"Hydrogen Claptrap" from Dr. Michio Kaku, Ph.D. and others

[nationalize the fed]

The reader can believe posters that say that this Hydrogen talk is "claptrap"
or, they can believe people like Dr. Michio Kaku Ph.D. and Dr Chris Borroni-Bird

Dr. Chris Borroni-Bird (Featured in video)
Vice President, Strategic Development
Qualcomm Technologies Inc.

Dr. Chris Borroni-Bird joined Qualcomm Technologies Inc. as a VP of Strategic Development in August 2012 and is responsible for developing and implementing a transportation vision around wireless technologies (both wireless power for electric vehicles and wireless communications between vehicles).

Prior to this, Dr. Borroni-Bird was GM’s Director of Advanced Technology Vehicle Concepts and Electric Networked Vehicle (EN-V)Program. The EN-V concepts are small battery powered urban mobility vehicles that can be driven autonomously and were demonstrated extensively at the 2010 Shanghai World Expo. Chris was selected as one of Automotive News’ Electrifying 100 in 2011.

He also led GM’s Autonomy, Hy-wire and Sequel “skateboard” vehicle concepts. Before joining GM in 2000, he led Chrysler’s gasoline fuel cell vehicle development and was inducted into the Automotive Hall of Fame as a Young Leader in 2000.

Dr. Borroni-Bird is co-author of “Reinventing the Automobile: Personal Urban Mobility for the 21st Century”, with Larry Burns and the late Bill Mitchell, that was published by MIT Press in 2010.

Chris obtained his Bachelors and Masters degrees in Natural Sciences from King's College, Cambridge, completed his Ph.D in Surface Science from Cambridge University and performed Post-doctoral research in solid state physics from the University of Tokyo.

http://www.cargroup.org/?module=Speakers&confID=5&event=Biography&speakerID=117

Testing the Toyota Fuel Cell Vehicle in 120F heat- Hydrogen Claptrap or the work of a company dedicated to advancing clean mobility. You decide.

[LiberalArkie]

1. Sweet

[longship]

2. Well, here's the problem with hydrogen.

Molecular hydrogen is not natural on planet Earth. It is only available within other molecules, for instance water, H2O. It is decidedly not an energy source.

And here's the deal with hydrogen. It takes more energy to generate molecular hydrogen than burning it generates. (Thank you Ludwig Boltzmann -- S = k Log W -- entropy is a bitch.)

But hydrogen can be a huge part of a clean energy plan that includes solar, wind, geothermal, or other energy sources (again, hydrogen on Earth is not a source.) But it can certainly be an energy storage medium. Solar or wind power are transient, available only when the sun shines or when winds blow. If one uses excess power to generate hydrogen one can have a clean power source that has zero carbon footprint. That is why hydrogen power is a really good thing. It is a really good storage medium, but not a source, since there are no sources of molecular hydrogen on our planet. It all escapes into interplanetary space. Earth just does not have the mass to retain molecular hydrogen. But we can use clean energy to make it.

There will likely never be solar powered airliners. But there may be hydrogen powered ones in our future.

[OKIsItJustMe]

3. I don't believe any hydrogen advocate believes it is an energy source

That’s a canard that is employed too frequently. By the same token, batteries are not an energy source.

Hydrogen, like other fuels, is a useful way to store energy.

It takes more energy to generate hydrogen than you get back, but then, it takes more energy to charge a battery than you get back. (As you say, “entropy is a bitch.”)

Hydrogen has the disadvantage of being less efficient than batteries, but has a number of advantages, not the least being their relative weights. (i.e. hydrogen is quite light, batteries not so much.)

http://cleancaroptions.com/html/ev_weight.html

[longship]

5. Plus, hydrogen can propel an airliner.

It certainly did so with the Saturn V (Apollo) which used hydrogen in its second and third stages.

When one has a hydrogen infrastructure in place one also has a clean energy infrastructure in place. But there are things, like airliners, which will likely never be solar or wind powered. Hydrogen, generated by clean power, is an awesome alternative to carbon based fuels.

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. The Saturn V (I remember it well) used kerosene for its first stage

http://www.space.com/18422-apollo-saturn-v-moon-rocket-nasa-infographic.html

Hydrogen had an advantage in terms of energy/mass. But kerosene had an advantage in terms of energy/volume.

Hydrogen may be used in the future to generate “clean”/“renewable” carbon-based fuels, making them (in essence) hydrogen carriers.

[happyslug]

12. But the main reason for the use of Kerosene, was hydrogen leakage.

Liquid Hydrogen is such a small atom that it fits within the gaps of the atoms that make up whatever is the containing the Liquid Hydrogen. Leakage rates are about 1% per day in high end containers (Rates were higher in the thin materials used in Saturn V rockets, as high as 10% per day, thus the Hydrogen tanks were being constantly filled till just before launch time, if I remember right, as the countdown began, long after the Astronauts had entered the capsule, the lines to the Hydrogen tanks were finally removed).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_safety#Leaks

Kerosene, being a much larger compound, could NOT leak through metal container containing it. thus could be relied on to stay full till actually fired. Thus Kerosene were used in the lower main booster for it not only provided the power needed, it did NOT have to be constantly topped off. Hydrogen, was lighter and more powerful, thus more power not only for its weight but for its volume, thus preferred for the upper stages.

Remember the lower stage was to go from Zero to a decent speed but was NEVER intended to reached escaped velocity. Once at maximum speed the lower state was to fall away and leave the more powerful Hydrogen Rockets to take the Capsule to escape velocity.

Effective Exhaust Velocity of Hydrogen in 4462 Meters per sec or 9981.21 mph.

Effective Exhaust Velocity of Kerosene is 3510 Meters per second or 7851.646 mph.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_rocket_propellants#Comparison_to_kerosene

Now the escape velocity (i.e. the speed you need to get away from the earth) is 11.2 Km per second or 25,000 mph FROM THE SURFACE OF THE PLANET. 11.2 km per sec is a speed nothing but nuclear power can provide, BUT at 9000 KM above the earth surface the escape velocity is only 7.1 km per second

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity

Thus the higher one goes, the less speed one needs to break out of the earth's gravitational pull. Thus Hydrogen's greater speed when being burned gets a rocket to that height and speed quicker then a Kerosene rocket. One the other hand, to get to orbit does NOT require escape velocity and a Kerosene engine can provide all the power needed to obtain orbit.

