PDA

View Full Version : Ecological Policy



Wolf Scout Ewan
31-08-2005, 14:44
There was a report on the news recently regarding new forms of fuel.

As is well known we are capable of making fuel from water (Hydrogen)... this guy from BP said:

"If people want this fuel then they will have to prepared to pay more."

What? Its water! The worlds surface is covered in 70%+ of it. Well ok it needs some refining but nowhere near as much as crude oil.

Then we have the joys of the European Protectorate (hehe), farming subsidies etc. When global warming and pollution is suffocating us (along with huge increases in incedents of childhood asthma) why dont they offer farmers the same subsidy for growing trees? Of course they would have to cancel old subsidies... if noone wants to buy what is grown then why sell it?

At least with trees... they can cut them down (in the case of willow to create fuel) for lumber.

Does anyone else have an opinion to share?

lord_blackfang
31-08-2005, 14:54
There was a report on the news recently regarding new forms of fuel.

As is well known we are capable of making fuel from water (Hydrogen)... this guy from BP said:

"If people want this fuel then they will have to prepared to pay more."

What? Its water! The worlds surface is covered in 70%+ of it. Well ok it needs some refining but nowhere near as much as crude oil.

Then we have the joys of the European Protectorate (hehe), farming subsidies etc. When global warming and pollution is suffocating us (along with huge increases in incedents of childhood asthma) why dont they offer farmers the same subsidy for growing trees? Of course they would have to cancel old subsidies... if noone wants to buy what is grown then why sell it?

At least with trees... they can cut them down (in the case of willow to create fuel) for lumber.

Does anyone else have an opinion to share?


This is almost too stupid to comment.

1) You don't just put water in a gas tank, you know. First you have to break it up into hydrogen and oxygen. That takes a lot of energy. To put it simply: water is not fuel. It's a battery. You need to have enrgy first before you can put it into hydrogen and put that into your car.

2) Yes, I agree. The USA can burn all the oil they want, and Europe will pay for the air purification. Great idea.

Wolf Scout Ewan
31-08-2005, 15:01
Oh I know about it... obviously we will need whole new engines etc.

But what is needed is pure H2O right?

Its the same type of thing used in advanced Jet Engines.

Sojourner
31-08-2005, 15:03
Hydrogen production is pretty inefficient at the moment. You can either extract it from methane which is generally a finite resource, or electrolyse water, which takes a vast amount of electricity which you have to generate from something anyway.

Sai-Lauren
31-08-2005, 15:11
This is almost too stupid to comment.

1) You don't just put water in a gas tank, you know. First you have to break it up into hydrogen and oxygen. That takes a lot of energy. To put it simply: water is not fuel. It's a battery. You need to have enrgy first before you can put it into hydrogen and put that into your car.

And not only do you have to crack the water, you've got transport it safely to the filling station, then store it there, and safely transfer it from the tanks to the vehicles when they fill up.
The alternative is to plug the car in at night and crack the water in the cars own system. Both costly.
Meantime, that refining of crude oil also generates fractions that are used in the manufacture of all sorts of plastics. Just think how much petrol would cost if that didn't help defray the costs. :eek:


2) Yes, I agree. The USA can burn all the oil they want, and Europe will pay for the air purification. Great idea.

Hmm, let's put it this way, the amount of pollution you'd be creating would suffocate the US long before any of it would blow across the atlantic.

And that's supposing the rest of the world doesn't just slap a trade embargo on you until you've cleaned up your own mess.

lord_blackfang
31-08-2005, 15:15
Oh I know about it... obviously we will need whole new engines etc.

But what is needed is pure H2O right?

Its the same type of thing used in advanced Jet Engines.

Making hydrogen takes energy. It's not "free." It's not even "clean" - sure, a hydrogen-powered car doesn't emit anything harmful, but to make the hydrogen in the first place, you had to burn a lot of coal or oil.

Now, I don't have any exact figures, but I bet that to make enough hydrogen to propel a hydrogen-car for a certain distance, you'd need to burn more gas than it would take to propel a regular car the same distance.

Sojourner
31-08-2005, 15:21
Depends what you're driving the production process with.

The most promising strategy is using photolysis cells, but these are far too primitive to be useful at the moment. These use sunlight to split and seperate water to be recombined later. It's essentially a solar-powered chemical battery.

Wolf Scout Ewan
31-08-2005, 15:30
Interesting^^

McMullet
31-08-2005, 15:35
Oh I know about it... obviously we will need whole new engines etc.

But what is needed is pure H2O right?

Its the same type of thing used in advanced Jet Engines.

Yes, but you need to put in MORE energy (from other sources) than you get out of the hydrogen fuel in order to use it. So, if you want clean hydrogen fuel, you have to burn a considerably larger amount of smelly oil, coal or gas to get it. The hydrogen you extract from water just carries the energy from the fossil fuels in another form. There is an argument, I suppose, that the central hydrogen-producing engines will be more efficient than car engines, and thus make a more efficient use of the fossil fuel (perhaps by a factor of 2), but the problems of storage and distribution will largely outweigh this benefit. Everything has a cost in terms of energy, even if the process doesn't actually use any (eg, a hi-tech design uses energy for all the computing power required to design it, and for the purification and testing of the materials used in it's manufacture).

Hydrogen is used in Scramjets and rockets because it has a high energy density, and this hydrogen is produced in a very environmentally unfriendly manner as above.

IF there was a vast non-polluting energy source (fusion/magic powers/warp drives) that could produce hydrogen from water, we would be OK. Until there is, this argument remains firmly in the "silly" zone.

