A way to reduce oil usage.

[Allen Jenkins]

I look at global warming, like, If the Bible says burn, consumed with fire, as with fervent heat, and the event is in the future of the planIt, wouldn't there be something left to judge? How do you have a habitat that is not habitable? Why would God do that to Ma-maw? How can this happen to people, unworthy as they may seem, if He inspired the race to have His Christmas, His resurrection, "The Passion Of The Christ"? Don't you think that the One who called the creation into existance, using the provable, mathamatical, laws of physics, who has given to the "prudent, the knowledge of witty inventions", wishes we would worry about more pertinent things, like trashing the environment(garbage), thugs, would-be neighbors, who act far worse than the Talabon, who at least would send the enemy to be with his creater, not withstanding, really, not who is god, but whose god is God?

[Anonymous]

What-what??? Ohhhh.....no really- what-what?????

[csxengineer98]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Allen Jenkins

I look at global warming, like, If the Bible says burn, consumed with fire, as with fervent heat, and the event is in the future of the planIt, wouldn't there be something left to judge? How do you have a habitat that is not habitable? Why would God do that to Ma-maw? How can this happen to people, unworthy as they may seem, if He inspired the race to have His Christmas, His resurrection, "The Passion Of The Christ"? Don't you think that the One who called the creation into existance, using the provable, mathamatical, laws of physics, who has given to the "prudent, the knowledge of witty inventions", wishes we would worry about more pertinent things, like trashing the environment(garbage), thugs, would-be neighbors, who act far worse than the Talabon, who at least would send the enemy to be with his creater, not withstanding, really, not who is god, but whose god is God?

wow.....now that is realy comeing from out of left field..... i have read it about 5 times now..and i still cant make any real sence of it......
all i can say is....????????????????????/
csx engineer

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by toyomantrains

As far as hydrogen goes (at least in the auto industry) Toyo has 'sidelined' this and put more of Its efforts into hybrids. The amount of energy required to produce the hydrogen needed to effectivelly produce power for an automobile negates the benefit gained- at this time. What I mean is dollar for dollar its much cheaper to burn fossil fuel (let alone the infrastructure cost of hydrogen refueling). It takes great amounts of energy to produce the hydrogen required which comes from coal or nuclear energy plants.

Well it is nice to know that they are thinking about hydrogen. This makes me really wonder if my idea would really make a difference.

Here it is again:

Maybe the secret for hydrogen is not to try and seperate large quantities and then distribute it. Maybe what we really need is a small portable hydrogen generator. Imagine adding water to your car, then plugging it into an electrical source. Then as you drive some of the engines motion would go back into re-generating hydrogen by supplying electricity to the hydrogen generator. The exhaust, which is pure water could also be collected and reused.

Everyone keeps thinking that large quantities of hydrogen have to be transported to a central location for distribution as is true for gasoline. This is the downfall of conventional thinking.[;)]

Now combine this with rooftop solar PV, and you get a very interesting result. You are taking wasted solar energy, and converting it to electricity, and then turning that into hydrogen, and then driving your NON POLLUTING car!!!

Solutions to all of our problems exist, the question is can we find them?

[wallyworld]

Only two hundred years have passed since mainstream science has reached a consensus that meteorites enter the earth’s atmosphere. It was said that upon hearing that a meteorite exploded in the air above New England, one of the greatest presidential proponents of science and a revered founder of our country said in 1807 that he; Thomas Jefferson “would more easily believe that two Yankee professors would lie than that stones would fall from heaven .“ On the Larsen ice shelf in Antarctica, recently a section of the ice cap broke free and fell into the sea that is equal to the size of the State of Rhode Island. The year 2002 had the highest recorded average temperature only to be exceeded in increase the following year in 2003. If we are dependant on scientific consensus to verify the causes, let alone the reality of global warning, be prepared in the future to see an SD40 floating along the right of way on pontoons while the politicians, corporations and technological science try reach an acceptable official spin on what I can see with my own eyes. In 1947, the Russian mathematician, P.D Ouspensky said; “ Are we able to observe in life a preponderance of the best the strongest and the most courageous elements?
Nothing of the sort. On the contrary we see a preponderance of vulgarity and stupidity of all kinds.
Are we able to say that aspirations toward unity, towards unification can be observed in life? Nothing of the kind of course. We only see new divisions, new hostilities, new misunderstandings. So that in the actual situation of humanity, there is nothing that’s pointing to evolution proceeding.
On the contrary when we compare humanity with a man we quite clearly see a growth of personality at the cost of essence, that is the growth of the artificial, the unreal and what is foreign at the cost of the natural, the real and what is one’s own. Together with this we see the growth of automatism. Contemporary culture requires automatons…..” All I need to self-verify the accuracy of this observation made some 50+ years ago, is to flip through the programs available on tv.

[jchnhtfd]

Toyomantrains has put the fundamental problem with hydrogen very well: overall cycle efficiency ('source to wheel') is the techical term. If your hydrogen source is water (the most plentiful) you cannot possibly (one of those dang laws of physics!) get more energy out (by burning the hydrogen or using it in a fuel cell) than you put in (by separating the hydrogen from the water). In fact, (another of those dang laws of physics!) you can never get as much out as you put in. Thus, if your source is a fossil fuel using facility, you will use more fossil fuel to move a given load a given distance if you use the energy to create hydrogen, and then burn the hydrogen, than you would if you burned the fossil fuel directly -- assuming that the engines burning the fossil fuel have similar efficiencies themselves, which they can. If you use the fossil fuel directly in a fuel cell system (the most commonly discussed is natural gas), the process still involves splitting the hydrogen off... the advantage of hydrogen as a fuel, and the only real advantage, is that it is a portable fuel which, in principle, can be used without creating much air pollution AT THE VEHICLE. However, if a fossil fuel is your energy source, the overall amount of pollutants will be slightly greater -- just produced in a different place. Hybrid vehicles -- particularly hybrid diesels -- have been shown (I regret I don't have the reference to the study immediately to hand) to have an overall cycle efficiency and pollutant mass equal to, or better than, any other means of using fossil fuels in transportation.

