Clean energy

Discussion on preserving Nature: preventing the pollution, destruction and disbalancing of the finely-tuned natural ecosystems on our planet.

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
legiwei
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 6:11 am
Location: Malaysia

Clean energy

Post: # 9098Post legiwei »

I was wondering, in TP, it was mentioned that we should start production of "hydrogen motor" since it is far more ecological friendly and also at the same time more economical.

But I was wondering, given the present condition, say, we do have the technology to develop such an engine and that we intented to mass produce it, but is it possible? Since most of our equipment is powered by oil, directly or indirectly (thoroughly discussed in topics such as "peak oil"), it does not seem to me a viable solution to me anymore for now. For sure it will reduce pollution but by mass producing it, it seems to consumes much more oil than to just maintain our present "way". And I'm not too sure whether there isn't any pollution which goes into the "production of this engine".

And on the economical part although at first glance, it does makes sense since hydrogen is abundant everywhere and thought will come to mind that if it is freely available, then it will be cheap commodity. But it seems that's not the case as hydrogen isn't as simple as just "mining" it.

Anybody has any thoughts?

And as a side question, "what are laws" that is used by and evolved society. If not mistaken TP has mentioned on some of the better civilization in planet 1 and it did emphasize on the law, now I was wondering, what are they?
User avatar
soulrider
Posts: 92
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 1:57 pm
Location: Melb, Aus, Sorrows

Re: Clean energy

Post: # 9163Post soulrider »

legiwei wrote:I was wondering, in TP, it was mentioned that we should start production of "hydrogen motor" since it is far more ecological friendly and also at the same time more economical.

But I was wondering, given the present condition, say, we do have the technology to develop such an engine and that we intented to mass produce it, but is it possible? Since most of our equipment is powered by oil, directly or indirectly (thoroughly discussed in topics such as "peak oil"), it does not seem to me a viable solution to me anymore for now. For sure it will reduce pollution but by mass producing it, it seems to consumes much more oil than to just maintain our present "way". And I'm not too sure whether there isn't any pollution which goes into the "production of this engine".

And on the economical part although at first glance, it does makes sense since hydrogen is abundant everywhere and thought will come to mind that if it is freely available, then it will be cheap commodity. But it seems that's not the case as hydrogen isn't as simple as just "mining" it.

Anybody has any thoughts?

And as a side question, "what are laws" that is used by and evolved society. If not mistaken TP has mentioned on some of the better civilization in planet 1 and it did emphasize on the law, now I was wondering, what are they?


It sure is possible to produce a Hydro engine, and it has been available for many many years...

Producing the hydrogen on-the-fly from water in your tank is the best answer, and it IS possible, regardless of what the so-called "experts" say :roll:

I'll hunt down some of my links for you.



...I think your side question "what are laws" is a topic in itself :wink:
Always remember you're unique, like everybody else.
User avatar
trumpet_is_cool
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 6:59 pm
Location: Germany

Post: # 9164Post trumpet_is_cool »

About Hydrogen:
While the fossil-fuel era is entering its sunset years, a new energy regime is being born that has the potential to remake civilisation along radical new lines...
It produces no harmful CO2 emissions when burned; the only by-products are heat and pure water.*

These are the sort of statements that are commonly seen these days about the 'hydrogen economy'. While not exactly false (except possible the first sentence), they give a false impression about the uses and cleanliness of hydrogen. What is the truth about this marvellous new 'fuel'?

First of all, hydrogen is not a fuel such as oil, coal or electricity; it is an energy carrier, rather like a battery. Although hydrogen is the commonest substance in the Universe, it does not exist as a free gas or liquid on Earth so it has to be produced. For this you need two things, a hydrogen source (akin to a metal’s ore) and an energy source to separate the gas. It is this energy source that is one of the major problems with hydrogen: the hydrogen-powered fuel cell in your car might appear to produce no pollutants but did the original energy needed to fill the cell?

As mentioned, hydrogen creation needs a hydrogen source and an energy source. At the moment, most hydrogen is produced from natural gas which acts as both sources. Unfortunately, because something is lost whenever one form of energy is converted to another, the hydrogen produced has only 50% of the energy value of the original gas. And, since the problem we are facing is the depletion of fossil fuels, using gas to create hydrogen does not seem very sensible.

The alternative to this is to use electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. If that electricity comes from fossil-fuel powered generators, then we are no better off that the system above. But if the source of the electricity is from renewables or nuclear, then we have the potential for a cleaner fuel for transportation. Unfortunately much energy is lost in the process, so the hydrogen that comes out has about 70% of the original electricity.

