New Hydrogen Powered car!!

[Carolynn]

http://www.youtube.com/v/ry6w3mRm-FM
(Click arrow in middle of screen...wait for it to load.)

This is a video about the new hydrogen powered car by GM. It is the only one of its kind in the world, and they are thinking it will not be available until 20 years from now. With the price of oil and global warming? Anyway, have a look at the video.

[Susan]

Hydrogen power is the holy grail of all energy industries.

Its simple - burn Hydrogen - get water vapour as waste.

The second law of thermodynamic intrudes here - how do you maufacture your Hydrogen?

Also - what infrastructure do we need. - Lots of money involved there.

I wish - maybe even in my lifetime

Susan

[Lydia]

I came back from a recent trip to Iceland. An Icelandic engineer already has developed an auto-size hydrogen engine. Currently, most of the city buses in Reykiavik run on hydrogen. Private cars are beginning to appear witb hydrogen cell engines. Many filling stations have hydrogen supplies. The future is here, but the US doesn't want to know about it. Someone ought to tell GM.

Lydia

[Absaroka]

If only they could build a good bomb out of it (the H bomb is a very different thing) we would all be using it by now.

Absaroka

[Loy B(SO)]

Well, with the prices of gas it would be nice to have an alternative to the gas powered vehicle.One can only wish we will see it become a reality and an affordable one in our lifetime

[Susan]

Iceland is a special case. With all that geothermal energy available it is easy for them to produce all their hydrogen from renewable geothermal energy. Alas most of the world is not so similarly blessed.

Susan

[Bernice]

Alas, what Susan was hinting at was that Hydrogen is not really a natural resource, like oil, gas, Uranium, and coal.

While Hydrogen is in abundance in nature, it is not free for the taking. It must first be "un-burned" from water. The energy required to make Hydrogen from water (usually by electrolysis) exceeds the energy returned by burning the Hydrogen back into water.

It's kind of like compressed air. You can run a bus very cleanly on compressed air, but it takes energy to first compress the air. Compressed air cannot be pumped from wells the way oil is.

One can also make (separate) Hydrogen from oil and natural gas. However, by only burning the Hydrogen (and not the carbon), we will double or triple our rate of fossil fuel use to achieve the same level of economic activity. So, unless we can all agree we want a worldwide economic depression, we will have to wait for controlled fusion before we have real energy independence (delayed another 20-30 years by the untimely cancellation of the super-collider project).

P.S. Water vapor is much more of a greeenhouse gas than Carbon Dioxide, and I'm not willing to give up water, any more than plants want to give up the carbon dioxide they need.

Hugs,

Bernice

[Absaroka]

I would be surprised that water would have a greenhouse effect since it so readily precipitates out of the atmosphere and there is also already a tremendous source of water vapor due to evaporation of the oceans. I would think it would be far more self regulating that carbon dioxide.

However free hydrogen, which is not commonly found in nature, not only rises quickly but would gobble up ozone far faster than the chloroflourocarbons do. So the inevitable leaks could eventually become a problem, possibly an insoluable one.

I would think that the probelm of separating the hydorgen from water could be solved if they could find a way to do it using solar energy to produce the electricity for large scale electrolosis. But that may be quite a ways away. After all they can't build a bomb from sunlight either and also can't really market it. So what would be the point.

Absaroka

[Lydia]

Google the following:
hydrogen + Iceland

Prepare to be amazed.

Lydia

[Mány B]

Interesting video Carolynn, it 's time we start thinking and acting differently about energy. Most energy related solutions have -in my opinion- to start by using less energy and certainly by controlling the various ways in which we our still throwing away all our fossil resources.

Have fun..

[Darth_Wolfenbarg]

There is no trade medium for Hydrogen. The US will not want anything to do with this. It is a major threat to oil companies. It is actually dangerous to a lot of people the more money is put into the research and development of the vehicle. The car is a nice piece of work. I hear it doesn't work to well in dry climates though.

