Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hydrogen Powered Cars! HA!
1/25/2002 | John Jamieson

Posted on 01/25/2002 12:12:08 PM PST by John Jamieson

Hydrogen Powered Cars! Yes, When the Lasts Drops of Crude Are Gone!

John R Jamieson MIT67, NASA67-94 retired

It seems like a great idea at first glance. Hydrogen is one of the most abundant elements on earth and burns very cleanly. It contains more energy per pound than any other fuel.

At second glance, things are a little less encouraging. Most of the hydrogen on earth is already burned! The oceans are the ashes of billions of years of hydrogen fires. The hydrogen is tightly bound to oxygen atoms and must be separated from those atoms before it can be used again. Using electrolysis, the hydrogen can be separated from the oxygen by putting in exactly the same amount of energy that will later be retrieved when the hydrogen is burned. Hydrogen, made from water, is thus an energy storage media like a battery, not an energy source. Neither the separation nor the recombination of this reversible process can happen at 100% efficiency. Waste heat is generated during each process. Because most of our electricity is generated by hydrocarbons, we would still be using hydrocarbons to run our cars. The inherent efficiency of the electrical energy generation process (about 40%) times the expected efficiency of the electrolysis process (about 50%) would indicate a hydrogen fuel price of about 5 times the price of fossil fuels.

The second major source of hydrogen is directly from hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons contain both hydrogen and carbon; about twice as many hydrogen atoms than carbon atoms, but since a carbon atom weights 14 times more than a hydrogen atom, much more carbon by weight. When we drive our cars today, we burn about 5.3 pounds of carbon and .7 pound of hydrogen per gallon of gasoline. Hydrogen plus oxygen equals water, good; carbon plus oxygen equals carbon dioxide, bad (the same stuff we exhale!). If we could breakdown natural gas, methane, gasoline, or fuel oil to separate the hydrogen from the nasty carbon (on which all life is based) and sell the huge piles of carbon for enough to pay for the separation, about 3 gallons of liquid or an equivalent weight of gas (about 18 pounds) would yield about 2 pounds of hydrogen, which is the energy equivalent of 1 gallon of gasoline or 6 pounds of natural gas. Remember that burning the carbon would not be allowed. We could make diamonds with it. The net result is that hydrogen fuel cannot, ever, be made for less than 3 times the price of fossil fuels.

OK, what if we just ignore that fact that we can’t make hydrogen economically. What do we do with it in an automobile? The logical answer is we burn it, in the same cars we’re driving today. Internal combustion engines basically don’t care what provides the heat. There are a few minor problems: How do you seal up the leakiest substance known to man? How do you store enough in the car to go 300 miles? What happens in a freeway crash? Etc. But, these little issues can all be solved. IC engines will need water injection to lower peak cylinder temps so we don’t make nasty NOX, but that technology is pretty well understood. Oh, but wait a minute, IC engines are nasty and unacceptable! Enter the miracle solution: FUEL CELLS!

FUEL CELLS work! There is about a $100,000,000 worth of them on each Space Shuttle generating the equivalent of almost 36 horsepower. Coleman just announced a real commercial home power generator that puts out 1.2 kilowatts for only $7,995 (Plus $100 per hydrogen canister that lasts for a few hours). GM just drove its latest fuel cell vehicle “Hydrogen1” on an “endurance test”, 230 miles from LA to Los Vegas. They only had to stop 7 times for more hydrogen. Many other companies built fuel cell cars and tried to go along, but didn’t make it. Zero to 50 was only 18 seconds.

The US department of energy recently set a goal of only $400 per kilowatt (about a horsepower, figuring electrical controller and motor efficiencies) for STATIONARY APPLICATIONS BY 2015. Won’t they be surprised that Detroit is planning affordable family fuel cell automobiles by 2010! If Detroit gets to magic $400 per horsepower five years early, and makes it small enough and light enough to go in a family car, you too, could be driving a 200 horsepower family car for a little over $100,000 that “burns” hydrogen costing you $5 a “gallon”. What a deal! You’ll drive it with pride knowing that your leaving no bad stuff in the air of your immediate area, while increasing the pollution of the poor people that live next to the power plant outside of town by a factor of 3 and increasing the importation (and probably the price) of Arab oil by a factor of three.

