Where Are All the Hydrogen Cars?

A valid point sir (ma'am?). I am aware of the slipperiness of the hydrogen molecule. Though it seems you are only considering hydrogen in it's gaseous state. In it's liquid state, most of the issues you mentioned are less difficult.

The numbers I have seen suggest a 1% per day evaporation rate for liquid hydrogen in competent storage. Which makes storage and transportation a much simpler proposition, and eliminates the need to produce it on-site. Indeed, I wouldn't wonder if the evaporated hydrogen could not be tapped to drive refrigeration and pressurization equipment as needed.

Metal hydrides are an interesting technology, but charging and recovery times are a major issue, as is the heat of recovery, especially considering hydrogen's volatile nature.

I agree that batteries seem to be a more viable solution for commuter use. A battery powered automobile is a simpler proposition than one running on cryogenic hydrogen. Never-the-less, when greater range and greater power levels are an issue, liquid hydrogen seems, at present, to be the best option.

And consider, while it would require four times the tankage volume for liquid hydrogen to equal the stored energy of gasoline, the actual stored mass would be about a third. Of course the tankage itself would tend to be a bit heavier, but the larger the tank, the less this is an issue.

So, just for an example, an over-the-road, turbine powered tractor could be quite easily designed with perhaps a 4000 liter tank, which would give the machine performance and range very comparable to a modern diesel, with virtually zero emissions. And, in an automobile designed for touring, powered by a small turbine or fuel cells and electric motors, a 100 liter tank would not be too difficult to work around, and would still give good range.

And, it is probably worth at least mentioning that for air travel, hydrogen is the only zero-emission alternative that exists, though one does wonder about all of that water vapor being dumped into the stratosphere.

Thanks Moose, for finally answering to the question I launched a year ago: the effect of burning H₂ in an ICE on the NO_x formation: it is indeed getting worse.

What bothers me the most is the energy needed to do the complete hydrogen cycle.

It is known that the efficacy of hydrogen generation is approx 65% when done in a decent way. Having to liquefy the gas at 20K is also consuming energy. (= €)

Keeping the low temperature is consuming again energy. (= €)

At the end the cycle is costing more energy than the hydrogen is supplying.

What is the size and weight of a 100 l storage with all needed equipment? I would not be surprised that it is more than a battery with the same energy content. This weight has to be accelerated and as the cycle is not reversible (not in an ICE nor in a fuel cell) again hydrogen is loosing efficacy over batteries.

IF we would stop consuming hydrocarbons for stupid things like household heating and daily commuting, the reserves would last much longer. High speed trains run on electricity, for short distance transportation (less than 1000km) trains are a good alternative.

Electricity is the only form of energy which we really can produce sustainable. A mix of alternative harvesting techniques can solve up to 90% of our actual needs.

The remaining 10% will have to be solved by intelligence and good housekeeping.

ps. I'm male

Go to,United Nuclear.com to learn about a hydrogen process that has been around for years, and actually used to run a ICE. CR4 is a great way to network technical information at the speed of light.

I see that my research into metal hydride storage may have been incomplete. Never-the-less, the problems of slow hydrogen production and charging times seem to me to limit the mentioned system's utility, and chains one to one's home and hydrogen production system. I will concede that hydrides are a safer way to store hydrogen fuel, but until they can be recharged as quickly and as easily as filling a tank with gasoline, or liquid hydrogen for that matter, they will remain impractical.

Furthermore, as I mentioned previously, piston engines burning hydrogen still produce massive quantities of oxides of nitrogen, which result in nitric acid rain. This has to argue against the thing.

No sir, the desiderata here is two-fold. To emplace a new fuel system which allows all of the range, carrying capacity and convenience of fossil fuel without being dependent upon oil, and which eliminates environmental pollution as much as possible.

With this in mind, battery powered commuter cars and hydrogen fueled long-range ground and air transport seem to me to be a more desirable solution, ultimately, though systems like you have mentioned are certainly a step in the right direction.

Is that assured for Compressed Natural Gas Vehicles as well regarding the few drawbacks you have mentioned or just plain Natural Gas Fuel-Cells? Also when could we see Methane Fuel-Cells or the more advanced Diesel Fuel-Cells which are being made for refrigeration purposes but that are illegal to use in America because the government has a ban on their idle use in parking lots where truck stops occupy, or the more advanced Coal Fuel-Cells which also utilize a Methane capture and Methane Fuel-Cell? These are just the tip of the iceberg while I would figure that sometime in the near future a Sea Water Fuel-Cell. But are we not thinking to create a Electrostatic Motor which runs from a Van de Graaff Generator and which powers a Electric Generator in Step-up fashion, such a motor is shown here: http://members.shaw.ca/srchase/motor.mpg which is a simple soda bottle.

The HYDROGEN car is READY and being stored in large warehouses in Detroit..

Waiting for YOU to develop a network of service/filling stations to to provide the refueling ability in every burg in 50 states.

--Duck

can you specify which juice of the dino we use?

Hi,

I drive a hydrogen (assist) powered car, and built a hydrogen fuel cell under my shade tree last spring for less then $5. (am using 12v at 5 amps from my car battery/electrical system)

I can generate hydrogen from my solar PV cells, too, but I can only buy watts a few at a time. My car battery emits hydrogen, too.

Am spending most of my bucks to buy Beans and Spam to get over this financial bail-out bump.

Best Regards,

DRS

________________________________________________________________

We cannot see the forest since the trees get in the way.

Gwen is right. Burning this raw gas requires venting the fumes and cleaning the jets frequently. Due to carbon buildup I've had my burner go out which resulted in the studio filling up with gas.

Advise caution.

Hydrogen is the pie in the sky that keeps us waiting while the oil companies make more money. Hydrogen is an energy storage material, not a fuel, H has to be made either from oil or water and it takes a lot of electricity to make it. Making the electricity requires more nuclear, coal or hydropower. H makes the metal tanks it is stored in get brittle and it leaks through. H can be stored as a liquid near absolute zero, as a compressed gas or in a metal hydride which is heavy. To use H in a car as a liquid requires some heavy-duty refrigeration that eats power, hydrides to give a range the same as a tank of gas would weigh about 1500 lbs.. Compressed to 10,000 psi it would need a tank of H five times the size of a gasoline tank for the same range. H is not a practical method of energy storage.

Keep the government out of it or we will wind up with a complete mess. Just look at the mess they made of the "bailout".

For hydrogen to be used as a fuel, there must be plentiful, cheap electrical power. And the only ways to do that without pouring even more pollutants unto the sky and defeating the purpose are to build whole bunches of new nukes or to get moving on solar power satellites. Earth-based solar, wind, tide, all are too low-yield at this point to provide the levels of electrical power needed, and fusion remains elusive. And, bio-fuels divert essential food production.

Given that the idea is to get completely away from hydrocarbon fuels, and I do believe that we all agree to the ultimate necessity of this, we have but two options for long range ground transport, and those are liquid hydrogen and massive advances in storage battery technology. For air transport, liquid hydrogen is the only possibility because of the needed energy levels. Unless and until fusion becomes available, and barring some kind of major breakthrough, these are our options.

Now I will grant that electric rail is a possibility for over-land freight and passenger, but how many of us want to get where we are going and be reduced to foot or rented commuter cars?

This requires a lot more thought.

You need re-think you're thoughts dude...

Indeed. I agree, but would you care to help point me in a better direction? I would be curious to hear your thoughts.

Hi Dr. Moose,

Our greatest desire to survive may be when we are drowning in an ocean, and we may surviee, if and only if (logic), we know how to swim.

Please refer to National Geographics October 2007, and see the whole list of ideas to solve the humanity energy problem (the big picture).

My professor once told me, that the answer to any problem comes from knowing exactly what the problem is. Hey, this is great, "we can communicate until we get it right!"

Photon Phreak

Sir. I shall see if I can find the issue you spoke of. But let me just amplify one point. The idea in all of this is to leave as little a "footprint" as we possibly can on this rock we call home. Yes?

I like the idea of hydrogen as fuel since it's only combustion by-product is water vapor. I like nuclear power because it is similarly clean, and it's by-products are actually pretty easy to deal with, or at least they would be if we didn't have all of these environmental wackos raising such a fuss and a congress which pays more attention to them than to engineers and scientists. I like solar power satellites even better, for all kinds of reasons, not least because I've been space-crazy since I was a small boy during the Gemini program.

More than anything else, I think it important that we get away from hydrocarbon fuels, since any HC fuel releases carbon by-products into the atmosphere. And while our planet is pretty good at cleaning itself up, we have no idea at what point it might tip over into a run-away greenhouse effect, which is what some think may have been what turned Venus into a hell-world.

Apparently you didn't do alot of research the main problem with hydrogen cars and why they are not out yet is due to the production process of hydrogen. To produce large amounts of hydrogen it takes a lot of electricity which is produced generally by burning coal so To produce large enough amounts to meet the potential demand it would be polluting more than a regular car. As of right now it is not the ideal form of transportation.

Please reread my last post. I did address that problem. My apologies if I was not specific enough for you. Coal is in fact a hydrocarbon fuel, just like oil, and hydrocarbons are dirty fuel. We need to get away from hydrocarbons as fuel and stop pumping pollutants into our atmosphere. The only way to do that on the scale required is through building lots of new nuclear fission power plants or solar power satellites, barring a breakthrough in nuclear fusion. As I said previously, earth based solar, wind, tide, just do not produce enough power per installed unit to make the difference.

Hydrogen is just a clean way to get this energy on to the road. As one writer previously commented, hydrogen is a way to store energy, it is not an energy source. In this regard it is no different than a battery. And yes, it's not the most efficient way to store energy either. However, for long range over the road transport and for air transport, it is a question of energy density, not efficiency. Present battery technology simply cannot store enough energy per unit mass for practical air or long range ground. Hydrogen can.

HOW EVER This is not an immediate solution, it is long term. At present, we have a massive hydrocarbon infrastructure, and that just ain't gonna change over night. The problem is not simply technical but also economic, and there is a lot of money tied up in oil and coal, which amounts to a lot of economic inertia.

hi Moose,

i still think that natural gas is the better way to go. it is not perfect as far as distribution, but is getting better all the time. i would guess that the majority of the homes in america are plumbed to natural gas. this along with the wall mounted compressor for the garage which is already on the market, means that you can bypass the usual oil distribution system thru gas stations. this was one of the reasons that the oil companies prefered hydrogen as the alternative, because you would still need to drive to their fueling stations. same business model. well with natural gas, you can buy from the local utility, which already supplies natural gas to your home.

if you couple this with an electric vehicle hybrid, then, you get the benifits of no hydrocarbon burning as long as you stay close to home, which is what most driving is. note the vehicle accident statistic that 75% of accidents occur within 25 miles of home. the only major infrastructural change needed would be to run additional underground natural gas distribution lines along the major freeways thruout the united states. this would dramaticly reduce propane use, and allow a larger percentage of america to get onto the natural gas grid.

this combination beats the heck out of anything hydrogen will ever be. the largest benift is that the local utility becomes your sole energy supplier. they buy in bulk and are regulated. the existing system of delivery at your local gasoline station is totaly unregulated and is based on maximizing someones profits at the very lowest, local level, with all of the benifits flowing upwards in a pyramid towards the fattest cats at the top. just look at the price of natural gas compared to gasoline or diesel. yes, that could change. but the distribution system is different. natural gas does not need to be shipped to a refinery, where it can be broken down into its different parts then distributed to you. it starts at the oil field, is scrubbed, pumped into the distribution pipelines right to your house. bypassing all of those middlemen, (read this as meaning bottom feeding, scum suckers).

yes natural gas is still a hydrocarbon. but it has some good points. fairly clean, fairly abundent, reasonably priced, no technology needing to be invented, no distribution system needing to be invented, no waiting, all the pieces are already in production, all proven technology, no pie in the sky scam diversion, no waiting until "someday". does not need coal or nuclear fission. yes the electrical grid may need upgrading, but it already does, just to accept the power needed from solar and wind.

Although NG works well in an IC engine, burning as a forced draft open flame is cleaner. An external combustion engine, such as a steam engine, is about 25% efficient as compared to about 12% efficiency for an IC engine. So a plug-in EV with a generator powered by a very efficient steam engine would be an even better alternative,

At least fuels made from plants are essentially carbon neutral. We could genetically engineer plants to produce fuel that would grow well on land not suited to food crops. Yet for a time we must rely on whatever energy sources we have and be very careful not to increase energy costs to the consumer lest we reduce our standard of living. It may take many decades to develop the alternatives and the government can only mess it up as they did Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Lobbyists for those two paid off Sens. Dodd, Obama, Shumer and Frank to take no action to regulate them. What do you think lobbyists will do with politicians like these controlling big-money energy programs for the government? Keep the government out of it.

Hello Guest,

I have been into AE for over thirty years, and two independent businesses, and guess what, there is enough solar radiant energy striking the earth in one hour to power the entire human race' needs for one year.

We don't need coal, we don't need nuclear, we don't need oil. All we need is "Good Old Sunshine". I don't need to chop firewood any more, since I got four kinds of solar sytem to replace wood, oil, coal all of which cost money and energy from "A" to my gas tank.

Come on people, this is 2008, and we got enough technology to take us to Mars, but our economy is in a state of ignoramus implosion, simply because people are "not inclined to change". Human Nature does not change but science does.

"Go To" PickensPlan.com and see what is happening to reshape our energy diet (and revolutionize our economy).

Best Regards,

DRS

On demand hydrogen is an easy and effective solution. I've been working with some other engineers on a system that can produce enough HHO to power a generator which in turn uses the electricity created to make more gas. This is a self contained system! (no gasoline/deisel or any other external fuel source) Why would we need to compress hydrogen into mini H bombs on the road to gain from this wonderfull fuel?

These "on demand systems" are on the road already, built mainly by "do it yourselfers" and are proving to be quite effective. I know of one person who installed one in his 94 suburban, at an initial 13MPG over a year ago(with no engine modifications). For over a year he's been getting 29 - 31 MPG in a SUBURBAN. Tell me why we are not looking at this technology as part of the solution.

HHO is a scam. It takes more power to make it than you get by burning it. Try powering an engine using just water in an HHO system and see how it fibally dies despite adding water.

Hi Guest,

If you want to see the real stuff abouit HHO, go to PickenPlan.com/ Science section/hho technology.

DRS

This sounds like a perpetual motion machine of the second kind, ie it violates the second law of thermodynamics. KH

"On Demand" HHO is great way to "supplement" fuel burnt by a ICE. The simple electrolysis process can be achived by "off the shelf" components at any hardware store. I have been playing with this technology for a while now (mostly in hiding as not to disturb the powers that be) and am dumbfounded by the simplicity and effectiveness. Virtually any car on the road can be "re-programmed" to run on supplimental HHO. It may not be the full blown answer we are looking for to run solely on hydron but it is a step in the right direction to cut down fuel consumption in our existing network.

It is a scam. It requires more energy to make the HHO than you get from burning it. Those who sell it are in hiding from the law, as several have been convicted of fraud.

If it adds energy to fuel, then it should run an engine on its own, with no other fuel. If it will not then creating it is a net loss of energy. Despite wishful thinking, being "dumbfounded" and unquestioning desire to "believe", it doesn't work.

Hi Taganan,

My HHO cell pulls 5 amps, x 12v equals 60 watts. I cannot explain why my mileage went from 30 mpg to 40 mpg, in more than one case, with a 33% average increase in mileage.

You are correct, in that several vendors published some fraudulant statistics, because the fuel cell was not tested for longivity in the car, and a lot of heat was generated which disentergated the coil.

The trick to longivity in to expand the electrolyte reservoir so that heating is controlled, in my case five gallons of fluid in the trunk space. Liquid cooled engines sometimes require a cooling system, to prevent a meltdown. So do HOH fuel cells.

The gases act as a catalyst, so it is said. Longivity tests are still underway before we go public.

DRS

The main problem is the production of Hydrogen. It needs energy . So we would be transferring pollution from the road to the power generating plant . Also the storage of Hydrogen in cars as well as in refilling stations is risky because it is explosive .

A better solution would be to resort to fuel saving engines such as the new rotary engine IORICE designed by the Philistia Industrial Group ( website : www.philistia-industrial-group.com) . They claim their engine acheives a 60% fuel saving for equal power and torque output . The videos they released on Youtube show a simple engine but an effective one . The same videos can be viewed on their website .

I hope they will succeed to market this engine . Car manufacturers are usually adamant to new technology especially if it requires investment .

The engine runs on all fossil and bio fuels . It can be fitted in all vehicles and power generating installations . Power output is 208hp/liter of engine volume .

This is a great output compared to piston engines . It is also quiet and emitts no vibrations since it rotates concentrically. Noise pollution levels are very low !!!!

This is the engine of the future made today and a big step in the right direction.

Gaseous H2: energy density is to low, storage is impractical (diffusion, embrittlement issues, &c.). High pressure storage presents safety issues (collision->explosion).

Liquid H2: cryogenic storage requires energy, and presents a safety issue (-253° C is beyond frostbite) in case of leaks, or ruptured container.

Metal hydrides: They're pyrophoric and tend to react violently with water, leaving a caustic (metal hydroxide) mess after the fire/explosion. Another safety issue.

Then there's the whole fuel cell issue... there's some progress being made, here, but there's a long ways to go. Many of the proven technologies are just not practical for use in an automotive. Who's going to keep a 1000° C solid oxide fuel cell in their garage? What about the energy required to maintain that temp? If you let it cool down, you've got less than a dozen on/off cycles before you get failure. Maybe you'll go with one of those nice direct methanol fuel cells that operate at close to the boiling point of water (80-120° C), and use polymer membranes (thermal cycling damage is much less of an issue). They can produce somewhere around 0.3 W/cm³. A the little 4 cylinder engine in a Ford Focus puts out 140 hp. To get the equivalent, you would need a DMFC ~0.7 m on a side (assuming a cubic structure). That *might* be do-able... but now you're down to ~20% efficiency, and you've still got a lot of liquid fuel to haul around (unlike gasolene, this working fluid doesn't go away after you pull energy out of it -- it just gets... diluted), and dispose of.

Any way - it's possible that something will be developed that will make this [i.e. large scale application of H2 to automotive transportation] practical and safe, in the future, but I wouldn't hold my breath. My vote goes to either improved battery storage combined with ultra-capacitors and all electric, or celulosic ethanol and sticking with the old internal combustion engine - at least in the forseeable future.

(in the interests of full disclosure, I am an engineer who works in research, in the automotive industry)

So, what,...... gasoline or toxic acid batteries are not so safe, and what is so safe about gasoline (Extremely flammible liquid)? Go to United Nuclear.com. for information.

Do you know anything about the Chevy Hydrogen car? Toyota is marketing a, for sale today, "plug-in" hybrid car. Do you know about it? What do you think?

Yes, I hear that Chevy is building a huge engine plant to make engines for use in hybrid cars worldwide.

I am a retired engineer who is not impressed with present day Detroit Automotive Products.

America has a critical oil emergency (in that 70% of vehicle fuels are imported from enemy countries). "Go to" PickensPlan.com, and be hep.

You should enroll as a member of CR4, if you are such an expert, and make a contribution to the world engineering community.

Photon Phreak

Until we have perfected the method of electrical storage it will be necessary ro use fuels other than H, which is, as you say, unsuitable for use in cars. However why stick with the inherently polluting IC engine? External combustion is cleaner and when used with a sealed condensing steam engine system running at a steady economical speed to make electricity is more efficient than an IC engine. My idea is to build a less expensive plug in EV with a 50 mile range, then build in a small steam engine to run a generator that will keep the batteries charged. About 80% of the time you would drive on electric power from the grid, but for any trips over 25 miles from home the steam engine would start running the generator to keep the batteries charged.

I have considered a Lamont boiler for its small size, power and safety. The engine could be a compound piston engine, a Lysholm expander or perhaps a Tesla Turbine. I just wish I had the money to actually build one. It solves all the drawbacks of both steam alone and the pure electric car and combined can use more types of cheaper fuels than an IC.

What about using a Stirling engine for the task.

You don't need water to boil and condense.

For the true hydrogen believers: hydrogen is the ultimate medium.

Tests with Stirling driven cars in the 1970's showed that it is feasible, but they lack responsiveness as you need to alter the inside pressure and burn rate.

Big companies decided to stick with the ICE as latency is important, even now efficacy is less important than latency.

But the hybrid car development has solved the latency problem for the high efficiency ICE, so it is just an exercise to replace the ICE with a Stirling/Ericsson ECE.

Hi Taganon,

Your comments on various power sources are on track. The key to next generation of transport lies in Hybrids usings efficient electric drives. The new hybrids are powering a generators/battery system, and also using captured braking energy. Hybrid systems are the rule, from now on, any the range of these vehcles will be much greater than the beasts that we now drive.

American carmakers will be assembling these hybrids as a survival link, and the Japanese will dominate the hybrid industry for some time. American suppliers will be making Japanese components in the interem.

We all know that petro energy is a dinasour industry who will fade away as new concepts come along. It is a matter of survival of the fittest.

DRS

I have talked to a fellow in Australia that says he and his mates, can generate hydrogen gas directly from water by passing an electric current of the correct natural frequency through it. Apparently they can do this while driving. 1. The amount of electricity energy required is far less than the energy produced by combusting the hydrogen (natural frequency theory and all) 2. You only need to carry around a tank of water and the electricity generator unit. The hydrogen is fed directly into the carburetter as it is generated. 3. Controlling the rate of gas production to match the vehicle performance requirements is tricky. 4. Mobile hydrogen generators have been banned by law in Queensland, Australia. 5. A number of his colleagues have disappeared.

Does this sound like a fairy-tale or what ? (I personally have seen the immense energy that can be generated by a system subjected to its natural frequency)

I have personally built many of these unit that your speaking of. They do work wonderfully, and yes many people have dissapeared while working on these projects.

Only attempt the following experiment outside, without a ciggerete, sober, and with responsible adult supervision

The units are quite simple to build, if you want to see the concept for your own eyes, grab a couple stainless steel utensils from your kitchen drawer, get a water vessel large enough to stick the utinsels in without touching, fill it with water, put in some baking soda, get a battery charger, go outside with your pieces, hook up your utinsels to your battery charger, submerge the utinsels into the water/baking soda solution (not all the way, and making sure they dont touch) plug it in, and watch all the bubbles. Those bubbles are full of oxygen and hydrogen, two parts hydrogen to one part oxygen.

The units that I have built, are quite different, designed on the computer using a CAD system, Machined in a shop with tight tolerences, and produce quite large ammounts of gas.

As for controlling the gas output to be matched to the foot pedal of your car, Thats all done with electronics with relative ease. Using Pulse width modulation, coupled to your throttle you can varry the amount of gas that is produced. In modern cars, some additional electronics are required in order to "fool" the computer into thinking the (normally filthy-full of unburnt gas&carbon) exhaust not too lean(because HHO gas only produces oxygen and water, greatly reducing your carbon output in your exhaust).

If you want to know about this really fun, cheap, and easy way to save yourself a buck at the gas pump, just google "hydrogen generator" and sift throught the millions of sites.

Please build one of your units to power a car using no outside source of energy, other than one fully charged battery to begin with, then drive it 1,000 miles adding only water and no recharging of the battery except by the engine of the car.

Since it takes more energy to create HHO than is released during combustion, plus mechanical losses and powering the car also using energy, the battery will run down and electrolysis will stop. The car will stop.

Using the HHO unit on an IC engine with regular fuel requires that the fuel used will have to make up for the energy loss. HHO is a scam. It is scientifically impossible and no one to date has more than anecdotal evidence that it will. "I tried it and it works for me!" is about all we get, plus some paranoid conspiracy stories about people "disappearing" while working on it. Who disappeared, when, where and are the police investigating? Then it devolves into "I heard from a friend who heard from a guy ..."

When people disappear their family and friends make a stink about it and if they suspect Big Oil or Big Government there are always some in the media willing to follow up on it.

I would never try to run a vehicle on HHO alone, as the purpose of the HHO is simply to aid ain a more complete combustion of the Petrol fuel. HHO generators are not a long term cure, but a bandaid untill we can get on tract with good hybrid technology.

Hi Guest,

I'd like to hear more about the frequency relations to HOH generation:

1. I have been told that HOH gas is a catalyst for combustion of fossil fuels. The hydrocarbon combustion is enhanced whereas the hydrogen atoms break the hydrocarbon molicules into a finer dispersal to enhance combustion. (gasoline combustion, as we know it, is very innefficient). Introduction of HOH has increased mileage efficiency in my cars by 33+%, but I do not know why, to be exact.

2. I have heard that magnetic fields in the HOH fuel cell influence the volitility of fossil fuels. I would like to know more about the validity of such a claim.

3. What puzzles me most is why combustion research has not publicized any of the HOH claims that I know of. I know that the OIL LOBBY is treasonous for preventing any development of fuel efficiencies for obvious reasons, and they are committing unforgiveable crimes to the economy, for selfish purposes.

Best Regards,

DRS

=================================================================

We cannot see the forest, since the trees get in the way.

The following is something I posted in another forum, and while it does not directly address the question of hydrogen cars, it does address some of the economic and political issues which I mentioned in one of my previous posts in this thread. So, without further adieu (or apologies).....

As I see it, the problems here are two-fold.

One, is that the market has not been free for a very long time. As long as there is legislation being written which favors one thing over another, the market cannot be free. When a free market is allowed to do what it does, when competition flourishes and people vote with their wallets, then the economy takes care of itself. We began to move back in this direction during the Reagan administration, but once again reversed course under Clinton. Much of what is ailing Wall street right now can be (but is not) laid at the feet of the Clintons and the Democratic congress of the early 90s, for mandating new lending rules which forced institutions to make risky loans to people with only limited ability to pay, which has now snowballed.

Two, and this is where the real trouble is. As others have already intimated, the electorate has discovered that it can vote itself bread and circuses, never realizing that there is no such thing as a free lunch, and they will go right on voting for their freebies until the system collapses under it's own weight. And the bill is coming due. Soon.

In the very beginning of this nation, the founding fathers in their wisdom, knowing the dangers of a warm body democracy, sharply limited the right of sovereign franchise to those who could be reasonably expected to use it wisely, in the best interests of the nation as a whole. Businessmen, land owners, people who had a stake in seeing that the system was run properly, and that government was limited to it's proper sphere. And significantly, any person who received public assistance was required to swear "Pauper's Oath" and was specifically restricted from the political process.

No doubt at this point lots of you are screaming bloody murder. "Why should the fat-cats have all the say and not the little people?!" Let me point out two more things.

First, is your neighbor, the fellow who with his wife runs that little corner bakery, a fat-cat? What about the woman down the street who has that Laundromat, or the guy the next block over with the service station? Are they fat-cats? In fact they are little people themselves, albeit business-men and women under the old definition, who are just trying to make a living for themselves and their employees.

And second, following logically from the first, is that business is what drives the economy. People who build businesses create jobs for their neighbors. And business requires investment. When the government interferes with the practice of business and taxes profits, it stifles investment. After all, the dollar you pay in taxes or in compliance with regulation is a dollar less you have to invest in your business.

Furthermore, if a rich man spends his hard earned money to buy a yacht, there are a whole bunch of skilled craftsmen and unskilled laborers alike who are going to be getting paid to build that yacht, and still others who are going to be getting paid to crew and service it. So, lots of people benefit from Mr. Fat-cat's spending.

Now I will not say that there is no place for regulation. Until the government passed the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890, very large businesses often stifled competition themselves by buying up the smaller players, or forcing them out of business. But, by and large, the more government interferes with business, the harder it is to conduct business, and then the entire economy suffers.

Permit me to end this already over-long comment with a story.

Back before the United States entered World War Two, a Japanese diplomat (who was also a business man) wrote home to a friend that that he had watched in shear gibbering terror as an American company had ripped out a six month old plant to rebuild with newer, more modern and efficient tooling. His fear was that he knew that Japan was going to provoke the U.S. to war, and there was no way that Japan's industrial plant could possibly keep up with America's, thus predestining Japan to defeat.

Just as an added "what if" ......what if America converted to 100% hydrogen fuel at some point in the future. That done, so now we have 150 million cars emitting water vapor.

Will all this water vapor evaporating into the the sky create any environmental issues such as creating fog or blocking or reflecting sunlight? Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, right?

I mention this because of some areas geograpically prone to air stagnation. Air temperature, and the dewpoint would figure into this equasion and rural areas would probably see no issues, but what about larger metro areas and interstate highways?

In cold parts of the country, would this water vapor condense onto the road surface and freeze, creating a rather dangerous invisible by product?

Hello Browser,

I know quite well, "it takes all kinds to make the world" We have some who think it is a thrill to fly a jetliner into a New York Skyscraper.

Considering the total acts of devastation taking place by the skyrocketing CO2 infusions, I dread to think of all the numbskulls out there who think that they can think, and we call them the human race.

God Bless the Salvation of humanity (and save us from the insanity of humanity),

Gabriel Mayr

Sorry about that............ since the hydrogen / clean air / save the planet montra is in full swing, I thought I would ponder the funny side of trade offs. 'Nasty' hydrocarbon pollutants reflecting sunlight compared to water vapor reflecting sunlight. If they both conclude the same result............... what did we gain but a extremely explosive vehicle?

The earth wqarms, the earth cools, and there' not a thing we can do about it, except buy fur coats an sunblock depending on the season.

Personally, I think Algore is a fruit cake if there ever was one. Sorry to come off as so insane.

I'd still like to see if anyone has an answer to the questions I pondered. What are the consequences of 150 million condensating vehicles if there are any............... moss on buildings in Los Angeles?

Lo down and others,

Let the market decide.

I think hydrogen will be a large part of the future, but it will be generated on board a car from roof top PV or thermal engine running off of solar heat capture (what I am doing).

What is needed are tanks to hold the generated Hydrogen. Those tanks can also store CNG. The PV and hydrogen generator produce hydrogen to pressure (lots of grant money out there for such research) making the need for on board pumps unecessary.

You will also need some gasoline to bridge the gap should you not have CNG or solar hydrogen, such as long distance runs at night.

Last, but not least, any good recovery system will have compressed air, as hydrogen generation is only 60-70% and low in power capture rate.

So...the future car will have 4 (that's right!) fuels on board. Air, hydrogen, CNG and gasoline/diesel/ethanol/methanol (liquid fuels). Short distances will be with hydrogen made from on board solar generation or home solar, and CNG will come in to fill in the gap, followed by liquid fuels. The gasoline tank will be flexible and removable for people who don't need it (most) and who have good supplies of CNG.

Do the math on storage volumes. I do not see the need for a battery as they are 1/2 the energy per volume and 1/16th the energy/ mass than that of hydrogen + tank at 3000 psi (CNG fill station pressures). CNG is five times more energy/volume as hydrogen, and ten times greater than batteries. Energy/mass of CNG is 80 times and 16 times that of batteries, and a battery is ten times that of air at 3000 psi. So...now you know...leave the battery out of the picture.

There you have it...problem solved...discussion concluded with...yes every car will use hydrogen in part, but there is NO NEED for a "hydrogen" gas station business model.

Seaplaneguy

Hi seaplaneguy,

Wow! To think that we will have HOH from roof top solar, and CNG to provide clean hydrocarbons. I am glad someone is thinking about "energy independence".

I just got wind that Ford is making cars in India that get 50-60 mpg, and investing billions over there, yet we get all this BS about Big Loans to carmakers. We need a reality check!

Hey Folks, we have got to put these Enron type guys in Jail, for a long time!

I'll be in DC next March with Pickens Army, and we are going to shake those people back to reality, I pray.

Can someone explain why oil went from $145pb to $60pb in just 90 days? I call that VODOO Economics.

God Save America,

DRS

Daylight,

CNG technology is NOT ready for prime time. Can you imagine a gas station with ten pumps able to keep up with demand using current compressor technology? It would require the removal of the convenience store just to house the compressors, and the noise would have the neighbors killing the owner!

I think Picken's plan is slim pickens and is NOT a good idea or needed.

What IS needed is a 60% efficient (all the time) engine with tank systems that have compressed air/fuel. You give the station your compressed air and they give you compressed fuel. The compressed air is used by the station to compress the fuel with a pump that exchanges the heat of compression and cooling of expansion. (Such a compressor does not exist...) This way you use about 10% of the energy and can compress around 10 times as much fuel per size.

So, CNG needs some serious advancements to go prime time. Once you make a cost effective compression, and or have it on board the car as part of the engine (like am doing) you DON'T need a station and you fill at home.

The future is home generated hydrogen and home CNG. The car is the key.

Nobody in industry is talking like this.

Then you need a 60% engine...and increased range...you cut 70-90% of the fuel requirements out, and most is hydrogen MADE by the car or house engine system. Pickens plan does NOT get you here, nor will his plan get you there any faster.

Picken's plan would never compete with this type of future, and cannot compete with current electrical prices with his windmills and requires government money to intice people to "invest" in windmills. It is just as bad as Ethanol and is just a transfer of energy...

Ask yourself: if Picken's plan was so great, why does he not just go for it and invest? It will bankrupt him, that is why. He is asking for a "bailout" (before the failure!) and theft of people's land to make himself rich in windmills, and then rich again with more demand in CNG that he wants to control.

Pickens is more of the same insider-deal junk. Don't waist your time in DC... He makes me ill as much as Gore does. Every time a person has to have DC to make his "plan" work, other than getting out of the way, you should think twice about what they say and "follow the money."

The future of windmills, without government money, is bankruptcy! It is not cost effective, is grid dependent, and once such an engine system (60%) is installed in houses, grid becomes old school. DC power, not AC.

People are sick and tired of being jerked around by government. They want off the "grid" in jobs, electrical, and anything government can tax. Freedom baby! Power to the people, not to the rats in government or private monopolies!

Hi Seaplaneguy,

Thanks for your serious comments. You have a good answer, home generated Hydrogen (from PV and water) and compressors for CNG, and atmospheric gas.

But that is just a good start to making America energy independent (The premise for Pickens Plan). We must not lose sight of the fact that 'NEW" industries associated with energy production will provide "MILLIONS' of high-quality jobs, and we stop exporting "OUR WEALTH" to foreign countries which make us bankrupt.

I have four types of Solar Systems which cost me less than $5K, but work only if the sun shines. This represents "FREE" energy, 1000 watts per square meter. I have over 6000 watts of solar collectors, and they are all ground mounted, and they create useful energy.

Many home owners have invested in net-zero PV electric systems. The key to setting a system up is to "save $20K, install the PV system, and never pay another electric bill". Can it be any simpler?

I know a family that gets a "CHECK" from the electric company every month (is a Pickens Plan Member, like myself), and he gets $75 worth of free electricity for househpld use, in addition to the value of the electricity he sells to the grid.

Please tell me what is wrong with getting "FREE AND INEXHAUSTABLE" energy, and my energy is "MADE IN AMERICA", it is "CLEAN", and it is "FOREVER". Is there something wrong with my reasoning ability?

God Save America,

Karl Mayr

PICKENS 100 CLUB

DRS Company/Tularosa Solar Energy Research Institute

Albert Einstein said, "Keep it Simple, but Not Any Simpler".

Daylight,

First, that check you get is actually a check from me, a tax payer, and not from a profit from a windmill. Without a subsidy there is no profit and nobody would "buy" the electricity at the true cost of the electricity from windmills. The data is clear...

Second, when the wind blows and the sun don't shine, you are out of luck. You have to buy a generator and burn gas. You need twice the capital equipment to keep things running, ya know, and when you factor in the energy used in the backup, you soon realize that this does not work.

Third, windmills are actually cheating by using the grid to level out their performance, instead of buying the capacitance needed to bridge the high and lows of wind that a system independent of a grid would need. Windmills are shifting costs to others, which is another hidden subsidy.

Wind is like an employee who shows up when it is convenient to them and makes the rest of the company do the work, yet still wants the same pay. Wind power should get 1/2 or less per KW-h than "real" power that can be on ALL the time, day or night, yet power companies are forced to take this junk power at par.

Pickens will be picking the pocket of those who do provide 24/7 power to the grid, shifting costs to guys like me who design it to be reliable 24/7. Again, a system that can be running all the time with wind would require a massive capacitance that would likely never recover the energy it took to make it, let alone be profitable.

Sorry, Pickens is slim pickens to me...

Daylight RS Company,

i agree with you completly. i doubt hydrogen cars will ever be mainstream. perhaps natural gas / hybrids might. electric with ice back up generator should be mainstream.

the conventional drive line should be replaced with power cables.

my question: when are they going to build an electric sled car? the one where a large battery compartment also mounts all of the wheels. then the body of choice is attached. with electric motors inside the wheels. it was conceptualized and designed years ago, as the correct choice for ev's. where is it? that should be the real question.

Artbyjoe,

If you go up and read my posts, I explain how we can get to mostly hydrogen. "Mostly" is the key, and it is "line upon line, precept upon precept" "here a little, there a little." Making a pipeline system is not the answer...unless Nuclear is 100%.

I think the future is in distributive power, or micro nuclear (have you seen those? very interesting).

Remember the Edison-Tesla battle? Edison (DC power) was "wrong" because he could not generate power on a small scale cost effectively. If you harvest energy (solar or wind) then you need to store it to match the demand and supply, and it ends up in a battery, which ends up as DC power. Tesla did AC power which allows for power to travel a long distance without losses and promoted power being generated in a large central plant. We are now at this battle point again...history is repeating...

seaplaneguy,

yes, i read your posts. therefore i guess at this time i will state that i don't agree with you at all, or 90% of conclusions or recommendations. Hydrogen is just not the way, in my opinion. therefore, my opinion concludes that any hydrogen based proposed solution is just a red herring designed to slow or impead or stop other more realistic solutions.

in my opinion the only viable solutions are based on electricity. in solar, the cost to produce electricity is in the manufacturing of the panels. in wind, the cost to produce electricity is in the manugacturing of the wind mills. in hydrogen, the cost is to produce hydrogen. that seems pretty straigtforward logic to me.

therefore, my opinion is that anything where hydrogen is in the equation is foolish. also, i hate to say it, but that also implies that anybody that believes hydrogen is the solution is a fool.

there is no hydrogen distribution system, and i doubt there ever will be.

with natural gas, you could always buy a compressor to mount on your garage wall, that will fill your natural gas tank in your car overnight, while you sleep.

nuclear is a dead horse. the slogan withing the industry used to be: too cheap not to build them. now it is: too expensive to build them. why, because of all of the hidden costs and subsidies.

now, before you reply mister seaplaneguy, i have not made these comments for the purpose of debating them with you. my purpose was and is only to let you know what my opinions are. you are entitiled to your opinions and i am to mine. so, i will not respond to anymore posts from you about this, because, it would just be a waste of both our time.

thank you

Daylight,

I admit my views are not mainstream, and you don't know what I know. I agree we need to get off oil. What I know leads me to a different conclusion than a Pickens plan. I was, like you, for Pickens plan, until my CNG vehicle could barely fill up with 2000 psi because the stations pumps could not keep up. I talked to engineers at the gas company, at the Gas Technology Institute, and came to the realization that pumping gas as it now is is expensive and unecessary if a new design were made...opportunity...

Question: Where do you get the "better cost/benefit ratio" idea? Is this just gut opinion or based on something?

I think we will be independent sooner than we think. I see large windmills like large airplanes and ocean liners. Big is not always better, and centralization is not always the answer.

Another point about windmills...if a windmill had to level power output it would have to incorporate some capacitance/storage. It could have tanks of hydrogen that store hydrogen from the windmill, generated by some device, but how do you get it back to electricity without having an engine or fuel cell. In essence, it is a "welfare" solution that does not pull it's weight, yet wants full pay. Yes I understand the grid adjustment, but that is again using other people's equipment...

I appreciate your input as it helps me understand how to discuss this with people and it helps me form a better opinion.

Seaplanguy

Hi Seaplaneguy,

As a long time busineeman in New Mexico and El Paso, I was a member of the TREIA, Texas Renewable Energy Industries Association, as well as NMREIA. At two State conventions in Texas, which I attended in 94 and 95, three Texas electrical utilities were conducting wind power potential sites all over Texas to find where to set up wind power farms.

They had a considerable investment of various Renewable Applications including residential grid-tied PV at Fort Davis, Texas. So, they started building Wind Turbine Farms round Big Springs and Fort Stockton, and now wind turbines have doubled in Texas in the past two years.

I take my interest in AE very seriously. And all this was long before Pickens came into the picture.

1998, the Texas utilities were overwhelmed with demand for power for Refrigrated Air, and they were considering thirteen new coal fired power plants. People in Houston run the AC 24/7/365, and do not blink at $500 monthly electricity bills. Half my family lives there and I go there 3 to 4 times a year. But, the utilities are only going to build 8 new coal plants for obvious reasons.

Americans are lazy, do not care about conservation, and have maxed out their credit cards, and now we are in a mess. I think about Enron doings and see lots of big shot COE's committing unforgiveable crimes.

So, here I am, standing on my poduim, and sounding off, because someone needs to. Like I said, I am not BS ing because I like to, but I am a leader in Pickens Plan for obvious reasons, and I know what I am talking about.

Best Regards,

DRS

Seaplaneguy, I personally believe that the current prime mover for automobiles and tractor trailers (the reciprocating piston engine) needs to be replaced with a much more efficient engine. The Tesla turbine runs with over 90 percent efficiency, will use any fuel that can put into it under pressure and has really only one moving part.

Regards Dragon

Hi Dragonsfarm,

Can you refer us to links to inform more about Tesla Engine?

Best regards,

Photon Phreak

Daylight RS company

Daylight, Try TEBA (Tesla Engine Builders Association), they will be able to give you a few ideas.

The model I am designing is based on Tesla's design with several improvements.

Regards Dragon