What is Digg?Sponsored by AVG
CNET Top Weekly Download for Free Anti-Virus view!
free.avg.com - 2.4 million people a week get AVG Anti-Virus Free, for the best protection against web threats.
68 Comments
- miles01110, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13FTA:
"We are currently using simulated solar light in the lab,"
How ironic.
Cool story though, $1 for a tank of gas sounds pretty good to me... - Mousse, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10We should just stick to electric cars.
solar > electrical > hydrogen > electrical (or thermal) > mechanical
Anyone see the unnecessary step? - Jolls, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@drizek
The day that happens is the day Newton's corpse get's bombarded with a genetically engineered apple, that's out to KILL!
EDIT: what the bloody did I just write? - mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I wish the article went into greater depth.. but I'd like to hear more from this research in the future. Currently Hydrogen is just too expensive to procure and distribute in large quantities, so I'm glad to see progress being made on that front.
- Saad85, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8well there's no real problem with using it.
the problem comes from making it.. which is a tough thing to do. basically, as of right now, we're burning major fossil fuels to get the energy needed to make hydrogen gas.. which is ironic, because a lot of the people that use it are doing so because they think it's cleaner.
if we can find a quick/efficient way to make it without polluting, you can say hi to hydrogen powered vehicles and other things pretty soon. - WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Just remember, no matter what they say...Hydrogen is NOT an alternative fuel, but rather a way of storing energy, which still has to be produced from coal, oil, electricity (from coal or oil, etc.), or other means.
As another digger pointed out recently, there are not huge stores of free hydrogen anywhere on earth.
It requires energy to break down water and get hydrogen and oxygen from it....and that same energy is merely 'returned' (most of it, anyhow) by burning hydrogen in a fuel cell.
It represents no net savings in energy, and in fact, a slight net cost, since some energy is always lost to all those processes.
Don't believe the HYPE!
(na na na na na...) :-)
It is an energy STORAGE means, not a SOURCE. - groe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Yeah, I love it: "excellent potential to produce hydrogen from another abundant resource – water." Not in northern Nevada, it isn't. Maybe they could use simulated water in a lab. Also, they say $1.00 a gallon to PRODUCE. Does anybody think the oil companies sell gasoline for what it costs to produce?
- jeffiek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5" the future of this type of this energy is limitless."
I hate to rain on his parade, but it's limited to one kilowatt per square meter. A large number perhaps, but let's stick to the facts. - darkspire, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4If you really want to find out more about this particular bit of research you can read his recently published article:
K.S. Raja, V.K. Mahajan and M. Misra, "Determination of Photo-Conversion Efficiency of Nanotubular Titanium Dioxide Photo-Electrochemical Cell for Solar Hydrogen Generation", Journal of Power Sources, 159, 2006, pp. 1258-1265.
To find out more about Dr. Misra you can visit is faculty page at the UNR website.
http://www.unr.edu/mse/misra/ - Afreyt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Sunlight is still free.
- podwich, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5So it's good that the European governments see fit to leave less money in citizens' hands as compared to the USA's government? As of earlier last year, the cost of petrol in Britain was nearly 50% duty, 15% VAT, and only about 35% actual product cost. How is this a good thing?
- drizek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4What we really need is a fuel that gives out more energy than is required to make it. Then we'll be all set.
- thechadstannard, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5the drawback to hydrogen is the fact that it takes more energy to make it than you get back out. What we need is more efficient ways of producing hydrogen. This is right on.
- corneliusroot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5As a native Nevadan living in Sparks and working in Reno and less than 15 minutes from UNR, I applaud our local University. This is great stuff!
- bibliophobe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Yeah, we should just let that sunlight hit the ground the way nature intended.
- drizek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3But it will only be around for another 500 million years. We need to think of our childrends childrends ... childrens children.
- Domza, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"Or, that they have a feeling of powerlessness as the price of gasoline climbs to $3 per gallon."
Are you kidding me???
1 Gal = 3.7 Litres
At the moment 1 litre of 98RON in Victoria, Australia is about AU$1.30 which would make AU$4.81 per Gallon = US$3.81 a gallon.
You guys are complaining because you're going to be paying less then a dollar per litre of petrol? Some one, head check North America, stat. FYI, Europe pays more per litre then we do.
You have it good. Land of the plenty, and cheap. Not only that, but your uber low petrol prices do not inspire your manufacturers to become efficient at all. If anything petrol should be more expensive. There's nothing wrong with living a little more frugally. - raptureRX7, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@mousse
You're forgetting, there has to be an intermediary format for the energy. Even in today's electric cars, the power is stored as chemical energy in batteries. From what I understand, battery technology is relatively mature compared to some of the alternate storage mediums like hydrogen. That's why these new technologies are so exciting--there's a much greater chance a breakthrough could be made that changes the way store and use energy in vehicles (among other things). - apeweek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@BESTenemy
"Not just one unnecessary step, but many redundant operations, especially compared to Oil Combustion > Kinetic Energy process."
This is too simplistic. Electric cars are still more efficient, by far, than gasoline cars, even when multiplying out the 'steps'. A gas powered engine is 25% efficient, at best, compared to 95% efficient electric motors, and 90% efficient battery storage. This doesn't even consider the inefficiencies of gasoline refining (using electricity) or the energy-guzzling transportation of gasoline to thousands of gas stations. By contrast, delivering electricity via the grid is 95% efficient.
It's easy to prove this by looking at fuel prices. Gas is 10 to 15 cents/mile. Electricity for EVs costs about a penny per mile.
"Plus, the electrical grids aren't built to handle such energy. "
Electric cars charge at night. There is currently enough wasted electricity (from baseline powerplants that can't shut off overnight) to charge several million EVs before we even have to think about this.
Besides, when gasoline demand finally goes down, we can take the large amounts of electricity currently used to refine gasoline and use it to charge electric cars. - astroturfin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3two points:
- lets talk efficiency here, firstly the technology has to use an ultrasonic generator which requires an energy input so the amount of fuel produced is already lessened to maintain the continuation of the process.
- Secondly hydrogen is an extremely non dense gas, so compared to liquid hydrocarbons the energy per unit of volume at STP (standard temperature and pressure) is order of magnitudes less, making it ineffective as a transport fuel.To achieve anywhere near the energy density of a liquid hydrocarbon the gas needs to be compressed "another energy input" to a suitable energy density before it is suitable for transport use. To add to this every car truck must than be fitted with a pressure vessel to hold either highly pressurised hydrogen gas or liquid hydrogen which requires the gas to be compressed and kept cool to remain liquid.
A much better idea would be to use that loading of sunlight in Nevada to set up a solar farm using PV cells, this way the loss of energy through multiple transitions is minimised because photons entering the cells are causing electron flow. Electricity generated from the farm could be used to power electric vehicles instead at designated docking stations linked to the solar farm grid.
Anyway the above is just a thought as it seems most of the research car manufacturers are doing these days seems to be on the hydrogen path. - BESTenemy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Perhaps you do not recall the Northeast Blackout of 2003. In my opinion, nothing illustrates better our readiness to adopt the new economy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_North_America_blackout
Our grids can barely cope with the existing levels of consumption, let alone an increase of 10Kw per car per day, regardless of whether it happens during the day or at night.
Perhaps you're not familiar with the "daylight savings time" principle and the reason for it. We'd not be so concerned with saving electrical energy if we had it in such abundance. Electric motors are more efficient than the gasoline ones, yes, but there is still no way of producing and storing energy that would make the whole mechanism more efficient than the conventional combustion one.
Also, the cost of electricity and the cost of oil are hugely dependent on demand vs. availability ratio. If we go fully electrical, the price would go down with the demand if we had the supply, but we don't. If it becomes a subsitute for oil - a precious commodity, then its price will rise. If cars start going electrical, then in order to meet the rising demand, we'll have to build more power plants, higher capacity power lines and design better power grids. Electrical companies will have to invest a hell of a lot, and to do it, they'll likely jack up the prices. Nobody cares whether there's a greater profit to be made at the end. People want quick and easy cash and they'll use just about any excuse to tax the consumer more.
Atomic power plants currently use as much fossil fuel through mining, enrihment and delivery of the uranium as the conventional coal and natural gas plants. They are more efficient as they allow to outsource the problem to 3rd world countries - the few producers of uranium. It's clean for us and the rest is their problem.
I don't think the hydrogen economy is doomed. It is simply not there yet and won't be due to negative icentives by fossil based energy producers.
Electric car's dead just like the laptop computer's dead after 2 hours. There's no efficient battery technology. Hydrogen's a more efficient carrier than an electrochemical counterpart, but it's difficult to store and transport. Hydrogen requires energy, that is wasted on the process that serves no purpose other than making it portable. Compression and refrigiration.
We are not there yet, and the article does nothing to prove that wrong. The only 2 numbers I see are $1 vs. $3 and nothing to back up the statement.
I do suggest reading the article I posted (got it off digg few months ago). Instead of attacking the electrical engine, please study the infrastructure. It'll make more sense to you. - truck87bp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Why produce it if you're not going to use it?
- Domza, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No country is fully dependent on America for food. The majority of the agricultural products that are produced in America are consumed domestically. Even food aid is turned down by some African countries because of GM/EU mandate related issues.
The world isn't going to starve. You import beef to supplement domestic supply. - hiPpymIck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2are large amounts of energy involved?
- nixfu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Jesus people..... if oil gets expensive we can use what we know today
NUCLEAR (generate electricity) ---> Power cars, trains, buses, houses, etc (electric)
NUCLEAR--->Hydrogen(low need portable power..say some power equipment like lawn mowers not near an electrical service, or to power some remote generators)...
BIOGas(diesel, ethanol) --> Airplanes, Boats and non land connected devices. Or due the above first, and make the remaining petroleums last MUCH longer for these uses. - inmatarian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think the Mythbusters had an episode where they demonstrated that it wasn't the hydrogen in the Hindenburg that cause that catastrophe. It had something to do with the actual exterior shell being made of a flammable material.
- dezmo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3pictures or it didn't happen
- RicktheBrick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The list of new technology that is going to have a profound effect on our lives is almost endless. I just wish the government or some other reliable organization could prove at least one of them to be good. Otherwise reading these stories is the same as reading a science fiction book.
- alteratti, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3yeah. that s like the 54th time someone cam up with hydrogen fuel.
get over it man. - floorman56, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Whats that statistic every one trots out? 10% of the worlds population using 25% of the world's energy?
Because 1/2 of that is the power we use for food production and moving food. So if we cut that by 15% what part of the world that we feed would like to starve? - dacheetah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Not really, H2 has a lot of potential energy, as it combusts easily and cleanly, into water, and can then at the cost of electricity be turned back into fuel, making it renewable. Sure U-235 packs more of a punch, but it's neither clean nor renewable, and is really quite a bitch to get a reaction that will power your car, without melting (or exploding) it.
If you want to do something that is much fancier sounding, build a plant that can produce electrons and positrons, store them seperately, and then use the gamma-rays they emit when they collide to power something. As long as you absorb the gamma rays (which are energy anyway) then there is literally no waste, as every electron and positron will cancel each other out leaving pure energy, making it clean. The trouble is positrons are a bit of a pain to produce, and making enough to use as a fuel is not likely. - hifigi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Hydrogen fuel would be great, really, it would; but will it ever lead to this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Turbine_Car
I can only dream. - edm1950, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Does anyone else see the irony of using water to produce hydrogen in Nevada?
- Gtitian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't think h3 will do what we want it to. I personally don't know anything about h3, but my assumption is, that if it could be sold as a fuel, the power companies who control the nuclear power plants would want to turn a profit on it, thus, they would do so. Perhaps I am being naive. Also, I think they want to use the hydrogen in fuel cells, which is not a combustion type device, and that may have something to do with this.
- azimir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That depends on whether the universe will stop expanding. If it doesn't, we'll eventually have an infinite number of square meters (although, the number of solar sources may not cover it to our needs).
- darkspire, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1My wife and I both attended/attend UNR and still live in Reno so it's nice to hear some nationally recognized scientific research come out into the public eye. There's a lot of other alternate energy research happening at UNR and the new Redfield campus will be getting a significant portion of its energy from geothermal sources. One of the other interesting things about Northern Nevada is that while we also experience a significant number of sunny days we also have a significant amount of geothermal resources that are hardly being tapped.
some more information on geothermal use in Nevada. http://www.geo-energy.org/publications/reports/Geothermal%20Resource%20Development%20in%20Nevada%202006.pdf - Eruditus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1sadd85, hydrogen3 is produced in large quantities by pebble bed nuclear reactors and is currently not fully utilized,,, the solution here is obvious :)
- mousy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Electrolysis (of water) gives Hydrogen and Oxygen.
Combustion of Hydrogen give Water.
Hmmm? - amirbd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Word. Entirely.
- dcvtss, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2hydrogen and ethanol are pipe dreams, biodiesel's the only practical alternative
- megaton, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"will the days of the $1 tank of gas ever return?"
Gosh, that was like... 85 years ago.
Oh! $1 a *gallon*... - floorman56, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Domza
If that is so how come we are always asked for food when people are starving? - S1ngular1ty1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Combustion of hydrogen doesn't give water. Using hydrogen to power fuel cells ends up producing water as a by product of the fuel cell catalyst interaction with the hydrogen and oxygen from the air.
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-cell.htm - mousy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@S1ngular1ty1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combustion - dacheetah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Genthree:
"There's also the slight problem of storing large amounts of a highly flammable gas in a vehicle. Anyone remember the Hindenburg?"
Yeah, and petrol (gasoline) is so much safer. (BTW, of almost 100 passengers, only about a third died, which on a vehicle that is flying at that altitude with a max speed of 135 km/h (84 mph, 73 knots/h) is rather impressive.) Also, it would be no more dangerous than using LPG. - apeweek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Okay, here's what you said:
"...Our grids can barely cope with the existing levels of consumption, let alone an increase of 10Kw per car per day, regardless of whether it happens during the day or at night."
Of course it matters whether it happens during the day or night. Electricity currently goes to waste at night, from electric plants that can't shut off. Plus, mass adoption of EVs will not happen immediately. There's time to adapt. As I pointed out, electricity now used to refine gasoline can charge EV batteries instead.
Here's what you said:
"...Electric motors are more efficient than the gasoline ones, yes, but there is still no way of producing and storing energy that would make the whole mechanism more efficient than the conventional combustion one."
Yet it IS more efficient -- much more efficient. What does gas cost per mile? 10 to 15 cents. Here's what it costs to drive an EV:
Your numbers suggest 10 miles per KWH. In my experience, it's not quite this good (I drive an EV), so let's use 5 miles per KWH. What does electricity cost per KWH? Here in Detroit, I get an "off-peak" rate (overnight) of 3 cents per KWH. That's about ONE-HALF cent per mile . But electric rates vary, so let's say 1 cent per mile.
EV - one-half to to one cent per mile. Gasoline - ten to fifteen cents per mile. Which sounds more efficient to you? - aschmack, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Isn't this about producing hydrogen rather than using it?
- BESTenemy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2mousse
Not just one unnecessary step, but many redundant operations, especially compared to Oil Combustion > Kinetic Energy process.
And using words "robust", "stable"? What kind of scientist is this? Professor in marketing? When they speak numbers, I'll listen, but so far noboy has given a better breakdown than this.
http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html
And yes, the more conversion steps there are, the greater the energy loss, since no energy transformation method is 100% efficient (apart from nuclear fusion that's pretty close to it).
Remember the $1 gas days? Well. Keep dreaming!
Hydrogen's not a fuel source. It's a carrier and there is no way, currently, to produce it efficiently and in such amounts to fully substitute for our fossil fuel spoiled appetite.
Plus, the electrical grids aren't built to handle such energy. Electric car eats up 10kW for each 100 miles on average. Calculate the daily commute of all the cars (include trucks and other vehicles that don't even have an electrical counterpart yet), write down and look at it. You'll be yelling profanities. - surfmadpig, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Why is hydrogen power suddenly getting all the attention? It's been around long, and was ignored by many. Still, in some countries they have already started being used to fuel buses as a test phase before introducing them to the private market. For example Germany, China and Iceland http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1934568,00.html http://en.chinaradio.cn/2946/2006/06/20/272@104857.htm & http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/01/in_iceland_hydr.php
It seems to me that now that gasoline has gone up, scientists an politicians decided to talk about the "new" hydrogen to gain some spotlight. That's great though, if it's gonna help get rid of gasoline (and the poverty, dependance and wars it causes). - davbmn68, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah so we can go to war over nuclear weapons instead.
Those dirty Bushes giving research money for Hydrogen, who do they think they're foolin?
We see right through their ploy to boost oil production....oh wait sorry. Maybe we don't. -
Show 51 - 68 of 68 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is