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...

 

[Skogsgurra]

No answer so far. Anyone?

Gunnar Englund

http://www.gke.org

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

 

[dcasto]

Check the automotive forum and where is engineering going forum, theres lots of talk on this subject.

 

[Skogsgurra]

Thanks!

Gunnar Englund

http://www.gke.org

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

 

[dcasto]

you'll love it! Just to let you know, I'm not a fan of the hybred as marketted, They serve a very small nich, but not he world.

 

[Feric]

Hi there:

How about hydrogen powered propulsion ...

Thanks,

Gordan Feric, PE
Engineering Software

http://members.aol.com/engware

 

[dcasto]

Hydrogen, don't make me laugh, oh well go ahead...

Lets see floating solar collectors? Nuclear plants? Where will the hydrogen come from in large quantities?

 

[sms]

Diesel? ;-)

-The future's so bright I gotta wear shades!

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of the Eng-Tips Forums.

 

[Feric]

Hi there:

First of all, I would like to thank Eng-Tips.com on providing a forum where engineers can respectfully exchange and share thoughts and/or opinions regarding various engineering topics.

I would like to make my point as an engineer and leave it like that and be willing to respectfully hear input from others on the discussed subject matters.

Hydrogen, hydrogen fueled applications, hydrogen economy, hydrogen commercialization etc. are good topics that people have been working on for many, many years.

As far as I can notice, power generation and transportation industries have been trying for many years to come up with better fuels and more efficient technologies to meet the energy (power and propulsion) demand and needs.

For years, it has been known that the availability of fossil fuels is somehow limited ...

Today, in addition to old and well known industry objectives and goals, global warming is becoming more and more evident and it is obvious that it needs to be addressed one way or the other.

In other to develop and deploy new technologies, huge capital requirements and current industry cost targets make it almost impossible to bring new technologies on line.

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 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.

At this point, this should be enough to get some discussions going.

I am willing to further elaborate and support some of my thoughts on how to provide enough hydrogen for hydrogen fueled applications and how to get the hydrogen economy going.

I am looking forward to hearing additional comments.

Thanks,

Gordan Feric, PE
Engineering Software

http://members.aol.com/engware

 

[Skogsgurra]

Hydrogen made someone laugh...

Is that because hydrogen makes you happy? Or because you have such deep insights that you can rule hydrogen out, once and for all?

I have worked rather close (visited, discussed technology, run tests) with some of the key future users of hydrogen in fuel cells. It was some years ago, so that's why I asked what is happening.

The alternative energy that shall be used in future cars has to be produced somewhere. That is true for hydrogen, for super capacitors, for super batteries, for compressed nitrogen or any other energy form.

So, the question "Floating solar panels? Nuclear plants?" is not unique to hydrogen. It is a question that we have to ask, regardless of energy storage technology used.

I was recommended to move this thread over to the automotive forum, but I think that we can have a less biased discussion in this forum (energy conversion). So, I am eager to get some more input. Someone that has a full picture? Will bio-fuels be the future?

Gunnar Englund

http://www.gke.org

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

 

[rmw]

The cheapest fuel that can be put on the existing market will be the future.

At this point that has been petroleum derived fuels. When those become so expensive that other alternatives are available at a lower cost and viably able to be delivered to market, the market will change over to those.

Myself, I think that we are about to see the appearance of light distillate fuels derived from any or all of the following; (stranded) natural gas, coal, bio refuse, in other words, any hydrocarbon that can be made into a syn-gas and reconstructed to a marketable fuel over catalysts.

Unless....the folks that have their hand on the throttle of the price of petroleum wise up and drop the prices enough to drive costs of the above (and other) processes too high to be practical.

The technologies mentioned above are not new, they have been around for years. They just weren't cost competitive compared to refining petroleum oil at $25-50.00/bbl.

Some geopolitical factors will trump prices in certain niches. The US Air Force has realized that it flies on petroleum based fuels that come from volatile (no pun intended) regions of the world where supplies can be interrupted especially in time of (big time) war, so they are pouring $$$ into the development of coal derived fuel distillates since this country (USA) has lots of coal reserves.

There is plenty of Natural Gas around the world but in lots of places there is no nearby market for it. With the prices of petroleum derived automotive (and power plant) fuels now at record or near record levels, suddenly it is approaching being cost effective to liquefy that NG to make distillates that the environmental folks find more palatable (to the extent that they find any fuel palatable) in that it has no sulphur and it pollutes less.

Google the words "Fisher Tropsch" "GTL", "CTL" (gas to liquids & Coal to Liquids) for an interesting read. There are plenty of big name folks involved in bringing this technology to the fore. I think they know something.

Hydrogen, are you kidding? With the foregoing in mind, the reasonable question is where is the hydrogen going to come from? Nuclear power-not in the country that is the biggest single user of automotive fuels at this time or in my lifetime (I already may have one foot in the grave).

From hydrocarbons? Anyone who has done the research knows that producing hydrogen from hydrocarbon fuels releases more carbon into the atmosphere on a 'well to wheel' basis than just burning the gasoline and diesel produced from the same source. Do the research. It is out there.

Nuclear-yes it would work, but who is going to make the investment in a nuclear plant to produce hydrogen for a market that doesn't exist. Cars would have to be burning a lot of hydrogen for some one to ante up what just one nuclear plant costs anywhere in the world. They don't do that kind of stuff on the come.

The reason that the liquids from (stranded) NG, coal and other sources is viable is that the infrastructure for delivering it to the end user, the automobile driver (or home heater) is already in place. The only thing that changes is the source (and cost) of the liquid.

In the end, the $$$ (or whatever the money symbol for your country is) is the driver, not well intentioned or even efficient ideas.

