Hydrogen Engines
Discussion
Following on form the very informative Turbo Vs Supercharging thread I though I'd post this link.
If ,like me, you have a passing interest in hydrogen as a fuel then this will interest you
www.ott.doe.gov/otu/field_ops/pdfs/fcm03r0.pdf
I personally believe that hydrogen could go a long way as a fuel. More sophisticated storage systems are coming into being every day.
At the moment Metal Hydrides can store up to 2% their own weight in hydrogen. There is also research being done into nano tubes and so on.
At the moment fuel cells aren't up to much and even if they are there are no gains in mass producing them due to most of the cost being material costs (platinum etc).
I reckon the transition will be done using IC engines (if only cos the public know and love them)
Just hope that it happens in my lifetime (and I'll still get to play with the last generation of the big petrol burning V8s before they are consigned to the history books forever)
So anyway what are peoples thoughts on hydrogen buring engines.
Andy
If ,like me, you have a passing interest in hydrogen as a fuel then this will interest you
www.ott.doe.gov/otu/field_ops/pdfs/fcm03r0.pdf
I personally believe that hydrogen could go a long way as a fuel. More sophisticated storage systems are coming into being every day.
At the moment Metal Hydrides can store up to 2% their own weight in hydrogen. There is also research being done into nano tubes and so on.
At the moment fuel cells aren't up to much and even if they are there are no gains in mass producing them due to most of the cost being material costs (platinum etc).
I reckon the transition will be done using IC engines (if only cos the public know and love them)
Just hope that it happens in my lifetime (and I'll still get to play with the last generation of the big petrol burning V8s before they are consigned to the history books forever)
So anyway what are peoples thoughts on hydrogen buring engines.
Andy
I think Hydrogens got to be a way forward.
I love the sound of the internal combustion engine at full chatt, and itd be a shame to lose it to something that sounds like a milkfloat, even if it were kinda rapid.
Opportunity to make a big difference to pollution, has to be a good thing.
I love the sound of the internal combustion engine at full chatt, and itd be a shame to lose it to something that sounds like a milkfloat, even if it were kinda rapid.
Opportunity to make a big difference to pollution, has to be a good thing.
I guess it comes down to efficiency in the end. If a fuel cell is significantly more efficient (not sure, but I recall reading that they are) that an IC engine, then a smaller, lighter fuel tank would be needed for the same power / range. A couple of electric motors should be lighter than a full IC engine.
Of course, I'd rather have a light car than a heavy one. The only thing the IC has going for it is the sound. There's some bloke in the US with an electric dragster, it's crazy fast so electric motors can do proper performance (sorry can't find the link)
Oh - just remembered - another benefit of IC would be to allow mixed fuel use, just in case you can't find hydrogen. Probably the way to go when in transition.
Of course, I'd rather have a light car than a heavy one. The only thing the IC has going for it is the sound. There's some bloke in the US with an electric dragster, it's crazy fast so electric motors can do proper performance (sorry can't find the link)
Oh - just remembered - another benefit of IC would be to allow mixed fuel use, just in case you can't find hydrogen. Probably the way to go when in transition.
But isn't a hydrogen cell basically just a battery? You have to generate the hydrogen somewhere, and that takes energy (eg to split water). Yes it's probably more efficient than a chemical battery but as far as I can see it doesn't solve the root problem of where does the energy come from?
I wasn't taking into account where they hydrogen comes from: assuming there is hydrogen available, a fuel cell and electric motor should be able to turn more of the chemical energy in the hydrogen into motive power than an IC engine.
Of course generating and storing the hydrogen is the big problem, but unlike petrol, you can generate hydrogen from practically unlimited water using renewable energy.
