Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: The United Nuclear Hydrogen Fuel System Kit
Wed, September 7, 2005 - 4:28 PMthis IS interesting
....but where do they get the hydrogen? -
-
Re: The United Nuclear Hydrogen Fuel System Kit
Wed, September 7, 2005 - 8:01 PM
'You can produce your own Hydrogen from electricity using either common "household current" or directly from solar cells so your energy cost is zero. It does however take a substantial amount of time to produce sufficient Hydrogen to fill even a small tank.
As an example, it takes over 2 days of our generator running at full power, 24 hours a day, to fill our smallest "short range" tank.'
So in 48 hours their generator will create enough hydrogen to fill a tank that will last 100 miles. At full power, with 400 watts listed as minimum power, Is 800 watts/hour enough for full power? The 800 watt solar array would be 10 panels so 20'x4' & $4250, you can generate 2 miles of travel/hour of full sun. In ~5.5 days (8 hours of good sun) you could fill the first of the four tanks shown in each vehicle.
I have a water torch that makes hydrogen & oxagen by electrolysis from distilled water added to a caustic electrolyte. It is uses hugh amounts of electricy for the tiny pinpoint flame you get. There is a reason this technology has only caught on with goldsmiths.
Steffan
-
-
Unsu...
Re: The United Nuclear Hydrogen Fuel System Kit
Thu, September 8, 2005 - 1:05 AMWow. SUCH efficiency. I hate to be sarcastic (well, no I don't) but hydrogen fuel cells are a pretty large waste of energy. If you look at how much petroleum energy goes into creating the electricity you are using to create your hydrogen, it's actually more efficient to just use gasoline to run your car, and gas would end up not producing that much more pollution when you look at the whole picture. Yes, that includes use of solar cells and other alternative sources of electricity due to the high petroleum inputs required to create the alternative energy (whether it be growing crops for bio-diesel for use in diesel generators, or the petroleum used to create the solar panels). -
-
Re: The United Nuclear Hydrogen Fuel System Kit
Thu, September 8, 2005 - 10:02 PMthats an interesting point.
biodiesel would .....ideally... be obtained from resources already in existence. theres so much biomass already created as human byproduct, which can definately be used efficiently.
....and is it better to just use gas? that seems like a pretty traditional outlook. -
-
Unsu...
Re: The United Nuclear Hydrogen Fuel System Kit
Thu, September 8, 2005 - 10:34 PMWell, when you consider the how much petro energy is used to create hydrogen, figure in how much petro energy is used to power a car by gas, and figure how far the vehicle will go using each method, you are actually using MORE petro fuel to power that hydrogen car for 100 miles than you would be using gas to power that same car the same distance. People's initial thoughts regarding hydrogen powered vehicles are based solely on the fact that the actual USE of hydrogen is clean. They usuallly don't mention anything about the pollution caused by generating they hydrogen. -
-
Unsu...
Re: The United Nuclear Hydrogen Fuel System Kit
Thu, September 8, 2005 - 10:35 PMErr, "THE hydrogen." -
-
Re: The United Nuclear Hydrogen Fuel System Kit
Fri, September 9, 2005 - 6:35 AMtrue that.
but we're going to run out of petroleum eventually anyway.... so shouldnt we get used to using alternative resources as efficiently as possible -
-
Unsu...
Re: The United Nuclear Hydrogen Fuel System Kit
Fri, September 9, 2005 - 9:45 AMYes, we should DEFINITELY get used to using alternative resources. However, hydrogen isn't one of them. Once petro is so far past peak that it is no longer a viable energy resource, hydrogen will not be something we can produce enough of to be usable. Bio-diesel is, so far, the most feasible alternative fuel out there, since almost all other alternatives are reliant on petroleum for production, or they take more energy to make than they produce. Even with bio-diesel, however, we're not going to be able to produce enough of it to be able to support the "nation on wheels" that we currently have. There are going to have to be serious reductions in the amount of driving people do because supply will be limited.
As for "running out" of petroleum, we probably won't do that within our lifetimes. However, peak oil is here (or possibly even past), which means that oil will become prohibitively expensive for even the upper-middle class. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: The United Nuclear Hydrogen Fuel System Kit
Sat, September 10, 2005 - 8:54 AMHuh? I dont know if you noticed or not, but there are far more internal combustion engines in this country than diesel. And if I used your argument about how much oil it takes to manufacture a diesel car and get it shipped out across the country then we would be right back where we started.
