[Jmark]

I know, I know, most of what we see is pure BS when it comes to making my truck run for 400 miles on 4 ounces of water, but I'm curious on it anyway. Not curious on the BS claims, but on the legit vehicles that are being introduced by Honda and Toyota next year. GM has one in the works too.

I passed some info to a friend on the coming economic and oil crisis and he really flamed me in his reply, claiming hydrogen is the cure-all for our woes. He quotes from this site in his reply.

http://www.cleanpeace.org/hydrogen.jsp

http://www.cleanpeace.org

He also says one of his coworkers built a hydrogen reactor in an ice chest and is running their go-cart on it. ?? Possible? yes? no?

Anyways, back to what I'm looking for.

Yes, we can build and operate hydrogen powered vehicles, but what it the end cost?
Some of my questions.
1. What will be the main source of hydrogen? Water or natural gas? Do we have enough of either to pull it off?
2. If it is water, what will happen to the water supply when we begin sucking trillions of gallons of water out of our already dwindling supplies, to make fuel?
3. Can conversions be made to existing vehicles once a viable system is found?
I've heard talk about "direct injection" and "direct spark injection". Any truth to any of this?
4. "IF" this does become a usable alternative, what is the timetable for implementation in the US, and other countries?
5. If current vehicles cannot be made to run on hydrogen, what is left? Everyone park their vehicles and spend a quarter mill on a new vehicle?


My bottom line....yes, it can and most likely work, but at what cost? and when? In the mean time, we still need oil to keep things going. Will it last until then? Does anyone really know.

Please try to keep your replies scientific and on point.
Thanks

Mark

[curtis73]

Originally Posted by Jmark

Yes, we can build and operate hydrogen powered vehicles, but what it the end cost?
Some of my questions.
1. What will be the main source of hydrogen? Water or natural gas? Do we have enough of either to pull it off?

Currently the easiest source (cheapest to produce) is from hydrocarbon cracking, so the majority of any hydrogen-powered system will still rely on fossil fuels given the current infrastructure.

2. If it is water, what will happen to the water supply when we begin sucking trillions of gallons of water out of our already dwindling supplies, to make fuel?

No worries. One gallon of water makes literally thousands of gallons of hydrogen. And, since its directly returned to the atmosphere as mostly water vapor after combustion, we're just kinda borrowing it. Its much like biofuels. They emit the same crap that fossil fuels do, its just that the compounds they emit came from existing elements in the biosphere instead of fossil fuel reserves.

3. Can conversions be made to existing vehicles once a viable system is found?

I'm still skeptical. With current technology, running a car on purely electrolyzed H2 and O2 is not possible. The reaction is so violent and hot that internal combustion is not an effective means of capturing its energy. Burning H2 with atmospheric air is probably possible right now. I think that converting existing engines might take some serious engineering, but it could happen. I don't think anyone will be selling an H2 carburetor that you can bolt on your 350, but if we can come up with ways of dealing with the aqueous byproducts of combustion it might be possible. Burning H2 in your 350 means that the blowby gasses are mostly water which doesn't like the Castrol in the pan.

I've heard talk about "direct injection" and "direct spark injection". Any truth to any of this?

Honestly I have to read up on it. So much of what is hitting the internet these days looks, smells, and tastes like snake oil. Its so hard to decipher the crap from the crisco

4. "IF" this does become a usable alternative, what is the timetable for implementation in the US, and other countries?

I'm not qualified to answer that. Let's ask John McCain *chokes back a chuckle*

5. If current vehicles cannot be made to run on hydrogen, what is left? Everyone park their vehicles and spend a quarter mill on a new vehicle?

Nah. I think that the tapering off of fossil fuels will be met with new emerging technologies. As more and more people buy hydrogen fuel cell electrics, hydrogen powered, and maybe solar powered or electric cars, the number of fossil-fuel burning cars will taper off. Those of us with a Corolla will eventually trade it in for a nuclear/flux capacitor model. That leaves the hotrodding market. I think there is no reason why the classic car market can't be sustained by biofuels. The question is; will that transition from Corolla to [insert viable technology here] be smooth, or will fossil fuels become so expensive/rare that the transition will cause global economic shifts before a new permanent infrastructure can be put in place?

My main concern is not with the economy. My first concern is with finding a consensus on the new path. This is like Beta vs VHS or HD-DVD vs Blu-ray, but the conundrum for the automotive world is that there are several potentially viable technologies combined with a shaky economy. This isn't like Sony and Panasonic charging ahead with costly market speculation and advertising, this is world economy. This is frantically charging ahead with a set of potential possibilities and spending trillions just to see which one comes out ahead. The aftermath would be a decade of orphaned fuel technologies that not only bankrupt the world economy, but bankrupt all of those poor individual consumers who chose Beta. Worse yet, the government will offer buyback programs for those orphaned technologies - further bankrupting things.

As tough as this is for me to say (being in automotive engineering myself), we need to pick the most theoretically viable one and go with it. If we start dumping money on all of them they'll drag us down. My money is on renewable sources; biofuels in the interim to help ease the transition, then using wind, water, and solar power generation to make any number of fuels like electricity or hydrogen.

Hydrogen is the most abundant element which is why the government wants to see it emerge as the next thing, but they can't see that electrons are billions of times more abundant (and instantly recyclable). All we need to do is just get them moving. Hydrogen technology requires a completely new infrastructure, fueling, production, and a complete re-engineering of the vehicle drivetrain. Electricity is already here, as well as the technology to harness existing forms of energy. I personally think that instead of sinking money into poking around for new technology, spend that money building on existing technology. The amount of money we would spend designing a whole new fuel world could easily pay for a lot of photovoltaic cells, windmills, and hydroelectric power.

My bottom line....yes, it can and most likely work, but at what cost? and when? In the mean time, we still need oil to keep things going. Will it last until then? Does anyone really know.

Nobody knows. As soon as someone says we're all going to run out of fuel in 2035, an oil company discovers the largest oil reserve in history. Tree huggers say tomorrow, oil companies say a few hundred years, and experts are all over the board.

[47dodge]

I dont think it is a viable option anytime in the next 10 to 15 years. It takes a lot of energy to break down water into hydrogen and oxygen. I know that website says we would use wind and solar power but in reality very little of our power comes from these sources right now. Most of our power plant energy will still be from fossil fuels for quite a while so we really would be losing not gaining for quite a while. I'm sure it uses more energy to produce hydrogen than you get back out of it. Even the auto manufacturers say it is at least 20 years off and they have been saying that for the last 20 years so how much progress are we really making? Add to that the fact that gas stations are not going to spend the money to change over to this until there is enough demand and people aren't going to buy these cars untill they know there will be places to refuel.

[ford2go]

Hydrogen might be the fuel of the future. It sounds really great from an environmental standpoint. Howerver, there are lots of issues.
1. How to make it. The most efficient method today seems to involve the use of petroleum in some form -- somewhat defeats the purpose. Using electricity is apparently not very efficient. Recently some famous college claimed that they had a new more efficient process using electricity and another process (catalyst?). It's quite a problem at this time

2. Storage at the 'pump', and in a vehicle. At normal temps, the stuff takes up a lot of room, or must be highly pressurized. There have been experiments with low temperatures as well as special tanks that 'absorb' it , but can release it to the engine.

3. Distribution -- it's hard to handle. Also, there are no hydrogen pipelines at this time.

In short, there are just a lot of problems. Not to mention that, in real life, it might produce pollutant byproducts if it's used in an internal combustion engine. Fuel cells are another hydrogen option -- but they have problems as well.

Right now, it seems as if we have to pursue multiple options to at least buy time while hydrogen is explored. Some form of ethanol and electric cars are two options generally discussed. Both require further development, but they might buy us the time needed to get to hydrogen. Altenatively, something such as algae based biofuel might end up being a real winner.

IMHO, hydrogen, if it ever works, will require a shift equal to that of going from horses to automobiles. Even the proposed interim steps ( ethanol etc) will require some major changes.

Life could get interesting,

ford2go

[oldred]

Whenever it involves water forget it. Hydrogen may very well be our future energy source but a good source for the Hydrogen it's self must be found first, currently Hydro-Carbon fuels such as natural gas are the best source. Sure you can break down water into Hydrogen and Oxygen but there is no latent energy in water so it will always be a losing proposition, just laws of physics-you can not possibly get more energy from recombining Hydrogen and Oxygen than it would take to separate them. Since no internal combustion engine or Hydrogen fuel cell is 100% efficient producing energy from Hydrogen derived from water will always be a losing proposition from an energy standpoint. It may be that converting the free energy from wind and/or solar into Hydrogen from water may be done in the future but it would probably still be more efficient to just use the electricity directly than to use it for Hydrogen production from water for use as a fuel. ANY on-board engine powered Hydrogen generator being hawked as a millage improver will always be a losing affair because it will put more load on the engine to produce the Hydrogen than the Hydrogen could produce.

[F-BIRD'88]

If the new 2010 Camaro had a all electric plug in motor as a engine option instead of the Volt, I'd order one tomorrow. I'd bet I'd have to stand in line.
90% of my daily required commuting and leisure transportation needs could easily be covered by the present range of a all electric car with much room to spare.
GM marketing execs are dim wits. Going to bury that company.
If gasoline was further deluted with just another 10% ethanol and say 15 to 20% of the daily commute auto fleet of cars switched to all electric, you would see the drastic drop in the price of local refined gasoline and the world price of crude oil.
There is no shortage of crude oil or crude oil production only speculative overheated market driven by oil baron run government foreign policy.
For the last 8 years the fox has been in charge of the hen house. Follow the money. Get out a vote.

