GM Doesn't have enough cash to make it through a few months

[Timpo]

Originally Posted by Obama

The Volt is kind of pointless anyway, any of you guys seen the latest Top Gear. Hydrogen fuel cell is really the best thing going. Jay and James nail the point home later in the episode and it makes perfect sense.

The biggest problem is there is no hydrogen station other than California.
Unless the government is willing to build one.

Honda sells one already in California. http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/
*edit* ok looks like you can only lease one.

[projectcivic]

I believe there is a hydrogen station in Vancouver as well. But i think thats the biggest obsticle against hydrogen cars at this point.

[Victoria SiR]

That would come in time. propane was the same way when it started. That is really not the issue.

[!LittleDragon]

Is there any method yet to produce hydrogen that doesn't create more greenhouse gasses than just burning petrol? With petrol, the pollution comes from the car... with hydrogen and electric cars, the pollution comes from producing the hydrogen or electricity.

[Great68]

Originally Posted by !LittleDragon

Is there any method yet to produce hydrogen that doesn't create more greenhouse gasses than just burning petrol? With petrol, the pollution comes from the car... with hydrogen and electric cars, the pollution comes from producing the hydrogen or electricity.

The big deal is efficiency.

Internal combustion engines are terribly inefficient (20-30%), meaning 70% of the pollution created did no useful work.

[Victoria SiR]

Originally Posted by !LittleDragon

Is there any method yet to produce hydrogen that doesn't create more greenhouse gasses than just burning petrol? With petrol, the pollution comes from the car... with hydrogen and electric cars, the pollution comes from producing the hydrogen or electricity.

To be honest, who gives a fuck.

They'll get there eventually, all this hair splitting over this and that can go for eons, shit why not calculate the "Carbon Footprint" For building a gas plant, or for the machinery that did the construction. While we are at it, we better calculate the environmental impact producing the lunch that the field worker ate last Wednesday.

Fuck off with that.

The point of this isn't solely the environment. Yeah its a huge second, but the main reason is we are gonna run out of oil eventually.

[Fastam]

I disagree on Hydrogen. Its too hard to produce in the volume we need, i don't think it will ever be able to replace oil.

The way IMO is E85 type fuels , however we need to explore methods other then inefficient corn. Hemp and Algae look very promissing.

[Victoria SiR]

Have you looked at how much we'd need to grow in order to produce the fuel needed.

Hydrogen will happen.

[oldskoolz24]

Originally Posted by Fastam

I disagree on Hydrogen. Its too hard to produce in the volume we need, i don't think it will ever be able to replace oil.

The way IMO is E85 type fuels , however we need to explore methods other then inefficient corn. Hemp and Algae look very promissing.

In Brazil, their ethanol fuel is derived from sugar cane, which they can grow quickly and in mass quantities and has something like twice the energy of corn based fuels

[Fleemer]

Originally Posted by oldskoolz24

In Brazil, their ethanol fuel is derived from sugar cane, which they can grow quickly and in mass quantities and has something like twice the energy of corn based fuels

you talking about butanol?

I did a little bit a research on butonal and its extreamly similar to gas. SO much so that you can pump it straight it without mods.

I think i read somewhere that it costs about 1.28$ a litre to produce butanol and the US says thats impossible or something. Also some are skeptical that it even exists.

I think thats why the gas is so cheap as they are trying to be cheaper and prolong the discovery/implementation of other fuel sources.

[!LittleDragon]

Isn't there like at least 1.7 trillion barrels in Alberta? That's enough to last the world a VERY long time... it'll be hideously expensive when it gets more and more difficult to extract tho.

[Fastam]

Originally Posted by Obama

Have you looked at how much we'd need to grow in order to produce the fuel needed.

Hydrogen will happen.

http://www.culturechange.org/hydrogen.htm

Some how i don't see Hydrogen working.

The basic problem of hydrogen fuel cells is that the second law of thermodynamics dictates that we will always have to expend more energy deriving the hydrogen than we will receive from the usage of that hydrogen. The common misconception is that hydrogen fuel cells are an alternative energy source when they are not.

