Hydrogen Powered Cars! HA!

1/25/2002 | John Jamieson

[John Jamieson]

Methanol works in Brazil as M85. But farm labor is cheap there and they don't use near as much fuel to grow corn. They also don't grow near as much corn per acrer. In this country we use twice as much energy to make methanol as we get out of it (Thats why the big ADM subsidies).

We could all lower our wages and go back to work on the farm. I'm not ready. Give me a cheaper, better solution. Japan and France already generate just about all their electricity with nuclear power. You can't win by going backwards.

[Chairman Fred]

Someone who actually know science, physics, chemistry and all that un-PC stuff! Will wonders never cease?? /sarcasm

Hydrogen is, at present, a pipe dream. Separating it from chemical combination (be it H20, water, or in hydrocarbon form - methane is the main constituent of natural gas) will always use more energy than the burning will produce (this is the first and second laws of thermodynamics). It will eventually be a good, clean secondary source of power - after we find an even cheaper way to generate large amounts of electricity. (Oops, we've know one, it's called nuclear.)

Just in case you didn't know, the Three Laws of Thermodynamics, Simplified:

1.) You can't get ahead. Or, you can't get more energy out of a system than you originally put in. This is called "the conservation of energy". Or, no system can ever be more than 100% efficient.

2.) You can't break even. Or, some energy will always be lost in process. This is called "entropy". Or, no system can ever be as much as 100% efficient.

3.) You can't get out of the game. Or, you can't create negative energy, which is the same as saying you can't go below absolute zero temperature. If you could, you'd be able to violate the first two laws whenever you wanted to.

[John Jamieson]

An $8,000 solution to a $200 problem. That's not what I want. Dean's heart stints really work well though.....I love the man!

[stboz]

Methanol or ethanol? I think the Brazilians are using ethyl alcohol and/or gasohol.

I didn't say it before, but yeah!...nukes are clean in so many ways...no greenhouse gases (as if it matters), no acid rain precursors, no large scale mining operations like coal, a good bit less noisy, too. As for safe, when they're not operated by morons, they're great.

I look forward to seeing our Saudi friends(?) living in tents and humping camels...just like they used to.

[John Jamieson]

The "Aternatives" to hydrocarbons can only work if the alternative does not depend on hydrocarbons as it's source or it's process, or it's infrastructure. Nuclear (and solar which is nuclear at a distance) seems be the only alternative that does NOT directly require hydrocarbons.

[John Jamieson]

Its called "M85".

[EBUCK]

It can't/won't happen instantly. Gas stations spread from the larger cities outward gradualy. I'm sure that could be done again with the right incentive. The real problem is the clean up of the former gas station sites.

EBUCK

[colorado tanker]

I support nuclear power, so we don't disagree there. The West has been using it safely for many years.

I'm no engineer, but the problem I have with those who say fuel cell cars won't work is that I see them working. Daimler and Toyota have been at this for years, producing many prototypes, long before the US government and Detroit got involved. I just don't believe the biggest auto companies in the world would be pursuing something that can't work. The switch in a big way is unlikely, however, unless and until oil prices rise enough to make fuel cell prices more attractive and production increases to make economies of scale possible.

In the meantime, I agree we suck the mideast dry.

[stboz]

A quick look around at Google shows both M85 and E85. M for methanol (you are correct) and E for ethanol (I am also correct...damn, we're good.)

Nuclear for baseloads makes complete sense. Fuel cells for topping or local applications can also make sense.

Hydrogen makes sense if you're a politician looking to bullshit your way into people's pocketbooks.

[John Jamieson]

Great article. Great minds think alike! Hydrogen would only be the battery for portable applications. We have to do this!

W, I know you're pretty busy, but if you could work it in, please start think about the long term future of this country.

[John Jamieson]

Detecting hydrogen leaks is hard. Plugging them even harder. I spent a good bit of NASA career doing just that.

[Real Cynic No More]

"... the hydrogen can be separated from the oxygen by putting in exactly the same amount of energy that will later be retrieved when the hydrogen is burned."

Actually, I don't believe that is quite true. As stated, the process would require 100 percent efficiency, and I don't believe that to be obtainable.

However, I do think it would be possible to create large scale sun-to-electricity or wind-to-electricity facilities in non-populated areas and pipe or ditch water to them. The water could then be converted to hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis without the loss of too much power through long distance voltage drops. The two elements could then be shipped to wherever they are needed.

Fuel cells, internal combustion - and other types of engines might be feasible.

Now, if we could just get a source of electricity to destinations without too much voltage drop due to the distance, it might just be feasible to create a car that never needs re-fueling. Just fill up a permanently sealed, heavy gauge fuel system with water; conver the water to hydrogen and oxygen during the night; convert the hydrogen and oxygen back to water as the car is used, and recycle that water again at night. The only thing needed to be added is the electricity at night. Wouldn't that be a "gas"!

[Ben Ficklin]

Fuel Cells 2000

[John Jamieson]

Making something that rolls is a lot easier than making something that people can afford to buy, will buy, and consider atleast as good as what they have.

[kezekiel]

Detecting hydrogen leaks is hard. Plugging them even harder. I spent a good bit of NASA career doing just that.

Just ask the guys at Morton Thiokol.

[jwalsh07]

Besides the waste products, the tree huggers, the soccer Moms and the NIMBY's what are the obstacles to fusion?

[RightWhale]

Methanol has a better chance whether in the internal combustion engine or in direct methanol fuel cells.

It appears so. The PR is lacking so far, but the hydrogen hype will blow over. It's methane.

[John Jamieson]

You're looking at atleast $5 a "gallon" unless your electricity is much cheaper than mine here in Texas.

[Jersey Kid]

Nukes are not as clean as you think also. It takes about 1,000,000 tons of Uranium ore to refine it into 100 tons of 2% U235 for fuel rods. You have to move it around and get rid of radioactive leftovers (that's millions of tons). Than you get all nuclear power plants releasing radioactive gasses Kripton, Radon ect.(on regular basis), something that you don't hear that often, preventing their build up inside the reactors. And the last thing, what to do with millions of tons of "used" fuel rods ? Send them to space ??? One mistake and the Entire east coast is contaminated...

[John Jamieson]

They had problems plugging leaks, but not hydrogen. A whole chemistry book comes out those SRBs. (including lots of acids, NASA issued car covers in the old days, to avoid buying new paint jobs).