Ideally there would be some sort of 'hyper-battery' that could store loads of electrical energy with a high energy density. Then we could just fill up from renewable energy sources. Unfortunately batteries are shite and so there's a load of wasted energy transferring between convenient sources (e.g. solar -> photosynthesis -> decomposition -> oil -> petrol -> IC, or solar -> electricity -> electrolysis of water -> hydrogen -> IC)
All energy comes from the sun, originally
Of course generating and storing the hydrogen is the big problem, but unlike petrol, you can generate hydrogen from practically unlimited water using renewable energy.
Ideally there would be some sort of 'hyper-battery' that could store loads of electrical energy with a high energy density. Then we could just fill up from renewable energy sources. Unfortunately batteries are shite and so there's a load of wasted energy transferring between convenient sources (e.g. solar -> photosynthesis -> decomposition -> oil -> petrol -> IC, or solar -> electricity -> electrolysis of water -> hydrogen -> IC)
All energy comes from the sun, originally
Well, if you have unlimited cheap energy from a renewable source, hydrogen looks like a very handy way of karting it round. That doesn't seem very likely to me though. But saying it's a good fuel because it burns more efficiently than petrol is rather missing the point, since hydrogen fuel is not a *source* of energy. So I think we agree its a usful idea that might come in handy but doesn't solve the whole problem.
Yup, you are, as always correct GreenV8S.
The truth is though as soon as oil runs out we're all buggered cos there is no alternative.
I don't think that nuclear power could power everything from house heating to domestic consumption AND provide power to produce all the hydrogen we'd need for current car consumption.
The only real solution is a really multi pronged attack on resources. Massive efforts into recyling and using every single bio resource to produce different fuels. From ethanol, bio oils, and renewables everything will have to be done to continue our current energy consumption.
To be honest I'm not sure it can be done.
If you look at the consumption per head of capita in western countries it would take a massive effort to get the energy from anything other than fossil fuels.
It really depends if it will manifest itself as a problem in my lifetime.
We will see.
Andy
The truth is though as soon as oil runs out we're all buggered cos there is no alternative.
I don't think that nuclear power could power everything from house heating to domestic consumption AND provide power to produce all the hydrogen we'd need for current car consumption.
The only real solution is a really multi pronged attack on resources. Massive efforts into recyling and using every single bio resource to produce different fuels. From ethanol, bio oils, and renewables everything will have to be done to continue our current energy consumption.
To be honest I'm not sure it can be done.
If you look at the consumption per head of capita in western countries it would take a massive effort to get the energy from anything other than fossil fuels.
It really depends if it will manifest itself as a problem in my lifetime.
We will see.
Andy
andytk said:
The truth is though as soon as oil runs out we're all buggered cos there is no alternative.
Depressing thought, will we be the last generation with petrol so cheap we can afford to waste it on our gas guzzlers, and the opportunity to drive at a decent speed on clear roads from time to time?
Looking on the bright side, I remember a documentary on TV a while ago where some environmentalist sayed the demand for fuel would reach the production capacity at about 2020 and from then on it would be a dwindling resource - pretty catastrophic when you live in a former 1st world country with grim economic prospects. But then some chap from BP came on and explained that we had been less than 20 years away from depleting the known reserves for most of the last century. But as technology improves, more oil fields become economically viable, so it's actually a very stable situation. The only reason we're running out of KNOWN oil reserves is there is no economic demand to find new ones yet.
I suspect if there is a problem though, it will be that the people who own the oil don't like us and won't let us have it.
Without sounding like those nutter conspiracy theorists, you can bet your last tank of petrol that the oil companies have a pot load of non-oil energy technologies to exploit once the oil runs out.
It's not in their interests to promote or allow renewable energy sources while they still have oil to sell. But they definitely are spending a lot of R&D cash on all sorts of way-out energy technologies.
Just don't expect to see them until it's more profitable to sell them than oil.
After all, the only thing holding back completely green, environmentally friendly high performance cars is battery technology. Get a hyper-battery, fill it up from renewable or nuclear electricity, and you've got potential supercar power with no CO2. Electric cars have massive torque all over the rev range. Could be an interesting drive
This is why hydrogen may be a dead end - it's only the electricity storage that's the problem with electric cars. A decent battery technology would wipe out internal combustion engines immediately.
