Posted on 05/26/2004 9:48:04 AM PDT by Rebelbase
Status: Manufacturing Facility Nearing Completion
Click Here for the latest update.
|
United Nuclear is currently in final testing, and will shortly be producing Hydrogen conversion systems / Hydrogen generators for most fuel injected, Gasoline powered vehicles. Powering a vehicle by Hydrogen is by no means a new idea, and in fact, almost all automobile manufacturers are currently developing a new generation of vehicles that run on Hydrogen as opposed to Gasoline. This new generation of vehicles are essentially electric cars that use a Fuel Cell instead of a battery to run the electric motor. Using a chemical process, Fuel Cells in these new vehicles convert the stored Hydrogen on board, and the Oxygen in the air, directly into electricity to power their electric motors. These new vehicles are very efficient, and in fact are more efficient than any internal combustion engine. The problem is that these new vehicles are years away from production, are very expensive, and converting to using Hydrogen fuel in this manner requires you to buy a new ( and expensive ) vehicle. All Hydrogen/Fuel Cell systems currently under development by large manufacturers have you purchase Hydrogen as you would Gasoline.
|
|
What's Real? A lot has been written about converting vehicles to run hydrogen. Unfortunately, a lot of what you'll find on the internet is simply untrue. Storage Since you can't make Hydrogen quickly enough to power a car in real time, you must produce it separately, and store it as you store your Gasoline fuel supply in your vehicle now. 1. Store the Hydrogen as a compressed gas. We'll cover each option in order. 1. If you choose to store the Hydrogen as a compressed gas, you'll need HUGE tanks, and many of them, since Hydrogen isn't very dense, so a tank really can't hold all that much. In addition, you'll be driving a giant bomb. In a collision, expect to die in a huge fireball/explosion. 2. Choosing liquid does solve the density problem since liquids are far more dense than gasses, so you can reduce the amount of tanks and their sizes required to power the car. The new problem that pops up is the fact the liquid Hydrogen in cryogenic... in short REALLY cold. It requires vacuum-thermos ( dewar ) tanks and vents to exhaust the boiling Hydrogen gas. You'll also have to find a source for liquid Hydrogen which is far more expensive than Gasoline. You've also now increased you danger factor when it comes to a collision. Not only will you have more Hydrogen gas spewing around that's going to explode and burn, but you'll also have a liquid spraying about that's over 400 degrees below zero. Once you add in the added complexity of the system due to the cryogenic liquid, your vehicle will wind up being a giant, low efficiency, rolling bomb that costs more than your house, and costs far more to run than it did on Gasoline. 3. The 3rd option is simply the only way to go. There are materials call Hydrides that absorb Hydrogen like a sponge absorbs water. Typically, the tanks are filled with granulated Hydrides, and Hydrogen is pressurized into the material. Hydrides have many advantages over liquid & gas. One is that the density of the Hydrogen stored in the Hydride can be GREATER than that of liquid Hydrogen. This translates directly into smaller and fewer storage tanks. Our vehicle starts on Gasoline and runs for about 5 minutes to heat everything up ( including the Hydride ). The time it takes to heat up the Hydride is about as long as it takes the heater in your car to warm up and blow out hot air. As soon at the Hydride is sufficiently warm, Hydrogen is released from the tanks and the on-board computer detects the presence of Hydrogen pressure. The only exhaust products from using Hydrogen as a fuel are steam ( water vapor ) and a tiny amount of Nitrogen Oxides. It's about as clean burning as you can get. |
|
|
|
|
"Short Range" Hydride tank placement in Corvette. |
Close-up shot of the updated Hydride tank installation. |
google isn't God.
Uh, that is exactly what this article is saying.
wonder if they'd add the system to my 'Vette for free? ... hehe (for testing purposes, of course!)
Reading all these comments leaves me kind of disillusioned. Just because liberals like environmentally friendly fuels, doesn't mean we cant like them too.
Isn't striving for better efficiency a conservative ideal? Isn't removing our dependancy on foreign oil a conservative ideal?
Internal combustion engines are only about 25% efficient. They are a mature technology that won't get much better than they already are.
Hydrogen fuels are a fledgling technology that will improve tremendously in the years to come. They are the future.
I get the feeling that some of you didn't pay any attention to the facts mentioned in the article above. Storing hydrogen in hydrides essentially makes the fuel no longer hydrogen until it is needed. If any of you are welders, you could make the comparison to acetylene. Acetylene is obtained from calcium carbide. Calcium carbide is a relativey safe and stable substance. Just add water and voila, you have acetylene gas.
Storing hydrogen in hydrides is akin to storing acetylene in calcium carbide.
Some of you stated that production of hydrogen just consolidates the source of pullution to the utility company. You obviuosly didn't read the section on solar and wind generation of electricity for electrolysis.
How often do you refill your gas tank? Twice a week? Why is it such a bad idea to be able to produce your own fuel in your garage for the one time cost of equipment which will get cheaper and cheaper? You could have a hydrogen generator in you garage that could harness the 1500 watts per square meter of sunlight that is constantly making hydrogen. Why is this such a loony idea?
If you ask me alternative fuels is an issue that is ripe to be stolen from the liberals, the same way they co-opted civil rights in the 60's. We could do a much better job.
My corrupted kitties link works fine, thank-you very much. :-)
Just thought you might like the original as well :)
Lots of kneejerk reaction on hydrogen threads, for and against.
That big fireball you see in the Hindenberg picture is mostly the paint burning. Hydrogen flames are invisible. Firefighters probe for suspected hydrogen flames with a broom to avoid walking right into them.
You think of Led Zepplin I? The humanity.
You beat me to it by a mile.
But I thought it was #2.
We can share the glory.
;o
Number 1 in B & W on the back cover. Number 2 in color on the front. Both solid and still strong.
Way off topic, this is why the first stage of the Saturn V rocket burned LOX and Kerosene ....
Oh, you silly things! Don't you know Sylvia Browne says cars will be powered by atomic batteries and will float on water?
http://www.sylvia.org/home/2000plus.cfm
The Hindenberg didn't explode because of the hydrogen gas, as it turns out. It burned because 2 of the ingredients used in the canvas dope for the outer skin, namely powdered aluminum and iron oxide, seem to be 2 of the 5 major components used in fuel for the space shuttle. The fireball you see in the photo was actually the skin of the airship burning, which was ignited, most likely by lightning. The hydrogen gas burned nearly invisible, well above the structure of the airship.
You vent it to the outside. It's not like O2 is a pollutant, or anything. Green plants make lots of it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
