More nonsense: Hydrogen for an alternate energy source

[Tommycat]

 

From what I'm reading, the station produces it own hydrogen. There is no need for distribution. It sounds to me that the only cost after construction would be maintenance and paying the water bill. Unless someone figures out a way to charge us for sunlight.

 

Not all areas can get consistent sun though. And someone will figger out a way to charge for using the sun. a land use tax or sun tax or somethin haha. Heck I'm sure they are looking into how to charge for breathing. Still doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater though.

[mimartin]

I never meant to imply that it would everywhere. I thought I had already made it clear in this thread that I support a diversified energy strategy. Was only referring to the station RedHawke wrote about. Although using either solar or wind power could make a great deal of the stations in at least the southern and western states self sufficient.

[Q]

Wind power would probably make the entire Midwest self-sufficient. I grew up there and it's so flat that the wind is completely unimpeded. It would still require an absolute buttload of windmills.

[Tommycat]

I never meant to imply that it would everywhere. I thought I had already made it clear in this thread that I support a diversified energy strategy. Was only referring to the station RedHawke wrote about. Although using either solar or wind power could make a great deal of the stations in at least the southern and western states self sufficient.

 

Absolutely. Especially here in AZ. Dunno if you're aware of it or not, but we get a bit of sun here... like 300+days of it. Solar would be great here. Energy generation could be tailored to the preferences of the environment. My bad, I thought you were using it as a model for how other locations would be set up.

[Web Rider]

Wind power would probably make the entire Midwest self-sufficient. I grew up there and it's so flat that the wind completely unimpeded. It would still require an absolute buttload of windmills.

 

assuming of course, that the wind is blowing and the annual onslaught of torndoes doesn't mean you have to build a thousand new ones every year.

[Q]

Tornadoes usually prefer trailer parks.

[Jae Onasi]

Tornadoes usually prefer trailer parks.

Heh, the tornado supercell that passed right over my head one time did drop down a tornado not two miles later, in the trailer park, of course.

 

If we put a windmill on top of every big building in Chicago, we'd probably be able to fuel half the world.

[Darth_Yuthura]

 

From what I'm reading, the station produces it own hydrogen. There is no need for distribution. It sounds to me that the only cost after construction would be maintenance and paying the water bill. Unless someone figures out a way to charge us for sunlight.

 

Forgetting one major expense: interest. You always have to take into account what you have to pay for interest off borrowed funds. Nuclear breeder reactors are WAY better than standard, but because they cost twice as much to build, it doesn't matter if you can get 20x the amount of energy per unit of fuel. The same thing goes for solar. If you can't produce much energy, then it doesn't matter if what little you get is free.

[mimartin]

Interest would be part of construction cost. So no, I'm not forgetting since I said after construction cost.

 

 

Also if I were a large corporation with cutting edge technology I would not finance construction by burrowing funds from a bank. I would issue new stock (look no interest).

 

Your second point I've also already covered already in earlier post. No solar will not work everywhere, but you can always use an alternative at a different cost. You do understand that gasoline prices are not uniformed across the country either?

[Q]

Heh, the tornado supercell that passed right over my head one time did drop down a tornado not two miles later, in the trailer park, of course.

They're always strangely attracted to trailer parks. I don't know whether it's the metallic structures or if the culling of the white ghetto is some bizarre form of natural selection.

If we put a windmill on top of every big building in Chicago, we'd probably be able to fuel half the world.

I've been to Chicago many times and you're right. They could put windmills all along the lake shore there and generate a lot of power.

[RedHawke]

From what I'm reading, the station produces it own hydrogen. There is no need for distribution. It sounds to me that the only cost after construction would be maintenance and paying the water bill. Unless someone figures out a way to charge us for sunlight.

Bingo!!! We have a winner!

[Web Rider]

Unless someone figures out a way to charge us for sunlight.

 

Shhhh!!!! Stop giving them ideas! I mean, it's not like we don't already have private beaches, private parks, tanning salons, and restricted movement within federally managed land.

[Darth_Yuthura]

Bingo!!! We have a winner!

 

I asked you some questions and you just declared 'mission accomplished.'

 

Questions were:

 

How much was the fuel from this one station? What was the milage per gallon of hydrogen? How many vehicles can this one station with the non-emissive power source provide for? How much were the solar panels that powered that station? How much energy was lost in the hydrolysis process and how much did you get from the fuel cell(s) on your vehicle? Little details like this would be easier for you to answer than me, but anything like this that you could also add would be appreciated.

 

This is not meant to slap this particular member in the face; I just wanted to know more about hydrogen power from his perspective. His last post didn't add to the thread, as I already knew his opinion. The question is why?

[RedHawke]

I asked you some questions and you just declared 'mission accomplished.'

You are inferring things here... perhaps I answered that poster in that manner for other reasons. Limited time, etc.

