×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Where is auto propulsion going?
5

Where is auto propulsion going?

Where is auto propulsion going?

(OP)
I seem to have lost track of all the developments going on these days. Once, there were fuel cells and batteries - and not much more. Some high-speed flywheel storage, perhaps.

Now I am told that there are not only super capacitors but also super batteries. And if that isn't enough, there are compressed nitrogen systems, too.

What else do we have? What seems to be the most promising development lines today? Let's collect some insight and turn into APS:es (Alternative Propulsion Specialists).

Gunnar Englund
www.gke.org
--------------------------------------
100 % recycled posting: Electrons, ideas, finger-tips have been used over and over again...

RE: Where is auto propulsion going?

(OP)
No answer so far. Anyone?

Gunnar Englund
www.gke.org
--------------------------------------
100 % recycled posting: Electrons, ideas, finger-tips have been used over and over again...

RE: Where is auto propulsion going?

Check the automotive forum and where is engineering going forum, theres lots of talk on this subject.

RE: Where is auto propulsion going?

(OP)
Thanks!

Gunnar Englund
www.gke.org
--------------------------------------
100 % recycled posting: Electrons, ideas, finger-tips have been used over and over again...

RE: Where is auto propulsion going?

you'll love it!  Just to let you know,  I'm not a fan of the hybred as marketted, They serve a very small nich, but not he world.

RE: Where is auto propulsion going?

Hi there:

How about hydrogen powered propulsion ...

Thanks,

Gordan Feric, PE
Engineering Software
http://members.aol.com/engware

RE: Where is auto propulsion going?

Hydrogen, don't make me laugh, oh well go ahead...  

Lets see floating solar collectors?  Nuclear plants? Where will the hydrogen come from in large quantities?

RE: Where is auto propulsion going?

Diesel? winky smile

-The future's so bright I gotta wear shades!

Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of the Eng-Tips Forums.
 

 
 

RE: Where is auto propulsion going?

Hi there:

First of all, I would like to thank Eng-Tips.com on providing a forum where engineers can respectfully exchange and share thoughts and/or opinions regarding various engineering topics.

I would like to make my point as an engineer and leave it like that and be willing to respectfully hear input from others on the discussed subject matters.

Hydrogen, hydrogen fueled applications, hydrogen economy, hydrogen commercialization etc. are good topics that people have been working on for many, many years.

As far as I can notice, power generation and transportation industries have been trying for many years to come up with better fuels and more efficient technologies to meet the energy (power and propulsion) demand and needs.

For years, it has been known that the availability of fossil fuels is somehow limited ...

Today, in addition to old and well known industry objectives and goals, global warming is becoming more and more evident and it is obvious that it needs to be addressed one way or the other.

In other to develop and deploy new technologies, huge capital requirements and current industry cost targets make it almost impossible to bring new technologies on line.

Today, successful, widespread and all the time growing need for computers and computer applications is reshaping the way of living -- lifestyle.

With wireless connection to the Internet and use of computer devices, one can say that there is a huge demand for energy on the go -- this kind of energy demand never existed before on a worldwide scale.

I do believe that new demand for energy on the go is the key in successfully developing and deploying commercially viable hydrogen fueled applications.

Therefore, hydrogen can be generated from nuclear power plants and renewable technologies (hydro, solar, wind, ocean, biofuel etc.) -- resulting in using less fossil fuel and having reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

In addition to storing hydrogen as compressed gas, new hydrogen storage technologies are being developed that would allow to ship stored hydrogen by express mail with no possibility of having any explosions and/or harmful accidents when handling such stored hydrogen.

Wireless hydrogen fueled applications can be subject to higher cost structure since there is no grid connection required and different convenience fee can be applied.

Such commercially viable operation would generate sufficient funds to deploy other hydrogen fueled application and/or technologies.

New energy demand on the go would generate additional revenues that through the tax system can be used to subsidize other technologies that cannot compete with conventional technologies and require additional capital to be further developed and deployed.

At this point, this should be enough to get some discussions going.

I am willing to further elaborate and support some of my thoughts on how to provide enough hydrogen for hydrogen fueled applications and how to get the hydrogen economy going.

I am looking forward to hearing additional comments.

Thanks,

Gordan Feric, PE
Engineering Software
http://members.aol.com/engware

RE: Where is auto propulsion going?

(OP)
Hydrogen made someone laugh...