[woodz428]

When I hear people speaking about electric and hydrogen powered vehicles it's obvious they have less than complete info. Most electricity is provided by fossil fuels. How does converting one form of energy ever get more energy?? It doesn't, there is always a loss. So any electric vehicle is going to depend on fossil fuels just as a regular car and the cost of the electric bill will be the next issue people complain about. Not to say anything about the EMFs that you will besaturated with while using it. It is a well known physics principle that you lose energy everytime it is converted, simple fact. Until some other changes take place, or physics change, I think it is over optimistic thinking. I live on a State road and constantly see large 4 dr pick-ups and SUVs passing many cars and only having one passenger. Americans have created their own problems by buying into the bigger is better syndrome and using vehicles for daily transportation that should be used for work hauling or something other than commuting.

[Double_v23]

Originally Posted by Jmark

I've heard talk about "direct injection" and "direct spark injection". Any truth to any of this?

My best friend from high school went to University of Minnesota and got a masters in manufacturing and a bachelors in automotive engineering. His thesis was a direct injected polaris snowmobile that ran on E85. The ran it in a competition and I don't remember the exact specs but it did work. They won the international competition and the design was purchased by Polaris. There were four people on his team and it was enough money to cover their tuition for the four years of college.

I am not sure that is the same direct injection you are speaking of but if it is then it seems there are viable options out there.

[F-BIRD'88]

Originally Posted by woodz428

When I hear people speaking about electric and hydrogen powered vehicles it's obvious they have less than complete info. Most electricity is provided by fossil fuels. How does converting one form of energy ever get more energy?? It doesn't, there is always a loss. So any electric vehicle is going to depend on fossil fuels just as a regular car and the cost of the electric bill will be the next issue people complain about. Not to say anything about the EMFs that you will besaturated with while using it. It is a well known physics principle that you lose energy everytime it is converted, simple fact. Until some other changes take place, or physics change, I think it is over optimistic thinking. I live on a State road and constantly see large 4 dr pick-ups and SUVs passing many cars and only having one passenger. Americans have created their own problems by buying into the bigger is better syndrome and using vehicles for daily transportation that should be used for work hauling or something other than commuting.

It does not matter if energy conversion to electricty is 100% efficitiant.
Electriclty is efficient enough. The inforstructure and generating capacity exists already (most charging will be done at night off peak time.)
Electricity is produced by many sources, Nuclear, hydro wind solar, natural gas, coal and oil. Reducing the use of gasoline in north america by just 20% by diersifying the fuel used to power your daily use car. By you haveing a choice in the market place, will cause such a world glut of oil supply that the price will plumet. When oil is cheap it does not matter who owns it, its just another commodity in the market and you can't eat it. The only thing oil is absolutely required for is modern mechanized warfare. You are right on about we being addicted to oil and big heavy cars. There is no sound reason why a modern hi perf sporty car
(2010 Camaro, 2009 Challenger) has to weight as much as a 1975 Cordoba (slug tank pig) Take 1000lbs out of it and install a 150hp electric motor and you got a fun fun ride.
When they perfect the matter anti matter engine we can all switch.

GM FORD and Chrysler need to get with the program or go the way of the dinasaur. This is the new melleneum Hot RoD

[DENCOUCH]

Originally Posted by Double_v23

My best friend from high school went to University of Minnesota and got a masters in manufacturing and a bachelors in automotive engineering. His thesis was a direct injected polaris snowmobile that ran on E85. The ran it in a competition and I don't remember the exact specs but it did work. They won the international competition and the design was purchased by Polaris. There were four people on his team and it was enough money to cover their tuition for the four years of college.

I am not sure that is the same direct injection you are speaking of but if it is then it seems there are viable options out there.

There is a 5 stroke diesel motor that direct injects water after the exhaust stroke. The residue combustion heat turns the injected water to steam, supplying yet another power stroke.

The downside is added complexity and needing another tank in your vehicle to pack along the water required, which weighs more than fuel.

[454C10]

Using nuclear power to make H2 from water seems to be a good option. Unlimited supply of both.

Burning only H2 is a whole different animal as compared to adding a little H2 to a gas mixture.

Adding H2 (from an on board generator) to a gas mixture increases the burn rate of gas which makes the engine more efficient (in theory). Yes, making enough btu's in H2 from water doesn't work from a +12V H2 generator. But, it isn't the btu's that makes the car more efficient, the catalyst effect of the H2 on fuel is what they are after.