 

Since you asked clear questions without the wall of unnecessary text this time, it makes it easier to read them, I am more than happy to answer what I can.

 

Questions were:

 

How much was the fuel from this one station?

Nothing, it is free to us at this point... SMUD has a fleet of these vehicles and so does the partnership. We have free use atm.

 

Cost hasn't come into play yet, but rest assured it would be far less than filling your average 14 gallon tank is now.

 

What was the milage per gallon of hydrogen?

None, it is measured in different units of measure. Typically the current model of HFC vehicles that I am familiar with hold about 4kg of hydrogen at 5000 psi. Tanks are rated to twice that pressure.

 

4 kg of Hydrogen at 5000 psi gives you about 160 miles range, if the pressure were increased the range would increase. The vehicle with a fully pressurized tank went much, much further, but for insurance reasons we can only pressurize our tanks to 5k psi.

 

How many vehicles can this one station with the non-emissive power source provide for?

It is a full sized station in relation to a normal gas station in use today. I have yet to go in and have an out of fuel warning, nor has anyone in the program so far.

 

How much were the solar panels that powered that station?

No idea SMUD never released this info. Since SMUD is a power company and likely gets them for cheap or makes them themselves the cost was likely negligible to them.

 

Here in California there is a 45% rebate on using a solar system, there are I think 30% federal rebates nationwide (USA), so factor those in when thinking about the costs for solar panels. I'm sure other countries also provide similar incentives.

 

How much energy was lost in the hydrolysis process?

No idea, as SMUD hasn't released this info. But any energy loss at this station outweighs the sloppy and inefficient systems we use today.

 

and how much did you get from the fuel cell(s) on your vehicle?

Answered by the MPG question above.

 

This is not meant to slap this particular member in the face; I just wanted to know more about hydrogen power from his perspective.

No slap seen on this end, though you seemed to go on about energy loss and transportation, etc. when the solutions I have seen eliminate the most wasteful parts of what we have now. So any loss with the new tech is minimal compared to what we have now.

 

His last post didn't add to the thread, as I already knew his opinion. The question is why?

On the contrary mine indeed did, as it appears on my end you didn't get anything I had wrote and went off on a tangent of your own, I merely pointed out the poster who got what I wrote in the hopes you would re-read what I had said again.

[Darth_Yuthura]

Nothing, it is free to us at this point... SMUD has a fleet of these vehicles and so does the partnership. We have free use atm.

 

Cost hasn't come into play yet, but rest assured it would be far less than filling your average 14 gallon tank is now.

 

Thank-you, but some of the most critical questions I had were not satisfied... either to you or to anyone. Clearly a hydrogen powered vehicle would compare to a standard in range, but still you have no idea what it would cost to actually buy the hydrogen. That's not very reassuring when you don't even know what it would cost... or even an estimate of the cost.

 

I'm still not convinced. I wouldn't imagine SMUD would promote its product by withholding statistics unless those statistics would hurt their goal. I'd like to know how efficient hydrogen has become and economic it is before I put any confidence in it. At the least, they could show how it has improved... to verify that if it's currently not, then it could be in the future.

 

No slap seen on this end, though you seemed to go on about energy loss and transportation, etc. when the solutions I have seen eliminate the most wasteful parts of what we have now. So any loss with the new tech is minimal compared to what we have now.

 

The 'most wasteful parts of what we have now'? If you mean the inefficiencies of automobiles, that's only a small part of the issue.

 

Some Americans don't have the luxury of buying clean fuel if it's going to be too expensive to budget, so I am not placing much faith in hydrogen... there is no mention of its price point. If hydrogen were projected to be cheaper than gasoline, I would assume some numbers would be released to the public. It's in testing phase, so that doesn't mean it's carved in stone, but I have seen no projections or estimates that it would be any less than $10 per 4 kg. It would very well cost more as fossil fuels become more expensive.

 

As for solar power, it represents <1% of electricity produced in the US. It's rising, but you would need an area the size of Rhode Island covered to be at the point of replacing oil demands with solar panels.

[RedHawke]

(I'm still trying to understand your really off base quip about solar power, it had nothing to do with my reply, and is indicative of my issues with your replies, they start to drift off away from the topic at hand IMO. Just FYI)

 

Clearly a hydrogen powered vehicle would compare to a standard in range, but still you have no idea what it would cost to actually buy the hydrogen. That's not very reassuring when you don't even know what it would cost... or even an estimate of the cost.

Cheaper than gasoline is now... that is the goal. Options for home units to make hydrogen at your own home are also on the table, so some people might not be visiting the stations as frequently than they are now.

 

I know you want a hard number, but at this point you aren't likely to get any. With what is at stake here it is understandable that certain things are kept under wraps, and not for "conspiracy theory" reasons, but for business ones.

 

I wouldn't imagine SMUD would promote its product by withholding statistics unless those statistics would hurt their goal.

