Ethanol: The future is now.

[Southpaw]

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?

I just like to at look things at face value. In the case of a submarine the skin keeps the pressure of the water from crushing the people inside. Subs are not pressurised airplanes are. The example is lost on me because it is FLAWED!! If you think I am obtuse than that is ok, you just need to realise that there is more to this than what you see at face value. You still never comminted on the contributions of hydrogen use and the effects that the direct release of hydrogen will have on the enviroment, or all the extra water vapor will have. Lets just worry about that after the fact though It will probally be better it has to be right. With that I will say Good by!

[Hasty8]

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:

Well, like I said. Take a look at the pictures and answer me this. Which car would you rather be sitting in?

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

There is not experimental about this. It is undeniable fact that hydrogen produces substantial radiant heat than comparable hydrocarbon gas.

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.

How many here have trunks that are airtight? I know mine certainly isn't. And escaping gas will find the easiet way out. As for an actualy collision test, more are on the way/

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.

This work has been conducted to fulfill two objectives. They are:
1. Produce a 3.5 minute video comparing the severity of ignition of single failure mode fuel
leaks from a hydrogen or gasoline fueled vehicle.
2. Determine why the hydrogen flames videotaped in previous experiments are so easily visible.

So explain to me how they were not testing for the hazardous failur of the hydrogen system? That was their first point after all.

Also, the test shows that for the hydrogen fire to occur, four things would have to happen"
Fuel line or component sealing failure.
2. The hydrogen sensor system that detects hydrogen and shuts off hydrogen flow must fail.
3. The tank mounted excess flow valve required by manufacturers specifications must fail.
4. Flow sensing computer programs, that compare hydrogen flow to hydrogen consumption of the fuel cell, must fail.

while for the gas car all you would need is a tiny hole in the fuel line.

Also, in fuel cell cars that tanks are to be located in the center of the car, not over the rear axle, like the current fuel tanks are, which is where the majority of collisions occurs

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.

Fine, bad analgoy. my point was to try to explain the actions of a more bouyant gas when compared to a hydrocarbon gas.

Point is, no one has been able to show that hydrogen is more dangerous than gasoline. The last tpic to discuss is now economics.

Personally, I would probably pay a little bit more to have a hydrogen car and for the hydrogen to power it since I knew it would be helping to get rid of some of the poisons we spew out each day.

One last thing regarding safety. There are already fuel cell cars that are governmentt certified so obviously they are no less safe than gas cars.

[Hasty8]

I just like to at look things at face value. In the case of a submarine the skin keeps the pressure of the water from crushing the people inside. Subs are not pressurised airplanes are. The example is lost on me because it is FLAWED!! If you think I am obtuse than that is ok, you just need to realise that there is more to this than what you see at face value. You still never comminted on the contributions of hydrogen use and the effects that the direct release of hydrogen will have on the enviroment, or all the extra water vapor will have. Lets just worry about that after the fact though It will probally be better it has to be right. With that I will say Good by!

Fine, I was worng. I admit that. But do you at least unersstand that hydrogen is significantly lighter than air and there fore pooling gases offer much less risk that pooling hydrocarbon gasses?

Can we at least agree on that?

I am willing to bet that the releaseing of hydrogen (only the universe's MOST ABUNDANT MATERIAL) will not have to significant an effect.

How many benefits do you see from burning oils of any type in great quantities?

And "we" are not worrying about that "after the fact" as there are already numerous studies underway to see just what the ramifications are about.

[Dubstar112]

Looks like somone subscribes to CR

Snowmobiles have been using ethanol too. Just retard the timing some and you're usually pretty safe.

[Hasty8]

Looks like somone subscribes to CR

Snowmobiles have been using ethanol too. Just retard the timing some and you're usually pretty safe.

CR?

[SlartyBartFast]

Yes, hydrogen is renewable.

No IT ISN'T! Read your own quotes!

and using natural gas priced at a robust $5.69/GJ or $6/MBTU, could deliver hydrogen into cars at ~$2.50/kg; .

Reformation of natural gas to produce hydrogen is NOT a renewable resource. All your doing is replacing a dependence on non-renewable, greenhouse gas producing, foreign controlled petroleum oils with non-renewable, greenhouse gas producing, foreign controlled natural gas supplies(although North American reserves of natural gas MAY last a while).

And with gas reformation processes the losses and costs are such that instead of delivering natural gas to service stations to have it transformed to hydrogen, you'd be better fuelling the vehicles with natural gas directly.

Consider yourself OWNED. Don't claim I don't understand the processes. I know that there are many ways to produce hydrogen, one of which if electrolysis. I also understand that electrolysis is NOT the cheapest way to get hydrogen and it is NOT the process used currently in industrial hydrogen production. I also know not to attempt to call someone ignorant when backing up my arguments with a quote I clearly don't understand.