Freak Ona Leash
31-08-2005, 15:41
What you're talking about Ewan sounds more like you are trying to find a sort of free energy, which is of the most prepsterous ideas in the world. so, no go on this.

Wolf Scout Ewan
31-08-2005, 16:16
Thats a real shame.

But... I know for a fact there is a way of deriving it from air... yet we wont be able to do it for maybe uh 20 years.

Freak Ona Leash
31-08-2005, 16:19
I would love to hear the explanation for it.

Vaya
31-08-2005, 18:01
Before you guys throw this in the preposterous-wastebucket, take a look at this (http://www.gvb.nl/overgvb/projecten/brandstofcelbustechniek.html). Though in Dutch, the pictures tell you enough.

Explanation: the Amsterdam public transport company has already begun work on a bus that runs on hydrogen. The electrolyse takes place in the bus itself (like Sai-Lauren already described).

Only big problem is that public opinion has something against buses on hydrogen, because of the dangers of explosion.

Sojourner
31-08-2005, 18:04
So where's the hydrogen in air other than the water vapour, wiseass?

Vaya
31-08-2005, 18:21
Ehm, assuming that you mean Evan to be the wiseass:

Hydrogen normally comes from the coupling with Oxygen (O2) as water: H2O. So you can make Hydrogen by 'splicing' water.

Now these buses do the opposite. They get filled with Hydrogen and the cells of the bus merge the Hydrogen with Oxygen. This way, water is created. Somehow this process emits energy, which is used to run the electro motor of the bus.

Freak Ona Leash
31-08-2005, 18:42
Sounds like a really fancy, backwards Steam engine :wtf:

LordPomposity
31-08-2005, 19:30
Combining oxygen and hydrogen to make water is just a combustion reaction. It releases less energy than is required to manufacture the hydrogen in the first place.

The only way this could be effective is if we come up with a (virtually) limitless energy source, such as fusion, and use that energy to make the hydrogen.

Until then, it's soybean time!

de Selby
31-08-2005, 19:55
Well, there are lots of ways of making hydrogen (often as a byproduct of something else) and lots of other renewable fuels and alternative power sources too. None of them are free energy, and yes, we have to get used to the idea that reducing CO2 emissions is going to cost money in the short term.

I'm intrigued to hear that Amsterdammers are afraid of hydrogen powered transportation because hydrogen is explosive. Has anyone explained to them about petrol?

Verergoca
31-08-2005, 19:55
Until then, it's soybean time!

Dont forget the coleseed!

Did you knew that in Brazil half of the cars drive on alcohol extracted from sugarbeets... (not sure if this yealds a netto positive energy output, but still)

de Selby
31-08-2005, 20:00
Dont forget the coleseed!

Did you knew that in Brazil half of the cars drive on alcohol extracted from sugarbeets... (not sure if this yealds a netto positive energy output, but still)

I heard about this recently; they're talking about trying it out in the UK. The energy comes from sugars turned to alcohol, the sugars come from plant photosynthesis powered by the sun. The C02 used by the plant to grow is emitted by the car, for zero net emissions.

Vaya
31-08-2005, 20:09
The only way this could be effective is if we come up with a (virtually) limitless energy source, such as fusion, and use that energy to make the hydrogen.

And yet, the Amsterdam public transport company is ahead of you: they buy the power for this conversion from a strictly wind- and water processing electricity plant.

Tadaaaa! :D

LordPomposity
31-08-2005, 20:38
And yet, the Amsterdam public transport company is ahead of you: they buy the power for this conversion from a strictly wind- and water processing electricity plant.

Tadaaaa! :D

That works on a small scale, such as public transportation for cities, but there aren't enough dammable rivers and isn't enough space suitable for windfarms to make wind/water-electrolyzed hydrogen the norm.

Seems to me that hydrogen will have a long time to enjoy its 'fuel of the future' title.

Adlan
31-08-2005, 20:55
I'm hoping for biodeasil. With relitivly little modification you can run an engine on oil. Common rapeseed oil.

I think biodeasil will be the future, mass fields of rape seed or sunflower. I see deserts planted an irrigated. And I also hope for hot or cold fusion.

And if None of that works. We can burn methane right? some plantes have an atmosphere entirly of methane don't they?

Wolf Scout Ewan
31-08-2005, 22:12
Ehm, assuming that you mean Evan to be the wiseass:

Hydrogen normally comes from the coupling with Oxygen (O2) as water: H2O. So you can make Hydrogen by 'splicing' water.

Now these buses do the opposite. They get filled with Hydrogen and the cells of the bus merge the Hydrogen with Oxygen. This way, water is created. Somehow this process emits energy, which is used to run the electro motor of the bus.

Thats it!! I couldnt remember the details... well anyway I read this research paper saying that... theoretically it is possible to extract the hydrogen from air to produce fuel/energy. The air is collected by sucking it into some sorta coil thing then the hydrogen and oxygen are attracted to the coils and then summat else happens. Cant remember.

But what it didnt explain is where the energy comes from to power the process.. so yeah. I'm not a chemist or whatever so ur just gonna have to take my word for it.

Rapeseed oil is awful to live near when it growing gah! There are a couple more similar crops that produce viable oils for fuel. Anyone remember what they are?

TitusAndronicus
31-08-2005, 23:24
That works on a small scale, such as public transportation for cities, but there aren't enough dammable rivers and isn't enough space suitable for windfarms to make wind/water-electrolyzed hydrogen the norm.

Seems to me that hydrogen will have a long time to enjoy its 'fuel of the future' title.

This is not true at all. THere are several models of barges that are designed to collect wave power as they double as wind farms. String them along the coastline, just over the horizon (don't have to be tall at all) and we now have a decent source of power for our hydrogen farms. And they're not in civilized areas where they can blow the bejesus out of us if one goes. Hurricane coming? Why, string em up and run them up the Mississippi to Baton Rouge.

Since they're actually floatingg in the source of H2O they're need for making Hydrogen, they're perfectly placed for their jobs, and they would be a great source of work and income for all those oilfield workers who we want to put out of work in the Gulf region.

Mind, I'm talking more about making hydrogen for powering cars and suchlike. As far as producing energy for industry, I would sure like to see our wastelands in Alaska and Arizone converted to wind farms. Cows don't mind windmills, so out cattle country could be as well. It would just be a matter of the initial investment, something Americans are loathe to do, as we aren't very farsighted. Arguements tha it isn't cost efficient don't hold up when you are looking at the cost fuel oils are going to bring in terms of ecological disaster and instability. If we'd switch to wind power and sun power (perhaps) we'd make ourselves independant of this world nuttiness, and be able to build a world we could actually feel safe in.

And as has been said before, alchohol is a terrificly cheap source of ernergy that we ignore thanks to oil company involvement. If we'd just give them enough incentive, they would switch over and let us conserve our oil resources for lubricants and plastics.

But what the heck do I know? :p

LordPomposity
31-08-2005, 23:33
This is not true at all. THere are several models of barges that are designed to collect wave power as they double as wind farms. String them along the coastline, just over the horizon (don't have to be tall at all) and we now have a decent source of power for our hydrogen farms. And they're not in civilized areas where they can blow the bejesus out of us if one goes. Hurricane coming? Why, string em up and run them up the Mississippi to Baton Rouge.

I stand corrected. I hadn't heard of that method before.


It would just be a matter of the initial investment, something Americans are loathe to do, as we aren't very farsighted.

Americans think about the future? WHAT?! I told you it was impossible. :p


But what the heck do I know? :p

More on the subject than I do, obviously. :p

There are a lot of :p's in this post. I'd add another one after that sentence, but I reached the image limit...

Alco Engineer
31-08-2005, 23:57
The problem with Hydrogen is that it is VERY explosive. Heard of the Hindenburg??

Now Wind is a great source of Energy but it is also expensive (in energy) to make those windmills do they'd need to be up for a fair while before they even make their own back. Over time they're a great idea. Solar is still pretty hard. I have solar hot water on my house and that's a good energy saver, but remmeber all of these things require energy to be produced.

I heard a rumour that the extra energy required to make some of these hybrid cars (such as the toyota Prius) actually causes more pollution than the difference they would make in reduced emissions. I have no energy to back this up however.

Alcohol is a viable fuel alternative, but current combustions engines (In Australia anyway) aren't configured for the very different octane rating (which is an indication of engine knocking where iso-octane has a rating of 100.)

Biodeisel is a very hot topis in Australia at the moment. It is produced mainly from used oils (such as deep frying oils from take away shops) and mixed with an alcohol (methanol for example). The main benefits of fusel oil has nothing to do with Greenhouse gas emissions.It's purely a money and fossil fuel saver as fusel oil's CO2 and CO emmissions would be very similar if not greater than normal petrol or diesel and the NOx and SOx from these organic oils I beleive are greater in biodiesel.

Hydrogen from water can only be produced from fresh water. Sure you can desalinate sea water but that cost even more energy. In Australia fresh water is running short. In my home town they have been on perminant water restrictions for the last 8 years.

I beleive the same is true for parts of the USA. California for example pumps water from the Greatlakes(??) over 800km (IIRC) so that they have enough to support their population.

I have a friend from uni who's been emailing me all sorts of Crude oil data. if I can track them down I'll post them too

EDIT: that turned into a bit of a rant. sorry guys

Xisor
01-09-2005, 00:07
IIRC the Hindenburg burnt because the sheets used to contain the Hyrdrogen went on fire, not the entire capacity of hydrogen itself. It was only a minor contributing factor IIRC.

As for 'the Hydrogen Economy', I believe alot of current reserach is, unless I'm mistaken, concerned with finding some sort of intermediary catalyst that splits hyrdrogen and oxygen from water. I would dig out all my text excerpts on it, but I'm moving together so perhaps this would be agood area to look into for those who are a bit more involved in this debate. However, it is true, that conventionally speaking, it'd take more energy to make hydrogen than you'd get from it, thats where the trick is in the research, to find out how to avoid this.

Xisor

Alco Engineer
01-09-2005, 00:16
These are a few excerts from a slightly obsessed mate of mine from uni
Here is a quote from the international energy agency.
=====
crude oil import price is assumed to fall back from current highs to
$22... in 2006. It will remain flat until 2010 and
then begin to rise steadily to $29 in 2030.
=====
To give you some idea as to the stupidity of this statement oil is
currently about $49 and even the treasurer was only game to suggest
that oil would drop to mid 30's, and even that was a considerably
optimistic prediction. As I said before oil is almost certainly going
to peak sometime in the next 15 years. When it peaks several things are
going to happen
1) There will be a very large depression, some ecomonist predict a
large recession around 2009 and 2010 is basically my guesstimate on
when oil will peak. (please note that oil peaking in 2020, requires
that we find considerably large amounts of oil quickly; oil companies
are currently increasingly spending less money on finding more oil
reserves)
2) there will be significant petrol rationing and the days of getting
in your car and driving to the gold coast, will be effectively over
3) The overwhelming majority of of the human population will scream at
engineers, scientist etc to "fix" the problem and to demand why they
were warned about the crisis.
4) The world will probably use coal to replace oil, ie trucks and buses
will run on methane obtained from coal, cargo ships and trains will run
on coal, personal cars will run on electricity, which will be produced
by coal power stations, and if engineers and scientist manage to get
over the considerable tank issues with hydrogen and it actual can
provide some use, rest easy in the knowledge that the hydrogen was
produced from methane which was obtained from coal. (bear in mind that
it will take a few years atleast to convert from oil to these
technologies, during that time life on earth will be unpleasant.
5) in a hundred years time the human population on earth will look back
on this society and consider it the most immoral and vile people to
have ever walked on earth. They will think this because our society
created the problem, knew the solution and did ****** all about it.

visit this website if you wish to find out more.
www.commondreams.org/views05/0322-31.htm
Its written by a bunch of lefty's trying to print some credible news
instead of garbage like, Fox news, thats being broadcast in america.

The beauty of this society is that most of you are going to happily
dismiss me as simply a crank.
Oh well, atleast I warned you

Alco Engineer
01-09-2005, 00:17
And another

Accurate and believable data on all types of alternative fuels are hard to find. This is mainly due to the fact that these engines are currently being researched, so the information available is either from organizations doing the research who have a bias towards their particular engine, or from their competitors. At this stage the Consumption rates, costs are fairly speculative; further work will be done to fully justify these values, and modify accordingly.

How I see the future
Most scientists, engineers and economists interested in this topic predict that oil will peak sometime before 2020.
Predictions of when oil production will peak18
Projected Date Source of Projection Background
2006-2007 Bakhitari, A.M.S. Iranian Oil Executive
2007-2009 Simmons, M.R. Investment banker
After 2007 Skrebowski, C. Petroleum journal Editor
Before 2009 Deffeyes, K.S. Oil company geologist (ret.)
Before 2010 Goodstein, D. Vice Provost, Cal Tech
Around 2010 Campbell, C.J. Oil company geologist (ret.)
After 2010 World Energy Council World Non-Government Org.
2010-2020 Laherrere, J. Oil company geologist (ret.)
2016 EIA nominal case DOE analysis/ information
After 2020 ERA Energy consultants
2025 or later Shell Major oil company
No visible peak Lynch, M.C. Energy economist
To understand the problem here are some figures. BP has figures showing that world consumption of oil in 1993 was 66.687 Mbd (million barrels a day); in 2003 this had increased to 78.112 Mbd (Reference 19). It is widely expected that if the supply of oil can continue, that by around 2025 oil consumption would be 120 Mbd (reference 20).

Reference 18

BP also claims that there is currently 1147.7 billion barrels, in the world19. However this figure is significantly inflated, since it includes 200-300 billion barrels of oil which was “found” in the mid eighties OPEC price wars. This rapid increase was due to an OPEC made agreement, that OPEC nation could only produce a certain percentage of there reserve. Almost all OPEC nation’s oil reserves suddenly doubled. For instance Saudi Arabia claims to have 257.5 bb however in reality this figure is 130 bb (reference 21). This spike in the oil reserves is clearly shown in the follow figure. The green line is the back dated line, the red is the un-back dated data. The amount of oil in a reserve is usually increases with time due to increases in knowledge of the reserve. The back dated line adds the extra oil found to when the oil reserve was first discovered.


Reference 22

Reference 23
The figure below highlights the increasing gap between oil discoveries and oil consumption.

Figure 3. Backdated world discovery of crude oil in comparison with production.
Reference 22

M. King Hubbert, a world renowned geophysicist made the prediction that oil consumption would follow a bell shaped curve with a peak24. He accurately used his model to predict the peak oil production in America. He predicted in 1956 that oil would peak sometime between 1966 and 1971; it peaked in 197124. We have already consumed around 900 billion barrels of oil. Colin Campell, who worked under M. King Hubbert predicts that oil will peak around 2010.

Reference 23
Already the financial group Goldman Sachs25 and CIBC (Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce)26 believe that oil prices will reach $100, in the near future. Goldman Sachs believes $100 will be reached in the next two years, whereas CIBC believes it will occur by 2010. In 1999 the price of oil was around the $10 mark25. It is now around the mid $50. According to Richard Gibb, Chief economist at Macquarie Bank believes that OPEC can only increase production by another 1mbd and Non-OPEC countries are producing at capacity25. David Thurtell, Commodites analyst at Commonwealth Bank, says that for every $10 increase in the cost of oil causes a 0.4-0.5 decrease in the world GDP25. The possibility of oil peaking in the next few years causing a global recession or depression needs to be taken seriously. Every year it takes to implement alternatives to oil after the oil peak the worse it gets for society, this is because demand is continuing to increase and supply will begin to decrease.
kW engine kWh/kg efficiency kg/hr density kg/L L/hr cost $/L cost $/hr
Hydrogen Peroxide jet 90% 0.325 72% 212.7 1.39 153.4
Hydrogen Peroxide jet 98% 0.418 67% 178.9 1.44 124.0
Hydrogen peroxide engine 90% 0.325 62% 250.4 1.39 180.6
Hydrogen peroxide engine 98% 0.418 57% 210.7 1.44 146.1
Diesel 12.7 50% 7.874 0.86 9.155 1.1 10.07
Petrol 13.3 30% 12.53 0.73 17.166 1.05 18.02
Hydrogen Fuel cell liquid 39.4 64% 1.98 0.07 28.33 0.25 7.08
Hydrogen Fuel cell gas 39.4 64% 1.98 0.028 70.82 ??
Hydrogen Internal Combustion L 39.4 50% 2.54 0.07 36.26 0.25 9.06
Hydrogen Internal Combustion G 39.4 50% 2.54 0.028 90.65 ??
Hydrogen jet engine Liquid 39.4 37% 3.43 0.07 49.0 0.25 12.25
Hydrogen jet engine Gas 39.4 37% 3.43 0.028 122.5 ??
Methanol 6.6 32% 23.67 0.791 29.9 same as petrol
Battery 0.33 72% 210.4 - 0.11 7.64
methane 25 MPa gas 15.4 30% 10.82 0.16 67.6 6
methane 20 MPa gas 15.4 30% 10.82 0.129 83.9 6
Kerosene 12.9 37% 10.49 0.795 13.2 0.37 4.88



