Hybrids and why they may the be wrong idea...

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

15th January 2010, 23:23
Daniel

Mark, I'm just playing the devils advocate that's all.
19th January 2010, 15:06
Malbec

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

The link:http://www.topgear.com/au/jeremy-cla...ids-2009-01-12

I was perusing one of the Top Gear sites through a link on Facebook. Tripped across this Jeremy Clarkson take on the rush to Hybrids, and draws an interesting link to the rush to Catylitic Convertors in the 80's. It seems Cat's create more CO2 and Margaret Thatcher of all people was against this (it seems Ms Thatcher maybe isn't as dim as some of you want to believe). Anyhow..she was ignored, and we have them on every car now, and I personally don't think not having them or having them makes a HUGE difference, but there you go.

I do agree though with Clarkson that Hybrids are a dead end technology. I would LOVE to see Hydrogen fuel be perfected....

I believe the argument against catalytic converters was quite complex and lead by Honda as well as some greens who could see what was coming.

Essentially the argument was that designing better engines without cats would reduce emissions without the need for toxic materials in the cats and without reducing the efficiency of the engine. The cat won the day because it was an instant solution where any maker with miserable old engines could simply buy one, plug it on the back and have a 'clean' car.

Put simply, industry won the day.

As for hydrogen vs batteries, the former is still a nascent technology, the latter is quite mature. Given a few more years we should see a significant improvement in production, storage and utilisation methods for hydrogen, whether its burnt or goes in a fuel cell.
19th January 2010, 15:08
Malbec

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Water vapour is a greenhouse gas. Yes...it also is part of nature. It will also cause it to maybe rain more often, AND cool the planet counterbalancing the CO2. Listen, why don't 5 Billion of us stop breathing, die, and go away? Will THAT not hurt the freaking enviroment? Oh right....

Face it Dan, you want no solution if I read this properly. Nukes will be the power source of choice as we phase out coal. The French power most of their nation on Nukes, and have no issues. IN the end, it is the only non-polluting source if you deal with the waste. So if hydrogen produces water vapour, then great, maybe we put a little collector on there to capture the WATER. IS THAT A POLLUTANT NOW?????????

Water vapour is a greenhouse gas if it is in the stratosphere, not if it is in the lower atmosphere which is where it would be it was produced by cars. I doubt the water vapour produced by hydrogen cars would be much of a problem, after all petrol engined cars produce one hell of a lot of water vapour already.

In a similar way, ozone protects when its in the stratosphere but helps cause smog when its lower down. When its in your lungs its just plain toxic.
19th January 2010, 15:13
Mark

Water vapour pollution is an issue with regard to airliners etc. Below the cloud base however, there is plenty of water around, as I'm sure you can see! So Hydrogen vehicles are really pollution free at the point of use, if only the fuel could be pollution free too!
19th January 2010, 16:07
Mark in Oshawa

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylan H

Water vapour is a greenhouse gas if it is in the stratosphere, not if it is in the lower atmosphere which is where it would be it was produced by cars. I doubt the water vapour produced by hydrogen cars would be much of a problem, after all petrol engined cars produce one hell of a lot of water vapour already.

In a similar way, ozone protects when its in the stratosphere but helps cause smog when its lower down. When its in your lungs its just plain toxic.

All I know is Daniel complaining about the water vapour off of a hydrogen powered car really galled me. I realize he was being a "devils advocate" now, but it is typical of a lot of the people who object to anything that any complaint must be given equal weight. If we listened to every group, we would be back in the stone age in 20 years.
19th January 2010, 16:22
Mark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Water vapour is a greenhouse gas. Yes...it also is part of nature. It will also cause it to maybe rain more often, AND cool the planet

If you are releasing hydrogen using electricity, it usually comes from water in the first place. The process releasing hydrogen and oxygen. The same amount of oxygen is used when the hydrogen is burned. Converting it all back into water.

But of course this doesn't come for free, which is why you need plenty electricity. But I would have thought countries with lots of sunshine could create hydrogen using solar energy. Windy, wavey and tidal countries such as the UK could create it. Countries with a big nuclear capacity such as France, and countries with an abundance of geothermal power such as Iceland.

If hydrogen storage and transport can be solved, it's all very doable.
19th January 2010, 16:48
Mark in Oshawa

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark

If you are releasing hydrogen using electricity, it usually comes from water in the first place. The process releasing hydrogen and oxygen. The same amount of oxygen is used when the hydrogen is burned. Converting it all back into water.

But of course this doesn't come for free, which is why you need plenty electricity. But I would have thought countries with lots of sunshine could create hydrogen using solar energy. Windy, wavey and tidal countries such as the UK could create it. Countries with a big nuclear capacity such as France, and countries with an abundance of geothermal power such as Iceland.

If hydrogen storage and transport can be solved, it's all very doable.

This has been my contention. Hydrogen will not be easy to produce in large quantities, but it beats using hydrocarbon based fossil fuels going down the road.

The people who don't like it will be put in the same place of contempt for the members of the green movement here in Ontario who have petitioned for the coal fired generation plants to be closed for more "green " technology only to jump on the anti-windmill bandwagon. Anywhere wind farms are proposed now, there is some group of activists finding new reasons to fight the construction of this "green" technology?
19th January 2010, 17:41
Sonic

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

If we listened to every group, we would be back in the stone age in 20 years.

Quite. James May pointed out if the car hadn't been invented and then someone came along in 2010 and said "Ok brilliant idea. Personal transport for the whole world! All you have to do is fill the vehicle with a highly explosive liquid that also happens to pollute the planet once burnt in the engine. Oh and FYI about 2000 people will die per 60 million population each year in accidents." they'd be laughed at.

Hydrogen simply has to work in the medium/long term, or we are screwed!
19th January 2010, 17:43
Mark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sonic

Hydrogen simply has to work in the medium/long term, or we are screwed!

That or purely electric propulsion technologies. Either using standard batteries or a fuel cell of some sort.
19th January 2010, 17:43
Daniel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sonic

Quite. James May pointed out if the car hadn't been invented and then someone came along in 2010 and said "Ok brilliant idea. Personal transport for the whole world! All you have to do is fill the vehicle with a highly explosive liquid that also happens to pollute the planet once burnt in the engine. Oh and FYI about 2000 people will die per 60 million population each year in accidents." they'd be laughed at.

Hydrogen simply has to work in the medium/long term, or we are screwed!

I don't quite get this. Sure I know batteries aren't the best option but what's wrong with just using batteries as batteries rather than hydrogen?

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page