Ethanol: The future is now.

[SlartyBartFast]

Using a simple home-rated photovoltaic panel Humboldt University has had a machine running, unassisted, for several years producing tons of hydrogen.

http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/arti..._hydrogen.html and the following:

A common dream from the environmentalist community is having a solar panel on the roof of a home to electrolyze water, producing hydrogen for a fuel cell vehicle. It's a nice dream, but not particularly realistic. As a real world example, consider Honda's facility in California that requires an 8 kW solar array to produce enough hydrogen to drive one small hydrogen vehicle roughly 7,500 miles per year. Such an array could power several homes in California, but is only enough for powering one small car half the normal driving range in the US. For an average family with two vehicles that drive an average distance of 15,000 miles per year, an array of 32 kW would be needed - considerably more with larger vehicles. A 32 kW array would cost on the order of $160,000, and could not be installed just on the rooftop of a single home - it would likely require the south-facing rooftops of at least 4-8 houses to power the vehicles from one home (and that's if you live in sunny California - in less sunny regions you'd need considerably more). The inefficiency of using electricity to produce and use hydrogen means it makes far more sense to first use any newly installed solar or wind power as direct electricity consumption (in houses, businesses, etc.), rather than for hydrogen vehicles. A home in California could meet all of its electric needs with perhaps a 2-4 kW array, depending on the household efficiency. Yet to power their vehicles it would require a 32 kW array or more. With so few people installing the much smaller arrays needed to meet their electrical needs, how likely is it that many would install (or be able to afford to install) a much larger array for their vehicles?

So in all honesty, it's not that the technology is not here, it's just the humans are not smart enought to realize this.

[SlartyBartFast]

Surely they mean Nitrogen? The most abundant gas on Earth?

Been done.

http://www.theaircar.com/

[Hasty8]

[SlartyBartFast]

Cost -
Yes, it is fairly expensie to produce hydrogen and ship it around. If you model the pertroleum model. However, as stated earlier, Humboldt University built a machine that has been in operation since the late 1990's and, without any human interaction other than the collection of materials and supplying of new, has been operating by itself, steadily churning out more than enough hydrogen on a daily basis to power a hydrogen fuel cell car.

I believe that the quote I provided was all about the Humboldt University project. Do you really think hundreds of thousands of dollars per home or billions for the nation is so easy to brush off and then claim hydrogen is THE answer?

The fact that you list wind and solar as ALTERNATIVES to hydrogen shows your talking though the top of your head or made a BIG misstatement.

Hydrogen IS NOT a primary fuel source. It has to come from somewhere. That would have to be wind, solar, ethanol driving a generator?

In all cases it is more feasible to fuel a transportation vehicle DIRECTLY from electricity derived from one of these other sources or from a renewable liquid fuel source.

As was also pointed out in my quote, it would save more in petroleum if you powered your home directly from solar instead of spending a fortune to acheive the rather insignificant and unrealisticly sized hydrogen production for a vehicle.

[SlartyBartFast]

The problem with that logic is two fold. Availabilty and your insistence of not thinking outside the box on it. Who says combustion is the only way to derive engery? It's not....

http://www.pipeline.com/~bkyaffe/alt...ection/n2.html

I don't know what the energy density comparison between a tank of H2 and a tank of compressed or liquified nitrogen is, but (like hydrogen) the compressed air systems suffer from the efficiency of the compression process. Also, the true environmental impact isn't known until you investigate the entire lifecycle and where the energy to compress the gas comes from.

Before takling the consumption of cars and road vehicles, efforts to produce "clean" energy should first be diverted to replace petroleum and coal derived electricity currently being used.

[vf-xx]

Hydrogen is feasable. To get it to run well in normal combustion engines requires some modifications, mostly to get the best preformance and prevent pre-ignition.

While I haven't worked on either of the projects that Tech as completed so far, the engineering department at Texas Tech has built 2 alternative fuel cars. I forget what the saturn ran on, but w just finished building a Ford Explorer. It runs on a hybrid electric/hydrogen combustion system. IIRC it produces the same horespower as a standard factory Explorer, but gets rediculous gas mileage. I believe that the hydrogen is stored in a DOT certified honeycomb tank.

As far as I can tell one of the major problems with hydrogen (any natural gas for that matter) is the pumping requirements. Hydrogen tanks are filled by pressure since it's not a liquid at room temperature. This means that there are more safety risks at the fill station than with normal gas. To combat this I believe people have been working on an automated fill system. We'll see how that goes.

