fuel batteries

[Nigel Goodwin]

no I meant you have a solar power station but instead of storing it in batteries directly use it to split water into H and O2

You're missing the point! - solar cells are VERY inefficient, you would need a large area to produce enough hydrogen to run a single car.

these can then be fed into cars at a fuel pump, many cars run on methane gas what's wrong with using hydrogen instead ? it is the same as methane without the polluting carbon that makes up good part of the weight CH4, carbon is a much heavier element than Hydrogen so methane is not as efficient as hydrogen. So if we already use gas propelled cars what wrong with changing gas ?

Hydrogen is FAR more dangerous - and as it stands, gas powered cars are more dangerous than petrol ones.

Splitting water to produce hydrogen, then burning it, isn't efficient either - why not use the original solar power to charge batteries?.

 

[3v0]

In my area they are installing wind turbines like they were money trees. Maybe the are?

I am not sure about the numbers. But it may make sense to use these to power cars either by charging batts or generating hydrogen. Not sure but it seems a much better bet then solar cells.

I do not see where a wind (or solar) farm generates pollution.

Another upside is the low impact of the wind farms. Except for the few feet the pedestal occupies the rest of the land is generally remains as it was.

It seems that in the short term the auto energy solution may not (maybe should never be) solved by 1 or 2 solutions. Competition between providers is a good thing.

 

[Thunderchild]

Splitting water to produce hydrogen, then burning it, isn't efficient either - why not use the original solar power to charge batteries?.

because the batteries are so heavy to drag around they need the power stored just to transport themselves let alone the rest of the vehicle,

Ford already make hydrogen propelled cars

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

In my area they are installing wind turbines like they were money trees. Maybe the are?

I am not sure about the numbers. But it may make sense to use these to power cars either by charging batts or generating hydrogen. Not sure but it seems a much better bet then solar cells.

I do not see where a wind (or solar) farm generates pollution.

It produces noise pollution - but it's a far more practical solution than solar panels.

 

[3v0]

It produces noise pollution - but it's a far more practical solution than solar panels.

The cows so not much care and the farmers can not hear them over their tractors.

I suppose it may be different if you had to live next to one. Last year we drove through a farm with over 100 1.5 MW turbines about 10 times. I do not recall any noise. Maybe I was too impressed with the scale of the things to notice.

 

[Thunderchild]

hm I've heard of noise too there is the issue of ruining the scenary but I suppose solar panels do that too but as a photographer I am becoming quite sensitive to scenary we must also try and keep these thing out of the way, I also heard that the windmills cause problems for birds

 

[3v0]

... there is the issue of ruining the scenary but I suppose solar panels do that too but as a photographer I am becoming quite sensitive to scenary we must also try and keep these thing out of the way,

That is what photoshop is for

You are saying that because you want everything everwhere to look natural it is better to contiue burning coal or oil. Or maybe cover country with solar cells ?

I do not understand..... It does not get any better/cleaner then wind generated power.

 

[Hero999]

There are very few forms of alternative energey that are totally environmentally friendly.

Wind turbines kill birds and generate infrasound which can make some people feel unwell; not only that but they look unsightly.

Having said that, we need to find alternatives to fossil fuels so I suppose it's the only way to go.

 

[Oznog]

Petrol is a nice safe fuel, easily transported, and simple and safe to use - hydrogen is EXTREMELY dangerous, both to transport and to use - it's not really a practical alternative. The other problem of course is where do you get the hydrogen?, electrolysis? - then where do you get the power for that?, all you're doing is moving the pollution from the car to a generating plant.

Hydrogen is not as unsafe as people make it out to be. Heck, gasoline is pretty darn dangerous too.

One of H2's biggest problems is there's no good way to store a lot of it. I mean you want a truck with a 300 mi range you need quite a few lbs of H2 here.

You're right in that there are serious questions about where we get the energy to produce hydrogen. Well, on one side we could be freeing ourselves of the problems in getting oil specifically. In the USA for example we have a LOT of coal freely available and could in theory just forget about the middle east problems (or stop creating middle east's problems, depending on who you ask). That is not a completely "green" solution. Power plants are more efficient than cars for sure, but the inefficiency of making H2 and coverting in a fuel cell eat up those gains.

Another answer is that the H2 could be made by nuclear, wind, hydro, geothermal, or even some algaes, stuff that doesn't emit greenhouse gases. Well, it's a theory at least. Right now we already have this technology, had it for decaes, and still we have only used it for a small portion of the electricity we use.

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

Hydrogen is not as unsafe as people make it out to be. Heck, gasoline is pretty darn dangerous too.

But many times safer than hydrogen! - most of the danger of gasoline/petrol is in the imagination of Hollywood film producers - cars don't generally 'explode' like they do in the films. Many people are badly injured every year in the USA by well meaning bystanders dragging people out of car crashes ' before it explodes'.

 

[Thunderchild]

Wind turbines kill birds and generate infrasound which can make some people feel unwell;

yea I am one of them even change in air pressure with the change of weather can make me feel real groggy.

Well as it is we transport methane from africa to europe, so whats so bad about setting up solar panels in africa as it is nice and hot almost all yea round and pipe the produce hydrogen to europe instead of the methane ?

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

Well as it is we transport methane from africa to europe, so whats so bad about setting up solar panels in africa as it is nice and hot almost all yea round and pipe the produce hydrogen to europe instead of the methane ?

You still seem to be ignoring the very low output of solar panels?, and their massive expense? - what's the point of producing small quantities of very expensive hydrogen?.

 

[HarveyH42]

How much hydrogen does a fuel cell use in a day for a car? I remember a thread about producing hydrogen, think there were equations for calculating the volume produced and rate, according to the power applied. Might go back and see if there is a way to determine the size of a solar panel need to supply enough hydrogen to drive the car for a day.

Even if the fuel is free, it would take a lifetime for the car and panels to pay for themselves in savings. Definately rich-boy toys...

 

[Sceadwian]

Considering the cost of repairs to such a car, it's take more than a lifetime.

 

[Thunderchild]

well why don't you guys go and ask Mr Ford, Ford ALREADY MAKE SUCH CARS as I said before but we seem to be a lot of old fashioned deaf and blind people here.

Solar panels are not efficient eh ? so bludy what ? they perhaps only produce pollution in their making once made they will provide power for decades without ANY POLLUTION. theres no point in say oooh its costs more than the way we already do it, thanks thats why we are still doing it the old way and pollution because humanity is a bunch of self destructive idiots that care more for money than their own future well being. like the chap at work that looks at me like I'm nuts when I insisted that THIS bag is for our platic bottles and not anything else so that they can be put out on wednesdays when the rubbish people collect the paper and plastic, needless to say he still continued to put metal ink tub lids into it.

PLEASE HUMANITY GROW UP

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

Solar panels are not efficient eh ? so bludy what ?

Because they are so inefficient your idea won't work! - and then producing hydrogen by electrolysis is very inefficient as well - no point producing hydrogen if there's no space on the planet for people to live!.

If you want to use solar panels, then store the energy in a much more efficient method - simple lead/acid batteries make hydrogen production look stupid!.

Or, far more sensibly, don't use solar panels - there are far better methods that provide far greater power (wind power, tide power etc.).

 

[Hero999]

I said before but we seem to be a lot of old fashioned deaf and blind people here.

Right so we#re the ones with the problem.

they perhaps only produce pollution in their making once made they will provide power for decades without ANY POLLUTION.

Some say that more energy is used to make solar pannels than the amount of energy they produce in their entire life time.

 

[Thunderchild]

Some say that more energy is used to make solar pannels than the amount of energy they produce in their entire life time.

Then in that case we do have a problem. but consider, I am willing to assume a solar panel is going to last at least 30 years, so 365 days a year X 30 years is = 10'950 days, assuming a 1 KW/h panel will get light for 8 hours a day halve the days of the year that's 40'000 KW aka 40 MW so am I to beleive that it takes 40 MW to make a solar panel capable of 1 KW/h ?

I do poses a couple of small panels (0.25 W each) that still work after 20 years and considering that they have no moving parts nothing to ware out the can go on working for many more years does anybody know how long a solar panel can operate for ? if there are no figures for this it is probably because even the first ones made are still in good working order !

 

[Nigel Goodwin]

Then in that case we do have a problem. but consider, I am willing to assume a solar panel is going to last at least 30 years, so 365 days a year X 30 years is = 10'950 days, assuming a 1 KW/h panel will get light for 8 hours a day halve the days of the year that's 40'000 KW aka 40 MW so am I to beleive that it takes 40 MW to make a solar panel capable of 1 KW/h ?

I do poses a couple of small panels (0.25 W each) that still work after 20 years and considering that they have no moving parts nothing to ware out the can go on working for many more years does anybody know how long a solar panel can operate for ? if there are no figures for this it is probably because even the first ones made are still in good working order !

Presumably you've never used solar panels?, a 1KW one would be seriously large, and would only produce 1KW for probably a few minutes a day, if it ever actually managed it?. This assumes it's on the equator in full sunlight, the specs are the absolute maximum possible - not what you actually get from them.

As panels age their output also falls, not to mention they would need regular cleaning and maintenance.

 

[Thunderchild]

hm yes but I still say that to state that it take more energy to make them than they produce is absured, ok so cut the figure in 4 generous eh ? will it cost 10 MW of power to make a panel ?

yea they need cleaning there are lots of people in africa that need work they don't want a terrificaly high salary either.

if an automatic tracking system is used they can also alter their slant to the sun throughout the day, it is a case of what the tracking system will use versus how much more power is produced.