Hydrogen: More polluting than petroleum?

Watthours are different to Watts. You calculation is a little squiffy.

The Watt calculation you did is for one second of time, as Watts is a measure of joules/second.

Every second, assuming the output remains the same, the panels will generate that amount.

Watt hours are a measure of energy consumption over the course of an hour. 1 Watt hour is 3600 joules, 3600 also being the amount of seconds in an hour.

Yeah I realized that in working it up but does it make that big a difference?

For instance my microwave uses 1000watts. If it runs for one second, it uses 1000wattseconds. If it runs for an hour, it uses 1000watthours.

So 10% of Nevada would still just be capable of supplying 8,756,906,400watts per hour?

Or if not, then to reduce the US usage to wattseconds would be 281,000,000,000,000 / 3600 = 78,055,555,556. So if that's the case, it would be about the entire state of Nevada. That sound right?

>
been a very long day so I'm currently under the influence of a great amount of caffeine, alcohol, and sleeping pills in an attempt to become tired, so forgive me if my logic is totally whackola.


[edit on 4-4-2007 by apc]

I'm the same dude, thats why there was no math in my post It's currently 0420hrs and I still have 3 hours to go on my shift....

I'll let you carry on with the sums

Just to correct one thing an earlier poster stated... Hydrogen does not just randomly explode!!
I swear to any deity that will listen the single biggest boon for the oil industry to scare people away from hydrogen is a nearly 100 year old reel of film showing the hindenburg burning. As a matter of fact Gasoline is much more dangerous if ignited than hydrogen ever could be.

Hydrogen burns at a low temperature relativelly and is just plain not that dangerous even in the concentrations you'd be toting around in a car or home fuel cell.

Other than that I must say this thread has been extremelly disappointing. For the most part what I see is people making excuses as to why nothing but oil can be used to fuel our system.... And you know what?

They are absolutelly Right! What we need more even than alternate energy is a more sane outlook on how much in the way of energy resources each person thinks they need. It is more or less acknowledged that a major factor contributing to the energy crisis is how much energy we each use on a daily basis. To truly fix the problem we need to focus on making the most out of every watt we use no matter where the energy comes from.

Originally posted by shots

Originally posted by squiz
This story is an obvious attack on hydrogen, the headline Hydrogen:More polluting than petroleum is misleading. Yes the article does clarify that the PROCESS of extracting hydrogen is more polluting, not the hydrogen itself.

Well if it does clarify what is said then it is not really an attack is it?

You will find critics of any method fo making engery. I just read an article yesterday that indicated wind power was a treat to birds, which it is in some ways, so there are no lies or attacks when what they are saying does happen.

I had to reply, sorry but I do disagree, the general tone of the article is very negative, It does not mention that there are other ways to extract hydrogen and is dismissing it based on the method explained within.
The average person looking at this may regard hydrogen as being of no value, even though the article does state that the process is at fault, it certainly doesn't make that very clear as you can see from the earlier posts on this thread.

I do realize that you meant, Wind power was a threat to birds and not a "treat" but it did give me a laugh, not much of a treat to be blended by a turbine.

Sardion2000 said:
developing a panel that can withstand very high temperatures and then plaster a large portion of Mercury's surface to collect and convert massive amounts of solar light into a Beam that will then be collected by various means.

Stumason said:
Not to mention the fact that Mercury and earths orbits are entirely different. We'd need a relay array so that power could be beamed to earth all the time, otherwise we'd only have power when we had LOS to Mercury.

Now I have drawn a diagram that shows what you two have explained. I believe if we start developing our research towards these objectives, a system such as this may exist around 145 years from today. A very consciencous and meaningful thought to the future inhabitants of the plaent we will all have shared.

APC said:
So if that's the case, it would be about the entire state of Nevada. That sound right?

To this, I would advise there are thousands of square miles of desolate, and sun scorching land in UTAH, Nevada, California, New Mexico, Texas Arizona, as well plenty of land on Africa, Asia, (even Antarctica?) I am sure there is quite enough unproductive land of naturally undesirable living conditions to locate these fields. Systems which would use a fraction of the building materials hundreds of inflating urban centers across the globe use up annualy for growth.

You haven't looked into the cost of PV lately, have you? Plus, what about all the lizards living out there? If a few bugs can stop a mining project, I'm sure PETA would throw a fit over covering up millions of square miles of desert!

In actuality solar panels would not be the way to go. It's more efficient to collect the energy thermally. Utilization however would incur heavy losses.

I love the drawing by the way.

It's interesting to note that this Mercury power system would essentially elevate us to Stage I status on the Kardashev scale: the ability to harness all the energy available on an entire planet. Depends on how you interpret the scale I guess... would we have to harness all the energy available on our home world, or any planet nearby?

[edit on 5-4-2007 by apc]

Originally posted by squiz
It does not mention that there are other ways to extract hydrogen and is dismissing it based on the method explained within.

The article did mention other means of extracting it Nuclear, biological or chemical reactions. I can only assume you missed it , but it was there.

Here ya go this looks cool and according to the government it works and they are testing it noew

www.youtube.com...

Do not know how to enbed Youtubelinks or I would

[b[Shots, if you want to embed YouTube Videos, just copy the letter/number code that comes after the v= 'youtube.com/watch?v=6Rb_rDkwGnU', and put it between , except with []s instead of []s.

[edit on 4/5/2007 by iori_komei]

Originally posted by iori_komei
[b[Shots, if you want to embed YouTube Videos, just copy the letter/number code that comes after the v= 'youtube.com/watch?v=6Rb_rDkwGnU', and put it between

, except with []s instead of []s.

Thank you kind sir I thought that was how it worked but was not positivie but will do from now on thanks to you


Isn't that kool? Now lets hope it works as shown

Holy cow this guy lives in the Bay area. I got to give him a call and ask what its going to cost to convert my own vehicles, couldnt be more than a brand new car I say.

Originally posted by DYepes
Holy cow this guy lives in the Bay area. I got to give him a call and ask what its going to cost to convert my own vehicles, couldnt be more than a brand new car I say.

I would tend to think for patent reasons he will not say a word until the patent is in his hands

Also one model prototype costs normaly can run ten 20 30 times higher then production models nor does he mention if he will even offer conversion models.

Can you imagine the eye on all the Oil Excutives eyballs if they find out he can offer conversion kits for all cars on the road right now. ?????

Now there is a conspriacy in the making for sure. Oil companies file lawsuit against converstion kits (aks Safe low fuel consuming Tuckers)


[edit on 4/5/2007 by shots]