 SR4 is too modern or near modern sometimes, futuristic consistency |
  |
 Feb 13 2007, 05:21 PM
Post
#51
|
|
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 941 Joined: 25-January 07 Member No.: 10,765  |
Spoilsport! :P
Those are all relatively minor engineering problems, and I think you are looking too hard for 'doom and gloom' senarios. Like the explosive car simply because of a dead battery? Seriously, if you don't like hydrogen, simply say so, don't go looking for problems that are fairly edge case and easy fix anyway. Thats like pointing out that if you crash your gasoline powered car and the gas leaks and volatizes off, a simple spark could cause an explosion! Oh NOES!!! Yes, you'll want lower temperture tolerences in gaskets and lubricants, yes cold (mildly stating it) liquid hydrogen would be hard on metal parts. However most ICE's disperse the liquid fuels into fine mists for ease of combustion, which in the case of hydrogen could be accomplished largely by allowing it to 'heat up' enough to begin returning to a gasseous state as it hits the cylinder, thus reducing the 'cold damage' to the engine. As for the effiency problem (four liters to one by your numbers)... big deal. Unlike crude oil, we have pleny of hydrogen available, and the process of burning it produces... what? What is it? Oh yeah. Water. Where we get our hydrogen from. Tragic that we have to burn so much of it to get the same energy output, really it is. I forsee a return of V-12 engines... :grinbig: |
 |
 
|
|
Feb 13 2007, 06:17 PM
Post
#52
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 238 Joined: 24-January 07 Member No.: 10,756 |
I think realistically the main problem with hydrogen currently is the cost of the cells and the supply infrastructure. By 2070 it's certainly reasonable that this would have been fixed, but to the folks looking to hydrogen for salvation currently, it's simply far too expensive to be practical. My dad is an enviromental engineer who worked with the testbed facility that california started a ways back, with a whole bunch of car companies, and at the time they were having serious problems with cutting costs on the fuel cells. Plus the amount of money that would have to be sunk into transporting and storing all the hydrogen is through the roof.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 13 2007, 06:25 PM
Post
#53
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 2-January 07 From: Los Angeles, CA Member No.: 10,510 |
Really? More than mining, refining, and distributing crude oil all across the world? Wow. I don't know all that much about it other than "smart people are working on this". I always assumed that the local mining and distribution of hydrogen through competitive firms in various countries would be a big plus in setting up the infrastructure. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 13 2007, 06:28 PM
Post
#54
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 941 Joined: 25-January 07 Member No.: 10,765 |
Work those hydrogen mines, baby! :D |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 13 2007, 06:41 PM
Post
#55
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 238 Joined: 24-January 07 Member No.: 10,756 |
The difference, Captain smartypants, is that the oil infrastructure is already in place, and has been developed over the past 100 years. The hydrogen infrastructure will be very expensize, like ANY infrastructure to distribute a volatile commodity that evaporates at room temperatures to every small town in the US, and eventually, the world. Yes, it can be done. It probably will eventually be cheaper. But if I tell you that I can save you a dollar a gallon on gas, but first I need a couple trillion dollars, most folks are going to keep paying a buck more for gas. While the political pressure to change is an undoubtable force on oil companies, it is not something that is going to happen quickly or cheaply.
Start up costs are a bitch. |
|
|
|
|
Feb 13 2007, 06:44 PM
Post
#56
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 2-January 07 From: Los Angeles, CA Member No.: 10,510 |
Heh. Okay, I've been doing a little more research on this. Very fascinating stuff. Apparently, there's quite a few different methods of storing hydrogen: freezing it is one proposed solution. The smaller, high-pressure stoage systems seem to have merit for SR even if they are inefficient by comparison. Apparently, the increased cost of hydrogen storage is based on the price of a Lithium engine, about 20 times the current cost of steel. If we can adjust the price of lithium, a hydrogen economy becomes a little more possible. Perhaps more companies get involved in its production? More sources of lithium are found/made? Materials better than lithium have been composited? I guess I have to study up on lithium now... (P.S. The concerns about the safety of hydrogen tanks seem to be a pretty valid concern, although I can't imagine this issue being at least partially sidestepped by either adjusting the hydrogen concentration or improving the material in which it is stored. In any case, one of my Golden Rules of Shadowrun is that profit comes before safety.) |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Feb 13 2007, 06:46 PM
Post
#57
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 2-January 07 From: Los Angeles, CA Member No.: 10,510 |
This is true, but it ignores the economic and entrepreneural factors involved. Many people with significant resources are LOOKING to create new infrastructures. Under this argument, the Matrix itself would never have been created. Either would the traffic grid. Startup costs now for future profits later is a basic fundamental law of corporate economics. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 13 2007, 06:52 PM
Post
#58
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 2-January 07 From: Los Angeles, CA Member No.: 10,510 |
Okay, so we need nuclear power plants to creat energy. We have that now. In the future, they will be better. But the problem is that the energy isn't always used so when the energy isn't needed, we reduce the output of the generators. We don't have a way of conviniently storing the energy. Batteries only take us so far. So we insert this hydrogen economy. Now, the unused electricity produced by the generator at full power is allocated to the production of some sort of hydrogen-concentrated chemical we'll call Fuel. This Fuel can be stored in Lithium Fuel Cells at a cost of about 20 times what steel engines cost today. I don't know how this works on the end-user's side. Does he have to install the new engine every time he refuels? Can some sort of transfer system be arranged, like tubes transfering gas at gas stations today? When hydrogen is used, the non-hydrogen waste products of the Fuel are left behind. If the Fuel was pure hydrogen then there would be no waste, but initial Fuel cells will likely only be partially hydrogen due to safety and transport concerns and technological limits. So the byproduct is this chemical without hydrogen. It will have to be taken to a Fuel Station. The collected Fuel Waste will be moved in large amounts from the Fuel Stations to the Power Generators, where the Waste will be recycled through a process requiring electricity to transform re-hyrdrogenate the Fuel Waste into usable Fuel. This Fuel can then be distributed to Fuel stations again. I could see this working... We need a material better than Lithium to build the engines and transportation techniques though. We have to assume that we have adequite nuclear power systems that produce a surplus of electricity that can match demand in both the electricity markets and the fuel markets. I imagine this means we need more power plants overall, perhaps created by multiple companies in cutthroat competition. And the question of what happens when a car crashes DOES need to be addressed, but I think it can be with a little thought and technological assumptions. I think Lithium replacement/improvement is the biggest concern for this hypothetical hydrogen economy to work (or at least have initial investment toward development). |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 13 2007, 06:57 PM
Post
#59
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 238 Joined: 24-January 07 Member No.: 10,756 |
Perhaps we're argueing about different things. I'm talking current day. You seem to be talking 2070. I'll willingly admit it's easily possible that hydrogen will be the way of the future by 2070. In fact, that was the second sentance of one of my posts. What I was actually talking about, however, is present day hurdles to switching en masse to hydrogen. And infrastructures are built the same way over and over, they start out in population centers, and expand over time as need balloons. They don't spring into being full size. Unless you can think of an example that I can't.
Also, a primary consideration that might temper investment in alternative fuel sources is the failure of the electric car. The EV-1 was an incredibly expensive project that bombed horribly. Everyone wants cleaner, but they don't want to give up horsepower, range, speed, or pay too much for it. It'll change. It's already starting to. But it's gonna take a bit. |
|
|
|
|
Feb 13 2007, 07:08 PM
Post
#60
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 2-January 07 From: Los Angeles, CA Member No.: 10,510 |
Oh. Sorry. I thought we were talking about whether or not to assume Shadowrun could have a hydrogen economy and what technical/social obstacles would exist. My mistake. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 13 2007, 07:14 PM
Post
#61
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 238 Joined: 24-January 07 Member No.: 10,756 |
Also, Cetiah, if we're talking far future power systems, microwave powersats might be a realistic source of clean power to fuel that hydrogen economy. The only real obstacle to them now, as I understand, is prohibitive costs for getting heavy powersats into orbit.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 13 2007, 07:18 PM
Post
#62
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 2-January 07 From: Los Angeles, CA Member No.: 10,510 |
I don't think microwave energy has much in the way of comparative economic advantages for large-scale power distribution. (I say this without having done much of the research yet on current progressin the field...) My money's still on Fusion. Edit: Okay, nevermind. I see what you're saying. A hydrogen economy would be vital, perhaps even necessary, if Microwave energy distribution was to be considered a viable economic investment. However, it still strikes me as a niche market. Improvements in fusion power will render it obsolete, and the fusion tech will be far more transportable if we decide to expand to other planets. Microwave energy transfer becomes a viable power source only at a certain point in our historical development. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 13 2007, 07:27 PM
Post
#63
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 238 Joined: 24-January 07 Member No.: 10,756 |
Fusion=good, if we can get it working. But I was thinking for the power needs of folks out in the boondocks. Thats where you want to put antenna farms anyways, so transmitting the power to farmer Joe(or Megacorp FarmInc) would give you less power loss from transmission than transmitting it all the way to cities. In my FutureLand™, there are a multitude of power souces, just cause it tickles my cool bone that way.
