Chemical Forums
General Forums => Generic Discussion => Topic started by: P-man on April 26, 2006, 06:24:56 PM
-
I personally go with hydrogen fuel cells :D.
-
mini nuclear reactor?
-
Not really. Absolutely safe, absolutely non-polluting, absolutely the Gasoline ICE replacement.
-
I voted for hydrogen fuel cells as well. I don't see hydrogen combustion chambers as very promising, and the end of cars would come in the way of globalization. I also haven't seen much research on the use of bikes as an alternative fuel.
-
Bikes, woohoo!
-
Hydrogen fuel cells :P
-
How about an engine using antimatter for fuel?
Look up a quasiturbine engine. It's an interesting new design that reworks the internal combustion engine.
-
What's antimatter?
-
anyone read dan brown's "demon and angels"?
antimatter is mentioned at the back of the novel. LOL.
P-man: wiki for antimatter :P
-
I've read Angels and Demons by Dan Brown. It's a good book. I haven't read the Da Vinchi Code though.
P-man, antimatter is the opposite as matter. By opposite I mean the charges are opposite. When the 2 touch each other the completely destroy each other. If only it was produceable in a high quantity it may be good for an electricity source. Definately Wiki it though or even google would help.
-
since antimatter doesnt occur in nature(or present in minute amounts in space), we have to manufacture the particles artificially, and that involves ALOT of energy, possibly way more than the annihilation of matter and antimatter can produce. for that reason, antimatter is only produced in laboratories for studies.
furthermore, storage is a huge problem; antimatter is held in check by strong magnetic/electric fields that prevent it from flying off, and that requires alot of energy too.
-
Your right about energy consumption xiankai. I've only heard of it being made in a particle accelerator. Other than that I don't know how it's made. You also have to store it in a vacuum.
I'm definately for working on fusion power. If only we had robots that could work day and night building things and doing our work...
-
We could actually build 3litre cars (for the amercians: fuel usage per 100km) with more than 150HP, if we increase the combustion temperature and pressure. Yet, we still don't produce them, because requirements for the materials are quite high (titanium ligations, etc.).
I've also seen people running their diesel-cars with bona oil (brand of sunflower oil in Austria) - IIrc it was a VW Golf III, with some minor adjustments in the amount of fuel injection.
-
How about the Flubble Car? (starring Robbin Williams)
-
Wassat?
Oh, and H Fuel Cells are still winning...
-
Wasn't the movie called Flubber? That's a really old movie. Imagine if some one invented it in real life. I'd be in the market to buy some.
-
Alcohol is the most practical replacement so far. There is actually 85% alcohol, 15% hydrocarbon mixture aviable as gasoline replacement. It's called E85 and it's suitable with most modern cars with little alterations. Hydrogen ICE and hydrogen fuel cells will have to wait until the problems with storaging hydrogen has been solved. IMHO pressurized tank is too much of a risk since there are still people who crash their cars.
-
IMHO pressurized tank is too much of a risk since there are still people who crash their cars.
Or other people who trash their cars...
-
I thought of it but it's a fuel, not a new engine type. I could have done a list like this:
Hydrogen
Ethanol
Biodesiel
Other Alcohols
Electricity
-
There has been a lot of talk about fuels that are mainly grain alcohol. Right now the worry seams to be not enough supply for the demand. I don't how factual that is though.
If the U.S. Midwest can ramp up grain production and subsequently it's ethanol production I think that alcohol-hydrocarbon mixtures will start to be more prominent in the U.S. probably (hopefully). It will be interesting to see what happens in the next couple of years.
Maybe some engineers will figure out a good way to store hydrogen and be able to fill the tank fast..
-
The ethanol fuel produced from corn is, in my opinion, not a viable option for an alternative fuel. As constant thinker mentioned, there is not enough supply for the demand. Currently, producing the ethanol to provide 1.3% of the total energy used by the transportation sector requires 3.3 million hectares and 14% of the country’s corn production. Furthermore, because corn is an important source of feed for livestock, critics of ethanol fuel claim that fuel ethanol production is raising the price of meat, milk, and eggs in the US.
However, the most damning argument against fuel ethanol is that it takes a great input of energy to produce ethanol. As chemists, we should alll know that producing the 99.5% pure ethanol needed for fuel ethanol (so that the water doesn't cause the ethanol to separate from the gasoline in a gasohol mixture) from the 8% ethanol solution produced by yeast requires multiple distillation steps, which requires large amounts of heat. The distillation and other steps are so energy intensive that experts estimate the input energy is somewhere between 80-130% of the energy contained in the ethanol produced. So, using pessimistic estimates, you actually lose energy by producing ethanol. Because the energy used in the production of ethanol comes from power plants which burn fossil fuels (mostly methane), ethanol produced from corn does not reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by much (in fact, similar reductions in greenhouse gas emissions could be achieved by switching to gas-electric hybrid technology). Balanced against these moderate reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, however, is air and water pollution produced by the biorefineries and distilleries producing ethanol.
Ethanol produced from cellulose solves some of these problems because cellulosic ethanol uses agricultural wastes as feedstock. Indeed, BP estimates that cellulosic ethanol could meet 30% of fuel demand without affecting food production. However, cellulosic ethanol does not solve the fundamental problems of the energy requirements, nor does it solve the problems of the pollution from biorefineries. With cellulosic ethanol, although the yield of sugars is theoretically higher since plants contain much more cellulose than starch, problems arise with breaking down the ethanol into simple sugars (glucose) for the yeast ferment (since yeast cannot ferment cellulose). The costly breakdown steps partly counter any increases in energy efficiency gained from the higher yield of ethanol.
There are some solutions to these problems, such as genetically engineering yeast to withstand higher concentrations of ethanol or engineering enzymes to allow the more efficient hydrolysis of cellulose, but, like hydrogen fuel cell technologies, these technologies require more decades before they can reach the marketplace.
-
Another plan I heard was replacing MTBE (methyl tert-butyl ether) with ethanol. I don't know if it's happened and haven't found any articles on it other than a short snippet that told me about the idea.
To me this is makes plenty of sense seeing as MTBE is a carcinogen.
