Oil Alternatives!

[Joey D]

Oh I'm just saying people raise such a fuss over it that there is bound to be complaints about energy being beamed down from space. I think that many Americans are rather ignorant of scientific facts and theories....I mean come on we live in a country with the highest rate of alien abductions, this isn't exactly the highlight of the scientific world.

But other then people complaining about getting cancer, solar energy from space would be unbelievably expensive to set up. It would be like GPS was years ago except I would wager it would be even more expensive....like Hubble Telescope kind of money. I just don't think the public would want to see an increase in their electric bills just so some eggheads can collect energy in space and beam it back down. I mean what each shuttle launch costs about a billion dollars if I'm not mistaken and we'd need a lot of launches to build up a grid of this microwave plants.

 

[FoolKiller]

Oh I'm just saying people raise such a fuss over it that there is bound to be complaints about energy being beamed down from space. I think that many Americans are rather ignorant of scientific facts and theories....

Like the fact that the sun is constantly beaming radiation at us?

But other then people complaining about getting cancer, solar energy from space would be unbelievably expensive to set up. It would be like GPS was years ago except I would wager it would be even more expensive....like Hubble Telescope kind of money. I just don't think the public would want to see an increase in their electric bills just so some eggheads can collect energy in space and beam it back down. I mean what each shuttle launch costs about a billion dollars if I'm not mistaken and we'd need a lot of launches to build up a grid of this microwave plants.

Really, this kind of idea will only be possible once we manage to have fully functional space docks and whatnot so it can be constructed in space.

And that doesn't even take into account the issue of space particles. I mean a piece of space dust traveling at thousands of miles per hour would cause expensive damage. We have regular meteor showers every year and I am sure chunks of rocks and ice will be bad.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Microwaves only have a certain wavelength, so this belief that microwave type-a is worse than microwave type-b is false. Weaker and you get closer to radio signals and stronger you get closer to truly harmful radiation. Whether it is a radar signal, beam from space, or you cooking a frozen meal, they are the same, only powered and directed differently.

I'm not talking wavelengths, I'm talking amplitudes and energy. Higher energy means it'll heat up more of whatever gets in it's way.

Also, this would also heat up alot of the air and area around it. Probably not great for the whole global warming thing.

Energy transportation would require directed beams, thus not raining down on a large footprint, but just aiming at a collection point. Unless you were standing on the dish you wouldn't be in any danger. If it had a large footprint it would be extremely wasteful, thus not effective. It would have to be kept safe just to be effective. If any energy beaming microwaves were hitting people that would be a waste. Safety would be covered by efficiency.

If you focus that sort of energy at a single point you are gonna get alot of things happen. Not just at that point, but in teh whole atmosphere between the point of transmission and recieving.

 

[Casio]

The idea of sending a beam of energy down to a single relatively small point on earth I think is way far out. The thing in space would only have to move .01 degrees or maybe less and it would miss the collection point.

Remember as well the proposed panel array is pretty much a giant wind block as well, which would be affected by solar winds, in addition to being a giant target for space junk and rock.

However, I do think that mass solar arrays aren't such a bad idea for some countries. Australia is 90% desert, and could build massive collection stations away from anything. Same for the Sahara. The Poles also have 6 months straight of sunlight a year, maybe that could be feasible as well.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm not talking wavelengths, I'm talking amplitudes and energy. Higher energy means it'll heat up more of whatever gets in it's way.

Also, this would also heat up alot of the air and area around it. Probably not great for the whole global warming thing.

The beam would not be constant, so any air movement would dissipate the heating affects. And I doubt it would be so large that it would create noticed effect on global warming.

If you focus that sort of energy at a single point you are gonna get alot of things happen. Not just at that point, but in teh whole atmosphere between the point of transmission and recieving.

Really, I believe the problem is that none of us understands how this would work. We are barely getting into having energy weapons that can cause discomfort. Anything this large and powerful is a long way off from being understood and developed by scientists.

The idea of sending a beam of energy down to a single relatively small point on earth I think is way far out. The thing in space would only have to move .01 degrees or maybe less and it would miss the collection point.

As I mentioned above it wouldn't be constant, so I would assume it can be recalibrated between each transmission.

However, I do think that mass solar arrays aren't such a bad idea for some countries. Australia is 90% desert, and could build massive collection stations away from anything. Same for the Sahara. The Poles also have 6 months straight of sunlight a year, maybe that could be feasible as well.

Deserts always seem like a great solar plant area, but sand storms can wipe them out in no time. You might get a large return but when damage happens it happens big.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Really, I believe the problem is that none of us understands how this would work. We are barely getting into having energy weapons that can cause discomfort. Anything this large and powerful is a long way off from being understood and developed by scientists.

I was working on the logic that microwave ovens heat the water in food, and there's a hell of alot of water vapour in our atmosphere.

 

[FoolKiller]

I was working on the logic that microwave ovens heat the water in food, and there's a hell of alot of water vapour in our atmosphere.

Yet, your microwave oven will break if you let it run with nothing inside it but air. Natural humidity doesn't collect enough to have any kind of effect and thus your oven will fry itself.

Now if it hit the ocean, that may cause, at most, a localized effect.

You've definitely intrigued me and if it weren't end of month I woudl have more time at work to research this further. That will probably have to wait until the weekend, if I can pull myself away from Warhawk long enough.

 

[GT4 genius]

These arguements against can be solved easily. I'm sure a microwave beam of energy would not cause a huge heating effect if it was kept at a normal level. Dont forget that every satelite dish on the gabel of most houses receive microwaves. As for space rubbish ie comets, if there is some heading towards it it can be moved, more regularly solar flares would cause it to move because if they hit it it would be destroyed, this would happen to any satilite, but they can be hidden behind the earth.
Also we dont receive much of the suns dangerous particals because the earth has a magnetic field which deflects these particles (solar wind) away from the earth.And the energy available up there is collossal. The solar constant falling on the earths atmosphere above ireland, which is 57 degrees north of the equator, is 200watts per square metre. Thats 200 joules of energy falling on every square metre every second, now think of the solar panel being the size of at least 1 football field!
As for the nimbies afraid of the microwaves, tell them ok we wont do it, we'll build a nuclear power plant next door to you instead! That'll shut them up!

 

[GT4 genius]

Volvo are going to launch a reallistic concept (fully functional) c30 styled electrically powered car at frankfurt next week, they say it'll do 62miles on 1 full charge that will take 3 hrs, but you will also be able to recharge it whilst on the move or even help it with a fuel powered engine, they say it will effectively do 124mpg. But if you only drive 60miles each day it'll never need fuel! Look below if you dont believe me!
http://www.topgear.com/content/news/stories/2198/

 

[YSSMAN]

Sounds like the Chevrolet Volt to me...

 

[GT4 genius]

So does this mean we may actually see them on the roads, or dare i say it, buy one ourselves!!

 

[Philly]

I wouldn't expect the Volvo on the roads any time soon. There is a lot of work to get a concept on the roads. I don't think that there is a very big market for an electric car. A lot of concepts never make it to the auto dealers. That is a combination that makes this an unlikely sight on any road any time soon.

However, I think there was a rumor or something going around here that said teh Votl was going to make production in 2010.

 

[GT4 genius]

I dont know if i'll ever own an electric car but i hope i'll own a hydrogen powered one some day. It was brought up in a similar thread recently that hydrogen can only be produced with natural gas, this is not true.
It can easily be made by passing even a small electric current through water, with a lot of salt in it. Try it if you dont believe me.

 

[Casio]

Not to sound like a who killed the electric car fan-boy. But I rarely drive more than 62 miles a day, however, sometimes I do (Or might want to) which kills the thought of a fully electric car.

But a car that drive 62miles on battery power, and then use a small petrol engine to effectively turn the car into a hybrid afterwards, would be perfect for most of the population. I'd buy one in a second if (this is a big if) the price was right.

 

[ExigeEvan]

But I assume that's 62 miles on the flat right? Bet it does about 30 by the time you get it in the hills. And when you live on the top of a hill that last thing you want is to run out of juice before you get home.

