Jack Nicholson's Hydrogen Car (30 years ago?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjfONpsFvyM

hmmmm...


Thoughts?


.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Wow! CBC's "Market Place" has a top A+ reputation for accurate news reporting.

If they said it, I believe it.

Obviously the auto industry has been blocking progress on this.



Somebody (mabye many of us?) should write CBC to ask for an update on this story.

http://www.cbc.ca/contact

---

Jack Nicholson's Hydrogen Car (30 years ago?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjfONpsFvyM

hmmmm...


Thoughts?


.

It all sounds very simple when you state it, the way its stated in that video from 30 years ago.

This is the update on that video. This is why we are not all currently driving hydrogen cars right now.

Basic physics; Energy in = Energy out

But the loss of energy in creating Hydrogen in the first place is very large.
We loose energy in generating electrical energy to power the break down of water into its components, Hydrogen and Oxygen. So in effect, the pollutants come out of the power station instead of your car exhaust.

Today all the major companies are working to reduce the energy lost when splitting water into its basic elements. They are also looking at new ways of creating Hydrogen and storing it.

Another big problem with Hydrogen in its basic form is its extremely volatile, far more volatile than petroleum or natural gas. If something goes wrong with your hydrogen car, and the engine blows, you take out the whole neighbourhood in one big bang.

John.

---

Jack Nicholson's Hydrogen Car (30 years ago?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjfONpsFvyM

hmmmm...


Thoughts?


.

It all sounds very simple when you state it, the way its stated in that video from 30 years ago.

This is the update on that video. This is why we are not all currently driving hydrogen cars right now.

Basic physics; Energy in = Energy out

But the loss of energy in creating Hydrogen in the first place is very large.
We loose energy in generating electrical energy to power the break down of water into its components, Hydrogen and Oxygen. So in effect, the pollutants come out of the power station instead of your car exhaust.

Today all the major companies are working to reduce the energy lost when splitting water into its basic elements. They are also looking at new ways of creating Hydrogen and storing it.

Another big problem with Hydrogen in its basic form is its extremely volatile, far more volatile than petroleum or natural gas. If something goes wrong with your hydrogen car, and the engine blows, you take out the whole neighbourhood in one big bang.

John.

And how much energy, in comparison, is used in shipping and processing petroleum? And the costs of world peace and our environment?

Is this really a bad alternative in your opinion?

Instead of using the engines in our cars right now, corporations are pushing electricity to make hydrogen and then back into electricity cells so we all need to buy a new car?

The fix for volatility was covered in the last minutes of the video.

hmmm... I like Jack's idea better.



.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Jack Nicholson's Hydrogen Car (30 years ago?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjfONpsFvyM

hmmmm...


Thoughts?


.

It all sounds very simple when you state it, the way its stated in that video from 30 years ago.

This is the update on that video. This is why we are not all currently driving hydrogen cars right now.

Basic physics; Energy in = Energy out

But the loss of energy in creating Hydrogen in the first place is very large.
We loose energy in generating electrical energy to power the break down of water into its components, Hydrogen and Oxygen. So in effect, the pollutants come out of the power station instead of your car exhaust.

Today all the major companies are working to reduce the energy lost when splitting water into its basic elements. They are also looking at new ways of creating Hydrogen and storing it.

Another big problem with Hydrogen in its basic form is its extremely volatile, far more volatile than petroleum or natural gas. If something goes wrong with your hydrogen car, and the engine blows, you take out the whole neighbourhood in one big bang.

John.

And how much energy, in comparison, is used in shipping and processing petroleum? And the costs of world peace and our environment?

Little or no energy compared to the amount of energy you get when you burn fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are prestored energy that was made by plants, dinosaurs, fish, animals, etc.

Is this really a bad alternative in your opinion?

You are taking me up wrong, I'm very much in favor of Hydrogen powered vehicles, but I'm just pointing out why we don't have loads of them today when Jack Nicholson had the technology 30 years ago.

