Slashdot Mirror


Hydrogen Vehicle Generates Its Own Fuel

An anonymous reader writes "Our friends at The Arizona Republic have the scoop: 'The truck is hydrogen-powered and creates its own fuel from solar energy and water, a technical feat that rivals the advanced technology being researched by major auto companies and universities. The four-cylinder engine is tuned to run on hydrogen, which is produced by a hand-built electrolysis system mounted in the bed.' You can also help this project."

35 of 662 comments (clear)

  1. It's near performance already by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Although the truck performs as planned, it's more of a demonstration project than a practical vehicle. The four solar panels and hydrogen-generating system create only enough fuel per day to travel a few miles.

    And it's not going to go any farther. On an average day, you're lucky to receive about 200 watts/m2 of sun power. The rest of the energy (about 1.3kw/m2) is lost to diffusion and blockage by the atmosphere.

    We've discussed this before on Slashdot, and it has been felt that Sun power could be a great "fuel saver" idea for hydrogen cars. But moving something the size of a modern car is going to require more energy than you can collect from sunlight. (IIRC, ~2 kw to cruise and 10kw to accelerate a small car.)

    That being said, I applaud their efforts in the direction of alternative energy sources. Hydrogen is simply not as powerful as petroleum products, but it's pretty close. Concepts like creating fuel with a built-in electrolyzer could be the key to making hydrogen cars seem just as powerful and efficient as petroleum vehicles.

    Now if they wanted to prove that hydrogen fill stations could use large Solar Power arrays to power their electrolyzer, then I'm with them all the way. :-)

    1. Re:It's near performance already by officepotato · · Score: 5, Interesting

      For someone that lives in a tightly-knit community, and only drives a few miles to work and school each day, this seems like it could really be a "free fuel" solution though. Expecially with the switchable conventional gas system for longer trips.

    2. Re:It's near performance already by carlos_benj · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Our average day here in the Phoenix area is a little better than the average elsewhere. Still not enough to make this practical for now. If this is the same guy I talked to a few years ago, he's building a hydrogen "refinery" and they're looking into all kinds of ways of generating hydrogen for automotive use.

      He had a hard time getting his truck to pass emissions at first since the exhaust was so much cleaner than the air around the test station. The machine just said he registered "off the scale". Finally got a waiver from the state.

      --

      --

      As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.

    3. Re:It's near performance already by Fred_A · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It seems to me that someone who lives in a tightly knit community and only drives a few miles to work and school should invest in a bicycle.

      Much cleaner.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    4. Re:It's near performance already by TykeClone · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I live near work and walk most of the time, but there are instances when it is handy to drive because I'm planning on carrying around more than what would be easy to carry.

      There are cases where a commuter vehicle like this would make sense.

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    5. Re:It's near performance already by justanyone · · Score: 5, Funny

      Bicycles are NOT cleaner. WARNING: SATIRE ALERT! SATIRE ALERT!

      The power from bicycles comes from humans eating food and producing poop. The food production takes an unbelievably large amount of energy intensive fossil fuel burning machinery to produce, and quite a bit of value-add from packaging, marketing, etc. (grin).

      Likewise, the 'CLEAN ENERGY' aspect of this ignores POOP. Humans that bicycle would use more energy and create more Poop. This would in turn create proportionately more feces, which would have to be processed in an energy intensive sewage treatment plant.

      Manufacturing the bicycles, paving for the roads suitably, etc. is very inefficient and Anti-Green (shall we say RED?). The most GREEN thing we can do is stop emitting greenhouse gasses ("farts"), poop ("feces"), and consuming valuable resources by eating things. I recommend all humans should hold their breath until they die and save the planet.

      SATIRE ALERT! The above is Satire. Any correspondence between this and a valid opinion would be in the direct opposite direction, ideologically speaking.

    6. Re:It's near performance already by azaris · · Score: 4, Informative

      It seems to me that someone who lives in a tightly knit community and only drives a few miles to work and school should invest in a bicycle.

      Except if the tightly knit community is located in a geographical area that gets snow for four months of the year, at which point cycling to work/school every day gets to be at best inconvenient if not downright dangerous for a good time of the year.

    7. Re:It's near performance already by bfields · · Score: 4, Informative
      Except if the tightly knit community is located in a geographical area that gets snow for four months of the year, at which point cycling to work/school every day gets to be at best inconvenient if not downright dangerous for a good time of the year.

      Nah, it's not that bad. People in northern climes ride year round too. Good sites for ideas include icebike and bikewinter. Also I wrote up some suggestions on riding in winter.

      Where I live in Michigan it's pretty easy as the streets usually get cleared early on all but a few of the worst days, so it's not really the ice and snow as just a matter of dressing right for the weather. (Main points: protect extremities, but don't dress *too* warm, since you'll warm up as you exercise.)

      --Bruce Fields

    8. Re:It's near performance already by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Informative

      No matter how many ways I try to parse your post, you're not making any sense. Allow me to explain:

      The energy used by the car for propulsion is the energy already stored in the water.

      No, it's stored in the hydrogen. The water is "pre-burned" hydrogen and oxygen. At a perfect conversion rate, it takes exactly as much energy to convert water to hydrogen and oxygen as you get from making hydrogen and oxygen into water.

      In other words, you add energy to the system and it gets stored in a fuel form. The energy doesn't already exist in the system.

      The energy from the solar panels is not the limiting factor.

      Eh? Let's say we get 200 watts/m^2 of sunlight. The solar panels are only going to be ~20% efficient. That brings us down to 40 watts of energy. The electrolyzer is probably about 50% efficient, bringing our final storage rate to ~20 joules per second. That works out to about 72 kilojoules per hour. Which at a "mere" 2kw of constant use would provide exactly 36 seconds of driving time. (Actually less due to further inefficiencies.)

      They'd actually get more power by storing the solar power in batteries, then using an electric drive. The only trick is that batteries tend not to be as energy dense as hydrogen.

      Now, it might be true that even at perfect efficiency, you'll never get enough hydrogen from the water using solar power, but that's a different calculation that what you're doing.

      What calculation am I doing? Energy is energy, and power is power. You've only got so much of it in a system, so you have to make the most of it.

    9. Re:It's near performance already by evilpenguin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The 200w/sq. m is based on monocrystalline silicon PV. This is the cheapest but also almost the least efficient PV solution because the actual absorption is in the indirect bandgap energy of silicon.

      There are thin-film PV solutions with much higher efficiencies (and much higher costs, and much higher toxicity involved in production). But there is also research going on on other semiconductor materials the hold out promise of high efficiency at fairly low cost. (I don't think we'll ever make thin films where there aren't some danged scary chemicals involved.)

      Even so, your point is well made. Insolation is such that even if you could acheive 100% PV efficiency, you would still only have about 2kW/sq. meter.

      Any realistic ground-based fuel production will require large arrays of PV. You'll need a lot of area to power your car.

      But there are plenty of people powering their homes entirely off PV (entirely is a bit of stretch -- they use Propane or other combustion for a lot, including, often, for refrigeration).

      People also have entirely solar charged electric cars, but again, they require a fairly large of field of PV panels. The real advantage here is that the efficiency of hydrogen as the energy storage is much greater than the efficiency of chemical batteries.

      And, oh yeah, there are 100% solar powered cars right now that run on what they generate at the moment. But these are the cars in the American Solar Challenge which are a long way from practical household commuter cars.

      But we have barely begun to put resources and research and capital into energy alternatives. I have always said that it wouldn't begin until oil prices went way up. I'm not even sure that we'll a lot of progress now. But I'm quite confident that the stability and price of oil will not steadily increase anymore. We're already seeing wind power become a fairly significant energy source. PV will follow. I think it will become common for homes to have grid-intertied solar power systems.

      Alternative fuel cars are coming. Hybrids are just a first step. I don't know which technology will catch on, fuel cells or hydrogen combustion, but I'd bet we'll see petrochemical powered vehicles in the minority in my lifetime.
      (I'm in my late 30's).

    10. Re:It's near performance already by Xaroth · · Score: 5, Funny

      I recommend all humans should hold their breath until they die and save the planet.

