Posted on 01/09/2002 3:40:24 PM PST by John Jamieson
We're better off buying all the cheap energy we get from the middle east as long as we can. When theirs run out, we'll still have ours. Meantime we use just enough of ours to control their prices.
I agree. My MS thesis (not too many years ago) was on advanced vehicle technologies. Part of my MS requirement was also to write a proposal for this DOE project.
Although several automakers -- including DaimlerChrysler AG, Ford Motor Co. and General Motors Corp. -- have said they expect to have fuel-cell vehicles in showrooms within the next four or five years, wide availability of such cars is probably a decade or more away.
Fuel Cell vehicles won't happen any time soon. The next evolving vehicle will be hybrid electric. People are not going to sacrifice PERFORMANCE for an expensive toy. Watch 'em in Califonia starting to back-up on their emmissions and "ZEV's" (Zero Emmision Vehicle) mandates they set forth back in the early 90's for this year.
A natural gas - Electric hybrid is what I predict when they get through playing with the gasoline-electric hybrids. There is already a fair infastructure in place for this. Fill your car up in your garage! Hybrids are on the market and the market for them will expand.
Even if you derive the hydrogen from oil or natural gas, the increased efficiency of the total fuel cell-electricity-electric motor-mechanical energy combination cycle is still sufficiently more efficient than the thermal engine-mechanical motion (gasoline or diesel)cycle to make it cost effective.
When compared to gasoline powered vehicles, LPG (light vehicles) emit about the same level of carbon monoxide. Results are better for larger heavier vehicles such as buses.
The primary safety concern is that LPG is heavier than air and tends to "pool" (in the event of a leak or accidental release). This makes it more susceptible to fires or explosions compared to other gaseous fuels such as natural gas (which is lighter than air and dissipates when released).
Propane (LPG) works best for heavier fleet vehicles relative to light vehicles primarily due to emissions. A primary focus of the DOE project above was to reduce the emissions of passenger vehicles - not larger heavier vehicles.
However, hybrid cars make very little sense. People that are now buying hybrids are paying about $11 a gallon for the gas they don't use!
But you first have to as you say "derive" the hydrogen from oil or natural gas. Remember most of your electricity produced in power plants is also derived from oil and natural gas. This factor was consider in many efficiency studies for those developing electric vehicles (so called Zero Emission Vehicles) because you gotta make the juice (burn oil, gas and coal) to charge the batteries.
Overall energy efficiency (from the power plant through the vehicle) was a little better. The problem was the technology for the batteries ain't there. Pure electric vehicles were argued to be "cost effective". Problem is they lack the PERFORMANCE of today's vehicles. In addition, the MAINTENANCE cost were also determined to be incredible. I wouldn't look for mass production of fuel cell or electric vehicles for several decades.
This is more likely a diversion from more promising near term solutions (hybrids - which are on the market)so the oil kings can continue to pull in the money. They don't want you to buy less.
Believe it or not there are also safety concerns with these vehicles (electric and fuel cell). Just a couple examples: you have to lighten the body of the vehicle and most are too "quiet" (can't hear em coming).
Gal of gas weights 6 pounds and produces 120,000 BTUS
Gal of gas contains about 1 pound of hydrogen C(n)H(2n+2) C=14 H=1.
Assume you can seperate the two for free. (You can't)
Throw away the 5 pounds of carbon and just use the 1 pound of hydrogen.
1 pound of hydrogen generates 61,000 BTUs.
You just doubled your cost, if you could do it at 100% eff.
Feel free to check my math.
Considering there's a finite supply of both, but that hydrocarbons break down into methane later in the process, the more intelligent choice is to break the plentiful number of hydrocarbons available. This would leave plenty of methane available for chemical feedstocks without the threat to quantity of methane available to future generations.
I've wondered if the hydrocarbons weren't actually formed in ancient history by fallen angels or their bodies from some condemnation. It might explain the natural inclination of so many environmentalists to oppose their man made consumption.
When driving in the city or accelerating say for example to pass another vehicle the electric motor kicks in on a universal drive system to compensate. These driving conditions are where your biggest emission problems occur. Starting and stopping frequently and accelerating.
You only use the electrical motor for short distances in the city and when accelerating. The combustion engine,when used, runs at its peak operating point constantly - further improving efficiency. The key is targeting the biggest inefficiencies in operating conventional vehicles.
Geez--do a Google search! There is plenty of documentation available on this. If you don't understand the efficiency advangate of non-thermal conversion that bypasses the Carnot thermal cycle engines, a dialog is hopeless.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.