Hybrid and electric vehicles - the answer or not???

[BobL]

Hydrogen is not and never will be a fuel source. It is more like a battery. You pump an enormous amount of energy into making it, compressing it and storing it. and then you can burn it to release some of the energy that you just pumped into it.

For now, I won't go into the problems of compressing it and storing it.

I though we put the issue of compression and storage to bed for small vehicles in the previous round of posts on this?
See here for just one example.
Rapid fill systems are under development and could eventually be faster than filling a tanks with petrol.

Like everything it will be a matter of investment $ and keeping the oil companies feelthy mits out of the process.

In a world that will be struggling to produce enough food to stop whole populations from starving, bio fuels will make life very difficult.

The trick here is apparently "enzymes". The race is on to develop enzymes that use food and other plant waste to do the job ie grow the food but use the plant waste. It's way behind the hydrogen game but all these things have to be developed in parallel - we would be mad to put our eggs in one basket.

[kiwigeo]

You're right Skew. There's a lot of feel good stuff to this debate. I wonder what the carbon footprint of some of the hi-tech push bikes is?
Cheers,
Jim

You make a valid point. The carbon footprint of bikes with carbon fibre frames is fairly large but this argument only holds while only a small number of manufacturers accept damaged frames back for recycling.

See here for a discussion on the subject: http://www.bikeradar.com/gear/articl...tprint--31898/

[Avery]

Many a confident (but subsequently seen as dumb) prediction has been made about the future.
There will be false promises, wrong turns, dead ends and plenty of naysayers on the way but advances in technology and sheer necessity will eventually bring workable replacements for fossil fuels.
No doubt when the first smoky rattly motorised contraptions took to the roads there were many who were adamant that those expensive unreliable gadgets would never replace a good horse.
Not motor vehicles, I know, but not long ago a 10Mb Hard Drive cost $10,000 and was the size of a 4-drawer filing cabinet. Now we get thousands of times that capacity on something the size of a postage stamp and it costs spare change.
The first digital cameras I saw (not many years back) had, I think, a 1megapixel sensor and cost about $1500.
We could all think of dozens or hundreds of similar examples.

The machines that you mention have gone through multiple phases of refinement. I used to fix washing machine size 10 mb disc drives back 40 years ago, the new multi terabyte drives work in exactly the same way, they are just many, many , many times more refined. The same for motor vehicles and cameras. None of these advancements have challenged basic laws of Newtonian or Einsteinian physics. I am afeared that most of the proponents of the "hydrogen economy" or the alt med., alt. energy, alt.farming etc. have absolutely no idea of basic physics such as the conservation of energy or momentum and the laws of thermodynamics.

[Bushmiller]

Fuel from agricultural land is produced at the expense of food unless the waste product is utilised. I'm not quite sure how viable that is. I believe at least some of the Australian ethanol is produce in this way.

Hydrogen has to be separated from water and this requires energy. Electricity or gas seem to be the two main methods, but not the only methods. None of this comes for free and CO2 can be a byproduct depending on the method utilised. Much of this appears to be glibly forgotten when the eulogies about exhaust emissions comprising only water are spruiked.

The problem is at the begining of the process.

Those that said the solution is not simple are correct.

Regards
Paul

[artme]

I noticed an article the other day that stated how scientists in California had deised a method of extracting hydrogen from sewage.

[bluegum30]

I'v always thought sewage was one product that was under utilized ,while it does have disadvantages and the one that i see is transportation to large plants for treatment or whatever would be done with it to turn it into a usable energy and proberly a fertilizer.

[Bob38S]

I suppose that the expression "What a sh*t of a car" will now take on a whole new meaning.

[rusel]

Just read this whole thread and I am impressed by the quality of the discussion here.
So here is a few of my thoughts and things I have heard.
Burning fossil fuels at the level we are and going to is not a good thing and the sooner we stop or reduce this down to a level that nature can handle is what has to be done worldwide.
I have heard that the amount of sunlight energy that falls on a 100 x100 km area of earth near the equator has enough energy to match the world consumption. Yes I know we cannot have 100% conversion but it really brings into mind what's got to be achieved by the world to save the world in the long term.

I watched a professor from Adelaide university giving a lecture on nuclear energy and what it would be like if we put some efficiencies into this industry. We are still building 2nd generation plants that only take out a small amount of the available energy. That is why there is so much problems with the waste product, it still full of energy.
He has calculated that a golf ball size of uranium would have enough energy for the average westerner for there entire life and that the waste would be the size of a soft drink can and would only be of a low hazard for around a 100 years. Not that you would carrier this around with you but it give you a idea of what is needed. But this will most probably scare most people off because I have used the word "nuclear"

Russell

[Bushmiller]

Everything we consider has a price and nothing comes for nothing. It is similar to the old story "There is no such thing as a free lunch."

I think we also have to distinguish between bulk consumption of power and private consumption of power. The expertise required to run a nuclear warship, for example, is considerably in excess of the average person's ability and not practical for their boat or car.

This thread is specifically about the viability of hybrid cars or similar vehicles. The primary requirement of private transport is that we could merely jump into them and drive. That has not really changed.

However we now increasingly want them to be efficient and non-polluting. Oh, and they need to be cheap in the first place. There's the rub. The new technologies are not normally cheap and they may not be as efficient as claimed by manufacturers.

Always be mindful of the agendas. The manufacturer wants to sell his product and he is not normally going to point out the shortcomings.

I am a particular fan of solar power whether it is for private use as with cars or large scale commercial use such as power stations, but it is not yet anywhere near competitive. For me I believe it is the future. Non-poluting, virtually everlasting and one day it may be cheap too.

Even nuclear power cannot compete with solar's credentials. Nuclear is another finite resource (cheap reserves are only available for another 10 years or so and that is at the current useage level), it and it's waste products are amongst the most polluting imaginable and with current levels of technology it can still be dangerous (ask the Ukranians and the Japanese.)

Although I have some reservations about the wisdom of Australia being a pioneer in the carbon tax field I hope that the solar industry receives some benefit with funding to develop viable technologies.

Regards
Paul