It's not in their interests to promote or allow renewable energy sources while they still have oil to sell. But they definitely are spending a lot of R&D cash on all sorts of way-out energy technologies.
Just don't expect to see them until it's more profitable to sell them than oil.
After all, the only thing holding back completely green, environmentally friendly high performance cars is battery technology. Get a hyper-battery, fill it up from renewable or nuclear electricity, and you've got potential supercar power with no CO2. Electric cars have massive torque all over the rev range. Could be an interesting drive
This is why hydrogen may be a dead end - it's only the electricity storage that's the problem with electric cars. A decent battery technology would wipe out internal combustion engines immediately.
lx993 said: Without sounding like those nutter conspiracy theorists, you can bet your last tank of petrol that the oil companies have a pot load of non-oil energy technologies to exploit once the oil runs out.
It's not in their interests to promote or allow renewable energy sources while they still have oil to sell. But they definitely are spending a lot of R&D cash on all sorts of way-out energy technologies.
Just don't expect to see them until it's more profitable to sell them than oil.
After all, the only thing holding back completely green, environmentally friendly high performance cars is battery technology. Get a hyper-battery, fill it up from renewable or nuclear electricity, and you've got potential supercar power with no CO2. Electric cars have massive torque all over the rev range. Could be an interesting drive
This is why hydrogen may be a dead end - it's only the electricity storage that's the problem with electric cars. A decent battery technology would wipe out internal combustion engines immediately.
Electrical storage isn't really the issue - huge leaps in ultracapacitor technology have been made in recent years. A few more leaps like this and we'll have electric cars with batteries that can recharge in seconds and will drive the car for hundreds of miles between charges. And, due to the nature of electric motors (and the ease of putting a motor on each wheel), the performance will be stunning.
The issue is generation of the power.
Nuclear power (fission) is either unacceptably dangerous or economically impractical depending on your political views. Fusion is not only both of these but technologically unfeasable as well (at least for now- and I, for one, hope it stays that way). Wind and solar power will never be anything but small-volume sources. Geothermal/tidal generation is both problematic and not very promotion/media-friendly. Fossil fuels generate pollution. Hydroelectric genrations is terrain and weather dependent.
What's left?
You know what makes for efficient storage of large amounts of energy? Antimatter. The technology currently exists to both produce and transport it. It isn't really efficient yet but then the only real way to exploit it is to build large, space-based generation stations (nuclear or solar powered) to create it and then ship it back to earth in Penning traps. This is also a few years off.
Antimatter is produced in space, brought to Earth and then used to generate massive amounts of electricity cleanly and efficiently.
Another option is to harness lightning as a source of electricity but that would require the development of a cost-effective, high-temperature superconductor and I'm not holding my breath for that.
incorrigible said: Alcohol is the way forward, we can still have huge V8s that way
Alcohol, the cause of, and solution to, all lifes problems
Yup I also think that this is the way forward if oil supplies are cut off in the medium term.
Problem is that I don't think its possible to produce enought biomass to ferment/distill into fuel grade ethanol for the whole of the worlds current fuel consumption.
So in the long term when oil runs out or becomes too expensive/rare to burn in a car then alcohol will be in short supply.
By the way does anyone know if you can purchase fuel grade ethanol in this country and if so how much?
Andy
Fermenting biomass to get ethanol is one way of doing it, but I'm pretty sure you could use genetically modified bacteria to produce either ethanol or methanol.
Don't some south american countries use alcohol as the main fuel for cars? Thought I read it somewhere.
As to antimatter, well that's extremely cool but storage and containment are very dodgy - any failure of the containment system due to a crash would annihilate the entire area
I don't know enough about 'ultracapacitors' - I will do some research right now - but surely this must show hydrogen IC engines as a dead end?? If you can battery-power a car with high efficiency then you can shift all your energy production to large plants that can be made more efficient. Still using fossil fuels merely shifts the pollution elsewhere, but if a big gas-fired power station can achieve 20% better efficiency than lots of small car engines, then it's a step in the right direction.
