Stunt Hangar Challenge

[RC Storick]

In my findings,we as model builders are the most creative people I have ever seen. Innovative and exacting. The Stunt Hangar Challenge is for us to discuss NEW ideas on the energy crisis. It does not matter if you are a engineer or mechanic or baker. If you have a idea lets get it out on the table and see if collectively the 2000 members can make it work. We need a solution to the problem.

The Challenge

The challenge is to see if as a team we can come up with a alternative ,fuel,power,engine,motor,electric motor/battery,energy source. It does not matter what it is made from, it matters will it work.
Every idea is possible and none will be over looked. Do you have a idea on lets say LEVITATION? Sound far fetched? It might work if we as a whole make it work.

On this board we have a diverse scope of people here. Rocket scientists,engineers,electrician's,mechanics,wood workers.

If you wish to discuss energy on this thread thats fine. But I do not want a political party of either side brought in. This thread is not a grand stand for a campaign of either side because there is no side.

[Arlan McKee]

In the last thread I noticed several references to natural gas and it's rising cost. While plentiful, natural gas rights have been bought up by power companies. EPA restrictions on coal burning generators have made it too costly to continue to build them. Natural gas burns clean so they just build a generator on top of a well and let it burn, and no worries from the EPA. It is the least efficient method of producing electricity of all our current sources. A byproduct of that is much higher prices for consumers that heat and cook with natural gas. There are alot of folks in central Kentucky and other places that would love to be mining coal for the power industry.

[Clint Ormosen]

Modern roller coasters use electromagnetics rather than the chain hoist/gravity method to move the cars. Why couldn't the state highway system be retrofitted with such magnets? Build lightweight cars to be pulled along the path. Rechargable electric motors could be used to motivate the cars through parking lots and such, but since that's not much distance or speed the motors don't need to be very large.

[Paul Smith]

STEP ONE in problem solving:

Confirm that a problem exists.

Just because politicians with a personal agenda and their henchmen in the driveby media scream "energy crisis" all day long does not prove that such a thing exists.

[Gene O'Keefe]

The crisis exists in that eventually we "will" run out of oil / natural gas / coal and we will need an alternative energy
source. Maybe not in our lifetime but I think everyone would agree that a cheaper renewable non-polluting energy
source is the way to go and the SOONER we start on it the better.

[don Burke]

The logical thing is, dare I say, Nuclear, but the greenies and Congress have effectively prevented anything like that.

[john e. holliday]

I used to subscribe to a magazine that was way ahead of its time on conserving energy and the use of the one big item that comes up over the horizon every day.  Of course in some parts of this great nation cloud cover over long periods of time made it a hard sell.  But, can you imagine a home that was built in the mountains of Colorado that had no outside utilities.  Only back up was a wood burning stove for heat and cooking.  I don't know if I still have that issue, but, solar panels would charge the bank of batteries in the house.  Stone walls and floors would store the heat from the sun.  The water came from a stream that fed a storage tank that was piped into the house.  At that period of time the cost was prohibitative for the average worker. 

I can still recall my grandmother pulling all the shades down early in the AM before the sun got too high to keep the house cool in the warmer months.  In winter time the shades would be raised when the sun hit the window.  If it got too cool in winter you put on more clothes and the beds got more blankets of a night time. 

The thought that just hit me, is why not water wheels to drive generators along our river systems?

I know I am rambling.  More later,  DOC Holliday

[phil c]

We will never "run out" of petroleum, natural gas, or coal.  Eventually, as supplies get harder and harder to obtain(wells go deeper, pockets are harder to find, pollution gets to bad, etc) the use of natural carbon supplies will dwindle.  Just like the use of buggy whips and candles has dwindled.  We've come up with better tools.

Right now, and well into the future, the only viable basic sources of energy are nuclear and solar.  Short term there may be some use for biomass derived fuels, but all biomass has to grow on somebody's land and the supply of land is very finite. We need all the best land for food and most people won't want to turn all the rest into power plant fodder. Biomass is just another version of solar power.  Solar energy using some type of solar cell is ideal because we have millions of acres of roofs already. The conversion efficiencies are fantastic compared to growing plants for fuel.  For most of the people in the world(those living below about the 45th parallel) solar can easily provide all the energy they need, and then some.  Nuclear power would be mainly to support industry(we'll still need refineries, chemical manufacturing, and all the other industries), a power grid, and the folks too far from the equator to make solar cells economic.

