Energy

[JOEBIALEK]

As a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the growing uncertainty with the situation in the Middle East, South America and Europe,  the United States is now forced to re-think its energy policy so that it can lower energy consumption of and dependence on foreign oil.  Just as the automobile replaced the horse-drawn carriage so it is time for the electric battery to replace the gasoline engine.  We are at the dawn of a new age when one can plug their car into an electric outlet and re-charge it for travel up to sixty miles or more.   But with any wholesale change comes the requirement of a transitional mechanism.   Hence the need for a vehicle that can run alternatively on both gasoline and electricity.   The goal of course would be to make a total conversion within a reasonable amount of time.  Most of the electricity produced in the United States comes from coal-fired power plants so the concern by some is that a reduction in tailpipe emissions would be offset by an increase in air pollution from the power plants.  Others argue that the sheer volume of reduced vehicle emissions would fall far greater than plant-produced air pollution.   We may even see a coalition of military hawks and environmentalists as fuel efficiency brings about both security and a better climate.
 
Few would argue that two factors influence consumer's choice of transportation more than anything else: gas mileage and appearance.   Ever since the automobile became available to the average consumer, it has always been considered a status symbol much like the clothing we wear and the houses we live in.    The price of electricity is pale compared to the price of gasoline so this factor is virtually a no-brainer.   The choice of appearance however, will always linger as long as we believe that "appearance makes the person".   But this factor can also be addressed during the transition phase since it appears that most vehicles today can be modified to use both fuel sources.   As for the future, the old tried and true marketing techniques will convince most people that buying the style of car available will guarantee that the "future won't pass them by".   Just as Japanese cars promoting fuel efficiency in response to the oil embargo of the 1970's sparked the Big Three to respond accordingly so will the shift to electric vehicles change the market once again.  Perhaps this time General Motors, Ford and Daimler Chrysler will get the "jump on the competition" and in so doing, save themselves from bankruptcy. 
 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Perhaps this time General Motors, Ford and Daimler Chrysler will get the "jump on the competition" and in so doing, save themselves from bankruptcy.

GM and Ford are both heading for bankruptcy to lighten their pension obligations, but will likely continue to operate unlike MG Rover.

However, if I owned a Pontiac dealership, I'd be selling now while the selling is good.  GM operates too many brands here in the US, and Pontiac AFAIK, has no presence outside North America and so would be the easiest of GM's brands to be contracted at the moment.

[David S]

In my opinion the main stopper for electric cars is the limited range that can be achieved with existing battery technology. As you say it might be about 60 miles. For gasoline powered cars its more like 300 to 400 miles. Its also much quicker to gas up than to recharge the batteries.

This has been the problem with electric cars for 100 years. Figure out the answer to that and I'll make us both rich and famous.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

As a commuter car, electric vehicles can make good economic sense.  The problem is that most people don't want a car that can only be used as a commuter car.

Interchangeable battery packs look to be a practical solution to the recharging problem, but only if they can solve the range problem so that a vehicle can go at least 300 km without stopping for service.  Even then you've got the infrastructure problem, but that's fairly easy, if expensive to solve.

[muon2]

Electric power is needed, but the critical hurdle is energy density. This measures how much useable energy is stored in a given volume, like mass density measures the mass in a given volume. Conventional rechargeable batteries can't match gasoline and that limits batteries from competing with the internal combustion engine.

Work on the hydrogen fuel cell is much more promising. Hydrogen provides greater energy density then petroleum, and the fuel cell has been around for a long time now. It has been used in military and space applications. The biggest commercial hurdle is how to store roughly 10 kg of hydrogen in a car so that it has a range of 500 km, like a gas-powered vehicle. This is an active area of current research, and when solved can lead to a wholesale replacement of gas engines as we know them today.

[Erc]

I only use the finest Uranium (tm) to power my vehicular contraption.

[David S]

Electric power is needed, but the critical hurdle is energy density. This measures how much useable energy is stored in a given volume, like mass density measures the mass in a given volume. Conventional rechargeable batteries can't match gasoline and that limits batteries from competing with the internal combustion engine.

Work on the hydrogen fuel cell is much more promising. Hydrogen provides greater energy density then petroleum, and the fuel cell has been around for a long time now. It has been used in military and space applications. The biggest commercial hurdle is how to store roughly 10 kg of hydrogen in a car so that it has a range of 500 km, like a gas-powered vehicle. This is an active area of current research, and when solved can lead to a wholesale replacement of gas engines as we know them today.

Muon I have a question that possibly you can answer. Where do you get the hydrogen from? I know of two ways, both of which have problems. You can get it from water through electroysis or extract it from hydrocarbon fuels like oil or methane.

To get it from water you must put in more energy that you will get out so that will  create a huge electricity demand. Most of our electricity comes from coal burning plants which produce mostly CO2 as a product of combustion. This could eliminate our need for foreign oil but would still leave us with the greenhouse gas problem (assumming it is a problem).

If we get it from oil we are still dependent on oil. Also oil contains much more carbon by weight than hydrogen, so what happens to the carbon?

[Erc]

Electric power is needed, but the critical hurdle is energy density. This measures how much useable energy is stored in a given volume, like mass density measures the mass in a given volume. Conventional rechargeable batteries can't match gasoline and that limits batteries from competing with the internal combustion engine.

Work on the hydrogen fuel cell is much more promising. Hydrogen provides greater energy density then petroleum, and the fuel cell has been around for a long time now. It has been used in military and space applications. The biggest commercial hurdle is how to store roughly 10 kg of hydrogen in a car so that it has a range of 500 km, like a gas-powered vehicle. This is an active area of current research, and when solved can lead to a wholesale replacement of gas engines as we know them today.

Muon I have a question that possibly you can answer. Where do you get the hydrogen from? I know of two ways, both of which have problems. You can get it from water through electroysis or extract it from hydrocarbon fuels like oil or methane.

To get it from water you must put in more energy that you will get out so that will  create a huge electricity demand. Most of our electricity comes from coal burning plants which produce mostly CO2 as a product of combustion. This could eliminate our need for foreign oil but would still leave us with the greenhouse gas problem (assumming it is a problem).

If we get it from oil we are still dependent on oil. Also oil contains much more carbon by weight than hydrogen, so what happens to the carbon?

Well, we certainly have more options, in any event.

The suggestions floating about...individual charging (solar panels on the garage)...or just relying on the power grid, which can be made cleaner much easier than our cars can.  (*cough* nuclear power *cough*).

As I said, I only use the finest Uranium.

[muon2]

Electric power is needed, but the critical hurdle is energy density. This measures how much useable energy is stored in a given volume, like mass density measures the mass in a given volume. Conventional rechargeable batteries can't match gasoline and that limits batteries from competing with the internal combustion engine.

Work on the hydrogen fuel cell is much more promising. Hydrogen provides greater energy density then petroleum, and the fuel cell has been around for a long time now. It has been used in military and space applications. The biggest commercial hurdle is how to store roughly 10 kg of hydrogen in a car so that it has a range of 500 km, like a gas-powered vehicle. This is an active area of current research, and when solved can lead to a wholesale replacement of gas engines as we know them today.

Muon I have a question that possibly you can answer. Where do you get the hydrogen from? I know of two ways, both of which have problems. You can get it from water through electroysis or extract it from hydrocarbon fuels like oil or methane.

To get it from water you must put in more energy that you will get out so that will  create a huge electricity demand. Most of our electricity comes from coal burning plants which produce mostly CO2 as a product of combustion. This could eliminate our need for foreign oil but would still leave us with the greenhouse gas problem (assumming it is a problem).

If we get it from oil we are still dependent on oil. Also oil contains much more carbon by weight than hydrogen, so what happens to the carbon?

You are correct that most hydrogen comes from hydrocarbons today. The most common technology converts methane in natural gas to hydrogen and carbon monoxide. Some hydrogen is produced through direct electrolysis of water with oxygen as a byproduct, but this can use electricity from any source, such as soloar or nuclear with no carbon emission.

In the near term, natural gas will still be the major source. However, biomass may be an important future source of hydrogen. Some current reserach involves engineered bacteria to generate hydrogen from biomass waste. The carbon byproducts can then be sequestered in the ground (think compost), instead of generating carbon dioxide.

[David S]

Electric power is needed, but the critical hurdle is energy density. This measures how much useable energy is stored in a given volume, like mass density measures the mass in a given volume. Conventional rechargeable batteries can't match gasoline and that limits batteries from competing with the internal combustion engine.

