Hydrogen fuels are the answer?
#31
10-16-2005, 05:13 PM
My turn to throw a wrench in the conversation. First off, the term "fossil fuel" is no longer relevant. The NASA probe that crashed into the comet a couple of months ago found the same hydrocarbons as the crude oil we pump out of the ground. Considering that those hydrocarbons were found on a common comet, they are thought to be common throughout the universe. Second, the wells that were given up as dried out are now producing again- your explanation, please? And yes I work in the industry. There is no way that the oil we have today came from dead fossils. It is now thought that it is a reaction in the earths core that is producing the hydrocarbons. Testing is being drawn up now to confirm that theory. Do we need to find another, cleaner energy source- yes. Oxygen levels have been going down since WWII. We are burning more of it via our engine and that there are more people breathing. It's not going to do any of us any good to keep burning fuels and consuming oxygen or there won't be any of us around to burn it. We need to find non- combustible types of energy. Solar is a good one but not feasible on a car or truck today. Tidal power is being given a second look but that is great for your house- not the car. Wind generators are also becoming more common and cheaper to install. Fine for the house but there are no feasible electric cars yet. Another problem with moving out of the combustion types of fuel are the big oil conglomerates. They aren't about to give up any of their profit positions. This is the largest hurdle that the younger generation is going to have to face. I wish them luck.
#32
10-16-2005, 11:04 PM
In response to the two graphs that I posted earlier, I said nothing about global warning. Someone just asked a question about the ammount of carbon dioxide formed compared to the ammount in the atmosphere. Also, it is not misleading to not start a graph at zero as long as you label the scale. Nor does the change seem trivial if you rescale the graph. Changing the scale to from 0 to 400 would not change the fact that, according to that graph, the ammount of CO2 in the atmosphere increased about 20% in the last 50 years.
#33
10-17-2005, 09:03 AM
Senior User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Northern IN
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My point is that a 20% increase isn't necessarily relevant based on such a short time period. Sure, 50 years is a long time to an individual person since it is more than 1/2 of a human's projected life span, but in the grand scheme of things, 50 years is but a blip on the screen.
And you are right, you still get the same 20% increase with a 0-400 scale, but the change doesn't appear nearly as dramatic. This is where a graph that doesn't start a zero overly emphasizes apparent changes. This type of graph is useful for seeing the finer points of the data, but to get the proper perspective, the data should first be shown on a graph that starts at zero.
And as I stated previously, you need many, many more years of data to be able to draw any difinitive conclusions about CO2 increases in the atmosphere. See this page http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html for a chart that would indicate that higher CO2 levels are repeated app every 100,000 years.
While the current levels are higher then the long term averages, the authors think that human activities are responsible for no more then 9% of the current higher then normal readings. And the current high levels are nowhere close to 4,400 ppm of CO2 that existed several hundred million years ago, while the earth's temperatures were similar to today's.
The whole point is that it is highly unlikely that the burning of carbon based fuels has a signifcant impact on the environment, and no amount of money we spend trying to fix this supposed "problem" is likely to make any difference except reduce our standard of living and make enviromentalists feel good.
And you are right, you still get the same 20% increase with a 0-400 scale, but the change doesn't appear nearly as dramatic. This is where a graph that doesn't start a zero overly emphasizes apparent changes. This type of graph is useful for seeing the finer points of the data, but to get the proper perspective, the data should first be shown on a graph that starts at zero.
And as I stated previously, you need many, many more years of data to be able to draw any difinitive conclusions about CO2 increases in the atmosphere. See this page http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html for a chart that would indicate that higher CO2 levels are repeated app every 100,000 years.
While the current levels are higher then the long term averages, the authors think that human activities are responsible for no more then 9% of the current higher then normal readings. And the current high levels are nowhere close to 4,400 ppm of CO2 that existed several hundred million years ago, while the earth's temperatures were similar to today's.
The whole point is that it is highly unlikely that the burning of carbon based fuels has a signifcant impact on the environment, and no amount of money we spend trying to fix this supposed "problem" is likely to make any difference except reduce our standard of living and make enviromentalists feel good.
#34
11-12-2005, 02:47 AM
New User
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: virginia
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hydrogen fuel
actually you can produce hydrogen in your basment and it doesn't take alot of energy to do it just a lot of space and safe collecting ,storage devices they are avlable but exspencive, factiod hydrogen is more eficient at 7% saturation perthousand than propane or natural gas at 60% it takes less to do more, but getting started on such radical changes in our economy and habits are hard to accomplish. also hydrogen can be used in any propane or natural gas devices with a lower pressure regulator. it could be a good thing but getting big buissiness out of the way for such change is hard.
just my two cent
just my two cent
#35
11-12-2005, 12:33 PM
Senior User
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sunny New Mexico
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the facts I have read about hydrogen that best puts it into context: There is more hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline than there is in a gallon of liquid hydrogen. And the latter is at the unbelieveably low temperatures that it needs to be stored and transported in that state.
The hydrogen community is betting on the appearance of fundamental scientific and technological breakthoughs to make it potentially viable as a fuel source for mobile applications. Not evolutions or refinements, but breakthroughs. It's a very long bet and I wouldn't put my money or hopes on it.
The hydrogen community is betting on the appearance of fundamental scientific and technological breakthoughs to make it potentially viable as a fuel source for mobile applications. Not evolutions or refinements, but breakthroughs. It's a very long bet and I wouldn't put my money or hopes on it.
#36
10-19-2007, 01:41 AM
Just wanted to bring this thread to the front in response to some posts in another thread.
And also, the technology does currently exist to use hydrogen in vehicles. Most auto companies have at least one concept car which runs on hydrogen. Supercharged ICEs running on hydrogen have approximately the same power density as a normally aspirated ICE running on gasoline. A couple years ago Ford built a hybrid SUV prototype that had a supercharged version of the 2.3L I4 modified to run on gaseous hydrogen. I remember reading somewhere that BMW has a production hydrogen/gasoline dual fuel car, although I don't have any information to back that up. Also, many auto companies are working on hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. The storage of hydrogen is the big sticking point currently. Most systems either use high pressure tanks (10,000 PSI) which are potentially dangerous, or Metal Hydrides, which act as a 'hydrogen sponge' and are quite expensive.
The big question is; at what point will the economics of petroleum based fuels, as well as the political climate, make alternative fuels a 'cheaper' alternative?
I think that the main reason that hydrogen has not yet become a viable fuel source is more due to the fact that petroleum is 'cheaper', not because there are fundamental revolutions required to make it a valid energy storage system.
And also, the technology does currently exist to use hydrogen in vehicles. Most auto companies have at least one concept car which runs on hydrogen. Supercharged ICEs running on hydrogen have approximately the same power density as a normally aspirated ICE running on gasoline. A couple years ago Ford built a hybrid SUV prototype that had a supercharged version of the 2.3L I4 modified to run on gaseous hydrogen. I remember reading somewhere that BMW has a production hydrogen/gasoline dual fuel car, although I don't have any information to back that up. Also, many auto companies are working on hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. The storage of hydrogen is the big sticking point currently. Most systems either use high pressure tanks (10,000 PSI) which are potentially dangerous, or Metal Hydrides, which act as a 'hydrogen sponge' and are quite expensive.
The big question is; at what point will the economics of petroleum based fuels, as well as the political climate, make alternative fuels a 'cheaper' alternative?
I think that the main reason that hydrogen has not yet become a viable fuel source is more due to the fact that petroleum is 'cheaper', not because there are fundamental revolutions required to make it a valid energy storage system.
Last edited by J6Szczecin; 10-19-2007 at 01:59 AM.
#37
10-19-2007, 11:48 AM
Senior User
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Merrill, WI
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thing that bothers me about hydrogen is its production. We can't continue to get hydrogen from "fossil fuels." But, if we produce hydrogen through electrolysis of water, the demand for water will rise as more vehicles become capable of using it. Many water sources just in the U.S. are already near the limit. So what do we do then?
#38
10-19-2007, 01:38 PM
Using water to produce hydrogen is a loop. Hydrogen produced in this way is an energy storage method. When you burn the hydrogen produced in an ICE, or fuel cell or anything else for that matter, the byproduct is the same ammount of water that went in to the process. This water vapor would go back into the atmosphere and then would come back to the water source eventually. No water is consumed in the overall process. It is just temporarily turned into something else. But you are correct, at the local level, water supply could be an issue. I need to leave but I will get on later and post a calculation of how much water is needed to be equivalent to a gallon of gasoline in terms of energy.
Last edited by J6Szczecin; 10-19-2007 at 01:41 PM.
#39
10-19-2007, 04:43 PM
Gasoline combustion produces about 131882 kJ of energy per US gallon. Hydrogen combustion produces about 286 kJ of energy per mol. There is 1 mol of hydrogen (H2) in each mol of water (H2O). Water has a mass of 18.0153 grams per mol and a density of .998 grams per cubic centimeter. There are 1000 cubic centimeters in a liter, and 3.75 liters in a gallon. Performing some math:
(131882 kJ) / ( 286 kJ/mol H2) * (1 mol H2O/mol H2) * (18.0153 g/mol H2O) / (.998 g/cm^3) / (1000 cm^3/L) / (3.75 L/gallon) = 2.2 gallons
This means that it takes about 2.2 gallons of water to produce an ammount of hydrogen that contains the same energy as a gallon of gasoline. According to a DOE report, in 1994, the average household drove 21,000 miles per year. This is about 60 miles per day per household. Assuming that the vehicle fuel economy is 20 mpg, and that the combustion efficiency of gasoline and hydrogen is approximately the same, this means that to produce enough hydrogen for an average household to drive their vehicles would require 6.6 gallons of water per day. According to the EPA, the average household consumes about 400 gallons of water per day, so this is only approximately a 1.7% increase in water consumption.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/rtecs/chapter3.html
http://www.epa.gov/owm/water-efficiency/tips/cons.htm
(131882 kJ) / ( 286 kJ/mol H2) * (1 mol H2O/mol H2) * (18.0153 g/mol H2O) / (.998 g/cm^3) / (1000 cm^3/L) / (3.75 L/gallon) = 2.2 gallons
This means that it takes about 2.2 gallons of water to produce an ammount of hydrogen that contains the same energy as a gallon of gasoline. According to a DOE report, in 1994, the average household drove 21,000 miles per year. This is about 60 miles per day per household. Assuming that the vehicle fuel economy is 20 mpg, and that the combustion efficiency of gasoline and hydrogen is approximately the same, this means that to produce enough hydrogen for an average household to drive their vehicles would require 6.6 gallons of water per day. According to the EPA, the average household consumes about 400 gallons of water per day, so this is only approximately a 1.7% increase in water consumption.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/rtecs/chapter3.html
http://www.epa.gov/owm/water-efficiency/tips/cons.htm
#40
10-19-2007, 08:46 PM
Originally Posted by Flash
First off, the term "fossil fuel" is no longer relevant. The NASA probe that crashed into the comet a couple of months ago found the same hydrocarbons as the crude oil we pump out of the ground. Considering that those hydrocarbons were found on a common comet, they are thought to be common throughout the universe.
Second, the wells that were given up as dried out are now producing again- your explanation, please?
And yes I work in the industry. There is no way that the oil we have today came from dead fossils. It is now thought that it is a reaction in the earths core that is producing the hydrocarbons.
#41
11-13-2007, 12:14 AM
This is on yahoo:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071112/sc_afp/ussciencefuel
and since it will go away soon, I'll quote the whole article.
This appears to be a radically different approach (zapping microbes
) to create H2, almost like an April 1st joke.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071112/sc_afp/ussciencefuel
and since it will go away soon, I'll quote the whole article.
This appears to be a radically different approach (zapping microbes
) to create H2, almost like an April 1st joke.
New technique creates cheap, abundant hydrogen: report
<!-- BEGIN STORY BODY --> Mon Nov 12, 5:12 PM ET
<!-- end storyhdr --> CHICAGO (AFP) - US researchers have developed a method of producing hydrogen gas from biodegradable organic material, potentially providing an abundant source of this clean-burning fuel, according to a study released Monday.
<noscript>
</noscript>
The technology offers a way to cheaply and efficiently generate hydrogen gas from readily available and renewable biomass such as cellulose or glucose, and could be used for powering vehicles, making fertilizer and treating drinking water.
Numerous public transportation systems are moving toward hydrogen-powered engines as an alternative to gasoline, but most hydrogen today is generated from nonrenewable fossil fuels such as natural gas.
The method used by engineers at Pennsylvania State University however combines electron-generating bacteria and a small electrical charge in a microbial fuel cell to produce hydrogen gas.
Microbial fuel cells work through the action of bacteria which can pass electrons to an anode. The electrons flow from the anode through a wire to the cathode producing an electric current. In the process, the bacteria consume organic matter in the biomass material.
An external jolt of electricity helps generate hydrogen gas at the cathode.
In the past, the process, which is known as electrohydrogenesis, has had poor efficiency rates and low hydrogen yields.
But the researchers at Pennsylvania State University were able to get around these problems by chemically modifying elements of the reactor.
In laboratory experiments, their reactor generated hydrogen gas at nearly 99 percent of the theoretical maximum yield using aetic acid, a common dead-end product of glucose fermentation.
"This process produces 288 percent more energy in hydrogen than the electrical energy that is added in the process," said Bruce Logan, a professor of environmental engineering at Penn State.
The technology is economically viable now, which gives hydrogen an edge over another alternative biofuel which is grabbing more headlines, Logan said.
"The energy focus is currently on ethanol as a fuel, but economical ethanol from cellulose is 10 years down the road," said Logan.
"First you need to break cellulose down to sugars and then bacteria can convert them to ethanol."
One of the immediate applications for this technology is to supply the hydrogen that is used in fuel cell cars to generate the electricity that drives the motor, but it could also can be used to convert wood chips into hydrogen to be used as fertilizer.
The study appears in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
<!-- BEGIN STORY BODY --> Mon Nov 12, 5:12 PM ET
<!-- end storyhdr --> CHICAGO (AFP) - US researchers have developed a method of producing hydrogen gas from biodegradable organic material, potentially providing an abundant source of this clean-burning fuel, according to a study released Monday.
<noscript>
The technology offers a way to cheaply and efficiently generate hydrogen gas from readily available and renewable biomass such as cellulose or glucose, and could be used for powering vehicles, making fertilizer and treating drinking water.
Numerous public transportation systems are moving toward hydrogen-powered engines as an alternative to gasoline, but most hydrogen today is generated from nonrenewable fossil fuels such as natural gas.
The method used by engineers at Pennsylvania State University however combines electron-generating bacteria and a small electrical charge in a microbial fuel cell to produce hydrogen gas.
Microbial fuel cells work through the action of bacteria which can pass electrons to an anode. The electrons flow from the anode through a wire to the cathode producing an electric current. In the process, the bacteria consume organic matter in the biomass material.
An external jolt of electricity helps generate hydrogen gas at the cathode.
In the past, the process, which is known as electrohydrogenesis, has had poor efficiency rates and low hydrogen yields.
But the researchers at Pennsylvania State University were able to get around these problems by chemically modifying elements of the reactor.
In laboratory experiments, their reactor generated hydrogen gas at nearly 99 percent of the theoretical maximum yield using aetic acid, a common dead-end product of glucose fermentation.
"This process produces 288 percent more energy in hydrogen than the electrical energy that is added in the process," said Bruce Logan, a professor of environmental engineering at Penn State.
The technology is economically viable now, which gives hydrogen an edge over another alternative biofuel which is grabbing more headlines, Logan said.
"The energy focus is currently on ethanol as a fuel, but economical ethanol from cellulose is 10 years down the road," said Logan.
"First you need to break cellulose down to sugars and then bacteria can convert them to ethanol."
One of the immediate applications for this technology is to supply the hydrogen that is used in fuel cell cars to generate the electricity that drives the motor, but it could also can be used to convert wood chips into hydrogen to be used as fertilizer.
The study appears in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
#42
11-13-2007, 03:01 PM
Here's the actual research paper on this process, and their exoelectrogenic bacteria:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0706379104v1?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORM AT=&fulltext=hydrogen%2C+microbial+fuel+cell&searc hid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
(may need to click begin 'Manual Download')
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0706379104v1?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORM AT=&fulltext=hydrogen%2C+microbial+fuel+cell&searc hid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
(may need to click begin 'Manual Download')
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
aurgathor
Alternative Fuels, Hybrids & Mileage
3
04-12-2016 06:21 PM
just another truck
1999 - 2003 7.3L Power Stroke Diesel
50
05-13-2008 06:05 PM
48fordcoe
1948 - 1956 F1, F100 & Larger F-Series Trucks
41
04-24-2008 02:23 PM
