What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
35 Comments
- Jektal, on 04/03/2009, -0/+12Lots of not-quite-there-yet tech in that article, but still promising!
- billricardi, on 04/04/2009, -0/+10Well, of course the energy used to create hydrogen fuel is is less than the energy put out by the reaction. That's the Law of Conservation of Energy. If it were more, we would have an Over Unity reaction and nobody would ever worry about energy ever again.
Next time someone tells you that, tell them that hydrogen is just a MEDIUM that carries energy. Extracting hydrogen using the energy from cheap renewable resources (like hydroelectric and solar) means that we can convert energy from the grid to power our cars and trucks easily and cheaply, and not rely strictly on oil anymore. - Innuendo24, on 04/03/2009, -3/+11I remember not even a year ago everyone telling me that hydrogen wasn't feasible since the energy put into the system (to create the hydrogen fuel) was less than the energy put out by the reaction. But with advances like this it only proves to show that telling science "never" is always doomed to bite you in the ass.
Keep up the great work INRS! - draculthemad, on 04/05/2009, -0/+5Hydrogen fuel cells are not a viable energy generation method, they are a transportation medium.
IE, you 'charge' them with energy from a power station but then you can use them as a portable source for things like cars, etc.
Unfortunately, petroleum is 'free' in that it already has the energy bound up in it. It also has a very high energy density. Non-petroleum methods are stuck with competing against both.
It is going to be cheaper to pump it up out of the ground than generate the energy for a while yet, but its certainly going to pass that stage at some point.
Increasing the efficiency of alternative methods simply means that time is sooner. - ap1983, on 04/03/2009, -0/+5The primary obstacle in bringing fuel-efficient options to the market en masse is not the technology--it's the economy. The problem has always been the cost of manufacturers to produce alternatively fueled vehicles versus the profit margin they stand to gain. At least this represents a step in the right direction while still adhering to the values of consumer and producer!!
- c010rb1indusa, on 04/05/2009, -2/+6Wind, Solar, Tidal, Nuclear
^ is the future. And I don't care what you liberals say (I'm one of you), nuclear has high start-up costs but its cheap in the long run, and it's safe...France is all nuclear, they have the cleanest air in the developed world.
Hydrogen is impractical especially when nature has given us better solutions. - anthropodeus, on 04/05/2009, -0/+4"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."
-Arthur C. Clarke - JamesMorris, on 04/05/2009, -1/+5Oh so this isn't about new ATI drivers..
- LonelyTylenoL, on 04/05/2009, -0/+3Look guys, nuclear is a great step towards making the world a better, more energy efficient, place. Just like how ethanol seemed like a good step to fuel problems, but not a good solution.
Here's the problem...people as a whole just can't seem to grasp change of thought, ideas, etc. quickly. It's a sad but true fact. Nuclear is DEFINITELY NOT a good choice for the long run of alternative energy due to its possible danger. But, there's got to be some sort of transition to clean energy. And in the end of all of these alternatives, some will stand out and the other ones will fall. But true viable alternatives will succeed in the end, possibly wind, solar, geothermal, or one that hasn't been created yet.
But every alternative energy, no matter how strange or crazy, is very important to our future, because it gets us one step closer to the solution. - k3rfuffl3, on 04/05/2009, -0/+3What you don't remember still is that you have no idea what you are or were talking about.
Hydrogen is produced to store energy - like a battery. When you charge up the "battery" you make hydrogen. To use up the battery you use up the hydrogen. - Prism123, on 04/05/2009, -1/+4title is a misnomer this has nothing to do with the price of the hydrogen itself, it will however make the fuel cells a lot cheaper which is a good step.
- anthropodeus, on 04/05/2009, -0/+3IMHO, the biggest problem with nuclear fission power is that it's not renewable - it requires fuel. and, like petroleum power, there are only a few countries that have uranium. perhaps nuclear fission will be a good backup energy source when the sky is dark and the air is stagnant, but it is not a feasible long-term solution for all energy needs.
i just wish there was some easy way to water-down the fissionable material in nuclear bombs to use them in reactors =( - CeeJayDK, on 04/05/2009, -0/+3You mean the energy put into the system (to create the hydrogen fuel) was MORE than the energy put out by the reaction.
If you got more out than you put in , you would have essentially created energy out of nothing - which is impossible.
You probably didn't mean to type "less" instead of "more". It happens.
I see billricardi made the same mistake. - TVarmy, on 04/05/2009, -0/+3Yeah, there are a lot of ifs currently tied to hydrogen. A fuel-cell vehicle is pretty much an electric vehicle with a different type of battery. The big question, if this innovation ends up making fuel cell vehicles cost-comparable to a comparable battery-based EV solution, is if hydrogen is energy dense enough and cheap enough to produce a vehicle as viable as an electric car. Batteries, IIRC, were mostly more efficient at storing energy than hydrogen is theoretically able to.
Further, there is a big question of how the hydrogen will be produced. It could be cracked from water using electricity and/or heat from renewable or carbon neutral power sources, but natural gas and petroleum are cheaper sources for hydrogen. That brings up the issues related to those fuels, and gets us back in many of the same messy issues as before.