Yggdrasil, I most definately agree with you. Electric-gas hybrids will probably be the way of the future until hydrogen or some other fuel source delivers the world from it's oil addiction. When gas prices first shot up (in the U.S.), I remember hearing about shortages of the Toyate Prius and people being put on waiting as long a year in some places.
-
Why were they using their cars, then?
-
Replacing MTBE with ethanol would definitely be a good way to stimulate growth and investment in the biofuels industry. I believe California has already introduced legislation to phase out MTBE, so ethanol will definitely be poised to replace MTBE there (plus I think CA also has incentives and subsidies for using ethanol anyway). While I support replacing MTBE with ethanol, people should realize that ethanol costs much more than MTBE. This means government subsidies (i.e. taxpayer money) is going to the agricultural sector to produce this ethanol for gasoline. I personally think that phasing out such a permeating chemical contaminant is worth the funding, but others disagree.
-
The distillation and other steps are so energy intensive that experts estimate the input energy is somewhere between 80-130% of the energy contained in the ethanol produced. So, using pessimistic estimates, you actually lose energy by producing ethanol.
That's not only distillation - you have to use a lot of fuel at field to grow and harvest plants. Perhaps Geo or Eugene will be able to comment futher - AFAIR from my technology classes distillation is not as energy consuming as it is commonly believed, as most of the heat can be reused.
-
This might be a viable choice (http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation/)
LOL. It will definitely be faster than a ferrari..
-
hah, now we need to wait for the 9.99 x 1040
other particles to arrive :D
-
Here's an interesting academic exercise. How many miles per gallon do you need to obtain from a machine to overcome the differential in the respiration rate of a human. For example, let's say you need to get from point A to point B and it is 80 miles away. If you ride a bicycle, you're respiration rate will likely increase significantly (perhaps 2-3 fold) during the trip and hence CO2 will be expelled. If you ride a machine, you're CO2 will be at a steady state but the machine will be using fuel. What fuel efficiency is required to become more efficient than a person's biochemical energy?
-
You may assume burning about 500 kcal per hour (http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/calories.php?WeightPounds=&WeightKg=60&exertype=bicycling&minutes=60&highcal=0&order=NAME) when biking :) compared to 130 kcal per hour (http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/calories.php?WeightPounds=&WeightKg=60&exertype=transportation&minutes=60&highcal=0&order=NAME) if you drive car by yourself.
-
mini nuclear reactor?
this one gets my vote. everything else doesn't have enough power to weight potential to put a smile on my face like a gasoline engine can. ;)
-
I agree, the mini nuclear reactor does sound like an interesting option.
I love gasoline engines but their inefficiency is SOO annoying.
I think we overhaul the entire transportation system. Make roads straight so...
We make cars big enough to fit a small rocket engine in it and run vehicles on a Hydrogen Oxygen reaction. It is highly renewable and cheaper. Plus it'll give you a rush you'll never believe.
We just need to make a few adjustments to road and teach people how to drive these new cars.
-
We just need to make a few adjustments to road and teach people how to drive these new cars.
man, people barely know how to drive right now, you give them a car with a small rocket engine and there would be more wrecks than now. people with their suv's think they own the road.
-
We just need to make a few adjustments to road and teach people how to drive these new cars.
man, people barely know how to drive right now, you give them a car with a small rocket engine and there would be more wrecks than now. people with their suv's think they own the road.
then vote for bikes or the end of cars :D
-
then vote for bikes or the end of cars :D
bikes are no fun. the end of cars would be the end of the world, that is a huge market, and a huge part of our economy.
-
bikes are no fun.
I like bikes and think they are fun :)
the end of cars would be the end of the world,
LOL :D
I presume this is sarcasm ;)
-
cars are seriously a large market. without the ability to travel long distances, then other markets would die down. cars are the basis of everything that has to do with the city.
-
cars are seriously a large market. without the ability to travel long distances, then other markets would die down. cars are the basis of everything that has to do with the city.
I agree, but this does not equate to the end of the world. Maybe the slowing of consumerism, greed, war etc etc... ::)
-
cars are seriously a large market. without the ability to travel long distances, then other markets would die down. cars are the basis of everything that has to do with the city.
I agree, but this does not equate to the end of the world. Maybe the slowing of consumerism, greed, war etc etc... ::)
if cars didn't die out gradually then we would have severe problems. i don't know about you but i love driving.
-
I don't mind driving. I used to like it a lot more, but since my current job requires about an hour drive to get to work and an hour drive to get home it is a bit over rated now ;)
-
I don't mind driving. I used to like it a lot more, but since my current job requires about an hour drive to get to work and an hour drive to get home it is a bit over rated now ;)
yeah, driving to work isn't very fun, and there are only a few open twisty roads left.
-
I agree, the mini nuclear reactor does sound like an interesting option.
I love gasoline engines but their inefficiency is SOO annoying.
I think we overhaul the entire transportation system. Make roads straight so...
We make cars big enough to fit a small rocket engine in it and run vehicles on a Hydrogen Oxygen reaction. It is highly renewable and cheaper. Plus it'll give you a rush you'll never believe.
We just need to make a few adjustments to road and teach people how to drive these new cars.
.. that would be an interesting experience.... but not necessarily cheap and think about the range. That and you need to find a way to drive enough Oxygen to allow the vehicle to work.
I voted for fuel cell vehicles though i am not to certain of their current applications. I am aware of a fuel cell bike that has a 200 mile range on i think it was 10 oz. of hydrogen. it has a 1 kilowatt nanofuel cell with a speed of 50 mph. really really light. should be out in the market on June or July in California (they have hydrogen pumps, according to what i have read). either way, i do not see the application of hydrogen fuel cell cars in the future. they require a large base, and large amounts of oxygen, but the amount of electric power that they generate (the prototype built by GM which costs around $5 million) is astonishing.
a hydrogen car can be built now for about $350,000, and the reason is storage and the cost of the precious metals used in the fuel cell systems themselves. the costs of a fuel cell has to decrease to $50 per kilowatt before it is competitive with the current automotive market and its currently at $1000 per kilowatt(may be achieved with advanced in nanotechnology or if an alternative catalysts other than platinum is found).
the advantage to this technology is that it will end dependance on oil or really any company for good. since it is possible to generate the fuel to power such a vehicle in your own home, probably attach some solar panels to drive forth the process of electrolysis. if on-board generation were possible to that would have little weight and would generate hydrogen in considerable amounts of pressure to generate the power necessary to power a car then i think that a fuel cell vehicles would have a strong market, now that the problems of storage would be solved and the range should be really really considerable. my Solar Energy teacher once told me that the fuel cell that i had, a single cell, if provided by 1 Liter of water would run a very small engine from Miami to New York and back before the water was finished.
that and fuel cells are the closest method of generating electricity i have ever seen, generating electricity in the ranges of 95-99% efficiency for a PEM fuel cell.