Instead of using the engines in our cars right now, corporations are pushing electricity to make hydrogen and then back into electricity cells so we all need to buy a new car?

The fix for volatility was covered in the last minutes of the video.

hmmm... I like Jack's idea better..

Its not a conspiracy with the auto manufacturers. The technology is not being released quickly because everybody See's the problem with this. Its still not the solution. we still need to burn fossil fuels to power the power station. To top that off, we need to burn twice as much fossil fuels to store the energy as Hydrogen. So it just makes things worse.

John.

---

Jack Nicholson's Hydrogen Car (30 years ago?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjfONpsFvyM

hmmmm...


Thoughts?


.

It all sounds very simple when you state it, the way its stated in that video from 30 years ago.

This is the update on that video. This is why we are not all currently driving hydrogen cars right now.

Basic physics; Energy in = Energy out

But the loss of energy in creating Hydrogen in the first place is very large.
We loose energy in generating electrical energy to power the break down of water into its components, Hydrogen and Oxygen. So in effect, the pollutants come out of the power station instead of your car exhaust.

Today all the major companies are working to reduce the energy lost when splitting water into its basic elements. They are also looking at new ways of creating Hydrogen and storing it.

Another big problem with Hydrogen in its basic form is its extremely volatile, far more volatile than petroleum or natural gas. If something goes wrong with your hydrogen car, and the engine blows, you take out the whole neighbourhood in one big bang.

John.

And how much energy, in comparison, is used in shipping and processing petroleum? And the costs of world peace and our environment?

Little or no energy compared to the amount of energy you get when you burn fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are prestored energy that was made by plants, dinosaurs, fish, animals, etc.

Is this really a bad alternative in your opinion?

You are taking me up wrong, I'm very much in favor of Hydrogen powered vehicles, but I'm just pointing out why we don't have loads of them today when Jack Nicholson had the technology 30 years ago.

Instead of using the engines in our cars right now, corporations are pushing electricity to make hydrogen and then back into electricity cells so we all need to buy a new car?

The fix for volatility was covered in the last minutes of the video.

hmmm... I like Jack's idea better..

Its not a conspiracy with the auto manufacturers. The technology is not being released quickly because everybody See's the problem with this. Its still not the solution. we still need to burn fossil fuels to power the power station. To top that off, we need to burn twice as much fossil fuels to store the energy as Hydrogen. So it just makes things worse.

John.

Storage requires burning oil?

Could you explain that for us?

Thanks Johnny

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Wow! CBC's "Market Place" has a top A+ reputation for accurate news reporting.

If they said it, I believe it.

Obviously the auto industry has been blocking progress on this.



Somebody (mabye many of us?) should write CBC to ask for an update on this story.

http://www.cbc.ca/contact

The auto industry doesn't care. They're in the business of selling cars, and if the market would buy cars that ran on rubber bands they'd make 'em.

The problem with hydrogen is that it is not a fuel.

You can't "mine" hydrogen. You can't drill for it. Most of the hydrogen on this planet is already bound up with something else: oxygen (as water) or carbon (as methane or a longer hydrocarbon chain) or something like that.

You have to put energy into a system to "break up" whatever you use as feedstock (usually water) and then you have hydrogen.

You can build a power plant in a convenient spot, a nice big one, and either make hydrogen on-site and truck it around, or make electricity and transport that somewhere to break up the water.

Then you put it in your car and burn it, getting back (mostly) water.

But it isn't an energy source. The energy source is coal, or nuclear, or wind, or solar, or any of a half-dozen others....

-- Ned

---

Wow! CBC's "Market Place" has a top A+ reputation for accurate news reporting.

If they said it, I believe it.

Obviously the auto industry has been blocking progress on this.



Somebody (mabye many of us?) should write CBC to ask for an update on this story.

http://www.cbc.ca/contact

The auto industry doesn't care. They're in the business of selling cars, and if the market would buy cars that ran on rubber bands they'd make 'em.

The problem with hydrogen is that it is not a fuel.

