Jay Leno's Hydrogen Car


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Jay Leno's Hydrogen Car

1 · 2 · 3 · Next
Author Message
Profile Chris Moats
Send message
Joined: 29 Dec 99
Posts: 236
Credit: 1,151,643
RAC: 14
United States
Message 800493 - Posted: 21 Aug 2008, 19:23:32 UTC

This is a cool link showing Jay Leno's BMW Hydrogen car: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHbaOX2UAs0

I think this is neat. Also the best way to convert cars now is to have them beable to run both ways. That way we can use gas until there is hydro stations.

Chris.
____________

Profile StormKing
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 6 Nov 00
Posts: 456
Credit: 2,887,579
RAC: 0
United States
Message 800503 - Posted: 21 Aug 2008, 20:12:07 UTC - in response to Message 800493.

I think this is neat. Also the best way to convert cars now is to have them beable to run both ways. That way we can use gas until there is hydro stations.

Chris.


Before we can run cars on H, we first need an environmentally friendly and cost effective way of producing it.

Hydrogen can be prepared in several different ways, but economically the most important processes involve removal of hydrogen from hydrocarbons. Commercial bulk hydrogen is usually produced by the steam reforming of natural gas. At high temperatures (700–1100 °C; 1,300–2,000 °F), steam (water vapor) reacts with methane to yield carbon monoxide and H2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen#cite_note-69

Our current estimate for the cost of hydrogen from
a solar driven hybrid sulfur cycle is $3.90-$4.90/gasoline
gallon equivalent (gge). Our current estimate for the
cost of hydrogen from the zinc oxide cycle is $4.60-
$6.85/gge. Additional research as well as process and
plant optimization are being done to confirm these early
cost estimates and to develop improved technology to
meet the DOE targets.
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/progress07/ii_f_1_perret.pdf
____________

Profile Chris Moats
Send message
Joined: 29 Dec 99
Posts: 236
Credit: 1,151,643
RAC: 14
United States
Message 800509 - Posted: 21 Aug 2008, 20:26:59 UTC

yep. There a lot of problems with it. But still a very cool video in my opinion. The fact that the user can switch between Hydrogen and Gas.

Thanks for the very detailed reply.

Chris.
____________

MrGray
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 05
Posts: 3177
Credit: 60,411
RAC: 0
United States
Message 800625 - Posted: 22 Aug 2008, 2:16:22 UTC
Last modified: 22 Aug 2008, 2:17:42 UTC

Problems?

http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/h2.htm


The basic system consists of two parts, the Hydrogen fuel system in your vehicle, and a Hydrogen generating system that remains in your garage. The Hydrogen generator is either powered by Solar electric panels or a wind turbine set-up, either of which makes Hydrogen fuel at virtually no cost.


.
____________
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Profile StormKing
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 6 Nov 00
Posts: 456
Credit: 2,887,579
RAC: 0
United States
Message 800794 - Posted: 22 Aug 2008, 13:41:25 UTC - in response to Message 800625.
Last modified: 22 Aug 2008, 13:41:55 UTC

Problems?

http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/h2.htm


The basic system consists of two parts, the Hydrogen fuel system in your vehicle, and a Hydrogen generating system that remains in your garage. The Hydrogen generator is either powered by Solar electric panels or a wind turbine set-up, either of which makes Hydrogen fuel at virtually no cost.


.


Sounds like a great idea but it will be a while before we can create hydrogen "at virtually no cost". It would be a good idea to make this a reality because of the cost and environmental savings.
____________

MrGray
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 05
Posts: 3177
Credit: 60,411
RAC: 0
United States
Message 800796 - Posted: 22 Aug 2008, 13:43:17 UTC - in response to Message 800794.

Problems?

http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/h2.htm


The basic system consists of two parts, the Hydrogen fuel system in your vehicle, and a Hydrogen generating system that remains in your garage. The Hydrogen generator is either powered by Solar electric panels or a wind turbine set-up, either of which makes Hydrogen fuel at virtually no cost.


.


Sounds like a great idea but it will be a while before we can create hydrogen "at virtually no cost". It would be a good idea to make this a reality because of the cost and environmental savings.



The blue lettering indicates a hyperlink you can click to go to a website selling these units right this very moment.


.
____________
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Profile StormKing
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 6 Nov 00
Posts: 456
Credit: 2,887,579
RAC: 0
United States
Message 800802 - Posted: 22 Aug 2008, 13:53:42 UTC - in response to Message 800796.