In the Saturn V Rocket, you see NASA thinking, get the Rocket into orbit using a Kerosene Engine and then go with a Hydrogen Rocket, due to its higher velocity. to move the capsule into a higher orbit OR even out of the earth's orbit.

Side note: NASA, when moving objects out of Earth's orbit, often uses a "sling shot" orbit, i.e. moves the object into an orbit that uses the earth's gravity to increase its speed. NASA used the same technique on deep space probes, but used the earth's and the sun's gravitational pulls to increase the speed of object being sent into deep space. In the Apollo program, the Apollo Capsule had speeds reaching 50,000 mph using such techniques (including using the gravitational Pull of the moon and the earth). Without the use of Nuclear engines it does appear 50,000 mph is as fast as we can get objects to go in space.

[OKIsItJustMe]

16. Hydrogen leakage?

I haven’t seen that explanation before.

http://history.msfc.nasa.gov/saturn_apollo/giant.html

[font size="4"]Saturn the Giant by Wernher von Braun[/font]

Note: The following article by Dr. Wernher von Braun, who directed the Marshall Space Flight Center from 1960 until 1970, is extracted from Apollo Expeditions to the Moon, edited for NASA by Edgar M. Cortright. The essay is one of a series in the book by leading participants in the Saturn/Apollo program. The book was published by NASA's Scientific and Technical Information Office in 1975 and is NASA SP-350.)

…

Despite the higher power offered by liquid hydrogen, Koelle's studies indicated that little would be gained by using it in the first stage also, where it would have needed disproportionately large tanks. (Liquid hydrogen is only one twelfth as dense as kerosene, so a much larger tank volume would have been required.) In all multistage rockets the upper stages are lighter than the lower ones. Thus heavier but less energetic kerosene in the first stage, in combination with lighter but more powerful hydrogen in the upper stages, made possible a better launch-vehicle configuration.

Saturn V, as it emerged from the studies, would consist of three stages—all brand new. The first one, burning kerosene and oxygen, would be powered by five F-1 engines. We called it S-IC. The second stage, S-II, would need about a million pounds of thrust and, if also powered by five engines, would call for the development of new 200,000-pound hydrogen-oxygen engines. A single engine of this thrust would just be right to power the third stage. The Saturn I's S-IV second stage was clearly not powerful enough to serve as the Saturn's third one. A much larger tankage and at least thirteen of Pratt & Whitney's little LR-10 engines would be required; this did not appear very attractive.

…

[happyslug]

18. Hydrogen leakage is well known, but not popular

Kerosene can leak through gaps in the containers (holes etc) but mostly through the seals where the fuel was poured into the rocket. Given Kerosene has been used as a rocket fuel since around 1900 (and since 1859 as a fuel) how to contain Kerosene was well known by the 1950s.

Hydrogen was also well known, including its ability to leak right through the walls of any container containing hydrogen (especially Liquid Hydrogen).

Hydrogen does NOT need any hole or seals to leak, it will leak right through the walls of whatever is containing the Liquid Hydrogen. This is less a problem for Hydrogen in is gaseous form, for as a gas each atom takes up more room and thus easier to contain, but in the liquid form, hydrogen is compressed and each atom is compressed to the smallest atom in terms of volume. Atoms of Liquid Hydrogen are thus smaller then the gaps between the atoms that make up any container. On a trip to the moon you could lose up to 5% of all hydrogen in the tanks on a trip to the moon. 5% does not sound like much but remember there was no way to replace it.

Most reports do NOT mention such leakage for it is like breathing, you assume the person who is talking is alive and breathing, you do NOT report that he or she is Breathing even if he or she is speaking. Same with Hydrogen, people who know about hydrogen knows it leaks and thus do not mention it for everyone who has dealt with Hydrogen knows it will leak, thus you do NOT need to mention it. Thus the Hydrogen tanks were being topped off till almost the time of blastoff. NASA wanted the Saturn V to have every atom of Hydrogen it could hold.

Your second paragraph reflects those facts. "Despite the higher power offered by liquid hydrogen...little would be gained by using it in the first stage... Thus heavier but less energetic kerosene in the first stage, in combination with lighter but more powerful hydrogen in the upper stages, made possible a better launch-vehicle configuration." i.e. at the accelerations needed to be achieved by the first stage, Kerosene was good enough, it was heavier but less dense then hydrogen and you did NOT have to deal with leakage (Which was dealt with by keep adding hydrogen to the hydrogen stages till almost Blast off, something the Air Force had been doing with its large ICBMs of the time period, remember we are talking of 1950s and 1960s where the main ICBMs were Titans and Atlas rockets, not the later Minute Man Series which uses solid fuel rockets which came into service starting in 1962).

[OKIsItJustMe]

21. Yes, I’m aware of the challenges involved in containing hydrogen

However, von Braun did not mention leakage being a problem anywhere in his essay.

To read his explanation, the decision was simply a matter of relative volume (just as I said.)

[bananas]

7. Musk has been talking about electric supersonic VTOL airplanes

http://www.ibtimes.com/elon-musk-touts-electric-plane-vertical-takeoff-stephen-colbert-show-video-1639092

[OKIsItJustMe]

11. Let’s see…

Musk was also “talking about” transporting people between cities in hypersonic pneumatic tubes…

[freshwest]

24. OMG! Your brain is scary. Keep it up. Really good. Loved this one:

Thank you Ludwig Boltzmann -- S = k Log W -- entropy is a bitch.

I'd read an equation years ago you might remember about entrophy. Forgot the statement but remembered the description:

'_____= amount of energy required to keep things from falling to shit.'

A lot of shiny stuff looks great until one looks at the big picture. Sadly, the idea that these or other cars will fart water vapor does not seem possible. If you know of one that does, please post it.

[RiverLover]

4. The UK progressively believes in the "claptrap" too

UK launches fund to accelerate the launch of hydrogen fuel cell cars

The fund is designed to accelerate the launch of these vehicles throughout the country while also bolstering its hydrogen fuel infrastructure. The fund has some $13 million at its disposal and represents one of the government’s most aggressive displays of support for clean transportation that has been seen in recent years.

http://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/uk-launches-fund-accelerate-launch-hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars/8519893/

[Nihil]

25. The UK conservatively believes in the claptrap - there's nothing "progressive" about that side.

The UK fund to support the hydrogen hype industry is directly and inseparably bound
to the the natural gas industry's desire to frack here, there & everywhere

The same people who have driven the H2 hype fund are also responsible for this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112776359

They are not even vaguely "progressive" but are 100% Tory capitalists - the 0.1%
who are in charge of most things.

Anyone who supports that is either unbelievably naive or a blatant propagandist for
the fossil fuel industry.

[RiverLover]

26. Yep, I definitely mis-labeled their actions

I assumed "clean" energy for the UK meant, well, clean energy. After posting that, I realized they are still using the spin that natural gas is clean. I was waiting for someone to call that out..haha..good job! Bad on the UK though...

[hunter]

8. If you read the question wrong, your answer will be wrong.

The question is, "What's the best way to move people around?"

The answer is "by foot."

We ought to be creating civic environments in which people don't need or desire automobiles to go about their daily business.

If we very significantly reduce the number of automobiles it really doesn't matter what fuels those that remain.

Whatever powers our automobiles, they still do very significant damage to our health, our communities, and the natural environment.

[OKIsItJustMe]

9. If your answer doesn’t jibe with reality, it is wrong

The fact is, you will have a very difficult time getting a “very significant” portion of the world’s population to give up motor vehicles fast enough.

People do not want to go “backward.” Citizens of “developing countries” want the things that citizens of “developed countries” have. The number of motor vehicles in the world will increase, not decrease. Take that as a given.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IS.VEH.NVEH.P3

OK, so, how shall we power them?

[hunter]

13. Reality often sucks. So do automobiles.

At this point the most probable reality is increasingly severe climate conditions and the eventual collapse of this civilization, at which point automobiles simply won't matter.

Your friendly neighborhood fossil fuel station (gasoline, diesel, hydrogen derived from fracked gas, whatever...) will be closed, and the electricity supply will be unreliable. This may or may not happen in any particular person's lifetime, but climate change, rising oceans, and overpopulation are already biting some people hard.

In the eighties my wife and I were Los Angeles commuters. We moved away and have managed to avoid the commuter lifestyle ever since, partly by planning, partly by good fortune.

I resent every second I have to spend in an automobile. I resent having to own an automobile to be considered an ordinary adult in this society. I deliberately drive a Piece-Of-Shit car with a salvage title that I never wash except for the windows to advertise my disdain for the automobile culture.

Cars are stinky carcinogen spewing things that kill and maim people and damage the natural environment.

I don't want to breathe your used tire rubber any more than I'd want to breathe tritium leaking out of a nuclear power plant.

Alas the world is not as I would have it. I'm just here as an observer, personal witness to a mass extinction event. It's an awesome opportunity for someone who is by inclination a paleontologist. Someday this civilization will be a peculiar layer of trash in the geological record, humans will be something much better than we are now or extinct, and the earth will be healed.

[OKIsItJustMe]

15. “I resent every second I have to spend in an automobile.”

…

I resent every second I have to spend in an automobile. I resent having to own an automobile to be considered an ordinary adult in this society. I deliberately drive a Piece-Of-Shit car with a salvage title that I never wash except for the windows to advertise my disdain for the automobile culture.

…

If you resent it so much, sell your “Piece-Of-Shit car” and walk! (Just as you believe the rest of the world should.)

In my opinion, by owning and driving a “Piece-Of-Shit car” you re not advertising “disdain for the automobile culture,” merely hypocrisy.

Just out of curiosity, since you take such pride in it being a “Piece-Of-Shit” do you at least maintain it in order to get better efficiency? (Or do you take pride in it belching dark smoke too?)

[hunter]

19. It's mechanically sound, has a small four cylinder motor with a catalytic converter, and passes smog

I'm hardly going to do better than that until I come across an electric that can be salvaged.

Practically speaking I need a car to get to my doctors, occasionally give non-drivers rides, and run various other errands, often related to work. Our city is not entirely friendly to people who don't have cars. My brother-in-law lives and works in the same city we do and he doesn't have a car, but he lives two blocks from shopping, one block from a farmers market, and his home and workplace are connected by frequent, natural gas powered bus service.

Most days I don't drive anywhere, the car sits in the driveway providing a surface for lichen to grow on and a place for spiders to spin their webs. I suppose when I do drive it's like a windstorm to them. They hunker down and wait for it to blow over.

Our oldest kid, who was perpetually embarrassed by our family cars as a kid, graduated from college, got a great job, and bought a shiny super-efficient "environmentally correct" car that would be utterly unappreciated by someone like me. I hate our family cars and they hate me. That's why they last so long. 200,000 miles, 300,000 miles...

We really ought to be reworking our cities instead of our cars. Cars powered by Mr. Fusion^TM would still be hazardous to our well-being and have a huge environmental footprint.



If you can figure out some way for a U.S.A. citizen with some disposable income to avoid hypocrisy, let me know. All my non-hypocrisy times involved homelessness and/or poverty. My family is not okay with that. They've seen me in my worst, dumpster-diving, off-my-meds, nobody-wants-to-sit-near-me-in-the-library, feral state.

I lived for a few years in the library, a college computer lab, on a porch, and in a shack in someone's backyard. My environmental footprint was very small then. There wasn't any hypocrisy in me, it was just me and my obsessions poking around in the darkness.

Living as an overworked "consumer" worker bee with a shiny car in my driveway wasn't much of an improvement over that. I've always sought something better.

We could create something better, a comfortable low energy lifestyle with a small per capita environmental footprint. I'm still working on that.

[OKIsItJustMe]

20. People do still ride bikes for example

I just don’t see how you can expect the whole world to do without a car, when you will not do so yourself.

“Be the change you want to see in the world.”

[hunter]

32. I don't "expect the whole world to do without a car."

I would like to live in a world where most people do not need and do not desire automobiles.

