Hydrogen Cars are A Reality: Scientist is a Guest on Coast2Coast Right Now

United Nuclear: Hydrogen Fuel Systems ^ | 12/5/2003 | Bob Lazar

[MainFrame65]

The way my gut has been acting recently, I think I could do this in real time, with just a few modifications to the driver's seat.

[Calvin Locke]

About 20 years ago, I was having battery trouble. Kept having to charge the battery. I decided to try starting the car one
last time before bumming a ride to buy a new battery.

So, with the hood up, I started to start the car. Blam! The battery exploded, essentially blowing the top of the battery off.

There were no acid burns, and most of the electrolyte was missing. So much for "maintenance free" batteries.

Obviously, the lack of electolyte fluid left a lot of room for dangerous levels of H2 to accumulate, maybe even under some pressure.

[Calvin Locke]

Coast2Coast is peer-reviewed, right?

C2C is mostly entertainment.

A couple of retirements ago, Art had a guy on that compiled "The Compleat Energy Book", priced at something like $200.

The author's conclusion on H2 was that it is expensive and impractical to store.

[cc2k]

Dosa26 wrote:

---

Come on...The battery would have to be cracked to release the gas no? Otherwise we put our lives in danger every time we Jump a dead battery.

---

You do put your life in danger if you incorrectly hook up jumper cables to a dead battery.

Most automotive batteries are vented (the exception is the "AGM" type batteries, many of those that look like a six pack of soda cans along with early Mazda Miata batteries). Hydrogen escapes from the vents during normal charging and operation.

It's very important when connecting jumper cables that the last connection you make is the ground cable, and that you connect that ground cable to a solid metal grounding point away from the battery. Connecting the final connection directly to the battery can result in an explosion.

Often, you might get away with it because hydrogen is lighter than air and often doesn't hang around in the compartment near the battery, but occasionally someone gets really unlucky and blows up their battery by doing this wrong.

[cc2k]

From the article:

---

a Hydrogen generating system that remains in your garage. The Hydrogen generator is either powered by solar panels on the roof of your house, a wind turbine set-up (both of which makes your Hydrogen fuel at virtually no cost) or with standard 110 volt AC power for rapid refueling.

---

Let's analyze this a bit. Especially that "virtually no cost" part.

I have no solar panels on the roof of my house, and I have no wind turbine. Actually, I've considered installing solar panels as an interesting project once before. I can assure you that purchasing and installing enough solar panels to generate the required amount of electricity will cost significant sum of money. I've never considered wind turbines, but I doubt that wind turbines have ever been known fall out of the sky and hook themselves up to your hydrogen generator. So there will be some significant expense involved in installing a wind turbine system as well.

That leaves us with the 110VAC alternative. Now, if you live with your parents and they pay all the electric bills, you might get "free" electricity to make fuel for your Corvette, but for most of us, 110V electricity costs money, and enough to produce enough fuel for our cars would cost a significant amount of money.

Then, there is the whole "emissions" thing. Using 110V electricity means that your total emissions will be the H20 that comes out the tailpipe of your Corvette, plus all of the CO2 (global warming!), SO2 (acid rain) and whatever other wastes (mercury?) you want to worry about coming out of the power plant than generates the electricity to make your fuel. Using solar or wind doesn't result in any per unit emissions, but you also have to consider the waste emissions created to produce the solar cells or wind turbine.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

I viewed a research Professor from MIT on a university sattelite channel. He spoke of the many difficulties of just why Hydrogen fuels are not yet feasable for common public use. He used this ratio as a short example for why it is not practical.

Claims like the one in this thread are easy to find but difficult to prove. The record speaks for itself. Hydrogen fuel must be compressed into a sub-zero liquid and stored under pressure in order to remain in a liquid state. This takes far more energy to produce than is recovered as usable fuel.

[templar]

United Nuclear is currently in final testing, and will shortly be producing Hydrogen conversion systems / Hydrogen generators for most fuel injected, Gasoline powered vehicles.

I'm a bit skeptic of this. Gasoliine engines are made to operate on a fuel with a much higher energy density than hydrogen. To achieve an acceptable performance with hydrogen a converted engine would need to operate at a very high intake manifold pressure for sufficient a fuel air mixture to enter the combustion chamber (which would require internal rod, crank, etc. modification) To be effective, a hydrogen powered ICE would need to be originally designed to operate on hydrogen. I think, correct me if I'm wrong.

[templar]

Not to say fuel efficient vehicles are impossible...

My 79 diesel Rabbit gets 50 mpg on the highway and 44 mpg in town. For all the reasons you mention except the 1000 lb. weight and very slow acceleration. Climbs 12,000 foot mountains fairly well too, but it does leave a bit to be desired at that altitude (no turbo).

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

You are correct. Current auto./carb. technology requires fuel to be in a liquid state to function. Liquid hydrogen in that state is at least -200 deg.

It requires a special intake capable of handling such an extreme liquid. And while you are at it, read my previous post at #28.

This thread has so much natural methane byproduct from the BS that it alone could fuel our energy needs.

As far a this ridiculous claim that fuel injectors can easily adapt, I say again, BS!

[templar]

Even muratic (swiming pool acid) which is weak hydrocloric works but not as efficent as hydrocloric.

Muriatic may not be quite as strong as a Lab grade of Hydrochloric, but don't treat it like it is a 'weak' acid. Particulary when mixing it with water. Remember the saying from back in HS chemistry: "Here lies Willy, bony and placid. He poured water into acid".

[Ursus arctos horribilis]

"Come on...The battery would have to be cracked to release the gas no? Otherwise we put our lives in danger every time we Jump a dead battery."

And your point is, the truth.

Automotive lead acid batteries are very dangerous devices if not handled accordingly in a safe manner.

Google has some 13,000 + sites referencing the matter.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=car+batteries+exploding&btnG=Google+Search

[ex-Texan]

If you had listened to the program -- you would now know that Lazar contends he could reduce the cost per unit "by 70%." Therefor, his per unit cost would be about $ 4,500 to start out. My best guess is his cost would come down with popularity, publicity and sales to a reduced cost of about $ 3,000. Assuming a ten year life means a per year cost of roughly $ 300 per year. For two cars that works out to around $ 150 a year or about $ 12.50 per month to drive each car.

He also claimed the cost of running the units could be lowered by using sun panels, a simple charging device and other cost cutting methods. 700 miles per fill up for local city use means about two charges per car a month. Were are getting very esoteric with operating costs, but it seems reasonable to assume that he is correct.

Just guessing but I believe America would buy these units like hot cakes.

[Iris7]

I had a diesel Rabbit for many years; bought it new. With the original engine it got 50 mpg city and highway, no matter how I tested it. Cruised at 80+ mph too, wide open throttle. The machine had well chosen gear ratios. It got too ratty for my wife, and I gave it away. Salt caused body rust.

Volkswagen had, or has, a more modern direct injection diesel on the market that got, or gets, 70 mpg. Sticking to the 2450 pound dry weight area with improved aerodynamics and engine/transmission combinations should deliver 100 mpg.

The reason diesels can accomplish this is that there is a "loophole" (as the Greens put it) in the emission control regulations. Putting diesel cycle engines under the same rule regime as the gas engines have and their advantage disappears. The 2005 regulations look very discouraging.

[Iris7]

My post was an attempt to show the trade-offs involved. No one will buy a really low fuel usage vehicle at todays' fuel prices except the truly insane, say Hollywood types. Not enough sales could be made to pay for the engineering and tooling.

The Greens are trying to force the issue by controlling the government. It is at least possible that they will succeed even if only for a time.

A world with gasoline at $80 (in constant value dollars) a gallon would be very different than what we are used to. About a half of transportation cost by truck and air is fuel, and so we could expect and increase in transportation costs of about 30 or 40 times. Agricultural products are about the same proportion petrochemical cost, so the same increase could be expected there. Homes would have similar heating cost increases, and if coal increased in price as petroleum, as is likely, also in air conditioning cost. These prices could not be lowered by inflation, either, since we are talking about constant dollars. Obviously present arrangements would not suffice.

[Las Vegas Dave]

I listen in the early AM on my drive into work, one item you are missing that I have noticed, these NUT CASES (both guests and callers) are 100% LIBERALS!!!!!

One fruit cake caller attacked President Bush as the selected President, and George Noory went right along with him!

[dalereed]

"No one will buy a really low fuel usage vehicle at todays' fuel prices except the truly insane, say Hollywood types"

I wouldn't buy or drive any of the tin can small junk made today no matter what the price of fuel. I'm perfectly satisfied with the 15 mpg that I get now.

When the turkey scraps to fuel plants take off the price of fuel isn't going to increase, it's going to decrease and the arabs can go back to trying to breed camels.

[DannyTN]

Lets assume that with volume manufacturing the cost of coversion drops to $2000. Now assuming $60 a month, that has a payback of just under three years.

If we could cut gasoline prices by 90% in three years doing this would we? I mean it's $60 a month now in three years it might be $80 or $100 a month. Lets get some alternative in place.

[taxcontrol]

Assuming you can reduce costs is a bad idea. It does not work in business - I know, I build business cases for a living.

Also, solar panels are not cheap. The sun may be free but the panels, wiring, inverters, etc. required can easily add several thousand dollars to the cost of this "solution".

Further, if a person tries to run this off of their household power, the costs to the electric bill will be a greater financial problem to the average home owner.

I'm not opposed to such a system. I simply evaluate it on personal economics. Show me a system that is cheaper than gas and I will have no problem converting. Even show me a system that reaches a payback in a reasonable time, has a net present value that is greater than it's cost in a reasonable time frame (i.e. less than the normal depreciation cycle of a car), and that has an IRR better than the current cost to borrow against the cost of the conversion - and you will STILL get me to buy.

Till then, I'll pass.

[yhwhsman]

George Nourie believes every thing...

Unless he has a Christian on as a guest. They're the only ones I've ever heard him argue with.

[Rockitz]

As an engineer with significant hydrogen combustion experience, my mind reels with the practical considerations of implementing this concept.

1. Differences in the flame temperature between hydrogen-air combustion and gasoline-air combustion would change cooling requirements.
2. Compatibility issues with hydrogen and materials.
3. Ignition delay time differences would most certainly change spark advance timing.
4. Differences in spark energy requirements.
5. Flammability differences.
6. Significant safety concerns with storing hydrogen.
7. SIgnificant fuel injection system requirement differences.

Willy-nilly changes in fuels in internal combustion engines usually require new designs, although gas turbines are much more forgiving. In my estimation, one of the biggest mistakes ever made was virtually outlawing gas turbines at Indianapolis in the 60s. That single act set back gas turbine and alternative fuel technology by decades.