Hydrogen Cars

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Helium is just Hydrogen's fat stepkid.

Nah, Hydrogen is just the runt of the atomic litter.

 

[vene-nemesis]

I'm an electrical engineer and I agree that hydrogen cars are the future.

We could have nuclear plants generate hydrogen at night when demand
for their output is low. This is the direction to true energy independence
and jobs at home.

Instead of the $800B spendulus program that did pretty much nothing,
they should have invested it in 100 new nuclear plants with the intent
of supporting hydrogen production for new vehicles.

That sounds good, but there needs to be more money invested into developing alternative nucleaer fuel power plants, as uranium is scarce, we will consume the whole earths uranium in like 18 years if the cosumption rate stays the same.

Thorium seems to be a great alternative and based on what i have read, plus it is possible to make smaller reactors where one of them can supply a small town or neighborhood. In case of failure the smaller form factor is also an advantage.

 

[sloasdaylight]

That sounds good, but there needs to be more money invested into developing alternative nucleaer fuel power plants, as uranium is scarce, we will consume the whole earths uranium in like 18 years if the cosumption rate stays the same.

Thorium seems to be a great alternative and based on what i have read, plus it is possible to make smaller reactors where one of them can supply a small town or neighborhood. In case of failure the smaller form factor is also an advantage.

They said that about oil in the 60s.

 

[Kael]

Didn't read the whole thread, so this may have already been pointed out.

1. Hydrogen fuel cells are a means of producing electricity. Hydrogen cars are electric. Unless someone is trying to run one by actually combusting the hydrogen. Which would be odd as...

2. Gasoline vapor is more flammable than hydrogen. If you are driving around with a mostly empty tank, you've got a more deadly gas already in your tank than you would with hydrogen.

3. If a fire did start, it would most likely be safer than a gas fire. In an accident, gas flows out laterally. When that stuff gets set off, it burns everything around it. When hydrogen gets loose, it moves upwards. If it did get touched off, it is going to burn crap above the accident. Far preferable to burning things in the immediate horizontal plane. With a good breeze, the hydrogen will probably dissipate rapidly enough not to even burn the bulk of the hydrogen.


There are quite a few hurdles to getting our infrastructure ready to distribute hydrogen, but there's more in getting battery charging stations plus beefing up our already stretched thin power grid. Perhaps most importantly, for fuel cells to be feasible, we need to find a way to economically produce hydrogen. I mean, you can't go out and just mine it.

 

[Johnny Crab]

Work at a petrochemical plant with hydrogen for 20+ years and understand it won't be easy and you may not want everyone with $$$ to be cruising around with liquid hydrogen.
Class 1 Group B substance.
Leaks are not seen much in daylight because they're already on fire a lot(like the nearly-invisible alcohol fires in Formula 1 maybe). Compressed liquid hydrogen, same as in the Space Shuttle's fuel tank.
I'll skip these probably.
The marketing was OK though.

 

[MIJ-VI]

A sketch for promoting the growth of the hydrogen producing infrastructure needed to make fuel cell-powered vehicles greener and more profitable:

1) Grey tech taxes go up

2) Green tech taxes go down

3) Standardize solar panel designs (look what IBM's 1981 PC spec. did for encouraging third party participation in making computers cheaper/faster) allowing for lower cost upgrades over time

4) Car makers get into the solar panel leasing business

5) Car makers lease solar panels to businesses, and home owners (who spend much of their time at work instead of at home using electricity)

6) The resulting surplus electricity (owned by the car makers/solar panel leasing companies), augmented as needed by that generated from wind turbines & nuclear (night/seasonal), is converted to hydrogen fuel *at the pumps and sold to the public who now have a more affordable reason to buy hydrogen fuel cell-powered vehicles.

7) Car makers make $ selling cars AND the fuel they run on

8) Domestic auto industry profits & jobs go up

9) Pollution & transportation costs go down

*Invalid Link Removed

"...Bourgeois's prototype electrolyzer cuts the equipment cost of using electricity to grab hydrogen from H2O. The key was replacing tooled metal with a moldable, high-tech GE plastic called Noryl, saving on materials, manufacturing and assembly. The result? A kilogram of hydrogen -- the energy equivalent of roughly a gallon of gas -- that costs $3 instead of the current $6 to $8. "I could imagine a small box that sits on-site making hydrogen for a factory," Bourgeois says. "Eventually, even filling stations may make their own hydrogen."..."

I offer this sketch in the hope that it will provoke better suggestions on how to make this work.

 

[Simo98]

we will consume the whole earths uranium in like 18 years if the cosumption rate stays the same.

Im VERY Anti Nuclear power, but that is crap.


