StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I personally believe hydrogen power will be the future power source. I mean, it's incredibly efficient, runs off of the most abundant thing on Earth, and gives off water vapor for emissions. It's also nearing commercial viability.

Sienthal wrote:I personally believe hydrogen power will be the future power source. I mean, it's incredibly efficient, runs off of the most abundant thing on Earth, and gives off water vapor for emissions. It's also nearing commercial viability.

No. Hydrogen is a net-loss power generation technology. Due to unavoidable inefficiencies, you will burn more energy cracking water into hydrogen and oxygen than you will ever get burning it back into water.

Hydrogen is, at best, a glorified battery. It is not a legitimate power source.

Perhaps we should look to a more abundant fuel source, such as bullshit. If we can learn how to generate energy from bullshit, then Darkstar alone should power the entire continental United States, and the WCOTC forums could power the entire planet several times over.

, if bulshit worked, we'd have colonized the solar system and gone on, with the infinite supply and power of it.

However, the hydrogen actually works by sending an h2 molecule through a platinum catalyst, causing it to split the hydrogen atoms into hydrogen ions. The electrons released are then used for things such as powering a car. On the other side, o2 is also sent into the catalyst. This causes them to split into two separate atoms. They have a strong charge for the ions and the electrons. the h2 ion molecules combine, along with two of the electrons, to make a water molecule.

So then fuel cells are fake? lol

Hmm...Perhaps I should've added a few things to clarify...

But, according to the process provided, it works nicely, if a glorified battery like Wong said.

Advances have made it so that one the size of a small piece of luggage could power a car.

That said, though it is very efficient, it's not too pratical. Storage is non-existent, and a bit difficult. Unfortunately until that's addressed, it won't make too good of a power at the moment.

Then why is Wong disagreeing with hydrogen being the power source of the future and (I think) voted for nuclear power?

Because its not, except maybe as fusion. Hydrogen may be used to power cars for example, but the power to run said car is only stored in the hydrogen. The power itself must come from elsewhere.

IRG CommandoJoe wrote: Then why is Wong disagreeing with hydrogen being the power source of the future and (I think) voted for nuclear power?

For the same reason that a battery is not a legitimate power source: you had to charge it up from something. Similarly, you get hydrogen by cracking water, and that eats energy: more energy than you will get by burning it back into water, no matter how efficient your process is (it cannot possibly be more than 100% efficient).

Sienthal wrote:, if bulshit worked, we'd have colonized the solar system and gone on, with the infinite supply and power of it.

However, the hydrogen actually works by sending an h2 molecule through a platinum catalyst, causing it to split the hydrogen atoms into hydrogen ions. The electrons released are then used for things such as powering a car. On the other side, o2 is also sent into the catalyst. This causes them to split into two separate atoms. They have a strong charge for the ions and the electrons. the h2 ion molecules combine, along with two of the electrons, to make a water molecule.

The intermediate processes are irrelevant. The left-hand side of the equation holds (2H2 + O2). The right-hand side of the equation holds (2H2O + a quantity of energy). The quantity of energy is equal to the amount used to crack the water into hydrogen in the first place, which they will attempt to harness with <100% efficiency. No matter what process they use, we look at the LH side and the RH side to see what the energy yield is, and the useful energy yield is less than the energy requirement for cracking the hydrogen in the first place, hence "glorified battery".

Oh yes, of course. I just mean that it's better than something like oil in terms of efficiency. Though there is hydrogen is most things, liberating it would be a problem. I think I had something on how that problem was being solved, but I can't remember it. I see what you're getting at though.

This post meant for before he explained out the source-to-fuel-to-source again post.

Darth Wong wrote:

Sienthal wrote:I personally believe hydrogen power will be the future power source. I mean, it's incredibly efficient, runs off of the most abundant thing on Earth, and gives off water vapor for emissions. It's also nearing commercial viability.

No. Hydrogen is a net-loss power generation technology. Due to unavoidable inefficiencies, you will burn more energy cracking water into hydrogen and oxygen than you will ever get burning it back into water.

Hydrogen is, at best, a glorified battery. It is not a legitimate power source.

Perhaps we should look to a more abundant fuel source, such as bullshit. If we can learn how to generate energy from bullshit, then Darkstar alone should power the entire continental United States, and the WCOTC forums could power the entire planet several times over.

Logic/Anti Logic annihilation technology has already been patented, by me. I plan to fuel my intergalactic armada with an endless steam of GK clones

Suggested Powers Sources from Scott Adams

*Harness the stupiditiy of Indivduals

For example all gas-stations will be outfited with large treadmills connected to generators, In exchange for running on the treadmill for five mintues you get a free lottery ticket

*Varations on the treadmill idea with various other idiot things and getting them to run he also mentions though I will not inculded


Also having every President/Prime Minsitor ordering the popluas to march into the Sea, then spliting up the proccedes of those dumb enough to do this to help the ecnomney plus the big drop in power demand per year for the between 1-20 million people from each country that is no longer sitting on a couch with the AC going full-blast watching proffesional wrastiling

Excellent Skimmer...May the armada conquer!

hydrogen FUSION!!!!!

