NationStates Jolt Archive

Up until recently, I had no knowledge of the subject and assumed it was still entirely theoretical. Then I saw an episode of Top Gear, where they drove a hydrogen car. It's actually here.

- It's clean
- It's cheaper
- You can actually get hydrogen from some petrol stations already
- It's no harder to get hydrogen than it is to get oil out of the ocean

So why the hell aren't we all driving them!?

They keep floating away. :(

So why the hell aren't we all driving them!?

its all a load of hot air? :p

and I blame widely available public transport coupled with no real incentive to change (they do still cost loads and repairs are hard to get)

Do you have any sources for these claims?

One big problem I'm aware of is how to store the Hydrogen..

Do you have any sources for these claims?

One big problem I'm aware of is how to store the Hydrogen..

I saw it on TV. They actually roadtested a hydrogen-fuelled car and filled it up at a petrol station.

I actually think we should concetrate on Bio-Fuel, such as Algae Fuel. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel)

I've seen that very episode of top gear. And, even when I feel like sure... the hydrogen car is a good way to go... You should look up Hydrogen Conversions for Diesel vehicles.

I've seen that very episode of top gear. And, even when I feel like sure... the hydrogen car is a good way to go... You should look up Hydrogen Conversions for Diesel vehicles.

I'm going to assume that hydrogen isn't powerful enough for diesel vehicles. I'm of the opinion that if a car required diesel fuel, it shouldn't be for general civilian use anyway.

What? Well... mhhh... How hydrogen/diesel hybrids work is that a hydrogen generator is installed on the car... right under the hood... The hydrogen is directly inserted directly into the cillinder with the diesel.Wellll.... this would decrease the use of diesle needed to power the engine... The rigs now will bring a 50% increase to your fuel economy give or take a handfull *depends on the engine model*... The reason why you CAN'T do this with regular cars that take normal 87 or so octane fuel is because of those damned O2 sensors... they will be triggered by the hyrdogen and after about a week of getting 70 mpg... your drive computer will start dumping more and more fuel to make up for the discrepency in the system....

Diesels dont have this problem... so you can maintain your fuel economy...

Oh... and another bonus... you only need to fill the hydrogen generator every 3000 miles.

What? Well... mhhh... How hydrogen/diesel hybrids work is that a hydrogen generator is installed on the car... right under the hood... The hydrogen is directly inserted directly into the cillinder with the diesel.Wellll.... this would decrease the use of diesle needed to power the engine... The rigs now will bring a 50% increase to your fuel economy give or take a handfull *depends on the engine model*...
Much less actually. Up to 15%, and that's for engines without propane injection already on board.

If you know of a car where hydrogen injection can add 25%, much less 50%, grab your million dollars here (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:%241_Million_Prize_for_25%25_Mileage-Boosting_Hydroxy_Generator).


I'm going to assume that hydrogen isn't powerful enough for diesel vehicles. I'm of the opinion that if a car required diesel fuel, it shouldn't be for general civilian use anyway.
That's a pretty strange opinion. There's a lot of light diesel cars today.

- It's cheaperIt depends on how you produce hydrogen, as H2 is quite reactive.

- You can actually get hydrogen from some petrol stations already

They're precious few in most of the world.



By the way, I don't understand why people want to burn hydrogen in air (in a Diesel or in a Otto cycle), instead of using fuel cells.

- It's clean
- It's cheaper
Not per se. Subsidies.
http://www.dotynmr.com/PDF/Doty_H2Price.pdf
Proper production can cut the wholesale price to $1.5-$2/kg (1kg of H2 is a rough equiv. to 1 US gallon of gas). However transportation and distribution adds.

Note that these prices are for H2 produced from natural gas - it's not any cleaner than just burning natural gas. Currently all H2 is produced this way, not very dirty, but not any cleaner than other fuels either.


True clean production will require a massive nuclear industry, probably with H2+electricity cogeneration in very high temperature reactors. Since that will create a shortage of uranium, it will have to be recycled, to do that cost-efficiently requires advanced designs like liquid uranium-plutonium reactors.

It's all very doable, but the dumb treehuggers won't welcome this solution because of the scary words.
[ And yes, anti-nuclear treehuggers are unusually dumb; but also even more hypocritical than they're dumb, because even catastrophic radiation release is harmless to the nature. It can only hurt humans. ]

Problem with hydrogen is that the way to win it is by using electricity to split water.

Where do you get that electricity from? At the moment, in Australia, mostly coal-fired power stations. It always comes down to the same thing: we are spending too much time in public debate about cars and reducing fuel consumption and not enough time talking about the process as a whole.

Bad, bad idea.

Hydrogen is NOT an energy source. It's just energy transfer, and not very efficient energy transfer at that. If one of our physics people would like to correct me go right ahead, but my understanding is that it takes 1.8 Joules of electricity to make enough Hydrogen to produce 1.0 Joules.

So, shifting from fossil fuels to hydrogen made using fossil fuels would close to DOUBLE our use of said fossil fuels. And since "alternative" systems do not, as yet, work, and no one's willing to go Nuclear, what other options do we have?

Bad, bad idea.

Hydrogen is NOT an energy source. It's just energy transfer, and not very efficient energy transfer at that. If one of our physics people would like to correct me go right ahead, but my understanding is that it takes 1.8 Joules of electricity to make enough Hydrogen to produce 1.0 Joules.

So, shifting from fossil fuels to hydrogen made using fossil fuels would close to DOUBLE our use of said fossil fuels. And since "alternative" systems do not, as yet, work, and no one's willing to go Nuclear, what other options do we have?

Rubber-bands, chipmunks and a great big push?

I actually think we should concetrate on Bio-Fuel, such as Algae Fuel. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel)
The only problem is that biofuels will likely do more damage to the environment than even the current oil-based economy. Agriculture is mighty damaging.



By the way, I don't understand why people want to burn hydrogen in air (in a Diesel or in a Otto cycle), instead of using fuel cells.
These engines are much cheaper, much lighter, give more power, can be multifuel.

The only disadvantage is a slightly lower fuel efficiency. But it should be weighed against the cost advantage. And even with fixed cost, a cost-benefit analysis should be done to see if spending the money on other components of the car, like lightening it - modern cars are grossly overweight, could lighten any of them twice without any functional loss - can actually result in a better fuel economy. From what I know, it can.

Rubber-bands, chipmunks and a great big push?

<<..
..>>

How big can you breed a chipmunk?

Bad, bad idea.

Hydrogen is NOT an energy source. It's just energy transfer, and not very efficient energy transfer at that. If one of our physics people would like to correct me go right ahead, but my understanding is that it takes 1.8 Joules of electricity to make enough Hydrogen to produce 1.0 Joules.

So, shifting from fossil fuels to hydrogen made using fossil fuels would close to DOUBLE our use of said fossil fuels. And since "alternative" systems do not, as yet, work, and no one's willing to go Nuclear, what other options do we have?

So basically, it DOES work, we just have to use nuclear electricity?

So basically, it DOES work, we just have to use nuclear electricity?
It does work, but using nuclear power is easier said than done.

Let's FIRST eliminate coal (releasing more CO2 than gasoline) from our power grid, and THEN mass-move the cars to electric and hydrogen power.

Actually, with IV-generation nuclear power, specifically very high coolant temperatures, it's possible to use cogeneration, producing hydrogen directly from heat rather than from electricity. The result is that hydrogen comes almost as a free bonus. I say "almost", because such a plant will produce less electricity and less hydrogen than one dedicated to H2 or grid power alone, but about 25% less each, i.e. overall be at least 1.5 times more efficient.

Given the rate at which people crash cars into things and each other, do you really want a bunch of little Hindenburgs all over the roads?

