Lifestyle

TOPICS:

11/20/05
11/18/05

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

274 | 275 | 276

 ... 954

Next

NinjaThat

NinjaThat

Santa Rosa, CA
August 2005

NOV 16, 2005 06:09 PM

Wired News is reporting that hundreds of semi trucks now on the roads are being partially powered by hydrogen. From the article:


These 18-wheelers make hydrogen as they go, eliminating the need for high-pressure, cryogenic storage tanks or hydrogen filling stations, which, by the way, don't yet exist. These truckers aren't just do-gooders. They like Canadian Hydrogen Energy's Hydrogen Fuel Injection, or HFI, system because it lets them save fuel, get more horsepower and, as a bonus, cause less pollution.

Vaux

Vaux

I'm lost
January 2008

NOV 16, 2005 06:19 PM

This is awesome news!

TheJOSH

thejosh

Clarksville, TN
January 2004

NOV 16, 2005 07:29 PM

It is about time somebody started taking hydrogen seriously!

Cigarette

Cigarette

Cleveland, OH
April 2004

NOV 16, 2005 07:31 PM

And I've noticed that diesel is not coming down at the same rate as regular gasoline. So they need it. Good on them.

BurningKrome

BurningKrome

San Jose, CA
April 2005

NOV 16, 2005 09:57 PM

I am impressed with the innovative technology...hydrogen on the fly.

The biggest problem with hydrogen fuel cells as a current alternative is that once you consider the environmental costs of manufacture and shipment of hydrogen, hydrogen fuel cells cause greater harm to the environment per mile driven than gasoline does.

I like the idea of using the HFI as a transition fuel for California, as mentioned in the article...


It will take at least until 2040 before fuel cells begin to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, according to the National Hydrogen Association, Gilchrist pointed out.
"We vehemently disagree with governments picking the fuel cell as the single path to a cleaner environment," he said.
Gilchrist recently argued just this point in meetings with California officials, who are considering buying prototype fuel-cell vehicles that will cost more than $1 million each. That money could buy many HFI systems, which would provide "300 times" the air-pollution reductions of one fuel-cell vehicle, he said.


However, I think the focus should be on gasoline powered vehicles, not diesel. Although diesel exhaust is so much smokier and “ickier” looking than gas emissions, it actually contains fewer environmentally harmful particles per gallon burned than does the invisible emissions in gasoline. You can just see it better.

ILikeBoobiestoo

ILikeBoobiestoo

Apopka, FL
October 2005

NOV 16, 2005 10:26 PM

BurningKrome said:
I am impressed with the innovative technology...hydrogen on the fly.

The biggest problem with hydrogen fuel cells as a current alternative is that once you consider the environmental costs of manufacture and shipment of hydrogen, hydrogen fuel cells cause greater harm to the environment per mile driven than gasoline does.

I like the idea of using the HFI as a transition fuel for California, as mentioned in the article...


It will take at least until 2040 before fuel cells begin to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, according to the National Hydrogen Association, Gilchrist pointed out.
"We vehemently disagree with governments picking the fuel cell as the single path to a cleaner environment," he said.
Gilchrist recently argued just this point in meetings with California officials, who are considering buying prototype fuel-cell vehicles that will cost more than $1 million each. That money could buy many HFI systems, which would provide "300 times" the air-pollution reductions of one fuel-cell vehicle, he said.


However, I think the focus should be on gasoline powered vehicles, not diesel. Although diesel exhaust is so much smokier and “ickier” looking than gas emissions, it actually contains fewer environmentally harmful particles per gallon burned than does the invisible emissions in gasoline. You can just see it better.




Because it burns slower... i wanna see cars come out that use a mixture of pure oxygen and acetaline to fuel them biggrin 800 HP 4 cylinder hehe

PaulNikon

PaulNikon

Palm Bay, FL
February 2003

NOV 16, 2005 10:32 PM

Excellant.

ILikeBoobiestoo

ILikeBoobiestoo

Apopka, FL
October 2005

NOV 17, 2005 01:28 AM

for anyone who disent know what acetaline is its the gas used in torch cutting, its one of the most... if not the most flamable gas known to man.... you can spray it into an open plasic coke bottle, ignite it and it will go at least 50 feet with a deafening explosion.... yea im a pyro... sue me

MistahPrince

MistahPrince

Chicago, IL
February 2005

NOV 17, 2005 01:39 AM

ILikeBoobiestoo said:
for anyone who disent know what acetaline is its the gas used in torch cutting, its one of the most... if not the most flamable gas known to man.... you can spray it into an open plasic coke bottle, ignite it and it will go at least 50 feet with a deafening explosion.... yea im a pyro... sue me



Acetylene would be kick ass for tweaking, but considering it requires coal and calcium carbonate to manufacture, it's not very energy efficient. Plus it leaves heaps of carbon monoxide behind (and it's not as though the world needs more calcium hydroxide). I doubt a good fuel cell could be made from it (short bursts of it, though, could work).

yea im a scientist... sue me

XxChocoTacoxX

XxChocoTacoxX

Champaign, IL
April 2005

NOV 17, 2005 03:18 AM

Hmm... wouldn't that kinda destroy an engine block? I mean, you'll get a good explosion from the sparked fuel mixture, but wouldn't that cause your car, and probably you as well, to not run anymore?

Stiles

Stiles

Miami Beach, FL
November 2002

NOV 17, 2005 06:39 AM


HFI's manufacturer guarantees 10 percent fuel savings, which likely won't interest car companies or consumers, Raman said. But a reduction of pollution emissions could spur broader use.

...

The HFI units are relatively small and cost between $4,000 and $14,000, depending on the size of the vehicle.



While interesting, these are hardly revolutionary results and the high price tag/low benefit will limit the market for these things. It's good to see the effort, though.

Idjit

Idjit

HOPEFUL

I'm lost

NOV 17, 2005 06:52 AM

Keep in mind that this is not the same Hydrogen solution we will be seeing as consumers. HFI is actually burning hydrogen, what we will see is hydrogen fuel cells - where hydrogen basically acts as part of a battery system to create energy, which then powers electric motors.

wheezy_e

wheezy_e

Boulder City, NV
April 2004

NOV 17, 2005 07:33 AM

ILikeBoobiestoo said:
Because it burns slower... i wanna see cars come out that use a mixture of pure oxygen and acetaline to fuel them biggrin 800 HP 4 cylinder hehe


ILikeBoobiestoo said:
for anyone who disent know what acetaline is its the gas used in torch cutting, its one of the most... if not the most flamable gas known to man.... you can spray it into an open plasic coke bottle, ignite it and it will go at least 50 feet with a deafening explosion.... yea im a pyro... sue me


Now you marry me. I bring torch.

ILikeBoobiestoo

ILikeBoobiestoo

Apopka, FL
October 2005

NOV 17, 2005 09:52 AM

MistahPrince said:

ILikeBoobiestoo said:
for anyone who disent know what acetaline is its the gas used in torch cutting, its one of the most... if not the most flamable gas known to man.... you can spray it into an open plasic coke bottle, ignite it and it will go at least 50 feet with a deafening explosion.... yea im a pyro... sue me



Acetylene would be kick ass for tweaking, but considering it requires coal and calcium carbonate to manufacture, it's not very energy efficient. Plus it leaves heaps of carbon monoxide behind (and it's not as though the world needs more calcium hydroxide). I doubt a good fuel cell could be made from it (short bursts of it, though, could work).

yea im a scientist... sue me



Haha i wasnt really considering that as a viable solution, i just want a car that runs on it... im completley convinced a 1.4 liter 4cylinder that runs on that mixture would have 400+ horsepower

BurningKrome

BurningKrome

San Jose, CA
April 2005

NOV 17, 2005 02:20 PM

MistahPrince said:

ILikeBoobiestoo said:
for anyone who disent know what acetaline is its the gas used in torch cutting, its one of the most... if not the most flamable gas known to man.... you can spray it into an open plasic coke bottle, ignite it and it will go at least 50 feet with a deafening explosion.... yea im a pyro... sue me



Acetylene would be kick ass for tweaking, but considering it requires coal and calcium carbonate to manufacture, it's not very energy efficient. Plus it leaves heaps of carbon monoxide behind (and it's not as though the world needs more calcium hydroxide). I doubt a good fuel cell could be made from it (short bursts of it, though, could work).

yea im a scientist... sue me


However, technically, the production of hydrogen (with the exception of the HFI solution under discussion) ALSO requires coal and other fossil fuels to create (since it requires electricity to be made, the majority of which is still made by coal and oil...as well as truck burning gas and diesel for transport.)

Yea...I’m a cynic. Sue me :-)


Haha i wasnt really considering that as a viable solution, i just want a car that runs on it... im completley convinced a 1.4 liter 4cylinder that runs on that mixture would have 400+ horsepower


...till your rings burn out :-)

[Edited on Nov 17, 2005 by BurningKrome]

emperorreagan

emperorreagan

Baltimore, MD
January 2004

NOV 17, 2005 02:28 PM

It's certainly interesting news, but it isn't the answer to energy problems.

Moving things around via an interstate system in 18 wheelers is extremely inefficient, regardless of how you power them. Trains and denser population centers are a better option, coupled with more local production of goods as possible.

FrankMask

FrankMask

Saint Paul, MN
June 2003

NOV 17, 2005 08:44 PM

Alternately, teleporters powered by unicorns running on treadmills.

trestria

trestria

Wilson, NC
October 2004

NOV 19, 2005 07:17 AM

Damn, it's like everytime there is good news people always have to find a way to ruin it. Quit complaining about what they SHOULD be doing because it's a step in the right direction.

emperorreagan

emperorreagan

Baltimore, MD
January 2004

NOV 19, 2005 08:16 PM

What good news?

Finding moderately more efficient means to prop up an ill-conceived, inefficient system?

trestria

trestria

Wilson, NC
October 2004

NOV 19, 2005 09:31 PM

emperorreagan said:
What good news?

Finding moderately more efficient means to prop up an ill-conceived, inefficient system?



Um yeah. As I said, it's a step in the right direction. What would rather have? Solar powered trucks. Yeah, good luck with that. Electric? Yeah, I may be behind on the tech news with electric motors, but last I checked they can't produce the torque needed.

figmentation

figmentation

I'm lost
December 2003

NOV 20, 2005 05:28 AM

well yea.
Alternative fuels won't become popular unless they offer something traditional fuel doesn't. higer horsepower and better fuel economy are important reasons to give it a go... espically for the big rigs who put a hell of a lot more miles on the road than you or I do in our little fourwheel cars.

In response to the comment above me, cities and production lines are already set. You won't change them. it would take years to kick up even the inertia needed to start the change in the pattern of thought that went into their design which would then change the design of the city.
As a result, you do what you can, put into use the train system, which holds the best fuel economy of all transport systems but have tracks that are badly in need of repair and still rely on large transport trucks to get your goods from point a to point b. This country's economy rely on major retailers to keep it's people employed and cash flowing.

gtwr

gtwr

United Kingdom
October 2005

NOV 20, 2005 05:54 AM

I think this is a superb idea, both for the consumer and the environment.

The problem with alternative fuels is that they are not widely available. For example LPG. In the UK there are only about 1250 stations which sell these. I would be worried about running out.

Whereas this HFI idea, you have got this problem. It would just make my car work more efficiently, saving me money and producing less emissions for the same amount of mileage I drive.

emperorreagan

emperorreagan

Baltimore, MD
January 2004

NOV 20, 2005 10:19 PM

catnamedpearl said:
well yea.
Alternative fuels won't become popular unless they offer something traditional fuel doesn't. higer horsepower and better fuel economy are important reasons to give it a go... espically for the big rigs who put a hell of a lot more miles on the road than you or I do in our little fourwheel cars.

In response to the comment above me, cities and production lines are already set. You won't change them. it would take years to kick up even the inertia needed to start the change in the pattern of thought that went into their design which would then change the design of the city.
As a result, you do what you can, put into use the train system, which holds the best fuel economy of all transport systems but have tracks that are badly in need of repair and still rely on large transport trucks to get your goods from point a to point b. This country's economy rely on major retailers to keep it's people employed and cash flowing.



Even if we assume that scientists and engineers are able to address all of the obstacles to using hydrogen as a primary fuel, there's another issue to be addressed - building an infrastructure for the production and transportation of hydrogen fuel. This will include, of course, the investment in the alternate energy sources that we need to produce electricity for hydrogen fuel, since producing hydrogen via electrolysis is the only way that addresses the fossil fuel issue.

How we choose to build this infrastructure will play a huge role in determining the shape of our society in the future.

I think it's pathetic how we spend our dollars on internal issues in this country; that so little attention is paid to our infrastructure, aside from huge capital investments in expanding highways to accomodate more urban sprawl and repairing highways because we insist on shipping via long-haul trucking rather than using trains and shorter, smaller trucking operations at hubs.

I also think that a broad, rational energy policy will not only address where we get our fuel from, but how we're spending it. Energy consumed by transportation outstrips home and commercial uses, and is projected to be gaining on industrial use and on par with it in 20 years. Steps that we could take to reduce that use would be very desirable. As for such a thing taking years - the time frame for a transition to hydrogen is on the order of several decades, according to the most reasonable estimates I've read. It's not something that's going to happen in the next 5 years.

And, back to the technology at hand: I'm perhaps too quick to crap all over it. It does reduce toxic emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and increased efficiency in any system is good in my opinion. But the thing to remember about this technology is that it isn't a long-term solution and really isn't even an intermediate step to a different solution to replace fossil fuels. It's a step that at best may extend the lifespan of the available fossil fuel and help slow down increasing demand.