Goodbye, Prius?

[red states rule]

So much for the wet dreams of everybody driving those tiny electric golf carts with bucket seats. Now the Father of the Prius gives up on the electric car. I guess libs will now say research into perfecting the electric car was underfunded




Japan (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/japan/) is backtracking on battery electric-car development, as even Nissan (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/nissan-motor-co-ltd/)’s vice chairman, the so-called “father of the Prius,” announced plans to copy Toyota (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/toyota-motor-co/) and pursue fuel-cell cars that convert hydrogen to electricity.


“Because of its shortcomings — driving range, cost and recharging time — the electric vehicle is not a viable replacement for most conventional cars,” said Toyota (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/toyota-motor-co/)’s vice chairman, Takeshi Uchiyamada (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/takeshi-uchiyamada/), in a Reuters (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/reuters/) report. “We need something entirely new.”


Toyota Motor Co. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/toyota-motor-co/) — the world’s largest hybrid manufacturer, Reuters (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/reuters/) reports — recently announced a plan to drop pure electric-car development, also.
The announcement follows a White House decision last week to reduce its goal of 1 million electric cars on U.S. roads by 2015, Reuters (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/reuters/) said.


Japan (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/japan/) has been trying to develop electric cars for 100 years, Reuters (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/reuters/) said.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/4/goodbye-prius-japan-carmakers-drop-electric-car-de/#ixzz2KMBdrQuv
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=ctd-fI3Dar4z1uacwqm_6r&u=washtimes)

[KarlMarx]

My guess is that cars that run on natural gas may be the next thing. It comes out of the ground ready to use (no refineries needed). Hydrogen on the other hand, requires electrolysis of water (which requires a lot of energy) or breaking down petroleum (again requiring a a refinery).

With the Marcellus shale, the Utica shale, and other huge resevoirs of natural gas... this seems likely.

Another idea.. methane powered cars... as long as animals generate waster there will be methane, why not use it?

[Voted4Reagan]

My guess is that cars that run on natural gas may be the next thing. It comes out of the ground ready to use (no refineries needed). Hydrogen on the other hand, requires electrolysis of water (which requires a lot of energy) or breaking down petroleum (again requiring a a refinery).

With the Marcellus shale, the Utica shale, and other huge resevoirs of natural gas... this seems likely.

Another idea.. methane powered cars... as long as animals generate waster there will be methane, why not use it?

Not exactly true Karl....

Natural gas has to be refined in a few ways to make it ready for use....

you have to add a Chemical Oder to it... that Chemical is called MERCAPTIN. If you didnt add it you'd never be able to smell a leak

Thats just one step in the process....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/what-exactly-is-mercaptan-8462250.html

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Not exactly true Karl....

Natural gas has to be refined in a few ways to make it ready for use....

you have to add a Chemical Oder to it... that Chemical is called MERCAPTIN. If you didnt add it you'd never be able to smell a leak

Thats just one step in the process....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/what-exactly-is-mercaptan-8462250.html

That is true but its availability and other positive benefits far outweigh any negatives.
Using it should have been a major action taken at least a decade ago. Now with rising oil prices, ME instability and costs to import we should be doing this. And it burns so much cleaner, why isn't the bamster on this??
A question his dumbass bots should be asking him but they have been taught not to ever question the messiah scum's agenda.-Tyr

[Voted4Reagan]

That is true but its availability and other positive benefits far outweigh any negatives.
Using it should have been a major action taken at least a decade ago. Now with rising oil prices, ME instability and costs to import we should be doing this. And it burns so much cleaner, why isn't the bamster on this??
A question his dumbass bots should be asking him but they have been taught not to ever question the messiah scum's agenda.-Tyr

I wasn't criticizing Karl.... just correcting a minor oversight....

I like the Idea of LNG and CNG powered vehicles


unfortunately here in NY the only facility to handle LNG/CNG was killed off by the Liberals in power back in 2008..

http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2008/04/10/shell-broadwater-energy-gas-plant-in-li-sound-is-rejected/

We had an offshore platform proposed that went by the name of BROADWATER... It was cancelled on ENVIRONMENTAL grounds by the same group that killed off the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.

