Why Hydrogen Cell Cars Make So Much Sense
jessie cheung
May people are asking what is so good about hydrogen cell cars? We
still have to go to the gas station and by the hydrogen to put in our
tanks right? Indeed, you probably will have to the gas station because
regard to one store hydrogen accounts due to the refrigeration
requirements, as it must a very cold.
But, hydrogen is a great thing to fuel our cars with because it is the
most abundant element all the planet and because so many compounds
containing hydrogen and thus it is really easy to get a hold of.
Storage is currently the biggest hurdle.
Imagine making hydrogen out of water; which is two parts hydrogen and
one part oxygen; The separation is fairly easy with electrolysis and
when you take the hydrogen from water you are left with oxygen, which
you can just release if you want to or you can use it for medical
purposes were some other need such as welding. Oxygen all by itself is
valuable.
Hydrogen can also be used in a regular car motor with only a little
retrofitting. Once the hydrogen is used it doesn't do much polluting
although there is water that will come out the back of your car. The
water will be very pure and water is very abundant our planet is well
and we know that does not hurt anything. These are only a few other
reasons that hydrogen fuel cells to power our cars in the future make
so much sense. I hope you will consider this in 2006....
e
where they are moving rapidly from "experimental" to
"mainstream". I drove one and refueled it, and there was
nothing odd about the experience. The refuel point uses
a small unit that converts water to H and O, using power
freely available in those two economies. Impressive.
spaco
How much room did the hydrogen fuel storage container in the car consume?
How many cars can fill up in one day at that "refuel point"?
Okay, so the "refuel point unit" was small, what did they use for storage?
Pete Stanaitis
-----------
Eeyore
e wrote:
There is no 'free power' in either Norway or Iceland.
Graham
NoSuch...@bigfoot.com
> "e" <binary...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:frtvta$8ev$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
> is no return to life. Not only you, any car involving in that accident.
> You forgot what happen to the space Shuttle?
I'm no fan of hydrogen (in the current energy economy, that is), but
that's a silly argument. What happened to Challenger had very little to
do with a LH2/LOX explosion. In fact, there was no "explosion" of the
liquid hydrogen. It had an uncontained combustion *AFTER* the
significant part of the accident took place, and this combustion had
little effect on what was left of the vehicle. What tore things apart
were the aerodynamic forces acting on a suddenly-destabilized and
relatively fragile vehicle. (Rockets are actually fairly frail things,
designed to operate safely only within very specific environments and
conditions.)
Your better reference might have been the Hindenburg, and even that's a
really bad example.
Actually, gaseous hydrogen is probably one of the least dangerous fuels
to carry around -- probably less so than gasoline. It's got a pretty
low energy density (one of its biggest problems for transportation
purposes), and when released, it tends to go straight up, away from the
vehicle.
TheLoneRanger
I'm sorry.........I'm a Complete DORK when it comes to Fueling Cars
with Hydrogen.........I'm so BORED............Donchaknow..........
Solar Flare
"spaco" <sp...@baldwin-telecom.net> wrote in message
news:x-idnSZfMolOC3_a...@bright.net...
e
Both economies seem quite socialized. In Iceland most
energy comes from geothermal sources which - except for
amortization of the infrastructure - is as free for
Icelanders as petro is for Saudis. For the Norwegians,
their North Sea oil produces a net energy surplus, and a
bit is used to convert H (they also use solar, what
there is of it). So... maybe not "free", but it feels
like it.
Along one highway in Norway there are hydrogen refuel
points, each with converters somewhat larger than a big
refrigerator. The storage is hidden. In the car it's
also invisible. I never felt uncomfortable.
Someone commented regarding the relative safety of
hydrogen vs. gasoline - it's true that gasoline is far
more dangerous when it burns, but hydrogen is far more
difficult to contain. I think technology is defeating
the problems one by one, and H is here to stay.
Rodney Long
> "e" <binary...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:frtvta$8ev$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
> is no return to life. Not only you, any car involving in that accident.
> You forgot what happen to the space Shuttle?
>
>
They solved that many years ago, the fuel tank on A H car is filled
with iron Oxide, this stops the "explodes on contact syndrome" Can't so
that with the Shuttle, as it's too much weight and reduces the amount of
fuel the tanks hold
--
SpecTastic Wiggle Rig,
Fishing lure remote control
See lure video you won't believe
http://ezknot.com/videos.html
Wayne Lundberg
"jessie cheung" <decehc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d6acbc0e-bab2-47ff...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Just remember that it takes more energy to separate hydrogen and oxygen from
water than what it will produce later in your car. Of course the ideal would
be to set up a plant up near Niagara Falls and another at Boulder City which
in effect would separate H from O for free. But the storage and transport of
H is the problem today.
Rodney Long
> "Rodney Long" <rdl...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:N8FEj.363$RP3...@newsfe06.lga...
>> theloner...@aol.com wrote:
>>> "e" <binary...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:frtvta$8ev$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>>>> Hydrogen power seems to work well in Norway and Iceland,
>>>> where they are moving rapidly from "experimental" to
>>>> "mainstream". I drove one and refueled it, and there was
>>>> nothing odd about the experience. The refuel point uses
>>>> a small unit that converts water to H and O, using power
>>>> freely available in those two economies. Impressive.
>>>
>>>
>>> But it's dangerous to carry hydrogen in your car. When you get hit,
>>> there
>>> is no return to life. Not only you, any car involving in that
>>> accident.
>>> You forgot what happen to the space Shuttle?
>>>
>> They solved that many years ago, the fuel tank on A H car is filled
>> with iron Oxide, this stops the "explodes on contact syndrome" Can't so
>> that with the Shuttle, as it's too much weight and reduces the amount of
>> fuel the tanks hold
>
>
> now Didn't Nasa claim the shuttle was safe and robust? Now they are
> very cautious before launching. That means they aren't sure any more.
They can't use Iron Oxide in the Shuttle tanks due to the weight
AZ Nomad
The shuttle isn't a car. What might work well powering an automobile isn't
going to suffice for a rocket engine.
And visa versa. Solid fuel rockets aren't a great power source for cars.
<cue urban legend>
ne...@millions.com
Sure solid fuel (propellant) is good for cars, once!
Donn
AZ Nomad
Yeah, but handling and breaking suffer. Make it kind of tough to get out of
the car when you've arrived at work when you're still going 500mph.
Bill Ward
Wot - you've never heard of a retro-rocket?
ne...@millions.com
<azno...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:
But the news coverage would be sensational with or without photos.
Donn
Terryc
> But it's dangerous to carry hydrogen in your car.
nope, only if the tank gets ruptured and there is a suitable ignition
point nearby, aka in the vent stream, with adequate oxygen mixing in.
> You forgot what happen to the space Shuttle?
Is this the one that blew up just above the launch pad?
Weren't both travelling at extremely high speeds?
Eeyore
Terryc wrote:
> theloner...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > But it's dangerous to carry hydrogen in your car.
>
> nope, only if the tank gets ruptured and there is a suitable ignition
> point nearby, aka in the vent stream, with adequate oxygen mixing in.
Plenty of oxygen in the ATMOSPHERE you know ! Duh !
Graham
Randy
"Terryc" <newsfour...@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:fshqs0$738$1...@aioe.org...
Was it not one of the 'O' rings on one of the solid fuel engines that failed
during a under temperature launch (Challenger)?
Of course having a nice big hydrogen tank near by didn't help.
But my point is, the Challenger craft might still be in use today if it was
not pushed to lauch below freezing. Also many other problems turned up not
having a thing to do with the fuel itself, just how it was delivered between
tank and craft, tank mounts and inspections with ignored results.
No matter what though, space travel isn't perfectly safe or childs play.
Take care
Randy
Tim Jackson
flame out of a test port which played on a liquid fuel tank, which
eventually ruptured, terminating the mission. (cf Richard Feinman's
account in his autobiography). Despite the spectacular nature of that
event as seen from the ground, it occurred over a lot of volume, and the
forces involved weren't all that great, I understand it was impact with
the ocean that killed the crew.
But the problem with liquefied fuel is not so much its inflammability as
the stored energy of compression. It's rather hard to make a fuel
explosion with pure hydrogen, the stuff's so damn thin and light you
can't get the energy into it to make it mix properly before it wanders
off. Think of it more like carrying a few dive cylinders around. They
can make quite a bang too.
Tim Jackson
One of two, the
www.tim-jackson.co.uk
one.
Bill Ward
It's the BANG after the bang that you need to worry about. H2 has a very
small ignition energy threshold and a very large explosive mixture range.
