Discussion in 'Technology / Science' started by Tom Tucker 313, Apr 1, 2018.
In other words, you don't have one. Thanks for admitting that.
No, it's already been said (even though electrolysis is NOT the way most hydrogen is produced, thanks for showing you know even less than I thought).
And thanks for admitting you don't remember something rather recent which I think you even commented on. Or that you have no interest in actually reading what has been posted and only wish to behave like a child.
It's one of the two anyway.
A process has recently been developed that splits water by electrolysis but keeps the resulting hydrogen and oxygen separate, significantly simplifying things. One step closer to practicality.
They're building hydrogen fueling stations in southern California that use onsite solar panels to generate fuel. This isn't going to power a large number of vehicles as currently designed but it is a start.
Well, that makes it clear which one you are.
I just give your attitude back to you, with interest.
Maybe if you quit being a dick you'd get a better response.
Coming from one who can't even follow a thread properly...
Organize your thoughts.
Make persuasive points.
Respect the dignity of your debating partners.
Use logic instead of personal attacks.
These are the tools that gain you converts and credibility.
It is true that many others here can't use these points in their arguments, either, but that doesn't mean they aren't necessary.
Just keeping you on your toes.
Dirigibles do have a place if you abandon the "gas bag" design and incorporate the advantages and technology of aeronautics that have been discovered since the Hindenburg. Why not design a "flat" rigid infrastructure dirigible that would be much more able to navigate wind instead of being at it's mercy?
Regular avionics have conquered wind to a point but if the weather is extreme enough airports still shut down.
Dedicated energy production may be more efficient than on demand in production but still suffers the waste of overproduction to meet demand and transmission that on demand does not have to do.
Regenerative braking is realized in the train industry but the reason the rheostaic braking is a realization of this is the weight of storage for storage of the generated electricity is much more massive than the equal amount of energy represented by diesel.
Solar cells and wind do have a place, but we seem to realize them in the most inefficient way possible.
Bladed HAWT needs energy to "spin up" to the speed needed to actually start harvesting energy and also needs energy to be positioned to face into the wind but does have a better conversion factor of wind when those prior costs are not factored in.
Look at the comparison chart here.
Better solar tech would utilize much more of light spectrum than the small portion of visible light it does currently. When that becomes available then solar starts eating at conventional energy sources due to cost/benefit.
The methane argument is very tempting except that the bacteria needed to create the methane is very fickle and needs a very narrow area of optimal circumstances to create methane that will burn. Couple that with the fact that methane becomes crystalline during compression which makes it very expensive to compress as the process "eats" the impeller that compresses it.
I was a BIG fan of methane cropping compact pork production farming until I talked w/ a energy efficiency professional over beers and learned these facts.
Better batteries have been prophesized for quite a while, but compactness IS a very big part of it. Would your cell phone be as convenient as it is if it were powered by a lead/acid battery? Weight and size will always have a place in better battery tech.
Better battery tech is absolutely vital to combat wind/solar feast/famine aspect and decentralization of generation.
Oil rules because of the density of energy vs. weight/volume it has.
Nuclear is still cleaner than conventional energy sources in the the necessary degradation of the environment to harvest said conventional energy sources.
Combined tech IS the best way to utilize energy completely. Unfortunately the cost to fully utilize that combination is many factors greater unless it is taken into account from the initial planning of ANYTHING and human foresight has failed at that consistently.
You are correct that H² is cleaner TO BURN but have not proven it's cheaper (in energy needed to realize and money) to produce compared the cost of conventional energy production.
If you have evidence to refute that I welcome it but I would like hard evidence that can be referenced.
Could you detail these "many attempts"?
Do any of them incorporate new tech like carbon nanotubes or graphene that bring new low weight/high tensile strength materials into the equation? I'm not aware of any attempt since the Hindenburg that was not militarily pursued and we all know the oxymoronic tendency of "military intelligence".
Dirigibles don't need to "land" any more than a ocean going freighter needs to traverse land, but do need to be moored to become stationary for loading/unloading. If a "flat" model is used for dirigibles they have an enormous amount of area that can crop solar energy to be used for H² production or motive power and has much less wind resistance and reactivity although does need a light compact storage area (battery) for that solar energy.
Solar panels are heavy, which makes them impressive for lighter than air vehicles.
Not all batteries need to be compact and energy dense; those for stationary storage applications just need to be able to hold a lot of juice and handle lots of charging cycles. They don't need to be small.
Cogeneration can be a huge step forward with only a little planning. I think miniaturization will help the practicality aspects and multiply potential applications.
Separate names with a comma.