Where is auto propulsion going? 5

[Skogsgurra]

I seem to have lost track of all the developments going on these days. Once, there were fuel cells and batteries - and not much more. Some high-speed flywheel storage, perhaps.

Now I am told that there are not only super capacitors but also super batteries. And if that isn't enough, there are compressed nitrogen systems, too.

What else do we have? What seems to be the most promising development lines today? Let's collect some insight and turn into APS:es (Alternative Propulsion Specialists).

Gunnar Englund

http://www.gke.org

--------------------------------------
100 % recycled posting: Electrons, ideas, finger-tips have been used over and over again...

 

[dcasto]

stranded energy will always need some solutions. The problem is non mainstream enrgy that can not be used with the infastructures in place is not going to happen. Hydrogen as an energy transfer medium will not work because there is nothing that can use it readily. You may be able to set up some isolated area that can use the hydrogen, but what happens when the isolated energy that makes the hydrogen breaksdown, you'll have a lot of cold customers.

There are a lot of cool engineering solutions to problems that will not be marketable. There's a huge amount of energy just a few feet below ground level call tar sands, we have novel ways of getting it, but the water use and high levels of tar makes it unmarketable.

Now, that said, it doesn't mean we don't keep on solving problems with engineering. How about a modified coal gasification and syncrude that uses the hydrogen to make hydrocarbons?

In the early 90's there was a glut of hydrogen in south Texas, new regs came along requiring more hydrotreating and the hydrogen dried up. I'm glad I didn't switch to hydrogen energy back then because hydrogen is going for multiples of natural gas in $/MMBTU.

 

[BJC]

There are places in the US where wind can produce all the power required to power the whole country ( when the wind blows). There arn't many people in those place so it's likely you could erect the 100,000 or so wind turbines to generate the power.
If you do the math on how much power various section of the country use and then see what kind of transmission lines you need to get the power from the upper mid west to the east cost you can come up with a scenario that no one would like. At 345 KV AC or 500 DC it means a swath of power line 5 or 6 miles wide.
You could generate hydrogen at the generation site and ship all that power out in arelatively small pipe. There are fuel cell in service that would just fit in the typical distribution substation. That's as far as I think you would ever see hydrogen go. Pipe lines can be "packed" to allow for times when the wind doesn't blow.
Even when liquified hydrogen doesn't have the power density to make good fuel for cars. Some synthetic fuels have densitys of 140-150,000 BTUs gallon. The equivalent in Hydrogen would mean towing the goodyear blimp around behing your car.
Someday we'll have vehicles powered by hydrogen fusion. The reactors will fuse two hydrogen atoms at time, maby every 10 or 15 seconds. A small flask of deturium will last longer than the vehicle. After a few centurys of powering cars and industry with such engines people will start to talk with higher and higher pitched voices, the sign of the next envrionmental crisis.

 

[Feric]

BJC:

Interesting post.

I am glad to hear that there are some other people who also believe in renewable energy, hydrogen and other ways of generating electricity and/or providing transportation, their market penetration and commercialization ...

Thanks,

Gordan Feric, PE
Engineering Software

http://members.aol.com/engware

 

[dcasto]

OK, here's the Hydrogen economy. lets look at a 900 Mw site. If you were to put up enough solar panels to generate this amout (24-7) you would need 39 square miles of panels. You would need 8 square miles to erect wind turbines. If the electricity were used to make hydrogen, you would need 1,200,000 gallons of water per day and you would get 200,000,000 cubic feet of hydrogen per day. If you had to run the hydrogen 500 miles to a market, you'd need a 12" pipeline costing $420,000,000, you would need 75,000 horsepower of compression costing $130,000,000 and the system would consume 20% of the hydrogen you created. based on a 10 year payout, you would have $.00125/cf of hydrogen or $3.85/MMBTU in just transportation costs.

Natural gas transportation would be $325,000,000 for pipe and $40,000,000 for compression and only 5% of the fuel would be used for a $1.75/MMBTU transportation cost.

Any electric guys know what 500 miles of line sending out 650 Mw would cost?

 

[Feric]

Dear dcasto:

Yes, you are right with your post about the costs when hydrogen is produced by the power generation industry and then used by the power generation industry to generate electricity.

Based upon your post and the numbers that you provide, one can conclude that such hydrogen generation and use is just not economical and cannot compete with the proven power generation technologies on the cost basis.