The platform was to be 12 miles offshore from both Long Island and CT at the widest part of Long Island Sound.. capable of handling multiple LNG Tankers ...

the NIMBY Liberals killed this source of clean energy... like they did with our offshore wind farms.

so here on Long Island we're not allowed to have LNG/CNG, Nuclear or Oil/Coal....

Lets just start burning the frigging pine barrens.... it's all we have left to consider...

Oh wait... the deer and bunnies might get upset

[red states rule]

More on the liberal fantasy of the electric car replacing the cars powers on - gasp - gasoline

Not that failure ever meant anything to the enviro wackos. I wonder how much taxpayer dollars Obama will piss through on his "green" energy pie in the sky programs?





Who wants a $101,000 car that might die just because you feel like taking “a long detour”?

President Obama repeatedly (http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/edg/media/Obama_New_Energy_0804.pdf) declared (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/01/AR2011020106455.html) that, with enough federal aid, we can put a million electric vehicles (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/07/AR2011020705616.html) on the road by 2015 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/2011-state-of-the-union/). His administration has invested about $5 billion in grants, guaranteed loans — including $465 million for Tesla — and tax incentives to buyers.

Yet Americans bought just 71,000 plug-in hybrids or all-electric vehicles (http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1081419_plug-in-electric-car-sales-triple-in-2013-as-buyers-models-increase) in the past two years, according to GreenCarReports.com. That’s about a third as many as the Energy Department forecast in a 2011 report that attempted to explain why Obama’s goal was not preposterous.

Federal billions cannot overcome the fact that electric vehicles and plug-in electric hybrids meet few, if any, of real consumers’ needs. Compared with gas-powered cars, they deliver inferior performance at much higher cost. As an American Physical Society symposium on battery research concluded last June: “Despite their many potential advantages (http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201207/electriccars.cfm), all-electric vehicles will not replace the standard American family car in the foreseeable future.”

If you don’t believe the scientists, listen to Takeshi Uchiyamada (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/04/us-autos-electric-hydrogen-idUSBRE91304Z20130204), the “father” of the Toyota Prius: “Because of its shortcomings — driving range, cost and recharging time — the electric vehicle is not a viable replacement for most conventional cars.”

Even Nissan chief Carlos Ghosn, whose commitment to the all-electric Leaf helped his firm get a $1.4 billion U.S. loan guarantee (http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130109/AUTO0104/301090398), has reduced his boosterism in the face of disappointing sales.

Nor do electric cars promise much in the way of greenhouse-gas reduction, as long as they rely on a power grid that is still mostly fired by fossil fuels.

As for Vice President Biden’s 2009 forecast of “billions and billions and billions of dollars in good, new jobs (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/car-company-us-loan-builds-cars-finland/story?id=14770875),” the electric car factory at which he made that statement sits idle. Ditto the taxpayer-backed Michigan factory of battery maker LG Chem. Two Energy Department-funded lithium-ion battery makers have gone bankrupt.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-lane-obamas-electric-car-mistake/2013/02/11/441b39f6-7490-11e2-aa12-e6cf1d31106b_story.html

[glockmail]

Natural gas, propane, CNG are basically all the same thing: chemical name methane. It's cheap and plentiful, and if we don't use it for fuel a lot of it escapes into the atmosphere and is 100 times more harmful as a greenhouse gas than the CO2 released when burned. It is a byproduct of organic decay so along with the trillions of cubic feet in the ground from geologic sources it is generated daily from landfills, sewage plants, and farms. Any liberal excuse not to use it is misguided or a lie.

The phenomenon known as the Bermuda Triangle is cause by large releases of natural gas from the ocean floor. Over millions of years organic materials from the eastern US have eroded from the land, to the seas and deposited as the Florida peninsula and beyond. The Appalachian Mountain range was higher than the Rockies are today. Today these materials release natural gas constantly, occasionally as "bubbles" which may be as large as a car in the high pressures of the ocean floor, then expand in size to be as large as a football stadium as they rise to the surface. If a ship passes over the bubble as it enters the atmosphere it will no longer have the buoyancy on water but instead basically fall into a hole. Once the bubble enters the atmosphere if a plane rides through it the planes piston or jet engine will explode. To be against natural gas production in this region is to be for lost ships, planes and the human tragedy that accompanies these events. Again, liberals like this as much as abortion and other death-worship.

