Double your fuel range!
- Thread starter jimi
- Start date
Moonshining
Well-Known Member
I can pretty much guarantee that it will as effective on a boat as on a car.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
And OPEC would buy it up and close it down!
Broombroomput
Well-Known Member
Erica is nice though!
D
Deleted member 478
Guest
I was looking at doing a conversion on my boat until I read about the increase in the sulphuric acid output, which seriously shortens the engine life. Sorry, am too lazy to look for the link, but a quick google will surely give a few results.
boatmike
Well-Known Member
No! And it does not work in a car either. To "crack" water into hydrogen and oxygen requires more power on a small scale installation than the power you can get out by burning the hydrogen produced in an ICE. These gismos stick their head over the parapet every now and then but if they actually worked the automobile industry would have exploited the technology long ago. The big hope for the future is that nuclear power will make abundant cheap electricity available to "crack" hydrogen on a very wide scale and make it available to replace fossil fuels entirely in the long term. Even then there are problems to overcome with storage, but it's a theoretically viable proposition and pollutant free alternative to the electric car. What we really want though is very large capacity lightweight batteries......
Sgeir
Well-Known Member
One of the criticisms of wind farms is the unreliability of the wind. However, the advocates, including people like Jeremy Rifkin, of windpower and small scale electricity production, argue that any "surplus" generated power may be "stored" via conversion to hydrogen, to be later used for electricity generation at periods of peak demand, using fuel cell technology. It's a neat idea in principle, although I understand that there are still problems with hydrogen storage. Hydrogen, being not just volatile, but having a very small molecular structure, can "leak" through the container materials. If the fuel cell and storage issues can be cracked, then it may be feasible to look forward to low carbon economies.
Niander
Well-Known Member
didnt like that bullshit in ya face website!
Beadle
Well-Known Member
Sounds like the argument of desperation to me.
The problems with windmills are not associated with "surplus" production. The main problem is that because they are unpredictable conventional power generation has to be on stand-by - using fuel - constantly so as to ensure contnuity of supply.
I remember listening to one programme on the wireless about hydrogen powered cars. The "expert" on there was asked what happened when something went wrong - the answer was that you get a small crater in the road where the vehicle used to be.
Think I'll stick to diesel.
The problems with windmills are not associated with "surplus" production. The main problem is that because they are unpredictable conventional power generation has to be on stand-by - using fuel - constantly so as to ensure contnuity of supply.
I remember listening to one programme on the wireless about hydrogen powered cars. The "expert" on there was asked what happened when something went wrong - the answer was that you get a small crater in the road where the vehicle used to be.
Think I'll stick to diesel.
peterb
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
The "expert" on there was asked what happened when something went wrong - the answer was that you get a small crater in the road where the vehicle used to be.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm glad you put "expert" in quotes. Hydrogen is not explosive unless it's premixed with an oxidising agent, usually air. The best example is the Hindenburg disaster; lots of hydrogen, rapid burning, but no explosion. And even the burning tends to lift away from the ground, hence no crater. Mind you, I wouldn't like to be near the fire, but the same could apply to petrol.
The "expert" on there was asked what happened when something went wrong - the answer was that you get a small crater in the road where the vehicle used to be.
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm glad you put "expert" in quotes. Hydrogen is not explosive unless it's premixed with an oxidising agent, usually air. The best example is the Hindenburg disaster; lots of hydrogen, rapid burning, but no explosion. And even the burning tends to lift away from the ground, hence no crater. Mind you, I wouldn't like to be near the fire, but the same could apply to petrol.
boatmike
Well-Known Member
Yes but..... In order to store usable quantities of any combustible gas, including hydrogen it has to be stored under pressure as a liquid. Just like Butane or any other gas, this means a ruptured container (as in a road crash) could lead to explosive release. If you were sitting on it (or near it) you would achieve a fair altitude and the reaction probably would result in a ground crater I would have thought..... Certainly safety has been often quoted as a limiting factor for the storage of bulk hydrogen in the past and storage in an absorbtion medium that prevents rapid release suggested as a solution. .
apollo
...
"expert"
"Ex" - as in has been
"Spirt" - as in drip under pressure
"Ex" - as in has been
"Spirt" - as in drip under pressure
castaway
Well-Known Member
it looks like the same as this one
http://water4gas.com/2books.htm?hop=2bqiang
i remember making hyrogen from water as a kid with a battery and a jam jar of water and popping it with match (bit like fart lighting)
I have alway just assumed that there must be some good reason why we are all not running cars and energy production facilities like this as its so simple.
These chaps I think have done the clever thing and avoided having to bottle the gas as it is produced on demand by using excess alternator amps to generate the H and then pump it into the Carb/venturi ...
As I say there has to be a good reason why clever engineers are not all doing this themselves (just can't think what it is).
Nick E
http://water4gas.com/2books.htm?hop=2bqiang
i remember making hyrogen from water as a kid with a battery and a jam jar of water and popping it with match (bit like fart lighting)
I have alway just assumed that there must be some good reason why we are all not running cars and energy production facilities like this as its so simple.
These chaps I think have done the clever thing and avoided having to bottle the gas as it is produced on demand by using excess alternator amps to generate the H and then pump it into the Carb/venturi ...
As I say there has to be a good reason why clever engineers are not all doing this themselves (just can't think what it is).
Nick E
DaveS
Well-Known Member
Boatmike actually gave the answer to this above, but let me have a try at spelling it out in more detail. (I may, of course, regret this.)
I think the key fallacy here is the notion that there are "spare amps" available from the alternator. Any additional electrical energy taken from the alternator requires additional mechanical energy to be supplied from the car's engine - plus losses since the alternator efficiency is about 90%. Provision of the additional mechanical energy requires quite a lot of additional chemical energy from the fuel since the car engine, like any heat engine, has an efficiency well under 100%: in overall figures perhaps 25% for petrol and 30% for diesel. In this case, however, we only have to consider a marginal change in output so the incremental efficiency is higher, say 35% for petrol and 40% for diesel. Combining the energy conversion losses to get from incremental motor fuel to electricity gives about 30% or 35% for petrol and diesel respectively.
Now let's be generous and assume that the hydrolysis process of splitting water into 2H2 and O2 is 100% efficient and, (an even bigger assumption) that the combustion of 2H2 and O2 in the engine is 100% efficient. The engine itself is however still a heat engine with an incremental efficiency of around 40%. (If you want to know why this limit is so annoyingly low look up Carnot.) So, the entire process of converting fuel to electricity to 2H2 / O2 to mechanical work (driving the car) has an overall efficiency of less than 15%, which is significantly less than that achieved by just using the fuel to drive the car.
Which is why clever engineers (or any other honest people with a basic grasp of O grade Physics) don't do it.
I think the key fallacy here is the notion that there are "spare amps" available from the alternator. Any additional electrical energy taken from the alternator requires additional mechanical energy to be supplied from the car's engine - plus losses since the alternator efficiency is about 90%. Provision of the additional mechanical energy requires quite a lot of additional chemical energy from the fuel since the car engine, like any heat engine, has an efficiency well under 100%: in overall figures perhaps 25% for petrol and 30% for diesel. In this case, however, we only have to consider a marginal change in output so the incremental efficiency is higher, say 35% for petrol and 40% for diesel. Combining the energy conversion losses to get from incremental motor fuel to electricity gives about 30% or 35% for petrol and diesel respectively.
Now let's be generous and assume that the hydrolysis process of splitting water into 2H2 and O2 is 100% efficient and, (an even bigger assumption) that the combustion of 2H2 and O2 in the engine is 100% efficient. The engine itself is however still a heat engine with an incremental efficiency of around 40%. (If you want to know why this limit is so annoyingly low look up Carnot.) So, the entire process of converting fuel to electricity to 2H2 / O2 to mechanical work (driving the car) has an overall efficiency of less than 15%, which is significantly less than that achieved by just using the fuel to drive the car.
Which is why clever engineers (or any other honest people with a basic grasp of O grade Physics) don't do it.
Sgeir
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like the argument of desperation to me.
[/ QUOTE ]
I really don't understand your point re "desperation". In what way? I didn't express any strong view on this, but merely tried to comment on the obvious issue of the unreliability of windpower, and the well known problem of hydrogen storage.
The issue of "surplus" generation, eg at the wrong time, which you believe to be irrelevant, is, imho, intrinsic to any discussion about about the unpredictability of wind power, with winds that cannot be turned on and off. However, predictability is not the only issue; for example, tidal power is eminently predictable, but, inevitably, will only exceptionally be able to match peak production with peak demand - so the surplus/deficit issue has to factored into capital and operating costs.
Equally, with small scale generation, eg by farmers, that is fed back into the grid - their "surpluses", in all probability, will not coincide with periods of peak demand. Which is why the energy industry is taking energy conversion very seriously indeed. On a larger scale, I believe that there are constraints on the extent to which, for example, nuclear or coal-fired generating stations can be turned "up" or "down" to match demand. It may not be terribly efficient, but social and business expectations require a constant surplus of output over demand, the alternative being power cuts. So surplus production is pretty central to any discussion about the most efficient use of resources.
So yes, if it were feasible to "store" energy surplus (from whatever source) through fuel cell technology, then fine. Seems a good idea, provided the engineering issues can be resolved. The technology is a challenge. Are you suggesting that it is not a worthwhile challenge, or one that is incapable of being overcome?
I suggest that you may be assuming views that I do not hold. Future energy requirement will require more sophisticated conversion processes that pose practical issues that require research,engineering application, and investment - as do all existing energy supplies. No different imho.
