Hydrogen fueled vehicles

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Countryside : One Thread

"Hydrogen can be obtained from water by the process of electrolysis, or splitting water molecules using electricity. We cannot, however, forget the external effects of getting the electricity from power plants. Many power plants across the country, producing electricity to charge batteries or to produce hydrogen, run on carbon-based fuels, such as coal, and therefore produce emissions (MacKenzie 61-2). Here in Spokane, however, where our electricity comes from the water-powered generators at Washington Water Power, this is not a problem, and hydrogen-fuel-cell-powered vehicles can be truly emission free." http://www2.thefuture.net/ics/

The above is a paragraph taken from an article on hydrogen fuel cells. My question is why, using electrolysis, can't hydrogen be produce right on board a vehicle, and the resulting water be recycled back into the fuel tank for use again? If this were done an engine could be made that would even be better than the internal combustion engine in that it's fuel would be renewable and constant. Can somebody explain to me why this isn't possible? It seems a battery and coil could produce the desired electricty, and even if a battery isn't big enough, the car could be started by a quick plug in to a standard outlet. This would use a whole lot less energy thn the current electric cars do and Hydrogen is a much better fuel for powering a vehicle than gasoline is.

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), February 19, 2001

Answers

Unfortunately, that would be a perpetual motion machine. You get the same amount of energy from burning hydrogen as you consume producing the hydrogen from water. Add in the resistance of the wires and a less than 100% efficient generator, and you end up with much less than you started with.

-- Steve - TX (steve.beckman@compaq.com), February 19, 2001.

I've though hydrogen was good fuel from way back in '70s when I read of some guy(cant remember his name right off) in Colorado experimenting with it for everything from motor fuel to powering a gas cook stove. He had internal combustion engines burning it very well. Used a metal hydride in fuel tank so as to avoid explosion in case of accident. Metal hydride chips absorbed the hydrogen and released it with application of heat to the tank say from excess radiator heat. Believe fellow I mentioned even came up with a home electrolysis plant to fuel the vehicle since there are no hydrogen "Shell stations" yet. He pointed out at the time it was much cheaper to make industrial hydrogen from natural gas or even coal than to make it from water. His advocacy was hydrogen as an environmental help since its a much cleaner fuel than any hydroCARBON.

However the problem with generating hydrogen on board a vehicle is the old one of conservation of matter/energy. Even with perfect 100% efficiency an engine could not power a car and produce all its own fuel. This would be like perpetual motion. Internal combustion engines if I remember are less than 20% efficient. Even fuel cells which are vastly more efficient (guess 80-90% efficient) wouldnt do it. Sorry, no free lunch yet.

-- HermitJohn (hermit@hilltop_homestead.zzn.com), February 19, 2001.


I once worked for the Northwest Power Planning Council which includes the Spokane area.

Electricity in this region is, indeed, mostly hydro. But hydro also has a big impact on the environment. Fish populations are way down. Plus, those dams have mountains of silt piling up behind them.

Hydrogen car power is still under investigation. In a few more years, we should see some prototypes on the road. It is far cleaner than using batteries!

-- Paul Wheaton (paul@javaranch.com), February 19, 2001.


What impact would hydrogen based fuel have on water suplies in the future? Could it possibly where fossil fuels are today?

-- Jay Blair in N. AL (jayblair678@yahoo.com), February 19, 2001.

There are several questions here. The easy one first: 1) No, Jay, we will never run out of hydrogen or water as long as the sun does not go nova. 2) Water is made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom with a very strong bond between the atoms. A strong bond means it takes more energy to separate the molecule into the individual atoms. In methane gas the hydrogen bond is not as strong, therefore less energy is used to produce hydrogen. 3) The cycle of electric + water = hydrogen, then burning in a combustion is not as efficient as a car running on batteries (electric only). The trade off is hydrogen is more transportable than heavy batteries. So, in the near future local transportation may use batteries while longer distance can use hydrogen (this will cost considerably more than the current price for gasoline). 4) When you produce hydrogen from water the byproduct is oxygen, not water. Other parts of the question were answered above.

-- Lynn Goltz (lynngoltz@aol.com), February 19, 2001.


Okay, I get it now. There isn't enough energy coming from the hydrogen for all the functions it must carry, so there has to be an outside energy source for splitting the water molecule and if you do that you may as well buy a tank of gas. Thank you. It is true that when you use electrolysis to make hydrogen, the by product is oxygen, but when you burn hydrogen the byproduct is water.

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), February 19, 2001.


Little Bit, you commented "when you burn hydrogen the byproduct is water." Basically true if using air as the oxidizing agent you also get a few other minor byproducts, depending upon the temperature of combustion.

Also, your listed email address is not working.

