England Is Grinding To A Halt.

[Deozaan]

Sure, we have the Prius, but it's mostly a gimmick.  They put that out there for the people who make an extra effort to save the environment.

-superboyac (March 11, 2011, 01:12 PM)

Don't you mean it's for people that want to make a show of pretending to save the environment?

-Stoic Joker (March 11, 2011, 01:18 PM)

I've never even heard of them before, but at 70+ miles per gallon according to wikipedia, and petrol being about 6 euro per gallon here, I'd be willing to make some sacrafices (are they really that slow to take off though lol)

-tomos (March 11, 2011, 02:25 PM)

Don't forget to calculate how much extra they charge you for the "Hybrid" technology into your "savings" plan.

Last I heard, the "Hybrid" model Prius costs something like $10,000 more than the non-hybrid model Prius. Do you think you'll save $10,000 in gasoline over the lifetime of the vehicle? Things like that make Stoic Joker right when he says people are just pretending to save the environment.

Also, Electric Cars save the environment in much the same way that buying your meat at the grocery store saves animals. Isn't one of the major environmental problems with coal power? How are you going to afford to charge your car when electricity rates skyrocket due to environmental laws limiting carbon dioxide emissions?

In the eyes of environmentalists, electricity (since the vast majority of it comes from coal) is just as much the enemy as oil.

[Stoic Joker]

Don't forget to calculate how much extra they charge you for the "Hybrid" technology into your "savings" plan.

Last I heard, the "Hybrid" model Prius costs something like $10,000 more than the non-hybrid model Prius. Do you think you'll save $10,000 in gasoline over the lifetime of the vehicle? Things like that make Stoic Joker right when he says people are just pretending to save the environment.

-Deozaan (March 11, 2011, 03:58 PM)

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Give That Man A Prize! A few years back when the prices spiked, people were flocking to dealerships begging for an "Eco-tastic" vehicle (Prius). Problem was they were all jumping out of existing car loans and going radically upside down with a spiked interest rate (because of the banks "risk") to boot. An economist on the news said that with that kind of buy-in, they'd have to drive the car for 20-30 years just to break even!

I've got a Dodge Dakota RT with a 5.9L (360ci) V8 (oh hell yeah it's fast). It'll be paid off in a few months...and I'm keeping it.

[Shades]

If you live near a harbor where cargo ships dock, forget about doing anything against pollution by legally reducing emissions in cars/trucks/buses. The engines of these ships run on the garbage of garbage from (any part of) the oil industry...and whenever "they" get the chance they mix it up with other dangerous materials to get rid of those as well.

See the link to this Dutch website (including video) that shows what happens with the fuel of those ships, even in a country that is quite strict on international regulations. The translated text from the site already will explains already a lot of it.

[JavaJones]

Stoic, looks like a different test. I had assumed it was the same as the one I'd seen before, sorry about that. The one I read about previously was actually much more real-world and realistic though, which is more compelling to me. In any case the results are similar, just more horse power in your version.

Hydrogen is not a "drop-in" replacement for gasoline by any measure. It's *less* energy dense in combustible form, it does not store easily in vehicle-portable tanks (it needs to be stored as a liquid) and is, as I said, volatile, etc.

For fuels, the energy per unit volume is sometimes a useful parameter. Comparing, for example, the effectiveness of hydrogen fuel to gasoline, hydrogen has a higher specific energy than gasoline does, but, even in liquid form, a much lower energy density.

So it's really not a direct replacement for gasoline at all. The closest we have to that is biodiesel, which again suggests more widespread adoption of diesel as a stepping stone. I continue to be dismayed at the lack of support for that option.

