I said before we will see smaller diesels and more hybrid units in Ford's small truck and consumer line of utility vehicles.

Well this one caught me off guard.

http://www.detnews.com/2004/autosins...b01-265187.htm

I am SERIOUSLY considering moving some stocks around now.
Just think about how profound this could become if the technology breaks into the commercial/utility truck line of vehicles. Companies like Panhandle Energy, Duke Power, Asplundh, and even the US Forrestry Service would gladly pay a premium over a gas or the upcharged diesel price for a zero-emission vehicle that can work, haul, and tow.

Quote,"Ford Motor Co. has a small secret that could have big implications for the advancement of hydrogen-powered vehicle development. The automaker has developed a supercharged, 6.8-liter V-10 internal combustion engine that runs on clean-burning hydrogen instead of gasoline. And for months now, the automaker has been testing the engine in a F-350 Super Duty 4x4 pickup nicknamed “Tiny” on the streets of Dearborn."

Finding a spigot with tap water is MUCH easier than finding a propane station or even a diesel pump. Now the Hydrogen availability... hmmm.

 

Yeah I dont think I would be moving stocks around yet since hydrogen takes more energy to create then you can extract from it... and what form of energie do they use to create the hydrogen? Yup... oil base products.

IMO, the research needs to be done on how to create hydrogene effectively before anything seirous can come of it.

 

kudos for anyone who can tell me how long it would take a standard 110v wall outlet setup to produce enough H from H20 (water) to fill the trucks tanks. (roughly 40 gal @ 5,000PSI)

 

It depends on the current. But let's say our electrodes will be 0.1m (10 cm) apart in the device. Resistivity of water is 2.5e5 ohm-m, so the resistance is 2.5e4 ohm. At 110V, 0.0044A will flow through it.

At 298K, the Gibbs energy for the electrolysis of water is 237.13 kJ/mol

40 gallons = 151.4L, 5000psi = 340.23atm

PV = nRT, 151.4Lx340.23atm = n(0.082057 Latm mol-1 k-1)(298K), n=2.106e3 mol H2

V = E/(I t)

E = gibbs x mol H2

110V = (237.13Kj/mol)(2.106e3 mol H2) / (0.0044A t)

t = 1,031,809.463s = 12 days

But of course nobody does electrolysis of pure water, usually you add an electrolyte so that you can run a lot more curent through it. If you were able to use 1 amp of current (I don't think this is possible), you could get the same amount of hydrogen in about 1 hour 15 minutes.

 

Oh one thing I just thought about after finishing my attempt at an answer... 40 gallons of H2 at 5000psi is....

(2.106e3 mol H2)(2.016g/mol H2) = 4245.696g = 4.25kg. I don't know how much mass the tank that has to hold 5000psi would have though.

 

Bingo. Find out how to make cheap Hydrogen using only renewable resources and you will be a very, very, very rich man (or woman).

 

As alluded to above, hydrogen is more of an energy carrier than an energy source. It just doesn't exist in its pure state on our planet because it is forever attempting to combine with the nearest molecule it can find. So the only way to get hydrogen is to bust it out of whatever compound it is in, and that takes more energy than can be returned. And even if it didn't, IC engines are only about 30% efficient at best, so right off the bat if you're trying to burn it, you're losing 70% of the energy you used to get the hydrogen in the first place. (A better solution for hydrogen propulsion is fuel cells, which are far more efficient.)

The other way to get hydrogen is to refine it from natural gas, but that process introduces so many inefficiencies (not to mention the release of massive quantities of carbon) that you're better off to just burn the natural gas and forget about hydrogen altogether.

Then there's the infrastructure and storage problems which are nowhere near close to being figured out.

And finally, hydrogen is a less than optimal motor vehicle fuel. First, it tends to embrittle any metal with which it comes in contact, making the vehicle's fuel delivery and engine design more difficult. It also tends to create hot spots in the combustion chamber which may reduce its combustion efficiency (a good reason why Wankels are well-suited to hydrogen burning).

All in all, barring any massive technological breakthroughs, hydrogen is nothing more than a treehugger's wet dream.

 

All true and valid points (except the wet-dream part ).

I agree, at this point in time, you guys are all right - this is a cumbersome and awkward system to be sure. But we must remember that back in 1901, there weren't 2 gas stations on every street corner either. Refinement of crude for fuel oil gave a lot of IC engine pioneers something to play with, but was far from the end result of leaded gas that was so widely used for 60 years. And even then, technology encroatched again to bring us unleaded gas, which was worse for lubrication of the valvetrain, but better for anyone breathing near a car. My point here being, somebody back in 1901 didn't maintain the pessimist's view that "this IC engine-thing will never fly, because gas is too expensive and it's not available everywhere I want to go", and because of that, we have what you see today.

As far as not getting the energy out that is required to make it...
You guys ever do a conservation of energy evaluation for making, then using an alkaline D-cell battery? Between the chemical mixing and composition of the electrolyte, the mixing of the magnetic core material, extrusion/fabrication of the magnetic core, production of the steel for the outer case, mechanically forming the outer case, mechanically forming the steel endcaps, mechanically assembling the entire unit, and even the packaging and shipping to the point-of-purchase - all for what, MAYBE .5 amp-hour? And Heaven knows they last forever, don't they.
But are D-cell batteries rarely used, hard to find, uneconomical, and ecologically sound? (Let's not even talk about their disposal and half-life. ) Are they not sold/used in high-volumes?
Hmmm... guess nobody EVER made any money investing in Duracell, Rayovac, or Eveready because the economics just don't add up.
You could buy line electricity at $.12/Kw-hr instead of $3 to $4 for a pack of good D-cells, and the line supply offers far more use. Besides there are NiCd's and Lithium batteries that can be recharged too. So with so many other "better" value options than a 1-use disposable alkaline dry-cell battery, why is it still the #1 selling battery and source for portable power?
It's all in the application and end-use. If you want a flashlight to go camping or play a game in a car, you will likely buy these batteries.
See MY point?