There are urban niches like that now, mostly in larger cities with well developed public transportation systems. If someone needs a car for some temporary purpose they'll rent one, either a conventional rental, something like a zip car, or by less formal arrangements.

As things are now I prefer walking to bicycling. Sharing the road with "distracted" automobile drivers requires nerves of steel. If some distracted driver bumps into my car, a minor fender bender, it's hardly anything to me. If somebody bumps their car into me while I'm bicycling, then it's road rash, broken bones, or possibly death.

If anyone thinks bicyclists have a bad attitude it's because anyone who rides a bike regularly on public streets has had many frightening encounters with clueless automobile drivers.

[OKIsItJustMe]

36. I ride a bicycle. You are too generous…

…

If anyone thinks bicyclists have a bad attitude it's because anyone who rides a bike regularly on public streets has had many frightening encounters with clueless automobile drivers.

I see:

• Bicyclists riding on sidewalks.
• Bicyclists “running” red lights.
• Bicylists riding on the wrong side of the street.
• Bicyclists riding at night with no lights.
• …

Bicyclists should adhere to traffic laws, just like everyone else. Those that don’t, do have a bad attitude, and make matters worse for the rest of us.

As I’ve advised people for years, “Be predictable. Don’t surprise anyone.”

[jmondine]

10. I disagree

The best way to move people around is by inner tube on a lazy river.

[hunter]

14. Sounds good to me.

Common "work ethics" are destroying the planet.

[happyslug]

17. One of the better spins on Hydrogen I have seen in a long time

Last edited Wed Oct 15, 2014, 12:06 AM - Edit history (2)

And I mean spin, they take all the known faults of Hydrogen and turn them into plus points, for example:

1. Hydrogen in NOT an energy source, but a energy carrier. They then go into how you could use electricity to product the hydrogen. They then say this COULD be done with an solar panel on the vehicle, and in fact they say given that set up your car, which most people just run 10% of the day, could sit and soak up the solar energy to charge its battery and its hydrogen tanks and then use that "Excess" hydrogen to help you provide electricity in your home.

In theory, all of that is possible, but it is up there with walking backwards from New York to LA, possible but do not put good money on that bet. Right now, production of Hydrogen is from Natural Gas using electrical power (also provided by Natural gas in the areas where the Hydrogen is produced). Natural gas is used for it is a cheap process, but requires a large plant. PEM technology offers the possibility of smaller plants (maybe even gasoline station size), but still at a cost of millions of dollars to set up (but doable as a local Hydrogen "Station".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer_electrolyte_membrane_electrolysis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production#Photobiological_water_splitting

On the other hand, such hydrogen station will NOT permit the electricity from someone's solar panels on his automobiles's roof to be converted to Hydrogen. The Alternative suggested in the piece, says that can be done as you car sits in a parking lot. The problem with that would NOT converting the parking lot (and even the road the car runs on) as a solar panel itself (and keep the car OFF the panel so the solar feature can work) be a better option? You could have plug in spots for cars with solar panels to plug in and get "Credit" for the power their generate, but most parking lots would be better off installing above ground panels over the parking lot and parking cars UNDER those panels. The lot gets even more power from the above ground panels, while the car's panel gets no sunlight. This option is ignored in the video, for if you mention it, one of the many legs supporting the "Hydrogen Economy" dies with it.

The same for Highways, why permit sunlight on the roads, when it could generate power to panels above the road? Many roads just are not driven on but are paved, Putting Solar Panels above them would provide solar power but no power to the Cars below (and if properly design divert all rain and snow to the sides of the road).

Once you start to think about Solar Panels on Vehicles being a way to obtain electricity from the sun, you have to think about WHERE that can be done. Once you realized that if it is profitable for YOU to have a solar panel on your car, that is WAY pass the time when it would be profitable for Governments to put solar panels over highways. Thus solar panels cars, except over non maintained dirt roads, make little sense.

2. Gasohol and Bio-Diesel options as competitors. Hydrogen offers some goods options, but how do they compare to Bio Diesel and Gasohol (For ease of this subject I will be using gasohol for both items). In both the production of bio-Diesel and Gasohol you convert grain or other plant material into either fuel. At present the plant material is gathered by diesel truck (after being harvested by Diesel or gasoline tractors) and converted to gasohol using electricity from some other source. In theory solar power or wind could provide that electrical power, and production could be set up as such power is available it is used, when it is not the system shuts down and waits for the next time power is available. Gasohol is a liquid and thus no major revision of today's distribution system would be needed. Yes, it pollutes but it today's plant production is the base for the gasohol AND solar and wind power provides the electrical production power, it would have NO effect on global warming for it would be NO release of stored carbons (which is what occurs when you burn Oil, Natural Gas or Coal). The lines from the gas tank to engine would have to be changed (most can NOT handle Gasohol, through recent regulations changes have started to change that situation) but with modern computers (which operate most engines today) the adjustments needed for engines to handle gasohol are minimal. I noticed in the video no comparison to Gasohol or Bio-Diesel, for to do so is like looking at solar panels on cars, it appears to be a more cost effective option then hydrogen.

3. How about direct use of electricity? i.e. over head cables. When you convert from one source of power to another, you lose so much power in the conversion. Thus in most cases the best option is NOT to convert if possible. Hydrogen would be ideal, if if can be produced and then used. The problem is most automobiles would use hydrogen to generate electrical generators that provides the actual power. Thus you have a lost in power.

Now by NOT having a transmission, driveshaft and even a rear axle, you can save weight and that saving may offset the lost in the transfer of hydrogen to electricity, but you can save on all three AND save from the lost of converting to Hydrogen to electricity if you opt for overhead wires. Over head wires was the main reason streetcars stayed competitive with Automobiles till the 1950s (when Gasoline reached 25 Cents a gallon). The power savings of NOT have a transmission, driveshaft AND a diesel engine, was immense and so great that inner city use of Streetcars INCREASED in the 1920s, 1930s and into the late 1940s (Interurban streetcars during that same time period went into terminal decline, free paved roads did them it, for they had to maintain their own tracks, while people driving their cars only had to pay for their gasoline. Most Interurbans had been marginal financed in the first place and between the Steam locomotive Railways doing all they can to push them out of business, and the lost of trade to people driving their cars, they went into terminal decline starting right after WWI).

