U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-02-2011, 09:03 AM
 
Location: Tennessee/Michigan
28,192 posts, read 47,516,886 times
Reputation: 19702

Advertisements

Artificial petrol that costs 19p per litre could be on forecourts in as little as three years.

British scientists are refining the recipe for a hydrogen-based fuel that will run in existing cars and engines at the fraction of the cost of conventional petrol.


Read more: Relief at the pumps: Revolutionary hydrogen fuel could cost just 90p per GALLON (and it will run in existing cars) | Mail Online
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-02-2011, 09:27 AM
 
1,055 posts, read 2,115,942 times
Reputation: 1221
I hope this is really pollution free (ie no effects that we only learn about and find out about in the future). This will be great!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2011, 09:30 AM
 
Location: Out in the Badlands
10,425 posts, read 8,750,432 times
Reputation: 7732
The gumvment will put a $2-3 a gallon tax on it and we will be back to ground zero.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2011, 10:12 AM
 
Location: London, U.K.
2,877 posts, read 3,293,095 times
Reputation: 1589
Whats the EROEI? A major net energy looser if its based on hydrogen. Looks like an ad for a penny stock.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2011, 01:19 PM
 
5,116 posts, read 4,606,218 times
Reputation: 4375
According to the link, it's not a new fuel - it's simply hydrogen, but not in a gas form. Scientists at Britain's Rutherford University have supposedly found a way to densely pack the hydrogen into some sort of microbeads. If they have truly managed to accomplish this feat, then it's safer than lugging around a highly pressurized cylinder of hydrogen gas.

Of course, hydrogen still has to be produced in the first place, and there's no indication that the 19p per litre (or $1.50 per U.S. gallon) covers the entire production cost or only the "packaging" of the hydrogen into the microbeads.

I also wonder what happens to the microbead material once the hydrogen is released.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2011, 06:30 AM
 
Location: Forests of Maine
30,635 posts, read 49,287,779 times
Reputation: 19019
I was just reading also about Denny Klein who is developing an HHO molecule. Which sounds about the same as this development.

The problem is that to take water and separate it into H and O requires a huge amount of energy. Recombining later may give you handy power, but never as much as you expended in the first place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2011, 07:45 AM
 
1,055 posts, read 2,115,942 times
Reputation: 1221
Quote:
Originally Posted by forest beekeeper View Post
I was just reading also about Denny Klein who is developing an HHO molecule. Which sounds about the same as this development.

The problem is that to take water and separate it into H and O requires a huge amount of energy. Recombining later may give you handy power, but never as much as you expended in the first place.
I don't get it? He is taking water and wants to add another reaction that recombines water later?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2011, 07:51 AM
 
Location: Forests of Maine
30,635 posts, read 49,287,779 times
Reputation: 19019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marissy View Post
I don't get it? He is taking water and wants to add another reaction that recombines water later?
Recombing water makes no pollution.

But in the process you must add huge amounts of energy into the process. That energy came from where? Likely a power plant that is polluting.



Old school was to separate H from O, store both as liquids. H2 and LOX, then spray them back together and they recombine releasing that energy at a high rate. Think NASA shooting rockets to the moon. No pollution, but the energy released in a rocket launch is only half of the energy required to separate H from O in the first place.

Klein making HHO is making them in a stable liquid that is less explosive. And again 'pollution free'. But the same physics is in place. To separate H from O requires massive energy from some other source.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:47 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top