Arnold's Hydrogen Hummer

[TN-W124 Diesel]

no not a sex toy...

http://www.forbes.com/2005/01/04/cx_dl_0104vow.html?partner=lifestyle_newsletter

[Old300D]

Wow, the Forbes site wanted to set 4 cookies, 3 for ads....denied.

That hydrogen Hummer has got to be the lamest thing I've ever heard of. H2 (the fuel) will never be feasible, no matter how far the technology comes along. It's just an excuse to put off finding and developing real fuel alternatives, and to keep the big oil companies in control of the US' energy.

[azimuth]

Originally Posted by Old300D

Wow, the Forbes site wanted to set 4 cookies, 3 for ads....denied.

That hydrogen Hummer has got to be the lamest thing I've ever heard of. H2 (the fuel) will never be feasible, no matter how far the technology comes along. It's just an excuse to put off finding and developing real fuel alternatives, and to keep the big oil companies in control of the US' energy.

i'm interested in this info. I've read articles and seen sorces(sp) that seem to point in the other direction relative to hydrogen fuel feasability.

would you mind educating me on why it won't ever happen? i've heard some of the problems that need to be overcome to make it a reality. they were presented as mere obstacles.

where are they innacurate?

thanks Old, for your time.

[Old300D]

Presently hydrogen is produced from coal, releasing all the carbon. Still adds to global warming. Using electricity to electrolyze water to make hydrogen is inefficient, as using the hydrogen in an engine or in a fuel cell will result in a net loss of energy. It is lossless (compared to H2 conversion) to directly use electricity to charge batteries or capacitors for use in a vehicle.

Hydrogen is a space and energy inefficient energy storage medium (it is not a fuel as hydrogen does not exist in an unbounded state). Even compressed to a liquid state, hydrogen is 1/4 as dense as gasoline or diesel (or biodiesel). That means for the same vehicle range, one needs a fuel tank at least 4 times as large, and the plumbing to deal with the pressure is expensive and bulky. Hydrogen is extremely small and light; there is no existing storage medium that does not leak -- it also happens to be extremely explosive. Biodiesel cannot be ignited with a lit match. The only realistic storage medium on the technology horizon seems to be microscopic glass balls which can theoretically release H2 at a controlled rate, reducing the leaking phenomenon and the explosion risk. But because of the inefficiency of production and the density issues, it cannot ever be considered as a competitive energy storage medium. These issues cannot be solved with a technological breakthrough due to physics.

It is very frustrating to me to see the public getting distracted with pie-in-the-sky when realistic and feasible energy alternatives exist TODAY in TODAY'S TECHNOLOGY - biodiesel in diesel vehicles.

[azimuth]

thankyou, that makes it more clear. i am also interested in the biodiesel or greasel (as i've heard it called). i have an acuaintance(sp) who is making a greasel out of an old chevy suburban. He says he can essentially drive with no fuel costs.

you seem to know quite a bit about it, what are the emissions as compared to common diesel?

is the benz motor design conducive to biodiesel conversion?

where do you get your grease and do you get it for free or what arraingements do you?

thanks for your time.

[Old300D]

Originally Posted by azimuth

thankyou, that makes it more clear. i am also interested in the biodiesel or greasel (as i've heard it called). i have an acuaintance(sp) who is making a greasel out of an old chevy suburban. He says he can essentially drive with no fuel costs.

you seem to know quite a bit about it, what are the emissions as compared to common diesel?

is the benz motor design conducive to biodiesel conversion?

where do you get your grease and do you get it for free or what arraingements do you?

thanks for your time.

Biodiesel is different than vegetable oil. Greasel sells a kit to run vegetable oil, there is no conversion to run biodiesel. The emissions are lower in every category for biodiesel over diesel (except oxides of nitrogen, which can be reduced by adjusting fuel timing). Vegetable oil emissions I believe are similar to biodiesel, but smell worse. Some people say, and I've not seen any documentation, burning vegetable oil releases more acrolein. I understand the level may be lower than what gosoline engines emit.

The Benz 616/617 is ideal for either fuel. I think it must be because MB delivered these all over the world to meet a variety of conditions, and the design is robust.

I get vegetable oil from a local Chinese restaurant for free. I have another source that is working well too, from an American food restaurant. I hear Mexican restaurants have more crap and fat in the oil, making it less useful...

Hope that helps. I can get you some links if you like, but you can also dig them up from similar posts in the diesel forums here.

[The Warden]

Originally Posted by Old300D

Presently hydrogen is produced from coal, releasing all the carbon. Still adds to global warming. Using electricity to electrolyze water to make hydrogen is inefficient, as using the hydrogen in an engine or in a fuel cell will result in a net loss of energy. It is lossless (compared to H2 conversion) to directly use electricity to charge batteries or capacitors for use in a vehicle.

Hydrogen is a space and energy inefficient energy storage medium (it is not a fuel as hydrogen does not exist in an unbounded state). Even compressed to a liquid state, hydrogen is 1/4 as dense as gasoline or diesel (or biodiesel). That means for the same vehicle range, one needs a fuel tank at least 4 times as large, and the plumbing to deal with the pressure is expensive and bulky. Hydrogen is extremely small and light; there is no existing storage medium that does not leak -- it also happens to be extremely explosive. Biodiesel cannot be ignited with a lit match. The only realistic storage medium on the technology horizon seems to be microscopic glass balls which can theoretically release H2 at a controlled rate, reducing the leaking phenomenon and the explosion risk. But because of the inefficiency of production and the density issues, it cannot ever be considered as a competitive energy storage medium. These issues cannot be solved with a technological breakthrough due to physics.

It is very frustrating to me to see the public getting distracted with pie-in-the-sky when realistic and feasible energy alternatives exist TODAY in TODAY'S TECHNOLOGY - biodiesel in diesel vehicles.

Do you have any sources to refer to in order to confirm this information?

I ask because I agree with you completely, but most of my family is convinced that hydrogen-powered vehicles are the wave of the future (with g@$$er hybrids as an interim step ), and I'd like to prove them wrong...

Thanks!

[Jim Anderson]

Yes it's explosive but you can't see it, for those who think what you can't see can't hurt you. It's property of burning invisibly makes hydrogen uniquely dangerous.

As far as its power density I believe its the best, when mixed two to one with oxygen, that's why its the preferred fuel for rockets.

But you can't beat the exhaust, water vapor!

A big problem is where you get hydrogen. You end up with something like making gold out of lead by mixing it with platinum.

I give hydrogen power a thumbs down.

[azimuth]

thanks Old, your post was helpful. thanks also for the tip on searching the diesel threads here. i'll do some homework now.