Hydrogen?
2/1/06, 04:10 PM
#21
Hydrogen is NOT an energy source. It is only an energy transport device. It takes energy to separate hydrogen out of where it exists (air, water).
Ethanol is also NOT an energy source. Ethanol is energy negative. That is it when all the energy it takes to make ethanol is added up, including fertilizer for the crops. it takes more energy to make Ethanol than you get from Ethanol when it is burned.
The best possiblily for energy sources is to extract oil from the tar sands and from shale. A company in Canada is already in large scale production of this sort of synthetic oil.
Coal is another possibility, making gasoline from coal, just like the Germans did in WWII. Coal gasoline is also energy negative, but the US has so much coal it may be economically feasable. The latest I've read says coal oil costs at $60 - $70 barrel to manufacture.
The problem is that almost no one wants to invest in these synthetic oil processes as the belief is stil that the price of regular crude oil will soon crash and fall back to $40 / barrel.
For those who are old enough, this is deja-vu all over again. We went through the exact same thing in the 1970s. 30 years ago there was hype over the same energy sources, hydrogen, shale, tar sands, ethanol. As we all know the price of regular crude oil did drop precipitiously. Anyone who invested in those alternative energy sources 30 years ago lost their shirt.
Ethanol is also NOT an energy source. Ethanol is energy negative. That is it when all the energy it takes to make ethanol is added up, including fertilizer for the crops. it takes more energy to make Ethanol than you get from Ethanol when it is burned.
The best possiblily for energy sources is to extract oil from the tar sands and from shale. A company in Canada is already in large scale production of this sort of synthetic oil.
Coal is another possibility, making gasoline from coal, just like the Germans did in WWII. Coal gasoline is also energy negative, but the US has so much coal it may be economically feasable. The latest I've read says coal oil costs at $60 - $70 barrel to manufacture.
The problem is that almost no one wants to invest in these synthetic oil processes as the belief is stil that the price of regular crude oil will soon crash and fall back to $40 / barrel.
For those who are old enough, this is deja-vu all over again. We went through the exact same thing in the 1970s. 30 years ago there was hype over the same energy sources, hydrogen, shale, tar sands, ethanol. As we all know the price of regular crude oil did drop precipitiously. Anyone who invested in those alternative energy sources 30 years ago lost their shirt.
2/1/06, 05:24 PM
#22
Cobra Member
Join Date: November 27, 2004
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico
Posts: 1,303
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
V10,
That statement about Ethanol is not necessarily true. There are other studies going on right now. A lot of scientist have taken offense at how the data for that original collected and analyzed. They left a LOT of things out effect how that all comes out.
It may end up being true, you can't say "Ethanol is also NOT an energy source." at this time because there are serious doubts about the science behind that statment.
But your last statment sure is true! More than likely, once countries like the US and China start seriously investing in alternative energy sources, then OPEC and other oil exporting countries will turn up the volume and the prices will come right back down. They do NOT want us to figure out a way to support our energy needs with ways that do not involve their black gold!
That statement about Ethanol is not necessarily true. There are other studies going on right now. A lot of scientist have taken offense at how the data for that original collected and analyzed. They left a LOT of things out effect how that all comes out.
It may end up being true, you can't say "Ethanol is also NOT an energy source." at this time because there are serious doubts about the science behind that statment.
But your last statment sure is true! More than likely, once countries like the US and China start seriously investing in alternative energy sources, then OPEC and other oil exporting countries will turn up the volume and the prices will come right back down. They do NOT want us to figure out a way to support our energy needs with ways that do not involve their black gold!
2/4/06, 12:42 PM
#23
Legacy TMS Member
To answer the question, YES, you can make a Mustang run on H. Wouldn't want to though.
It's terribly inefficient as an internal combustion energy delivery device.
Ethanol is the closest to Gas you can get in terms of ease of use, production costs, delivery system compatibility and availability. Even then, some of that is questionable, as in could you REALLY replace gas with it? Is there enough farmable land? What about cost to get it made? etc.
Hybrids are questionable in my opinion. I haven't heard a reasonable explaination for these things: What happens in a wreck when the jaws of life are needed? What happens when the batteries are junk? How much emissions/resources are used to make the resource/emissions saving vehicle?
The problem is 'cost to make and deliver' and 'energy/weight/storage/efficiency'. That's a LOT of stuff to consider when thinking about alternatives. The old 'drive 10 miles to save a penny' thing.
As an interesting, bit more simple example, take a look at solar panels. People will tell you they're great. But do the research and you'll see it's a waste of time. Solar Panels are about 10% (iirc) conversion rate to get energy out of them. Basically, (again, iirc) you'd have to run one in the sun for 100 years constantly to break even on the inital cost of whatever it was to get the thing made, delivered, installed, and used, to replace whatever the cost of getting your energy from the 'tap' that you're 'saving'. In other words, it's cheaper to just pay the electric company now, you'll NEVER see the savings in reality. Nor will your kids. MAYBE your grandkids. And that's if it NEVER EVER BREAKS.
Same thing with the fuel question. Nobody has a better system, because the best system is already in place. What should be done is NOT to try to change the system, but instead make the system work better (emissions, which are pretty good. What now needs to happen is the EPA needs patrols to find these emissions flouncers and MAKE THEM GET FIXED) and less future problematic (running out, which is always an issue. Either it runs out, or a country says "forget it, YOU can't have any" which means WW3 or such is not that far away, if you think about it. The US et al will FIGHT over this black stuff if it needs to. Why do you think Japan got into WW2 like they did? Resource dependency. Go read it.)
THAT'S why we need an alternative. But it really needs to be an alternative to the SOURCE, not the end product. Gas ain't the only thing oil is used for ya know. The guy who invents heavy crude, from thin air, and it only costs $30 or so a barrel, that's gonna be a rich dude.
/me goes to the workshop to figure it out.
//Money money money mooooneyeeee... MOOONeeey!
///Is it me? Or doth I sayeth too much?
It's terribly inefficient as an internal combustion energy delivery device.
Ethanol is the closest to Gas you can get in terms of ease of use, production costs, delivery system compatibility and availability. Even then, some of that is questionable, as in could you REALLY replace gas with it? Is there enough farmable land? What about cost to get it made? etc.
Hybrids are questionable in my opinion. I haven't heard a reasonable explaination for these things: What happens in a wreck when the jaws of life are needed? What happens when the batteries are junk? How much emissions/resources are used to make the resource/emissions saving vehicle?
The problem is 'cost to make and deliver' and 'energy/weight/storage/efficiency'. That's a LOT of stuff to consider when thinking about alternatives. The old 'drive 10 miles to save a penny' thing.
As an interesting, bit more simple example, take a look at solar panels. People will tell you they're great. But do the research and you'll see it's a waste of time. Solar Panels are about 10% (iirc) conversion rate to get energy out of them. Basically, (again, iirc) you'd have to run one in the sun for 100 years constantly to break even on the inital cost of whatever it was to get the thing made, delivered, installed, and used, to replace whatever the cost of getting your energy from the 'tap' that you're 'saving'. In other words, it's cheaper to just pay the electric company now, you'll NEVER see the savings in reality. Nor will your kids. MAYBE your grandkids. And that's if it NEVER EVER BREAKS.
Same thing with the fuel question. Nobody has a better system, because the best system is already in place. What should be done is NOT to try to change the system, but instead make the system work better (emissions, which are pretty good. What now needs to happen is the EPA needs patrols to find these emissions flouncers and MAKE THEM GET FIXED) and less future problematic (running out, which is always an issue. Either it runs out, or a country says "forget it, YOU can't have any" which means WW3 or such is not that far away, if you think about it. The US et al will FIGHT over this black stuff if it needs to. Why do you think Japan got into WW2 like they did? Resource dependency. Go read it.)
