MIT Professor believes he can solve the world's energy problems with an Olympic Pool

Great vid. Thanks for sharing.

 

That's what she said.




But seriously, I'll get around to seeing this when I'm off the clock. Sounds appetizing.

 

Lunch break ftw.


So basically, he proposes the use of Hydrogen acquired through electrolysis. Same stuff I proposed 6 years ago in Chem.

Happen to agree 100%. Why are we not using the most abundant element (which, in our defense is also difficult to naturally acquire outside of splitting water) as a fuel? Then reversing the process to produce CLEAN water...

IMO we've got a better chance at harvesting Hydrogen than we do developing cold fusion.


Seemed obvious then; even more obvious now.

 

yeah, well, that's like, your opinion, man.

 

I have been blessed with many things in this life – an arm like a damn rocket, a c*ck like a burmese python, and the mind of a f*cking scientist.

...and I can already tell I'm not going to like you, so if anyone wants to pick on this guy... I ain't lookin'...

 

IMO b/c there have been economic interests, specifically the oil industry, that oppose it. And those interests have been able to direct (buy) govt. policy for the last 40 or 50 years.

 

Indeed. Am I alone in also thinking the Saudis would also make this guy go away should he be extremely successful?

 

they can't any longer. It's not possible, alternative energy is no longer able to be hidden.
And I'm a hydrogen kind of guy.........f your water.

 

They certainly would have the motive. But really our own govt. should have been looking for alternatives since the '70s. That was an obvious a wake up call but they just didn't want to change things. Too many lobbyists and special interests. Corporations now run our country and they put their short-term profit above what's best for the country. It was obvious that our dependance on oil made us vulnerable to our enemies. They should have approached it like the space race and made our independence a priority.

 

OK...I didn't get to watch the entire video, but from what I can tell this is no "break-thru".
I believe he said that this process only takes a "few volts"? Well, a few volts in will get you, at most, a few volts out - unless he's forgotten his laws of thermodynamics.

Even with a perfect catalyst this is going to be pretty useless. All he's doing is repackaging the whole "hydrogen is the future" spiel which is flawed because the technology hasn't been developed to meet the visions of the scientists that conceived it. A hydrogen fuel cell has not been made that could operate practically, and it may never be, let alone the problems of storing gases like O2 and especially H2.

And why bother using perfectly good electricity from a photovoltaic cell to make a chemical form of energy, just to convert back into water? Isn't that just a waste of energy?

The key is to make better solar cells. I think that would be much simpler than doing what this guy "thinks" he may one day accomplish.

 

Wha? You know you have to put energy into any chemical reaction right?

 

Iceland's doing Hydrogen. Just sayin'. Not a big country but still; not impossible.

 

They already have hydrogen stations. So its very possible. What marine is referring to, I think, is the fact that it isn't storeable in an economically feasible way at the moment.

 

Here it is. Found it

[video=youtube;U79CWDtdZOA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U79CWDtdZOA[/video]


Check out the "waste" byproducts.

 

I don't think you understood my post. Look at my "laws of thermodynamics" statement.

 

That, and the way this guy is getting it is a total WASTE of energy.

 

I'm not against the advancement of technology or the trails and experiments. I was mainly commenting on this guys belief that he's "solved the energy problems of the world". I understand that a person needs to use some hyperbole in order to gain funding, but he's just flat out lying.

 

I saw a really cool documentary on future car power sources. It had a really dorky guy as the narrator, but it covered some really cool stuff, and they visited Jay Leno's shop.

Anyway, at one point they were talking about hydrogen as an alternative energy. They pointed out that there are already hydrogen cars (as pointed out earlier), and they're on the streets in our country as well. Can't remember if it was Ford or GM, but someone is already testing them. Not sure if they were PURELY hydrogen...I think I remember seeing something about it getting 100+ MPG (which unless they're talking water, I'm assuming that vehicle uses gas as well).

ANYWAY, the point I was trying to make was on the storage aspect. One of the main worries the public has about Hydrogen is it's containment. The two big issues are the pressure, and the size of the tanks needed to reach current car output. The tanks at this point need to be like 70 gallons. They explained that the exploding tanks is really kind of a non-issue, and that's more of a PR problem than anything, but the tank size was an issue. They've had success putting carbon nano-rods in the tanks. The rods hold the nitrogen particales,a nd keep them from bouncing around, allowing us to put a lot more hydrogen in a smaller tank (with almost no pressure). The problem with nano-rods is their cost (thousands of dollars per tank). BUT they have had success making "fake" nano-rods from chicken and goose feathers. A professor is taking chicken and goose feathers and baking them. The result is strands of strong porous structures that act as nano-rods and accomplish the same thing. They contain the hydrogen, allowing us to compress it into a smaller tank with virtually no pressure.


Thought it was cool anyway.

 

I understood your post, my assumption is you are referring to you can not create or destroy energy........
And I still don't get your point. Every engine needs some force to start it off. You will always in a sense lose energy. What matters is the efficiency.

 

Yeah, the people who worry about a tank of hydrogen are the ones that don't realize that they are driving around with 15 gallons of a highly combustible liquid (gas) that in most cases is more dangerous than a tank of hydrogen would ever be.

 

Now this is embarrassing.

I usually post from work ( I know...I know) and sometimes I get called away mid-post and just try to hurry along. Anyhow, in my "digging" of this topic I too found this quote and I liked it so much that I was going to use it and I FAILED to cite it. I even thought I went further in that reply by adding my own thoughts and not just quoting this guy, but it looks like I didn;t even do that.

I can't believe I didn't catch this sooner. As you can see from any of my other posts, when I use another person's words I not only link it (when possible, and when not I list the author's name and credentials) but also put the author's words in italics.

Sorry about that...