Now I'm not sure Hydrogen is the answer either, but it's a potential solution in a direction other than crude, and given the global position we are in, I'm about ready to take a few risks on such solutions. Think about this... CHINA, the most populous nation on Earth, and they are JUST NOW beginning to industrialize. ALL carmakers are flocking to make vehicles for them in China. Those people are building and buying homes at a never-before seen rate. Plants and factories are going up like kiosks in a US mall (I should know, I'm helping build them ). All of that means a HUGE increase in demand on energy, most of which is fossil-based and hard to get in China. They use low-grade coal for home heat unless they are financially able and have access to fuel oil. Plants use fuel oil for power, heat, and processing. NatGas and LP are still unheard of in most of China.

So do you have ANY IDEA what kind of energy load we are about to see in Asia in the next 10 years?!?! It's going to be unlike anything ever seen, I promise. Gas prices in the US WILL indeed get worse... soon too IMO. So the sooner we can develop and implement new techniques for power and propulsion, the better. All it will take is somebody to get "out of the box" and commercialize some new ideas/processes. Then it will be like WERM said - "Somebody will be a very, very, very rich man (or woman)."
I just want to have a few pennies in the right spot when it happens!
Gotta start somewhere...

 

You do know that BMW has been playing around with hydrogen internal combustion engines for 10+ years, right? This isn't really anything new, and 10 years later, Ford has run into the same feasibility issues that BMW has long since figured out.

http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...en+powered+BMW

And, using hydrogen as a fuel for an internal combustion engine is sort of like heating your home with a giant bonfire built in the back yard. Yeah, it works, and yeah, you didn't have to change any design of your home, but it's not real efficient.

Now, I won't disagree with you that we need to start SERIOUS work on alternative and renewable energy sources NOW, but this isn't an out-of-the-box solution.

 

Oh definitely, agreed 100%.

And like others have said, there's fuel cells and other variants too.

I just think it's interesting that the application was in a Superduty with a S/C'd V10. Most approaches have been towards passenger cars and econoboxes so far. Producing anything over 200hp and that kind of torque makes it a feasible "work" truck, and IMO industry and the commercial sector will be more likely to "accept" new technology (even more expensive technology) that the consumer sector - thereby helping defray the costs of infrastructure development and support.

I agree with you 100% Todd80Z28, the vehicle and the technology in the article is PROBABLY NOT going to be the solution in itself, but it shows signs of development in new areas, and that's another step in a new direction. The bottom line for me is I'd like to see SERIOUS work on alternative transportation fuels - SOON. ("Soon" on auto development clocks can mean decades, ya know? )

 

the only way the "Hydrogen Economy," as some call it, would ever be feasable or cost effective or not completely circular and pointless is if the energy to divorce hydrogen from it's lover comes from a Nuclear (or "nucular" if you're George dubya) power source. but seriously, the greens would kill us all and themselves before they would ever allow the construction of another nuclear power plant, let alone about 100 of them that would be nessesary. and with good reason too. that nuclear waste is a million times worse long term than any carbon dioxide or cow farts. there's just so much of a hassle with transporting and storing this stuff that will stay radioactive not only into our granchildren's generation, but so far into the future that it might as well be forever. who's going to maintain the storage facilities in the year 47004?? so we're left at square one. hydrogen is a great "what if" situation suited for scifi stories.

 

Consider this global warming scenario-

Water vapor is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. Now, if we were to shift all fossil fuel burning to H2, all that CO2 production will shift to water vapor production. Where will this take us? I expect we may see localized rapid climate change- increased humidities in high population areas, increased precipitation on the leeward side of high population areas, etc.

Where would I get such an idea? Sept. 11- http://www.atmos.berkeley.edu/news/c...ul2002.article

Just something I was thinking about. Don't get me wrong, I am definitely a pro-alternate energy kind-of-guy, but I wonder if the solution is worse than the problem.

Hydrogen from electrolysis can also be taken from the other "free" energy sources- solar, wind, tidal. Again, not a very efficient way to do it, but see the good "D" cell explanation above as to why it's still useful.

 

Hydrogen is likely just a stepping stone to a much better solution.

But in the end, you have got to start somewhere. Maybe the tings we learn during these hydrogen experiments will result in better technology for different fuels.

Anybody recall from Physics 101 how big and awkward the first betteries were?

 

In any case, coming back to the original assertion by the thread title-

Hybrid technology is still a good idea. Whatever engine it ends up behind. The sorts of things that they are doing-
- Cylinder deactivation
- Idle-off
- Regenerative braking
are sound concepts of energy efficiency, something that will HAVE to be a pillar of our new energy solutions going forward. The elimination of waste streams is a good thing, regardless, and hybrid tech helps with that.

Todd

 

There is a full-page ad in this months Motor Trend magazine that explains the step-by-step process of developing an infrastructure for HYDROGEN powered vehicles that goes well into this century. This company has over 500 engineers dedicated to this persuit right now. This ad refered to a generalized timeline, and detailed milestones that included current programs like DOD and alternate fuel/combustion programs, then goes into hybrid models, and eventually ends up at a hydrogen-powered fleet of vehicles. They were so brash in this ad they even stated that virtually all vehicles will be hydrogen powered in the not-to-distant future.

Any of you keen rag-readers out there catch this ad?
Wanna post the name of this trend-setting company that ran the ad?