Buy Microsoft Office Home & Student
Car Tech: What's your favorite alternative fuel?
- 4/24/07 5:45 PM
Hydrogen
by wanop - 5/3/07 8:58 AM In reply to: What's your favorite alternative fuel? by wcunning
Electricity must either be generated when used, or stored in batteries for later use. Batteries are heavy, have a capacity that decreases with the temperature (read: not very good in cold winters), and a fixed life.
Hydrogen however is just short of a nuclear reaction. Remember the shuttle explosion? That white flash was hydrogen. The "smoke" was actually water vapour. To get hydrogen, you shoot electricity through water, and get two things: the fuel, and oxygen. When you use hydrogen you combine it with oxygen, and get raw energy, heat, and water. Nothing else. All you have to make sure of is that there's only a metered amount of hydrogen that is ever allowed to mix with air at any time, so it doesn't rip you into shreds.
With 2/3 of the earth's surface being water we can never run out, since as we use hydrogen, it makes more water. In effect, the perfect fuel.
The hydrogen can be stored in pressurized vessels, so that it can be sored for later use. This means that it is also portable, allowing it to be used in stuff like vehicles. The vehicles would also be more efficient, since there isn't a requirement to have all the anti-pollution devices that we have today. To squeeze the last drop of energy from the fuel, a small cogeneration turbine could also provide the last bit of energy to recharge the batteries necessary for vehicles.
To get the electricity required to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen we can use solar panels, wind generators, nuclear generation, geothermal sites, or anything else that comes along.
Hydrogen: fuel or just a way to store energy?
by Web Webster - 5/3/07 9:14 AM In reply to: Hydrogen by wanopThe arguments for hydrogen are compelling, but as other folks have already argued in this forum, the problems with isolating and storing hydrogen in a usable form are even more compelling. First of all, the electricity used to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen in water could be used more efficiently by using it directly, instead of storing the energy in the form of hydrogen. Second, containing hydrogen is and will continue to be a problem. Elemental hydrogen is notoriously difficult to store and transport. And thirdly, the allusion to a hydrogen explosion brings up the safety issue - a vehicle carrying enough hydrogen to give it an acceptable driving range is capable of becoming a spectacular accident (or worse yet, target for terrorists). I just don't believe that hydrogen is the answer.
Hydrogen is NOT made from water - it is made from Coal
by Rx_ - 5/3/07 9:46 AM In reply to: Hydrogen by wanopLike you, I assumed industry hydrogen came from water.
My son did a science fair, did the research.
The DOE book "The Hydrogen Economy" describes the government funding and process in detail.
less than 0.1% of hydrogen comes from water. In fact, to use electrolysis it must be salt water. The byproduct chloride gas is just too nasty and the electrolysis is only 40% efficient.
Hydrogen in large volumes is produced by putting Coal in high pressure and high heat. 99% of inustry Hydrogen is made from coal.
So, your "perfect fuel" is much less efficient ecologoly wise than burning coal in huge electrical turbines. About 30% less efficient from an ecology view.
Cl2 gas is a viable market commodity, not a released waste
by MultiMuse - 5/3/07 10:08 AM In reply to: Hydrogen is NOT made from water - it is made from Coal by Rx_I think the poster meant chlorine gas CL2(rather than chloride), and that byproduct of electolysis of salt water would not be simply released into the atmosphere as a toxic waste. It is an important, viable, valuable market commodity, used as a basic ingredient in many sectors of the chemicals industry, producing countless products e.g. household bleach, swimming pool disinfectants, pharmaceuticals, etc. The other metallic byproducts from salts, e.g. Sodium, (Na) Potassium (K), etc. probably also have value as a chemical or metals commodity.
Oh and coal gasification can produce other alternative fuels besides H2, e.g. LNG, etc.
(just another 6 scents worth, inflation again, ya know)
I don't understand...
by impala - 5/3/07 8:42 PM In reply to: Hydrogen is NOT made from water - it is made from Coal by Rx_I don't understand...
there's no hydrogen in coal. It's mostly carbon plus contaminants. How do you get hydrogen out of it?
You can get hydrogen out of hydrocarbons; ie: oil and natural gas. But you end up emitting just as much CO2 as if you had burned the oil or natural gas.
Many ways to make H2, all are expensive
by albizzia - 5/8/07 1:32 AM In reply to: I don't understand... by impalaH2 can be produced by reacting carbon from coal (C) with steam (H2O) at high temperature to get CO2 and H2. A similar reaction with natural gas or other hydrocarbons and steam can also produce H2 and CO2.
H2 can also be produced by reacting certain metals with water, steam, acids or alkalies to produce metal oxides and H2.
And electrolysis of water also produces H2.
All of the methods are expensive. Ironically, use of fossil fuels and steam (coal or natural gas) is the cheapest methods of H2 production.
