Ethanol: The future is now.

[Hasty8]

No IT ISN'T! Read your own quotes!

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.

How is it not. Instead of merely disagreeing can you please explain to me why you feel it is not renewable and ethanol is?

Until you do so I will never understand your POV.

And I do not advocated using any form of combustable to produce hydrogen when there are no may better alternatives. Nuclear energy, solar or wind powered generators, hell, even algae can do it.

And BTW, I never said using remornation of gas to produce the electrical current. Humboldt Univeristy has had a rather nice machine using a photovoltaic panel producing the current needed since 1996 or 1998 I believe and that machine has been working finr for years.

[edit]The SCHATZ SOLAR HYDROGEN PROJECT has been running since 1991 virtually unassisted. I'll try and find some numbers of amounts of gas produced but in regards to the claim that hydrogen is not a renewable energy source, according to minds better than mine:

In the solar hydrogen cycle, solar energy provides the electricity to remove hydrogen from ordinary water by the process of electrolysis. The hydrogen can then be stored or transported. When hydrogen is recombined with oxygen, usable energy results. No resources are consumed and the only byproduct is pure water. In this cycle hydrogen is an energy carrier; it allows us to store and transport solar energy in large quantities.

[/edit]

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 won't consider myself "owned" (especially by you) until you actually bother to explain instead of rant and yell.

I know cars: I graduated with a BEng. in Mechanical Engineering with my specialty being Automotive design.

And that translates into physics exactly how?

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.

Yet you seem unable to link to a single report, study, article or anything to support your claims. Curious.

[Hasty8]

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?

I agree with a few of your points, especially getting Big Brother the hell out of the picture.

As for needing coal or any other type of combustible to produce the electrical charge to split water that is simply just not true. There are a multitude of ways to split water.

Nuclear, solar or wind powered generators, LIMPET Wave generators, greenhouse farming {which I like becuase it puts a lot of necessities in one place. even algae is currently being studied to mass produce hydrogen.

The reason why combustibles are used to produce hydrogen is because we are already using it and it's easier to just keep on using what we already know.

[Hasty8]

Now, then, enough of this. I am not going to convince anyone and no is manageing to persuade me so let's go on another tack before this becomes a flame war.

Why are you all so supportive of Ethanol?

How is it produced?

Why is it renewable? Becuase it converts into something else or simply becuase you can grow more corn?

How does it compare to regular gas?

Are regular ICE's able to use it or can it only be used in a diesel?

What are it's emission ratings when compared to typical diesel and gasoline fuels?

Can it be used in applications other than engines?

[SlartyBartFast]

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.

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.

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

[Southpaw]

[SlartyBartFast]

How is it not. Instead of merely disagreeing can you please explain to me why you feel it is not renewable and ethanol is?

Look. Electrolysis is one thing. Reformation is another. Reformation of natural gas is not the use of natural gas for the production of electricity. The majority of hydrogen is not produced by splitting water (which is a very energy intensive process).

http://www.energyindependencenow.org...ogenFuelCo.pdf

If you use a renewable resource for electrolysis, hydrogen is renewable. If you reform it from natural gas, hydrogen is NOT renewable.

We've collectively blown the University project out of the water. The investment required by each home in solar cells is enormous. Few have the hundred thousand or so dollars to install the system, the budget to maintain it, or the desire to drive a vehicle that can then meet only half the average driving sdistance of the current american family.

THAT's why you've been asked by myself and others how local refuelling is supposed to be viable.

Ethanol and Biodiesel production is viable. I won't link anymore because I don't know what would convince you. You've only provided one and while we've questioned it, you've failed to defend it. Any google search on biodiesel production or use will give you more information than you'll need. I DID provide many biodiesel links and a study earlier, and while I've addressed and questioned your link, you seem to have ignored the papers I referenced.

Biodiesel is already used (and mandated) in Europe.

Corn derived ethanol can be argued as being wasteful (there's a question about the fertiliser required and its renewability). But, it's return is still greater than 1 unit for each unit of energy put in and grain ethanol and new processes that can use any type of plant waste are VERY good. However, no alcohol production system matches the energy return of biodiesel produced from plant oils.

Biodiesel can be used in ANY diesel engine (but will cause problems with older engines with natural rubber seals).

Ethanol can be used in any engine at 5-10%. Many cars (most of those models sold in California) can run with up to 85% ethanol.

Both ethanol and biodiesel are renewable becasue they are produced from natures most efficient solar energy collectors. Plants.

Biodiesel or alcohol production are good ideas because you can produce an energy storing fuel with a greater energy content than what you put in. Hydrogen production is nothing but losses to inefficiencies. The only saving grace is if the initial energy source is free and renewable. Which is not the case for industrially produced hydrogen today.

Do you have any links about algae producing hydrogen? I know that one of the major proposed sources of plant oils for biodiesel is algae but have never seen any mention of algae and hydrogen.

[BlackVCG]

I think Ethanol is a great thing for the gasoline ICEs that are being produced today. There are a lot of people that have a bad taste in their mouth when they hear the word diesel because A) Diesel engines from the 80's were piles of garbage (see Oldsmobile 350ci diesel) B) They stink (BioDiesel smells like popcorn, Krispy Kremes, french fries, etc.) C) They are loud (HPCR technology has diesel engines at the same dB or just a bit louder than gasoline engines.

