Is Quantum of Solace anti-technology?

[pokerfan]

From Candace Lombardi's Mechanical Engineering blog on cnet...

Worse yet, the film knocks hydrogen and hydrogen fuel cells as a viable alternative-energy source. While there are many things to consider in evaluating hydrogen as a potential alternative fuel, the manner in which this film does it is just plain silly.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17912_3-10098323-72.html">Is new Bond movie antitech?

[moggie]

1. And Bond films are usually so sober and accurate!

:sarcasm:

[amdezurik]

3. I was gonna ask

where is my jet-pack then dammit?

[lapfog_1]

2. Hydrogen is not a fuel source.

It is an energy transport material. Sort of like a battery or capacitor.

(at least on this planet)

[Idealism]

4. Doesn't BMW power whole cars, such as the 7 series, on Hydrogen models?

[pokerfan]

5. It's a fuel but as pointed out above, it must be manufactured

as most of the hydrogen on this planet is already bound up in chemical compounds. It does have the advantage of being green insofar as it doesn't produce CO₂.

[lapfog_1]

9. Uh no...

Most of the Hydrogen on earth is bound up in water (to be a bit more specific).

Extracting Hydrogen from water requires a great deal of electricity. Most electricity produced today emits a lot of CO2.

The other method of extracting Hydrogen is to use natural gas (hydrogen reformation), and that, too, produces a lot of CO2.

If we decide to produce electricity via non green house gas emitting technology, then why go to the effort to make hydrogen for a fuel cell which will produce... electricity. Simply store the electricity in some other form in the vehicle. Storing and transporting hydrogen has proven to be a fairly hard problem to solve ( ultra high pressure tanks, usually carbon fiber lined, valves and piping which suffer from hydrogen embrittlement. Then there are the costs and problems of the fuel cells themselves. Not to mention the hydrogen filling stations.


Why not simply store the electricity directly, via an ultra capacitor or next generation battery.

[Random_Australian]

11. A next generation battery? You mean like a hydrogen fuel cell?

:)

No really.

A) Extracting hydrogen from water takes a lot of electricity normally, and will always take a fair bit. But currently, a research is making that a lot less. (1)

B) "If we decide to produce electricity via non green house gas emitting technology, then why go to the effort to make hydrogen for a fuel cell which will produce... electricity"

Because we need to store the energy somehow. Solar cells and hydroelectric systems are not portable in quantities enough to power a car.

"Storing and transporting hydrogen has proven to be a fairly hard problem to solve ( ultra high pressure tanks"

Right, so we don't want to use tanks. If only someone else had thought "hmmmmm, let's not use hydrogen as a gas" (2)

C) "Why not simply store the electricity directly, via an ultra capacitor or next generation battery"

- Of the three ideas here (hydrogen fuel cell, advanced rechargeable lithium battery, capacitor of doom) the only two good options are the first two.

It's hard to recharge something like a lithium fuel cell, and hard to recharge a hydrogen fuel cell. You are right, however, when talking about hydrogen filling stations - they are a real problem for hydrogen storage. But really, the first of hydrogen or lithium to become commercially viable will probably be enough of a success to get whatever infrastructure change is needed, given what's going on with oil.

Note: I've only been talking about lithium batteries. Lithium is of a small enough size that it doesn't distort the framework too much when moving in and out. This is very important for purely solid batteries. (Determines how many times you can recharge it, among other things)

(1)"A review and recent developments in photocatalytic water-splitting using TiO2 for hydrogen production " Meng Nia, Michael K.H. Leung, Dennis Y.C. Leunga and K. Sumathy.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews Volume 11, Issue 3, April 2007, Pages 401-425

(2)"Hydrogen Storage in Microporous Metal-Organic Frameworks" Nathaniel L. Rosi, Juergen Eckert, Mohamed Eddaoudi, David T. Vodak, Jaheon Kim, Michael O'Keeffe, Omar M. Yaghi.
Science 16 May 2003:Vol. 300. no. 5622, pp. 1127 - 1129

[lapfog_1]

13. There is a great deal of energy loss

in converting water or natural gas into hydrogen, transporting and storing the hydrogen, and then converting the hydrogen back to water plus electricity via a fuel cell. There is much less loss in almost any other battery, including good old lead acid. Ultra capacitors, such as the EEstor design, are more efficient still AND have the advantage over lithium or lead acid batteries in that it is much faster to charge them and they weigh less. With the right cooling system you could, theoretically, charge your capacitor in minutes (3 or 4) with enough energy to drive 200 miles.

Another technology that is interesting is the Zinc-air battery. While not rechargeable, it is "replaceable" and relatively cheap and safe (the end product is energy+ zinc oxide (sunblock). The "used" battery is completely recyclable into a "new" battery.