Sounds like the argument of desperation to me.
[/ QUOTE ]
I really don't understand your point re "desperation". In what way? I didn't express any strong view on this, but merely tried to comment on the obvious issue of the unreliability of windpower, and the well known problem of hydrogen storage.
The issue of "surplus" generation, eg at the wrong time, which you believe to be irrelevant, is, imho, intrinsic to any discussion about about the unpredictability of wind power, with winds that cannot be turned on and off. However, predictability is not the only issue; for example, tidal power is eminently predictable, but, inevitably, will only exceptionally be able to match peak production with peak demand - so the surplus/deficit issue has to factored into capital and operating costs.
Equally, with small scale generation, eg by farmers, that is fed back into the grid - their "surpluses", in all probability, will not coincide with periods of peak demand. Which is why the energy industry is taking energy conversion very seriously indeed. On a larger scale, I believe that there are constraints on the extent to which, for example, nuclear or coal-fired generating stations can be turned "up" or "down" to match demand. It may not be terribly efficient, but social and business expectations require a constant surplus of output over demand, the alternative being power cuts. So surplus production is pretty central to any discussion about the most efficient use of resources.
So yes, if it were feasible to "store" energy surplus (from whatever source) through fuel cell technology, then fine. Seems a good idea, provided the engineering issues can be resolved. The technology is a challenge. Are you suggesting that it is not a worthwhile challenge, or one that is incapable of being overcome?
I suggest that you may be assuming views that I do not hold. Future energy requirement will require more sophisticated conversion processes that pose practical issues that require research,engineering application, and investment - as do all existing energy supplies. No different imho.
Twister_Ken
Well-Known Member
"for example, tidal power is eminently predictable, but, inevitably, will only exceptionally be able to match peak production with peak demand "
Well, yes and no. Peak tidal flows occur at different times in different places so, in theory at least, it should always be possible to have peak tidal power coming from some installations in a national portfolio of tidal installations. Indeed there are also locations where the slack periods are very short and peak flows extend well into what would, elsewhere, be the slower periods of the tide cycle - Hurst and Portland spring to my South Coast-oriented mind, but I'm sure other parts of the coast experience the same circumstances.
What is more of a worry with all these grand schemes are transmission losses. I can't remember the figure I've seen quoted for transmission losses, but I remember it being astonishingly high. Smaller scale, local schemes where power is distributed over shorter distances and therefore losses are cut would seem to be a reasonable answer.
As to power storage, doesn't somewhere in sheep-shagger do this using pumped water?
Incidentally, I've cut my fuel expenditure by 10%. I drive down to the boat at 60mph, not 70.
Well, yes and no. Peak tidal flows occur at different times in different places so, in theory at least, it should always be possible to have peak tidal power coming from some installations in a national portfolio of tidal installations. Indeed there are also locations where the slack periods are very short and peak flows extend well into what would, elsewhere, be the slower periods of the tide cycle - Hurst and Portland spring to my South Coast-oriented mind, but I'm sure other parts of the coast experience the same circumstances.
What is more of a worry with all these grand schemes are transmission losses. I can't remember the figure I've seen quoted for transmission losses, but I remember it being astonishingly high. Smaller scale, local schemes where power is distributed over shorter distances and therefore losses are cut would seem to be a reasonable answer.
As to power storage, doesn't somewhere in sheep-shagger do this using pumped water?
Incidentally, I've cut my fuel expenditure by 10%. I drive down to the boat at 60mph, not 70.
G
Guest
Guest
Post deleted by danfoley
Twister_Ken
Well-Known Member
I was wearing a trilby, and sting-backed gloves. That gives me the right to occupy any lane I like, at any speed.
And you should be grateful to me for helping you save fuel.
And you should be grateful to me for helping you save fuel.
Beadle
Well-Known Member
An argument of desperation.
The reasons are more economic/political than technical.
At present it is not commercially viable to use wind power without substantial grants from the taxpayer.
These grants are justified by the MMGW/CO2 argument.
The fact is that wind power produces little or no benefits in terms of CO2 production because of the need to have back-up generating capacity on standby to match the power coming from wind generators. The reason being that the grid controllers cannot rely on wind power being available in any predictable quantity at any specific time.
The wind industry are seeking to find arguments to continue the receiving substantial tax funded revenue for doing little or no good for either power production or CO2 reduction.
The idea that there is "surplus" power from wind is a false understanding of the situation, the surplus is in conventional capacity when power from wind is available - and that produces CO2 which defeats the objective.
I would agree with tidal power as being predictable and therefore useful. The question is whether it can produce enough power to make building the facilities economically viable.
The UK requires something in the order of 50,000 Mwatts peak load at present usage, and usage is increasing. The biggest coal fired station in UK (Drax) produces 4000 MWatts at full capacity. An average nuclear station produces about 1000 Mwatts.
A tidal turbine will produce maybe 2Mwatts and that for only half or 2 thirds the time.
The arithmetic is unavoidable - to meet even a base load of say 15,000 Mwatts will require some 12,000 such turbines.
I do not think there are places where sufficient tidal flow is available to justify use of a turbine to support even 20% of that figure.
And at what cost?
The Rance barrage in France generates 240Mwatt at a little over than 50% time cycle.
Again base load of 15,000Mwatts would require 120 such barrages. If you look at perhaps 8 or 10 sites in the UK with sufficient tidal flow to produce such a level of output (8M tides) you will see there is still a considerable shortfall.
And that is before you start the environmental arguments over loss of habitat, increased delays to shipping CO2 production in the construction etc etc etc.
Not to mention the cost.
We have a simple choice: - We either reduce our electrical consumption to lower 3rd world levels
Or we invest in nuclear capacity to replace fossil fuel capacity.
Or we live with CO2 production
Windmills are nothing more than a distraction that makes a few people a lot of cash and allows politicians to weave a few clever lies with no benefit to anyone.
Water is a small improvement but not any sort of solution - unless we are happy with living in the 3rd world.
Personally, I've visited it, but wouldn't want to live there.
The reasons are more economic/political than technical.
At present it is not commercially viable to use wind power without substantial grants from the taxpayer.
These grants are justified by the MMGW/CO2 argument.
The fact is that wind power produces little or no benefits in terms of CO2 production because of the need to have back-up generating capacity on standby to match the power coming from wind generators. The reason being that the grid controllers cannot rely on wind power being available in any predictable quantity at any specific time.
The wind industry are seeking to find arguments to continue the receiving substantial tax funded revenue for doing little or no good for either power production or CO2 reduction.
The idea that there is "surplus" power from wind is a false understanding of the situation, the surplus is in conventional capacity when power from wind is available - and that produces CO2 which defeats the objective.
I would agree with tidal power as being predictable and therefore useful. The question is whether it can produce enough power to make building the facilities economically viable.
The UK requires something in the order of 50,000 Mwatts peak load at present usage, and usage is increasing. The biggest coal fired station in UK (Drax) produces 4000 MWatts at full capacity. An average nuclear station produces about 1000 Mwatts.
A tidal turbine will produce maybe 2Mwatts and that for only half or 2 thirds the time.
The arithmetic is unavoidable - to meet even a base load of say 15,000 Mwatts will require some 12,000 such turbines.
I do not think there are places where sufficient tidal flow is available to justify use of a turbine to support even 20% of that figure.
And at what cost?
The Rance barrage in France generates 240Mwatt at a little over than 50% time cycle.
Again base load of 15,000Mwatts would require 120 such barrages. If you look at perhaps 8 or 10 sites in the UK with sufficient tidal flow to produce such a level of output (8M tides) you will see there is still a considerable shortfall.
And that is before you start the environmental arguments over loss of habitat, increased delays to shipping CO2 production in the construction etc etc etc.
Not to mention the cost.
We have a simple choice: - We either reduce our electrical consumption to lower 3rd world levels
Or we invest in nuclear capacity to replace fossil fuel capacity.
Or we live with CO2 production
Windmills are nothing more than a distraction that makes a few people a lot of cash and allows politicians to weave a few clever lies with no benefit to anyone.
Water is a small improvement but not any sort of solution - unless we are happy with living in the 3rd world.
Personally, I've visited it, but wouldn't want to live there.
Beadle
Well-Known Member
Yes Ffestiniog Pumped hydro station.
Originally used for "emergency" situations to meet sudden demand to meet an "unpredicted" load
The fundamental truth with these schemes is that they are efficient economically in that you can use base load - low cost - power to pump the water back up the hill and charge peak load costs for usage.
The down side is that they are a net loss in CO2 terms in that you use lots more fossil produced power to back fill the reservoir than you save in replacing fossil fuel generating capacity.
So not really that good unless you get to the point where non-CO2 capacity is producing the bulk of the base load capacity.
The station produces (from memory) 300Mwatts for 5 hours
So I guess will require something like 300Mwatt for 7 hours to fill it up again.
Originally used for "emergency" situations to meet sudden demand to meet an "unpredicted" load
The fundamental truth with these schemes is that they are efficient economically in that you can use base load - low cost - power to pump the water back up the hill and charge peak load costs for usage.
The down side is that they are a net loss in CO2 terms in that you use lots more fossil produced power to back fill the reservoir than you save in replacing fossil fuel generating capacity.
So not really that good unless you get to the point where non-CO2 capacity is producing the bulk of the base load capacity.
The station produces (from memory) 300Mwatts for 5 hours
So I guess will require something like 300Mwatt for 7 hours to fill it up again.