I used this for an assignment just recently:

Invalid Link Removed

Seems pretty reasonable, no idea how accurate it is, but it seems more plausible than "Zomg, Uraniumz runnin out next week!" 18 years seems way too small, I believe 50 or so is the smallest estimate I have seen.

I mean, it WILL run out eventually, that is the nature of any fuel source, however how long is a matter of debate.

In my opinion, there is no point developing nuclear power any further, as Uranium (and other resource) will run out eventually, even if it takes 250,000 years. Something like solar is a much better option, which while it will also run out eventually, we will have other issues to deal with around that time


I personally like electric cars, through hydrogen gas is good method for energy storage, so there could be some sort of synergy there.

One thing I am worried about with electric cars is that they make no sound. Pedestrian deaths will go through the roof when electric cars are implimented on a large scale! I find that if I walk with my iPod in both ears I have to be very careful not to walk out in front of cars, before that I had never realised how much people rely on sound for avoiding hazards like that.

 

[MatticusMania]

One thing I am worried about with electric cars is that they make no sound. Pedestrian deaths will go through the roof when electric cars are implimented on a large scale! I find that if I walk with my iPod in both ears I have to be very careful not to walk out in front of cars, before that I had never realised how much people rely on sound for avoiding hazards like that.

Well, we could design a 'deer whistle' (not sure what theyre called) like device that could make a little whirring sound for the electric car, so that we could hear them coming.

 

[Muusers]

I'm not going to go in this debate again. All I'm saying is that batteries will get better and therefore are the most logical answer. imo

 

[Jim Nazium]

Well, we could design a 'deer whistle' (not sure what theyre called) like device that could make a little whirring sound for the electric car, so that we could hear them coming.

I think there's already a proposal to fit them with speakers that make the sound of a gas engine. Seems like a waste of an opportunity to reduce "noise pollution", but I guess the saftey issue needs to be addressed.

 

[Chebass88]

This is always an interesting discussion - sure, hydrogen cars are really "neat" and have decent promise w.r.t. pollution, efficiency. Great. A few thoughts:

IMO, it all boils down to COST. They are not widely implemented now because there is no real fueling infrastructure. If using a low temperature PEM fuel cell, >99.9% pure hydrogen is required. Hydrogen is only generated through the reformation reaction, typically of natural gas. So, this means hydrogen production at a centralized facility (e.g., refinery) where economies of scale are available and then trucked to the local distribution sites. At those distribution sites, capital equipment is necessary to safely store and dispense hydrogen. Another alternative is on-site reformation, where liquid fuels (already at the fueling stations) are reformed into hydrogen. Impurities in fuel now become an issue - road diesel with 15 ppmw sulfur in it is still a significant amount of impurities for long term operation of a catalyzed system. Add to this the development costs of process intensification, controls, etc. The final option is on-vehicle reformation. Possible, but not in the immediate future - power density and process intensification are two huge drawbacks at this point (large development costs). Lastly, fuel cells are not mass-produced. Several companies produce them, however, they are not as ubiquitous as the internal combustion engine. Nor is there a really decent maintenance plan to service large numbers of vehicles. (try asking about the GM fuel cell Equinox at your local GM dealer...)

Not to be overly pessimistic about the topic - we have come a long way with hydrogen power, and we actually have vehicles operating on the streets. We aren't there just yet, but of course, that requires additional money and time.

All of that said, gasoline is still exceptionally cheap. Even at $2.59/gallon (what I paid yesterday in NJ) - it is not enough to convince people to drive conservatively, let alone buy a new car with relatively unknown technology (yes, fuel cells and batteries have existed for years, but not as prime movers for millions of automobiles).

And yes, hydrogen IS used in combustion for vehicles - there is a BMW 7 series that uses hydrogen in combustion.

Even if they were available, I cannot purchase one for another 10 years or so - my car only has 60K miles on it, and I'm planning on using it for another 150K.

ian

 

[Chebass88]

I think there's already a proposal to fit them with speakers that make the sound of a gas engine. Seems like a waste of an opportunity to reduce "noise pollution", but I guess the saftey issue needs to be addressed.

I imagine there is only a short amount of time before someone learns how to defeat this mechanism and use their external speakers for the loud & obnoxious playing of 'music'.

 

[L-A]

I'm not going to go in this debate again. All I'm saying is that batteries will get better and therefore are the most logical answer. imo

I'm with you. It is absurd to say that hydrogen is promising and batteries lead nowhere. Both are technologies that got kicked back into R&D recently, and both already have viable applications.

Also, I love the part about freeing the petrol engine.

 

[sloasdaylight]

This is always an interesting discussion - sure, hydrogen cars are really "neat" and have decent promise w.r.t. pollution, efficiency. Great. A few thoughts:

IMO, it all boils down to COST. They are not widely implemented now because there is no real fueling infrastructure. If using a low temperature PEM fuel cell, >99.9% pure hydrogen is required. Hydrogen is only generated through the reformation reaction, typically of natural gas. So, this means hydrogen production at a centralized facility (e.g., refinery) where economies of scale are available and then trucked to the local distribution sites. At those distribution sites, capital equipment is necessary to safely store and dispense hydrogen. Another alternative is on-site reformation, where liquid fuels (already at the fueling stations) are reformed into hydrogen. Impurities in fuel now become an issue - road diesel with 15 ppmw sulfur in it is still a significant amount of impurities for long term operation of a catalyzed system. Add to this the development costs of process intensification, controls, etc. The final option is on-vehicle reformation. Possible, but not in the immediate future - power density and process intensification are two huge drawbacks at this point (large development costs). Lastly, fuel cells are not mass-produced. Several companies produce them, however, they are not as ubiquitous as the internal combustion engine. Nor is there a really decent maintenance plan to service large numbers of vehicles. (try asking about the GM fuel cell Equinox at your local GM dealer...)

Not to be overly pessimistic about the topic - we have come a long way with hydrogen power, and we actually have vehicles operating on the streets. We aren't there just yet, but of course, that requires additional money and time.

All of that said, gasoline is still exceptionally cheap. Even at $2.59/gallon (what I paid yesterday in NJ) - it is not enough to convince people to drive conservatively, let alone buy a new car with relatively unknown technology (yes, fuel cells and batteries have existed for years, but not as prime movers for millions of automobiles).

And yes, hydrogen IS used in combustion for vehicles - there is a BMW 7 series that uses hydrogen in combustion.

Even if they were available, I cannot purchase one for another 10 years or so - my car only has 60K miles on it, and I'm planning on using it for another 150K.

ian

I saw a thing on the news somewhere that said that until gas reaches roughly $4.00/gallon, there will likely be very little impetus on a large scale for alternative fuels.

 

[coreyfyfe]

It's not the cars, it's the fuel supply infrastructure.

This. Not to mention the development of hydrogen production facilities. That GE electrolyzer is pretty cool. When Honda first announced this car a few years ago they also had a thing up on their website about a home hydrogen generation system. It would hook up to your natural gas line and produce electricity for the house, heat for the house, and hydrogen to fuel the car. It was pretty nifty. And probably wouldn't happen in the US.

Edit - found it: Invalid Link Removed

Instead of the $800B spendulus program that did pretty much nothing,
they should have invested it in 100 new nuclear plants with the intent
of supporting hydrogen production for new vehicles.

Actually they invested $90 billion in clean-energy systems like this, including financing the development of three electric car plants and giving grants to companies producing batteries for cars like this one. The company that is highlighted in these articles (A123 systems) is based right down the street from my work, and they're doing some pretty cool stuff. They were big on the scene last year getting a lot of attention as one of the leading tech industry start-ups.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2013683-1,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1975337,00.html

 

[MatticusMania]

I think there's already a proposal to fit them with speakers that make the sound of a gas engine. Seems like a waste of an opportunity to reduce "noise pollution", but I guess the saftey issue needs to be addressed.

Those suckers sure are quite. Personally, they should stay that way. Are they seriously trying to outfit them with speakers that will make the sound of a gas engine? Thats ludicrous!

 

[Thunderscreech]

FWIW, Gasoline is actually a pretty good fuel. Why not focus on reducing emissions and increasing fuel milage? Why re-invent the wheel when the technology already exists.

Plus, hydrogren is a wimpy element. It's all the way by itself on the periodic table to prevent it from getting beaten up by all the other elements.

Plus gasoline is made of hydrogen anyways, and some other crap, like carbon and stuff.

 

[MatticusMania]

Is thunderscreech proposing synthetic gasoline?

 

[Thunderscreech]

Is thunderscreech proposing synthetic gasoline?

not synthetic, per se, but they can tailor make bacteria to produce gasoline from sugar water. And gasoline engines already exist, and more importantly, so does the infrastructure.

Plus, Europe is years ahead of the US in clean diesel technology. the VW Jetta TDi, in it's latest incarnation, gets 65 MPG highway, I hear tell. Not even my parent's Prius gets that good. All we need to do is apply the same thing across the board. We can make cars that get ridiculously high MPGs, it's just no one has the incentive because no oen is complaining.

 

[Chebass88]

Is thunderscreech proposing synthetic gasoline?

FISCHER-TROPSCH FTW!!!