Ethanol: The future is now.

[Hasty8]

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

A fuel cell car would require a battery only so far sa to store electricity made.

A fuel-cell car, such as the Honda FCX, takes gaseous hydrogen and combines it with oxygen. The resulting chemical reaction produces a sizeable electrical current and water vapor is the only by-product.

It is a very efficient and very safe for of energy.

I know thi becuase my family's house in upstate NY lives wholly off the grid. It exists solely on an assortment off solar, wind and hydrogen power.

There is a fairly decently sized hydrogen plant there. The hydrogen is used for cooking, heating water and just about all other uses that would typically be assocaited with gas. While there is currently no fuel-cells there my cousin is thinking about building one to use as a back up electrical generator in case wind/solar fail.

If you want to read some really good papers on the topic here are a few links:
20 Hydrogen Myths
Comparative Assessment of Fuel Cell Cars Swain Fuel Leak Experiment

[Hasty8]

I think I've been going around this the wrong way. As my debate coach used to tell me, the proof is in the puddin'.

Well, folks, get ready for some puddin'!



These images are from the Swain Fuel Leak Simulation. They are all the SAME CAR.

First the test was performed on the hydrogen car [the one on the left]. The system was made to fail at the point which received the highest amount of pressure.

Then the gasoline leak simulation was done on the same car. Both tests took place in less than 4 minutes. In 4 minutes the hydrogen car expelled all it's hydrogen in a completely vertical tube of flame leaving the rest of the car intact.

The gasoline leak however,....well, I believe I'll let the pictures speak for themselves.

Now, anyone else want to try and argue that hydrogen is less safe than gasoline?

Anyone?

I'm not always right. Actually, I'm usually more wrong than right and if my history with women is an indicator then I'm always wrong but when I'm right I stick to my guns.

Sorry if that bothers you.

[bjjb99]

It's rather odd that the testers would puncture the hydrogen tank in a way such that the escaping gas (and hence the flame) would be directed vertically.

Since a tank puncture would most likely result from a collision with another vehicle or object, wouldn't it have made more sense to puncture the tank along the direction of force for whatever collision is being simulated? For example, in an straight head-on collision I'd expect the puncture to be either to the front of the H2 tank. If ignited, this would result in a jet of flame towards the vehicle's passenger compartment. Such a flame would raise the passeneger compartment's temperature by far more than that noted in the test you've presented here.

BJJB

[Hasty8]

It's rather odd that the testers would puncture the hydrogen tank in a way such that the escaping gas (and hence the flame) would be directed vertically.

Since a tank puncture would most likely result from a collision with another vehicle or object, wouldn't it have made more sense to puncture the tank along the direction of force for whatever collision is being simulated? For example, in an straight head-on collision I'd expect the puncture to be either to the front of the H2 tank. If ignited, this would result in a jet of flame towards the vehicle's passenger compartment. Such a flame would raise the passeneger compartment's temperature by far more than that noted in the test you've presented here.

BJJB

Oy vey.

IT doesn't matter where the punture was.

Hydrogen is 17 times lighter than air is the number I believe. Becuase of this bouyancy it literally shoot straight up.

Hydrocarbon gas on the other hand is many times heaver than air so it will always pool on the ground.

Now, seeing as how fire burns up, which would you rather have to deal with; a carpet of fire or flames floating above your head?

Think of it this way.

Imagine a submarine at 1800 feet below surface water. Now imagine that the skin of the sub is breeched at the very bottom. Is the air that leaks out going to shoot down or is it going to find whatever way possible to shoot back up to the surface?

[SlartyBartFast]

Safety and flammability are straw men arguments. Neither the safety nor the dangers of hydrogen are real issues.

If we were all really concerned about safety, we wouldn't be driving cars in the first place.

What makes or breaks a fuel source is whether or not it makes economic sense. Hydrogen does not. Neither at this time do hybrid cars.

Immediate, short-term initiatives should include a move to diesel and using diesel-electric hybids where they will provide the most benefit (NYCT is using hybrid buses).