You might find this Wikipedia section to be an interesting reference: http://en.wikipedia....s_an_automotive_fuel
Some choice quotes:

The energy that must be utilized per kilogram to produce, transport and deliver hydrogen (i.e., its well-to-tank energy use) is approximately 50 megajoules using technology available in 2004. Subtracting this energy from the enthalpy of one kilogram of hydrogen, which is 141 megajoules, and dividing by the enthalpy, yields a thermal energy efficiency of roughly 60%.[44] Gasoline, by comparison, requires less energy input, per gallon, at the refinery, and comparatively little energy is required to transport it and store it owing to its high energy density per gallon at ambient temperatures. Well-to-tank, the supply chain for gasoline is roughly 80% efficient (Wang, 2002). The most efficient distribution however is electrical, which is typically 95% efficient. Electric vehicles are typically 3 to 4 times as efficient as hydrogen powered vehicles.[45]

A study of the well-to-wheels efficiency of hydrogen vehicles compared to other vehicles in the Norwegian energy system indicates that hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles tend to be about a third as efficient as EVs when electrolysis is used, with hydrogen Internal Combustion Engines (ICE) being barely a sixth as efficient. Even in the case where hydrogen fuel cells get their hydrogen from natural gas reformation rather than electrolysis, and EVs get their power from a natural gas power plant, the EVs still come out ahead 35% to 25% (and only 13% for a H2 ICE). This compares to 14% for a gasoline ICE, 27% for a gasoline ICE hybrid, and 17% for a diesel ICE, also on a well-to-wheels basis.

- Oshyan

[Stoic Joker]

Stoic, looks like a different test. I had assumed it was the same as the one I'd seen before, sorry about that. The one I read about previously was actually much more real-world and realistic though, which is more compelling to me. In any case the results are similar, just more horse power in your version.

-JavaJones (March 11, 2011, 05:48 PM)

Hm... Interesting, I'd be interested in seeing your's too if you can find a link to it. Especially if it was a more serious test with similar results.

Hydrogen is not a "drop-in" replacement for gasoline by any measure. It's *less* energy dense in combustible form, it does not store easily in vehicle-portable tanks (it needs to be stored as a liquid) and is, as I said, volatile, etc.

-JavaJones (March 11, 2011, 05:48 PM)

Depends on what you're calling a "drop-in". They were offering kits to convert commercial vehicles (delivery van type stuff) to propane years ago (with limited success). So it is do-able. Granted performance may be affected...but it won't be crippled.

Now on the volatility issue... Hydrogen might be a liquid under pressure (like propane), but it don't come out that way. Fuel tanks exploding on impact (outside of the Ford Pinto) don't really happen out side of Hollywood. So if the tank did rupture on impact and the vehicle flipped, what would really safer? Gasoline which pours out all over the vehicle saturating everything including the occupants, and gathering in a vapor that hugs the ground which can spread out and be ignited blocks away? Or Hydrogen which escapes as a lighter than air gas and quickly dissipates (harmlessly...) into the atmosphere?

Yes I'm familiar with the term BLEVE (Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor Explosion) ... They are however quite rare and usually involve heavier than air vapor clouds that stay close to the ground where ignition sources can be found.

For fuels, the energy per unit volume is sometimes a useful parameter. Comparing, for example, the effectiveness of hydrogen fuel to gasoline, hydrogen has a higher specific energy than gasoline does, but, even in liquid form, a much lower energy density. So it's really not a direct replacement for gasoline at all. The closest we have to that is biodiesel, which again suggests more widespread adoption of diesel as a stepping stone. I continue to be dismayed at the lack of support for that option.

-JavaJones (March 11, 2011, 05:48 PM)

Really? ...Good thing nobody ever told Jessie James about that:  Land speed record of 199.712mph set by hydrogen powered car.

[JavaJones]

I'll see if I can find a link to the article I read on the Prius/BMW comparison, it was a while ago.

Propane and hydrogen aren't synonymous of course, so a propane conversion isn't the same as a hydrogen conversion. There are a lot of con artists out there selling "hydrogen boosters" and "conversion kits" that connect up to your alternator and electrolyze water into hydrogen and oxygen to inject into the combustion process, but they're dubious at best.