It's still CO2
by impala - 6/23/07 1:57 PM In reply to: Many ways to make H2, all are expensive by albizziawell then you're still emitting as much CO2 as if you had burned the coal. Why bother?
hydrogen fuel can be the best
by traceace1 - 8/29/08 8:36 AM In reply to: Hydrogen is NOT made from water - it is made from Coal by Rx_I have ben reading ,for quite some time,about hydrogen. The way you make it is very important. It should be made on DEMAND under the hood of a vehicle from water.When adapted to run a gasoline engine there is "o" polution none!! When made on demand it is less dangerious than a tank os gasoline.It is being done at this time and there getting better and better at it.ONE PROBLEM the oil companies do not want people to get free fuel!! when hydrogen is made under the hood on demand with electraliss, your fuel is free.for those who who don't know or believe look up hydrogen fuel on the intrenet.
Do what is right
by 1dream - 5/3/07 9:02 AM In reply to: What's your favorite alternative fuel? by wcunning
Electricity is probably the best choice today, if we had to use an alternate fuel.
Fortunately, we don’t have to use an alternative fuel yet… Think about the reality… At 15000 miles per year and 20 miles per gallon at a cost of $3/gal we spend only $2250/year on fuel. If you raise the economy number to 100 miles per gal, you drop the total fuel bill to $450 so you can save $1800. Most alternatives cannot pay for the acquisition cost difference within the reasonable life of the car on this difference. Additionally, you have to sacrifice other things like luxury, ride comfort, seating capacity, etc just to be able to afford a reasonable hybrid and none of them are even close to 100 miles per gallon. When gas goes to $5/gal, you are now looking at a cost savings of $3000/year, almost enough to justify the cost if you can get 100 miles per gallon.
The technologies for alternative fuels, when you only have a total fuel cost at $5/gal of $3750/year, are not economically viable nor are they likely to be in the next 10 years. A huge improvement in photovoltaic technology so that you could just drive and drive without stopping for fuel (or a recharge) as long as the sun is out would probably make any alternative fuel unnecessary. Some magic battery technology could revolutionize the possibilities for many of the hybrid technologies. A heat exchanger technology break through that would allow you to get energy from the environment could also provide the magic necessary for alternative power to suddenly make petroleum obsolete as a fuel.
The only real value today in alternatives is allowing us to reduce our dependence on OPEC. However, the closer we get to independence, the lower they will price their oil making it harder to justify the expense of the alternative. When we step back from thinking about what feels good for me today and think about what is really a right thing to do for the future, we come up with other choices. Some that are distasteful such as placing taxes on OPEC oil that caused gasoline to exceed $5/gal and use that money for developing alternatives would allow us see a plethora of alternatives available. Tax credits for hybrids that really produce in excess of 75 miles per gallon and taxes on vehicles that are less than 50 miles per gallon could help. The problem with tax credits is that someone else is paying for my benefit. We need to make sure that we don’t produce a loophole that allows an all electric vehicle that requires 100 gal of fuel to produce 200 miles of electricity (2 miles per gal)
We need to decide if we are going to do what is right in the end or not!
High Mileage & Electric
by FredMars - 6/24/07 11:39 AM In reply to: Do what is right by 1dreamYou are right on the mark. It would be great if we could get 100MPG and it is really not science fiction. I saw it for myself while a contract employee at a Ford plant. I witnessed 249.xxMPG from a 351 CID V-8 block, and was told by the test engineer that I would not live to see it on a production vehicle.
The science is quite simple. Fuel is introduced into the cylinder in a vaporized state. By preheating the fuel in a vortex chamber as it enters the cylinder, the gas heats and vaporizes, making it much more volitile. When it is compressed and ignited it will provide (conservatively)99.0% ignition of the fuel in the cylinder. That is much more than the 28%-30% in most "efficient" engines today.
But of course electric is the best alternative, as that is what moves locomotives that pull long freight trains. It provides the highest torque and horsepower, and it does it practically instantly. The diesel engines provide the kinetic energy to spin the generators, which in turn provide the current for those huge electric motors. In an electric vehicle, a storage medium (currently lithium ion batteries) provides the current to drive the motor, but does not have a self-recharging capability. Introducing the equivalent of a portable generator into the design, would enable recharging n demand. With solar panels, regenerative (heat/electric) braking, you could achieve the 100+MPG you wrote about easily.
Although I have not researched this one yet, "a special metal alloy was patented by Freedman (USA) in 1957, which spontaneously breaks water into hydrogen and oxygen with no outside electrical input and without causing any chemical changes in the metal itself. This means that this special metal alloy can make hydrogen from water, for free, forever." That is according to Nexus Magazine http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/freeenergy.html
Tom Bearden and several others have been researching permanent magnet motors. These devices provide "free" electric using permant magnets to begin an electron flow, which is then oscillated through an special LC circuit that produces an over unity gain anamoly.
