Reply to Thread

Actually there are some diesel trucks that have small hydrogen tanks. It helps them burn more efficiently and thus get a little better mileage.

Interesting idea on the generator. The problem might be that the generator doesn't run at 100% all the time and making it run at 100% would make a drag on the motor. Again, that is an intesting idea.

Actually there are some diesel trucks that have small hydrogen tanks. It helps them burn more efficiently and thus get a little better mileage.

Interesting idea on the generator. The problem might be that the generator doesn't run at 100% all the time and making it run at 100% would make a drag on the motor. Again, that is an intesting idea.

Re: An Idea.....

Originally posted by rookie903
Since an alternator generally is capable of putting out about 20 more amps than what is needed to run the vehicle, why couldn't we put a small electrolysis tank on them and pump the Hydrogen and Oxygen to the motor. That should cut down on fuel usage, and therefore cut emissions. I know that this is not the ideal situation, but it would be an improvement.

Maybe the only issue is storage then, you might have to thing about compressing these gasses somehow without blowing up something. I wonder H or O could be used to advantage in todays existing gasoline engines?

I see that there are also a few thermoelectric devices available for semi's. The attach these things to those exhaust stacks to generate power.

An Idea.....

Since an alternator generally is capable of putting out about 20 more amps than what is needed to run the vehicle, why couldn't we put a small electrolysis tank on them and pump the Hydrogen and Oxygen to the motor. That should cut down on fuel usage, and therefore cut emissions. I know that this is not the ideal situation, but it would be an improvement.

alex_in_fl

I thought that was what you were trying to get across.

Well, your right. And in addition:

Energy required to manufacture all componets needed. Raw materials cost too, and labor to build and install. What disposal issues when needing to be replaced, any hazardous waste? How often componets might need replaced/maintained and thier cost. When you sit down and do the potential numbers, I would strongly agree with you.

Originally posted by alex_in_fl
UCP

You are getting close to the point I wanted to make. H2 fuel cells are not necessarily the answer to everything. You still have to generate the H2. That means you burn coal, petroleum, natural gas or similar to generate electricity to undergo electrolysis to generate H2. Alternatively you reformulate petroleum or natural gas products. Regardless of which approach is taken, the H2 generation requires energy consumption.

So H2 is not free nor is it the solution to everything. Second, fuel cells will still require use of coal, natural gas, or petroleum and thus is NOT pollution free. It will, however, allow relocating the pollution source outside of cities and similar.

Alex

Just like hydro.

UCP

You are getting close to the point I wanted to make. H2 fuel cells are not necessarily the answer to everything. You still have to generate the H2. That means you burn coal, petroleum, natural gas or similar to generate electricity to undergo electrolysis to generate H2. Alternatively you reformulate petroleum or natural gas products. Regardless of which approach is taken, the H2 generation requires energy consumption.

So H2 is not free nor is it the solution to everything. Second, fuel cells will still require use of coal, natural gas, or petroleum and thus is NOT pollution free. It will, however, allow relocating the pollution source outside of cities and similar.

Alex

Originally posted by alex_in_fl
And how do we get the power for electrolysis?

Apoligies, I didnt read your post " R-12: Again, I ask, how do you get the H2 gas from the water? I can and have done the research. How do you get the Hydrogen from the water? " correctly.

Here's some excerpts from some lit, although the PEM fuel cells seems to make a lot of $ sense intead of using straight hydrogen:

"Hydrogen is difficult to store and distribute, so it would be much more convenient if fuel cells could use fuels that are more readily available. This problem is addressed by a device called a reformer. A reformer turns hydrocarbon or alcohol fuels into hydrogen, which is then fed to the fuel cell. Unfortunately, reformers are not perfect. They generate heat and produce other gases besides hydrogen. They use various devices to try to clean up the hydrogen, but even so, the hydrogen that comes out of them is not pure, and this lowers the efficiency of the fuel cell.

