patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,364,350 comments by 15,735 users - The_Deplorable online now
Electric carmaker Fisker files for bankruptcy
2013 Nov 25, 3:06am 1,837 views 29 comments
by zzyzzx follow (9)
Comments 1 - 29 of 29 Search these comments
What is the purpose of posting this? So a company goes bankrupt. Big whoop. Lots of companies do so all the time. Tesla just so happens to be very successful and hence no reason to mention them in an unrelated article.
zzyzzx
@
2013 Nov 25, 3:51am
What is the purpose of posting this? So a company goes bankrupt. Big whoop. Lots of companies do so all the time. Tesla just so happens to be very successful and hence no reason to mention them in an unrelated article.
Article seems to blame everything except the obvious competition.
Tesla is next.
Why? They're selling every car they make, demand is huge, their stock is up, and they have new products on the way.
John Bailo
@
2013 Nov 25, 5:16am
Hyundai To Sell Hydrogen-Powered SUV In 2014
http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2013/11/23/hyundai-to-sell-hydrogen-powered-suv-in-2014/
Tenpoundbass
@
2013 Nov 25, 5:29am
Why does every thing Obama touch erupt into an out of control fireball, that leaves a crowd of rabid whores cackling and singing his praises of "can do no wrong"?
hydrogen is a sort of dumb fuel source: It will always take twice as much energy to produce hydrogen. Hence it is totally inefficient.
Yep. Your article doesn't really prove anything other than hydrogen can be created from many sources, such as solar, water power, wind, and so on. In Any of those cases, it will always take twice as much incoming power- regardless of that source- to create hydrogen fuel. Twice as much energy will have to be used in order to generate half as much hydrogen. In the end, it will never make sense to exert more energy to create less energy.
New Renter
@
2013 Nov 25, 7:12am
It will always take twice as much energy to produce hydrogen
Just how much stock in this crap DID you buy anyway?
New Renter
@
2013 Nov 25, 7:13am
hydrogen is a sort of dumb fuel source: It will always take twice as much energy to produce hydrogen. Hence it is totally inefficient.
Hydrogen is not a fuel source, its an energy carrier.
Big difference!
Hydrogen is not a fuel source, its an energy carrier.
Big difference!
... which more or less proves what I said above: You HAVE to USE more energy to MAKE hydrogen and hence why it is a poor choice of fuel.
I'm starting a company that makes electric lamps that imitate the sun rays so you can place the lamps on your roof to shine on your solar panels on cloudy days.
I need government funding to build a giant scoop, pointed towards the direction of the the earth's movement around the sun. The scoop will scoop "down" hydrogen from the space. LOL.
The space-resistance that such a scoop causes will also lower earth's orbit and bring the planet closer to the sun, so as to reduce everyone's winter heating bills and make solar panels more effective. Ya all shall vote for my funding.
New Renter
@
2013 Nov 25, 9:32am
Hydrogen is not a fuel source, its an energy carrier.
Big difference!
... which more or less proves what I said above: You HAVE to USE more energy to MAKE hydrogen and hence why it is a poor choice of fuel.
Unless you have a perpetual motion machine of course...
zzyzzx
@
2013 Nov 25, 10:12pm
... which more or less proves what I said above: You HAVE to USE more energy to MAKE hydrogen and hence why it is a poor choice of fuel.
While true, I don't think that's the point. I think the point is substituting domestic produced hydrogen for imported oil would be a huge economic boos for the US. You can always use the cheaper off peak electric power to make the hydrogen. You know, since windmills still work at night, etc.
While true, I don't think that's the point. I think the point is substituting domestic produced hydrogen for imported oil would be a huge economic boos for the US. You can always use the cheaper off peak electric power to make the hydrogen. You know, since windmills still work at night, etc.
This is about simple arithmetic. So let's imagine that you have $2 in your pocket. Now let's say that there is a sale and you have two choices of things to buy. Either you can buy $2 worth of sugar for $2 or you can buy $2 worth of sugar for $4. Which would you choose?
It makes zero sense to spend twice as much money to get half of the goods that could otherwise be bought for half that amount. Likewise it makes no sense to have to exert twice as much energy to get half of the energy output.
Well, energy from windmill at night etc. has to be stored somehow. Energy storage (i.e. conversion to chemical form) is expensive. Chemicals batteries often only gives back 50% or less after charging and discharging paired conversion, not to mention gradual loss during storage. Solar energy to biodiesel is less than 10% (i.e. more than 90% loss). The main limitation of hydrogen fuel is storage and transportation safety.
zzyzzx
@
2013 Nov 26, 12:33am
This is about simple arithmetic. So let's imagine that you have $2 in your pocket. Now let's say that there is a sale and you have two choices of things to buy. Either you can buy $2 worth of sugar for $2 or you can buy $2 worth of sugar for $4. Which would you choose?
It makes zero sense to spend twice as much money to get half of the goods that could otherwise be bought for half that amount. Likewise it makes no sense to have to exert twice as much energy to get half of the energy output.
Possibly so, since I have no idea how much it costs to distill water (presumably that's how they are making the hydrogen) but I was saying that instead of intentionally throttling back on windmills at times one could make hydrogen instead as a way to use up any excess electricity. It would be a way to store electricity made at night and used as fuel for vehicles. Now if one were making hydrogen with electricity purchased during peak times, of course it might be too expensive. One also has to consider how much energy is used in refining oil for comparison purposes (and yes they use a ton of energy as well).