It will take some time to convert those people to diesel technology, but BMW, Mercedes Benz and Volkswagen are making some great commuter cars with diesel engines. Cummins, Isuzu and International Harvester have all adapted HPCR technology to their diesel truck engines to bring the sound dB significantly down to a more "pleasing" level.

Please check out this page for some information on the basics of BioDiesel.

http://www.gobiodiesel.com/tiki-index.php?page=BiodieselBasics

[hitech]

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

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%

THAT quote from you shows that it is more unstable and more easily ignited.

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

So I guess the fact that there are already government 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.

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.

Seems reasonable that I did not know about that since it is the ONLY manufacture to have done crash safety testing. I'm not spending much time searching for information, only following links provided here. I will read about that one now. If it is one the road we have our first real world testing. Sounds like a very small test, but that is a good idea considering the ramifications. I do find it interesting that a lot of emphasis is placed on leak detection. Makes it seem like hydrogen leaks are more hazardous than gasoline leaks. I know, I know, it's just government bureaucrats...

[hitech]

One thing it doesn't sound like anyone has done is explode the equivalent amounts of gasoline and hydrogen required to power the same vehicle about 300 miles (standard minimal range for a passenger vehicle) and compare the damage. No safety methods are 100% infallible and that means that given enough attempts it going to eventually explode.

[bjjb99]

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

Interesting article.

The fuel cell car gets less than 250 km on a single fill. That's around 156 miles (250/1.6).
The fuel cell car has a 156 liter tank.
The car gets one mile per liter, or 3.78 miles per gallon.

A large SUV gets around 13 miles per gallon (unless it's ridiculously large, in which case you might as well measure it in gallons per inch).
Gas around here costs about $2.00 per gallon.
The operator of the SUV pays $0.154 per mile in fuel.

To achieve the same cost per mile, the fuel cell's hydrogen would have to cost $0.582 per gallon. For a gasoline powered car getting 25 mpg, you'd need a hydrogen cost of $0.302 per gallon before the fuel cell vehicle's per mile cost in fuel is comparable.

According to the Oregon Department of Energy, current production methods for Hydrogen result in costs of about $3.00 to $4.00 per gallon.

http://www.energy.state.or.us/trans/fueldes.htm

That means the fuel cell vehicle is between 5 and 7 times more expensive per mile for the operator than if that operator used an SUV getting 13 mpg.

If the hydrogen is made from water instead of reforming of natural gas, the cost is about three times higher, according to this article.

http://www.ems.org/hydrogen/schwarzenegger.html

From this article, we see the same $4.00 per gallon costs mentioned in the Oregon article. In addition, we also see the goal of the Energy Department (not specified whether it's the DOE or the one in California) wants to see the price drop to about $1.50 per gallon, excluding taxes. That's still about 2.6 times as costly per mile for the operator as compared to running a 13 mpg SUV.

For a driver travelling about 12,000 miles per year, an SUV has fuel costs of around $1850.00
For the same distance travelled and assuming the goal of $1.50 per gallon of H2, the fuel cell vehicle has H2 costs of around $4760.00. For more fuel efficient gasoline cars, the cost differential is even less in H2's favor.

I don't know about you, but I don't have an additional $3000 per year right now to pay for my daily commute. In fact, I don't think I know of anyone around here who has that kind of disposable income.

Without other incentives (or dis-incentives), consumers will likely vote with their wallets in the near term. If the cost of gasoline gets up to around $5.00 per gallon and H2 costs fall to around $1.50 per gallon, then you'll start to see people really looking hard at H2 as an alternative fuel.

Another option would be to further increase the efficiency of the fuel cell so that you get more than 1 mile per liter. A factor of five increase in efficiency might start swaying folks towards fuel cells.

BJJB

edit: If the IRS gave me a $5000 tax break each year for commuting to work using an H2 powered car, I'd probably consider it.

[hitech]

What, out of site out of mind. I know this debate can't be over yet.

[bjjb99]

Well, ya know... all it takes is one mention of the IRS and people head for the hills.

BJJB

[hitech]

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[SlartyBartFast]

Alright,

Here's a hit against hydrogen as a viable source of power. According to a quiz on the BBC website (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3996689.stm) it would take 100 nuclear power stations to provide the energy required to power all of Britain's vehicles. [Granted, I don't know what output size they would be.]

Where in the US do you want to build the 200-300 nuclear power stations for US vehicle hydrogen consumption?

I think I'd rather see fields full of mustard seed, corn, rape seed (canola), and other oil producing plants or deserts covered with algae ponds to produce oils for biodiesel. Plus there's the fact that even developing countries can produce plant or algae oil to make biodiesel but will be unlikely to have the technology to produce hydrogen and the vehicles that would consume it.

But, there's further interesting reading in the series. Part 3 talks about energy consumption and requirements (http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/scien...re/3995135.stm).

More disgusting than our consumption of fuel in cars is the everyday waste for the sake of a few small conveniences. The BBC quiz says that 85% of the electricity used by TVs and VCRs in Britain is consumed while they are in stand-by.

Sickening.

[SlartyBartFast]

The less than serious comedy at the end certainl made the thread seem like it was on its death bed, But does no one have anything more to add?

Where'd you go Hasty8? I'm still waiting for links to algae produced hydrogen.

I'm also waiting to know if you bothered to read the information at the links I provided.