Re: [biofuel] GM rethinks hydrogen fuel cells
- Original Message - From: murdoch [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 5:35 PM Subject: [biofuel] GM rethinks hydrogen fuel cells No, but thanks for mentioning it. Pending learning more about it, I guess I'd group it with other somewhat exotic attempts to store Hydrogen in materials, such as Sodium Borohydride, that apparently can be then used as fuels in a fuel cell. Since we keep coming back to fuel cells using Hydrogen specifically, I guess in my view I keep coming back to chemicals which can be easily stored and transported in liquid relatively safe form, which can contain hydrogen and, without too much difficulty, be used in a hydrogen fuel cell. I see such chemicals as de facto Hydrogen storage devices, competing with all these pressurized approaches and cooled liquid approaches and so forth. So, ethanol and methanol and gasoline and DME (which I like less because it's also a gas and not a liquid at room temperature, I guess) and this H2 slurry would be competing fuels of the future. Just the short term, polluting, climate changing, fuel depleting future I assume? Not the long term sustainable future. I don't think we should be supporting the former, even as an interim measure. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Ford's Model U Concept vehicle -- was Re: [biofuel] GM rethinks hydrogen fuel cells
malcolm wrote: Just the short term, polluting, climate changing, fuel depleting future I assume? Not the long term sustainable future. I don't think we should be supporting the former, even as an interim measure. Maybe (?) -- Ford's Concept multifaceted SUV called the Model U according to the media release says, It is the Model T of the 21st century and The hydrogen ICE can act as a stepping stone to hydrogen-fueled mass transportation that eventually will incorporate fuel cells. http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=14047 Some features include -- Reconfigurable Interior and Exterior, Optimized Hydrogen Internal-Combustion Engine, Green Materials and Processes. Green materials include -- polyester fabric, Polylactide or PLA fibers, Corn-based fillers for tires, Soy-based polyurethane foam polyester resin, Testing a bio-based lubricant from sunflower seeds. The Hydrogen 2.3-liter ICE with supercharging has a Module Hybrid Transmission System with a estimated fuel economy of 45 miles per kilogram hydrogen (equivalent to 45 mpg) and emissions are PZEV or better. Environmental concerns in manufacturing are also addressed. BP and Shell are mentioned along with several others involved with this concept vehicle strategy. I think we've all heard bits and pieces about this but EREN NETWORK NEWS -- January 8, 2003 tied it together. _ Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [evworld] Re: [biofuel] GM rethinks hydrogen fuel cells
So the PEM fuel cells range from 81% or 50% or 36 - 40 % at full load. Any of you EV or H2 folks familiar with -- Safe Hydrogen Storage Solution May Enable Earlier Shift to Fuel-Cell Powered Autos Safe Hydrogen storage technology provides hydrogen to a car with a fuel tank only about eight percent larger than the average gasoline tank. Source: Business Wire [Aug 09, 2002] http://www.evworld.com/databases/shownews.cfm?pageid=news090802-03 BOSTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug. 8, 2002--Safe Hydrogen, LLC in the Boston area believes it has solved the critical hydrogen storage problem, long considered a significant roadblock to utilizing hydrogen powered fuel cells. The chief technology officer of the new firm, Andy McClaine, managed a three year, $3 million dollar development project funded by the Department of Energy and is building the new company based on storage technology developed in that project. Safe Hydrogen uses a slurry - a liquid mix not unlike thick paint - that both stores and generates 99.999 percent pure hydrogen on demand by the addition of water. This is achieved by a very simple and low cost mixing system using any available water. Additionally, the Safe Hydrogen slurry provides the handling and safety benefits of a non-explosive and non-flammable storage format. According to Sig Tullmann, CEO of the start-up, this new technology provides benefits to both future and current hydrogen users. It saves storage and transportation cost and, especially in our new security conscious world, saves security risks and costs by providing a non-explosive and non-flammable stored hydrogen, he says. He estimates the cost of hydrogen to the consumer, if this technology were rolled out on a large scale, would be about 40 percent less than what Europeans are paying today to power their vehicles with gasoline refined from Middle East oil. According to McClaine, hydrogen is easily generated from plentiful raw materials and provides pollution-free energy but is notoriously difficult to store. Only one percent of the weight of a standard bottle of compressed hydrogen (the normal packaging of the product) is actual hydrogen. Currently, It takes an unwieldy 12 bottles of hydrogen to operate a car with a reasonably efficient fuel cell, says McClaine. Safe Hydrogen storage technology provides hydrogen to a car with a fuel tank only about eight percent larger than the average gasoline tank. Or in general terms, according to McClaine, Safe Hydrogen technology stores hydrogen ten times more compact than compressed and twice as compact as liquefied hydrogen. Today, compressed hydrogen and liquid hydrogen are the two most common way of storing and transporting hydrogen. An important plus is that both the loaded and depleted slurry are pumpable and easily adapted to fit into the existing gas station support structure. No special pressures or temperatures are required. While the widespread use of the Safe Hydrogen storage process in automobiles will take some time, the technology can play a more immediate role in power back up, remote power, and marine power applications, according to Tullmann. Safe Hydrogen is in the process of seeking additional capital and can be contacted via its web site http://www.safehydrogen.com ___ Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [evworld] Re: [biofuel] GM rethinks hydrogen fuel cells
- Original Message - From: robert luis rabello [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 10:48 PM Subject: Re: [evworld] Re: [biofuel] GM rethinks hydrogen fuel cells Hakan Falk wrote: Hi MM, The number they give for hydrogen is 10%, you get 100 and put in 90 in the electrolyses. This is a single step process and if you define efficiency as from well to wheel and use hydrogen as energy source for process, you get 0.25% assuming fuel cells with 50% efficiency. (Only need to know how to multiply -:) ) I think your figures are deflated. Hydrogen isn't ideal as an energy carrier, but it isn't THAT bad! A kilogram of H2 (roughly equal to a gallon of gasoline, in terms of energy content) electrolyzed at 100% efficiency would require 31.6 kWh of electricity to produce. The commercial units produced by Stuart Energy, for instance, claim roughly 59 kWh (this includes compression and all auxiliary equipment) per kilogram. Doing the math, this works out to an overall generating efficiency of 54% for H2 @ 100 atmosphere pressure. see: http://www.stuartenergy.com/main_trans.html and http://www.stuartenergy.com/main_tech.html Now, let's burn this H2 in an internal combustion engine. We will get about 20% efficiency, assuming the engine hasn't been optimized for hydrogen, meaning that from the electrical current required to generate the hydrogen initially to the force propelling wheels down the road, the efficiency is about 11%. Lead acid batteries beat this by a whopping margin. But, if we were to burn this H2 in a fuel cell, the situation differs radically. Since the gas is already compressed, and there is no energy penalty for reforming, a typical PEM fuel cell can deliver 80% efficiency. Could you give us a reference for that 80% too. I don't study the subject but from what I've read you'd be lucky to get that 80% even with heat recovery. Malcolm Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [evworld] Re: [biofuel] GM rethinks hydrogen fuel cells
malcolm.scott wrote: Could you give us a reference for that 80% too. I don't study the subject but from what I've read you'd be lucky to get that 80% even with heat recovery. Malcolm I should know better than to state something without checking facts! The 80% figure was one I remembered from somewhere, but it turns out that you were right to question my number. Here's the link I remembered: http://www.ballard.com/tD.asp?pgid=76dbid=0 The 81% claim is WITH heat recovery--the part I didn't remember. Sorry for not getting my facts straight, everyone! (And thanks, Malcom, for pointing this out!) Most of the other PEM fuel cell companies are much more conservative in their ratings than Ballard. For instance: http://www.fuelcellstore.com/cgi-bin/fuelweb/view=item/cat=23/subcat=26/product=180 http://www.avistalabs.com/prod_i100.asp The latter is a PDF file. When you download it, you'll learn that Avista is claiming only 36 - 40 % at full load. robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice Adventure for Your Mind http://www.1stbooks.com/bookview/9782 Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] GM rethinks hydrogen fuel cells