It should be noted that hydrogen, hydrogen peroxide and battery power are a form of energy carrier. They cannot replace oil. The alternatives to oil will come from the electricity source that is used to produce these fuels. Electricity is currently produced from coal and nuclear power. Both of these fuels are finite. Simply shifting the consumption of oil to other finite fuels is neither sensible nor feasible in the long term. It will take at least 10 years and trillions of dollars to convert to alternative fuels18.
“The catch is that while demand increases, existing production declines. To put a number on it, we expect that by 2010 about half the daily volume needed to meet projected demand is not on production today - and that’s the challenge facing producers.
This means that industry may need to add some 80 million oil-equivalent barrels per day to production by 2010 to meet projected demand. The cost of doing so could reach $ 1 trillion, or about $ 100 billion a year. That’s substantially more than industry is spending today.”

Harry J. Longwell, Director and Executive Vice President of Exxon Mobil Corporation in his article: The Future of the Oil and Gas Industry: Past Approaches, New Challenges. World Energy, Vol.5 No. 3, 2002. Reference 23

Alco Engineer
01-09-2005, 00:19
cont...

Hydrogen peroxide
Conventional engine
Hydrogen peroxide has many disadvantages. Its energy density is low, the consumption in weight terms is comparable to that of battery power. Even if hydrogen peroxide is produced in large quantities the cost of hydrogen peroxide would be considerable. Hydrogen peroxide is a liquid and has some safety concerns with refueling. It is probable that a specific type of nozzle would have to be designed to ensure that no hydrogen peroxide can be spilt. Spilt hydrogen peroxide is not an environmental concern but is a safety concern. If hydrogen peroxide is produced from salt water and electricity (from solar and wind) then the fuel would be entirely environmentally friendly. The engine is very simple, but there would be a delay in the start up time of the order of a few minutes. The engine has an inherent inefficiency of the nozzle. The higher the chamber pressure is the more efficient the nozzle is. Another inefficiency is the turbine.
90% hydrogen peroxide
Consumption rate = 250 kg/hr = 180 L/hr
Cost rate = Very hard to determine. Detailed design of plant needed.
Energy content of fuel = 0.325 kW/kg
Efficiency = 61.5%
98% Hydrogen peroxide
Consumption rate = 211 kg/hr = 146 L/hr
Cost rate = Very hard to determine. Detailed design of plant needed.
Energy content of fuel = 0.42 kW/kg
Efficiency = 56.8%

Jet engine
It is believed that hydrogen peroxide could be a use as a jet engine (rocket). The flow rate would be about double that of hydrogen by volume or eight times that of jet fuel. The mass of the hydrogen peroxide would be fifteen times greater than that of jet fuel. This large weight and volume might make it unsuitable for planes. Hydrogen peroxide could be produced from salt water, air and electricity. This would involve purification of the water and electrolysis. Hydrogen peroxide would have losses of around 2% per year, and could be stored in a container of aluminium made into any shape. The hydrogen peroxide engine would have no moving parts, which would make the planes more safe as several plane crashes have been caused by turbines failing. A hydrogen peroxide engine would not require any outside air, and there could be a small tank of ethanol or kerosene to give the engine a boost during take off.
90% hydrogen peroxide
Consumption rate = 213 kg/hr = 153 L/hr
Cost rate = Very hard to determine. Detailed design of plant needed.
Energy content of fuel = 0.325 kW/kg
Efficiency = 72%
98% Hydrogen peroxide
Consumption rate = 179 kg/hr = 124 L/hr
Cost rate = Very hard to determine. Detailed design of plant needed.
Energy content of fuel = 0.42 kW/kg
Efficiency = 66.9%

Diesel
Diesel is a good fuel. It is fairly efficient with the larger engines up around the 50% efficiency mark1. It does however produce NOx and SOx which contribute to acid rain, and with oil peaking sometime in the near future, diesel engines will not be in use in the future.
Consumption rate = 7.9 kg/hr =9 L/hr
Cost rate = $10/hr
Energy content of fuel = 12.7 kW/kg
Efficiency = 50%

Petrol
Petrol engines are very useful. The efficiency of a petrol engine is around 20% (reference 2). They can be made to a variety of sizes. These engines are really good, however oil is finite and will not be in use in the future.
Consumption rate = 12.5 kg/hr =17 L/hr
Cost rate = $18/hr
Energy content of fuel = 13.3 kW/kg
Efficiency = 30%

Methane
Methane engines are good. The efficiency is similar to that of petrol and already taxi’s, buses and private vehicles are running on methane. There are problems with the tank needing to be pressurized. This means that the amount of fuel it can carry relative to petrol or diesel is less. Methane can be produced from coal fields and there is considerable amounts of coal reserves. It is probable that methane will replace diesel for buses trucks and possibly trains. It should be noted that natural gas fields are predicted to peak a few decades after oil. It is very hard to predict the natural gas peak date3. So the cost of methane will be higher than it currently is.
Consumption rate = 10.8 kg/hr = 68-84 L/hr stored at 20-25 MPa
Cost rate = approximately $6/hr (reference 4)
Energy content of fuel = 15.4 kW/kg
Efficiency = 30%


Hydrogen
To look at the hydrogen as a possible fuel means looking at the various different ideas relating to hydrogen. Most of the car manufacturers are doing some research into at least one of the different hydrogen options. There are very serious problems with hydrogen engines. These are producing, transporting and storing hydrogen. These problems are large and some researchers are dismissing using hydrogen altogether and looking at other sources of hydrogen such as methanol. There is a method of storing hydrogen as metal hydrides however the large weight and high temperature needed to release the hydrogen5. The problems with creating hydrogen are problematic. Hydrogen can be produced from coal, oil or natural gas, however these are fuels in there own right, and oil or natural gas could easily be burnt in a conventional engine, rather than wasting energy converting it to hydrogen to make the base fuel look environmentally friendly. The other means of producing hydrogen is by electrolysis of water. There are several means of doing this some ranging from downright insane to fairly sensible. These methods are using solar panel like devices6 (which haven’t been invented yet) to convert freshwater into hydrogen and oxygen and then transporting this and using it. Please note that even if the technology is invented, freshwater is already a scarce resource in most places of the world. So effectively this method is simply not feasible. The prospect of using electricity to convert salt water into hydrogen however has considerable potential. However it is most likely that this would cause a massive drain on current electricity supplies resulting in more nuclear and coal power stations being built, so again its claim to be completely clean energy is false. Electrolytic conversion of salt water using wind turbines situated near the factory (the factory would be built on the seafront which is typically windy) has definite potential especially since every city could have its own factory producing through wind its hydrogen need. And since hydrogen would be produced close to the city, where it is consumed transportation issues are limited. An even better idea is the potential to incorporate wind driven hydrogen plants and desalination plant into a single plant. This would mean that it might be possible to use wind turbines for electricity and solar panels for heat to transform salt water into fresh water and hydrogen.
Liquid Hydrogen
Liquid hydrogen has several problems. It takes large amounts of energy to liquefy the hydrogen. The hydrogen then has to be stored in a special tank with an outer and inner wall separated by a vacuum to ensure that the heat losses are minimised. Even with this special tank there are heat losses causing the hydrogen to vaporise into gas. Because the tank has a vacuum between the two walls, it cannot support high pressures so this gas has to be vented to prevent the tank from rupturing. Losses from such a tank are around 3-4% per day7. Liquid hydrogen has a very low density at 70 kg/m3(reference 8)
Pressurised Hydrogen
Pressurised hydrogen peroxide is problematic. It requires large amounts of energy to pressurise the hydrogen, and whilst the hydrogen stays in the tank, the tanks need to be larger than that for a liquid hydrogen tank. Also due to the large pressure that the tanks need to hold the tanks have a considerable weight. There are considerable problems with transporting compressed hydrogen in that if the tank were to rupture the result in an explosion. Typically Hydrogen is stored at 35 MPa however researchers are looking at increasing this pressure9. However the maximum density seems to be 30kg/m3 (reference 10)

Alco Engineer
01-09-2005, 00:19
last one:

Internal Combustion
The internal combustion idea is simply a normal internal combustion engine only running on hydrogen instead of petrol. The advantages of using this system are that a two tank system can be used so that if the car runs out of hydrogen it can run on the other tank containing petrol. Also the internal combustion engine well understood. The disadvantages are that the engine does produce small amounts of NOx, the efficiency of the engine is around 50%, which is less than that of a fuel cell12. If the engine includes a back up petrol tank the efficiency is decreased as the engine has to be modified to accommodate both fuels.
Liquid hydrogen
Consumption rate = 2.5 kg/hr =36 L/hr
Cost rate = $9/hr
Energy content of fuel = 39.4 kW/kg
Efficiency = 50%
Pressurised hydrogen assumed 35 MPa
Consumption rate = 2.5 kg/hr =91 L/hr
Cost rate = ???
Energy content of fuel = 39.4 kW/kg
Efficiency = 50%
Fuel Cell
The fuel cell is a relatively new concept. The advantages of using a fuel cell is that it has a very high efficiency ~64%, does not produce NOx and is very quiet2. The disadvantages are that it requires platinum catalyst in the fuel cell and the cost of platinum is extremely expensive and a finite reserve. The fuel cell is a new concept and needs further research.
Liquid hydrogen
Consumption rate = 2 kg/hr =28 L/hr
Cost rate = $7/hr
Energy content of fuel = 39.4 kW/kg
Efficiency = 64%
Pressurised hydrogen assumed 35 MPa
Consumption rate = 2 kg/hr =71 L/hr
Cost rate = ???
Energy content of fuel = 39.4 kW/kg
Efficiency = 64%
Jet engine
Hydrogen could be used to run on slightly modified jet engines. The volume of hydrogen would be about 4 times that of current jet fuel, and the tank would have to be a specific shape (cylindrical) this means that a plane. The hydrogen would weigh less than the jet fuel which is a bonus. There would also be issues with refuelling, with the use of complex robotic probably necessary. Currently Airbus is looking into the feasibility of a hydrogen plane, Boeing is looking into the feasibility of using hydrogen fuel cells for the electricity needs of planes11.

Liquid hydrogen
Consumption rate = 3.4 kg/hr =49 L/hr
Cost rate = $12/hr
Energy content of fuel = 39.4 kW/kg
Efficiency = 37%
Final comments on hydrogen
A combine hydrogen and water desalination plant using solar and wind power has considerable potential. The internal combustion engine is more practicable than the fuel cell. And hydrogen whether stored as a gas or as a liquid would probably need a robotic fuel pump to recharge a car13 (One such robotic arm has been developed in Germany). Please note that the cost of hydrogen is from the US Department of Energy14, which I believe distort reality. Also currently 75% of hydrogen produced is produced from natural gas and oil, both of these reserves will peak soon. Only 4% is currently produced from water, which is a more expensive method of producing hydrogen. BMW which has spent the last 25 years researching hydrogen technology, states that hydrogen cost “is approximately equal on an energy equivalent basis to gasoline at a refinery”15.


Methanol
Given all the problems with the hydrogen tank, there are scientists who believe it could be carried as methanol2. The problems with this kind of engine is this, in the future methanol is produced from coal and water, it is then converted in the car to make hydrogen and then converted to electricity or burnt. Given that the raw material to start with is a good fuel, it is questionable if it is worth going through all the conversions. It is worth noting that to the conversion from methanol to power is 32% efficient2. It is more likely to use methane as a fuel from coal. Using methanol removes the possibility of hydrogen being produced environmentally friendly. So from an environmental perspective it is far better to use methane and considerably easier.
Consumption rate = 23.7 kg/hr = get
Cost rate = apparently the same as petrol on an energy equivalent basis16.
Energy content of fuel = 6.6 kW/kg
Efficiency = 32%

Battery
Battery power is a simple and relatively good idea. The battery idea is to have batteries power an electric motor. This has considerable advantages such as a high efficiency ~72% (reference 2). The battery idea however has some disadvantages. One disadvantage is the time it takes to recharge, this is in the order of hours. Another disadvantage is the weight of the batteries, which is large. Battery powered small cars will probably replace the conventional petrol car. It is probable that the car would be recharged overnight. These cars would appear environmentally friendly but it is necessary to remember that the electricity is most likely going to come from coal power stations. Also these cars would put a massive drain on the power grid and would require more power stations to be built. It is probable that for at least the short term these cars would either only be available to the rich or there would be rationing of there use. The issue of the weight is not a serious one though it will cause battery engines not to be viable for big engines.
Consumption rate = 210 kg/hr
Cost rate = $7.70 /hr.
Energy content of fuel = 0.33 kW/kg
Efficiency = 72%

Kerosene
Kerosene is currently used as jet fuel for commercial jet airlines. This is definitely the best fuel for air transportation, however greenhouse gases emitted at high altitude is harmful for the environment, and oil is finite.
Consumption rate = 10.5 kg/hr = 13 L/hr
Cost rate = $4.9/L (reference 17)
Energy content of fuel = 12.9 kW/kg
Efficiency = 37%


1 University of Houston www.uh.edu/engines/epi1336.htm
2 How Stuff Works Website. www.science.howstuffworks.com/fuel-cell5.htm
3 The Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas ASPO website www.peakoil.net/JL/JeanL.html
4 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Division of Air Quality website daq.state.nc.us/motor/cng/
5 Bellona website a Norwegen environmental non profit foundation www.bellona.no/en/energy/hydrogen/report_6-2002/22903.html
6 CSIRO media release, Leading Australia’s Energy Research 21st June 2004.
7 The Future of the Hydrogen Economy: Bright or Bleak? 2003 Fuel Cell Seminar. U. Bossel, B. Eliasson and G. Taylor.
8 Stanford university website www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/hydrogen.html
9 VDI Nachtrichten 20th February 2004 No. 8. "In zehn bis 15 jahren sind wir soweit" Jurgen Goroncy. (A german Engineering Magazine).
10 US Department of Energy (DoE), Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) website www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/storage/hydrogen_storage.html
11 Airbus project envisions hydrogen-fueled jet. By James Wallace, Thursday May 30th 2002. Seattle Post-Intelligencer website seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/72466_airbus30.shtml
12 H2 Cars BIZ magazine website www.h2cars.biz/artman/publish/article_240.shtml.
13 Automotive Engineering International Online: Tech Briefs, March 2000 Page 9. BMW’s car for tomorrow. J. L. Broge. www.sae.org/automag/techbriefs_03-00/09.htm
14 US Department of Energy (DoE), Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) website www.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/favorites/fcvt_fotw205.shtml
15 BMW enthusiasts website www.bmwworld.com/hydrogen/faq.htm
16 California Energy Commission Media Release February 5th 1997 website www.energy.ca.gov/releases/1997_releases/97-02-05_methanol.html
17 Hedging helps airlines deflect higher jet fuel costs, Mary Clair Austin 17th August 2004. Purchasing Magazine which is owned by Reed Business www.purchasing.com/article/CA444966.html?industryid=2150
18 Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, & Risk Management. Hirsch, R. L., Bezdek, R., and Wendling, R. February 2005. For reasons unknown to me located on Hilltop High School Website www.hilltoplancers.org/stories/hirsch0502.pdf
19 BP websites www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/publications/energy_reviews/STAGING/local_assets/downloads/pdf/table_of_world_oil_consumption_2004.pdf
And www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=108&contentId=2004232
20 Statement of Guy Caruso Administrator Energy Informationg Administration U.S Department of Energy. March 16th 2005. House of Representatives website resourcescommittee.house.gov/archives/109/testimony/2005/guycaruso.pdf
21 Aljazeera news report. Elusive truth about oil figures. Adam Porter. Thursday 12th of August 2004. english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8AEF2417-CBDF-4E99-A8D2-CAA5409C147E.htm
22 The Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas ASPO website www.peakoil.net/uhdsg/weo2004/TheUppsalaCode.html
23 Oil-Based Technology and Economy Prospects for the Future. The Danish Board of Technology and The Society of Danish Engineers March 2004. Klaus Illum. The Danish Board of Technology Website www.tekno.dk/pdf/projekter/p04_Oil-based_Technology_and_Economy.pdf
24 Website www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/
25 The 7:30 Report article, Interest rates Unchanged 6th April 2005. Emma Alberici. www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1339836.htm
26 Ottawa Business Journal, CIBC Joins $100 oil club. Wednesday 6th April 2005. www.ottawabusinessjournal.com/292415902751357.php


Currently unused.
10 Boeing Frontiers Online (Boeing Magazine) September 2002 Volume 1 issue 5. Scrambling for the scramjet. William Cole. www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2002/september/i_tt.html

Alco Engineer
01-09-2005, 00:22
Sorry about all of those. just a few facts to get out there. Mods delete them if they're a pain.

Steve knows what he's talking about. I didn't write these and I take no credit other than willing to get them out there. have a look and tell me what you think

Minister
01-09-2005, 00:26
Points:

1. The Hindenburg went on fire. This is not a surprise, and much the same effect would be had if one were to fill up such a baloon with methane (although it would probably not lift, as the mass diferential is not great enough to compensate for the mass of the vessel itself... but I digress). Be it noted that, as the hydrogen is lighter than air, it burns upwards, and most of the deaths were caused by burning lumps of airship falling to the ground.

2. As stated above, hydrogen (in this context) is a form of energy storage, not an energy source.

3. At this point, most hydrogen produced for the chemical industry is made by removing it from methane extracted from natural gas.

4. Half the problem lies in the transportation and storage, particularly because hydrogen tends to corode the seals used on plpelines of the kind used today for natural gas.

Sai-Lauren
01-09-2005, 08:23
The problem with Hydrogen is that it is VERY explosive. Heard of the Hindenburg??

I was wondering when someone would mention the Hindenburg.

The Hindenburg went up because the skin of the gas envelope didn't earth properly when the tie ropes touched the ground - leading to a potential difference between different parts of it, and therefore a spark.

Oh, and bear in mind the fact that they'd basically painted the gas envelope with the equivalent of the contents of the shuttle's SRBs to waterproof it :eek:

By the time that lot had gone up, the presence of the hydrogen inside didn't make much difference.

Alco Engineer
07-09-2005, 23:40
Hey guys, Just another little email I received from Steve

Hi

I figure some people have been looking at petrol prices and thinking
what the #%&* happened... Regardless of whether you drive or not, the
follow should be read as high oil prices are having an effect in many
different areas.
---
Okay, as you know hurricane katrina did considerable damage to New
Orleans. Katrina did significant damage to both crude oil production
in the gulf of mexico and refinery capacity in New Orleans. Oil as a
result hit $70.85, (it rose almost $5 in about 2 hours) however crude
oil since then has been decreasing steadily and is now at $64.25. The
EIA predicts that oil prices will remain above $62, till the end of
2006. To put this into perspective, oil at the begining of 2004 had
never been above $40, and until about 6-7 weeks ago, oil prices had
never been above $60. The very large spike in petrol prices is exactly
the spike in crude oil caused by katrina. The reason there is a delay
is because it takes a while to convert the crude into petrol and
distrubte it to the service stations. If oil prices remain (on a
monthly basis) above $62, then the world economy will very seriously
wobble. Already Wal-mart in America and Harvey Norman here have said
that oil prices are having an e
ffect on their profits. This will continue and the retail sector
generally will suffer badly.
---
It should be stated that worldwide spare capacity is about 1.1mbd,
compared to 84mbd being consumed. So any disruption causes prices to
spike, and Katrina was a big disruption.
---
It is likely that we are already seeing the begining phase of oil
peaking. This is were oil prices increase, and cause the economy to
stall, this causes demand for everything (including oil) to remain
moderately level. When this happens the price of oil drops to
moderately low prices (not anything that we'd have consider low 2
years ago) when this happens the economy begins to start up again, and
demand for oil increases causing oil prices to rise. Which in turn
stalls the economy again.
This scenario could last for about 5 years (or less) during this time
many economists will be saying we've weathered the storm and that
everything will be nice and rosy (see comment at end) Oil production
during these 5 years will remain flat. after this period, oil
production will beging to steadily decline. When this happens, its
likely that the world economy will go into a deflation depression. and
will remain so until such time as alternatives can be researched and
implemented. A deflation depression is where price of things drop.
(well except oil).
---
comments.
oil prices are already negatively effecting the economy, though the
economy has not yet stalled.
petrol prices will ease soon but not to anything that we would
consider to be a low price.
You probably heard on the news Steve Forbes saying oil prices will be
$35-40, by next year. all I can say to that is that, forbes.com, had
an article about a week later, saying that oil prices could rise to
$100, if another supply disruption occured soon.
---
My apologies for emailing you about oil. But it annoys me to hear
people blaming the high petrol prices on the government, OPEC, petrol
stations etc, they are all scapegoats. Whilst blaming them is easy,
people must eventually face the reality of the situation.
Steve
ps Costellos quote "If the world went into recession then prices
would come back down (oil), but we do not want to go into recession"

This mainly reflect Australian Perol Prices (AU$1.39 /L where I am) and Australian politicians but just gives a little bit of thought to the petrol issue.