Hydrogen power lures companies, politicians

[Scott R. Mraz]

Just thought this was kinda interesting.


Hydrogen power lures companies, politicians
By Sharon Collins
CNN Headline News
Monday, February 24, 2003 Posted: 10:00 AM EST (1500 GMT)



A Hyundai fuel cell electric vehicle is seen next to the hydrogen refueling station at the California Fuel Cell Partnership facility in West Sacramento, California.


(CNN) -- As the United States prepares for a possible war against Iraq, many are concerned about how such a confrontation would affect oil prices.

Americans consume about 20 million barrels of oil a day, more than half of which is imported. Many are working to reduce the United States' dependency on oil -- including President Bush.

In his State of the Union address January 28, Bush lauded the benefits of hydrogen power and vowed to set aside more than a billion dollars for research.

"Tonight I'm proposing $1.2 billion in research funding so that America can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles," Bush said.

The lure of hydrogen power is that it is not taken from a source, like oil. Hydrogen is the most plentiful gas in the universe. A hydrogen-powered car would emit water vapor, which doesn't pollute the air.

The automotive industry and many oil companies are signing on. The auto industry, though, has often been at odds with environmentalists and Democrats for promoting gas-guzzling SUVs and opposing better fuel efficiency standards.

Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut has called Bush's hydrogen proposal a "pipe dream." If Bush wants to reduce oil dependence, he said, the United States should emphasize things like better fuel efficiency.

In addition to political opposition, there are several other barriers to developing hydrogen-powered cars. For one, it costs about 10 times more to power a car with hydrogen than with gasoline. One reason is that most methods of producing hydrogen require electricity. A bigger problem is that few refueling stations exist. There are only two in California and fewer than a dozen around the country.

Bush hopes the allocation would to address these problems in the next generation or two. "I don't know if you or I are going to be driving one of these cars, but our grandkids will. And we can say we did our duty [and] proposed some initiatives," he said.

Hydrogen-powered cars might be closer than he thinks. Amory B. Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute, a global energy research institution, predicts, "At least eight major automakers will be introducing low-volume fuel-cell cars from this year through 2005."

Oil companies are exploring the option, too. ChevronTexaco has established joint ventures with Energy Conversion Devices, a leader in hydrogen fuel cell research and production. Shell is racing to beat its competitors in the development and commercialization of large-scale, zero-emission solid oxide fuel cells driven by natural gas.

But more than just the automotive industry stands to benefit from fuel cell technology. According to Bill Acker of MTI Microfuel Cells Inc., a lack of increasing energy has limited the electronics revolution of expanding bandwidth and increasing computer power. His company is trying to solve that problem with methanol fuel cells.

MTI has developed a prototype mobile phone powered by a methanol, which is a carrier of hydrogen. Other potential applications for methanol fuel cells include PDAs and laptops. Methanol has 10 times the energy potential of lithium batteries and could allow laptop users to stay unplugged much longer than today.

Additional targets for hydrogen fuel cells include scooters, stoves, lawn mowers and kitchen appliances.

[VTECSiGAH8R]

Well, pretty old news, but it is good and bad. The government was good for giving that much money for fuel cell expenditures, but at the same time, I don't think there are any specifics in the money that make GM only use it for fuel cells, so it is like they are encouraged to develope fuels cells within the time allocated, but are not required to. I'm sure GM will invest the money wisely tho, since this could be their chance to jump ahead in fuel cell development, their concept shows a lot of promise.

[Green Speed]

Originally posted by Scott R. Mraz

MTI has developed a prototype mobile phone powered by a methanol, which is a carrier of hydrogen. Other potential applications for methanol fuel cells include PDAs and laptops. Methanol has 10 times the energy potential of lithium batteries and could allow laptop users to stay unplugged much longer than today.

