Re: [EVDL] Toyota FCV runs on Musk's bull$$it
Sure, that question has merit. I only answered his first question. But the emissions I was particularly referring to were combustion emissions at the tailpipe...not CO2 emissions, which certainly are of relevance. But when the ZEV standards were adopted, the driver was nonattainment criteria pollutants. Efficiency certainly has bearing on GHGs, cost and other things, but is not the be all, end all. Or the hobbyists on this list would be arguing incessantly about ...everything. Clearly, at the tailpipe, nat gas v. H2 is some emission number I don't know off the top of my head versus zero. I guess if you go want to go beyond that you might assume worse case (?) that the cars are in the SCAQMD and the H2 is all produced by steam reformation in-basin. I don't know what that number looks like, but I'll bet it's still a huge advantage to use H2. Sent from my iPhone On Apr 23, 2015, at 7:59 PM, Mike Nickerson m...@nickersonranch.com wrote: I think Ben's question still has merit, though. If you start with methane and take it down two paths, what is the difference in emissions and efficiency? The first path is burning the methane in an ICE. The second path is converting the methane to hydrogen and using it in a fuel cell. It seems like the hydrogen conversion is still likely to create CO2. How does the hydrogen cycle reduce air pollution from using methane? Mike On April 23, 2015 7:28:17 PM MDT, Mark Abramowitz via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: On Apr 23, 2015, at 3:57 PM, Ben Goren via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: Um...why not just use that methane as is? I mean, we already do -- every vehicle with a CNG or LNG sticker on it is burning methane. To reduce air pollution. That's why CARB adopted the ZEV mandate. ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA) ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] Toyota FCV runs on Musk's bull$$it
Mark, That is a very bold statement and I have heard such dismissive hand-waiving before, so I am not going to accept that on its face, I challenge you to support that with data. As someone else said: as soon as you have combustible gas (methane) any further processing is going to reduce the amount of available energy, so with every step after the point that there is raw Methane produced, you are making it harder to even be energy-neutral for H2. Does this matter? You bet! Efficiency is what eventually will dictate the cost (price) of H2, so let alone the investment in the car (fuel cell) there are the running costs. If the H2 car cannot compete in running costs (efficiency) then why would anyone get such a beast and bother with the lack of infrastructure? For CNG, it is already distributed to almost every home in the country. It is very simple to make a home-filling station for a CNG car, besides refueling at dedicated sites. The situation with H2 is (and will be for many years, hopefully forever) be very different. I doubt that H2 is more energy efficient than turning the Methane into electricity and recharging a BEV, but let's see the data. And it may be interesting to compare that to solutions such as a CNG internal combustion vehicle and to a Methane-burning capstone turbine Hybrid EV such as Wrightspeed is making these days (for larger commercial trucks). Cor van de Water Chief Scientist Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com Email: cwa...@proxim.comPrivate: http://www.cvandewater.info Skype: cor_van_de_water XoIP: +31877841130 Tel: +1 408 383 7626Tel: +91 (040)23117400 x203 -Original Message- From: EV on behalf of Mark Abramowitz via EV Sent: Thu 4/23/2015 11:35 PM To: Electric Vehicle Discussion List Subject: Re: [EVDL] Toyota FCV runs on Musk's bull$$it Sure, that question has merit. I only answered his first question. But the emissions I was particularly referring to were combustion emissions at the tailpipe...not CO2 emissions, which certainly are of relevance. But when the ZEV standards were adopted, the driver was nonattainment criteria pollutants. Efficiency certainly has bearing on GHGs, cost and other things, but is not the be all, end all. Or the hobbyists on this list would be arguing incessantly about ...everything. Clearly, at the tailpipe, nat gas v. H2 is some emission number I don't know off the top of my head versus zero. I guess if you go want to go beyond that you might assume worse case (?) that the cars are in the SCAQMD and the H2 is all produced by steam reformation in-basin. I don't know what that number looks like, but I'll bet it's still a huge advantage to use H2. Sent from my iPhone On Apr 23, 2015, at 7:59 PM, Mike Nickerson m...@nickersonranch.com wrote: I think Ben's question still has merit, though. If you start with methane and take it down two paths, what is the difference in emissions and efficiency? The first path is burning the methane in an ICE. The second path is converting the methane to hydrogen and using it in a fuel cell. It seems like the hydrogen conversion is still likely to create CO2. How does the hydrogen cycle reduce air pollution from using methane? Mike On April 23, 2015 7:28:17 PM MDT, Mark Abramowitz via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: On Apr 23, 2015, at 3:57 PM, Ben Goren via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: Um...why not just use that methane as is? I mean, we already do -- every vehicle with a CNG or LNG sticker on it is burning methane. To reduce air pollution. That's why CARB adopted the ZEV mandate. ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA) ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA) -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 5106 bytes Desc: not available URL: http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20150424/4cabd8ec/attachment.bin ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] Toyota FCV runs on Musk's bull$$it