[Kendra Lynn]

Here we go with another... er...debate...
I will preface my comments by stating that I have neither children or a spouse, am in a neighborhood with easy access to public transit, and live in a one bedroom apartment.
So it is not necessary for me to own a car because of responsibilities to others, and it is therefore also easier for me to criticise mainstream society since I do not need to deal with as many of its requirements and restrictions.
I read environmental news reports from many sources and none of them, except on a limited scale, are very encouraging.
Cleaner and more efficient cars are simply a beginning. No matter how clean and efficent vehicles become, they need space to operate and there is also the issue of materials needed for their manufacture.
Technology cannot solve issues like the rapid disappearance of open space, the ever increasing rate of extinction of numerous plant and animal species, and the disappearance of wildlife habitat and a diversity of ecological niches.
Human population growth, combined with the patterns of resource consumption encouraged by market capitalism , will lead to ever increasing destruction of the environment.
To solve this effctively will require vast changes in economic and political systems. And changes in the mindsets of MANY of our fellow human beings.
I am not a trained scientist, and believe that human beings can deal with difficult living circumstances.
But are people really OK with the prospect of a world that has lost ecological diversity and where only a few other species besides human beings survive? (I suppose there are those who simply don't care about these issues, and to others the environment simply is not an immediate issue, like stopping the Iraq war).
Why do I feel so strongly about this? I've always been sensitive to "loss" and environmental destruction is "loss" on a grand scale.

My parents took my sister and I to national parks when we were children and it would truly be inexcusable if all of those (and similar places) were destroyed by the relentless growth of market capitalist industrial activity.

Clean and more efficient cars are simply a beginning step to deal with these problems. Development and economic activity must become sustainable, and reliance on fossil fuels must stop. There should be renewed focus on revitalizing urban cores and less economic incentive for "suburban sprawl" growth.

WHEW!! Sounds like the beginning of a manifesto!

Anyway, thanks for reading. Please give these issues serious consideration.

Best wishes to all for the holiday season.

Peace'n'luv-- Kendra Lynn

[Jeannie]

Hi Kendra. That's funny Hon. I remember back in the 70's with the first oil crisis and the government saying we would be energy self sufficient in 20 years. Yeah right! Two words Hon. Bottom line! Show me the money! This world is on a road to our rendevous with destiny. Just look at the world today. Greed,power, intolerance and hatred is the norm. It's accelerating at a rapid pace. It's so sad but true. History repeats itself. The dinosaurs were destined for extinction and we are next. Thats life.


Love
Jeannie

[Mány B]

You mentioned the 70-ties Kyndra,

This reminds me of an exposition I visited on the availability of fossil fuels in 1975 (or around). One image that struck me, and which explained the whole thing pretty well, was a "time scale" that started at millions of years before date and went another couple of millions beyond the present times. This scale was illustrated by a big solid black line from beginning to the end... except ....for a small part going from red to bright yellow and then back to red (our present time). The words going with it were: "the way we are using our fossil fuels is like striking a match in the dark"
I thought that explained it all....... and if you would allow me to make a very conservative calculation:
assume we started using fossil fuels 300 years ago and assume we could still be using them another 300 years into the future then this would mean that we managed to deplete the planet of it's fossil fuels in a period of only 600 years, which, if you would scale it on a geological basis would be like a few 'seconds'. (pretty selfish)

Another item you mentioned is population. I found a book from 1959 by G. Lowenthal on "Atoms for peace", a book trying to explain quite scientifically wy we should use nuclear power. One reflection that caught my attention was a discussion on population: the reasoning was that starting from a present population of 2,3 billion (1950) we would by the year 2000 reach a population of 3,9 billion which would be an unsurmountable challenge for the future unless.......nuclear ...
We are about 6 billion now, and I think that number is too high for one planet.
Just a couple of reflections.. please continue this topic for it is a very important one..
Take care...