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.
You might have tracked above, that we are looking at buying a Volt. The ones (not quite) coming out are Electric with Gasoline (still! ) back-up.
But really as you are a "likes Hydrogen" guy, I am really asking you what you think about these -- (the Tri-fuel pick-up or the Hydrogen/Electric combo Volt)
I would not mind having either or both.
The pickup truck does not have a price on it, but whilst at the Chevy dealer, I did note the typical work trucks (mine is about 16 years old, now) were going for somewhere around $40,000.
My math says that if I go another 250,000 miles with the "next" truck, like my current one is about up to . . . [cipher, cipher, 250,000 miles / 15 mpg = about 16,667 gallons X $4 a gallon] = about $67,000 in fuel costs.
But I can make my own Electricity or Hydrogen for practically free.
Means that over time that if that F-250 "Chief" Tri-fuel Hydrogen came with a price tag of $100K -- it could have a lower cost of operation/ownership than the new Gasoline ones.
Why take the energy loss of converting natural gas to hydrogen -- run on CNG.
Why take the energy loss of converting electricity to hydrogen -- run on electricity.
Why take the energy loss of converting natural gas to hydrogen -- run on CNG.
The appeal -- a few years back -- of H2 over CNG was direct electric conversion via Fuel Cells. Now fuel cells run on CNG, as well -- or the more lossy approach of Internal Combustion. And NG prices are down to around 1/3 to 1/4 of its peak. So now CNG looks a LOT cheaper.
And while we have TONS and TONS of NG coming out of frac-land wells -- right now -- it may turn out a different supply profile on the coming backside of that peak. May drop off as hard as it is coming up. And presently so much electricity production is being switched over from Coal to NG, that stuff may wind up more precious and expensive than it seems.
So while CNG is a tempting path, I would think we would be smart to not go too far down it.
Quote:
Why take the energy loss of converting electricity to hydrogen -- run on electricity.
It's so easy a caveman can do it.
You know I like electric for US, but we sort of need to understand some limits on that, too. Still need a remote, emergency vehicle, and "back-up" generation fuel in the mix for the long-term. Hydrogen (along with various bio's) may be the good long term option there.
So far in the Great Recession -- and a ways into the near future -- we have Surplus Electricity. Lots and lots of surplus electricity. So much that the first several million next electric vehicles can operate from just existing surplus generation.
But it would be nice to have something to do will all that surplus generation -- especially the renewable piling up both on and off the grid. Generating Hydrogen from all the surplus electricity, during periods of surplus, may wind up a smart thing to do.
But really as you are a "likes Hydrogen" guy, I am really asking you what you think about these -- (the Tri-fuel pick-up or the Hydrogen/Electric combo Volt)
Let me repeat for the third time, I am not a "hydrogen guy".
I don't care for any technology that radically changes driving habits, and pure electric cars do exactly that.
Nothing more, nothing less.....
~duh~ I know about the Volt, but as one as learned as you, you know it is not a pure electric vehicle and has no bearing on what I brought up.
I think in the short term the next big thing will be the very high mileage ICE car. You have technology now that would easily let a subcompact get 100mpg.
The problem is twofold......one, people do not really seem to like tiny cars..........two, putting all of that technology in a car is going to make it pretty spendy........who is going to shell out 20-30 grand for a tiny car..................maybe when gas is regularly 5 bucks a gallon though.
I'm not understanding. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, and one of the byproducts of this car's use of hydrogen is...hydrogen. Do you think we would run out?
I would snatch one of these up in a heartbeat if there were refueling options nearby. I too think they are going to be the mainstream car in the future.
Quote:"Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, and one of the byproducts of this car's use of hydrogen is...hydrogen"
Hmmm... I would like to see the chemical equation to demonstrate THAT one.... (the byproducts also being hydrogen)
While not hydrogen, but Honda (for example) is using hydrogen extraction from water using solar energy, which then combines with oxygen to generate electricity to propel the car (Honda Clarity, for example), with exhaust being... water vapor. The cycle can continue.
While not hydrogen, but Honda (for example) is using hydrogen extraction from water using solar energy, which then combines with oxygen to generate electricity to propel the car (Honda Clarity, for example), with exhaust being... water vapor. The cycle can continue.
Quote:"Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, and one of the byproducts of this car's use of hydrogen is...hydrogen"
Which makes no sense.
One horsepower is 745 watts.... so if your electric vehicle runs at 50 mph for an hour (to go 50 miles) on the highway, and utilizes 10 horsepower to do it, it will consume 7,450 watts-hours. (this is totally ignoring car lighting, heating, cooling etc)
A typical solar array (about 6.5 feet square, and costing about $2000) made out of polycrystalline silicon can produce about 600 watts (peak), under ideal lighting, to perform the electrolysis of water. If everything is perfect it would take over 10 hours to create enough H2, All this assumes is that everything is 100% efficient, which we all know it isn't anywhere close as there are losses in all stages of the electricity -> hydrogen conversion. Then the fuel cell....etc etc. Every time there is a conversion, the inefficiency grows.
Personally, I think if the industry is going toward hydrogen, we need a lot more nuclear plants to provide such a high demand. And by doing that, electricity rates will soar, as power companies hate to build new plants of any sort (water, coal, natural gas, nuclear), as their capital investment is huge.
I looked at the Honda Clarity... yes, it is a zero-emission vehicle... and that is because it just turfs the emissions required to extract the hydrogen somewhere else (as solar cells are not a mature enough electical source yet).
This is just like Germany, that wants to be very 'green', and not have or shut down their nuclear/power plants. So the solution is for France to open up plants right on the Germany border, and sell their electricity to them. SEE? Germany is now 'green'
----------------------------------------------
One horsepower is 745 watts.... so if your electric vehicle runs at 50 mph for an hour (to go 50 miles) on the highway, and utilizes 10 horsepower to do it, it will consume 7,450 watts-hours. (this is totally ignoring car lighting, heating, cooling etc)
Typical real HP = 1000 watts. Due to motor losses, power factor, etc.
Typically allow 20kW for Highway speeds.
Quote:
A typical solar array (about 6.5 feet square, and costing about $2000) made out of polycrystalline silicon can produce about 600 watts (peak),
Present prices are closer to $1 to $1.50 per watt.
Quote:
under ideal lighting, to perform the electrolysis of water. If everything is perfect it would take over 10 hours to create enough H2, All this assumes is that everything is 100% efficient, which we all know it isn't anywhere close as there are losses in all stages of the electricity -> hydrogen conversion. Then the fuel cell....etc etc. Every time there is a conversion, the inefficiency grows.
Be more likely to be a hybrid mix -- some small solar, some small wind.
Quote:
Personally, I think if the industry is going toward hydrogen, we need a lot more nuclear plants to provide such a high demand. And by doing that, electricity rates will soar, as power companies hate to build new plants of any sort (water, coal, natural gas, nuclear), as their capital investment is huge.
Build Nukes to make H2? That would be some wacky math.
We have surplus electricity most of the time, already. So much surplus wind at times it cannot even be put on the grid. That may be a more practical marriage to just burn off existing surplus electricity into making H2.
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.
) back-up. 
