This guy will be dead in a few months

[Mojoe]

as soon as some oil tycoon hears about this.

 

http://www.broadcaster.com/video/player.php?clip=1234

[SPLN SUX]

old, but still very fasinating

[XChris1632X]

yes very old, but i wish there was more on it.

[Renner]

Unfortunately this story is completely misleading. The all important quote:

 

"We take water and electricity and break it down through our unique electrolysis process"

 

That torch, and that engine, are not powered by water by any means, they are powered by hydrogen. The water is just the storage medium for the hydrogen which they are combusting. The hydrogen atoms are separated from the water molecules through electrolysis. This isn’t really anything new, and there is a reason why you aren’t seeing more of it. Electrolysis takes large amounts of energy. You would have to burn more fossil fuels to produce the electricity needed for large scale hydrogen generation through electrolysis, then you would have used if you had just burned the fossil fuels to make power directly.

 

Possibly he has developed a more efficient form of electrolysis, that indeed would be worthwhile. But it’s certainly not a “water powered engine” as the local news hype story would like you to believe.

[Mojoe]

I remember hearing about it a while back. But, thought someone recently came out with some new form/way of using water for energy. I hadn't seen this clip and thought it might be this guy.

[Science Abuse]

Electrolysis takes large amounts of energy. You would have to burn more fossil fuels to produce the electricity needed for large scale hydrogen generation through electrolysis

I once made about 4 cubic inches of Hydrogen from 1 cup of salinated water...

 

 

 

 

 

It took about 1/2 hour and sucked dry four D batteries.

 

 

I'm reading one of his "reports", it says he rocks an additional "heavy duty" alternator and two "heavy duty" batteries. It's used as an auxiliary fuel supply, burned with gasoline, not in place of it. Essentially doubled MPG from 24 to 49.

[Mensan]

You would have to burn more fossil fuels to produce the electricity needed for large scale hydrogen generation through electrolysis, then you would have used if you had just burned the fossil fuels to make power directly.

 

 

Not true.

 

Electrolysis can be performed using hydrogen created by nuclear means. Also, fuel cell technology is utilizing hydrogen for power generation, and it should be widespread in the near future. The means to extract hydrogen (most likely NOT through electrolysis) will only become more cost effective once this happens.

[Maro]

Not true.

 

Electrolysis can be performed using hydrogen created by nuclear means. Also, fuel cell technology is utilizing hydrogen for power generation, and it should be widespread in the near future. The means to extract hydrogen (most likely NOT through electrolysis) will only become more cost effective once this happens.

 

 

Dude... Electrolysis isn't performed USING Hydrogen.... it is performed USING electricity to create Hydrogen....

 

You could use nuclear engergy to create electricity... with which you could produce hydrogen.

[Mensan]

That is what I meant.

[Renner]

You would have to burn more fossil fuels to produce the electricity needed for large scale hydrogen generation through electrolysis, then you would have used if you had just burned the fossil fuels to make power directly.

 

Not true.

 

Yes, it is. I am talking about burning fossil fuels to produce the electricity needed for electrolysis. Electrolysis to extract H2 on a large scale needs large amounts of electricity. Currently about 75% of the US’ electricity is generated from burning some sort of fossil fuel (coal, oil, natural gas, etc). These plants run in the 35-40% efficiency range at best. When you tack onto that the electrolysis process as well, which is only about 50-60% efficient, your energy losses are that much greater.

 

So that is what my statement was referring to. Due to the stackup of the various thermal losses primarily, the overall “energy cost” is greater with electrolysis then with using the electricity from the fossil fuel process directly for power, and is a key reason why electrolysis is not currently more widespread to extract H2 in large quantities. I never said a thing about nuclear generation, but the same concept holds true for it anyway. The energy cost of using the electricity from a nuclear plant to run an electrolysis process is still greater then using the electricity to power items directly due to the efficiency losses.

 

 

Electrolysis can be performed using hydrogen created by nuclear means.

 

In the context of what we are discussing here, the purpose of electrolysis is to extract hydrogen atoms from water. H2 is the end goal. If you have already created H2 by other means, your goal has been reached, an electrolysis process is not needed.

 

 

Also, fuel cell technology is utilizing hydrogen for power generation, and it should be widespread in the near future. The means to extract hydrogen (most likely NOT through electrolysis) will only become more cost effective once this happens

 

 

Yes I know, thanks for the fuel cell update, it is after all one of the many things I work on every week. Both our 2kW and our 7.5kW systems that we are currently running/demonstrating use a reformer, not an electrolyzer. Your last sentence shows you are still a little confused though. You are proposing that H2 be used in a fuel cell to produce electricity, which in turn is used to extract more H2, in some endless cycle where the efficiency losses of each system aren’t a concern. It doesn’t work that way.

[Mensan]

There may not be room in this thread for both of our huge egos.

 

Here is your original post, and I will highlight the part I have a problem with:

 

You would have to burn more fossil fuels to produce the electricity needed for large scale hydrogen generation through electrolysis, then[sic] you would have used if you had just burned the fossil fuels to make power directly.