I think that the brighest future is seen in another kind of alternative fuel. perhaps Ethanol, some technology has been seen in this field, such as bacteria that dissintigrate organic materials into proof-199 ethanol that is able to be used on vehicles.
-
the mini nuclear reactor is clearly the best option. it gives off the most power, has the most potential, however, we only need a way to harness that much power, or convert it to a micro-scale. maybe a nuclear submarine type device only miniature.
-
Biodiesel
Quite agressive stuff - attacks all gaskets.
-
Imagine every car on the road with a mini-nuclear reactor in it. I think we'd of hit nuclear armageddon by now. ;)
I like driving on empty back roads. No cops and lots of turns = fun. I've been playing Gran Turismo games since I was like 8. I treat turns as if I were racing usually.
I bet within the next 10-15 years we may start to see hydrogen fuel cell cars come down to semi-reasonable prices. By that I mean like $30-50K USD. Then the prices will just continue to drop until they're reasonable for the average person to by.
I think the biggest hurdle to getting people to switch to hydrogen, U.S. atleast, will be acceptance of a vehicle with less power in some cases. I love V8 engines personally although they're pigs on gas.
-
im a fan of four cylinders. probably because i drive one :P but it does get 25 mpg even the way i drive, i have a very heavy foot. no, i don't slow down for turns.
I like driving on empty back roads. No cops and lots of turns = fun. I've been playing Gran Turismo games since I was like 8. I treat turns as if I were racing usually.
what kind of car do you drive?
-
A Nissan Altima.
-
Young, inexperienced drivers suck!
-
A Nissan Altima.
ooooh, nice, those are really nice cars.Young, inexperienced drivers suck!
not all of them, but a majority do suck. there are older drivers who are almost as bad though, with all their cell phones and the even older ones who can't see and have shot reflexes.
-
im a fan of four cylinders. probably because i drive one :P but it does get 25 mpg even the way i drive, i have a very heavy foot. no, i don't slow down for turns.
this is on empty roads by the way, with no one around, so the only one i could hurt would be myself if something went bad.
-
not all of them, but a majority do suck. there are older drivers who are almost as bad though, with all their cell phones and the even older ones who can't see and have shot reflexes.
Yes I agree there are bad drivers of all ages etc etc. I am of the opinion that there is never a justifiable time to do anything but drive on the road; no speeding, no racing, no burnouts etc etc
this is on empty roads by the way, with no one around, so the only one i could hurt would be myself if something went bad.
I understand your sentiment, however, don't forget that in a lot of countries even the people who only hurt themselves still impact on the rest of us. Think about insurance premiums, tax payer money which may pay for your hospitalisation, rehabilitation etc etc this money could be going to people who really need it and not to those who hurt themselves clowning around on the road.
Driving is not a right, it should be a privilige. :)
-
i hate street racers with a passion. it is fun to go fast every once in a while though. i pay insurance, it's not like i will get free health care if i wreck. ;)
-
I once went 300km/hr in a 993 turbo porsche.
Here you will get treated in hospital regardless and someone will look after you (well that is the theory, not alsways for everyone though) and I am all for this, I don't mind paying for people who are hurt or unemployed.
-
the mini nuclear reactor is clearly the best option. it gives off the most power, has the most potential, however, we only need a way to harness that much power, or convert it to a micro-scale. maybe a nuclear submarine type device only miniature.
having that much power would be amazing but i think the hardest part, even harder than harnessing that much energy, would be getting the public to approve of it. People already tend to be very dismissal when they here the word nuclear or, god forbid, nucular. Something tells me Americans aren't going to like the idea of driving on what they can only think of to be a mini A-bomb. Maybe if you came up with a tricky name and never let Bush talk about it, it could pass under the nation's radar.
-
I once went 300km/hr in a 993 turbo porsche.
Here you will get treated in hospital regardless and someone will look after you (well that is the theory, not alsways for everyone though) and I am all for this, I don't mind paying for people who are hurt or unemployed.
what country are you in?
-
having that much power would be amazing but i think the hardest part, even harder than harnessing that much energy, would be getting the public to approve of it. People already tend to be very dismissal when they here the word nuclear or, god forbid, nucular. Something tells me Americans aren't going to like the idea of driving on what they can only think of to be a mini A-bomb. Maybe if you came up with a tricky name and never let Bush talk about it, it could pass under the nation's radar.
nucular. hahahahaha. :P the public doesn't know nuclear power is safer and more efficient and not harmful compared to coal or petrol. :P
-
Australia.
Aussie, Aussie, Aussie!!!!
Oi!! Oi!! Oi!!
-
Australia.
that explains why you're not an idiot like so many americans. i new you weren't from america when i read your posts. ;)
-
I don't think you're making yourself friends with such statements, mrdeadman. Considering that this forum is run by a californian ... nice trip, see you next fall ;D
-
Do we have any Germans here?
I want to drive on the autobahn (sorry if it's not spelt right) really badly. My cousin plays soccer in Germany. He says he loves the autobahn, and there are fewer bad drivers in Germany than in America.
P.S. I added something to the subject.
-
I don't think you're making yourself friends with such statements, mrdeadman. Considering that this forum is run by a californian ... nice trip, see you next fall ;D
eh, so it goes. there are always exceptions, i am american. :P
-
well i'm gonna have to say some of my best friends are australians and i love them to death
plus, no offense, i hate california. too much heat and humidity for me
-
Do we have any Germans here?
I want to drive on the autobahn (sorry if it's not spelt right) really badly. My cousin plays soccer in Germany. He says he loves the autobahn, and there are fewer bad drivers in Germany than in America.
P.S. I added something to the subject.
So what you wanna know?
No speed limit, unless otherwise stated. Nevertheless, it might be quite challenging to brake from 250kmh down to 80, because all the sudden there's a sign saying "slow, oil track!"...
-
i've heard there's a ton of traffic on the autoban so it's really difficult to actually go fast...
-
I have been on it and it was ok. Nice well maintained roads and not too much traffic (especially compared to the London ring roads).
-
was it all people exclaim it to be or is that all just frosting on the so-to-speak cake?
-
i've heard there's a ton of traffic on the autoban so it's really difficult to actually go fast...
at least there wouldn't be many American cars slowing you down
also, aren't there still cops (or something to that affect) that can pull you over for wreckless driving if they think you're going to fast even though there's not a posted speed limit
-
AFAIK although there is no speed limit there is a recommended speed, and Germans - as very disciplined nation - mostly obey. And lack of the speed limit doesn't mean there are no other rules to play by. So it sounds good, but reality is just as boring as everywhere else.
-
Again, there is no speed limit on german motorways, unless a big fat red circled sign with a black number on white background says so.
Traffic depends on the time and area. I wouldn't recommend driving 250 on a Friday afternoon near Munich or Dortmund/Gelsenkirchen/... The best time to legally speed is therefore a Sunday morning at 6am or so - enjoy and don't break your neck.
-
And lack of the speed limit doesn't mean there are no other rules to play by. So it sounds good, but reality is just as boring as everywhere else.
dude there is no freakin' way that going super fast like that can be just as boring as everywhere else were we unfortunately do have speed limits ;D
-
It would only be interesting for a while. Maybe someone will devise a gasoline replacement that produces more power and torque than the gasoline engines today.
-
One thing we do have to realize is that the Stone Age did not end for lack of stones, but for new technological advances, so why should the Oil Age end for lack of oil?
Which means, in a way, that we will have to look for alternatives to those goddam dirty, ineffecient, and murderous machines we call gasoline engines.
I apologize to all those who have suffered the addiction to oil.
-
It would only be interesting for a while. Maybe someone will devise a gasoline replacement that produces more power and torque than the gasoline engines today.
my hydrogen-oxygen rocket car idea ;D
it would give the torque of well...a rocket lol
-
The various alternate engine systems and alternative fuel all targetting solving the fuel efficiency problem. but the scientists behind these technologies seem to forget that power is an important factor for someone to use their technology. I am not going to drive a car that can go at most 50km/h even if its fuel efficiency is 100%.
-
The various alternate engine systems and alternative fuel all targetting solving the fuel efficiency problem. but the scientists behind these technologies seem to forget that power is an important factor for someone to use their technology. I am not going to drive a car that can go at most 50km/h even if its fuel efficiency is 100%.
i wouldn't drive a car that topped out at 100mph even if its fuel efficiency is 150%. ;)
-
The various alternate engine systems and alternative fuel all targetting solving the fuel efficiency problem. but the scientists behind these technologies seem to forget that power is an important factor for someone to use their technology. I am not going to drive a car that can go at most 50km/h even if its fuel efficiency is 100%.
i like the way you think! ;D
it's like the hybrid cars, fred flinstone could accelerate faster with his feet than those cars can
i wouldn't drive a car that topped out at 100mph even if its fuel efficiency is 150%. ;)
how do you plan on getting 150% efficiency? will it generate hydrogen and oxygen on it's own from the intake or what lol
-
Having 150% efficiency... Wouldn't that be defying some major physics laws? I'm to tired to figure which ones if any.
-
Having 150% efficiency... Wouldn't that be defying some major physics laws? I'm to tired to figure which ones if any.
it breaks the law of "it's too much math to figure out if you can get 150% efficiency law" lol
-
Having 150% efficiency... Wouldn't that be defying some major physics laws? I'm to tired to figure which ones if any.
Energy conservation.
-
Having 150% efficiency... Wouldn't that be defying some major physics laws? I'm to tired to figure which ones if any.
Energy conservation.
or that works too
-
O yea I forgot about energy conservation.
-
O yea I forgot about energy conservation.
conservation of things is over rated, just think about how easy math and science would be if we didn't have to conserve mass or energy ;D
-
maybe having 150% efficiency would mean that it was an equilibrium reaction? does that even make sense?
-
We all know and have accepted that the 1st and 2nd Law of Thermodynamics prevent efficiency to improve beyond 100%, so cut the crap. Replacing the gasoline engine will not be a simple affair, given we have consider the impact of using a non-gasoline engine on exisiting infrastructure. The new engine must be able to meet both economical and political requirements.
Alternative fuel such as ethanol and biodiessel allows us to use existing technology with slight modification to the engine. However, the problem we are facing in alternative fuel is feedstock supply. Ethanol and biodiessel are converted from something which isn't readily available in large quantities.
Hydrogen fuel cell seems like the ideal engine because of its zero emmision. This is not completely true. One must consider the entire fuel cycle to truly decide if the hydrogen fuel cell is indeed zero emmision. Unfortunately, the current technology to produce hydrogen emits alot of carbon dioxide. Such chemical processes include hydrogen reformation and stripping of hydrogen from hydrocarbon using nuclear energy. Even storing hydrogen itself in the car poses a challenge.
The end of car won't take place because of alot of political opposition.
Personally, I prefer public transport system to become the main mode of transport and uses of private vehicle will be minimised.
-
Public transportation is impossible when you live amongst trees. Actually my area is starting to become more and more commercialized and developed. :(
If we can get an efficeint fuel cell design with and included storage medium that works well for atleast the general populace's driving needs then that would work out really really well and start the transition. Then hopefully nuclear power will start to see it's comeback come true (at least here in the U.S. damned evironmentalists who are to stupid to see benefits of nuclear vs. coal), then the production of H2 will become much cleaner than what things are like now. We just need cleaner energy plants that use geothermal energy, wind energy, solar energy, and last nuclear energy.