Don't some south american countries use alcohol as the main fuel for cars? Thought I read it somewhere.
As to antimatter, well that's extremely cool but storage and containment are very dodgy - any failure of the containment system due to a crash would annihilate the entire area
I don't know enough about 'ultracapacitors' - I will do some research right now - but surely this must show hydrogen IC engines as a dead end?? If you can battery-power a car with high efficiency then you can shift all your energy production to large plants that can be made more efficient. Still using fossil fuels merely shifts the pollution elsewhere, but if a big gas-fired power station can achieve 20% better efficiency than lots of small car engines, then it's a step in the right direction.
lx993 said: Fermenting biomass to get ethanol is one way of doing it, but I'm pretty sure you could use genetically modified bacteria to produce either ethanol or methanol.
Don't some south american countries use alcohol as the main fuel for cars? Thought I read it somewhere.
Yup Brazil did this for a long time. The idea was to ensure that the country wasn't in the grip of international oil prices and to provide mass employment in farming areas. Millions of vehicles were built to run on ethanol and for a long time it worked.
However the producers of ethanol got a bit stroppy and started to up the price and at the same time oil prices started to drop and the program dissapeared up its own arse in a short period of time.
There is still ethanol vehicles in Brazil but not as many as there were.
Also the whole program was running under heavy subsidy to keep the ethanol competitive with petrol. Bearing in mind that petrol is really cheap in Brazil compared with the UK.
I reckon that ethanol could be sold here profitably due to the high pump price of petrol.
And by the way fermenting IS a bacterial process carried out on biomass. The only thing genetically modified bacteria could do is slightly increase the yield.
A more interesting approach is to use forms of acid to break down cellulose (otherwise known as recyled paper) to produce feedstocks for fermenting processes.
This means you could feasably recycle paper into car fuel.
I don't know enough about 'ultracapacitors' - I will do some research right now - but surely this must show hydrogen IC engines as a dead end??
This all depends on the ultracapacitors. I don't see them being any better than batteries cos at the end of the day they store electrical energy as chemical energy. Batteries/capacitors are big, heavy, expensive and need replacing (ergo cause toxic waste) every three years or so. Plus batteries aren't all that efficient. Although capacitors may be a lot better, I don't know.
And at the end of the day no leccy motor is every going to sound as good as a big ol V8.
Andy
I thought fermentation was carried out by yeast on simple sugars, which is why I made the GM bacteria comment: bacteria may be able to generate alcohols from cheaper products than sugar (perhaps from waste?)
The ultracapacitor concept seems to revolve around polarisation of chemicals within the can, rather than chemical reactions as in the case of traditional batteries. This means they can be recharged in seconds and also dump all their energy rapidly as well. Doing this with batteries generates loads of waste heat. The 'efficiency' of such a system would depend purely on how much energy is lost in storage. The electric motors would also have their own efficiency.
Assuming you can generate electricity much more efficiently in a large power plant than in a car, then all you need is high energy density storage without waste and a decently efficient electric motor. I don't think current ultracapacitors can store enough energy, but they sure as hell can supply the power requirements right now.
Unfortunately you lose the great V8 / flat 6 noise, but if we've run out of oil or don't want to be held over a barrel by the Middle East, then it'll have to be 1000 bhp battery cars and a throttle sensitive recording of a 4.3 Griff
The ultracapacitor concept seems to revolve around polarisation of chemicals within the can, rather than chemical reactions as in the case of traditional batteries. This means they can be recharged in seconds and also dump all their energy rapidly as well. Doing this with batteries generates loads of waste heat. The 'efficiency' of such a system would depend purely on how much energy is lost in storage. The electric motors would also have their own efficiency.
Assuming you can generate electricity much more efficiently in a large power plant than in a car, then all you need is high energy density storage without waste and a decently efficient electric motor. I don't think current ultracapacitors can store enough energy, but they sure as hell can supply the power requirements right now.
Unfortunately you lose the great V8 / flat 6 noise, but if we've run out of oil or don't want to be held over a barrel by the Middle East, then it'll have to be 1000 bhp battery cars and a throttle sensitive recording of a 4.3 Griff
lx993 said: I thought fermentation was carried out by yeast on simple sugars, which is why I made the GM bacteria comment: bacteria may be able to generate alcohols from cheaper products than sugar (perhaps from waste?)
The ultracapacitor concept seems to revolve around polarisation of chemicals within the can, rather than chemical reactions as in the case of traditional batteries. This means they can be recharged in seconds and also dump all their energy rapidly as well. Doing this with batteries generates loads of waste heat. The 'efficiency' of such a system would depend purely on how much energy is lost in storage. The electric motors would also have their own efficiency.
Assuming you can generate electricity much more efficiently in a large power plant than in a car, then all you need is high energy density storage without waste and a decently efficient electric motor. I don't think current ultracapacitors can store enough energy, but they sure as hell can supply the power requirements right now.
Unfortunately you lose the great V8 / flat 6 noise, but if we've run out of oil or don't want to be held over a barrel by the Middle East, then it'll have to be 1000 bhp battery cars and a throttle sensitive recording of a 4.3 Griff
I heard on the news that the US Department of Energy is funding research into using GM bacteria to generate hydrogen as a metabolic byproduct. This would be far more efficient that using electricity to get it from water.
BTW, when we all go to electric cars and you start your business selling bespoke sound-effects for those who miss the engine noise, don't forget to get a recording of a Speed Six. No offense to the V8 fans out there but the sound of six in a row stirs my heart like no other.
Has anyone heard a Cerbera Speed Twelve? (drool, drool)
lx993 said:
As to antimatter, well that's extremely cool but storage and containment are very dodgy - any failure of the containment system due to a crash would annihilate the entire area
Still much safer and cleaner than fission or fusion reactors though and a VASTLY higher energy yield.
Meditate for a moment on what E=MC2 really means. I used to know how many megajoules one could get out of a given mass of matter but I've forgotten. Anyone got it handy?
Anyway, the non-technical measurement is a f***ing LOT
Or, if you prefer, "more than you can shake a stick at, plus the stick".
Antimatter energy storage:
I'd assume that the destruction of, say, 300 miles' range of antimatter in a crash would produce the same devastation as the explosion of 300 miles' worth of petrol (which is pretty rare).
Out of interest:
Assume 300 miles worth of petrol is something like 50 odd litres. Petrol contains around 32.5 MJ/litre, ie 32.5 x 50 = 1625 MJ (megajoules).
So using E=MC2, this much energy would be supplied by
1625x10^6/(3x10^8)^2) kg of antimatter+matter
ie 9x10^-9 kg of antimatter (bear in mind that equal amounts of matter and anti- are annihilated, the total mass annihilated would be double that ie 1.8x10^-8). Ie, an amount so small you couldn't see it.
That is, 0.000009 grams.
I'd assume that the destruction of, say, 300 miles' range of antimatter in a crash would produce the same devastation as the explosion of 300 miles' worth of petrol (which is pretty rare).
Out of interest:
Assume 300 miles worth of petrol is something like 50 odd litres. Petrol contains around 32.5 MJ/litre, ie 32.5 x 50 = 1625 MJ (megajoules).
So using E=MC2, this much energy would be supplied by
1625x10^6/(3x10^8)^2) kg of antimatter+matter
ie 9x10^-9 kg of antimatter (bear in mind that equal amounts of matter and anti- are annihilated, the total mass annihilated would be double that ie 1.8x10^-8). Ie, an amount so small you couldn't see it.
That is, 0.000009 grams.
Gassing Station | Engines & Drivetrain | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff