Make hydride legal and no need for gas. Convert water to hyrogen

Discussion in 'Science' started by Patricio Da Silva, Apr 3, 2021.

  1. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Coal generates 20% of the nation's power...not 100% as you state! Anyone who says EV's and Hybrid Electrics are 'just a stupid emotional feel good idea' is closed-minded and biased and not eligible for science debate...
     
  2. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,633
    Likes Received:
    11,204
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah, and an additional 40% of that power comes from natural gas.
    Why are we not just burning that natural gas directly in cars?

    Would be more efficient.

    I think the overall additional energy efficiency loss converting gas powered motion to electricity (1) and then transmission of that electricity over distances (2), and then battery charging inefficiencies (3), and finally converting it to back to physical motion (4), has to be at least 50%.

    Those are four different additional energy loss points (conversion inefficiencies) you are adding.


    By the way, about 20% of US power generation is nuclear, if you consider that "renewable".
    I doubt most supporters of electric cars like the idea of their cars running on nuclear power.
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2021
  3. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Who cares...you said coal is required...and it is not required.

    Combustion engine cars have been modified for propane or natural gas use for a couple of decades.

    Makes no difference what 'you' think above...50% is a WAG and surely you can research the data.

    The goal is to reduce fossil fuel consumption...not tear down EV technology.

    I don't consider nuclear renewable??

    EV's reduce fossil fuel consumption and reduce pollution...these are facts...
     
  4. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,486
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In significant regions, electricity is cheaper on a $/mile basis than is gasoline.

    Electric cars have far lower maintenance requiement, basically because there are so few moving parts and no exhaust or other residue.

    Electric cars can be fueled at home. Thus for most people it isn't necessary to go to a filling station of any kind.

    In the performance range of cars, electric power allows far better acceleration.

    Electric cars are cleaner as we move toward clean sources of electricity - home and public solar, wind, nuclear, etc. Today, the fuel type used to produce the most electricity is wind.

    You suggest natural gas cars - good for you to notice the efficiency of not creating and then using electriciy. But, you dodge the issues with natural gas cars - a fuel which auto manufacturers have long rejected.

    Electric batteries are advancing rapidly, with current electric cars boasting over 300 miles of range. That range is increasing as current chemical battery technology improves and as capacitor based storage comes on line.
     
  5. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,633
    Likes Received:
    11,204
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I pointed out how, paradoxically, your "EV technology" ends up just burning MORE fossil fuels.

    A lot like that corn ethanol bungle several years ago.
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2021
  6. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,633
    Likes Received:
    11,204
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's believed they are close to reaching the technological limits of that battery storage capacity.

    Things aren't going to get much better than they are now, although costs may come down. Then again, costs might not come down with expanded production, since the rare element lithium that's so important to these batteries is in short supply.
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2021
  7. Creasy Tvedt

    Creasy Tvedt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    10,291
    Likes Received:
    13,163
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I thought the goal was less pollution.

    What if we reduce fossil fuel consumption, and yet we increase the amount of pollution, is it still a win?

    Thanks to the environmental mess that is EV car batteries, that's a very real possibility. EV cars could win the war to reduce fossil fuel consumption, and yet still ending up losing the war against pollution.

    Why don't you consider nuclear "renewable"?
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2021
  8. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,486
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't know of limits on lithium, so I won't comment on that.

    As for electric batteries in general, we're getting higher and higher capacity storage based both on chemical batteries (like lithium) and on capacitors.

    There are electric cars today that use capacitors for reclaiming brake and coasting energy as part of stop/start systems. Capacitors have far less overhead in charging and discharging than lithium batteries have, so they are ideal for picking up energy that would otherwise go unused. In a lithium only system, brake energy can't be transferred to lithium batteries very fast, so a lot of energy is still lost - even though what can be gathered today is valuable.

    "Supercapacitors" are advancing, as they allow for very fast charging with little loss due to the charging process and no damage to the system. They would also have superior characteristics in releasing energy for use - another location of loss.

    Large capacity electricity storage is incredibly important, and the result is that there is huge investment in technology advances.
     
  9. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,486
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My understanding is that the pollution from burning fossil fuel is a climate and air pollution issue while lithium mining, battery manufacturing and disposal are different kinds of issue.

    Lithium mining uses a huge amount of water that can seriously impact those living in the area of the mining. Also, there are chemicals of various kinds that should not be released during manufacturing or disposal.

    I would hope we can handle lithium in a responsible manner.

    But, there is nothing to do about burning gasoline. The whole method of getting energy from gasoline is to combine carbon and oxygen and blow it out the tailpipe.
     
  10. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You gave opinions...how about some actual data?
     
  11. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The actual goal of EV's is profit. As consumers demand alternatives to fossil fuels, EV's and hybrids gain traction. EV's are less expensive to operate. And less pollution.

    Any reduction in fossil fuel consumption is a win. If pollution increases, the root cause can be determined, and some form of mitigation can be put in place.

