CliveH Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 This looks good - UK based research and development as well! seems that they have managed to produce particles that bind with hydrogen so that hydrogen fuel can be stored and transported as a liquid. This means the fuel can be used in our cars but no carbon! http://www.cellaenergy.com/uploads/press/Filling%20up%20with%20hydrogen%20now%20a%20real%20possibility.pdf http://www.autoevolution.com/news/hydrogen-based-artificial-petrol-to-become-reality-30441.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 CliveH - 2011-01-31 9:19 AM This looks good - UK based research and development as well! seems that they have managed to produce particles that bind with hydrogen so that hydrogen fuel can be stored and transported as a liquid. This means the fuel can be used in our cars but no carbon! http://www.cellaenergy.com/uploads/press/Filling%20up%20with%20hydrogen%20now%20a%20real%20possibility.pdf http://www.autoevolution.com/news/hydrogen-based-artificial-petrol-to-become-reality-30441.html I read about that new fuel, but once the government start putting tax on it, it will be as expensive as petrol is now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted January 31, 2011 Author Share Posted January 31, 2011 No doubt about it! But - looking at the bigger picture - all the doom and gloom of Climate change frying us all to a crisp and if that does not happen - the oil will run out causing collapse of the world economy - would seem to be well and truly trumped if this new idea is viable. Currently we have crazy ideas like electric cars that when tested by the BBC take 4 days to get to Scotland and whilst they dont produce the "evil" CO2 - the power stations that make the electricity do! Plus I see no chance of Hydrogen running out! - so no excuse for TEQ's (Traded Emmissions Quotas) that are now being considerred. So even if it is expensive at the pumps - one thing they will not be able to con us on will be green taxes (lol) or rationing. After all we run two LPG powered cars and we only pay 70.9p a litre because the stuff burns so cleanly. Plus I get a warm glow inside (lol) from knowing that my vehicles run on a waste bi-product of the fuel most other people use (and pay nearly twice as much for) But you are correct - the tax will be an issue - but if they have any sense 8-) - they will do what they did with LPG and give grants to cover any conversion costs (tho - from what i read - it seems that this new fuel could be used without a great deal of modification to the engine) and with lower taxation to make it worth peoples while to change over. I really hope this is real and not bullshirt - I am always suspicious of such wonder fuel claims - but this is hopefully different. I had heard that they were working on a carrier molecule for hydrogen - now it seems they may have done it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Collings Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 My knowledge of chemistry etc is a bit thin but where will that lovely hudrogen come from? Does it grow on trees? The sago palms saga comes to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted January 31, 2011 Author Share Posted January 31, 2011 Currently there are several practical ways of producing hydrogen in a renewable industrial process. One is to use landfill gas to produce hydrogen in a steam reformer, and the other is to use renewable power to produce hydrogen from electrolysis But as I understand it electrolosis to produce things like chlorine actually produce Hydrogen as a bi-product. Also - From urine! Hydrogen can be made from urine. Using urine, hydrogen production is 332% more energy efficient than using water. The research was conducted by Geraldine Botte from the Ohio University aooarently. Recently, Dr. Shanwen Tao of the Heriot-Watt University has invented a Carbamide Power System Fuel Cell that can immediately convert urine into electricity. http://www.outlookseries.com/N8/Science/3753_Shanwen_Tao_Heriot-Watt_University_Carbamide_Power_System_Fuel_Cell_Turns_Urine_Electricity_Water_Shanwen_Tao.htm ........................ Not sure if this is taking the pi$$ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Since I had my operation and can now pee over a five barred gate I might be in with a chance of producing my own fuel? With all the technology we have got, I dont think it is beyond the bounds of practicality that some boffin could invent a home fuel maker, if they did, I dont think the government would hack it do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ekka Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Yes I heard this one as well, my guess is the oil companies will buy up the patent or some other underhand stunt if that's not possible until they have pumped every last drop of oil out the ground. Even if they don't can you imagine governments will not find a way to tax it just as much, if not directly then some massive increases on road fund licence fee's, especially if the technology becomes something we can do in our back garden sheds. Hate to be a pessimist but we all remember north sea oil, and how we would all be driving around for next to nothing as some commentators said at the time, or all be oil sheiks. My flowing white robes are still in the wardrobe *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted January 31, 2011 Author Share Posted January 31, 2011 Wise words of caution there methinks. I am sure there was some scheme in the 1960's where some boffin had said that electolysis of water that splits the H2O to Hydrogen and Oxygen in a small unit in a car could provide enough H and O2 to fuel it. The engine also generated the electricity for the electrolysis. They said that idea was bought up by the oil companies - they also said that a plastic tyre had been produced that never wore out. The Tyre companies bought up that technology as well apparently. Still - now that we know that peeing in the tank makes electrolysis circa 334% more efficient I expect e will all be doing it soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted January 31, 2011 Author Share Posted January 31, 2011 My word what a freudian slip Should read "we" not e Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Leake Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 You should try balancing on the bumper of a hired van trying to pee into a battery that had boiled itself dry as I had to do some years ago. For the record it worked and I got the van back to the place I had hired it from OK. Told them I had had to add water to the battery but did not have the hart to tell them where the water had come from! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nowtelse2do Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Oh dear!!! You had a leake then Colin:D so so sorry.Be careful what you admit to, Nick from euroserve might be reading.Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted January 31, 2011 Author Share Posted January 31, 2011 Colin Leake - 2011-01-31 4:23 PM You should try balancing on the bumper of a hired van trying to pee into a battery that had boiled itself dry as I had to do some years ago. For the record it worked and I got the van back to the place I had hired it from OK. Told them I had had to add water to the battery but did not have the hart to tell them where the water had come from! With all that extra efficiency you probably did them a favour! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Colin Leake - 2011-01-31 4:23 PM You should try balancing on the bumper of a hired van trying to pee into a battery that had boiled itself dry as I had to do some years ago. For the record it worked and I got the van back to the place I had hired it from OK. Told them I had had to add water to the battery but did not have the hart to tell them where the water had come from! I suppose if you'd had a few whiskeys the night before, it would technically be distilled water :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ekka Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Just in case does anyone know where I can get a petrol engine for my Ducato then ? ? But I have to say this could be fantastic news for future generations, but as I believe so many products are derived from crude oil, boffins will need to sort that one too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peter Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 CliveH - 2011-01-31 9:19 AM This looks good - UK based research and development as well! seems that they have managed to produce particles that bind with hydrogen so that hydrogen fuel can be stored and transported as a liquid. This means the fuel can be used in our cars but no carbon! http://www.cellaenergy.com/uploads/press/Filling%20up%20with%20hydrogen%20now%20a%20real%20possibility.pdf http://www.autoevolution.com/news/hydrogen-based-artificial-petrol-to-become-reality-30441.htmlIf my Organic chemistry serves me correctly. Hydrogen will bind with most molecules. The only problem lies in the fact that the two molecules then become a different compound. Hence Oxygen is O2 but when combined with Hydrogen H it becomes H2o, Water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted February 1, 2011 Author Share Posted February 1, 2011 True Peter - H that has one "bond" will bind easily to some other chemicals - O2 is very "strong" and binds firmly with itself to form the gas O2 - or O=O. where both of its bonds bind with the bonds of the other O molecule But a single oxegen molecule with its two bonds can bind with two H molecules to form a compound - water or H2O A fuel like methane is CH4 where Carbon that has 4 bonds has 4 H attoms attached. And as we know - methane is a good fuel. Ethane is two C's so is C2H6 and propane has 3 C's so is C3H8. The more C's the longer the chain the "thicker" the compound - so gas at the low C numbers - liquid as the numbers get higher So when this stuff is burnt the C isn't at is combined with oxygen to produce the "evil" (lol) CO2 where the four bonds of the C are satisfied by two oxygen molecules because each oxygen molecule has two bonds. What seems to be so damn clever about this UK research is that the "bead" they use to bind more H onto it - is itself compossed of H (how they do that? - no idea!) but the advantage is clear. If the fuel is essentially all H then when it burns and combined with Oxygen - the only thing you get will be water plus energy. Seems like a great idea :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ekka Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Everyone knows that, gulp ! ! ! ! ! 8-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted February 1, 2011 Author Share Posted February 1, 2011 Sorry! - i know everyone hates a smart-arse!! 8-) But for my sins a very long time ago I did a degree in microbiology and worked for Beechams who made Penicillin - had great fun but unless you had a PhD and even higher you reached a cieling and that was it - so i moved sideways into management then financial management. But I still have a great interest in the environment and biology. One thing few people realise is that our oil based economy only uses the carbon compounds that is oil as a carrier for the hydrogen. If we can substitute the carbon for some sort of hydrogen "bead" then BINGO! - no more "evil" CO2! Simples! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob b Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 I looked at the diagram on one of the links you posted and I see that there is a 'waste storage facility' on it. That does suggest that some unwanted material is produced during the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ekka Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 CliveH - 2011-02-01 11:21 AM Sorry! - i know everyone hates a smart-arse!! 8-) But for my sins a very long time ago I did a degree in microbiology and worked for Beechams who made Penicillin - had great fun but unless you had a PhD and even higher you reached a cieling and that was it - so i moved sideways into management then financial management. But I still have a great interest in the environment and biology. One thing few people realise is that our oil based economy only uses the carbon compounds that is oil as a carrier for the hydrogen. If we can substitute the carbon for some sort of hydrogen "bead" then BINGO! - no more "evil" CO2! Simples! Not really, but you lost me the moment you mentioned molecule. perhaps it is because I drove an artic most of my life, and if I had have moved sideways I would have fell out of the cab. :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted February 1, 2011 Author Share Posted February 1, 2011 bob b - 2011-02-01 12:06 PM I looked at the diagram on one of the links you posted and I see that there is a 'waste storage facility' on it. That does suggest that some unwanted material is produced during the process. Not sure what will go into the waste "trap" - I assume water would just be vented off. But they say that the "bead" is produced by this research company is a "nano-porous polymer micro bead" They have found a low-cost way to trap the hydride compound into or into the bead. Looking at it again - it seems that the bead is inert and so could be collected as "waste" and recycled? Short answer is I don't know what the "waste" would be. But hope it will be the bead material that can either be disposed of cheaply and safely or better still recycled by way of adding more hydride (multiple Hydrogen molecules). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Collings Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Having done a little research since my last posting my understanding is that whilst hydrogen is a nice clean fuel to burn in an internal combustion engine or fuel cell. It really is only another way of cramming as much energy as possible into a tank. To split hydrogen into a useable form some form of energy has to be used, The answer to rising fuel costs, I doubt it. Fossil fuels - puts us back in the carbon trap, Nuclear- Energy now- but what do we do with the waste and who controls uranium supplies. Renewables. Its probably the best way of using unreliable wind and in this country solar power. I don't understand why so much effort is being put into wind power when we sit on an island with the totally predictable tide swirling past twice a day. Submarine turbines revolve relativly slowly. Shipbuilding technology is readily transferable to sealing problems and underwater cabling was cracked 100years ago. Am I missing something And another thing hydogen makes many metals brittle. The infrastructure will be expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flicka Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 George Collings - 2011-02-02 9:13 PM I don't understand why so much effort is being put into wind power when we sit on an island with the totally predictable tide swirling past twice a day. Submarine turbines revolve relativly slowly. Shipbuilding technology is readily transferable to sealing problems and underwater cabling was cracked 100years ago. Am I missing something Here on the Humber there Siemens have plans for a massive site building for Wind Turbines to be erected in the North SeaMy simplistic mind asks, Why not have sub-sea turbines within the structure of the wind turbine. I can not understand why after 30+ years of Oil Exploration & Extraction in the North Sea, they still don't equip the Rigs with wave or sub-sea driven turbines to generate their own power requirements. It's already proven technology & in progress around the globe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peter Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 I agree Flicka. The problems arise when the environmental idiots get involved. The Wash would be ideal, as it's fairly shallow for building on and it gets quite big tides. But the RSPB wouldn't like it as it may upset the Seals and Birdlife. Maybe it would whilst building is taking place but after that it would be mostly invisible. There's a hell of a lot of water movement out there with so many rivers feeding it. I really can't understand the reticence to build this technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted February 3, 2011 Author Share Posted February 3, 2011 Yes it seems obvious doesn't it. Spend £billions on an energy source that either is not there (calm - no wind) or blowing a hooley (gale force winds) or occaisionally windy. And yet we are surrounded by tidal waters that on the whole go up and down with predictable regularity. They are working on turbines that sit on the sea bed as I understand it but for some reason wind power has been the darling of those that hold the purse strings. George Collings - 2011-02-02 9:13 PM Having done a little research since my last posting my understanding is that whilst hydrogen is a nice clean fuel to burn in an internal combustion engine or fuel cell. It really is only another way of cramming as much energy as possible into a tank. To split hydrogen into a useable form some form of energy has to be used, The answer to rising fuel costs, I doubt it. Certainly oil is only a convenient material that is relatively easy to deal with and has lots of hydrogen on it. What some people (not me!) object to is the fact that when we burn oil the carrier chain of carbon gets converted to particulate carbon and CO2. The particulate carbon I can do without but the CO2 increase is more than a bit of a wind up in my book. But the idea of being able to substitute the chain of carbon for some sort of Hydrogen compound on an inert bead has to be attractive. George Collings - 2011-02-02 9:13 PM Fossil fuels - puts us back in the carbon trap, Nuclear- Energy now- but what do we do with the waste and who controls uranium supplies. Renewables. Its probably the best way of using unreliable wind and in this country solar power. I don't understand why so much effort is being put into wind power when we sit on an island with the totally predictable tide swirling past twice a day. Submarine turbines revolve relativly slowly. Shipbuilding technology is readily transferable to sealing problems and underwater cabling was cracked 100years ago. Am I missing something And another thing hydogen makes many metals brittle. The infrastructure will be expensive. As for the last point George - my Discovery has a plastic petrol tank and plastic fuel line. I genuinely think that the transport technology would and could be developed to be able to cope with a new inert carrier H fuel. Main problem as i see it is that we would have to manufacture this stuff as oppossed to pumping crude oil out of thge ground then refining it. I think the former option will become increasingly viable as the oil runs out and becomes more expensive to extract and refine. But I think we should all remember that oil is still remarkably cheap! - it is only the double taxation of fuel that makes out fuel costs so cripplingly high. If there was no fuel tax and just VAT on a litre of fuel then the cost of a litre would be circa 46.8p. because the cost of a litre of fuel at the pumps is approx 39p. So 20% VAT would make it 46.8p a litre. But we have fuel duty applied to every litre and then VAT applied to the whole damn lot! >:-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.