Hydrogen Fuel as an Alternative Energy

Done some reading on hydrogen as an alternative to fossil fuels.

Our existing engines could be converted to run on hydrogen, at little cost. Building the infrastructure is the huge ?. Politically and economically, is there the Will ?

Others have built working demonstrator models of real life vehicles. They exist ! Neighbor even modified a Toyota Pick Up, that runs on blended Hydrogen / Gasoline.


Anyway , here's a book I read. It is out of print ,(2000 yr. ) and I got a copy from Amazon.com .

And a link to further reading.


https://www.phoenixprojectfoundation.us/

I was watching a program (TopGear) on TV about Honda's Hydrogen Fuel Cell/Electric Car. No Batteries!....it was being trialed in California. It seemed to be miles in front of the Hybrids and other electric cars. Whilst the hydrogen is about the same cost as unleaded petroleum there are no emissions from the vehicle...well, just some water. Should the demand increase the cost of Hydrogen production should come down considerably in comparison to drilling oil from thousands of feet down.

I thought I had read that the biggest obstacle besides infrastructure was cold weather, but that was a few years ago so I may be wrong.

Hydrogen is a viable fuel if production and distribution costs come down. I remember back in high school (over 30 years ago) where we produced hydrogen in a science experiment through electrolysis, and the teacher then demonstrated the explosive properties of the hydrogen. This isn't a new discovery.

Currently oil products are our most economical source of fuel, why are we so opposed to using them? In some South American countries, ethanol is the fuel they use. Why? Because with the huge sugar plantations they have, ethanol is more economical to use than oil products. When an alternative fuel becomes more economical than oil, that's when we will see it developed and become commonly used. I don't feel we should be forced into alternatives just because some green group is calling for it.

I'm not opposed to experimentation, but it should take place within free enterprise and not at tax payer expense.

I whole heartedly agree Steve! We started getting close to that point last summer and I'm positive we will again.

I tell everyone I know that it does not matter what is done politically, that the economics will dictate when a change is made. Just like you said Steve and Joe, While oil is cheap, oil will be used. When oil is not cheap, then alternatives come out. The options are there now, but the cost is too high. Who is willing to pay 2 to 5 times more to use an alternative fuel?? No one I know. When the price is right, the change will be on.

We have a hydrogen fuel station here in Iceland. There was one city bus that used it as an experimental project. The project is now over and that bus is now a source of spare parts for the other diesel buses. The logistics in this case just didn´t work out. It had to go for fuel 2 times per day. Filling up took half an hour. Not to mention that the fuel station wasn´t on the route.

Hydrogen requires a tremendous amount of energy to produce. I´ll buy coal futures when hydrogen cars become mainstream.

An excellent topic, particularly for those of us who live in a Country where diesel for road-going vehicles is over US$5.00 a gallon (I hope I've got my sums correct, it is a UK Pound per litre).

I see a limited future for Hydrogen-burning internal-combustion engines, perhaps only as a way to keep legacy machinery operating, if and when Hydrogen fuel-cell powered equipment begins to get deployed. Why go to the cost of distributing and storing hydrogen to then extract the energy in it by burning it it an expensive internal combustion engine. Why not feed it into a solid-state fuel-cell to power a relatively cheap electric motor?

Taking away the internal combustion engine from construction equipment will slash machine repair costs for the user, funding what will undoubtedly be an expensive fuel to distribute and store. The potential manufacturing cost savings (of not employing the men and machinery in large factories to make each of the hundreds of components in an engine) will be of such a high order that it makes Hydrogen fuel-cell technology begin to look affordable in the future.

As a benchmark, I understand that there are a number projects around the world to develop an all-electronic (manned) main battle tank. I know nothing about the bits that go bang, but I understand that a heavy-duty tracked-chassis, powered by a Hydrogen fuel-cell, is seen as a way forward.

Of course, the military are in a different situation, as they already have a vast independent fuel logistics organization, that operates to very high standards in the worst of conditions. But it may well be military budgets that pay for the development of Hydrogen refueling equipment and procedures that can withstand front-line conditions, to enable this technology to pass the practicality test on typical mining and construction sites. I suspect that the few fuel-cell cars and buses that are driving around now have to be refueled in relatively clean conditions, taking for ever to do and only offering a limited range.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efCelx7qe_M&feature=related
This is the sort of thing that is the future in a prime mover.

Hydrogen Fuel

Well, I was looking it from a different perspective.

Instead of changing all the non compliant engines of Tier,1,2,3 to meet Tier 4 emissions standards, due 2011, why not change the fuel, instead ? 2011 is a fuel test date ? 2008-2015 is the Tier 4 phase in.

If Hydrogen can be adapted to run the existing engines, at relatively little cost, and meet the Tier 4 emissions ,why not ?

Yes, it is the infrastructure, of production and distribution, of hydrogen. The huge cost of switching over.

Instead of going the costly route of new Tier 4 engines.

The EPA regulations are just going to become more and more stringent. They are striving for zero emissions , or close to it . ???

Like someone said , the exhaust will be cleaner than the intake air.

Much like the sewage treatment plants, mining operations, and other industrial users of water, having to discharge cleaner water , than they take in for use.

Anyway, reading about how hydrogen, can help reduce the greenhouse gases, the carbon footprint,global warming, etc, makes for interesting news, as a future fuel.