Until we discover some cheap renwable source of electricity, hydorgen will not make any sense. Even then, hydrogen production will be at the bottom of the list after all the DIRECT uses possible for electricity.

And by the timethat happens, hopefully we'll all already be using renewable sources of bio-derived liquid fuels (ethanol or biodiesel or bio-Oil). Which are probably from the most efficient solar power source on Earth, plants. Plus they aren't "oils" in the petro-chemical sense. They are CO2 neutral. Because all the CO2 produced burning them is reabsorbed by plants to produce moe fuel.

[Hasty8]

Well, everyone has their own opinion and mine disagrees with yours.

Yes, hydrogen is less affordable if it is produced and shipped as modern hydrocarbons are.

However, if we make the retail point the productions point, which is not all that hard to do then hydrogen becomes substantially cheaper that hydrocarbon.

This myth is fully explained away in the 20 Miconceptions white paper I linked to numerous times.

Remember, the automotive industry was against seatbelts and safety glass when Tucker introduced them yet they are now standard issue and required by law.

Also, my personal expereince has shown me that, hands down, hydrogen is cheaper, safer and all around better than any burning fuel.

As it is now, the US already proceds anywhere from 1/4 to 1/3 the worlds hydrogen supply. Hydrogen has been used in industrial capacities for the past twenty years with a far greater safety record and cost savings when compared to hydrocarbon fuels.

One last edit. The gas industry only came about because someone realized they could sell their wastes as a fuel.

That's right. Gas was once considered waste and unuseable just as hydorgen is typically thought of today.

I would rather see more attention be paid to zero emission than less emission but that just my personal preferrance.

Okay, one last edit, this time in the form of a question.

You said renewable energy sources. I Snot hydrogen this very thing? Youstart with water and produce hydrogen and oxygen. You let the oxygen go and use the hydrogen to create an electrical current by recombining it with oxygen to create water. You are starting with what you began with.

Is that not a renewable source? The only difference here is that you do not have to wait a few years for more corn to grow.

[Southpaw]

"Imagine a submarine at 1800 feet below surface water. Now imagine that the skin of the sub is breeched at the very bottom. Is the air that leaks out going to shoot down or is it going to find whatever way possible to shoot back up to the surface?"


Hmm I think that water would leak in not air out. Also I was not refering to your level of education but Person that went by the name of College Boy.

[Hasty8]

"Imagine a submarine at 1800 feet below surface water. Now imagine that the skin of the sub is breeched at the very bottom. Is the air that leaks out going to shoot down or is it going to find whatever way possible to shoot back up to the surface?"


Hmm I think that water would leak in not air out. Also I was not refering to your level of education but Person that went by the name of College Boy.

Jesus, why do you have to be so obtuse.

Not if the air inside the sub was at a greater pressure than the water is.

Forget it.

The example is lost on you. Just live in your little "I don't believe scientists" world, okay?

[SlartyBartFast]

Also, my personal expereince has shown me that, hands down, hydrogen is cheaper, safer and all around better than any burning fuel.

And you've failed to even hint at how you figure it's cheaper and base all claims on the myth of individual home production systems. Systems that even if they are to be developed WILL remain VERY expensive. And for the reasons of mass production and economies of scale, no alternative will be economically viable or wide spread unless it can be produced and distributed economically in large commercial quantities.

Saying that we all "could" make hydrogen is the same as saying we all "could" make beer, ethanol (whiskey), grow our own vegetables, raise our own chickens, make our own biodiesel. Most of which is far less expesnsive than installing a hydrogen production system. But few are done by many.

Most people are glad to get their relatively simple and inexpensive waterwell replaced with a connection to the city system. How many will want to own and maintain a very expensive hydrogen system that would require maintenance and monitoring? Don't try to say it won't be expensive either. You're talking hundreds of thousands at the least.

