hydro power??
KeGrO
02-27-2003, 08:00 PM
i just read about the switch over from gas to hydrogen. it claims a 50% increase in power, and is a whole lot easier on fuel money and the environment. does anyone have one yet. or had their car modified to use hydrogen? i heard about it being used a little in cali, but since i don't live there i don't have any info? does anyone?
rsxer45
02-27-2003, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by KeGrO
i just read about the switch over from gas to hydrogen. it claims a 50% increase in power, and is a whole lot easier on fuel money and the environment. does anyone have one yet. or had their car modified to use hydrogen? i heard about it being used a little in cali, but since i don't live there i don't have any info? does anyone?
I don't think these type of cars a ready for mass production yet (I could be wrong). There are probably a few prototypes given to celebs or something to drive around, but I heard that these type of cars are way too expensive for mass production as of now. But, the benefits of hydrogen are amazing. Ideally, hydrogen actually produces about 2.5 times as much energy as the same quantity of gas. Plus, the only waste product is water vapor. Im really, looking foward to these cars in the future. The only question I have is what are they going to do with the excess waste water. In cold climates, if the waste was eliminated into the air, it would come back down as ice or snow and make driving conditions hell. Maybe they just store it in the car?
i just read about the switch over from gas to hydrogen. it claims a 50% increase in power, and is a whole lot easier on fuel money and the environment. does anyone have one yet. or had their car modified to use hydrogen? i heard about it being used a little in cali, but since i don't live there i don't have any info? does anyone?
I don't think these type of cars a ready for mass production yet (I could be wrong). There are probably a few prototypes given to celebs or something to drive around, but I heard that these type of cars are way too expensive for mass production as of now. But, the benefits of hydrogen are amazing. Ideally, hydrogen actually produces about 2.5 times as much energy as the same quantity of gas. Plus, the only waste product is water vapor. Im really, looking foward to these cars in the future. The only question I have is what are they going to do with the excess waste water. In cold climates, if the waste was eliminated into the air, it would come back down as ice or snow and make driving conditions hell. Maybe they just store it in the car?
454Casull
02-27-2003, 09:15 PM
250% more by volume or by mass?
BTW, 50% increase in power over what?
BTW, 50% increase in power over what?
rsxer45
02-27-2003, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by 454Casull
250% more by volume or by mass?
BTW, 50% increase in power over what?
sorry, by mass.
250% more by volume or by mass?
BTW, 50% increase in power over what?
sorry, by mass.
454Casull
02-28-2003, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by rsxer45
sorry, by mass.
Yup. Hydrogen has a greater energy content than any other chemical fuel by mass, but by volume it isn't. And volume is more important to storage than mass.
sorry, by mass.
Yup. Hydrogen has a greater energy content than any other chemical fuel by mass, but by volume it isn't. And volume is more important to storage than mass.
Route666
03-08-2003, 05:37 AM
Originally posted by rsxer45
The only question I have is what are they going to do with the excess waste water. In cold climates, if the waste was eliminated into the air, it would come back down as ice or snow and make driving conditions hell. Maybe they just store it in the car?
Build in drink dispensers into the cars :) problem solved hehe
The only question I have is what are they going to do with the excess waste water. In cold climates, if the waste was eliminated into the air, it would come back down as ice or snow and make driving conditions hell. Maybe they just store it in the car?
Build in drink dispensers into the cars :) problem solved hehe
ivymike1031
03-08-2003, 08:09 AM
Originally posted by rsxer45
I don't think these type of cars a ready for mass production yet (I could be wrong). There are probably a few prototypes given to celebs or something to drive around, but I heard that these type of cars are way too expensive for mass production as of now. But, the benefits of hydrogen are amazing. Ideally, hydrogen actually produces about 2.5 times as much energy as the same quantity of gas. Plus, the only waste product is water vapor. Im really, looking foward to these cars in the future. The only question I have is what are they going to do with the excess waste water. In cold climates, if the waste was eliminated into the air, it would come back down as ice or snow and make driving conditions hell. Maybe they just store it in the car?
you know that a large amount of water vapor is created by your current engine, right?
I don't think these type of cars a ready for mass production yet (I could be wrong). There are probably a few prototypes given to celebs or something to drive around, but I heard that these type of cars are way too expensive for mass production as of now. But, the benefits of hydrogen are amazing. Ideally, hydrogen actually produces about 2.5 times as much energy as the same quantity of gas. Plus, the only waste product is water vapor. Im really, looking foward to these cars in the future. The only question I have is what are they going to do with the excess waste water. In cold climates, if the waste was eliminated into the air, it would come back down as ice or snow and make driving conditions hell. Maybe they just store it in the car?
you know that a large amount of water vapor is created by your current engine, right?