I know cars: I graduated with a BEng. in Mechanical Engineering with my specialty being Automotive design. I understand fuel cells, I understand natural gas, I know ALL about hydrogen production. I've read reports on hydrogen car projects since the mid 80's, I've read heavily on diesel, I've been involced in vehicle conversion projects to methanol (Corsica), propane/natural gas (Sierra truck), and hybrid (Ford Escort wagon) in student competitions where we sourced all the materials ourselves and competed against the best universities in north america.

I heat my home with natural gas and understand how the price is ever increasing, live in Quebec where our electricity is the cheapest in North America, yet I am still highly intersted in the prospect of a natural gas fuel cell to power my home (as I could then get cheaper off-peak pricing).

With all that, I understand that TODAY if I wanted to change my car's powerplant the only option that makes sense if you do highway driving is diesel. Hybrid gives no gain if you don't drive almost exclusively in the city. If I was to consider electrolysis and hydrogen, well I'd change to a straight electric car that would be far cheaper and be less technologically complex.

[SlartyBartFast]

How many benefits do you see from burning oils of any type in great quantities?

Not very open to listening. Huh? Biodiesel or vegetable oil are as renewable a electrolisi produced hydrogen. Probably far more considering there is less loss in the production of many plant oils and the simplicity of the transesterification process.

While percentage blends don't eliminate the use of petroleum, they are usable in EVERY current vehcle and don't depend on the pipe-dream that everyone will suddenly abandon their cars for new fangled hydrogen powered ones.

[hitech]

Point is, no one has been able to show that hydrogen is more dangerous than gasoline.

There are already fuel cell cars that are government certified so obviously they are no less safe than gas cars.

These are CURRENTLY on the road? If not, why not? If so, then we will soon have real world testing.

[bjjb99]

Well, like I said. Take a look at the pictures and answer me this. Which car would you rather be sitting in?

The pictures are irrelevant because they cannot be said to accurately represent what would happen during the most likely cause of a hydrogen system failure--namely, a collision in which the hydrogen tank is somehow compromised.

There is not experimental about this. It is undeniable fact that hydrogen produces substantial radiant heat than comparable hydrocarbon gas.

Okay, I have no idea whether you meant to say "substantially more" or "substantially less". Are you stating that it's reasonable to expect a jet of burning hydrogen gas to melt through a trunk lid?

How many here have trunks that are airtight? I know mine certainly isn't. And escaping gas will find the easiet way out.

Which, in the case of an intact trunk, would be the seam surrounding the trunk lid and the car body. In the case of many vehicles these days with fold-down rear seats, the passenger compartment would be the easiest way out.

Originally Posted by From the link you just referred tp
This work has been conducted to fulfill two objectives. They are:
1. Produce a 3.5 minute video comparing the severity of ignition of single failure mode fuel
leaks from a hydrogen or gasoline fueled vehicle.
2. Determine why the hydrogen flames videotaped in previous experiments are so easily visible.

So explain to me how they were not testing for the hazardous failur of the hydrogen system? That was their first point after all.

In the case of they hydrogen test, they picked a failure mode that allowed them to accomplish objective #2 simultaneously, rather than deciding to burn up two cars by directing the hydrogen jet into the passenger compartment. They figured they could save a few bucks and kill two birds with one stone.

Notice that nowhere in their objectives do they mention "hazardous failure of the hydrogen system". In fact, searching the entire document turns up zero instances of the word "hazardous". The failure that they created was not necessarily hazardous, nor should it be treated as indicative of a hazardous failure, nor should it be treated as evidence that high pressure hydrogen storage tanks won't result in incinerated passengers if punctured from the right direction.

Also, the test shows that for the hydrogen fire to occur, four things would have to happen"
Fuel line or component sealing failure.
2. The hydrogen sensor system that detects hydrogen and shuts off hydrogen flow must fail.
3. The tank mounted excess flow valve required by manufacturers specifications must fail.
4. Flow sensing computer programs, that compare hydrogen flow to hydrogen consumption of the fuel cell, must fail.

while for the gas car all you would need is a tiny hole in the fuel line.

5. Foreign object puncturing 5000 psi hydrogen storage tank during a collision. This scenario bypasses all four of the above conditions.

Also, in fuel cell cars that tanks are to be located in the center of the car, not over the rear axle, like the current fuel tanks are, which is where the majority of collisions occurs

People sit in the center of the car... does this mean the jet of flame is going to come through the floorboards into the passenger compartment since your apparent position is that the jet of burning hydrogen always goes up?

BJJB

(edit: fixed quote tags again)

[BlackVCG]

Wow... where to start.

First of all, you berate my comment on the poor economics of a BATTERY powered vehicle and then you come back to say that you don't want a battery powered car. There is a difference between a Fuel Cell vehicle and a battery powered vehicle. Since you live in your hydrogen bubble and really don't look into anything else other than what the hydrogen proponents claim, a battery powered vehicle has no similarities to a fuel cell vehicle, other than that they don't use an ICE. Do I need to use smaller words?

Do you realize how gigantic each "hydrogen" station would need to be if they were to be self-sustaining?

So each and every "hydrogen" station is suppose to produce its own hydrogen, even the podunk stations out in WagonTire with a population of 10 and 100 miles from the nearest town. I know you'll come back and be like "WTF, I'm not talking about the little podunk gas stations, I'm talking about the grand scheme of things and the stations where they do business all day!!1!!" Since you seem to think this world needs to convert to 100% hydrogen use, then that issue is of concern to you and I'd like to know how every single fuel station in the U.S., for that matter is going to be self-sustaining and be able to keep up with fluctuating demands.

Second of all, how do you plan on storing the hydrogen at these self-sustaining hydrogen stations so they have a reserve? If you liquefying it, it consumes about 1/3 of the energy as does compressing it to the 800bar proposed standard. You make it sound like no hydrogen is lost in the process of producing it. Storage is an element of the production of any fuel.

Also, you said you did a search and seem to see more Fuel Cells than ethanol powered vehicles... Do a better search. Ethanol powered vehicles are also known as FFVs (Flexible Fuel Vehicles), which can run on ethanol, gasoline or mixture of the two. Just about every automaker has FFV vehicles. From small sedans to large SUVs. Not just "fleet" vehicles as you stated.

On a side note. You really seem to be grabbing in thin air to find statements to throw into your posts to make them sound more plausible. Your comment about waiting for corn growing every FEW years almost made me fall out of my chair. Do you live in middle of metropolis? Have you ever seen a corn field? It grows every year and produces high yields.

Also, 45% of the european automotive market uses diesel engines. All of these vehicles can have biodiesel or synthetic diesel pumped into them without modification. Even automotive manufacturers like Volkswagen have decided to improve their diesel technology instead of going down the road of Fuel Cell production.

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.

[PyRo]

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.

I just know some moron would rig up a switch to get that big flame going while driving down the road.

[Hasty8]

The burden of proof is on those wanting to use hydrogen. We know that hydrogen is unstable and easily ignited. The data presented here reinforce that belief.

But it is no more unstable and easily ignited than is gasoline.

It's now up to those who want hydrogen fuel in a car to prove it's safe. So far the testing seems biased toward proving its safety. And very little testing has been done so far.

Really? Then I guess this is just a lie, right?

The FCX is the only fuel cell vehicle certified Zero Emissions by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for every day commercial use. It is also the first hydrogen vehicle to comply with the U.S. government's criteria for zero emission vehicles (ZEV) and the only fuel cell vehicle to pass all crash tests standards. Honda even developed the system adopted by the SAE and EPA for rating and certifying fuel cell vehicles.

Unlike the competition, the fuel cell and hydrogen storage tanks in the FCX are kept well within a stout protective cage. The front and rear bumpers are larger for more crush space. Honda has crash-tested the FCX and it has passed all regulatory hurdles for not only occupant protection but hydrogen leakage. No other manufacturer is believed to have advanced to the stage where it has crash-tested a vehicle containing a fuel cell.

http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/rr/03fcx.htm

So I guess the fact that there are already goverment approved fuel cell cars is irrelevant? Or should we just ignore that fact to fit your conceptions? The hydrogen fuel cars have substantially more safety provisions to deal with a leak that any gas powered car does.

If your fuel line springs a leak does the pump and/or gas tank imemdiately shut down? Do the windows automatically open to ventilate the fumes out?

No.

Another consideration is what does the safety equipment cost? Does it require too much costly equipment to make it viable? Also, as is often quoted, it doesn't matter how much it will cost IF it is produced at the same level as current vehicles. Unless it can be produced at a reasonable cost on a much more limited scale it will never make it to current production levels.

Now this is a valid point but it is different from what I discussing before.

Let me recap my entire point here before I address that issue.

Hydrogen is a viable alternative energy source for automotives. It is no less or more dangerous than fuels we are already using and is significantly more efficient. This is all proven ad nauseum and unless some one here posts actually reports showing otherwise I will no longer respond to the wild claims and misconceptions.

Now, the real problem comes into play. The cars themselves. These are very expensive but that is only because the technology is so new.

Keep in mind that when hydrogen fuel cells first came out over 25 years ago they were not nearly as efficient and were very expensive. This is true of any new technology.

Now, considering the leaps and strides that technology has taken in the last....25-30 years, I could rather confidently say that we could expect to see fuel cell cars, sold to the mass public, within....I would 10-15 years.

That aside, hydrogen still has tremendous benefits over other fossil fuels. As I have stated, my family house in up state NY is entirely off the grid, surviving solely on wind, solar and hydrogen power.

But yes, very good point. Currently, it is the cars themselves that are the major roadblock in getting this technology out to the public.

These are CURRENTLY on the road? If not, why not? If so, then we will soon have real world testing.

Yes, they are currently on the road and have been since 2000 or 2001. I'm not sure. San Fran and LA use hem as government cars. Only 8-14 are out there I believe but again, this is a new and emerging technology.

Gas did not proliferate overnight. Neither did telephones, computers or other technologies that we all pretty much take for granted.

[Hasty8]

I just know some moron would rig up a switch to get that big flame going while driving down the road.

Nah mate, mine shoots out the exhaust tip!

[Hasty8]

Wow... where to start.

First of all, you berate my comment on the poor economics of a BATTERY powered vehicle and then you come back to say that you don't want a battery powered car. There is a difference between a Fuel Cell vehicle and a battery powered vehicle. Since you live in your hydrogen bubble and really don't look into anything else other than what the hydrogen proponents claim, a battery powered vehicle has no similarities to a fuel cell vehicle, other than that they don't use an ICE. Do I need to use smaller words?

well, I thought you were equating a hydrogen fuel cell car with a battery powered car. If I misunderstood then Imost earnestly apologize.

Do you realize how gigantic each "hydrogen" station would need to be if they were to be self-sustaining?

So each and every "hydrogen" station is suppose to produce its own hydrogen, even the podunk stations out in WagonTire with a population of 10 and 100 miles from the nearest town. I know you'll come back and be like "WTF, I'm not talking about the little podunk gas stations, I'm talking about the grand scheme of things and the stations where they do business all day!!1!!" Since you seem to think this world needs to convert to 100% hydrogen use, then that issue is of concern to you and I'd like to know how every single fuel station in the U.S., for that matter is going to be self-sustaining and be able to keep up with fluctuating demands.

Actually, this model works best for the small towns so they would certainly benefit from it more. And I do not tink that we have to convert to 100% hydrogen. Where did I ever say that. What I do think is that the vast majority of commuter and mass transit vehicles should be hydrogen powered.

Less emissions and pollutants are a good thing. Plus, getting rid of that much of our dependency on oil products mean we can tell the ME to go to hell just that much quicker.

Second of all, how do you plan on storing the hydrogen at these self-sustaining hydrogen stations so they have a reserve? If you liquefying it, it consumes about 1/3 of the energy as does compressing it to the 800bar proposed standard. You make it sound like no hydrogen is lost in the process of producing it. Storage is an element of the production of any fuel.

And I do not deny this but when compared to drilling for oil, processing it and transporting it to retail pumps (wellhead to retail) the hydrogen produced, stored and distributed at a single location has a lower cost per mile driven which is what we all really care about.

Also, you said you did a search and seem to see more Fuel Cells than ethanol powered vehicles... Do a better search. Ethanol powered vehicles are also known as FFVs (Flexible Fuel Vehicles), which can run on ethanol, gasoline or mixture of the two. Just about every automaker has FFV vehicles. From small sedans to large SUVs. Not just "fleet" vehicles as you stated.

Well thank you for informing me. I had found a few mentions of FFV's but the sites were not to specific on the fuels they ran on.

On a side note. You really seem to be grabbing in thin air to find statements to throw into your posts to make them sound more plausible. Your comment about waiting for corn growing every FEW years almost made me fall out of my chair. Do you live in middle of metropolis? Have you ever seen a corn field? It grows every year and produces high yields.

Sorry but there just really aren't that many corn fields here in Manhattan.

Also, 45% of the european automotive market uses diesel engines. All of these vehicles can have biodiesel or synthetic diesel pumped into them without modification. Even automotive manufacturers like Volkswagen have decided to improve their diesel technology instead of going down the road of Fuel Cell production.

That's Europe and that's fine but why settle for less emissions when you can have zero?

[Phobos]

Wow this is an awsome debate.

My 2 cents.

Here in MN ethanol is highly subsised by the goverment making it more expensive at tax time but not at the pump. If it such a great thing why not let private investors make that call and get big goverment out of the picture.

I think that the future is in fusion power to make H fuel cars. Rught now H fuel is dumb because you might show someone that it only makes H2O but to make the H you have burn a ton of coal. And as far as solar or wind power goes as a cost in energy out solution. Just spent the money on fusion. Then we will have fusion way before our fossil fules run out.


I wonder how far I could power a 10-speed bike using my 68/4500 HPA tank?