I personally think a plug-in natural gas hybrid is the smartest solution, based on what I know. Natural gas is produced domestically, and can be pumped at home if you have a natural gas line. The natural gas system compensates for most of the flaws behind a total EV. It fills fast like gasoline, and there are compressed natural gas cars already on the road. It also works well in cold weather, where batteries and fuel cells perform horribly (part of why most EV leasing programs and trials take place in warm climates like southern California). And in a parallel hybrid design, it can kick in more power for larger or sportier vehicles. - lordmike, on 04/05/2009, -0/+2Sadly, this development comes too late for GM, the industry leader in fuel cell technologies...
- sp89, on 04/05/2009, -1/+3Can I have all the old catalysts please? Thanks.
- TVarmy, on 04/05/2009, -0/+2Exactly, the solution is not a single silver bullet, but an amalgam of many smaller solutions. Ethanol is not a green primary fuel, but it's a good idea to use it as a gasoline additive when there is a surplus of corn or other crops that can be fermented, as it is better than letting the stored energy go to waste.
- c010rb1indusa, on 04/05/2009, -0/+1All Nuclear waste can be kept on site. If you took all the nuclear waste in the country and put in in the same area, it wouldn't take up more space than a football field...Those big concrete domes can protect it, you can fly a plane into them and not a piece of concrete will fall off.
Indian Point in upstate NY keeps their waste on site. Environmentally the only threat coming from nuclear is sometimes the water they put back in to the river is a few degrees hotter than when they took it...big ***** deal. - k3rfuffl3, on 04/05/2009, -1/+2Nuclear is not cheap economically/environmentally unless you reprocess the waste. I don't care what a liberal like you says (I'm one of you).
- Bodminzer, on 04/05/2009, -0/+1Nature has given us better solutions? Hydrogen is one of the most common elements in the universe. What could be more natural than that?
- inactive, on 04/05/2009, -0/+1i'll feel better when i actually see companies like buick and toyota come up with hydrogen cars for less than 15K
with stations around LA to fuel them up - KJSatz, on 04/05/2009, -0/+1Adsorption. Learn it. Love it. Live it.
- TVarmy, on 04/05/2009, -0/+1Nuclear waste is safe assuming there are no major catastrophes (almost entirely impossible in the subcritical designs, and highly improbable in all modern designs) and there are no leaks. It's very safe if it stays contained. The issue is that once it's contained, it needs a place to stay.
Yucca Mountain was not as good as the government claimed (it turns out the water table does run very near it after all). There was never a survey run, and it was selected as it was one of the few places they could get to accept it and it seemed "dry enough." If we want nuclear to be our prime energy source (I'm cool with it, also a liberal), we need to first find a good storage place (or maybe a regional storage system) and commit to the funding and engineering needed to make it work. This may be beyond the capabilities of our country until attitudes towards nuclear power and NIMBY change, which is why I'm wary about nuclear at the moment. I feel we can somewhat start off okay (nuclear powerplants are famously overfunded, by an average of something like 200-300%, IIRC, and many are canceled partway through), but we aren't so good at knowing how to follow through once the waste starts getting made. Currently, all waste is stored on site at the nuclear power plants, meaning that instead of not being in your back yard, it's in everyone's backyard. - anthropodeus, on 04/05/2009, -0/+1traveling wave reactors could revolutionize nuclear power by making it safer and even more cost-effective than it already is.
http://digg.com/d1llh9 - DrCyclops, on 04/05/2009, -0/+1Living in a cave, eating raw meat and picking lice out of your hair.
Which I've considered in this economy. - throneofdreams, on 04/05/2009, -0/+1I wonder if these catalysts could replace the platinum in the catalytic converters of gas powered vehicles
- Propethic, on 04/05/2009, -0/+1What dangers?
- fury420, on 04/05/2009, -0/+1very interesting
there have been many fuel cell catalyst breakthroughs recently, the papers regarding non-metallic catalysts made from nitrogen-doped carbon nanotubes from a few weeks back come to mind. so much for the predictions that hydrogen fuel cells will deplete world supplies of platinum - ophello, on 04/05/2009, -1/+1It's advances like these that tend to go unnoticed but I think this is really a big deal.
- LonelyTylenoL, on 04/05/2009, -0/+0WTF are you talking about!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT DIGG IS OR HOW TO USE IT???? - LonelyTylenoL, on 04/05/2009, -1/+1forgot "since" between "applied" and "these"...
- deboerpa, on 04/05/2009, -2/+2Jesus was an extraterrestrial.
- mitso6989, on 04/05/2009, -1/+0That ought to drive a gallon of distilled water over $2 per gallon pretty quick.
- LonelyTylenoL, on 04/05/2009, -4/+2I don't know why but this made me think that carbon nanotubes could be used further improve hydrogen fuel cell efficiency. Maybe something having to do with its tubular structure, I don't know...?
Some sort of nanotechnology could be applied these fuel cells deal with very small atoms...? - inactive, on 04/05/2009, -8/+0***** electric vehicles
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is