1. Welcome to Tacoma World!

    You are currently viewing as a guest! To get full-access, you need to register for a FREE account.

    As a registered member, you’ll be able to:
    • Participate in all Tacoma discussion topics
    • Communicate privately with other Tacoma owners from around the world
    • Post your own photos in our Members Gallery
    • Access all special features of the site

Hydrogen? Is it that time of the future yet?

Discussion in 'Technical Chat' started by SurfInferno, May 8, 2010.

  1. May 8, 2010 at 7:14 AM
    #1
    SurfInferno

    SurfInferno [OP] Dont be stupid, its not smart.

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2010
    Member:
    #31393
    Messages:
    2,770
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Dylan
    Vehicle:
    2015 trd offroad
  2. May 8, 2010 at 7:34 AM
    #2
    kinetik873

    kinetik873 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    Member:
    #9468
    Messages:
    1,522
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Josh
    Springfield, Va.
    Vehicle:
    '08 TRD
    OME 3" lift, ARB bumper,DTRL, CB radio in console, 5lb fire extinguisher in bed. SockMonkey decals, Allpro rear bumper, UWS 42" bed box, Wet Okoles all around, snorkel, Pioneer Av3200, ..yadda yadda yadda
    If they had the same power output and handling and it offered bettrer mpg, then yes. But I would also expect some heavy incentives also.
     
  3. May 8, 2010 at 7:55 AM
    #3
    GSRON

    GSRON Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Member:
    #30336
    Messages:
    133
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Ron
    Northern CA
    Vehicle:
    06 TRD Prerunner
    Since hydrogen doesn't "technically" qualify as a fuel. I takes more energy to produce than it makes. What's the point? When the laws of physics start applying to the eviro nut agenda, I'll start paying attention.
     
  4. May 8, 2010 at 8:02 AM
    #4
    dexterdog

    dexterdog My pee parts itch

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2009
    Member:
    #19571
    Messages:
    4,276
    Gender:
    Male
    Oly WA
    Vehicle:
    2012 F150
    Honda currently leases the FCX Clarity to the uber rich celebrity greeners in L.A. for $600 a month. The problem is fueling stations and cost. I see the auto manufacturers pushing electric vehicles and abandoning hydrogen.
     
  5. May 8, 2010 at 8:04 PM
    #5
    blackbox

    blackbox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Member:
    #26062
    Messages:
    148
    Gender:
    Male
    SE Ohio
    Vehicle:
    2010 reg cab 4cyl 5mt 4x4 Pyrite
    Everything takes more energy to produce than it makes. So what's the point of anything? Perpetual motion is not possible. Hydrogen will have to be produced and distributed cheaply enough to be viable. Oil is only so cheap because we can get it out of the ground. It also pollutes, and funds people who want us dead. Electric vehicles, the electricity has to be generated somehow, usually from fossil fuels which we get from the ground. We need something like a hydrogen system, it will cost but the savings from the hidden costs of oil would offset that a lot.

    I would use hydrogen, getting off the oil tit and leaving the arabs to eat sand and drink oil would be good for us. In turn, we could give the entire world an energy solution that would benefit all. Long term, it is practically our only solution. Too bad we are broke and oil companies run our government.
     
  6. May 8, 2010 at 10:21 PM
    #6
    Evil Monkey

    Evil Monkey There's an evil monkey in my truck

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2007
    Member:
    #2352
    Messages:
    8,337
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Robert
    Escondido, CA
    Vehicle:
    07 4x4 DC SR5 TRD Off-road
    Weathertech front & rear mats, rear suspension TSB, Toytec AAL for TSB, Hi-Lift Jack, Bilstein 5100 & Toytec Adjustable coilovers, Built Right UCAs, KMC XD 795 Hoss Wheels, Definity Dakota MTs 285/75R16, Leer XR, Thule Tracker II & Thule MOAB basket
    Not true. Energy is already stored in oil. When you burn it, it releases that energy. It would take more energy to CREATE oil and then burn it (perpetual motion) but if the oil is already there, it takes less energy to use oil.

    Hydrogen is a net loser, especially when used in fuel cells. It's more efficient to put the energy used to create energy into a battery and just run off electricity. Even if you could create it cheaply, you still have the problem of storage and transportation for distribution to the general public.

    Here's a good article explaining it's problems:
    http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-03-12/
     
  7. May 9, 2010 at 7:10 PM
    #7
    blackbox

    blackbox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Member:
    #26062
    Messages:
    148
    Gender:
    Male
    SE Ohio
    Vehicle:
    2010 reg cab 4cyl 5mt 4x4 Pyrite
    true enough, the energy is already stored in the oil. millions of years of sunlight worth, which we are using up quickly. thus oil is cheap as an energy source. but it is not sustainable, not to mention the carbon dioxide that results from burning hydrocarbons. sooner or later we will have to develop means to "recycle" hydrogen, and it will not be as cheap as we would like. concentrating and storing energy takes, guess what, energy. and you don't get out as much as you put in. inescapable. our energy is going to have to come from the sun, wind, and nuclear sources, in some form or another. like "creating" hydrogen by using solar cells to generate electricity which can be used to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, or run compressors to store pressurized air in underground caverns which can be released to run turbines and generators when the sun isn't shining, etc. all energy supplies are net losers, and the problems of "producing it cheaply" and the obstacles of storage and distribution are precisely where our efforts should be directed. if we do this before we HAVE to do this, it will be less painful.
     
  8. May 10, 2010 at 6:38 AM
    #8
    Evil Monkey

    Evil Monkey There's an evil monkey in my truck

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2007
    Member:
    #2352
    Messages:
    8,337
    Gender:
    Male
    First Name:
    Robert
    Escondido, CA
    Vehicle:
    07 4x4 DC SR5 TRD Off-road
    Weathertech front & rear mats, rear suspension TSB, Toytec AAL for TSB, Hi-Lift Jack, Bilstein 5100 & Toytec Adjustable coilovers, Built Right UCAs, KMC XD 795 Hoss Wheels, Definity Dakota MTs 285/75R16, Leer XR, Thule Tracker II & Thule MOAB basket
    True all energy sources are net losers unless the energy is already stored in the source but some are worse than others. Again, it's more efficient to store that solar-generated energy in a battery than to use it to generate hydrogen. Electrolysis is one of the most inefficient methods to obtain hydrogen with total loss being about 40% just to get the water to break down into hydrogen (water is an extremely stable molecule and it takes a lot of energy to break it apart). Then you have even more loss when you convert the hydrogen back into electricity (which is what fuel cells do). And the biggest problem with hydrogen is storage and transport, not making it. We've been making it for decades. Solar output isn't that great either so it would require a massive grid. Creating a grid large enough to make a difference would be a huge, expensive undertaking. You wouldn't want to waste the effort by using in an inefficient manner. The best way is to use the energy to charge batteries. There's more hope in quick charge batteries than there will ever be with hydrogen.
     
  9. May 10, 2010 at 7:41 PM
    #9
    blackbox

    blackbox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Member:
    #26062
    Messages:
    148
    Gender:
    Male
    SE Ohio
    Vehicle:
    2010 reg cab 4cyl 5mt 4x4 Pyrite
    It may be true that batteries are currently the most efficient means of electrical storage, but they are not the greenest, all types utilize toxic chemicals (lead/sulfuric acid, cadmium, lithium), they are bulky, heavy, and require replacement regularly, in current electric vehicles e.g., battery packs need replaced every 80-100k miles, at a cost of several thousand $'s. Big advances in battery (or fuel cell) technology need to be pursued (they already are, big bucks to be made for someone who discovers better batteries, but this should be an all out effort). Storage and distribution of hydrogen present similar complicated difficulties. Storing enough hydrogen in a vehicle to make it practical is a big problem. Hydrogen in fuel cells, or just burned in an engine, or better battery technology, all these avenues need to be explored (along with better solar cell efficiency, best current ones are what, around 20% ?) to come up with a way to get away from fossil fuels, that being the primary goal. It should be a matter of national security. We need it, and our planet needs it. Not an easy task, but long term, the sooner we start, the better. I think we are in basic agreement, that we need to get away from fossil fuel dependence and carbon dioxide emissions, yes? The ultimate best method remains to be seen. Maybe some combination of technologies and engineering.

    Saw something on tv recently that said we are currently paying around $15 a gallon for gas, by the time all the hidden costs are figured in. Like all our military activity in the middle east, which would be unnecessary if oil wasn't so important.

    Well, that's what I think, anyway. Saw a news article just a day or two ago, Toyota (I think) says they are going to introduce a hydrogen vehicle, hopefully for $50,000. I can't afford that, and they admit that the cost will have to drop by half to really work, but it is a good start. It has to begin somewhere.

    http://content.usatoday.com/communi...oyota-hopes-to-price-hydrogen-cars-at-50000/1
     
To Top