Up until recently, I had no knowledge of the subject and assumed it was still entirely theoretical. Then I saw an episode of Top Gear, where they drove a hydrogen car. It's actually here.

- It's clean
- It's cheaper
- You can actually get hydrogen from some petrol stations already
- It's no harder to get hydrogen than it is to get oil out of the ocean

So why the hell aren't we all driving them!?

I think one of the issues is that hydrogen is a highly reactive gas. Means if you crash into somebody's hydrogen car at an unfortunate angle, you both go boom.

Also, there aren't all that many stations around yet that offer hydrogen fuel, so that would limit sales quite a bit I would imagine.

Next thing is, it takes a lot of energy to product hydrogen. So all you end up doing really is removing dirt from the exhausts, and pumping it out of power stations instead.

By the way, I don't understand why people want to burn hydrogen in air (in a Diesel or in a Otto cycle), instead of using fuel cells.

Who's burning it? In the episode in question, the car used controlled hydrogen-oxygen reaction, creating water as the waste by-product.

However transportation and distribution adds.

http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/well-to-wheels-analysis

Here you can find a fairly accurate study about the well-to-wheels cost of various sources and vectors of energy (H2 isn't a source, it's a vector).
For those who don't know, the IES (Institute for Environment and Stability) at Ispra JRC (Joint Research Centre, formerly part of Euratom), is an autonomous research agency working directly for the European Commission.


And yes, anti-nuclear treehuggers are unusually dumb; but also even more hypocritical than they're dumb, because even catastrophic radiation release is harmless to the nature. It can only hurt humans.
Actually catastrophic radiation release hurts all kind of living being, with those higher in the food chain being affected more than those lower in it.

I'm not antinuclear, though.

Who's burning it? In the episode in question, the car used controlled hydrogen-oxygen reaction, creating water as the waste by-product.

Iirc Mercedes released a model using hydrogen as fuel for an Otto cycle about 3 years ago.

Burning hydrogen in a mixture of nitrogen and oxygen isn't a good idea. You get water, but also ammonia (which adds to PM2.5) and some nitric acid (which corrodes slightly the engine).

Iirc Mercedes released a model using hydrogen as fuel for an Otto cycle about 3 years ago.

Burning hydrogen in a mixture of nitrogen and oxygen isn't a good idea. You get water, but also ammonia (which adds to PM2.5) and some nitric acid (which corrodes slightly the engine).

I didn't know that... and I'm pretty sure that wasn't the car they showed in the show.
I would have to look up what car that was, though, and how the engine worked.
I'm not sure if they used the controlled explosion to propel the car, I seem to remember the hydrogen was used to fuel the "batteries"...

I'm not sure if they used the controlled explosion to propel the car, I seem to remember the hydrogen was used to fuel the "batteries"...
Yay, very likely. Fuel cell (that is, a redox reaction between O2 and H2 but not in air).

Thanks for this post Ferrous. The only problem with using alternative energy up till now is that the cabal of oil barons and car manufacturers have assiduously blocked all attempts by people to power vehicles with anything but petrol, deisel and gas.

Did you know that one of the greatest enemies of marihuana was the plastics industry? They were so threatened by the ability of people to use cannabis to make car bodies that they launched an anti-marihuana campaign in America in the 1950's.

I look forward to the day when all cars are electric and have solar cell bodies to get part of their power from the sun. When it's economic to do so, manufacturers will come to the party.
This is one of the great opportunities now that Chrysler, Ford and Holden are on their knees. Either those dinosaurs reinvent themselves or they join the fossil fuel pool.
Is the age of corporate dinosaurs drawing to a close. Will alternative energy chipmunks supersede them?