You can't "mine" hydrogen. You can't drill for it. Most of the hydrogen on this planet is already bound up with something else: oxygen (as water) or carbon (as methane or a longer hydrocarbon chain) or something like that.

You have to put energy into a system to "break up" whatever you use as feedstock (usually water) and then you have hydrogen.

You can build a power plant in a convenient spot, a nice big one, and either make hydrogen on-site and truck it around, or make electricity and transport that somewhere to break up the water.

Then you put it in your car and burn it, getting back (mostly) water.

But it isn't an energy source. The energy source is coal, or nuclear, or wind, or solar, or any of a half-dozen others....

-- Ned

But if we didn't like to kill people for oil and the energy expended, from whatever source, to separate hydrogen from water was equal to the amount of energy currently being used to transport and process oil, wouldn't it be a good thing for our species? Wouldn't it be nice for the planet if our cars exhaust was water vapor instead of a pollutants?

Could it be that oil companies don't like this?


Johnny: Do you mean batteries to store the electricity that these hydrogen cells produce? This is what gets me: Why use power/electricity to make hydrogen just to turn that hydrogen back into electricity when hydrogen works in regular cars in the hydrogen form? Just need a new carburetor and your car is running!

Who the heck needs to turn hydrogen into electricity? Because corporations want to sell us new cars, maybe? The car industry likes it partnership with big oil more than it likes the planet and people of it?


.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Its still not the solution. we still need to burn fossil fuels to power the power station. To top that off, we need to burn twice as much fossil fuels to store the energy as Hydrogen. So it just makes things worse.

John.

The real answer here I think, is solar power. Direct conversion of the sun's light to electricity. And instead of then using the energy to create and store hydrogen, just use it directly to charge and run electric vehicles.
The secret here is mostly getting battery technology to the point where the storage density is high enough to give acceptable range in a battery that is small and light enough to be practical.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

Its still not the solution. we still need to burn fossil fuels to power the power station. To top that off, we need to burn twice as much fossil fuels to store the energy as Hydrogen. So it just makes things worse.

John.

The real answer here I think, is solar power. Direct conversion of the sun's light to electricity. And instead of then using the energy to create and store hydrogen, just use it directly to charge and run electric vehicles.
The secret here is mostly getting battery technology to the point where the storage density is high enough to give acceptable range in a battery that is small and light enough to be practical.

No battery required for Jack's car, and the hydrogen can be separated from water using solar!

Johnny: Do you mean batteries to store the electricity that these hydrogen cells produce? This is what gets me: Why use power/electricity to make hydrogen just to turn that hydrogen back into electricity when hydrogen works in regular cars in the hydrogen form? Just need a new carburetor and your car is running!

Who the heck needs to turn hydrogen into electricity? Because corporations want to sell us new cars, maybe? The car industry likes it partnership with big oil more than it likes the planet and people of it?

.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Wow! CBC's "Market Place" has a top A+ reputation for accurate news reporting.

If they said it, I believe it.

Obviously the auto industry has been blocking progress on this.



Somebody (mabye many of us?) should write CBC to ask for an update on this story.

http://www.cbc.ca/contact

The auto industry doesn't care. They're in the business of selling cars, and if the market would buy cars that ran on rubber bands they'd make 'em.

The problem with hydrogen is that it is not a fuel.

You can't "mine" hydrogen. You can't drill for it. Most of the hydrogen on this planet is already bound up with something else: oxygen (as water) or carbon (as methane or a longer hydrocarbon chain) or something like that.

You have to put energy into a system to "break up" whatever you use as feedstock (usually water) and then you have hydrogen.

You can build a power plant in a convenient spot, a nice big one, and either make hydrogen on-site and truck it around, or make electricity and transport that somewhere to break up the water.

Then you put it in your car and burn it, getting back (mostly) water.

But it isn't an energy source. The energy source is coal, or nuclear, or wind, or solar, or any of a half-dozen others....