There are many such alternatives that have been experimented with over the past 200 years. Moray and Tesla utilized "radiant energy" to provide useful power. MIT jsut demonstrated a device that sends elctric power to a device (a 60-watt light)without wires. This was something Tesla was working on with the Wardenclyffe (sp?)Tower in Long Island, New York and his lab in Colorado. He theorized that there is "unlimited" energy streaming to us from the sun and all the stars in the cosmos that in one second, could provide enough energy to power the world for millennia. Think of what could be accomplished with that as a resource!
But I must agree with the Ford engineer and think that it will not happen in my life time. There are too many people in the world that will complain all the way to the pump and back, but won't change there lifestyles to use less fuel.
There is too much money and power at stake, and although I do not agree that it will have an adverse effect on national security, there are those in key positions that do. I feel that th eopposite is true.
With an energy technology that does not rely on fuels as we currently do, and with businesses now able to move goods practically for pennies per pound, all of the American economy would boom. Imagine what could be done in computer technology. We could have vehicles that can be programmed with a destination, and it can drive us there. Where power is not a factor, roads and highways can have sensors and wireless data streams can be send to and from buses, cars, and trucks, constantly adjusting speeds to accommodate flow and volume. Keeping eveyone moving safely, while they enjoy the same distractions that now cause collisions and casualties.
No, I may see electric cars in my life time, but I doubt they won't have to be plugged in frequently. It's akin to a carrot being dangled, and we (most of the population although you and I may not) just keep running to get a bite. Can you all say, "Madame President?"
BioDiesel Makes My Big Truck Green!!
by Hurstah28 - 5/3/07 9:28 AM In reply to: What's your favorite alternative fuel? by wcunning
I drive a Dodge Cummins diesel powered pickup and have for years, even when diesel used to be constantly priced below regular unleaded gasoline, unlike nowadays. While some little car drivers scowl at my large truck, little do they know that, when it comes to automotive fuel, I'm "greener" than they are in my choice of fuel AND buying the fuel I burn in my truck HELPS AMERICAN FARMERS. Not some rich Arab sheik that hates Americans half way around the world. When questioned about my truck that has "funny smelling exhaust" which happens frequently due to my biodiesel bumper sticker proudly displayed on the back, I just smile and tell em that my big truck is a vegetarian too.....can't you smell it?? 
It would smell better if...
by impala - 5/3/07 8:43 PM In reply to: BioDiesel Makes My Big Truck Green!! by Hurstah28It would smell better if you added some lard. Then it wouldn't have to be a vegan.
Nobody wants lard in their truck...
by Cooltruth - 5/30/07 11:07 PM In reply to: It would smell better if... by impalaHog fat would clog the fuel injectors something awful. Nobody would want nasty hog fat in their truck!
Public Transportation
by brian502 - 5/3/07 9:29 AM In reply to: What's your favorite alternative fuel? by wcunning
Public Transportation could be a huge help.The problem is that most US cities are lacking any kind of serious public transportation.I live in Louisville,KY and our bus system is seriously inept.We do have many bus routes however the scheduling is terrible.I couldn't take the bus to work and back if I wanted to due to the scheduling.Otherwise I think Hybrid is the only real answer at this time.
Grasping for Straws
by Michael Di Marco - 5/3/07 9:33 AM In reply to: What's your favorite alternative fuel? by wcunning
The current alternative fuels effort can be best described as grasping at straws. This due to a false sense of urgency (but I'll address this later).
Hydrogen: If you ever worried about the guy smoking a cig while you were filling up, think about how much more volitile hydrogen is. Oh BTW, the by product of burning hydrogen is water vapor which is 99% responsible (not CO2) for the "Green House Effect".
BioDiesel: Same problem as when we switched to Unleaded fuels. I agree with this concept. But any expectation of immediate benefit is falicious.
Ethenol: Same problem as bio-diesel with switching over and changing engines and fuel systems to deal with that level of alcohol in the gas. Besides no immediate benefit there is a eco-socio negative increasing the value of corn crops and having a lower portion of those crops available to consumption. High demand/Higher prices and that means the poor of countries like Mexico go hungry (tortilla prices are already skyrocketing).
Hybrids: Still burn gas (and require low alcohol content) and when it comes time to replace that battery you'll find out why the depreciation on those vehicles is so high.
So those of you that have taken the bait of man-made global warming hook, line, and sinker, I'm glad your conscious feels better. But the extra expense (only a small portion of which you get as a tax deduction) you have incurred for the good of the planet is a waste. The Nation magazine now calls the man-made global warming proponents members of new religion pushing their beliefs on others. This because there is no science to the claims. There is no taking a vote in science. There can be no consensus in science. There is only the scientific method that takes an observation to a theory and once the theory is tested AND proven becomes science. The belivers that man made CO2 is destroying the planet are not able to take their theory and prove it. Thus, no science.
Those who are angered by these words need to Google or Yahoo (no, not wikipedia its a biased rag) the following. Milankovitch Cycle. Once reading through the SCIENCE of these forces and there effects, I ask you, "what can mankind possibly do to conteract these forces of nature?" Nothing. And no need to even try.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
|
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