Hydrogen is always at a loss vs fossil fuels ,you either lose the carbon bonds in energy if making from hydrocarbons(fossil fuels), or you pull it from water to run it in a fuel cell turning it back into water.
So you would need mass amounts of energy to get the hydrogen in your power grid. Not certain but my guess is putting the entire transportation infrastructure on the grid would double the need for power plant output. So there we would need a massive build up of nuclear power plants just to make the source reasonable.
Hydrogen also only contains 1/12th the energy by volume of Gasoline. with a fuel cell the efficiency partly counters this but the end result is still a limit of 1/6 the travel distance at the same speed.
Compression is not an effective answer either. As you compress the fuel you would expend more energy compressing the hydrogen then you get out of it while driving.
And there is also the effect of making any rupture of the fuel tank a disaster .pop a compressed air cartage now imagine a much more compressed and much larger tank popping.

A much more effective answer the battery or electric car. 99% efficient versus 50% so much smaller increase in demand on the grid.
Other then Bio/syn fuels battery power seems the be the most likely development. However, to make battery powered cars clean we need to switch to clean power plants. Oh these nuclear is most likely and effective since it does not require massive grid expansion (you can replace coal plants with nuclear wind solar need to use averages)

I think one of the issues is that hydrogen is a highly reactive gas. Means if you crash into somebody's hydrogen car at an unfortunate angle, you both go boom.



Never stopped the Pinto ;)

I think one of the issues is that hydrogen is a highly reactive gas. Means if you crash into somebody's hydrogen car at an unfortunate angle, you both go boom.



the thing with Hydrogen is it tends to rise in the atmosphere so quickly that its burns would be limited. For instance the Hindenburg most of the burns the passengers suffered were from the fuel for the engines.
A bigger factor would be the compression. any crack in the gas tank and the forces needed to keep hydrogen compressed enough to provide the same energy per volume would be released posing a significant risk to anyone in the vicinity.

Makes more sense to me to be looking at things that remove the need for pointless travel.

Up until recently, I had no knowledge of the subject and assumed it was still entirely theoretical. Then I saw an episode of Top Gear, where they drove a hydrogen car. It's actually here.

- It's clean
- It's cheaper
- You can actually get hydrogen from some petrol stations already
- It's no harder to get hydrogen than it is to get oil out of the ocean

So why the hell aren't we all driving them!?

Hydrogen cars are MUCH less subsidized than ethanol production. That's lobbying for you. In my opinion that's the biggest hurdle. Government is bitching about how hard it will be to build an infrastructure for hydrogen vehicles (filling stations and the like) but I call bullshit on that. If they can build vehicles and stations designed to run on and pump straight alcohol (from corn), they can build infrastructure for hydrogen.

It's just another way to try and squeeze even more money out of the 4 cycle piston engine (a 110 year old technology) before the public really starts to call for hydrogen.

I actually think we should concetrate on Bio-Fuel, such as Algae Fuel. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel)

The problem with bio-fuels is that we need to eat, and bio-fuels have this very irritating tendency of coming from our food and taking up land we need to use to grow food with.

The problem with bio-fuels is that we need to eat, and bio-fuels have this very irritating tendency of coming from our food and taking up land we need to use to grow food with.

Well, that's the beauty of Algae: You can grow it vertically in baggies and very few people eat it. ;)

Well, that's the beauty of Algae: You can grow it vertically in baggies and very few people eat it. ;)

That's not the kind of bio-fuel being subsidized, though. The kind that is currently subsidized comes mainly from sugar cane and corn, two important food crops.

That's not the kind of bio-fuel being subsidized, though. The kind that is currently subsidized comes mainly from sugar cane and corn, two important food crops.

And two powerful lobbies. *nod*

Besides, the problem with cheap plentiful sources of energy is that it's cheap and plentiful.

One thing you might hear from time to time, especially in the near future is that 'The technology is here, but the support structure is lacking'. That's corporate code for, "We can do it, but we haven't figured out how to make a shitload of money off of it."

Or as I say from time to time; If solar panels needed a proprietary goop that had to be slathered on once a month to function, we'd all have them on our roofs by now.

By the way, I don't understand why people want to burn hydrogen in air (in a Diesel or in a Otto cycle), instead of using fuel cells.

They have yet to make a system that is efficient enough.

Do you have any sources for these claims?


Do your research, it's completely factually correct:

source (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbGkxcY7YFU)

Up until recently, I had no knowledge of the subject and assumed it was still entirely theoretical. Then I saw an episode of Top Gear, where they drove a hydrogen car. It's actually here.

- It's clean
- It's cheaper
- You can actually get hydrogen from some petrol stations already
- It's no harder to get hydrogen than it is to get oil out of the ocean

So why the hell aren't we all driving them!?

how about this question.

what's the cost?

That's not the kind of bio-fuel being subsidized, though. The kind that is currently subsidized comes mainly from sugar cane and corn, two important food crops.

it is actually at the behest of diet America these are subsidized for fuel.
more expensive corn means fewer Americans ingesting HFCS. Same with sugar cane and sugar consumption.

There's also the fact that oil companies aren't about to stand idly by and watch their billions plummet.

There's also the fact that oil companies aren't about to stand idly by and watch their billions plummet.

They wouldn't. We need oil for much more than burning it - there are thousands of products made from the stuff. The oil companies might not have such immense profits, but they're not going to lose out.

Besides, they'll just buy into electricity production by other means.

hydrogen is essentially a battery...it simply stores energy for future use, with a loss of some of the initial energy input usually.

If the energy comes from fossil fuels, then it is either taking the same amount or more energy to drive the same distance. If it is nuclear, then we have shifted from one finite resource with bad environmental impacts to another finite resource with bad environmental impacts. There is currently a lack of wind, water, and solar energy, and I'm not sure we would be able to produce enough energy with current technology.

The only problem is that biofuels will likely do more damage to the environment than even the current oil-based economy. Agriculture is mighty damaging.

Which is what's great about Algae fuel, you don't need to take up that much farm land to produce it for fuel.

yield over 30 times more energy per acre than other, second-generation biofuel crops.[citation needed] One biofuels company has claimed that algae can produce more oil in an area the size of a two-car garage than an football field of soybeans, because almost the entire algal organism can use sunlight to produce lipids, or oil.[7] The United States Department of Energy estimates that if algae fuel replaced all the petroleum fuel in the United States, it would require 15,000 square miles (40,000 square kilometers), which is a few thousand square miles larger than Maryland, or 1.3 Belgiums.[8] This is less than 1/7th the area of corn harvested in the United States in 2000.[9][10]

From the Wiki article I linked earlier in this thread.

hydrogen is essentially a battery...it simply stores energy for future use, with a loss of some of the initial energy input usually.

If the energy comes from fossil fuels, then it is either taking the same amount or more energy to drive the same distance. If it is nuclear, then we have shifted from one finite resource with bad environmental impacts to another finite resource with bad environmental impacts. There is currently a lack of wind, water, and solar energy, and I'm not sure we would be able to produce enough energy with current technology.

Actually, properly built nuclear reactors (US or French) have virtually no environmental impact at all. And if we allow a few breeder reactors to be built, fuel scarcity ceases to be a problem for at least a few thousand years.

They wouldn't. We need oil for much more than burning it - there are thousands of products made from the stuff. The oil companies might not have such immense profits, but they're not going to lose out.

Besides, they'll just buy into electricity production by other means.

Actually many oil companies are considering that from hydrocarbons you can get hydrogen (for energy needs) and carbon chains (plastics). They're just slowing the transfer towards the diffusion of H2 as fuel until the time when they'll be ready to continue holding the energy market in their hands.

Up until recently, I had no knowledge of the subject and assumed it was still entirely theoretical. Then I saw an episode of Top Gear, where they drove a hydrogen car. It's actually here.

- It's clean
- It's cheaper
- You can actually get hydrogen from some petrol stations already
- It's no harder to get hydrogen than it is to get oil out of the ocean

So why the hell aren't we all driving them!?

One of the problems with fossil fuel is that the exhaust contains greenhouse gases. With hydrogen, the exhaust is pure water vapour . . . another greenhouse gas :$

One of the problems with fossil fuel is that the exhaust contains greenhouse gases. With hydrogen, the exhaust is pure water vapour . . . another greenhouse gas :$

No, water vapour isn't a greenhouse gas. In fact, since it forms clouds, which increase Earth's Albedo, it could be considered an anti-greenhouse gas.

No, water vapour isn't a greenhouse gas. In fact, since it forms clouds, which increase Earth's Albedo, it could be considered an anti-greenhouse gas.

It's more complicated than that. Water vapour crystals in the high atmosphere act as surfaces that speed up certain chemical reactions, such as the destruction of ozone molecules by CFCs and HCFCs.

No, water vapour isn't a greenhouse gas. In fact, since it forms clouds, which increase Earth's Albedo, it could be considered an anti-greenhouse gas.

Water vapor is absolutely a greenhouse gas. Allow me to explain why:

Infrared energy exists at a relatively broad range of wavelengths. The primary wavelengths that come through our magnetic field and clouds and warm the ground are different than the wavelengths the ground eventially dissipates back out again. The incoming wavelengths get through, but the outgoing wavelengths are reflected by water vapor.

That's a short and filthy explanation of why water vapor is a greenhouse gas.

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f322/lynnguppy/The_More_You_Know.jpg

Hydrogen might be a viable fuel if it were used as a means of storing solar energy - imagine solar panels generating the electricity to split water and operate the pumping and storage system. Even here, the tradeoff is the curse of entropy. More energy is used to split the water than can be regained from using the hydrogen fuel. Still, the hydrogen would be available 24 hours a day instead of only during daylight hours.

Hydrogen is really little more than a feel-good solution. Electricity is the most suitable alternate power. I know several people with electric car conversions, and the only problem with that system is the battery. Lead acid and NiMH are rather crude systems requiring significant pollution to produce and they contain toxic materials. Lithium-polymer batteries are lighter and more efficient, but I don't know what the construction process entails.

If some of the stories I've read about new means of generating hydrogen are true, and not just a variant of the worthless gas-saver doodads, my opinion will change and I will immediately jump on the hydrogen bandwagon.

According to my old chemistry teacher, who I do believe as he is one of the most amazing people alive, the technology for efficient hydrogen fuel cells has been around for about 15-20 years. However, since a large part of the global economy is dependant on the oil trade, and that oil barons are mostly plain greedy, it would be quite bad to phase over outright. Seems that once we start running out, and people start panicing, they will roll out the new stuff and then basically say "Look, we saved you. Appreciate it."

I still say that Algae Fuel is the future.

Water vapor is absolutely a greenhouse gas. Allow me to explain why:

Infrared energy exists at a relatively broad range of wavelengths. The primary wavelengths that come through our magnetic field and clouds and warm the ground are different than the wavelengths the ground eventially dissipates back out again. The incoming wavelengths get through, but the outgoing wavelengths are reflected by water vapor.

That's a short and filthy explanation of why water vapor is a greenhouse gas.


actually you're both right, clouds have a cooling effect on the planet, but for the reasons described above, water vapor is a greenhouse gas, a very potent one actually(far worse than say, CO2), which is why more water vapor is worse than less, the cloud effect is relatively small compared to the greenhouse gas action.

I still say that Algae Fuel is the future.

last I heard they're still having trouble processing the algae oils, I went to a lecture by a Dr. Greatbatch, whose company has been working on this problem. While algae seems cool, it sounds too good to be true, assuming they can solve that problem. I also went for a ride in a hydrogen fuel cell car, it was ok. /Bragging

I still say that Algae Fuel is the future.

I prefer the yeast fuels
http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2008/06/20/unleash_biofuels/

no change in infrastructure just brew the gasoline.