murdoch wrote: I'm a little confused. I thought that GM has announced having to turn to Toyota for hybrid technology to bring these hybrids out. But in this USA Today presentation, no mention seems to be made of that, and at the end GM comes off as some sort of supposed innovator in the field. Ah, the wonderful world of joint ventures. The concept of grid-chargeable hybrids isn't mentioned but I think it is on the minds of many activists. Once a hybrid owner has the chance to drive on Electricity alone, he or she might well be interested in a pure EV. At the least it allows petroleum-free operation. At present none are offered to the public nor talked-about by the major makers. At that point what you're talking about is an EV with an auxiliary generator for long trips. Such a thing already exists. When you want to go on a trip longer than the batteries can support you attach a little trailer which holds a genset. And whether or not it's petroleum free depends entirely on what kind of power you charge it with. Which, if it comes from the grid, will most likely be coal fired. There is nothing about a hybrid which precludes the use of a fuel cell in place of an internal combustion engine. I'm guessing that we might see such a thing if a durable good fuel cell powered by a conventional liquid fuel as developed. Indeed. If it's more practical to use a smaller fuel cell augmented with batteries then such a thing is likely. I'm skeptical of the success of hydrogen. I predict no success with hydrogen. The stuff is simply too difficult to handle. Anything which can leak by difusing through the walls of its container, usually causing embrittlement in the process, isn't something I want powering my vehicle. AP -- Aviation is more than a hobby. It is more than a job. It is more than a career. Aviation is a way of life. A second language for the world: www.esperanto.net Processor cycles are a terrible thing to waste: www.distributed.net Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [evworld] Re: [biofuel] GM rethinks hydrogen fuel cells
What are you guys talking about? There is no energy conversion that I'm aware that adds energy out of nowhere (i.e., that violates the laws of physics as they are presently discussed). Maybe your use of the word gain is meant to be something different? I took Hakan's .25% figure to be hard to understand. If he was talking about energy conversion efficiency, while I've understood electrolysis to be inefficient to the point of being problematic and not economical, I doubt that it's only .25% efficient (99.75% inefficient) (maybe it is, could be, I guess), so I wasn't sure how else he could mean his figure. Maybe he meant 25% and not .25%? On Fri, 3 Jan 2003 11:07:05 -0800 (PST), you wrote: True. I just didn't put that in cause I was looking at a more acceptance issue. But yes, until there is a net energy GAIN, there won't even be large production, or it will be expensive; both cost and energy wise. James Slayden On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Hakan Falk wrote: Success of hydrogen is going to depend on its energy net gain. The current over all 0.25% through electrolyses, has only been improved with platinum as catalyzer. If they find something, it can be improved with 3 to 4 times and be better or as good as gasoline and diesel. Hakan Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [evworld] Re: [biofuel] GM rethinks hydrogen fuel cells
Hi MM, The number they give for hydrogen is 10%, you get 100 and put in 90 in the electrolyses. This is a single step process and if you define efficiency as from well to wheel and use hydrogen as energy source for process, you get 0.25% assuming fuel cells with 50% efficiency. (Only need to know how to multiply -:) ) Since it can be discussed if 50% for fuel cells might be in the high end, 0.25% could be that also. The energy hydrogen is present in the media, so it is not a question of getting something from nowhere. I am not really clear in what you mean by physics, I thought it was chemistry. Moving energy does not necessarily involves real gains, but can make more of it available for a certain purpose and this constitutes a gain. Heat pumps is an excellent example of this, where you under certain conditions move 3 times more energy than you need for the moving process. (That is physics, I think) Hakan At 10:36 AM 1/5/2003 -0800, you wrote: What are you guys talking about? There is no energy conversion that I'm aware that adds energy out of nowhere (i.e., that violates the laws of physics as they are presently discussed). Maybe your use of the word gain is meant to be something different? I took Hakan's .25% figure to be hard to understand. If he was talking about energy conversion efficiency, while I've understood electrolysis to be inefficient to the point of being problematic and not economical, I doubt that it's only .25% efficient (99.75% inefficient) (maybe it is, could be, I guess), so I wasn't sure how else he could mean his figure. Maybe he meant 25% and not .25%? On Fri, 3 Jan 2003 11:07:05 -0800 (PST), you wrote: True. I just didn't put that in cause I was looking at a more acceptance issue. But yes, until there is a net energy GAIN, there won't even be large production, or it will be expensive; both cost and energy wise. James Slayden On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Hakan Falk wrote: Success of hydrogen is going to depend on its energy net gain. The current over all 0.25% through electrolyses, has only been improved with platinum as catalyzer. If they find something, it can be improved with 3 to 4 times and be better or as good as gasoline and diesel. Hakan Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [evworld] Re: [biofuel] GM rethinks hydrogen fuel cells - efficiencies
One of the things that might be confusing is 50% or 50 percent is written mathematically as 0.50 The web page, entitled:Efficiency of Fuel Cells subtitle: Fuel-Cell-Powered Electric Car when doing the calculations; 80 percent - efficiency of the electric motor/inverter x 30 to 40 percent - efficiency converting methanol to electricity x ?? percent - efficiency converting Natural Gas/biogas to methanol x ?? percent - efficiency of infrastructure = less than 24 to 32 percent methanol Fuel-Cell-Powered Electric Car http://www.howstuffworks.com/fuel-cell4.htm or page thru from the beginning http://www.howstuffworks.com/fuel-cell.htm And a article interviewing a Toyota engineer about well to wheel efficiencies for gasoline, electric hybred vehicles NOVEMBER 13, 2000 NEWSMAKER QA The Man behind Toyota's Green Machines Hiroyuki Watanabe explains how his team developed the revolutionary gas-electric Prius and what's coming next in clean cars -snip- Q: Which system is the greenest? A: We approach this in a very holistic way. The conventional way to evaluate emissions is to simply measure waste gases at the tailpipe while the car is running. A better way is to calculate the net environmental load of the vehicle -- this is sometimes called well to pump plus pump to wheel costs. The first half [well to pump] counts for the cost of extracting and processing the fuel. The second half [pump to wheel] is the traditional measure of how efficient a vehicle is at converting fuel into motion. Using this method, the environmental impact of different engine systems can be surprising. For example, gas engines are about 84% efficient from well to pump, but just 15% efficient from pump to wheel. But the overall efficiency is about 13%. [MH: to figure efficiency multiply 0.84 x 0.15 = 0.126 or about 13% ] Hybrid cars do much better by this measure. From well to pump, they are about 84% efficient. And from pump to wheel, they are 30% efficient. So, for a hybrid, overall well-to-wheel efficiency is 25%. [MH: to figure efficiency multiply 0.84 x 0.30 = 0.252 or about 25% ] For battery-only vehicles, overall efficiency is about 21%. [MH: coal to electricity is about 30%, grid efficiency 90%, battery charging efficiency 90%, motor efficiency 90%. To figure efficiency multiply 0.30 x 0.90 x 0.90 x 0.90 = 0.2187 or hmmm ] http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/nov2000/nf20001113_736.htm [MH: The interview also included fuel cells and diesel engine, etc ] And I'm not sure of efficiencies using renewable electrical energy sources such as hydro, wind, PV cells, geothermal, tidal, etc. OR the efficiency gains of regeneration for EVs HEVs. Some conversion efficiency factors for Petroleum and Biofuel were one would see a net gain when -- Yield in liquid fuel Btus per Btu of fossil fuel energy dedicated Energy Balance/Life Cycle Inventory for Ethanol, Biodiesel and Petroleum Fuels Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) Copied from http://www.mda.state.mn.us/ethanol/balance.html Ethanol versus Gasoline A United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Economic Research Service Report number 721 titled Estimating The Net Energy Balance Of Corn Ethanol was published in July of 1995. The Conclusion states in part: Corn ethanol is energy efficient, as indicated by an energy ratio of 1.24, that is, for every Btu dedicated to producing ethanol, there is a 24-percent energy gain. In a presentation published in September 1996 Ethanol Balance of Corn Ethanol Revisited, the authors of the 1995 study reported an increase in the energy ratio of corn ethanol to 1.34. This was done to account for increased corn yields and greater efficiencies in the ethanol production process than had been considered in the first study. As a result, they conclude that there is a 34 percent energy gain in the production of ethanol. The concept of input efficiencies for fossil energy sources was introduced as a component of the study. This was meant to account for the fossil energy used to extract, transport and manufacture the raw material (crude oil) into the final energy product (gasoline). According to the study, gasoline has an energy ratio of 0.74. In other words, for every unit of energy dedicated to the production of gasoline there is a 26 percent energy loss. In summary, the finished liquid fuel energy yield for fossil fuel dedicated to the production of ethanol is 1.34 but only 0.74 for gasoline. In other words the energy yield of ethanol is (1.34/0.74) or 81 percent greater than the comparable yield for gasoline. Bio-Diesel versus Petroleum Diesel A similar study was co-sponsored by the United States Department of Energy and the USDA, entitled, Life Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban Bus. The study, published in May 1998, states; Biodiesel yields
Re: [evworld] Re: [biofuel] GM rethinks hydrogen fuel cells
Hakan Falk wrote: Hi MM, The number they give for hydrogen is 10%, you get 100 and put in 90 in the electrolyses. This is a single step process and if you define efficiency as from well to wheel and use hydrogen as energy source for process, you get 0.25% assuming fuel cells with 50% efficiency. (Only need to know how to multiply -:) ) I think your figures are deflated. Hydrogen isn't ideal as an energy carrier, but it isn't THAT bad! A kilogram of H2 (roughly equal to a gallon of gasoline, in terms of energy content) electrolyzed at 100% efficiency would require 31.6 kWh of electricity to produce. The commercial units produced by Stuart Energy, for instance, claim roughly 59 kWh (this includes compression and all auxiliary equipment) per kilogram. Doing the math, this works out to an overall generating efficiency of 54% for H2 @ 100 atmosphere pressure. see: http://www.stuartenergy.com/main_trans.html and http://www.stuartenergy.com/main_tech.html Now, let's burn this H2 in an internal combustion engine. We will get about 20% efficiency, assuming the engine hasn't been optimized for hydrogen, meaning that from the electrical current required to generate the hydrogen initially to the force propelling wheels down the road, the efficiency is about 11%. Lead acid batteries beat this by a whopping margin. But, if we were to burn this H2 in a fuel cell, the situation differs radically. Since the gas is already compressed, and there is no energy penalty for reforming, a typical PEM fuel cell can deliver 80% efficiency. All of a sudden, we're at 43% efficiency at regenerating current, with probably a 15% loss for motor and wiring, leaving us with 28% overall efficiency--which is much better than most gasoline engines can deliver, but still less than the average diesel can do. (Though a dedicated, constant speed, direct injection H2 engine might come dangerously close to this as well!) That's why the media and H2 enthusiasts are hyped up about hydrogen. The trouble is, however, from whence will the hydrogen come? Even with a fuel cell, I'd be much better off storing the original electrical energy in lead acid batteries, so I'd only have to generate HALF the current necessary to propel my vehicle down the road. The serious hydrogen proponents, people with an even greater belief in the viability of hydrogen as an energy carrier than I possess, argue that mass produced solar thermal gen sets can generate electricity in excess of what is required for current grid needs. This excess can be shunted to mass produced electrolyzers that will split water, producing hydrogen for fuel and oxygen for industrial or medical use. Further, using thermal processes involving transition metals, where electrical current is used only for breaking the oxidant layer on the tip of the anode, hydrogen can be generated at higher thermodynamic efficiencies than is possible with classical electrolysis. The high temperatures (something like 900 Celsius) would be created using concentrated sunlight. Such technology already exists, but it's expensive. This is where mass production is required to bring the price of the gen sets and electrolyzers down to an affordable level. I've read one analysis (this must be fifteen years ago already!) that suggested an investment of something like $40 billion would enable to U.S. to become a net energy exporter! If we had leadership in this area, such an investment, although considerable, is well within reasonable for the American economy over a ten year period of time. (Don't we already spend that much parking aircraft carriers off of other nations' coastlines and dropping bombs on people?) The trouble with hydrogen from the auto maker's perspective, is that they're EXPECTING the hydrogen to be made from reformed hydrocarbons--a difficult task to do on the fly. Further, even PEM fuel cells running on pure H2 can choke on their waste. There's a very delicate balance that needs to be maintained with respect to humidity on the PEM surface. If it's too dry, the reaction won't work. If it's too wet, the reaction STOPS working. I learned somewhere that Ballard solved this problem by blowing compressed air over the membrane and using some of the methanol reformer heat to keep the PEM at optimal temperature and humidity. All of that processing reduces efficiency, creates complexity, and increases cost. Personally, I don't expect fuel cells for transportation applications to become affordable in my lifetime. We can come very close to fuel cell efficiency running a hydrogen fueled internal combustion engine with direct injection at constant speed, driving a generator. That's the only way I can foresee hydrogen making inroads as a transportation energy carrier. robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice Adventure for Your Mind http://www.1stbooks.com/bookview/9782 Biofuel at Journey to
Re: [evworld] Re: [biofuel] GM rethinks hydrogen fuel cells
Robert, We see so much claims of numbers in producing hydrogen, so we do not know what to believe. It is good, because it might be a chance here. My point is really not the exact numbers, this will be disclosed and more exact soon. It is the stage of the technology. How I turn this issue, I can not get it to be a ready for use technology. That means that it is at least 40-50 years to common use. HEV and EV will be ahead of that and probably fuels cells for ethanol or other fuels. But before this vehicle types are commonly in use, it is at least 30 years. Common use of biofuel could be as soon as 10 to 20 years. I am not taking very strong position on the final suitability of different fuels, it is difficult to predict. I am applying the criteria ready for use and then the timing questions. This is because my feeling of urgency to get renewable alternatives in place. Almost every day now, we get energy use estimates and it starts to be an uncomfortable and large difference between the demand projections and the projections of what is possible to produce. The difference must at the end be consolidated and the question is how? My point is that we cannot wait, we must start to play on the strings that we have and we better make good music otherwise the public will kill us. Hakan At 02:48 PM 1/5/2003 -0800, you wrote: Hakan Falk wrote: Hi MM, The number they give for hydrogen is 10%, you get 100 and put in 90 in the electrolyses. This is a single step process and if you define efficiency as from well to wheel and use hydrogen as energy source for process, you get 0.25% assuming fuel cells with 50% efficiency. (Only need to know how to multiply -:) ) I think your figures are deflated. Hydrogen isn't ideal as an energy carrier, but it isn't THAT bad! A kilogram of H2 (roughly equal to a gallon of gasoline, in terms of energy content) electrolyzed at 100% efficiency would require 31.6 kWh of electricity to produce. The commercial units produced by Stuart Energy, for instance, claim roughly 59 kWh (this includes compression and all auxiliary equipment) per kilogram. Doing the math, this works out to an overall generating efficiency of 54% for H2 @ 100 atmosphere pressure. see: http://www.stuartenergy.com/main_trans.html and http://www.stuartenergy.com/main_tech.html Now, let's burn this H2 in an internal combustion engine. We will get about 20% efficiency, assuming the engine hasn't been optimized for hydrogen, meaning that from the electrical current required to generate the hydrogen initially to the force propelling wheels down the road, the efficiency is about 11%. Lead acid batteries beat this by a whopping margin. But, if we were to burn this H2 in a fuel cell, the situation differs radically. Since the gas is already compressed, and there is no energy penalty for reforming, a typical PEM fuel cell can deliver 80% efficiency. All of a sudden, we're at 43% efficiency at regenerating current, with probably a 15% loss for motor and wiring, leaving us with 28% overall efficiency--which is much better than most gasoline engines can deliver, but still less than the average diesel can do. (Though a dedicated, constant speed, direct injection H2 engine might come dangerously close to this as well!) That's why the media and H2 enthusiasts are hyped up about hydrogen. The trouble is, however, from whence will the hydrogen come? Even with a fuel cell, I'd be much better off storing the original electrical energy in lead acid batteries, so I'd only have to generate HALF the current necessary to propel my vehicle down the road. The serious hydrogen proponents, people with an even greater belief in the viability of hydrogen as an energy carrier than I possess, argue that mass produced solar thermal gen sets can generate electricity in excess of what is required for current grid needs. This excess can be shunted to mass produced electrolyzers that will split water, producing hydrogen for fuel and oxygen for industrial or medical use. Further, using thermal processes involving transition metals, where electrical current is used only for breaking the oxidant layer on the tip of the anode, hydrogen can be generated at higher thermodynamic efficiencies than is possible with classical electrolysis. The high temperatures (something like 900 Celsius) would be created using concentrated sunlight. Such technology already exists, but it's expensive. This is where mass production is required to bring the price of the gen sets and electrolyzers down to an affordable level. I've read one analysis (this must be fifteen years ago already!) that suggested an investment of something like $40 billion would enable to U.S. to become a net energy exporter! If we had leadership in this area, such an investment, although considerable, is well within reasonable for the American economy over a ten year