Let me try one more time to make my point about transitioning to the hydrogen economy.

Here is a part of my earlier post:

"Today, successful, widespread and all the time growing need for computers and computer applications is reshaping the way of living -- lifestyle.

With wireless connection to the Internet and use of computer devices, one can say that there is a huge demand for energy on the go -- this kind of energy demand never existed before on a worldwide scale.

I do believe that the new demand for energy on the go is the key in successfully developing and deploying commercially viable hydrogen fueled applications.

Therefore, hydrogen can be generated from nuclear power plants and renewable technologies (hydro, solar, wind, ocean, biofuel etc.) -- resulting in using less fossil fuel and having reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

In addition to storing hydrogen as compressed gas, new hydrogen storage technologies are being developed that would allow to ship stored hydrogen by express mail with no possibility of having any explosions and/or harmful accidents when handling such stored hydrogen.

Wireless hydrogen fueled applications can be subject to higher cost structure since there is no grid connection required and different convenience fee can be applied.

Such commercially viable operation would generate sufficient funds to deploy other hydrogen fueled application and/or technologies.

New energy demand on the go would generate additional revenues that through the tax system can be used to subsidize other technologies that cannot compete with conventional technologies and require additional capital to be further developed and deployed."

dcasto, I would appreciate if you could give another consideration to my post about how to transition to the hydrogen economy -- using fuels with less CO2 emissions and as a result helping reduce the impact of global warming on the economy and climate ...

Thanks,

Gordan Feric, PE
Engineering Software

http://members.aol.com/engware

 

[dcasto]

OK, I picked the 900 Mw case to tag onto Bill Hannahan paper on Things Everyone Should Know About Energy. If you want Energy in your house, you are gonna have to pay to have it delivered there, end of story. Transportating Hydrogen is stupid, its like buying batteries in Chicago and driving them to be used in LA, why? The process to electricute water to Hydrogen is 75% eff at best and the transportation is 75% at best and its use in a fuel cell is 80%, net 45% efficency. Put the same energy on the grid in electricity and your at 50% to 75% and the transportation cost is probabily 30% that of hydrogen.

If you electricute sea water, you don't just get Hydrogen, you get all kinds of other things to deal with, Chlorine is one. There are as many NIMBY's out there complaining about Chlorine as nuclear plant complainers, tell them you want to make Chlorine right next to the wind farm on the Pacific coast for a fun time.

Just make electricity in a 900 MW plant that costs 1/10 a solar farm, put it on a new beefed up grid, run electric cars that have 120 mile ranges before recharging (make a standardized battery pack that can be popped in and out every 100 miles). Increase the freway size (go from 5 lanes to 6) to handle the slower traffic or better yet, electric trains in the new lane.

 

[Skogsgurra]

I do not understand "electricute". What does it mmean?

Gunnar Englund

http://www.gke.org

--------------------------------------
100 % recycled posting: Electrons, ideas, finger-tips have been used over and over again...

 

[Feric]

Dear dcasto:

Here is my final hypothetical energy question.

As we know, the world fossil fuels quantities are "limited".

One day, when there is no more fossil fuel to be used and at the moment hydrogen does not appear to be a viable energy solution, what does the world do in order to keep going forward -- what happens to energy generation, transportation, global warming etc.?

dcasto, I would like to hear your view on this hypothetical energy question.

Thanks,

Gordan Feric, PE
Engineering Software

http://members.aol.com/engware

 

[dcasto]

Electricute is a slang term I used for the process of making hydrogen from
The chlor-alkali process uses naturally-occurring salt (in the form of brine) to produce two major products: caustic soda and elemental chlorine, plus hydrogen. The sodium chloride brine is electrolyzed to produce chlorine at the positive electrode (anode) and sodium hydroxide and hydrogen at the negative electrode (cathode). The electrolysis reaction is shown below.

2NaCl(aq) + 2H20 + electricity = Anode Cl2(gas) + Cathode H2(gas) + 2NaOH(aq)

Global warming is going to hapen no matter what, so drop that from the picture.

My philosophy is stop the big SUV game of mines bigger than yours. Do other consevation based things that some of us have done (ok we are bring them up again). Start building more Nukes and coal electric plants. Commuter cars can be plug in electric. Diesel, kerosen and gasoline used on multi person vehicles or frieght only. Natural gas used only to heat homes and cook food.