THAT'S why we need an alternative. But it really needs to be an alternative to the SOURCE, not the end product. Gas ain't the only thing oil is used for ya know. The guy who invents heavy crude, from thin air, and it only costs $30 or so a barrel, that's gonna be a rich dude.
/me goes to the workshop to figure it out.
//Money money money mooooneyeeee... MOOONeeey!
///Is it me? Or doth I sayeth too much?
2/4/06, 01:57 PM
#24
Shelby GT500 Member
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've seen studies that scientists have done that show that oil is actually more renewable that we think.
When we take out oil from the ground we must replace it with mass to keep the ground from collapsing. After doing this, and redrilling in the same area they have found that there is more oil left where they had drilled, and how the ground slightly elevated.
Scientists are in the procsess of doubting that our oil even has anything to do with fossil fuels.
If this is true they predict we have over 10,000 years of "fossil fuels"
When we take out oil from the ground we must replace it with mass to keep the ground from collapsing. After doing this, and redrilling in the same area they have found that there is more oil left where they had drilled, and how the ground slightly elevated.
Scientists are in the procsess of doubting that our oil even has anything to do with fossil fuels.
If this is true they predict we have over 10,000 years of "fossil fuels"
2/5/06, 07:23 PM
#26
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(RRRoamer @ February 1, 2006, 7:27 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
V10,
That statement about Ethanol is not necessarily true. There are other studies going on right now. A lot of scientist have taken offense at how the data for that original collected and analyzed. They left a LOT of things out effect how that all comes out.
It may end up being true, you can't say "Ethanol is also NOT an energy source." at this time because there are serious doubts about the science behind that statment.
[/b][/quote]
I can't say that I've read every analysis of Ethanols viability as an energy source, but some of the newer studies are questionable at best. They seem more a case of "creative science" intended to support members of Congess's obsession with bringing home pork farm subsidies to their district than any real scientific analysis.
Ethanol has a number of problems, like having considerably less energy per gallon than gasoline and the fact that it absorbs water.
The bottom line is that anything that takes tax payer subsidies to become viable is a looser.
V10,
That statement about Ethanol is not necessarily true. There are other studies going on right now. A lot of scientist have taken offense at how the data for that original collected and analyzed. They left a LOT of things out effect how that all comes out.
It may end up being true, you can't say "Ethanol is also NOT an energy source." at this time because there are serious doubts about the science behind that statment.
[/b][/quote]
I can't say that I've read every analysis of Ethanols viability as an energy source, but some of the newer studies are questionable at best. They seem more a case of "creative science" intended to support members of Congess's obsession with bringing home pork farm subsidies to their district than any real scientific analysis.
Ethanol has a number of problems, like having considerably less energy per gallon than gasoline and the fact that it absorbs water.
The bottom line is that anything that takes tax payer subsidies to become viable is a looser.
2/5/06, 09:21 PM
#27
Member
Join Date: May 1, 2005
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TheAutoChannel. Feb. 01 2006
Ford announce hydrogen technology development in high performance engines operating on pure hydrogen.
AutoChannelNews
Maybe in a nearby future let's see an engine of these in a Mustang.
Ford announce hydrogen technology development in high performance engines operating on pure hydrogen.
AutoChannelNews
Maybe in a nearby future let's see an engine of these in a Mustang.
2/6/06, 06:31 PM
#28
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: September 24, 2004
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada
Posts: 901
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Hydrogen does not have to be made using coal. It it produced through electrolysis (sp?), in other words, you need lots of electricity. Here on the Westcoast of Canada we have an abundance of hydro-electric power that does not harm the environment, well maybe a few fish don't like it, but there is no burning of fossil fuel. There are many other areas with the potential for hydro power, so hydrogen production without any harmfull side affects is feesable.