... it seems to me that converting the methane to H2 has to have the same emissions at the plant that you would get at the tailpipe when burning the methane in an ICE. Efficiency also includes economics of hardware. Yes, We will have H2 (mostly from excess peak solar and wind dumping), but it is far more efficient economically to then burn that H2 back to electricity AT THE PLANT in one big highly efficient generator than it is to take that HUGE supply of H2, and dribble it out all over the country through tiny (leaky) pipes to the far ends of the earth to non-existing H2 filling stations to then try to use in tiny little inefficient fuel cells begin carried around in EV's (FCV's are EV's + a hydrogen tank + a fool cell). Fare better to dribble out the energy of that BULK of H2 into the EXISTING grid to every one of the 60 million American homes to drive their EV's directly. The only thing that changes is the location of the emissions. True? If it isn't true, why not? What am I missing? DISTRIBUTION INEFFICIENES AND ECONOMIES OF SCALE. Hope that helps. Bob, Wb4APR ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] Toyota FCV runs on Musk's bull$$it
I always ask myself the same question, why is hydrogen still being touted as the next fuel? Who would wish to drive around with a hydrogen tank in the back pressurised to 10,000 psi? We have all seen the photo's of Tesla's batteries burning after an accident but at least the car has time to tell the occupants to stop as soon as they can and get out. A burst hydrogen tank or damaged pipe would be a gas/air bomb. Would any proponent of fool cells like to tell me otherwise? Its often said that if petrol (gas) had only just been invented the man in the street would never be allowed to use it. Picture a fool cell car in an amateur mechanics garage having some work being done on it using a naked flame or using grinding equipment. Then multiply that possibility millions of times if fool cells took off as the oil companies (and Toyota) wish. Madness! Russ On Fri, 24/4/15, Mike Nickerson via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: Subject: Re: [EVDL] Toyota FCV runs on Musk's bull$$it To: Mark Abramowitz ma...@enviropolicy.com, Electric Vehicle Discussion List ev@lists.evdl.org Date: Friday, 24 April, 2015, 13:35 let me ask the question more directly: Efficiency questions aside, it seems to me that converting the methane to H2 has to have the same emissions at the plant that you would get at the tailpipe when burning the methane in an ICE. The only thing that changes is the location of the emissions. True? If it isn't true, why not? What am I missing? Efficiency questions then make the hydrogen case less attractive since it needs much more processing (cracking hydrogen and compressing to a very high pressure). The only hope that fuel cells have to get back to even is the relative efficiency of the fuel cell relative to the ICE. L Mike On April 24, 2015 12:35:18 AM MDT, Mark Abramowitz via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: Sure, that question has merit. I only answered his first question. But the emissions I was particularly referring to were combustion emissions at the tailpipe...not CO2 emissions, which certainly are of relevance. But when the ZEV standards were adopted, the driver was nonattainment criteria pollutants. Efficiency certainly has bearing on GHGs, cost and other things, but is not the be all, end all. Or the hobbyists on this list would be arguing incessantly about ...everything. Clearly, at the tailpipe, nat gas v. H2 is some emission number I don't know off the top of my head versus zero. I guess if you go want to go beyond that you might assume worse case (?) that the cars are in the SCAQMD and the H2 is all produced by steam reformation in-basin. I don't know what that number looks like, but I'll bet it's still a huge advantage to use H2. Sent from my iPhone On Apr 23, 2015, at 7:59 PM, Mike Nickerson m...@nickersonranch.com wrote: I think Ben's question still has merit, though. If you start with methane and take it down two paths, what is the difference in emissions and efficiency? The first path is burning the methane in an ICE. The second path is converting the methane to hydrogen and using it in a fuel cell. It seems like the hydrogen conversion is still likely to create CO2. How does the hydrogen cycle reduce air pollution from using methane? Mike On April 23, 2015 7:28:17 PM MDT, Mark Abramowitz via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: On Apr 23, 2015, at 3:57 PM, Ben Goren via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: Um...why not just use that methane as is? I mean, we already do -- every vehicle with a CNG or LNG sticker on it is burning methane. To reduce air pollution. That's why CARB adopted the ZEV mandate. ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA) ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA) ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA) ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] Toyota FCV runs on Musk's bull$$it
let me ask the question more directly: Efficiency questions aside, it seems to me that converting the methane to H2 has to have the same emissions at the plant that you would get at the tailpipe when burning the methane in an ICE. The only thing that changes is the location of the emissions. True? If it isn't true, why not? What am I missing? Efficiency questions then make the hydrogen case less attractive since it needs much more processing (cracking hydrogen and compressing to a very high pressure). The only hope that fuel cells have to get back to even is the relative efficiency of the fuel cell relative to the ICE. L Mike On April 24, 2015 12:35:18 AM MDT, Mark Abramowitz via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: Sure, that question has merit. I only answered his first question. But the emissions I was particularly referring to were combustion emissions at the tailpipe...not CO2 emissions, which certainly are of relevance. But when the ZEV standards were adopted, the driver was nonattainment criteria pollutants. Efficiency certainly has bearing on GHGs, cost and other things, but is not the be all, end all. Or the hobbyists on this list would be arguing incessantly about ...everything. Clearly, at the tailpipe, nat gas v. H2 is some emission number I don't know off the top of my head versus zero. I guess if you go want to go beyond that you might assume worse case (?) that the cars are in the SCAQMD and the H2 is all produced by steam reformation in-basin. I don't know what that number looks like, but I'll bet it's still a huge advantage to use H2. Sent from my iPhone On Apr 23, 2015, at 7:59 PM, Mike Nickerson m...@nickersonranch.com wrote: I think Ben's question still has merit, though. If you start with methane and take it down two paths, what is the difference in emissions and efficiency? The first path is burning the methane in an ICE. The second path is converting the methane to hydrogen and using it in a fuel cell. It seems like the hydrogen conversion is still likely to create CO2. How does the hydrogen cycle reduce air pollution from using methane? Mike On April 23, 2015 7:28:17 PM MDT, Mark Abramowitz via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: On Apr 23, 2015, at 3:57 PM, Ben Goren via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: Um...why not just use that methane as is? I mean, we already do -- every vehicle with a CNG or LNG sticker on it is burning methane. To reduce air pollution. That's why CARB adopted the ZEV mandate. ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA) ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA) ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] Toyota FCV runs on Musk's bull$$it
Politics is SO frustrating. Big money steering things where they ought not to go. Fool Cells. Corn ethanol. We have a similar problem in Texas right now trying to get legislation passed to allow in-state sales of Teslas. The Tesla lobbying efforts seem very poorly organized while the car dealer lobby is well organized. In a recent hearing, the TADA (Texas Auto Dealers Association), brought in Easter Seals to testify. Auto dealers are prime donors. Just like Fool Cells, the TADA arguments are full of logical holes. But, if enough money is thrown at it, and if lies are told often enough and loud enough, evil prevails. ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] Toyota FCV runs on Musk's bull$$it
On Apr 24, 2015, at 6:03 AM, Russ Sciville via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: Who would wish to drive around with a hydrogen tank in the back pressurised to 10,000 psi? There's lots of insanity associated with FCVs, but fuel safety isn't part of it. Hydrogen is much safer than gasoline in that regards. Not that gasoline is especially safe, of course, but it's a well-accepted and well-managed risk, and hydrogen is a lesser risk than that. Gasoline vapors are heavier than air and tend to pool. Liquid gasoline wicks very easily into fabric. Gasoline fires stay close to the ground and in your clothes. Hydrogen is the most buoyant gas there is. An hydrogen leak is going straight up and isn't going to collect anywhere in enough volume to sustain combustion. If you started an hydrogen fire, the flames are going to shoot right up rather than spread laterally. And, unlike gasoline fires which are excellent at sustaining themselves, the slightest interruption of an hydrogen flame is going to extinguish it. Indeed, even creating a sustaining flame in the first place is going to be a bit of a challenge -- think of how careful