| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
vaticide
Put food in here
Joined: 21 Feb 2002
Posts: 1122
Location: One step behind a toddler bent on destruction. |
Ok, using google and my calculator I have made some very rough calculations. Now, I stress these are very rough, but I calculate that the currently most advanced solar plant in the world if used only to produce hrydrogen for BMW hydrogen powered cars could power about 8000 cars to drive 219 miles. Efficiency of the system will only increase, however 8000 cars is not that many cars, as well as this solar power plant is huge and in a desert with lots of sun available to it. I don't think solar power is sufficient to produce enough hydrogen for it to take over as our primary fuel source for human mobility.
-vaticide |
Wed Oct 30, 2002 8:04 pm |
|
|
goshuto
Wanderer
Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 1142
|
Still, if fuel-cell is used, won't we pollute less? I could be wrong here, but think about this: even if power plants are needed to create the fuel, and even if a few more have to be constructed to cope with the demand, that's still millions of cars that stop throwing lots of NOx in the air. There'll still be pollution, but a lot less than today's levels.
_________________
"Tree stuck in cat. Firemen baffled."--Simcity 3K
"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards."--Soren Aabye Kierkegaard |
|
Wed Oct 30, 2002 8:40 pm |
|
|
sauron38
Rara Avis
Joined: 14 Jan 2002
Posts: 4396
Location: Winnipeg's Sanctum Sanctorum |
Well, it's not really a case of "less pollution," but a case of concentrating all the pollution of cars in a... district... into one smoke-stack. From there, I'm sure that modern science could come up with some sort of filter for one smokestack a lot faster than a filter for hundreds of thousands of tailpipes.
_________________
Make good choices. |
|
Wed Oct 30, 2002 11:35 pm |
|
|
vaticide
Put food in here
Joined: 21 Feb 2002
Posts: 1122
Location: One step behind a toddler bent on destruction. |
Exhaust filtering aside oil fueled power plants are generally around 35% efficient compared to 20% for internal combustion engines at getting energy from combustion heat. Power plants lose some of this efficiency in power transfer and storage, and production of hydrogen if that is your aim. (At best we can get about 50% efficient electrolysis)
I agree that hydrogen as a fuel might be somewhat cleaner than burning fossil fuels, and certainly will last longer since it is renewable compared to fossil fuels. However I don't think we currently have the capacity to make any kind of a change towards using Hydrogen more, or will for some time. The energy and time it took to store all of the energy in the fossil fuels happened over millions of years. It will take years and a lot of research to gain the capacity and efficiency needed to switch away from fossil fuels.
-vaticide |
|
Wed Oct 30, 2002 11:59 pm |
|
|
mDrop
High Emperor
Joined: 06 May 2002
Posts: 479
Location: Under the desk |
@Lintra, the BMW's point was to use other renevable energy sources to produce hydrogen. So other fossil fuels would not be needed.
Yes, we are still years away from the proper solar/wind/tide-powered technology, transport technology and overall capability of building an hydrogen infrastructure. But no matter what calculations you believe in, oil is running out. Some say 20 years, some fifty to hunded years, but it's still going to end in the near future. So we better start focusing seriously on this early. If we wait until we only have a few years of oil supplies left, we'll be in deep trouble.
_________________
"If you can't get rid of the skeleton in your closet, you'd best teach it to dance."
- George Bernard Shaw
- Member of The Nonflamers' Guild -
- Member of The Alliance of Middle-Earth -
- Worshiper of Written Word -
- Proud supporter of E.H.U.A.O - |
|
Thu Oct 31, 2002 1:57 am |
|
|
Lintra
Elf Friend
Joined: 23 Apr 2002
Posts: 9448
Location: Bermuda, the triangle place with SANDY BEACHES |
@MDrop - that might be the intent, but I bet that more energy is spent moving cars than any other single catagory (outside of electricity generation, you have to break that down into seperate catagories to be fair).
I am a proponent of fusion energy ... it is the only realistic energy source available to us at this time. Beamed solor has too big a danger factor and is the only other dependable (mostly) source that can even begin to address the HUGE and growing energy appetite of humanity.
Back in the 70's I figured that if the exponential energy growth continued into the future with out break, using fusion power it would take about a million years to burn all the H2 in the Mediteranean sea - so it is a good long term sol'n (since the exponential growth has to level off - we are running out of room to put the people).
_________________
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Just plain clueless= |
|
Fri Nov 01, 2002 8:29 pm |
|
|
mDrop
High Emperor
Joined: 06 May 2002
Posts: 479
Location: Under the desk |
@Lintra, fusion power is good, but it's been "right around the corner" for many years. I doubt that we'll have enough fusion power when fossil fuels start to run out, we might not even have one single reactor actually producing power for commercial use.
While the fusion research should continue, we must press existing, working technologies to get the most out of them. By existing technologies I mean renewable energy sources, not fossil fuel plants or fission reactors.
Furthermore, more power efficient appliances should be developed seriously. Electricity has become too cheap, we don't need to focus on the power consumption anymore...
_________________
"If you can't get rid of the skeleton in your closet, you'd best teach it to dance."
- George Bernard Shaw
- Member of The Nonflamers' Guild -
- Member of The Alliance of Middle-Earth -
- Worshiper of Written Word -
- Proud supporter of E.H.U.A.O - |
|
Fri Nov 01, 2002 9:37 pm |
|
|
Erb Duchenne
Slayer
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 987
Location: malaysia |
Let's start a 'power' discussion  .
_________________
Erb Duchenne |
|
Sat Nov 09, 2002 7:12 pm |
|
|
vaticide
Put food in here
Joined: 21 Feb 2002
Posts: 1122
Location: One step behind a toddler bent on destruction. |
I got the newest "Car and Driver" magazine yesterday and there was a great article about hydrogen cars. When I'm home again and have time I'll give you some of the facts and statistics they talk about. Things look pretty good actually.
-vaticide |
|
Thu Feb 06, 2003 4:43 pm |
|
|
hwfanatic
Average Fanatic
Joined: 28 Oct 2002
Posts: 2850
Location: Belgrade, Serbia |
I've read about those..
It seems like the only problem for mass production is the source of hydrogen.. As for the "gases", it produces water steam 
Aw, the system is rather cheap, although a bit large... It has even been successfully tested in city enviroment, in a form of a bus. |
|
Fri Feb 07, 2003 4:48 pm |
|
|
Lintra
Elf Friend
Joined: 23 Apr 2002
Posts: 9448
Location: Bermuda, the triangle place with SANDY BEACHES |
Okay, I think this is the last topic I will save from the dying user group ... but maybe not. Depends on feed back from other members (Hello are you out there?).
Long term energy supply is, in my opinion, one of the two biggest problems facing mankind right now (over population being the other, and yes, I know the two are correlated). Minor issues like global warming take a back seat since modern societ completely collapses with out energy. A dramatic climate change can be accomodated for ... given sufficient energy *grin*
_________________
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Just plain clueless= |
|
Fri Dec 17, 2004 4:16 pm |
|
|
Namirrha
Noble Knight
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 218
Location: Utah County, Utah. |
Other alternative energy sources have major problems. Hydrothermal is excellent and environmentally friendly but restricted. Only a few places like Iceland can rely on hydrothermal for producing hydrogen fuel. (This also brings up interesting political questions, too, since if a few places can produce energy which is needed by most, it creates an energy monopoly.) Windmills cause havoc with bird populations, because birds fly into the blades. Wind is not a reliable source of energy, either. Too infrequent. Solar cell stations which cover the deserts of the western US destroy desert ecosystems. And as others mentioned, the most commonly used power cells only have an efficiency of about 10-15%. And they're common because they're relatively cheap. More expensive ones have 25-30% efficiency, yet this is still kind of poor compared to the efficiency of plants, where chlorophyll nets 30-40% of the light energy and other pigments help catch energy across the spectrum, bringing total efficiency to perhaps 60-70%. Also, solar cell efficiency falls as temperature rises (so the high temperatures of the desert don't help out).
Switching over to hydrogen fuel cells sounds attractive, but there's always a price to be paid elsewhere. We need to ask ourselves if we're willing to pay the price. I think people should first try to cut down waste and overuse. Don't take your car when you could walk, ride a bike, or use public transportation. Don't leave your computer running all night long. Don't leave lights on all the time. Etc. A few snips here and there might add up to large savings. We can demand more energy-efficient products and replace ones which aren't.
_________________
Give me the shadows, shield me from the light, and I shall let nothing pass in the darkness of the night. |
|
Tue Dec 21, 2004 8:52 pm |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat Apr 13, 2019 4:25 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