911GT2
03-08-2003, 10:43 AM
There's one thing alot of people don't realize about hydrogen fueled cars. They can't just drill for the stuff and it's not cheap to make.
It DOES have a 50% increase in efficiency (at least) but whgen you factor in the extra costs of refinement in comparison to gas, the advantage falls to 10% at best. Not worth building a multi-billion dollar infrastructure until we can find a cheaper way to make the stuff.
It DOES have a 50% increase in efficiency (at least) but whgen you factor in the extra costs of refinement in comparison to gas, the advantage falls to 10% at best. Not worth building a multi-billion dollar infrastructure until we can find a cheaper way to make the stuff.
ivymike1031
03-09-2003, 07:26 AM
a 50% increase in efficiency? comparing what to what?
Polygon
03-09-2003, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by ivymike1031
a 50% increase in efficiency? comparing what to what?
Petrol.
BMW has some prototypes running around in Europe, three I believe. It is the future IMO. I think we will go from fission reactors to fusion reactors. Use the most abundant resource in the universe and where the only waste is water. Screw electric, and the hybrids. Give me hydrogen. We can retain out cars the way they are and still be good to the environment, which is what I like the most. With Bush putting billions into this I would say this could be a reality in 15 - 25 years.
AS for now, you can’t change you car over. You would have nowhere to fuel, and it would be VERY expensive.
a 50% increase in efficiency? comparing what to what?
Petrol.
BMW has some prototypes running around in Europe, three I believe. It is the future IMO. I think we will go from fission reactors to fusion reactors. Use the most abundant resource in the universe and where the only waste is water. Screw electric, and the hybrids. Give me hydrogen. We can retain out cars the way they are and still be good to the environment, which is what I like the most. With Bush putting billions into this I would say this could be a reality in 15 - 25 years.
AS for now, you can’t change you car over. You would have nowhere to fuel, and it would be VERY expensive.
Moppie
03-09-2003, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by Polygon
I think we will go from fission reactors to fusion reactors.
You want to drive a car with a Fusion reactor in it? :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
Size and safety problems aside they actualy have to create a long lasting and stable fusion reaction before you can even consider useing it as a power source.
I think we will go from fission reactors to fusion reactors.
You want to drive a car with a Fusion reactor in it? :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
Size and safety problems aside they actualy have to create a long lasting and stable fusion reaction before you can even consider useing it as a power source.
ivymike1031
03-09-2003, 06:42 PM
Efficient compared to what?
Originally posted by Polygon
Petrol.
Really? I haven't yet seen a working system where that's the case. Please elaborate.
Originally posted by Polygon
Petrol.
Really? I haven't yet seen a working system where that's the case. Please elaborate.
Polygon
03-09-2003, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by Moppie
You want to drive a car with a Fusion reactor in it? :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
ROTFLMO!!!!!
No, I don't want to drive around a hydrogen bomb. Imagine the rear enders with that! I was saying that I think our current nuclear fission reactors will be replaced with nuclear fusion reactors.
As for the petrol comment, that was a guess. I don't know what he is say it is more efficient than.
Originally posted by Moppie
Size and safety problems aside they actualy have to create a long lasting and stable fusion reaction before you can even consider useing it as a power source.
Yeah, it may be over 40 to 50 years before we get to that point. It is just WAY too unstable right now. It will be great when they do get it perfected.
You want to drive a car with a Fusion reactor in it? :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
ROTFLMO!!!!!
No, I don't want to drive around a hydrogen bomb. Imagine the rear enders with that! I was saying that I think our current nuclear fission reactors will be replaced with nuclear fusion reactors.
As for the petrol comment, that was a guess. I don't know what he is say it is more efficient than.
Originally posted by Moppie
Size and safety problems aside they actualy have to create a long lasting and stable fusion reaction before you can even consider useing it as a power source.
Yeah, it may be over 40 to 50 years before we get to that point. It is just WAY too unstable right now. It will be great when they do get it perfected.
aznpeter
03-09-2003, 08:36 PM
yes hydrogen powered cars will be environmentally friendly and higher energy/mass compared to petro but
- takes way too much space to go the same distance a small tank of gasoline would, unless u use liquid hydrogen then u better have some damn good containers to hold them---too expensive
- the energy needed to extract pure hydrogen evens out the gains-- also expensive
- very explosive
hydrogen powered cars r just not practically in this age..maybe 50 years in the future..but that requires some heck load of work..good thing that ppl r workin on it
hybrids r much more practical and realistic for now...even solar cars
- takes way too much space to go the same distance a small tank of gasoline would, unless u use liquid hydrogen then u better have some damn good containers to hold them---too expensive
- the energy needed to extract pure hydrogen evens out the gains-- also expensive
- very explosive
hydrogen powered cars r just not practically in this age..maybe 50 years in the future..but that requires some heck load of work..good thing that ppl r workin on it
hybrids r much more practical and realistic for now...even solar cars
ivymike1031
03-10-2003, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by aznpeter
yes hydrogen powered cars will be environmentally friendly
That's really only true if you assume that an "environmentally friendly" source of H2 is found. Currently the best place to get the H2 is by hacking it off of hydrocarbons (ie methane), and by the time you're done with it, you've used considerably more methane than you would have used if you'd just burned it in the engine. Since cleaner sources of hydrogen are currently either sci-fi (fusion reactors that produce energy instead of consuming it), just too expensive (solar), or not widely available (ocean turbines, etc), I don't see any benefit of using H2 in vehicles for quite some time. Current "expert estimates" of when H2-powered vehicles will be more environmentally friendly than diesels, diesel-electric, or gasoline-electric hybrids, put the date somewhere beyond 2020.
yes hydrogen powered cars will be environmentally friendly
That's really only true if you assume that an "environmentally friendly" source of H2 is found. Currently the best place to get the H2 is by hacking it off of hydrocarbons (ie methane), and by the time you're done with it, you've used considerably more methane than you would have used if you'd just burned it in the engine. Since cleaner sources of hydrogen are currently either sci-fi (fusion reactors that produce energy instead of consuming it), just too expensive (solar), or not widely available (ocean turbines, etc), I don't see any benefit of using H2 in vehicles for quite some time. Current "expert estimates" of when H2-powered vehicles will be more environmentally friendly than diesels, diesel-electric, or gasoline-electric hybrids, put the date somewhere beyond 2020.
911GT2
03-10-2003, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by ivymike1031
a 50% increase in efficiency? comparing what to what?
Gas. I just got that out of a Motor Trend, so the source is probably reliable.
a 50% increase in efficiency? comparing what to what?
Gas. I just got that out of a Motor Trend, so the source is probably reliable.
ivymike1031
03-10-2003, 02:00 PM
if he simply said that a hydrogen powered vehicle gets 50% better efficiency than a gas-powered vehicle, then the author hadn't a clue what he was talking about. Was the article about fuel cells, about Hydrogen-fueled IC engines, or what? Was he talking about the efficiency of a fuel cell by itself, or the overall efficiency of the propulsion method? I wouldn't count on a Motor Trend magazine (or any consumer magazine for that matter) being an accurate source of info. A general rule of thumb about the editors/authors of automotive-related magazines: they're english majors with an interest in cars.
911GT2
03-11-2003, 12:28 PM
So true.
I think it was on fuel cells.
I think it was on fuel cells.
454Casull
03-11-2003, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by Moppie
You want to drive a car with a Fusion reactor in it? :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
Size and safety problems aside they actualy have to create a long lasting and stable fusion reaction before you can even consider useing it as a power source.
The Doc did it in BTTF. :)
You want to drive a car with a Fusion reactor in it? :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
Size and safety problems aside they actualy have to create a long lasting and stable fusion reaction before you can even consider useing it as a power source.
The Doc did it in BTTF. :)
e_a_olson
03-14-2003, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by 911GT2
There's one thing alot of people don't realize about hydrogen fueled cars. They can't just drill for the stuff and it's not cheap to make.
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. Where's the shortage?
There's one thing alot of people don't realize about hydrogen fueled cars. They can't just drill for the stuff and it's not cheap to make.
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. Where's the shortage?
rsxer45
03-14-2003, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by e_a_olson
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. Where's the shortage?
Its not that there is a shortage (Read more carefully), Its just that it so expensive to produce large quantities of hydrogen and store it. The three main ways of acquiring H2 (natural gas steam reforming, water electrolysis, and through biological processes) are not at stage right now were they could be considered anywhere near cost efficient. So yeah, we got a ton a hydrogen but there's not an efficient way to get to it yet.
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. Where's the shortage?
Its not that there is a shortage (Read more carefully), Its just that it so expensive to produce large quantities of hydrogen and store it. The three main ways of acquiring H2 (natural gas steam reforming, water electrolysis, and through biological processes) are not at stage right now were they could be considered anywhere near cost efficient. So yeah, we got a ton a hydrogen but there's not an efficient way to get to it yet.
ivymike1031
03-14-2003, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by e_a_olson
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. Where's the shortage?
The shortage is on earth... unless you know of a good way to capture hydrogen from distant stars!
Hydrogen makes up about 0.14% of the earth's crust, largely bound up in hydrocarbons, and it's even less abundant as H2.
http://www.science.co.il/PTelements.asp?s=Earth
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. Where's the shortage?
The shortage is on earth... unless you know of a good way to capture hydrogen from distant stars!
Hydrogen makes up about 0.14% of the earth's crust, largely bound up in hydrocarbons, and it's even less abundant as H2.
http://www.science.co.il/PTelements.asp?s=Earth
rsxer45
03-14-2003, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by ivymike1031
The shortage is on earth... unless you know of a good way to capture hydrogen from distant stars!
what about water (H20)? Not too much of a shortage if you consider electrolysis as a method for producing hydrogen. Then again, as of now its hard to produce it in large quantities with this method.
The shortage is on earth... unless you know of a good way to capture hydrogen from distant stars!
what about water (H20)? Not too much of a shortage if you consider electrolysis as a method for producing hydrogen. Then again, as of now its hard to produce it in large quantities with this method.
ivymike1031
03-14-2003, 01:29 PM
well riddle me this, riddler - how do you propose to power your electrolysis machine?
rsxer45
03-14-2003, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by ivymike1031
well riddle me this, riddler - how do you propose to power your electrolysis machine?
Why a nuclear fusion reactor of course ;)
**PS - Whats with the "Batman" references? :confused:
well riddle me this, riddler - how do you propose to power your electrolysis machine?
Why a nuclear fusion reactor of course ;)
**PS - Whats with the "Batman" references? :confused:
ivymike1031
03-14-2003, 08:11 PM
a group you may be interested in checking out from time to time:
http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/highefficiencyvehicles
http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/highefficiencyvehicles
Steel
03-15-2003, 05:12 PM
bah, tokomak's and hydrogen bah!!
I think we should all just convert to burning alcohol. Of any kind, really. So i'f im low on gas at home, and i have a bottle of 151, i could just our that into the tank.
In all seriousness, i'd rather see us go to alcohol. Replenishible, cheap to convert cars, cleaner...
I think we should all just convert to burning alcohol. Of any kind, really. So i'f im low on gas at home, and i have a bottle of 151, i could just our that into the tank.
In all seriousness, i'd rather see us go to alcohol. Replenishible, cheap to convert cars, cleaner...
aznpeter
03-15-2003, 10:48 PM
Originally posted by ivymike1031
That's really only true if you assume that an "environmentally friendly" source of H2 is found. Currently the best place to get the H2 is by hacking it off of hydrocarbons (ie methane), and by the time you're done with it, you've used considerably more methane than you would have used if you'd just burned it in the engine. Since cleaner sources of hydrogen are currently either sci-fi (fusion reactors that produce energy instead of consuming it), just too expensive (solar), or not widely available (ocean turbines, etc), I don't see any benefit of using H2 in vehicles for quite some time. Current "expert estimates" of when H2-powered vehicles will be more environmentally friendly than diesels, diesel-electric, or gasoline-electric hybrids, put the date somewhere beyond 2020.
i said exactly the same thing in my post geez
That's really only true if you assume that an "environmentally friendly" source of H2 is found. Currently the best place to get the H2 is by hacking it off of hydrocarbons (ie methane), and by the time you're done with it, you've used considerably more methane than you would have used if you'd just burned it in the engine. Since cleaner sources of hydrogen are currently either sci-fi (fusion reactors that produce energy instead of consuming it), just too expensive (solar), or not widely available (ocean turbines, etc), I don't see any benefit of using H2 in vehicles for quite some time. Current "expert estimates" of when H2-powered vehicles will be more environmentally friendly than diesels, diesel-electric, or gasoline-electric hybrids, put the date somewhere beyond 2020.
i said exactly the same thing in my post geez
ivymike1031
03-16-2003, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by aznpeter
i said exactly the same thing in my post geez
Congratulations. Where do I pin the medal?
i said exactly the same thing in my post geez
Congratulations. Where do I pin the medal?
aznpeter
03-16-2003, 08:45 PM
Originally posted by ivymike1031
Congratulations. Where do I pin the medal?
on ur forehead since u wanted it so much
Congratulations. Where do I pin the medal?
on ur forehead since u wanted it so much
castovicini
05-17-2003, 10:07 PM
This whole discussion is the same for fuel cells.
BigJustinZ28
05-19-2003, 04:33 PM
I think they should work on a replacement for gasoline in gas powered cars. I dont think anything will ever catch on unless we can use it with our older cars. Like when they went from leaded to unleaded. Ive already seen emergency gas substitutes for your car at local gas stations , they cost more than gas but it says it contains no petroleum so someone must be working on it.
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025