In reality, hydrogen fuel cells are a storage battery for energy derived from other sources. In a fuel cell, hydrogen and oxygen are fed to the anode and cathode, respectively, of each cell. Electrons stripped from the hydrogen produce direct current electricity which can be used in a DC electric motor or converted to alternating current.

Because of the second law of thermodynamics, hydrogen fuel cells will always have a bad EROEI. If fossil fuels are used to generate the hydrogen, either through the Methane-Steam method or through Electrolysis of Water, there will be no advantage over using the fossil fuels directly. The use of hydrogen as an intermediate form of energy storage is justified only when there is some reason for not using the primary source directly. For this reason, a hydrogen-based economy must depend on large-scale development of nuclear power or solar electricity.

And then we have these possiblites.
http://gas2.org/2008/01/13/gm-announ...green-ethanol/
http://www.hemphasis.net/Fuel-Energy/fuel.htm

Not sure if these numbers are correct , but if they are, it wouldn't take much land to grow enough hemp.

Hemp is at least four times richer in biomass/cellulose potential than its nearest rivals: cornstalks, sugarcane, kenaf, trees, etc.

Hemp produces the most biomass of any crop, which is why it is the natural choice for an energy crop. Hemp converts the sun's energy into cellulose faster than any other plant, through photosynthesis. Hemp can produce 10 tons of biomass per acre every four months. Enough energy could be produced on 6% of the land in the U.S. to provide enough energy for our entire country (cars, heat homes, electricity, industry) -- and we use 25% of the world's energy.

To put which in perspective, right now we pay farmers not to grow on 6% (around 90 million acres) of the farming land, while another 500 million acres of marginal farmland lies fallow. This land could be used to grow hemp as an energy crop.

[Lomac]

Originally Posted by oldskoolz24

In Brazil, their ethanol fuel is derived from sugar cane, which they can grow quickly and in mass quantities and has something like twice the energy of corn based fuels

Yup. However, Brazil is also razing a large portion of their usable farmland in order to grow these sugar canes. In order to supply a country like the USA, you'd be looking at such a large amount of land needed to grow the sugarcane that we will be looking elsewhere for our vegetables and fruit.

[Fleemer]

vertical farms people, think vertical. :P

[aspect]

Originally Posted by Fastam

Some how i don't see Hydrogen working.

The basic problem of hydrogen fuel cells is that the second law of thermodynamics dictates that we will always have to expend more energy deriving the hydrogen than we will receive from the usage of that hydrogen. The common misconception is that hydrogen fuel cells are an alternative energy source when they are not.

In reality, hydrogen fuel cells are a storage battery for energy derived from other sources. In a fuel cell, hydrogen and oxygen are fed to the anode and cathode, respectively, of each cell. Electrons stripped from the hydrogen produce direct current electricity which can be used in a DC electric motor or converted to alternating current.

Because of the second law of thermodynamics, hydrogen fuel cells will always have a bad EROEI. If fossil fuels are used to generate the hydrogen, either through the Methane-Steam method or through Electrolysis of Water, there will be no advantage over using the fossil fuels directly. The use of hydrogen as an intermediate form of energy storage is justified only when there is some reason for not using the primary source directly. For this reason, a hydrogen-based economy must depend on large-scale development of nuclear power or solar electricity.

Yes, fuel cells have a "bad" return on energy because they obey the laws of physics. Good argument. The guy that wrote that quote obviously has no idea why fuel cells are even used. Of course it's just a storage medium...one that's more efficient than batteries.

First of all, a hydrogen fuel cell car has a very similar level of efficiency to a standard electric car. Instead of sending the energy over a line and then storing it in a battery, it's stored in the hydrogen and transported. What's the point? You don't need thousands of battery cells that weigh down the car, require manufacturing in the first place, and will eventually need to be replaced. Batteries also get less efficient each time you recharge them.

Second, burning fossil fuels in a large scale utility generator and then producing liquid hydrogen is way, way, WAY more efficient than burning gasoline in thousands of tiny car engines. You think a 50MW natural gas plant has the same percentage of heat energy loss as a car engine? Yes, of course there are losses in transferring that energy through the hydrogen process and in the fuel cell, but it's nowhere close to the massive amount of waste you get with internal combustion piston motors.