Is that because hydrogen makes you happy? Or because you have such deep insights that you can rule hydrogen out, once and for all?

I have worked rather close (visited, discussed technology, run tests) with some of the key future users of hydrogen in fuel cells. It was some years ago, so that's why I asked what is happening.

The alternative energy that shall be used in future cars has to be produced somewhere. That is true for hydrogen, for super capacitors, for super batteries, for compressed nitrogen or any other energy form.

So, the question "Floating solar panels? Nuclear plants?" is not unique to hydrogen. It is a question that we have to ask, regardless of energy storage technology used.

I was recommended to move this thread over to the automotive forum, but I think that we can have a less biased discussion in this forum (energy conversion). So, I am eager to get some more input. Someone that has a full picture? Will bio-fuels be the future?

Gunnar Englund
www.gke.org
--------------------------------------
100 % recycled posting: Electrons, ideas, finger-tips have been used over and over again...

RE: Where is auto propulsion going?

4
The cheapest fuel that can be put on the existing market will be the future.

At this point that has been petroleum derived fuels.  When those become so expensive that other alternatives are available at a lower cost and viably able to be delivered to market, the market will change over to those.

Myself, I think that we are about to see the appearance of light distillate fuels derived from any or all of the following; (stranded) natural gas, coal, bio refuse, in other words, any hydrocarbon that can be made into a syn-gas and reconstructed to a marketable fuel over catalysts.

Unless....the folks that have their hand on the throttle of the price of petroleum wise up and drop the prices enough to drive costs of the above (and other) processes too high to be practical.

The technologies mentioned above are not new, they have been around for years.  They just weren't cost competitive compared to refining petroleum oil at $25-50.00/bbl.

Some geopolitical factors will trump prices in certain niches.  The US Air Force has realized that it flies on petroleum based fuels that come from volatile (no pun intended) regions of the world where supplies can be interrupted especially in time of (big time) war, so they are pouring $$$ into the development of coal derived fuel distillates since this country (USA) has lots of coal reserves.

There is plenty of Natural Gas around the world but in lots of places there is no nearby market for it.  With the prices of petroleum derived automotive (and power plant) fuels now at record or near record levels, suddenly it is approaching being cost effective to liquefy that NG to make distillates that the environmental folks find more palatable (to the extent that they find any fuel palatable) in that it has no sulphur and it pollutes less.

Google the words "Fisher Tropsch" "GTL", "CTL" (gas to liquids & Coal to Liquids) for an interesting read.  There are plenty of big name folks involved in bringing this technology to the fore.  I think they know something.

Hydrogen, are you kidding?  With the foregoing in mind, the reasonable question is where is the hydrogen going to come from?  Nuclear power-not in the country that is the biggest single user of automotive fuels at this time or in my lifetime (I already may have one foot in the grave).

From hydrocarbons?  Anyone who has done the research knows that producing hydrogen from hydrocarbon fuels releases more carbon into the atmosphere on a 'well to wheel' basis than just burning the gasoline and diesel produced from the same source.  Do the research.  It is out there.

Nuclear-yes it would work, but who is going to make the investment in a nuclear plant to produce hydrogen for a market that doesn't exist.  Cars would have to be burning a lot of hydrogen for some one to ante up what just one nuclear plant costs anywhere in the world.  They don't do that kind of stuff on the come.

The reason that the liquids from (stranded) NG, coal and other sources is viable is that the infrastructure for delivering it to the end user, the automobile driver (or home heater) is already in place.  The only thing that changes is the source (and cost) of the liquid.

In the end, the $$$ (or whatever the money symbol for your country is) is the driver, not well intentioned or even efficient ideas.

Now you have my $.02 worth.

rmw

RE: Where is auto propulsion going?

To All:

I do believe that this is the right forum for the given subject matter.

Yes, I agree with you guys.

The capital requirements are huge and it is difficult to bring new technologies, that are well known technologies, on line due to current cost targets.

Eventually, it will be hydrogen as the ultimate fuel and/or energy carrier, but in order to get there it will be hydrocarbon fuels with the amount of hydrogen geting a larger share until it is all hydrogen.

I do enjoy hearing your comment and thoughts.

I can get the feeling that you have been in the energy conversion industry for a long time and that the issues and commercialization problems are well known to you -- slow and long commercialization process, huge capital requirements, hard to comepete on cost basis with proven technologies etc.

Thanks,

Gordan Feric, PE
Engineering Software
http://members.aol.com/engware

RE: Where is auto propulsion going?