Some of the more promising fuels are natural gas, propane and methanol. Many people have natural-gas lines or propane tanks at their house already, so these fuels are the most likely to be used for home fuel cells. Methanol is a liquid fuel that has similar properties to gasoline. It is just as easy to transport and distribute, so methanol may be a likely candidate to power fuel-cell cars.

"



"Since fuel cells convert hydrogen into electricity, the main question on everybody's mind is “Where and how am I going to get the hydrogen to fuel up my fuel cell car?” If auto engineers choose to store hydrogen compounds on board the vehicle, tomorrow's fuel infrastructure would look a lot like today's. Many other options are being explored to deliver hydrogen to fuel cell vehicles (FCVs).

*Centralized production and delivery. Hydrogen production and delivery services – including a limited pipeline system – already serve the needs of today's industrial demand.

*On-Site Production. The energy station of the future might produce hydrogen on demand from natural gas, other compounds or even water.

*Innovative Approaches. Fuel cell products that generate electrical power sometimes come with hydrogen generators called Reformers. An energy station might purchase one of these units, use the electricity for operations and tap into the reformer to produce hydrogen for vehicles.
Power from the sun.

*The ultimate solution might be solar powered hydrogen filling stations, where electricity generated by the sun (or by a windmill) is used to extract hydrogen from water. This is not as far out as it sounds. Two such stations already are operating in Southern California.

"

And how do we get the power for electrolysis?

Electrolysis

If you took a battery and attached 1 lead/wire/probe to positive and 1 lead/wire/probe to negative, drop both in a glass of water(Not the battery). You will see gas forming on both pos and neg leads in water. 1 is hydrogen and one is oxygen.

R12:

Again, I ask, how do you get the H2 gas from the water? I can and have done the research. How do you get the Hydrogen from the water?

Kyoto Protocol is a bunch of hype by self serving 2nd and 3rd world nations. By imposing energy consumption limits they hope to criple the USA. Take China for example. China was going to be allowed to dump huge amounts of CO2 into the air with no penalties.

The KP would have destroy life as we know it here in the USA (and most other 1st world nations) without slowing global warming by a cat's meow. The reason is that CO2 is not the problem and there is no global warming.

Remember back in 1990-1991 time frame global warming was all the rage. The very next year was one of the coldest years on record and global warming alarmist disappeared.

Also, just 25 years ago many of the global warming alarmist were predicting an ice age!

Freon is being cut out to protect the ozone layer - something completely different from global warming.
The average Joe does not realize that the ozone layer is self renewing. The thinner it gets the more UV light penetrates the atmosphere. The more UV light penetrating the atmosphere the more ozone is produced. God made a wonderful circle and a wonderful planet that balances out just about everything.

Alex

The Kyoto protocol has come about at the wrong time. The energy guru's have just gotten through or are in the process of trying to clean up their process by spending millions on scrubber's and the mining of cleaner burning coal. The good ol' EPA, once again has mandated the changes in an attempt to "look busy" to the american public.

I liken this attempt to a prosecutorial "deal" as seen nightly on Law and Order. 2 months of community service in lieu of 7 death sentences and a trillion dollar fine....If you plead guilty. I simply dont see the logic in asking these guy's to shut down completely, after finally making them do something...anything about the clean air issue.

I also have to look upon this deal with the attitude of a blue collar, paycheck earning, consumer which will most likely be the one to bear the largest share of the monetary burden. Every time the government has mandated a change in any industry, somehow we have to pay.

Originally posted by no8no3
They are making us phase out freon, Why not oil? Of course the time frame will have to be greater, but everyone wins.

What do you think the Kyoto Protocol is really all about? The one the US has chosen not to ratify yet is only the first step towards a 'carbon free' economy (translated as no oil or coal use for energy). No carbon based fuel usage equals no carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere. Less potential climate change (global warming).

There will always be losers when there are changes this big. Win / win is a fantasy. As of now the potential losers have more political power than the potential winners. At some point the balance of power will shift and the most likely reason will be economic due to the cost of oil.

If the DOE wants to push some money my way, i have some really good ideas how to solve this whole issue. If there could be a collaborative effort by big oil, and the tree huggers, I think that the combination of fossil fuels and alternative energy could rule as a dominant force for a couple of more centurys.

You cant just do away with the existing infrastructure without chaos, but an effort directed at the phase out of petroleum based energy, an inevitable event anyway, would be a lot more paletable to both the light bill paying citizen and the mega rich oil folks. So far, many have touted this, but none agree.

They are making us phase out freon, Why not oil? Of course the time frame will have to be greater, but everyone wins. I think everyone can agree, tree hugger or not, that oil has done more harm to our enviornment than freon could ever do.

Originally posted by no8no3
ucp has a good point. Energy based/derived power generation will likely be around for a long time. Even systems with compound waste heat regeneration will use some energy to create the "waste" energy. There is a big push by the scientific community to devise a system that squeezes every drop of energy from nuclear waste, and thereby eliminating a need for disposal.

Your right, the recovery systems appear to have at this time at best 40% efficiacy, whatever that means. I think the other 60% is losses in running the darn things. From what Ive read the biggest hurdle is its not real viable to recover low level waste heat, of which there is a lot more of.

DOE has lots of Grant money available for researching viable systems to recover low level waste heat efficiantly(especially based on ORC).

Those combined heat and power systems(CHP) look intresting for our near future.

We only have to notify the city if filling a pool over 1500 gallons....and then they actually give you a cut rate for the amount of gallons you are puting in the pool .

As stated earlier, the petroleum based economys of the world would falter, and someone would have to figure out how to seize the worlds water supply in order to charge for a hydrogen based power source.

Seize the water supply.
We're almost there.
Remember when bottled water came out and everyone said no way will I pay for water. Now you're paying $1 to$2 dollars a bottle.Isn't that about $6 to $12 a gallon.
In Ontario if you take more than personal use you have to have a permit. It's only a small jump to have a permit for personal use.
The biggest reasons we will use petroleum for years to come, we will not run out in our life time, there is to much money involved.
The only reason it is even on the table is to satisfy the tree huggers.

ucp has a good point. Energy based/derived power generation will likely be around for a long time. Even systems with compound waste heat regeneration will use some energy to create the "waste" energy. There is a big push by the scientific community to devise a system that squeezes every drop of energy from nuclear waste, and thereby eliminating a need for disposal.

There are alternative power sources that require no energy consumption to create, but are currently not viable to invest in, due to the nature of their control and the technology available.

As stated earlier, the petroleum based economys of the world would falter, and someone would have to figure out how to seize the worlds water supply in order to charge for a hydrogen based power source.

I wouldn't sell utility stocks just yet. Rather be prepared to pay more for your monthly bill.

Originally posted by JohnB

Originally posted by jrbenny

Can you imagine what would happen if all of a sudden the need for oil just basically disappeared, Catastrophy comes to mind.

My opionion is if there is such technology available(I would'nt be suprised if it was available), the oil companies and governments will try and suppress it for awhile for different reasons, and some legitimate. Any fantastic technologys would best be introduced slowly from my view.

The state and federal governments would collapse due to the enormous loss of tax base. Vast majority of your government's dollars for infrastructure comes from fuel taxes. We're talking billions of dollars gone!

Maybe yes maybe no, politicans are prity quick on their feet if you're after their meal ticket

[Edited by JohnB on 08-03-2004 at 12:07 AM]

Kinda like a trickel effect that would get out of control. I'm confident that world governments will be real slow funding/introducing a cost effective, clean power source.

It would be a slow thing anyways, who's going to pay to refit the power plants? Is all the big automotive companies going to start refitting right away?

I think we all will see more heat recovery2power systems first before widespread introduction of renewable energy systems.

If you go to DOE's web site, you will see a lot of research being done to convert waste heat to power. Its easily done, they take waste hot gasses/liquids and force thru a heat exchanger which has a refrigerant around it, it boils off, high press gas to microturbine then to a condenser. Liquid ref pump then pushes liq ref back to high temp heat exchanger and the cycle continues. Its called the Organic Rankine Cycle, same principal as steam generation but is closed loop and uses refrigerants.