Hydrogen is not cheap and plentiful. It can be extracted from water with an expensive electrical process or extracted from methane in a wasteful process. Liberals like this, again because they are misguided or are lying.

Hydrogen is best used as a storage medium for excess electrical capacity, usually from nuclear power plants, a fact that liberals ignore. It is not a source of power. Methane is a source of power.

Either methane or hydrogen can be used in fuel cells, so designing for a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle is stupid. Just design a methane fuel cell vehicle, or better yet, convert a traditional piston engine to burn methane instead of gasoline, alcohol or diesel.

[Voted4Reagan]

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/34724948.jpg

[bingster]

My guess is that cars that run on natural gas may be the next thing. It comes out of the ground ready to use (no refineries needed). Hydrogen on the other hand, requires electrolysis of water (which requires a lot of energy) or breaking down petroleum (again requiring a a refinery).

With the Marcellus shale, the Utica shale, and other huge resevoirs of natural gas... this seems likely.

Another idea.. methane powered cars... as long as animals generate waster there will be methane, why not use it?

Although it's cleaner than regular gas it would not be much of a step forward. Diesel burns cleaner than regular gas also, but we need something better. I'm encouraged by the article saying that hydrogen is being investigated.

You seem to know a lot about chemistry. Aren't there a lot of inherent dangers in using hydrogen? I always heard it's extremely explosive.

[glockmail]

Bing you must be brain dead. Diesel is a dirty fuel, and hydrogen isn't an energy source.

[jimnyc]

I hate the Prius. I hope that car disappears. Makes me embarrassed when I go to the dealer and see that piece of crap.

[Robert A Whit]

My guess is that cars that run on natural gas may be the next thing. It comes out of the ground ready to use (no refineries needed). Hydrogen on the other hand, requires electrolysis of water (which requires a lot of energy) or breaking down petroleum (again requiring a a refinery).

With the Marcellus shale, the Utica shale, and other huge resevoirs of natural gas... this seems likely.

Another idea.. methane powered cars... as long as animals generate waster there will be methane, why not use it?

Japan does not have any natural gas to use commercially.

I happen to favor fuel cells on paper. Trouble is you need a high pressure hydrogen tank which is huge and heavy to carry enough hydrogen to go a reasonable distance.

Wnen one sees all the problems and not one or two, one sees the real pros and cons.

Professor Muller of Cal Berkeley wrote a great book as a guide to presidents. Naturally we can all profit from his book. He examines each energy system and lays out the case for each of them. Very eye opening.
http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Future-Presidents-Richard-Muller/dp/142662459X

4509

[Robert A Whit]

Bing you must be brain dead. Diesel is a dirty fuel, and hydrogen isn't an energy source.

Before he died, my first wifes uncle was an expert on smog and systems to defeat it.He told me that diesel burns and does not produce smog. It does produce particulates.

What made you think Hydrogen is not an energy source? Did you ever hear of the Nazi Zepplin Hindenburg that burned up so fast it was almost gone by the time the pieces hit the ground? That was hydrogen burning.

By the way, a very good book is this one.

4510

[bingster]

Bing you must be brain dead. Diesel is a dirty fuel, and hydrogen isn't an energy source.

Get a brain yourself before you call someone "Brain dead".

Diesel is cleaner than gas. If you don't know that, ok, but look it up yourself.

And this is from the article of this thread:

Japan (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/japan/) is backtracking on battery electric-car development, as even Nissan (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/nissan-motor-co-ltd/)’s vice chairman, the so-called “father of the Prius,” announced plans to copy Toyota (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/toyota-motor-co/) and pursue fuel-cell cars that convert hydrogen to electricity.

[Robert A Whit]

Although it's cleaner than regular gas it would not be much of a step forward. Diesel burns cleaner than regular gas also, but we need something better. I'm encouraged by the article saying that hydrogen is being investigated.

You seem to know a lot about chemistry. Aren't there a lot of inherent dangers in using hydrogen? I always heard it's extremely explosive.