NEVER EVER use food for fuel.

As for limited, there are some theories that the earths core may have methane in it. We have found methane in precambrian rocks. Some plants and their moons have methane, so there maybe more energy out there.

 

[BJC]

The fossil fuels are gonna run out. Were gonna be doing something or were going to living in caves. There have supposedly been several species of humans in the past and they didn't work out. We may just be the latest failure.
This thread i look on as brainstorming. You have to consider all ideal even the ones that seem impossible.

Try going to a steam show sometimes, ones where they have steam tractors etc. There is always someone there with old gas or kerosene engines. Looka at one of those and then look at the computerized engine in your car. The guy who had one of those a hundred years ago to churn butter or cut wood would be amazed by todays engine technology.

So what may we have in a hundred years? The 2107 dilithium powered Corvette? Prewound super rubber bands that power a car for 3000 miles?
If you says nothing is going to work and don't try remember there won't be enough caves for all of us.

 

[Feric]

dcasto and others:

Thank you for addressing my hypothetical energy questions in a highly professional manner.

It turns out that our opinions and views are different.

However, I do respect your feedback and thoughts and that is the way it is.

Also, I would like to thank Eng-Tips.com for hosting such forums and providing a nice environment where people can express their views.

In the end, everybody is richer after a good opinion exchange.

I am looking forward to hearing other opinions.

Thanks,

Gordan Feric, PE
Engineering Software

http://members.aol.com/engware

 

[dcasto]

feric, Whats up your sleave? BJC, what plan are you working on?

"Hope is not a plan."

 

[Feric]

dcasto:

What do you mean?

I do not understand the question ...

Thanks,

Gordan Feric, PE
Engineering Software

http://members.aol.com/engware

 

[BJC]

"Hope is not a plan."
But a plan without hope is what?

The naysayers will not lead us, except back to the cabes.
You have to a few dreamers, they have helped us over humps in the past and will in the future.

 

[rmw]

I have said it before in this forum and I will have to say it again. About the turn of the last century there were a coupld of burning issues. One was that horses weren't able to breed fast enough so that everyone would be assured of transportation in the future, and another was that for the horses that they were, storing their solid waste was an enormous issue, especially in large cities like NYC. They barged tons, literally tons of manure to sea and dumped it every day.

Now, on a parallel track, a guy named Henry Ford was working on a concept to streamline the production of what would become to be known as the automobile. Early autos were crude by modern standards, but my point is that Henry Ford's goal wasn't to solve the horse breeding/manure problem, it was to make a buck.

Somewhere out there right now is the Henry Ford of our generation working on some cockamamie idea that will be the gold standard in the latter part of this century. It will be crude by standards of the future, but it will supplant what we do now. And, it won't be to solve global warming, or the disappearance of fossil fuels, it will be to make a buck.

rmw

 

[Feric]

rmw:

You are making an excellent point.

In my opinion, it is the computer industry and in particular the wireless computer industry.

Wireless computer/phone applications are energy demanding applications. Batteries just cannot satisfy their always growing need for energy.

In my opinion it has to be a hydrogen fueled wireless computer/phone application operation, which just does not care about global warming, limited availability of fossil fuel, energy conversion laws etc. and because of being able to make a buck it does solve the problem of power generation and transportation industries where new technologies just cannot compete on a cost basis with old and proven technologies even though their potential benefits beat and surpass the benefits and solve the problems generated by the operatrion of proven technologies.

The bottom line is that such hydrogen fueled wireless computer/phone application operation does have commercial viability and does make a buck in the end -- ~ $600.00 for an iPhone and in the U.S. 500,000 units were sold when the device got released, and their is a backorder for another 500,000.

That is exactly my point that I have been trying to make over and over and I have come short in delivering my point to this audience until now because of technical issues and laws ...

Thanks,

Gordan Feric, PE
Engineering Software

http://members.aol.com/engware

 

[Feric]

To All:

Here is an interesting article on MSNBC.com related to Ford hydrogen fueled shuttle buses:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19700154

Thnaks,

Gordan Feric, PE
Engineering Software

http://members.aol.com/engware

 

[dcasto]

The first Ford to run on hydrogen was in 1983, 25 years to market isn't going to cut it and at 3 times the capital, nope.

