Ever since the first patent in the 1930's, it seems people just want to debunk the idea of combusting hydrogen from water inside an internal combustion engine, but yet again it seems a company has produced the technology to make it happen:
In other words you and the Aquagen people are claiming that, in effect, more energy can be produced than that needed to produce it. I also note that it is an additive but if it worked that well, it wouled be a primary source of perpetual energy. Sorry, the world doesn't work that way. Can I sell you a slightly used bridge?
Sure you can burn hydrogen in an ICE. Just as you can burn lots of gases. It's simply very expensive and inefficient.
Graham
The problem isn't being able to do it, the problem is the _ENERGY_ required to separate the H2 from H2O.
H2 is really a battery, it just allows things like nuke plants and wind farms to store the energy chemically. *BUT* H2 is very difficult to store.
Better off with ethanol as the chemical battery. 1) Easy to store. 2) Easier to run todays cars on. 3) If done right, energy is gained from the plant material and it's not just a 'battery'. Of course water is easier to come by than the crops for ethanol, so that's the trade off.
No, they don't, AssHole. The source of energy and yield down the line are the issue.
Finally, a little sense.
A typical response based on emotions not on science or logic. You need to get a basic education in science if you are going to try to argue topics of this sort. Go to
Yes, hydrogen power internal combustion engines have been around for a long time, and they work. The problem is how to get the hydrogen which indeed can be extracted from water. Unfortunately it requires lots of energy (usually electricity) to extract the hydrogen. When burned and turned back into water in the engine, less energy is released than was required to extract it in the first place. This is a fundamental principle of physics and is not going to change.
Yes, solar energy could be used to extract the hydrogen, or it could be used to charge a battery to power an electric car. According to experts in the field, the second option is more efficient, although not without problems. Go to
If you believe that consumers don't want gas guzzlers, then why have all the foreign car makers started making SUV's, and larger, higher horsepower versions of their cars? The answer is real simple, THEY SELL. Sure, oil companies are making a profit, but do you think Honda or Toyota or Volkswagen are not?
Study the facts, then you can present a reasonable argument based on reality, not just spew out garbage based on nothing.
Rig up a Dehumidifier and you won't even have to stop to tank up on water. cuhulin
No, it isn't that hard nor expensive. The same technology that converts engines to run on natural gas can run hydrogen with some adjustment. Now, the big kicker is that hydrogen is very low octane, so something must be done about that. EGR in massive amounts is one solution.
Tankage is a problem- compressed hydrogen provides limited range as the size of the tank in cubic foot per megajoule of energy is large. And of course, as others are pointing out, electrolysis is not free- you need to put in as much or more energy than you get out.
Start growing that corn and get busy. cuhulin
The *hydrogen* is expensive !
Graham
And therein lies the problem.
Science isn't considered "cool". Schools aren't teaching it much -- or if they are, things are muddied up with ideologs trying to foist "intelligent design" as a "competing theory", or steroid-addled ex-weightlifters trying to be viewed as smart and green when they drive a hydrogen-fueled Hummer around!
"Debunk" is the correct word, and for almost 80 years. I guess a fool really is born every minute.
snip
Not "as much". Not even "or more". A lot more. So much that you would find a way to use the energy directly.
Al G
Nobody dismisses that as a possibility. It is just another explosive gas whose energy can be converted to a mechanical form.
With a lead-in like that I'm sure most readers dismissed you as a kook.
Internal combustion engines will all guzzle some form of energy. The choice comes down to a matter of overall cost and tradeoffs.
No, it's not. Creating ethonol is a net energy loser. That doesn't mean it sholdn't be done, by creating a new product: transportable energy from electrical energy and natural gas. It would be far more efficient to use the NG as CNG in one's vehicle than producing massive amounts of monoagricultural sugar cane and corn to make ethanol.
David
What gave you that idea ?
Graham
Wrong. It's only a loser if done with poor feed stock and inefficently, same as everything else. You could make gasoline in some half-assed way and have it be a net loser.
I take it you haven't been paying attention to natural gas prices the last few years. Might as well keep using gasoline.
In reality though, we aren't running out of oil, the reason to do this is to restore free market choice. There is no need to replace gasoline 100% with any one thing or any multiple things. The need is to cut into the market significantly. Of course the problem is, the taps could be turned on and drive the price of gasoline way down should alternatives get a foot hold to knock them off.
I hope that was for comic relief.
I have thought about but never researched this cycle.
You raise corn, from that corn you get corn oil, which can be made into fuel. Take the waste from the corn oil and ferment it to get alcohol, which can be used as fuel. Take the waste from the fermenting and feed it to cows or pigs. Take the waste from the animals and use it to make methane, again a fuel. The waste from making methane can be used to fertilize corn. I know that there are going to be some loses but I wonder how much.
By adding other energy into the equation such as using solar thermal in the distillation of the alcohol and the production of methane I would think that would boost efficacy w/o any added 'fuel' use.
Anyone got some ideas on problems with this?
I wouldn't even call it 'massive'. The whole world may produce, net, around a quarter of a quad/year of crop fuel ethanol. The world demands
175 quads/year just in liquid fuels.MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.