You invent something new you will keep things in-house until everything is finalized then when you are ready with your product you release hard data, that is why you make prototypes and test them and also how you keep competitors away. After all profit is a factor here for a business you don't just release everything to the public all along the way in development, that's not how it works.

 

The 'most wasteful parts of what we have now'? If you mean the inefficiencies of automobiles, that's only a small part of the issue.

No, the other information you listed before in your earlier posts that concerned you. "How expensive would it be for the various production facilities, pipelines, stations, additional power plants, and vehicle repair facilities?"

 

Some Americans don't have the luxury of buying clean fuel if it's going to be too expensive to budget, so I am not placing much faith in hydrogen... there is no mention of its price point.

Clean fuel is only a luxury if you call it such... the only thing they have now is petrol, tomorrow it may be hydrogen, they will buy whatever is available to run the vehicles available. When it was horses they bought/fed horses, gasoline they bought gasoline, whatever comes next they will buy it.

 

Also referring to a tidbit from an earlier post...

There is a very significant difference between gasoline and hydrogen/powered cars

Yes and no... there are shared systems and new ones.

 

and it would require specialized training where a split-cycle engine upgrade follows the same principles as the four-cycle design. The simpler one can make a technology or system, the less likely there would be complications. Where would Redhawke have gone if he theoretically owned his vehicle and it broke down? If there weren't many hydrogen vehicles on the road, finding a mechanic would have been difficult to find.

I have to say you are misinformed about who can repair these vehicles...

 

My father, in his 60's, took him less than 4 weeks training... for someone with only a grade 10 education and over 40 years experience working on many of the various vehicles in use (American/European/Asian/Autos/Diesels), and if my dad could adjust to these vehicles so readily (he loved it, up until he had to go on disability due to his cancer), it won't be difficult for younger more educated mechanics to make this adjustment as well.

 

The work force is already in place, the current shops will only need to buy a few new diagnostic systems/tools. For some shops working under the auto company names these things are supplied.

[Tommycat]

My father, in his 60's, took him less than 4 weeks training... for someone with only a grade 10 education and over 40 years experience working on many of the various vehicles in use (American/European/Asian/Autos/Diesels), and if my dad could adjust to these vehicles so readily (he loved it, up until he had to go on disability due to his cancer), it won't be difficult for younger more educated mechanics to make this adjustment as well.

 

I have a question related to this, but it's kind of a selfish question. Will I be able to Hot-Rod it? Get it going really fast? I mean some of us like big torque and getting some wheel spin. I think it would be kind of fun to have a muscle car powered with clean fuel. Granted, I wouldn't have that V8 roar, but if I can make it down a drag strip in under 12 seconds, I don't think too many hot rodders are going to whine about an FCV(aside from the ones who love the V8 roar). It would make one HECK of a sleeper.

 

From what I understand the FCV has fewer moving parts than a conventional engine(a disadvantage of the split cycle engine is that it has MORE parts than a conventional engine). So maintenance is actually reduced. It shouldn't be near as complicated as working on a current vehicle with 10 feet of timing chain, 3 different computer systems, 32 valves, 32 springs, 4 cam shafts, and the myriad of other parts that are specifically added to reduce emissions.

 

One thing that concerns me a bit is the 5000PSI tank... I know 2000PSI can do a lot of damage to a person. 4000 psi can kill a person. Do you happen to know if they did any impact rupture tests and the results? I'm sure they did, otherwise they couldn't have them on the road... It's just my own curiosity.

[Darth_Yuthura]

I don't know if you were addressing me or Redhawke, but I could answer that question. The Split-cycle engine, or FCV, does have more components than a conventional engine, but only because you have two different types of pistons and cylinders... the crank shaft and the compressed air components are parts that a conventional engine don't have.

 

Although there are only half the number of power cylinders, they will fire twice as rapidly. That means a FVC would theoretically be just as capable as a normal engine. There may even be a performance advantage. If only the power cylinders operate and the compression cylinders are left open, the engine would be able to feed from the tank of compressed air alone. I don't know how much extra power it could achieve, but with the compression cylinders open, there would be less power demanded to recharge the compressed air in the tank and less resistance to overcome.

 

Likewise, the power cylinders could be opened and only the compression cylinders would take the car's momentum and convert it to potential energy in the form of compressed air. This may be the greatest attribute of the FVC engine being able to do this cheaper than with batteries.

[Tommycat]

Actually, FCV meaning Fuel Cell Vehicle.

 

I just know that Murphy's Law of machines dictates that the more moving parts you have the more chance of something breaking.

 

I know that from my experience once you get above 12:1 compression, you start breaking things on pump gas. I'd be interested to see a durability test on the Split Cycle. engine. I can see the high performance POSSIBILITIES of the split cycle. but the extra moving parts makes Tommy a very nervous cat.

[Darth Avlectus]

WHOA! This thread certainly took off while I was gone...

 

Well, I'd like to clear this up: if you are talking about using hydrogen as a combustible fuel to replace gasoline, it is not the same process that you hear about where the hydrogen is recombined with the oxygen!!! So all this talk about how we can just convert the combustion cars to burn hydrogen and spit out steam instead of smoke is a bunch of bull puckey. First off you are separating H2 from O2, then burning the H2...do you expect after that if you recombine it with the oxygen that it will just magically turn back into water? If you do then you've got serious logic problems.

 

Sure it would be carbon with oxygen and that theoretically is supposed to work out to 0 emissions by process of cancellation... but it never quite works that way in reality as some leakage is always inevitable. Moreover it would be considered an additional process, and an extra cost not necessary to actually run the vehicle, just cut down on emissions... Extra $$$

 

The recombining process is fuel cells and a completely different process, akin to a battery b/c it produces electrical power. I already covered this: it's redundant considering to power electrical circuits batteries and capacitors do just fine and constantly make improvements due to how much in demand they are.

 

So it's inefficient, but relative to what? Gasoline engines aren't exactly models of efficiency, either. As a matter of fact, short of a matter-antimatter reaction, no energy-producing process is anywhere near 100% efficient. If you have abundant, cheap electricity from non-emissive sources, this point becomes moot. That's why establishing a massive, non-emissive power grid should be the first priority.

 

I'll refer you to mythbusters. There was an episode not too far back where they tested out the various alternative combustion methodologies. The electrolysis to gas to be burned (this is the method that DOES NOT return hydrogen to the oxygen and recycle it) had a very poor MPG compared to gasoline. It was advertised as 50 mpg...dream on? Indeed....

 

Besides, can you think of a better way to power a car with 0 emissions? I'll admit that I can't, and until Mister Fusion™ becomes a reality, I doubt that anyone else can, either.

 

Fusion...that is a nuclear process that releases energy by binding the particles as opposed to fission which does the opposite to release energy.

Makes nuclear waste but keeps it localized...or so according to simcity2000...

 

While Mr Fusion kept the time travel machine with that flux capacitor powered, if I do recall it did have a particular issue in part 3 where Marty ripped the fuel line... and that the vehichle was combustion powered--the primary concern for how the vehicle was going to reach that "88 MILES PER HOUR!!!!!!!!" so they could get back home to their time.

 

Some tidbits about Hydrogen production... there is a station constructed by our Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) that is completely off the grid, self-powered and produces its own hydrogen via solar power and water. This station is used to fuel the Hydrogen Fuel cell vehicles that they are currently testing.

Seen it too, though I never did get around to touring it. Nice?

 

This fuel source is viable, and so are the vehicles. I know I used to drive one, daily.

 

And I was an "Internal combustion accept no substitutes!" kind of person before.

 

All the data that you read about Hydrogen being hard to produce or more harmful are likely backed by interests that do not want to see this change. The gas companies stand to lose big if we were to change from gasoline for our vehicles. So be wary of who actually wrote what you are reading and who sponsored it as far as other sites and even textbooks.

 

Just my

 

Amongst many other disingenuous conspicuous things added, omitted, etc. on a great number of other things I'm not entirely sure relate to the topic.

 

However, I will vouch that outside academic search engines like Ebsco, I was inundated with trash paranoia when attempting to actually do some research. A majority had something to do with transit or travel or the like (and any number of products fitting within a venn diagram of the above mentioned).

However, academics also have their own interests at hand as well, but certainly not in an area such as this where they were pro as opposed to con.

But you are correct, the gas companies would see this (as any other fuel source) as a major threat.

 

However, I have a question or two...was the hydrogen fuel used for combustion like a normal car or did it have a different process? I ask b/c there may be other methods I have not taken into consideration, and if you have info on this particular vehicle, I would very much like to see it... nothing commercial please. I'm very much genuinely interested to see if any developments have been made of if I have overlooked anything.

 

 

There is another issue to address that really is at the root of the 'hydrogen economy:' the difficulties in transitioning from one source of energy to another. Let's face it, no one would pay more for a vehicle powered by hydrogen under the conditions we have today. People will want gasoline-powered vehicles and any transition to another fuel source will be expensive. Hydrogen isn't like a liquid fossil fuel to store and handle, so the safety codes and gas station tanks and equipment would demand more new designs and implementation than something like gasohol.

 

Look up actual statistics on the deaths of those inside those pre-WW1 zeppelins. While I agree it is volatile, part of the major explosion hazards fears are a bit unfounded.

 

 

However I will agree with you that some different precautions would most definitely be required for safe handling and storage.

 

Ethanol is way too unrealistic for practical use of a large scale in the US and with corn, but there are situations where it would make sense to use biodiesel fuel using waste products. That is only a way to make use of something that otherwise would have been lost, but unrealistic on a large scale. Vegetable oil is expensive compared to gasoline, but when it is to be disposed of; what little there is happens to be a good way to scavenge a little more energy that wasn't there before.

