Hydrogen Power

[TillEulenspiegel]

"So internal combustion engines run on water, with a little carbon added then? After all it is sunlight that combined the existing raw materials and then geophysical processes that turned 'em into oil."
Well that's a stupid thing to say, not ignorant as You seem capable of forming an argument and have a relative command of the subject matter. so You should know better. The petrochemicals that run I.C engines are hardly " water, with a little carbon added". The scales were discussing are in my example on the order of micro seconds , where the processes' You try to hammer Me with are in Eons, so either you do not understand the case in point or You are rather more interested in gainsaying then establishing Your own counter argument. The fact is You have not even addressed the main thrust of my point, which incidently is independently researchable without the " National Inquirer Effect" . The technology exists wether I can speel or not ( satire for all you sourpuss's) and BTW if your looking for an argument about paragraph construction goto WWW.Analenglishmajors.com


"And its not "engaging in polemics", rather its "bandying semantics".
No I meant exactly what I said. Shall I include a definition.. well guess I must. Polemics" an aggressive attack on or refutation of the opinions or principles of another "

Semantics: the study of meanings: a : the historical and psychological study and the classification of changes in the signification of words or forms viewed as factors in linguistic development .

Merriam - Webster...Argue with them.

You, Sir are not a good skeptic. The driving tennent of a skeptic is to find the truth not to superimpose an exclusionary philosophy, rather to hold a distance between themselves and the information being presented and apply controls. If Einstein made errors of language would that make the theory (s) He put forth any less valid?

 

[arcticpenguin]

Substantive issues aside for jsut a second, your posts would be eaiser to read if you could demarcate your responses from quotes of other's posts somehow. You could try the "quote" button at the bottom right of each post. If you prefer to quote single lines at a time, you can insert the quote functionality by typing left-square-bracket quote right-square-bracket, and ending with lsb /quote rsb.

Thanks.

 

[arcticpenguin]

You, Sir are not a good skeptic. The driving tennent of a skeptic is to find the truth not to superimpose an exclusionary philosophy, rather to hold a distance between themselves and the information being presented and apply controls. If Einstein made errors of language would that make the theory (s) He put forth any less valid?

I don't see the relevance if this paragraph. You have not established that you yourself have come within spitting distance of the truth. The technology you tout, vehicles that run on fuel cells that are fueled by solar power, is ludicrous for reasons detailed in several of the preceding posts. If you wouldn't mind, maybe you could either a) try a futile defense of your ridiculous position or b) abandon your ground and apologize.

 

[RichardR]

Now your just engaging in polemics. The base components needed for the system to function is water ( not O2 and H ) and electricity. The water ( pure water yes ) supplies the constituent elements that are separated to O and H, solar cells supply partial E ( to both the cell and the charging system )and the storage batteries provided storage and current on demand.. Occasional charging by house current ( courtesy of the local power barons) is a given but is nominal ..now..with the technology at its infant stage. The main thrust here being one of efficiencies not of brute force
"Then the fuel cell doesn't "run on water," like you stated. It runs on hydrogen, created by sunlight"

No it runs on water which broken down by electrolysis. Also the sun does not create hydrogen it generates electricity which allows the electrolytic process to function . An internal function of the cell as I described. I did not try to assemble a car in my post , rather point out that in the quest for renewable, efficient, portable energy source there exists a technology , the in its embryonic stage offers all these and seems to offer greater promise.

So a solar cell produces electricity which splits water into hydrogen and oxygen, the hydrogen powers the fuel cell which combines the hydrogen back with the oxygen to make water and powers the car.

Did I get that right?

Why not have the solar cell powering the car directly? (Cut out the electrolysis / fuel cell middle men.)

 

[arcticpenguin]

TE,

Here's some con artists who would love to meet you: http://www.genesisworldenergy.org/genesis_world_energy.htm

"harnessing an unlimited source of energy from the molecular structure of water"

 

[rwguinn]

So a solar cell produces electricity which splits water into hydrogen and oxygen, the hydrogen powers the fuel cell which combines the hydrogen back with the oxygen to make water and powers the car.

Did I get that right?

Why not have the solar cell powering the car directly? (Cut out the electrolysis / fuel cell middle men.)

