"Vast cost in power to produce fuel"
Unlike petrol which uses no power to produce!
|
Hmmm,
I cannot help but think that surley it should be possible to synthaise a liquid fuel, then we could use our existing filling stations with minor modifications.
i know they do do a Gas To Liquid =GTL diesel, which is uberclean when consumed.
And theres another one, RME/DME akin to Biodiesel, but better(apparently)
And whatever happened the German & indeed South African research into making liquid fuel out of coal?
I suspect the Germans are anticipating that fuel cell will "win out" hence the hydrogen infrastructure being developed & In the meantime it will run in modified petrol engines.
Cheers
M
Edited by dieseldogg on 25/11/2009 at 14:37
|
I think the Germans produced petrol from coal during WW2 and didn't South Africa do something along those lines during trade embargos in the 50s/60s? History isn't my strong suit BTW!
Edited by Armitage Shanks {p} on 25/11/2009 at 15:37
|
|
|
And whatever happened the German & indeed South African research into making liquid fuel out of coal?
The problem is that it's still a use fo fossil fuel, which from the CO2 emissions point of view is bad (leaving aside right now discussions of whether this is a valid worry, as this is the major reason for developing alternatives such as the hydrogen fuel cell), and it uses far more energy to create the hydrogen fuel than is usefully generated from it.
If there was oodles of "free" non-CO2 producing power generation available, hydrogen fuel cells might be practicable - but there isn't, so they aren't. It's a dead duck. I don't know why Honda are expending resource on this project, unless there are spin-offs.
I suspect the Germans are anticipating that fuel cell will "win out" hence the hydrogen infrastructure being developed & In the meantime it will run in modified petrol engines.
Yes, but think about the power requirements to produce the fuel. It's counter-productive.
|
I have given up attempting to explain to "greenies" et al that "emissions free" hydrogen AINT.
i.e. That Hydrogen requires energy to produce
Me, I reckon nuclear fission is the only hope for our long term energy requirments.
then we CAN synthasise liquid fuels to our hearts content.
Otherwise we may stick with fusion, for all its faults.
Anyway after the Chernoble experience, perhaps low level radiation is not the killer it was thought to be?
Cheers
M
|
|
Have you got fission and fusion the wrong way round?
|
fission and fusion the wrong way round?
Yes he has. Easily done.
Chernobyl is still shunned as a place to live too. It's true that everyone who gets a big dose of radiation doesn't turn green and grow a second head immediately. But there's a statistical clustering of certain cancers in affected areas. Radioactive heavy metal particles are no joke. It doesn't take much to cause cell damage.
However, there shouldn't be too many Chernobyls if people take care, and after hydrocarbons - when that era comes - nuclear will seem tempting indeed. There's no immediate prospect of commercial fusion energy as far as I know. So fission will be the way, probably. There isn't all that much mineable uranium, which could cause difficulty. As for the health effects, it's a question of accepting a statistical loss against a material gain. A subject for endless heated and sterile political debate.
|
|
|
|
At the risk of appearing pedantic, nuclear fission (splitting atoms) is what we can practicably do today and takes place in civilian reactors and bombs whereas nuclear fusion (as happens in the Sun) we find difficult to contain / sustain in a practical implementation.
The 'waste' products from nuclear fission tend to be highly radioactive (for a few thousand years) whereas fusion results in a stable isotope so is much cleaner albeit releasing much lower amounts of energy in the process.
The long term problem with fission is what to do with the radioactive waste for a thousand years or so, it was previously kept as a liquid in the hope that this would facilitate further processing to render it safe but containment of liquids is difficult as they have a tendency to leak, not sure what they do now or will do when we inevitably revert to this power source in the next 10 years.
|
What "vast cost"?
www.honestjohn.co.uk/road_tests/index.htm?id=411
HJ
|
It may well be on life support, but it isn't dead - that's just a blinkered short-term view of the current situation. True, at the moment, hydrogen is produced using electricity generated from fossil fuels, but who knows what will happen in the next five or ten years in terms of electricity generation from renewable sources.
Besides, when oil begins to run short, what are people going to run their cars on then? I can't see battery-powered electric cars being viable as they don't fit into our current idea of what a car is and how it's used - you drive, fill up (which takes minutes for a fuel cell), drive some more. How will people react if they have to leave their car plugged in for hours to recharge (not to mention the origin of the electricity used to charge them).
Whatever happens, some way has to be found to generate electricity - what is done with that electricity - hydrogen generation or recharging batteries - will be determined by what the public at large is prepared to accept.
|
Yes, Dang it, a pure Typo, seeing as I am married to an AstroPhysist there is NO room for getting that one wrong.
cheers
M
&
PS
Andy P
Renewables, dont make me laugh, currently they are a complete con, unless you are prepared to see the UK landmass covered with windmills.
Which not only do not generate when there is NO wind.
Neither do thay generate when the wind is TOO strong.
Just the optimium bit of wind speed in the middle.
Plus we need reserve conventional capacity on standby for when the wind isnt suitable.
Which is neither finincially feasible nor thermodynamically efficient.
Unless they build umpteen more "Dinorwic" type pumped storage hydro schemes
Which should cover most of Scotland & Wales
|
Did I mention any specific sort of renewable energy? I would prefer to see some more investment made in tital energy - it's predictable and continual, unlike wind which is less so. However, for some reason or other, this Government seems bent on pursuing wind no matter the cost.
The only other option is nuclear or clean coal/gas.
|
OK
Andy
I am aware there are other renewables
Solar around/near the equator for a start (& a very long extension lead) Spain has made a start btw
BUT to "notpick" some other proposed renewables
Tidal...... hmmmm......unforseen environmental issues, beach loss, erosion, silting up of navigable channels etc etc etc etc.
**************
Strangely? enough the Chinese with their Three Georges dam which apart from navigition "benefits" was intended/designed to produce hydro power, except it may not be able to produce as much as planned due to siltation, HOW very unexpected
*************
basically there NO free energy lunches out there
PPPPPS
I hope they can get the carbon sequestration sussed for "clean coal" power production
As it seems we are sitting on a whole pile of lignite
|
|
I can't see battery-powered electric cars being viable as they don't fit into our current idea of what a car is and how it's used - you drive fill up (which takes minutes for a fuel cell) drive some more. How will people react if they have to leave their car plugged in for hours to recharge (not to mention the origin of the electricity used to charge them).
How about this: You drive to your local garage, there you unclip your modular battery or batteries, replace it with a previously-charged one, and drive off. When you're low on juice, you stop at another garage, and swap batteries again.
|
|
|
|
What "vast cost"?
The vast cost refers to inefficiencies in the production mechanisms, some of which are not environmentally useful anyway, not to £. An electric car is far more efficient. As said before, if electricity were free, it would not matter. However, electricity is not free, and current "green" supplies are limited.
|
|
The battery swap idea would be okay if all the manufacturers use the same batteries (can't see that happening).
|
Can you really envisage stopping at a garage, disconnecting your dead batteries, lifting them out of the car (having emptied your boot of all the holiday clobber/laptops/overnight bag/carpet samples you're humping around) and then carrying them one by one over to a storage area then signing for charged ones and then walking them back to your car (not forgetting to unload all the stuff in your boot again in order to access the underfloor storage area) then reconnecting them all (then load up your car again) then drive off?
You couldnt store batteries in a small accessible space unlike the pumps where all you need do is pull up and fill up.
Going to a garage for new batteries would become a major event.
|
Can you really envisage.... reconnecting them all (then load up your car again) then drive off?
Of course. But it's even easier to envisage running a purpose-built trolley under the car, wheeling the old battery pack to the charging bay or whatever and the new charged battery pack to the car, connecting it physically and electrically by the simple means provided and then driving off.
:o}
|
|
It would be easier to turn all roads into a giant Scalextric track then pay the unemployed to sweep the groove clean every so often!
|
super capacitors not batteries could be the way ahead.
Super capacitors can be charged 1000's of times and can be charged very quickly.
The only current problem is the storage capacity (its even less than batteries at present).
The other alternative is compressed air cars (MDI in France are building these).
They can be refilled in 4 minutes and plugged up to a pump at home and filled in 8 hours.
this could work around the idea of pulling into a petrol / battery station and swapping batteries in and out of a car.
|
I am fairly sure that CAT are using capacitors in their diesel engined electric drive bulldozer,(recently released to the open market) there they preform more of a smoothing function between the power generated by the restricted rpm range engine(very efficient) and peak power demands.
I understood that the attraction of capacitors was that they could both absorb & deliver HUGH currents, and very quickly, relititive to their bulk & mass, compared to any existing battery technology.
So also attractive to store the energy recovered from car braking systems, dumping it straight back again for the next acceleration required.
|
There was talk of the last shape Vectra using super capacitors to power the electric windows.
Not too sure if it actually happened though.
|
Can you really envisage
Why shouldn't a modular power pack should be accessible from outside the car, simply plugging in (horizontally or vertically), and removed and replaced by some sort of machine? This could also measure what's left in the battery, so you'd get a discount on the new fully charged one.
You couldnt store batteries in a small accessible space unlike the pumps where all you need do is pull up and fill up.
The pumps are only where the fuel is presented to the motorist. I'm sure it could be done with batteries, too.
Going to a garage for new batteries would become a major event.
It could be, but why *should* it be?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