Re: [evworld] Re: [biofuel] GM rethinks hydrogen fuel cells
Hi Robert, a couple of responses below and sorry to others for not snipping but I found it very difficult. robert luis rabello wrote: I think your figures are deflated. Hydrogen isn't ideal as an energy carrier, but it isn't THAT bad! A kilogram of H2 (roughly equal to a gallon of gasoline, in terms of energy content) electrolyzed at 100% efficiency would require 31.6 kWh of electricity to produce. The commercial units produced by Stuart Energy, for instance, claim roughly 59 kWh (this includes compression and all auxiliary equipment) per kilogram. Doing the math, this works out to an overall generating efficiency of 54% for H2 @ 100 atmosphere pressure. see: http://www.stuartenergy.com/main_trans.html and http://www.stuartenergy.com/main_tech.html Thank you for the link on H2 generating efficiency! But, if we were to burn this H2 in a fuel cell, the situation differs radically. Since the gas is already compressed, and there is no energy penalty for reforming, a typical PEM fuel cell can deliver 80% efficiency. All of a sudden, we're at 43% efficiency at regenerating current, with probably a 15% loss for motor and wiring, leaving us with 28% overall efficiency--which is much better than most gasoline engines can deliver, but still less than the average diesel can do. (Though a dedicated, constant speed, direct injection H2 engine might come dangerously close to this as well!) Could you check my math ? 54% - H2 (hydrogen) overall generating efficiency x 80% - PEM fuel cell efficiency x 85% - motor wiring efficiency equals 36.7% efficient for H2 PEM FCV That's why the media and H2 enthusiasts are hyped up about hydrogen. The trouble is, however, from whence will the hydrogen come? Even with a fuel cell, I'd be much better off storing the original electrical energy in lead acid batteries, so I'd only have to generate HALF the current necessary to propel my vehicle down the road. The serious hydrogen proponents, people with an even greater belief in the viability of hydrogen as an energy carrier than I possess, argue that mass produced solar thermal gen sets can generate electricity in excess of what is required for current grid needs. This excess can be shunted to mass produced electrolyzers that will split water, producing hydrogen for fuel and oxygen for industrial or medical use. Further, using thermal processes involving transition metals, where electrical current is used only for breaking the oxidant layer on the tip of the anode, hydrogen can be generated at higher thermodynamic efficiencies than is possible with classical electrolysis. The high temperatures (something like 900 Celsius) would be created using concentrated sunlight. Such technology already exists, but it's expensive. This is where mass production is required to bring the price of the gen sets and electrolyzers down to an affordable level. I've read one analysis (this must be fifteen years ago already!) that suggested an investment of something like $40 billion would enable to U.S. to become a net energy exporter! If we had leadership in this area, such an investment, although considerable, is well within reasonable for the American economy over a ten year period of time. (Don't we already spend that much parking aircraft carriers off of other nations' coastlines and dropping bombs on people?) The Iraq war presently under consideration before the Bush Administrations economic advisory change over recently was estimated at $200 billion USD. Now with the new Bush Administrations economic advisor's the cost is estimated at $60 to 80 billion USD. I'm not sure what happened unless the USA, UK and Israel are splitting it three ways. And that's it. Thank you Robert! The trouble with hydrogen from the auto maker's perspective, is that they're EXPECTING the hydrogen to be made from reformed hydrocarbons--a difficult task to do on the fly. Further, even PEM fuel cells running on pure H2 can choke on their waste. There's a very delicate balance that needs to be maintained with respect to humidity on the PEM surface. If it's too dry, the reaction won't work. If it's too wet, the reaction STOPS working. I learned somewhere that Ballard solved this problem by blowing compressed air over the membrane and using some of the methanol reformer heat to keep the PEM at optimal temperature and humidity. All of that processing reduces efficiency, creates complexity, and increases cost. Personally, I don't expect fuel cells for transportation applications to become affordable in my lifetime. We can come very close to fuel cell efficiency running a hydrogen fueled internal combustion engine with direct injection at constant speed, driving a generator. That's the only way I can foresee hydrogen making inroads as a
Re: [evworld] Re: [biofuel] GM rethinks hydrogen fuel cells
MH wrote: Hi Robert, a couple of responses below and sorry to others for not snipping but I found it very difficult. Thank you for the link on H2 generating efficiency! You're welcome! This has been a personal interest of mine since the Gemini and Apollo programs proved that hydrogen COULD work as a non polluting energy carrier. Could you check my math ? 54% - H2 (hydrogen) overall generating efficiency x 80% - PEM fuel cell efficiency x 85% - motor wiring efficiency equals 36.7% efficient for H2 PEM FCV Your numbers are even more optimistic than mine. The people at Stuart are targeting an end use equivalency of $1.00 per gallon. That only works if electricity prices are somewhere in the midst of .06 per kilowatt hour, as they are here in B.C. It's only a matter of time before those prices rise, and because of the overall losses in the end product, hydrogen produced by electrolysis is very sensitive to electricity costs. (Of course, electrolysis isn't the only way to produce H2, but it's the easiest and least labor intensive.) I believe a pure EV comes out far ahead, but as someone else has pointed out, I can't buy an EV from my local auto dealer. I can, however, buy a vehicle already converted to natural gas that would perform adequately on H2--giving me a more comfortable range than an EV. However, a diesel engine, operating on SVO, is the most affordable option. Hakan is right about this. For the full sized trucks I've been looking at, a diesel engine runs about $10 000 more in Canadian money. Add another $1 000 for Ed Beggs to install an SVO system, and I could drive a practical machine (with a factory warranty) for less money than it would cost to convert a gas engine and either buy an electrolyzer, or build one and compress the H2 for the onboard tanks. Further, I'd have the option of running it on fossil diesel if necessary, and clean SVO would cost me about the same as I'm paying for gasoline right now. Also, I'd run no risk of raising the ire of government agencies by distilling ethanol. . . The same truck with a gas engine converted to H2 would cost at least $3 500 for the conversion alone, and that would be an externally mixed set up not exactly optimized for hydrogen. If I could actually buy one of those Stuart electrolyzers (and they won't sell one to me, I've actually TRIED to get one from them in the past!), it would set me back more than $10 000. Or, I could build my own electrolyzer for a few thousand bucks and invest in a rebuilt natural gas compressor for another $3 500. In doing so, I'd lose the efficiency of the commercial unit, and my fuel would cost the equivalent of $1.80 per liter. While those in Europe might not flinch at that kind of price for fuel, I drive over 500 kilometers per week, and simply can't afford to spend over $100 per week for fuel. (I have a hard time thinking small. I grew up driving Chevelles and Cougars with V 8 engines and lots of leg room. I have a tough time fitting into a Volkswagen! My poor, long suffering wife frequently points out that my Ranger is really too small for our family. Isn't it strange, how we are conditioned to expect certain things from our automobiles?) The only disadvantage with the diesel (aside from its up front cost), is that it will pollute more than an engine of comparable size running on hydrogen. I live in the third most polluted place in Canada, and I'd like to reduce or eliminate my contribution to poor air quality. All of a sudden, that EV looks good again. . . The Iraq war presently under consideration before the Bush Administrations economic advisory change over recently was estimated at $200 billion USD. Now with the new Bush Administrations economic advisor's the cost is estimated at $60 to 80 billion USD. I'm not sure what happened unless the USA, UK and Israel are splitting it three ways. Money of that magnitude could go a long way toward alleviating a lot of the world's misery.So much promise, yet so much folly! And that's it. Thank you Robert! You're welcome! robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice Adventure for Your Mind http://www.1stbooks.com/bookview/9782 Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] GM rethinks hydrogen fuel cells