On a side note, Mazda's rotary engine handle's hydrogen better than normal engines. The nature of the engine prevents the pre-ignition problems that plague classic engines.

[Hasty8]

I believe that the quote I provided was all about the Humboldt University project. Do you really think hundreds of thousands of dollars per home or billions for the nation is so easy to brush off and then claim hydrogen is THE answer?

The fact that you list wind and solar as ALTERNATIVES to hydrogen shows your talking though the top of your head or made a BIG misstatement.

Hydrogen IS NOT a primary fuel source. It has to come from somewhere. That would have to be wind, solar, ethanol driving a generator?

In all cases it is more feasible to fuel a transportation vehicle DIRECTLY from electricity derived from one of these other sources or from a renewable liquid fuel source.

As was also pointed out in my quote, it would save more in petroleum if you powered your home directly from solar instead of spending a fortune to acheive the rather insignificant and unrealisticly sized hydrogen production for a vehicle.

Now you are just being silly.

Gasoline is also not a primary fuel source.

Hydrogen is the simplest and most common element in the universe. It has the highest energy content per unit of weigh of any known fuel, 52,000 BTUs per pound or about 120 kilojoules per gram. also, when cooled to a liquid state, it takes up 1/700th as much space as it does in its gaseous state. This is one reason hydrogen is used as a fuel for rocket and spacecraft propulsion, which requires fuel that is low-weight, compact, and has a high energy content.

Also, hydrogen is found in over 70% of the surface of the planet while petroleum products are not.

If you were to add up the costs associated with surveying, drilling, securing the raw materials, transporting them to a processing plant, processing, environmental protections for that processing, transporting the refined materials and other costs there is no way in hell that a reasonable person could possibly argue that petorleum is cost efficient.

I'll try to get some numbers regarding cost of hydrogen production ala the humboldt method and post later but I really gotta get back to work.

[hitech]

Unfortunately, a lot of these posts are filled with incorrect assumptions, guesses and are just plain wrong.

A hydrogen-air mix between 4 and 75% are flammable, and mixtures between 18 and 59% are explosive. Likewise, gasoline is explosive between 1.1 and 3.3 %...

These facts are why I say that hydrogen has to PROVE that it is safe. It is EXTREMELY flammable and unstable. Sure, small leaks aren't likely to cause explosions, but neither are gasoline leaks (likely to cause explosions). Sure you get gasoline fires, but that is FAR less of a problem than an explosion. It MAY be possible to make it safe to transport in a car. But that has to be proven.

Yes, there is a potential for explosion, however it is actually LESS than that of currently used gas...the BMW 750 hl, which uses hydrogen, has the sunroof and windows automatically open up long before the hydrogen level in the car reaches 4%....

If hydrogen is only as likely (or less likely) to explode when used in a car then why the extra precautions? There certainly is not anywhere near enough proof that hydrogen is less likely to explode when used in an automobile. If you can't convince me then you are unlikely to convince real critics. I like the idea of using hydrogen. I think gasoline is a poor fuel. As a buddy of mine puts it, I'm an "ACLU card carrying, tree hugging liberal".

Also, a hydrogen powered flamed produces 10% the heat of a comparable hydrocarbon flame thus any explosion of a hydrogen device is approximately 10% that of a hydrocarbon device.

The biggest danger is from explosions. I can't quote any hard numbers, but I feel safe in stating that a hydrogen explosion will produce at least as much damage as a gasoline explosion from the "same amount" of fuel (an amount that would produce the same energy when used to power the vehicle).

While hydrogen has potential, it has a long way to go to prove itself. And an automobile is one of the hardest when it comes to safety.

[SlartyBartFast]

Hydrogen is the simplest and most common element in the universe.

True. But it doesn't naturally exist in it's elemental state.

Also, hydrogen is found in over 70% of the surface of the planet while petroleum products are not.

Wrong. WATER may cover the surface of the Earth, but to claim that that's a reason to make hydrogen a number one choice, then you're being delusional.

If you were to add up the costs associated with surveying, drilling, securing the raw materials, transporting them to a processing plant, processing, environmental protections for that processing, transporting the refined materials and other costs there is no way in hell that a reasonable person could possibly argue that petorleum is cost efficient.

The world economy may not be rational or reasonable, but it stands as a pretty good indicator that as long as oil can be found and pumped at the current production levels petroleum is not only cost efficient, effective, and it is highly profitable.

In searching for an alternative fuel source, first you have to identify the biggest consumer of non-renewable resources. And actually in most places it's not vehicles that are the real target. Even for vehicles, large overhauls of fleet vehicles are far more important than a few passenger vehicles.