Methanol is a liquid fuel. It will produce CO2 when it is consumed for energy, just like gasoline (except that it produces less CO2). It is not a "hydrogen carrier", whatever that is. It contains hydrogen, just like every other organic molecule, but it is not used to produce hydrogen cleanly. If you use this logic that methanol is a "hydrogen carrier" you can apply that same logic to gasoline and coal. Sometimes science is twisted to convey the message that someone wants you to hear. If methanol gets some of the hydrogen fuel cell research. The person handing out the dough is gullible.

[VTECSiGAH8R]

Originally posted by Green Speed
Methanol is a liquid fuel. It will produce CO2 when it is consumed for energy, just like gasoline (except that it produces less CO2). It is not a "hydrogen carrier", whatever that is. It contains hydrogen, just like every other organic molecule, but it is not used to produce hydrogen cleanly. If you use this logic that methanol is a "hydrogen carrier" you can apply that same logic to gasoline and coal. Sometimes science is twisted to convey the message that someone wants you to hear. If methanol gets some of the hydrogen fuel cell research. The person handing out the dough is gullible.

GM has a design that converts methanol into Hydrogen (used for a fuel cell on a car) with CO2 and a small amount of CO as byproducts. There is no nitrogen oxide emission so that is good there, and CO2 emmissions are about half of a regular car.

They use/plan on using it on some Opel car. A concept I think. I also think they made a S-10 with the same converter in it.

[Green Speed]

Originally posted by VTECSiGAH8R
with CO2 and a small amount of CO as byproducts.

yeah that's my point, there's byproducts. I am annoyed by the term "hydrogen carrier" because it can be used for anything that has hydrogen in it and not all of these things are necessarily green technologies. However, using hydrogen that is formed from the electrolysis of water does not produce CO2 or CO. The question then becomes, where do we get the electrical power? how do we safely transport and dispense hydrogen? (remember the Hindenburg)

The other byproducts depend on the purity of the methanol used. The more pure the more expensive. The same is true with gasoline, but since the source of gasoline is plant byproducts (so is methanol - one source is the distillation of wood) there is a lot of sulfur and nitrogen from the other proteins. There is much research at work on how to remove these impurities from gasoline and I am sure that these will need to be used for methanol as well

[WOLF]

"I need to read me up un some edamakational do-hikies"

I'm lost on the last couple of threads here. Um, rather than complaining about ticky tac stuff, just support it if it benefits us in any way and creates a good means of transportation without having us rely on mass amounts of oil that will continue to dwendle and the prices will skyrocket. Go to other countries and you quickly learn how expensive gasoline can be, then just amagine the US having those prices. Ack!

Is'nt the GM Hy-wire one of these kind of cars too? Whats cool is they had a testable version of the car ready for some auto mags. Cool stuff.

[MattBatt]

Doh what are these morons doing!!!!
Hydrogen is not a fuel it is basically a battery.

Hydrogen doesn't exist in nature in it's pure form it has to be extracted from H2O (water) using electricity or gathered when chemicals react like Hydrocloric acid Mixing with a metal.
The "harmless" waste product of a hydrogen cell is water. All those damn tree huggin green peace people are worried about the ice caps melting and Orlando becoming ocean front property but they forget that with this move they will be making more water!
Moreover if you extract hydrogen from water that requires electricity and in most communitys of the world that electricity comes from a power plant that burns coal or natural gas. There are very few natural energy power plants and they are trying to get rid of nuclear power plants (the most efficent ones of them all with the least hazardus effect on nature so long as everything goes right)
My God we are all gonna die!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111

[Green Speed]

Dude, lay of the caffiene! you're beginning to sound like Tweek. Hydrogen in a fuel cell is a fuel. It is consumed with oxygen to produce electricity and water is the only byproduct. While batteries store energy, hydrogen fuel cells produce it. Also, combustion produces water as well. Combustion also produces water (and CO2). Furthermore, the water produced from a hydrogen fuel cell is such a small amount that it doesn't matter. Lastly, if you get the hydrogen from electrolysis of water, you're consuming water to make the hydrogen. This basically negates the water you are producing.