But seriously, dont all our energy consumption comes from fusion somewhere along the way? (except residue energy from big bang...but we don't use that do we?)

my bets are on fusion for most applications. specifically, an aneutronic reaction -- most likely H+B, which has no side reactions and produces charged particles almost exclusively (some x-rays etc) -- running in a perfected version of the Farnsworth-Hirsh Fusor. The Fusor is my favorite device for doing fusion, as it is the only such reactor system that amateurs can experiment with on a tight (less than $10k US) budget, in their closet.

We'll probably find more effecent, less polluting ways to burn fossil fuel, and then get more nuclear plants. Hydrogen may replace gas for car power, and there have been ideas of a solar plant in space that collects energy straight form the sun and sends it down to earth. Such a plant would be expensive, though.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:We'll probably find more effecent, less polluting ways to burn fossil fuel, and then get more nuclear plants. Hydrogen may replace gas for car power, and there have been ideas of a solar plant in space that collects energy straight form the sun and sends it down to earth. Such a plant would be expensive, though.

The startup costs for a space-based solar power station would be immense. You'd have to have cheap propulsion technologies in order to do it (getting the components up into space,) or cheap space-based manufacturing. Though actually getting the power to Earth would be fairly straightforward enough. (Large rectenna farms. With the appropriate frequencies, you can still use the land under the rectennas to grow plants and graze animals.)

Space-based solar would be an excellent long-term power source (the infrastructure could eventually be used to drive spaceships), but it's a pipe dream for the immediate future. So, for immediate power sources, we'll likely find new ways of extracting hydrocarbons to burn (nuclear power has the rabid idiocy of college-aged protestors working against it,) as well as ground-based solar (be it through solar panels, or wind generators . . . after all, a wind turbine is nothing more than a way of extracting energy from atmospheric turbulence induced by solar heating.)

As far as nuclear fusion is concerned. A) See the entry for "nuclear" above. B) I'll believe it when I see it.

I wonder how large the solar panel power plant would be.

Nuclear fusion hasn't yet hit "break even" point. All experiments with it have resulted in a net energy loss.

However, nuclear fission has the same problem over an extended period of time. It costs more time and energy for upkeep and maintenance in the long run for a fission plant than it saves.

I say we vote for Ralph Nader next time around and see what happens. Nader! NADER!!!

There is an experimental wind-turbine power generator on the site of the nuclear plant near where I live. It is usually turning when I pass it in the morning, so it must at least be some sort of success. I saw a program on the Discovery Channel awhile back that profiled how Denmark has made significant use of wind power (I don't recall the exact percentage, but it was fairly impressive). It would be nice if we could at least find a replacement for the filthy coal-fired plants...

I have an idea for a wind plant. We get some guy to eat baked beans all day, and keep farting, powering a turbine. But, he might sue for getting fat.

I say we should repeal the laws of physics. Then, we can produce all the power we want!

The profits they get from cheap labor would far outweigh the costs of giving him constant liposuction.

Durandal wrote:Nuclear fusion hasn't yet hit "break even" point. All experiments with it have resulted in a net energy loss.

However, nuclear fission has the same problem over an extended period of time. It costs more time and energy for upkeep and maintenance in the long run for a fission plant than it saves.

well, that puts the Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor a whole lot closer to success in my book, as amateurs are actually doing fusion to the same level as the multi-billion $ tokamak and Inertial Confinement guys, yet can do so in their own home workshops for the cost of a used car. right now, the best funded Fusor work is being done at the U of Illinois, and they ARE getting neutron counts -- using straight De+De -- in the same vicinity as most tokamaks, yet still are spending a lot less money to do it (fusors are managing to keep pace with the neut counts of tokamaks regardless of fuel, and can easily run on De+Tritium, but tritium is naturally radioactive, and heavily regulated)... Georgia Tech is considering starting up work with the device as well. The main problems with Fusors have to do with preventing grid losses -- fusors work using electrostatic forces, with 2 grids usually arranged as an inner and outer sphere. ions are accelerated by the electrostatic forces thru the gaps in the grids, but once E levels get high enough, they (the ions) start hitting the grids, heating them up and eventually causing material failure. These losses also are the principal cause of failure to run at the charge levels necessary to get anywhere near a self-sustaining reaction. If somebody manages to figure out a way to minimize or eliminate the grid losses, the fusor has it made. The Holy Grail however is to use aneutronic fuels in the fusor -- no neutrons, no waste products, no gradually turning the containment vessel radioactive... just charged particles that can be harvested for direct electricity, without need for turbines, thermocouples etc.

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:I wonder how large the solar panel power plant would be.

Very large. The Sun floods Earth with radiant energy on the order of 1013 watts per square meter. Current solar cells have an efficiency of about 40%. To build a 1 GW powerplant up in space, you'd need to build a solar array that is almost a mile on a side (1570 meters.) If you could kick up the efficiency to say, 60%, you'd still have an array of solar panels that would measure 1280 meters on a side. At extremely high efficiencies, such as 90%, you'd still have a solar powerplant that had 1.09 million square meters of solar cells. (A square about 1047 meters on a side.)