 

Are you talking about the waste greases and oils from food products? Why yes I do believe this was addressed earlier in the thread. This method (referencing the same mythbusters episode) actually ran a diesel powered car about the same with little adjustment to the vehicle and virtually no refinement other than meticulous filtering.

 

So far as ethanol for fuel...that is a bad idea simply b/c it will eat away at the supply of what it takes to make the ethanol, and with decreased supply, and the same demand...well costs go up. What that means is that certain foods will get more expensive, way more.

 

I never meant to imply that it would everywhere. I thought I had already made it clear in this thread that I support a diversified energy strategy. Was only referring to the station RedHawke wrote about. Although using either solar or wind power could make a great deal of the stations in at least the southern and western states self sufficient.

 

Why yes,

 

YES YOU DID!

 

http://lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2619529&postcount=9

 

And hint at it you did...

 

http://lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2619490&postcount=6

 

You're welcome.

 

Unless someone figures out a way to charge us for sunlight.

Shhhh!!!! Stop giving them ideas! I mean, it's not like we don't already have private beaches, private parks, tanning salons, and restricted movement within federally managed land.

 

I know, it makes ya wonder whose side he's on being so clumsy with those kinda comments.

(runs away)

 

Not all areas can get consistent sun though. And someone will figger out a way to charge for using the sun. a land use tax or sun tax or somethin haha.

 

Already do that.

It's called "Smart Meters" proposed to show just how and where exactly you are using those watts, and it helps you figure out how you can utilizer power more efficiently...and what they don't tell you is

1) how much extra power those suckers consume

2) what all of those extra seemingly unrelated components inside it you can't find data on are actually doing/made of

 

So you can be assured that you'll never misuse your power again.

 

Heck I'm sure they are looking into how to charge for breathing. Still doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater though.

 

True enough.

 

Absolutely. Especially here in AZ. Dunno if you're aware of it or not, but we get a bit of sun here... like 300+days of it. Solar would be great here. Energy generation could be tailored to the preferences of the environment. My bad, I thought you were using it as a model for how other locations would be set up.

 

I wish idiots here in CA would actually read the ballots, though instead of depending on the sierra club to cast a reliable vote. We turned down actually making a solar power plant in the desert areas because of "harm to the environment" as the opposition said. ...sheeple put it on and voted it off...

 

assuming of course, that the wind is blowing and the annual onslaught of torndoes doesn't mean you have to build a thousand new ones every year.

 

Windmill generators ought to be placed more where wind is KNOWN to strongly occur a good bit of the time. For example, a valley at the foot of mountains or a steep canyon/cliff, beautiful work...central valley where they already are...I could drive out of LA on any given day and the majority of the time only a few are actually working unless the winds have really picked up.

 

@ Jae...yeah baby! Your city is notorious for wind, THAT's what I'm sayin'!

(Fills out ballot initiative with Jae Onasi as energy dept. representative)

 

Tornadoes usually prefer trailer parks.

Hey! HEY!

Oh, wait, mine isn't in tornado alley. My bad.

 

With what is at stake here it is understandable that certain things are kept under wraps, and not for "conspiracy theory" reasons, but for business ones.

QFT That's what "protprietary" privacy etc. is all about.

 

Or for science or politics for that matter. You just don't reveal your grand idea until the right moment.

 

You invent something new you will keep things in-house until everything is finalized then when you are ready with your product you release hard data, that is why you make prototypes and test them and also how you keep competitors away. After all profit is a factor here for a business you don't just release everything to the public all along the way in development, that's not how it works.

QFT

 

 

Clean fuel is only a luxury if you call it such... the only thing they have now is petrol, tomorrow it may be hydrogen, they will buy whatever is available to run the vehicles available. When it was horses they bought/fed horses, gasoline they bought gasoline, whatever comes next they will buy it.

What it requires, though, is a transition. True what you say will most definitely occur after that has happened. Until then...well....

 

If there are things in the works that actually work, one thing I am surprised you have not mentioned yet is the intentional attempts at sabotage by competitors.

[RedHawke]

What it requires, though, is a transition. True what you say will most definitely occur after that has happened. Until then...well....

Transition yes, how long is the question... I would prefer fast instead of slow.

 

Not many people will be put out of work either, as new fuel stations simply replace the old ones, and repair shops need only some minor adjustments. Transporting hydrogen is already possible. I see far less involved here than say the change over from horse and buggy to automobiles, far less people to lose jobs, etc. But that likely is just me.

 

If there are things in the works that actually work, one thing I am surprised you have not mentioned yet is the intentional attempts at sabotage by competitors.

I'm not at the levels to know if that has happened... but I would be completely naieve to believe things haven't happened.

