makc wrote:if there's anything to learn from 4 billions years of earth history, it is that nature solves its problems itself. a scientist sitting in his office writing clever papers cannot solve a problem of industry that he isn't even involved with. you can analyze global temperature trends all you want, but underlying problem is that burning fossils is cheap, has an infrastructure in place and provides source of income for millions of people. you don't need scientists to solve that, it will come to end and thus will be self-resolved naturally. for example, when we will run out of fossils. or something else happens. and all by itself. sit back and enjoy the ride.
Nature solves no problems, because nature has no problems. It is people who have problems, and we can sit back and "enjoy the ride" while nature changes in ways we may not find so pleasant, or we can address our own problems- something we are perfectly capable of doing given the right social structures. We may or may not find the will to change, but personally I prefer to make the effort. The ride isn't likely to be very enjoyable if we just sit back.
I agree with Chris, nature is called nature because it is natural. We step in and preturb the natural way. Sure there is a rainforest in south america which we are depleting to provide tables and chairs and cures for disease. If nature had its way the rainforest would continue to grow or stay the same, its us who are chopping it down, therefore WE are the problem. To say that the problem is resolved after we have cut down all the trees is nonsense.
On top of this, we are using up all of our fossil fuels at a now alarming rate. We are pumping most of our current supplies into the atlantic ocean at the moment and its a joke.
I have an annecdote to share with you.
My now ex girlfriends dad is a mechanical engineer, and when he was starting out there was a man who worked on what he called "his magic box" every lunchtime and break. What this magic box actually did was to make a regular 4 cylinder car (bear in mind this was the 60's so cars werent the most economical) and make it run on 2 cylinders without any loss in power. God knows how he did it, but the point was that he did. He could get a car to do 60 miles to the gallon easily. This would be a lot more in todays climate as cars are more economical as standard.
Now heres the thing. Shell came in and bought this "magic box" from this man for a very substantial amount of money, he took an early retirement and probably moved to the bahamas because my ex gf's dad never seen him again, and this "magic box" has never been heard of since. Shell bought it (in my opinion) to remove a potentially profit reducing machine from the marketplace. If this was to have been sold to car manufacturers the world would probably be a different place right now.
This car runs on hydrogen, which is (apparently) the most abundent gas in the universe. Theres obviously more of that than oil. Now when mixed with air, you get the magnificent H2O, water, you also get a lot of electricity. This car runs on electricity, has 0 emissions, no hassle with repairs as all it essentially has is an electric motor and no road tax for uk users. My question is, where is it? If it was out over here I would buy one. This car also has no problems with power and has a range the same as a normal petrol car. For all intensive purposes it is a normal car that runs on electricity. When it gets low on hydrogen you pull in and fill it up like a normal car. Its BRILLIANT and instead of being the future of motoring, it should be the NOW.
The problem (apparently) lies with fuel providers who say they can't get the fuel to power these cars, which is rubbish. The costs of obtaining hydrogen are about the same if not less than obtaining crude oil to make petrol and diesel. However the cost of hydrogen would be less than petrol (as is seen in countries who are lucky enough to have this car) therfore the oil cartels have a reason to keep this car off the road, and that reason is money. Money which is made from the trees we cut down, by machines which rely on the oil we drill.
We are very much the problem as regards nature. It just seems that those who create ways out of the mess are thwarted at every turn by money grabbing beurocrats.
Paul.
Re: Books!
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 1:51 pm
by makc
hydrogen may be "the most abundent gas in the universe", but on earth you have to make it from something else.
It just seems that those who create ways out of the mess are thwarted at every turn by money grabbing beurocrats.
again, you should be looking for natural way to resolve problems. such as coming up with solution that includes money grabbing beurocrats into calculations, and makes them profit even more.
Re: Books!
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 4:25 pm
by Orca
As great as hydrogen power sounds, remember, it's energy storage not energy production. So as makc pointed out you have to expend energy to isolate hydrogen; that energy, at least for the time being, is probably going to have to come from a fossil fuel.
Also, think about the key to electric cars (hybrids, hydrogen, or purely electric): batteries. Chemical storage of electricity is about the most environmentally unfriendly thing you can imagine. The chemicals they contain, the process of production, the petroleum-powered ships that transport the parts.
I guess my point is that you shouldn't get too wrapped up in the hype when companies pitch "green cars." At least do a bit of digging. Remember, companies just want to sell products; they don't give a flying dingo's kidney about environmental concerns. Ultimately there is no easy solution.
Companies happily sell "green" cars, customers pat themselves on the back for "going green," and life is good, right? Um...right?
Re: Books!
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 4:34 pm
by Chris Peterson
Orca wrote:As great as hydrogen power sounds, remember, it's energy storage not energy production.
It's also about distribution. Getting electricity around is easy, and likewise for gasoline. Hydrogen is extremely difficult to transport and to store. That is the biggest impediment to its use as an energy source- and IMO is what will prevent us from ever moving to a hydrogen energy economy. The cost of the required infrastructure would be massive. Other energy technologies will be much cheaper in the long run.
Re: Books!
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 4:52 pm
by geckzilla
You know, while we're talking about hydrogen powered cars, I was wondering something. Assuming every car in the world ran on hydrogen and just ignoring all of the problems that go along with it, it seems like a lot of water vapor would be produced if this ever happened. Would it not be possible for this water vapor to affect the atmosphere just as much as CO2? Everywhere I've read states that water vapor is much more potent than CO2, even.
I thought i'd create a new thread for the argument of going green in the thread about books before it gets locked for going off topic. So here it is, a link will be posted in that thread to here.
As great as hydrogen power sounds, remember, it's energy storage not energy production. So as makc pointed out you have to expend energy to isolate hydrogen; that energy, at least for the time being, is probably going to have to come from a fossil fuel.
Also, think about the key to electric cars (hybrids, hydrogen, or purely electric): batteries. Chemical storage of electricity is about the most environmentally unfriendly thing you can imagine. The chemicals they contain, the process of production, the petroleum-powered ships that transport the parts.
I guess my point is that you shouldn't get too wrapped up in the hype when companies pitch "green cars." At least do a bit of digging. Remember, companies just want to sell products; they don't give a flying dingo's kidney about environmental concerns. Ultimately there is no easy solution.
In response to Orca
It might not be good as such, but surely it is better? if everyone had a honda fcx clarity or a car with the same properties, then that would be a significant part of the pollution problem cut out. All of the above would apply to a current vehicle as in shipping, and the process of production would be severely cut as the cars would contain much less parts and therfore require much less production costs and man power. Its basically the shell of a car with some batteries a fuel tank and an electric motor.
Fair enough, the chemicals contained in car batteries are acidic and pretty bad on the environment, however, the fcx has a lithium-ion battery which can be recycled. see this link: http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/motor.aspx. There is an element of pollution but it is much less than that of the car and the co2 they spew out.
The electricity for this car is created by the car, so there would be no real effect on national grids etc. I do understand that there would obviously be a cost in manufacturing these batteries as well as storing and providing hydrogen fuel. But these costs (although in the outset may out price conventional methods) would be outweighed by the environmental impact of these cars. Thats in my opinion of course.
Created a topic on this issue to avoid a thread lock, were only slightly off the topics of books.
Paul.
Re: Books!
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 5:15 pm
by Chris Peterson
geckzilla wrote:You know, while we're talking about hydrogen powered cars, I was wondering something. Assuming every car in the world ran on hydrogen and just ignoring all of the problems that go along with it, it seems like a lot of water vapor would be produced if this ever happened. Would it not be possible for this water vapor to affect the atmosphere just as much as CO2? Everywhere I've read states that water vapor is much more potent than CO2, even.
Water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas, but it has a very short atmospheric lifetime, is regional rather than global when considering man made sources, and is subject to fast acting feedback mechanisms that significantly moderate its effects. So while water is overall the most important greenhouse gas (a fact that we depend upon for maintaining our temperature at a reasonable level), it is also not considered all that important in terms of anthropogenic emissions. But man made sources of water vapor are considered in climate models.
Re: Going Green!?
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 5:45 pm
by wonderboy
I know it sounds crazy right, but this water being vented by these cars is man made is it not? so surely, over a few thousand (maybe not even a few thousand years) years the levels of water will slowly start to rise? I am thinking, that if the cars have the desired effect and ice caps start to replenish that this will cancel out the effect of water levels rising. I know its hard to think of cars increasing water levels especially in the short term, but if we are creating water which is going into the atmosphere and probably falling as rain, then it has to be thought of surely?
Paul.
Re: Going Green!?
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 5:51 pm
by geckzilla
Makes you wonder if LA would become a muggy nightmare.
Re: Going Green!?
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 5:53 pm
by Chris Peterson
wonderboy wrote:I know it sounds crazy right, but this water being vented by these cars is man made is it not? so surely, over a few thousand (maybe not even a few thousand years) years the levels of water will slowly start to rise?
No. The amount of water being produced is vanishingly small compared with the total water volume on Earth, and compared with natural rates of water chemistries. From the standpoint of climate, the only thing that matters with water is how much is in the atmosphere, and water is removed from the atmosphere naturally at a high rate. If you keep introducing water to the Earth, the oceans will get bigger, but the atmosphere won't get wetter.
Re: Going Green!?
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 5:53 pm
by makc
ha, paul is right, octan burning formula says we actually create water in cars. but was equivalent amount of water consumed to make oil long time ago? we need chemistry wizzard.
Re: Going Green!?
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 5:57 pm
by bystander
geckzilla wrote:Makes you wonder if LA would become a muggy nightmare.
You mean it's not already?
Re: Going Green!?
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:10 pm
by wonderboy
LA really needs a green car to take off. the Prius just isnt cutting it is it? And are you taking the mick Makc? lol.
Paul.
Re: Going Green!?
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:20 pm
by Chris Peterson
geckzilla wrote:Makes you wonder if LA would become a muggy nightmare.
It already has. When I grew up in Southern California in the 1960s and 1970s, it was a dry climate. That is no longer true- pools and lawns and misting machines have significantly raised the local humidity levels. And it's certainly possible that cars which produce water vapor in significant amounts would further increase local ground level humidity.
Re: Going Green!?
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:28 pm
by wonderboy
Now heres a thing. If this car runs on hydrogen and it mixes with air to create electricity then I can only assume that there is a possible air intake. Now do you think it would matter if the air was warm/cold or dry/humid.
If the car excretes water from its exhaust then surely if its raining and this intake is taking in water then I would imagine that this would have a serious effect on performance which is obviously not good.
So technically, if it does effect performance, and the car can create a rise in surface humidity levels, then the biggest threat to this car taking off is itself???? I hope not, because I actually do want one when they come out here.
Paul.
Re: Going Green!?
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:30 pm
by geckzilla
Weird, I just assumed LA had the same climate as the area I lived in during the 80's, which was inland, near San Diego... very hot, very dry though so it evens out a little. I don't remember LA being muggy even though I've been there recently.
Re: Going Green!?
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:33 pm
by Chris Peterson
wonderboy wrote:Now heres a thing. If this car runs on hydrogen and it mixes with air to create electricity then I can only assume that there is a possible air intake. Now do you think it would matter if the air was warm/cold or dry/humid.
If the car excretes water from its exhaust then surely if its raining and this intake is taking in water then I would imagine that this would have a serious effect on performance which is obviously not good.
Cars already take in air, and their performance is affected by humidity and temperature. It is obviously possible to design air intakes to avoid sucking in rain. Filters can eliminate particulates. And engine control systems can deal with the effects of changing temperature or moisture content. I don't see how things would be any different for a hydrogen powered engine.
Re: Going Green!?
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:36 pm
by Chris Peterson
geckzilla wrote:Weird, I just assumed LA had the same climate as the area I lived in during the 80's, which was inland, near San Diego... very hot, very dry though so it evens out a little. I don't remember LA being muggy even though I've been there recently.
By East Coast or Southern standards, few would describe LA as muggy. But it's a lot wetter than it was 40 or 50 years ago. The effect is strongly regional- go a ways outside of dense population centers (which is increasingly difficult in Southern California) and the humidity will drop, too.
Re: Going Green!?
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:40 pm
by wonderboy
Chris Peterson wrote:
geckzilla wrote:Weird, I just assumed LA had the same climate as the area I lived in during the 80's, which was inland, near San Diego... very hot, very dry though so it evens out a little. I don't remember LA being muggy even though I've been there recently.
By East Coast or Southern standards, few would describe LA as muggy. But it's a lot wetter than it was 40 or 50 years ago. The effect is strongly regional- go a ways outside of dense population centers (which is increasingly difficult in Southern California) and the humidity will drop, too.
Obviously (from what you have said) the closer you get to city centres etc and suburbs humidity will rise I can believe this. But what worries me is that these places also have a lot of people, and in a hot and muggy environment you sweat. Is sweat a factor in this humidity. It must be! Even if its only 0.002% of an effect its still quite disgusting haha.
Wouldnt stop me visiting LA though.
Paul.
Re: Going Green!?
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:46 pm
by makc
a couple of unrelated vids that bubbled up in my memory after "sucking in" discussion (nah, not porn):
Click to play embedded YouTube video.
Click to play embedded YouTube video.
Re: Going Green!?
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 7:10 pm
by bystander
Chris Peterson wrote:
wonderboy wrote:Now heres a thing. If this car runs on hydrogen and it mixes with air to create electricity then I can only assume that there is a possible air intake. Now do you think it would matter if the air was warm/cold or dry/humid.
If the car excretes water from its exhaust then surely if its raining and this intake is taking in water then I would imagine that this would have a serious effect on performance which is obviously not good.
Cars already take in air, and their performance is affected by humidity and temperature. It is obviously possible to design air intakes to avoid sucking in rain. Filters can eliminate particulates. And engine control systems can deal with the effects of changing temperature or moisture content. I don't see how things would be any different for a hydrogen powered engine.
Back in the late '80s, my dad read an article in Popular Mechanics or Popular Science about how to increase your gas mileage and horsepower with a water injection system. The idea was that the volume increase as the water flashed to steam would reduce the need for fuel and increase the work efficiency of the engine.
He jury rigged one using an overflow reservoir hooked to tee on a vacuum line going to the carburetor on a '72 Nova 350 V8. It did slightly increase the highway gas mileage (don't know about hp), until winter came and the water in the reservoir froze. He added an in-line fuel filter to the vacuum line and dumped moth balls in the reservoir to keep the water from freezing!!! Another increase in gas mileage. My dad was the ultimate shade tree mechanic.
Re: Going Green!?
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 10:17 pm
by neufer
bystander wrote:Back in the late '80s, my dad read an article in Popular Mechanics or Popular Science about how to increase your gas mileage and horsepower with a water injection system. The idea was that the volume increase as the water flashed to steam would reduce the need for fuel and increase the work efficiency of the engine.
He jury rigged one using an overflow reservoir hooked to tee on a vacuum line going to the carburetor on a '72 Nova 350 V8. It did slightly increase the highway gas mileage (don't know about hp), until winter came and the water in the reservoir froze. He added an in-line fuel filter to the vacuum line and dumped moth balls in the reservoir to keep the water from freezing!!! Another increase in gas mileage. My dad was the ultimate shade tree mechanic.
<<You can improve your car engine's starting ability, pickup, and fuel economy by constructing a homemade water injection system -- for a total cost of under five dollars...heck, it takes more cash than that to buy one tank of gas nowadays! MOTHER's researchers noted an immediate improvement in low-RPM power which helped the Honda to accelerate up hills that had previously required a downshift -- and a significant reduction in vibration. Better yet -- after we ran three tanks of gas (and a quart of fluid) through the engine -- the Civic's gas mileage jumped from 32 to 34 MPG. Plus, much to the auto owner's surprise, water injection cured a longstanding cold weather starting problem.>>
http://www.rallycars.com/Cars/WaterInjection.html wrote:
<<Water injection systems are predominantly useful in forced induction (turbocharged or supercharged), internal combustion engines. Only in extreme cases such as very high compression ratios, very low octane fuel or too much ignition advance can it benefit a normally aspirated engine. The system has been around for a long time since it was already used in some World War II aircraft engines.
A water injection system works similarly to a fuel injection system with the difference that it injects water, or a mixture of water and alcohol, instead of fuel. Water injection is not to be confused with water spraying on the inlet air chargecooler's surface, water spraying is much less efficient and far less sophisticated.
A turbocharger essentially compresses the air going into the engine in order to force more air than it would be possible using the atmospheric pressure. More air into the engine means, automatically, that more fuel has to be injected in order to maintain the appropriate stoechiometric value of the air/fuel ratio (around 14:1). More air and fuel into the engine leads to more power. However by compressing the inlet air the turbocharger also heats it. Higher air temperatures lead to thinner air and therefore an altered stoechiometric ratio which results to richer mixtures. Over-heated air intake temperatures can cause detonation.
Detonation, an effect also known as engine knock or pinging, occurs when the air/fuel mixture ignites prematurely or burns incorrectly. In normal engine operation the flame front travels from the spark plug across the cylinder in a predefined pattern. Peak chamber pressure occurs at around 12 degrees after TDC and the piston is pushed down the bore.
In some cases and for reasons such as a poor mixture, too high engine or inlet temperatures, too low octane fuels, too much ignition advance, too much turbo boost, etc. the primary flame front initiated by the spark plug may be followed by a second flame front. The chamber pressure then rises too rapidly for piston movement to relieve it. The pressure and temperature become so great that all the mixture in the chamber explodes in an uncontrolled manner. If the force of that explosion is severe some of the engine's moving parts (pistons, rods, valves, crank) can be destroyed.
Detonation, in any engine, should always be avoided by either lowering inlet temperatures, using higher octane fuel, retarding ignition, hence lowering engine output, lowering engine blow-by (a situation in which high crankcase pressure sends oil fumes back inside the combustion chamber), running the engine a little richer than at the stoechiometric ratio, lowering the compression ratio and/or boost pressure, ... .
Water injection is used to lower in-cylinder temperatures and burn the air/fuel mixture more efficiently thus helping avoid detonation.
In high pressure turbocharged engines the air/fuel mixture that enters the cylinders can, in some cases, explode prematurely (before the spark plug ignites) due to the extreme engine environment conditions. This situation is extremely destructive and results in severe engine damage (piston piercing). To avoid damaging the engine by detonation or pre-ignition phenomena, water is injected, along with fuel, in the combustion chambers in order to provide a water/air/fuel mixture which not only burns more efficiently and avoids detonation or pre-ignition but also provides additional inlet air cooling and, hence, denser air. The sole function of water injection is avoiding detonation. Usually a water injection system is engaged when the inlet air temperature is exceeding a certain value, typically 40 degrees Celsius, and the engine is on boost.>>