Maybe some scientists will figure out the fusion reactor, and finally the idea of wicked cheap clean electricity for all will come true. ;)
-
Fuel Cell might be the future, but I don't reckon it will be the hydrogen fuel cell, given the many problems associated with hydrogen and the fact that hydrogen is not readily available as molecular dihydrogen gas. Fuel cell is awesome because it harnesses chemical energy efficiently to propel vehicles. I believe the gasoline combustion engine will be replaced with a non-hydrogen-based fuel cell. However, I don't think we will get far away from carbon because carbon is one of the most abundant elements on planet Earth. Organic fuel cell is the future. Instead, the fuel cell can be engineered in such a way that carbon output is somehow captured in-situ.
From a logistics point of view, the chemical that is going to be used to run the fuel cell must comes from a renewable feedstock that is available in large quantities any time any where. Biodiessel meets the latter requirement because it can be made from fresh/waste vegetable oil. Although biodiessel is cleaner than conventional diessel, it still utilises an inefficient energy harnessing process to drive the vehicle.
If and only if we human can capture CO2 from the atmosphere and convert it into a fuel using an external energy supply...
There is one more option - get crude oil from the moon :P
-
From a logistics point of view, the chemical that is going to be used to run the fuel cell must comes from a renewable feedstock that is available in large quantities any time any where.
Not so easy. IIRC there is not enough arable grounds in US to support its transportation system - and that's assuming no crops to feed its population.
-
This was reported in August 2003:
New fuel cell uses germs to generate electricity
Scientists at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst announced yesterday that they have built a novel device that uses bacteria to turn garbage into electricity. The new "microbial fuel cell," an early prototype, cannot generate enough power to run an appliance, but it can operate virtually indefinitely without interruption, and is far more efficient than anything like it ever built.
"We are not going to be adding to the power grid at any significant rate soon," said Derek Lovley, a professor of microbiology at UMass-Amherst. "But with an electric lawn mower, you could use the leaves and clippings to power up the battery for next week."
The bacteria in the battery generate electrical current when they feed on sugars, which are found virtually everywhere in nature. The technology could create electricity from a wide variety of materials, from human sewage to compost.
At the heart of the advance, which will be described in the October issue of the journal Nature Biotechnology, is a newly discovered organism that is part of a group of bacteria known as "iron breathers," so called because they rely on iron instead of oxygen. Yesterday's announcement is part of a broader effort to tap the unusual properties of various iron breathers, now being discovered across the far reaches of the planet, to generate power or clean up oil spills or other pollutants.
As it has become clear that the world will need energy alternatives, some researchers have turned to the idea of finding new ways of releasing the enormous amount of energy trapped in plants and other organic matter. This is the idea behind ethanol, a fuel made from corn. But instead of using organic matter to make a fuel, the battery announced yesterday converts organic matter directly into electricity.
"We need people thinking outside of the box, and these researchers are clearly thinking outside the box," said Mark Finkelstein, group manager of bioprocess research and development at the government's National Bioenergy Center in Golden, Colo. "And this has shorter-term possibilities than the hydrogen research that is getting so much funding."
The battery relies on a colony of tiny bacteria, called Rhodoferax ferrireducens, first brought up from underground by a research drill in Oyster Bay, Va. The bacterium is unusual because it is able to completely break down sugars without using oxygen. In its natural environment, the bacterium breaks down sugars for energy and deposits electrons on iron as a byproduct.
The research team, which included UMass-Amherst postdoctoral research associate Swades Chaudhuri, placed these bacteria in a closed glass container with a sugar solution and a graphite electrode. As the bacteria ate the sugar, they took up residence on the electrode and began depositing electrons on it.
When the researchers connected a wire between the electrode and a separate electrode exposed to the air, a current started to flow.
Other researchers have built similar devices but they have been far less efficient at converting the sugar to electricity. Of all the electrons that could theoretically be moved by the process, the battery captured more than 80 percent, compared with less than 1 percent for a previous battery, according to the paper.
The Defense Department, which helped fund the research, is interested in the device because it could be used to run low-power antennas in remote locations without the need for replacing batteries, Lovley said. The electrode could be placed at the bottom of a pile of waste, along with a colony of the bacteria, which would thrive in the sugar-rich, oxygen-poor environment.
The biggest problem right now is the amount of power generated. The test battery generates just enough energy to power a calculator or a single Christmas tree light, Lovley said. Simply changing the electrode, so that more of the microbes can touch it, can increase the amount of power it generates.
The team is exploring the idea of genetically engineering the microbe so that the colony delivers even more electrons to the electrode, boosting the power.
Lovley said he hopes the technology could be used to generate electricity from sewage or other waste. One company has already contacted him about using the technology with waste from pigs. The process could both generate electricity and break apart some of the compounds that make the waste so foul.
"There is a scene in `Back to the Future' where they throw a banana in the car and off it goes," said Lovley. "We are not at that stage yet, but this is a big step from what these fuel cells were able to do before."
-
Geodome or anyone
Can you do the math to determine how many acres of rapeseed needs to be harvested to run my diesel vehicle for 20000 miles per year. You can assume 50 miles per US gallon.
-
I need additional data. I need to know the annual productivity of rapeseeds per arce and how much biodiessel can be produced from one unit mass of rapeseed oil.
-
There are several threads on bio-diesel on this site. On one of them I posted the following link.
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_make.html
That link has a sub-link, which gives the output per acre of various vegetable oil sources.
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_yield.html
Rapeseed 1000kg oil/ha 1190litres oil/ha 893lbs oil/acre 127US gal/acre
I think that rapeseed oil is also called canola (sic).
I am unsure of how to convert the quantity of oil to the quantity of bio-diesel.
I thought in all of your reading you might know.
By the way many of the other threads have lots of interesting information and points of view. Search on bio-diesel and/or biodiesel
-
Given the variation in the chemical composition of Canola oil, I think it's safe to assume that the average of composition of fatty acids and trigylceride is 80% by weight. Using Sulphated Zircona as a catalyst for the transesterification of the fatty acid, the single pass conversion to biodiessel reaches a maximum of approximately 80%. Depending on plant design, the overall conversion maybe increased to at most 90%. You may want to check with Eugenedakin on this overall conversion.