-- Lynn Goltz (lynngoltz@aol.com), February 19, 2001.


Fuel cells are not economical for any form of personal use yet; but they are in commercial production, so the prices will drop from here on. What may be interesting is solar cells. If you had a slab of solar cells on the roof and possibly bonnet (hood?) of a vehicle, they could be charging batteries and after that producing hydrogen by electrolysis and storing it all day, while the vehicle was parked in the sun. In this scenario, electric vehicles might actually enter large scale personal before commercial use, and it would all be renewable energy.

Another comment - I believe internal combustion engines are in fact relatively efficient on the basis of power to weight - that is, you get a lot more out of a relatively light engine than from an incredibly heavy bank of batteries. One of the scenarios I've seen suggested is to have a smaller number of batteries driving electric motors, and then to have a small (possibly hydrogen-powered) IC engine driving a generator to charge the batteries. You can get a lot of efficiency from a small IC motor running at relatively constant speed, and the batteries provide the reserves to meet variable load like acceleration or hills.

Another possibility: electric motors in or directly connected to the wheels. That way you get infinitely variable automatic transmission (the transmission is the electric cables); can have constant four- wheel drive; automatic eqivalent of limited-slip differential (the electricity will be distributed according to the load, so if a wheel has no traction it will receive little power, won't spin madly, and the power will go to the wheels which do have traction/load, and can pull you out of the mud); and you can use regenerative braking (when you want to stop, the first step will be to run the electric motors as generators, sucking back the power you put into getting moving, and returning it to the batteries).

-- Don Armstrong (darmst@yahoo.com.au), February 19, 2001.


Ahh, this is stimulating conversation! Sorry about my e-mail addy, but this browser will not expire my cookies and I keep forgeting to change the addy manually. The only thing I can say about your idea Don is that by the time you load down a car with solar cells, batteries, an engine, and enough water to make it worth it, we are talking about one heavy car. If only the car could actual be built with solar cells for skin. Either that or some type of super concentrating cell that needs very little area to produce a lot of power. Has anybody heard of researching this? If sunlight can burn my eyes within a few minutes of looking at it we must not be collecting all the energy available.

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littleBit@compworldnet.com), February 19, 2001.


This type of post is what makes me stick around here. I learn so much and get so many gaps filled in following you guys around. Thanks

-- John in S. IN (jsmengel@hotmail.com), February 19, 2001.


I posted the above and then thought that if you could come up with a solar panel that had a thin layer of water underneath it, and the skin focused the sun similar to a prism, maybe you could run a car on steam, or heat exchange? Maybe a dumb idea. The car would probably have to sit for a long time in bright sun to get that to work. Just thinking in print.

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), February 19, 2001.


Hermit: I think the guy you're referring to is ??? Billings of Billings Energy, seen in TMEN years ago.

I talked to Roy McAllister, president of American Hydrogen Assoc years ago at the MREA fair. He was telling me about a demo they did in Denver, the mile high city. There's something funky about the local climate there that causes the smog to linger in Denver. Any way they were doing this demo. They sampled the air going into the engine and the exhaust gasses coming out. Guess what? The exhaust gasses were cleaner than the air going in. Kinda makes sense in a way in that the IC engine in the vehicle acted as an "incinerator" of the smog.

Jay: The way I understand it is when Hydrogen is burned in an IC engine is "recombined" in the exhaust to reform water vapor. I suspect it has to do with the explosive force generated in the combustion chamber.

I heard Saudi Arabia was getting geared up to be the worlds largest producer of Hydrogen. How you ask? Cummins Diesel has teamed up with a Stirling engine mfgr. They use a big reflective Parabolic dish that tracks the sun. At the focal point of the dish is a free-piston stirling engine. The piston has a magnetic ring that passed by a field coil. Each time it does that it produces an electrical pulse. The electricity will be used to electrolyze water to make Hydrogen.

-- john leake (natlivent@pcpros.net), February 19, 2001.


"If only the car could actual be built with solar cells for skin". Sorry, I didn't make that clear: that's what I meant. They're producing solar cells now which can be used instead of some of your roofing iron, rather than in a frame on top of the roof. It's not a big step from there.

"by the time you load down a car with .... batteries, an engine, and enough water..."

Batteries: well, if you have a good enough additional power source, you don't need too many batteries. Think golf cart, or maybe twice that many - could trade that off to some extent against the BIG engine block we don't have any longer. Incidentally, while lead-acid batteries are the only practical batteries in terms of enough energy storage for automotive use at the moment, they do have others in experimental form that are approaching as good, and much lighter - but currently way too expensive. Watch this space.

Engine: we're not talking big here - maybe 250cc motorcycle engine, maybe much less - how much does it take to drive a generator?. The only reason you need a bigger engine (on a light enough vehicle - say VW/Honda/Suzuki size) is to cover occasional use (acceleration, steep hills), and we've got that covered by the batteries. Most of the time you're just rolling along at relatively constant speed, and that doesn't take much power. Incidentally, they suggest this approach because small IC motor (or maybe even turbine) running at relatively constant speed, plus generator, comes close to fuel cell efficiency, is more versatile (can use gas or fossil fuels if necessary, but less of them than the big engine we're replacing), but costs MUCH less and can weigh less than fuel cells.

Water: well, there's some trade-off there against the fuel you're no longer carrying.

I'm not saying it's going to happen tomorrow, or even at all, but it's a bunch of things that are within sight of being possible. Interesting, at least.

-- Don Armstrong (darmst@yahoo.com.au), February 20, 2001.


HI LBF, The new thin film technology solar cells will be cheap (in comparison to silicon) and should be able to be mounted on plastic or fiberglass auto panels. An onboard generator does not need more than 10 to 20 horsepower while powering a large generator at a constant speed.

As pointed out above, the high weight of lead-acid batteries must be overcome with a new cheaper technology. This will happen when the large scale economics are there. Another problem is the driving publics' expectations of fast acceleration and high speed (over 80MPH); however, high fuel costs (economics) will also overcome that problem.

-- Lynn Goltz (lynngoltz@aol.com), February 20, 2001.


With a hyrogen situation, you won't need batteries.

-- Paul Wheaton (paul@javaranch.com), February 20, 2001.


There are currently hydrogen fueled vehicles on the road. Maybe I should say streets. Just saw a newsclip a week or so ago on busses using fuel cells and hydrogen power. The city might have been Chicago, I just don't remember now.

Fuel cell powered cars are in the works and should be at your neighborhood dealer in 3 or 4 years. That from a clip I saw yesterday.

Fuel cells are already in use for businesses, but the average Joe is having to wait for them for home use. Bummer. Many utility companies are signing up to become the exclusive distributor of fuel cells for homes so that they can continue to get their monthly cut of what meager funds we have. The fuel cell units will be rented out rather than be sold outright since some skilled maintenance is required.

For some interesting reading you might check out these sites on the Net. http://www.fuelless.com/ http://www.ucsofa.com/ http://www.josephnewman.com/ http://home.earthlink.net/~josephnewman/ http://www.americanstirling.com/ http://www.tamin.com/stirling.html This last one has links to many intresting sites. Many are for perputal motion machines---or nearly perputal according to their maker. http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/ http://www.voicenet.com/~eric/dennis4.html

-- Notforprint (Not@thekeyboard.com), February 20, 2001.


If ya wanna do some serious experimenting with fuel cells, hydrogen etc check out the archives at www.homepower.com They tell you how to build an electrolyzer and fuel cells

-- john leake (natlivent@pcpros.net), February 20, 2001.

Ha Ha! That's a good one, Saudi Arabia setting up to corner the market in hydrogen! Should keep the old paranoia pot boiling!

-- john hill (john@cnd.co.nz), February 20, 2001.

Here is a site on current research on hydrogen generation methods. There are quite a few ways it can be done, but the practicality of most is questionable. http://www.eren.doe.gov/hydrogen/research.html

The following is a website that is a bit more on the fluffy side. Essentially it describes a device from a "forgotten European patent" that generates hydrogen on site, e.g. within a car or house. A "high voltage" is put through an aluminum wire that contacts a rotating drum within a water bath. The current hydrolyzes water into hydrogen and oxygen, but the oxygen is trapped by the aluminum wire as aluminum oxide (an insouble powder) that falls to the bottom. The chemistry seems OK, to me anyway, but the question that I cannot answer is: How much current? Read and enjoy. http://energy21.terrashare.com/layo.html

-- Marty Boraas (boraas@miliserv.net), February 20, 2001.


I guess the key here is to remember that hydrogen is an energy *carrier,* not an energy source. In other words, it takes energy to create it, and in hydrogen's case it takes *more* energy to create it than it produces when used, so there is always a net loss in the system. It has a (slight) advantage in portability over batteries, and allows us to keep using existing IC engine technology for a while longer. I see a lot written about home and car fuel cells, but so far most advocates are ducking the issue of where the energy comes from to produce the hydrogen that powers the fuel cell. It's fair to say that hydrogen has a place in future energy needs, but I'm not betting it's a large one. We would have to install an entirely new fuel infrastructure and build enough nuclear power plants to replace the Middle East. And I don't think we have enough time for that.

-- Cash (cash@andcarry.com), February 22, 2001.

Little bit,

Your obvious cluelessness regarding basic principles of science, as demonstrated by your posts here, helps me understand how you can come up with so many obviously clueless statements about evolution, population, and such.