I started studying fuels by 1961. At one point, I had an excellent library on auto design and all the systems design connected to them. Using the catalytic converters coupled to the auto computers that keep track and measure all phases of burning fuel, they have CA cars producing virtually no emissions. You may be right about Diesel vs Regular were you in Wyoming. They don't dick around much with their gasoline. Real gasoline is best for your car even though more harmful to humans.

Hydrogen has long been ... ahem .... *investigated*. LOL

There really is not much if anything not known about it as a fuel though. Hydrogen is an easy fuel to burn. Fuel cells use hydrogen but don't burn it. They produce electrons chemically.

Hydrogen tanks of large enough size to give autos much distance are heavy, large and safe.

Think of it sort of like this. Say you had a 250 gallon gas tank in your car. You would sure weigh a lot and other than that, you migth lose the trunk and back seat space.

Physics for future presidents, by Muller is very good at explaining this in terms laymen can understand. This popular book can also be found in public libraries.

4511

[Robert A Whit]

Get a brain yourself before you call someone "Brain dead".

Diesel is cleaner than gas. If you don't know that, ok, but look it up yourself.

And this is from the article of this thread:

Japan (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/japan/) is backtracking on battery electric-car development, as even Nissan (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/nissan-motor-co-ltd/)’s vice chairman, the so-called “father of the Prius,” announced plans to copy Toyota (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/toyota-motor-co/) and pursue fuel-cell cars that convert hydrogen to electricity.

Let's not argue about diesel since Obama does not want you to use that. I am not surprised that Japan would want to use Hydrogen but they are not burning it. They get electrons via a chemical action from the hydrogen. Of course making hydrogen is not all that easy. It consumes a lot of electricity. I have not priced it but I think Professor Muller has.

Read his book as shown to you below.

4512

[glockmail]

Before he died, my first wifes uncle was an expert on smog and systems to defeat it.He told me that diesel burns and does not produce smog. It does produce particulates.

What made you think Hydrogen is not an energy source? Did you ever hear of the Nazi Zepplin Hindenburg that burned up so fast it was almost gone by the time the pieces hit the ground? That was hydrogen burning.

By the way, a very good book is this one.

4510

Particulates are "dirt". Try breathing behind a bus and then tell me that it's clean.

See post 7 for the reason for why hydrogen is not an energy source.

[glockmail]

Get a brain yourself before you call someone "Brain dead".

Diesel is cleaner than gas. If you don't know that, ok, but look it up yourself.

And this is from the article of this thread:

Japan (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/japan/) is backtracking on battery electric-car development, as even Nissan (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/nissan-motor-co-ltd/)’s vice chairman, the so-called “father of the Prius,” announced plans to copy Toyota (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/toyota-motor-co/) and pursue fuel-cell cars that convert hydrogen to electricity.

I assure you that my brain is very much un-dead, and can crush yours with its logic and reason.

Only an idiot would think that diesel is cleaner than natural gas, or even gasoline.

And again, hydrogen is not an energy source. It is simply a way to store energy. :slap:

[Robert A Whit]

Particulates are "dirt". Try breathing behind a bus and then tell me that it's clean.

See post 7 for the reason for why hydrogen is not an energy source.

Definitions do matter.

I think everybody understands that diesel engines produce that black smoke. But that is not smog. That of course is particles. I suspect he means (bingster) that inside the diesel engine, the engine remains very clean while burning diesel. Gas engines get dirty inside as they burn fuels. But of course nobody wants to ride behind busses to breathe what they put out.

Your confusion is over what he means. But ask any diesel mechanic what engine is clean when they take them apart. Diesel engines sparkle inside.

Again over hydrogen.

Hydrogen burns, meaning it is a source of energy. What you actually mean is that the hydrogen here on earth is almost all gone and today any hydrogen we use is manufactured.

Hydrogen has that drawback that to get any of it, one has to manufacture it. The energy used to make it can of course mean you get no net new energy.
I believe that is what you actually mean.

[tailfins]

I assure you that my brain is very much un-dead, and can crush yours with its logic and reason.

Only an idiot would think that diesel is cleaner than natural gas, or even gasoline.