It can run up to detonation in a corner or confined space.
If you have enough energy available to drive a car 300 mi, you have enough
energy to scatter it over a large radius.
But your initial premise is wrong. If H2 is liquefied, it's at low
temperature and there's no need to pressurize it. If it's ambient
temperature, it's gas, no matter what the pressure. Your comments are
correct only for pressurized H2.
Either way, cryogenic or pressurized, it's not convenient, as it's
bulky when stored and dangerous when released.
Tim Jackson
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 10:17:37 +0000, Tim Jackson wrote:
>
>> Randy wrote:
>>> "Terryc" <newsfour...@woa.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:fshqs0$738$1...@aioe.org...
>>>> theloner...@aol.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But it's dangerous to carry hydrogen in your car.
>>>> nope, only if the tank gets ruptured and there is a suitable ignition
>>>> point nearby, aka in the vent stream, with adequate oxygen mixing in.
>>>>
>> But the problem with liquefied fuel is not so much its inflammability as
>> the stored energy of compression. It's rather hard to make a fuel
>> explosion with pure hydrogen, the stuff's so damn thin and light you can't
>> get the energy into it to make it mix properly before it wanders off.
>> Think of it more like carrying a few dive cylinders around. They can
>> make quite a bang too.
>
> It's the BANG after the bang that you need to worry about. H2 has a very
> small ignition energy threshold and a very large explosive mixture range.
> It can run up to detonation in a corner or confined space.
>
> If you have enough energy available to drive a car 300 mi, you have enough
> energy to scatter it over a large radius.
>
> But your initial premise is wrong. If H2 is liquefied, it's at low
> temperature and there's no need to pressurize it. If it's ambient
> temperature, it's gas, no matter what the pressure. Your comments are
> correct only for pressurized H2.
>
> Either way, cryogenic or pressurized, it's not convenient, as it's
> bulky when stored and dangerous when released.
>
Once it escapes the containment or loses refrigeration it doesn't stay
liquid for long.
Whether liquefied, compressed, absorbed, compounded or whatever, when
it's released it tends to push the air aside rather than mix with it,
and most of the volume will be way rich of explosive, and heading
skywards fast. Unlike liquid fuel it just can't carry enough momentum
to get that mixed with all that thick syrupy air. I don't think you'll
see many devastating hydrogen-air explosions from tank ruptures,
although you could get a good hot fire from a high pressure leak. The
energy's there but its very hard to make it all burn at once.
I'm not condoning the technology, I just don't think that's the problem.
One thing it does do is diffuse very readily. This is probably a bigger
threat. If your hydrogen car leaks a little fuel and there is a
confined space somewhere, hydrogen will slowly diffuse into it. This
raises the internal pressure (you can burst an air filled balloon just
by immersing it in hydrogen gas and waiting a while) and it can also
make a good explosive mixture, which could result in a nasty bang.
Imagine fuel leaking slowly into the boot (trunk) of your car for a day
or two, diffusing into your spare tyre which then bursts, striking a
spark which detonates the well mixed gases. Would give you quite a kick
up the @.
The Zeppelin guys must have known all this stuff. If we'd not run away
from hydrogen airships we'd have a lot better handle on the technology.
Don Lancaster
>
> ... and most of the volume will be way rich of explosive...
Bullshit.
UEL of hydrogen is 76 percent and UFL is 94 percent.
Read the DOT Orange book before you blow yourself off the map.
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Tim Jackson
> Tim Jackson wrote:
>>
>> ... and most of the volume will be way rich of explosive...
>
> Bullshit.
>
> UEL of hydrogen is 76 percent and UFL is 94 percent.
>
> Read the DOT Orange book before you blow yourself off the map.
>
> http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf
>
>
Nah, I'm older and more responsible nowadays.
I never managed to get a credible bang out of it in my misspent youth,
and these days that sort of experiment gets you labelled as a terrorist.
Acetylene was better.
Terryc
>>nope, only if the tank gets ruptured and there is a suitable ignition
>>point nearby, aka in the vent stream, with adequate oxygen mixing in.
>
>
> Plenty of oxygen in the ATMOSPHERE you know ! Duh !
Yep, so that hydrogen gas has to;
1; get out of the tank,
2; mix with than oxygen, and
3: be ignited by something.
and only then can it go kaboom.
For any volatile gas tank to explode, the oxygen has to somehow get
inside the tank and the mixture then has to explode.
Dan Bloomquist
> Eeyore wrote:
>
>>> nope, only if the tank gets ruptured and there is a suitable ignition
>>> point nearby, aka in the vent stream, with adequate oxygen mixing in.
>>
>>
>> Plenty of oxygen in the ATMOSPHERE you know ! Duh !
>
> Yep, so that hydrogen gas has to;
> 1; get out of the tank,
> 2; mix with than oxygen, and
> 3: be ignited by something.
Do 1., then 2. and 3. are given.
> For any volatile gas tank to explode, the oxygen has to somehow get
> inside the tank and the mixture then has to explode.
Then you have never been near a fuel air explosion. Do it and learn some
respect. But wait until you have finished your high school chemistry class.
Don Lancaster
As a practical matter, there NEVER is any time in the real world when
hydrogen is "too rich" to explode.
The least little diffusion and the tiniest static spark will set it on
fire, and the expansion will promptly move it down into the very high
upper explosive range limit.
I teach hazmat awareness to firemen.
Turning gaseous or liquified hydrogen loose on the general public is
fundamentally and ludicrously insane.
Thankfully, it ain't gonna happen.
The ultimate solution is a solar to carbon neutral liquid hydrocarbon
conversion that does not in any manner have the staggering exergy losses
involved with electrolysis.
Iso octane ain't broke. Neither is heptane.
http://www.tinaja.com/glib/morenrgf.pdf
Dan Bloomquist
>
> The ultimate solution is a solar to carbon neutral liquid hydrocarbon
> conversion that does not in any manner have the staggering exergy losses
> involved with electrolysis.
What do you have in mind?
Don Lancaster
Metalloradicals, of course.
Dan Bloomquist
> Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>> Don Lancaster wrote:
>>>
>>> The ultimate solution is a solar to carbon neutral liquid hydrocarbon
>>> conversion that does not in any manner have the staggering exergy
>>> losses involved with electrolysis.
>>
>> What do you have in mind?
>
> Metalloradicals, of course.
So, there is nothing that has practical applications in the works.
Bill Ward
> Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>> Terryc wrote:
>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>
>>>>> nope, only if the tank gets ruptured and there is a suitable ignition
>>>>> point nearby, aka in the vent stream, with adequate oxygen mixing in.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Plenty of oxygen in the ATMOSPHERE you know ! Duh !
>>>
>>> Yep, so that hydrogen gas has to;
>>> 1; get out of the tank,
>>> 2; mix with than oxygen, and
>>> 3: be ignited by something.
>>
>> Do 1., then 2. and 3. are given.
>>
>>> For any volatile gas tank to explode, the oxygen has to somehow get
>>> inside the tank and the mixture then has to explode.
>>
>> Then you have never been near a fuel air explosion. Do it and learn some
>> respect. But wait until you have finished your high school chemistry
>> class.
>
> As a practical matter, there NEVER is any time in the real world when
> hydrogen is "too rich" to explode.
>
> The least little diffusion and the tiniest static spark will set it on
> fire, and the expansion will promptly move it down into the very high
> upper explosive range limit.
At high pressure, an H2 leak will often ignite from the static charge
generated by the escaping gas. Since the flame is not noticeable in
daylight, it can lead to unpleasant surprises.
At the Santa Susanna Rocketdyne facility in the early '60s, when walking
around H2 piping, people would wave a broom out in front of themselves,
watching for the bristles to start burning. Exciting times.
Eeyore
Terryc wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
>
> >>nope, only if the tank gets ruptured and there is a suitable ignition
> >>point nearby, aka in the vent stream, with adequate oxygen mixing in.
> >
> >
> > Plenty of oxygen in the ATMOSPHERE you know ! Duh !
>
> Yep, so that hydrogen gas has to;
> 1; get out of the tank,
Yes.
> 2; mix with than oxygen,
That happens automaticially as a consequence of 1:
> and 3: be ignited by something.
Hydrogen has a VERY low energy of ignition. No problem there.
Graham
Terryc
>> For any volatile gas tank to explode, the oxygen has to somehow get
>> inside the tank and the mixture then has to explode.
>
> Then you have never been near a fuel air explosion. Do it and learn some
> respect. But wait until you have finished your high school chemistry class.
Err, isn't that just what I said; the fuel has to be outside and mixed
with the air. I've seen enough gas/petrol chucking to know.
cncfixxer1
converted to Hydrogen cost effectively?
First the oil stocks would plummet effectively wiping out thousands of
pension funds.
The government would lose billions in taxes paid by big oil.
The states and government would lose perhaps a trillion dollars in lost tax
revenue.
There would be no money to maintain Oil Platforms and they would fall down
creating pollution and hazards to navigation.
Congress would have to live on their salary once bribes and payoffs from the
oil companies ended, some may even be forced to leave Congress due to
financial hardship
Catalytic converters would be beat into plow shares and the platinum markets
would disappear.
Every state having emissions inspection would have to fire all the
inspectors and make the buildings into senior centers.
and ... worst of all
We would be need to send billions in foreign aid to the OPEC nations and no
doubt be sued in the World Court for creating extreme poverty in the Middle
East.
I think as a gesture of good will we could at least retrain the terrorists
so they could find a different line of work after all their funding dried up
due to our technology
Morris Dovey
> Does anyone realize the damage that would be done if Water could be
> converted to Hydrogen cost effectively?
> Congress would have to live on their salary once bribes and payoffs from the
> oil companies ended, some may even be forced to leave Congress due to
> financial hardship
Surely you know better than that. While at least a majority don't seem
to understand any part of not spending more than one can afford, that
majority would continue to live high on the hog (cf: pork and earmark)
from defense, pharmaceutical, and insurance interests.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Tim Jackson
> high on the hog (cf: pork and earmark)
>
ranging general knowledge used to be a reliable sign of intelligence.
And a new car was a sign of the ability to support a healthy family.
And a university degree meant something or other, I forget what now,
it's been too long.
It does take the populace at large a while to catch on that its icons
have rusted.
Tim Jackson
Ron Baker
"cncfixxer1" <cncfi...@verizon.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Co6_j.754$fk.513@trnddc06...
See here what GM is doning in CA and VA
http://blogs.edmunds.com/.eea7337
http://media.wma.com/cs/jay_leno_environment/
http://www.marketwatch.com/tvradio/player.asp?siteid=yhoof&guid=%7BF7CB859D%2D55AA%2D416C%2D806B%2DF9355374F3EA%7D
Ron
Ron
John Geigle masterpiecemodels
the good stuff out of oil. So all of the markets will not collapse
they will just shift directions to other interests. like the government
taxing the water that will go into a car. The key board that you are
typing on is a petroleum product.
just my 2 cents
cheers
John Geigle
www.masterpiecemodels.com
Bob Eld
"cncfixxer1" <cncfi...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Co6_j.754$fk.513@trnddc06...
Not to worry! Since there is no source for hydrogen and ALL of it has to
come from some other energy source, the oil companies can always supply that
other source and stay in business creating taxes and all you mention.
Eeyore
Ron Baker wrote:
> Fuel Cell Cars make sense
In what way.
Hydrogen is made from fossil fuels and the fuel cell is only about 50% efficient. What's good about that ?
Graham
Don Lancaster
the ICE.
In reality, NONE of them are even remotely so today, and the total fuel
cell based system efficiency is unlikely to EVER beat out an ICE by more
than a very few percentage points at its very best.
See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf for a detailed analysis.
Eeyore
Don Lancaster wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
> > Ron Baker wrote:
> >
> >> Fuel Cell Cars make sense
> >
> > In what way.
> >
> > Hydrogen is made from fossil fuels and the fuel cell is only about 50% efficient. What's good > about that ?
>
> The big lie about fuel cells is that they are "far more efficient" than
> the ICE.
>
> In reality, NONE of them are even remotely so today, and the total fuel
> cell based system efficiency is unlikely to EVER beat out an ICE by more
> than a very few percentage points at its very best.
Factor in the (rather poor) efficiency of electrolytic hydrogen production and energy loss involved in hydrogen
storage and a hydrogen fuel cell car is most certainly no more efficient than a gasoline ICE powered one and
far LESS efficient than a diesel car.
Use hydrogen in an alternative fuel in an ICE and the overall efficiency drops to somewhere around the 6% region
!
Graham
Mauried
wrote:
Current spot price of platinum which you need for the electrodes in
fuel cells is a mere $2170 an ounce, and its only going up.
Unlikley to be ever viable for normal cars.