you have to be to light a propane torch; hydrogen will be even more challenging. Pressurized tanks can be scary, yes, but, in practice, it takes either malicious intent or something spectacularly catastrophic to set off one built to automotive specs. Where hydrogen falls flat is first in terms of pollution. Hydrogen is commercially sourced from mined hydrocarbons and thus is as much of a CO2 pollutant as the coal, oil, or gas it's produced from. Because it's the lightest and most highly possibly refined form of those hydrocarbons, it next loses out on efficiency (for the same reason gasoline loses to diesel) -- especially compared with electric vehicles. It loses out in a really big way in terms of the distribution network which doesn't exist for hydrogen but does for everything else -- and which would be much more challenging and expensive and less efficient to build than anything else we've already built. And it loses out to gasoline and diesel in terms of practicality because...well, while hydrogen has far and away the greatest energy density per unit of _mass,_ it's also got the _least_ energy density per unit of _volume._ A fifteen gallon tank of hydrogen gas, under any form of compression you'd want to be anywhere n ear, contains _far_ fewer hydrogen atoms than a fifteen gallon tank of gasoline. Hydrogen is a great fuel...for rocket ships in space. Here on Earth? Forget it. Cheers, b -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 801 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20150424/390663a7/attachment.pgp ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] Toyota FCV runs on Musk's bull$$it
See below for interspersed responses. On Apr 24, 2015, at 5:35 AM, Mike Nickerson m...@nickersonranch.com wrote: let me ask the question more directly: Efficiency questions aside, it seems to me that converting the methane to H2 has to have the same emissions at the plant that you would get at the tailpipe when burning the methane in an ICE. The only thing that changes is the location of the emissions. True? If it isn't true, why not? What am I missing? No, this wouldn't necessarily be true. Different emission control systems and different process. You need to compare NOx emissions from a reforming plant converting methane to combusting the same amount of methane in a car. I don't know much about reforming plants or their emissions. Of course, the numbers probably also change with an onsite reformer. Efficiency questions then make the hydrogen case less attractive since it needs much more processing (cracking hydrogen and compressing to a very high pressure). The only hope that fuel cells have to get back to even is the relative efficiency of the fuel cell relative to the ICE. L The latter certainly makes a difference. Not sure what you mean by back to even, but a fuel cell is twice or more efficient than a gasoline engine. This number is changing and varies by manufacturer. As to your earlier point, that seems to make sense. However, as an aside (an aside since you're comparing methane with that same methane being converted to hydrogen) you can't assume that hydrogen will all be created from methane. It just won't, and the percentages are dropping and will continue to do so. Mike On April 24, 2015 12:35:18 AM MDT, Mark Abramowitz via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: Sure, that question has merit. I only answered his first question. But the emissions I was particularly referring to were combustion emissions at the tailpipe...not CO2 emissions, which certainly are of relevance. But when the ZEV standards were adopted, the driver was nonattainment criteria pollutants. Efficiency certainly has bearing on GHGs, cost and other things, but is not the be all, end all. Or the hobbyists on this list would be arguing incessantly about ...everything. Clearly, at the tailpipe, nat gas v. H2 is some emission number I don't know off the top of my head versus zero. I guess if you go want to go beyond that you might assume worse case (?) that the cars are in the SCAQMD and the H2 is all produced by steam reformation in-basin. I don't know what that number looks like, but I'll bet it's still a huge advantage to use H2. Sent from my iPhone On Apr 23, 2015, at 7:59 PM, Mike Nickerson m...@nickersonranch.com wrote: I think Ben's question still has merit, though. If you start with methane and take it down two paths, what is the difference in emissions and efficiency? The first path is burning the methane in an ICE. The second path is converting the methane to hydrogen and using it in a fuel cell. It seems like the hydrogen conversion is still likely to create CO2. How does the hydrogen cycle reduce air pollution from using methane? Mike On April 23, 2015 7:28:17 PM MDT, Mark Abramowitz via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: On Apr 23, 2015, at 3:57 PM, Ben Goren via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: Um...why not just use that methane as is? I mean, we already do -- every vehicle with a CNG or LNG sticker on it is burning methane. To reduce air pollution. That's why CARB adopted the ZEV mandate. ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA) ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA) ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] Toyota FCV runs on Musk's bull$$it
I looked at an article by DOE http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/permitting/pdfs/45408.pdf and they concur with you about burning vertically, there are other factors to consider. - is flammable in a much wider range of air mixture - flame spreads 10x faster - unburned gas diffuses 4-6x These factors would dramatically increase the danger in enclosed spaces such as garages and tunnels and inside a vehicle. Unlike a propane torch, where the gas coming out the nozzle is in high concentration and won't ignite, hydrogen will - easily. In an enclosed space, a leak of gas can spread very quickly and find an ignition source quicker. Because the flame spreads fast and the diffusion would provide plenty of O2, the burning would be almost instantaneous, creating an explosion beyond imagination. Also, the flame is invisible so, if there's a burning leak, it's very hard to detect. Peri -- Original Message -- From: Ben Goren via EV ev@lists.evdl.org To: Russ Sciville rustyb...@yahoo.co.uk; Electric Vehicle Discussion List ev@lists.evdl.org Sent: 24-Apr-15 8:16:25 AM Subject: Re: [EVDL] Toyota FCV runs on Musk's bull$$it On Apr 24, 2015, at 6:03 AM, Russ Sciville via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: Who would wish to drive around with a hydrogen tank in the back pressurised to 10,000 psi? There's lots of insanity associated with FCVs, but fuel safety isn't part of it. Hydrogen is much safer than gasoline in that regards. Not that gasoline is especially safe, of course, but it's a well-accepted and well-managed risk, and hydrogen is a lesser risk than that. Gasoline vapors are heavier than air and tend to pool. Liquid gasoline wicks very easily into fabric. Gasoline fires stay close to the ground and in your clothes. Hydrogen is the most buoyant gas there is. An hydrogen leak is going straight up and isn't going to collect anywhere in enough volume to sustain combustion. If you started an hydrogen fire, the flames are going to shoot right up rather than spread laterally. And, unlike gasoline fires which are excellent at sustaining themselves, the slightest interruption of an hydrogen flame is going to extinguish it. Indeed, even creating a sustaining flame in the first place is going to be a bit of a challenge -- think of how careful you have to be to light a propane torch; hydrogen will be even more challenging. Pressurized tanks can be scary, yes, but, in practice, it takes either malicious intent or something spectacularly catastrophic to set off one built to automotive specs. Where hydrogen falls flat is first in terms of pollution. Hydrogen is commercially sourced from mined hydrocarbons and thus is as much of a CO2 pollutant as the coal, oil, or gas it's produced from. Because it's the lightest and most highly possibly refined form of those hydrocarbons, it next loses out on efficiency (for the same reason gasoline loses to diesel) -- especially compared with electric vehicles. It loses out in a really big way in terms of the distribution network which doesn't exist for hydrogen but does for everything else -- and which would be much more challenging and expensive and less efficient to build than anything else we've already built. And it loses out to gasoline and diesel in terms of practicality because...well, while hydrogen has far and away the greatest energy density per unit of _mass,_ it's also got the _least_ energy density per unit of _volume._ A fifteen gallon tank of hydrogen gas, under any form of compression you'd want to be anywhere n ear, contains _far_ fewer hydrogen atoms than a fifteen gallon tank of gasoline. Hydrogen is a great fuel...for rocket ships in space. Here on Earth? Forget it. Cheers, b -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 801 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20150424/390663a7/attachment.pgp ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA) ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] Toyota FCV runs on Musk's bull$$it
Evidently, the readers of Green Car Reports aren't fooled, judging by the comments. Peri -- Original Message -- From: Robert Bruninga via EV ev@lists.evdl.org To: ev@lists.evdl.org Sent: 23-Apr-15 3:19:05 PM Subject: [EVDL] Toyota FCV runs on Musk's bull$$it You should also watch Toyota’s new video which says the car can run on Elon Musk’s “bull$$it ”comments and show how they can take cow manure, and process it to hydrogen.. all they have to do is add “steam and heat”. DUH, No mention of what fossil fuel they are using to get that steam and heat? http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1097964_new-toyota-film-appropriates-musk-bs-comment-on-hydrogen-for-its-title Bob -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20150423/d6fa716a/attachment.htm ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA) ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] Toyota FCV runs on Musk's bull$$it
On Apr 23, 2015, at 7:59 PM, Mike Nickerson via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: It seems like the hydrogen conversion is still likely to create CO2. How does the hydrogen cycle reduce air pollution from using methane? Exactly. I'm sure the FCV has negligible _tailpipe_ emissions compared with one that runs on CNG or LNG. But not only are both processes splitting hydrogen from carbon...I'm pretty sure you get many more miles (microns?) per hydrogen atom with CNG and LNG than you do with a fool cell. Unless the carbon from the methane is being sequestered as part of the refining process, the fool cell is an environmental disaster. But, if it _is_ being sequestered...damn, that's an awful lot more energy! And again a catastrophic disaster compared with a BEV charged with rooftop solar panels. b -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 801 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20150423/9d9e2982/attachment.pgp ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] Toyota FCV runs on Musk's bull$$it
That's hilarious! Sent from my iPhone On Apr 23, 2015, at 3:19 PM, Robert Bruninga via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: You should also watch Toyota’s new video which says the car can run on Elon Musk’s “bull$$it ”comments and show how they can take cow manure, and process it to hydrogen.. all they have to do is add “steam and heat”. DUH, No mention of what fossil fuel they are using to get that steam and heat? http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1097964_new-toyota-film-appropriates-musk-bs-comment-on-hydrogen-for-its-title Bob -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20150423/d6fa716a/attachment.htm ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA) ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] Toyota FCV runs on Musk's bull$$it
On Apr 23, 2015, at 3:19 PM, Robert Bruninga via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: You should also watch Toyota’s new video which says the car can run on Elon Musk’s “bull$$it ”comments and show how they can take cow manure, and process it to hydrogen.. all they have to do is add “steam and heat”. I made as far as when he got to the refinery and said that they collect methane and then do shit to it. Um...why not just use that methane as is? I mean, we already do -- every vehicle with a CNG or LNG sticker on it is burning methane. Anything further they do to the methane, by definition, will result in a loss of system efficiency. At some point, the hydrocarbons are going to have to get oxidized. Your best bet is to do that with the minimum amount of prior processing and in the most efficient oxidizer you can get. In this case, that would mean using the methane to power a utility-scale turbine and charging the grid and EVs with the resulting electricity. A close second would be using it for hybrid ICE / electric rail locomotives. It _might_ be the case that burning the methane in a gasoline-style vehicle engine is more efficient than the electric generation to EV route...but more likely not. What's guaranteed is that converting the methane to H2, compressing it, and using it to generate electricity in a small fuel cell to power an electric motor...is going to be horribly inefficient. For it to make sense at all, there's going to have to be something inherently superior about the fuel cell engine as opposed to a comparable four-stroke methane-powered ICE such that you'd choose the fuel cell on its merits alone...and I'm hard pressed to think of anything overwhelming. I'm sure there're niche situations where fuel cells make all kinds of sense, but that niche isn't to be found on the highways of the developed world. b -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 801 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: http://lists.evdl.org/private.cgi/ev-evdl.org/attachments/20150423/6f187b5f/attachment.pgp ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] Toyota FCV runs on Musk's bull$$it
On Apr 23, 2015, at 3:57 PM, Ben Goren via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: Um...why not just use that methane as is? I mean, we already do -- every vehicle with a CNG or LNG sticker on it is burning methane. To reduce air pollution. That's why CARB adopted the ZEV mandate. ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
Re: [EVDL] Toyota FCV runs on Musk's bull$$it
I think Ben's question still has merit, though. If you start with methane and take it down two paths, what is the difference in emissions and efficiency? The first path is burning the methane in an ICE. The second path is converting the methane to hydrogen and using it in a fuel cell. It seems like the hydrogen conversion is still likely to create CO2. How does the hydrogen cycle reduce air pollution from using methane? Mike On April 23, 2015 7:28:17 PM MDT, Mark Abramowitz via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: On Apr 23, 2015, at 3:57 PM, Ben Goren via EV ev@lists.evdl.org wrote: Um...why not just use that methane as is? I mean, we already do -- every vehicle with a CNG or LNG sticker on it is burning methane. To reduce air pollution. That's why CARB adopted the ZEV mandate. ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA) ___ UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