-- Ned

But if we didn't like to kill people for oil and the energy expended, from whatever source, to separate hydrogen from water was equal to the amount of energy currently being used to transport and process oil, wouldn't it be a good thing for our species? Wouldn't it be nice for the planet if our cars exhaust was water vapor instead of a pollutants?

Could it be that oil companies don't like this?

You said car companies, now you're saying oil companies??

Johnny: Do you mean batteries to store the electricity that these hydrogen cells produce? This is what gets me: Why use power/electricity to make hydrogen just to turn that hydrogen back into electricity when hydrogen works in regular cars in the hydrogen form? Just need a new carburetor and your car is running!

Who the heck needs to turn hydrogen into electricity? Because corporations want to sell us new cars, maybe? The car industry likes it partnership with big oil more than it likes the planet and people of it?

Okay, since you asked:

Here is a Wikipedia article on Hydrogen production.

Steam reforming requires Methane (CH4) as a feedstock. While natural gas is common, it's finite -- and a lot of it is a byproduct of producing oil, so that isn't a whole lot better. It still yields Carbon and is therefore "bad" environmentally.

The water-gas shift reaction needs energy as an input (which comes from somewhere).

Coal gasification is somewhat attractive, but now we're potentially fighting wars for Coal instead of Oil (and we're still hauling it around, and we've still go that pesky Carbon).

Biological production is attractive. It isn't exactly available, so you can't run your car on Bio-hydrogen -- yet.

Electrolysis you don't like because it takes electricity, and "they" want us to use electricity and buy more stuff to make our hydrogen. Evil Capitalists.

There are some chemical methods that aren't promising, like the one which uses aluminum and acid (since purifying aluminum is a very energy-intensive process, and we're back to using lots of electricity).

So, it's really great to say "we should use hydrogen and stop fighting wars over oil" but unless you can make hydrogen, in commercial quantities, without using another fuel, then all you are really doing is moving the problem around.

I don't have a problem with hydrogen per se. I like the idea, but we've got to find more efficient ways to make it before we start converting to a hydrogen economy.

---

Wow! CBC's "Market Place" has a top A+ reputation for accurate news reporting.

If they said it, I believe it.

Obviously the auto industry has been blocking progress on this.



Somebody (mabye many of us?) should write CBC to ask for an update on this story.

http://www.cbc.ca/contact

The auto industry doesn't care. They're in the business of selling cars, and if the market would buy cars that ran on rubber bands they'd make 'em.

The problem with hydrogen is that it is not a fuel.

You can't "mine" hydrogen. You can't drill for it. Most of the hydrogen on this planet is already bound up with something else: oxygen (as water) or carbon (as methane or a longer hydrocarbon chain) or something like that.

You have to put energy into a system to "break up" whatever you use as feedstock (usually water) and then you have hydrogen.

You can build a power plant in a convenient spot, a nice big one, and either make hydrogen on-site and truck it around, or make electricity and transport that somewhere to break up the water.

Then you put it in your car and burn it, getting back (mostly) water.

But it isn't an energy source. The energy source is coal, or nuclear, or wind, or solar, or any of a half-dozen others....

-- Ned

But if we didn't like to kill people for oil and the energy expended, from whatever source, to separate hydrogen from water was equal to the amount of energy currently being used to transport and process oil, wouldn't it be a good thing for our species? Wouldn't it be nice for the planet if our cars exhaust was water vapor instead of a pollutants?

Could it be that oil companies don't like this?

You said car companies, now you're saying oil companies??

Johnny: Do you mean batteries to store the electricity that these hydrogen cells produce? This is what gets me: Why use power/electricity to make hydrogen just to turn that hydrogen back into electricity when hydrogen works in regular cars in the hydrogen form? Just need a new carburetor and your car is running!

Who the heck needs to turn hydrogen into electricity? Because corporations want to sell us new cars, maybe? The car industry likes it partnership with big oil more than it likes the planet and people of it?

Okay, since you asked:

Here is a Wikipedia article on Hydrogen production.

Steam reforming requires Methane (CH4) as a feedstock. While natural gas is common, it's finite -- and a lot of it is a byproduct of producing oil, so that isn't a whole lot better. It still yields Carbon and is therefore "bad" environmentally.

