Amensotep

Hydrogen Cars

▼

Hydrogen Cars

Saving the environment, or gasoline's bigger brother?

from GalCiv2 Forums
I've been seeing a lot of buzz over cars that give off water vapor over the past few years. Now, admittedly, it's a nice idea to have a car that gives off what is considered a clean fuel. Alas, that's where the problem lies.

Now, let's assume that, by clean, they mean "a gas that won't contribute to global warming," a.k.a. greenhouse gases. Of course, any time we need to see the worst possible result of greenhouse gases, we can just take a look at Venus. Yeah, I certainly wouldn't want to visit there. However, there may be a slight problem with this idea of water vapor being clean.

Water Vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, which is why it is addressed here first. However, changes in its conentration is also considered to be a result of climate feedbacks related to the warming of the atmosphere rather than a direct result of industrialization. The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change, but as yet is still fairly poorly measured and understood.


Source: http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html

Oops. I think someone forgot to do their fact checking before trumping up hydrogen fuel cells.

Now, for real fun, one must understand that the water cycle is the whole core of the global warming argument. Earth gets warmer, more water wapor in the air, air continues to get warmer, and then comes the freeze. And what happens? Why, all of that water vapor helps drop the temperature immensely. Thus, the real danger of global warming is a killer ice age that humanity, and possibly all life on this planet, can't survive. Nevermind the fact life on this planet survived two or three of those killer ice ages before...

Oh, and the best part:

However, huge scientific uncertainty exists in defining the extent and importance of this feedback loop. As water vapor increases in the atmosphere, more of it will eventually also condense into clouds, which are more able to reflect incoming solar radiation (thus allowing less energy to reach the Earth's surface and heat it up). The future monitoring of atmospheric processes involving water vapor will be critical to fully understand the feedbacks in the climate system leading to global climate change. As yet, though the basics of the hydrological cycle are fairly well understood, we have very little comprehension of the complexity of the feedback loops. Also, while we have good atmospheric measurements of other key greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, we have poor measurements of global water vapor, so it is not certain by how much atmospheric concentrations have risen in recent decades or centuries, though satellite measurements, combined with balloon data and some in-situ ground measurements indicate generally positive trends in global water vapor.


Okay, for those of you who don't want to read all of that: Basically, they have no clue. We have a key element of the entire issue of global warming that is on par with how key gravity is to the issue of black holes and they understand less about it than they do about gravity. Which means that a lot of these equations they've been working to model global warming and its effects are missing important data that makes the results equal to trying to model a black hole while understanding only the phrase "what goes up must come down." And, top it all off, some of the people doing these models want to turn around and use a type of fuel cell that may compound a problem that their ignorance of this key item may prevent them from knowing the existance of.

Gee, anyone else see a problem with this? I mean, if increasing water vapor in the air as a result of greenhouse gases causes the whole mess that we're trying to prevent, then what would putting larger amounts of water vapor than even the most doomsdayish models of global warming predict (this is assuming all gasoline engines are replaced with hydrogen cells overnight) do to the environment? Seems to me that it would make gasoline seem tame. And, assuming those amounts, we might as well go ahead and carpet bomb the ice caps with fission warheads. Should have about the same results, give or take.

Oh, wait, I just noticed my source left out some information about plants (which are pretty worthless for increasing oxygen in the atmosphere, really). Well, in that case, let me try another. How about NASA? I know they're usually better about their facts.

Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. Not only are its infrared absorption features widespread and strong, but it also displays a significant continuum absorption. Thus, while not one of the "gases of concern" in the sense of anthropogenic modification, the feedbacks engendered by the higher water content of a warmer atmosphere (and, potentially, greater cloud cover) are an important element of these studies. Furthermore, water vapor, through continua centered at 100 and 1600 cm-1, is a crucial element in the radiative balance of the upper troposphere. TES routinely measures humidity (water vapor) profiles with a precision better than 10%.


Source: http://tes.jpl.nasa.gov/science/greenhouse.cfm

Scientists know that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide have risen sharply in recent years, but a study released today in Paris reports a surprising and dramatic increase in the most important greenhouse gas - water vapor - during the last half-century.