Sounds like the guy on one of the engineering USNET groups. his point was that Hydrogen is nasty stuff, but if we combine it with a little carbon, it is easier to handle-just add a little heat and poof! you got hydrogen again....
Seems like we call that stuff "methane", and it burns quite nicely, too...

RW

 

[Agammamon]

[B. . .The scales were discussing are in my example on the order of micro seconds , where the processes' You try to hammer Me with are in Eons, . . .[/url]


"And its not "engaging in polemics", rather its "bandying semantics".
No I meant exactly what I said. Shall I include a definition.. well guess I must. Polemics" an aggressive attack on or refutation of the opinions or principles of another "

Semantics: the study of meanings: a : the historical and psychological study and the classification of changes in the signification of words or forms viewed as factors in linguistic development . . . [/B]

You did not aggressively attack and refute the point I made. You are disputing a definition - do fuel cells run on water or not. Your claim that the ultimate fuel for F/C is water because the process of cracking and recombining H2 and O2 can be done quickly but that ICE run on petrochems because the processes that create it are measured in millenia is a matter of semantics. You and I are merely disagreeing on how, exactly, to define fuel.

 

[Leif Roar]

The technology you tout, vehicles that run on fuel cells that are fueled by solar power, is ludicrous for reasons detailed in several of the preceding posts.

Actually, the technology isn't ludicrous. It has it uses in the same way that using a diesel engine to drive a generator which recharges a battery which in turn runs an electric engine has its uses.

The trouble here is his use of the term "runs on." We generally use that term to denote the main fuel or power source used for a machine. We say that a car with a ordinary combustion engine "runs on" gasoline - not that it "runs on" air - despite air being just as necessary for the combustion as the gasoline is. In the same manner, a steam engine "runs on" coal, not steam; and a CD player "runs on" batteries or electricity, not nickel/metal-hybrides.

 

[toddjh]

Actually, the technology isn't ludicrous. It has it uses in the same way that using a diesel engine to drive a generator which recharges a battery which in turn runs an electric engine has its uses.

The concept isn't ludicrous, but it is completely impractical in the foreseeable future. Photovoltaic cells would have to be an order of magnitude more efficient (at least) in order to provide hydrogen for a fuel cell, and even then, I still can't see why that setup would be superior to a simple solar-fed electric engine, which would save tons of weight.

Jeremy

 

[jj]

No it runs on water which broken down by electrolysis. Also the sun does not create hydrogen it generates electricity which allows the electrolytic process to function . An internal function of the cell as I described. I did not try to assemble a car in my post , rather point out that in the quest for renewable, efficient, portable energy source there exists a technology , the in its embryonic stage offers all these and seems to offer greater promise.

The cell runs on H2 and O2, which are cracked from water via electrolysis. The electricity was provided by solar means.

All this is, then, is using a fuel cell as a battery. Seems somewhat inefficient, and your argument that it runs on water is misleading, if not seriously confused as well. Please note I'm responding to the claim, not suggesting intent.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

arcticpenguin:
"Substantive issues aside for jsut a second, your posts would be eaiser to read if you could demarcate your responses from quotes of other's posts somehow."
Sorry . I did use quotation marks with relevant statements, The boards I belong to are substantially less populated and the authors are easily recognized, so I will strive in the future to make the arguments more attributable to thier author.
I am not sure how to engage in simultaneous debate using quotes from various parties so please excuse my ignorance of the BBS functions.

arcticpenguin: "I don't see the relevance if this paragraph. You have not established that you yourself have come within spitting distance of the truth."
The position that I have put forth and the sources that are the publicly available resources are both easily reserchable and verifiable. I said explicitly that I was not proposing the building a car. However You say:
arcticpenguin: " The technology you tout, vehicles that run on fuel cells that are fueled by solar power, is ludicrous for reasons detailed in several of the preceding posts. If you wouldn't mind, maybe you could either a) try a futile defense of your ridiculous position or b) abandon your ground and apologize."
So it seems that not only do You not possess a passing knowledge of what I have posted , but You have also accepted the arguments of other posters, with no proof but speech ( and as a skeptic, You must know how to disprove an argument and offer counter-proof...you do neither.)

RichardR: "Why not have the solar cell powering the car directly? (Cut out the electrolysis / fuel cell middle men.)"

Richard , because the amount of output of a photo cell is low-medium voltage and low current. Thier ideal function is for recharging ( next time you drive down a highway look at the traffic signs see those blue panels? Photovoltaics =)

Agammamon:
"You did not aggressively attack and refute the point I made. You are disputing a definition - do fuel cells run on water or not. Your claim that the ultimate fuel for F/C is water because the process of cracking and recombining H2 and O2 can be done quickly but that ICE run on petrochems .."

You are correct sir as I did not engage in argument for arguments sake, but others did.

NO , sir I am not disputing a definition, the objects in question operate in the manner I have described, the two definitions are a compleat clusterfudge and the only reason I brought them in to the discussion is to demonstrate the relative efficiencies of the two systems. As far as this technology being " the ultimate" you have filled in spaces I did not provide.

And now the challenge from Till:

All of the detractors of my posts in Re The URFC.. Which has after all the blessings of not only the DOE luddites but countless university and private corporations. Prove me wrong, post a study, paper , experiment that is opposed to the myriad of publications available everywhere, make a case, prove me a fool .......or shut up.

I am disappointed I thought that This forum offered an exchange of ideas founded in reality... what I find is a group that owes no allegiance to any god except the one of disbelief. I am sadly disappointed

P.S. To JJ
Eficenties are all this discussion is about. Look at ( if you don't already know) the loss of power in relation to say.. pullies, or I.C.'s how much loss? 50-70 % ? that's at the first stage of a mechanical device , and it goes down from there, power transmission? application? translation? I am reminded of the general discussion of the "experts" who stated that amorphous solar cells were fiction, some poor schmo proved them all wrong, The newest concept is a " PAINTABLE" photo voltaic surface. Imagine that your 2006 buick has a paint job that is a power generator..Ya That'l work =)

 

[Leif Roar]

The concept isn't ludicrous, but it is completely impractical in the foreseeable future. Photovoltaic cells would have to be an order of magnitude more efficient (at least) in order to provide hydrogen for a fuel cell, and even then, I still can't see why that setup would be superior to a simple solar-fed electric engine, which would save tons of weight.

Jeremy

As far as I understand it, solar panels are very rarely used to provide direct power to engines or appliances. Normally they're used as a way to recharge batteries, which are then tapped for power. I wouldn't be surprised if, for some sizes and power demands, regenerative hydrogen fuel cells might actually turn out to be lighter than a corresponding solution using regular batteries.

 

[Leif Roar]

The newest concept is a " PAINTABLE" photo voltaic surface. Imagine that your 2006 buick has a paint job that is a power generator..Ya That'l work =) [/B]

Or not. The maximum power you can generate by sun-light is 1.8 horsepower per square meter (and in real use you'd average a lot less because of cloud-cover, time of day and year and lattitude) - if you want to generate more power by sunlight, you'll have to somehow increase the energy output of the sun.

A car would need many square meters of surface of photo-electric surface to generate enough power to be equal to even a small gasoline powered engine.

 

[RichardR]

RichardR: "Why not have the solar cell powering the car directly? (Cut out the electrolysis / fuel cell middle men.)"

Richard , because the amount of output of a photo cell is low-medium voltage and low current. Thier ideal function is for recharging ( next time you drive down a highway look at the traffic signs see those blue panels? Photovoltaics =)

Why not have the solar cell charge a battery?

 

[toddjh]

As far as I understand it, solar panels are very rarely used to provide direct power to engines or appliances. Normally they're used as a way to recharge batteries, which are then tapped for power. I wouldn't be surprised if, for some sizes and power demands, regenerative hydrogen fuel cells might actually turn out to be lighter than a corresponding solution using regular batteries.

I don't know. Like you said, solar panels are very rarely used to provide direct power. I bet a regenerative fuel cell would still need at least a modest battery.

And like you pointed out in another post, there's only so much energy you can get from solar. The only case where I could imagine a regenerative fuel cell ever being practical is for the niche market currently filled by electric cars: tiny commuter vehicles where you drive them for 10 miles and then let them sit in the sun all day, and hope that cloud cover doesn't make you get stuck at the office. Even then, a simple electric car you just plug into an outlet in your garage at night seems like a more reliable system with fewer moving parts and fewer things that could break down.

Jeremy

 

[Leif Roar]

I don't know. Like you said, solar panels are very rarely used to provide direct power. I bet a regenerative fuel cell would still need at least a modest battery.

The fuel cell would be the battery - i.e. one would use the electricity generated by the solar panel to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, and whenever you needed power, you would "tap" the fuel cell, generating water again.

For this use, we're really just talking about an alternative battery technology - which for some weight/power/price combinations might be a better option than regular batteries.

And like you pointed out in another post, there's only so much energy you can get from solar. The only case where I could imagine a regenerative fuel cell ever being practical is for the niche market currently filled by electric cars: tiny commuter vehicles where you drive them for 10 miles and then let them sit in the sun all day, and hope that cloud cover doesn't make you get stuck at the office. Even then, a simple electric car you just plug into an outlet in your garage at night seems like a more reliable system with fewer moving parts and fewer things that could break down.

Yes, and I don't think that solar panels combined with rechargeable fuel cells are a solution for this use. The technology has its uses, but this is not one of them.

 

[toddjh]

The fuel cell would be the battery - i.e. one would use the electricity generated by the solar panel to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, and whenever you needed power, you would "tap" the fuel cell, generating water again.

Yes, of course, but electrolysis has voltage/current requirements, doesn't it? Or at least I bet it's more efficient at higher current. The output from PV cells is extremely variable. Better to charge a battery and get a more controlled output for the electrolysis.

For this use, we're really just talking about an alternative battery technology - which for some weight/power/price combinations might be a better option than regular batteries.

Yes, and I don't think that solar panels combined with rechargeable fuel cells are a solution for this use. The technology has its uses, but this is not one of them.

I'm curious what you have in mind. Can you give me an example of a setup where you think a regenerative fuel cell would be preferable to either a regular fuel cell, an internal combustion engine, or a solar-fed battery system?

Jeremy

 

[arcticpenguin]

And now the challenge from Till:

All of the detractors of my posts in Re The URFC.. Which has after all the blessings of not only the DOE luddites but countless university and private corporations. Prove me wrong, post a study, paper , experiment that is opposed to the myriad of publications available everywhere, make a case, prove me a fool .......or shut up.

I am disappointed I thought that This forum offered an exchange of ideas founded in reality... what I find is a group that owes no allegiance to any god except the one of disbelief. I am sadly disappointed

Meet your own challenge. All you have done so far is offer incorrect or misleading descriptions of the technology, leading us to believe that you do not grasp the important concepts. You did post a link to a generic search for "fuel cells" at firtgov.gov, but you did not pick out any specific links that support the particular technology you are promoting. Are we supposed to do your work for you?

In other words, you have provided no evidence yourself and are demanding much more from us than from yourself. You begin to remind me of someone. Someone I don't like.

 

[jj]

P.S. To JJ
Eficenties are all this discussion is about. Look at ( if you don't already know) the loss of power in relation to say.. pullies, or I.C.'s how much loss? 50-70 % ? that's at the first stage of a mechanical device , and it goes down from there, power transmission? application? translation? I am reminded of the general discussion of the "experts" who stated that amorphous solar cells were fiction, some poor schmo proved them all wrong, The newest concept is a " PAINTABLE" photo voltaic surface. Imagine that your 2006 buick has a paint job that is a power generator..Ya That'l work =)

Not my buick. I won't own one.

But let's ask you a question. What's the power/sq. meter/day that lands on your car in, say, summer in the Arizona desert?

How far can you go on that amount of power.

What kind of "pully" are you using? Last I saw such things were much more efficient.

You're just using a fuel cell and cracked H2 and O2 from water as a fancy battery. Why not just store the power in a battery right from your solar cells? How much battery would it take to store the entire output from, say 10 sq. meters of solar cell for a day? How far could you go on that amount of power. How fast? How many people?

Any use to crack H2O is only going to CUT DOWN the distance by lowering the efficiency. Just use batteries. I tried to lead you there.

Sheesh!

 

[jj]

HIJACK

Look, folks, what about the original thread, and don't forget that one way to put down a good idea is to have some fanatical-appearing type come in and promote the good idea in a really dumb way.

So, back to the original, what's wrong with using Nuclear power to crack H2O? Well?

It seems to me that a variety of people are now trying to rain on the idea of H2 without really thinking about it.