The water-gas shift reaction needs energy as an input (which comes from somewhere).

Coal gasification is somewhat attractive, but now we're potentially fighting wars for Coal instead of Oil (and we're still hauling it around, and we've still go that pesky Carbon).

Biological production is attractive. It isn't exactly available, so you can't run your car on Bio-hydrogen -- yet.

Electrolysis you don't like because it takes electricity, and "they" want us to use electricity and buy more stuff to make our hydrogen. Evil Capitalists.

There are some chemical methods that aren't promising, like the one which uses aluminum and acid (since purifying aluminum is a very energy-intensive process, and we're back to using lots of electricity).

So, it's really great to say "we should use hydrogen and stop fighting wars over oil" but unless you can make hydrogen, in commercial quantities, without using another fuel, then all you are really doing is moving the problem around.

I don't have a problem with hydrogen per se. I like the idea, but we've got to find more efficient ways to make it before we start converting to a hydrogen economy.

You said car companies, now you're saying oil companies??

You missed the other questions in there:

But if we didn't like to kill people for oil and the energy expended, from whatever source, to separate hydrogen from water was equal to the amount of energy currently being used to transport and process oil, wouldn't it be a good thing for our species? Wouldn't it be nice for the planet if our cars exhaust was water vapor instead of a pollutants?

From the wiki article:


Electrolysis exerpt:

With a renewable electrical energy supply, such as hydropower, wind turbines, or photovoltaic cells, electrolysis of water allows hydrogen to be made without pollution. Usually, the electricity consumed is more valuable than the hydrogen produced so this method has not been widely used in the past, but the importance of electrolysis is increasing as human population and pollution increase, and electrolysis will become more economically competitive as non-renewable resources (carbon compounds) dwindle and as governments remove subsidies on carbon-based fuels.


(Forget biological, natural, high-temperature electrolysis, and Thermochemical production.)

The Nanotechnology research on photosynthesis looks interesting but a ways away.


Looks pretty easy:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=joe+cell&search_type=&aq=f

And this car is supposed to have the hydrogen processor onboard:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6yRn4IAsrU


.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

You said car companies, now you're saying oil companies??

You missed the other questions in there:

But if we didn't like to kill people for oil and the energy expended, from whatever source, to separate hydrogen from water was equal to the amount of energy currently being used to transport and process oil, wouldn't it be a good thing for our species? Wouldn't it be nice for the planet if our cars exhaust was water vapor instead of a pollutants?

I did not miss them, I did address them.

You are implying that Oil is the only form of energy that a society might go to war to acquire.

The problem is not oil, it is energy.

(Edit: the other fallacy is that the car only emits water vapor, so it's clean, and that is only true of the production of hydrogen is 100% clean -- otherwise, you're just exporting your pollution to the production site.)

From the wiki article:


Electrolysis exerpt:

With a renewable electrical energy supply, such as hydropower, wind turbines, or photovoltaic cells, electrolysis of water allows hydrogen to be made without pollution. Usually, the electricity consumed is more valuable than the hydrogen produced so this method has not been widely used in the past, but the importance of electrolysis is increasing as human population and pollution increase, and electrolysis will become more economically competitive as non-renewable resources (carbon compounds) dwindle and as governments remove subsidies on carbon-based fuels.

At the moment we're talking about Hydrogen as a method of storing and transporting energy.

... and your link specifically says "electrolysis" -- which is of course electricity.

When Mark suggested batteries might be a better use of that energy, you shot him down because it wasn't hydrogen.

... and you're critical of electricity as being a product of major corporations, but it is okay if it is from wind generation? (When the biggest single wind farm is owned by Florida Power and Light, and T. Boone Pickens is pushing wind -- Texas Oil Billionaire).

If the goal is to find some source of electricity, then store it and transport it, hydrogen is one method.

If your goal is to stop the world dependence on Oil and reduce obscene corporate profits on Electricity, hydrogen may not be the answer.