"Half the increase in the stratosphere can be traced to human-induced increases in methane, which turns into water vapor at high altitudes, but the other half is a mystery," said Mote. "Part of the increase must have occurred as a result of changes in the tropical tropopause, a region about 10 miles above the equator, that acts as a valve that allows air into the stratosphere."


A satellite record of relative humidity data for the upper troposphere shows a 2 percent increase during the last 20 years in the equatorial region. However, the uncertainty in this determination is too large to allow a clear conclusion as to whether this is part of a long-term trend.


Source: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2001/200104254688.html

Now, look at the date of this information. The second source is six years old. Why hasn't this been all over the news in my area? Considering the most important gas of the whole issue and one of the two key gases to maintaining Earth's temperature levels had a mysterious amount of increase, I would think this would be cause for a lot of concern. And turning around and increasing it even more withj hydrogen fuel cells just... I'm sorry, but I cannot express my opinion of that without slipping into profanity.

Seriously. It's a greenhouse gas that is the key to the whole global warming issue for Earth. It's also one of the gases we understand the least about in the atmosphere and people are wanting to replace gasoline cars with ones that give it off. And, worse, I can't find any models for this that don't end up making a Hollywood global warming movie look realistic, either. So, why are we doing this, again?
off-topic
81,348 views 75 replies
Reply #51 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
what about a spring loaded car. that can be recharged with foot pedals.
Reply #52 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Yeah, maybe rig the gas pedal to work as a pump.

Anyway, has anyone heard about the idea of using bacteria for making hydrogen?
Heard about it on the Science Channel. Has anyone else heard of it? Or am I just crazy? (which could be true) ;) 
Multiplicity - Control multiple PCs using one keyboard and mouse
Reply #53 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Yeah, maybe rig the gas pedal to work as a pump.

Anyway, has anyone heard about the idea of using bacteria for making hydrogen?
Heard about it on the Science Channel. Has anyone else heard of it? Or am I just crazy? (which could be true)  


Well, we know they can make hydrogen sulfide (sewer gas anyone?) While that could make a decent fuel, the down side is pretty severe - a leaking tank could kill everyone nearby. I've heard various things about hydrogen-producing bacteria, any (or none) of which may be true.

Is it just me, or has this topic degenerated into various ways we could try to power cars using a wind-up key? If it goes that far, a bike would be a better choice, you don't haul as much dead weight around with you.
Reply #54 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
you don't haul as much dead weight around with you.


you would also have a hard time hauling a months worth of groceries home with you. even with a bicycle trailer.
Reply #55 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Just read about hydrogen sulfide. Probably wouldn't work right now.

Well, we know they can make hydrogen sulfide (sewer gas anyone?) While that could make a decent fuel, the down side is pretty severe - a leaking tank could kill everyone nearby. I've heard various things about hydrogen-producing bacteria, any (or none) of which may be true.

Is it just me, or has this topic degenerated into various ways we could try to power cars using a wind-up key? If it goes that far, a bike would be a better choice, you don't haul as much dead weight around with you.


I agree. How did it start?
Reply #56 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Any thing you want to know, you can figure out by poking around the website (Foot pedals are not used to charge the car). It would be an intersting idea if they put an air compressor in the car powered by compressed air. Infinate motion anyone? I think I was the one who started the disscussion of how we can power a car with a wind up key because of me metioning the air car.  ;) 
Reply #57 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Wrong! We get the Hydrogen not from water but from processing hydrocarbons or some anorganic materials, or biological processes by some bacteria, or maybe some other source, but getting hydrogen from water is just way too energy inefficient.


Um--no. We get hydrogen mostly from water. Even if you were right, those sources still originally came from water. Hydrocarbons must come from ultimately organic source, in turn coming from living beings who got the hydrogen from water, and bacteria, again, process it from water. So, once again, we aren't producing any new water.

hand/foot pump?


If you foot could produce enough energy to move a car at 60 miles per hour, don't you think cars would have pedals?

And, by the way, the explosive hazard for stored hydrogen if more from the tremendous pressures it must be stored under than anything else.
Reply #58 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
If you foot could produce enough energy to move a car at 60 miles per hour, don't you think cars would have pedals?