Here's a link to the different Tier's of regulation, for emissions.


http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/nonroad.php

OK, I know it is an agricultural tractor, but fuel cell powered off road vehicles are on the horizon;

http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/2009/02/12/114257/now-in-video-new-hollands-fuel-cell-tractor.html

Economics and Fuel

JDOFMEMI said:

I tell everyone I know that it does not matter what is done politically, that the economics will dictate when a change is made. Just like you said Steve and Joe, While oil is cheap, oil will be used. When oil is not cheap, then alternatives come out. The options are there now, but the cost is too high. Who is willing to pay 2 to 5 times more to use an alternative fuel?? No one I know. When the price is right, the change will be on.

Click to expand...

Well said. An example of this is when fuel was at it's highest a Hybrid Escape would bring around $15,000.00 at the dealers auction. Now they are bringing around $7,500.00 What a difference a year makes. I think when this economy turns around we will be right back at $4.00 or $5.00 fuel.

joispoi said:

We have a hydrogen fuel station here in Iceland. There was one city bus that used it as an experimental project. The project is now over and that bus is now a source of spare parts for the other diesel buses. The logistics in this case just didn´t work out. It had to go for fuel 2 times per day. Filling up took half an hour. Not to mention that the fuel station wasn´t on the route.[snip]

Click to expand...

They actually had 3 of them hydrogen powered buses, and it was exactly what it was, an experimental project. They did run into obstacles, but since then, the filling station has been modified and then the technology has improved, hence the Honda they tested on TopGear.

see www.hydrogen.is

just my 0.02 ISK

Merc Have been expermenting with "H" powered vehicles for the last 10 year. 5 cylinder engine.

Great .. Only produce's water vapour and a few other thing's with selective mix's.

Only problem is the fuel cell!

Hydrogen need's to be Compressed and cooled. GAS and Diesel do not making them 100% safer.

Aulternitive Energy

Northart said:

Well, I was looking it from a different perspective.

Instead of changing all the non compliant engines of Tier,1,2,3 to meet Tier 4 emissions standards, due 2011, why not change the fuel, instead ? 2011 is a fuel test date ? 2008-2015 is the Tier 4 phase in.

If Hydrogen can be adapted to run the existing engines, at relatively little cost, and meet the Tier 4 emissions ,why not ?

Yes, it is the infrastructure, of production and distribution, of hydrogen. The huge cost of switching over.

Instead of going the costly route of new Tier 4 engines.

The EPA regulations are just going to become more and more stringent. They are striving for zero emissions , or close to it . ???

Like someone said , the exhaust will be cleaner than the intake air.

Much like the sewage treatment plants, mining operations, and other industrial users of water, having to discharge cleaner water , than they take in for use.

Anyway, reading about how hydrogen, can help reduce the greenhouse gases, the carbon footprint,global warming, etc, makes for interesting news, as a future fuel.

Here's a link to the different Tier's of regulation, for emissions.


http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/nonroad.php

Click to expand...

I was looking at non compliant engines and looking for a way around the new regs.
I also looked into hydrogen, which can be made with baking soda, water and electrode used along with gasoline in gasoline engine; it's also called browns gas. It burns cold and has low emissions. There are several things that are added on fuel injected engine to get around the oxygen sencer.
I then looked into bio-diesel. Almost 0 emissions like 97% cleaner then petro-diesel and the NOX can be reduced to 0 by retarding the timing. I was wanting to come up with a way to continue to run 0 tier engines. I think this is the answer but you have to make B100 yourself. You would think that there would be a lot of testing going on with blends and how much you could add and still have a PM reduction that would allow the older diesel to comply with new rules. The burocrats are in too big of a hurry to tell us to get rid of older equipment with out finding economical solutions. "I don't think you will have to wait long for the Chicago gang to put some kind of big tax or fee hike on diesel, gasoline and all energy related use." It could be "CAP ON TRADE" , CO2 or some other scam, but it will be anti-business that’s for sure.

Tier O fuels ?

Hello Darryl,

Ha, at least you have the idea, I was trying to get across.

Use a different fuel, instead of building newer costlier engines . The simpler older cheaper engines , Tier, O should be able to continue in existence with a different fuel . And yet meet the desired emissions standards, and the same performance standards !

Look at the societal cost of change ???

Just wonder if B100 would run in the Arctic temps ?

I don't think you will have to wait long for the Chicago gang...

Click to expand...

Darryl, the staff is hard at work on a few adjustments to the forum rules and posting policy. The policy about political discussions is a large part of what's under discussion. When the new policy is posted, it will give members some latitude to discuss politcal topics that are directly related to our industry, but it will still be against forum policy to use derogatory terms for anyone referred to in said discussions.

That's why much of your recent posting has been allowed to stand without edit or comment from the staff.

Your above quote, characterizing the current Presidential administration as a "gang", would fit into the "derogatory" catagory. In fair warning, please, get accustomed now to excercising appropriate restraint in the way you express your opinions.

Your above quote, characterizing the current Presidential administration as a "gang", would fit into the "derogatory" catagory. In fair warning, please, get accustomed now to excercising appropriate restraint in the way you express your opinions.

Click to expand...

Real sorry for not knowing the line I will be guarding in the future. I guess being frustrated and PC go hand in hand. It’s just a slip. But I did not say Presidential Administration.

B100 can work in Alaska you will need to blend in real cold. Diesel aditaves from Powers will help solve the waxing. The better you make it and konola oil is the best the lower the temp. Europe has been on B30 for several years.

DarrylMueller said:

But I did not say Presidential Administration.

Click to expand...

No, you didn't.

If you care to specify some other individual or collection of individuals from Chicago that have the power to cause a tax hike on anything you're dealing with there in California, then I'll apologize for misinterpreting you. Otherwise, I'll stand by my original interpretation of your statement.