Page 1 of 3
#1
I've been hearing different things about the whole idea of hydrogen enhancing a car's mileage, like with the "Electrolyzer." I can't decide what to think about it, cause like I said I hear different things about it's effectiveness, but I haven't actually looked into it to see exactly how it works. I guess it enriches water so that it has components that will aid your car's combustion. That's all I know about it.

What does UG think, is it completely BS? Is it absolutely true? Somewhere in between? Are people on to something but just need to do a lot more development?
We're only strays.
#3
it is inefficient. the cell takes too much energy to make
I shot JR

Oh Canada Our Home and Native Land
#4
The majority of hydrogen that we use as fuel for experimental cars is extracted through a process called electrolysis. The problem is, we extract it from fossil fuels, so that's not going to help us get off of our dependence from foreign oil. It is possible to do with water, but it's very very inefficient, not to mention freshwater is also in rare supply in certain parts of the world.

We'd also have to invest billions of dollar setting up an infrastructure if we did comitt and make a move to make hydrogen our new fuel source. Also, the tanks used in hydrogen cars are pretty big and don't hold a lot of hydrogen.

Hydrogen fuel cells are a more viable option, so I don't know if that's what you were talking about.
#5
Remember what happened with the zeppelins
Hull City A.F.C

Quote by Thrashtastic15
crunkym toy diuckl;ess ass ****igkjn ****** **** bitch ass pussy ****er douchecanoe ****** **** you s omn cnt you lieet le biutch
#6
It's not the best idea humanity has ever had. Hydrogen cars are currently far worse for the environment than other cars.
#7
On another note. Anyone heard about the whole cars running on water thing? I know I saw a videoon Youtube about it. So there's a high chance it's a hoax. Anyone have any information on it?
Jackson KVX10
Epiphone EB-3

Bugera 6260
Laney Supergroup Mk 1
Marshall VS100RH
Laney LX412A

Bad Monkey
Crybaby
Metal Muff
Fish N Chips
#8
Quote by cam_sampbell
Remember what happened with the zeppelins


LOL

And yeah I've heard that cars that currently use hydrogen (like the Honda posted) get the hydrogen from big plants - which like also posted I can imagine run on oil.

The "Electrolyzer" is apparently able to convert the hydrogen though, like the hydrogen plants do.
We're only strays.
#9
It doesn't USE water it CREATES water, well sort of as a by-product. as for its effectiveness, you can't really argue its any less efficient than fuels we use now.
#11
Quote by Glimsom
On another note. Anyone heard about the whole cars running on water thing? I know I saw a videoon Youtube about it. So there's a high chance it's a hoax. Anyone have any information on it?


I'm pretty sure this is the same thing.
We're only strays.
#12
Quote by smb
It's not the best idea humanity has ever had. Hydrogen cars are currently far worse for the environment than other cars.


that's not entirely correct.

The cars themselves produce no harmful emissions at all, it's just the fact that the process of gaining pure hydrogen consumes so much energy that the car is cancelled out.
#13
I thought you were referring to some form of device that uses Hydrogen as well as regular fuel. Oh well.
Jackson KVX10
Epiphone EB-3

Bugera 6260
Laney Supergroup Mk 1
Marshall VS100RH
Laney LX412A

Bad Monkey
Crybaby
Metal Muff
Fish N Chips
#14
What I don't understand is why things that would help the environment even cost money. Money is something man-made and is nothing but material. Why should the health of that which gives us existence be worth the same as a bunch of paper and/or coins?

Also, I don't see why we can't just use electricity..

EDIT:

To the guy below me...

Good-bye to the world's water supply if we do that.
Last edited by Fate_of_Mind at Jul 14, 2008,
#15
Hydrogen is fine as long as you get it from water; as it stands now, we get most of our hydrogen from fossil fuels, so it kind of defeats the purpose.
#16
You better not get in a wreck or ka boom! I mean there's plenty of hydrogen (and its easy to make and recycle!), but I think we're at LEAST 20 or so years from having that technology down. Even though there are cars running on it now, they aren't very powerful or efficient.
#17
Quote by Fate_of_Mind
What I don't understand is why things that would help the environment even cost money. Money is something man-made and is nothing but material. Why should the health of that which gives us existence be worth the same as a bunch of paper and/or coins?

