well that part IS a scam. You aren't going to get the facilities necessary to extract hydrogen from water into a car, let alone the energy required for the process (where is that going to come from?). Hydrogen is no more dangerous to transport than gasoline or propane. If a propane taxi tank explodes it will take out a city block. Hasn't happened yet, and won't. You drive around on a big ass bomb yourself. You've just never thought about the danger, everyone does it so it feels safe. But all it takes is for you to hit something, puncture a fuel line or the tank itself and if the tank isn't full, you're going to blow sky high. Now that HAS happened and will continue to.

[Eliminator]

Why do you need any diesel or gasoline? We have nuclear power, natural water force power and solar. All readily convertible to electricity, and in turn, hydrogen. I already quoted you what it would cost here using the electricity prices directly from BC Hydro, 3 CENTS per kilo of hydrogen.

You don't. That means that it costs 1.12 to 3.20 to product an amount of hydrogen with an energy value equivalent to a gallon of gasoline. This study was done by Stanford Univerisity, check it out.

Well that part IS a scam. You aren't going to get the facilities necessary to extract hydrogen from water into a car, let alone the energy required for the process (where is that going to come from?).

Correct. Also, you can't get any more energy out of it than you put into it. If you put "x" amount of energy into making hydrogen, you'll get (at most) "x" back when you burn it. Of course you could use waste energy from braking to generate electricity to make hydrogen. But why bother? Why not just store electricity in a battery? Much simpler and cheaper.

You drive around on a big ass bomb yourself. You've just never thought about the danger, everyone does it so it feels safe. But all it takes is for you to hit something, puncture a fuel line or the tank itself and if the tank isn't full, you're going to blow sky high. Now that HAS happened and will continue to.

Gasoline EXPLOSIONS are rare to non-existant. Liquid gasoline from a leak will burn, but not explode. To have an explosion, gasoline needs to be vaporized at a precise ratio with oxygen. Odds of that happening on a large enough scale to cause an explosion are virtually zero.

[Eliminator]

I've read lots of articles for and against this technology. One site says it's a scam, the next says it's the greatest thing since the wheel. Are the true scammers just trying to stop development? I'm not educated enough in chemistry to argue one side or the other.

Look into it some more. Pretty much all the people who say it's not feasible are chemists or some other type of scientst or engineer. People who claim it's the best thing ever are probably trying to sell you something.

[Funkmasta]

But all it takes is for you to hit something, puncture a fuel line or the tank itself and if the tank isn't full, you're going to blow sky high. Now that HAS happened and will continue to.

With propane it would be more of a flash than an explosion. Remember, for an explosion there has to be some sort of pressured chamber. Otherwise the flame and heat will just expand into the atmosphere.
Even if a propane tank WAS punctured, the flame is outside, not inside the tank, and there would be waaaay too much escaping fuel for the fire to get inside the tank.
Relate this to your natural gas stove at home.

---------------------------------------------------
Another interesting point about the past and fuel economy... The cars of today are acheiving the same economy, yes. Except that it is now a midsize sedan capable of 40mpg, not a honda 1300cc cVcc.

[BigD]

You don't. That means that it costs 1.12 to 3.20 to product an amount of hydrogen with an energy value equivalent to a gallon of gasoline. This study was done by Stanford Univerisity, check it out.

You said using the fuels. I just told you how much it costs using the electricity our powerplants already generate.

Correct. Also, you can't get any more energy out of it than you put into it. If you put "x" amount of energy into making hydrogen, you'll get (at most) "x" back when you burn it. Of course you could use waste energy from braking to generate electricity to make hydrogen. But why bother? Why not just store electricity in a battery? Much simpler and cheaper.

I think I see your source of confusion. You think that hydrogen proponents are trying to invent some sort of perpetual motion machine. They're not. It's all about orders of efficiency. We do not have the technology to store the energy density in batteries that we can in fuels like gasoline and better yet, hydrogen. If we could make a battery the size of a gastank that could provide say, 150 kW [about 200hp] for 400 miles, we'd use them! But we can't. The best we can do are car sized batteries that power a dinky motor for a few hundred miles.