 

[GT4 genius]

But I assume that's 62 miles on the flat right? Bet it does about 30 by the time you get it in the hills. And when you live on the top of a hill that last thing you want is to run out of juice before you get home.

I dont know how the got that figure, but even if you did run out of electricity you can switch to the petrol instantly

 

[FoolKiller]

I dont know if i'll ever own an electric car but i hope i'll own a hydrogen powered one some day. It was brought up in a similar thread recently that hydrogen can only be produced with natural gas, this is not true.
It can easily be made by passing even a small electric current through water, with a lot of salt in it. Try it if you dont believe me.

That is a slow and energy sucking process however. The amount of hydrogen released is small. You will use much more energy than you will ever get back out of the hydrogen. The natural gas process is one that produces enough hydrogen to effectively make it cost effective. Oh, and the electricity in water process makes hydrogen gas, we need liquid, which means a denser form = much more hydrogen than gas.

I saw a news story, that I posted somewhere on here, where a guy created a hydrogen producing machine that used water, but he only managed enough to have it injected into his fuel stream when he flipped a switch/pushed a button, much like a nitrous injection. He had enough to up his mileage but he wasn't creating enough to actually run the car on 100% hydrogen. He could create enough to run his push lawnmower on hydrogen, but that is a small machine used, at most, once a week.

Removing supply issues the real big issue with hydrogen is that your exhaust is water. This means your entire engine must be non-corrosive. This becomes very expensive. Of course the long term reliability will be great.

In theory hydrogen works great and I would love to see it become the long-term solution, but like everything else, it has a long way to go in development.

But a car that drive 62miles on battery power, and then use a small petrol engine to effectively turn the car into a hybrid afterwards, would be perfect for most of the population. I'd buy one in a second if (this is a big if) the price was right.

I have a feeling that the car is designed for city usage, much like a hybrid is only beneficial in a city. And yes, much like mpg, I bet that these figures are for flat driving and will require a secondary measurement.

 

[GT4 genius]

If exhaust fumes from a hydrogen car are steam than would we not have a huge humidity problem in cities, unless we could split the water to make more hydrogen.

 

[ExigeEvan]

If exhaust fumes from a hydrogen car are steam than would we not have a huge humidity problem in cities, unless we could split the water to make more hydrogen.

That's a valid point and one being looked into.

The other problem is that water vapour itself is a green house gas.

 

[Philly]

But I assume that's 62 miles on the flat right? Bet it does about 30 by the time you get it in the hills. And when you live on the top of a hill that last thing you want is to run out of juice before you get home.

Meaning it would be totally useless in a place like Seattle.

I have been wondering: What if we didn't actually have "exhaust" on the car, and collected the water exhaust to put into the water system? Maybe you could sell it at the pump station when you fill up and take a little off your bill. Or would that be pretty much totally unfeasible due to weight or exhaust restriction or having polluted water?

 

[BayConRong]

I have been wondering: What if we didn't actually have "exhaust" on the car, and collected the water exhaust to put into the water system? Maybe you could sell it at the pump station when you fill up and take a little off your bill. Or would that be pretty much totally unfeasible due to weight or exhaust restriction or having polluted water?

that and the meager amount of water you would be able to collect wouldn't be enough to save a dehydrated ant. ok maybe save an ant but you wouldn't collect enough, at max $1's worth at most at any one time.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Meaning it would be totally useless in a place like Seattle.

I have been wondering: What if we didn't actually have "exhaust" on the car, and collected the water exhaust to put into the water system? Maybe you could sell it at the pump station when you fill up and take a little off your bill. Or would that be pretty much totally unfeasible due to weight or exhaust restriction or having polluted water?

Because you won't necesarily get clean water out the back that would be suitable for turning back into hydrogen. This is simply because the engine would be using atmospheric air for combustion which is far from pure oxygen.

 

[Philly]

That's kinda what I thought. You would want to have both a hyrdogen and an oxygen tank to get the water back, and that would be just stupid.