All this negativity aside, there is one and only one way to cheap automotive fuel, clean air and energy independence for this country. The answer is a massive, nuclear energy economy, probably fusion (hydrogen) powered. Hydrogen used for fusion generates power thousands of times more effectively than burning it with oxygen. A national effort equal to the Manhattan project or the Apollo program could develop fusion-powered electricity (and cheap hydrogen for automotive fuel) within 25 years. Then, we can truly say, we’re driving clean, fusion-powered cars. Electricity could be as cheap as 2 cents per kilowatt-hour and hydrogen for our cars, 40 cents per “gallon”. It is the only solution to the problem that has any economic, political, or engineering viability.

In the meantime, burn all the cheap Arab oil you can get and keep supporting the development our own fossil fuel sources for the day when we decide to shut the Arabs off!


TOPICS: Editorial; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: energy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-181 next last
Your Comments????
1 posted on 01/25/2002 12:12:08 PM PST by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: John Jamieson
Present day nuclear fission could also be used to generate the electricity needed to break hydrogen out of water. With administrative and legal roadblocks removed, it would be quite cost-effective. And it's available now.

It may not be possible to generate electricity with fusion power in a cost-effective way. For the last 30 years I've been reading that this goal is 10-20 years away. At least you've moved you projection out to 25 years away!

2 posted on 01/25/2002 12:18:48 PM PST by Restorer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Jamieson
Methane.
3 posted on 01/25/2002 12:18:57 PM PST by jedi150
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Jamieson
I bought Ballard Power Systems stock at 70, and now its only around 32. You can bet I'm rooting for hydrogen powered cars now.
4 posted on 01/25/2002 12:24:07 PM PST by Maceman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jedi150
"Methane."

Would eating beans makes us self reliant? ;^D
5 posted on 01/25/2002 12:24:31 PM PST by HEY4QDEMS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Restorer
Trying to be conservative (about the 25 years), but I certainly agree that it could be done now with new generation of stardard fission plants dedicated to hydrogen production. A $100 billion dollar government project to start it would be one of the very few large government projects I could support. Clear goals and a resonable extention of existing technology are key.
6 posted on 01/25/2002 12:24:41 PM PST by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jedi150
Methane CH4 is a hydrocarbon. See above.
7 posted on 01/25/2002 12:25:46 PM PST by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: John Jamieson
Did you consider biogenic sources of hydrogen and other volatile compounds? Bacteria might also be an answer.

Good article.

8 posted on 01/25/2002 12:26:19 PM PST by The_Victor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maceman
Sell before it Kmarts or Enrons.
9 posted on 01/25/2002 12:26:35 PM PST by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: The_Victor
Their is not enough of it.

A billion years of such biological activety gave us the windfall of hydrocarbons we now have. I don't think you could eat enough beans to power even your lawn mower.

10 posted on 01/25/2002 12:29:32 PM PST by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: John Jamieson
It would be a terrorist's dream machine....
11 posted on 01/25/2002 12:29:40 PM PST by Dallas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dallas
How so?
12 posted on 01/25/2002 12:31:01 PM PST by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: John Jamieson
In a word.....infrastructure.....lack of it actually.

Methanol has a better chance whether in the internal combustion engine or in direct methanol fuel cells.

BTW, biodiesel is intriguing....and clean (more so than "normal diesel.)

13 posted on 01/25/2002 12:32:16 PM PST by stboz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Jamieson
I would just like you to compare the capabilities of the first internal comb. powered autos to the first fuel cell autos we seeing today.
There were also then quite a few critics that voiced similar opinions when the first IC autos were introduced. Just for comparison mind you.

EBUCK

14 posted on 01/25/2002 12:33:55 PM PST by EBUCK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Restorer
There are a lot more alternatives out there now - this goal really is closer than many think. Check the sources on this article I wrote last year: Here
15 posted on 01/25/2002 12:34:27 PM PST by Technocrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: John Jamieson
There was a thread a couple of days ago about hydrogen cars, and I thought it said it would be volatile
16 posted on 01/25/2002 12:37:13 PM PST by Dallas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Comment #17 Removed by Moderator

To: All
The only solution!!!!!
Segeway
/sarcasm off

EBUCK

18 posted on 01/25/2002 12:37:38 PM PST by EBUCK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: John Jamieson
At least there are some cost numbers here that can be argued. I have long argued that the main problem with hydrogen is storage.

If you could make the infrastructure supporting petroleum disappear overnight and then consider the cost of reinventing and rebuilding it -- it would seem imposible. So I'm skeptical of hydrogen, but still interested.

19 posted on 01/25/2002 12:38:04 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Jamieson
I once wrote a (successful) grant proposal to gain money to help commercialize and market a new hydrogen leak-detection technology. NASA and Boeing have also put money into it.

I've long felt that hydrogen will make more and more sense the more expensive fossil fuels are. Eventually, as demand increases for a fixed supply of fossil fuels, reserves will begin to deplete to the point where the low-hanging fruit has all been lopped off, and we have nothing left but the stuff that's more expensive to extract and refine. This will drive the price higher. Drive it up high enough, and expensive alternatives will actually become competitive. By that time, fuel efficiency will be in vogue again. It's all supply and demand, basic Econ 101.

What you didn't talk about, however, is the "hidden" environmental cost of fossil fuels. I'm not an environmentalist wacko, but growing up in So Cal, I appreciate that some real costs were added to driving cars (in the form of smog controls and unleaded fuels). I remember when, in the early 70's, the brown smog was so thick and vile that it made your eyes and lungs burn in the summer. Things are much better now then they were then.

Also, aren't they working on renewable methods of extracting hydrogen (such as biomass)? I know that these have not been fully realized, but then neither has fusion.

Otherwise, thanks for your informative post.

20 posted on 01/25/2002 12:38:26 PM PST by kezekiel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stboz
Methanol works in Brazil as M85. But farm labor is cheap there and they don't use near as much fuel to grow corn. They also don't grow near as much corn per acrer. In this country we use twice as much energy to make methanol as we get out of it (Thats why the big ADM subsidies).

We could all lower our wages and go back to work on the farm. I'm not ready. Give me a cheaper, better solution. Japan and France already generate just about all their electricity with nuclear power. You can't win by going backwards.

21 posted on 01/25/2002 12:39:28 PM PST by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: John Jamieson
Someone who actually know science, physics, chemistry and all that un-PC stuff! Will wonders never cease?? /sarcasm

Hydrogen is, at present, a pipe dream. Separating it from chemical combination (be it H20, water, or in hydrocarbon form - methane is the main constituent of natural gas) will always use more energy than the burning will produce (this is the first and second laws of thermodynamics). It will eventually be a good, clean secondary source of power - after we find an even cheaper way to generate large amounts of electricity. (Oops, we've know one, it's called nuclear.)

Just in case you didn't know, the Three Laws of Thermodynamics, Simplified:

1.) You can't get ahead. Or, you can't get more energy out of a system than you originally put in. This is called "the conservation of energy". Or, no system can ever be more than 100% efficient.

2.) You can't break even. Or, some energy will always be lost in process. This is called "entropy". Or, no system can ever be as much as 100% efficient.

3.) You can't get out of the game. Or, you can't create negative energy, which is the same as saying you can't go below absolute zero temperature. If you could, you'd be able to violate the first two laws whenever you wanted to.

22 posted on 01/25/2002 12:41:26 PM PST by Chairman Fred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EBUCK
An $8,000 solution to a $200 problem. That's not what I want. Dean's heart stints really work well though.....I love the man!
23 posted on 01/25/2002 12:42:22 PM PST by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: John Jamieson
Methanol or ethanol? I think the Brazilians are using ethyl alcohol and/or gasohol.

I didn't say it before, but yeah!...nukes are clean in so many ways...no greenhouse gases (as if it matters), no acid rain precursors, no large scale mining operations like coal, a good bit less noisy, too. As for safe, when they're not operated by morons, they're great.

I look forward to seeing our Saudi friends(?) living in tents and humping camels...just like they used to.

24 posted on 01/25/2002 12:44:57 PM PST by stboz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: kezekiel
The "Aternatives" to hydrocarbons can only work if the alternative does not depend on hydrocarbons as it's source or it's process, or it's infrastructure. Nuclear (and solar which is nuclear at a distance) seems be the only alternative that does NOT directly require hydrocarbons.
25 posted on 01/25/2002 12:46:41 PM PST by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: stboz
Its called "M85".
26 posted on 01/25/2002 12:47:48 PM PST by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: js1138
It can't/won't happen instantly. Gas stations spread from the larger cities outward gradualy. I'm sure that could be done again with the right incentive. The real problem is the clean up of the former gas station sites.

EBUCK

27 posted on 01/25/2002 12:50:45 PM PST by EBUCK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: John Jamieson
I support nuclear power, so we don't disagree there. The West has been using it safely for many years.

I'm no engineer, but the problem I have with those who say fuel cell cars won't work is that I see them working. Daimler and Toyota have been at this for years, producing many prototypes, long before the US government and Detroit got involved. I just don't believe the biggest auto companies in the world would be pursuing something that can't work. The switch in a big way is unlikely, however, unless and until oil prices rise enough to make fuel cell prices more attractive and production increases to make economies of scale possible.

In the meantime, I agree we suck the mideast dry.

28 posted on 01/25/2002 12:52:17 PM PST by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Jamieson
A quick look around at Google shows both M85 and E85. M for methanol (you are correct) and E for ethanol (I am also correct...damn, we're good.)

Nuclear for baseloads makes complete sense. Fuel cells for topping or local applications can also make sense.

Hydrogen makes sense if you're a politician looking to bullshit your way into people's pocketbooks.

29 posted on 01/25/2002 12:54:17 PM PST by stboz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Technocrat
Great article. Great minds think alike! Hydrogen would only be the battery for portable applications. We have to do this!

W, I know you're pretty busy, but if you could work it in, please start think about the long term future of this country.

30 posted on 01/25/2002 12:54:45 PM PST by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: kezekiel
Detecting hydrogen leaks is hard. Plugging them even harder. I spent a good bit of NASA career doing just that.
31 posted on 01/25/2002 12:56:29 PM PST by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: John Jamieson
"... the hydrogen can be separated from the oxygen by putting in exactly the same amount of energy that will later be retrieved when the hydrogen is burned."

Actually, I don't believe that is quite true. As stated, the process would require 100 percent efficiency, and I don't believe that to be obtainable.

However, I do think it would be possible to create large scale sun-to-electricity or wind-to-electricity facilities in non-populated areas and pipe or ditch water to them. The water could then be converted to hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis without the loss of too much power through long distance voltage drops. The two elements could then be shipped to wherever they are needed.

Fuel cells, internal combustion - and other types of engines might be feasible.

Now, if we could just get a source of electricity to destinations without too much voltage drop due to the distance, it might just be feasible to create a car that never needs re-fueling. Just fill up a permanently sealed, heavy gauge fuel system with water; conver the water to hydrogen and oxygen during the night; convert the hydrogen and oxygen back to water as the car is used, and recycle that water again at night. The only thing needed to be added is the electricity at night. Wouldn't that be a "gas"!

32 posted on 01/25/2002 12:57:31 PM PST by Real Cynic No More
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Jamieson
Fuel Cells 2000
33 posted on 01/25/2002 12:58:07 PM PST by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker
Making something that rolls is a lot easier than making something that people can afford to buy, will buy, and consider atleast as good as what they have.
34 posted on 01/25/2002 12:58:57 PM PST by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: John Jamieson
Detecting hydrogen leaks is hard. Plugging them even harder. I spent a good bit of NASA career doing just that.

Just ask the guys at Morton Thiokol.

35 posted on 01/25/2002 1:01:22 PM PST by kezekiel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: John Jamieson
Besides the waste products, the tree huggers, the soccer Moms and the NIMBY's what are the obstacles to fusion?
36 posted on 01/25/2002 1:01:25 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: stboz
Methanol has a better chance whether in the internal combustion engine or in direct methanol fuel cells.

It appears so. The PR is lacking so far, but the hydrogen hype will blow over. It's methane.

37 posted on 01/25/2002 1:02:44 PM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Real Cynic No More
You're looking at atleast $5 a "gallon" unless your electricity is much cheaper than mine here in Texas.
38 posted on 01/25/2002 1:04:35 PM PST by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: John Jamieson
Nukes are not as clean as you think also. It takes about 1,000,000 tons of Uranium ore to refine it into 100 tons of 2% U235 for fuel rods. You have to move it around and get rid of radioactive leftovers (that's millions of tons). Than you get all nuclear power plants releasing radioactive gasses Kripton, Radon ect.(on regular basis), something that you don't hear that often, preventing their build up inside the reactors. And the last thing, what to do with millions of tons of "used" fuel rods ? Send them to space ??? One mistake and the Entire east coast is contaminated...
39 posted on 01/25/2002 1:05:35 PM PST by Jersey Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: kezekiel
They had problems plugging leaks, but not hydrogen. A whole chemistry book comes out those SRBs. (including lots of acids, NASA issued car covers in the old days, to avoid buying new paint jobs).
40 posted on 01/25/2002 1:07:39 PM PST by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
I think methanol has a real shot simply because the infrastructure already exists....in the form of today's gas stations. Pump seals and other rubber items (and some metals) would have to be retrofitted (along with those in the vehicles using methanol), but that's doable compared to building a whole new system for hydrogen.

The direct methanol fuel cell is a real item and still developing. It's here now, it will get better with time.

41 posted on 01/25/2002 1:07:41 PM PST by stboz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Besides the waste products, the tree huggers, the soccer Moms and the NIMBY's what are the obstacles to fusion?

Finding a way to contain a plasma at 25,000 degrees for starters. It's way more than your average thermos can handle.

42 posted on 01/25/2002 1:08:16 PM PST by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: John Jamieson
A huge opportunity is using the wasted electricity generated during nighttime hours to generate the hydrogen.

Quick explanation. A large electricity plant, of whatever kind, cannot be shut down for so short a period as overnight. So electricity companies have for years been selling cities "street lights" in an attempt to get a few bucks out of this otherwise wasted energy.

I live in a city that has basically banned street lights. It's one of the safest cities in the area (so much for the "security" part of lights). And its wonderful because you can see the stars at night.

So, shut off the street lights. Generate the hydrogen. And at whatever ineficiency that might be, its still better than totally wasting the energy.

43 posted on 01/25/2002 1:08:43 PM PST by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Real Cynic No More
Look up Tesla!!!!! He said it could be done and that he had done it but the evidence either didn't exist or was covered up ( I am not a nut, BTW where's my tin-foil)

EBUCK

44 posted on 01/25/2002 1:09:50 PM PST by EBUCK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Jersey Kid
Poor Japan and France.....they're doomed.
45 posted on 01/25/2002 1:09:53 PM PST by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: EBUCK
See Freelectricity.com. Send in your $5 and wait.
46 posted on 01/25/2002 1:11:05 PM PST by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: narby
Good thought. Let's start now. Don't even need to wait for fuelcells. I could burn it in the Mustang (need water injection and new computer chip).
47 posted on 01/25/2002 1:14:00 PM PST by John Jamieson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Jersey Kid
I'd like to see that same level of analysis on a coal strip mine. Gas/oil wells, same thing.

Using any form of energy you can think of kills people.

Since I've never seen the scrutiny of energy like the anal exam of nuclear (what was the cost, $10 billion, just spent so far on one silly mountian in NV for studies. And they want to continue studies another 10 years!) I'll just assume that these other forms are just as dangerous. But they're just not quite as politically incorrect.

48 posted on 01/25/2002 1:15:07 PM PST by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: John Jamieson
Maybe we should breed elephants for their methane?
49 posted on 01/25/2002 1:15:23 PM PST by rebdov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jersey Kid
...what to do with millions of tons of "used" fuel rods...

You process them to recover unused fuel and to recover plutonium to make more fuel. You then exercise good engineering judgement and manage the remaining high-level wastes where they will not get loose in the environment.

You also quit wetting your pants worrying whether someone will steal them and put them in the mashed potatoes in school lunchrooms.

50 posted on 01/25/2002 1:20:44 PM PST by stboz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-181 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson