Electric Cars.... The joke is on you.... (AWD, mileage, engines)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well you clearly have no clue to what I was talking about. Nor are you interested in learning, so it is a waste of my time trying to point out the obvious to you.
But you can use a fuel cell to create electricity from combining Oxygen and Hydrogen atoms "OR" you can use electricity to seperate the two atoms apart and create a burning fuel from the Hydrogen. That is why they have that little "Danger, Explosive" sign on the tops of batteries, and that is why you add water when the acid level is low... The H2O atoms came apart...
Well clearly you took the time to either read up a bit or consult with someone more knowledgeable than you and found out regarding your theory of why they use zinc in "Sacrificial Anodes" is all wrong. Too bad you're not mature enough to just say " you know what...I was wrong about that".
BTW genius...if you look up the hardness of various metals (which I just did)
Zinc has a Brinell factor/rating of a high of 120 to a low of 82 ref(1)
The 5000,3000,and 1000 series of aluminum alloys are below (ie softer) than zinc. Magnesium (both wrought and cast) are both softer than zinc. Tin and it's alloy are all softer than zinc. Lead and it's alloys are softer than zinc. Indium is softer than zinc. Do you notice a trend here ??? Since all of the materials(metals) are softer than zinc why don't they use them....and Aluminum btw is less expensive too..
(1) Ref. Materials Selector Guide. published annually by The Materials Engineering Inst.
Like I said ...the lack of maturity shines thru.
On to your other point...?
You didn't grasp what I said there either.
It takes more electrical energy to separate the H2 and O molecules than you can recover by using them as a combustion fuel. Please reread that last statement slowly and consider the consequences of it. Battery warning labels aside (Lawyer not science speak), it's a very well understood process and there are no mysteries involved. It's very fundamental thermodynamics which I doubt you've spent much time studying..
here's a simple to read Wikipedia article on the electrolysis of water.
I will quote the last paragraph under the Efficiency discussion section.
"The energy efficiency of water electrolysis varies widely with the numbers cited below on the optimistic side. Some report 50–80%[7].[8] These values refer only to the efficiency of converting electrical energy into hydrogen's chemical energy. The energy lost in generating the electricity is not included. For instance, when considering a power plant that converts the heat of nuclear reactions into hydrogen via electrolysis, the total efficiency may be closer to 30–45%."
"
In short, on a very good day you can expect to get out about 50% of the energy you put into the H2O electrolysis device.. Of course that's just to get the H2 and O. Now you've also got to take into account the losses associated with all the other parts of the overall system...such as the IC engine.
ie.... it's a loosing prospect
but I'm sure your vast boat yard experience trumps all those fancy equations and what not huh...
Hot air ballons were used extensively in the civil war, man knew we could fly already.
The best machine is a simple machine. The batteries can not provide enough hydrogen to propel a vehicle down the road. The cars with hydrogen fuel cells have the gas stored in a liquid state.
Electric cars are very efficient, 100% of the torque is available at low rpm. The electric motor then gets more efficient at top speed.
Back in 1900 gasoline was not the first choice for automobiles. Many were steam. International made the first 4 wheel drive as a electric vehicle.
You are correct, but for a fuel cell that breaks the H2O into a usable fuel won't be a "Battery", that is just one application that does it. You can use salt water with a brine solution since it will allow transfer of current, as well as other mediums that will allow the electrolysis process to take place.
There is a place here in Alaska called Chena Hot springs. They use the hot water for power generation and they have a hydrogen fuel cell that produces hydrogen to run the vans, which is fed by water. In it's current state, it is too big to fit into any kind of average size vehicle, but in time the tech. will allow it to be made smaller.
Well clearly you took the time to either read up a bit or consult with someone more knowledgeable than you and found out regarding your theory of why they use zinc in "Sacrificial Anodes" is all wrong. Too bad you're not mature enough to just say " you know what...I was wrong about that".
BTW genius...if you look up the hardness of various metals (which I just did)
Zinc has a Brinell factor/rating of a high of 120 to a low of 82 ref(1)
The 5000,3000,and 1000 series of aluminum alloys are below (ie softer) than zinc. Magnesium (both wrought and cast) are both softer than zinc. Tin and it's alloy are all softer than zinc. Lead and it's alloys are softer than zinc. Indium is softer than zinc. Do you notice a trend here ??? Since all of the materials(metals) are softer than zinc why don't they use them....and Aluminum btw is less expensive too..
(1) Ref. Materials Selector Guide. published annually by The Materials Engineering Inst.
Like I said ...the lack of maturity shines thru.
On to your other point...?
You didn't grasp what I said there either.
It takes more electrical energy to separate the H2 and O molecules than you can recover by using them as a combustion fuel. Please reread that last statement slowly and consider the consequences of it. Battery warning labels aside (Lawyer not science speak), it's a very well understood process and there are no mysteries involved. It's very fundamental thermodynamics which I doubt you've spent much time studying..
here's a simple to read Wikipedia article on the electrolysis of water.
I will quote the last paragraph under the Efficiency discussion section.
"The energy efficiency of water electrolysis varies widely with the numbers cited below on the optimistic side. Some report 50–80%[7].[8] These values refer only to the efficiency of converting electrical energy into hydrogen's chemical energy. The energy lost in generating the electricity is not included. For instance, when considering a power plant that converts the heat of nuclear reactions into hydrogen via electrolysis, the total efficiency may be closer to 30–45%."
"
In short, on a very good day you can expect to get out about 50% of the energy you put into the H2O electrolysis device.. Of course that's just to get the H2 and O. Now you've also got to take into account the losses associated with all the other parts of the overall system...such as the IC engine.
ie.... it's a loosing prospect
but I'm sure your vast boat yard experience trumps all those fancy equations and what not huh...
If it wasn't for google seach, you would be lost....
By the way, I am a Coast Guard licensed Chief Engineer and have been for almost fourty years.
And your link says NOTHING about hydrogen...it's a geothermal driven turbine/generator system.
here's another hint: When you send links you should read them first yourself to make sure they support you position...
Maybe you should have scrolled down a read it a bit more, the Hydrogen system is what I have been working on when I am home for the owner of the resort. The system was built in 1982 for the University of Alaska, Fairbanks. So this particular system is a bit behind in it's technology but works, but it also appears you are a bit behind yourself....
The Geothermal driven/generator systems supplies 400 KW for the resorts power needs. The Hydrogen generator uses "some" electrical power from that to run/operate the Electrolysis process that you sadly can't grasp and is a totally separate system, but does produce Hydrogen from water to run the vans (when they are converted sometime this spring), that haul tourists to and from the airport. Just like I explained in the first part of the posts talking about using water as fuel. Instead of a stationary plant, a smaller version will be put into vehicles to convert them in place as the car is driven as the technology advances.
By the way, here is one of the many newer commercial hydrogen generators that you clearly can't grasp that exist. The technology is still advancing, and will be better suited in time, like like electric cars will be in the future.
The Hydrogen generator uses "some" electrical power from that to run/operate the Electrolysis process that you sadly can't grasp and is a totally separate system,
We're not saying you can't get hydrogen out of water, (we all did that electrolysis experiment in gradeschool/highschool) what we're saying is you can't do what you want to do with it. You can't get hydrogen from water using a battery on a car, burn it in the engine, and then charge the battery with the alternator. Physically it just can't happen without quickly depleting the battery. The car's engine is only about 25% efficient so even if you were able to make the hydrogen electrolysis process 100% efficient you would still come out behind, assuming no other losses.
It makes more sense to just use the battery in the car to power the car directly. As in an electric drivetrain.
An observation and question regarding the quote posted below. If the energy used to create hydrogen is "waste heat" who cares about the efficiency? Isn't waste by nature, just tossed away? If it can be used to create hydrogen, even at 10% efficiency, why not use it?
What am I missing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBrown
here's a simple to read Wikipedia article on the electrolysis of water.
I will quote the last paragraph under the Efficiency discussion section.
"The energy efficiency of water electrolysis varies widely with the numbers cited below on the optimistic side. Some report 50–80%[7].[8] These values refer only to the efficiency of converting electrical energy into hydrogen's chemical energy. The energy lost in generating the electricity is not included. For instance, when considering a power plant that converts the heat of nuclear reactions into hydrogen via electrolysis, the total efficiency may be closer to 30–45%."
And an observation: If you are going to highlight a typing error made by a previous poster in order to harass them, you should probably not make one of our own. Got a chuckle out of this one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBrown
here's another hint: When you send links you should read them first yourself to make sure they support you position...
An observation and question regarding the quote posted below. If the energy used to create hydrogen is "waste heat" who cares about the efficiency? Isn't waste by nature, just tossed away? If it can be used to create hydrogen, even at 10% efficiency, why not use it?
What am I missing?
The point of that is that using a car battery to convert water into hydrogen gas is only 40% efficient (using the nuke reactors efficiency rating, chances are it is less for a car battery).
Starlite9 wants to take that gas and burn it exclusively in the car's engine. Factor in the ICE efficiency of 25% and you get an overall efficiency of 10%. For every 10 units of electricity you put into making hydrogen you'll get 1 back.
Furthermore, startlite9 seems to think it is possible to then use the cars alternator to charge the battery, thereby making a perpetual motion car.
You'd be better off driving an electric motor on a car, that is close to 100% efficient.
While I don't think hybrids or "electric" cars are a joke, I also don't think they are feasible for the majority of us right now. And that goes along for the new "mini" type of vehicles like the Smart car. Sure for the small percentage of us that have a short commute or live in the downtown area of a large city but for the rest of us I'm just not buying it. YET. Given time the technology will progress.
Right now I think for the majority of the population it is a trendy/fad thing. Now with that being said if it wasn't for these trendy/fad type people there would be no reason to progress the technology. So we need people to continue buying these vehicles, just make sure that you are buying them for the right reasons.
Now I'm going to play devils advocate here and throw out some statements. Now can someone explain to me what the purpose of driving a Prius is ? If it's to show that you are jumping on the "green" train and your doing your part... then I can understand. If it's a long commute to work and your trying to save as much money as you can... than I'm not buying it. Same with the Smart car.. it's a cute trendy little thing but if your the average joe trying to save a buck on his/her long commute I don't think that is the way to go. I saw a hybrid Yukon the other day.. other than being part of the trend how feasable is that vehicle ? Are you going to load up the family , hook the travel trailer, snowmobile trailer, jetski's or boat up and head out on a 200 mile or more journey ?
These are just my opinions and I do hope we can develop technologies that diminish our dependancy on non renuable resources but we are knowwhere near that point yet.
OP - I would buy a hybrid electic/turbocharged diesel car when the technology is mature enough for them to be available on the used market. I would definitly consider a used Prius. I, and a lot of other people, buy transportation, not cars.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
