PickensPlan

Hydrogen Power

Why can't we bring together 4 or 5 Billionaires to form a consorsium to develope affordable hydrogen power for cars and homes and businesses. Hydrogen power is developed but not economically. If the government offers this consorsium exclusive rights to produce the affordable hydrogen engine for cars and hydrogen power for homes and business for approx. 5 years (exclusive rights), which would be a great incentive to solve the problem.

Views: 0

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ken Goss on July 23, 2008 at 12:50pm
Sparrow,

Actually hydrogen fuelled cars are not all fuel cell cars (also, not all fuel cell cars carry elemental hydrogen on board). You can burn hydrogen in an internal combustion engine much the same way that you burn natural gas. The problem is that you need a fuel tank that is very large, very heavy, very exotic, and very expensive in order to carry enough fuel to give you a reasonable range between fill ups.

While it is true that hydrogen is not a magic bullet for our energy needs, I wonder if it is a viable storage and trasnportaion medium that can compensate for the intermittient nature of sun & wind energy?

By the way, if you told me that I could run the water heater in my house on hydrogen gas that cost 10%, or 20%, or 50% of what I am paying today for natural gas, than I would say get out the backhoes and start laying a pipe to my house.

Ken Goss
Permalink Reply by John Jackson on July 23, 2008 at 6:58pm
Ken, Once again misconception. The tanks are not any larger than NG tanks. The combustion engine hydrogen must be liquid and the challenge is very low temp storage of liquid. Both Honda FCX and GM Equinox SUV FCV are produciton ready and run on compressed Hydrogn gas. The transportation issue of hydrogen is solved at http://newghas.com. We will use solar and wind power at the location to produce fuel. Our biggest challenge is spreading the word about our program and getting around the myths about hydrogen. Check out my website and google the Honda FCX or go to newghas on MySpace and see video about test drive review. Also google Larry Burns of GM. He is VP of advanced designs and says mass production is only held back by lack of fueling locations.
Permalink Reply by neil cox on July 24, 2008 at 8:25pm
Quote: Hydrogen tanks are not any larger than NG tanks. The combustion engine hydrogen must be liquid and the challenge is very low temp storage of liquid. unquote
For the same size/range vehicle, hydrogen tanks are bigger, even if you are comparing very high pressure hydrogen to CNG = cryogenic natural gas, or conversely. The cyrogenic hydrogen is also much colder, increasing the cooling and storage cost over CNG. The high pressure hydrogen leaks faster than natural gas at the same pressure and temperature. I don't think you want to inject liquid hydrogen at -253 degrees c into a hot internal combustion engine?
Either gas at 5000 to 10,000 psi = pounds per square inch will need to be warmed before entering either a fuel cell or an internal combustion engine. Warming will cause a significent starting delay, if the vehicle is at -39 degrees.
I really think you need a small tank of either gas at about 200 psi besides the main storage tank.
Many locations are unsatisfactory for either wind power or solar power. The fuel cells are presently too costly and don't produce enough power for 0 to 60 in 4 seconds like a Tesla Roadster. Fixes add cost, weight and take up passenger and cargo space, but both hydrogen cars and natural gas cars will be sold in small numbers with only modest subsidies. Duel fuel hybred plug in electrics may sell well.
We need thousands of big wind turbines in the wind corridor from West Texas to North Dekota. Neil
Permalink Reply by John Jackson on July 24, 2008 at 8:51pm
Check out the video on MySpace on the Honda FCX. I am not supporting the liquid hydrogen option because the Honda FCX and GM Equinox SUV FCV are production ready vehicles that use compressed hydrogen to power the fuel cells. Both companies are saying the price will be equal to regular production vehicles when produced in volume. The cost issue is apparent in the Tesla. It is $150,000+ has a range of about 200 miles and takes 3.5 hours to recharge and has a long waiting list to purchase. I think we can get a great option in el vehicles for commuters on short range trips and help really reduce oil demand but the two FCV's mentioned above are really viable option. The amount of power necessary to produce hydrogen would not be hard to produce with wind and solar everywhere in the country. When hydrogen is not being produced power will go back into the grid. Some grid power may be required but the net effect of areas we can over produce in will equal it out. A lot of confusion is out there because of the multiple standards. It looks like the settled on version will be like the GM Equinox and the Honda FCX.

I agree we need as many wind turbines as we can get. We need all options available to get us off of foreign oil and reduce consumption of domestic oil so we have supplies for items that need it for production that we don't have options for yet. But the 2 cars I keep mentioning prove hydrogne is a viable option. Production will be available at home also with home fueling stations that Honda is making to try and overcome the demand. But with the home fueling stations we have the same dilema as the el car. It limits their range. The good news is we don't need a hydrogen station on every corner like with gas now.
Permalink Reply by John Jackson on July 23, 2008 at 6:52pm
Sparrow, As most are confused about FCV and hydrogen you have a few misconceptions. Check out the Honda FCX production ready FCV and the GM Equinox SUV FCV. Both only need fueling locations to be mass produced. It is not expensive to make when using water and renewable energy. We can sell the fuel for $1.95 per gallon eqv with our plan. Most of the current production methods are expensive mainly because they are being done by oil companies using grid power or natural gas for production. Using solar and wind power to produce is inexpensive. It is actually less dangerous than gasoline and much less dangerous than NG for vehicles. You can't fuel up your own vehicles with NG but the hydrogen fueling locations in place in Cal, DC and NY are self serve. Most of the hype about it not being practical is perpetuated by oil companies. Check out our website at http://newghas.com for a viable immediate plan that will make a change for the better.
Permalink Reply by John Jackson on July 26, 2008 at 12:13am
Thanks. We have only had the site up and running for 5 weeks. We will be adding as much info as possible. We kicked it off early to coincide with the Honda FCX announcement that they were production ready. I have some specifics from Hydrogenics on prodcution if you want. Email me and I will send you a personal email address to reply.
Permalink Reply by Ken Goss on July 25, 2008 at 7:47pm
John,

Wow, so many misconeptions.

1) Maybe the compressed hydrogen fuel tanks are no larger than CNG fuel tanks, but that is no comfort since the CNG fuel tanks are pretty large and heavy. Even if the hydrogen fuel tanks are equal in size and weight, you have the problem of leakage. Hydrogen molecules are so small that they will leak between the grains of solid steel. If you correct theproblem, you have an exotic tank material. If you accept the small amount of leakage, please don't park your car in an enclosed garage.

2) I am with Neil on the idea of liquid hydrogen. An iternal combustion engine does not need liquid hydrogen any more than it needs liquid gasoline. In fact, inside thecombustion chamber o an IC engine, you do not burn liquid gasoline. it has to be a vapor before you light it with the spark plug. Gaseous fuels, even hydrogen, work quite nicely in an IC engine.

3) The only hydrogen Fuel cell vehicles that I have seen from any manufacturer, are a long way from production ready or ready for general use by the car buying public. In fact the only fuel cell vehicles, (hydrogen or reformed fossil fuel), and the only hydrogen fueled vehicles, (Fuel cell or IC engine), that exist anywhere are merely demo projects that are nowhere near "production ready".

4) Where do you get the $1.95 per evivalent gallon for Hydrogen fuel? Is that a price at today's demand levels, or is that the price at the demand levels we would see if there were a couple of million hydrogen fueled cars on the road?

5) I can't fill up my own car at CNG fuelling stations? What has changed since the early 90s when I filled up my own car at one of the very few CNG filling stations in Michigan. I assume that it has not gotten any more dangerous in the past 15 years.

6) The two cars that you mention do not prove that hydrogen is a "viable option" any more that the turbine cars that Chrysler made in the 60s proved that turbine power was a viable option. All those cars prove is that it is feasible to build a Hydrogen fuel cell car if you have enough money.

I would love to see a simple and elegant solution like the hydrogen economy, but I am afraid that I must agree with David. The inefficiencies in collecting energy from the sun & wind, converting it to electricity, converting that to hydrogen, and then converting the hydrogen to mechanical energy just takes too many conversions and too many losses due to inefficiencies. We would have to build several times more windmills to get the same energy at the wheel.

Ken Goss
Permalink Reply by John Jackson on July 26, 2008 at 12:09am
Sorry for the long wait for a response. I am a new Grandpa today and have been tied up all day.

1)The best thing I can tell you is to check out the Honda FCX and the Gm Equinox SUV FCV both of then are production ready and the misconceptions you have about leakage etc are just not facts. I had my web page designer add the video on the Honda FCX road test to my web page at http://newghas.com. Check it out.

2) The big challenge with liquid hydrogen is the extremely low temp needed to store without massive loss. It is something like -234 degrees. Just not an efficient way to do it yet.

3) If you read the comments of Larry Burns VP of GM he says the only thing holding back mass production of the Equinox is lack of fueling stations and those comments are mirrored by the head of Honda America.

4) Because of the business plan we have no debt service and no dividends to pay. Our only expense will be water, maintenance, and labor at the location. As we ramp up and demand is low we will actually sell power back into the grid helping us keep overhead down in the begining.

5) In Texas only licensed people can handle. My dad actually works for a propane company and had to take courses to be able to fuel up tanks and vehicles.

6) Actually having production ready cars does prove they are viable. If you do the research on the price that everyone keeps saying cost a million to build that is just taking partial fact. Any prototype is expensive. Once again search the web from the source you don't have to take my word for it. Both Honda and GM say in mass production they will be equal in price to the gas models.

The problem is we can't run our cars off of windmills. I think it is a great option for reducing dependence on oil but the electric car is the one just not viable for most people. I happen to be forced to drive a lot for work and don't make a short commute. They would be great for the guy who drive 10 mile each way to work and then back home. The battery tech is just not there yet. Even a company like Tesla who is building a top of the line high tech el vehicle hasn't improved it yet. They are $150,000 to buy, run about 200 miles max on a charge and then you must stop for 3.5 hours to charge it. That to me doesn't sound like much of a solution. The CNG for your car is not very efficient either. I check into gettin it for my 2008 Ford F150 and was quoted $7500 to install a tank that takes up 1/3 of my bed and only give me about 165 mile range. Every third tank ran through it must be gas or it voids my warranty. So we need to work on all solutions but none of them are perfect yet. If you are interested I can give you a few site to check out that will give you some opinions other than hydrogen naysayers who have actually been doing research. Let me know.
Permalink Reply by Frank on July 23, 2008 at 1:03pm
The problem with using hydrogen is that it is just more efficient to power a vehicle directly from electricity. To power a vehicle via hydrogen you have to go through this process: water + electricity >> hydrogen >> combustion >> movement. None of these processes are 100% efficient so you lose energy in every step. It's like making copies of copies, the quality will always get worse. Now let's take hydrogen out of the mix. We're left with: electricity >> battery >> movement. The only way hydrogen would be practical is if we could mine it freely. This is the same reason we've been using oil for so long. Making hydrogen from water is about as practical as making oil from sugar. It can be done, but it shouldn't.
Permalink Reply by David Bodley on July 23, 2008 at 3:24pm
Sorry Frank! Although you are right it is more efficient to power a vehicle directly from electricity, but it takes an awfully long cord. Lacking that, you have only two choices, storing the electricity in the car, or generating the electricity in the car. Storing enough electricity in a car to make it very practical to go anywhere, with foreseeable technology requires either large, heavy batteries or a chemical storing relatively stable energy. (Gasoline, hydrogen, etc. ) And we still have to deal with the laws of physics that require that energy cannot be created or destroyed, merely changed in form. Any method to provide vehicle energy must therefore "waste" or use up a certain amount of energy, always less than the energy required to to store it. We merely need a method to find a way to store and use energy that would otherwise not be needed.
Permalink Reply by John Jackson on July 23, 2008 at 7:08pm
Thanks for using common sense. Check out our plan at http://newghas.com. We have solved the issue of production, transportation, and storage of hydrogen.
Permalink Reply by Andrew on July 24, 2008 at 11:16pm
"Although you are right it is more efficient to power a vehicle directly from electricity, but it takes an awfully long cord."

The solution to this is to incorporate a method of 'on the fly' recharging into future interstate highway design. The fifty or so mile range on batteries is sufficient for local trips. If vehicles could draw power directly from the roads along interstate highways, the range issue would be solved for a significant percentage of longer trips.

The power for these roadways could be supplied from large wind and solar plants. If it is truly necessary to charge for the power, the simplest means would be charge per mile via tolls rather than try to charge per unit of energy.

RSS

© 2013   Created by PickensPlan.   Powered by

Badges  |  Community Guidelines  | Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service