Also, I don't see why we can't just use electricity..

Because it takes money to make things that help the environment, and without motivation of profit, it will not happen.

Because we get electricity from fossil fuels.
#18
Quote by Fate_of_Mind
What I don't understand is why things that would help the environment even cost money. Money is something man-made and is nothing but material. Why should the health of that which gives us existence be worth the same as a bunch of paper and/or coins?

Also, I don't see why we can't just use electricity..



and how do we produce electricity?

oh that's right

with fossil fuels

the problem is not what source of energy we use, but how efficient it is.
#19
Quote by imicius
Because it takes money to make things that help the environment, and without motivation of profit, it will not happen.

Because we get electricity from fossil fuels.


That's my argument, it shouldn't.

And this is why I think humanity is a sad, sad thing...

EDIT:

Quote by CoreysMonster
and how do we produce electricity?

oh that's right

with fossil fuels

the problem is not what source of energy we use, but how efficient it is.


Or, you know, reusable resources. Like water. You don't need to use up water to run a turbine.
#20
Quote by ckellingc
You better not get in a wreck or ka boom!


That's not why the Hindenburg exploded, dude. It was coated in kerosene or something like that, CBA to find out. It wasn't the hydrogen, though.
We're only strays.
#21
Not all electricity comes from fossil fuels. There was an experiment about a "solar gas station" that was basically a big roof with a bunch of solar panels and a few wind turbines. You plugged it in, went inside for food and stuff, and came back out to your car later. The bad thing is that they take so long to charge.
#22
Quote by Fate_of_Mind
That's my argument, it shouldn't.

And this is why I think humanity is a sad, sad thing...


It's true, moving on to more efficient energy sources should SAVE us time and, energy! Hence the adjective 'efficient.' How can something that's MORE efficient cost more money? Yeah it will probably take a bit to get things on track, but to throw a figure out there, I'd say that in the event of a complete overhaul of the U.S. infrastructure from oil to efficient alternative sources, the cost of the operation would be paid for within 10 years easily. It would probably even put us on the way to paying off our crazy debt.

Quote by ckellingc
Not all electricity comes from fossil fuels. There was an experiment about a "solar gas station" that was basically a big roof with a bunch of solar panels and a few wind turbines. You plugged it in, went inside for food and stuff, and came back out to your car later. The bad thing is that they take so long to charge.


Solar power WILL play a major roll in energy efficiency. You know how solar panels are big, bulky, and expensive? And basicly non-practical? Someone (again, CBA to remember) has come up with a way to make solar harnessing cells on basicly paper thin material. Printing solar panels like newspaper!! And trust me, the sun gives us plenty of energy, we just need to develop better ways to harness it.
We're only strays.
Last edited by Martyr's Prayer at Jul 14, 2008,
#23
Quote by ckellingc
Not all electricity comes from fossil fuels. There was an experiment about a "solar gas station" that was basically a big roof with a bunch of solar panels and a few wind turbines. You plugged it in, went inside for food and stuff, and came back out to your car later. The bad thing is that they take so long to charge.

And they're expensive. And rare.

And you're right; not all of it comes from fossil fuels, but most of it does. This is because of a few reasons, mostly oil companies as greedy and have lots of money, and people are gun shy of nuclear energy.

Really, if we switched a significant amount of our energy to nuclear, we would save a ton of money, and the price of gas would bottom out.
#24
Quote by ckellingc
Not all electricity comes from fossil fuels. There was an experiment about a "solar gas station" that was basically a big roof with a bunch of solar panels and a few wind turbines. You plugged it in, went inside for food and stuff, and came back out to your car later. The bad thing is that they take so long to charge.

Of course not, there's wind farms, hydroelectricity, geothermal energy, solar energy and all that fun stuff.
#26
Quote by Martyr's Prayer
That's not why the Hindenburg exploded, dude. It was coated in kerosene or something like that, CBA to find out. It wasn't the hydrogen, though.

What? Why would anyone coat a giant flying machine with kerosene? It had some flammable paint on it, but not kerosene.

Yeah, the Hindenburg exploded from a hydrogen gas explosion. Because the United States cut off the flow of helium to Germany to spite Hitler.
#27
Quote by CoreysMonster
and how do we produce electricity?

oh that's right

with fossil fuels


the problem is not what source of energy we use, but how efficient it is.


Not entirely. Electricity can be created using nature; the sun, wind, geothermal, coal, volcanic, wave, hydro... there are heaps of other ways to create electricity than with Fossil Fuels.
#28
How about that air powered car? Have you guys seen that? It uses compressed air.
Soon you will sit on the bench
of those who deny I have my soul
You sell a dream you create
Condemned by what you condemned before
Smooth are the words you sing down and high
Underground is your joy your laws
#29
Quote by Martyr's Prayer
It's true, moving on to more efficient energy sources should SAVE us time and, energy! Hence the adjective 'efficient.' How can something that's MORE efficient cost more money? Yeah it will probably take a bit to get things on track, but to throw a figure out there, I'd say that in the event of a complete overhaul of the U.S. infrastructure from oil to efficient alternative sources, the cost of the operation would be paid for within 10 years easily. It would probably even put us on the way to paying off our crazy debt.


Exactly. All it takes is commitment and some effort. In the long run the results would be beneficial to the environment as well as the economy, as oil would become obsolete.


Solar power WILL play a major roll in energy efficiency. You know how solar panels are big, bulky, and expensive? And basicly non-practical? Someone (again, CBA to remember) has come up with a way to make solar harnessing cells on basicly paper thin material. Printing solar panels like newspaper!! And trust me, the sun gives us plenty of energy, we just need to develop better ways to harness it.


The sun gives us more energy than we need to be able to run cars. Considering it provides energy to all life and whatnot, I can assume it can work for a piece of machinery given the right technology is provided. And the right technology is just a matter of again, putting forth the effort.
#30
Quote by Fate_of_Mind
The sun gives us more energy than we need to be able to run cars. Considering it provides energy to all life and whatnot, I can assume it can work for a piece of machinery given the right technology is provided. And the right technology is just a matter of again, putting forth the effort.


The problem with solar energy is the ozone layer. By protecting us from the sun, it blocks much of the potential energy. Therefore, the ideal solution would be to put massive solar panels in orbit around Earth and somehow beam the energy to Earth. The lack of the ozone layer would magnify the energy produced significantly. The only problem is the beaming energy down part.
1992 Ibanez S540 sol
1988? Kramer Pacer Mutt
#31
Quote by sk8boardbob2
The problem with solar energy is the ozone layer. By protecting us from the sun, it blocks much of the potential energy. Therefore, the ideal solution would be to put massive solar panels in orbit around Earth and somehow beam the energy to Earth. The lack of the ozone layer would magnify the energy produced significantly. The only problem is the beaming energy down part.


I suppose it does block a lot of the energy, but to say that the energy we do get is not enough power is false. It's only sustained all natural life on Earth for how long? The power is DEFINITELY there. Like I said we just need better ways of gathering/refining it.
We're only strays.
#32
Nothing more comforting than a parking lot full of Mini-Hindenburgs!
Last edited by DaysoftheBlue at Jul 14, 2008,
#33
Quote by Fate_of_Mind
Also, I don't see why we can't just use electricity..

Just as long as they build stuff like this for us: http://youtube.com/watch?v=9o15EALghp0
[quote="'[x"]Huffy[x]']^ This man knows everything.

Seriously, don't even try and question him, he'll rip your face off with his awesomeness alone.
Quote by Kumanji
@ yet another win post from Vince. Kudos to you, sir.
#34
currently they get hydrogen out of natural gas anyway so....pfft

and even if you go the entire electrolysis of water route with nuclear power plants.....there are better ways to store electricity than all the muck you have to go through to not blow up with hydrogen

Quote by Martyr's Prayer

Solar power WILL play a major roll in energy efficiency. You know how solar panels are big, bulky, and expensive? And basicly non-practical? Someone (again, CBA to remember) has come up with a way to make solar harnessing cells on basicly paper thin material. Printing solar panels like newspaper!! And trust me, the sun gives us plenty of energy, we just need to develop better ways to harness it.


the sun gives roughly 1000 watts per square meter on the earth

for a car....I donno.....lets say you've got 10 square meters of surface area thats illuminated

and assuming we can invent some super 100% efficient solar panel

10 kilowatts = 13 horsepower = a pretty ****ty car


you're not going to make what people expect to be a car powered only by the sun
Last edited by seljer at Jul 14, 2008,
#35
i choose /
Quote by SlinkyBlue
I remember when I was really young, I had a wet dream in which i was being dragged along an urban countryside by a pickup truck.
#36
Quote by sk8boardbob2
The problem with solar energy is the ozone layer. By protecting us from the sun, it blocks much of the potential energy. Therefore, the ideal solution would be to put massive solar panels in orbit around Earth and somehow beam the energy to Earth. The lack of the ozone layer would magnify the energy produced significantly. The only problem is the beaming energy down part.

at your interpretation of the role of the ozone layer

theres the entire atmosphere in between


and we lose about 30% of the energy of the sun from orbit down to the surface....how much we would lose just transporting it down to earth....I don't know if it would be economical
#38
Quote by Fate_of_Mind
To the guy below me...

Good-bye to the world's water supply if we do that.


There's far more water than we could ever consume as fuel. Not to mention that when you combust Hydrogen, you get the water back anyway.
Is it still a God Complex if I really am God?

America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.
Oscar Wilde
#39
Quote by 'Leviathan'
Not entirely. Electricity can be created using nature; the sun, wind, geothermal, coal, volcanic, wave, hydro... there are heaps of other ways to create electricity than with Fossil Fuels.


Issue: Making the machinery to harness sun, wind, geothermal, coal, volcanic, wave, hydro power will require XBOX HUEG amounts of petro-energy to make. Do you know how much energy is needed to make steel for the turnbines, refine lithium for the rechargable car batterys [30lbs of lithium per car], the rising cost of the rare earth metals/minerals to make solar panels, etc etc.

the problem of any solution thus far is the REQUIREMENT of oil and coal energy in order to implement it
My Gear:
MIM Jazz fretless
180W Ashdown 12"
GAS:
NOTHING
#40
Quote by Meths
There's far more water than we could ever consume as fuel. Not to mention that when you combust Hydrogen, you get the water back anyway.
i'm glad someone else had the good sense to notice that.


1 - Hydrogen is an excellent fuel.
When burned it combines with oxygen to form water.
No carbon in the process means no CO, CO2, or hydrocarbon emission.

2 - More energy is required to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen
than is released when they recombine.
Even if the process was 100% efficient,
it would still be a wash.
you don't get something for nothing when working with energy.

3 - Hydrogen storage is currently an issue for using hydrogen as a fuel for transportation.
Better methods of storage are being researched.
Hydrogen WAS what burned in the Hindenburg incident.
however, that wasn't what triggered the fire.

4 - Electrolysis of hydrogen can be done fairly efficiently in large-scale operations.
And in these centralized locations cleaner sources can be the initial energy input.
Geothermal, wind, solar, water current, even atomic energy if we ever figure out how to do that without making a mess of it.

5 - Hydrogen will most likely be the transportation energy in our future. But right now, there are still problems to be solved.

6 - Look to Iceland, if you want to get a sneak-peek at how Hydrogen will affect our future.
Meadows
Quote by Jackal58
I release my inner liberal every morning when I take a shit.
Quote by SK8RDUDE411
I wont be like those jerks who dedicate their beliefs to logic and reaosn.
Page 1 of 3