[quote=ace holmes;1268256]This was begun as a response on one of the Q&A threads. However, as it has far-reaching implications, it deserves it's own thread. I've modified it somewhat, and added additional content for discussion.

Nearly all industrial processes seek to maximize efficiency while maintaining the required output. Since most industrial production of H2 and O2 is by means of electrolysis, it's probably the most cost-effective means per mole of each gas produced.

But H2 production, the cornerstone of the "hydrogen economy," is not the most cost-effective means of delivering energy to one's vehicle.

Electrolysis itself is only about 25% efficient, with the other 75% of the energy used wasted in the process. This doesn't begin to account for the fact that electricity production itself isn't very efficient, that line loss accounts for another 15% loss, or that transporting and storing the hydrogen account for additional losses.

Let's ignore the power generation and transmission losses, and assume they're equal up to the point where one of two things happen:

1. Electrolysis

2. Recharging your nano-whisker capacitor (stores charge very densely, very efficiently).

Your efficiency with the electrolysis/hydrogen economy solution is less than 10%, and some say as little as 5%.

Your efficiency with the nano-whisker capacitor approach is better than 50%.

Thus, we'll burn between 5 and 12 times as much fossil fuel trying to support a hydrogen economy than we would if we adopted the nano-whisper capacitor.

Not only is that about 8 times less carbon ejected into the atmosphere per Joule of energy produced, but it's also tens, if not hundreds of times less water vapor shoved into the atmosphere. Since water vapor accounts for nearly all of the global warming effect in the first place, these points are very strong reasons to adopt the latter technology rather than a hydrogen economy.

Current nano-whisker capacitance technology works, and works well, but we're not at the production stage just yet. For a capacity the same size as your normal gas tank, it'll hold about 2/3 as much energy, and takes a little longer (5 minutes total) to fill than your average gas tank. However, using reclamation technology such as regenerative braking, your typical stop and go city driving would vault the capacitor's efficiency to equal that, if not beyond, that of your standard gasoline powered engine.

Speaking of which, there's nothing to prevent the installation of a small turbo-generator tuned to provide just enough voltage/current to keep the capacitor within the middle third of it's charging cycle. If the driver knows the next town is 23 miles away and the computer is telling him he has a range of 38 miles, the owner would have the option to disengage the turbo-generator.

Finally, there's the cost factor.

Electricity is, per Joule, significantly cheaper than either gasoline or hydrogen.

How much cheaper?

Check this out.

I have no idea who that guy is, but he's certainly done his homework, and he makes a very compelling case for moving to a hydrogen economy.

Except for one thing: It's still four times more expensive than using the electricity directly to charge a nano-whisker capacitor.

Who here wants a 25% solution that will cost trillions of dollars to build the infrastructure, when you could have a 100% solution since every filling station already has a 220-volt, high-current line connected to an already existing grid and would be able to recharge your vehicle with the addition of a simple "Electron Pump?"

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

Furthermore, instead of unsightly windmills all over the place, we could simply revive our nuclear energy production program.

Before you get all up in arms, I'm not talking about the late 1950's designs. I'm talking about designs that incorporate 50 additional years of working with nuclear energy production, designs which are inherently stable (passively safe), even with a complete loss of all coolant, a failure of all pumps, and a major breech of the containment dome.

The design I'm speaking of is the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor. Read about it sometime via the link. It's fascinating!

We've come a long way since the '50s.

Given such designs, we significantly reduce nuclear waste, we avoid polluting local climates as do wind machines (an eyesore if there ever was one), there is no emitted water vapor (by far the most damaging greenhouse gas, and a hydrogen economy will be the worst contributor!), no emitted CO2, no emitted heavy metals (the scourage of oil and coal-fired plants), and no soot (coal, and to a lesser extent, oil).

So who has a beef about using nuclear energy to recharge nano-whisker capacitors for use in motor vehicles? Clean, efficient (more than 4x as efficient as a hydrogen economy), the least polluting of all options, no eyesores, minimal climate impact...

What are you objections? Please provide data and links to support your positions.

Thank you.

__________________
I am Mugs, of the Alien clan of Usa, Nordamerica, a Terran, of Sol. Human.

Whoever says "perception is reality" is daft. It's merely an abstraction, and often not a very good one.

Always wondered what that figure was!

__________________
*

Mugs, can I have an old guy clause to the citation requirement? Most of my education occured prior to the internet.

In the early seventies somebody developed a strain of the human version of E. coli that produced 25 times the amount of hydrogen gas than what is normal for them. After study the strain was destroyed on the premise that it posed an undo risk to human health. If somebody contracted it you wouldn't be able to "expell" the gas fast enough and nobody would be immune to it.

We discussed this as an example of responsible science back in 7th or 8th grade.

Probably the cheapest way mentioned yet.

(I just dread somebody piping in with, "But E. coli don't produce hydrogen gas")

__________________
Gimme a minute to read through Jay's latest observations...

One thought you may wish to keep in mind is that Germany is getting rid of their nuclear power capability while France is choosing to maintain nuclear power for 78% of all their electrical needs.

Why the dichotomy from two neighboring EU countries?

Simple: Germany is a very "green" country, whereas the French are more practical, and love the idea of selling their excess to the Germans when the wind dies down here in Germany, thereby robbing all their wind farms.

Also, the French were among the first to perfect the vitrification process, which seals contaminents in glass, with an additional foot of contaminent free glass surrounding the contaminated glass.

Back in 1978 they were the leaders.

As of 2002, they were still the leaders, and I believe they remain out in front, having successfully used this technology to tame their nuclear wastes for more than 26 years straight.

Perhaps the French appreciate beauty more than the Germans, and didn't want to trash their scenery with massive wind farms.

Viva la France!

__________________
I am Mugs, of the Alien clan of Usa, Nordamerica, a Terran, of Sol. Human.

Whoever says "perception is reality" is daft. It's merely an abstraction, and often not a very good one.

Well, you know, someone must be mining uranium somewhere. I guess not in France. To keep it beautiful.

__________________
The Devil offered me power. I told him I preferred aperture.

__________________
*

There's a market for 3500 tons of uranium a year?

__________________
Gimme a minute to read through Jay's latest observations...

That's the ore. The refined product that can be used in reactors is only a small fraction of that mass.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

That much would keep you toasty warm.

__________________
Gimme a minute to read through Jay's latest observations...

The cost of nuclear energy has never made it worthwhile here in Australia. This may change as we are bringing in a carbon trading scheme that will raise the cost of electricity from coal and natural gas. However nuclear will still have to compete with wind and as our grid gets a lot of power from natural gas turbines and can accept a considerable amount of additional wind generating capacity. I doubt cost declines for nuclear will match cost declines for wind in over the next 15 years, but good luck to the nuclear industry, I hope they can achieve considerable cost reductions.

As for capacitators and batteries, cost is an issue, as is range, but I see no reason why electric cars and plug in hybrids won't become popular if oil stays above $100 a barrel. It certainly seems more economical than using hydrogen for energy storage.

Do you have any links to information about nano-whisker capacitors?

Our physics guys at OA reckon that all forms of energy storage which rely on chemical energy or the physical properties of matter would top out at about equal; if you add too much energy to a physical system, it simply flies apart, so you are limited to the power of the chemical bonds in the material. This would presumably be the case for capacitors too- add too much energy to them and they would vapourise or explode.

__________________
Orion's Arm . The Starlark . Voices: Future Tense- Novella Contest Issue! . OA Flickr set