Keep in mind that there is a big difference between a source of energy(sun, geothermal, coal, oil) and how that energy gets transported and turned into useful work.  Electrictiy, gasoline, hydrogen(for cars), biodiesel, etc. are just ways to get the power from where it is to where in needs to be in a convenient, safe, and hopefully not too expensive fashion.  As an example, right now diesel electric trains are the rage.  There is no technical reason I can see that would prevent someone from designing an equally efficient, modern coal-powered steam(or maybe Stirling cycle) engine using a refined coal oil as a fuel.  There are lots of technologies that can compete with traditional petroleum at $100 a barrel that were just pointless to pursue when you could get all the oil you wanted at just a few dollars a barrel.

[Dennis Moritz]

Certainly there's a roll for wind power and geothermal. If you want nuclear, answer the question about what to do with nuclear waste. A gentleman at Brodak told me his business was digging wells. Where do you do that, I asked. Philadelphia, he said. Apparently new skyscrapers have their heating and cooling systems supplemented by ground water that stays at a constant 55 degrees. In the summer the water is used to cool. In the winter it's used to heat. I believe a recent study at MIT indicated that geothermal energy can be used to meet all our energy needs. Drill two kilometers down... there is the source. Given the drilling that goes on for oil, that doesn't seem very deep. I didn't read the article and don't know the specifics.

Windmills off the coast. Etc. Etc. I think the Dutch generate %40 of their electrical energy via wind power.

As for batteries in electric cars. Can't the materials be recycled, after their life cycle is done?

What is the problem with fuels like gasoline manufactured from coal. If the Germans could do it during WWII, why can't we develop an efficient, economically viable process, for present use.

[Randy Powell]

Personally, I'm holding out fo Casmir Generators. Ya can't beat Zero-Point Energy.

[Leo Mehl]

Personally, I'm holding out fo Casmir Generators. Ya can't beat Zero-Point Energy.

So Far I think the best energy on this thread is WIND

[Dennis Moritz]

Unless there's a way found to have an honest dialogue about alternative energy in the mass media and in the political arena, I doubt much will happen. There are lots of viable ideas out there, many of which can supply some of energy needs at least and subsequently bring down the cost of daily transportation, heating and cooling our homes, etc. But the ideas get shot down and distorted by advocates of the status quo.

[Dennis Moritz]

It's interesting to me how many ideas proposed here sound simple, almost simplistic. An intelligent high school student could probably come up with a longer list containing a lot more specifics. Some of these ideas almost seem obvious. That doesn't mean they are not viable. Holland does generate 40% of it's  electricity using wind power, for instance, and wells are being drilled in Philadelphia, PA to supplement heating and cooling systems in skyscrapers. The Germans ran a war machine on a fuel generated from coal. So, folks, why do you think we didn't begin a conversion to other energy sources years ago?

[don Burke]

There are many well thought out and planned ideas on how to store and contain nuclear waste.  The only reason they are not used is the "the sky is falling" wackos.  The same ones that manged to stop oil exploration in the US.  BTW ever seen pics of the ANWR area that is proposed for drilling, nothing there, looks like a cold desert.  The wackos publish pics from other areas of the ANWR and have managed to pull the wool over the eyes of those who get their news spoon fed by the leftist media.

There are many wind generators in Kalifornia, when you drive buy these days most are apparently unused.

I can't install solar panels at my home due to the CC&Rs.  Maybe that will change as things get worse, but I'm not holding my breath.

[Dennis Moritz]

Why would meeting standards for drilling for oil be so difficult in the United States? How could it be more costly than drilling two miles deep plus in the ocean. The advocates of drill, drill, everywhere were totally in power in this country for at least six years. The present democratic congress has been a patsy, anyway, barely resisting any agenda proposed by the other side. Seems to me, if the present administration wanted more drilling in the USA (in leases already sold) they could have advocated changes in standards which would have been passed by this congress, certainly it would have passed in the Republican dominated congress of a few years ago. Yet, despite the four fold increase of oil prices world wide in the last eight years, the present administration has not advocated a liberalization of oil drilling standards in the USA.

Don, as far as wackos, I think whenever viable alternative energy programs are discussed, right wing wackos put the kibosh on the discussion. They distort and confuse what should be a straight forward scientific analysis. I believe most advocates of the status quo owe their employment to those who benefit from the energy situation as it is.