Besides, in many places (like BC for example), the electricity available on the grid which would be used to produce hydrogen is only partially generated using fossil fuels and is otherwise generated by hydroelectric etc.

[Nightwalker]

Originally Posted by Fleemer

you talking about butanol?

I did a little bit a research on butonal and its extreamly similar to gas. SO much so that you can pump it straight it without mods.

I think i read somewhere that it costs about 1.28$ a litre to produce butanol and the US says thats impossible or something. Also some are skeptical that it even exists.

I think thats why the gas is so cheap as they are trying to be cheaper and prolong the discovery/implementation of other fuel sources.

Nope, this is about ethanol. Brazil punked the world on this since they jumped on it during the oil crisis in the 70s (due to having 80% of their oil being imported and getting bent over when the prices skyrocketed). In that time, they've reduced production costs to about 22 cents usd per liter of ethanol and have zero dependence on foreign oil (they are projecting a net export for 2009). Having the second largest proven oil reserves in South America just after Venezuela doesn't hurt on that part though, it's not like they don't still use oil.

It's pretty awesome seeing what they've done though. They burn bagasse (the leftover tissue from the sugar cane stalks) to power the production facilities too.

There's a wiki page on it that has a ton of great info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil

[Victoria SiR]

Originally Posted by aspect

Yes, fuel cells have a "bad" return on energy because they obey the laws of physics. Good argument. The guy that wrote that quote obviously has no idea why fuel cells are even used. Of course it's just a storage medium...one that's more efficient than batteries.

First of all, a hydrogen fuel cell car has a very similar level of efficiency to a standard electric car. Instead of sending the energy over a line and then storing it in a battery, it's stored in the hydrogen and transported. What's the point? You don't need thousands of battery cells that weigh down the car, require manufacturing in the first place, and will eventually need to be replaced. Batteries also get less efficient each time you recharge them.

Second, burning fossil fuels in a large scale utility generator and then producing liquid hydrogen is way, way, WAY more efficient than burning gasoline in thousands of tiny car engines. You think a 50MW natural gas plant has the same percentage of heat energy loss as a car engine? Yes, of course there are losses in transferring that energy through the hydrogen process and in the fuel cell, but it's nowhere close to the massive amount of waste you get with internal combustion piston motors.

Besides, in many places (like BC for example), the electricity available on the grid which would be used to produce hydrogen is only partially generated using fossil fuels and is otherwise generated by hydroelectric etc.

Exactly.

I think you need to look at whats been going on with hydrogen and Honda Terrence instead of just grabbing articles and posting shit off Google.. GM is just behind as usual.

[Type R]

GM is far from behind, the hydrogen Equinox has been on the road and running since 05, and driven by Leonardo DiCaprio. GM and Ford palled up with Mercedes to fund Ballard who runs fuel cell bus's in Vancouver, and thats been running since 99 I believe.

[Fastam]

Originally Posted by aspect

Yes, fuel cells have a "bad" return on energy because they obey the laws of physics. Good argument. The guy that wrote that quote obviously has no idea why fuel cells are even used. Of course it's just a storage medium...one that's more efficient than batteries.

First of all, a hydrogen fuel cell car has a very similar level of efficiency to a standard electric car. Instead of sending the energy over a line and then storing it in a battery, it's stored in the hydrogen and transported. What's the point? You don't need thousands of battery cells that weigh down the car, require manufacturing in the first place, and will eventually need to be replaced. Batteries also get less efficient each time you recharge them.

Second, burning fossil fuels in a large scale utility generator and then producing liquid hydrogen is way, way, WAY more efficient than burning gasoline in thousands of tiny car engines. You think a 50MW natural gas plant has the same percentage of heat energy loss as a car engine? Yes, of course there are losses in transferring that energy through the hydrogen process and in the fuel cell, but it's nowhere close to the massive amount of waste you get with internal combustion piston motors.

Besides, in many places (like BC for example), the electricity available on the grid which would be used to produce hydrogen is only partially generated using fossil fuels and is otherwise generated by hydroelectric etc.

I think you missed the point. Clearly using fossil fuel based hydrogen production is more efficient then millions of gasoline engines.