But what if your energy source is not a fossil fuel? Such as nuclear, solar, or wind? Then the best approach is to use the electricity directly, for those applications such as electrified rail lines which can do so. Otherwise, with some loss of efficiency, you can use hydrogen with some advantages. Nuclear, solar, and wind all have some rather severe problems as energy sources, however. Solar and wind both take large amounts of land, and are not dependable for base power, as has been said before. In addition, construction of solar cells is not the most environmentally friendly process in the world. They have other environmental problems as well. Nuclear has some environmental problems, although the technology for handling waste is well understood and proven. The main problem with nuclear is political.

As Big_boy_4005 said -- in large type! -- solutions to all of our problems exist. The question, however, isn't just 'can we find them' but also: are we willing, politically, to apply them?

[DSchmitt]

Well said jchnhtfd[:D], In my posts I've been try to say the same thing in my many posts onthis subject.

[Anonymous]

I still think we're basing our ideas and answers here on known technology. In a generation of two they'll laugh at how inefficient we are now.

Nuclear, magnets, guar, methanol(?)

[DSchmitt]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mehrlich

I still think we're basing our ideas and answers here on known technology. In a generation of two they'll laugh at how inefficient we are now.

Nuclear, magnets, guar, methanol(?)

When I get my time machine working, I'll zip ahead and see what they are doing in 100 years.[:o)]

Oops it worked, but when I wena ahead 1/2 hour I couldn't get back. I'm afraid to try for 100 years.[:o)][:o)]

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jchnhtfd

Toyomantrains has put the fundamental problem with hydrogen very well: overall cycle efficiency ('source to wheel') is the techical term. If your hydrogen source is water (the most plentiful) you cannot possibly (one of those dang laws of physics!) get more energy out (by burning the hydrogen or using it in a fuel cell) than you put in (by separating the hydrogen from the water). In fact, (another of those dang laws of physics!) you can never get as much out as you put in. Thus, if your source is a fossil fuel using facility, you will use more fossil fuel to move a given load a given distance if you use the energy to create hydrogen, and then burn the hydrogen, than you would if you burned the fossil fuel directly -- assuming that the engines burning the fossil fuel have similar efficiencies themselves, which they can. If you use the fossil fuel directly in a fuel cell system (the most commonly discussed is natural gas), the process still involves splitting the hydrogen off... the advantage of hydrogen as a fuel, and the only real advantage, is that it is a portable fuel which, in principle, can be used without creating much air pollution AT THE VEHICLE. However, if a fossil fuel is your energy source, the overall amount of pollutants will be slightly greater -- just produced in a different place. Hybrid vehicles -- particularly hybrid diesels -- have been shown (I regret I don't have the reference to the study immediately to hand) to have an overall cycle efficiency and pollutant mass equal to, or better than, any other means of using fossil fuels in transportation.

But what if your energy source is not a fossil fuel? Such as nuclear, solar, or wind? Then the best approach is to use the electricity directly, for those applications such as electrified rail lines which can do so. Otherwise, with some loss of efficiency, you can use hydrogen with some advantages. Nuclear, solar, and wind all have some rather severe problems as energy sources, however. Solar and wind both take large amounts of land, and are not dependable for base power, as has been said before. In addition, construction of solar cells is not the most environmentally friendly process in the world. They have other environmental problems as well. Nuclear has some environmental problems, although the technology for handling waste is well understood and proven. The main problem with nuclear is political.

As Big_boy_4005 said -- in large type! -- solutions to all of our problems exist. The question, however, isn't just 'can we find them' but also: are we willing, politically, to apply them?

Thanks Jchnhtfd, the politically willingness is a real issue. I'm afraid that if we don't start applying some of this technology on a large scale soon, our children and grand children will have to deal with the real problems that we created.

I think that it should be noted here that the creation of an urban landscape, is also detremental to the environment, but we don't seem to bat an eye when it comes to paving. At least energy collection by wind and solar are non polluting, and serving a greater purpose, so perhaps the environmental sacrifice would be justified.

Perhaps the reason that it appears that it takes so much electricity to make the hydrogen needed to power a car is, we don't realize how much energy is in the fossil fuel we are consuming. We just step on the gas and go, all according to Newton's laws. We create heat, sound and motion in the process, all of which make up the total energy. We throw the heat away, because we don't want it (except for some of it in the winter) and the sound we try to suppress. We use the motion, then throw that away too when we step on the brakes and convert that to useless heat as well. But, that's what we like to do.

The biggest problem in electric cars are our expectations. We have become so accustomed to the internal combustion engine, and it's power and mobility, that we will find it difficult to use straight electric for the same purpose. So, between low power, heavy storage batteries, and low range between recharge, electricity may not be the best energy source for presonal transportation. Add to that rough roads, weather, and the need to not follow a set path, and it becomes clear that few people will want an electric car.

Railroads on the other hand have none of these problems, and could thrive on electricity, if we were of the mind to make the change.

[Anonymous]

I like that time machine commercial when the guy has the big cardboard box in his garage and his little kid is watching. The kid is in goggles and such. The guy tries to go back 100 years and get a harley or something. Funny!

m