Storage and Distribution
Hydrogen is 2700 times less energy dense than petrol so it needs to be reduced in size before storage and distribution. There are three ways of doing this: compression, liquefaction and chemical-combination.
Hydrogen is the hardest gas to compress and the efficiency is about 55%. It requires extremely strong and heavy tanks to store.
Liquefaction is better in that it does not need such heavy tanks (although it still takes up three times the volume compared with petrol) but its efficiency is about 40% at best. Also, some liquid hydrogen inevitably escapes from storage at the rate 3-4% a day for cars, so every minute that you were not driving your car would be costing you money in lost fuel.
Chemical-combination means mixing the gas together with metal hydrides which act as a sort of sponge. The efficiency is about 60% to produce the hydrides without taking into account the losses from producing the initial electricity.
Delivery of both compressed and liquefied hydrogen would be troublesome. If by road, it would require 13% more tankers so about 1 in 7 lorry accidents would,on average, involve a tanker. If using pipelines, it would take 1.5 times more energy to transfer hydrogen 3,000 km then is contained in the gas itself.

Summary
The principal hope for hydrogen is that it will be a replacement for oil as a fuel for transportation. But, compared to electricity, it generally loses out in most areas.
In production, it is a clear loser since we would have to create that electricity to produce the hydrogen in the first place. If you are generating electricity, it is better to use it directly and make better use of the 30% that is lost to separate the hydrogen.
For distribution, electricity has one of the most efficient methods of energy transfer known – up to 90% efficiency. Whatever method you use to transfer power through hydrogen, the efficiency is likely to drop to about 30%. The infrastructure for electricity transfer already exists while that for hydrogen is, at the moment, almost non-existent. The systems for creation, storage, transfer and supply (to users) would have to be built virtually from scratch over the next couple of decades, enough to cover whole countries.
As far as motor transport is concerned, while we have relatively cheap fossil fuels, the best option would be to use hybrids (vehicles equipped with both internal combustion engines and electric motors) for cars and lorries to reduce the oil used and extend its useful life, while using pure electric vehicles such as trams and trains for mass transport. By the time we have run out of available oil and gas, we are likely to be so short of electric power that we could not afford any unnecessary wastage. By then, I suspect, personal public transport, if it exists will have two wheels or four legs.
* From "The Hydrogen Economy" in "The Environmental Magazine" January/February 2003 Vol. XIV, no. 1
See this page (links at the bottom) for further informations:

http://wolf.readinglitho.co.uk/subpages/hydrogen.html
survivor
Posts: 288
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 5:32 am
Location: melbourne, Australia

Post: # 9167Post survivor »

Hydrogen is old news. WE WANT true clean energy. Like over-unity devices http://www.steorn.com for example. Also, people have built engines that run on water. The technology has been back-shelved (hidden) from us and we want it NOW! Search Tesla on the internet, the man has many inventions that go way back and have never seen the light of day.

So, I'm over Hydrogen and moving onto real clean free energy.
an act against {free will} is an act against nature
User avatar
trumpet_is_cool
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 6:59 pm
Location: Germany

Post: # 9168Post trumpet_is_cool »

survivor wrote:The technology has been back-shelved (hidden) from us and we want it NOW! Search Tesla on the internet, the man has many inventions that go way back and have never seen the light of day.
Why should it be back-shelved if it works ?
survivor
Posts: 288
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 5:32 am
Location: melbourne, Australia

Post: # 9171Post survivor »

trumpet_is_cool wrote:
survivor wrote:The technology has been back-shelved (hidden) from us and we want it NOW! Search Tesla on the internet, the man has many inventions that go way back and have never seen the light of day.
Why should it be back-shelved if it works ?
..for the same reason the U.S.A invaded iraq. If all world governments were deadly serious about "global warming" / polluting the air etc etc then you'd think they would ATLEAST heavily rebate electric/hybrid vehicles for a start. But I'm guessing you're gonna disagree.
an act against {free will} is an act against nature
User avatar
trumpet_is_cool
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 6:59 pm
Location: Germany

Post: # 9177Post trumpet_is_cool »

survivor wrote:
trumpet_is_cool wrote:
survivor wrote:The technology has been back-shelved (hidden) from us and we want it NOW! Search Tesla on the internet, the man has many inventions that go way back and have never seen the light of day.
Why should it be back-shelved if it works ?
..for the same reason the U.S.A invaded iraq. If all world governments were deadly serious about "global warming" / polluting the air etc etc then you'd think they would ATLEAST heavily rebate electric/hybrid vehicles for a start. But I'm guessing you're gonna disagree.
Yes...The trouble with this topic is that economic follows the demand of the peoples, people wan`t fast cars, big cars, nice cars...So the manufacturers build them...

