Water as fuel for cars by 2010

On Jul 18, 7:25 am, [email protected] wrote:
> The water moved vehicles in 2010 thanks to fuel cells…http://cooldreamcars.googlepages.com/water_fuel_cars_2010

Not quite. The water CAN be used as a source of hydrogen, but the
cell will not work on water itself. To use water as a source of
hydrogen, it must be broken down by hydrolysis. Unfortunately, the
laws of thermodynamics tell us it takes more energy to break it down
that way than the energy value in the recovered hydrogen. You still
need an energy source to generate the electricity. Now, maybe you do
use a green source of energy, but it is not true that water itself is
an energy source.

Don Stauffer in Minnesota <[email protected]> wrote:
>Not quite. The water CAN be used as a source of hydrogen, but the
>cell will not work on water itself. To use water as a source of
>hydrogen, it must be broken down by hydrolysis. Unfortunately, the
>laws of thermodynamics tell us it takes more energy to break it down
>that way than the energy value in the recovered hydrogen. You still
>need an energy source to generate the electricity. Now, maybe you do
>use a green source of energy, but it is not true that water itself is
>an energy source.

It is when that electricity comes from the turbines up at Niagra.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Jul 18, 10:41 am, [email protected] (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> Don Stauffer in Minnesota  <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Not quite.  The water CAN be used as a source of hydrogen, but the
> >cell will not work on water itself.  To use water as a source of
> >hydrogen, it must be broken down by hydrolysis. Unfortunately, the
> >laws of thermodynamics tell us it takes more energy to break it down
> >that way than the energy value in the recovered hydrogen.  You still
> >need an energy source to generate the electricity.  Now, maybe you do
> >use a green source of energy, but it is not true that water itself is
> >an energy source.
>
> It is when that electricity comes from the turbines up at Niagra.
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra.  C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Does Niagra have enough capacity to make all the hydrogen we need for
the country's road vehicles?

Don Stauffer in Minnesota wrote:
> On Jul 18, 7:25 am, [email protected] wrote:
>> The water moved vehicles in 2010 thanks to fuel cells…http://cooldreamcars.googlepages.com/water_fuel_cars_2010
>
> Not quite. The water CAN be used as a source of hydrogen, but the
> cell will not work on water itself. To use water as a source of
> hydrogen, it must be broken down by hydrolysis. Unfortunately, the
> laws of thermodynamics tell us it takes more energy to break it down
> that way than the energy value in the recovered hydrogen. You still
> need an energy source to generate the electricity. Now, maybe you do
> use a green source of energy, but it is not true that water itself is
> an energy source.
>

It will work:

Drink water, save piss and relabel as camel piss and sell to Arabs:

http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/CultureAndMedia/?id=1.0.2330334132

Use profits to buy their gas ;)

Don Stauffer in Minnesota wrote:
>
> On Jul 18, 7:25 am, [email protected] wrote:
> > The water moved vehicles in 2010 thanks to fuel cells…http://cooldreamcars.googlepages.com/water_fuel_cars_2010
>
> Not quite. The water CAN be used as a source of hydrogen, but the
> cell will not work on water itself. To use water as a source of
> hydrogen, it must be broken down by hydrolysis. Unfortunately, the
> laws of thermodynamics tell us it takes more energy to break it down
> that way than the energy value in the recovered hydrogen.

That is not a very accurate or useful analysis of the article. Water
is not the only source of hydrogen and the laws of thermodynamics tell
you nothing particularly applicable to the information in that
article.

Hydrogen is an efficient way to store energy and fuel cells are an
extremely efficient way to convert hydrogen to electricity. Efficiency
is why uses for hydrogen are being explored. As an example it has been
demonstrated one can produce hydrogen from methane (can be done with
other hydrocarbons, also). Depending on the exact process used the
process can consume from 15% to 30% of the energy content of the
methane. So you still have 70%-85% of the original energy content now
in the form of hydrogen. If you use the hydrogen to produce
electricity with fuel cells the entire process
(methane->hydrogen->electricity) is 60%-70% efficient. Compare that
with generating electricity with the best conventional methane powered
generators which are only 40%-50% efficient.
Whether that sort of efficiency gain can be accomplished in
automobiles in a safe, reliable and economical way is an engineering
question not a physics question.

The article appears to be translated from some foreign language so it
is hard to read, but the essence of what it is saying appears to be
that several European auto makers are working on hydrogen technology.
This is because of several different types of possible efficiency
gains with hydrogen. It is pretty obvious that these auto makers
believe it is not true that the laws of thermodynamics tell us it
takes more energy to break it down than the energy values recovered in
the end.
Even when water is the original source of hydrogen, it may not matter
that there is energy loss when producing hydrogen. If you burn
petroleum to generate electricity and use the electricity to produce
hydrogen from water and then use the hydrogen to power a car it may
still be possible to be more energy efficient. Even though there are
energy losses in each of those steps the total loss may still be less
than the losses in cars that are burning diesel or gasoline directly.

-jim



> You still
> need an energy source to generate the electricity. Now, maybe you do
> use a green source of energy, but it is not true that water itself is
> an energy source.


----= Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News=----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"jim" <"sjedgingN0sp"@m@mwt.net> wrote in message

That is not a very accurate or useful analysis of the article. Water
is not the only source of hydrogen and the laws of thermodynamics tell
you nothing particularly applicable to the information in that
article.

***********
This article was written in the superficial language of a science writer,
and that
is my chief complaint.

Nobody doubts the many excellent properties of hydrogen as a fuel.

Getting enough hydrogen cheaply enough, and distributing it as a fuel are
the two major hurtles, IMO.

If we dont start on a planned trip to a better energy policy, we will never
get there.

It is foolish, also IMO, to look at stripping hydrocarbons to get hydrogen.
Yes,
it can be done, but hydrocarbons are not likely the answer.

On Jul 19, 11:03 am, "HLS" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "jim" <"sjedgingN0sp"@m...@mwt.net> wrote in message
>
> That is not a very accurate or useful analysis of the article. Water
> is not the only source of hydrogen and the laws of thermodynamics tell
> you nothing particularly applicable to the information in that
> article.
>
> ***********
> This article was written in the superficial language of a science writer,
> and that
> is my chief complaint.
>
> Nobody doubts the many excellent properties of hydrogen as a fuel.
>
> Getting enough hydrogen cheaply enough, and distributing it as a fuel are
> the two major hurtles, IMO.
>
> If we dont start on a planned trip to a better energy policy, we will never
> get there.
>
> It is foolish, also IMO, to look at stripping hydrocarbons to get hydrogen.
> Yes,
> it can be done, but hydrocarbons are not likely the answer.

As a physicist, I have the same worries as you do, but am a little
more hopeful. I think some of these biological methods may have
promise, like the one that genetically engineers microbes to make them
convert biomass into hydrogen instead of methane.

I am also disappointed that we dropped US work on fusion, and are even
behind on our dues to the international effort. If we did ever end up
with plentiful and green electricity, then hydrolysis would make some
sense.

"Don Stauffer in Minnesota" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:6b244b7c-

As a physicist, I have the same worries as you do, but am a little
more hopeful. I think some of these biological methods may have
promise, like the one that genetically engineers microbes to make them
convert biomass into hydrogen instead of methane.

I am also disappointed that we dropped US work on fusion, and are even
behind on our dues to the international effort. If we did ever end up
with plentiful and green electricity, then hydrolysis would make some
sense.
******
I agree.. We are behind on so many fronts, Don. We have had totally
visionless
government "leadership" in this respect for decades.