      I could not agree more! Save the planet! Kill yourself!

      http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/

    11. Re:It's near performance already by sl3xd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You don't seem to get the point: You can't electrolyze that much hydrogen from the sun; or more accurately, from the amount you would be able to get from the surface area of the vehicle. It would require the vehicle, sitting in the sun for DAYS to be able to generate enough hydrogen to go a few miles to work.

      Hydrogen powered cars aren't that new of an idea, really -- it's simply a case of the percieved 'safety' of having hydrogen in a vehicle. Most people remember something about the Hindenberg exploding, and know it was filled with hydrogen. Nevermind the blimp was coated with aluminum oxide -- one of the oxidizers in the Shuttle's Rocket Boosters, and a key ingredient for Thermite. So there is this irrational 'fear' of hydrogen when compared to gasoline. That irrational fear is one of the largest hurdles to hydrogen powered cars. The other is getting the hydrogen (solar power->hydrogen is much less cost effective than wind turbine->hydrogen.)

      A far more practical idea is to have a regular fuel tank holding Hydrogen, and then have your home covered with solar cells to convert water to hydrogen (and oxygen). Even BETTER is to have gas stations that provide Hydrogen, and use electrical sources like wind to provide energy for electolysis. (This is the idea that most engineers are following. Photovoltaic->Hydrogen generation is simply too inefficient, and MUCH more expensive.)

      The electrolyzing equipment (as well as photovoltaics, etc.) adds unnecessary weight, bulk, and complexity to the vehicle, greatly reducing the efficiency and reliability of the vehicle.

      It's sorta like the Unix mantra: Lots of little tools that are very good at their single job -- not a huge app that combines them all. You don't want to put unnecessary equipment on the car -- putting the fuel generating source ON the vehicle makes about as much sense as putting a machine shop inside the vehicle. Sure, you can make replacement parts 'on the spot', but it sure is a waste when you're driving.

      Believe it or not, this is also true when driving the vehicle with electrolyzing equipment onboard -- the amount of H2 it generates at any given moment is inconsequential to the amount burned. It's certainly not enough to extend the operating time by more than a few seconds on the average daily commute.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    12. Re:It's near performance already by daviddennis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What's the point of being so rude to this nice fellow?

      The odds are pretty good that in a town of 600, there aren't two people who want to go to exactly the same place at the same time. And as long as that's the case, a bus or carpool simply won't work.

      I'm in a large urban area and there STILL aren't two people who do anywhere near the exact same commute as I do. And often I want to shop or run errands on the way to work and back. Carpools don't work well if you like flexibility.

      You can be as anti-car as you want, I suppose, but it in terms of time, it's still by far the most efficient way to go around. And if you can eliminate the ecological impact of driving, why not do it instead of wasting away your life at bus stops or waiting to be picked up or dropped off?

      D

      PS Note that traffic congestion is not a problem in a rural community of 600. It's not a problem in Los Angeles, either, if you simply live close to where you work, as I do. I have a trouble-free 10 minute commute.

  2. Conflict of interest? by SIGALRM · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Built for less than $10,000, the project has caught the attention of experts in alternative-fuel research
    I find it curious that the commercial fuel/automotive manufacturing sector can't (or maybe won't) make significant, transparent headway in the arena of alternative fuels and vehicles. No conflict of interest, is there? Couldn't be that they already have made advancements, but have kept their R&D under wraps.</sarcasm>

    Recycling fuel is anathema to the petroleum industry--BP commercials ("it's a start") aside.
    --
    Sigs cause cancer.
    1. Re:Conflict of interest? by antifoidulus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, one caveat of private research, you only hear about their successes, never their failures. For instance, for a university, a truck that goes a few miles is quite an accomplishment, but could you imagine the PR disaster if Ford unveiling something like this?
      Not saying you are wrong, I agree that private sector research and development has lagged for a long time(well, ever since the term ROI became a buzzword really, everyone is focused on short term) but I don't think it's fair to say they are doing nothing, they just don't publicize as much as universities do.

    2. Re:Conflict of interest? by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "I find it curious that the commercial fuel/automotive manufacturing sector can't (or maybe won't) make significant, transparent headway in the arena of alternative fuels and vehicles."

      That is because it is hard. Liquid fossil fuels do have a lot of advantages over every alternative fuel so far.
      1. Cost. It is a lot cheaper than any of the alternative right now.
      2. Power to weight. It beats the daylights out of batteries. Try and build a car that will go 200+ miles on a charge. It is easy to with gasoline.
      3. Density. You can pack more energy in a smaller volume than Hydrogen, Natural Gas, or Propane.
      4. Ease of use. It is a lot quicker to just fill your tank than to charge an electric car. It is a lot simpler to pump gas into your tank than to refuel a tank of Hydrogen.
      5. Infrastructure. When is the last time you say a hydrogen station?

      Bio DieselD is the best alternative fuel right now but then you have the moral issue of is it right to use that land for fuel instead of feeding people?
      Frankly the first car company that makes a car that does not use fossil fuel but works as well as gas car they will make a mint.
      The idea that all the auto makers in the world are including Japan "Japan has to import 100% of its fuel" are keeping a workable alternative powered care a secret is well into the realm of the tin foil hat crowd.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    3. Re:Conflict of interest? by plover · · Score: 4, Insightful
      It really bothers me to find people believing that the car companies aren't already researching this already. For example, Daimler-Benz (now Daimler-Chrysler) has been working on a hydrogen powered fuel cell car for over 10 years. I'm going to focus my argument on fuel cells because I'm most familiar with that topic, but most of the argument remains true regardless of the technology that the alternative fuel drives.

      Daimler's first fuel cell vehicle started as basically a large mobile laboratory in the back of a panel van (even larger than this school's truck.) They then installed one in a bus, and another in a minivan, and they now have one in a car the size of a Cooper Mini.

      The problem isn't getting a vehicle like this on the road. The problem isn't even getting a fleet of them deployed to a single commercial customer (like a bus transit line.) The problems they're encountering now is scaling the entire transportation system so that Joe Sixpack can afford to buy one, drive it home, and fill it up every week.

      The most efficient fuel for fuel cell (electric) cars is raw hydrogen. Compressed hydrogen would require an entire new infrastructure to deliver, and would be probably the most hazardous product ever sold to consumers. Liquid hydrogen would be even worse, because of the dangers inherent in delivering tanks of products at 3 degrees Kelvin. So, because of the fuel delivery problems one of the first compromises they had to make was to figure out how to fuel these vehicles with easily delivered, stable-at-room-temperature liquids, instead of compressed gasses. That took time and research. The next problem is that the catalyst required to crack the liquids into raw hydrogen is based on rare precious metals like platinum. Besides taking enough metal to make these engines prohibitively expensive, there simply isn't enough of it on earth to build the number of vehicles that a big car maker like Chevrolet builds every year. So, they've had to experiment with different ways to get the liquid fuels cracked into the base hydrogen.

      The vehicle these kids built only cost $10,000, but much of the expense (solar panels) was donated. And it still won't scale, because the solar panels are already operating at something like 30% of their theoretical output. Making a vehicle go from 3 miles per day to 10 miles per day still isn't going to sell.

      And despite the best conspiracy theorists determinations, it is far and away in the best interests of a car company to be the first to market selling a truly revolutionary fueled car. Think about what would happen to Ford's stock price if they announced a "sunlight and water powered car" were available. It would truly be a license to print money. The petroleum companies could offer no bribe in the world big enough to slow down a cash cow of that magnitude.

      --
      John
  3. i want one! by Narcocide · · Score: 4, Funny

    can i get mine with hoverlift?

  4. Text of project description page by greg_barton · · Score: 5, Informative

    From http://centralphysics.com/discuss.htm before it was slashdotted...

    History

    Since the Mid 1990's Central High School in Phoenix has been involved in Alternative Fuel Vehicles. Originally the club was called "The Electric Vehicle Club" and we built and raced an electric car. Over the last 10 years our interests have broadened to many areas of environmental technologies and thus we are now the E-tech Club.