[onebadmerc]

All I can think of is the Hindenburg when you go to fill up your tank full of hydrogen.

[curtis73]

Originally Posted by F-BIRD'88

It does not matter if energy conversion to electricty is 100% efficitiant.
Electriclty is efficient enough. The inforstructure and generating capacity exists already (most charging will be done at night off peak time.)
Electricity is produced by many sources, Nuclear, hydro wind solar, natural gas, coal and oil.

Agreed. Instead of spending 6 gazillion dollars developing a new hydrogen technology, why don't we spend that 6 gazillion on additional windmills, PV cells, hydroelectric, geothermal and other renewable sources. We already know how to do that and the distribution is already in place.

[AntnyL]

Originally Posted by curtis73

Agreed. Instead of spending 6 gazillion dollars developing a new hydrogen technology, why don't we spend that 6 gazillion on additional windmills, PV cells, hydroelectric, geothermal and other renewable sources. We already know how to do that and the distribution is already in place.

Agreed. And how about building a few nuclear power plants? We have not built a new one since the 1970's!!!!! How do you spell INSANITY?!!

[oldbogie]

Originally Posted by Jmark

I know, I know, most of what we see is pure BS when it comes to making my truck run for 400 miles on 4 ounces of water, but I'm curious on it anyway. Not curious on the BS claims, but on the legit vehicles that are being introduced by Honda and Toyota next year. GM has one in the works too.

I passed some info to a friend on the coming economic and oil crisis and he really flamed me in his reply, claiming hydrogen is the cure-all for our woes. He quotes from this site in his reply.

http://www.cleanpeace.org/hydrogen.jsp

http://www.cleanpeace.org

He also says one of his coworkers built a hydrogen reactor in an ice chest and is running their go-cart on it. ?? Possible? yes? no?

Anyways, back to what I'm looking for.

Yes, we can build and operate hydrogen powered vehicles, but what it the end cost?
Some of my questions.
1. What will be the main source of hydrogen? Water or natural gas? Do we have enough of either to pull it off?
2. If it is water, what will happen to the water supply when we begin sucking trillions of gallons of water out of our already dwindling supplies, to make fuel?
3. Can conversions be made to existing vehicles once a viable system is found?
I've heard talk about "direct injection" and "direct spark injection". Any truth to any of this?
4. "IF" this does become a usable alternative, what is the timetable for implementation in the US, and other countries?
5. If current vehicles cannot be made to run on hydrogen, what is left? Everyone park their vehicles and spend a quarter mill on a new vehicle?


My bottom line....yes, it can and most likely work, but at what cost? and when? In the mean time, we still need oil to keep things going. Will it last until then? Does anyone really know.

Please try to keep your replies scientific and on point.
Thanks

Mark

Probably pretty expensive, there are two ways of getting hydrogen at industrial quantities.

First and most common is Steam Reforming, where methane in the presence of superheated steam (1000 degrees give or take a few) and a metal catalyst such as platinum degrades into carbon monoxide and a bunch of free hydrogen atoms.

Second and not as efficient in terms of energy in against hydrogen out is electrolysis. Which is the more commonly known but lesser used process to obtain industrial quantities of hydrogen.

Both processes are highly energy consumptive, therefore, are expensive. In the case of steam reformation, the base stock being methane is an expensive fuel stock. At least electrolysis uses what is currently inexpensive water, but I rather suspect that if we start using water for fuel stock, it will do cost wise what corn and sugar did when we started using them as fuel stock for ethanol production.

We're on the horns of an energy dilemma, from which I don't see any "cheap" solutions. I think the soon future is in methane hydrate as a base hydro- carbon stock. I rather think that hydrogen will prove to be no more effective in replacing motor fuel than roof top photo voltaic cells will of replacing Hoover dam's generators. Yes there will be a penetration, no, because of cost and technical issues, it won't be significant is my expectation.

And I'm just KISSing the issues under this technology to avoid writing a book, but the environmental impact of hydrogen production makes our current problems pale in comparison.

Making hydrogen in a beer cooler to power a go-cart ain't exactly production for the masses. Any scientist/ engineer knows full well that what you can do as a lab toy doesn't make a sale-able/functional system for the masses. The consumptive masses is another story. During the day I work for a major corporation with hundreds of thousands of employees, one of the things I marvel at is the daily trash we generate. At home it doesn't seem like all that much, a can of trash and a can of recycles a week. At work, trash is on an industrial scale, I'm amazed, if not overwhelmed, by the quantity of things I see being thrown away on a daily basis from the restrooms and cafeterias, let alone the stuff that supports production. The quantities of stuff the world society consumes and disposes of is absolutely, totally mind boggling. so it is with porduction of things the quantity, rate, and quality requirements are mind boggling and are a far cry from what you can build to goof around with in the parking lot.

Bogie