Ethanol: The future is now.

[Hasty8]

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.

Yeah sure. Let's keep creating oil and other burning fuels, which release pollutants instead of switching to something that has zero emissions and is safer that most current combustible gases.

Like I have always said. Humanity is our own worst threat.

[Southpaw]

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

"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."

These 2 statements do not make sense to me. Either it is the most or only 10%. Also remember you cannot create or destroy energy and to rip hydrogen from water you must put into it a lot of energy. There will be usable energy but you will always have losses due to efficency.

I can have a huge hole in my gas tank and have no problem.My tank is under only a tiny amount of pressure. Now lets look at hydrogen lots of pressure small leak. Much Bigger problem Ask the prople in the hindenburg how well hydrogen burns and how much heat it produces.

[Hasty8]

OMG!

Those two statements are completely different.

Yes, hydrogen is the most abundant element in all the cosmos.

Yes, a hydrogen flame only give off 10% the heat of a comparably size hydrocarbon flame.

Now, where is the confustion in that?

I'm not saying that hydrogen will not burn but when compared to a hydrocarbon, ceteras parabis, the hydrocarbons are infinitely of more danger.

Contrary to a popular misunderstanding, these safety attributes actually helped save 62 lives in the 1937 Hindenburg disaster. An investigation by NASA scientist Dr. Addison Bain found38 that the disaster would have been essentially unchanged even if the dirigible were lifted not by hydrogen but by nonflammable helium, and that probably nobody aboard was killed by a hydrogen fire. (There was no explosion.) The 35% who died were killed by jumping out, or by the burning diesel oil, canopy, and debris (the cloth canopy was coated with what nowadays would be called rocket fuel). The other 65% survived, riding the flaming dirigible to earth as the clear hydrogen flames swirled harmlessly above them. This would hardly be the case if an aircraft with only liquid hydrocarbons caught fire while aloft. It emphasizes that hydrogen is generally at least as safe as natural gas or LPG, and is arguably inherently safer than gasoline, although the character of their risks is not identical.

copied and pasted from the White Paper I linked to in an earlier post.

As I have said ad nauseum, a great many of the misconceptions of hydrogen are based soley on hyperbole and misinformation.

If you want some dead-on answers please read the white paper. It clearly explains away the top 20 misconceptions about hydrogen fuel.

'nuff said!

[Southpaw]

To clarify

"10% the heat of a comparable hydrocarbon flame. "

"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"

Unless I am wrong a BTU is basicaly A measurment of heat energy.

EDIT BTU= the amount of heat needed to raise the temperature of one pound of water by one degree Fahrenheit, equal to approximately 1055 joules

[Hasty8]

To clarify

"10% the heat of a comparable hydrocarbon flame. "

"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"

Unless I am wrong a BTU is basicaly A measurment of heat energy.

[edit]That's a damn good point. I'm going to send out a few emails to those "in the know" and see what they say.[/edit]
I cannot comment on the apparent difference between these two statements. I know they seem contradictory but the difference lies in the nature of heat itself and energy content. However, the fourth paragraph of my above post, which I have reposted here, clearly shows the diffrence between a hydrogen flame and a hydrocarbon flame.

Lingering perceptions that hydrogen is unusually dangerous are likely to be dispelled by the kinds of compelling videotaped demonstrations now becoming available, such as a comparison of a hydrogen fire with a gasoline fire. First, a hydrogen leak was created, assuming a very unlikely triple failure of redundant protective devices (industry norms for hydrogen leak detection and safety interlocks are convincingly effective). The tested leak, deliberately caused at the highest- pressure location, discharged the entire 1.54-kg hydrogen inventory of the fuel-cell car in ~100 s, . But then in the second test, a

Basically, this is saying that the leak from a gas tank, where the gas was under a pressure rating that was 2.5x the amount of pressure the hydrogen was under produced a deathtrap whereas the hydrogen flame raised ambient external temps about 1-2 degrees.

This information was taken from the "Swain Fuel Leak Simulation" which was a footnote in the RMI paper I linked to earlier.

The Swain Simulation can be found here :http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs...Simulation.pdf

Check out the pictures. The one on the left is the hydrogen car and the one on the right is the hydrocarbon car.

Now, which would you rather be in? Also, the hydrogen test was performed first then the gas. All images are of the SAME CAR!

[sisco87]

waoh...this is crazy. i've never even know anything about ethanol or heard of the word, but today in school we learned all about ethanol, then i get on AO and come across something about ethanol!

i just thought i had to share that with you guys...i thought it was pretty cool

[vf-xx]

Ask the prople in the hindenburg how well hydrogen burns and how much heat it produces.

OT: You're wrong on that one. Yes hydrogen is explosive, yes it burns hot. However, the Hindenburg was a really nasty incident because it was effectively a giant thermite grenade. Steel structure with rust provided iron oxide, and the skin of the blimp was a type of aluminum.

Iron oxide and aluminum make thermite, a VERY hot buring fuel. Basically it's the aluminum burning, but it burns so fast it can't take the oxygen it needs from the air, it chemically steals it from the iron oxide. Hence why thermite can burn underwater and in other places with minimal/no oxygen.

Just an FYI

[Southpaw]

OT: You're wrong on that one. Yes hydrogen is explosive, yes it burns hot. However, the Hindenburg was a really nasty incident because it was effectively a giant thermite grenade. Steel structure with rust provided iron oxide, and the skin of the blimp was a type of aluminum.

Iron oxide and aluminum make thermite, a VERY hot buring fuel. Basically it's the aluminum burning, but it burns so fast it can't take the oxygen it needs from the air, it chemically steals it from the iron oxide. Hence why thermite can burn underwater and in other places with minimal/no oxygen.

Just an FYI

And both aluminum and Rust are very flammable Also I am VERY leery the Germans would use Rocket fuel to coat the zeppelin. I find it hard to believe that the hydrogen had no part to play like the original quote says. That even with an inert gas it would be the same. Along with only 10% as hot and more BTU's than anything quote. I CALL SHINAGAINS!!!

[Southpaw]

Ok your Numbers not mine

Hydrogen=52,000 BTU per LB

BTU=the amount of heat needed to raise the temperature of one pound of water by one degree Fahrenheit, equal to approximately 1055 joules

1kg= 2.2 pound

1.54 KG of hydrogen in test car

1.54KG= .7pound

.7lbx52000 BTU= 36400 total Btu

36400 total BTU/160 lbs of water= 227.5 degree raise of 160 pounds of water

1 gallon= 8 pound

160 lbs of water/8= 20

So in theroy there should have been enough hydrogen to heat 20 gallons of water 227.5 degrees fahrenheit. That is if my math is correct. Hardly an insignificant 1 to 2 degree raise of air temp and i bet water is harder to heat than air.

EDIT FOR POOR MATH I THINK IT IS CORRECT NOW

[BlackVCG]

1kg = 2.2lb = Correct

1.54kg = .7lb = Incorrect

1.54kgx2.2lb/kg = 3.388lb = Correct

Ok your Numbers not mine

Hydrogen=52,000 BTU per LB

BTU=the amount of heat needed to raise the temperature of one pound of water by one degree Fahrenheit, equal to approximately 1055 joules

1kg= 2.2 pound

1.54 KG of hydrogen in test car

1.54KG= .7pound

.7lbx52000 BTU= 36400 total Btu

36400 total BTU/160 lbs of water= 227.5 degree raise of 160 pounds of water

1 gallon= 8 pound

160 lbs of water/8= 20

So in theroy there should have been enough hydrogen to heat 20 gallons of water 227.5 degrees fahrenheit. That is if my math is correct. Hardly an insignificant 1 to 2 degree raise of air temp and i bet water is harder to heat than air.

EDIT FOR POOR MATH I THINK IT IS CORRECT NOW

[Southpaw]

1kg = 2.2lb = Correct

1.54kg = .7lb = Incorrect

1.54kgx2.2lb/kg = 3.388lb = Correct

No I think that .7lbs= 1.54KG

If not then it would raise 125 gallons of water 176 degrees Fahrenheit

[BlackVCG]

Umm... no. If 1.0kg is 2.2lb then how can more than one kilogram (1.54kg) be less 2.2lb?

The simple way to look at it is 2.2lb per kg. 1.54kg x 2.2lb/kg (the kg's cancel and you're left with lbs) 2.2 x 1.54 = 3.388.

No I think that .7lbs= 1.54KG

If not then it would raise 125 gallons of water 176 degrees Fahrenheit

[vf-xx]

No I think that .7lbs= 1.54KG

If not then it would raise 125 gallons of water 176 degrees Fahrenheit

Nope, Black's right on this one.

http://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/weight

Do it yourself.

[Southpaw]

Ok your Numbers not mine

Hydrogen=52,000 BTU per LB

BTU=the amount of heat needed to raise the temperature of one pound of water by one degree Fahrenheit, equal to approximately 1055 joules

1kg= 2.2 pound

1.54 KG of hydrogen in test car

1.54KG= 3.388pound

3.388lbx52000 BTU= 176,176 total Btu

176,176 total BTU/1000 lbs of water= 176.176 degree raise of 1000 pounds of water

1 gallon= 8 pound

1000 lbs of water/8= 125

So in theroy there should have been enough hydrogen to heat 125 gallons of water 176 degrees fahrenheit. That is if my math is correct. Hardly an insignificant 1 to 2 degree raise of air temp and i bet water is harder to heat than air.

EDIT FOR POOR MATH I THINK IT IS CORRECT NOW

Sorry for the conversion This is the way it should look. It just makes my point even better.

[Hasty8]

And both aluminum and Rust are very flammable Also I am VERY leery the Germans would use Rocket fuel to coat the zeppelin. I find it hard to believe that the hydrogen had no part to play like the original quote says. That even with an inert gas it would be the same. Along with only 10% as hot and more BTU's than anything quote. I CALL SHINAGAINS!!!

Let's face facts on the Hindenberg.

36 out of 97 people on board died yet everyone on the four planes used on September 11'th died.

Also, had those planes been using hydrogen instead of jet fuel that fire would have burnt itself out in minutes instead of hours and the steel support bars would not have melted, resulting in the collapse of the Towers.

Plus, look at the footage of the Hindenberg. Where are all the flames when the blimp was in the air? At the bottom or at the top?

The vast majority of the flames were shooting up.

Yet more facts on the Hindenburg deaths.

http://www.hydrogenus.com/HydrogenFAQsPDF.pdf

In fact, 35 of the 37 people who died, perished from jumping or falling to the ground. Only two of the victims died of burns, and these were from the burning coating and onboard diesel. The hydrogen burned quickly, upward and away from the people.