Burning Hydrogen creates water and some nitrogen oxides. I dont know if I could emphasize to you how much cleaner hydrogen burns than bio-d. Not only that but its a completly renewable resource and it takes readily available technology (the internal combustion engine) and uses it toward the end of its life cycle. Which instead of junking all gas engines so ppl can buy diesels is a HUGE energy savings.
The only thing I have seen that is cleaner than this is the Air Car. But its still under prototype.
For someone like myself that drives a fuel efficient vehicle, this is a good alternative for my daily commuter vehicle. Their standard systemn would provide four times the daily energy I would need.
I cannot understand how you could make statements about ""running out" of oil and "Peak Oil" in the same posting? It seems a little wierd to me that you acknowledge that we are headed for an energy crisis, but also come to the conclusion that hydrogen isnt pratical.
If I can produce enough hydrogen at home to satisfy my needs and I can do it from good old oil free grid electricity, and since there is going to be a shortage of bio-d. How could you say that hydrogen is not a viable option as an alternative fuel source for internal combustion engines?
This is a dangerous snap judgement if you are solely basing your opinion on the volume of fuel production instead of the particulate loads generated. What goes into your tank isnt nearly as important as what comes out of your tailpipe. -
-
Unsu...
Re: The United Nuclear Hydrogen Fuel System Kit
Sat, September 10, 2005 - 2:00 PM"Huh? I dont know if you noticed or not, but there are far more internal combustion engines in this country than diesel."
Huh. Well, imangine that. There's even more DIESEL vehicles in existence right now than hydrogen vehicles. So, by your own arguement, you'd actually have to spend even MORE energy to create hydrogen vehicles for everyone than you would for diesel!
And of course hydrogen is cleaner than bio-d. That still doesn't make it a feasible source of power for vehicles though, since it's actually a "deficit fuel", meaning it takes more energy to produce the hydrogen than the hydrogen itself produces. Not to mention the fact that, if you were to use it in an internal combustion engine, you'd have to liquefy the hydrogen, which takes even MORE energy than just making the hydrogen gas, you'd have to keep it cold (more energy), AND the fact that it is far more volatile than gasoline when it's liquefied. Because of that, it's HIGHLY unlikely that we're going to be running hydrogen out of a fuel tank. IF hydrogen technology were able to produce more energy than is consumed, then it would more likely be produced as fuel cells, NOT direct hydrogen slush or liquid. And, of course, fuel cells themselves have their own prohibitive factors.
The issue here isn't whether or not it's CLEAN, the issue is whether or not it's going to be a feasible alternative in a post cheap petroleum fuel economy. Hydrogen is NOT practical because of the fact that it takes 1.3 billion kilowatt hours of energy to create enough hydrogen to produce only ONE kilowatt hour of energy using the electrolosys method. If you're using the "feedstock" method, natural gas is treated with steam. So, not only is there the fact that energy producing natural gas is simply being processed, there's also the energy drain required to produce the steam by boiling water.
Also, you're assuming that the oil peak issues are going to allow the electricity grid to remain intact. Our electricity grid relies so much on petroleum products to remain active that when the peak oil problem makes oil largely unavailable, use of the electric grid is not going to be anywhere near being cheap, and eventually not available at all.
And, regarding your final comment about what goes in your tank not being nearly as important as what comes out of your tailpipe, I can only say this. When the cheap energy is no longer cheap, but is prohibitively expensive due to oil depletion and our dependence on that oil, there will be few alternatives left to fuel your vehicle with. And anyone who creates fuel that requires more energy for production than that fuel produces will be a fool, because at that point, you'll be lucky to fill your tank at all. -
-
Re: The United Nuclear Hydrogen Fuel System Kit
Sat, September 10, 2005 - 6:47 PMDude again you need to check your facts. NOBODY is storing hydrogen as a compressed gas or a liquid. Well I stand corrected if your trying to get into a low orbit around the planet. Liquid Hydrogen is a great way to achieve that. But we are not talking about making rocket motors we are talking about cars.
For one hydrogen is not a very dense gas and doesnt compress well. ALL of the storage methods in use right now are through chemically bonded storage media. The storage media themselves contains the hydrogen and IT is ONLY released when the tanks are heated.
YOU DO NOT PUT LIQUID HYDROGEN IN AN INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE. That is by far the dumbest thing I've ever heard. DUDE CHECK YOUR FACTS, DONT SPREAD WRONG INFORMATION.
For the individual consumer a home hydrogen station is ideal and thats using the electroylisis method. Your statistics do not apply to this situation. Applying larger amounts of energy in the production of hydrogen through the electroylsis method does not create hydrogen any faster. In fact it causes the very net energy loss that you are touting.
Its a matter of physics. But for the indivual user pulling little more energy than would be required to charge an electric vehicle. You are making clean energy at home with no distrubution cost and virtually eliminating the oil industry. A cleaner life cycle anaylsis.... but dont worry I will not expect your believe my word. But as soon as I get home I'll dig out the DOE life cycle analysis.
Again you are lambasting another technology, just because it isnt bio-d. Bio-d is hardly perfect. No more perfect than hydrogen. You cannot expect an alternative energy to simply wash away the sins of petroleum dependancy. Its unrealistic.
Now as far as peak oil and all the rest of the Armageddon theories are concerned. Petroluem is not the end all be all. Everything that is being made from dino oil is readily and just as easily made from soy or hemp or peanuts or the 101 other plants species that have 101 other uses.
Granted while their will be a change in the way things happen in the economy should oil suddenly collapse or whatever, you have to know that the other technologies have been surpressed because of the oil industry but not in spite of them.
Now the final thing. I have solar panels and so what they are made from petroluem products. It doesnt stop them from producing the electricity that will produce the hydrogen that fuels my vehicle. Maybe one day, someone will wise up and make the panels out of soy plastic or whatever else applicable green technology exsist. However my ability to produce fuel locally, that burns cleaner and isnt reliant on crops, well thats just incredible.
I've never said anything about cheap energy. All energy has a cost wether it be environmental or monetary. Reducing the level of pollution is of firstmost. Bio-d is a great option, and it really puts things into the hands of the end user alot more directly. However its simply not the best across the board. Nothing is, AND ALL OF IT IS STILL RELIANT ON PETRO IN SOME KIND OF WAY, and I think you know that, or at least I hope you do.
-
-
Re: The United Nuclear Hydrogen Fuel System Kit
Mon, September 12, 2005 - 4:39 PMSome of that sits wrong with me too...
Sure that system isn't 'efficent', but using solar for electrolysis, it seems nearly as clean as possible, and very low effort. Certainly lower than going out and growing crops.
The thing that seems so apparent to me is, no one solution is going to replace petroleum. It's going to take a combination. And people like the produces of that kit, and the fuel cell developers, and the bio-d community are out there experimenting and learning. Hydrogen has a future.
www.stanford.edu/~burney/s...nMyths.pdf
-
-
-
Unsu...
Re: The United Nuclear Hydrogen Fuel System Kit
Sat, September 10, 2005 - 2:07 PMAlso, take a look at some of the information in these web sites.
www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Index.html
www.endofsuburbia.com/ -
-
Re: The United Nuclear Hydrogen Fuel System Kit
Wed, January 11, 2006 - 7:09 AMI am considering converting my gasoline engine over to a hydrogen system. Is anyone aware of a really good DVD to show how to do this? Where to get the parts etc.? Or, is this a bad Idea?
Any suggestions?
I saw a video of a guy that did this himself & he got 200 MPG without a hybrid. It was on the news.
I just found this thread so, I'll check out the links. -
-
Re: The United Nuclear Hydrogen Fuel System Kit
Sat, January 14, 2006 - 6:11 PMHey Doc Diesel....Are you saying you can run a combustion engine on hydrogen gas? Thats a new one for me. -
-
Re: The United Nuclear Hydrogen Fuel System Kit
Sat, January 21, 2006 - 11:01 PMAbout 8 years ago, Mazda had a hydrogen powered Miata, all stock aside from the fuel system. It olost 1 HP, but gained 1 Ft/lb of torque, so should be just as good. there was not a substantial economy gain, and the fuel storage unit(a gel of some wierd goo) cost multiple millions.
-
-
Re: The United Nuclear Hydrogen Fuel System Kit
Sat, January 21, 2006 - 5:08 PMwell if you really want to do this...
first start by checking prices on a metal hydride hydrogen storage vessels.
www.fuelcellstore.com/product...age.html
If that doesn't stop you cold in your tracks then look up BMW's hydrogen development.
dispite the "well informed" opinions above, BMW uses liquid hydrogen
www.bmwworld.com/hydrogen/
The sheer volume of fuel needed and the lack of solar PV availabity makes the notion of hydrogen power ridiculous. A reliance on nuclear power is the only thing that will make it possible for everyone to drive on hydrogen after oil. I can't see where all these solar PV panels are going to come from? They are expensive to produce and are doped with rare elements (I'm not talking about the silicon so don't even mention it). Biodiesel has an energy return of 3 to 1 hydrogen is less than 1 to 1. If the feed stock of the biodiesel remains carbon neutral then there is no compairison between the two.
And for gasoline car owners maybe look into cellulose ethanol.
www.iogen.ca/
-
Chopper 22
Mon, January 23, 2006 - 11:20 PMHey chopper, alright as promised here are some links to hydrogen injection systems. Currently I'm going to have to reccomend that you go with a hydrogen over gasoline injection type system solely because the word on the street is brittlement. As in running pure hydrogen in your engine deprives your engine of the lubricity that gasoline would have and the metal in the combustion chamber and assorted areas can become brittle over time running pure hydrogen.
The two most popular types of systems are storage and onboard cracking via electrolysis.
I havent seen *ANY* data that says that one system is better than the other, but their are different price points. Personally I'm going to try one of the cheaper on-board electroylsis units first and if things work out then I may switch over to some sort of kostspieliger system.
Anyways since I dont know anyone who has actually done this to their vehicle and for me personally its on my list of things to do. I'm not going to blindly recommend anybodys system. I've ordered a device that will allow me to monitor my motor through the OBD II port under my steering column. I want to see how this injection is going to affect my vehicle. The basic science behind it sounds good. But as of yet all I've read or heard about is a couple of people doing it. The claims are outrageous, I would think that is someone where really to get 200mpg every *censored for your protection* with an SUV would have one with chrome, and neon lights sitting on their dash.
www.h2go.info/links.html
www.theautochannel.com/news/2...03.html
www.7gen.com/blog/energy...truckers/825
-
-
-
Re: The United Nuclear Hydrogen Fuel System Kit
Mon, January 23, 2006 - 10:43 AM" I don't know if you noticed or not, but there are far more internal combustion engines in this country than diesel."
Um Doctor
Diesel engines are internal combustion engines. You probably meant to say gasoline engines. Both are rely on internal combusion for power and differ in their fuels as well as ignition and fuel injection systems not to mention the compression ratio. -
-
Re: The United Nuclear Hydrogen Fuel System Kit
Mon, January 23, 2006 - 10:53 PMOf course,
I was actually aiming for spark ignition vs compression ignition. I forgot the stat that Diesel vehicles make up ~3-4% of the vehicles on the road.
Like "Both are rely on internal..." its just one of those things where thinking in stream of conscious doesnt relate well on the screen.
Some other differences between gasoline and diesel is that a gas engine draws fuel on the intake stroke prior to compression, and diesel is sprayed into the cylinder on the compression stroke.
Or how about this diesel vehicles typically have about 20-40% more miles per gallon than a comparable gasoline vehicle.
I could go on and on with the stats until you bleed diesel like I do. But I'll spare you. I hope that you out of all that I wrote the only thing that you read was not just simple flub about internal combustion engines, obviously you knew what I was talking about otherwise you wouldnt be correcting me.
Anyways you should come join my Diesel Power tribe, and we can compare the differences between internal combustion engines where it is on topic! tribes.tribe.net/dieselpower
I'm at the Transportation Research Board Meeting [Conference] ( trb.org/meeting/ ) all this week and I've been talking with Feds about the coming changes in diesel technology, as well many other topics that are not directly related. Its all very exciting stuff.
Hopefully one day more environmental and alternative energy solutions, research and proposals will get some more recognition at meetings like this. Currently and primarily the focus is on the civil engineering aspects of city building, but I have been able to get to a couple sessions on green highway building/maintenance and also a session on the BRT system in Mexico. But I'm still learning, the most important things with these meetings are the networking that goes on and the "in the pipeline" information.
Anyways that is certainly off topic for post this posting and this tribe so I'll stop there.
I gotta thank you for reminding me about this thread. I have some info for chopper22 concerning the question that he wrote earlier in this thread.
I'll seperate that reply into a seperate posting.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-