Also, your "all round better" fuel, even its best form and most technologically advanced requires vehicles to have serious compromises. Either limited cargo space, or limited range. In most cases BOTH. You just can't get around the serious limitation of hydrogen's low energy density. As with electric cars, even if you get past all the technological hurdles, the remaining hurdle is always how much energy you can transport with you.

Ultimately, only time will tell. But I wouldn't invest too heavily in hydrogen. I'm convinved it's a good sideshow for politicians who want to look like they're working for the environment when they aren't. It keeps up the "just around the corner" image and diverts attention from simple, cheap, and immediately available alternatives when in reality it's decades off.

[SlartyBartFast]

You said renewable energy sources. IS not hydrogen this very thing? Youstart with water and produce hydrogen and oxygen. You let the oxygen go and use the hydrogen to create an electrical current by recombining it with oxygen to create water. You are starting with what you began with.

Is that not a renewable source? The only difference here is that you do not have to wait a few years for more corn to grow.

No. Hydrogen IS NOT renewable. The energy used to create and compress the hydrogen MAY be renewable. But currently most hydrogen is produced using steam reformation of natural gas. Therefor hydrogen production is wasteful use of a non-renewable resource. You'd be better off using liquified natural gas directly in cars.

Hydrogen will be a renewable and non-wasteful only once all electricity is from renewable sources.

And please. You try to argue belief in science then think it will take YEARS?!? to grow corn?

For the cost of a 50 gallon barrel, his time, and about 400$ in parts a collegue has eliminated 80% of his diesel consumption buriong waste vegetable oil. When will hydrogen be able to compete with that?

[Hasty8]

And you've failed to even hint at how you figure it's cheaper and base all claims on the myth of individual home production systems. Systems that even if they are to be developed WILL remain VERY expensive. And for the reasons of mass production and economies of scale, no alternative will be economically viable or wide spread unless it can be produced and distributed economically in large commercial quantities.

Saying that we all "could" make hydrogen is the same as saying we all "could" make beer, ethanol (whiskey), grow our own vegetables, raise our own chickens, make our own biodiesel. Most of which is far less expesnsive than installing a hydrogen production system. But few are done by many.

Most people are glad to get their relatively simple and inexpensive waterwell replaced with a connection to the city system. How many will want to own and maintain a very expensive hydrogen system that would require maintenance and monitoring? Don't try to say it won't be expensive either. You're talking hundreds of thousands at the least.

Also, your "all round better" fuel, even its best form and most technologically advanced requires vehicles to have serious compromises. Either limited cargo space, or limited range. In most cases BOTH. You just can't get around the serious limitation of hydrogen's low energy density. As with electric cars, even if you get past all the technological hurdles, the remaining hurdle is always how much energy you can transport with you.

Ultimately, only time will tell. But I wouldn't invest too heavily in hydrogen. I'm convinved it's a good sideshow for politicians who want to look like they're working for the environment when they aren't. It keeps up the "just around the corner" image and diverts attention from simple, cheap, and immediately available alternatives when in reality it's decades off.

You may not want to invest in it but the automotive companies certainly are. Or perhaps you don't realize that they hybird cars of today are mere stepping stones to the fuel-cell cars of tomorrow?

An I never said that everyone, individually would have their own plant.

What I did say is that when you compare the production of hydrogen with the current model for production of hydrocarbons then yes, it is certainly less efficient to do it that way. Instead, as many experts agree, you make smaller processing plants that also act as retail points.

Think of a gas station that processess it's own fuel and you have it.

And truth be told, this is not that hard to achieve. The electrolyzers used to process hydrogena re not very efficient when trying to mass produce but work very well when producing significantly smaller quantities.

Answer me this, did you at least read the 20 Myths white page? If not, then don't bother discussing this with me any more cause it shows that you are most unwilling to at least learn before you dismiss.

How can you support your claim that it is really decades away? What reports, studies or evaluations are you basing that claim on or are you just going with you "gut"?

As for your sideshows, I would look to the corn industry and their ethanol for that. The subsidies that go into it and the buddy-buddy deals that have been made to support the corn inustry are nauseating.

[Big Time Edit]I have gone to considerable lengths to show how the costs are more in favor of hydrogen by linking to numerous posts instead of just cutting and pasting. Would you rather that I pasted the entire 49 page white paper and it's accompanying 180+ footnotes? Just go to one of the links that I have posted and do some reading but if it's cold hard figures you want, here goes...

Myth #9. Hydrogen is too expensive to compete with gasoline.

BP, Ford, and Accenture, among others, have confirmed that hydrogen from natural gas can compete with gasoline in cost per km. This comparison is robust: hydrogen made in 20- or 180-nominal-car-per-day natural-gas reformers would have remained competitive with retail and wholesale gasoline, respectively, at the actual average prices of U.S. natural gas and gasoline for the past 22 years.

Now, these few paragraphs alone linked to about 8 or 9 reports dones by industry leaders.

What prrof have you offered us? You buddy and his 50 gallon oil drum?

[Hasty8]

No. Hydrogen IS NOT renewable. The energy used to create and compress the hydrogen MAY be renewable. But currently most hydrogen is produced using steam reformation of natural gas. Therefor hydrogen production is wasteful use of a non-renewable resource. You'd be better off using liquified natural gas directly in cars.

Hydrogen will be a renewable and non-wasteful only once all electricity is from renewable sources.

And please. You try to argue belief in science then think it will take YEARS?!? to grow corn?

For the cost of a 50 gallon barrel, his time, and about 400$ in parts a collegue has eliminated 80% of his diesel consumption buriong waste vegetable oil. When will hydrogen be able to compete with that?

Currently, costs have been found that produced and delivered on site, one kilogram of hydrogen can be made for as little as $.71 which has the same energy content as 6.2 lbs of gasoline.

Yes, hydrogen is renewable. You have just quite clearly shown that you do not even have the slightest clue about the actual process. It's not like hydrogen is lost during the creation of the electrical current. Not a overly significant amount anyway.

Look at it this way.

You take 100 gallons of H2O and you split it into hydrogenand oxygen. You then pump these materials through a fuel cell which creates electricity and water vapor. Now, let's just say for arguments sake that you collect that water vapor and find that it equals only 10% of the amount that you originally started with. You now have 10 gallons of water.

Now, say you burn the same amount of cornola. How much do you have left when you burn all the oil?

Is anything useable left?

Hydrogen is renewable in that is can be reconstituted, even if at a small scale, into the original element that first created it. There are, to my knowledge, no burning fuels that create more burning fuels while being consumed.

As for how it is produced, yes, I'll agree with you in that. But then again, gasoline was seen as a waste by product which eventually became a fuel source.

And I apologize if my lack of knowledge in the growing of corn offends you.

[hitech]

Can we drop ALL the personal comments and keep this discussion on topic. It's a very interesting discussion when the personal stuff and frustration is left out.

[Hasty8]

I'm doing a search here and so far, I see more companies gearing themselves towards a mass-produced fuel-cell car than ethanol or other alternative fuel cars. While some do have the ethanol cars theya re mostly larger vehicles that are usually sold to fleets, business or governments.

While this is in no way conclusive I think it shows a clear desire from the automotive industry to move into the zero emissions field which I feel is much better than any type of burning fuel.

Now, at risk of increasing further hostilities can someone please explain to me why ethanol is renewable by hydrogen isn't?

If my understanding is correct ethanol is renewable becuase you can grow more corn. If that is the case then why do you not consider hydrogen to be renewable as it recombines with owygen to create water during he electricity production phase. I am confused by this.

[bjjb99]

Oy vey.

Oy vey, indeed.

IT doesn't matter where the punture was.

Hydrogen is 17 times lighter than air is the number I believe. Becuase of this bouyancy it literally shoot straight up.

