Ethanol: The future is now.

[Hasty8]

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

I just heard back from Physicist Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institutie. His is the first White Paper I linked to "20 Hydrogen Misconceptions"

His comment is thus:

Basically, with a hydrocarbon fire you can get heat in all directions becuase of the expulsion of these soot particles whereas with a hydrogen fire the radiant heat is essentially funneled solely within the direction of the flame.

You did not calculate for the impurities in the hydrocarbons.

[Southpaw]

So then it does not have the BTU quality of 52,000 per LB. 125 gallons of water from room temp to boiling Mathmatically using YOUR numbers that YOU used. Yet in the "REAL" Tests only a 1-2 degree raise in air temp. That is A HUGE difference.

[Hasty8]

The other thing talked about a lot is electrical powered vehicles. In the grand scheme of things, if you look at the efficiencies of the power plant that is producing the electricity, transmission line efficiency, electric motor efficiency and other losses here and there you have an overall efficiency less than an internal combustion vehicle.

Man, I love it when people say silly stuff like this. It clearly shows just how little they know.

From wellhead to retail pump hydrocarbon gas looses 73-91% of it efficiency. That's according to the report by 4 MIT students compiled in Feb 2003.

http://lfee.mit.edu/publications/PDF/LFEE_2003-001_RP.pdf

Again, for answer to all these misconception and more please read Twenty Hydrogen Myths By Amory Lovins. It is a 50 page cocument and if it does not directly answer your questions then I am sure that the 150+ reports and stdies cited will certainly do so.

[Hasty8]

So then it does not have the BTU quality of 52,000 per LB. 125 gallons of water from room temp to boiling Mathmatically using YOUR numbers that YOU used. Yet in the "REAL" Tests only a 1-2 degree raise in air temp. That is A HUGE difference.

Yes, it does have the energy content of 52,000 BTU's.

You are missing the critical key point here bro.

Heat dissapates outward from the fire more with a hydrocarbon (or just about any carbon) fire than a clean burning hydrogen fire becuase of the carbon impurities in it.

If you stand next to a gas stove and turn the burner on to boil water how far away do you have to be before you no longer feel the heat? That heat is felt because of impurities found in the gas being expelled in paths other than the intended direction of the flame.

Hydrogen, on the other hand does not have those impurities so while the water you are trying to boil will get that heat, you standing right next to it will now.

Let me explain it to you this way.

Take a room. Fill the top 1/3 or it with hydrogen and ignite it. You could litterally stand below that fire without feeling any significant heat.

Now, do the same but this time tape yourself to the ceiling. You will definately feel the heat then.

Here's another example that might explain it. Look at a regular flashlight and a laser. Let the regular flashlight be the hydrocarbon fire and the laser the hydrogen.

Shine both lights at a wall. Now, why is it that that flashlight covers such a larger area than the laser? Becuase the laser specifically focuses the light particles into a tightly focused beam while the flashlight only has a minor reflector to sort of direct the light.

The flashlight does not do as good a job controlling the light as the laser ergo the light from the flashlight is able to move along an every widening path.

Remeber, hydrogen is so much more lighter than air that it is extremely bouyant. This bouyancy prevents the hydrogen gas from spreading out into too wide a cloud, instead it literally stays and a tight column. As such, any hydrogen fire is going to inherrantly shoot upwards where as a gasoline fire will pool at the ground and cause a fire around your ankles..

[Southpaw]

I like the stove analogy. Turn on an electric stove and put your hand by it. No Sooty particles and you feel the effects of energy (BTU's) and guess what you can feel it from a distance. Or put a sheet of glass between you and the flame and you can still feel the heat. I have a hard time with the notion that BTU energy is measured differently for hydrogen. A hot flame heats up air regardless of the flames fuel to say that hydrogen heats up air but only in the flame and not the surrounding air goes against this FACT. I wish I had some hydrogen to play with to do my own tests. As for your scientist and his statements they do not convince me. I can find quotes from scientists saying the world is flat and the sun orbits the earth. If you give me conflicting info I will doubt the validity of your conclusions.

