Hydrogen

[kunar]

i will be trying something like this someday, i have just kept my mouth shut because i dont wanna get flamed until i have some real results. the plans i am going by are for a cheap (less than $10) hho gas generator to supplement your gasoline (primary fuel) and it runs on your car battery at somewhere in the range of 3 amps. i am still skeptical of course but for the price, i will have to try it myself

 

[metalmacguyver]

i will be trying something like this someday, i have just kept my mouth shut because i dont wanna get flamed until i have some real results. the plans i am going by are for a cheap (less than $10) hho gas generator to supplement your gasoline (primary fuel) and it runs on your car battery at somewhere in the range of 3 amps. i am still skeptical of course but for the price, i will have to try it myself

so the gas from your tank makes your engine turn which turns the alternator which charges the battery so that the electricity can be used to make hydrogen which can then be burned in your engine? ok....



the biggest problem with hydrogen is the production of the hydrogen itself. the best solution in my opinion is nuclear power. the next big problem is implimenting the infrastructure to distribute the hydrogen.

as for that third website, that product must some how generate hydrogen and with the technology that we have now, it is not possible to get more energy out of a process than is in.

besides, if it really worked and gave a noticeable increase in MPG, wouldnt the big automotive manufactures have already developed this technology and put it in our vehicles?

 

[Donnie strickland]

so the gas from your tank makes your engine turn which turns the alternator which charges the battery so that the electricity can be used to make hydrogen which can then be burned in your engine? ok....


as for that third website, that product must some how generate hydrogen and with the technology that we have now, it is not possible to get more energy out of a process than is in.

besides, if it really worked and gave a noticeable increase in MPG, wouldnt the big automotive manufactures have already developed this technology and put it in our vehicles?

+1

My friend, you have said a mouthful. See my earlier post--snake oil.

 

[metalmacguyver]

oh yeah, i forgot to mention that the only real way to make hydrogen feasible is to produce it with NUCLEAR POWER!!!!!

 

[gw33gp]

I think it could be feasible to produce hydrogen from solar power. The technology of solar panels is getting better and may someday be inexpensive enough to be practical.

 

[MAKG]

Maybe, but I doubt it.

You can calculate total solar irradiance, quite easily. At the moment, it's enough to power the world continuously. But exponential growth might get in the way.

You can electrolyze water with solar. You run into the same issues that solar electric vehicles do. You need massive surface area to generate the fuel at the same rate it is used. You lose some efficiency during the conversion, so it would always be beneficial to use the electricity directly or through a battery bank, IF you could generate enough power (you can't). Better photovoltaics may someday go in this direction, but they have an outrageously long way to go. GOOD ones run at 1% efficiency.

Now, I'd like to see a solar Stirling engine.... though I won't hold my breath for that either.

 

[gw33gp]

I worked on a project that included a solar powered Stirling engine when I worked for Ford Aerospace. It was not for a vehicle though, it was stationary and was used to generate electricity. I don't know what the final result was because I left for another job.

I was not suggesting generating hydrogen on a vehicle. I was thinking about generating hydrogen at a stationary site and storing the it for later use.

 

[metalmacguyver]

Maybe, but I doubt it.

You can calculate total solar irradiance, quite easily. At the moment, it's enough to power the world continuously. But exponential growth might get in the way.

You can electrolyze water with solar. You run into the same issues that solar electric vehicles do. You need massive surface area to generate the fuel at the same rate it is used. You lose some efficiency during the conversion, so it would always be beneficial to use the electricity directly or through a battery bank, IF you could generate enough power (you can't). Better photovoltaics may someday go in this direction, but they have an outrageously long way to go. GOOD ones run at 1% efficiency.

Now, I'd like to see a solar Stirling engine.... though I won't hold my breath for that either.

actually, common industrial photovoltaics run at about 20% efficiency. i have heard of high end experimental cells that have been tested in labs at about 40% efficiency.

even still that is a massive amount of area that would need to be covered with solar panels to get the kind of energy that we would want to produce all the hydrogen that we would ever want.

it may be possible in the future but if we want to get serious about cutting down on the use of fossil fuels, the solution is nuclear power. it is clean energy. and you know what the best part is? we dont have to develop the technology cause its already here and we have been using it for years!

 

[Bent Bolt]

There is talk of building a nuclear reactor here in Northern Alberta. To be honest, the operation of the plant doesn't scare me. Overall it's sounds good to me except one thing. What do you do with the radioactive waste afterward?? For that reason I say no. At least untill someone comes up with a real solution for the waste and I'm not talking about burying it for 10 000 years.

 

[H B3000]

good to me except one thing. What do you do with the radioactive waste afterward?? amen!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[metalmacguyver]

radioactive waste

reprocess it with breeder reactors.

shoot it off into the sun.

inject it into the core of the planet.

yes i have an idea for actually doing that.

whatever we do, we should not bury it.

 

[Simple_serf]

Hmmm...

So, we have had nuclear reactors for over 50 years now, and yet for some reason we still have this waste problem. We still have obsolete RBMK reactors in use, TMI reactor 1 was built in 1968 and is still in use, and all you have to do is a simple online search to find out all of the problems you have with dealing with the waste from the reactors that are in use.

I work with solar and wind energy as a hobby. With these technologies I honestly don't understand why many of these older nuclear plants are still online. The one method that MAY make sense is Molten Salt Reactors, as some types can utilize spent LWR waste as fuel. I really doubt that we are going to see much with this technology, however, because it dates back to the 50's.

 

[Donnie strickland]

Why should we not bury it?

 

[Simple_serf]

Why should we not bury it?

Because we as humans can't guarantee that it will remain secure for the 10,000+ years that it will need to be buried for. Also there are issues with Yucca Mountain as far as it's geology is concerned.

Another reason NOT to bury it is that waste from current design reactors can be used for fuel in other types of reactors, as I mentioned above.

Even as a green energy person I KNOW that we can't take our current reactors offline yet, but we should be planning for it. And I would like to see a reactor that can use current waste as fuel, so we can get rid of it in a safer manner than just burrying it.

 

[Donnie strickland]

Well, I agree we cannot predict 10,000 years into the future. But wouldn't you agree it would be safer and more secure to have all the waste stored in one place underground than scattered around -- largely above ground -- all over the country?

The waste will not really be "buried" at Yucca Mountain. It will be placed in containment vessels and stored in tunnels. It could (and likely will) be removed at some point in the future to be reprocessed and used as fuel when such processes reach feasibility.

Don't get me wrong -- I think we sorely need to be working on alternate energy sources now, such as wind and solar. But in the meantime, a lot of nuclear fuel will be generated. I just think the spent fuel should't be so scattered.