 

You do not have to burn any fossil fuels using nuclear means to produce hydrogen. Since you wanted to bring credentials into play, I will state that they did this at the nuclear power plants where I have worked.

 

Also, I placed more faith in your powers of deductive reasoning than I should have. I was not stating that "...H2 be used in a fuel cell to produce electricity, which in turn is used to extract more H2, in some endless cycle where the efficiency losses of each system aren’t a concern...", I was merely pointing out that once fuel cells are in widespread use, the demand for cheaper hydrogen will drive research into more efficeint ways of obtaining it. Hence the statement that "the means to extract hydrogen (most likely NOT through electrolysis) will only become more cost effective once this happens".

 

It's a prime example of Price elasticity of supply. I have provided a link since I know your education is in engineering and not economics (obviously).

 

Cheers.

[Science Abuse]

The energy cost of using the electricity from a nuclear plant to run an electrolysis process is still greater then using the electricity to power items directly due to the efficiency losses.

True, but are you going to be putting reactors in cars? Are you proposing we drive fully electric cars, and plug them into the Nuke-powered grid every night?

The former is just not going to happen, and the latter will not be practical for some time. Am'uricans need more then 250 miles (3~ hours highway) per 5 hour charge. It's not marketable.

 

What we need is something to replace fossil fuels, and Hydrogen von water is a viable means. We use nuclear power to generat the electricity that produces the hydrogen. That goes into storage units, and is distributed to gas stations. Work on the safety aspect of hauling around that much explosive gas, and you have a means of powering vehicles over long distances, at low cost, and with lower environmental impact.

 

Plus, since its combustion, you still get an exhaust note.

[Renner]

You guys keep conveniently ignoring two key words I have typed twice now. I guess I’ll just put it in bold this time, after this I give up: large scale. As in, a viable enough method to provide the massive amount of H2 needed to support a hydrogen economy/infrastructure in the US.

 

I guess I didn’t spell it out enough the second time even, so I will give it one more try. Nuclear power only provides enough electricity to meet about 20% of the power needs of the US. This doesn’t even include tacking on the power needs of automobiles if they are also dependent on H2 derived from electrolysis. So once again, if you are going to try and extract large amounts of H2 from water through electrolysis, enough to meet the current energy needs of the US, you will have to burn fossil fuels. There just isn’t a large enough Nuclear infrastructure in place to support those kinds of energy needs even if every single plant was dedicated solely to H2 generation through electrolysis 24/7. Get it yet?

 

If not, tell me then Eli, where do you think the extra capacity is going to come from seeing as how it takes about 5-10 years to build a single complete nuclear plant? You can’t just say “use nuclear power!”, and then not think even 1 step further down the line to see if that is a viable solution to meet even a fraction of demands. Unfortunatly even without the efficiency loss stackup, it wouldn't even be a drop in the bucket to satisfy even our current energy needs. Looks like I placed too much faith in your reading abilities, as well as your fundamental understanding of the overall problem at hand.

 

Even funnier, posting info contrary to Eli’s, even if I attained it from actual real world experience, equals the ego card being played every time. Why again is your screen name Mensan? What exactly is it you are trying to advertise?

[desperado]

Not sure if it was mentioned, but a reactor will produce hydrogen directly as a result of the heat involved with the reactor. This was the main concern with Three mile island. There was a large hydrogen bubble that formed in the containment unit housing the reactor. The concern was that it would ignite and blow the top off the containment building exposing the core. There was actually little concern of the meltdown breaching the containment building due to the heat. The containment building is lined in graphite, which will take temperatures greater than a meltdown could produce.

 

I see what Eli is saying, but his point is really mute, due to the fact that the hydrogen produced in current reactors is not going to be enough to power even half the automobiles, and the chances of the federal government ok-ing additional nuclear power plants, or large scale reactors of any kind is not going to happen in our lifetime. So we would be right back around to importing our fuel supply once again, just from different countries than we get oil from now. But nothing changes, it's just the same game, just a different team on the field.

 

I don't agree with this but it's still the truth, because people number one distrust the government and big business and two are basically fucking stupid, they believe that if a plant is built that all the grass in the area will turn blue, the little kittens will all be born with two heads and six feet and birds will begin flying backwards. Of course big electric will tell you it's not true because they are making money, big government will not tell you because they all lie, but some fuck tard that is telling them their cats will start barking and the dogs will meow is being completely truthful and is an expert in the field even though his PhD is in poly sci or psychology, and has never even studies nuclear science of any type. We have all sorts of technology that we can't use because of the fact that it's too far from the norm for people to accept and use.

Turbine engines are a prime example, little turbines, the size of two 5 gallon buckets put end to end will produce 900 HP, more than enough to power a car, they are light, very efficent and simple to operate. The theory's have all been tested and the cars built. So why are we not running turbines in our cars and trucks? Simple, people are to fucking lazy to maintain them properly. A piston motor runs out of oil and it makes one loud bang and its' locks up, an turbine will explode. They need to be inspected for cracks and the like. It's not a big deal, but if you don't do it, the turbine can spray parts all over the place. Guess how is responsible at that point in our world of ambulance chasing lawyers, the auto manufacture of course for selling a product that could explode and kill someone. So we drive piston motor cars and electric cars that are so full of hazardous chemicals and materials in the batteries that it would take 1000 old diesels particulates running full out for 100 years to produce the same weight of crap.

 

Ain't it great

[Mowgli1647545497]

You can build more nuclear plants. You can also build geothermal stations, tidal stations, dams. There's alot of ways to generate the large scale electricity this would need, with the appropriate economies of scale offsetting efficiency devolvement, without burning one ounce of fossil fuels.

 

(BTW - I think nuclear power plants will again become a social-acceptance viable power alternative once the current generation of programmed flower-power cold-war-rattled atomic-phobic automatons ages out of power.)

 

I don't think anyone means to imply the electrolysis is onboard the vehicles nor that the current energy infrastructure is the only thing to be used to generate the electrolysis for such an effort. That'd be stupid.

 

Kinda like the *last* time(s) we had this exact same discussion on this exact same topic in this exact same forum...

[Mensan]

You can build more nuclear plants. You can also build geothermal stations, tidal stations, dams. There's alot of ways to generate the large scale electricity this would need, with the appropriate economies of scale offsetting efficiency devolvement, without burning one ounce of fossil fuels.

 

(BTW - I think nuclear power plants will again become a social-acceptance viable power alternative once the current generation of programmed flower-power cold-war-rattled atomic-phobic automatons ages out of power.)

 

I don't think anyone means to imply the electrolysis is onboard the vehicles nor that the current energy infrastructure is the only thing to be used to generate the electrolysis for such an effort. That'd be stupid.

 

Kinda like the *last* time(s) we had this exact same discussion on this exact same topic in this exact same forum...

 

 

I can't agree more, and I am glad at least *someone* got my point.

 

Why again is your screen name Mensan? What exactly is it you are trying to advertise?

 

I would have thought that was obvious...

[Renner]

You can build more nuclear plants. You can also build geothermal stations, tidal stations, dams. There's alot of ways to generate the large scale electricity this would need, with the appropriate economies of scale offsetting efficiency devolvement, without burning one ounce of fossil fuels.

 

(BTW - I think nuclear power plants will again become a social-acceptance viable power alternative once the current generation of programmed flower-power cold-war-rattled atomic-phobic automatons ages out of power.)

 

I don't think anyone means to imply the electrolysis is onboard the vehicles nor that the current energy infrastructure is the only thing to be used to generate the electrolysis for such an effort. That'd be stupid.

 

Kinda like the *last* time(s) we had this exact same discussion on this exact same topic in this exact same forum...

 

As of 2003 renewables accounted for only ~7% of total US energy production. Hate to break it to you, but by the year 2025, that number is expected to increase by a whopping 1%. On a percentage basis, Nuclear contributions are expected to decrease. Fossil fuel based generation methods will still account for around 75% of our needs. Don’t take my word for it, look at the research conducted by the Department of Energy yourself:

 

http://www.netl.doe.gov/KeyIssues/images/chart-5b_sm.jpg

 

http://www.netl.doe.gov/

 

Thinking that renewable + nuclear generation are somehow going to displace fossil fuel based power generation in the next ~20 years is nothing more then wishful thinking at best. Saying, “well we can build this or do that” doesn’t do squat for the reality of what is actually being done. So I’m not implying a thing, I’m quoting the currently published data by the DOE.

 

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m all for the alternatives, that’s why I am working on these projects. In fact these numbers show even more the importance of advancing the technology we are working with. However, I have done some background research on these areas, so I have a realistic view of how much work it really is going to take for us to quell our fossil fuel dependency.

 

So once again, even in the next 18 years, even if you DOUBLE the projected capacity for nuclear and renewable power generation, you are still going to be using fossil fuels at the highest percentage, and that will still be at a higher energy cost if used for large scale electrolysis to push an H2 infrastructure. Just wishing it to be otherwise certainly doesn’t make it so.

 

If you have any actual documentation by the DOE showing info to the contrary, I would certainly like to see it.

[Mowgli1647545497]

Yeah. I don't give 2grams of weight to statistical predictions, or trends posted by any org, I know the accuracy rate of such projections are invariably abysmal. I also know the science of it and I know enough history to know that great changes and "impossible" engineering can happen when and if societies want them to.

 

If *I* can figure out how to make 18tons of rocket fuel from the "air" on Mars with only a few hundred pounds of catalysts, a previously "impossible" engineering task, I dang well know someone(s) here can figure out how to make hydrogen in large quantities from renewables on earth. I don't need a government org to tell me if it can be done or not based on current industry statistics.

 

Starting from ground bleeping ZERO - we can get there *if* we want to.

[Cougar1647545494]

I met a dude at Firestone that insisted he invented electrolysis, but the government wouldn't take his offer for w/e reason, or they stole it for him. I forget, it was at the Firestone in Eastland so go figure.

[Guest GMoney]

has anyone heard of the iter project. If you want to argue about creating power this project is already underway. I havent read it in a while but I believe it will be built in France. It a new typ of fusion reactor. I think it may also be refered to as the artificial sun.

 

http://www.iter.org/

[Guest GMoney]

Sorry I meant being built. It is prob 10 years or more away.