murdoch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip The concept of grid-chargeable hybrids isn't mentioned but I think it is on the minds of many activists. Once a hybrid owner has the chance to drive on Electricity alone, he or she might well be interested in a pure EV. At the least it allows petroleum-free operation. At present none are offered to the public nor talked-about by the major makers. Precisely why the major automakers are not allowing drivers to experience true electrics. I maintain a list of many of the electric vehicles on the road in North America (http://www.econogics.com/ev/evwhere.htm). One trend I am noticing is that people that have had their OEM EVs (eg Honda EV+, GM EV-1) taken back (lease up, no offer to renew or extend) are purchasing Corbin Sparrows. Quite a step down on the price curve, and a single-seater, but still electric. There is nothing about a hybrid which precludes the use of a fuel cell in place of an internal combustion engine. I'm guessing that we might see such a thing if a durable good fuel cell powered by a conventional liquid fuel as developed. I'm skeptical of the success of hydrogen. Actually, hybrids as offered today from Toyota and Honda, and proposed by Daimler- Chrysler are really electric-assist gasoline burners. They do not have an electric motor large enough to sustain extended accelerations or acceleration at highway speeds. To build a car where the ICE could be replaced by a fuel cell would require an all-electric drive train, which is not being provided by the automakers yet. In the case of a series hybrid (where the ICE just charges the batteries, but does not power the drive train directly), then I would agree with your statement. Personally, I'm skeptical of fuel cells for mobile use altogether. Hydrogen just presents more handling, storage and production issues than current liquid fuels. Diesels today can already achieve the efficiencies the fuel cell guys are still shooting for. Clearly, biodiesel should be the fuel of choice in those diesel engines. (Still working toward my biodiesel-electric hybrid car as cashflow permits.) Darryl McMahon 48 Tarquin Crescent, Econogics, Inc. Nepean, Ontario K2H 8J8 It's your planet. Voice: (613)784-0655 If you won't look Fax: (613)828-3199 after it, who will?http://www.econogics.com/ Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] GM rethinks hydrogen fuel cells
Hi MM I'm a little confused. I thought that GM has announced having to turn to Toyota for hybrid technology to bring these hybrids out. But in this USA Today presentation, no mention seems to be made of that, and at the end GM comes off as some sort of supposed innovator in the field. Yes, while Toyota follows in front. The concept of grid-chargeable hybrids isn't mentioned but I think it is on the minds of many activists. Once a hybrid owner has the chance to drive on Electricity alone, he or she might well be interested in a pure EV. At the least it allows petroleum-free operation. At present none are offered to the public nor talked-about by the major makers. Didn't you enjoy the authoritative quote by Anne Hanson, an Ann Arbor, Mich., marketing consultant and former marketing chief with Ford's electric vehicle program? Did the former chief of the Edsel marketing program get to make authoritative statements afterwards? Or was he out selling Tupperware? Or am I reading it all wrong? This is from State Takes Sharp Turn on Emissions - Cars: With electric vehicles still impractical, hybrids and gasoline engines are showing unexpected promise, LA Times, September 15 2002: The battery car never lived up to expectations because conventional lead-acid batteries don't produce enough power to make electric cars perform like vehicles with gasoline engines. More advanced batteries that improve performance still cost too much. The battery electric car is not going to be viable any time soon. It is dead on arrival, said Greg Dana, vice president of environmental affairs for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which represents 12 of the world's biggest automakers. The full-size electric vehicles are not appealing to the public. They are not full-function, said Reg Modlin, director of environmental and energy planning for DaimlerChrysler. It wasn't the right way to start the program. It also says this: Toyota Motor Corp. plans to produce 300,000 [hybrids] worldwide in two years, while the Big Three auto makers have plans for hybrid vehicles beginning in 2004. What keeps on cropping up is this: The low cost of petrol in the U.S. has discouraged efforts to cut fuel consumption and led GM to scrap its most efficient U.S. gasoline models, the Chevrolet Metro and Chevrolet Prizm. http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/17890/story.htm As fuel in the United States is much cheaper than in Europe, U.S. consumers feel little pressure to switch to HEVs, although the situation might change if fuel costs soared, delegates said. Many American consumers don't feel obliged to economise on fuel as it is so cheap, Miller said. [Ted Miller, a Dearborn, Michigan-based executive with Ford Motor Co, also a senior official of the U.S. advanced battery consortium (USABC)] http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/17738/story.htm Or at least they think it's cheap - never mind hidden costs like the $378 billion or whatever Defence (LOL!) Budget (LOL!). The White House (aka Exxon-Mobil) is quite happy with that, of course. We don't get any government support for either hybrid or natural-gas-only vehicles. Essentially, our current government has said that global warming isn't a problem, fuel economy isn't a problem. They have voted down any participation in the worldwide effort to reduce global warming and voted down any increase in the fuel-economy standards. I suspect that they think-and they may be right-that they are expressing the will of the American people in these things. Then again, they may be wrong. I hope they are wrong. But Americans like big cars. I guess it's the mentality that really goes for monster trucks and things of that nature. Consumption of fuel still seems to be something to be admired. - Michael Seal, director of the Vehicle Research Institute at Western Washington University in Bellingham, Wash., in The Future of Fuel-Efficient Cars, NEWSWEEK, April 5 2002. That was quite an interesting Newsweek series, no longer at their site. EVWorld cross-reffed three of the eight articles at the time, but those links are dead. I'll post this one on the VRI. There is nothing about a hybrid which precludes the use of a fuel cell in place of an internal combustion engine. I'm guessing that we might see such a thing if a durable good fuel cell powered by a conventional liquid fuel as developed. I'm skeptical of the success of hydrogen. From the LA Times article: Toyota announced in July that it plans to market 20 fuel-cell / hybrid vehicles by the end of this year. See also: http://www.toyota.com/html/about/environment/partner_tech/fuelcell_hyb rid.html#fchv-bus1 Toyota's Fuel Cell Hybrid Vehicles (FCHV) Not quite the hybrids we're thinking of though. So Japan leaps ahead with hybrids and fuel cells, Europe leaps ahead with clean diesels, and the US goes right on guzzling. Best Keith MM On Thu, 02 Jan 2003 16:41:16 -, you
Re: [biofuel] GM rethinks hydrogen fuel cells
Hello Darryl Please pardon the snip, interesting stuff! But I just want to ask... snip (Still working toward my biodiesel-electric hybrid car as cashflow permits.) Are you building it? Best Keith Darryl McMahon 48 Tarquin Crescent, Econogics, Inc. Nepean, Ontario K2H 8J8 It's your planet. Voice: (613)784-0655 If you won't look Fax: (613)828-3199 after it, who will?http://www.econogics.com/ Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [evworld] Re: [biofuel] GM rethinks hydrogen fuel cells
I think that the success of Hydrogen, either via ICE or Fuel Cell will entirely depend on public acceptance. The CNG technology has been out for quite some time for home an puplic infructure use and it's acceptance is marginal as far as alternative fuels go, mostly in fleets at best. What will change the common idea that gaseous fuel is better than liquid fuel, when people are somewhat suspect of gaseous fuels (especially Hydrogen, remember the Hindenburg...)? I don't think there is enough push for any gasious fuels to make a large dent in the liquid fuels stranglehold. I think that a pure EV solution has a better chance than any gaseous fuel due to the public acceptance of plugging household appliances in on a routine basis. Not often to I have to filler up or plug in my NG stove, dryer, water heater. Those things are seen as more a 'have a professional install it once and let it go' type of technology. Electricity is ubiqiteous. Liquid fuels are also. Sometimes I do have to fill up the BBQ propane tank, but that is every 3 months or so, so my experience is not weekly. It's more about commonality and habit. James Slayden On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, murdoch wrote: I'm a little confused. I thought that GM has announced having to turn to Toyota for hybrid technology to bring these hybrids out. But in this USA Today presentation, no mention seems to be made of that, and at the end GM comes off as some sort of supposed innovator in the field. The concept of grid-chargeable hybrids isn't mentioned but I think it is on the minds of many activists. Once a hybrid owner has the chance to drive on Electricity alone, he or she might well be interested in a pure EV. At the least it allows petroleum-free operation. At present none are offered to the public nor talked-about by the major makers. There is nothing about a hybrid which precludes the use of a fuel cell in place of an internal combustion engine. I'm guessing that we might see such a thing if a durable good fuel cell powered by a conventional liquid fuel as developed. I'm skeptical of the success of hydrogen. MM On Thu, 02 Jan 2003 16:41:16 -, you wrote: http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2002-12-29-hybrid_x.htm Now we need to equip those hybrids as Flexible Fuel Vehicles that can burn either gasoline or ethanol, or any combination of the two fuels. http://www.ccities.doe.gov/vbg/consumers/e85.shtml Then we need a genome project to produce a saltwater seaweed with a high cellulose content, that can be used to produce unlimited supplies of ethanol, as in my essay entitled Benthic Energy, near the bottom of my Starship Generations website. http://geocities.com/womplex_oo1/StarshipGenerations.html Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] GM rethinks hydrogen fuel cells
Is Corbin actually selling Sparrows anymore? I thought they were moving into their Merlin line completely (ie. ICE engine). James Slayden On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, Darryl McMahon wrote: murdoch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip The concept of grid-chargeable hybrids isn't mentioned but I think it is on the minds of many activists. Once a hybrid owner has the chance to drive on Electricity alone, he or she might well be interested in a pure EV. At the least it allows petroleum-free operation. At present none are offered to the public nor talked-about by the major makers. Precisely why the major automakers are not allowing drivers to experience true electrics. I maintain a list of many of the electric vehicles on the road in North America (http://www.econogics.com/ev/evwhere.htm). One trend I am noticing is that people that have had their OEM EVs (eg Honda EV+, GM EV-1) taken back (lease up, no offer to renew or extend) are purchasing Corbin Sparrows. Quite a step down on the price curve, and a single-seater, but still electric. There is nothing about a hybrid which precludes the use of a fuel cell in place of an internal combustion engine. I'm guessing that we might see such a thing if a durable good fuel cell powered by a conventional liquid fuel as developed. I'm skeptical of the success of hydrogen. Actually, hybrids as offered today from Toyota and Honda, and proposed by Daimler- Chrysler are really electric-assist gasoline burners. They do not have an electric motor large enough to sustain extended accelerations or acceleration at highway speeds. To build a car where the ICE could be replaced by a fuel cell would require an all-electric drive train, which is not being provided by the automakers yet. In the case of a series hybrid (where the ICE just charges the batteries, but does not power the drive train directly), then I would agree with your statement. Personally, I'm skeptical of fuel cells for mobile use altogether. Hydrogen just presents more handling, storage and production issues than current liquid fuels. Diesels today can already achieve the efficiencies the fuel cell guys are still shooting for. Clearly, biodiesel should be the fuel of choice in those diesel engines. (Still working toward my biodiesel-electric hybrid car as cashflow permits.) Darryl McMahon 48 Tarquin Crescent, Econogics, Inc. Nepean, Ontario K2H 8J8 It's your planet. Voice: (613)784-0655 If you won't look Fax: (613)828-3199 after it, who will?http://www.econogics.com/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] GM rethinks hydrogen fuel cells
James Slayden [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: Is Corbin actually selling Sparrows anymore? I thought they were moving into their Merlin line completely (ie. ICE engine). According to their website at http://www.corbinmotors.com/products_sparrow1.html they are taking orders for 2003 Sparrow 1's. The Sparrow II production line is being constructed. http://www.corbinmotors.com/products_sparrow2.html Somehow, the American motor media seem to have concluded that the introduction of the Merlin Roadster and Merlin Coupe meant Corbin was throwing in the towel on the Sparrow. Reports I have read also give the impression that the Merlins are in production, which they are not. The only vehicle Corbin is actually producing and selling today is the all-electric Sparrow. Darryl McMahon 48 Tarquin Crescent, Econogics, Inc. Nepean, Ontario K2H 8J8 It's your planet. Voice: (613)784-0655 If you won't look Fax: (613)828-3199 after it, who will?http://www.econogics.com/ Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [evworld] Re: [biofuel] GM rethinks hydrogen fuel cells
Success of hydrogen is going to depend on its energy net gain. The current over all 0.25% through electrolyses, has only been improved with platinum as catalyzer. If they find something, it can be improved with 3 to 4 times and be better or as good as gasoline and diesel. Hakan At 08:59 AM 1/3/2003 -0800, you wrote: I think that the success of Hydrogen, either via ICE or Fuel Cell will entirely depend on public acceptance. The CNG technology has been out for quite some time for home an puplic infructure use and it's acceptance is marginal as far as alternative fuels go, mostly in fleets at best. What will change the common idea that gaseous fuel is better than liquid fuel, when people are somewhat suspect of gaseous fuels (especially Hydrogen, remember the Hindenburg...)? I don't think there is enough push for any gasious fuels to make a large dent in the liquid fuels stranglehold. I think that a pure EV solution has a better chance than any gaseous fuel due to the public acceptance of plugging household appliances in on a routine basis. Not often to I have to filler up or plug in my NG stove, dryer, water heater. Those things are seen as more a 'have a professional install it once and let it go' type of technology. Electricity is ubiqiteous. Liquid fuels are also. Sometimes I do have to fill up the BBQ propane tank, but that is every 3 months or so, so my experience is not weekly. It's more about commonality and habit. James Slayden On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, murdoch wrote: I'm a little confused. I thought that GM has announced having to turn to Toyota for hybrid technology to bring these hybrids out. But in this USA Today presentation, no mention seems to be made of that, and at the end GM comes off as some sort of supposed innovator in the field. The concept of grid-chargeable hybrids isn't mentioned but I think it is on the minds of many activists. Once a hybrid owner has the chance to drive on Electricity alone, he or she might well be interested in a pure EV. At the least it allows petroleum-free operation. At present none are offered to the public nor talked-about by the major makers. There is nothing about a hybrid which precludes the use of a fuel cell in place of an internal combustion engine. I'm guessing that we might see such a thing if a durable good fuel cell powered by a conventional liquid fuel as developed. I'm skeptical of the success of hydrogen. MM On Thu, 02 Jan 2003 16:41:16 -, you wrote: http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2002-12-29-hybrid_x.htm Now we need to equip those hybrids as Flexible Fuel Vehicles that can burn either gasoline or ethanol, or any combination of the two fuels. http://www.ccities.doe.gov/vbg/consumers/e85.shtml Then we need a genome project to produce a saltwater seaweed with a high cellulose content, that can be used to produce unlimited supplies of ethanol, as in my essay entitled Benthic Energy, near the bottom of my Starship Generations website. http://geocities.com/womplex_oo1/StarshipGenerations.html Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [evworld] Re: [biofuel] GM rethinks hydrogen fuel cells