Just run the thing on batteries, no highly flammable containers at 3000 psi beside, you expend about 10% of the hydrogen energy just to put it in the bottles, throw that into the effiency of THE SYSTEM.

 

[Feric]

dcasto:

I do appreciate your opinion.

Again, there is nothing wrong having an opinion on the subject matter.

The US is about progress and moving forward. This country has a proven record of raising the bar on no matter what the technology, issue and problem is.

In the end, impossible becomes possible and doable.

From the bottom of my heart, I do believe that hydrogen economy is knocking on the door and it will come, sooner or later, big time in all areas of future lifestyle.

At this point, I am going to bring this discussion to an end with the following statement: Let time be the judge and show us about the hydrogen potential and numereous applications that it will have in the near future ...

I am a patient person. In a few years down the road , it will be my pleasure to ask you again, if you would allow me to do so, for you opinion on hydrogen economy and have another professional discussion on the subject matter.

I do believe that next time, when we have a discussion on hydrogen fueled applications, our views won't be as much different as they are now!

God bless America ...

Thanks,

Gordan Feric, PE
Engineering Software

http://members.aol.com/engware

 

[dcasto]

In the paper, Dr. Anthrop calculates that it takes approximately 8 kWh of input energy to a coal-fired power plant to deliver one kWh of energy to a passenger automobile using hydrogen fuel cells as the delivering technology. On average, one kWh of energy will drive a typical passenger vehicle two miles down the road. To replace all of the gasoline consumed by the passenger vehicles driven 2.53 trillion miles in the US in 2000 would require approximately 10 trillion kWh of input energy to new coal-fired power plants. At 40% efficiency, those new plants would generate about 4 trillion kWh. In 2004, existing US coal-fired power plants generated approximately 2 trillion kWh, so converting all of the gasoline powered vehicles to hydrogen fuel cells would require building new coal-fired power plants with the capacity twice the existing
plants. Also, converting from gasoline to coal power plant-produced hydrogen would emit approximately 3.2 times the carbon dioxide as emitted by retaining gasoline as the motor fuel.
Of course, it is not necessary to generate the electricity by burning coal; it can be generated by nuclear or natural gas-fired power plants. Replacing all the gasoline with hydrogen would require approximately 4 trillion kWh of new nuclear power plant capacity. In 2004 nuclear power plants in the US generated only 0.79 billion kWh. Therefore, to replace all of the gasoline consumed by vehicles in the US with hydrogen powered fuel cells would require the
building of 3.2 trillion kWh of new nuclear power plants, a significant environmental and economic challenge.

1 Anthrop, Donald, “Hydrogen’s Empty Environmental Promise”, CATO Institute Briefing Papers, December 7, 2004


Using natural gas to generate the 4 trillion kWh of power required to replace gasoline with hydrogen would require burning a staggering 28 TCF per year of gas in small localized 85-megawatt power plants or 24 TCF per year in large centralized 1,000 megawatt power plants.
This is more natural gas than was consumed for all purposes in the US in 2003. The obvious question is: why burn 24-28 TCF of natural gas to produce the hydrogen to replace motor
gasoline when you can replace the same motor gasoline with only 16 TCF of natural gas as CNG? Not only would it be more energy efficient and less expensive, but also the carbon dioxide emissions would be 33 to 43% less than that of the natural gas-fired power plants. The added advantage in converting to CNG is that the carbon dioxide emitted from the vehicles is approximately 33% less than that emitted by gasoline. See Table 2 for a comparison of energy
efficiency for the various sources of hydrogen and CNG fuel. Table 3 compares the increase or decrease in carbon dioxide emissions by replacing the gasoline consumed by passenger vehicles in 2000 with either hydrogen or CNG to the carbon dioxide emitted by those gasoline powered
passenger vehicles in 2000.

Tables that show effiencies that I've already stated earlier where H2 effiencies are real low...

It appears obvious that replacing the current fleet of motor gasoline-powered vehicles with hydrogen-fueled vehicles is more a myth than a Messiah; or if it is in our future, we will be paying a heavy environmental and economic price for both the hydrogen-generating facilities
and overall energy efficiency. As to the other predictions presented in this paper, the important thing is not whether you agree with the consensus opinions, but that you are aware of, and are planning for possible future events that may significantly impact our industry.