So you're saying if I take a pressurized tank of hydrogen of the kind used in fuel cell vehicles, aim its exit port straight down and open the valve, the hydrogen will "literally shoot straight up"? Do you have any concept of the behavior of jet plumes versus buoyant plumes, and under what conditions one might transition to the other?

Hydrogen under pressure will escape through an orifice as a jet of gas. That's right... a jet. Depending on its exit velocity, as determined by gas pressure and orifice diameter, the jet could travel inches or meters before buoyant forces significantly alter its trajectory. Jet direction is determined by the direction the gas exits through the orifice.

As an experiment, take a helium tank (or a hydrogen tank, if you're brave and want more accuracy), aim it sideways, set the pressure regulator to whatever pressure is inside a car's hydrogen storage tank, and open the valve. See how far away you have to be before a sheet of tissue paper held at the height of the tank's exit port isn't affected by the gas jet. Hydrogen is lighter and carries less momentum than helium, but you should get a general idea of how far the jet portion of a pressurized gas can travel by using the helium tank.

You've stated earlier that hydrogen will tend to pool on the ceiling in a garage. I don't dispute that. However, wouldn't the same hydrogen gas, escaping from a car's storage tank tend to pool underneath the trunk's lid? From there, it would seek to escape through any crack/seam between the trunk lid and the car's body. If ignited, we would expect to see flames exiting from the entire seam between the trunk lid and the body of the car, forming an extended source/sheet of flame. We certainly wouldn't expect to see the gas exiting from a single point, unless that point were a pretty darn big hole compared to all other means of escape. In the pictures you've put up here, we don't see that at all; rather, we see a single jet of gas travelling straight up from a localized/point source. This means one of three things:

1. The trunk lid was removed for the test, thereby eliminating any chance for pooling in the trunk itself. Since vehicles usually have trunk lids in place, this would invalidate the test for the purposes of your argument.

2. The trunk lid had a hole pierced through it to allow the H2 to escape from a single point. Since vehicles usually do not have holes pierced through them, this would again invalidate the test for the purposes of your argument.

3. The H2 jet actually melted a hole in the trunk lid, which contradicts the experimental results of low temperature differentials you presented.

If you can come up with an explanation as to why a non-vertically pierced hydrogen storage tank located somewhere below or inside the trunk compartment of a vehicle will generate a vertical jet of flame that appears to emanate from a single, discrete source, by all means let me know. The "shoots straight up" hypothesis is shot straight down as long as the trunk lid is in place.

I just finished reading Swain's fuel leak simulation paper located at the following URL:

http://evworld.com/library/Swainh2vgasVideo.pdf

From that paper, I can see why they would want a vertical plume of combusting hydrogen. They were not testing the effects of a crash/etc, or even a reasonably hazardous failure of the hydrogen system. They wanted to be able to spectrally sample the plume of combusting hydrogen without any additional contaminants. The easiest way to do that is to have a nice vertical jet of flame located away from the vehicle's passenger compartment. To me, that would point toward option 1 that I listed above, namely that the trunk lid was removed for the test.

Now, seeing as how fire burns up, which would you rather have to deal with; a carpet of fire or flames floating above your head?

I would rather not deal with either of them, nor would I like to deal with a jet of flame erupting through the rear seats into the passenger compartment.

(edit... goofed on the quoting structure and ended up including my reply in the quote... oops)

Think of it this way.

Imagine a submarine at 1800 feet below surface water. Now imagine that the skin of the sub is breeched at the very bottom. Is the air that leaks out going to shoot down or is it going to find whatever way possible to shoot back up to the surface?

The submarine example you provide is not analogous. For example, the densities of combusting hydrogen entrained in air versus plain air are nowhere near as different as air versus water. Furthermore, a small hull breach to a submarine 1800 feet below the surface will result in virtually no air leaking out. I don't think our submariners are breathing 778 psi air at that depth, so the water rushes in and pressurizes the air inside the submarine until an equilibrium is reached.

What one sees in the submarine example cannot be used to explain what one might see in the case of escaping pressurized hydrogen.

BJJB