*EDIT* Well assuming Nuclear power, more microwave=less radioactive waste, although I'm sure in the future we'll switch over to lower waste producing reactors(such as pebble bed and heavy water, IIRC), but still, less waste = good, unless you're operating a breeder reactor to produce nukes. |
|
|
|
|
Feb 13 2007, 07:30 PM
Post
#64
|
|||
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
And at the end of the day, isn't that what's important? :) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 13 2007, 07:31 PM
Post
#65
|
|||||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 36 Joined: 21-December 06 Member No.: 10,417 |
It is called using a bunch a of magnets to accelerate the mass to escape velocity. Ahh... don't have to worry about nothing blowing up then. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Feb 13 2007, 07:31 PM
Post
#66
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 2-January 07 From: Los Angeles, CA Member No.: 10,510 |
Ultimately a hydrogen economy would provide the same function. Small, highly compressed, very heavy fuel cells could be installed in people's homes and provide power for years. It would be far easier to transport than the car-versions, with safety and weight being the main issues. Also, microwave isn't a power source. It's power distribution. It's fully compatible with the fusion reactors. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 13 2007, 07:33 PM
Post
#67
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 238 Joined: 24-January 07 Member No.: 10,756 |
I just got the giggles imagining small, highly compressed volitile gasses in most peoples homes and workplaces. Shadowrunner paradise, for sabotage ops.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 13 2007, 07:35 PM
Post
#68
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 2-January 07 From: Los Angeles, CA Member No.: 10,510 |
We essentially have the same situation today, replacing fission power plants with these "supercells". Edit: It's just worse. People would get used to it. I imagine they would be installed by professionals underground. Or they'd be small and hidden somewhere. Or built right into the walls. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 13 2007, 07:37 PM
Post
#69
|
|||
|
Genuine Artificial Intelligence Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 |
Fox news would have a field day with that one: "There's something in 20% of homes capable of exploding with enough force to level half a block. Is your house a ticking time bomb? Is your neighbors? More at 11:00." |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 13 2007, 07:37 PM
Post
#70
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 238 Joined: 24-January 07 Member No.: 10,756 |
Well, even reactors with lax security are very hard to sabotage, anymore. At least, they're not any more explosive than whatever you use to blow them up, unless you somehow manage to withdraw your control rods entirely, flash boiling your reactor pool.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 13 2007, 07:42 PM
Post
#71
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 584 Joined: 15-April 06 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 8,466 |
My whole point comes down to one question. Why would you develop hydrogen as a usable fuel instead of biodiesel? Biodiesel is renewable, provides as much energy as diesel, and works in diesel vehicles with minor modifications. Diesel engines have become quite clean over the years, and more reliable. Not to mention since militaries utilize diesel fuels, you can eliminate a large amount of the cost of refining end user fuel. One fuel for everyone, the distribution network is here, the technology is here. Of course it is not flashy and does not provide some political figures with a big flahy goal to distract the masses while more money gets pumped into companies for research that is expensive and won't provide real fruit for years.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 13 2007, 07:44 PM
Post
#72
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 2-January 07 From: Los Angeles, CA Member No.: 10,510 |
To be honest, I shouldn't have posted that. I edited my comments above. But yeah, there's nothing more dangerous about this than a shadowrunner actually physically carrying a tank of hydrogen somewhere and setting it on fire. So what if its already there? Plus, like we said, this is mostly an alternative for those people out in the boonies or who otherwise, for whatever reason, can't or won't be setup on the city powergrid. Plus, like I said, it's one of my Golden Rules of Shadowrun that profit is more important than safety. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 13 2007, 07:59 PM
Post
#73
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 745 Joined: 2-January 07 From: Los Angeles, CA Member No.: 10,510 |
Faelan, my suggestions are not incompatible with yours. But Biodiesel fuel is a power SOURCE, not just an improved method for power DISTRIBUTION like hydrogen. You can use biofuels to make hydrogen and recieve all of the benefits of a hydrogen economy... not just the ability to power cars with 60% less pollution. edit: removed comments regarding scarcity of biofuel. Apparently biofuel can be produced with solar power if you have large amounts of land and optimum environmental conditions. It does, however, seem that biodeisel is highly inefficient, requiring large quantities of land. Widespread use would require significantly more plants and animal fats than are available today. Essentially, we have the distribution infrastructure in place, but some work would need to be done to get the proper production infrastructure. (Not as much as with the other solutions proposed, however. There seems to be much speculation as to whether or not its even POSSIBLE for any given country to generate enough biofuel to power its country's vehicles.) edit: In regards to crackerjack's comment before, it could make a lot of sense for Future Land to have a variety of power sources, but its not necessary for energy distribution to be different for every power source. Hydrogen still seems like the best method of storing and distributing power. Or storing it, at any rate, even if you relied on a different distribution system. I could see competitive markets building up in all three areas. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Feb 13 2007, 08:12 PM
Post
#74
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 941 Joined: 25-January 07 Member No.: 10,765 |
The problem with biodiesel is not that it doesn't work, it's that in order to grow those crops, harvest them, process them and distribute all that biodiesel to the consumer you actually wind up spending more stored energy than you make. That is, we burn existing stored energy from petroleum products in excess of the energy we get from biodiesel.
There are other issues as well, particularly from a shadowrun angle (all that cropland now belongs primarily to the NAN... I'm certain THEY use biodiesel, but where do the runners in Seattle get it from?) Where biodiesel works is in recycling from non-fuel consumption. The food industry, say. Sadly, this does not provide anywhere near the required quantities of biomatter necessary to support an entire fuel infrastructure... |
|
|
|
|
Feb 13 2007, 08:14 PM
Post
#75
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,537 Joined: 27-August 06 From: Albuquerque NM Member No.: 9,234 |
It's called natural gas. You might have heard of this. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 11th December 2025 - 07:14 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.