The point about where do you get the hydrogen is the only one that concerns me. You need to electrolytically separate water, this requires electricity (duh), about 50% comes from fossil fuels - polluting just as much as using fossil fuels in a car, a large chunk comes from nuclear power (a good source, unfortunately much maligned by ignorant people) and a much smaller chunk comes from renewable resources, most of which are simply impractable.

[my rant] Energy is the biggest problem facing our progress and it is very complex. It really concerns me that the decisions about energy are made by politicians instead of scientists. If we didn't have the money from big oil making all these decisions we would be much closer to an ideal energy solution - one that is renewable and doesn't **** the environment. I am really sick of hearing the ignorants in our government spew their crap. Energy is not a simple problem. The 1.2 billion that GW promised us for research is not close to enough. Its laughable! Now the $100 billion that GW is spending on iraq (not that I am against the possible war) and the billions more that we spend on dealing with the ****heads in the middle east, just to get oil could be more wisely spent on getting a real legitimate and true energy source for now and the future then we can say **** the middle east and all the problems caused by our dependance on them.... [end rant]

[MattBatt]

First whats a tweek? Secondly the point about the battery was that it takes electricity to make the hydrogen and when it is combined with oxygen you get less energy. This is similar to a battery where you put electricity in and take it back out.
Another point.... the astronauts use hydrogen fuel cells in space for electricity.

[WOLF]

Ever seen "South Park". You know, the little cartoon on comedy central

joking about the "I'm with stupid thing", I just wanted to use that little smilie today for no reason. Don't want to get on anybodies bad side you know.

[red rocket]

Originally posted by MattBatt
Another point.... the astronauts use hydrogen fuel cells in space for electricity.

Matt - you took the words out of my mouth! And astronauts have been using hydrogen fuel cells since the 1950's. In the late 1960's, they used fuel cells to power their vehicles for 10-day journies to the moon without recharging. They had to power their big 64K computers!

Nowadays, the international space station utilizes massive solar panels to recharge their batteries. Otherwise they'd never be able to stay up there for months on end.

IMHO, the US will never change its habits regarding oil until there is a crisis big enough and long term enough to force changes. In the early 1970's the oil embargo caused auto makers to downsize their vehicles. But it was only temporary, because in the 80's and 90's, cars began to get bigger, even though they were more fuel efficient than in the past. Now due to low gas prices over the last ten years, the onslaught of SUVs and performance vehicles has pushed mpg numbers back up.

Unless there is some extreme series of events that push gas to over $2 a gallon, people will not change their habits, and the auto makers will not seriously push for new fuel technology.

So far, the gas-electric hybrids like the Toyota Prius have been the most successful. But they need to expand this to include sports cars and SUVs in order to make an impact.

[Green Speed]

Originally posted by MattBatt
First whats a tweek? Secondly the point about the battery was that it takes electricity to make the hydrogen and when it is combined with oxygen you get less energy. This is similar to a battery where you put electricity in and take it back out.
Another point.... the astronauts use hydrogen fuel cells in space for electricity.

The same concept can be applied to all chemicals. The hydrocarbons that we use for gasoline are the product of photoelectric chemical processes that took place several million years ago, but we don't consider gasoline to be a solar power source. Anyway, it's all just nit-picking at this point. The bottom line is we need to find a replacement for gasoline and fast. Too bad its going to take a crisis for the morons in DC to realize this and do something real about it. We need a scientist there to make these decisions or at least be an advisor on the subject.

[WOLF]

We also need to notice that gas prices may peak at over 2 a gallon in late Spring and Summer. It will drop eventually but in due time(few years) things will get much worse price wise.

That and I hate the gas-eletric hybrids that the import brands are coming out with. Both have very poor build quilty and are over 20grand in my area plus these things are slower than a Geo Metro thus being a driving hazard trying to get up to speed on a highway. Four seconds slower than a GM EV1 to 60mph, don't think I'm going to break down and get the slowest thing on the road that sounds like a lawn mower when you drive it.

Can't we just focus on some sort of alter. power here? Theres +'s and -'s to each so just pick one.

[red rocket]

Why can't they just make a Grand Am with the 3.4 L engine, and add a small electric motor to support the gas engine? The electric could kick in to help mpg during cruising.

[VTECSiGAH8R]

I think the future of energy is some form of fusion. Right now, fusion (as in the same kind the Sun uses) as an efficient source of energy, is expected to happen in 50 years, which isn't very good.

However, if Cold Fusion is actually possible and can happen, then that could also be a good source. Unfortunately, scientists are reluctant to pursue cold fusion research because of 2 scientists in 1989 that falsely said they discovered cold fusion (maybe not falsely, but noone could reproduce results), letting down the whole world and turning the world off from the possibility of it happening. Now it is seen as a joke by many, but I think with research it is possible. Who knows?

Otherwise, Nuclear energy and hydroelectric energy is the best source.

Anyway, dumping massive amounts of money into GM, like the $100 billion suggested is just dumb. If you give any company that much money, they'll just use it inefficiently or they'll find any possible way to channel it to other parts of their organization that don't deal with fuel cells, such as regular engine/car development, and then you are causing trouble to the whole market by giving GM an unfair advantage.

[WOLF]

I'd funnel alot of that towards making some of the most wicked sports cars and sports sedans in the world. Just twisted that way. There are alot better things to spend 100billion dollars on right now anyway.

Anyhoo, isn't there somebody buiding a cold fusion testing plant that isn't going to be done till 2006-2007?? Saw something people are pouring billions into to make on TLC about 4 months ago. Can't rememeber if its cold fusion or not, but I'm 75% sure it was. Yet to be tested of course but the budget on this thing makes Bill Gates look poor *not really but funny to think about*

Anybody else seen anything on it?

[VTECSiGAH8R]

Originally posted by WOLF
I'd funnel alot of that towards making some of the most wicked sports cars and sports sedans in the world. Just twisted that way. There are alot better things to spend 100billion dollars on right now anyway.

Anyhoo, isn't there somebody buiding a cold fusion testing plant that isn't going to be done till 2006-2007?? Saw something people are pouring billions into to make on TLC about 4 months ago. Can't rememeber if its cold fusion or not, but I'm 75% sure it was. Yet to be tested of course but the budget on this thing makes Bill Gates look poor *not really but funny to think about*

Anybody else seen anything on it?

Most likely not. The only thing that anyone is funneling billions into right now is "hot fusion," which requires that you get the thing hotter than the sun to get fusion to occur.

The problem is, they spend more electricity than they get back in heat in order to cause fusion. Thus, right now it is highly inefficient. I have not read much into the matter, but I know that "hot fusion" is the one that would use huge plants like we have today to generate power and distribute it through lines.

"Cold fusion" is fusion on a much smaller level and it works through freak occurances basically. The idea is that each person gets their own cold fusion power plant in their backyard or whatever and that is their power supply. It doesn't work on a large enough level to support more than that I believe.

Anyway, hot fusion is prolly what you're talking about since the Europeans have spent a billion dollars working on it, the US has spent 14.7 billion dollars since 1951 and only millions have been spent on cold fusion research and not on the scale of large-plants I believe.

The Mustang is still too boxy

[WOLF]

I'll look it up and see what this plant is trying to do.

<The Mustang is still too boxy >

ha ha haaaa. Very funny. But your right. The next gen. Stang isn't too bad. To retro to late, but its not butt ugly like the current one.

*goes to bed*

[MattBatt]

I Have to agree with both of you and have you noticed that a 99+ GA 2 door and the round Mustang have very similar dimensions. I was parked next to a stang one day and noticed that our rear windwos were similar and lots of other stuff too(IMO).

[WOLF]

Interesting, never though of that.

If thats true, it really makes me wonder how a GAGT with all the trimmings weights around 500lbs. less than a Stang. Even if you dropped a LS-1 in a GA it wouldn't increase the wieght by more than 100-150lbs including a new tranny. Off topic but but worth mentioning.

And now lets back to the topic this thread is about.