Now, Streetcars were competitive as late as the 1940s with buses. The real price advantages of buses in the late 1940s was financing. GM would provide financing for Buses but NOT for Streetcars and given the Federal Restrictions on banking during the post WWII era (Federal Regs even forbade auto loans in excess of 18 months in the late 1940s) that was enough to force many streetcar companies to convert to buses. The drop in Diesel Prices in the 1950s did not help the situation (and the separation, by federal law, of the Streetcars from their Electrical providers also contributed to this conversion).

I bring this up for providing power via cable may be a better option, not only for buses but also for trucks. When going up hills the fastest method is a Funicular (what we in Pittsburgh call an "Incline&quot . It is fast but has only two stops, which can be used to carry cargo including trucks. The second fastest is a Cable Car (as in San Francisco Cable Car). The third fastest is "Trolly Buses" i.e. a vehicle that pulls power from overhead cables BUT is on rubber tires (it is less energy efficient then a traditional streetcar, but its rubber tires permits it to climb steep hills that no steel rail vehicle could handle). If you ever caught behind an 18 wheeler going up a long steep grade and see it slow down to 40 mph or slower, that is do to the lack of power provided by its diesel engine and transmission. If such a truck was using electrical powered wheels, with electrical power from over head cables, that truck could keep up with traffic do to the fact its electrical drive can pull it up that hill as long as it can pull power from the over head cable. In many ways such overhead wires makes economic sense long before any Hydrogen car using hydrogen produced from the same electrical power source. We are NOT in that economic situation yet, but we are headed in that direction. Such overhead power lines for trucks make more sense then hydrogen drive for such trucks. With modern Computers and RIF chips charging for the power would be easy. Another option that would be economical way before Hydrogen Cars or trucks and also NOT mentioned for to mention it is to show what is a better option.

Side note: Inclines are the most efficient for if properly designed, one car is balanced by another, thus all you have to provide power for is the difference in weight between the two cars (i.e. the cargo and passengers NOT the Incline cars themselves). Very popular in the late 1800s in the US, but now almost all gone.

List of Funicular (inclines).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_funicular_railways



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnstown_Inclined_Plane

List of Cable Cars systems, another system popular in the late 1800s and then replaced, mostly by Streetcar system around 1900, which in turn were replaced by buses in the 1950s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_car_(railway)#List_of_cable_car_systems

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_car_(railway)

Please note, in Pittsburgh at least two of the now closed "Inclines" wer not a Funicular but a Cable Car system. Those were the Castle Shannon South Incline and the St Clair Incline.

List of Pittsburgh Inclines:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_inclines_in_Pittsburgh

Electric Overhead powered buses (often called Trolleybuses) were popular starting in the 1920s, but died out in the 1950s, some do remain (Boston and Cambridge Massachusetts, Philadelphia Pennsylvania, Seattle Washington, Dayton Ohio, and San Francisco California).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_trolleybus_systems_in_the_United_States

Seattle and San Francisco keeps their electric buses do to their superior hill climbing abilities. Philadelphia and Dayton keeps their more do to have had them since the 1930s, when they replaced street running streetcars when it came time to replace the tracks the streetcars ran on. Going with trackless trolleys removed the requirement that they maintain the street (a requirements of all streetcars that ran on streets even today). Further replacement was stopped when the Cities involved refused to remove such street maintenance requirements if such conversion would occur, thus the fact streetcars were cheaper to operate and carried more passengers favored retaining streetcars till the 1950s when such streetcars were replaced by buses.

Hydrogen is like the Hybrid and Electric car movements. It has promise, but when you look at competitors, they promise more. Hydrogen is a product of hype for it promises a lot at what people think is little cost. On the other hand Hydrogen appears, like the Hybrid and the Electric Car, something a person can do on his own without waiting for the Government to do something (like putting electrical wires over the Interstate or Solar Panels over the interstates). People are more willing to spend money on a promise, even if it is clear they will lose money, if they think they are doing something good. Governments have to be convinced what is being requested of them will save money, thus the reluctance to build solar panels over roads.

I see Hydrogen cars becoming big in the next ten years, and then fading. I even see them surviving in certain niches, where gasohol is not an option and electrical drive by itself is insufficient. On the other hand, how much better is Hydrogen then Gasohol or overhead wires? It is marginal at best.

Please note I have been wrong before. I could NOT see how providing information over the Internet could be made profitable and thus said in the early 1990s the net would be for recent development, but computer disks would be how most information would be kept. My rationale was simple, you have to BUY such disks and thus the disk makers will have economic incentives to keep such data current but only by disk. The Net would be a nice place to store certain data in a temporary basis till people who have access to such disk get their disks, then that data would be removed. My reason was simple, how else do you CHARGE for such information? And charging for such information has been a constant source of problems for the net since the early 1990s. I ended up being WRONG, for people decided to put more and more data on the net and NOT worry about charging for it. The lack of a way to charge for such data is leading to the collapse of newspapers and other gathers of news but I have to admit my concern about how to pay for such data turned out to be WRONG. I admit my mistakes, but as to Hydrogen, I just do NOT see where it outcompetes overhead wires, Over road solar Panels and Gasohol. Hydrogen can defeat each one, but in my opinion not all three and all three are Hydrogen's economy biggest hurtle.

[NYC_SKP]

22. "Spin" is the operative term here. Hydrogen will play only a limited role in transportation.

Your point number three is critical: Why use electricity to create hydrogen to then create electricity again?

Why not just charge batteries and/or capacitors?

The electric infrastructure is HERE NOW, why build a new H2 infrastructure?

I'll tell you why- So that "certain people" will maintain a near monopoly on us by owning the chain of fueling stations.

You can charge your electric car right now at home or at work! RIGHT NOW!

That's why I coined the term "Hydrogen Claptrap".

It has a role to be played but will never, ever, become the standard for individual transportation.

Fleets, maybe, but not for individual vehicular traffic, no.

[happyslug]

27. Capacitors and batteries do involve some lost of power

Lead Acid batteries are known to have only a 25% efficiency rate i.e. for every FOUR watts of power you put into an Acid-Lead battery, you only get one out of it.

I have looked at the efficiencies of Lithium batteries but can NOT get a good number for them. Some claim an efficiency of 90% (equal to Fly wheels) but given fuel cells have only a 50% efficiency rate I suspect Lithium batteries are less then 50% but better then lead acid 25%.

One other disadvantage of batteries is you have to carry them, fully charged OR fully empty, unlike gasoline, Hydrogen or gasohol, as you use those three sources of power, you lose them and no longer have to carry their weight (through in the case of Hydrogen this is off set by how heavy the container has to be just to keep the Hydrogen Liquid, a weight you have to carry even of the Hydrogen in the container is all gone).

Thus I lean to overhead cables. With modern computers it would NOT be that difficult to charge anyone who hooked up to them for power. I actually see such cables coming into use on the Interstates in the Mountains, for in such locations the increase ability to pull power from the over head cables provides more power to propel whatever is pulling from the cables.

I also foresee such cables being restricted to buses and trucks. Those same Buses and Trucks will have small battery units good enough for 10-15 minutes of movement so they can move off the interstates and other major highways where such overhead cables will be put up first.

Now, this will NOT occur till we are in a situation where it is clear oil had long peaked, Natural Gas is heading for peak but being used in a lot of stationary roles now down with Oil and coal and nuclear power is not a real option for transportation BUT can be used to provide electrical power (along with Wind and Solar power). i.e. once everything else has been tried and found to be wanting, overhead cables will be installed. If Peak oil was in 2005 (which is more and more looking to be the case, no large increase in oil production since that date, the recession has kept the prices low do to the resulting lack of demand) then such cable system will be installed beginning around 2025 (i.e. a 20 year delay as everything else is tried first).

Side note: Peak oil is NOT when oil disappears, but where production STOPS increasing and oil production stagnates and then goes into a slow decline. Roughly the decline will mirror the increase in production, if peak was in 2005, by 2025 production will equal what was produced in 1985. No one reported an oil shortage in 1985, but use of oil tended to follow production, so more people are using oil today then they did in 1985 and that is the problem with the decline in oil production, not the decline itself. A secondary issue is that during the decline the price of the "Marginal oil" will be set by what is needed to feed the demand for oil. "Marginal Oil" or "Marginal Price" is the economic concept that price is NOT set by the lowest cost producer, but the costs on that producer whose production is needed to meet demand. If the demand for oil is 10 million barrels, and 9 million barrels can be produced at $1 a barrel, but the 10th Barrel has a cost of $100 a barrel, the price for all 10 million barrels will be $100 a barrel. If the price drops below $100 a barrel that 10th million barrel producer is losing money and thus has to cut production, less supply leads to more demand and an increase in the price of oil till that marginal producer can get back into production at a profit. This is the main reason oil has REFUSED to drop below $2.50 a barrel and will NOT drop below that price except for short time periods. Shale Oil to be profitable needs a price of $80 a barrel or roughly $1.90 a gallon. Given the federal government tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents a gallon and it looks like it costs about 10 to 20 cents to refine and distribute gasoline, you are looking at a bottom end price of about $2.20 to about 2.40 a gallon NOT COUNTING STATE FUEL TAXES. With State fuel taxes you will be constantly over $2.50, with many states bottoming at from $2.80 to $3.00 a gallon do to the state fuel tax. Remember this is BOTTOM end pricing, if the pricing goes below these numbers Shale Oil is NOT profitable and sooner or later will end TILL the price rise.

Thus in simple terms, we are in a rough time period, there has been SOME increase in world wide oil production, but even Russia is indicating its production is in decline. Shale Oil in the US is expected to go into decline in 2017 at the latest (some are saying the end of 2014). In 2009 the Federal Trade Commission said it was now legal for oil companies to state how much oil is in their oil fields, as opposed to the old rule that required the oil company to state how much their can produce from those fields with a 90% confidence of being correct (the 90% rule was found to be accurate as to ALL fields over time, through individual fields could do better or worse thus a good indication of how much oil is in the world, unlike the present number which may be all hype).

I hate to mention Karl Marx, but in one aspect he is looking to be more and more correct, as a system goes on and has to face the concept of declining rate of profit, it turns to corruption to maintain the image of a high rate of return. i.e. as a system ages, excess profit tends to disappear as the system gets more suppliers of the product who each cut price to increase the sales. Sooner or later you get to a situation of "normal" profit is all anyone can get out of the system. During the "Boom" period, the excess profit was assumed be "normal" when it was not, as the rate of profit declines, efforts are made to increase the profit and sooner or later people turn to fraud to at least on paper maintain the excessive profits of the boom years.

Marx did NOT fully understand that such booms and declines can be repeated over and over again as new inventions change societies, but such new fundamental inventions did just that. Oil replaced the horse and oil lead to a huge increase in profits do to increase in efficiency. Computers did the same with office work. Electrical power did the same for lighting.

While Marx was wrong is saying that the collapse of capitalism was around the corner, he was correct in saying the tell end of any such boom period is an increase in fraud. You saw that in the late 1800s as the Railroad Industry went from a Boom Period of about 1840-1870, to a period of outright fraud starting in the late 1860s. As steam ships replaced the older sailing ships and oil made its first boom from about 1860 to 1920, you ended up with the massive frauds on wall street of the 1920s. Government regulations prevented such fraud in the 1970s as the boom of the use of large main frame computers came to an end, but as the boom made by the net and the electronic revolution that started with the home computer came to an end, we see the same type of Fraud that was common 1900-1930.

I bring this up, for that is the type of time period we are in now, a lot of financial fraud on Wall Street do to the desire to maintain the same rare of return most of the banks had in the 1990s when the micro computer boom was at its peak. The Net has NOT been that profitable or that much of an improvement over "Traditional" means of communication and data sharing. Yes, it has been an improvement, but how much of an improvement given we are talking about going to Wikipedia instead of the local library to look something up? Look at the net and the change from index cards to data bases AND typewriters to word processors. From a business point of view the Micro Computer was a HUGE improvement in how an office worked. Compared to the improvement tied in with the Micro-Computer (Word processing and date base), how much more productive is replacing traditional phones with cell phones? With accessing Wikipedia instead of walking to the local library?

My point is the big improvement in technology from a true productively view was in the 1990s with the Micro Computer, NOT after 2000 with cell phones and the internet. I am not saying the later is bad, but it is NOT up to the level of the Micro Computer, yet Wall Street is booming more NOW then it did in the 1990s? Why, Financial Fraud, with many people lying to themselves about the improvement the latest gimmick provides. This brings me back to Hydrogen, for it appears to be another gimmick that is an improvement is some ways but NOT in the ways it is being promoted.

The problem in the future is the same as today, moving items we wants and need from one point to another. If peak oil has occurred, then alternatives must be "found" when it comes to transportation, and when you look into that field, the best option is electrical driven vehicles powered by over head cables except for short distances. The other options, capacitors, batteries, fuel cells and Fly Wheels have one big limitation, lack of SUSTAIN power given their weight. Even lithium batteries will weight many a ton if you want to use electrical power for 6-8 hours a day (typical over the road trucker), thus NOT a real option. Hydrogen can provide that power for that length of time, but how much better is it compared to Gasohol or Bio-Diesel?

Once you look at the options for that type of transportation, you end up seeing overhead cable being the best answer (I actually see the Railroads going back to it if Diesel stays high or go higher, but right now, even at $80 a barrel, diesel is still cheaper then building the electrical system needed AND buying the electrical locomotives. Conrail switched from Electricity to Diesel in 1980, as oil prices peaked for Conrail did not like having to have two types of engines, electrical for its electrical lines and diesel for the rest of its lines (The Old Pennsylvania Railroad had electrify its East Coast lines in the 1910s as it built the tunnel from New Jersey to New York City and realized Steam Engines were NOT usable in such tunnels, the Pennsylvania Railroad never did extend the electrical lines over the Appalachian Mountains and the New York Central never did electrify, it stayed steam till it converted to diesels in the 1950s and merged with the Pennsylvania Railroad in the 1960s and then both went bankrupt and became part of Conrail, til Conrail was broken up and merged with the Chessie System AND Norfolk and Southern Railways).

Thus, even at today's prices, diesel is still cheaper the converting to electrical power, given the cost of setting up the electrical generation and distribution system needed for such a system (and buying new electrical engines). The Federal Government should be MANDATING such a move, but the Federal Government is unwilling to do anything that may get business mad at it, even if it is something needed. Thus the delay in any electrification as other options are looked at and tried because the cost of electrification is well known. Until the price of oil, on a per gallon basis, closes in on minimum wage (Which is what it did in 2008) you will NOT see any movement away from oil. Once the price of oil, on a per gallon basis, closes in on minimum wage and stays at or above that number, then you will start to see industry, including the railroads look into electrical over head cable system. Thus it will take 20 years to achieve what is needed for no one will do anything till it has to be done.

On the other hand Gimmick like the Hydrogen Car and other non-solution will be brought out as solutions, looking for gullible suckers to invest in them. That is the time period we are in, heading for disaster at full speed and refusing to accept what is needed to be done, but looking at gimmicks at the same time.

[dumbcat]

28. Well, there goes your credibility

Lead Acid batteries are known to have only a 25% efficiency rate i.e. for every FOUR watts of power you put into an Acid-Lead battery, you only get one out of it.

I didn't even need to read any more after that first sentence.

And it's energy you put into and take out of a battery, not power.

[happyslug]

29. Power is the measure of Energy, Power is what the SI unit WATT is measureing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt

In physics, power is the rate of doing work. It is equivalent to an amount of energy consumed per unit time. In the MKS system, the unit of power is the joule per second (J/s), known as the watt in honor of James Watt, the eighteenth-century developer of the steam engine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(physics)

Thus when people use the term "Watt" they are stating the POWER in the battery or object being used (or the power being produced) not Energy.

Electric power is the rate at which electric energy is transferred by an electric circuit. The SI unit of power is the watt, one joule per second.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power

Thus when you are using the term WATT you are measuring POWER.

The watt (symbol: W) is a derived unit of power in the International System of Units (SI), named after the Scottish engineer James Watt (1736–1819). The unit is defined as joule per second[1] and can be used to express the rate of energy conversion or transfer with respect to time. It has dimensions of L2MT-3.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt

The joule (/ˈdʒuːl/ or sometimes /ˈdʒaʊl/), symbol J, is a derived unit of energy, work, or amount of heat in the International System of Units.[1] It is equal to the energy expended (or work done) in applying a force of one newton through a distance of one metre (1 newton metre or N·m), or in passing an electric current of one ampere through a resistance of one ohm for one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule

The newton (symbol: N) is the International System of Units (SI) derived unit of force.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_(unit)

The coulomb (named after Charles-Augustin de Coulomb, unit symbol: C) is a fundamental unit of electrical charge, and is also the SI derived unit of electric charge (symbol: Q or q). It is equal to the charge of approximately 6.241×1018 electrons.

Its SI definition is the charge transported by a constant current of one ampere in one second:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb

Some people say the Coulomb measures "Energy" but it is more electrical current. Watt measure Power and it is what most people call "Energy" but under the International Standard (used in the US) the watt is a measurement of POWER.

[dumbcat]

31. Keep digging

If power is the measure of energy, then how is:

In physics, power is the rate of doing work. It is equivalent to an amount of energy consumed per unit time.

Or in other words the first derivative with respect to time of energy. So they are not the same thing.

And the energy storage efficiency of a lead acid battery is closer to 80% than 25%.

You can look up all the terms on wiki, but you don't understand energy storage.

[happyslug]

34. And what part of "Watt is a measurement of Power" did you miss???

I used WATT for that POWER comes out of a Battery. I was careful when I used that term, thus I looked it up before I actually made my post. Thus in my post I used the term POWER not ENERGY for I was using WATTS, a measurement of POWER.

Now Batteries are generally labeled in terms of Amps and Voltage, those multiplied together gives you the total watts in the Battery. Thus a 100 amp 12 volt battery has 1200 watts of power.

http://www.simplesolarsetup.com/battery4.html

Fly wheel can be up to 97% efficient:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage

Fuel cells average 40-60% efficiency:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell#Efficiency_of_leading_fuel_cell_types

There are NO temperature limitation to fly wheel OR fuel cells.

Now, electrical power in and out of a battery can be 85%, but only between 60 and 77 degrees Fahrenheit. Here are cites for the 85% efficiency of batteries:

http://www.solar-facts.com/batteries/battery-charging.php

http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/comparing_the_battery_with_other_power_sources

On the other hand, well to wheel efficiency of electrical system are about 25-48% efficient (Including the loss of energy in producing the electricity that goes into the battery).

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/sun1/

Another paper on batteries, but this one points out the 85% efficiency rate for Lead-Acid Batteries is ONLY BETWEEN THE TEMPERATURES OF 60 and 77 Degrees Fahrenheit.

http://www.apcmedia.com/salestools/DBOY-77FNCT/DBOY-77FNCT_R2_EN.pdf

Thus when I cited 25% it was from past reading and it appears to be lead acid efficiency at zero, i.e does the battery have enough power to start the car in cold weather? That use to be the main concern for batteries before the Prius and when I learned about that efficiency level for lead-acid batteries.

Thus I have to admit my statement of 25% efficiency limit for lead acid battery appears on the surface to be wrong, but once you look into the WHOLE cycle (and the tempertures restrictions), it is close to the mark.

Some other interesting cites I ran into when I looked up the above:

Energy Density of various sources of energy:

http://wiki.xtronics.com/index.php/Energy_density

Cite where it is claim 20% is the average loss of energy when a source of energy is converted to Electricity:

http://www.csgnetwork.com/batterychg2calc.html

List of efficiency of various methods to produce electricity:

http://www.mpoweruk.com/energy_efficiency.htm

Web Cite about batteries:

http://www.batteryspace.com/batteryknowledge.aspx

US Government report that says 5% of all batteries in electrical cars will fail within 7.8 years, 50% within 10.4 years and 95% within 13.2 years:

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/53470.pdf

Government report comparing electrical cars with conventional cars:

Electric vehicles convert about 59–62% of the electrical energy from the grid to power at the wheels—conventional gasoline vehicles only convert about 17–21% of the energy stored in gasoline to power at the wheels.*

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evtech.shtml

[dumbcat]

35. Sigh - keep digging

You still don't understand that what you are storing in a battery is ENERGY - the ability to do work - not POWER, which is the RATE of energy change. Yes, Watts are a measurement of power. The Joule is the measurement of energy. And energy, as stored in batteries, is described as kiloWatt-Hours (power for a duration of time.) A kiloWatt-Hr is 3.6 mega-joules.

Now Batteries are generally labeled in terms of Amps and Voltage, those multiplied together gives you the total watts in the Battery. Thus a 100 amp 12 volt battery has 1200 watts of power.

No, batteries are labeled in terms of Amp-Hours and voltage, which gives Watt-Hours or kiloWatt-hours, which is energy. A 12VDC 100 Amp-Hr battery is 1200 Watt-Hr or 1.2 kWHr. The Hours part is often left off by neophytes that don't understand the difference between energy and power.

Look up what the batteries in the Tesla or other EVs are rated at. You'll find it is kiloWatt-Hrs (energy) not Watts or kiloWatts (power.)

You really need to figure this out if you want to be advocating one way or another. It hurts your credibility with real engineers when you don't have the basic terminology straight. Though actually I shouldn't be so hard on you since I know many engineers that don't understand the basic physics of power and energy. Most so-called journalists in the energy press also get it wrong. I have been an electrical engineer working in the solar energy and energy storage field for about 45 years now. I get paid to do this stuff. I think I got it. It looks like you have done a ton of research on wiki and have a lot of insight. Now if you can only get the energy/power thingie figured out ....

Maybe someone else here can explain it to you better than I . I am done.

[hunter]

33. I think the "fueling station" argument is right on.

That's a business model big money wants to preserve.

Furthermore, as people switch to electricity and long established fuel stations go out of business, restoring the land they sit on becomes a tremendous liability. Restoring the land under a service station built in the 'fifties when nobody paid much attention to small leaks, or even dumped things like used motor oil, radiator fluid, and cleaning solutions on the ground, is not a trivial business.

And in the end, why would I want to "fuel" what is essentially an electric car anyways? All it does is complicate the machine with more parts to fail.

If you've ever had a hard to find leak in a car air conditioner imagine what an expensive pain-in-the-neck hassle a hydrogen leak would be. And hydrogen leaks out of anything. The molecules of refrigerant in a car's air conditioner are huge in comparison to hydrogen.

[NYC_SKP]

23. "Hydrogen Claptrap". Yup. Even the Hydrogen researchers think so.

ll

Tesla Trumps Toyota: Why Hydrogen Cars Can’t Compete With Pure Electric Cars

by Joe Romm Posted on August 5, 2014 at 12:11 pm

“Toyota Bets Against Tesla With New Hydrogen Car,” blares the headline at fool.com. That is a bad bet. It may even prove to be a major blunder for Toyota, which actually severed its RAV4 partnership with electric vehicle (EV) company Tesla back in May (though they kept their investment in Tesla).

snip

Right now, not only is electricity ubiquitous (i.e. relatively near where most cars are parked), but green electricity is nearly ubiquitous — and it is far cheaper to run one’s car on it than gasoline. Hydrogen, however, is not where cars are. “Green” hydrogen is nearly nonexistent. And it would be more expensive to run one’s car on green hydrogen than gasoline.

When I helped oversee the hydrogen and fuel cell and alternative vehicle programs at the Energy Departments Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy in the 1990s, I was a big supporter of hydrogen and transportation fuel cell vehicle (FCV) programs, helping to boost the funding for those programs substantially. But the FCV research did not pan out as expected — some key technologies proved impractical and others remained stubbornly expensive.

So as I researched my 2004 book, “The Hype About Hydrogen: Fact and Fiction in the Race to Save the Climate” — named one of the best science and technology books of 2004 by Library Journal — my view on both the green-ness of hydrogen cars and their practicality changed.

More at: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/08/05/3467115/tesla-toyota-hydrogen-cars-batteries/

[OKIsItJustMe]

30. I may be wrong, but I think I’ve heard…

…that some “scientists” doubt some things about “climate change.” They have graphs and everything!

However, that doesn’t stop me from thinking that it is a very real phenomenon.