Then you have to consider where we are starting from and what we can do to the current system with the least disruption. That's where hydrogen sucks. It can't be transported, stored, or consumed by any currently operating system. Moving more cars to diesel and using 10% Biodiesel would reduce vehicular consumption by 30-40% in no time at all. To put all our faith in hydrogen, it will take decades for hydrogen to accomplish the same.

As far as proces efficiency goes, all energy storage includes costs and losses. The question is whether you get more out than you put in. Then the question is which process gives you the highest yeild of usefull energy for each unit of energy put in. Compared to other alternatives, hydrogen is not such a great choice.

Sometimes, yield isn't even important and it really is just the cost that is. Energy derived from waste Biomass for example. Or solar or wind power. As the primary source is free (or in some cases of Biomass and waste the producers will pay you to remove it) it is the unit cost for each unit of energy that is important. Higher process efficiencies may reduce the cost, but they may also increse the cost as the required technology increases.

I'll try to get some numbers regarding cost of hydrogen production ala the humboldt method and post later but I really gotta get back to work.

Well, I hope you do. But you've failed to give any substantial evidence why hydrogen is the answer and currently makes more sense than biomass alcohols or oils. Even if it started to phase in, I don't see the cost of hydrogen ICE vehicles or fuel cell vehilcles ever competing with the cost of current technology ICE vehicles.

To determine the correct future (but only you are saying there is ONE answer) you need to look at the cost of the vehicles, how much energy those vehicles consume, and the cost of each unit of energy. Then, over the lifetime of the vehicle you'd see which is the best choice.

Currently, for the consumer in North America, the best choice is gasoline ICE. With a premium of 2 or 3 thousand dollars for a diesel, you have to consume about 6000 gallons of fuel before you start seeing a payback. Or, at 20 miles/gallon travel 133000 miles. Isn't that a lifetime for many vehicles? It's certainly too far ahead for most consumers.

Payback/breakeven is even further out for hybrids, for hydrogen, or electric.

But, a few pennies removed from fuel taxes giving equal prices at the pump and consumers would help start saving petroleum NOW with ethanol and Biodiesel.

As for the "problems" with ethanol, well most of them are down to the crappy grade of fuel and lousy storage at gas stations. The problems are actually an advantage if you consider it results in a cleaner fuel system (just have to change the filter a couple of times after first changing) and the water absoption means it's not accumulating in your gas tank.

[PyRo]

Lets just turn one of the states we really don't need into a giant solar or wind farm.

[mcveighr]

Texas.

[CaptaiN_JacK]

Agreed.

[BlackVCG]

Slarty-

I'm pretty much in all agreement with you and your sentements towards Hydrogen fuel cells. Overall it's just a pet project that really doesn't provide a viable solution in comparison to alternative methods.

BioDiesel infact is pretty cheap, especially if you make it yourself. You just need a few restaurants to provide you with used fryer oil, which they are all more than happy to give you for free because otherwise they pay to get rid of it. Then you need your glycerin, which is the catalyst and your "brewing" kettle. Overall, it's cheaper and easier to make than beer.

There's a guy here in Portland, OR that runs www.gobiodiesel.com and he's making it for somewhere around 60 cents a gallon. Add the road tax and a bit more to make some profit and it sells for around the same as dino-diesel.

Get Biodiesel on a large production scale and you have a pretty cheap fuel without fluctuating costs and 100% renewable. Also, the the waste glycerin can be used to make soap so there really is no waste in the process at all.

Once No. 2 diesel hits $2.50/gal, I'm going to start putting money into brewing my own BioDiesel for my truck.

[cphilip]

Slarty-

Then you need your glycerin, which is the catalyst and your "brewing" kettle...

.... Also, the the waste glycerin can be used to make soap so there really is no waste in the process at all. .

I know what you ment but.... well the Glycerin is not the catalyst. Its the resulting percipitate of the reaction. The Catalyst is Alcohol with titrated Sodium Hydroxide. Then that percipitates the Glycerols into solids which will settle out. Leaving the fuel.

I have a rather large reaction vessel here I am working on. 80 gallon capacity. Will be firiing it up this winter sometime after I build a stand for it to get it up higher. I am also looking for a small truck like diesel vehicle to run this in. Something like a Vespa APE three wheeler. They have one that is Diesel. But not many of them in the US. Trying to get one from an Importer. Then we will run this small truck around campus picking up the used Vegetable oil from the Dining halls. Complete loop recycling. Thats the plan.

Did I ever show you guys a picture of this production unit?

[Hasty8]

These facts are why I say that hydrogen has to PROVE that it is safe. It is EXTREMELY flammable and unstable. Sure, small leaks aren't likely to cause explosions, but neither are gasoline leaks (likely to cause explosions). Sure you get gasoline fires, but that is FAR less of a problem than an explosion. It MAY be possible to make it safe to transport in a car. But that has to be proven.

Hydrogen is LESS FLAMMABALE than gasoline. Remember the numbers I posted earlier?

Gasoline is explosive, not just flammable but EXPLOSIVE at as llittle as a fuel-air mix as 1.1% while hydrogen only becomes explosive at 17% fuel air mix. Also, gasoline vapor is almost 20 times denser than air which means that your "small leak" will release vapor that will pool on the ground. Hydrogen, however, is almost 70% lighter than air so and small leak witl dissapaite so quickly that it will not be an issue.

In essence, becuase gasoline pools at the lowest point, a small leak can eventually lead to a large concentration over time which can have catastrophic results whereas hydrogens bouyancy and ability to almost instanly dissapate would require either more time or a smaller space to produce similar results.

If hydrogen is only as likely (or less likely) to explode when used in a car then why the extra precautions? There certainly is not anywhere near enough proof that hydrogen is less likely to explode when used in an automobile. If you can't convince me then you are unlikely to convince real critics. I like the idea of using hydrogen. I think gasoline is a poor fuel. As a buddy of mine puts it, I'm an "ACLU card carrying, tree hugging liberal".

One primary reason is the initial cost of transporting the hydrogen. If we were to use the cuurent petroleum model then hydrogen is simply not viable. While it takes up one 7ooth of the space as a liquid when compared to its volume as a gas it would require to be cooled to a temperature of -253 degrees C.

In this instance I would be far more concerned with getting some of the liquid spilled on me than a fire.

Currently, the best method would be for each home/business that uses hydrogen, whehter for just their car or to also power a building dedicated fuel cell, would be to have an individual processing plant there.

These can be built fairly cheaply but I will have to get back with actual figures.

Now, why the extra precautions? Quite simply, too much government control is the key answer here. I won't get into it but the fact is that oil companies are quaking in their boots and are lobbying hard to make sure this is as slow a process. Also, and I know this is contrary to my earlier beliefs on this topic, but government regulations goes a long way to squash innovation.

The simple science of it, though, is that hydrogen has a much higher flashpoint than hydrocarbon based gases. Other then giving you the scientific numbers as I already have there is nothing more I can do to convince you.

The biggest danger is from explosions. I can't quote any hard numbers, but I feel safe in stating that a hydrogen explosion will produce at least as much damage as a gasoline explosion from the "same amount" of fuel (an amount that would produce the same energy when used to power the vehicle).

Again worng. And again, I've already addressed this concern. A hydrogen flame gives off 10% the heat of a comparable hydrocarbon flame.

A lot of people think that the hydrogen cars are somehow similar to the hydrogen bomb. Simply not true. The H-bomb is a fission fusion bomd and is dealing with a hell of a lot more than just burning something. This is literally ripping apart and smashing together the very elements of creation.

A hydrogen flame simply does not do this.

You cannot quote any hard numbers becuase none simply exist and while you may feel safe in your statement you are wholly wrong.

Also, keep in mind that when I refer to a hydrogen powered car I in no way refer to any form of a combustion engine. No, what I am talking about is a hydrogen FULE CELL which is vastly different. The recombining of hydrogen and oxygen makes two things. An electrical charge and water.

Yes, the charge could theoritically cause the hydrogen to ignite but the hydrogen would have to pool to a fuel air mix of 18% (18 % of the air arounf the spark would have to be hydrogen) and in an open road type of environment that is tremendously difficult to accomplish.

While hydrogen has potential, it has a long way to go to prove itself. And an automobile is one of the hardest when it comes to safety.

Dude, it already has proven itself and already has government approval! You really need to read before you post.

The Honda FCX is the first car in the US to be hydrogen powered and have government approval. It received approval in 2002 and since then both LA and San Fran have taken a small number for use as city vehicles.

BMW is building a hydrogen car. The 750 HL.

In closing I'll first apologize for being such a schmuck. Had a long day of it yesterday. Anyway, I nuderstand a lot of the misconceptions that everyone has but if any are interested I would highly recommend reading Physicist Amory Lovins Twenty Hydrogen Myths white paper.