152 comments on Biomass Ethanol + Plug-in Hybrids = 95% less emissions?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
User login
Personnel
Classic posts
Archives
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
PONYC Archives
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Gervasio's solution was to use the alkaline compound borohydride. A 30% solution of borohydride in water actually contains one-third more hydrogen than the same volume of liquid hydrogen.
"The difference is that the borohydride is at room temperature, and it's stable, non-toxic and cost-effective," Gervasio says.
Notice how this means that we can now effectively store hydrogen at room temperatures AND it's not only SAFE, but it stores far more hydrogen then when hydrogen itself is compressed into a liquid, a process that I'm sure you know as VERY energy intensive. Ironically enough, this idea was originally meant for gasoline.
Now my own thoughts on the matter: I still say skip the middle man so to speak. Making hydrogen via electrolysis and then using said hydrogen to power a vehicle still leaves a lot of room for waste. A smarter way to go about this is simply improving on battery recharge and storage technology and making sure they are not only cost effective but last long enough for the average driver.
That being said, I could very easily see this being widely adopted by both oil companies and gas stations en mass, as it allows existing infrastructure to be used, and doesn't put 17,600 gas stations out of business. That is, unless they chose to provide 'power up' stations for all electric super fast recharging cars :P
Your thoughts?
No combo of "alternative" energy will be able to displace hydrocarbon depletion--as hydrocarbon reserves were created over geological time.
Perhaps you believe that the earth was created 6000 years ago... maybe that is why the concept of a "hydrogen economy" has such great appeal to you?
See hundreds of millions of years of stocket up solar energy in the form of hydrocarbons is not the same thing as paltry energy per sq meter absorption on the best solar panels (which, as stated before, cost thousands of orders of magnitude too great for average "consumers"). Not to mention the net gain in solar energy in the form of chemical energy when growing "biofuels" (please understand the basic statistics of energy consumption and efficiency patterns before going off on an ignorant pollyanish idea that biofuels can solve our energy perdictament) is wholly unrealistic.
Hydrogen is not a SOURCE of energy--anyone who believes such a thing is absolutely ignorant on the science. Hydrogen needs to be ripped away from H2O. That takes energy. It's called electrolysis, look up it in your new science there. See you need electricity to make hydrogen--and where does electricity come from? 50% coal, 20% natural gas, 20% nuclear, some hydro, then less than 1% is solar and wind added together. Now, you want to add more to the burden of this system, the grid?!
Lets now power hundreds of millions of automobiles with electricity in addition to burning the billions upon billions of tons of coal a year we already incinerate?
Hrm, forgive me if I remain skeptical of your dream fantasy "alternative replacements" for a depleted, finite, geologically old, hydrocarbon endowment. Energy doesn't come from nowhere.
You DO realize that I said that we shouldnt concentrate on the 'hydrogen' economy even with interesting new technology that I've linked. And you are a fool if you believe that I said we should concentrate solely on solar for our alternatives. I'm advocating a basket of renewable and some non-renewable energy systems. Let me go down the list for you again:
Solar, Wind, Tidal, Hydro, Geothermal, Nuclear and Biofuels CAN offset our 'fossil fuel' consumption and allow us to enjoy a future world based on sustainable, low polluting energy. Individually, none of the above listed alternatives can hope to replace Fossil Fuels, but together, they just 'might' be able to get the job done.
As for your hydrogen rant, you only repeated what I ALREADY SAID. It takes energy to produce hydrogen from water, and it seems moronic to then 'burn' that hydrogen in any kind of combustion engine. It makes slightly more sense, albeit still a bad idea, to take said hydrogen, store it in a stable compound and use it in a fuel cell which has 2.5x the efficiency of a regular ICE. I know that hydrogen is a energy carrier, not an energy producer. Thats why I think the future is in EVs and perhapse some unique hybrid-biofuel vehicles.
HYDROGEN IS AN ENERGY CARRIER!!!
I know this, so stop trying to make an issue out of this :P
If that is the case then I would like to direct you to this article If it works as its stated too, the 'hydrogen' economy might actually work.
Then you say:
The last problem being that it takes way to much energy to create hydrogen, and ergo it shouldnt even been explored as a widescale alternative.
Can you please make up your mind?
The hydrogen economy will never work. The problem isn't the fuel cells it's simple laws of physics that prevent us from making hydrogen cheaply.
http://www.efcf.com/reports/E13.pdf