... and it would seem that you might be a little more open to anything that can convert wind, or hydro, or solar into power and use it efficiently.

---

If you can understand the contents of both of these documents, you have the knowledge to comment on hydrogen and solar energy. There are reasons why oil is our main source of energy and will remain so unless we wish to become a third world country. I have followed the work of the owner of this web site Don Lancaster for over 35 years and have always found his information to be accurate and interesting.
Solar Cells
Hydrogen

---

Ned Ludd summed it up nicely here;

the production of hydrogen is 100% clean -- otherwise, you're just exporting your pollution to the production site.)

Oil is energy in a stored form!!....Hydrogen is NOT!!

We have to make hydrogen and you have to burn Hugh amounts of fossil fuels to make hydrogen. So you get a lovely clean city with clean cars, but out in the country side you have a giant power station pumping out CO2 to make the hydrogen.

Storing energy in batteries is even worse!

John.

---

When you look at how much pollution is made in the mining of the materials to manufacture batteries (of whatever kind they be) and then the recycling or disposal of them, then batteries are a problem, I dont know how many tons of them go into landfill per year.

---

When you look at how much pollution is made in the mining of the materials to manufacture batteries (of whatever kind they be) and then the recycling or disposal of them, then batteries are a problem, I dont know how many tons of them go into landfill per year.

Depends on the battery chemistry. In the U.S. and Canada, most Lead-Acid batteries are recycled. It's actually cheaper than throwing them away.

---

Oil is energy in a stored form!!....Hydrogen is NOT!!

I think they're actually both energy in a stored form.

The problem is that oil can be found, it doesn't have to be created, so we aren't putting energy in to store it.

Hydrogen has to be created -- but once created, it represents a lot of easily used energy.

---

Oil is energy in a stored form!!....Hydrogen is NOT!!

I think they're actually both energy in a stored form.

The problem is that oil can be found, it doesn't have to be created, so we aren't putting energy in to store it.

Hydrogen has to be created -- but once created, it represents a lot of easily used energy.

Thanks Ned, i stated that wrong. Thanks for correcting the mistake.

---

At the moment we're talking about Hydrogen as a method of storing and transporting energy.

... and your link specifically says "electrolysis" -- which is of course electricity.

When Mark suggested batteries might be a better use of that energy, you shot him down because it wasn't hydrogen.

LOL

I didn't shoot him down. I asked him what he meant and then assumed he was talking about batteries to store the electricity produced from the hydrogen going into the hydrogen cell and back into the "battery", as opposed to just burning the hydrogen in the engines we have in our cars right this very moment. Forgetting the new fangled cells!

My entire point was to specifically show that solar and wind can be used to separate hydrogen from water!

... and you're critical of electricity as being a product of major corporations, but it is okay if it is from wind generation? (When the biggest single wind farm is owned by Florida Power and Light, and T. Boone Pickens is pushing wind -- Texas Oil Billionaire).

Wind power is fine.

T-bone is turning a new leaf. Takes money to build the infrastructure. Our government is too busy losing money and spending what's left on war. Doesn't help that "W" is in the oil business, either.

If the goal is to find some source of electricity, then store it and transport it, hydrogen is one method.

I think I see what you mean now. Though water is Much easier to find and process than oil is. Much cleaner, too.

I refuse to believe your argument that the amount of energy exerted to transport and process petroleum into gasoline is less than the amount of electricity used to separate hydrogen from water. The electricity used could be created from solar and wind sources. Plenty of deserts and plains for solar panels. Plenty of mountains and sea shores for windmills.

If your goal is to stop the world dependence on Oil and reduce obscene corporate profits on Electricity, hydrogen may not be the answer.

Just deep six'ing oil would be good enough for now.

... and it would seem that you might be a little more open to anything that can convert wind, or hydro, or solar into power and use it efficiently.

LOL - The video that started this thread clearly shows solar being used to produce the electricity that is used to separate hydrogen from water.

Are we playing Twister?


.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss