I'm doing a reasearch project for school on hydrogen cars. I want to know everything there is to know so i can give a good presentation about it. I allready know the basics of how the fuel cell works, etc. I was wondering about some advantages/disadvantages you might see with it. Also I know about using hydrogen and turning it into electricity, but is there such thing as burning it in a Internal combustion engine? If so, how does this work, are there any special fittings/carbourators you need? Do they use the liquid or the gas version etc....Thanks for all help!

 

I know that most of the Hydrogen produced industrially comes from crude oil / petroleum. Hydrogen can be used in internal combustion engines. I'm not sure of any modifications needed. Storage is a problem because the hydrogen molecule is smaller than the molecular structure of any metal used in a tank. So the hydrogen just leaks out. If some sort of small hydrogen generator could be developed so that it could be produced on-board the car just before burning it would eliminate the storage problem.

 

Seems like I read an article in the LA Times about how hydrogen cars are 35+ years off. First, if you use oil to make the hydrogen, what's the point? If you are going to do it with solar and seawater or some other "green" way, you are looking at Billions to develope that. Then there is distribution, again billions to set it up.

One of the points made was it makes little sense to persue hydrogen in cars when we are still burning coal or oil to make electricity elsewhere in the country.

You might be able to find this with a search at LA Times Web site, which will just jump out at you if you search by the name.

The guy who wrote the article was no bomb-thrower, but was more like giving a reality check on hydrogen.

Think about this: What would you rather have your kids sitting on top off:

--a tank of sulfer-free diesel powering a turbo charged electronically controlled hybrid that performs as well as most of today's cars (a dream that could come true for billions less than H)

or

--a tank of gasoline, safe as long as it stays in the tank, and you have a few seconds to get out if it's punctured. (what you are riding in today)

or

--a 10,000 psi tank of hydrogen, safe as long as it doesn't get crunched, and then you look like Nagasaki and the Hindenberg all at once.


It is a good promising technology, but I don't think it's the nail to hang your hat on for today.

Good luck with the report.

 

The problems with hydrogen is where do you get it from? Right now the processes we have in place take the same or a bit more energy to generate the hydrogen than the hydrogen releases when burned. You usualyy have to "crack" water using lots of electricty, or you crack petroleum and loose a bit of the energy stored in that.

If we can get real nuclear fusion power or cost effective solar or... then generating hydrogen fuel should be come cost effective.

Or you can use pertroleum fuels in a fuel cell which separates out and "burns" the hydrogen, but then this doesn't get us far from our problem with oil.

Hydrogen is a very clean burning fuel. You cannot see the flames in daylight and the only pollution byproducts are essentially steam and NOa component of smog if I recall). From what I have read it can be made to burn in a modified internal combustion engine, it's just hard to have enough fuel to make sense.

Hydrogen does not explode like Nagasaki, first off Nagasaki was a fission reaction using Plutonium if I recall. Neither does it explode in the way of an H Bomb, that is a fusion reaction which is extremly hard to generate and sustain. Right now the only way we can generate a fusion reaction of any use is by lighting it off with an Atomic bomb, not pretty and definitely not clean.

I have read recently that the Hindenberg did not explode due to hydrogen but rather the hydrogen acted like kindling and a sustaining fuel for the aluminum frame which burns nicely if hot enough and the shellac coated fabric skin of the gas bags. Hydrogen can explode but normally it is not nearly as spectacular as the media makes it sound. Some people in the Hindenberg walked away from the wreck, surprising eh. A horrible accident but not nearly as explosive as we thought, more of a good long burn.

Back to the car... Another problem with hydrogen is that it is very difficult to keep in liquid state. It takes a really heavy tank with limited capacity and probably some heavy duty freezer to keep things happy. Hydrogen is more easy to handle in gaseous form but then it takes a lot of space for the amount of energy. There is some work on storing hydrogen in solid form in hydrides I think, but if I recall correctly that is pretty expensive and also bulky.

Some day if we figure out how to generate more energy with hydrogen than it takes to "create" it, and if we have the infrastructure to supply it, and if we have a reasonable storage method, then maybe hydrogen cars will be economically feasable. Right now it is the golden child of several groups who hope it can take over from fossil fuels but for the foreseeable future we are going to have to make nice with uncle Saud. I hope in the long run we do find something so we can thumb our noses at OPEC. I keep hoping for cold fusion but then maybe I am a dreamer.

Just my opinions,

Jim Henderson

 

RE the Hindinberg, I recently hear that the formula for the paint they used to coat the fabric skin, to reflect the sun's energy and create a more stable temp inside, very closely resembled the chemical makeup of the solid rocke fuel used in the boosters for the space shuttle. OOOOOOOOOOppppppssssss!!!!

I thought the only byproduct of H2 combustion was water. Thats what the enviro weenies are trying to sell. But now that you mention it, the byproduct of burning gas is water and carbon dioxide ---- IF there's 100% complete combustion. Think about it, gasoline is a hydrocarbon. That means the only molecules in it are hydrogen and carbon. Burn it in a pure oxygen environment and H2O and CO2 are the only byproducts. BUT we burn gasoline in an O2/Nitrogen mix. And under the pressures and heat in the combustion chamber oxides of Nitrogen are produced. Why wouldn't the same thing happen with H2 being used as a fuel. There will still be nitrogen present in the combustion chamber and it will be combined with oxygen and produce NOx, IE smog.

 

That would be correct. That is why the fire spread so quickly up the legth of the structure.

 

In an internal combustion engine running hydrogen, enormous amounts of NOx are produced, far beyond what any gas engine is capable of.
If I was a multi-millionaire, I would build my version of the perfect powertrain- diesel electric. A small turbo-diesel, maybe pushing 150hp, running at constant rpm, turning a generator, charging a battery. Not a large one, more like what the current hybrids are running. There would be no direct connection between the wheels and engine. There would be an electric motor at each wheel, making for constant proportional 4wd.
But, since this is a way to get around 80mpg, nobody will build it.

 

Be carefu lwhat you say, or you might start another conspiracy thread!!

STU

 

Isn't this the basic concept behind the Diesel locomotive...A diesel engine generating power to the electric traction motors? GM's Electromotive Division has been producing these for over 50 years. I wonder why they havn't made the transition to cars?

 

because it would save people money, and it would work too good.

 

It's the exact same way as a locomotive. That's why I called it a perfect powertrain. Now if only I could fit an ALCo 251F into my truck..............