Galt's Gulch

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

    -
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 5 years ago
    Interesting...I still favor on site generation ultimately...no transmission problems and hazards. Maybe they could make one small enough for homes and businesses.


    But I do not favor electric cars...hydrogen, to me, seems to be the better way to go for transportation.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by rtpetrick 5 years ago
      Hydrogen is certainly cleaner by very dangerous to deal with. It, for example, given an electric spark, it violently combines with oxygen to form water and one hell of a lot of explosive energy.
      Electric cars for general transportation in this country is a fool's quest.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by freedomforall 5 years ago
      Definitely prefer individual power generation if practical and economical (for reasons of individual freedom from coercion.)
      I'm not excited about electric cars either, OUC.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 5 years ago
        I have to admit, I am still in love with the internal combustion engine...there is nothing better than the sound and power of a fine tuned V8!...laughing...so power it with Hydrogen or Alcohol...that would be fine with me.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by freedomforall 5 years ago
          The greenies never even consider some of the other immediate consequences of limiting carbon dioxide. Try to explain to the population of the world that they must give up their carbonated soft drinks, mixers for cocktails, coffee (waste energy on roasting beans, never), beer (same reason as coffee and soft drinks), food transported from overseas (and food itself that can't be created in quantity without motive power), refrigeration, personal computers, cell phones (WHAT, No Tweeting- Horrors!), etc, etc.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by lrshultis 5 years ago
      Either way, hydrogen or electric, about 50% of the energy is lost in production and transmission. They are about the same in production products because hydrogen takes some form of electricity to produce and thus might be slightly less efficient due to the requirement to use electricity for electrolysis so a enthalpy difference from just using the power produced electricity by electricity being used twice in the process. Also there is the a large overhead due to the desired EV or wind equipment's necessary servicing and production and land use.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by $ Thoritsu 5 years ago
      The round trip for hydrogen using electrolysis and fuel cells is only about 70% efficient, vs batteries which are in the 90% range. In an IC engine the round trip is ~20% efficient.

      Hydrogen does not make commercial or technical sense for vehicles. The only place you will see it is where energy is free, like Iceland, where it is all geothermal.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 5 years ago
        There was a guy in Florida that worked on a system that would convert water into liquid Hydrogen for cars...the converter was also in the car and the hydrogen stored in pressurized tanks like oxygen tanks...for a price, and believe it or not, there was a waiting list to have one's car converted. It was stated that mileage was the same as gasoline.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by $ Thoritsu 5 years ago
          Not feasible. Car engine can not use H2 and provide the performance of gasoline. This does not work.
          There is something else wrong with the process. Liquid H2 is stored cryogenically. It is stored at atmospheric pressure, and controlled by auto-boiling. To get H2 to a cryogenic state takes significant energy. I haven't calculated this, but with process efficiency, it is probably more than the heat of combustion. This is the Second Law of Thermodynamic, and inventions don't overcome it. Perhaps the "liquid H2" statement is a mistake/typo.
          In any case, this is doesn't make technical sense and is the next "Moody Car". Don't invest!
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            -
          • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 5 years ago
            Could it have been stored as a gas and in it's transition to the injectors turned into a liquid?

            How was GM going to do it before obobo put the kabash to it and demanded they go electric?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              -
            • Posted by $ Thoritsu 5 years ago
              I’d have to read. After I studied H2 for various applications, I stopped paying attention.

              Turning H2 into a liquid takes a massive pressure and low temp. Injectors do not compress, they are just relief valves. The pressure in the rail comes from a fuel pump. I’m sure liquid H2 is not happening in a car, unless it is put there before it leaves, and even then it is a massive waste of energy.

              Even submarines that have air independent propulsion (AIP), like the German U212, do not store H2 as a liquid. They store it in a metal matrix. This is heavy, but volumetrically better than every compression.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by Lucky 5 years ago
          Well there was one in Queensland Australia. 25 years ago? Things were going well, investors lined up, certificates, and so on, but then no one had actually seen the vehicle working under properly observed controlled conditions. Eventually, some investors lost money and the promoters evaporated.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 5 years ago
            I viewed the video of a corvette conversion, saw it working, the tanks and everything. He talked about some nuclear process he had to invent himself because the federal government would not let him buy the process that creates the hydrogen.
            I have probably lost the link...it's been many years now.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by DrZarkov99 5 years ago
      There is a push for carbon-free fuels, like ammonia to replace gasoline, and dimethyl ether to replace diesel fuel. Both require less energy to produce and transport than hydrogen, and have much higher energy density than even liquid hydrogen.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 5 years ago
        A spill of ammonia would cause more human health risks than gasoline...yes/no?
        I just know it's something you don't want to breath in too much...I use only small diluted amount at home.

        What is the exhaust like?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by DrZarkov99 5 years ago
          Ammonia exhaust is nitrogen/water (no carbon). It's only liquid under pressure, so a tank rupture in an accident would mean the fuel would vaporize, but for a brief period the immediate atmosphere would be caustic and could damage the lungs. DME isn't carbon free, but tests indicate it produces significantly lower emissions than diesel, and no particulates. DME is produced from natural gas, and needs pressure to act as a liquid, but less pressure than natural gas, and is more energy dense.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            -
          • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 5 years ago
            Thanks Dock, it's the first time I heard of either of these alternatives.

            Carbon Dioxide is not a problem but Carbon Monoxide is. Personally, looking toward the events of the future...I think we need More CO2, for the plants and trees.

            Look at your car emissions read out, we have to test our cars every few years. practically "0" carbon monoxide...it boggles the mind to read that.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by rhfinle 5 years ago
    Unfortunately for the US, the future doesn't include Thorium, recycled Uranium 235 or Plutonium. In the late '70's Allied General built a nuclear fuel recycling plant in Barnwell, SC which would have virtually eliminated high-level waste and provided hundreds of years of cheap fuel. As they completed construction, Jimmy Carter signed an order permanently shutting down the plant, costing Allied a billion dollars with no government reimbursement, and guaranteeing that no American company will ever attempt the same. Absolutely unforgivable Democrat stupidity.

    (They called it Reprocessing. Recycling is Good, but reprocessing is somehow different and B-a-a-d).
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by upston 5 years ago
    Great video, thanks for posting . Highlights how BAD the DOE and Uncle Sam in general is at picking winners in the market. Solindera comes to mind, or the compact florescent light bulb. Thousands of other examples. Humans will develop this tec, will we be on the leading edge or hind teet ?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by jimslag 5 years ago
    The video is a political gobblygook. The Navy has tried various types of reactors before deciding on the current crop of pressurized water reactors they use on Aircraft Carriers and Submarines, sorry but Cruisers have gone away and are not coming back anytime soon. I trained at Naval Training Center Orlando and at A1W (Aircraft Carrier, Design 1 by Westinghouse) in Idaho at the Naval Reactors Facility near Idaho Falls. Operated various Naval Reactors on the USS Enterprise (CVN-65), USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69), USS South Carolina (CGN-35) and also went back to Idaho to teach at the Enterprise prototype (aforementioned A1W). So, I am not talking about something I know nothing about. Commercial plants are just a bigger version but due to government regulations are subject to cost overruns (look up Vogtle Power Plant in Georgia). The US military tried different types of reactors in the Idaho desert dating back to the 50's along with the Fermi Lab, Argonne National Lab and Oakridge.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Thoritsu 5 years ago
      Yes, the Navy tried several types, and has settled on PWRs. But that definitely doesn't make PWRs the only answer, particularly off ship.
      The original Seawolf liquid sodium reactor was awesome, but had materials problems they couldn't deal with at the time.
      I know NR very well, and question if they could come close to doing what they did when Rickover ran the place. The name is there, but the brains, balls and decision making are not.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo