Article

2006-05-21 Science & Technology

ABC News: Iowa Co. Hopes to Make Gasoline Obsolete

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2006-05-21 00:00|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Next on the agenda - how to produce and distribute enormous amounts of hydrogen.

Posted by DMFD 2006-05-21 00:11|| 2006-05-21 00:11|| Front Page Top

#2 Uhmmmm - assume for a moment they do make a viable hydrogen engine.

What do they think those of us who have gasoline-powered cars are supposed to do with them? And what's going to happen to all those discarded gasoline cars and trucks they claim companies want to replace?

They say hydrogen - I say Hindenburg.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut"> Barbara Skolaut 2006-05-21 01:38|| http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html]">[http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html] 2006-05-21 01:38|| Front Page Top

#3 I say Hindenburg.

maybe. But it can't be worse than all of the suicide bombers exploding and Iranian nukes flying.

I say go for it. Kill the goose that laid the Wahaabi golden egg. The sooner the better.

Posted by 2b 2006-05-21 05:15|| 2006-05-21 05:15|| Front Page Top

#4 What's needed is more drilling for hydrogen.

It comes from electricity, you say. Well, we just generate more electricity.

More electricity comes from peak load generating stations that all run on oil or imported natural gas, you say. Just import more oil and gas that solves the problem.

Energy independence using hydrogen just takes someone who can think through the problem.

Posted by phil_b">phil_b 2006-05-21 05:38|| http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/]">[http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/] 2006-05-21 05:38|| Front Page Top

#5 Nukes and coal Phil_B, do-able, but not this month.

Posted by 6 2006-05-21 06:26|| 2006-05-21 06:26|| Front Page Top

#6 Yep, nukes and coal are the answer, but the issue is that people are unable to face up to it.

With abundant nuke/coal generated electricity you can produce hydrogen, gasoline, natural gas, diesel, fuel oil. Take your pick.

Posted by phil_b">phil_b 2006-05-21 07:26|| http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/]">[http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/] 2006-05-21 07:26|| Front Page Top

#7 We're working on it. Interesting dilemna for enviros in NY ... for years they have protested the Indian Point nuclear power plant (which serves NYC and much of the southern Hudson Valley).

Now some are praising the need to go to nuclear power to save the planet from global warming ... but they're divided over Indian Point itself.

But the Indian Point plant isn't going away. Most NY homes are heated by oil and the economy sucks because of massive taxes and regulation which , along with 9/11, have driven away a lot of business. So there is zip ability to absorb more energy costs in the name of green.

More nuclear power plants will be built, although it will be a long painful process to site them. The real issue will be for the north east to accept more coal-based generation .... after acid rain from coal-burning plants in the midwest really did do a number on New England forests, it will take a while for people to accept that the new scrubbing technologies can allow coal burning without the pollution.

Posted by lotp 2006-05-21 08:27|| 2006-05-21 08:27|| Front Page Top

#8 Site the initial nuke plants on military bases. Comes with built in security, huge protester standoff distance, and an energy hungry customer.

Posted by ed 2006-05-21 08:50|| 2006-05-21 08:50|| Front Page Top

#9 Barbara - 1 gal of gasoline vapor = 20 sticks of dynamite. Hydrogen is NOT as dangerous as gasoline.

Posted by DMFD 2006-05-21 10:50|| 2006-05-21 10:50|| Front Page Top

#10 Site the initial nuke plants on military bases
Damn, there's an idea. Makes a hell of a lot of sense for a lot of reasons. So forget it.

Posted by 6 2006-05-21 12:16|| 2006-05-21 12:16|| Front Page Top

#11 You've never had to deal with cryogenic fluids or hydrogen embrittlement, have you?

Posted by Phil 2006-05-21 12:36|| 2006-05-21 12:36|| Front Page Top

#12 What do they think those of us who have gasoline-powered cars are supposed to do with them? And what's going to happen to all those discarded gasoline cars and trucks they claim companies want to replace?

Sorry Barbara, it's the same engine we now use, only the burnable fuel is changed, no problem to change from one kind of fuel injector (Liquid petroleum) to another kind of fuel injector (Gaseous Hydrogen)

Don't fall for the popular lies that "Hydrogen is clean fuel" it's what burns in petroleum, it's the "Hydro" in Hydrocarbon

Posted by Redneck Jim 2006-05-21 12:41|| 2006-05-21 12:41|| Front Page Top

#13 Jim, I doubt it's that easy. I'm certainly no expert, but I haven't read anywhere that our present internal combustion engines can just run on hydrogen without some kind of conversion.

Assuming the present gasoline engine can be converted to hydrogen (and it probably can), what's it going to take? And who's going to pay for it? [I'm pretty sure I know the answer to that one - since I work and pay taxes, I'm going to have to pay for mine and a couple of other people's. :-( ]

Unless we build more nuclear plants to get the hydrogen from, this magic bullet will simply burn the oil/coal/gas at the power plants instead of in the cars.

I don't object to hydrogen, but I don't think it's going to magically cure our oil problems. Keep working on alternative fuels that make economic sense, but open ANWR and the coastal areas to drilling, and build more, modern refineries.

We need first and foremost to get off oil dependence - especially oil from Arabia and Venezuala. We have the capacity to do that. We need the will. Hell, we needed the will 30 years ago.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut"> Barbara Skolaut 2006-05-21 14:18|| http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html]">[http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html] 2006-05-21 14:18|| Front Page Top

#14 Assuming the present gasoline engine can be converted to hydrogen (and it probably can), what's it going to take? And who's going to pay for it? [I'm pretty sure I know the answer to that one - since I work and pay taxes, I'm going to have to pay for mine and a couple of other people's. :-( ]

Okay, folks, it's not that difficult, but it's not a "conversion" process per se, it's more of a "cracking" process similar to that used to crack gasoline from petroleum.

Running a static electrical charge through a slow stream of water will "crack" hydrogen out of the water molecules (ie, you separate H2 from the H2O) which leaves you with O which promptly recombines with other oxygen molecules [O2]).

So, in theory, a simple electrical cracking system could be made which would crack H2 from H2O and separate the three molecules from a stream of water and then recombine them in a fuel injection system - the hydrogen is injected along with a small amount of oxygen and you get a "bang" which powers the cylinder stroke.

The concept is simple. The application in an efficient manner which gives you sufficient power to drive modern internal combustion engines is more difficult - but maybe not as difficult as many experts seem to think or many inventors have attempted.

You can power vehicals with water. It can be done. It is extremely efficient and extremely cheap (hydrogen being the most common element in the universe). The problem is getting the engineers (who often can't see the forest for the trees) to build a system that is efficient, cheap, and easy.

It's done in basic chemistry classes all the time.

Posted by FOTSGreg">FOTSGreg 2006-05-21 17:09|| www.fire-on-the-suns.com]">[www.fire-on-the-suns.com] 2006-05-21 17:09|| Front Page Top

#15 In other words, it's easy to do on an insignificant scale and you've decided that means it's easy and cheap, and the only remaining problem is getting those darn engineers to see it your way.

There's an old saying, "Everything is easy to the person who doesn't have to do it."

Posted by Phil 2006-05-21 17:26|| 2006-05-21 17:26|| Front Page Top

#16 You can power vehicals with water.

In a narrow sense this is true, but irrelevant to the discussion. Water or hydrogen cracked from water is not a primary energy source. Therefore you need to get energy from a primary energy source to your cracking system, which would require soemthing like burn oil in power station, distribute over transmission system, store in battery (in vehicle), power cracking system from battery, burn hydrogen in combustion chamber, use energy to propel car.

That's 5 energy conversions. Assume each is 50% efficient and that's way generous, then overall efficiency is 3%. Yes, that's right, 3%.

The hydrogen powered vehicle you describe will be horribly inefficient and require ten to fifteen times as much oil as burning gasoline to propel the vehicle.

Posted by phil_b">phil_b 2006-05-21 17:42|| http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/]">[http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/] 2006-05-21 17:42|| Front Page Top

#17 This article could have been written in 1978. All these technologys were available then and
little else has changed except the need to upgrade them to higher EPA standards. Propane
and natural gas powered equipment and generators are very common in industries where these fuels are readily accessable.
Generally speaking engines operating on alternative fuels operate a lot
cleaner and last a lot longer, but the cost of buying and operating on alternative fuels is a
lot higher and negates any savings in extended life span. Converting a gasoline engine to operate
on propane, for example, is relatively simple and inexpensive. But even at todays prices, if you
think you are going to be saving money at the pump by using alternative fuels, you are very wrong.
And that is the problem. "Gasoline obsolete?" GIVE ME A BREAK... PLEASE!

Posted by junkirony 2006-05-21 17:48|| 2006-05-21 17:48|| Front Page Top

#18 junkirony: But even at todays prices, if you
think you are going to be saving money at the pump by using alternative fuels, you are very wrong.
And that is the problem. "Gasoline obsolete?" GIVE ME A BREAK... PLEASE!

People say they want alternative energy, but what they mean is that they want cheaper gas. That's the reality. No one's going to pay the equivalent of $6 a gallon gas to fuel an alternative energy vehicle when he can pay $3 a gallon to drive his present car.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-05-21 17:57|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2006-05-21 17:57|| Front Page Top

#19 plus - I like the buzz from the gas fumes

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-05-21 18:09|| 2006-05-21 18:09|| Front Page Top

#20 Ford has actually had hydrogen-combustion powered cars since the late 70's, other car manufacturers are going for fuel-cell cars which require hydrogen, and have had working models since the early 90's. a shortage of energy nationwide and a bit of cowardice in investing in hyodrogen fueling stations was, is, and will be the main hindrance to hydrogen power. hydrogen is a clean fuel, when burned in a combustion engine, it's the energy source, not the carbons, so the only carbons that burn are those that leaked in. the burning process can actually turn some of the more harmful carbon compounds into co2, making the air coming out of the engine cleaner than the air/fuel going in.

anyplace with power/water can produce hydrogen and store it in tanks until a vehicle comes by needing refueling, so a national hydrogen network doesn't need to be established, although more aqueducts would be likely. that still leaves a need for a primary power source to split the hydrogen from water. for political reasons, it will remain the major stumbling point for a long time to come.

Posted by Goemagog">Goemagog 2006-05-21 22:45|| http://artificialmonkeys.blogspot.com]">[http://artificialmonkeys.blogspot.com] 2006-05-21 22:45|| Front Page Top

14:50 Throlugum Thiger6848
00:03 2b
23:58 Unereque Flinert3309
23:49 anon1
23:46 11A5S
23:46 ryuge
23:43 djohn66
23:40 11A5S
23:36 Sluse Thrumble1233
23:35 Kalle (kafir forever)
23:25 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:25 john
23:19 DarthVader
23:13 Landrieu
23:10 DMFD
23:07 ed
23:07 djohn66
23:04 john
23:02 Slavirt Hupavins9373
23:00 Seafarious
22:59 CrazyFool
22:58 Galloways Outcropping
22:52 long hair republican
22:50 Glinter Spineque3412