[Southpaw]

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

No one died in the car accident I was just in so my car is safer than a zeppelin or an airplane that is great logic. Comparing a mooring zeppelin and an airplane slamming into a solid building, Now that takes the cake I refuse to debate this with you any further for you are a smart COLLEGE BOY and are infallible. Yes look at all the flames at the twin towers where were they at the bottom or the top. The vast majority were shooting up. AS ALL FIRE DOES!!

[frop]

Well, if they're stinkers belching smoke and pollution they should be removed from the road. But if they are well maintained and can still meet the pollution specification of the year they were built or some mandated minimum, then you truly are an enthusiast and should be able to keep driving them.

If you paid attention to the quote you used, you'd see that I'm not advocating the scrapping of good vehicles.

What about the kid restoring his only car and daily driver, etc? What you are ignoring is the fact the even the older cars and 'stinkers' put together only total a fraction of the emissions put out by cars in America. Most emissions are coming from the millions upon millions of new/newer cars on the road today.

[Southpaw]

A recent study warns of the danger of releasing hydrogen itself into the atmosphere. Los Alamos researcher Thom Rahn led a team of scientists from California universities and the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. Their study of the natural cycle of atmospheric hydrogen was recently published in the British science journal Nature, and finds that substantially increased hydrogen production has the potential to damage the upper atmosphere.

Escaped hydrogen could build up, depleting the ozone layer near the North and South poles and triggering an increase in global warming. The study also warns that hydrogen may further contribute to global warming by aiding other chemicals in producing increased amounts of water vapor in the upper atmosphere.

"It is impossible to manufacture, store and transport hydrogen without at least some fractional loss (to the atmosphere)," Rahn said.

Researchers from the California Institute of Technology estimate that leaked hydrogen in a hydrogen economy could cause as much as a 10 percent decrease in the stratospheric zone. If hydrogen replaces fossil fuels as the world's main energy source, the researchers believe that each year 60 trillion to 120 trillion grams of hydrogen could be released into the atmosphere. This is four to eight times the amount that is currently released.

The impact of increased hydrogen production depends on how well the earth adapts to the change. John Eiler, assistant professor of geochemistry at CalTech, said, "This man-made hydrogen will either be absorbed in the soil -- a process that is still poorly understood but likely free of environmental consequences -- or will react with other compounds in the atmosphere. Determining which of these two processes dominates should be a solvable problem."

Now that is FUNNY!!!!!

[BlackVCG]

Man, I love it when people say silly stuff like this. It clearly shows just how little they know.

From wellhead to retail pump hydrocarbon gas looses 73-91% of it efficiency. That's according to the report by 4 MIT students compiled in Feb 2003.

http://lfee.mit.edu/publications/PDF/LFEE_2003-001_RP.pdf

Again, for answer to all these misconception and more please read Twenty Hydrogen Myths By Amory Lovins. It is a 50 page cocument and if it does not directly answer your questions then I am sure that the 150+ reports and stdies cited will certainly do so.

WRONG.

That number, what ever it may be is a moot point.

You're burning the same stuff in electricity generating power plants.

If you look at the net efficiency of the cycle required to put electricity into an electric car it goes something like:

Power Plant: 30-35%

Transmission Lines: 85-90%

Battery Charge/Discharge Cycle: 70%

Electric Motor: 80%

Mechanical Loss: 90%

Overall net efficiency is 15%

Internal combustion engines range from 20-30%

Also, with electrical vehicles, in order to get any range out of them they need somewhere from 10-15 deep cycle batteries all ganged together. This is for a pure electrical vehicle that is actually affordable. Batteries need replaced about every 4-6 years. Put 10,000 vehicles on the road producing that much waste in batteries...

[PyRo]

Hmm, how are hybrid cars doing?

[Hasty8]

WRONG.

That number, what ever it may be is a moot point.

You're burning the same stuff in electricity generating power plants.

If you look at the net efficiency of the cycle required to put electricity into an electric car it goes something like:

Power Plant: 30-35%

Transmission Lines: 85-90%

Battery Charge/Discharge Cycle: 70%

Electric Motor: 80%

Mechanical Loss: 90%

Overall net efficiency is 15%

Internal combustion engines range from 20-30%

Also, with electrical vehicles, in order to get any range out of them they need somewhere from 10-15 deep cycle batteries all ganged together. This is for a pure electrical vehicle that is actually affordable. Batteries need replaced about every 4-6 years. Put 10,000 vehicles on the road producing that much waste in batteries...

https://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/hydrogen/faqs.html

I have no clue what basis you use to say that an ICE is more efficient than an Fuel-Cell car but you are just so wrong it is actually scary.

There is one other mistake that you are making in this post.

You are assuming, as a lot of people do, that the hydrogen market will follow the petroleum market in that we will have huge location where mass amounts are made and then shipp to individual retail pumps.

Why? This is terribily innefficient. Instead, make each gas station into a tiny generating facility of it's own. This way you cut down on a tremendous costs of shipping and whatnot, it is shown that hydrogen can be as competitive, price wise, as hydrocarbon fuel, and is much more efficient to boot.

[Hasty8]

No one died in the car accident I was just in so my car is safer than a zeppelin or an airplane that is great logic. Comparing a mooring zeppelin and an airplane slamming into a solid building, Now that takes the cake I refuse to debate this with you any further for you are a smart COLLEGE BOY and are infallible. Yes look at all the flames at the twin towers where were they at the bottom or the top. The vast majority were shooting up. AS ALL FIRE DOES!!

You are such a moron it's now actually becoming funny.

And no, I am not a colelge grad. I just actually bother to read a bit.

The reason the Towers fell was becyase the jet fuel, being heavier than air, sat on the floors and burned long and hot enought to heat the steel superstructrre to allow for a collapse.

Yes, the flames went up. All flames go up you drolling simpleton. They are essentially composed of hot air (much like yourself) and hot air rises.

Now, had those planes been filled with hydrogen (gas, not liquid) the flames would have burnt out much quicker, in approximately 1/4 - 1/3 the time and would never have gotten hot enough to melt the steel holding the building up.

My point was not to say that the use of hydrogen gas as a fuel for the planes would have helped save any of the occupants or those directly in the path of the plane. However, it might have saved the towers and few hundreds lives by preventing the collapse.

Do I have to draw you a map for everything or are you capable of coming to your own reasonable conclusions?

Also, I love how you now try to turn away from your own argument. You brought the Hindenburg into the dicussion, hoping to incorrectly state that it was a great tragedy becuase of the hydrogen.

Wrong on so many accounts it makes you look more the fool.
First off, it was not "great tragedy" as more people survived then died in a 2:1 ratio.

Of the 36 people who died 34 died when they jumped from the dirigible and the other 2 were killed by fumes cuase by the burning superstucture.

You brought this point in to support your argument and then when I shoot it full of hole you get self-righteous? You're a joke!.

[Hasty8]

Hmm, how are hybrid cars doing?

Hybrids are doing well. Not selling like hot-cakes and all that. There are a few that I know of but the only one's I ever see are the Prius.

I don't mind them but they still burn fuel. I would rather have a zero emission fuel cell car.

[hitech]

Do the fuel cell car require batteries? Or do they produce enough electricty to drive the motor(s) directly?

[Hasty8]

I like the stove analogy. Turn on an electric stove and put your hand by it. No Sooty particles and you feel the effects of energy (BTU's) and guess what you can feel it from a distance. Or put a sheet of glass between you and the flame and you can still feel the heat. I have a hard time with the notion that BTU energy is measured differently for hydrogen. A hot flame heats up air regardless of the flames fuel to say that hydrogen heats up air but only in the flame and not the surrounding air goes against this FACT. I wish I had some hydrogen to play with to do my own tests. As for your scientist and his statements they do not convince me. I can find quotes from scientists saying the world is flat and the sun orbits the earth. If you give me conflicting info I will doubt the validity of your conclusions.

Oh sweet jesus!

I never said it's measured differently! First of all, you are equating RADIANT HEAT and ENERGY CONTENT as the same.

WRONG!

And your post just shows you to be a closeminded individual. You refuse to believe anything other than what you make up. You ignore link to very clearly written articles by men smarter than you or I.

Well, nothing I do about that but hit the mute button on you.

You're not worth wasting the time on while there are others who are willing to have a discussion.