Bodi, again -- it doesn't matter how inefficient the entire process is. Fuel cells are in a class all by themselves and nothing competes. They will do whatever they have to do get the hydrogen (or similar substance) to power them. Hopefully they'll use biofuels to power the plants that get at the hydrogen to remove dependence on hydrocarbons.

Hydrogen will never be used as a fuel to burn. The amount of energy per unit volume is atrocious. There is no argument to be had. Biofuels = good for burning in combustion engines (e.g. - cars). Hydrogen = good for any application that can be powered by a battery.

I'm not trying to be a jerk. I've just heard this argument for at least 5 years now. There are different applications for both. Neither can take the place of the other. There is no argument to be had.

 

First off, not saying this accusingly, just looking for clarification and throwing a thought out there. Second, sorry for chiming in late for something on the first page.

What exactly is wrong with using nuclear? We're already producing the waste. We're already producing the hydrogen as a byproduct... AND, if we actually upgraded our reactors to be on par with the ones the French have, we would have significantly less waste and more power being generated. Though it hurts to admit that the French do something better.

Add in the recycling of spent fuel rods (a "no-no" under current non-proliferation treaties) and the waste would be drastically reduced. Only a small portion of fissionable material is used each time a fuel rod is considered "spent" and has to be stored. Why not reuse it? If you reuse, you can forget Yucca.

Efficiency would go up, meaning less oil used and more hydrogen (and electricity) produced. The delivery systems could be migrated to hydrogen, so less oil used there. That'd be a much more efficient and expedient solution than the pipe dream of solar or wind power to create the hydrogen.

 

To Saturn:
I think you misunderstood me again. If a fuel cell can work just as well with hydrogen as alcohol, what would you put in it? Thats what I was asking. And I was saying, not hydrogen, because it takes extra stuff to produce it since its not naturally produced. And I also pointed out some benefits of hydrogen. Also I was not talking about burning hydrogen in an internal combustion engine.

To Labop:
If I had my way, everything would be nuclear and we would shoot all radioactive junk onto the moon or something - after all theres not a lot of it. Or shoot it into an asteroid and watch it glow green. Dont know anything about recycling fuel rods etc., but if that helps, even better.

Finally if they get the fusion project working - that will be even more efficient power (think Bastage posted a link above).

- Bodi

 

If this were true, there wouldn't be much of a case for hydrogen. I don't know all that much about alcohol based fuel cells. I do know that there's billions and billions of dollars being used for hydrogen research. Maybe they think it's easier to get at because it's a very simple process (hydrolysis) with a free and abundant source (water). Biofuels are derived from crops (corn and sugar cane are the two most popular) which require infrastructure change. I've never heard of largescale development of biofuels from trash or algae, but that may be something that comes in the future. So in short, who knows.

I just don't get why this comes up so often. Are you planning on getting involved in the development of either of these technologies? If not then you're just like every other person out there -- not thrilled about the idea of being dependent on foreign oil that pollutes the environment, but you really like driving your car so you deal with it. And you'll switch to biofuels when sufficient advancements have led it to be on par with the cost of a gallon of gas with the same availability.

If you want to do something about it, don't post on a forum about what you think will happen in 10 years, but go do something about it. Go buy a Prius or at least a ULEV vehicle (def. not an RX-8). Otherwise all you can do is wait in anticipation for something better to come along.

 

I ran 310 on my last tank and had at least a gallon left. That means--if I burned every ounce of gas on the highway, I might get 341 miles.

 

Wont happen for another 10 years. And even in 10 years time, we'll still be using gasoline predominantly.

 

Saw the first article over on Slashdot (http://science.slashdot.org/science/.../0034235.shtml) and then came to make sure we were on top of the game here. Of course you guys already found this stuff.

I just wanted to point out that the Slashdot discussion on the article turned into a rotary tutorial for a lot of people. Pretty cool to read through the comments. I'm sure there were several from this board representing over there.

Nice!

 

no you mean "radial" engine no i mean rotary piston no i mean its a wankel rotary in teh aircraft no mazda uses the rotary in a couple of cars no i mean rotary radial engine blah blah blah


my god there are alot of people there that dont know what they are talking about. i had to stop reading.

 

You can split water into hydrogen and oxygen quite easily...

 

Point in case:
I am not a fan of nuclear ways of producing hydrogen or otherwise, the implications are so much greater than anyone realizes, the half-life of nuclear waste is longer than the barrels they are stored in and something like 500times longer than any human civilization has existed on the planet, think about that if you will. The only appropriate custodians for nuclear waste from an evolutionary perspective are alligators. We didn't even know what language to write on the door to the nuclear waste storage complex being constructed in Arizona (or was it Nevada) because they weren't sure if that language would be around for whenever the door would be opened again.

Far as shooting it to the moon, the last attempt made to launch something from here into orbit via really big cannon resulted in achieving a low orbit. Then the project leader ended up mysteriously dead, some call conspiracy theory, I can't remember his name.

Anyway, I don't believe that the moon is possible with any explosive compound we have available or otherwise. And can you imagine what would happen if something went wrong, gust of wind and barrel of green slime ends up in someone house.

 

case in point ^

 

Why dont we burn the alcohol produced by the bacteria to create the heat needed to produce the Hydrogen . . . or maybe there are companies out there that are attempting to produce Hydrogen cheaper without the use of fossil fuels. Since we as a country are just starting to pour money into that research, it is really only beginning on a large scale. I hope Mazda keeps developing the rotary to run on hydrogen, and increases the efficeincy enough to make it viable to use. There are other fuels that will work, however, hydrogen is the cleanest which is why there is a growing emphasis on research for it. Then we can have our beloved rotaries forever!

 

Hence the reason why we should recycle the nuclear waste. We can even take weapons grade material and use it to "prime the pump" for new reactors. There's a really detailed article on Wired's website (to lazy to find it) that describes everything we could be doing right with nuclear power. From upgrading the plants to using different material which is more efficient, is reusable, and has a much shorter half-life. The US govt is just to stupid to do anything about it.

The new plants are more energy efficient and use less fuel in the first place. Our reactors are all around gen2-2.5. I think the french are around gen5. Upgrading the existing reactors would be a much better option than continually storing the stuff in Yucca Mountain (which is in Nevada Polak ). Shooting waste to the moon is not only dangerous (rockets explode sometimes), it's irresponsible. It's the space equivalent of dumping trash in the oceans.

OK, got off the lazy horse, here's one article on Thorium http://www.wired.com/news/technology...,68045,00.html And another on the aging of our nuclear plants. http://www.wired.com/news/technology...,57486,00.html

I couldn't find the one I was looking for, it was in their magazine last year, thought I'd seen it on the website. Guess not.

 

Pretty interesting although 62 miles ain't much! haha! I'd ues a tank a day!

 

Another thing to remember about the super-long half life for nuclear leftovers: that applies to the much less deadly stuff that's left over, radioactive particles that can't penetrate a piece of plastic. For the really deadly stuff, it decays much faster, the half life is more like 50 years. So yes, waste does technically stay radioactive for a gazillion years; but it's only deadly for a century or so.

Or at least that's the way I remember it.