 

[GT4 genius]

If you could collect the water and then use electrolosys to split it again couldn't it be used again. Obviously this woundn't be energy efficent but it would solve the exhaust problem and add to your mpg.

 

[Philly]

If you could collect the water and then use electrolosys to split it again couldn't it be used again. Obviously this woundn't be energy efficent but it would solve the exhaust problem and add to your mpg.

Only if it was pure would it be worth collecting.

And I don't see how MPG would be helped. It seems like an "exhaust tank" would restrict flow from the engine, lowering power and probably MPG.

 

[GT4 genius]

Only if it was pure would it be worth collecting.

And I don't see how MPG would be helped. It seems like an "exhaust tank" would restrict flow from the engine, lowering power and probably MPG.

If you were using some of the hydrogen you had used again wouldn't you get more mpg, but i didnt think about the flow from the engine.

 

[FoolKiller]

If exhaust fumes from a hydrogen car are steam than would we not have a huge humidity problem in cities,

The other problem is that water vapour itself is a green house gas.

💡
And now the whole, lets save the environemnt with hydrogen debate has the real ugly head rise up. Oh yeah, wator vapor actually has a larger greenhouse effect than CO2. Of course this could be dealt with by adding some sort of coolant mechanism in place of a muffler, causing the vapor to condense. Of course then we will have constantly wet roads.

And I can't say whether the vapor wouldn't condense before rising high enough to affect the atmosphere at all.

I have been wondering: What if we didn't actually have "exhaust" on the car, and collected the water exhaust to put into the water system? Maybe you could sell it at the pump station when you fill up and take a little off your bill. Or would that be pretty much totally unfeasible due to weight or exhaust restriction or having polluted water?

Yeah, you have to used distilled water for the electrolysis to work properly, otherwise the electricity just jumps to the particles and gets conduced on through.

If you could collect the water and then use electrolosys to split it again couldn't it be used again. Obviously this woundn't be energy efficent but it would solve the exhaust problem and add to your mpg.

If you were using some of the hydrogen you had used again wouldn't you get more mpg, but i didnt think about the flow from the engine.

See above about reusing the water. And then recycling to make more hydrogen will actually use more energy than you would benefit, thus lowering your average mpg. Considering you pump in liquid hydrgen and then would be recycling gaseous hydrogen, your recycling would be very inefficient and slow and possibly not even noticeable.

 

[ExigeEvan]

💡
And now the whole, lets save the environemnt with hydrogen debate has the real ugly head rise up. Oh yeah, wator vapor actually has a larger greenhouse effect than CO2. Of course this could be dealt with by adding some sort of coolant mechanism in place of a muffler, causing the vapor to condense. Of course then we will have constantly wet roads.

If the steam was to come straight from the exhaust then I think it may travel higher in to the atmosphere then your usual puddle water.

But cooling it is certainly an option, untill the streets are covered in water. But sacrifices must be made and all that I suppose.

 

[GT4 genius]

If the steam was to come straight from the exhaust then I think it may travel higher in to the atmosphere then your usual puddle water.

But cooling it is certainly an option, untill the streets are covered in water. But sacrifices must be made and all that I suppose.

Why couldn't the water be collected and deposited after. You could even have a tap in the car!!

The weight when the water is nearly full and the hydrogen is nearly empty should only be a third heavier than when the hydrogen was full. H2O.

 

[Philly]

The weight when the water is nearly full and the hydrogen is nearly empty should only be a third heavier than when the hydrogen was full. H2O.

Wait, let's do a little chemistry.

10 moles of water collected means we started with 20 moles of hydrogen.

The molar mass of water is 18.016 g/mol. Since we have 10 of those that makes 180.16 grams of water.

The molar mass of hydrogen is 1.0079 g/mol. Since we have 20 moles of that, we end up with 20.158 grams.

So, we started with 20 grams and ended up with 180. An increase of 900%

It seems like we would be weighing the car down a lot if we started doing this, unless the hydrogen tanks are really small. I might have done my chemistry wrong though.

I also saw an ad on TV for a hydrogen powered BMW 7-series. Does anybody know anything about this?