Work on the hydrogen fuel cell is much more promising. Hydrogen provides greater energy density then petroleum, and the fuel cell has been around for a long time now. It has been used in military and space applications. The biggest commercial hurdle is how to store roughly 10 kg of hydrogen in a car so that it has a range of 500 km, like a gas-powered vehicle. This is an active area of current research, and when solved can lead to a wholesale replacement of gas engines as we know them today.

Muon I have a question that possibly you can answer. Where do you get the hydrogen from? I know of two ways, both of which have problems. You can get it from water through electroysis or extract it from hydrocarbon fuels like oil or methane.

To get it from water you must put in more energy that you will get out so that will  create a huge electricity demand. Most of our electricity comes from coal burning plants which produce mostly CO2 as a product of combustion. This could eliminate our need for foreign oil but would still leave us with the greenhouse gas problem (assumming it is a problem).

If we get it from oil we are still dependent on oil. Also oil contains much more carbon by weight than hydrogen, so what happens to the carbon?

You are correct that most hydrogen comes from hydrocarbons today. The most common technology converts methane in natural gas to hydrogen and carbon monoxide. 

That sounds worse than producing carbon dioxide, since carbon monoxide is a deadly poison.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That would be slick if it can be made to work. But it still seems that there are some significant technical problems to be solved.

When I was in college over thirty years ago it seemed like fuel cells were likely to become viable for cars, but many of the  problems which existed then are still around today.

[muon2]

You are correct that most hydrogen comes from hydrocarbons today. The most common technology converts methane in natural gas to hydrogen and carbon monoxide. 

That sounds worse than producing carbon dioxide, since carbon monoxide is a deadly poison.

Dont' worry, it's combusted before released.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That would be slick if it can be made to work. But it still seems that there are some significant technical problems to be solved.

When I was in college over thirty years ago it seemed like fuel cells were likely to become viable for cars, but many of the  problems which existed then are still around today.

You are right, which is why the applications have been narrow so far. Until recently, there weren't a lot of dollars for research. After the 70's energy crisis, more went into direct sources like solar and wind, and on efficiency measures, but not on portable power.
[/quote]

New production measures, like biomass, are relatively recent. The biggest hurdle will probably be finding the best way to store the hydrogen for a car - whether liquified or bound in a solid metal hydride.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The biggest hurdle will probably be finding the best way to store the hydrogen for a car - whether liquified or bound in a solid metal hydride.

The biggest hurdle is price.  The main advantage of the internal combustion engine is that it is a proven technology that is easy to build.  Biofuels can be used in internal combustion engines, solve the same greenhouse gas problem as more exptic technologies, and don't require new infrastructure for their distribution.  It is only the cost of biofuels compared to petrofuels that has kept them from being more widely used.  Until IC alternatives reach the point of being cheaper than biofueled IC engines, they will remain laboratory curiosities.

[muon2]

The biggest hurdle will probably be finding the best way to store the hydrogen for a car - whether liquified or bound in a solid metal hydride.

The biggest hurdle is price.  The main advantage of the internal combustion engine is that it is a proven technology that is easy to build.  Biofuels can be used in internal combustion engines, solve the same greenhouse gas problem as more exptic technologies, and don't require new infrastructure for their distribution.  It is only the cost of biofuels compared to petrofuels that has kept them from being more widely used.  Until IC alternatives reach the point of being cheaper than biofueled IC engines, they will remain laboratory curiosities.

The actual fuel cell is also a proven technology and easy to build. It produces electricity that can run a conventional motor. Fuel storage and distribution drive the cost.

Some automotive technologies were around a long time before new technologies brought the price down for the mass market. For instance, fuel injectors were around since the early part of the 20th century, but were generally only found in racing and other performance cars until the 70's. Cheap microprocessor technology allowed fuel injectors to beat carburetors. Now they are standard, and the change over only took a few years.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Actually, as I understand it, the main problem with fuel cells is that unless you have extremely pure fuels, the fuel cells quickly degrade.  The cost of refining fuel to the standard required by fuel cells is what made them impractical as general purpose power sources.  They've made improvements but they have not yet reached the tipping point.  Iceland is likely the place fuel cells will reach the tipping point of usability first, but that is primarily due to the local supply of geothermal energy for cheap electricity with which to make the hydrogen fuel, and the lack of any cheap local sources of biofuels.