Now you have my $.02 worth.

rmw

 

[Feric]

To All:

I do believe that this is the right forum for the given subject matter.

Yes, I agree with you guys.

The capital requirements are huge and it is difficult to bring new technologies, that are well known technologies, on line due to current cost targets.

Eventually, it will be hydrogen as the ultimate fuel and/or energy carrier, but in order to get there it will be hydrocarbon fuels with the amount of hydrogen geting a larger share until it is all hydrogen.

I do enjoy hearing your comment and thoughts.

I can get the feeling that you have been in the energy conversion industry for a long time and that the issues and commercialization problems are well known to you -- slow and long commercialization process, huge capital requirements, hard to comepete on cost basis with proven technologies etc.

Thanks,

Gordan Feric, PE
Engineering Software

http://members.aol.com/engware

 

[sms]

GTL plants are in design and construction, that is why I mentioned diesel above. Taking cheap natural gas in the middle east and converting it to clean diesel and then shipping it to Europe is coming soon.

-The future's so bright I gotta wear shades! B-)

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of the Eng-Tips Forums.

 

[rmw]

I read recently somewhere that over 55% of new vehicles sold in Europe are diesel and the percentage is growing. They will probably be the first to soak up the coming GTL distillates, but we in the colonies will soon catch on as we usually do.

I can't wait until some power companies figure out that they can barge some lower cost GTL distillate into some of their dual fuel capable or convertible plants located nearby to water ways and they tell the natural gas companies where to stick their high priced gas.

I am assuming that we all understand that is a place where the sun don't shine.

Liquid fuels can be burned in a lot of present day combustion equipment, boilers, combustion turbines, etc.

I only hope that the GTL distillate marketers don't get greedy and remember to keep the price per therm just a little less than the price of delivered NG or LNG.

If they do, the fuel world is theirs for a long time to come as I see it.

Feric, with all due respect, I think that hydrogen as a fuel is the pipe dream in our life times and the lifetimes of even our kids.

After that....who knows.

But then, go back 200 years and try to tell a whale oil salesman that his job was in in jeopardy.

rmw

 

[pipehead]

I believe that gaseous fuels should only be used to heat homes, no conversions to liquids. The reason is that they transport in an infastructure that exists, the cost to convert to liquids is a loss of overall energy. and they just work safely that way.

Liquid hydrocarbons should be used for transportation because they carry a lot of energy per volume (on a per mass basis, they are all they same). They are safe to transport and use in the liquid phase.

Electrcity should come from nuclear or coal. You could make gaseous fuels and liquids from these sources. Electricty should be the majority of the energy used. Cars are goo for short haul trips, hydrogen could be used to fill in gaps or as batteries in the form of fuel cells.

Hydrogen is just a battery, it had to control, make, and store. If we convert water to hydrogen and let it escape, that is worse than global warming, if we let H2 go to the atmosphere, its gone forever, never to be recaptured, bye bye, the hydrogen cycle is more precious than the carbon.

HOWEVER, politics won't let us build nukes, so we do just the opposite of what is right to do. To add to the problems, all the people who want to change live in CA and they will not support a change if it means doing something in their backyard. Once you have named me benevelant dictator for life, I'd just make all the states become energy nuetral before they could become carbon nuetral, that would get everyone moving forward.

 

[TurbineGen]

Pipehead has a good point. As clean as it seems, water vapor is a green house gas. You can only contain so much of it. Not to get on the subject of global warming, though. I just attended a seminar that informed me the Earth is approximately 1.5 degrees farenheit warmer now than it was 120 years ago. I'd like to know if that is in fact accurate.

Compressed air has been an experimental source. We may in the near future see compressed air pumped storage facilities as well as the water ones we have today. There is a compressed air van that was able to make a 100 km journey without refueling. Compressed air is kind of like a battery. You put power in, and you get 80% or so back.

There are tons of alternative energy sources arounds us. But it seems harnessing enough energy to make it useful and/or making it cheap is problematic.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it is broken, fix it. If it isn't broken, I'll soon fix that.

 

[dcasto]

Think about a battery, you have the efficency of charging it, the loss during non use, the efficency when it's used. The battery whether it's electro chemical or compressed air, everytime you get away from the primary energy conversion system, you get less efficient.

 

[Feric]

Dear dcasto:

I do appreciate your post and opinion.

However, I have a hypotetical question for you.

If you use a "free" energy source/input and you can have a fully commercial operation and application from such an energy conversion system, why does it matter that you are getting less output than it is being put in and such an energy conversion system could have no emissions with no fossil fuel consumption ...???

Thanks,

Gordan Feric, PE
Engineering Software

http://members.aol.com/engware

 

[dcasto]

No free lunches. OK hydro maybe close to free, solar and wind too. These have economic and social impacts. So if the first step, making electricity (or energy) is assumed to be 100% efficient because its "free" what about the other steps is storeing, transporting and retrieving the energy?
If an electrochemical battery takes 1 KW to produce .7 KW later, would that not be better than a mechanical spring that only returns .5 KW?

If the energy is free, use it in real time to get the most out of it.

 

[Feric]

Dear dcasto:

You are "good" and you do know what the issues and parameters are when discussing power generation (electricity) and having commercial operation.

What I would like to say is than you cannot use the energy directly -- it needs to be used off the grid and stored in a battery or in a form of hydrogen, which is an energy carrier, to make it a profitable energy operation (meet the demand for energy on the go) before you could use it directly -- from the grid.

When you get a chance, please try to go over one of my earlier posts and try to find out if it makes any sense to you.

dcasto, it is good having energy and enegineering discussions with you.

Thanks,

Gordan Feric, PE
Engineering Software

http://members.aol.com/engware