Amount of fatty acid acid and trigylceride = 1000 * 80% = 800kg ha-1 year-1
Amount of biodiessel produced = 90% * 800 = 720kg ha-1 year-1
Assuming the biodiessel you use is B100 (ie. 100% biodiessel)
According to Wikipedia, the specific gravity of biodiessel is 0.8, so the density of B100 = 0.8g/cm3
1 US Gallon = 3785cm3
Volume of biodiessel produced = (720*1000)/(0.8*3785) = 238 US Gallon ha-1 year-1
Gallons of Biodiessel consumed = 20000/50 = 400 gallons year-1 vehicle-1
Amount of land needed = 400 / 238 = 1.68 ha vehicle-1 year-1
My calculations suggest we have a very big logistics problem.
Reference
DOI: 10.1002/adsc.200505160
Solid Acid Catalysts for Biodiesel Production --- Towards Sustainable Energy
Anton A. Kiss, Alexandre C. Dimian, Gadi Rothenberg*
vant Hoff Institute for Molecular Sciences, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 166, 1018 WV Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Fax: (þ31)-20-525-5604, e-mail: gadi@science.uva.nl
-
Note that your calculations didn't take into account fuel needed for farming of rapeseed, nor energy needed for conversion.
Estimated number of cars in US: 200 millions
Estimated arable area: 190 millions ha
(these numbers are taken from some obscure Polish book, if someone can provide a link to the reliable reference - please post).
-
Volume of biodiessel produced = (720*1000)/(0.8*3785) = 238 US Gallon ha-1 year-1
Note that your calculations didn't take into account fuel needed for farming of rapeseed, nor energy needed for conversion.
Taking in account of Borek's comment, the effective volume of biodiessel produced would be somewhat less than what I had calculated directly. 238 US Gallon ha-1 year-1 is unfortunately an overestimate. I believe the actual value should be somehow of the same order in magnitude. Amount of land needed is most probably from 2 to 2.5 ha vehicle-1 year-1
-
so that is about 5 acres for 1 car for a year assuming 20000 miles per year
someday my brain will go metric, but not today
-
Some additional numerical data:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel
and further interesting reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algaculture#Biodiesel_production
-
Replacing oil anytime soon sounds like it'll be nearly impossible. :(
Better start stocking up on canned food and heavy down parkas for the ensuing ice age we're suppose to get if global warming gets out of control.
-
Better start stocking up on canned food and heavy down parkas for the ensuing ice age we're suppose to get if global warming gets out of control.
I know the numbers sound bad, but I am sure we all will tide it through. Didn't we all survive Y2K not long ago? Feedstock supply is always a problem. Yggdrasil once mentioned to me that Man always seek technology to solve the problem without changing themselves. We need so much land to grow the required plants to produce alternative fuel. There must be changes in public policy and legislature to smooth our route to using a new fuel globally, on top of developing new technologies to resolve the global energy crisis. We scientists and engineers must lobby the government, and not leave the job to economists and politicians alone who cannot figure out the nuts and bolts of advanced technology.
-
I agree geodome.
I know I'll get to see a change in energy sources during my life time. With oil prices this high, chances are they'll never drop and only go up. Maybe it will take people to accept they make not get 300 miles in a fill up and they'll only have to settle for maybe 200 instead.
P.S. Sorry everyone that's metric here.
-
The new economy will be based in methanol. Hydrogen is just too impractical. The tank would have to be enormous to get us the range we're used to, and do you really want Joe Citizen traveling everywhere with a huge and highly pressurized tank under his butt?
-
LH2 possibly
-
hydrides are by far better than LH2 or H2 gas
http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/h2.htm
-
This must be one of the United Nuclear websites.
-
After reading all this, I was thinking...If you put organic waste in a solution of NH3.e- and subject this to intense sound waves (like with sonoluminescence experiments), then maybe the organic waste molecules would be reduced by the solvated electrons and decomposed from the locally high temperatures within the sonically-produced bubbles. You might get quite a bit of methane & other light hydrocarbons that way.
-
Problem with hydrides is they have to be heated to release H2. If you live in an area that gets a true winter, then you'll be cursing at your car in the winter probably.
I went to a Mobil gas station, and the gas pump said, "contains ethanol". At least the ethanol is probably replacing the MTBE.
-
The comment by silkworm was interesting. George Olah and some others at USC just wrote a book about how methanol could be a solution. I haven't read the whole book yet, but it appears to be well researched and not full of hydrogen propaganda. It does speculate a bit on some technologies regarding CO2 recycling that I haven't really seen documented as feasible yet.
On another note, I was recently reading about Brazil and the use of ethanol as a transporation fuel. I heard on a TV show that the primary driving force for success is the much lower per capita usage of transporation fuel (as opposed to the US) and sugarcane (as opposed to the corn ethanol mandate farce currently occurring in the US). On several other sites it stated that 96+ % of Brazil's domestic energy is from hydroelectric power, which I believe is the real driving force to enable a non-gasoline economy. Are there any Brazilians out there? Is this true? Do the majority of households have electricity in Brazil? If any country really wants to switch away from gasoline, it requires a competent government with a long range plan. The long range plan would involve building an infrastructure that would enable the transition. I don't see it happening in the US. The US government is a corrupt, inefficient wasteland that can't even mandate the production (soon to be exclusively importation) of ligher automobiles for increased fuel economy.
-
I would just like to note that methanol production is dependant on methane production. Industrially, methanol is made from methane.
Hopefully the entire human population will figure something out.
-
Are there any Brazilians out there? Is this true? Do the majority of households have electricity in Brazil? If any country really wants to switch away from gasoline, it requires a competent government with a long range plan. The long range plan would involve building an infrastructure that would enable the transition. I don't see it happening in the US. The US government is a corrupt, inefficient wasteland that can't even mandate the production (soon to be exclusively importation) of ligher automobiles for increased fuel economy.
I'm a Brazilian boy... :)
There are many households without electricity above all in the countryside and the North.
Recently I also watch a TV show about US economy. I was horrified about one statistic: Americans consume 7 times more fuel automobile that Brazilians.
-
MMMM gasoline. :)
It's probably because of our big vehicles we consume such a tremendous amount of gas.
-
Not only. Driving and owning cars is AFAIK part of american culture. I have never been in US so I can be wrong, but opinions I have heard from my friends are that (compared to Europe) there is no public transportation system in US, as everyone uses his own car always. More individual cars in motion must consume much more gas, that's simple physics.
-
public transport is the key to go.
-
Borek your semi-right. In the major cities, like New York, Boston, etc., there is a good well developed public transportation system, but that is only a small percentages of the U.S. most people, like me, live in areas that have poor public transportation. In my area there is only a primitive bus system, but it doesn't even come out as far as my house. It only serves the downtown area mainly.
New York though is huge on walking, subways, and taxis. I went there and was amazed. Tons of people walk and tons of people ride the subway. Taxis out numbered normal private cars.
Driving though is a huge part of the U.S. culture. Everybody can't wait to get their licenses and for their sweet 16th birthday. Some girls throw some pretty grandiose parties.
If I can find statistics on car ownership in U.S., I'll post them.
[Edit] I'd like to add that when the New York transit workers went on strike, the whole city was practically crippled (at least that's what the cable networks made it look like). Some people were also really pissed.
Correct me if I'm wrong anyone, but during the New York transit strike I think the U.S. Supreme Court order them all to go back to work.
-
Another aspect of American culture which promotes excessive fuel usage is the concept of suburbs. We want the luxury of being able to live in small communities away from the big urban areas in which they work. This requires commuting to work which of couse means that they will use more gasoline than if they lived close to the place where they work.
-
If I can find statistics on car ownership in U.S., I'll post them.
See my post #91 in this thread.
-
I forgot about that post Borek. I found something that has more statiscal breakdown though.
See here for the travel habits of the average American.
http://www.bts.gov/programs/national_household_travel_survey/daily_travel.html
Note: This does not include any oil used for freight, or any oil used in public transportation/services.
A more outdated source of fuel consumption per year.
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_05.html
-
Chemical & Engineering New (C&EN) (http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/84/i30/8430energy.html) recently echoed the opinions from this thread.
18 JUL 2006 Biofuels Can't Solve Energy Problem
Corn ethanol and soybean biodiesel yield energy dividend, but neither can replace much petroleum
Glenn Hess
A comparative analysis of the life cycles of two popular fuel additives by researchers at the University of Minnesota shows that biodiesel has a much higher net energy benefit than ethanol, but neither can do much to meet the growing U.S. energy demand.
The study concludes that both corn-grain-derived ethanol and soybean-based biodiesel produce more energy than is needed to grow the crops and convert them into biofuels. However, the amount of energy each returns differs greatly. Biodiesel returns 93% more energy than is used to produce it, whereas ethanol currently provides only 25% more energy, according to the study.
"Quantifying the benefits and costs of biofuels throughout their life cycles allows us not only to make sound choices today but also to identify better biofuels for the future," says Jason Hill, lead author of the study, which appears in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2006, 103, 11206).
The researchers caution that neither biofuel can come close to meeting the growing demand for alternatives to petroleum. Converting all current U.S. corn and soybean production to biofuels would satisfy only 12% of gasoline demand and 6% of diesel usage, they conclude. Meanwhile, global population growth and increasingly affluent societies will increase demand for corn and soybeans for food.
The study says the environmental impacts of the two biofuels also differ. Biodiesel produces 41% fewer greenhouse gas emissions than diesel fuel, whereas ethanol produces 12% fewer greenhouse gas emissions than gasoline. Soybeans also require much less nitrogen fertilizer and pesticides than corn, the study notes.
The researchers say that rising gasoline and diesel prices have made the development of biofuels more economically advantageous and that biodiesel's environmental benefits seem strong enough to merit subsidy. Ethanol also plays an important role as an additive by oxygenating gasoline and making it burn more cleanly.
"We did this study to learn from ethanol and biodiesel," says David Tilman, a study coauthor. "Producing biofuel for transportation is a fledgling industry. Corn ethanol and soybean biodiesel are successful first-generation biofuels. The next step is a biofuel crop that requires low chemical and energy inputs and can give us much greater energy and environmental returns."
The study points to nonfood plants that can grow on marginal lands with minimal input of fertilizers and pesticides as the best hope for biomass-based energy. Prairie grasses and woody plants, as well as agricultural and forestry wastes, have the potential to provide much larger biofuel supplies with greater environmental benefits than corn-produced ethanol and biodiesel from soybeans, according to the Minnesota researchers.
-
Some guy at Edmunds posted this link www.teslamotors.com
Apparently, an electric car can now go 0-60 mph in 4 seconds. I'd like to see this.
-
Apparently, an electric car can now go 0-60 mph in 4 seconds. I'd like to see this.
Here you go: http://youtube.com/watch?v=J2DGfisAndI
It's not the same car, but it humiliates Ferrari 430 and Porsche Carrera GT which has 0-60 mph times of 4.1s and 3.8s.
Then again Ariel Atom weights about the same as candy bar wrapper.
-
Well, it looks like the future for hydrogen fuel cells just got a little brighter. Physicists in S. Korea made a polyacetylene/titanium polymer that can reversibly hold 63 kg of hydrogen per cubic meter under practical working conditions.
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/10/8/15/1
Now if only fuel cell manufacturers and nuclear power plants would join forces...One can generate the hydrogen while the other stores it in cells.
-
Physicists in S. Korea made a polyacetylene/titanium polymer that can reversibly hold 63 kg of hydrogen per cubic meter under practical working conditions.
It is actually 7.6% by weight and 5 hydrogen molecules per Titanium atom. Does this not suggest that the efficiency of hydrogen fuel cells is being offset by the increase in mass of the car?
-
Hi Everyone,
My guess is that ethanol is here to stay... But... did you know that it takes 0.74 million BTU's of fossil fuel to make 1.0 million BTU's of ethanol?