    During the 2000-2001 school year, Senior Laci Blackford, president of our club (then the electric vehicle club) proposed that we design and build a hydrogen vehicle. Laci began research and some electrolysis design that year. Over the next 3 years several students were involved, but it was club president Soroush Farzin who, with Sponsor Mr. Waxman, coordinated the progress and turned Laci's idea into reality!

    This project, to make a cleaner transportation vehicle, was motivated by the threats to our health and environment due to automobile-related pollutants. The hypothesis was that a vehicle can be powered by water and sunlight. The ultimate goal of this four-year project was to design and build a vehicle powered by hydrogen, which is generated on the vehicle from water and sunlight. The basic components of this include electrolysis cells, solar panels, a hydrogen purifying system and a storage system, all of which are mounted on a vehicle with an internal combustion engine that has been modified to run on hydrogen.

    In fall 2001, we began by building a 5-watt solar-hydrogen unit and researching many safety issues associated with this technology. During the 2002-2003 school year, a 4-cell solar-hydrogen producing unit with over 320 watts of power and a purifying system were built.

    In school year 2003-2004 an entirely new electrolysis unit was assembled, various components such as float valves were designed, built and tested. A storage system was also designed and tested. Ultimately, a 1998 Chevy S-10 pickup truck was purchase and modified to run on hydrogen. The solar-hydrogen system was mounted on the truck and the first vehicle in the world to run on sunlight and water was working.

    Conclusion

    Solar-Hydrogen Transportation Vehicle was motivated by threats to our health and environment. It was planned to build a self-sufficient vehicle that was powered by a renewable source of energy, hydrogen. This three-year project proved that a vehicle can be engineered so that it is capable of creating its own fuel by using water and sunlight, which are literally free.

    This project proves that it is possible for a vehicle to produce its own fuel from sunlight and water. A Solar-Hydrogen Producing Unit has been made, which is capable of producing, purifying, pressurizing and storing hydrogen. Also, a vehicle has been converted to run on hydrogen, which is capable of doing whatever a regular vehicle can do. This project gathered known technologies and put them together to make a new field of technology.

    The members of this project understand that this vehicle is not the ultimate solution to conventional gasoline-powered cars, but if it is shown that a car can run on water and sunlight, improvements may eventually lead to a practical alternative to fossil fuel powered vehicles.

    The first air plane flew a few feet before it landed. Today, airplanes fly between continents. This is the example the club has kept in mind throughout the whole project.

    Note: Soroush has moved onto studying mechanical engineering at Arizona State University and is interested in high performance engines. Laci is in her final year of her undergraduate program in mechanical engineering at Cooper Union College in New York City. She has continued her research in hydrogen production as well as storage in metal hydrides.

  5. Whoop! Whoop! Whoop! by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Funny
    The truck is hydrogen-powered and creates its own fuel from solar energy and water

    National Security Risk in Sector 14

    "Come along with us sir"
    "What have I done?!?!?"
    "You're charged with subverting US foreign policy, energy policy and corrupting minors. President Cheney is most displeased."

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  6. Why convert electricity to H by drgonzo59 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Doesn't it make sense to just run a small electric motor with, wich would make the vehicle weigh much less. I guess this would work only if they plan this to be an add-on modules to the already existing hydrogen cars.

  7. Hydrogen to Methane Converter? by justanyone · · Score: 5, Interesting


    It seems to me the thing we need is a hydrogen to methane (natural gas) converter.

    The widely acknowledged problem with hydrogen is the storage density stinks. The tank is too big and too pressurized for safety, size, and weight concerns.

    This vehicle, and many other applications, would be well suited to having a hydrogen to methane converter. Many existing fleets use natural gas in their ONLY SLIGHTLY MODIFIED internal combustion engines.

    Methane is CH4, a fairly simple molecule; could we come up with a carbon source to use here? Ethane is C2H6, etc.

    Likewise, there are Nitrogen compounds to use. Can someone in chemical engineering comment on the possiblities here of creating more energy-dense storage using some kind of catalyst and raw H or H2 hydrogen?

  8. Not hydrogen powered by rumblin'rabbit · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This is not a hydrogen-powered truck - it's a solar-powered truck. The hydrogen is just a way of internally storing and transmitting the energy.

    Presumably they could also have used batteries and an electric motor rather than hydrogen and an engine.

    I only bring this up because I find it annoying when people refer to hydrogen as an energy source.

  9. No performance comparison to batteries by Engineer-Poet · · Score: 5, Informative
    And it makes you wonder. When you've got a very limited amount of power input, you want to get it to your load (the axle) as efficiently as possible. Is electrolysis and an internal-combustion engine even remotely competitive with batteries for that purpose?

    From what I've seen, the answer is no (electrolyzer @ ~70%, engine @ 25%, overall efficiency ~18%; batteries ~70%). It appears that you could get 4x as much range out of a solar-battery system, even more than you can get out of an electrolysis/fuel cell cycle.

  10. Well... by BigChigger · · Score: 5, Funny

    it still uses water. That's as scarce as gas in Arizona.

    BC

  11. Mod parent up read below by Brigadier · · Score: 4, Informative



    Going directly from electricity to mechanical energy is much more effcient that using electricity to liberate hydrogen, then using the chemical energy from the hydrogen to creat mechanical energy. in the latter process a significant amount of energy is lost to heat and a very mechanically in-effcient system (52% See link below.) also solar panels are only about 22% effecient as is. So all in all this makes a cool science experiment for the kids but it isn't proactical by any means.

    http://ecen.com/content/eee7/motoref.htm
    http:/ /www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/ Power/2-how-efficient-are-solar-panels.html

  12. Duh! the answer is obvious by 955301 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just have a group of other cars follow it around with mirrors pointing more light on the solar panels.

    Problem solved.

    --
    You are checking your backups, aren't you?
  13. I LOVE this from their faq: by Sebby · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Q: Have You Patented This Idea?

    Answer: NO. First of all, the idea of building a solar-hydrogen internal combustion vehicle is neither new or original. As far as we know, nobody has built one before this since the production rate of hydrogen is so low. Secondly, one of our main goals is to promote this technology, and contribute to this field without putting any restrictions on others.

    --

    AC comments get piped to /dev/null
  14. Dying isn't green by nathan+s · · Score: 5, Funny

    Decomposition releases all sorts of gases, possibly methane and carbon dioxide, although I'm not a biologist.

    Obviously then, dying isn't green. And since you suggested it, I can tell that you're an evil RED spy masquerading as a GREEN supporter.:-)

  15. Ok, It's Satire, But.. by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Interesting

    On an average weekend I ride over 100 miles on a bicycle, averaging about 20 mph. The amount of food and water required for these rides is actually very minimal and close to what I normally consume. My metabolism doesn't just store unneeded energy and make me bloated, it's just chucks it (it's called Inefficient Metabolism) so however much you normally eat, if you don't store it, you waste anyway for whatever level of activity you engage in which may be limited to sitting on a chair all weekend fine tuning your drivers, playing d00m 3, or hitting Reload.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Ok, It's Satire, But.. by hankwang · · Score: 5, Informative
      On an average weekend I ride over 100 miles on a bicycle, averaging about 20 mph. The amount of food and water required for these rides is actually very minimal and close to what I normally consume.

      At that kind of speed (pretty impressive, unless you're doing that in a flock), your muscles deliver 200 W to the bicycle, which is about 800 W in terms of burned food. For those 100 miles, that is 14 MJ, equivalent to 0.9 kg carbohydrates, or 0.4 kg of fat/oil. A normal daily consumption for an inactive adult male is around 10 MJ. I strongly doubt that your inefficient metabolism is converting 14 MJ per non-weekend day into heat. It is more likely that you use your body fat (a couple of kg) and the glycogen storage in the muscles and liver (up to 700 g carbohydrates for a trained athlete). The rest of the week you replenish your fuel stock.

      My experience is that I feel too tired to be hungry after a single day of cycling, which seems to agree with your observation. However, during a cycling holiday (3 weeks, 5-7 h per day) I surely eat massive amounts.

      Anyway, fat and gasoline have about the same energy content, so a fast cyclist does 400 km per liter (1000 miles per gallon). Which is quite efficient compared to a car.

    2. Re:Ok, It's Satire, But.. by hankwang · · Score: 4, Informative
      Where did you get your information though?

      You know, when you spend many hours on the bike while on quiet roads, you have things to think about. :)

      200 W for cycling 32 km/h: my own measurements (measure deceleration as soon as you stop pedaling, combine with mass and velocity to obtain dissipated power), and an equation from a book about bicycle training (Dutch, forgot the title): P=4v+0.2v^3 (P in watts and v in m/s), which applies to racing bikes with lean athletes sitting on them.

      Efficiency of the human body in converting food to energy: sitting on a computer-controlled stationary bike in a gym that says how many calories I burn per hour and how much power I deliver. That turns out to be a factor 4. Agrees roughly with what I've seen in tables (1 hour of cycling takes so-and-so many calories) in comparison with the previous point.

      Glycogen storage: 300 g to 700 g depending on physical condition and activity/food intake during the past days, from aforementioned book.

      Cycling holidays: personal experience. Food intake is usually between 18 and 24 MJ (4500-6000 kcal) per day.

      Energy content of carbohydrates and fat: doesn't everybody know those? 18 MJ/kg and 35 MJ/kg. Fat is mostly hydrocarbons, as is gasoline. The small fraction of glycerol in fat won't make a big difference.

  16. Look at the numbers on this by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative
    A few miles per day? That sounds about right. Must be on the flat.

    They say they have four solar panels. Suppose they're Shell Solar SP150 units. Four of those would about cover a truck. You'd get about 600 watts in bright sunlight, about a tenth of what they need to move the truck at all. They might get 5KWH per day, or 18 MJ, if they're lucky. One gallon of gasoline is about 100 MJ. So they're getting no more than 1/5 of a gallon of gas equivalent per day.

    With batteries, you'd get about 80% of that energy out of storage. Electrolyzing hydrogen and then burning it is less efficient. Probably a lot less efficient.

    They're pushing a pickup truck around, so they'd get maybe 15-20MPG. So it looks like they can drive maybe two miles on the flat on a good day.

    Of course, if you park it all week, you can go maybe ten miles on the weekend.

    With super-light cars and ultra-expensive gallium arsenide photocells, things look better. But no way is putting some solar panels in a pickup truck ever going to accomplish much. The energy just isn't there.

  17. WTH With The Complaints! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    OMFG people!

    Have you built a car that runs on sunlight and water?

    How far did the first airplane fly?

    Are you saying this proof of concept is impractical?

    Congratulations CHS kids!

  18. Re:The Ice Age by pclminion · · Score: 4, Informative
    Widespread use of solar would reflect some sunlight, and capture the rest, rather than having it absorbed into the ground. This would, at a certain scale, cool the earth--less enegy being converted to heat.

    No. Thermodynamics. All energy eventually ends up as heat. Unless you intend to permanently store the collected energy, it will eventually end up as heat again. We just had the opportunity to do something useful with it before that happened.

    Now, let's look at the total energy available from the sun, and compare that to what we use. The earth's radius is 6378 kilometers. Its cross sectional area is therefore 127,800,491 square kilometers. Assuming a solar constant of 1370 watts per square meter, this means that, on average, 175,086 terawatts of solar energy fall on the Earth's surface.

    In comparison, the current rate of power consumption by humans (and this includes gasoline and other fuels, not just electric consumption) is about 5.5 terawatts.

    Thus, we are only using about 1 part in 32,000 of the available power at the surface of the earth. If we produced the entire 5.5 terawatts using solar energy, we would have to intercept 1/32,000 of the incoming solar radiation -- in other words, we would change the Earth's albedo by 0.003%. Now, given the fact that solar panels are only about 25% efficient, we must multiply by 4. So, ultimately, we change the albedo by 0.012%.

    The albedo of Earth fluctuates by much more than 0.012% due to natural causes. Thus, any affect we would have on the solar energy balance at the surface of the Earth would be indistinguishable from natural random variations.

    In short, we don't have jack to worry about.