 

The fuel cell is not combustion. A fuel cell converts the chemicals hydrogen and oxygen into water and in doing so it produces electricity, said electricity runs the electric motor and thusly moves the vehicle. Basically it is an electric car for all intents and purposes powered by a fuel cell instead of a battery.

[Darth Avlectus]

Transition yes, how long is the question... I would prefer fast instead of slow.

 

Not many people will be put out of work either, as new fuel stations simply replace the old ones, and repair shops need only some minor adjustments. Transporting hydrogen is already possible. I see far less involved here than say the change over from horse and buggy to automobiles, far less people to lose jobs, etc. But that likely is just me.

Least you're honest about it.

 

TBH, I cannot really say...I imagine, though, you're probably right in a few respects.

 

 

I'm not at the levels to know if that has happened... but I would be completely naieve to believe things haven't happened.

 

I'm not either. However, I have worked for people who have told me to destroy a competitor's stuff. There's good reason I do not work for them anymore. No, not in cars, though, just saying, alluding to the nature of sabotage.

 

The fuel cell is not combustion. A fuel cell converts the chemicals hydrogen and oxygen into water and in doing so it produces electricity, said electricity runs the electric motor and thusly moves the vehicle. Basically it is an electric car for all intents and purposes powered by a fuel cell instead of a battery.

 

That's what I thought. That's what it seemed you were implying too, just wanted to be sure.

 

Uhh, well, if there is data to suggest that it would perform vastly superior to batteries and capacitors combined with "sophisticated" circuitry (that's circuitry engineered with as little of loss as possible like in some flash cameras, econo gadgets, etc.)...I'd be happy to take a look at it.

 

Considering that most electrical/electronic products nowadays have obsolescence built in...it might be nice at least if they kept a higher efficiency.

[Bimmerman]

Since some have complained about my nonsense, I'm going to complain about someone else's nonsense to show that I can and do evaluate the OPPOSITE side of the argument before I make a judgment. So I'm going to attempt to advocate FOR something I don't believe to show just how much my convictions are really 'nonsense.'

 

If this is in regards to the split-cycle engine thing, that actually looks to have some serious development time put into it, and may actually happen. It's interesting enough that it's getting talked about quite frequently here....it just needs to be cost effective and make good on its claims. Neither have been met yet. Anyway, on to your 'nonsense.'

 

Hydrogen fuel cells for automobiles:

 

This is a potentially everlasting fuel source for automobiles, but it depends upon another energy source to be produced. Nuclear, coal, wind, solar... all could be used for vehicles using hydrogen as a catalyst. Electricity is dependent upon either expensive batteries, or upon a physical connection to a power grid. In addition is that batteries take a long time to charge, but gasoline and liquid hydrogen take only about 5 minutes to replenish.

 

First, hydrogen as a fuel cell source is decades in the future for a nationally viable infrastructure. I am fully aware of the Honda FCX and such, but there is no infrastructure to make them accepted, and they cost far too much. We need a dual-fuel, a "flex fuel" if you will, hydrogen and gasoline vehicle to create the demand for the infrastructure (i.e. BMW's Hydrogen 7). Only then will fuel cells take off.

 

My proselytizing aside, the concept of hydrogen as a fuel is sound....generally. People have latched onto the idea of pouring water into your tank, and using it to create hydrogen to create fuel. There are several things wrong with that.

 

1) it takes more energy to break the OH bonds in water than you get by using the hydrogen in fuel cells. Without a catalyst, you will never break even.

2) you need some kind of liquified hydrogen (extremely cold) or highly pressurized hydrogen. Both have advantages and disadvantages.

 

No emissions other than water vapor:

 

There are actually emissions that come from this fuel, but they originate from locations other than where the cars operate. A nuclear plant can be built in a public location, but coal could be 1000 miles away and the electricity could be transmitted via power lines. Hydrogen fuel is produced using that electricity and then transported via pipeline to fuel station. Cars powered by gasoline produce emissions on sight where hydrogen's emissions can be placed elsewhere.

 

There are more emissions than you know of, both of fuel cell car, network, gasoline car, and fueling. If you want to be completely correct, look at the wheel to wheel cost of emissions. It's higher than you think.

 

Gasoline is only 30% efficient:

 

Internal combustion engines are only 30% efficient and can't be pushed passed that rating, so even with the loss of energy through hydrolysis, the larger the scale of the power plant, the more efficient it becomes.

 

You've never taken thermodynamics, have you?

 

Your statement is ridiculously false. Gasoline engines are only about 35% efficient. However, if you are right, how does a modern V16 in a Bugatti Veyron make 100x more horsepower and get about double the fuel economy of a 1909 Ford Model T inline four cylinder?

 

The thermodynamic efficiency can be increased by several means. Turbos, supers, nitrous, are just one way. Improving the volumetric efficiency (how well the engine flows, and burns, that air fuel mixture) is a key one. How else would a Formula 1 engine 2.4L V8 make 780 horsepower (without turbos) at 18000 rpm and get 5 mpg? My Suburban never got above 8 mpg, and it was a 5.4L V8.