A liquid hydrogen tank rupturing would immediately decompress to a gas and fill up a huge area. Yes it would rise somewhat quickly, but the largest chance for an explosion is in the few seconds following the accident, and given that it's a rapidly expanding gas, any nearby spark could ignite it. It is *at least* as dangerous as gasoline, if not more so, especially given that its contents is kept under pressure.

199mph is the record *for a hydrogen powered vehicle*. I'm not sure what your point is as the record for gasoline vehicles is over 400mph and even non-specialized road-legal cars can go over 200mph (e.g. McLaren F1, Bugatti EB110, etc, etc.). So I think the point that hydrogen is a less efficient fuel holds pretty darn strong.

- Oshyan

[Shades]

A bit more ontopic:

Jaguar is a famous British brand who made a nice looking "green" car, which uses concepts that would please Stoic Joker's mindset...I think.
(but correct me if I'm wrong).

This is pure awesomeness in my book...and I would seriously consider becoming deaf for a chance to drive this monster!!!  

[Stoic Joker]

Jaguar is a famous British brand who made a nice looking "green" car, which uses concepts that would please Stoic Joker's mindset...I think.

-Shades (March 11, 2011, 07:25 PM)

Oh baby Oh baby...Now that's what I'm talking about!! 

Green is fine, but only if you don't castrate the vehicle in the process!

Mind you I'm already damn near def in my right ear from years racing with open pipes... (it's a fair trade (hehe))

[Stoic Joker]

199mph is the record *for a hydrogen powered vehicle*. I'm not sure what your point is as the record for gasoline vehicles is over 400mph and even non-specialized road-legal cars can go over 200mph (e.g. McLaren F1, Bugatti EB110, etc, etc.). So I think the point that hydrogen is a less efficient fuel holds pretty darn strong.

-JavaJones (March 11, 2011, 06:51 PM)

Indeed, but the point is it will work in an internal combustion engine...And frankly I doubt in could be much worse than the ethanol contaminated shit they're selling at the pumps now.

Really though, the hydrogen refit for current cars/engines would only be a stop-gap solution to ease the transition. Very high performance pure electric cars are a real possibility (Tesla Motors). Only draw back? Damn batteries are too heavy. Lighter high output battery == hydrogen fuel cell. Now you got a race car that only emits water as a byproduct. Not to mention that hydrogen fuel cells don't "die" due to outlasting their shelf-life. It's a process that can be turned on and off at will ... Guess maybe that's why they are so handy for spacecraft.

You are worried about a 30% production disparity. But what about the 80% mechanical loss between combustion pressure and the rear wheels, inherent in the design of even the current generation of gas powered vehicles? 4 wheels, driven by 4 electric motors = 0% mechanical loss. So hell even the "down-side" is a 50% gain. Only hold ups?

1. the (current) damn batteries are too weak, heavy, and die.
2. (Don't tell me you didn't see this coming) Greed!

[4wd]

I don't think you'll have to worry about the UK grinding to a halt because of increased fuel tax......you'll be crashing into things long before that. 

[JavaJones]

Hydrogen *can* work in an internal combustion engine, absolutely. I never said it didn't. I said it's not a "drop-in replacement". Which it isn't.

But ok from your last message it sounds like we're on the same page: electric is the way of the future. You're advocating hydrogen as essentially a storage/transport medium for electric "fuel", yes? That focuses the discussion a lot more! Now whether hydrogen fuel cells are so much more efficient than upcoming battery tech improvements is another question. Currently fuel cell tech is too expensive and underdeveloped to be used in mass production for public vehicles. So it's really a race, will other battery tech get light and long-lasting enough *and* cheap enough to beat hydrogen fuel cells by the time *they* are market ready? Dunno. But the added drawback of having to *generate* that hydrogen means that any battery tech has a head-start due to the energy loss of hydrogen production, if you consider the sum total energy consumption of the system ("Well to pump, as they say"). And of course you *should* consider sum total energy consumption, otherwise moving to new fuels/energy sources is potentially pointless, or even detrimental (see ethanol).

- Oshyan