Thanks for the help in understanding where you're coming from.

-- teacher (teacher@safety.net), March 05, 2001.


Hi Jump off Joe clone, While perhaps it is true that in this instance I had a memory lapse with regard to the conservation of energy, it has been a long time since I sat in a biology class where a teacher was demostrating electrolysis. This post just shows that you can't ever show any weakness here, otherwise small minded people might choose to use it to attack you. If the great scientists of the past had refused to discuss what was then considered impossible, we would not currently have much of what we call modern society. Perhaps it would behoove you to think more about all those things you consider to be impossible, for the answers maybe just outside of the box, waiting for you to find them. Perhaps outside of the box, your Creator is waiting. I find the pseudonym beneath you. I am certainly glad the people like Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, and Issac Newton were not afraid to stick their neck out and risk looking stupid, so maybe I have more in common with them than you do.

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), March 05, 2001.


I am certainly glad the people like Thomas Edison, Albert Einstein, and Issac Newton were not afraid to stick their neck out and risk looking stupid, so maybe I have more in common with them than you do.

Wow!

That is one of the most ARROGANT statements that I've seen for quite some time. AMAZING! :-O

You're right, teacher. The ignorance of these creationists is absolutely breath-taking.

-- The Creeping Void (CV@parity.net), March 05, 2001.


Little bit, I think you are confusing yourself with someone else. Perhaps Pat Boone. Or Jerry Lee Falwell.

Are you perhaps a member of the Flat Earth Society?

-- teacher (teacher@safety.net), March 08, 2001.


Have you guys been looking at the Toyota Prius or something. If you haven't you all need to because that car has a lot of the same technology that you are speaking of. It has the small IC engine, batteries, regrenative breaking, and much more. It is a real experience to drive because the car switches back and forth from battery to engine. As for hydrogen it really sounds good but there are much better forms of energy right now to use in vehicles. Hydrogen is good in theory but when you try to apply it to practical situations it falls short. Well good luck. Oh yeah. Are any of you people engineers?

-- (prankster1020@hotmail.com), April 15, 2001.

Oh yeah! The reason why we haven't totally changed from gasoline is because the auto companys don't want to spend the money on Research and Development. They do a lot of research but actually changing over would be too devestating to their profit. You are all talking about technology that is already here and available to be used practically but there is only one problem. Could you imagine the cost of changing over totally. I don't see a total change until they are forced to change.

-- (prankster1020@hotmail.com), April 15, 2001.

I used to be able to see a total change to nuclear-generated hydrogen as just around the corner. Big well-insulated pipelines for liquid hydrogen, big marine lH2 tankers. Since oil is near $30/bbl and uranium is, so to speak, near 20 cents/bbl -- and it is -- then why not? Why should nuclear power be tied down by an electrical grid?

Energy cost of liquefaction? A detail. If you first nuke-generate the kilogram of hydrogen, then nuke-generate another kilogram to power the liquefier (but never be liquefied itself), the oil/uranium conglomerate that wanted to sell you the barrel of oil is disappointed $29.60 worth rather than $29.80 worth.

'prankster' mentions the profits of car makers. Pretty minor compared to hydrocarbon tax revenue, the biggest "industry" in the world. They were hoping for rather more than $30 from that barrel.

But suppose everyone were entirely well-meaning and as altruistic as is consistent with that. Would we then get hydrogen cars? No, I think we'd get boron cars. Element five, not element one.

I think we'll still get them, perhaps not as quickly. Them as wants the rest of us to continue burning hydrocarbon, continue paying tax on it, and continue supporting them ITSTWTHBA will probably want us to continue driving cars that require us to do that.

To that end, they may well continue to put money into hydrogen energy research, as a designated non-starter.

But to transport themselves and their families, they'll want boron cars. Boron, the fuel that won't burn, will be a real advance in safety.

Plus, although liquefying it has even a higher energy cost than liquefying hydrogen, it is not a prerequisite for transport.

I'll be presenting this idea June 19th at the 11th Canadian Hydrogen Conference in Victoria, British Columbia.

( http://www.iesvic.uvic.ca/cha )

-- Graham Cowan (gcowan@eagle.ca), May 06, 2001.


in just looking at the conversation thread, it's *way* clear to me that 'teacher' is very narrow minded. i agree whole-heartedly w/ little bit farm, and in addition to instantly making 'teacher' think i'm an idiot (how else could such as he think?), it occurs to me that the whole notion of challenging a basic belief is very valid. you know, scientific method? seems to me that the scientific community once took for granted that the earth was flat. it was an obvious thing and even heresy to suggest otherwise.

-- bob (bob@yahoo.com), November 04, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