Re: Hydrogen Production Method Could Bolster Fuel Supplies
From: charliew2 (charliew_at_ev1.net)
Date: 12/09/04
- Next message: Dan Bloomquist: "Re: Turning Hydrogen into electricity"
- Previous message: charliew2: "Re: Here's an Awesome mind blowing sight for energy stuff"
- In reply to: Alex Terrell: "Re: Hydrogen Production Method Could Bolster Fuel Supplies"
- Next in thread: Dan Bloomquist: "Re: Hydrogen Production Method Could Bolster Fuel Supplies"
- Reply: Dan Bloomquist: "Re: Hydrogen Production Method Could Bolster Fuel Supplies"
- Reply: Alex Terrell: "Re: Hydrogen Production Method Could Bolster Fuel Supplies"
- Reply: Roland PJ: "Re: Hydrogen Production Method Could Bolster Fuel Supplies"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 11:47:19 -0600
Alex Terrell wrote:
> quasarstrider@yahoo.com.br (quasarstrider) wrote in message
> news:<14a48ff9.0412020849.49e13988@posting.google.com>...
>> "Tom Simonds" <tsimonds@theworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:<coj7n1$vcj$1@pcls4.std.com>...
>>> I have no idea why anyone would want to use electricity to produce
>>> H2 for use as a motor car fuel. Seems crazy. Use electricity to
>>> make H2, put it into a car just to convert it back into
>>> electricity. And lose > 1/2 of your energy along the way. There are
>>> several workable schemes to use elect. directly - skipping the H2
>>> altogether.
>>>
>>> A light weight battery electric car today can be built that'll go
>>> 200(?) miles on a charge. Then, put up battery changing stations on
>>> the interstate highway system (USA) for those occasional longer
>>> trips. It's a no-brainer. Yet another scheme is the plug-in gas
>>> electric. Runs on power from the grid 90% of the time, uses gas
>>> only to extend its range beyond the 100 or so miles you get out of
>>> the battery.
>>>
>>> Either of the above are far better that elect. => H2 => electricity.
>>
>> None of today's batteries has enough density to replace gasoline.
>> Add the
>> fact that batteries are expensive and need to be trashed every
>> couple of
>> years, plus long charging times and you can see why it is a losing
>> proposition,
>> with current battery technology at least.
>
> Actually, I'd expect plug-in hybrids to make a big impact. A few
> figures (based on high price UK petrol):
>
> Fuel cost per 100km
> Hybrid on night time electric power: 25p
> Audi A2 1.2tdi (the most efficient car on the market): £3
> Typical car (e.g. Ford Mondeo): £10
>
> Emissions per 100km:
> Hybrid powered from UK electricity grid: 50g / km
> Audi A2 1.2 tdi: 81g / km
>
> The majority of cars do about 30km/day. That means they can be 70-90%
> electric powered.
>
> Typical savings are £300 - £1,000 per year.
>
> Here's an extract from The Economist, Technology Quarterly:
>
> The next step may be the "plug-in" hybrid, which is not the backwards
> step its name suggests. Unlike the electric cars of the 1990s, none of
> today's hybrids needs to be plugged in-but if plugging were an option
> it would be a good idea. Andrew Frank and his team at the University
> of California Davis' Hybrid Electric Vehicle Centre are working
> exclusively on plug-in hybrids, which can operate as pure-electric
> vehicles over short distances (up to 60 miles, with a large enough
> battery pack) but can switch to a hybrid system when needed. Since the
> average American driver travels about 30 miles a day, plug-in hybrids
> could be recharged overnight, when electricity is cheaper to produce,
> and need never use petrol at all, except on longer trips.
They need never use petrol *directly*, except on longer trips. The
electricity that charges them must come from somewhere. If this electricity
comes from fossil fuels, a "global" economic and engineering analysis should
be done, such that standard hybrids are compared with plug-in hybrids. In
other words, when you burn a fossil fuel to generate electricity for the
plug-in, what is the equivalent "fossil fuel" miles per gallon? If this
number is smaller than the miles per gallon for a standard hybrid, the
plug-in hybrid idea would probably need more work.
>
> According to studies carried out by the Electric Power Research
> Institute (EPRI), a non-profit organisation based in Palo Alto,
> California, plug-in hybrids could be one of the cleanest and most
> efficient kinds of car. In 2002, the EPRI teamed up with
> DaimlerChrysler to build five plug-in hybrid vans, the first of which
> was unveiled at a trade show in September. The larger battery packs
> make the upfront costs for plug-ins higher than for other hybrids. But
> Bob Graham of the EPRI says the added costs could be more than
> recouped over the vehicle's life.
- Next message: Dan Bloomquist: "Re: Turning Hydrogen into electricity"
- Previous message: charliew2: "Re: Here's an Awesome mind blowing sight for energy stuff"
- In reply to: Alex Terrell: "Re: Hydrogen Production Method Could Bolster Fuel Supplies"
- Next in thread: Dan Bloomquist: "Re: Hydrogen Production Method Could Bolster Fuel Supplies"
- Reply: Dan Bloomquist: "Re: Hydrogen Production Method Could Bolster Fuel Supplies"
- Reply: Alex Terrell: "Re: Hydrogen Production Method Could Bolster Fuel Supplies"
- Reply: Roland PJ: "Re: Hydrogen Production Method Could Bolster Fuel Supplies"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|