Problems?

http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/h2.htm


The basic system consists of two parts, the Hydrogen fuel system in your vehicle, and a Hydrogen generating system that remains in your garage. The Hydrogen generator is either powered by Solar electric panels or a wind turbine set-up, either of which makes Hydrogen fuel at virtually no cost.


.


Sounds like a great idea but it will be a while before we can create hydrogen "at virtually no cost". It would be a good idea to make this a reality because of the cost and environmental savings.



The blue lettering indicates a hyperlink you can click to go to a website selling these units right this very moment.


.


Just because it is on a website, does not meat it is true. Creating hydrogen with electricity at this point is expensive an inefficient.

____________

MrGray
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 05
Posts: 3177
Credit: 60,411
RAC: 0
United States
Message 800810 - Posted: 22 Aug 2008, 14:10:41 UTC - in response to Message 800802.

Problems?

http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/h2.htm


The basic system consists of two parts, the Hydrogen fuel system in your vehicle, and a Hydrogen generating system that remains in your garage. The Hydrogen generator is either powered by Solar electric panels or a wind turbine set-up, either of which makes Hydrogen fuel at virtually no cost.


.


Sounds like a great idea but it will be a while before we can create hydrogen "at virtually no cost". It would be a good idea to make this a reality because of the cost and environmental savings.



The blue lettering indicates a hyperlink you can click to go to a website selling these units right this very moment.


.


Just because it is on a website, does not meat it is true. Creating hydrogen with electricity at this point is expensive an inefficient.



Sounds like you need to email the makers to be able to back up that claim.
____________
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Profile StormKing
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 6 Nov 00
Posts: 456
Credit: 2,887,579
RAC: 0
United States
Message 800811 - Posted: 22 Aug 2008, 14:16:15 UTC - in response to Message 800810.



Sounds like you need to email the makers to be able to back up that claim.


Or you should do a little research...

The energy efficiency of water electrolysis varies widely. The efficiency is a measure of what fraction of electrical energy used is actually contained within the hydrogen. Some of the electrical energy is converted to heat, a useless by-product. Some reports quote efficiencies between 50% and 70%[1] This efficiency is based on the Lower Heating Value of Hydrogen. The Lower Heating Value of Hydrogen is total thermal energy released when hydrogen is combusted minus the latent heat of vaporisation of the water. This does not represent the total amount of energy within the hydrogen, hence the efficiency is lower than a more strict definition. Other reports quote the theoretical maximum efficiency of electrolysis as being between 80% and 94%.[2]. The theoretical maximum considers the total amount of energy absorbed by both the hydrogen and oxygen. These values refer only to the efficiency of converting electrical energy into hydrogen's chemical energy. The energy lost in generating the electricity is not included. For instance, when considering a power plant that converts the heat of nuclear reactions into hydrogen via electrolysis, the total efficiency is more likely to be between 25% and 40%.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis

I am not posting an article pertaining to the cost of solar cells and wind turbines; they are both very expensive (currently).
____________

MrGray
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 05
Posts: 3177
Credit: 60,411
RAC: 0
United States
Message 800815 - Posted: 22 Aug 2008, 14:28:43 UTC - in response to Message 800811.



Sounds like you need to email the makers to be able to back up that claim.


Or you should do a little research...

The energy efficiency of water electrolysis varies widely. The efficiency is a measure of what fraction of electrical energy used is actually contained within the hydrogen. Some of the electrical energy is converted to heat, a useless by-product. Some reports quote efficiencies between 50% and 70%[1] This efficiency is based on the Lower Heating Value of Hydrogen. The Lower Heating Value of Hydrogen is total thermal energy released when hydrogen is combusted minus the latent heat of vaporisation of the water. This does not represent the total amount of energy within the hydrogen, hence the efficiency is lower than a more strict definition. Other reports quote the theoretical maximum efficiency of electrolysis as being between 80% and 94%.[2]. The theoretical maximum considers the total amount of energy absorbed by both the hydrogen and oxygen. These values refer only to the efficiency of converting electrical energy into hydrogen's chemical energy. The energy lost in generating the electricity is not included. For instance, when considering a power plant that converts the heat of nuclear reactions into hydrogen via electrolysis, the total efficiency is more likely to be between 25% and 40%.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis

I am not posting an article pertaining to the cost of solar cells and wind turbines; they are both very expensive (currently).