And again, hydrogen is not an energy source. It is simply a way to store energy. :slap:

Truly intelligent people don't blindly accept such assumptions. You don't assume diesel is dirtier until you research it. All diesel isn't the same.

[bingster]

I assure you that my brain is very much un-dead, and can crush yours with its logic and reason.

Only an idiot would think that diesel is cleaner than natural gas, or even gasoline.

And again, hydrogen is not an energy source. It is simply a way to store energy. :slap:

Sorry, I get rattled when insulted. I didn't say that diesel was cleaner than natural gas, but it' not necessarily cleaner than gas either. I was wrong, but this article shows it's not as bad as you think.
http://phys.org/news/2012-03-gasoline-worse-diesel-air-pollution.html#nRlv


Although the research is not finished and expense issues have not been resolved, I don't think the scientific community is finished with hydrogen as a fuel source yet. Not to mention the piece of the article from this thread.
Hydrogen

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/images/fuelcell_underhood.gif Hydrogen (H2) is being aggressively explored as a fuel for passenger vehicles. It can be used in fuel cells (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fuelcell.shtml) to power electric motors or burned in internal combustion engines (ICEs).

It is an environmentally friendly fuel that has the potential to dramatically reduce our dependence on imported oil, but several significant challenges must be overcome before it can be widely used.

Benefits

Produced Domestically. Hydrogen can be produced domestically from several sources, reducing our dependence on petroleum imports.
Environmentally Friendly. Hydrogen produces no air pollutants or greenhouse gases when used in fuel cells; it produces only nitrogen oxides (NOx) when burned in ICEs.
Challenges

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fc_pics/Ford_P2000FuelCell_Refuelling.jpg Fuel Cost & Availability. Hydrogen is currently expensive to produce and is only available at a handful of locations, mostly in California.
Vehicle Cost & Availability. Fuel cell vehicles (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fuelcell.shtml) are currently far too expensive for most consumers to afford, and they are only available to a few demonstration fleets.
Onboard Fuel Storage. Hydrogen contains much less energy than gasoline or diesel on a per-volume basis, making it difficult for hydrogen vehicles to go as far as gasoline vehicles between fillups—about 300 miles. Technology is improving, but the onboard hydrogen storage systems do not yet meet size, weight, and cost goals for commercialization.
Other challenges (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fcv_challenges.shtml) include fuel cell performance, customer acceptance, and hydrogen transport and bulk storage

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/hydrogen.shtml

[bingster]

Definitions do matter.

I think everybody understands that diesel engines produce that black smoke. But that is not smog. That of course is particles. I suspect he means (bingster) that inside the diesel engine, the engine remains very clean while burning diesel. Gas engines get dirty inside as they burn fuels. But of course nobody wants to ride behind busses to breathe what they put out.

Your confusion is over what he means. But ask any diesel mechanic what engine is clean when they take them apart. Diesel engines sparkle inside.

Again over hydrogen.

Hydrogen burns, meaning it is a source of energy. What you actually mean is that the hydrogen here on earth is almost all gone and today any hydrogen we use is manufactured.

Hydrogen has that drawback that to get any of it, one has to manufacture it. The energy used to make it can of course mean you get no net new energy.
I believe that is what you actually mean.

Thanks for the clarity, but is it really hard to get hydrogen out of water? What do you mean when you say "that the hydrogen here on earth is almost all gone"?

[glockmail]

Definitions do matter.

I think everybody understands that diesel engines produce that black smoke. But that is not smog. That of course is particles. I suspect he means (bingster) that inside the diesel engine, the engine remains very clean while burning diesel. Gas engines get dirty inside as they burn fuels. But of course nobody wants to ride behind busses to breathe what they put out.

Your confusion is over what he means. But ask any diesel mechanic what engine is clean when they take them apart. Diesel engines sparkle inside.

Again over hydrogen.

Hydrogen burns, meaning it is a source of energy. What you actually mean is that the hydrogen here on earth is almost all gone and today any hydrogen we use is manufactured.

Hydrogen has that drawback that to get any of it, one has to manufacture it. The energy used to make it can of course mean you get no net new energy.
I believe that is what you actually mean.

I've never taken apart a diesel engine but I have taken apart gas engines that burn regular no-lead and they are clean. My #2 fuel oil boiler is very efficient but that efficiency degrades over the years since the fuel it burns is so dirty, and deposits the crud inside the boiler tubes. Again you're trying to define "dirty" as smog. Dirt is dirt.

Hydrogen is not present or produced in sufficient qualities in the earth and is therefore not an energy source. :slap:

[glockmail]

Sorry, I get rattled when insulted. I didn't say that diesel was cleaner than natural gas, but it' not necessarily cleaner than gas either. I was wrong, but this article shows it's not as bad as you think.
http://phys.org/news/2012-03-gasoline-worse-diesel-air-pollution.html#nRlv


Although the research is not finished and expense issues have not been resolved, I don't think the scientific community is finished with hydrogen as a fuel source yet. Not to mention the piece of the article from this thread.
Hydrogen

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/images/fuelcell_underhood.gif Hydrogen (H2) is being aggressively explored as a fuel for passenger vehicles. It can be used in fuel cells (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fuelcell.shtml) to power electric motors or burned in internal combustion engines (ICEs).

It is an environmentally friendly fuel that has the potential to dramatically reduce our dependence on imported oil, but several significant challenges must be overcome before it can be widely used.

Benefits

Produced Domestically. Hydrogen can be produced domestically from several sources, reducing our dependence on petroleum imports.
Environmentally Friendly. Hydrogen produces no air pollutants or greenhouse gases when used in fuel cells; it produces only nitrogen oxides (NOx) when burned in ICEs.
Challenges

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fc_pics/Ford_P2000FuelCell_Refuelling.jpg Fuel Cost & Availability. Hydrogen is currently expensive to produce and is only available at a handful of locations, mostly in California.
Vehicle Cost & Availability. Fuel cell vehicles (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fuelcell.shtml) are currently far too expensive for most consumers to afford, and they are only available to a few demonstration fleets.
Onboard Fuel Storage. Hydrogen contains much less energy than gasoline or diesel on a per-volume basis, making it difficult for hydrogen vehicles to go as far as gasoline vehicles between fillups—about 300 miles. Technology is improving, but the onboard hydrogen storage systems do not yet meet size, weight, and cost goals for commercialization.
Other challenges (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fcv_challenges.shtml) include fuel cell performance, customer acceptance, and hydrogen transport and bulk storage

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/hydrogen.shtml

I find it refreshing that you have admitted to being wrong. :clap:

But again, hydrogen is not an energy source. Some other energy source must be used to make it and you never get 100% of the energy out that you used to make the stuff.

[hjmick]

Hydrogen transportation...

Haven't they tried that...?


Hmmm...


Oh Yeah!



http://pics.filmaffinity.com/Hindenburg_Disaster_Newsreel_Footage_S-343449590-large.jpg

[KarlMarx]

Not exactly true Karl....

Natural gas has to be refined in a few ways to make it ready for use....

you have to add a Chemical Oder to it... that Chemical is called MERCAPTIN. If you didnt add it you'd never be able to smell a leak

Thats just one step in the process....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/what-exactly-is-mercaptan-8462250.html

thanks for pointing that out. I wasn't aware that refining is needed.

They add mercaptin? That's the chemical that makes poop smell like... well... poop.

[bingster]

I find it refreshing that you have admitted to being wrong. :clap:

But again, hydrogen is not an energy source. Some other energy source must be used to make it and you never get 100% of the energy out that you used to make the stuff.

Yea, I admit I'm wrong. That's what men do.

Name an energy source that doesn't take energy to make. Doesn't oil refining take energy? Natural gas? Even solar and wind consume something to be turned into energy.

You don't have to be able to fart into a gas tank before you call it an energy source.

Now, ethanol, on the other hand, I would agree with you on that one.

[glockmail]

Yea, I admit I'm wrong. That's what men do.

Name an energy source that doesn't take energy to make. Doesn't oil refining take energy? Natural gas? Even solar and wind consume something to be turned into energy.

You don't have to be able to fart into a gas tank before you call it an energy source.