GTL plants are in design and  construction, that is why I mentioned diesel above. Taking cheap natural gas in the middle east and converting it to clean diesel and then shipping it to Europe is coming soon.

-The future's so bright I gotta wear shades! happy shades

Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of the Eng-Tips Forums.
 

 
 

RE: Where is auto propulsion going?

I read recently somewhere that over 55% of new vehicles sold in Europe are diesel and the percentage is growing.  They will probably be the first to soak up the coming GTL distillates, but we in the colonies will soon catch on as we usually do.

I can't wait until some power companies figure out that they can barge some lower cost GTL distillate into some of their dual fuel capable or convertible plants located nearby to water ways and they tell the natural gas companies where to stick their high priced gas.

I am assuming that we all understand that is a place where the sun don't shine.

Liquid fuels can be burned in a lot of present day combustion equipment, boilers, combustion turbines, etc.

I only hope that the GTL distillate marketers don't get greedy and remember to keep the price per therm just a little less than the price of delivered NG or LNG.

If they do, the fuel world is theirs for a long time to come as I see it.

Feric, with all due respect, I think that hydrogen as a fuel is the pipe dream in our life times and the lifetimes of even our kids.

After that....who knows.

But then, go back 200 years and try to tell a whale oil salesman that his job was in in jeopardy.

rmw

RE: Where is auto propulsion going?

I believe that gaseous fuels should only be used to heat homes, no conversions to liquids.  The reason is that they transport in an infastructure that exists, the cost to convert to liquids is a loss of overall energy. and they just work safely that way.

Liquid hydrocarbons should be used for transportation because they carry a lot of energy per volume (on a per mass basis, they are all they same).  They are safe to transport and use in the liquid phase.

Electrcity should come from nuclear or coal.  You could make gaseous fuels and liquids from these sources.  Electricty should be the majority of the energy used.  Cars are goo for short haul trips, hydrogen could be used to fill in gaps or as batteries in the form of fuel cells.

Hydrogen is just a battery, it had to control, make, and store.  If we convert water to hydrogen and let it escape, that is worse than global warming, if we let H2 go to the atmosphere, its gone forever, never to be recaptured, bye bye, the hydrogen cycle is more precious than the carbon.

HOWEVER, politics won't let us build nukes, so we do just the opposite of what is right to do.  To add to the problems, all the people who want to change live in CA and they will not support a change if it means doing something in their backyard.  Once you have named me benevelant dictator for life, I'd just make all the states become energy nuetral before they could become carbon nuetral, that would get everyone moving forward.

RE: Where is auto propulsion going?

Pipehead has a good point.  As clean as it seems, water vapor is a green house gas.  You can only contain so much of it.  Not to get on the subject of global warming, though.  I just attended a seminar that informed me the Earth is approximately 1.5 degrees farenheit warmer now than it was 120 years ago.  I'd like to know if that is in fact accurate.

Compressed air has been an experimental source.  We may in the near future see compressed air pumped storage facilities as well as the water ones we have today.  There is a compressed air van that was able to make a 100 km journey without refueling.  Compressed air is kind of like a battery.  You put power in, and you get 80% or so back.

There are tons of alternative energy sources arounds us.  But it seems harnessing enough energy to make it useful and/or making it cheap is problematic.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it is broken, fix it.  If it isn't broken, I'll soon fix that.

RE: Where is auto propulsion going?

Think about a battery, you have the efficency of charging it, the loss during non use, the efficency when it's used. The battery whether it's electro chemical or compressed air, everytime you get away from the primary energy conversion system, you get less efficient.

RE: Where is auto propulsion going?

Dear dcasto:

I do appreciate your post and opinion.

However, I have a hypotetical question for you.

If you use a "free" energy source/input and you can have a fully commercial operation and application from such an energy conversion system, why does it matter that you are getting less output than it is being put in and such an energy conversion system could have no emissions with no fossil fuel consumption ...???

Thanks,

Gordan Feric, PE
Engineering Software
http://members.aol.com/engware

RE: Where is auto propulsion going?

No free lunches.  OK hydro maybe close to free, solar and wind too. These have economic and social impacts. So if the first step, making electricity (or energy) is assumed to be 100% efficient because its "free" what about the other steps is storeing, transporting and retrieving the energy?
If an electrochemical battery takes 1 KW to produce .7 KW later, would that not be better than a mechanical spring that only returns .5 KW?

 If the energy is free, use it in real time to get the most out of it.

RE: Where is auto propulsion going?

Dear dcasto:

You are "good" and you do know what the issues and parameters are when discussing power generation (electricity) and having commercial operation.

What I would like to say is than you cannot use the energy directly -- it needs to be used off the grid and stored in a battery or in a form of hydrogen, which is an energy carrier, to make it a profitable energy operation (meet the demand for energy on the go) before you could use it directly -- from the grid.

When you get a chance, please try to go over one of my earlier posts and try to find out if it makes any sense to you.  

dcasto, it is good having energy and enegineering discussions with you.

Thanks,

Gordan Feric, PE
Engineering Software
http://members.aol.com/engware

RE: Where is auto propulsion going?

stranded energy will always need some solutions.  The problem is non mainstream enrgy that can not be used with the infastructures in place is not going to happen. Hydrogen as an energy transfer medium will not work because there is nothing that can use it readily.  You may be able to set up some isolated area that can use the hydrogen, but what happens when the isolated energy that makes the hydrogen breaksdown, you'll have a lot of cold customers.

There are a lot of cool engineering solutions to problems that will not be marketable.  There's a huge amount of energy just a few feet below ground level call tar sands, we have novel ways of getting it, but the water use and high levels of tar makes it unmarketable.

Now, that said, it doesn't mean we don't keep on solving problems with engineering.  How about a modified coal gasification and syncrude that uses the hydrogen to make hydrocarbons?  

In the early 90's there was a glut of hydrogen in south Texas, new regs came along requiring more hydrotreating and the hydrogen dried up. I'm glad I didn't switch to hydrogen energy back then because hydrogen is going for multiples of natural gas in $/MMBTU.

RE: Where is auto propulsion going?

There are places in the US where wind can produce all the power required to power the whole country ( when the wind blows).  There arn't many people in those place so it's likely you could erect the 100,000 or so wind turbines to generate the power.
If you do the math on how much power various section of the country use and then see what kind of transmission lines you need to get the power from the upper mid west to the east cost you can come up with a scenario that no one would like. At 345 KV AC or 500 DC it means a swath of power line 5 or 6 miles wide.
You could generate hydrogen at the generation site and ship all that power out in arelatively small pipe.  There are fuel cell in service that would just fit in the typical distribution substation.  That's as far as I think you would ever see hydrogen go. Pipe lines can be "packed" to allow for times when the wind doesn't blow.
  Even when liquified hydrogen doesn't have the power density to make good fuel for cars.  Some synthetic fuels have densitys of 140-150,000 BTUs gallon. The equivalent in Hydrogen would mean towing the goodyear blimp around behing your car.  
Someday we'll have vehicles powered by hydrogen fusion.  The reactors will fuse two hydrogen atoms at time, maby every 10 or 15 seconds.  A small flask of deturium will last longer than the vehicle. After a few centurys of powering cars and industry with such engines people will start to talk with higher and higher pitched voices, the sign of the next envrionmental crisis.

RE: Where is auto propulsion going?

BJC:

Interesting post.

I am glad to hear that there are some other people who also believe in renewable energy, hydrogen and other ways of generating electricity and/or providing transportation, their market penetration and commercialization ...

Thanks,

Gordan Feric, PE
Engineering Software
http://members.aol.com/engware

RE: Where is auto propulsion going?

OK, here's the Hydrogen economy.  lets look at a 900 Mw site.  If you were to put up enough solar panels to generate this amout (24-7) you would need 39 square miles of panels.  You would need 8 square miles to erect wind turbines.  If the electricity were used to make hydrogen, you would need 1,200,000 gallons of water per day and you would get 200,000,000 cubic feet of hydrogen per day. If you had to run the hydrogen 500 miles to a market, you'd need a 12" pipeline costing $420,000,000, you would need 75,000 horsepower of compression costing $130,000,000 and the system would consume 20% of the hydrogen you created. based on a 10 year payout, you would have $.00125/cf of hydrogen or $3.85/MMBTU in just transportation costs.

Natural gas transportation would be $325,000,000 for pipe and $40,000,000 for compression and only 5% of the fuel would be used for a $1.75/MMBTU transportation cost.

Any electric guys know what 500 miles of line sending out 650 Mw would cost?

RE: Where is auto propulsion going?

Dear dcasto:

Yes, you are right with your post about the costs when hydrogen is produced by the power generation industry and then used by the power generation industry to generate electricity.

Based upon your post and the numbers that you provide, one can conclude that such hydrogen generation and use is just not economical and cannot compete with the proven power generation technologies on the cost basis.

Let me try one more time to make my point about transitioning to the hydrogen economy.

Here is a part of my earlier post:

"Today, successful, widespread and all the time growing need for computers and computer applications is reshaping the way of living -- lifestyle.

With wireless connection to the Internet and use of computer devices, one can say that there is a huge demand for energy on the go -- this kind of energy demand never existed before on a worldwide scale.

I do believe that the new demand for energy on the go is the key in successfully developing and deploying commercially viable hydrogen fueled applications.

Therefore, hydrogen can be generated from nuclear power plants and renewable technologies (hydro, solar, wind, ocean, biofuel etc.) -- resulting in using less fossil fuel and having reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

In addition to storing hydrogen as compressed gas, new hydrogen storage technologies are being developed that would allow to ship stored hydrogen by express mail with no possibility of having any explosions and/or harmful accidents when handling such stored hydrogen.

Wireless hydrogen fueled applications can be subject to higher cost structure since there is no grid connection required and different convenience fee can be applied.

Such commercially viable operation would generate sufficient funds to deploy other hydrogen fueled application and/or technologies.

New energy demand on the go would generate additional revenues that through the tax system can be used to subsidize other technologies that cannot compete with conventional technologies and require additional capital to be further developed and deployed."
  
dcasto, I would appreciate if you could give another consideration to my post about how to transition to the hydrogen economy -- using fuels with less CO2 emissions and as a result helping reduce the impact of global warming on the economy and climate ...

Thanks,

Gordan Feric, PE
Engineering Software
http://members.aol.com/engware

RE: Where is auto propulsion going?

OK, I picked the 900 Mw case to tag onto Bill Hannahan paper on Things Everyone Should Know About Energy.  If you want Energy in your house, you are gonna have to pay to have it delivered there, end of story.  Transportating Hydrogen is stupid, its like buying batteries in Chicago and driving them to be used in LA, why?  The process to electricute water to Hydrogen is 75% eff at best and the transportation is 75% at best and its use in a fuel cell is 80%, net 45% efficency.  Put the same energy on the grid in electricity and your at 50% to 75% and the transportation cost is probabily 30% that of hydrogen.

If you electricute sea water, you don't just get Hydrogen, you get all kinds of other things to deal with, Chlorine is one.  There are as many NIMBY's out there complaining about Chlorine as nuclear plant complainers, tell them you want to make Chlorine right next to the wind farm on the Pacific coast for a fun time.

Just make electricity in a 900 MW plant that costs 1/10 a solar farm, put it on a new beefed up grid, run electric cars that have 120 mile ranges before recharging (make a standardized battery pack that can be popped in and out every 100 miles).  Increase the freway size (go from 5 lanes to 6) to handle the slower traffic or better yet, electric trains in the new lane.

RE: Where is auto propulsion going?

(OP)
I do not understand "electricute". What does it mmean?

Gunnar Englund
www.gke.org
--------------------------------------
100 % recycled posting: Electrons, ideas, finger-tips have been used over and over again...

RE: Where is auto propulsion going?

Dear dcasto:

Here is my final hypothetical energy question.

As we know, the world fossil fuels quantities are "limited".

One day, when there is no more fossil fuel to be used and at the moment hydrogen does not appear to be a viable energy solution, what does the world do in order to keep going forward -- what happens to energy generation, transportation, global warming etc.?

dcasto, I would like to hear your view on this hypothetical energy question.

Thanks,

Gordan Feric, PE
Engineering Software
http://members.aol.com/engware

RE: Where is auto propulsion going?

Electricute is a slang term I used for the process of making hydrogen from
The chlor-alkali process uses naturally-occurring salt (in the form of brine) to produce two major products: caustic soda and elemental chlorine, plus hydrogen. The sodium chloride brine is electrolyzed to produce chlorine at the positive electrode (anode) and sodium hydroxide and hydrogen at the negative electrode (cathode). The electrolysis reaction is shown below.

2NaCl(aq) + 2H20 + electricity = Anode Cl2(gas) + Cathode H2(gas) + 2NaOH(aq)

Global warming is going to hapen no matter what, so drop that from the picture.  

My philosophy is stop the big SUV game of mines bigger than yours. Do other consevation based things that some of us have done (ok we are bring them up again). Start building more Nukes and coal electric plants. Commuter cars can be plug in electric. Diesel, kerosen and gasoline used on multi person vehicles or frieght only.  Natural gas used only to heat homes and cook food.

NEVER EVER use food for fuel.

As for limited, there are some theories that the earths core may have methane in it. We have found methane in precambrian rocks.  Some plants and their moons have methane, so there maybe more energy out there.

RE: Where is auto propulsion going?

The fossil fuels are gonna run out.  Were gonna be doing something or were going to living in caves.  There have supposedly been several species of humans in the past and they didn't work out.  We may just be the latest failure.
This thread i look on as brainstorming.  You have to consider all ideal even the ones that seem impossible.

Try going to a steam show sometimes, ones where they have steam tractors etc.  There is always someone there with old gas or kerosene engines. Looka at one of those and then look at the computerized engine in your car. The guy who had one of those a hundred years ago to churn butter or cut wood would be amazed by todays engine technology.

So what may we have in a hundred years?  The 2107 dilithium powered Corvette? Prewound super rubber bands that power a car for 3000 miles?
If you says nothing is going to work and don't try remember there won't be enough caves for all of us.

RE: Where is auto propulsion going?

dcasto and others:

Thank you for addressing my hypothetical energy questions in a highly professional manner.

It turns out that our opinions and views are different.

However, I do respect your feedback and thoughts and that is the way it is.

Also, I would like to thank Eng-Tips.com for hosting such forums and providing a nice environment where people can express their views.

In the end, everybody is richer after a good opinion exchange.

I am looking forward to hearing other opinions.

Thanks,

Gordan Feric, PE
Engineering Software
http://members.aol.com/engware

RE: Where is auto propulsion going?

feric, Whats up your sleave? BJC, what plan are you working on?

"Hope is not a plan."

RE: Where is auto propulsion going?

dcasto:

What do you mean?

I do not understand the question ...

Thanks,

Gordan Feric, PE
Engineering Software
http://members.aol.com/engware

RE: Where is auto propulsion going?

"Hope is not a plan."
But a plan without hope is what?

The naysayers will not lead us, except back to the cabes.  
You have to a few dreamers, they have helped us over humps in the past and will in the future.  

RE: Where is auto propulsion going?

I have said it before in this forum and I will have to say it again.  About the turn of the last century there were a coupld of burning issues.  One was that horses weren't able to breed fast enough so that everyone would be assured of transportation in the future, and another was that for the horses that they were, storing their solid waste was an enormous issue, especially in large cities like NYC.  They barged tons, literally tons of manure to sea and dumped it every day.

Now, on a parallel track, a guy named Henry Ford was working on a concept to streamline the production of what would become to be known as the automobile.  Early autos were crude by modern standards, but my point is that Henry Ford's goal wasn't to solve the horse breeding/manure problem, it was to make a buck.

Somewhere out there right now is the Henry Ford of our generation working on some cockamamie idea that will be the gold standard in the latter part of this century.  It will be crude by standards of the future, but it will supplant what we do now.  And, it won't be to solve global warming, or the disappearance of fossil fuels, it will be to make a buck.

rmw

RE: Where is auto propulsion going?

rmw:

You are making an excellent point.

In my opinion, it is the computer industry and in particular the wireless computer industry.

Wireless computer/phone applications are energy demanding applications.  Batteries just cannot satisfy their always growing need for energy.

In my opinion it has to be a hydrogen fueled wireless computer/phone application operation, which just does not care about global warming, limited availability of fossil fuel, energy conversion laws etc. and because of being able to make a buck it does solve the problem of power generation and transportation industries where new technologies just cannot compete on a cost basis with old and proven technologies even though their potential benefits beat and surpass the benefits and solve the problems generated by the operatrion of proven technologies.  

The bottom line is that such hydrogen fueled wireless computer/phone application operation does have commercial viability and does make a buck in the end -- ~ $600.00 for an iPhone and in the U.S. 500,000 units were sold when the device got released, and their is a backorder for another 500,000.

That is exactly my point that I have been trying to make over and over and I have come short in delivering my point to this audience until now because of technical issues and laws ...

Thanks,

Gordan Feric, PE
Engineering Software
http://members.aol.com/engware

RE: Where is auto propulsion going?

The first Ford to run on hydrogen was in 1983, 25 years to market isn't going to cut it and at 3 times the capital, nope.  

Just run the thing on batteries, no highly flammable containers at 3000 psi beside, you expend about 10% of the hydrogen energy just to put it in the bottles, throw that into the effiency of THE SYSTEM.

RE: Where is auto propulsion going?

dcasto:

I do appreciate your opinion.

Again, there is nothing wrong having an opinion on the subject matter.

The US is about progress and moving forward.  This country has a proven record of raising the bar on no matter what the technology, issue and problem is.  

In the end, impossible becomes possible and doable.  

From the bottom of my heart, I do believe that hydrogen economy is knocking on the door and it will come, sooner or later, big time in all areas of future lifestyle.  

At this point, I am going to bring this discussion to an end with the following statement:  Let time be the judge and show us about the hydrogen potential and numereous applications that it will have in the near future ...

I am a patient person.  In a few years down the road , it will be my pleasure to ask you again, if you would allow me to do so, for you opinion on hydrogen economy and have another professional discussion on the subject matter.  

I do believe that next time, when we have a discussion on hydrogen fueled applications, our views won't be as much different as they are now!

God bless America ...

Thanks,

Gordan Feric, PE
Engineering Software
http://members.aol.com/engware

RE: Where is auto propulsion going?

In the paper, Dr. Anthrop calculates that it takes approximately 8 kWh of input energy to a coal-fired power plant to deliver one kWh of energy to a passenger automobile using hydrogen fuel cells as the delivering technology. On average, one kWh of energy will drive a typical passenger vehicle two miles down the road. To replace all of the gasoline consumed by the passenger vehicles driven 2.53 trillion miles in the US in 2000 would require approximately 10 trillion kWh of input energy to new coal-fired power plants. At 40% efficiency, those new plants would generate about 4 trillion kWh. In 2004, existing US coal-fired power plants generated approximately 2 trillion kWh, so converting all of the gasoline powered vehicles to hydrogen fuel cells would require building new coal-fired power plants with the capacity twice the existing
plants. Also, converting from gasoline to coal power plant-produced hydrogen would emit approximately 3.2 times the carbon dioxide as emitted by retaining gasoline as the motor fuel.
Of course, it is not necessary to generate the electricity by burning coal; it can be generated by nuclear or natural gas-fired power plants. Replacing all the gasoline with hydrogen would require approximately 4 trillion kWh of new nuclear power plant capacity. In 2004 nuclear power plants in the US generated only 0.79 billion kWh. Therefore, to replace all of the gasoline consumed by vehicles in the US with hydrogen powered fuel cells would require the
building of 3.2 trillion kWh of new nuclear power plants, a significant environmental and economic challenge.

1 Anthrop, Donald, “Hydrogen’s Empty Environmental Promise”, CATO Institute Briefing Papers, December 7, 2004


Using natural gas to generate the 4 trillion kWh of power required to replace gasoline with hydrogen would require burning a staggering 28 TCF per year of gas in small localized 85-megawatt power plants or 24 TCF per year in large centralized 1,000 megawatt power plants.
This is more natural gas than was consumed for all purposes in the US in 2003. The obvious question is: why burn 24-28 TCF of natural gas to produce the hydrogen to replace motor
gasoline when you can replace the same motor gasoline with only 16 TCF of natural gas as CNG? Not only would it be more energy efficient and less expensive, but also the carbon dioxide emissions would be 33 to 43% less than that of the natural gas-fired power plants. The added advantage in converting to CNG is that the carbon dioxide emitted from the vehicles is approximately 33% less than that emitted by gasoline. See Table 2 for a comparison of energy
efficiency for the various sources of hydrogen and CNG fuel. Table 3 compares the increase or decrease in carbon dioxide emissions by replacing the gasoline consumed by passenger vehicles in 2000 with either hydrogen or CNG to the carbon dioxide emitted by those gasoline powered
passenger vehicles in 2000.

Tables that show effiencies that I've already stated earlier where H2 effiencies are real low...

It appears obvious that replacing the current fleet of motor gasoline-powered vehicles with hydrogen-fueled vehicles is more a myth than a Messiah; or if it is in our future, we will be paying a heavy environmental and economic price for both the hydrogen-generating facilities
and overall energy efficiency. As to the other predictions presented in this paper, the important thing is not whether you agree with the consensus opinions, but that you are aware of, and are planning for possible future events that may significantly impact our industry.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources