Where can the left and right agree--Energy

[jj3jordan 2,049]

On 10/25/2022 at 12:38 PM, homersapien said:

After a quick search, it seems the oxygen required by the fuel cell is obtained from the ambient air while the hydrogen comes from the refueling station.

I didn't realize fuel cells could function using air instead of pure oxygen, so that's new (at least to me).

The hydrogen is not being used in an internal combustion engine, only in the fuel cell.  The only motors are electric.  So basically, this is an electric/battery car using a fuel cell for the electricity.  (Presumably the batteries can also be topped up with conventional re-charging?)

The beauty of hydrogen is that it can be produced with electrolysis so the entire system can be ultimately powered with electricity.  No fossil fuels required.

(Still don't understand the "air purification" claim.  Unless they are somehow extracting and sequestering pollutants from the air.)

 

Where does all that electricity come from? Electrolysis is not real efficient. Production of hydrogen will saturate the grid.

[homersapien 11,357]

54 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Where does all that electricity come from? Electrolysis is not real efficient. Production of hydrogen will saturate the grid.

Same place all electricity comes from - or will come from.  And eventually all carbon-free, like solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear.

And it's not necessarily electrolysis, the PEM process is pretty damn efficient.

If you want to crunch some numbers, have at it.  There are plenty of articles out there.

Personally, I have enough faith in the engineers to assume they've first done basic calculations demonstrating practicality.  (Let me know if I am wrong. )

 

 

Edited October 28, 2022 by homersapien

[jj3jordan 2,049]

16 hours ago, homersapien said:

Same place all electricity comes from - or will come from.  And eventually all carbon-free, like solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear.

And it's not necessarily electrolysis, the PEM process is pretty damn efficient.

If you want to crunch some numbers, have at it.  There are plenty of articles out there.

Personally, I have enough faith in the engineers to assume they've first done basic calculations demonstrating practicality.  (Let me know if I am wrong. )

 

 

We are woefully short of producing enough electricity Thru green technology to support widespread PEM. Also there is the issue of fresh water availability and the added cost to desalinate sea water into fresh water to be introduced. The articles I read were highly optimistic in their forecasts and assumptions and if true would be great. Storage transportation and safety are also issues not discussed in the articles I read. Producing leak proof tanks and compressors are problems that will add cost and the materials used for hydrogen vehicles are currently produced by fossil fuels.  Ironic that electric and hydrogen vehicles still rely heavily on the industry they purport to replace.  9 kg or water for 1 kg of hydrogen. That adds up when you talk about widespread use for 40-50M cars.

[homersapien 11,357]

52 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

We are woefully short of producing enough electricity Thru green technology to support widespread PEM. Also there is the issue of fresh water availability and the added cost to desalinate sea water into fresh water to be introduced. The articles I read were highly optimistic in their forecasts and assumptions and if true would be great. Storage transportation and safety are also issues not discussed in the articles I read. Producing leak proof tanks and compressors are problems that will add cost and the materials used for hydrogen vehicles are currently produced by fossil fuels.  Ironic that electric and hydrogen vehicles still rely heavily on the industry they purport to replace.  9 kg or water for 1 kg of hydrogen. That adds up when you talk about widespread use for 40-50M cars.

Excuse me, but did I say that?  (No, I did not.)

And I understand there are problems and limitations that must be addressed but that is not the same as saying they are insurmountable.

While I am not an engineer, I know enough engineering and science to make informed judgements about what is a feasible technological path worth pursuing and what isn't.

This is certainly feasible as working models are about to be available. IMO, it's something worth investment to pursue.  

I also understand that we really don't have the option of doing nothing.  And I am convinced time is fast running out to even attenuate global warming, never mind "solving" it.

I have long predicted the problem will not only get worse, but likely get worse at a increasing rate, due to the emergence of feedback mechanisms (such as increased release of methane). 

https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/increase-in-atmospheric-methane-set-another-record-during-2021

So it's fine if you want to be a "Negative Nancy" and focus on the challenges with any given technology that is being explored, but that doesn't really help the effort to push forward as fast as possible.  

We are running out of time.

Edited October 28, 2022 by homersapien

[cole256 17,042]

The safety issues that are going to come about from a consumer base not trained to deal with hydrogen isn't even worth it in my opinion.

Also just reading the posts in this thread, there doesn't seem to be enough understanding on the different processes involved as far as the plants that are used to generate electricity.

Take nuclear for example there are 3 different processes that are used in commercial plants. So you can't really just generalizeand say hardly anything are facts about the process. And even with what you can know there's going to be at least 30% that you can't know just because it's not legal to put out. 

And that's just nuclear....