Ethanol price is not in a 'free market' like oil. Ethanol is subsidized by the government and tariffs are implemented to prevent 'inexpensive' ethanol rom entering the U.S.
Which brings me to another point... Ethanol is more expensive than oil...so, adding ethanol to gasoline actually INCREASES the price that we pay at the pumps.
Chuckle, I am getting my MBA and this is one of my favorite topics. :)
Ethanol will be 'in favor' when we are able to make large quantities from cellulostic material from wheat, etc. This can cause the price of food to decrease while lowering the price of ethanol for production. Until this time, enjoy the elevated gasoline prices ;)
Sincerely,
Eugene
-
I know it sounds silly, but has anyone seriously considered simply (in conversation at least) synthesizing the hydrocarbon components of gasoline, removing the necessity of entirely changing the infrastructure?
Most people here seem to be in favor of the hydrogen fuel cell. That's nice and all. But it's not an energy source. The energy would have to be gathered in some way no matter what energy carrier you use. (All energy sources I know of are solar in some way: petroleum is from plants which use photosynthesis to gather the sun's EM radiation, as is ethyl alcohol; solar cells are obvious; the phenomenon we call "wind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind)" is caused by the sun's EM radiation being absorbed by particles in the air, heating them up and changing their density, causing them to rise, etc; nuclear fission is allowed by the fact that some star (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star) a long time ago was big enough to produce heavy elements like uranium and plutonium in it's center and then after some time and some processes I don't understand, the star ejected the heavy elements into space, allowing the formation of heavy metal deposits on earth [I suppose it's not really solar power, rather stellar power, but close enough]. In any case, my point is that our energy all comes from the sun/stars.)
So in any case, we harvest this solar power, and due to many factors, we must store it. If we were to use hydrogen fuel cells, we would have to harvest the energy and then (I suppose) store it using the electrolysis of water, releasing the oxygen into the air and containing the hydrogen gas.
What I am proposing is that instead of totally eliminating the petroleum energy infrastructure, which would waste many technological advances and equipment, we keep a good portion of it by keeping hydrocarbons as the energy carrier.
Simply put, the main difference would be that instead of having oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico (I live in Texas, that's what I think of when I think oil extraction; that and those little "pumpjacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumpjack)" you see here in Texas), you would have solar panels or windmills or nuclear reactors; instead of oil refineries you would have hydrocarbon synthesis plants.
Personally, I like this idea; gas stations, cars, motorbikes, trains, ships, power plants, and all the other parts of the infrastructure could keep their technology and their equipment.
Whereas, if we did something rash like try to convert to hydrogen fuel cells... well, you'd have replace oil rigs etc. with solar panels, etc. as stated above, replace oil refineries with electrolysis plants (I think), replace gas stations with... actual hydrogen gas stations, replace petrol ICE's with fuel cells, replace gas tanks with hydrogen tanks, and replace various other parts of the infrastructure, etc. (I don't actually have all the data on all the infrastructure changes that would be necessary, but I'm sure there are many.)
The question of course is that of efficiency: given the current infrastructure and the current (or projected to be available within a few decades or so) technologies, would it be more cost effective to change the entire infrastructure and go hydrogen cell? Or would it be more cost effective to change only the initial parts of the infrastructure?
I am not qualified at the moment to answer that question.
Also, as to the "cleanliness" of hydrogen cells (that is, the fact that they emit water, compared to the greenhouse gases emitted by hydrocarbon energy carriers) may be negligible; the costs of cleaning up the atmosphere for the sake of the leafy-fruity plants and the ecologists may or may not outway the savings. As global warming is a heavily debated topic, the idea of basing this decision entirely on the emissions that skeptics say are not dangerous is rather silly, at least from my point of view. Thus, depending on the personality of the decision-maker, emissions may not even be considered a major part of the decision.
Granted of course, after changing the infrastructure for hydrocarbon-synthesis, it would become much easier to slowly progress towards hydrogen cell use, as the energy harvesters would be firmly planted in the infrastructure after some time. If, by then, the emissions caused by hydrocarbon use are proven to be a substantial liability, the transition could then continue on to hydrogen cell use.
Of course, I haven't reached the organic chemistry part in my general chemistry textbook, so I am clueless as to the viability of such hydrocarbon synthesis as I described.
Edit: In response to the original post, my point is that I question the necessity to replace the gasoline engine at all.
-
The idea of using solar power to produce gasoline could work, but it seems like harnessing solar energy directly to produce biofuels could be a more efficient process. Switching from gasoline to some sort of biofuel (e.g. biodiesel, ethanol, methanol, butanol, etc.) would not require such drastic infrastructural changes as switching to a hydrogen economy.
-
instead of oil refineries you would have hydrocarbon synthesis plants.
It will be called biofuels then ;)
-
I agree with silkworm that methanol may be the energy economy of the future that weans us off petroleum.Hydrogen is too expensive and bulky to store and can be dangerous for obvious reasons.
There has already been developed numerous ways in which carbon dioxide can be extracted directly from air and converted to methanol with the aid of nuclear,geothermal and solar.One simple chemistry technique is quite straightforward with potassium carbonate.Although there is losses (nothing is 100% efficient),liquid chemical fuel has greater practical commercial value and greater energy density than to try and run an all electric transportation sector on nothing but electricity.
And furthermore,there has been recent advances in a reversible methanol fuel cell that can not only make electricity,but also make methanol from water and carbon dioxide when run in reverse.A car would be far more efficient and possibly get way over 100 MPG if it ran on a highly efficient fuel cell that fed electricity directly to a small,compact neodymium motor attached directly to the wheels...and eliminated both the incredibly wasteful ICE and transmission of conventional cars now in use altogether.
-
George Olah and some others at USC just wrote a book about how methanol could be a solution. I haven't read the whole book yet, but it appears to be well researched and not full of hydrogen propaganda. It does speculate a bit on some technologies regarding CO2 recycling that I haven't really seen documented as feasible yet.
I have George Olah's book. It is an interesting read but fast forward to the current time, I note that part of the book's content has become yesteryear stuff. Fuel synthesis via Fisher-Tropsch is increasingly viewed as backwards and that we ought to formulate a new process to make synthetic fuel.