The only problem with hydrogen is that it is not readily available in raw form. But guess what? Neither is gasoline!!! Do you think it comes from a gasoline tree somewhere? Do you have any idea how much energy it takes to find, pump and refine oil into gas? The only reason it's so cheap for us is mass production. If we were to setup water refineries with the same kind of investment effort, it would cost them, as I already said twice, 3 cents per kilo to produce (from water, not from wind). And since the raw material is the main product of combustion, we'll never have a raw material shortage.

Gasoline EXPLOSIONS are rare to non-existant. Liquid gasoline from a leak will burn, but not explode. To have an explosion, gasoline needs to be vaporized at a precise ratio with oxygen. Odds of that happening on a large enough scale to cause an explosion are virtually zero.

That's why I said non-full tanks. Those explode very nicely and I saw it happen once in Russia. No need for a precise ratio, just need enough. I think there's enough in the atmosphere.

With propane it would be more of a flash than an explosion. Remember, for an explosion there has to be some sort of pressured chamber. Otherwise the flame and heat will just expand into the atmosphere.
Even if a propane tank WAS punctured, the flame is outside, not inside the tank, and there would be waaaay too much escaping fuel for the fire to get inside the tank.
Relate this to your natural gas stove at home.

For an explosion all you need is a combustion that occurs faster than the speed of sound. Pressure is just a substitute for heat (compress something hard enough and it will burn). You also need a fuel that is volatile enough to cause that, and to have enough oxidizer available for it to consume. Gasoline is not one of them. Gasoline vapor is. Propane and hydrogen are too. I've seen the aftermath of a propane explosion as a kid. I was in an oldschool cast iron bathtub on stilts, it shifted half a foot when a woman's propane filled kitchen blew in a neighboring building, evicting the entire apartment in a fraction of a second.

No a punctured propane tank won't explode. But the trunk and interior, after it fills with propane, will, after the cabbie steps on the brakes and turns on the bulbs.

[Rennsport]

new sig, from page two

[Eliminator]

You said using the fuels. I just told you how much it costs using the electricity our powerplants already generate.

No, this is what I said in post #24: "It either needs to be extracted from fossil fuels or from water by electrolosis"

I think I see your source of confusion. You think that hydrogen proponents are trying to invent some sort of perpetual motion machine.

No, I'm not confused. The "Brown's gas" people are essentially claiming perpetual motion. Legitimate hydrogen is different altogether.

The only problem with hydrogen is that it is not readily available in raw form. But guess what? Neither is gasoline!!! Do you think it comes from a gasoline tree somewhere? Do you have any idea how much energy it takes to find, pump and refine oil into gas? The only reason it's so cheap for us is mass production. If we were to setup water refineries with the same kind of investment effort, it would cost them, as I already said twice, 3 cents per kilo to produce (from water, not from wind). And since the raw material is the main product of combustion, we'll never have a raw material shortage.

Can you have an educated discussion without being a smart ass? Electricity generated by wind will go into the same grid as all the other electricity and will cost the same as all electricity on the grid.

your claim of .03 per kilo must be for just the electricity, and not overhead costs (equipment, land, labor, etc..)

http://nrelpubs.nrel.gov/Webtop/ws/n...FDescend%27%29

Check out document #4:

Levene, J. I.; Mann, M. K.; Margolis, R.; Milbrandt, A. (2005). Analysis of Hydrogen Production from Renewable Electricity Sources: Preprint. 9 pp.; NREL Report No. CP-560-37612.

Check out page 4 of the report (page 6 of the pdf). These are projected production costs. Guess what? At current electricity prices we're looking at $3-4 per kilo, same number that the people at STANFORD UNIVERSITY came up with.

That's why I said non-full tanks. Those explode very nicely and I saw it happen once in Russia. No need for a precise ratio, just need enough. I think there's enough in the atmosphere.

Sorry, never seen it happen or even heard of it, at least not in this country.