I've always known that it takes more energy to extract hydrogen than hydrogen put outs but I always heard it was maybe more like a 100 to 75 conversion ratiot, not 100 to 15. That's craziness if it's true.

What I want to know is even assuming it's only a 15% energy conversion rate - how much energy does our country use today that is sourced from nuclear power plants and other more natural non-fossil fuels burning power plants? How much would that output need to be increased by to power all the cars in the US?

In other words I kinda question if my car driven at 15,000 miles a year, even at only a 15% efficiency in conversion to hydrogen, would use anything even remotely close to what my house does in electricity? Even if so, or if not - I'd rather it come from natural power sources or at least clean nuclear production facilities than fossil fuels.

 

Here is the aritcle:
http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/...ck-bedard.html

Very insightfull.

 

Yes, thanks I can read ("My Pet Goat" is my mostest favoritist book evar!) . I was pointing out (if it's not obvious) that this is a using a non-renewable fuel such as natural gas to create another form of fuel, whereas it would be nice to be able to reduce the amount of natural gas needed for the conversion process by suplementing with electricty generated from renewable energy sources like solar (infinite basically).

 

Regarding the article- While hydrogen is certainly a net-loss proposition, I think it was a bit disingenuine to go through all that analysis, and not do the same for gas. The numbers wouldn't look very good there, either, particularly if you include the "geopolitical instability" costs.

I think for any energy source (or more correctly, storage medium, if we're going to semantics), if more than 20% of the yield is spent making it in electrical costs, it probably won't work long term.

 

Not in it's pure gas form. However, hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe.

 

Yeah and it is inconveniently tied up in stars.

 

There is one individual family Honda are leasing an FCX to. Its cost was well over 1 Million, but they are leasing it to them, along with the charging station, for $500 a month.

There are other FCX's in fleet service in Cali, but I beleive that's the only one currently in individual hands.

 

Maybe we should go to war with them to get them to share their hydrogen.

Just kidding...please don't kill me...

 

Might as well, there is only one that really does anything for us now.

 

I read an article on this recently- according to the dept of energy in 2003:

50.8% Coal
19.7% Nuclear
16.7% Natural Gas
6.9% Hydro-Electric
3.1% Petroleum
0.5% Other Misc Gasses
2.3% Misc Renewables

Total Renewable + Nuclear = 28.9%
Fossil Fuels = 71.1%

Now lets not forget that though peaker power plants are still being built all over the country (which run on petroleum or natural gas), most of our large scale power plants are now getting older and may start breaking down. Nobody wants a full scale power plant anywhere near where they live, but peakers can get away with it a bit easier as they are dramatically smaller and even less obtrusive visually.

Do we have a real "energy crisis" in this country? Good question, but in NY we pay a rediculous amount for electricity, though the states with the biggest "energy crisis" in the southwest all pay at most about 60% of what the cost is here (aside from California, who pays about 85% of what NY pays) so you got me goofed. If its such a problem down there, why do they pay so much less? I dont think its really a problem yet, but the industry and the media cause hype just like the oil industry and prices raise... But its not like we're actually running out.

In the next 5-7 years though, it will only get worse, and the concept of greatly adding to that demand with electric cars or hydrogen cars is rediculous. Also dont forget, "recharge time" is evening/overnight - which is when most homes have either A/C or heat on - those times are already high demand as is!

IMHO Ethanol is the best alternative for cars, unless we develop a viable fusion power plant.

 

Interesting, though I heard it wouldn't be difficult at all for us to go to all nuclear power but certain special interest groups refuse to allow it.

 

We need nuclear powered cars then!

On a serious note, ok it takes more energy to make hydrogen a viable fuel source now, but cant they improve or refine the process to make it more efficient?

 

Using nuclear power to extract hydrogen from water for use in cars is more or less a method of indirectly packaging nuclear power from a power plant at a very low rate of efficiency, using a nearly free resource (water).

So realistically- extracted hydrogen is just an indirect method of transfer or containment for large scale nuclear energy, IMO.