Go go hydrogen powered beemers

[FlimFlan]

For some reason, this thread did not go where I thought it would. I was focusing on the beemers...

Part of the reason is that it is all PR. Where are you going to refuel? GM and Honda both have fuel cell vehicles on the road, but in limited use with special refueling locations. Until the infrastructure is better, it is jost propoganda.

As for the whole issue of fossil fuel, they are working on that in parallel with working on the fuel cells. They have made improvements and even have genarators that use waste from plants to make the hydrogen. I will have to look for the link, as I don't seem to have it anymore.

 

[Dondrei]

I don't actually know what a beemer is, by the way. Is it a type of car?

 

[PFS]

It takes huge amounts of energy and water to grow an oak tree, but we say those are renewable.

Electrolysis takes a lot of energy, but solar panels could provide that. Instead of using the deserts for oil why not huge solar panel farms? Cars are also many times less efficient than power plants. So yes it would still bring net usage down.

If the Hydrogen is extracted from water using electricity from solar/wave/tidal/wind power (possibly nuclear?) then it can be said to be non polluting and (with the nuke exception) renewable.

If it is produced from water using electricity made using coal, oil or gas then it is non-renewable. All you are doing is storing the energy produced using non-renewable sources (that pollute) for inefficient use later on (you get combustion inefficiency twice).

EDIT:

dondrei
It's a BMW.

 

[Drosselmeier]

and every energy process we can use is a "net loser" because of entropy

Uhh... no. Pumping, refining and burning oil does not consume more energy than it provides.

If we didn't have net energy gain in any energy source we would be living in caves.

You don't use a solar power panel once? You can use it for years and years and years and... and you get the idea.

During its lifetime it provides less energy than the ammount that whent into producing it.

Use whatever resource there is available now, and in a few years, you'll have produced enough solar cells etc for all eternity.
Should a few break or go down or whatever, you can easily use the power from the rest of them to repair or replace them?

No. Net energy loss. Not enough energy produced to replace those that break from long use.

It. Does. Not. Work.

I don't actually know what a beemer is, by the way. Is it a type of car?

BMW

 

[Omikron8]

i guess i was confusing with mixing up energy and entropy

for example what i meant was something like a heat engine, there is a limit to how much useful work you can extract from the combustion due to carnot efficiency and the difference in temperature between two regions in that engine, this is one example of entropy

when you say "we would live in caves" that is not true

you can eg. burn wood in a fire to keep yourself warm but does the body experience all the heat from the energy released in breaking the various molecular bonds in the wood? no

the same idea exists with a regular natural gas stove in which most of the heat from the natural gas burning does not actually heat the pot but is instead lost to the surroundings

i guess my point comes back to the much debated "heat death of the universe" in which because of entropy eventually all matter in the universe will be converted to "heat"

 

[ragnar_ii]

Dross, how can you say that solar panels will never be able to produce as much energy as it takes to make them? Is this a fact? Or just your assumption? I cant really imagine that running a solar panel for a year will not provide us with enough energy to make even one more.

 

[Raistlin Majere]

And gas was only $2.28 today...:wink2:

Not too long ago it was a dollar less.