 

Furthermore, you will be astonished to learn the efficiency of a modern coal power plant.

 

Ready?

 

Do you think it's....75%?

 

 

 

65%?

 

 

 

55%?

 

 

 

Nope. it hovers between 38 and 45% efficient, at best. That goes for any plant that uses steam and turbines; Nuclear, coal, etc all are the same for thermodynamic efficiencies.

 

I sincerely hope you mean electrolysis to get the hydrogen. It's only feasible when the plant is producing excess energy, as no matter how much you cross your fingers and pray, breaking the water molecules into H2 and O2 consumes more energy than you will gain.

 

Storage:

 

Electricity can't be stored on a large scale, so any excess energy produced from the US power grid is wasted. Hydrogen could take the excess energy and be used where that energy would otherwise be wasted. Batteries are expensive for electric cars, but hydrogen is dependent upon the size of the tanks. That is cheaper than with more batteries.

 

This doesn't make sense. "Hydrogen could take the excess energy and be used where that energy would otherwise be wasted." ....um...what? The energy content of hydrogen, for combustion, is the highest for any molecule or compound.

 

Universal:

 

The US has enough coal to last hundreds of years, but most American vehicles can't use anything that doesn't come from petroleum. This would allow for almost any form of energy to be interchangeable to be used for transportation.

 

 

So, how many people think this is nonsense?

 

I think there are serious flaws in your sources or your influences. Much of your post makes no sense whatsoever. I welcome a change to hydrogen, and am hoping the duel fuel hydrogen cars (aformentioned Hydrogen 7) make a large inroad into the market to spur demand for hydrogen internal combustion cars and thus create the infrastructure necessary to eventually transfer over to fuel cells.

 

Whether that happens, though, is anyone's guess.

[Darth_Yuthura]

If this is in regards to the split-cycle engine thing, that actually looks to have some serious development time put into it, and may actually happen. It's interesting enough that it's getting talked about quite frequently here....it just needs to be cost effective and make good on its claims. Neither have been met yet.

 

And how exactly has hydrogen done any better?

 

First, hydrogen as a fuel cell source is decades in the future for a nationally viable infrastructure. I am fully aware of the Honda FCX and such, but there is no infrastructure to make them accepted, and they cost far too much. We need a dual-fuel, a "flex fuel" if you will, hydrogen and gasoline vehicle to create the demand for the infrastructure (i.e. BMW's Hydrogen 7). Only then will fuel cells take off.

 

What, do you mean a vehicle with an internal combustion engine and a fuel cell? It's not viable and won't come about if hydrogen is more economic than gasoline. Only when/if it does will hydrogen start to take over and leave gasoline behind.

 

There are more emissions than you know of, both of fuel cell car, network, gasoline car, and fueling. If you want to be completely correct, look at the wheel to wheel cost of emissions. It's higher than you think.

 

And why would you suggest increasing an already high rate of emissions?

 

Furthermore, you will be astonished to learn the efficiency of a modern coal power plant.

 

Ready?

 

it hovers between 38 and 45% efficient, at best. That goes for any plant that uses steam and turbines; Nuclear, coal, etc all are the same for thermodynamic efficiencies.

 

I wasn't astonished, for I was already aware of that. What you claimed is not accurate, however. The efficiency of coal depends upon the type of coal you use. Lignite is among the worst forms of coal to burn, but sometimes it is favored over bituminous because of the presence of other elements (mercury, lead, arsenic, ext.) Bituminous coal is much more cost effective and very abundant, which is why it is used so greatly in the US. Anthracite is the best grade and the 'cleanest' burning coal there is, but it is much more scarce and difficult to mine.

 

Although I do value the environmental impact being minimized, I really weigh the economic viability most heavily. Nuclear is the more economic and environmentally friendly energy source. The limitation of nuclear is that it has a huge capital cost before it can produce electricity, but a lower operating cost.

 

I think there are serious flaws in your sources or your influences. Much of your post makes no sense whatsoever. I welcome a change to hydrogen, and am hoping the duel fuel hydrogen cars (aformentioned Hydrogen 7) make a large inroad into the market to spur demand for hydrogen internal combustion cars and thus create the infrastructure necessary to eventually transfer over to fuel cells.

 

The US has 25% of the world's coal reserves. That energy provides the majority of the electricity used in the US, but how much of the transportation infrastructure is powered by coal? Except for light rail, subways, electric cars, and hydrogen cars; nothing else uses coal energy.

 

Electricity is a means of transmission and can be generated by ANY source of energy you can produce from a power plant. The biggest problem with electricity is that anything depending on it can't function without a link to a power grid. Batteries can only store so much, but take a long time to recharge. Excess electricity from the power grid can't be stored and is wasted, but if that electricity were to be used in ANY way that was beneficial, it would be significant.