Most hydrogen produced in the world has been from dissociating methane (CH4), the main content of natural gas. It's much cheaper to do than dissociating water, at least for industrial scale production. Down the road, it's possible to dissociate water at the focus point of a solar light concentrator, which is cheap as far as fuel requirement is concerned but one has to grind through the capital cost analysis to figure out which solution is less expensive.
Yes, if you just want a little hydrogen and oxygen at home or garage lab, electrolysis dissociating water has the lowest initial capital cost.
New Renter
@
2013 Nov 26, 12:50am
Well, energy from windmill at night etc. has to be stored somehow. Energy storage (i.e. conversion to chemical form) is expensive. Chemicals batteries often only gives back 50% or less after charging and discharging paired conversion, not to mention gradual loss during storage. Solar energy to biodiesel is less than 10% (i.e. more than 90% loss). The main limitation of hydrogen fuel is storage and transportation safety.
Again pumped-storage hydroelectricity is an excellent way to store enormous amounts of energy efficiently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity
(Note, the 70-85% efficiencies mentioned account of water losses due to evaporation but neglect to possibility of water ADDITION to the top reservoir in the form of rain.)
Pumped-storage hydroelectricity has been used for over 100 years. If coupled with an aqueduct this technology can also serve double duty to transport the water over high points. Simply build the aqueduct with a reservoir (lake) at the high point, fill it at night and drain it during the day on the other side.
Land too flat? Perhaps an aquifer may offer a solution:
There seems to be a disconnect here. Yes- hydrogen can be produced via a number of different means- whether it be wind, solar, hydroelectric, or whatever. But even so, it still takes twice as much power generating input from those sources to make half as much hydrogen versus something something like using said electrically generated power to charge batteries.
The thing is also this: As controversial as it is, we are sitting on 250-300 years worth of natural gas as we speak with more being found all the time. If we're going to go after energy for the sake of it being plentiful, well using natural gas in cars to me makes way more sense than using hydrogen. Believe it or not I used to be a huge proponent for hydrogen cars but after spending some time reading into it, this is about the most inefficient means to power a car
New Renter
@
2013 Nov 26, 2:01am
Believe it or not I used to be a huge proponent for hydrogen cars but after spending some time reading into it, this is about the most inefficient means to power a car
Yep. Methane is good if you want to use it directly but also has challenges. Converting it to dimethyl ether (DME) might work even better as DME liquifies well (comparable to propane), can be used in diesel engines and thanks to its lack of carbon-carbon bonds produces zero soot.
On the bright side there are technologies coming that will allow gaseous methane to be stored at 500 psi with the same energy density as current storage tanks:
http://web.ornl.gov/~webworks/cpr/pres/107683.pdf
Lower pressures mean less restrictive designs which hopefully will allow methane powered cars to have similar ranges to liquid fueled vehicles without losing trunk space.
New Renter
@
2013 Nov 26, 4:55am
Methane is good if
I've always wanted to power a car with my farts.
Sure, just run the fuel line up where the sundon't shine and you're all set.
Comments 1 - 29 of 29 Search these comments
http://news.yahoo.com/electric-carmaker-fisker-files-bankruptcy-181713156.html
Washington (AFP) - Fisker Automotive, whose sleek, sporty electric cars caught the eye of Justin Bieber and other celebrities, has filed for bankruptcy protection.
The California-based company also announced it had entered an asset purchase agreement with Hybrid Tech Holdings, LLC.
"After having evaluated and pursued all other alternatives, we believe the sale to Hybrid and the related Chapter 11 process is the best alternative for maximizing Fisker Automotive's value for the benefit of all stakeholders," Marc Beilinson, Fisker's chief restructuring officer, said in a statement Friday.
"We believe that the Fisker Automotive technology and product development capability will remain a guiding force in the evolution of the automotive industry under Hybrid's leadership."
Fisker was started in southern California in 2007 by former Aston Martin and BMW designer Henrik Fisker and German business partner Bernhard Koehler.
While it did not have the expected success with its sleek hybrid Karma sports car -- which it billed as "a bold expression of uncompromised responsible luxury" -- it did attract interest from the likes of stars such as Bieber, Leonardo DiCaprio and Ashton Kutcher.
With a price tag of about $100,000, the 2012 Karma sedan boasts an all-electric "Stealth Mode" and a fuel-assisted "Sport Mode," according to the company's website.
Having struggled financially for some time, Fisker announced in April that it was laying off 75 percent of its workforce.
What happens next remains to be seen.
The Wall Street Journal quoted a spokeswoman for Hybrid Technology, parent company of Hybrid Tech Holdings, as saying it was "committed to building upon the Fisker legacy and presence in the United States as a foundation for the design and manufacture of advanced hybrid electric vehicles."
The bankruptcy could become a political hot potato because the US government had focused on Fisker to encourage the development of green energy, providing it with loans.
The Journal cited the Department of Energy as saying it had recovered $53 million of the $192 million Fisker owed to the government, leaving $139 million unpaid.
Two Republican members of Congress -- House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee head Tim Murphy -- have already lashed out over the matter.
"Fisker's collapse closes yet another sad chapter in (the Department of Energy's) troubled portfolio," they said in a joint statement.
"The jobs that were promised never materialized and, once again, taxpayers are on the hook for the administration's reckless gamble."
In their remarks, the lawmakers referenced solar energy firm Solyndra, which was the recipient of a $535 million government loan guarantee and also ended up filing for bankruptcy.
During the 2012 US presidential election campaign, Republicans repeatedly seized on the California-based company's demise, once hailed as a shining example of President Barack Obama's push to create green jobs and compete with rival China in a new energy economy.
#politics