Hydrogen Powered Cars

Don't laugh at me all you smart people, I heard a theroy on Hydro powered cars apparanytly a reality I think I am being tricked though. IS it possible or would they blow up.

Go on laugh at me cos I am saying something really stupid aint I?
Isn't Hydrogen what is in water like the H part. I heard that they can seperate the Hydrogen from the water and run the cars on the hydrogen and it will only leave a trail of vaper. One of my friends told me I think he was Bullsh!tin me though.

So you can use water to power cars, THe goverment woiuldn't want to lose fuel tax though so if it was true it would be stoped right??

You're taking the theory a step too far, Brett, but basically, there's nothing wrong with the idea.

Hydrogen is easy to come by, it's cheap, flammable, and one of the most basic elements in nature.

However, as a downside, it is bulky to store in gas form - you would need a small blimp mounted on the top of your car as a gas tank - it is not energy efficient to freeze it down to liquid form, which would be a way of eliminating the storage problem.

Finally, as Liz pointed out in the Indycar forum, you've surely seen the footage of the Hindenburg airship going up in flames. That was a simple spark of static electricity that caused that. The gas is colossally flammable, and difficult to store safely.

Why not look at the avenue of methanol fuel. That's what Indycars run on now. It's synthesised from natural products, although it takes a lot of sugar beet to produce it, and the exhaust byproduct of burning it is straightforward water vapour.

Simple answer to your question - no, you're not being BS'd, you're not being laughed at. Hydrogen is perfectly feasible, but not terribly practical.

That's just me as an amateur speaking. Some of the guys from the Technical Forum may be able to help more. Sparky? Peter? Michael? Any takers?

[This message has been edited by TimD (edited 16 May 2000).]

The nearest thing at present, racing might have been the gas (butane?) powered Vectra that ran in last years TOCA support package.

What was the gas used to power buses during the war? Tim mentioned 'blimps', but I seem to remember an old photo of a single deck bus with a large canvas 'bag-tank' on top, that carried a vapour-type fuel. Didn't cars sometimes have trailers that produced/contained a very low octane gas - OK on the level but woefully inadequate on hills (passengers had to get out and push!)

What was that gas - Methane? Could it have been a hydrogen plant in those trailers? - how would that work?

Good post Brett!

Current internal combustion engines can be converted to methane. A Minnesota farmer put a big methane tank on his truck and made methane fuel from chicken poop.

Another advantage of methane is that its flame is extinguishable with plain water.

I hope scientists unlock the secret of cold fusion. That would provide an almost limitless supply of clean, safe fuel. Does anyone know anything about that process?

Brett, there is nothing silly about it.

It is a reality just like the internal combustion engine is. I don't know why you guys find it strange

for info: http://www.ballard.com/faq.asp

I am talking about the fuel cell produced by Ballard Power Systems of British Columbia. It produces electricity electrochemically combining hydrogen and oxygen. The only byproduct is water! (2 H2 + O2 --> 2 H2O)

There are already several buses that are powered by hydrogen fuel cells in various cities around the world. (Vancouver has 2)

There are even a number of protoype cars that have been converted to run on power cells. Several big car companies (ie Ford, GM, Daimler, etc have invested billions in Ballard)

I think that this technology has the best chance of replacing the internal combustion engine. It is certainly a lot more practical than gasoline.

And no, the tank required is not the size of a blimp!


P.S. If you mean power a car by the combustion of hydrogen, then you are crazy.

Neil you kill me :), Methane is not extinguishable with water. I am pretty sure you mean methanol, which is. There is a BIG difference.

BTW, Methane burns just like gasoline (ie same byproducts with an incomplete combustion), so why bother?

Jay you are right, I must have been sniffing some methanol fumes myself this morning.

Ford also has several hydrogen driven prototypes running around. I think they may be using the Ballard Cell as well.

Methane may be as "dirty" as gasoline but it can be produced from renewable resources, thats its advantage over petroleum products.

What about methane storage within the vehicle? Can it be pressurised? - Petrol cannot. It could seriously increase the range of the vehicle! :)

What about the expected consumption figures - anybody know these?

Silly me, I made a mistake too.

Methane = natural gas (The stuff that heats homes) and it does not burn as dirty as gasoline because it is not saturated (ie not an alkane). Methane does burn much cleaner than gasoline, however it still has the CO2, and a few other carbon compound byproducts.

Methane is much cleaner than gasoline, and more easily combustible.

Hey, they just found that huge oil reserve in Kazahkstan, no need to worry about hits now ;)

Seriously, some form of methanol is the most reasonable avenue of pursuit.

Jay, I am glad someone else knew about the hydrogen energy cell.

I had read about a few years ago and how it is most likely to be the wave of the future.

You see Brett, there are no stupid questions only stupid answers of which there are none here.

Ian

Personally, I think the sooner we get rid of the internal combustion engine, the better. (with the exception of some race cars)

Remember, when ANY Hydrocarbon burns you will get Carbon Dioxide regardless of how efficiently it is burned. And if it is not done 100%, and it almost never is, you also get poisonous Carbon Monoxide, and plain carbon.

CO2=greenhouse gas=globalwarming

That is why we should stop burning things!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Trebuchet MS, Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I am talking about the fuel cell produced by Ballard Power Systems of British Columbia. It produces electricity electrochemically combining hydrogen and oxygen. The only byproduct is water! (2 H2 + O2 --&gt; 2 H2O)

There are already several buses that are powered by hydrogen fuel cells in various cities around the world. (Vancouver has 2)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

SO these buses leave a trail of vapour behind as exashaust and that is it just steam basiacally? I don't know I get lost in these sciencey topics and I even created this one. So they are clean? OR do they still pump bad stuff out?

If they can power things on basically water through a cell I think that is pretty amazing and the Technology should be availible and implimented.

So in THEORY in a few years instead of our houses being powered on Electricity we could power them on water? Is that a theory why havent they made movies like this then? With that kinda technology in it?

Hydrogen would be what you fill your car with. The fuel cell would obtain the oxygen from the air. And yes, water would be the ONLY exhaust (maybe a little oxygen too).

Hydrogen is cheap, and easily obtainable, however it is very explosive as the Hindenburg showed. But, so is gasoline, so I don't see what the objection there is.

Right now it cost something like 3x as much for a hydrogen fuel cell powered car as it's gasoline couterpart, however with mass production I am sure the cost will sink.

The first fuel cell car on the market should be out 2004-2005.

Jay: Assuming global warming exists (imho, it doesn't, but that's another story) the way to combat it is not to try to reduce emissions on cars. They've gotten to the point laready where millions of $ are being spent for like a 1% reduction in CO2 levels. The real thing needed is to get more cars off the road (mass transit, re-urbanization and end of "edge cities"). It's the sheer number of autos which is the culprit, not the emissions of one car in itself.

I agree with you heeltoe6, If I had my way everyone would stop using cars to get from place A to place B, and start using trains.

But, try telling that to 300 million Americans. That is why, if we want to reduce CO2 levels, and the greenhouse effect we must get these hydrocarbon burning beasts off the road.

PS I have no idea how you can possibly debate global warming, it obvious even without a thermometer or any scientific equipment, but if you want to, feel free to. I always love good science topics. ;)

But...But... I..need my car(s). It's who I am, Man!

You wouldn't really take my car away would ya, Jay?

Bully. http://www.ten-tenths.com/ubb/icons/icon57.gif

Yes :D

There are a multitude of ways to lower vehicular emissions without resorting to banning all combustion engines. The Honda Accord sold in the US as a ULEV (Ultra-Low Emissions Vehicle) has set records in California. As tested by the California Air Resource Board and reported in Automobile magazine, the exhaust CO levels from the car were lower than those outside the building. The Allied Signal plant here in Tulsa, which did most of the exhaust scrubber media work for Honda's ULEV, is said to be producing even better exhaust filtering media. The ULEV Accord sells for the same price as the previous model did. The US Congress is looking to pass much more stricter laws concerning diesel engine emissions next. They account for more than half of the bad emissions of any surface vehicle.

The state of California and New York in the US has already forced automakers to sell alternate power cars or lose their license to sell cars in that state. They do not consider the new ULEV Hondas to meet the requirement, and are forcing the automakers to produce electrically powered cars. Alternative fuel vehicles and fuel cell powered cars do not count toward this law. The state refuses to accomodate owners of these vehicles and they literally have no where to recharge their cars accept at home and the range of them is to short to make them viable for commuting. The current crop of Nickel Cadmium and Nickel Metal Hydride batteries do not perform well in New York state because of the extremely cold winters there. Also, the use of carcinogenic Nickel and Cadmium in these batteries probably represents more of a health hazard to the general public than the CO levels from exhaust. So, the laws have forced automakers to build cars they possibly cannot make any money on, and that no one will purchase because of their relative flaws. What has been gained? Some politician gets to say that I need your vote because I am eco-friendly.

The fuel cell car is probably going to be the way to go until better electrical storage devices are created. A high temperature supercondictor material would go a huge distance in increasing the operating range of every electric car due to reduction in drag. The GM and Honda electric cars have a range of around 100 miles on flat and level ground, unfortunately unless you live in Kansas or Nebraska you can't find any flat ground.

[This message has been edited by KC (edited 18 May 2000).]

I've heard it said that cars produce less than one tenth of a percent of the CO2 in our atmosphere- most of it comes from people and animals, so we should really be concentrating on finding an alternative to breathing.
I look forward to a time, not too distant now, when elecric cars are just as good in all respects (speed, reliability, range etc...etc...)as infernal-confusion engined cars. We have three cars, but my daily commuting machine is a folding bike which I take on the train- yet I am still paying the same 'road tax' as someone who spends several hours each day driving a desiesle powered car or a car with a non-functional-bacause-it-never-warms-up-properly-catalytic-poison-producer
rant rant!!!!
(They're coming to take me away ho..ho.....)
Maybe we should plant loads more trees.

[This message has been edited by Bluebottle (edited 18 May 2000).]

Woo hoo, topic made in heaven for me!!

I recently completed a rather long and exhaustive report into car emissions for one of my engineering subjects at university. Basically speaking, even if we don't design cleaner engines, there are several ways in which to damatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars.

Firstly, the facotry for the material whcih makes car, over the life time of the car, makes a rather insignificant impact on the environment.

A big way to reduce emissions is to make lighter cars. Here in Queensland, there is the strong possibility that the worlds largest magnesium plant is to be built, with its main objective to produce light weight partd for the automotive industry. Already FoMoCo in the states has signalled it is willing to be a main customer of the plant.

Put blunty, 100kg of steel in an average 1.05t car could be replaced by 33 1/3kg of magnesium alloy. Data shows that a 10% drop in car weight is the equivilent of a 6% drop in fuel comsuption, over the life of the car, there are rather massive reductions.

With the lighter cars, there is also the possibility of smaller engines, basically we've got to make people give up their V8 Chevy for a smaller unit.

The ideal solution would be to have a light car, with a small engine and clean fuel, but what are the chances of this any time soon?

Remember, oil is not renewable, we will run out some day...

Jay: I should have said that the percpetion of global warming being both anthropogenic and diastrous is what I disagree with. Plus, although some empirical evidence exists, most of it is anectdotal. As we have only been recording temperature the past 100 years,w e can't really say how abnormal temperature change is over the entire history of the Earth.

I'm all for reducing oil consumption though, mainly to reduce dependence on foreign nations. It's kind of weird how the automobile has made such a comeback. IN the early 90s, almost every city in the US was building, expanding, or planning light rail, and then it started to level off around 94-96, for a number of reasons. The biggest is probably the booming economy, although there are numerous others. But I am a huge railfan/mass tranist buff and really feel that it could work, and that a lot of Americans, fed up with road rage, would give up thier cars for commuitng at least.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Trebuchet MS, Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jay:
I agree with you heeltoe6, If I had my way everyone would stop using cars to get from place A to place B, and start using trains.

But, try telling that to 300 million Americans<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are 6 billion people in the world, what's your point? We dont force you to drive cars. Of course we're always available for you to blame your problems on.

I was in Canada Wednesday. Didnt see a damn train anywhere.

Good to see I'm not the only rail-fan here!
There seems to be a policy of taxing motorists heavily in order to get more money for the treasury... er.. sorry, my mistake.... in order to discorage them from using their cars, vans and trucks. The situation was summed up a while ago in 'Rail' magazine- in an editorial, the government was urged to "give us some alternatives before taxing us for not using them"
Hey, crash.. seems like I'm doing o.k. on emmisions since two of my cars are kits which are much lighter than their donors- and they're recycled!!

But what metal is it made of?

There are energy savings with respect to input from the power plant as well as other chemicals with steel, but the world would be a lot better place ( ;)) when hey get the magnesium plant working properly, as making recycled material uses 1/20th the electricty and natural gas in production than virgin Mg material. Plus a few years down the road when they find a replacement for SF6 (1kg SF6=24,000kg CO2) which is used in the final die casting processing, would be a great help.

Neil, I should have said North Americans. Canadians are almost (not quite) as bad as Americans when it comes to car obsession.

Heeltoe6, I don't know how you can possibly argue that the globe is not getting hotter, thanks to increasing CO2 levels in the upper atmosphere. All you have to do is look at temperatures of the past 50 years. There is a clear, steady rise. But I am curious, what eveidence do you have that the earth, is not getting hotter? To be honest, you are the first person I have ever heard, who didn't own a CO2 spewing industry (maybe you do) that tried to argue it.

Jay: Well, actually, according the NASA's own satellites, during a 10 yr period during the 80s, found only a negligible change (a decrease, in fact) in temperature.

But my real point is that how do we know that global warming is not a natural process. As we've only been recoridng temperautes for 100 years, a minuscule fraction given the Earth's history, we can't scientfically proclaim that global warming in caused by man. If anyhting, it's the "the sky is falling" attitude a lot of people take to the issue, when really it's quite unproven, that I am against. These scientists are relying on unrpoven computer models to predict the future, when they themselves admit reliable models which can predict future temp/CO2 levels will not be around for at least a few years.
Check out http://www.sovereignty.net/p/clim/cctutorial.htm

Also, read a peition/arguement against the conclusion of global warming that 17,000 scientist signed onto, at http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
but be warned it is very lengthy

Oh, btw, don't own any CO2 emiting factoires ;)

[This message has been edited by Heeltoe6 (edited 20 May 2000).]

Never let it be said that I don't check people's sources.

Heeltoe, I would have looked at the page you cited, but AOL didn't like something about it, and on both occasions, gave me an almighty system crash.

Pity. I would have liked to see the presentation. I'm sceptical, but I am always interested to see the evidence on both sides.

For me, like on GM crops, the greenhouse gases jury is still out.

How many of these scientists who have signed on rely on government money to support their research. Look at what other reasons they have to sign on and you might find they are looking to be out of work soon if they cannot find another crusade to jump onto. I cannot say for sure if there is anything to global warming or not, but I know that many of those in "research projects" routinely spend billions of tax payer dollars and regularly produce no results that a layman could with nothing more than common sense.

Go to some smog filled hell whole called a city breath and coff check your blood for all the Sh!t that is in the air that you breathed, Global warming or no global warming the fumes are stil messin the place up

Some of those people that say global warming is fake are just trying to defend their own way of living because that is what they care about most nothing but themselves.

Certainly they are. I have been to Los Angeles twice and their smog levels are atrocious. You can smell it when you get off the plane. Does that mean we need to suddenly change our lives completely when the reason behind it is the wind never blows in LA? People there regularly commute forty or fifty miles across LA to work and back everyday, *****ing constantly about traffic and smog while they wait alone in the car. Because they will not use the ridiculously poor bus system or at least car pool I am required to alter my life? I think not. I am all for cleaner burning cars, alternate power plants, and cleaning up big business. But these things are relied upon by everyone everyday and cannot be made to go away as if by magic.

I should point out that the noticable affects of global warming have (arguably) only begun to occur in the last few years.

We have only started mass producing large amounts of CO2 from cars and factories during the last 150 years. The effects of this and more CO2 will take longer before you will step outside and say "oh, it is much hotter now than it was 30 years ago".

here as a sight from the govt of Canada that has some info on global warming: http://climatechange.nrcan.gc.ca/english/html/index.html

KC if it means the long term survival of millions of species yes I think it is worth giving up.

Should we just live on even if we are causing great amounts of distruction? No we should try to stop it.

I can see your point but their are many out their that could alter their transport arangments to make the air we all breath much cleaner,

Before we all choke