Now, ethanol, on the other hand, I would agree with you on that one.

No it takes energy to pump crude oil out of the ground and refine and and transport it, but all that pales in comparison to the energy that it produces. Hydrogen is synthesized by other fuels and you end up with less energy than you started. :slap:

[Robert A Whit]

Thanks for the clarity, but is it really hard to get hydrogen out of water? What do you mean when you say "that the hydrogen here on earth is almost all gone"?


Putting steam on hot coals is cheapest I believe. But an expensive way that is more normal is to use electric current. And for a fuel source, that is expensive.

Hydrogen is part of water. It is in other things too. But as a free gas, it long ago almost all vanished. You need to unlock it and that costs money.

[Robert A Whit]

I find it refreshing that you have admitted to being wrong. :clap:

But again, hydrogen is not an energy source. Some other energy source must be used to make it and you never get 100% of the energy out that you used to make the stuff.

It is flat wrong to assert that hydrogen is not an energy source. You may be entirely correct that using some systems to break hydrogen out of its bonds use more energy than one gets from hydrogen.

Hydrogen burns. This means it is an energy source. So is Oxygen that with hydrogen produces energy.

Crist, I studied this in high school, in college and for the rest of my life and surely I have not forgot how this works. I don't get how you can't see hydrogen as a fuel. Oxygen is not a fuel. But with Hydrogen you get a hell of a fire.

Folks, what I think he is getting at is that millions of years ago, when Earth had abundant hydrogen, it was escaping from Earth. Earth's hydrogen in the form of the gas took a hike a long time ago. We have other chemicals that are loaded with hydrogen. Water is a good example. You use water to put out fire. Water is hydrogen plus oxygen and we know that combined they don't burn.

So how can this be? It is called chemistry. Same as salt. Sodium Cloride. Sodium is very dangerous and so is Choride. But in combination you eat a lot of salt.

To get enough hydrogen to use to burn, since the gas hydrogen will be oxidized by the gas oxygen, it burns. But with no heat source, hydrogen wants very badly to combine with oxygen and of course water is not burning.

Somebody posted the photo of the fire on the Hindenburg. That fire is hydrogen. They learned in the 1930s that a better gas to use is helium.

They got away from hydrogen due to the intense fire risk.

Bear in mind, one other example. Take that chunk of tree you plan to put into your fireplace.

It is a source of energy. Light it and see. Hydrogen also takes something to light it but once lit, you get a lot of energy.

[Kathianne]

For those interested:

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/fuel-saving-devices/energy-efficiency-ratio-hydrogen-fuel-cell1.htm/printable


What's the energy efficiency ratio for hydrogen fuel cells? Instead of burning fuel like conventional engines, hydrogen fuel (http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/alternative-fuels/dangerous-hydrogen-fuel.htm) cells work through an electrochemical process. To produce electricity, hydrogen atoms are ionized on one side of an electrolyte membrane. While protons slip through, electrons must take the long way around through an external circuit (http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/circuit.htm), creating an electrical current as they move. Once the electrons reach the other side and pair off with the protons, the hydrogen combines with oxygen in the air, resulting in a little bit of heat and water as byproducts.


Hyper-efficient Hydrogen At the basic level, the process is pretty efficient. Depending on the type of hydrogen fuel cell (http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/alternative-fuels/fuel-cell.htm), the efficiency ratio tends to average out around 60 percent of the total amount of energy being released by the process above. However, large-scale hydrogen fuel cells with molten carbonate or solid oxide for their electrolyte membrane can use both the heat and electricity (http://science.howstuffworks.com/electricity.htm) produced for extra efficiency, getting as high as 85 percent. Meanwhile, portable fuel cells like the polymer electrolyte membranes (PEM) used in fuel cell cars get anywhere from 50 percent to 60 percent efficiency, according to the U.S. Department of Energy (http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/doe_fuelcell_factsheet.pdf).


OK, but how does that compare to a regular car? Incredibly well. As cool as it is to run our cars on what basically amounts to controlled explosions and liquid dinosaurs, internal combustion engines are anything but efficient. Not counting time spent idling, energy loss along the driveline, air drag and friction, most gasoline engines lose around 62 percent of their fuel energy just to wasted heat.



The Problem of Production But there's always a catch when you fiddle around with thermodynamics and energy efficiency. In hydrogen's case, it's a problem of production. Hydrogen may be the most plentiful element in the universe, but unless you feel like dropping by the surface of the sun (bring a cold drink and thick-soled shoes!), you're not going to find the element anywhere for free. Hydrogen here on Earth is always bonded to something, which means it needs to be extracted, a process that's expensive, time-consuming and takes an enormous amount of energy.


Currently, most of our hydrogen is produced through electrolysis or by stripping it from natural gas (http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/chemistry-terms/natural-gas-info.htm) in a process called steam reforming. (Natural gas is a fossil fuel, too.) While steam reforming is the most common method of industrial hydrogen production, it requires a good deal of heat and is wildly inefficient. Hydrogen produced by steam reforming actually has less energy than the natural gas that steam reforming begins with. Plus, unlike hydrogen fuel cells (http://home.howstuffworks.com/build-hydrogen-fuel-cell.htm), the process produces pollution -- so it's actually more energy efficient just to use the hydrocarbons themselves as fuel.


However, there's hope. While we still haven't found a viable way to get hydrogen on the cheap, things are getting better. The cost of materials is falling, and there are several potentially easier ways to collect it, like harnessing hydrogen-producing algae and using methane from landfills. A hydrogen-powered future may be in sight, or it's at least a speck on the horizon.

...

[Robert A Whit]

I have to read it one more time but I think Kathiannes article said that protons slip through that membrane but electrons can't.

I don't get that at all.
Electrons are supposedly smaller than protons. So maybe it is that electrons move much faster than protons.

Dang it, have to read what she posted one more time.

Guys, if you watch that toaster toasting bread, it is those super fast electrons making that heat. Even your lightbulb gets hot due to moving electrons. Those little suckers move faster than a speeding bullet. Faster than I can fart when looking at one of Jim's videos of those loud bands.

[glockmail]

It is flat wrong to assert that hydrogen is not an energy source. You may be entirely correct that using some systems to break hydrogen out of its bonds use more energy than one gets from hydrogen.

Hydrogen burns. This means it is an energy source. So is Oxygen that with hydrogen produces energy.

Crist, I studied this in high school, in college and for the rest of my life and surely I have not forgot how this works. I don't get how you can't see hydrogen as a fuel. Oxygen is not a fuel. But with Hydrogen you get a hell of a fire.

Folks, what I think he is getting at is that millions of years ago, when Earth had abundant hydrogen, it was escaping from Earth. Earth's hydrogen in the form of the gas took a hike a long time ago. We have other chemicals that are loaded with hydrogen. Water is a good example. You use water to put out fire. Water is hydrogen plus oxygen and we know that combined they don't burn.

So how can this be? It is called chemistry. Same as salt. Sodium Cloride. Sodium is very dangerous and so is Choride. But in combination you eat a lot of salt.

To get enough hydrogen to use to burn, since the gas hydrogen will be oxidized by the gas oxygen, it burns. But with no heat source, hydrogen wants very badly to combine with oxygen and of course water is not burning.

Somebody posted the photo of the fire on the Hindenburg. That fire is hydrogen. They learned in the 1930s that a better gas to use is helium.

They got away from hydrogen due to the intense fire risk.

Bear in mind, one other example. Take that chunk of tree you plan to put into your fireplace.

It is a source of energy. Light it and see. Hydrogen also takes something to light it but once lit, you get a lot of energy.
Man I think that you are retarded sometimes.

An energy source is a source of energy. Hydrogen is not an energy source. Hydrogen is derived from energy sources to store energy. The energy to make hydrogen is less than the energy it takes to create it. :slap:

[glockmail]

Also Robert, earlier you posted this (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?39269-Everything-you-need-to-know-about-hydrogen-used-by-autos&p=617040#post617040), which, according to you "The key fact is this: hydrogen is not a source of energy."

[red states rule]

http://cdn.motinetwork.net/demotivationalposters.net/image/demotivational-poster/1001/hybrids-car-hybrids-funny-demotivational-poster-1263335732.jpg