    Discarded batteries are an issue. However, improved designs will help reduce the waste, and many batteries can be repurposed for other uses, and the remainder should be recycled...the goal should be to avoid the landfills. All of this will take time to put in place.

    Uranium is non-renewable. Newer technologies might provide the use of renewable materials. I'm all for nuclear power generation but I prefer an approach in which very small rectors can be mass-produced (like we have on some military ships) then installed locally to power maybe a square mile area. Or even placing a small unit in every home/factory like we have done on some space craft...
     
    WillReadmore and Creasy Tvedt like this.
  12. Creasy Tvedt

    Creasy Tvedt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    10,291
    Likes Received:
    13,163
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Breeder reactors could solve the nuclear renewability problem, and thorium is much more abundant than uranium, and Thor reactors are already in use.
     
  13. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,486
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, we're working toward an improved nuclear future. And, we're working toward less pollutiong electric storage technology, such as capacitor based systems and to some extent better handling of lithium.

    I think the point is that at present, those who note the environmental problems of batteries also need to recognize the environmental problems of current commercial nuclear technology and of oil - since 2/3 of our oil goes to transportation in the form of gasoline and diesel.

    I like Iowa - where the single fuel used to produce the most electricity is wind.
     
  14. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thorium is more abundant but it doesn't work on it's own...needs to be altered to produce highly reactive uranium. I like the idea of creating whatever power we need within our property and/or building...no need for an electrical grid...
     
  15. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If we can remove 99.9% of the carbon emissions from burning coal, to create energy, I think this should remain an option until alternatives can expand to displace coal. I know coal has a bad name today but it's not really about coal...it's about the pollution...if we can do something about scrubbing those emissions IMO coal remains a viable option for another 20-40 years. And I wonder if we can do better scrubbing carbon emissions from fossil fuel vehicles? Coal, gas, oil, etc. should absolutely be minimized as we move forward...
     
  16. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,486
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sure. BUT, we get electric energy from fossil fuel by combining its carbon with oxygen to form CO2. There are some other emissions as well, but it's the formation of CO2 that gives us the energy.

    Gasoline cars and fossil fuel electricity generation plants ARE CO2 factories. That's how they work.

    Coal is worse, because it is less efficient, has emissions beyond CO2, and has serious environmental impact at mining sites.

    As for ideas of "cleaning", one can't reverse that chemical reaction of carbon + oxygen => CO2 + energy without adding back equivalent amounts of energy in some way: energy + CO2 => carbon + oxygen. Physics says you have to add back the energy for that. Of course, there will be overhead in that, too, as there is always heat loss, etc.

    So, what do they mean when they suggest captureing carbon? There are ideas, but the bottom line is still that fossil fuel factories ARE CO2 factories - including gas cars and electricity plants. And, the idea of cleaning coal to remove the non-carbon part of coal takes energy, which still impacts efficiency - besides questions of how much good it actually does in terms of the various types of emissions and residue.


    In the US electricity production industry, coal is plummeting while natural gas has been growing - making up for that significant loss in electric generation.

    Our rate of consumption is growing, and the growth of clean energy is slightly greater than the total growth in our consumption at present.

    My own view is that we have HUGE potential for clean energy production of electricity.

    Today, a significant percent of homes can beat the price of electricity with home solar. Think what it would mean if the requirement for home power in a city simply declined while those living there benefitted with reduced or eliminated electricity bills.

    A significant precent of all rooftops in America can be profit centers using today's technology at today's prices.
     
  17. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All I'm saying is for the next 20-40 years, during which time we will continue burning fossil fuels for electricity, that if an efficient carbon capture process is in place, this will greatly reduce CO2 emissions. Society needs to decide what is more important; burning coal or clean air? If it's clean air, then scrub most of the CO2. If it costs more to do this so what...it will just push us faster towards alternative/sustainable energies.

    Transportation generates about 30% of greenhouse emissions. This includes cars, trucks, ships, trains, and planes. How long before we do 'anything' about ships, trains and planes? I'm a farmer and all of our equipment contributes to CO2 emissions and this won't change in my lifetime. Electricity production is good for about 25% of greenhouse emissions. How much does our military spew?
     
  18. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    One issue with all of this is the private sector is the primary driver of these technologies. This is good but in order to achieve massive investments there must be a profit motive. In my area we have 30% sustainable power which is great, with goals to do better, but the 30% was the low-hanging fruit, and now the real work begins. This stuff requires paradigm shifts in people thinking, competing with historic and powerful power companies, more efficient technologies are needed, massive private investments, and dealing with buracracy at every turn. I know most people are eager for sustainable energies, but I also know most of these people are not in positions to accept higher costs to create the infrastructure...
     
  19. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,486
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes to all.

    Moving to 30% renewable energy would be a major success, wouldn't it?

    Elimination of fossil fuel energy isn't really the objective, I think. If that ever happens, it won't be for a LONG time. And, I think those interested in climate are fully aware of that. It may be important to end the use of coal, though. And, coal is already decreasing dramatically, with natural gas replacing this source.