The point is outside of BC (since we have mostly hydro power) The majority of the world still uses Coal Fired plants. We would still be tied to non-renewable fuel sources. A crop like hemp would provide a renewable source ,and start a whole new farming economy.

[Fastam]

Originally Posted by Type R

GM is far from behind, the hydrogen Equinox has been on the road and running since 05, and driven by Leonardo DiCaprio. GM and Ford palled up with Mercedes to fund Ballard who runs fuel cell bus's in Vancouver, and thats been running since 99 I believe.

Exactly GM has always been on the forefront of fuel cell delevopment.

http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/gm-electrovan.htm

They even have a fuel cell version of the volt
http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/chevy-volt-hydrogen.htm

[Great68]

I can't see farmed energy ever being a replacement for fossil fuels.

You need:

1) Lots of space
2) Time to grow the crop
3) Farm equipment
4) Fertilizers and chemicals - A lot of which are petrochemical based
5) Lots of labour to farm it.

All of that is WAY more expensive than sticking a pipe in the ground and pumping out oil.

[Victoria SiR]

Originally Posted by Type R

GM is far from behind, the hydrogen Equinox has been on the road and running since 05, and driven by Leonardo DiCaprio. GM and Ford palled up with Mercedes to fund Ballard who runs fuel cell bus's in Vancouver, and thats been running since 99 I believe.

That right there illustrates the point precisely as to why GM has missed the fucking boat AGAIN. Its like their V8's that have a hamster wheel of an electric motor and then that makes it a hybrid. They don't take it seriously.

An Equinox... are you fucking kidding me? How about a car that EVERYONE could use as a commuter like what Honda just did. Instead of a huge ass SUV. You wonder why they fail as a business.

Also who gives a shit what DiCaprio drives. He has three Prius's (Priuii?) too.

[Type R]

Originally Posted by Obama

That right there illustrates the point precisely as to why GM has missed the fucking boat AGAIN. Its like their V8's that have a hamster wheel of an electric motor and then that makes it a hybrid. They don't take it seriously.

An Equinox... are you fucking kidding me? How about a car that EVERYONE could use as a commuter like what Honda just did. Instead of a huge ass SUV. You wonder why they fail as a business.

Also who gives a shit what DiCaprio drives. He has three Prius's (Priuii?) too.

Do you actually think before type? Here are the facts:

There are presently 700 Hybrid city buses (GM-Allison) running in Canada & US, and 1000 worldwide. They save an estimated 5.3 million litres of fuel a year. Putting hybrids in larger vehicles makes perfect sense (and everyone can use them).

GM is focusing on larger vehicles for its Hybrid system because they are sold almost as much as cars in our market. Truck sales are a big business, and a big expense to customers when it comes to their fuel bills. Having a full size truck or SUV that can get 30mpg does help the urban family or contractor, and its easier to soak up the added expense in the sticker price of a pickup then a prius.

Read my earlier arguments about the added cost of Hybrids (eg honda/toyota) and how they help (or don't) the average person. This is a good plan on GM's part, and the Volt is the next step in many things to come.

Hybrids excel in high mileage situations, much like diesels. Anything under 20k a year just isn't cost affective in most cases.

[Fastam]

Originally Posted by Great68

I can't see farmed energy ever being a replacement for fossil fuels.

You need:

1) Lots of space
2) Time to grow the crop
3) Farm equipment
4) Fertilizers and chemicals - A lot of which are petrochemical based
5) Lots of labour to farm it.

All of that is WAY more expensive than sticking a pipe in the ground and pumping out oil.

Hemp can be harvested 4 times a year. It grows anywhere, and does not require much to grow.

Most of the petrochemicals currently used can also be made of hemp seed oil.

[Nightwalker]

Originally Posted by Great68

I can't see farmed energy ever being a replacement for fossil fuels.

You need:

1) Lots of space
2) Time to grow the crop
3) Farm equipment
4) Fertilizers and chemicals - A lot of which are petrochemical based
5) Lots of labour to farm it.

All of that is WAY more expensive than sticking a pipe in the ground and pumping out oil.

Look at the oil sands. You may have been right in the 60s but as prices increase, more and more methods of production are cost effective.