Done some reading on hydrogen as an alternative to fossil fuels. Our existing engines could be converted to run on hydrogen, at little cost. Building the infrastructure is the huge ?. Politically and economically, is there the Will ? Others have built working demonstrator models of real life vehicles. They exist ! Neighbor even modified a Toyota Pick Up, that runs on blended Hydrogen / Gasoline. Anyway , here's a book I read. It is out of print ,(2000 yr. ) and I got a copy from Amazon.com . And a link to further reading. https://www.phoenixprojectfoundation.us/
I was watching a program (TopGear) on TV about Honda's Hydrogen Fuel Cell/Electric Car. No Batteries!....it was being trialed in California. It seemed to be miles in front of the Hybrids and other electric cars. Whilst the hydrogen is about the same cost as unleaded petroleum there are no emissions from the vehicle...well, just some water. Should the demand increase the cost of Hydrogen production should come down considerably in comparison to drilling oil from thousands of feet down.
I thought I had read that the biggest obstacle besides infrastructure was cold weather, but that was a few years ago so I may be wrong.
Hydrogen is a viable fuel if production and distribution costs come down. I remember back in high school (over 30 years ago) where we produced hydrogen in a science experiment through electrolysis, and the teacher then demonstrated the explosive properties of the hydrogen. This isn't a new discovery. Currently oil products are our most economical source of fuel, why are we so opposed to using them? In some South American countries, ethanol is the fuel they use. Why? Because with the huge sugar plantations they have, ethanol is more economical to use than oil products. When an alternative fuel becomes more economical than oil, that's when we will see it developed and become commonly used. I don't feel we should be forced into alternatives just because some green group is calling for it. I'm not opposed to experimentation, but it should take place within free enterprise and not at tax payer expense.
I whole heartedly agree Steve! We started getting close to that point last summer and I'm positive we will again.
I tell everyone I know that it does not matter what is done politically, that the economics will dictate when a change is made. Just like you said Steve and Joe, While oil is cheap, oil will be used. When oil is not cheap, then alternatives come out. The options are there now, but the cost is too high. Who is willing to pay 2 to 5 times more to use an alternative fuel?? No one I know. When the price is right, the change will be on.
We have a hydrogen fuel station here in Iceland. There was one city bus that used it as an experimental project. The project is now over and that bus is now a source of spare parts for the other diesel buses. The logistics in this case just didn´t work out. It had to go for fuel 2 times per day. Filling up took half an hour. Not to mention that the fuel station wasn´t on the route. Hydrogen requires a tremendous amount of energy to produce. I´ll buy coal futures when hydrogen cars become mainstream.
An excellent topic, particularly for those of us who live in a Country where diesel for road-going vehicles is over US$5.00 a gallon (I hope I've got my sums correct, it is a UK Pound per litre). I see a limited future for Hydrogen-burning internal-combustion engines, perhaps only as a way to keep legacy machinery operating, if and when Hydrogen fuel-cell powered equipment begins to get deployed. Why go to the cost of distributing and storing hydrogen to then extract the energy in it by burning it it an expensive internal combustion engine. Why not feed it into a solid-state fuel-cell to power a relatively cheap electric motor? Taking away the internal combustion engine from construction equipment will slash machine repair costs for the user, funding what will undoubtedly be an expensive fuel to distribute and store. The potential manufacturing cost savings (of not employing the men and machinery in large factories to make each of the hundreds of components in an engine) will be of such a high order that it makes Hydrogen fuel-cell technology begin to look affordable in the future. As a benchmark, I understand that there are a number projects around the world to develop an all-electronic (manned) main battle tank. I know nothing about the bits that go bang, but I understand that a heavy-duty tracked-chassis, powered by a Hydrogen fuel-cell, is seen as a way forward. Of course, the military are in a different situation, as they already have a vast independent fuel logistics organization, that operates to very high standards in the worst of conditions. But it may well be military budgets that pay for the development of Hydrogen refueling equipment and procedures that can withstand front-line conditions, to enable this technology to pass the practicality test on typical mining and construction sites. I suspect that the few fuel-cell cars and buses that are driving around now have to be refueled in relatively clean conditions, taking for ever to do and only offering a limited range.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efCelx7qe_M&feature=related This is the sort of thing that is the future in a prime mover.
Hydrogen Fuel Well, I was looking it from a different perspective. Instead of changing all the non compliant engines of Tier,1,2,3 to meet Tier 4 emissions standards, due 2011, why not change the fuel, instead ? 2011 is a fuel test date ? 2008-2015 is the Tier 4 phase in. If Hydrogen can be adapted to run the existing engines, at relatively little cost, and meet the Tier 4 emissions ,why not ? Yes, it is the infrastructure, of production and distribution, of hydrogen. The huge cost of switching over. Instead of going the costly route of new Tier 4 engines. The EPA regulations are just going to become more and more stringent. They are striving for zero emissions , or close to it . ??? Like someone said , the exhaust will be cleaner than the intake air. Much like the sewage treatment plants, mining operations, and other industrial users of water, having to discharge cleaner water , than they take in for use. Anyway, reading about how hydrogen, can help reduce the greenhouse gases, the carbon footprint,global warming, etc, makes for interesting news, as a future fuel. Here's a link to the different Tier's of regulation, for emissions. http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/nonroad.php
OK, I know it is an agricultural tractor, but fuel cell powered off road vehicles are on the horizon; http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/2009/02/12/114257/now-in-video-new-hollands-fuel-cell-tractor.html
Economics and Fuel Well said. An example of this is when fuel was at it's highest a Hybrid Escape would bring around $15,000.00 at the dealers auction. Now they are bringing around $7,500.00 What a difference a year makes. I think when this economy turns around we will be right back at $4.00 or $5.00 fuel.
They actually had 3 of them hydrogen powered buses, and it was exactly what it was, an experimental project. They did run into obstacles, but since then, the filling station has been modified and then the technology has improved, hence the Honda they tested on TopGear. see www.hydrogen.is just my 0.02 ISK
Merc Have been expermenting with "H" powered vehicles for the last 10 year. 5 cylinder engine. Great .. Only produce's water vapour and a few other thing's with selective mix's. Only problem is the fuel cell! Hydrogen need's to be Compressed and cooled. GAS and Diesel do not making them 100% safer.
Aulternitive Energy I was looking at non compliant engines and looking for a way around the new regs. I also looked into hydrogen, which can be made with baking soda, water and electrode used along with gasoline in gasoline engine; it's also called browns gas. It burns cold and has low emissions. There are several things that are added on fuel injected engine to get around the oxygen sencer. I then looked into bio-diesel. Almost 0 emissions like 97% cleaner then petro-diesel and the NOX can be reduced to 0 by retarding the timing. I was wanting to come up with a way to continue to run 0 tier engines. I think this is the answer but you have to make B100 yourself. You would think that there would be a lot of testing going on with blends and how much you could add and still have a PM reduction that would allow the older diesel to comply with new rules. The burocrats are in too big of a hurry to tell us to get rid of older equipment with out finding economical solutions. "I don't think you will have to wait long for the Chicago gang to put some kind of big tax or fee hike on diesel, gasoline and all energy related use." It could be "CAP ON TRADE" , CO2 or some other scam, but it will be anti-business that’s for sure.
Tier O fuels ? Hello Darryl, Ha, at least you have the idea, I was trying to get across. Use a different fuel, instead of building newer costlier engines . The simpler older cheaper engines , Tier, O should be able to continue in existence with a different fuel . And yet meet the desired emissions standards, and the same performance standards ! Look at the societal cost of change ??? Just wonder if B100 would run in the Arctic temps ?