2/6/06, 08:44 PM
#29
Bullitt Member
Join Date: September 14, 2004
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People keep freaking out about us running out of oil, and staying dependent on WHACKO countries to get it. If the tree huggers in our own country could come back to reality and let us use our own technology and resources, then people like me wouldn't have to fly 8,000 miles around the world to secure some peace. With nuclear and coal power plants we could run all of our own electricty without fossil fuels leaving a huge amount for internal combustion engines. On using our own resources...Anybody ever hear of ANWR (Alaska National Wildlife Reserve), if we drilled it and used that oil it would go along way to self sufficiency. Not to mention if we could put up more off shore drilling rigs in the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of California then we've got more than enough oil. So people can whine and gripe all they want about Big Oil buying off their politicians, but its the tree hugger, irrational enviromentalists that have put us in this position.
Thanks Greenpeace.
Thanks Greenpeace.
2/7/06, 05:58 AM
#30
Team Mustang Source
Join Date: May 19, 2004
Location: Bauhston
Posts: 947
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check your state laws regarding ethenol. I believe that during the great depression many folks made their own stills because gas was difficult to get. I believe you are allowed to make "X" amount of gallons a year for personal consumption, as long as you don't sell it. Amazing that we would actually drink something that powers an engine. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrinjester.gif[/img]
2/7/06, 07:51 AM
#31
Member
Join Date: February 6, 2005
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check out Changing World Technologies. They have a process that converts scraps from the processing of poultry, beef, anything actually into petroleum. Basically, they are greatly reducing the amount of time that it takes nature to produce petroleum. They are at a small scale now, but are working on scaling up:
http://www.changingworldtech.com/what/index.asp
Stories here:
http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2003/Anyth...o-Oil1may03.htm
http://www.alternet.org/story/18871/
http://www.changingworldtech.com/what/index.asp
Stories here:
http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2003/Anyth...o-Oil1may03.htm
http://www.alternet.org/story/18871/
2/8/06, 05:47 AM
#32
Cobra R Member
Join Date: October 10, 2004
Location: Location: Indy
Posts: 1,627
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
And while we are on the subject, here are some interesting links about oil - start with the article first.
Article
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=38645
Journal
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/17...h=&FIRSTINDEX=0
Book
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-...onDate&n=283155
Article
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=38645
Journal
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/17...h=&FIRSTINDEX=0
Book
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-...onDate&n=283155
2/9/06, 10:31 AM
#33
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: March 23, 2005
Posts: 903
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mauleta @ February 7, 2006, 9:54 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
Check out Changing World Technologies. They have a process that converts scraps from the processing of poultry, beef, anything actually into petroleum. Basically, they are greatly reducing the amount of time that it takes nature to produce petroleum. They are at a small scale now, but are working on scaling up:
http://www.changingworldtech.com/what/index.asp
Stories here:
http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2003/Anyth...o-Oil1may03.htm
http://www.alternet.org/story/18871/
[/b][/quote]
Thermal depolymerization I am guessing is what this article is about? It is a great solution to both energy and waste issues as anything organic can be run through the process. Then all youhave to do is fix the emission problems. Here is an article I read this morning on ethanol. It was very informative.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/for...67959/index.htm
Check out Changing World Technologies. They have a process that converts scraps from the processing of poultry, beef, anything actually into petroleum. Basically, they are greatly reducing the amount of time that it takes nature to produce petroleum. They are at a small scale now, but are working on scaling up:
http://www.changingworldtech.com/what/index.asp
Stories here:
http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2003/Anyth...o-Oil1may03.htm
http://www.alternet.org/story/18871/
[/b][/quote]
Thermal depolymerization I am guessing is what this article is about? It is a great solution to both energy and waste issues as anything organic can be run through the process. Then all youhave to do is fix the emission problems. Here is an article I read this morning on ethanol. It was very informative.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/for...67959/index.htm
2/9/06, 08:29 PM
#34
Legacy TMS Member
darn and I was really looking forward to my days as a Road Warrior! Renewable oil [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smilies23.gif[/img] Thanks mother nature!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Scothew
Ford Discussions
3
8/19/07 01:49 PM
Robert
General Vehicle Discussion/News
2
8/17/04 03:38 AM