VW invented a 3l / 100 km Car...It was removed after approx. 2 Years from the market because only a minority bought the car. "global" warming is now a big topic in the news, so more and more people will look for a "cleaner" car. And also Goverments are seeing now the problem (They are also just Humans...And not ever the smartest...)

As for the US Invation: They (Goverment) see the problem of Peak-Oil and they are desperate to secure their oil-supply (no other country is so oil depend !) because they don`t have a alternative to it.

I would love to believe that all that "free energy" Devices would work, if they would work - They would be on the market because everyone want`s one.
survivor
Posts: 288
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 5:32 am
Location: melbourne, Australia

Post: # 9179Post survivor »

trumpet_is_cool wrote: Yes...The trouble with this topic is that economic follows the demand of the peoples, people wan`t fast cars, big cars, nice cars...So the manufacturers build them...
Yes we want to go faster, BUT that dosen't mean we can't go cleaner aswell, plenty of "clean" fast cars around if you have alot of spare cash.
trumpet_is_cool wrote: VW invented a 3l / 100 km Car...It was removed after approx. 2 Years from the market because only a minority bought the car. "global" warming is now a big topic in the news, so more and more people will look for a "cleaner" car. And also Goverments are seeing now the problem (They are also just Humans...And not ever the smartest...)
..but have much does/did this car cost? Most hybrid cars are expensive, if the governments are serious, they would offer SERIOUS rebates (don't avoid the issue Trumpet)

..and don't forget the electric car, view video link-->

http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?do ... &plindex=2

BTW, the electric car was invented more than 100 hundred yr's ago.

trumpet_is_cool wrote:As for the US Invation: They (Goverment) see the problem of Peak-Oil and they are desperate to secure their oil-supply (no other country is so oil depend !) because they don`t have a alternative to it.
You are seriously not that blind are you?
trumpet_is_cool wrote:I would love to believe that all that "free energy" Devices would work, if they would work - They would be on the market because everyone want`s one.
..there are patents Trumpet! Do some research or STOP playing it down!FFS!
an act against {free will} is an act against nature
User avatar
trumpet_is_cool
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 6:59 pm
Location: Germany

Post: # 9184Post trumpet_is_cool »

survivor wrote:
trumpet_is_cool wrote: VW invented a 3l / 100 km Car...It was removed after approx. 2 Years from the market because only a minority bought the car. "global" warming is now a big topic in the news, so more and more people will look for a "cleaner" car. And also Goverments are seeing now the problem (They are also just Humans...And not ever the smartest...)
..but have much does/did this car cost? Most hybrid cars are expensive, if the governments are serious, they would offer SERIOUS rebates (don't avoid the issue Trumpet)
The car wasn`t more expensive then other cars on the market.
From where should the goverments take the money ? You know how long it takes to change laws ?
..and don't forget the electric car, view video link-->

http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?do ... &plindex=2

BTW, the electric car was invented more than 100 hundred yr's ago.
Yes...It isn`t on the market because of :
- Limited Range
- Limited Power
- Expensive Construction
- Recharging difficult / takes too long

It simply looses out against oil !

By the way did you know that :
The construction of an average car consumes the energy equivalent of approximately 20 barrels of oil, which equates to 840 gallons, of oil. Ultimately, the construction of a car will consume an amount of fossil fuels equivalent to twice the car’s final weight.

The production of one gram of microchips consumes 630 grams of fossil fuels.

trumpet_is_cool wrote:As for the US Invation: They (Goverment) see the problem of Peak-Oil and they are desperate to secure their oil-supply (no other country is so oil depend !) because they don`t have a alternative to it.
You are seriously not that blind are you?
Obviously yes ! Please enlighten me....But...Please not a wacky conspiration theorie :roll:
trumpet_is_cool wrote:I would love to believe that all that "free energy" Devices would work, if they would work - They would be on the market because everyone want`s one.
..there are patents Trumpet! Do some research or STOP playing it down!FFS!
Again...Please tell me why they are not on the market if they work...I still wait for that answer.
survivor
Posts: 288
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 5:32 am
Location: melbourne, Australia

Post: # 9187Post survivor »

..around and around we go... ](*,) ...if your looking to suck energy, try someone else.
an act against {free will} is an act against nature
User avatar
Alisima
Posts: 485
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:01 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Post: # 9191Post Alisima »

trumpet_is_cool wrote:Please tell me why they are not on the market if they work...I still wait for that answer.
It is not so easy to mass produce something. Well, granted, the production itself may be easy, but you need to comply to all sorts of safety regulations, everybody has to be sure that the device won't explode when installed in someone's home. Today, with all the possible lawsuits, it is easy to see that you have to set up a lot of BS before you can sell anything.