The big problem with fuel cells is the use of hydrogen gas (storage, transport, management). Not to mention that energy density of current storage systems is inadequate. There has been a lot of research into storing the hydrogen in a solid or semisolid form which is convertible to gaseous form with a catalyst plus small amount of energy. So far, this hasn't really been proven.

In any event, we have been working on fuel cells for a very long time. Always it's been just around the corner. We have only recently (within the last 3 or 4 years) started looking at some of these other technologies.

I believe that some of them will bypass hydrogen fuel cells as being more sensible and practical as a intermediate energy storage technology for electric transportation (which I do believe will come to dominate the next generation of "around town" vehicles).

[Random_Australian]

15. Yes, the first reference was about reducing the conversion loss by a lot.

But here we strike the main reason why hydrogen is still a contender for the next fuel cell - the good old lead acid involves less loss, but it is not a viable power source for the car in terms of power to weight and the ability to recharge. The criteria that it needs to hold about as much power per weight (and in a similar volume) as petrol is a real bastard.


And yeah, ok. Ultracapacitors seem neat. And in complete honesty, if they get them working they'd be ok. (Well, unlikely to charge in 10 minutes, but still rather convenient)

They have a lot of problems though. I know some of them have been addressed but in complete honesty I am somewhat skeptical, and the problems (especially problems with the specific capacitance of the carbon-based particulate used on the layers of barium titanate, unless I've got myself mixed up) seem rather more intrinsic than the problems with lithium and hydrogen.

As for zinc, it takes about as many conversions as hydrogen. (And to me zinc oxide is associated more with solar cells than sunblock, as an aside, though I may have intercalated up to about 43% cobalt into it - not so environmentally friendly)

And maybe I wasn't typing clearly, but I could have sworn I specifically addressed "The big problem with fuel cells is the use of hydrogen gas" and "energy density of current storage systems is inadequate" last time. Well, maybe I didn't. But anyway, the point is, that is the aim of the current research with the microporous inorganic framework.

"In any event, we have been working on fuel cells for a very long time. Always it's been just around the corner. We have only recently (within the last 3 or 4 years) started looking at some of these other technologies."

Yah, I certainly agree that we've been looking at fuel cells for ages. I have two things against the rest of that paragraph, though.

1) Chemistry has only recently progressed to the point of being able to solve the problems with fuel cells. I wouldn't think that just because we haven't thus far, we never will.

2) The article I was reading about ultracapacitors (so that I wouldn't be speaking out of my arse) was a review article in a journal from the year 2000, talking about how far they had come with ulracapacitors. That's more than four years. :)

But in complete honesty, I am forced to agree with the very last thing you said - even if it is simply because so many alternatives are being investigated, it's more likely that something else will be our next fuel, not hydrogen.

[pokerfan]

12. I'm not exactly sure what you're objecting to

As I pointed, out most hydrogen is bound up in water (aka H₂O), a chemical compound which is why I share your skepticism that it will ever see much success as a transportation fuel.

[lapfog_1]

14. I should have said "To clarify" just in case someone didn't

know where the hydrogen is on earth (and the irony is that such a potential reader might actually be drinking a cold bottle of water while typing a response about where the hydrogen is stored).

If we get really crazy and start thinking very long term, it might well be possible to "mine" space for our free hydrogen. This would be a long time from now.

[pokerfan]

16. Well, I'm glad we got that cleared up

:)

Proponents of the hydrogen economy are always quick to point out that hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the universe. While that's true, it's not very helpful.

Speaking of water, I've always rather enjoyed the http://www.snopes.com/science/dhmo.asp">dhmo warning. Hell, we even use dhmo as a torture method.

[lapfog_1]

17. LOL

:rofl:

Sounds like a scientific paper should have been presented to the JOIR for publication.

(Journal of Irreproducible Results)

[DJ13]

6. When Q died the tech became second rate

[BootinUp]

8. lol nt

[MindPilot]

7. A DC-3 can't maneuver around mountains like that either

so I guess the movie is also anti-aviation?

And regarding the explosions...well, let's just say the author doesn't seem to grok the whole Bond experience.

Yes, I was disappointed by the lack of gadgets in this movie, and I miss "Q" as well, but let's not read between the lines where there are no lines.

And the real villain is the Enron-style greed, the guy behind the greed is no power-lusting super-enemy, but just a pathetic Bush-ears capitalist who despite having billions of dollars in his pocket would happily pimp his grandmother for another nickel.

Ha! I was going to edit that to "Bush-era capitalist" but I like it the way it is. :)

[On the Road]

10. Yes -- I Thought Bringing in the Impoundment of Water Was Interesting

The Bond people always seem to tie movies into current issues. You can almost tell what year a Bond was made by the references.