<VV> Re: H2 as a fuel No Corvair

[Garth Stapon]

Paul:

My view on the use of H2 as an alternate fuel is that it will not take off prior to oil becoming too costly. 

If you consider that H2 can be made with electrolysis of water, there is more than enough base stock to go around. Lake Superior is very large and pretty deep the last time I checked.

The question is how to generate the electric power required to convert the water into hydrogen and oxygen? 

Hydro electric, nuclear, coal, oil fire generation are all alternatives.  I am sure everyone has an opinion on this point. The Province of Ontario has put all of its eggs in the nuclear basket. Quebec loves hydro electric. Neither requires oil.

My employer recently worked with BP to install a H2 filling station at LA airport and has demonstrated that if the proper techniques are employed, the fuel can be handled safely.

The real challenge to wide spread acceptance is how to get enough volume on board to make it a viable alternative. 

H2 is a very small molecule and it is very difficult to keep it in its cryogenic state. (Temperatures around -350 degrees F).

Right now, most storage systems involve high pressure compression of the gas in its vapor state. Conventional cylinder pressures are 2,600 psi. There has been some work with high strength steel cylinders, allowing compression to greater fill pressures, but who wants to drive around in a car that has a 6,000 pound compressed gas cylinder in their back seat/trunk?

The other real issue is that a conventional pressure cylinder in a car would give a very limited range. If you did store it cryogenically to address the capacity issue, the challenge then becomes vaporization. With the technology that is available today, you need to change the cryogenic liquid H2 back into its vapor state to burn. Maybe a hybred heater????

Perhaps technology that allows it to burn in its liquid form is the answer, but I am not aware of this being an economical alternative at this point. At any rate, even when developed, it would involve the use of a lot of 304 grade stainless steel components (read expensive).

Select transit companies have addressed this issue by placing the compressed gas cylinder on the roof of the bus, out of harm's way (relatively speaking). They address the capacity issue with cylinder size. There are typically multiple cylinders and they run almost the entire length of the bus. 

Maybe the interim answer is to do this with large vehicles and remain on gasoline when storage capacity is limited. Of course if you applied this to over the road transport trailers you would have to rebuild bridges to make them taller on every major highway in the USA.

Mazda demonstrated that the rotary motor can be run effectively on H2 with only minor modifications. Nissan and Hyundai are active with H2 development with conventional power trains as is the case with many of the automotive companies. 

Wide spread use of H2 as a fuel may be considered the holy grail of energy independence, but the real question is when will the consumer be willing to pay approximately $ 25.00 to drive 75 miles just for fuel? Are you also willing to pay a $ 10 k premium to buy the H2 powered car? If you say yes on both counts where will you fill it? I am sure that big oil will reluctantly jump in if mandated by Uncle Sam, but there is the age old question of existing infrastructure.

The bottom line is that until the consumer is willing to put their money where their mouth is, the Government and the Greenies can talk about H2 as an alternative fuel as long as they want. In the end, the consumer has to vote with their wallet.

Here is the link on the LA Airport H2 installation for those that might be interested. (It also has a nice picture of the Governor.)

http://www.praxair.com/praxair.nsf/AllContent/88676351CE09E09585256F39006E3257?OpenDocument


Regards, Garth




At 02:44 AM 2/25/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 17:16:17 -0500
>From: Padgett <pp2 at 6007.us>
>Subject: Re: <VV> E85 fuel (NO CORVAIR)
>To: virtualvairs at corvair.org
>
>...
>For sheer energy, low cost, ease of manufacture, and renewability, nothing
>beats hydrogen ...
>Padgett


WHAT????????? Low cost?????? Ease of manufacture???????? This statement is 
more than just misleading. Although hydrogen is the ninth-most-abundant 
element on our planet and makes up about 1% of the earth's crust, there is 
practically NO naturally-occurring, pure, elemental hydrogen on this 
planet.  Even the gaseous atmosphere of earth contains only .01% free 
hydrogen, by weight. Hydrogen is extremely reactive, chemically, so it 
isn't lying around in pools, in a pure form, waiting to be scooped up in 
buckets.  In nature, hydrogen is found very-strongly attached to some other 
element or elements. That's why there is so much water on this planet. It's 
also why there are HYDROCARBONS. There are processes for freeing hydrogen 
from these other elements and isolating it in its pure form, but they 
consume ENERGY -- lots of it. It will take a new, low-cost method for 
producing energy to create energy to make the production of energy from 
hydrogen economically practical. The whole hydrogen argument is circular 
reasoning. This "hydrogen solution" is the twenty-first-century version
of 
the alchemist's quest to turn lead into gold. Read a chemistry book.

The Ethanol solution is political -- it plays well in farm states and with 
agribusiness campaign contributors -- not practical. It is the energy 
equivalent of cutting the top foot off a blanket and sewing it to the 
bottom to make the blanket longer. Archer-Daniels-Midland loves the idea.

Don't swallow the promises that hydrogen, ethanol, etc. are magic solutions 
for energy independence. These are just politically-motivated 
pronouncements from our ineffective, generally-dishonest, 
special-interest-directed, U.S. government. Said government is primarily 
run by third-rate lawyers and other incompetents that can't get or don't 
want real jobs, and have no understanding of science or reality. Their next 
brilliant idea for solving the country's energy problems may be to have 
Alberto Gonzales petition the Supreme Court to declare all inconvenient 
laws, like gravity and those of thermodynamics, unconstitutional, and thus 
null and void. Don't laugh, the Supreme Court has already, at least once, 
ruled against scientific truth. See Nix v. Helden.

There are two, high-potential solutions to our planet's energy problems. 
But, they will require actual scientific research and technological 
development. Since these concepts are well beyond the comprehension and 
political time horizons of politicians and bureaucrats, don't expect to see 
any real, effective plans for solving the energy problems.

As individuals, we are quite alone to solve our own energy problems. 
Re-invigorating economical cars like Corvairs is a positive step.


Paul