[PatRobinson]

Hi Doc,

About homes;  I read a article that said that a large percentage of current American homes are over 30 years old and therefore do not have adequate insulation or perhaps no insulation at all. Insulation is the cheapest and easiset 1st step to use less energy in the home and save money. There are hundreds of simple and inexpensive ideas for insulation or shading you can do yourself like Insulated window shades or shade canopies of various kinds. In addition people are rediscovering saving methods like your gradmothers.

 Homesteaders may choose to "rough-it" by living off-the-grid but most other folks would be happy just finding ways to save money for the family budget.

Solar PV panels are breathtakingly expensive. If you can get generous incentives from your state it might be economically feasible to buy it but when I ran the numbers for my home in my state it would take 20+ years to break even. Some cheaper PV panels have only lasted 5 years and the best quality PV panels have lasted 20+ years.
So 20+ years of useful life and a 20+ years breakeven period means a solar PV system is not feasible for me.  There are online photo votaic system calculators that you can use to run your own numbers.

Passive solar home heating must usually be a part of a new home design which leaves out most pre-existing homes.

However, I have been looking at creating a home energy system based on underground thermal mass of small pea stones contained in a highly insulated concrete container. This mass would be heated by several tandem solar concentrators which reaches a temperature over 1,300 degrees F at the focal point. You pump silicone oil from the tungsten focal collector on the concentrator down and through the thermal mass in metal pipes and bulid up the temerature in the mass to hundreds of degrees.
Most lower temperature solar heat systems lose most or all of the heat gain they create overnight. You don't start to recover any new heat gain till mid-morning. These things cost thousands of dollars but to me they are only a part time solution. Even on cloudy days a solar concentrator acheives a far higher temperature than is ever available with a conventional solar heat system.

Now heres what I would do with this thermal mass.
1. Run pipes into the thermal mass to pull out heat to heat up a hot water tank that is part of a floor hydronic radiant home heating system for my home or a future shop.
2. run pipes to heat all my domestic hot water 24/7
3. Go online and google Green Steam Engine. It can be fairly low cost to build as a do-it-yourself project. It only needs low pressure and only 350 degrees F to work. I am considering using the thermal mass to drive several of these steam engines to replace gas engines in several home electric generators. These generator units can't hold up to running 24/7 but I would cycle them on and off during the day and because they are priced under 2 grand each they are way cheaper than solar PV panels and my breakeven point is only around a year, plus they would be far cheaper to replace down the road. The grid would be my backup electric supplier.

One thermal mass would serve most if not all of the energy needs for my already pre-existing home. Before I start spending money I am going to have to nail down some details. There is no turn-key system avaliable to buy, but some parts, like solar hydronic systems are readily available and can be adapted as a do-it-yourself project.
 
So, If there are any engineering guys out there I would appreciate any help in figuring out the following things about a thermal mass:
1. I chose pea stone because it was cheap and it could hold up to the higher temperatures. Phase change material were more expensive and had a specified upper temperature limit so they didn't look promising. Is there a better material.

2. I was considering blown in "concrete-foam" material as insulation because it won't burn or melt with heat and pests don't like being in it.I am also considering using shiny metal sheets to line the inside the container to provide a thermos bottle effect to contain heat. Is their a better choice of insulating material? Aerogel is too expensive to be practical given the needed quantities,so that is out.

3. How would you calculate the the rate of heat loss for the thermal mass (without factoring in any heat "takeouts" to a hot water tank or a steam generator or etc)? Bottom line - How long would I have usuable heat?
This leads to the next question.  How would you calculate sizing this kind of high temperature thermal mass so it will provide an ongoing reserve of usuable heat. The only online or other info sources I can find deals only with a low temperature thermal mass used within a passive solar design.  

I am sure I will have other questions but the thermal mass is the key to the whole system so I need to figure it out or the rest of the plan will be dead in the water.  

So guys, does anyone have any helpful ideas or reference sources for me to look at?

Doc, there has been some experimentation with water turbines in rivers that look like wind turbines. Early experiments suffered blade failures and other failures, but the concept seems reasonable so we will see how it works out.

 I also, remember some proposal to create a river turbine design that has water enter in one end with a wide mouth with grate to block large debris, it uses a moving filter to pull out most of the sediment to reduce the wear on turbines. The shrould of the unit narrows to create a Bernouli effect to speed up the water to drive the turbine arrays at a higher speed and then the shroud widens again to efficiently exhaust the outgoing water. I believe that the whole unit rises and lowers hydraulically to adjust for water height and to raise for routine service. I don't know if a prototype has ever been built. It was an interesting idea.

 Here is a picture of a tandem solar concentrator using 2 24" dishes but it does not have a pipe system in place.

                                                                Pat Robinson        

 

[don Burke]

Dennis,

 "...right wing wackos..."  I think you've got that on the wrong side of the aisle!

[Dennis Moritz]

Wack wack wacko. Try carrying on a civilized discussion about energy such as this on any number of mass media outlets. Imagine what would happen. Or lets put it this way. Why do you think there hasn't been a feasible alternative energy program in the USA?

[Eric Viglione]

Most City ordinance won't allow a windmill on a residential property, or codes make them impossible. Got a friend in upstate NY with a large piece of rural propery, but he isn't allowed to put a windmill in at the end of his property where he put his home, because you have to have something like 250 feet on either side of the windmill to the property line. I understand some are quite noisey too...

How about tapping the earth's molten core to run steam generators? Volcano power! 
(hey, even the bad idea's need to be on the table just to get them out of the way) 
EricV

[Paul Smith]

We're only partly dependant on foreign fuel.  We could use our own any time we get up the will to brush aside the OBSTRUCTIONISTS who call themselves environmentalists.

Why not use foreign fuel in our:

Forgien cars, trucks, and snowmobiles,,
Foreign boats, motorcycles, and lawn mowers.

If we quit doing business with Red China, what are you going do for,

Shoes, hats, gloves, coats, and underpants?
Power tools, hand tools, threaded fasteners, and Christmas tree lights?

We're overly dependant on lots of foregn junk and crude oil is way down the list.

-----------------------------------
If we went back to making our own stuff, people would have jobs, get Blue Cross at work, and quit begging for government health care.

---------------------

Thanks for opening the door to some non-modeling politics.  This stuff needs to be discussed among intelligent modelers, not the one-sided left wing henchmen of the driveby media.

[catdaddy]

We're only partly dependant on foreign fuel.  We could use our own any time we get up the will to brush aside the OBSTRUCTIONISTS who call themselves environmentalists.

Why not use foreign fuel in our:

Forgien cars, trucks, and snowmobiles,,
Foreign boats, motorcycles, and lawn mowers.

If we quit doing business with Red China, what are you going do for,

Shoes, hats, gloves, coats, and underpants?
Power tools, hand tools, threaded fasteners, and Christmas tree lights?

We're overly dependant on lots of foregn junk and crude oil is way down the list.

-----------------------------------
If we went back to making our own stuff, people would have jobs, get Blue Cross at work, and quit begging for government health care.

---------------------

Thanks for opening the door to some non-modeling politics.  This stuff needs to be discussed among intelligent modelers, not the one-sided left wing henchmen of the driveby media.

I agree thanks for opening the door. I really don't have a dog in this hunt, but what strikes me as funny is the attitude that left wing pinko's run this country, but they certainly aren't in the majority. Doesn't this suggest that (A) they are much more resourceful and intellegent than the people that can't stand them. (B) They care more about their ideals than the other side because they are willing to make things happen and get things done to the displeasure of the people that can't stand them.

If the left wing whack-a-doos are to blame for everthing, and it apparently bothers a great deal of non liberal folk to no end, then may I suggest you stop wasting your time on model airplane forums and get involved with stopping them, or are they to clever for you? Is all that you can do is complain how the obstructionist are ruining everything?
STOP THEM FOR CHRIST SAKE! Just stop constantly whining about how it's their fault, you're as bad as they are, just not nearly as successful.
Consider it's just as much YOUR fault for letting them ruin everything!

Geo Thermal
Hummingbird motor
Wind
Solar
Nuclear
Fuel Cell

[Brad B]

Why couldn't we use an array of lenses to concentrate sunlight to heat a boiler and power a steam driven turbine?  The turbine could then power a generator.  Most of the power wasted in a home goes toward heating water and heating the home.  With a boiler you could eliminate both of these power wasters.  Instead of storing power in the form of batteries, you could just sell the extra power that you don't need to the grid and if you need more power, supplement your generator with power from the grid.  It seems to me that it would be a lot more efficient and useful than photovoltaic cells.  If you didn't want to use the boiler then you could use some kind of smaller flash converter and a closed stream system to generate the steam.   Essentially a miniature version of what most power companies use to make power today but instead of coal or natural gas for power you use sunlight.               Just a thought.....  B 

[RC Storick]

This thread is not for who's a left wing or right wing WHO CAERES! Its for New ideas of power.

But the way I can see inmy mind how the solar reflector could work.

[Brad B]

If they work on a huge scale, why cant they be adapted to work for individual homes?  If they could generate 6-10 Kw/hour then you are pretty much set for a home.  I think the average US home uses somewhere around 30-40Kw per day.  I think it might work.  If you could target it to be 50-60% efficient then almost every other home generated power would really have to play catch up.  This seems feasible to me.  Renewable FREE energy with little to no impact on the ecosystem. 

As far as motor vehicle power plants, I have no ideas other than the Mr Fusion and a flux capacitor (back to the future) 
B

[Larry Cunningham]

I found a link to a very informative crash course on world economic realities.

This free course is broken into 20 short (typically <10 minute) video lessons;
the complete class takes about 3 hours. For an overview it is surprisingly
comprehensive. It addresses a myriad of economic factors - exponential
functions, money, standard of living,  gold, energy, water, soil, weather,
oil, wars, food, population, etc. Lessons can be viewed at leisure.

The course is not political; nor is it selling anything.

I wish my college econ class had such material. (For example, do you
know how all money enters circulation? Would you believe that it is
LOANED?)

Give it a sample view, I think you will find the information quite valuable.

The link: http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse

Best regards to all,

L.

"Of course there's a lot of knowledge in universities: the freshmen bring a little in; the
seniors don't take much away, so knowledge sort of accumulates.." -Dr. A. Lawrence Lowell

[RC Storick]

I have a far fetched solution. There is a thread above about solar collectors. Let me give you this idea. Create a network of solar collectors in every state all of them connected to the grid. The collector array would then power their state in good weather and in bad would draw form another neighboring state.

The collector is a parabolic dish with mirrors refraction sunlight to a lens of a magnifying glass. The glass pointed on a boiler. The boiler then powers a turbine to produce free electricity.

Just a idea!

<a href="http://plugin.smileycentral.com/http%253A%252F%252Fwww.smileycentral.com%252F%253Fpartner%253DZSzeb008%255FZNxmk572PBUS%2526i%253D3%252F3%255F3%255F109%2526feat%253Dprof/page.html" target="_blank">[img width= height= alt=SmileyCentral.com" border="0]http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/3/3_3_109.gif[/img][/url]

[don Burke]

There is a solar array in California near Barstow.  It consisted of many curved mirrors, in the thousands.  They were servoed to follow the sun and keep focused on a target in a tower.  The target contained some "solid stuff" that when heated liquified and could be used to heat water to power a steam generator.  It's been sitting idle for several years now.  When it was operating, you couldn't look directly at the target as it shone as bright as the sun.  I think it was too expensive to maintain with breakdowns in the mechanicals that kept the mirrors tracking the sun, plus the cleaning problem from dust in the desert, etc.

Good idea but the economics of operation proved it impractical.

[Brad B]

If you are not trying to create power for thousands of homes it might not be that hard to maintain.  Maybe they just needed to think smaller. B

[Paul Smith]

Does anybody know the numbers on those big, three-bladed windmills?  If so, they're not talking.

How much does it cost to buy one and install it?

How much electricity does it generate?

Is there ever an economic payback?  Or is it just another way dip into government subsidies?

[Brad B]

I heard on the radio once, they were somewhere around 1 million each for those HUGE ones that are on many if the wind farms in the southwest..  It would take a lot of power to pay for them if that is the case. 

[don Burke]

Most of the windmills in California popped up when Congress provided seed money.  Quite a few limited partnerships got originated to raise the rest of the cash and to get them built.  Unfortunately they turned out mostly to be a tax shelter for those investors since they apparently lost a lot of money on them.  And as usual the taxpayer footed the bill.

I feel if there is a viable need for a product it will get produced, government incentives not required.  All the government does is add a layer of beaurocracy that has to be supported by the taxpayer. 

[Michael Floerchinger]

I have looked into the cost of the small home wind generators, the cost varies, $5000 to $10000. then you need the batteries and inverter if you are going to be off the grid, other switching circuitry if you are going to pump back into the grid. Most utilities do not lick this arrangement because if there is not a sophisticated safety system installed then workers down the line doing repairs after a storm could get fried. I quit building, flying and competing to building a home in SEMO. What we have been concentrating on is insulation ( 6” outside stud walls and energy trusses), efficient doors and windows and conservation. All of the lighting is CFLs. The house is heated and cooled with electricity but we will have a wood burning stove connected soon and will be using LP to cook with, right now it is always BBQ! With the pump for the water, a regular hot water heater and HydroSil baseboard heat our highest bill has not been 0ver $55 for a month. Granted the house is not done yet but once it is fully insulated the bill should not be that much more. When the power goes out (It took a year to get power to our remote location!) Most of this can be run with a 3600 Watt Hi Start industrial DeWalt generator, that is what we used to build the house, we were not on the grid until long after the shell was completed.

I am looking into solar, wind and biomass to lessen out dependency on the grid. The biomass I am talking about is the biodegradable waste that we all produce. I used to work for Anheuser Busch at the brewery in downtown St. Louis. They have what they call “reactors” they are huge containers where they dump all of there used waste from brewing beer, the “biomass” they produce quite a bit of “gas” from this matter and is reused to fire their boilers, they save a lot of money using this recycled material. They also burn coal but the gases are scrubbed, they also have a system the pulverizes the coal and it is strayed like gasoline into the furnace, this process is pretty efficient and makes for a cleaner burning fire.

I personally believe that we will solve this crisis, Americans are very resourceful, we have the tenacity to overcome great odds, I tend to think on the positive.

Oh, one of these days I will get back to flying, I have a perfect spot picked out for my own personal circle on the land!

Mike

[Dick Fowler]

The idea of burning trash (biomass) to generate steam for downtown Akron, OH was an idea that they tried in the 80's. A plant was built and waste haulers would bring the trash to the incinerator as the fuel source.  Problem was that there were numerous days where the incoming trash was too wet to burn on its own. This required using natural gas to dry the stuff to the point that it would burn. Net effect was it was not energy positive... it took more energy to get the stuff dry enough to burn than the stuff  it generated.

There were numerous down days from small explosions created by hazardous materials being trucked in without the plant operator knowing the content of the loads.

An explosion in 1984 killed three workers and injured seven others, caused by hazardous waste from a New Jersey company that should not have gone to the incinerator. A decade later, a scam to avoid paying plant fees resulted in the arrests of a dozen haulers and plant employees. The city lost $500,000.

The plant racked up a $750,000 annual deficit that sucked money directly out of the city's general fund to make up operating losses.

And that's not counting the nearly $100 million the city sank into the plant in technological investments.

In 1995, at the recommendation of a blue-ribbon panel, the city chose Thermal Ventures out of Youngstown from among five bidders to take the plant off the city's hands and burn primarily wood chips and low-sulphur Ohio coal instead of trash.

The plant continues to operate at a loss every year.

Be careful what you wish for.... you might get it!

More info http://www.precaution.org/lib/06/prn_will_akron_utility_ever_be_solvent_akron_t.061001.htm

[Randy Powell]

Hydrogen-

[peabody]

Bingo to Hydrogen....
GM is heavily committed, as are the Germans....
The new BMW training center / HQ opens in nearby Woodcliff Lake (I'll tour it next Thursday) soon.....major hydrogen tank there, shared by the Silver Star folk in neighboring Montvale....
GMs training facility moved from Sleepy Hollow (Tarrytown) to a new place just south because the wizards at SH didn't want the hydrogen tank...
Dodge, too, has their eye on hydrogen....

[PatRobinson]

Hi guys,

In the other thread, I listed some issues with hydrogen as a fuel that must be overcome before for it can be a viable replacement for gasoline. Let me add some detail. 

1. There is NO current mass hydrogen manufacturing capability on a scale with gasoline. Hydrogen fuel is produced by either electroylsis, ie. using electricity to split water molecules to free hydrogen and a process using natural gas through a process called "steam reformation". Most currently produced hydrogen comes from natural gas steam reformation.  Any hydrogen produced using "so-called" sustainable sources like bio-mass are many years away from being a reality.

Everyone objected to $4.00+ gasoline and hydrogen will cost that much or even more per gasoline gallon equivelent so hydrogen is not going to save you any money at the pump. It would require a large increase in production levels to acheive a sufficient economy of scale which would provide enough supply in relation to demand to drive down costs. So in order to acheive increased hydrogen production we will place a huge demand on either electric power consumption or an increase in natural gas consumption. This could increase our costs to heat or power our homes if we don't increase our production of natural gas or produce hydrogen from "off the grid" electric sources. Electrolysis  would comsume a huge volume of our fresh water supply putting a strain on that infrastructure.That to me, is just not very smart.

Hydrogen for use in a internal combustion engine vehicle is best stored as a compressed gas or a liquid. ( Just like natural gas is used in vehicles.) Acording to the Oregon Dept of Energy compressed or liquid Hydrogen has has less energy storage (energy density) than gasoline or diesel. This sounds like a less efficient fuel to me. Cost is high and efficiency low. Well, so far hydrogen isn't looking like a better new internal combustion engine fuel to me. 

In fact most of the "experts" I read believe that any future for hyrogen as a fuel is for it to be used in a fuel cell vehicle. In a fuel cell hydrogen and oxygen are fed into a proton exchange membrane to produce electricity to power an all electric car. I believe that hydrogen fuel as apart of a fuel cell vehicle acheives much better efficiency.

2. There is no Hydrogen fuel transportation and distribution infrastructure for you to buy hydrogen fuel.
To just put in the pumping infrastructure at an already existing gas station for natural gas would cost over $250,000
for each station but hydrogen infrastructure would cost more. The US Dept of Energy proposes to use natural gas steam reformation hydrogen generators at each gas station to produce that stations supply of hydrogen. This helps get around transportation issues but the cost to buy and operate this kind of hydrogen generator system would be high to a dealer so without dictatorial goverment mandates or agressive government incentives which will cost the taxpayers more billions of dollars,I don't see many dealers having a profit motive to take on the expense of going to hydrogen. Without nation wide distribution I don't see hydrogen being a useful fuel for years to come.  Even from a co2 standpoint burning natural gas or creating electricity to create hydrogen impacts co2 production so hydrogen is not as the hype implies some magical environmental fuel. Slick ads on TV hype that fuel cell cars produce only water vapor but they don't talk about what is required to produce hydrogen in the first place.

 Another alternative proposal is for each gas station to have a PV solar panel array to convert water to hydrogen through electrolysis during daylight hours. Again this is years away from reality and again it would impact our fresh water supply.

The number one issue to me when I evaluate a fuel is what does it cost the consumer to drive their vehicle so they can go about their everyday lives without distruptions caused by fuel costs. To me everything else is secondary.
Problems with cost is what started the previous thread. At this point I dont see hydrogen saving consumers enough money for it to be a practical alternative fuel, at least any time soon.

At some point,nuclear power plants created solely for hydrogen production could be distributed in local areas
 across the country which would reduce transportation issues.
 By creating steam from nuclear power and combining it with waste bio-mass it might be possible to produce an economical fuel for fuel cell cars. This is not an actual proposal but just a wild A"" guess on my part.

I read about a research group looking to create a hydrogen generator that is onboard the vehicle. details were limited and the work is very preliminary. An onboard generator eliminates distribution problems but details on how it works wasn't clear. So I guess and onboard hydrogen generator is also years away from reality.

I am not trying to rain on anyone's parade here but you have to move beyond the hype and slick ad's from the automakers who want to appear "green" to the public by touting their alternative fuel technology cars while they continue to sell regular gasoline cars. They also want to already be in a position to sell alternative energy cars if conditions change which favors a given alternative fuel so they continue to develop and hype fuel cell vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, flex-fuel vehicles and etc , so they will be ready to compete against other manufacturers in any alternative fuel future.

At this point I see hydrogen as a "Not Ready For Prime Time - Fuel " into the near term forseeable future. Technology has a way of standing things on their heads so some breakthrough could turn hydrogen into a
cheap and plentiful fuel source. Time will tell.

                                                                      Pat Robinson
 
 

[Robert W]

The largest wind generators produce around 3 to 4 megawatts. I do not know the cost, but have heard the lifecycle cost to produce power is still higher for wind then the larger gas and steam turbines on the grid. The largest gas turbine produce between 230 to 300 Megawatts. The most efficient gas fired power plants are the combined cycle plant that have one of the large gas turbines and two steam turbines working together. At the end of the day it still comes down to money and what is cheaper to run so the companies can earn the highest profit for the shareholders.