 

Hydrogen is like that to a degree, but can recharge faster and has a range similar to a gasoline-powered car. Problem is that it takes more energy to produce than is returned, not part of the transportation infrastructure, expensive, and many other issues.

[Bimmerman]

And how exactly has hydrogen done any better?

 

As FCV or IC? Fuel cell hasn't, IC only slightly less so.

 

What, do you mean a vehicle with an internal combustion engine and a fuel cell? It's not viable and won't come about if hydrogen is more economic than gasoline. Only when/if it does will hydrogen start to take over and leave gasoline behind.

 

Nope, the Hydrogen 7 has a fully internal combustion engine that can run on either gaseous hydrogen or pump gasoline. There is nothing fuel cell related there. Hydrogen = / = fuel cell.

 

And why would you suggest increasing an already high rate of emissions?

I don't think I am. Hydrogen IC cars clean the air as they drive. The air going into the engine (which is effectively an air pump) comes out CLEANER than it goes in. Wheel to wheel, we should just ride bicycles, as anything with four wheels and manufacturing involved is bad.

 

 

I wasn't astonished, for I was already aware of that. What you claimed is not accurate, however. The efficiency of coal depends upon the type of coal you use. Lignite is among the worst forms of coal to burn, but sometimes it is favored over bituminous because of the presence of other elements (mercury, lead, arsenic, ext.) Bituminous coal is much more cost effective and very abundant, which is why it is used so greatly in the US. Anthracite is the best grade and the 'cleanest' burning coal there is, but it is much more scarce and difficult to mine.

 

Oooooookayyy. Respectfully, you're confused on the difference between thermal efficiency and fuel consumption. I agree, different types of coal burn with different consumption levels. This is not the same thing as I am talking about. Thermal efficiency is the measure of energy output over energy input to the working fluid. I.e. you have a boiler, a turbine, a compressor, and a pump / radiator. (this is a basic model). The boiler, regardless of what fuel you burn, will produce X MJ of energy. The water is flashed to steam and continues on its cycle through the turbine, compressor, etc.....in no way does the type of fuel, nor the consumption of said fuel, play a role in the THERMAL efficiency.

 

The oft-maligned ~30% efficiency of an IC engine is the THERMAL efficiency.

 

The larger a power plant becomes has absolutely no bearing on the efficiency. The increasing number of regenerators, reheaters, intercoolers, etc DOES have an impact, sometimes negative. The amount of fuel burned isn't as important as whether it can reach the needed temperature inside the burner/boiler. Same goes for an engine. It takes X amount of fuel to make X kJ of energy, regardless of the engine. All you are doing to the motor is making it burn cleaner, and therefore less fuel for the same power (kJ/s, W, hp, energy per second = power).

 

 

The US has 25% of the world's coal reserves. That energy provides the majority of the electricity used in the US, but how much of the transportation infrastructure is powered by coal? Except for light rail, subways, electric cars, and hydrogen cars; nothing else uses coal energy.

 

Do you know how dirty a coal power plant is? The emissions are measured in tons per hour. CO2 emissions from power plants account for 41% of the total US CO2 emissions from all sources. Just because the cars aren't physically emitting doesn't mean they aren't polluters; that energy that creates said CO2 also does the electrolysis of Hydrogen, supplies power to the light rail, subways, and electric cars. Nothing is free.

 

Electricity is a means of transmission and can be generated by ANY source of energy you can produce from a power plant. The biggest problem with electricity is that anything depending on it can't function without a link to a power grid. Batteries can only store so much, but take a long time to recharge. Excess electricity from the power grid can't be stored and is wasted, but if that electricity were to be used in ANY way that was beneficial, it would be significant.

 

I agree in principle. However, the technology for realistic road-trip capable electric cars (not <40 mi ranges, that's pathetic) is a good ways off. Subways, electric buses, and electric trains are really the only good uses, as they follow predictable and planable routes, and have no need to store energy onboard.

 

Hydrogen is like that to a degree, but can recharge faster and has a range similar to a gasoline-powered car. Problem is that it takes more energy to produce than is returned, not part of the transportation infrastructure, expensive, and many other issues.

 

All true. Furthermore, in an internal combustion engine, hydrogen makes significantly more power on less fuel than gasoline does. In simple terms, 600 hp where there was once 450 hp, same fuel economy or better. Granted, that requires tuning, fuel systems changes, etc etc.

 

What is NOT feasable with hydrogen is converting the cars on the road to run it. Can it be done? Yes. Is it safe or cheap? No. Everyone on the planet agrees that Fuel Cells are the future. In order to get from here to there, we need to embrace a bridging technology--i.e. duel fuel IC hydrogen/gasoline cars. Once the infrastructure (and all the issues with standardizing it are worked out) exist, the hydrogen fuel cell and IC future will happen. Just don't expect it anytime soon.