I was talking about using an air pump to recharge the air tank when out away from an power source.
Reply #59 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Wrong! We get the Hydrogen not from water but from processing hydrocarbons or some anorganic materials, or biological processes by some bacteria, or maybe some other source, but getting hydrogen from water is just way too energy inefficient.


Um--no. We get hydrogen mostly from water. Even if you were right, those sources still originally came from water. Hydrocarbons must come from ultimately organic source, in turn coming from living beings who got the hydrogen from water, and bacteria, again, process it from water. So, once again, we aren't producing any new water.


Ultimately true, but it's the same argument as fossil fuels being a form of solar power. Technically true, but irrelevant to the current discussion. He's referring to the process of extracting the hydrogen from coal/oil, which is indeed more efficient than electrolysing water. Unfortunately, it also generates carbon dioxide and depletes a finite resource just as if you were putting the coal/oil in you car directly.


hand/foot pump?


If you foot could produce enough energy to move a car at 60 miles per hour, don't you think cars would have pedals?

And, by the way, the explosive hazard for stored hydrogen if more from the tremendous pressures it must be stored under than anything else.


As for pedalling your car, the various schemes put foreward wouldn't directly power the car, but recharge the energy storage system of the car, be it compressed air, electric, rubber bands, etc. Perhaps useful in a real emergency, but not practical. A full 8 hours of pumping/cranking/pedalling might get you 10 minutes of foreward motion for the car, if you have a really efficient charging mechanism.

The explosion hazard of hydrogen comes from both the pressure it's stored under and the flamability of the gas. Yes, a tank would make a pretty good bang if it failed catostrophically, but not compared to the fireball the hydrogen would make when it hit air and burned. The technical term for something like this is a blevy (short for boiling liquid/explosive vapor). The tank rupturing is almost certain to generate the spark needed to set the hydrogen off.

Don't believe me? Throw an aerosol cans into a fire. If possible, throw one with a nonflamable propellant first, and watch it pop. It might even shoot out of the fire. Then throw one that uses propane as the propellant, and stand well back. I nearly got killed by a garbage fire that someone threw a shaving cream can in - the whole ~6 ft pile blew out into a 15 ft circle, and the can missed my head by maybe 6 inches, and was nearly unrecognizable as a can when it landed maybe 100 feet away.
Reply #60 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I heard this on history modern marvels. The best economic place to get hydrogen is natural gas by product carbon.
Reply #61 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

WWW Link An alternative idea so we can stop argueing about hydrogen.


Compressed air is just another way of storing electricity.

We get energy from the sun.

This energy... :

[I]

Was stored for thousands of years in dead plants to make fossil fuels.
This fossil fuel can be:

1. Directly burnt as in existing Internal Combustion Engines or Gas Turbines.

2. Converted into electricity by powerplants. This electricity can be:
a. Used to generate hydrogen for fuel-cell cars.
b. Used to compress air as above.
c. Stored in batteries for electric cars.

[II]

Heated up the air and water causing them to move. This motion can be converted into electricity by wind turbines or hydroelectric dams. This electricity can be:
a. Used to generate hydrogen for fuel-cell cars.
b. Used to compress air as above.
c. Stored in batteries for electric cars.

[III]

Can be converted into electricity on board a car using photovoltaic cells as in a solar car.
_____________________________________________________________________________

All are means of converting solar energy into our cars' kinetic energy. They're simply different ways of doing the same thing. With fusion reactors and better batteries on the horizon, however, electric cars look good.

A Tesla Roadster can't out-drag even the cheapest Ferrari F430, BTW(obviously). Well, the production version Tesla can't even match it's low-powered(<200hp) Lotus Elise brethren. But after all, it's just the dawn of electric cars. The IC engines in the Elise are the result of over 100 years of experience that humanity has had with the ICE.

Honda meanwhile is effing up the FCX project. They plan to generate hydrogen cheaply from natural gas. It defeats the purpose, of course, and no one will invest the money to set up a full-fledged hydrogen infrastructure. So that screws it.

The French fellow with the air car probably won't get too far without decently designed cars or sufficient marketing either, so compressed air won't take off unless some big company notices it and decides to invest in the technology.

Instead, the industry is currently fumbling about how to make extremely cheap cars, selling money-losing brands, laying off workers, designing some absurd concept cars, etc. Greenness has taken a back seat at the moment.
Reply #63 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Compressed air is an interesting idea - although I do wonder it it'll suffer the same range limitations as the electric car.


hand/foot pump?


although this thread is quite dead, i thought it was dead when i posted last, i find this HILARIOUS! in fact, compressed air is a very efficient form of energy storage. Germany and several other countries have been using it since the ?seventies? (that might be a bit off) In fact Scientific American suggests using compressed air to store electricity for use when their national solar grid plan hits snags... such as clouds...



And just a thought.... Water vapor does not stay in the atmosphere long.... but what might local short term effects be from the use of say, 300-800 cars passing through an area at a regular rate? (I know that's only applicable if there is exhaust from the vehicle. if water vapor IS expelled.... that would be one foggy highway...)

I apologize in advance for contradicting myself in any way, i seem to have recently developed a knack for it.
Reply #64 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
300-800 cars? try 300,000 to 800,000 cars. even the sun road in montana gets 500,000 a year. Which is almost 12 times what it was built for.
Reply #65 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
It's generally a non-issue. Water vapor is a huge component of gas/diesel exhaust, and we don't seem to have this problem. Hell, the military is experimenting with a system to condense the water vapor from humvee exhaust into potable water so soldiers have to carry less of it. IIRC you can get 1-2 gallons of water from each gallon of fuel.
Reply #66 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
good points. I forgot that hydrocarbon combustion has two simple products, CO2 and H2O. Which is why i hate those comercials that say that modern vehicles produce ONLY CO2 and that their new "future car" only makes water.......

Sounds like false advertising to me....
Reply #67 from Stardock Forums Top
...Stored hydrogen can be an explosion hazard, but under the same circumstances that gas or ethanol would be.


As we drive our vehicles, I think we often don't realize how flammable/dangerous the stuff [gasoline] we have sloshing around in a tank under us really is. We hear hydrogen and we think 'isn't that flammable??'.

Have you heard about the work Dr. Roger Billings has done with metal hydrides? I know in his hydrogen fuel cell car, he uses metal hydride tanks to store the hydrogen, and hydrogen stored in this way is much safer than gasoline. The metal hydride actually soaks up the hydrogen, like a sponge would soak up water. You may enjoy this reference:

http://www.billingsenergy.com/Research.html






Reply #68 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
A new method for seperating hydrogen and oxigen has been stumbled upon recently. The process had been patented and his in the hand of research engineers now. It involves exposing normal ocean water to a short wavelenght radio signal. This process has the effect of parting the molecular bond. The inventor has demonstrated the principles by using a mamogram machine on a glass of water, then after a few seconds, you can set the hydrogen rising from the glass on fire. It actually looks like he is burning water.

If this proces proves out, it could be the missing link. Imagine, just fill the tank with sea water! I bet the Gas companies will not let it get to market. How can you make money from sea water?
Reply #69 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
The problem with that method is that running the wave generator takes up more energy than is given off if the hydrogren were recovered. Also you have the problem of having elemental O-- being produced, which is highly reactive (hence why the water appears to be burning, the O-- it ripping the H+/H2 and reforming water). For reference O and H are natural dimers. The exist in nature as O2 and H2. If separated, they are higly reactive.

Also, even though it may work with ocean water, salt water is much more corrosive than distilled water. It'll tear up the engines.
Reply #70 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
You raise some valid points. Hydrogen is less efficient than electricity in the fact that you lose energy making it, then again when it is used where electricity only loses when you use it. That's a basic principle of thermodynamics - a process with fewer steps is inherently more efficient. The one bonus hydrogen has is that it is a great storage medium, and storing electricity is a pain. Take a good look at an electric car, and compute how much of the cost of the car is batteries. Batteries wear out, so you'd be replacing thousands of dollars of batteries every couple years. Not to mention that batteries are bulky and heavy.One potential hurdle for electric cars is infrastructure. Sure, most homeowners will have somewhere they can plug in, but what about me? I rent. I don't have a garage, nor do I have somewhere secure I could plug a car in. Most battery systems don't handle fast charging as well as trickle charging. Unless electric recharging become comparable to refilling a gas tank in terms of speed and convenience, it will always be at a disadvantage.Stored hydrogen can be an explosion hazard, but under the same circumstances that gas or ethanol would be. Building the fuel tank is a non-trivial exercise, but it's not nearly the technical hurdle that battery systems are.Ethanol presents other, even worse problems. Not only does the land used for fuel crops cut into food-production land, but the entire petroleum infrastructure will need to be rebuilt to handle it. While not truly acidic, it is far more corrosive than oil products, and the current pipelines, storage tanks, and distribution systems are not designed to deal with it. My brother is a mechanic, and replaces fuel systems and gas tanks on cars every day because the owner used E85 in a car that wasn't designed for it. The engine runs fine (for a while, anyway), but the metal parts corrode to junk faster than you'd believe. Gas stations have had to replace underground storage tanks because they started leaking from the same effect.I share your distrust of the numbers behind some of the global warming science, but I see a useful benefit of the histeria. The world will run out of commerially viable fossil fuels eventually (when exactly is a debate) and it's better we have a head start on alternatives while we still have oil to burn during the research phase.


Actually if you pay attention each and every hydrogen fuel tank has to be hand made currently.

Ethanol does not need to be produced from crops or crop land, it can be grown in the desert in tanks of bacteria.

Infrastructure is just as much a hurdle for hydrogen cars as it is electric, there are almost no hydrogen gas pumps just like there are no electric charging stations. If they wanted for likely the same price it would take to manufacture the number of hydrogen storage tanks necissary for gas stations they could produce public charging stations similar to the watchmen, maybe you have to enter a pin so it gets charged to you and the cord could be locked onto it so you need a pin or a key to remove it.


See I can oversimplify too.
Reply #71 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
The problem with that method is that running the wave generator takes up more energy than is given off if the hydrogren were recovered. Also you have the problem of having elemental O-- being produced, which is highly reactive (hence why the water appears to be burning, the O-- it ripping the H+/H2 and reforming water). For reference O and H are natural dimers. The exist in nature as O2 and H2. If separated, they are higly reactive.Also, even though it may work with ocean water, salt water is much more corrosive than distilled water. It'll tear up the engines.


Why would there be salt in the engine???? Why would they transport it with the H2?? It would need to be filterer out likely by reverse osmosis machines powered by the same machines powering the H20 separation machines.

Reply #72 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
The problem with that method is that running the wave generator takes up more energy than is given off if the hydrogren were recovered.


I heard that the process uses less than 10 milliwatts of focused microwave energy to produce enough hydrogen to power a fuel cell for a day at full output capacity.

The radio energy can be channeled through a waveguide and focused into a fine beam similar to a laser beam. This reduces the actual AC power required to generate the radio signal power required. The radio oscillator is only 30% effecient by itself, but since focussing the energy into a sharper beam doubles the output power for every 3db of directional gain it receives, the effeciency curve increases exponentially with the amount of gain that can be acheived. They claim that the energy cost to produce the H is half of present costs. More important may be that it is a clean process. Sounds too good maybe?

Reply #73 from Stardock Forums Top
The problem with that method is that running the wave generator takes up more energy than is given off if the hydrogren were recovered.I heard that the process uses less than 10 milliwatts of focused microwave energy to produce enough hydrogen to power a fuel cell for a day at full output capacity. The radio energy can be channeled through a waveguide and focused into a fine beam similar to a laser beam. This reduces the actual AC power required to generate the radio signal power required. The radio oscillator is only 30% effecient by itself, but since focussing the energy into a sharper beam doubles the output power for every 3db of directional gain it receives, the effeciency curve increases exponentially with the amount of gain that can be acheived. They claim that the energy cost to produce the H is half of present costs. More important may be that it is a clean process. Sounds too good maybe?


Do you have a link to the research done on this method of producing hydrogen?
Reply #74 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I did not read it on the internet. If I was the inventor I would not publish until I was granted to patent. It was on a special news report show and on various talk shows. Some would be quick to dismiss it, because of the generalities and incomplete nature of the claims made. But being a holder of a number of patents, I can certainly understand the reasoning behind it. Why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free?

The process as disclosed does have merrit. We will have to wait 18 months before the patent is listed and available to the general public. But I for one hold alot of hope for this technology. It may change the world. But Exon may not like it much!
Reply #75 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Alas, the complexities of the modern inventor's landscape....