Author Topic: Fuel cell cars (Read 645 times)

OIO · « **Reply #15 on:** February 03, 2003, 08:23:49 AM »

Im a sucker for these things. If they bring that tech to florida ill buy one. Even if it turns out to be the new-age version of the pinto.

hawk220 · « **Reply #16 on:** February 03, 2003, 09:30:33 AM »

rgr capt Apathy..ive seen the demo on tv..they put a glass under the exhaust pipe of the cell car..and the exhaust is air and pure water..the tech dude lets some drip into the glass and takes a swig..

miko2d · « **Reply #17 on:** February 03, 2003, 09:54:34 AM »

Dowding: It is far more efficient and less resource consuming to have one large fossil fuel burning power station than hundreds of thousands of individual fossil fuel engines running about the place.

Not far more. Few percent more.

capt. apathy: why we couldn't just have regular intenal combustion cars that burned hydrogen. if you injected it 2:1 with oxygen your emision would be water, right?

Hydrogen burns in air just fine. If you inject 2:1 oxygen, you will not get a burn but a true explosion.

miko

AKIron · « **Reply #18 on:** February 03, 2003, 12:46:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by miko2d
Hydrogen burns in air just fine.
miko

Surely does.

Saurdaukar · « **Reply #19 on:** February 03, 2003, 01:14:53 PM »

Now - Im a little green on this (got a C in Chemistry in college) but I read this as a hydrogen powered - electric driven car. Is there any way to create a hydrogen powered internal combustion engine?

Dowding · « **Reply #20 on:** February 03, 2003, 01:23:12 PM »

That's not correct Miko2d. A modern gas fired power station linked to a modern network is much more efficient than the petrol car, even accounting for electricity transmission losses. For the same amount of fuel, the energy released by the power station allows electric cars to go much further than conventional cars using the same amount of fuel.

miko2d · « **Reply #21 on:** February 03, 2003, 01:26:05 PM »

You do not need to create one. Certainly not new technology. A minor modification to existing technology it is sufficient. You can even convert a gasoline engine to burn hydrogen or nat. gas - though a specifically designed model would be a bit more efficient.

There are plenty of natural-gas busses in operation right now. There is very little difference in burning natural gas and hydrogen.

miko

Dowding · « **Reply #22 on:** February 03, 2003, 01:45:00 PM »

They use LPG - liquefied petroleum gas, do they not? How would you liquefy hydrogen and then store it in an affordable, safe way that could be transported?

Tarmac · « **Reply #23 on:** February 03, 2003, 01:45:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by miko2d
There is very little difference in burning natural gas and hydrogen.

Except that hydrogen's only emission is water, while natural gas produces carbon dioxide.

miko2d · « **Reply #24 on:** February 03, 2003, 01:58:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Tarmac
Except that hydrogen's only emission is water, while natural gas produces carbon dioxide.

Right, but the same equipment can be used to burn both with monimal adjustments.

Besides, hydrgen on the modern "fuel-cell" cars is produced onboard from natural gas or methanol stored in tanks through a cathalytic "fuel processor" also known as ""reformer" or "steam reformer". So the products are almost exactly the same - at least concerning CO2. There are possibly fewer NO compounds released that in ICM engine.

For methanol:

CH3OH => CO + 2H2
H2O + CO => CO2[/i] + H2

For natural gas:

CH4 + H2O => CO + 3H2
H2O + CO => CO2[/i] + H2

Since water is needed as input, the car will need to carry in addition to the fuel. Hopefully it can use some that is emitted as exhaust.

Even legally such vehicles are not qualified as zero-emission.

miko

Angus · « **Reply #25 on:** February 03, 2003, 08:14:02 PM »

The "HOW EXPENSIVE" question is the main thing...it drives it all.
However, and as usual, it's never run on a thought of long-scale. While something like masses of hydro fuelled cars with lots of hydro-tanks to fill them up on every gas station might be more expensive right now, we must not omit the inevitable...Oil will run out!
It's not a question about if, just WHEN.

Anyway, - Miko2d:
"You do not need to create one. Certainly not new technology. A minor modification to existing technology it is sufficient. You can even convert a gasoline engine to burn hydrogen or nat. gas - though a specifically designed model would be a bit more efficient.

There are plenty of natural-gas busses in operation right now. There is very little difference in burning natural gas and hydrogen.

miko"

Nice. Pretty much what I (though I) remembered, which was that the first hydro cars were poweed by converted combustion engines.
Anyway, those presented technical problems, just can't remember which ones exactly. Hmmm..Anyone?
Now, your part about Natural Gas could nevertheless do with a bit more explanaton. So please

Zigrat · « **Reply #26 on:** February 03, 2003, 10:40:46 PM »

i thinbk fuel cells are way far term. imo real emphasis should be placed on hybrids. i think if all cars in the cities in stoip and go traffic were hybrids that would save alot fo pollution, and hybrids are already well developed, unlike fuel cells. i bet if every car was forced to be a hybrid pollution would drop 50% in major cities. On teh highway hybrid does little, but in city traffic it makes an enormous difference.