You could have emailed them rather than running a wiki search ending in the same old excuses via the same old mode of thought.

Coal and oil forever?
____________
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Profile StormKing
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 6 Nov 00
Posts: 456
Credit: 2,887,579
RAC: 0
United States
Message 800818 - Posted: 22 Aug 2008, 14:43:59 UTC - in response to Message 800815.
Last modified: 22 Aug 2008, 14:44:25 UTC



Sounds like you need to email the makers to be able to back up that claim.


Or you should do a little research...

The energy efficiency of water electrolysis varies widely. The efficiency is a measure of what fraction of electrical energy used is actually contained within the hydrogen. Some of the electrical energy is converted to heat, a useless by-product. Some reports quote efficiencies between 50% and 70%[1] This efficiency is based on the Lower Heating Value of Hydrogen. The Lower Heating Value of Hydrogen is total thermal energy released when hydrogen is combusted minus the latent heat of vaporisation of the water. This does not represent the total amount of energy within the hydrogen, hence the efficiency is lower than a more strict definition. Other reports quote the theoretical maximum efficiency of electrolysis as being between 80% and 94%.[2]. The theoretical maximum considers the total amount of energy absorbed by both the hydrogen and oxygen. These values refer only to the efficiency of converting electrical energy into hydrogen's chemical energy. The energy lost in generating the electricity is not included. For instance, when considering a power plant that converts the heat of nuclear reactions into hydrogen via electrolysis, the total efficiency is more likely to be between 25% and 40%.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis

I am not posting an article pertaining to the cost of solar cells and wind turbines; they are both very expensive (currently).



You could have emailed them rather than running a wiki search ending in the same old excuses via the same old mode of thought.

Coal and oil forever?


LOL ... I already said it was a good idea, I'm just pointing out that producing hydrogen at little or no cost is a little optomistic... instaed we should use the same electricity produced by solar and wind to charge electric cars; which is much more efficient. No, I will not email them. I donn't care what they claim on their website.
____________

MrGray
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 05
Posts: 3177
Credit: 60,411
RAC: 0
United States
Message 800819 - Posted: 22 Aug 2008, 14:52:56 UTC

How much do you pay for gas a year?

If you don't care why post opinions here?
____________
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Profile William Rothamel
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 2598
Credit: 1,180,227
RAC: 46
United States
Message 800826 - Posted: 22 Aug 2008, 15:26:47 UTC

Missing the point here a little:

Hydrogen powered cars either via a fuel cell or direct combustion may turn out to be a good alternative-at least till battery technology takes a further evolutionary advantage. It seems to me the Hydrogen would have to be produced in bulk at massive plants and then distributed just like gasoline--the idea that we could carry around this apparatus in each vehicle will prove to be unsound thinking.

The real point here is ? where are we going to get the energy to produce the hydrogen in the first place. This will take massive amounts of electricity--and don't forget we will get back far less energy when we "Burn" the hydrogen to power our vehicles. In my opinion this should come from dozens of new nuclear plants that need to be brought on line in 5 years--not 10 or 20 years. TVA has raised their rates just now by 20% (how's that for inflation) they are paying more to transport coal and HYDRO is down due to less rain than usual.

A national project --a la the Interstate system needs to be undertaken NOW.

Bill

MrGray
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 05
Posts: 3177
Credit: 60,411
RAC: 0
United States
Message 800895 - Posted: 22 Aug 2008, 19:30:48 UTC - in response to Message 800826.

Missing the point here a little:

Hydrogen powered cars either via a fuel cell or direct combustion may turn out to be a good alternative-at least till battery technology takes a further evolutionary advantage. It seems to me the Hydrogen would have to be produced in bulk at massive plants and then distributed just like gasoline--the idea that we could carry around this apparatus in each vehicle will prove to be unsound thinking.

The real point here is ? where are we going to get the energy to produce the hydrogen in the first place. This will take massive amounts of electricity--and don't forget we will get back far less energy when we "Burn" the hydrogen to power our vehicles. In my opinion this should come from dozens of new nuclear plants that need to be brought on line in 5 years--not 10 or 20 years. TVA has raised their rates just now by 20% (how's that for inflation) they are paying more to transport coal and HYDRO is down due to less rain than usual.

A national project --a la the Interstate system needs to be undertaken NOW.

Bill



Jeez,

I guess people just don't read the posts here and fall back on the same old speeches.

gg
____________
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Profile William Rothamel
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 2598
Credit: 1,180,227
RAC: 46
United States
Message 800972 - Posted: 22 Aug 2008, 21:27:07 UTC - in response to Message 800895.
Last modified: 22 Aug 2008, 21:28:57 UTC

Missing the point here a little:

Hydrogen powered cars either via a fuel cell or direct combustion may turn out to be a good alternative-at least till battery technology takes a further evolutionary advantage. It seems to me the Hydrogen would have to be produced in bulk at massive plants and then distributed just like gasoline--the idea that we could carry around this apparatus in each vehicle will prove to be unsound thinking.

The real point here is ? where are we going to get the energy to produce the hydrogen in the first place. This will take massive amounts of electricity--and don't forget we will get back far less energy when we "Burn" the hydrogen to power our vehicles. In my opinion this should come from dozens of new nuclear plants that need to be brought on line in 5 years--not 10 or 20 years. TVA has raised their rates just now by 20% (how's that for inflation) they are paying more to transport coal and HYDRO is down due to less rain than usual.

A national project --a la the Interstate system needs to be undertaken NOW.

Bill




Jeez,

I guess people just don't read the posts here and fall back on the same old speeches.

gg


Well you may be right about the same old rhetoric--reason is: the fundamental laws rarely change and then only with new science-Wishing and hoping won't change the foundations of Physics or logic.

What should change is the reliance on oil for our exclusive transportation needs--that's where the new rhetoric should be focused. We don't need to change economic theory or the 2nd law of thermodynamics --just some engineering type of thinking on how to solve the current problem with oil from Unstable regions where people want to kill us and would gladly wreck our economy first.

Cheers !!

MrGray
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 05
Posts: 3177
Credit: 60,411
RAC: 0
United States
Message 800997 - Posted: 22 Aug 2008, 22:01:21 UTC

Yet no one looks at the data, no matter what reason is given for needing alt's.
____________
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Profile William Rothamel
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 2598
Credit: 1,180,227
RAC: 46
United States
Message 801233 - Posted: 23 Aug 2008, 10:40:34 UTC - in response to Message 800997.

Yet no one looks at the data, no matter what reason is given for needing alt's.


GM makes this car --right?

They are most certainly looking at the data--And-the data must tell them that this car is not an answer to energy independence right now. This is probably due to excessively high costs to produce this vehicle and of very limited availability of hydrogen fill-up stations-especially outside of the Los Angeles area. This could change but I think that electric cars with batteries and a small engine to take over when the range is exceeded will win out over hydrogen. Sort of like the Chevy "Volt" only at lower cost and greater range than the Volt.


MrGray
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 05
Posts: 3177
Credit: 60,411
RAC: 0
United States
Message 801278 - Posted: 23 Aug 2008, 15:19:32 UTC - in response to Message 801233.

Yet no one looks at the data, no matter what reason is given for needing alt's.


GM makes this car --right?

They are most certainly looking at the data--And-the data must tell them that this car is not an answer to energy independence right now. This is probably due to excessively high costs to produce this vehicle and of very limited availability of hydrogen fill-up stations-especially outside of the Los Angeles area. This could change but I think that electric cars with batteries and a small engine to take over when the range is exceeded will win out over hydrogen. Sort of like the Chevy "Volt" only at lower cost and greater range than the Volt.





Forget batteries:

http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/h2.htm
____________
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Profile Jeffrey
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 03
Posts: 4793
Credit: 26,029
RAC: 0
Message 801315 - Posted: 23 Aug 2008, 17:04:48 UTC - in response to Message 801233.

This is probably due to excessively high costs to produce this vehicle

My whole life people have told me to 'think big'... and I'm now gonna tell them, 'you think too big'... ;)

(Gee, let's spend 50k on a new car so we can save a buck or two at the pump... That's just ASININE!)
____________
It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Profile Stealth Eagle*
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 7 Sep 00
Posts: 5971
Credit: 156,685
RAC: 0
United States
Message 801316 - Posted: 23 Aug 2008, 17:19:35 UTC

Has anyone looked at the cost of replacement batteries? The last quote I heard was in the $8,000 range. If you consider the life of the battery used in the hybrids which is roughly 150,000 miles or 241,401 kilometers, there is not much savings going on there. The cost for replacement works out to be $18.75 per mile.
____________




What you do today you will have to live with tonight

1 · 2 · 3 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Jay Leno's Hydrogen Car

Copyright © 2014 University of California