Sceadwian

Thunderchild, you can't have an 'environmentally friendly' device that's not energy efficient, you're either polluting via a chemical means or by adding extra energy to the system. Things like carbon dioxide allow more energy to be trapped by the earth, but if we remove carbon dioxide and simply supply that energy directly what's the point? Aside from things like CFC's which directly damaged the environement so little is known about the carbon cycle on earth that we can't even be sure that the extra carbon we're adding to the environment is actually causing an increase in the overall carbon levels. For as much as we know plant life could be absorbing the carbon we're outputting and the carbon could be coming from some other source, we simply do not know.

__________________

Thunderchild

I was refering to hydrogen, if it is produced with say solar pannels then there is practically no environment damage ok even if it were "not quite" as efficient as petrol say it weighed slightly more for example then thats not a big deal as we are not poluting to produce the hydrogen or burn it but I am sure it is far more efficient because to start with it is pure combustible gas no junk is turfed out, for example methane is made of carbon AND hydrogen and the carbon that is much heavier is dumped into the air as CO2 now apart from polluting it is also extra weight in the gas that is not used to produce power

__________________
I AM the exeption that disproves the rule in many ways but the rules still apply (unfortunately)

my site:www.simons-photography.com
http://rushdenrotaract.org.uk
see also
http://www.bigstockphoto.com/account...fid=m2URATYch5
http://www.redbubble.com/people/simonsphotography

dknguyen

I think what he was getting at is that all energy production pollutes in some form. If it's more environmentally friendly, but less efficient it means you have to use more of this more environmentally friendly stuff (that still pollutes) to produce the same amount of useful energy, which still ends up creating the same amount of pollution, it not more.

It's like if something is 99% environmentally friendly, but only 1% efficient, you need may end up needing to produce 100x of that 1% harmful bit to get the same amount of useful energy which is the same amount of pollution as if you went with something that was 50% efficient and 50% environmentally friendly.

"Environmentally friendly" is a rather vague term, when in reality, it's the pollution produced per watt of useful energy produced.

Nigel Goodwin

How are you hoping to produce enough hydrogen from solar panels?, you need VERY bright sunlight, and an area considerably larger than a car to produce enough energy to drive a car directly. Converting it to hydrogen, then converting it back adds many more losses, so would need even bigger panels.

You must have seen the solar powered car races across Australia?, using VERY high tech cars completely covered in VERY expensive solar cells - yet they produce really poor performance.

__________________
PIC programmer software, and PIC Tutorials at:
http://www.winpicprog.co.uk

Thunderchild

no I meant you have a solar power station but instead of storing it in batteries directly use it to split water into H and O2, these can then be fed into cars at a fuel pump, many cars run on methane gas what's wrong with using hydrogen instead ? it is the same as methane without the polluting carbon that makes up good part of the weight CH4, carbon is a much heavier element than Hydrogen so methane is not as efficient as hydrogen. So if we already use gas propelled cars what wrong with changing gas ?

__________________
I AM the exeption that disproves the rule in many ways but the rules still apply (unfortunately)

my site:www.simons-photography.com
http://rushdenrotaract.org.uk
see also
http://www.bigstockphoto.com/account...fid=m2URATYch5
http://www.redbubble.com/people/simonsphotography

Nigel Goodwin

You're missing the point! - solar cells are VERY inefficient, you would need a large area to produce enough hydrogen to run a single car.

Hydrogen is FAR more dangerous - and as it stands, gas powered cars are more dangerous than petrol ones.

Splitting water to produce hydrogen, then burning it, isn't efficient either - why not use the original solar power to charge batteries?.

__________________
PIC programmer software, and PIC Tutorials at:
http://www.winpicprog.co.uk

3v0

In my area they are installing wind turbines like they were money trees. Maybe the are?

I am not sure about the numbers. But it may make sense to use these to power cars either by charging batts or generating hydrogen. Not sure but it seems a much better bet then solar cells.

I do not see where a wind (or solar) farm generates pollution.

Another upside is the low impact of the wind farms. Except for the few feet the pedestal occupies the rest of the land is generally remains as it was.

It seems that in the short term the auto energy solution may not (maybe should never be) solved by 1 or 2 solutions. Competition between providers is a good thing.

Thunderchild

because the batteries are so heavy to drag around they need the power stored just to transport themselves let alone the rest of the vehicle,

Ford already make hydrogen propelled cars

__________________
I AM the exeption that disproves the rule in many ways but the rules still apply (unfortunately)

my site:www.simons-photography.com
http://rushdenrotaract.org.uk
see also
http://www.bigstockphoto.com/account...fid=m2URATYch5
http://www.redbubble.com/people/simonsphotography

Nigel Goodwin

It produces noise pollution - but it's a far more practical solution than solar panels.

__________________
PIC programmer software, and PIC Tutorials at:
http://www.winpicprog.co.uk

3v0

The cows so not much care and the farmers can not hear them over their tractors.

I suppose it may be different if you had to live next to one. Last year we drove through a farm with over 100 1.5 MW turbines about 10 times. I do not recall any noise. Maybe I was too impressed with the scale of the things to notice.

Thunderchild

hm I've heard of noise too there is the issue of ruining the scenary but I suppose solar panels do that too but as a photographer I am becoming quite sensitive to scenary we must also try and keep these thing out of the way, I also heard that the windmills cause problems for birds

__________________
I AM the exeption that disproves the rule in many ways but the rules still apply (unfortunately)

my site:www.simons-photography.com
http://rushdenrotaract.org.uk
see also
http://www.bigstockphoto.com/account...fid=m2URATYch5
http://www.redbubble.com/people/simonsphotography

3v0

That is what photoshop is for

You are saying that because you want everything everwhere to look natural it is better to contiue burning coal or oil. Or maybe cover country with solar cells ?

I do not understand..... It does not get any better/cleaner then wind generated power.

Hero999

There are very few forms of alternative energey that are totally environmentally friendly.

Wind turbines kill birds and generate infrasound which can make some people feel unwell; not only that but they look unsightly.

Having said that, we need to find alternatives to fossil fuels so I suppose it's the only way to go.

__________________
I also post at the following sites:
http://www.stop-microsoft.org http://www.heated-debates.com
Screen name: Aloone_Jonez

Oznog

Hydrogen is not as unsafe as people make it out to be. Heck, gasoline is pretty darn dangerous too.

One of H2's biggest problems is there's no good way to store a lot of it. I mean you want a truck with a 300 mi range you need quite a few lbs of H2 here.

You're right in that there are serious questions about where we get the energy to produce hydrogen. Well, on one side we could be freeing ourselves of the problems in getting oil specifically. In the USA for example we have a LOT of coal freely available and could in theory just forget about the middle east problems (or stop creating middle east's problems, depending on who you ask). That is not a completely "green" solution. Power plants are more efficient than cars for sure, but the inefficiency of making H2 and coverting in a fuel cell eat up those gains.

Another answer is that the H2 could be made by nuclear, wind, hydro, geothermal, or even some algaes, stuff that doesn't emit greenhouse gases. Well, it's a theory at least. Right now we already have this technology, had it for decaes, and still we have only used it for a small portion of the electricity we use.

__________________
I thought what I'd do was I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes.

Nigel Goodwin

But many times safer than hydrogen! - most of the danger of gasoline/petrol is in the imagination of Hollywood film producers - cars don't generally 'explode' like they do in the films. Many people are badly injured every year in the USA by well meaning bystanders dragging people out of car crashes ' before it explodes'.

__________________
PIC programmer software, and PIC Tutorials at:
http://www.winpicprog.co.uk