RUN CARS ON WATER

HYDROGEN IS COMPRESSED (STORED) IN WATER. YOU CAN CONVER WATER TO HYDROGEN UNDER TOUR VEHICLES'S HOOD USING ELECTROLISIS WITH THE EXISTING BATTERY AND ALTERNATOR SYSTEM. CARS RUN UP TO 100 MILES ON 2 OUNCES OF WATER. FREE YOURSELF FROM FORIGN OIL AND FILLING STATIONS...RUN YOUR CAR ON WATER!

WHAT DOES WATER COST???

LEO WELLS

Donal - there are 12 clickable tabs at the top of the advfn.com home page. FreBB is the 11th one.

EDF want more electric car charging points (3 March 2008)

Electricity giant EDF wants to see more car charging points installed on the streets of London following the mixed success of a scheme in Westminster.

Peter Thorn, head of innovation and partnerships, said the company believed the electric car market was going to grow significantly in the capital - particularly with the forthcoming release of new cars from Smart and Toyota.

EDF wants to install the infrastructure as quickly as possible before the market takes off, Mr Thorn told delegates at the Ecobuild exhibition in London.

The company joined forces with Elektromotive, a manufacturer of electric car chargers, last year to provide 250 car charging points to councils across the UK by the end of March...

(from a report today at www.edie.net)

Peddle your crackpottery somewhere else, Mr. Wells.

Alex - a little bit more from Renault today, re bringing EVs to market: "..the company is also working on the zero-emission electric car of the future using lithium ion batteries, which it hopes to commercialise between 2010 and 2012..."

http://cordis.europa.eu/fetch?CALLER=EN_NEWS&ACTION=D&SESSION=&RCN=29193

and this today which teasingly avoids naming the carmaker -

MATTHEWS, NC | Exopack Advanced Coatings has been awarded the business to supply critical current collectors for batteries designed to power a 100% electric car now under development by a European partnership. The joint venture plans to produce and deliver 20,000 of the emissions-free vehicles to buyers in Europe, Japan, and the United States by 2012.

Stan - Like Spinal Tap, I have eleven and none are FreeBB. Perhaps I have to register.

@ Administrator

LEO WELLS was funny the first time, but is getting tiring with the repeated posting of stupidity.
It is against your rules of being off topic, and of posting spam, and of being wild diversions, and of being insulting to anyone with even the slightest intelligence.

Can you do something?
Please?

GENTLEMEN, LADIES AND JOHN TAYLOR

JOHN, WHY ARE YOU BEING SO CRUDE AND VULGAR AND LETTING IT CLOUD YOUR JUDGEMENT.

FORD MARKETED A CAR IN THE EARLY 1900 THAT RAN ON THE HYDROGEN ELECTROLIZED FROM WATER IN THE CARBORATER RESIVOR TANK WITH LEADS FROM THE IGNITION AND A GROUND. IT FAILED BECAUSE IT WAS AHEAD OF IT'S TIME...12 VOLT SYSTEMS AND ALTERNATORS THAT CAN PRODUCE WHATEVER AMPERAGE YOU WISH AND CONDENSERS THAT KICK THE VOLTAGE ANYWEHERE YOU WANT IT WERE NOT AVAILABLE BACK THEN. BUT THEY RAN OK ON HYDROGEN BACK THEN.

WHY NOT BE OPEN MINDED AND HELP FIGURE HOW TO MAKE HYDROGEN ELECTROLIZED FROM WATER WORK IN TODAYS AUTOS BEFORE WE RUN OUT OF OIL. AS BRIGHT AS YOU APPEAR TO BE, YOU COULD PROBABLY SOLVE THE DELEMA OF USING WATER FOR FUEL INSTEAD OF OIL, MUCH QUICKER THAN I COULD...IF YOU JUST WANTED TOO DO IT.

LEO WELLS

The high losses (and consequent high energy costs) of electrolytic hydrogen have been well-documented, as have the weight and bulk of the storage tanks and the poor performance of piston engines on hydrogen.  This is in addition to the estimated infrastructure cost of $1 trillion to actually deliver hydrogen where needed.

If you are ignorant of this, Leo, it is your own fault.  Shouting in upper-case makes you look like a four-year-old throwing a tantrum because it's raining outside and you can't play on the swings.

The Hydrogen Highway is a cul-de-sac. Pursuing it for the next 20 or 30 years ensures that the current dominance of the infernal combustion engine is allowed to continue, with mere adjustments of its fuel mix, for two decades longer than it should.

Pursuit of a distant hydrogen fantasy suits the oil companies very nicely. Many do fall for it.

True. Not everyone is fooled by the hydrogen story - but many are. It is a fad which will fade, as soon as grants and public funding dry up and carmakers have to start spending their own money on it. At that point they will ditch it. BMW is among those already baccking away and hedging their bets by upping their interest in battery power as the alternative most likely to be marketable sooner. And once battery power does achieve critical market mass, hydrogen costs will look even more pointless.

"..Electric and other zero-emission vehicles are also getting a strong regulatory push from European countries and schemes like London’s congestion charging system, variants of which are being considered elsewhere. Renault and Nissan are developing an electric vehicle due to debut in 2011.."

(from a John Reed article in today's Financial Times, FT.com)

(around 70 cities across Europe are bringing in congestion-charging systems similar to that in London where zero-emission vehicles are exempt from charges)

I'll pipe in on hydrogen, as I worked in the industry for a few years.

First it must be recognized that hydrogen is a storage medium, not a fuel. It doesn't exist in nature. It has an escape velocity that allows it to exit out atmosphere if in H2 form. So it can be used to store energy and re-release it into energy in another form.

Most hydrogen made today is by reforming natural gas, at very high efficiency. It is also made commercially by electrolizing water, at over 85% efficient levels. Water can only be made into hydrogen by adding significant energy. This can also be done with certain algies, but this is experimental. There is a solar technology that is looking at going directly from photons to hydrogen, better efficiency than solar cells to electrolyzer. So when viewed as storage medium, it should be weighed against other storage methods.

It can be generated and reconverted to electricity at an input to output efficiency of about 50%. That is probably better than pumping water back up into resevoirs, spinning fly wheels, or other storage methods. It is probably not as good as charging and discharging batteries, but the ability to scale it is better. The storage capacity (amp-hrs) and delivery capacity (amps)are independant elements.

The reason it has attraction for automotive uses is once it is made, it is fairly portable and has a reasonable energy density, both by volume or by weight. Still, once in a vessel, it isn't close to gasoline. But it can be made from renewables if you can tolerate the efficiency. And when consumed has a friendly by product. But any analysis of hydrogen from a carbon footprint standpoint needs to include the generation method, which today is 95+% natural gas.

It needs to be considered one more tool in a larger scope of energy storage options. Burning hydrogen to propel a vehicle probably makes more sense than using it in a fuel cell, producing electriciy, inverting it to drive electric motors, and coupling it back to make wheels go around. The losses in the extra conversions will wipe out any savings, plus the extra complexity. Fuel cells are 60%, drives are 90%, motors 85%, and back to wheels. So the BMW demo of buring it in the ICE for propulsion and fuel cell for electical loads made a lot of sense.

Infrastructure is another whole issue, which I will pass on.

2000 Japanese families are using fuel cells in their homes in a combined heat and power configuration.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23451723/

They reform natural gas into hydrogen and imply that they have a gas shift reactor to turn CO into CO2 and make more H2. If this can be done in a small unit, I see no reason why it can not be done on cars.

My little Ford Festiva is only 3 or 4 feet longer than the Zecar...& looks similar. I've been comfortably driving it for 18 years & many people have wanted to buy it. If advanced electric storage units are long in coming or too expensive, I'll convert my Festiva to EV...with Pb-acids. An ICE to EV converter in the next town is now working on a vehicle to expand the range over his previous Pb-acid creations. Sure Pb-acids are old tech, but its pleasant to motor my Pb-acid electric bike thru town with less than 1/700th the pollution of ICE cars...& zero pollution within town itself(oh yeah, my region's electricity is generated w/little pollution).

I smell the ICE vehicles as the potential 110+MPH vehicles have to crawl past me in heavy traffic...or I pass them as I move up to the red stop light. Wish they were all EVs. People who think ICE doesn't pollute need to stand next to a stop light intersection for 10 years...or until they develop a lung or heart disease.

My finely generated electricity only needs a regular technology electric motor to power people down the road...now. That is superior to simplistic & presently unworkable hydrogen ideas.

EVs only need greater electric energy storage density to get better range...& quicker charge rates for convenience. But right now, EVs could stop the excess lung & heart disease of people who live next to freeways.

