A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Technology
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Hydriogen Cars SOON!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old March 28th 05, 03:27 PM
Don Stauffer in Minneapolis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Joe S wrote:
>
> Is it your contention, then, that billions of dollars are being spent on
> research without viable plans for production and distribution of
> hydrogen by the expected to-market date of 2012?
>
> If you know otherwise, what's your source? I'd love to read about how
> all this exhaustive R&D that's going on that will be of no use at all
> (because you don't personally know how they plan to provide the fuel).
>
>

I am not sure if it was Steve's contention or not, but that indeed is MY
contention. A lot of folks are doing this R & D 'cause they got someone
to fund it. They are hoping someone ELSE will work out the production
of hydrogen.

In the case of the car companies, they are doing it 'cause they have the
expertise in vehicle related technologies but not in fuel supply
infrastructure. Further, they can point to it in their institutional
advertising, saying, "hey, look how green we are."

The congressmen are funding it 'cause people in their district are
coming to them and saying, oink, oink, feed me some of those fed R & D
funds.
Ads
  #12  
Old March 28th 05, 05:41 PM
D. Dub
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Joe S" > wrote in message
news:aMO1e.33915$oa6.1159@trnddc07...
> Steve W. wrote:
>> "Joe S" > wrote in message
>> news:f6D1e.32550$oa6.15933@trnddc07...
>>
>>>Don Stauffer in Minneapolis wrote:
>>>
>>>>Marco Licetti wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>a.. GM's prototype stationary fuel cell unit already generates

>>
>> power
>>
>>>>>for GM's New York fuel cell development facility.
>>>>>
>>>>>a.. In only two years, the power density of GM's fuel cell stack
>>>>>technology has increased tenfold, while costs have decreased
>>>>>proportionately.
>>>>>
>>>>>a.. GM's revolutionary fuel cell vehicle, Hy-wire, has no internal
>>>>>combustion engine, instrument panel, brake or accelerator pedals -

>>
>> but
>>
>>>>>it does have ample power supplied by a GM fuel cell that runs on
>>>>>hydrogen.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So? There has long been a NUMBER of ways for vehicles to run on
>>>>hydrogen. Hydrogen Diesel goes back to about 1900. People made

>>
>> cars
>>
>>>>that would run on hydrogen half a century ago. It is no problem

>>
>> coming
>>
>>>>up with ways to use hydrogen if you have it. Problem is getting a

>>
>> good
>>
>>>>source of hydrogen. In spite of some claims to contrary here,

>>
>> hydrogen
>>
>>>>is not a viable SOURCE of energy. It is a legitimate transportation
>>>>fuel, if we can find a fuel source to power conversion of hydrogen

>>
>> from
>>
>>>>hydrogen-containing compounds. But that is the big problem right

>>
>> now,
>>
>>>>not how to use the hydrogen if you have it.
>>>
>>>
>>>Here's the starting point...gasoline/diesel requires petroleum. The

>>
>> job
>>
>>>is to develop a way to power vehicles that does not require petroluem.
>>>
>>>Hydrogen fuel cell technology is one. Others are have been and are

>>
>> being
>>
>>>explored.

>>
>>
>> WRONG. Hydrogen is NOT a fuel source.

>
> Wrong what? I didn't say "Hydrogen is a fuel source". I said that hydrogen
> fuel cell technology is one way to power vehicles that does not *require*
> petroleum.
>
> > It is made from other sources.
>> Currently 99 percent of it is made from TADA --- Petroleum, AKA LPG and
>> Natural gas. NO other source to produce it from for lower cost in large
>> enough quantities to even be useful. ALL other methods take more energy
>> and money to produce the Hydrogen than the Hydrogen can ever return.

>
> Is it your contention, then, that billions of dollars are being spent on
> research without viable plans for production and distribution of hydrogen
> by the expected to-market date of 2012?
>
> If you know otherwise, what's your source? I'd love to read about how all
> this exhaustive R&D that's going on that will be of no use at all (because
> you don't personally know how they plan to provide the fuel).
>
>
> --
> Joe



Yup, pretty much a diversionary tactic by the car companies to APPEAR green.


  #13  
Old March 28th 05, 05:46 PM
Joe S
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

D. Dub wrote:
> "Joe S" > wrote in message
>
>
> > If you know otherwise, what's your source? I'd love to read about

how all
> > this exhaustive R&D that's going on that will be of no use at all

(because
> > you don't personally know how they plan to provide the fuel).
> >
> >
> > --
> > Joe

>
>
> Yup, pretty much a diversionary tactic by the car companies to APPEAR

green.


They're *all* in on it? It's a global conspiracy! Aaaaaaaah!



Joe

  #14  
Old March 28th 05, 06:08 PM
Joe S
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Don Stauffer in Minneapolis wrote:
> Joe S wrote:
> >
> >
> > Here's the starting point...gasoline/diesel requires petroleum. The

job
> > is to develop a way to power vehicles that does not require

petroluem.
> >
> > Hydrogen fuel cell technology is one. Others are have been and are

being
> > explored.
> >

>
> But the point I am trying to make is that we don't NEED fuel cells to


> burn hydrogen. The existing IC engine can burn it with some simple
> modifications. There are a lot of cars running around burning

natural
> gas. Almost the same mods that enable that can also be used to burn
> hydrogen. Now, hydrogen is a very low octane, so the compression

ratio
> may need to be lowered, or spark severely retarded. But it seems to

me
> that these mods are minor compared to developing affordable fuel

cells
> (they are quite expensive right now).


Compare and contrast hydrogen combustion vs. fuel cell esp with regards
to efficiency and resulting chemicals. I haven't done so, but it sounds
like you have, so can you short-cut it for me?


> Further, whether it is fuel cells or modified IC engines, the REAL
> problem is how to produce hydrogen economically and in an
> environmentally friendly way. THIS is the problem that folks should

be
> spending the R & D dollars on.


Well, contrary to some others who insist that the global vehicle power
industry is ignoring the "fact" that hydrogen fuel production and
distribution is not feasible, I believe that there exists concrete
plans to address this issue, even if I don't personally know what the
plans are.

But I could be wrong....


Joe

  #15  
Old March 28th 05, 10:08 PM
Steve W.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


> >
> > WRONG. Hydrogen is NOT a fuel source.

>
> Wrong what? I didn't say "Hydrogen is a fuel source". I said that
> hydrogen fuel cell technology is one way to power vehicles that does

not
> *require* petroleum.
>
> > It is made from other sources.
> > Currently 99 percent of it is made from TADA --- Petroleum, AKA LPG

and
> > Natural gas. NO other source to produce it from for lower cost in

large
> > enough quantities to even be useful. ALL other methods take more

energy
> > and money to produce the Hydrogen than the Hydrogen can ever return.

>
> Is it your contention, then, that billions of dollars are being spent

on
> research without viable plans for production and distribution of
> hydrogen by the expected to-market date of 2012?
>
> If you know otherwise, what's your source? I'd love to read about how
> all this exhaustive R&D that's going on that will be of no use at all
> (because you don't personally know how they plan to provide the fuel).
>
>
> --
> Joe


Yep that is my contention. Those BILLIONS are being spent for USELESS
research. The fact is that Hydrogen as a fuel has been done already. How
to store it, how to burn it. Already been done. What NONE of this
research has shown is HOW TO CREATE THE HYDROGEN in the first place for
low cost. Yes you could use solar power BUT the solar cells are about 5%
efficient and they take a LOT of energy to produce in the first place.
Plus in order to create useable power from them you need LOTS of space.
Hydro power to produce Hydrogen would work BUT how do you power the
homes that already use the electric from those units already? As far as
building more hydro, not likely since all the enviro nuts are calling
for smaller dams to be removed to restore the rivers to "natural" flow.
Thermal cracking using solar ovens, not a good option since they depend
on constant sunlight and the sun does go down. Wind power? Not likely
since it takes more land and too many people complain about the units.
Plus it tends to kill birds and that gets other folks riled up. Ask
Teddy Kennedy about why HE is against wind generators off the coast of
Mass.

The ONLY source of power that seems to fit the bill.... Clean, Quiet,
non polluting is ... Current generation NUCLEAR. BUT even though there
are enviro nuts who have even stated this as the only viable way I doubt
it will happen since everyone seems to think it is so dangerous. Oh and
before anyone starts talking about Russia or any other accidents, maybe
you had better look at the US Navy for the way current technology works
on nukes. Chernobyl was OLD and outdated the day it started, and used a
design that wouldn't EVER be used anywhere but in a backwards country
that they were at the time. Three mile island gets tossed out as well.
Even though it was a BIG media circus and we were told how bad it was.
There was NO RADIATION LOSS. The systems worked and the place shut down.
The problem was and still is that the anti nuke folks put out so many
outright lies about it and the mass media helps them so much that the
truth gets passed over.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  #16  
Old March 28th 05, 10:16 PM
Chad Michael Mallett
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Steve W works for petroleum-related company, another BS artcle.

Pleas go back in this forum and read other articles on Hydrogen, i finally
got tired of expolaing why it is the future aND WHY yoiu';re wrong in
blasting hydrogen. you better blast your guzzler soon


  #17  
Old March 28th 05, 11:10 PM
D. Dub
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Joe S" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> D. Dub wrote:
>> "Joe S" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>> > If you know otherwise, what's your source? I'd love to read about

> how all
>> > this exhaustive R&D that's going on that will be of no use at all

> (because
>> > you don't personally know how they plan to provide the fuel).
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Joe

>>
>>
>> Yup, pretty much a diversionary tactic by the car companies to APPEAR

> green.
>
>
> They're *all* in on it? It's a global conspiracy! Aaaaaaaah!
>
>
>
> Joe



No, not conspiring just taking the easy way out.


  #18  
Old March 28th 05, 11:26 PM
Joe S
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Steve W. wrote:
> > >
> > > WRONG. Hydrogen is NOT a fuel source.

> >
> > Wrong what? I didn't say "Hydrogen is a fuel source". I said that
> > hydrogen fuel cell technology is one way to power vehicles that

does
> not
> > *require* petroleum.
> >
> > > It is made from other sources.
> > > Currently 99 percent of it is made from TADA --- Petroleum, AKA

LPG
> and
> > > Natural gas. NO other source to produce it from for lower cost

in
> large
> > > enough quantities to even be useful. ALL other methods take more

> energy
> > > and money to produce the Hydrogen than the Hydrogen can ever

return.
> >
> > Is it your contention, then, that billions of dollars are being

spent
> on
> > research without viable plans for production and distribution of
> > hydrogen by the expected to-market date of 2012?
> >
> > If you know otherwise, what's your source? I'd love to read about

how
> > all this exhaustive R&D that's going on that will be of no use at

all
> > (because you don't personally know how they plan to provide the

fuel).
> >
> >
> > --
> > Joe

>
> Yep that is my contention. Those BILLIONS are being spent for USELESS
> research. The fact is that Hydrogen as a fuel has been done already.

How
> to store it, how to burn it. Already been done. What NONE of this
> research has shown is HOW TO CREATE THE HYDROGEN in the first place

for
> low cost.



What do you think are the ways to create hydrogen that have been tried
but are too expensive, and what are their repsective costs? "Too
expensive" is an absolutely relative term.


Joe

  #19  
Old March 29th 05, 01:47 AM
Steve W.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Joe S" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Steve W. wrote:
> > > >
> > > > WRONG. Hydrogen is NOT a fuel source.
> > >
> > > Wrong what? I didn't say "Hydrogen is a fuel source". I said that
> > > hydrogen fuel cell technology is one way to power vehicles that

> does
> > not
> > > *require* petroleum.
> > >
> > > > It is made from other sources.
> > > > Currently 99 percent of it is made from TADA --- Petroleum, AKA

> LPG
> > and
> > > > Natural gas. NO other source to produce it from for lower cost

> in
> > large
> > > > enough quantities to even be useful. ALL other methods take more

> > energy
> > > > and money to produce the Hydrogen than the Hydrogen can ever

> return.
> > >
> > > Is it your contention, then, that billions of dollars are being

> spent
> > on
> > > research without viable plans for production and distribution of
> > > hydrogen by the expected to-market date of 2012?
> > >
> > > If you know otherwise, what's your source? I'd love to read about

> how
> > > all this exhaustive R&D that's going on that will be of no use at

> all
> > > (because you don't personally know how they plan to provide the

> fuel).
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Joe

> >
> > Yep that is my contention. Those BILLIONS are being spent for

USELESS
> > research. The fact is that Hydrogen as a fuel has been done already.

> How
> > to store it, how to burn it. Already been done. What NONE of this
> > research has shown is HOW TO CREATE THE HYDROGEN in the first place

> for
> > low cost.

>
>
> What do you think are the ways to create hydrogen that have been tried
> but are too expensive, and what are their repsective costs? "Too
> expensive" is an absolutely relative term.
>
>
> Joe
>


Thermal cracking - Current method using petroleum based items as the
base stocks. Has been experimentally used with other base stocks.

Electrolytic separation - Experimentally used to produce VERY limited
quantities.

High pressure catalytic splitting - Experimentally used to produce VERY
limited quantities.

With regular gasoline priced at $2.25 per gallon and using an equivalent
btu amount of hydrogen you get

TC - $4.35
ES - $8.45 using Nuclear, $9.45 using Hydro, $16.45 using solar
Hpcs - last I read it worked out to close to 35.00.

These are ALL prior to adding in the distribution and infrastructure
systems that do not exist at this time. It also doesn't consider the
replacement cost to supply the power that will be lost from those
sources that are currently in use.

Oh and while you may consider expense to be relative 99% of the world
doesn't. If you don't believe price being the prime motivation explain,
Wal~Mart, Dollar Tree, All for a dollar and all the CHEAP import stuff.


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  #20  
Old March 29th 05, 03:27 AM
Joe S
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Steve W. wrote:
> "Joe S" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>Steve W. wrote:
>>
>>>>>WRONG. Hydrogen is NOT a fuel source.
>>>>
>>>>Wrong what? I didn't say "Hydrogen is a fuel source". I said that
>>>>hydrogen fuel cell technology is one way to power vehicles that

>>
>>does
>>
>>>not
>>>
>>>>*require* petroleum.
>>>>
>>>> > It is made from other sources.
>>>>
>>>>>Currently 99 percent of it is made from TADA --- Petroleum, AKA

>>
>>LPG
>>
>>>and
>>>
>>>>>Natural gas. NO other source to produce it from for lower cost

>>
>>in
>>
>>>large
>>>
>>>>>enough quantities to even be useful. ALL other methods take more
>>>
>>>energy
>>>
>>>>>and money to produce the Hydrogen than the Hydrogen can ever

>>
>>return.
>>
>>>>Is it your contention, then, that billions of dollars are being

>>
>>spent
>>
>>>on
>>>
>>>>research without viable plans for production and distribution of
>>>>hydrogen by the expected to-market date of 2012?
>>>>
>>>>If you know otherwise, what's your source? I'd love to read about

>>
>>how
>>
>>>>all this exhaustive R&D that's going on that will be of no use at

>>
>>all
>>
>>>>(because you don't personally know how they plan to provide the

>>
>>fuel).
>>
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Joe
>>>
>>>Yep that is my contention. Those BILLIONS are being spent for

>
> USELESS
>
>>>research. The fact is that Hydrogen as a fuel has been done already.

>>
>>How
>>
>>>to store it, how to burn it. Already been done. What NONE of this
>>>research has shown is HOW TO CREATE THE HYDROGEN in the first place

>>
>>for
>>
>>>low cost.

>>
>>
>>What do you think are the ways to create hydrogen that have been tried
>>but are too expensive, and what are their repsective costs? "Too
>>expensive" is an absolutely relative term.
>>
>>
>>Joe
>>

>
>
> Thermal cracking - Current method using petroleum based items as the
> base stocks. Has been experimentally used with other base stocks.
>
> Electrolytic separation - Experimentally used to produce VERY limited
> quantities.
>
> High pressure catalytic splitting - Experimentally used to produce VERY
> limited quantities.
>
> With regular gasoline priced at $2.25 per gallon and using an equivalent
> btu amount of hydrogen you get
>
> TC - $4.35
> ES - $8.45 using Nuclear, $9.45 using Hydro, $16.45 using solar
> Hpcs - last I read it worked out to close to 35.00.
>
> These are ALL prior to adding in the distribution and infrastructure
> systems that do not exist at this time. It also doesn't consider the
> replacement cost to supply the power that will be lost from those
> sources that are currently in use.


What is the cost of methanol distribution utilizing an on-vehicle reformer?

What would be the cost using power from MCFC or SOFC power plants?


> Oh and while you may consider expense to be relative 99% of the world
> doesn't. If you don't believe price being the prime motivation explain,
> Wal~Mart, Dollar Tree, All for a dollar and all the CHEAP import stuff.


$6 per gallon (adjusted for units) in Europe and Japan is expensive.
$2.50 per gallon in the US is expensive.

$2.50 per gallon in the US today is "expensive". $5 per gallon in 2008
is "expensive".

It's "relative", see?

--
Joe
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Patrick's Agenda -- CJ Explains It All [email protected] Ford Mustang 14 February 27th 05 05:26 AM
American cars Dave Antique cars 6 February 13th 05 05:27 PM
Vintage Cars Get Hot with Makeovers Grover C. McCoury III Ford Mustang 2 December 5th 04 05:13 AM
European Cars Least Reliable Richard Schulman VW water cooled 3 November 11th 04 10:41 AM
FS: 1991 "Classic Cars" (Of The World) Cards with Box J.R. Sinclair General 0 May 27th 04 07:31 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.