The real danger of allowing GM and Ford to go bankrupt . . .

Nate Nagel > wrote in
news:1118959251.df6fc978dcf81cfc97b2bd7ac5958150@t eranews:

>> Not really, no. Battery tech is pretty much stalled at an efficiency
>> far below hydrogen burning.
>
> However, there is no *theoretical* limit to the energy density of a
> battery or ultracapacitor as there is for any physical fuel. Why
> we're not dumping more resources there I don't honestly know.

Of course there is a limit. One needs a chemical reaction to generate
the electric potential. We seem to be reaching inherent limits in this.
Most of the new really good ones aren't reversible ie. the battery can't
be recharged. There is a reason lead-acid batteries are still the
standard used in cars, boats, and airplanes.

The ability to store charge in a capacitor is limited by the voltage at
which the dielectric breaks down. New materials are needed but even so
caps are lousy as current sources.

>> Hard to dump coal, nukes, wind, water, and solar into the gas tank,
>> wouldn't you say?
>
> Coal is also a fossil fuel.

Duh. It also a widely available fuel for electric generation, which
functions best in large scale plants.

> Nuclear power is politically a no-go.

For the moment in this country. Don't read that into the rest of the
world which isn't so silly.

> The other three really don't have the potential to fill the void
> caused by a discontinuance of the use of fossil fuels.

Yes, in fact, they have the potential to reduce fossil fuel consumption
for electric generation significantly.

> And any
> electrical power source used for cracking water could just as easly be
> used to recharge a fully electric vehicle. Let's face it; electricity
> is a really neat, clean, easy to move source of power compared to any
> fuel.

No, it isn't. The batteries weigh too much for the energy delivered, not
to mention that used batteries are an evironmental hazard.

>> The advantage is that it doesn't need to use gas/diesel. Do keep up.
>>
>
> That's an advantage?

Of course it is. It's only light-sweet crude which seems to be peaking
in production.

--
Republican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick

Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time

>> The advantage is that it doesn't need to use gas/diesel. Do keep up.
>>
>
> That's an advantage?
>
> nate

It's a HUGE advantage when the gas and diesel are no longer available at any
price. -Dave

Dave wrote:
>>>The advantage is that it doesn't need to use gas/diesel. Do keep up.
>>>
>>
>>That's an advantage?
>>
>>nate
>
>
> It's a HUGE advantage when the gas and diesel are no longer available at any
> price. -Dave
>

However, that's not happening, at least not right away. And the huge
drawbacks to any other energy source (usually lower energy density)
aren't being offset by lower cost by unit energy. So until the cost of
gas/Diesel rises dramatically, whether through market forces or by
taxation, we won't see the alternative energy sources on the market.

Heck, Europe has FAR higher at-the-pump costs than we do here (US) but
even there there's no significant hydrogen infrastructure. I have heard
that LPG conversions are becoming more popular, but I understand that
that's due to tax structure, not actual per-unit-energy cost.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see some alternate energy sources
developed, but a) gasoline and Diesel are actually really good fuels, in
terms of energy density and cost. There's a lot of work to be done to
catch up to their utility b) I don't think hydrogen (or alcohol for
that matter) is where it's at. If I were a betting man I'd put my money
on biodiesel first, then a shift to all-electric vehicles when energy
density of electric storage comes down to a reasonable level. Fuel
cells are kind of a wild card, but again, I don't think hydrogen is
where it's at; they've got to be able to eat easier-to-produce fuels to
be practical, otherwise there's too much energy loss.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Nate Nagel > writes:
> Fuel cells are kind of a wild card, but again, I don't think hydrogen
> is where it's at; they've got to be able to eat easier-to-produce
> fuels to be practical, otherwise there's too much energy loss.

There's significant amount of work dealing with fuel cells that use
hydrogen that's either produced in the same fuel cell from another
fuel (e.g. methanol) or that come with a pre- fuel processor, such as
a reformer. Storing hydrogen is just a nightmare.

--
Ignasi.
(using SPAM trap e-mail address)

>> It's a HUGE advantage when the gas and diesel are no longer available at
>> any
>> price. -Dave
>
> However, that's not happening, at least not right away.

You do understand that the U.S. economy will collapse decades before the oil
actually runs out, right? -Dave

Dave wrote:
>>>It's a HUGE advantage when the gas and diesel are no longer available at
>>>any
>>>price. -Dave
>>
>>However, that's not happening, at least not right away.
>
>
> You do understand that the U.S. economy will collapse decades before the oil
> actually runs out, right? -Dave
>

Once the price goes high enough that other options are economically
viable, those other options will start to be more common.

nate


--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

>>
>> You do understand that the U.S. economy will collapse decades before the
>> oil actually runs out, right? -Dave
>
> Once the price goes high enough that other options are economically
> viable, those other options will start to be more common.
>
> nate
>

Define "start". The infrastructure will take decades to develop. By the
time the price of gas goes up, those "other options" will be decades TOO
LATE in coming. -Dave

Dave wrote:
> > Battery technology has been going nowhere much for years now. Changes
> > are incremental.
> >
>
> Besides which, what is easier to do . . . change hundreds of pounds of
> batteries or refill a tank of hydrogen? -Dave

Personally, I'd rather change the batteries. I fear batteries a lot
less than I do hydrogen.

nate

>
> Personally, I'd rather change the batteries. I fear batteries a lot
> less than I do hydrogen.
>
> nate
>

Interesting. You've been driving a gasoline powered vehicle for how long
now? And you are afraid of a hydrogen powered vehicle? Why? -Dave

Ted B. wrote:
> >>
> >> You do understand that the U.S. economy will collapse decades before the
> >> oil actually runs out, right? -Dave
> >
> > Once the price goes high enough that other options are economically
> > viable, those other options will start to be more common.
> >
> > nate
> >
>
> Define "start". The infrastructure will take decades to develop. By the
> time the price of gas goes up, those "other options" will be decades TOO
> LATE in coming. -Dave

It wouldn't be too difficult to convert the existing petro-fuel
infrastructure to accomodate a different liquid fuel, say alcohol,
should improvements be made to the production of alcohol to the point
where it was a viable energy source. An alcohol-eating fuel cell might
offer some real promise, as even though the energy density of alcohol
is much lower than current petrofuels, the theoretical efficiency of a
fuel cell/electric motor combination is higher than that of an IC
engine/mechanical drive. Should that technology be developed, and
there *are* people working on it, I'm sure the next big project would
be a push towards developing a renewable source of alcohol with a
positive energy balance. (I'd be surprised if there wasn't already R&D
going on in that respect as well.) A nice side benefit is that
existing petro-fuel vehicles can be converted to run on alcohol,
gasoline, or a mix of the two (and in fact such vehicles are already
commercially available.)

Likewise, pure electric production and transmission is a well
understood discipline; should that turn out to be the way to go, it
would simply be a matter of adding more transmission capability and
power plants. Also might become more common for homeowners to have
home windmills or solar panels.

The infrastructure required for the safe transport or distribution of
H2 however would be completely different from anything currently done
on a large scale...

nate