Many seem to be missing the point. Electricity is not zero emission. The energy to charge the battery has to come from somewhere and it is usually fossil fuel burned at the power station. Energy is lost in the power lines and transformers as heat. Converting energy from one form into another before using it wastes more energy and hence more fossil fuel is wasted. Electric cars can give a cleaner local environment and it can be argued that it is easier to control emission from a few points (powerstations) than from millions of engines but at the end of ths day you are still burning fossil fuel. Biofuels have take a hammering in the media due to surfeit of misinformation. The rising cost of food is given as a popular excuse to argue against biofuel but biodiesel can be made from waste veg oil (limited supply), bacterial conversion of biomass or from algal farms but it needs massive investment from governments to take the technology forwards. Deforestation for palm oil is given as a reason to not use some forms of biodiesel but only 0.7% !! of palm oil was used for fuel. The rest i.e 99.3% goes into your restaurants, food, suncreams, make up etc (and a massive increase in demand from India & China) but you dont see those getting hammered by the media do you? Most rainforest deforestation occurs because stores continue to import hardwood for garden furniture, board room desks etc. Little is done for biodiesel but having said that I am totally opposed to rainforest deforestation and dont want to see this done for biofuels or for any other reason and it doesnt need to happen. Western Europe was once covered by forests but our ancestors and us have cleared it for farming. We should stop pointing the finger at other countries and restore our own forests and use biomass as a fuel.
Biodiesel requires NO engine mods, dramatically reduces harmful emissions, is the easiest way forward but it needs firm political management and investment in biomass and algal technology. see www.oilgae.com for more info on its potential. Electric cars, lpg etc just masks the use of fossil fuel and does nothing to combat climate change. As for hydrogen, the energy content is so low that I can never see it becoming mainstream and again the energy for electrolysis has to come from somwhere - usually fossil fuel. As an island the UK has lots of wave energy but our Govt has chosen to invest in nuclear which leaves a legacy of radioactive waste for tens of thousands of years - it's complete madness.

Eric

Eric...Of course, electricity generation isn't pollution free. You lose points for pointing out the obvious.

My Northwest tho produces electricity Kilowatt to HP, at only 4% the pollution of individual ICE. That 4% is driven even lower with additional wind turbines that are coming on-line big time. & that sub 4% pollution level is driven even lower, when the electricity is used in an electric motor, a far more efficient motor than ICE. All other electric production regions can have our low pollution figures to shoot for with the adoption of renewable electric sources. You lose more points.

Electric motors produce motion near human beings at near-zero pollution. Children who play, school & live near freeways have greater lung & heart diseases, often ending in death. You lose more points.

ICE inefficiencies compared to electric motors, transportation of ICE fuels to gas stations & efficiencies of centralized electric production far surpass electric line & battery losses. You lose more points.

According to Prof. Mark Jacobsen on April 18, 2007 reported in GCC, bio-fuels are just as polluting or more so than gas engines. Again, you lose points.

We battled out the detrimental aspects of bio-fuels already on the article '36B Gallons of Biofuel'. Biofuels lost...lost...lost.

Let's work to raise electric energy storage densities way up, get electric charge times way down & EVs way many. Then ICE can die an economic death, & people can live. Long live EVs.

'Tis a pity that hydrogen is more efficient when used in a piston engine than when used within a fuel cell to provide electricity -- as the piston engine is a complex anachronism that is surely doomed. Who needs anything so complex? With so many parts and add-ons?

In this day and age, is there anty point spending another 10 or 20 years or more developing ways of using hydrogen in combustion engines, and spending millions in setting up the infrastructure need to serve them?

The simplicity of the battery powered electric motor is surely going to win. Now that it is being taken seriously enough to have won the attention of so many interested parties, all vying to reach the mainstream market first, the whol;e issue of what to fuel combustion engines with becomes increasingly pointless. Why waste so much time effort and money desparately trying to keep yesterday's technology alive beyond its use-by date?

'Tis a pity that hydrogen is more efficient when used in a piston engine than when used within a fuel cell to provide electricity

EP - spin back to the final paragraph of that posting at 6:53 on March 4, which appears to make a not wholly dissimilar case. I was basing my comments on something a BMW spokesmen said about why they favoured hydrogen combustion rather than fuel cells in a particular model. I accept that I may have misunderstood him but I'll see if I can track down the interview so that others can make their own interpretation.

I wouldn't count on a BMW spokesman to have all his facts right.  Combustion engines are going to be a lot cheaper, but more efficient?  With the inherent entropy increases, and heat losses?  Be very skeptical.

Hi Engineer-Poet....Once electric motors are made in the quantities of ICE, will they still be a lot more expensive? I don't know the economics.

Some types of motors (e.g. induction motors) are already much cheaper (because simpler) than engines of similar power, and the drive electronics are getting there.  The issue is the source of electricity.

Hi Engineer-Poet...Oh, the electricity! That is why I've been so excited about my Northwest's hydro power & its continueing investment in renewable energy sources. The present efficient wind turbines are here. The decreased construction costs & increased efficiency of solar cells, & new tidal & wave energy techniques with concerted efforts are on the seeable horizon. Tho our NW, parts of Canada, Iceland, & some northern European nations have a head start, many other electric utilities around the world can have renewable electricity in their grasps.

What scares me most are China's & India's plans for massive quantities of coal-fired powerplants. Even with U.S. technology for 'cleaner' coal techiques, such vast plans bode ill for Asian health & to a bit lesser extent, our own health.