Darryl, the staff is hard at work on a few adjustments to the forum rules and posting policy. The policy about political discussions is a large part of what's under discussion. When the new policy is posted, it will give members some latitude to discuss politcal topics that are directly related to our industry, but it will still be against forum policy to use derogatory terms for anyone referred to in said discussions. That's why much of your recent posting has been allowed to stand without edit or comment from the staff. Your above quote, characterizing the current Presidential administration as a "gang", would fit into the "derogatory" catagory. In fair warning, please, get accustomed now to excercising appropriate restraint in the way you express your opinions.
Real sorry for not knowing the line I will be guarding in the future. I guess being frustrated and PC go hand in hand. It’s just a slip. But I did not say Presidential Administration.
B100 can work in Alaska you will need to blend in real cold. Diesel aditaves from Powers will help solve the waxing. The better you make it and konola oil is the best the lower the temp. Europe has been on B30 for several years.
No, you didn't. If you care to specify some other individual or collection of individuals from Chicago that have the power to cause a tax hike on anything you're dealing with there in California, then I'll apologize for misinterpreting you. Otherwise, I'll stand by my original interpretation of your statement.
Come on, now....that´s got to be worth more than 0.02 ISK I'm in Selfoss. Where are you? -Joi
Hydrogen since the '50 Alis Chalmers was the first! Turbine? In the 1950's Alis Chalmers built a hydrogen farm tractor. It's in the Smithsoniam Museum in Washington, DC. And they didn't need government to do it, it was free enterprise in action. I saw the tractor plow on a film that was made. It has like 1200 cells that make electric from water? The electric then goes to Alis Chalmers electric motor and controller like a train engine. Can't remember if it was AC or DC. The whole patent was sold to NASA for the space shuttle and satalites. With that said the technology has been here, water makes power, must cost to much? Have you seen this it's worth a look. New stuff has way to much electric! Why not turbine power another free enterprise project. I like it in 1962 go see the cross country trip New York to California., http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g3QvkpMqc0
There was some interesting information on the history channel the other night... by the year 2050, oil wil be a fuel of the past, it will be available in only limited amounts and will be outrageously expensive. Some say this could happen as early as 2025. Here is what this means to me, in as ealy as 15 years internal combustion engines could be a thing of the past. So do I wanna buy that new dozer knowing that in 15 its going to be obsolete? Doesnt that information make you think...
I wouldn't rely on the History Channel as an irrefutable source of information. However, I´m all in favor of finding an energy alternative that isn´t as easily taxed and controlled as oil.
New holland nh2 t6000 New holland recently announced the Nh2 fuel cell system in a tractor .It runs on Hydrogen and Oxygen and has no emissions at all,the cell generates 106hp and there is no gearbox or clutch with the increase or speed or power being controlled by more or less power to the electric motor,and reverse by reversing the motor. A fuel cell which operates like a battery with two electrodes surrounded by a electrically conductive solution.Hydrogen is passed over one electrode while oxygen is passed over the other,the resulting current is fed to two electric motors ,one to drive the tractor the other for the pto and aux services. New holland says that there is still development to take place as the H2 tank is only capable of 2hrs work and they plan to have it out of testing in 2 years with production available for 2011/13. no price is available yet but the cell costs e300,000 and this cost will have to be reduced. Stock
October 15, 1959 an Allis-Chalmers farm tractor with fuel cell was demonstrated in Milwaukee. The tractor was equipped with 1,008 individual cells and could haul 3,000 pounds. The Allis-Chalmers alkaline fuel cell was developed Harry Karl Ihrig, had the output of 15 kw of electricity and is currently housed in the Smithsonian Museum. Using the same alkaline fuel cell technology first pioneered by Francis Thomas Bacon in the 1930’s, Allis Chalmers would go on to create a golf cart, submersible, and fork lift in the early 1960’s. NASA went on to use alkaline fuel cells in the Gemini and Apollo missions to power onboard systems and create drinking water.
Pictures of the real expensive tractor. It uses the New Holland T6000 tractor. If thing keep going at the current level the government will be supplying this type of tractor to their farms , because they will be taken over and run by the government. There is not that kind of money in agriculture to buy that kind of 106 hp. tractor.
Few weeks ago sat in on a 3 hours informational meeting with a guy that puts on presentations about new car technology(air bags, fuel cell, hybrids, electric, etc). One of the largest issues that alot do not know is that engineers are going to great depths to make cars safer to be IN an accident but much harder(but no where near impossible) to get someone out of a vechile after an incident. Cutting into a air bag canister could set it off(new curtain, thorax and seat bags) as well as a number of other issues with (smart key systems, electric cars, etc). One thing we did watch was some videos of hydrogen fuel cell cars on fire. If they fuel cell was properly attached it would just do like gas does now, like a flame thrower effect. However, if the straps or tank are damaged explosion can very likely occur. In one such video the tank ruptured(10,000PSI tank) and shreaded the mini van it was on, to the point you had NO clue as to what the chunks of scrap once represented. I'm not saying I'm against any of this stuff, and gasoline is still dangerous as well, but there are many engineers that have not looked at the "rescue" side of things as much as they think. Trbo
I have read many articles on liquid coal. I have read many articles on liquid coal. In fact the Air Force did testing on coal fuel in B52, 2 years ago and it worked just fine. Some claim that we will be using coal as diesel fuel because we have so much coal. And the engines can run on it with little if any modifications. Hydrogen on the other hand. You would have to have an on board hydrogen generator to get away from the explosive nature and that is not imposable to do. We can do this now on gasoline engines and make browns gas with water and baking soda but a lot of electrical junk has to be installed to go around the oxygen sensor for it to work right. And you still need gasoline as the main fuel. What will work in the end is the most bang for the buck if we can just get the government out of the picture, we still have lots of un-taped oil reserves right here in North America. So there is lots of time, but we are not doing anything at the present but wasting time, drill now and quit the political green nonsense.
IMHO hydrogen as a fuel is a non-starter. Hydrogen doesn't exist on earth in quantity in non-bound form, ex. Water, H2O, bound with oxygen. To separate it out you need energy. The amount of energy required is more than the amount of energy acquired, therefore it's more expensive to produce the hydrogen than to simply use the fuel you would use to make the hydrogen. If your using 1 energy unit of natural gas to make electricity to split out the hydrogen from water and end up with 0.7 energy units of hydrogen, why not just use the natural gas in the first place? It's the second rule of thermodynamics... sorry there's no free lunch.
So all those Guzillions of dollars spent searching for Gas Hydrates is a complete waste of time and money them :beatsme
How much of those "Guzillions of dollars" come from the government? While there is some hope that a better way to create hydrogen will be discovered, most of the money spent on it is just feel good, political payback tax dollars at work. Pretend like you are doing something and get money for it regardless of the outcome. Take the government out of it and private industry will only spend a token amount of time and capital on it. Right now, it's in the car industries best interest to pretend like they are working on alternative fuels so they can get handouts and get people to buy their other products. Just look at the Prius and other hybrids. They are time bombs for the environment. All those batteries are toxic waste dumps on wheels. Making them and disposing of them requires more energy and recourses then conventional vehicles. But since they get government money, it's ignored that they cause so much harm to the environment. Plus the amount of energy required to charge the batteries on the electric vehicles will require more and more power plants. Building and powering those power plants will require more and more fuel. It's all a game that's played to keep the money flowing. There is no shortage of oil except what the government puts on it. We have more oil in the USA then they do in the middle east, yet we are not allowed to drill it. The oil we do get, we are not allowed to build more refineries. There is growing evidence that the planet is still creating oil, and nobody has figured out where it comes from, how it's created and how much there is. Every year, new discoveries are found. 30 years ago, it was thought we were running out, yet there is more known oil in the planet today then was even thought possible ten years ago. It is just about impossible to understand why energy is limited and we are not allowed to develop it. With all the proven technology available, there is no reason why nuclear, coal and oil energy isn't used to it's potential. The only thing that makes any sense to me is that those in charge do not want it made available. Why is up for debate, and way to easy to get carried away in conspiracy theory and corruption. Eddie