    There is profit to be made with today's renewable energy technology. Throughout America's central region we're seeing enormous wind power projects with other such projects in most states. Those are private enterprise. Today's electric cars beat gasoline on dollars per mile due to local electricity prices, battery efficiencies, and auto manufacturers are recognizing electricity as the future in strong moves. Solar today pays off the cost of purchase and installation in a reasonable time frame - as noted by the companies willing to install solar for free, with their repayment being a percent of the cost savings. Not all buildings have sufficient exposure to the sun, but that really is all that is required, besides the technology.

    Obviously, that doesn't mean instant change. But, there is a direction being set here and that direction is worth supporting. Cutting the cost of fuel for personal transportation and for electricity is a benefit to America. Plus, it is a significant economic sector, meaning jobs. Plus, I think it probably adds to resiliancy in our overall energy portfolio when individuals can provide more for themselves and at lower cost. I think an argument for public good exists outside of any concern for our planet.

    There is public action that needs to be taken, though. My understanding is that in many (most?) locations homeowners can not put excess electricity they create back on the grid. Sometimes the existing technology limit means that only one house in a neighborhood (per transformer) can do so. Also, smart metering is far from universal, meaning that it's not possible to use pricing strategies to balance load throughout the day - something beneficial to industrial and private consumers alike. Plus, our whole electric distribution network needs serious improvement. The motivation for these acts ends up being political as much as profit based. In fact, untilities someties see themselves as a profit center and therefore have no interest in accommodating what is best for consumers who are ready to take benefit from solar.
     
  20. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,633
    Likes Received:
    11,204
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If there's profit to be made, why are government subsidies or government support needed?

    Things that are actually profitable usually don't need government assistance.
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2021
  21. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,517
    Likes Received:
    3,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Some other interesting figures;

    From an article by Christopher Whalen published in 2017 detail the cost break down of electrolysis/ The estimates were published in Euros so I converted to USD at the current exchange rate and were for a commercial (multi megawatt project) . Figures approximate.

    The capital cost of the electrolyser. I assume a purchase price (including installation) of $838,000 per MW of capacity to take electricity to generate hydrogen. This is lower than the price that would be achieved today but should be possible by 2019/2020. I suggest that the electrolyser will work perhaps 4,000 hours a year, principally when power is cheap because of abundant wind or solar. At a discount rate of 7%, the owner will need to earn $77,890 a year to cover the cost over 20 years. Per MWh of electricity use over 4,000 hours, the cost is $19.47. ‘

    Note the cost is per megawatt.

    Now assuming you want hydrogen for electricity for both home and transport.

    One electric vehicle diving 15000 K a year will consume aprox 15kwh per 100 K. That' about 2250KW p.a. Also assume a (modest 8000 kwh) p.a. for small home occupied by two people.

    Total electricity requirement p.a 10250kwh. Call it 10000 kwh or .01 megawatt pa. That gives you a cost of $8380 to run the house and a car (probably closer to $9000). If you can get efficient home scale electrolysis plants produced on a commercial basis and have sufficient solar/wind power to run it.

    So it could be getting doable. P.S. Happy of anyone to pull apart/redo my figures.
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2021
    modernpaladin likes this.
  22. GrayMan

    GrayMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2010
    Messages:
    8,357
    Likes Received:
    3,512
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The infrastructure is needed though. Ei. Charging stations need to be installed for electric vehicles to really be desirable. Getting the ball rolling on that can really go a long way.

    Also, moving things into mass production will make things cheaper. Subsidies can quicken the pace to it becoming more self viable. Investors do this on the own but the government has a larger impact and can draw investors to these green energy companies by helping subsidize them
     
    FreshAir likes this.
  23. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    27,705
    Likes Received:
    21,104
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Wow. Thats surprisingly close to what I figured, for a house and a car anyway.
     
  24. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,517
    Likes Received:
    3,138
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes and its shows why electric cars are really going to take off for the average motorist in a big way. Even at today's relatively low petrol prices electric cars become are competitive on a mileage basis. Two key issues that hold them back. The initial purchase prices are still to high (but dropping as numbers go up) and long distance driving. The recharging grid needs to expand (which it is) and be compatible across brands. This last bit is still something of an issue. We still have the (ridiculous) issue of different brands using different types of charging plugs. Its an apple/Android issue that needs to be dealt with by regulation.
     
  25. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,486
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not so sure about your assumption on this.

    High definition TV definitely required government intervention, even though lots of profit motive was present.

    With electric cars, one of the fears people have is that their batteries will run to empty somewhere with little/no opportunity for recharging. Government can allay that fear by showing commitment. That could be important regardless of whether there is any actual risk.

    Tesal will come and get you for free if you run out of battery life. Does that mean the battery life fear goes away? I'm not so sure. If not, then it pretty much shows that Tesla can't actually solve the whole problem by themselves in the short run. And, the rest of our auto industry probably can't, either.
     
    FreshAir likes this.

Share This Page