This is assuming that everyone wants these devices to be mass produced in the first case. If I was selling energy and had all these huge energy plants, in need of constant maintanence, and someone would 'give' away free energy, my market would collapse. Generally money hunters don't like this. They like monopolies, nothing else.

Finally this whole free energy will probably propel us into an advanced technological future, it could quite easily FREE man from it's current constrains (physical, intellectual and spiritual). Which is something you don't want if you are the Master of the Puppets, i.e., the puppeteer.

Basically free energy goes against almost everything that the current Rulers of The World have in mind. It is diametrically opposite to their Master Plan. If you want to control the World, you don't give away free energy, it makes no sense. So, you see, these people are trying in all their might to stop the mass production of free energy devices.

P.S. the word 'free' in the concept of free energy is a bit misleading, as if the energy comes from nothing, totally ignoring the law of Conservation of Energy. It is simply that we can't see where it comes from, and that there is plenty of it (I heard one lightbulb of these aether energy can boil all the water in the world, it is that strong). Next to that you don't have to do much to generate it, you don't have to drill or something similar, it is quite easy. So, the easiness of it combined with the abundance of it leads us invariably to call it, free.
Don't read my signature.
User avatar
trumpet_is_cool
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 6:59 pm
Location: Germany

Post: # 9192Post trumpet_is_cool »

Hi Alisima,

thanks for answering my question !
My reply to your answer are my personal thoughts - My point of view.
Please understand that i really wish that such devices would exist, im not a foe of these technology.
Alisima wrote:It is not so easy to mass produce something. Well, granted, the production itself may be easy, but you need to comply to all sorts of safety regulations, everybody has to be sure that the device won't explode when installed in someone's home. Today, with all the possible lawsuits, it is easy to see that you have to set up a lot of BS before you can sell anything.
That`s right...but...Some free energy patents exist since 20+ Years, time enough to produce it.
This is assuming that everyone wants these devices to be mass produced in the first case. If I was selling energy and had all these huge energy plants, in need of constant maintanence, and someone would 'give' away free energy, my market would collapse. Generally money hunters don't like this. They like monopolies, nothing else.
Well...Once i thought the same...I have changed my mind because this make not much sense for me anymore. If above would be true then e.g. Photovoltaics and other alternate energy sources wouldn`t be on the market. This 'someone' might be an energycompany, BP sells now photovoltaic cells.
Finally this whole free energy will probably propel us into an advanced technological future, it could quite easily FREE man from it's current constrains (physical, intellectual and spiritual). Which is something you don't want if you are the Master of the Puppets, i.e., the puppeteer.

Basically free energy goes against almost everything that the current Rulers of The World have in mind. It is diametrically opposite to their Master Plan. If you want to control the World, you don't give away free energy, it makes no sense. So, you see, these people are trying in all their might to stop the mass production of free energy devices.
I don`t believe in conspiration theorys (in this scale), the rulers of the world struggle to find a solution for their energyproblems and they do their best to keep their worries away from the public so that the peoples stay calm....Money rules the world, free energy = less costs for energy = maximum benefit. It always depend on your point of view.
P.S. the word 'free' in the concept of free energy is a bit misleading, as if the energy comes from nothing, totally ignoring the law of Conservation of Energy. It is simply that we can't see where it comes from, and that there is plenty of it (I heard one lightbulb of these aether energy can boil all the water in the world, it is that strong). Next to that you don't have to do much to generate it, you don't have to drill or something similar, it is quite easy. So, the easiness of it combined with the abundance of it leads us invariably to call it, free.
Yep, sure...However i think there might be a risk in this energy, you don`t know from where it comes...What if this energy are souls ? Or if you dematerialise something somewhere in the universe if you use it ? What is the flipside of this coin ?

I can believe that there are free energy devices that work - But i wan`t to know and the available Informations of such devices are not enough for me, they are to vague and mostly connected with quite extreme topics like conspiration therories.If you are happy with the available Informations : Fine ;-)
Post Reply