Aircooled VW South Africa

Ron&Gill wrote:

BigBear wrote: Blablablabla
And then there is the environmental concern: It takes electricity to electrolyze hydrogen. Where to get it from... Well, obviously not from the alternator in the self same car, ag no , man, really, guys, think! No, it needs to come from somewhere else. If you don't have a petrol station with a pompjoggie with a BSc MechEng near you, then you would have to make it yourself. Apart from the rather expensive compressor you would need (a clean diving air one coz it has to be oil free otherwise ka-fakking-blueee-by-itself-ee!!) you also need an electrolysis cell. Nasty things those... filled with lye which drops holes in your duco, jeans, skin, eyes etc. But all that's OK, we still need to get to the energy balance.
electrolyze hydrogen
We all know it takes energy to convert energy from one form to another, so: electrical to chemical to thermal to kinetic, and lets say each process is 66% efficient (which is very realistic, by the way, and very generous), any numpty can very quickly see that it will take twice as much energy in as you get out. 33% x 3 conversions is almost 100% loss... (I know it doesn't quite calculate like that, but for this arguement, it's good enough.) So if electricity is half the cost by kW/hr as the same amount of BTU's of petrol or diesel, then you are indeed onto a cost saver. I suspect not, but let's carry on and say your noble goals transcend money, you are in fact, a tree hugger.

Not always a bad thing if you don't mind paying lots of scheckles to keep the air clean just for some oke driving past in a badly tuned ACVW to fak it all up again in a hurry, no, it's about setting an example... Well, in that case, there is some truth in this. But only if you get your hydrogen made from electricity generated by a nuclear power station, you will actually not contribute to the carbon emmissions while driving your car. Of course you should not breath either, let alone fart. Nor smoke either, but that's because you wouldn't live long enough to feel good and claim credit for being a tree hugger when the earth starts cooling down again. Whether a nuclear MW produces less CO2 than a fossil fuel MW in the bigger CO2 balance of things, eg Uranium enrichments plants, Uranium mines, spent fuel processing plants etc, is another issue.

You could of course electrolyze some hydrogen by wind or solar energy, but why bother, it would take a month to drive a minute. That's a matter of power density. The one factor that tree huggers alway forget about. Or better yet, get your hydrogen straight from the Nuke: radiolytic decomposition of the reactor coolant water results in the production of hydrogen. All you need is lead underjocks...

Hopefully this helps clear the air... (still feeling OK, JohnH? )

Imagine 100 000 little fuel-air bombs driving around the city in all kinds of conditions, patina-ed from POS to Rat-look. Fak-that.

karmakoma wrote:some very good points, but this one on Hydrogen power in SA context MOST RELEVANT methinks , and I qoute:

Imagine 100 000 little fuel-air bombs driving around the city in all kinds of conditions, patina-ed from POS to Rat-look. Fak-that.

BWAHAAAHAHAHA

Ron&Gill wrote:PM me your email address, I have it here somewhere, I'll look for it, but don't hold your breath, you don't know my intricate filing system I have here... It actually quite simple, you have thousands of folders all with meaningless names. It's all in there,... somewhere... and duplicated 28 times... and backed up.... etc etc.