Must be true this time????

[warriorprincess]

http://gizmodo.com/5016343/genepax-unve ... er-and-air

Stella

[Dmitri]

Question is what is that "special material that is capable of breaking down water into hydrogen and oxygen through a chemical reaction", how much of it does it require (per mileage traveled), how expensive it is, and how environmentally friendly its production is.

Here's another one, also apparently true , running on compressed air, posted earlier:
http://in.reuters.com/article/topNews/i ... 9020080107

[Bill]

Water can be separated into hydrogen gas and oxygen gas with an electrode and a cathode in the water and an electric charge running between them.

[Darthwing Teorist]

I think that Dmitri's point is that the electricity needed for this process must come from somewhere. Where does it come from? Is that energy source "ecological"?

[chud]

It's good to see this kind of work being done, but what I'm really waiting for is for cold fusion to go prime time. It's going to change the world when it does.

[Drake]

I believe the Swedes have been working on the country's infrastructure developing hydrogen way stations to refuel vehicles. The "greening" of the planet has become much more of a priority recently everywhere, but China, and India. <<shrug>> In the interim hybrids are the way to go for me. I'm looking forward to Chevy Volt due in a few years.

[Dmitri]

I think that Dmitri's point is that the electricity needed for this process must come from somewhere. Where does it come from? Is that energy source "ecological"?

Exactly. Whatever that "substance" is, it's got to be produced, and it will "wear out" as the conversion is taking place... Nothing is ever "free."
(I'm a big optimist, like that. )

In the interim hybrids are the way to go for me. I'm looking forward to Chevy Volt due in a few years.

I'm looking forward to this one:
http://www.hondanews.com/categories/857/releases/4510

Sounds like a Prius killer...

[Drake]

Dmitri,

In the interim hybrids are the way to go for me. I'm looking forward to Chevy Volt due in a few years.

I'm looking forward to this one:
http://www.hondanews.com/categories/857/releases/4510

Sounds like a Prius killer... [/quote]


Yeah, but I looooooooove this one: http://www.fiskerautomotive.com/


D.

[nianfong]

tehre are only 2 sources of energy in the world:

1) the sun
2) the earth's core

oil, coal, etc, all came from biomass from millions of years ago. read: the sun.
the closer we get to the source to get our power, the better.

the energy it takes to split H20 into H2 and O2 is nontrivial. that energy ideally should come from those 2 energy sources, and the closer to them the better.

[Steve James]

I agree with Fong. Converting wood to energy takes energy; converting water to energy takes even more. Using solar or geothermal or hydro-aero-dynamic energy to do the conversion is the beginning of a solution. However, we still have to worry about (1) the processes and materials used to create the new technology and (2) the by products. If, for ex., if the manufacturing of the new technology is dirtier than the present manufacturing process, we may end up polluting more at that end than at the consumer end. Also, no engine, afaik, is constructed for free or from free materials. A plywood car, for ex., would eliminate one problem but create another. How about all the plastic used in cars to make them lighter, when steel may actually be a better material because it's recyclable.

Personally, unless the water car runs well on dirty, undrinkable water, it will put a strain on water resources in the few countries where drinkable water is plentiful. True, the earth is 75% water; but only 10% or less of that is drinkable, and its not evenly distributed. Running a car on water in Nevada might end up being more expensive than importing gasoline. Imo, water is not a good solution at all, unless the water is recycled.

If cells can be produced that converts water to hydrogen, uses hydrogen to produce electricity, and produces water as an exhaust, then it would seem more effective (to me_ to use such a device on a larger scale than a private car. Then, sell the electricity to consumers to run their autos. As far as solar, it's the obvious source of energy. Nuclear might be fine, but it has a terrible waste effect --Besides, it's used to produce electricity, and we have plenty of coal for that.

How come some rich guy/gal/group doesn't have a competition to produce a solar car that will take 4 passengers 100 miles at 60mph for 2 days in a row without any form of recharge --and would cost 20,000 to produce.

[D_Glenn]

I agree with Fong. Converting wood to energy takes energy; converting water to energy takes even more. Using solar or geothermal or hydro-aero-dynamic energy to do the conversion is the beginning of a solution. However, we still have to worry about (1) the processes and materials used to create the new technology and (2) the by products. If, for ex., if the manufacturing of the new technology is dirtier than the present manufacturing process, we may end up polluting more at that end than at the consumer end. Also, no engine, afaik, is constructed for free or from free materials. A plywood car, for ex., would eliminate one problem but create another. How about all the plastic used in cars to make them lighter, when steel may actually be a better material because it's recyclable.

Personally, unless the water car runs well on dirty, undrinkable water, it will put a strain on water resources in the few countries where drinkable water is plentiful. True, the earth is 75% water; but only 10% or less of that is drinkable, and its not evenly distributed. Running a car on water in Nevada might end up being more expensive than importing gasoline. Imo, water is not a good solution at all, unless the water is recycled.

If cells can be produced that converts water to hydrogen, uses hydrogen to produce electricity, and produces water as an exhaust, then it would seem more effective (to me_ to use such a device on a larger scale than a private car. Then, sell the electricity to consumers to run their autos. As far as solar, it's the obvious source of energy. Nuclear might be fine, but it has a terrible waste effect --Besides, it's used to produce electricity, and we have plenty of coal for that.

How come some rich guy/gal/group doesn't have a competition to produce a solar car that will take 4 passengers 100 miles at 60mph for 2 days in a row without any form of recharge --and would cost 20,000 to produce.

I heard a good argument on this: we are limited by the laws of thermodynamics - something must burn to create the energy. The fall of the roman empire can be largely attributed to the consumption of all their fuel source - wood. They stripped the surrounding areas and were in the process of trying to import wood from britain but the costs were too expensive to ship it back, not to mention maintaining the ships with wood. We went from wood to coal to oil to uranium. But how much uranium is in the world, what are the costs (in oil) to mine it? The high production costs plus waste products of solar make it unfeasible at the moment, supposedly there is a new solar technology that is still about 5 years out. Even the cost production of efficient windmill technology is still high in terms of oil/plastics, plus the distance that windfarms need to be from cities. Ethanol is a terrible idea if you take into account crop failure and drought into the costs, not to mention the cost in terms of using our food resources. Somewhere along the line electrice current needs to be used to get the hydrogen from the water...

[Steve James]

Somewhere along the line electrice current needs to be used to get the hydrogen from the water...

Well, that's the problem. If we could get electricity for "free" with no waste, we'd do it. If we could get hydrogen for free, we'd do it. We can get solar and geothermal energy for free; the problem is in converting them to usable form.

There is a team, iirc, that has developed a car that runs on compressed air. Same isssue. Does it compress the air for free? Anyway, I'm not sure that we disagree, except that I see solar energy as the ideal source for the production of electricity for fuel.

[Ben]

For me its not about getting the energy for free right away. Anything thats cheaper/more efficent/cleaner is a step in the right direction. It will never be perfect.