True. I just didn't put that in cause I was looking at a more acceptance issue. But yes, until there is a net energy GAIN, there won't even be large production, or it will be expensive; both cost and energy wise. James Slayden On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Hakan Falk wrote: Success of hydrogen is going to depend on its energy net gain. The current over all 0.25% through electrolyses, has only been improved with platinum as catalyzer. If they find something, it can be improved with 3 to 4 times and be better or as good as gasoline and diesel. Hakan At 08:59 AM 1/3/2003 -0800, you wrote: I think that the success of Hydrogen, either via ICE or Fuel Cell will entirely depend on public acceptance. The CNG technology has been out for quite some time for home an puplic infructure use and it's acceptance is marginal as far as alternative fuels go, mostly in fleets at best. What will change the common idea that gaseous fuel is better than liquid fuel, when people are somewhat suspect of gaseous fuels (especially Hydrogen, remember the Hindenburg...)? I don't think there is enough push for any gasious fuels to make a large dent in the liquid fuels stranglehold. I think that a pure EV solution has a better chance than any gaseous fuel due to the public acceptance of plugging household appliances in on a routine basis. Not often to I have to filler up or plug in my NG stove, dryer, water heater. Those things are seen as more a 'have a professional install it once and let it go' type of technology. Electricity is ubiqiteous. Liquid fuels are also. Sometimes I do have to fill up the BBQ propane tank, but that is every 3 months or so, so my experience is not weekly. It's more about commonality and habit. James Slayden On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, murdoch wrote: I'm a little confused. I thought that GM has announced having to turn to Toyota for hybrid technology to bring these hybrids out. But in this USA Today presentation, no mention seems to be made of that, and at the end GM comes off as some sort of supposed innovator in the field. The concept of grid-chargeable hybrids isn't mentioned but I think it is on the minds of many activists. Once a hybrid owner has the chance to drive on Electricity alone, he or she might well be interested in a pure EV. At the least it allows petroleum-free operation. At present none are offered to the public nor talked-about by the major makers. There is nothing about a hybrid which precludes the use of a fuel cell in place of an internal combustion engine. I'm guessing that we might see such a thing if a durable good fuel cell powered by a conventional liquid fuel as developed. I'm skeptical of the success of hydrogen. MM On Thu, 02 Jan 2003 16:41:16 -, you wrote: http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2002-12-29-hybrid_x.htm Now we need to equip those hybrids as Flexible Fuel Vehicles that can burn either gasoline or ethanol, or any combination of the two fuels. http://www.ccities.doe.gov/vbg/consumers/e85.shtml Then we need a genome project to produce a saltwater seaweed with a high cellulose content, that can be used to produce unlimited supplies of ethanol, as in my essay entitled Benthic Energy, near the bottom of my Starship Generations website. http://geocities.com/womplex_oo1/StarshipGenerations.html Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of
Re: [evworld] Re: [biofuel] GM rethinks hydrogen fuel cells
One of the problems (I think) associated with liquid and electric vehicles is when comparing energy derived at a given weight, Lead acid battery___1x Ethanol50x E8580x Gasoline_100x I'm unsure of the source of these figures and question how it was derived but I'd assume it may have converted the energy to Btu/lb or J/kg for comparative purposes only BUT technical studies indicate that ethanol and E85 Internal Combustion Engines can be dedicated to provide equal (or slightly better) fuel economy per given volume (e.g. one litre) as unleaded gasoline. Another comparison would be cost per given unit of energy such as a comparable price for electricity to petrol, for example -- One US gallon of Low-Heating-Value petrol (gasoline) = 115,000 BTUs divide by 3412 BTUs/kW = 33.7 kW times $0.07/kW = $2.359 US dollars for the equivalent residential electrical amount of energy per US gallon of unleaded gasoline. Costs per kW may very. Using the BTU figure from -- Energy Conversion Facts http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/energy_conv.html Energy Conversion Calculator http://www.ex.ac.uk/cimt/dictunit/ccenrgy.htm I imagine comparative factors could be used using (Compressed) Natural Gas, LPG, hydrogen, coal, biofuels, wind, hydroelectric, PV, etc. ` Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [evworld] Re: [biofuel] GM rethinks hydrogen fuel cells
Acutally, if your calculations are correct, electricity doesn't look half bad. :) Even better if TOU net metering with some solar was taken in to account. We also have to take the energy conversion of the vehicle system which EV's come out way ahead of ICE vehicles, no matter what fuel is used. James Slayden On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, MH wrote: One of the problems (I think) associated with liquid and electric vehicles is when comparing energy derived at a given weight, Lead acid battery___1x Ethanol50x E8580x Gasoline_100x I'm unsure of the source of these figures and question how it was derived but I'd assume it may have converted the energy to Btu/lb or J/kg for comparative purposes only BUT technical studies indicate that ethanol and E85 Internal Combustion Engines can be dedicated to provide equal (or slightly better) fuel economy per given volume (e.g. one litre) as unleaded gasoline. Another comparison would be cost per given unit of energy such as a comparable price for electricity to petrol, for example -- One US gallon of Low-Heating-Value petrol (gasoline) = 115,000 BTUs divide by 3412 BTUs/kW = 33.7 kW times $0.07/kW = $2.359 US dollars for the equivalent residential electrical amount of energy per US gallon of unleaded gasoline. Costs per kW may very. Using the BTU figure from -- Energy Conversion Facts http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/energy_conv.html Energy Conversion Calculator http://www.ex.ac.uk/cimt/dictunit/ccenrgy.htm I imagine comparative factors could be used using (Compressed) Natural Gas, LPG, hydrogen, coal, biofuels, wind, hydroelectric, PV, etc. ` Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT HGTV Dream Home Giveaway Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [evworld] Re: [biofuel] GM rethinks hydrogen fuel cells
Acutally, if your calculations are correct, electricity doesn't look half bad. :) Even better if TOU net metering with some solar was taken in to account. We also have to take the energy conversion of the vehicle system which EV's come out way ahead of ICE vehicles, no matter what fuel is used. James Slayden Terrific! The figures used for the petrol to electric grid comparison are based on a 'well to pump' or 'mine to electrical outlet' cost factor. It would be helpful to see further results when using 'energy conversion' efficiencies factored in from the 'pump to wheel' or 'electrical plug outlet to wheel' (energy per unit/cost) calculations. Look forward to further explanations and maybe address the weight factor concerning gasoline and the lead acid battery power ratio. It would go a long ways in clarifying doubts expressed about EVs. Thank you. ` Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [evworld] Re: [biofuel] GM rethinks hydrogen fuel cells
Those numbers are fuel comparisons not drivetrain. To the end user curb weight and range tell it all. Lead Acid needs to be replaced by something more efficient. Skeleton says their new supercap is an order of magnitude better than the current crop of caps. A hybrid using their cap would beat lead acid. Not only charge/discharge losses but weight as well. Diesel or Bourke for prime mover. Maybe some day fuel cells. Kirk -Original Message- From: MH [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 12:44 PM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [evworld] Re: [biofuel] GM rethinks hydrogen fuel cells One of the problems (I think) associated with liquid and electric vehicles is when comparing energy derived at a given weight, Lead acid battery___1x Ethanol50x E8580x Gasoline_100x I'm unsure of the source of these figures and question how it was derived but I'd assume it may have converted the energy to Btu/lb or J/kg for comparative purposes only BUT technical studies indicate that ethanol and E85 Internal Combustion Engines can be dedicated to provide equal (or slightly better) fuel economy per given volume (e.g. one litre) as unleaded gasoline. Another comparison would be cost per given unit of energy such as a comparable price for electricity to petrol, for example -- One US gallon of Low-Heating-Value petrol (gasoline) = 115,000 BTUs divide by 3412 BTUs/kW = 33.7 kW times $0.07/kW = $2.359 US dollars for the equivalent residential electrical amount of energy per US gallon of unleaded gasoline. Costs per kW may very. Using the BTU figure from -- Energy Conversion Facts http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/energy_conv.html Energy Conversion Calculator http://www.ex.ac.uk/cimt/dictunit/ccenrgy.htm I imagine comparative factors could be used using (Compressed) Natural Gas, LPG, hydrogen, coal, biofuels, wind, hydroelectric, PV, etc. ` Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.435 / Virus Database: 244 - Release Date: 12/30/2002 Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] GM rethinks hydrogen fuel cells
Actually it was the reports of Sparrow I owners that had indicated that and Corbin's lack of any visable support. :) So I called Tom Corbin directly today and here is what the skivey is: They have ~70-72 Sparrow I's that are being changed over to the AC system. About 22 are already paid for by customers, 20 are slated for dealers, and the rest are for the factory for direct purchase. The Sparrow II's will be in production within the next 6 to 8 months and available for purchase at that time. They are expecting a 200,000 unit a year production of the Sparrow II's. Tom also indicated that they might eventually be going to a front wheel drive system on the Sparrow II's. He also indicated some possible battery enhancements. Well, that is a big change from the things I heard, so I am glad to see things moving forward. I visited the factory in Aug. 2001 in hopes of purchasing one, but was going to wait for the Sparrow II's due to more legroom. James Slayden On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Darryl McMahon wrote: James Slayden [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked: Is Corbin actually selling Sparrows anymore? I thought they were moving into their Merlin line completely (ie. ICE engine). According to their website at http://www.corbinmotors.com/products_sparrow1.html they are taking orders for 2003 Sparrow 1's. The Sparrow II production line is being constructed. http://www.corbinmotors.com/products_sparrow2.html Somehow, the American motor media seem to have concluded that the introduction of the Merlin Roadster and Merlin Coupe meant Corbin was throwing in the towel on the Sparrow. Reports I have read also give the impression that the Merlins are in production, which they are not. The only vehicle Corbin is actually producing and selling today is the all-electric Sparrow. Darryl McMahon 48 Tarquin Crescent, Econogics, Inc. Nepean, Ontario K2H 8J8 It's your planet. Voice: (613)784-0655 If you won't look Fax: (613)828-3199 after it, who will?http://www.econogics.com/ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [evworld] Re: [biofuel] GM rethinks hydrogen fuel cells
Kirk, U got a link for that? On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, kirk wrote: Those numbers are fuel comparisons not drivetrain. To the end user curb weight and range tell it all. Lead Acid needs to be replaced by something more efficient. Skeleton says their new supercap is an order of magnitude better than the current crop of caps. A hybrid using their cap would beat lead acid. Not only charge/discharge losses but weight as well. Diesel or Bourke for prime mover. Maybe some day fuel cells. Kirk -Original Message- From: MH [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 12:44 PM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [evworld] Re: [biofuel] GM rethinks hydrogen fuel cells One of the problems (I think) associated with liquid and electric vehicles is when comparing energy derived at a given weight, Lead acid battery___1x Ethanol50x E8580x Gasoline_100x I'm unsure of the source of these figures and question how it was derived but I'd assume it may have converted the energy to Btu/lb or J/kg for comparative purposes only BUT technical studies indicate that ethanol and E85 Internal Combustion Engines can be dedicated to provide equal (or slightly better) fuel economy per given volume (e.g. one litre) as unleaded gasoline. Another comparison would be cost per given unit of energy such as a comparable price for electricity to petrol, for example -- One US gallon of Low-Heating-Value petrol (gasoline) = 115,000 BTUs divide by 3412 BTUs/kW = 33.7 kW times $0.07/kW = $2.359 US dollars for the equivalent residential electrical amount of energy per US gallon of unleaded gasoline. Costs per kW may very. Using the BTU figure from -- Energy Conversion Facts http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/energy_conv.html Energy Conversion Calculator http://www.ex.ac.uk/cimt/dictunit/ccenrgy.htm I imagine comparative factors could be used using (Compressed) Natural Gas, LPG, hydrogen, coal, biofuels, wind, hydroelectric, PV, etc. ` Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.435 / Virus Database: 244 - Release Date: 12/30/2002 Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [evworld] Re: [biofuel] GM rethinks hydrogen fuel cells
http://www.skeleton-technologies.com/supcap6.htm Some pdf you can download there. -Original Message- From: James Slayden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 6:01 PM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [evworld] Re: [biofuel] GM rethinks hydrogen fuel cells Kirk, U got a link for that? On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, kirk wrote: Those numbers are fuel comparisons not drivetrain. To the end user curb weight and range tell it all. Lead Acid needs to be replaced by something more efficient. Skeleton says their new supercap is an order of magnitude better than the current crop of caps. A hybrid using their cap would beat lead acid. Not only charge/discharge losses but weight as well. Diesel or Bourke for prime mover. Maybe some day fuel cells. Kirk -Original Message- From: MH [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 12:44 PM To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [evworld] Re: [biofuel] GM rethinks hydrogen fuel cells One of the problems (I think) associated with liquid and electric vehicles is when comparing energy derived at a given weight, Lead acid battery___1x Ethanol50x E8580x Gasoline_100x I'm unsure of the source of these figures and question how it was derived but I'd assume it may have converted the energy to Btu/lb or J/kg for comparative purposes only BUT technical studies indicate that ethanol and E85 Internal Combustion Engines can be dedicated to provide equal (or slightly better) fuel economy per given volume (e.g. one litre) as unleaded gasoline. Another comparison would be cost per given unit of energy such as a comparable price for electricity to petrol, for example -- One US gallon of Low-Heating-Value petrol (gasoline) = 115,000 BTUs divide by 3412 BTUs/kW = 33.7 kW times $0.07/kW = $2.359 US dollars for the equivalent residential electrical amount of energy per US gallon of unleaded gasoline. Costs per kW may very. Using the BTU figure from -- Energy Conversion Facts http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/energy_conv.html Energy Conversion Calculator http://www.ex.ac.uk/cimt/dictunit/ccenrgy.htm I imagine comparative factors could be used using (Compressed) Natural Gas, LPG, hydrogen, coal, biofuels, wind, hydroelectric, PV, etc. ` Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.435 / Virus Database: 244 - Release Date: 12/30/2002 Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.435 / Virus Database: 244 - Release Date: 12/30/2002 Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] GM rethinks hydrogen fuel cells
And be able to (with standard tools) to swap out that spark-ignition engine ... and swap in a compression-ignition engine generator module. For use with biodiesel ... of course.Just make sure the spark ... and compression ... engines have the same bolt patterns. So that each would be a Drop-in-swap for the other. Curtis Get your free newsletter at http://www.ezinfocenter.com/3122155/NL - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2002-12-29-hybrid_x.htm Now we need to equip those hybrids as Flexible Fuel Vehicles that can burn either gasoline or ethanol, or any combination of the two fuels. http://www.ccities.doe.gov/vbg/consumers/e85.shtml Then we need a genome project to produce a saltwater seaweed with a high cellulose content, that can be used to produce unlimited supplies of ethanol, as in my essay entitled Benthic Energy, near the bottom of my Starship Generations website. http://geocities.com/womplex_oo1/StarshipGenerations.html - Introducing NetZero Long Distance 1st month Free! Sign up today at: www.netzerolongdistance.com Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] GM rethinks hydrogen fuel cells
I'm a little confused. I thought that GM has announced having to turn to Toyota for hybrid technology to bring these hybrids out. But in this USA Today presentation, no mention seems to be made of that, and at the end GM comes off as some sort of supposed innovator in the field. The concept of grid-chargeable hybrids isn't mentioned but I think it is on the minds of many activists. Once a hybrid owner has the chance to drive on Electricity alone, he or she might well be interested in a pure EV. At the least it allows petroleum-free operation. At present none are offered to the public nor talked-about by the major makers. There is nothing about a hybrid which precludes the use of a fuel cell in place of an internal combustion engine. I'm guessing that we might see such a thing if a durable good fuel cell powered by a conventional liquid fuel as developed. I'm skeptical of the success of hydrogen. MM On Thu, 02 Jan 2003 16:41:16 -, you wrote: http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2002-12-29-hybrid_x.htm Now we need to equip those hybrids as Flexible Fuel Vehicles that can burn either gasoline or ethanol, or any combination of the two fuels. http://www.ccities.doe.gov/vbg/consumers/e85.shtml Then we need a genome project to produce a saltwater seaweed with a high cellulose content, that can be used to produce unlimited supplies of ethanol, as in my essay entitled Benthic Energy, near the bottom of my Starship Generations website. http://geocities.com/womplex_oo1/StarshipGenerations.html Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
