This is just a food for thought article.

What do you guys think the future holds? Some people think that at some point in the future every car will be converted to run on pure electricity? Others think Compressed Natural Gas will fuel the future cars/trucks, and some even speculate Hydrogen will come into play.

My brother in law is a chief engineer that is working with a commercial company that is refining Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) systems for Automotive usage. Now he could only tell me so much about this, but he said that he speculates CNG will play a major role in the future of automotive energy.

I understand the need to wean ourselves off of being totally Oil dependent as Oil is a limited supply resource. But what I don't understand is why is everyone so focused on finding a single replacement for Gasoline/Diesel? Why not work on making numerous fuels more mainstream in the automotive world? I'm no economist but the simple economics of it are that if 20% of cars and trucks ran on Gasoline, 20% on Diesel 20% on CNG 20% Electric Powered and 20% Hydrogen of course that is just an example of what could be. But in theory wouldn't that drive the price of each down? As it stands right now the WHOLE world relays mostly on Oil for their transportation wants/needs I can understand how this would drive the price of gas and diesel threw the roof, not just for us in America but all over the world. If all countries...Or even just America could adapt using other fuels ALONGSIDE Gasoline and Diesel does it not stand to reason the price of each would go down simply because the demand for each of them would be divided between the others?

For the record I think man made global warming is total BS and nothing more than a poltical tool that can be used by greedy politicians.

 

Without a single replacement and the market fragments, all the economies of scale that developed around the liquid hydrocarbon fueled ICE for transportation will be lost. It would drive the cost of each UP in the long run. Short term, one or more may appear to cost less, until demand equalizes with supply and targeted government rebates go away.

The electric grid is sufficiently built out that pure electric is the only other viable alternative. The Nissan Leaf may be the Model-T of a new age in personal transportation.

Hydrogen is a non-starter, at least for the time period we are probably thinking about, the next 25 years or so. CNG and LPG are not interchangeable, so CNG cars cant be driven in many rural areas.

Going forward a few years, Gas-To-Liquids, which is a relatively simple method of making diesel from natural gas, shows promise. Oil will need to stay permanently above $60-70 a barrel before anyone will risk the investment, since governments dont seem interested in subsidy for this non-glamorous technology. Google Fischer Tropsch to see just how simple it is. Coal can be used, but CO2 is the unfortunate byproduct.

 

Unless they significantly (and I mean significantly) increase the range and recharge times of electric cars, they are pretty much worthless for the rural crowd and the long distance traveler. A Nissan Leaf, as it is now, would barely make it from my home, to the grocery store, and back.

And I'm just curious, why are CNG and LPG not interchangeable? I thought they were very similar. Similar enough that someone ought to be able to build a vehicle that would run on either.

 

Like I said, the Leaf is the Model T. Compare a 1932 Ford V-8 to the T and so on. Battery technology still has a way to go, along with the other components.

"C" means compressed@3600psi. "L" means liquid, which only has a vapor pressure of 200psi@110F. Motor octane of CH4 (methane) is 130, 97 for C3H8 (propane). There is no way to make an optimal dual fuel setup. Most propane is made from crude oil, so its not really an "alternative" fuel anyway.

 

I really do not understand why everyone rules out hydrogen as a fuel so quickly.
Is this Hindenburg thing still hanging around?

Here are some reasons I think it will be THE fuel of the future.

1. Anyone can make it with an electrolysis cell, water and some electricity. (Think solar cells here). Roll your own and put the big oil companies out to pasture.
2. It is 100% pollution free. Byproduct of combustion is water.
Run it thru a fuel cell and make electricity for your electric powered car. No more range limiting issues there.
3. Dump any excess hydrogen production back into the natural gas pipeline grid and burn it in your home heater, water heater, or gas stove, mega-watt electric power station. Just need to change the jets for proper combustion. Just like propane vs natural gas.
4. We have enough sunshine and wind to generate all the electricity need to produce hydrogen by the boat load. Those who say the wind doesn't always blow or the sun doesn't always shine are missing the point. Produce all you can, dump it in the pipeline grid and burn it off on those bad days in a conventional gas fired electrical generation plant.

The only ones fighting Hydrogen production are the big oil companies. They lose control of their monopoly.

 

the reason no one takes hydrogen as a serious fuel source is the fact that it currently takes more energy to make it than it produces.

maybe someday someone will figure out how to make a cost efficient hydrogen generator.
but for now that is just a dream.

 

Point taken, but the key word here is "Currently"

So other than the initial cost of the electrical production equipment to split the water (solar cells, Wind generator); what does an endless supply of sunshine and wind cost? In the long run, hydrogen would be so cheap it would be ridiculous. It doesn't really matter if the process is inefficient when the input energy source is free.

 

Nothing is free. Installing and maintaining those windmills and solar cells is expensive. Solar cells have a limited lifetime and are made from rare minerals that are toxic as well and have to be disposed of properly. Solar and wind are not a terribly efficient means of generating electricity to begin with. If it were so cheap, the power companies would be putting them in as fast as they could, without the government subsidies they are getting now.

I really don't see solar and wind as the panacea that many seem to think that they are, and even if they were, hydrogen is the least efficient means of moving energy that is available.

 

Currently...and in the future. Hydrogen does not occur in a pure form naturally on earth, only combined with other elements in compounds. Thus it must be split from at least one other element in a chemical reaction of some sort. Because of the strength with which hydrogen bonds to other elements the input energy to generate the hydrogen will always be greater than the output energy from oxidizing it. At best, it is an inefficient "battery". As a fuel, it would be difficult to compress (another huge loss in the energy cycle) to a liquid (more easily stored and transported).

Nukes for electricity, naturally occurring fuels for vehicles...

Jason

 

Oats for horses, and firewood for heat............
You guys seem to assume that nothing is going to happen to stop the advance of technology............I think a new "Dark ages" may be around the bend.

 

Except that we learned a lot about Physics and Chemistry, down to the sub-atomic level in the last century. Do you really think that there is some other undiscovered science here that we can easily exploit within the next 50-100 years? Yes, there will be improvements, but equivalent to the invention of the steam engine? I think the computer was it for a while, and that did nothing to revolutionize transportation.

The physical properties of H2 make it a poor transportation fuel. We studied the possibility of a "hydrogen economy" back when I was in engineering school in the early 1970's. Some thought that we would soon run out of fossil fuels back then. I did joke about the Ford Hindenburg car.

 

You may be right, if we continue to do nothing different.
We have sat on our duffs for near onto 40 years since the first oil embargo, talked about why this or that is not a perfect answer, and, in the mean time, done nothing to solve the issue.
Oh yes, we have made some significant gains here and there in fuel economy improvement (thank computers for most of it), but are still reliant on fossil fuels that will not be available forever.

Hydrogen, If it's good enough to fuel the stars, that's good enough for me.

 

So you've figured out how to create a sustainable, controlled fusion reaction? Because until someone does that, hydrogen will remain a woefully inefficient energy storage medium, but never a fuel.

 

I haven't, but these folks seem to be on track to make some real progress.
See these links on a polywell confinement reactor.

Cosmic Log - Fusion goes forward from the fringe

Polywell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One of them talks about a rare, heavy hydrogen isotope called tritium. Rare on earth but very plentiful on the moon, and, currently, the easiest form of hydrogen to fuse. Ever wonder what all the fuss about returning to the moon was about?

 

I haven't, but these folks seem to be on track to make some real progress.
See these links on a polywell confinement reactor.

Cosmic Log - Fusion goes forward from the fringe

Polywell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One of them talks about a rare, heavy hydrogen isotope called tritium. Rare on earth but very plentiful on the moon, and, currently, the easiest form of hydrogen to fuse. Ever wonder what all the fuss about returning to the moon was about?