Interesting read I thought maybe there is yet one more way to look at this? Hakan,
I just posted this in my newsgroup
Please note the first line
Photos available at the site:
from ; http://www.aa.washington.edu/AERP/CRYOCAR/CryoCar.htm
Note: Due to lack of funding, this research project at the UW is no
longer active. We have left this website up for general information
purposes only. If you have questions regarding any aspect of LN2
vehicle technology, please direct your inquiries to the researchers
at the University of North Texas.
Researchers at the University of Washington are developing a new
zero-emission automobile propulsion concept that uses liquid
nitrogen as the fuel. The principle of operation is like that of a
steam engine, except there is no combustion involved. Instead,
liquid nitrogen at 320° F (196° C) is pressurized and
then
vaporized in a heat exchanger by the ambient temperature of the
surrounding air. This heat exchanger is like the radiator of a car
but instead of using air to cool water, it uses air to heat and boil
liquid nitrogen. The resulting high-pressure nitrogen gas is fed to
an engine that operates like a reciprocating steam engine,
converting pressure to mechanical power. The only exhaust is
nitrogen, which is the major constituent of our atmosphere.
The LN2000 is an operating proof-of-concept test vehicle, a
converted 1984 Grumman-Olson Kubvan mail delivery van. The engine, a
radial five-cylinder 15-hp air motor, drives the front wheels
through a five-speed manual Volkswagen transmission. The liquid
nitrogen is stored in a thermos-like stainless steel tank, or dewar,
that holds 24 gallons and is so well insulated that the nitrogen
will stay liquid for weeks. At present the tank is pressurized with
gaseous nitrogen to develop system pressure but a cryogenic liquid
pump will be used for this purpose in the future. A preheater,
called an economizer, uses leftover heat in the engine's exhaust to
preheat the liquid nitrogen before it enters the heat exchanger. Two
fans at the rear of the van draw air through the heat exchanger to
enhance the transfer of ambient heat to the liquid nitrogen. The
design of this heat exchanger is such as to prevent frost formation
on its outer surfaces.
As with all alternative energy storage media, the energy density (W-
hr/kg) of liquid nitrogen is relatively low when compared to
gasoline but better than that of readily available battery systems.
Studies indicate that liquid nitrogen automobiles will have
significant performance and environmental advantages over electric
vehicles. A liquid nitrogen car with a 60-gallon tank will have a
potential range of up to 200 miles, or more than twice that of a
typical electric car. Furthermore, a liquid nitrogen car will be
much lighter and refilling its tank will take only 10-15 minutes,
rather than the several hours required by most electric car
concepts. Motorists will fuel up at filling stations very similar to
today's gasoline stations. When liquid nitrogen is manufactured in
large quantities, the operating cost per mile of a liquid nitrogen
car will not only be less than that of an electric car but will
actually be competitive with that of a gasoline car.
The process to manufacture liquid nitrogen in large quantities can
be environmentally very friendly, even if fossil fuels are used to
generate the electric power required. The exhaust gases produced by
burning fossil fuels in a power plant contain not only carbon
dioxide and gaseous pollutants, but also all the nitrogen from the
air used in the combustion. By feeding these exhaust gases to the
nitrogen liquefaction plant, the carbon dioxide and other
undesirable products of combustion can be condensed and separated in
the process of chilling the nitrogen, and thus no pollutants need be
released to the atmosphere by the power plant. The sequestered
carbon dioxide and pollutants could be injected into depleted gas
and oil wells, deep mine shafts, deep ocean subduction zones, and
other repositories from which they will not diffuse back into the
atmosphere, or they could be chemically processed into useful or
inert substances. Consequently, the implementation of a large fleet
of liquid nitrogen vehicles could have much greater environmental
benefits than just reducing urban air pollution as desired by
current zero-emission vehicle mandates.
* Funding for this project has been provided by the U.S. Department
of Energy.http://www.aa.washington.edu/AERP/CRYOCAR/CryoCar.htm
from (link at the ame site)
http://www.aa.washington.edu/AERP/CRYOCAR/CryoCar.htm
Cryogens are effective thermal storage media which, when used for
automotive purposes, offer significant advantages over current and
proposed electrochemical battery technologies, both in performance
and economy. An automotive propulsion concept is presented which
utilizes liquid nitrogen as the working fluid for an open Rankine
cycle. When the only heat input to the engine is supplied by ambient
heat exchangers, an automobile can readily be propelled while
satisfying stringent tailpipe emission standards. Nitrogen
propulsive systems can provide automotive ranges of nearly 400
kilometers in the zero emission mode, with lower operating costs
than those of the electric vehicles currently being considered for
mass production. In geographical regions that allow ultra low
emission vehicles, the range and performance of the liquid nitrogen
automobile can be significantly extended by the addition of a small
efficient burner. Some of the advantages of a transportation
infrastructure based on liquid nitrogen are that recharging the
energy storage system only requires minutes and there are minimal
environmental hazards associated with the manufacture and
utilization of the cryogenic "fuel."
Hakan Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Photos available at the site:
from ; http://www.aa.washington.edu/AERP/CRYOCAR/CryoCar.htm
Note: Due to lack of funding, this research project at the UW is no
longer active. We have left this website up for general information
purposes only. If you have questions regarding any aspect of LN2
vehicle technology, please direct your inquiries to the researchers
at the University of North Texas.
Researchers at the University of Washington are developing a new
zero-emission automobile propulsion concept that uses liquid
nitrogen as the fuel. The principle of operation is like that of a
steam engine, except there is no combustion involved. Instead,
liquid nitrogen at 320° F (196° C) is pressurized and
then
vaporized in a heat exchanger by the ambient temperature of the
surrounding air. This heat exchanger is like the radiator of a car
but instead of using air to cool water, it uses air to heat and boil
liquid nitrogen. The resulting high-pressure nitrogen gas is fed to
an engine that operates like a reciprocating steam engine,
converting pressure to mechanical power. The only exhaust is
nitrogen, which is the major constituent of our atmosphere.
The LN2000 is an operating proof-of-concept test vehicle, a
converted 1984 Grumman-Olson Kubvan mail delivery van. The engine, a
radial five-cylinder 15-hp air motor, drives the front wheels
through a five-speed manual Volkswagen transmission. The liquid
nitrogen is stored in a thermos-like stainless steel tank, or dewar,
that holds 24 gallons and is so well insulated that the nitrogen
will stay liquid for weeks. At present the tank is pressurized with
gaseous nitrogen to develop system pressure but a cryogenic liquid
pump will be used for this purpose in the future. A preheater,
called an economizer, uses leftover heat in the engine's exhaust to
preheat the liquid nitrogen before it enters the heat exchanger. Two
fans at the rear of the van draw air through the heat exchanger to
enhance the transfer of ambient heat to the liquid nitrogen. The
design of this heat exchanger is such as to prevent frost formation
on its outer surfaces.
As with all alternative energy storage media, the energy density (W-
hr/kg) of liquid nitrogen is relatively low when compared to
gasoline but better than that of readily available battery systems.
Studies indicate that liquid nitrogen automobiles will have
significant performance and environmental advantages over electric
vehicles. A liquid nitrogen car with a 60-gallon tank will have a
potential range of up to 200 miles, or more than twice that of a
typical electric car. Furthermore, a liquid nitrogen car will be
much lighter and refilling its tank will take only 10-15 minutes,
rather than the several hours required by most electric car
concepts. Motorists will fuel up at filling stations very similar to
today's gasoline stations. When liquid nitrogen is manufactured in
large quantities, the operating cost per mile of a liquid nitrogen
car will not only be less than that of an electric car but will
actually be competitive with that of a gasoline car.
The process to manufacture liquid nitrogen in large quantities can
be environmentally very friendly, even if fossil fuels are used to
generate the electric power required. The exhaust gases produced by
burning fossil fuels in a power plant contain not only carbon
dioxide and gaseous pollutants, but also all the nitrogen from the
air used in the combustion. By feeding these exhaust gases to the
nitrogen liquefaction plant, the carbon dioxide and other
undesirable products of combustion can be condensed and separated in
the process of chilling the nitrogen, and thus no pollutants need be
released to the atmosphere by the power plant. The sequestered
carbon dioxide and pollutants could be injected into depleted gas
and oil wells, deep mine shafts, deep ocean subduction zones, and
other repositories from which they will not diffuse back into the
atmosphere, or they could be chemically processed into useful or
inert substances. Consequently, the implementation of a large fleet
of liquid nitrogen vehicles could have much greater environmental
benefits than just reducing urban air pollution as desired by
current zero-emission vehicle mandates.
* Funding for this project has been provided by the U.S. Department
of Energy.http://www.aa.washington.edu/AERP/CRYOCAR/CryoCar.htm
from (link at the ame site)
http://www.aa.washington.edu/AERP/CRYOCAR/CryoCar.htm
Cryogens are effective thermal storage media which, when used for
automotive purposes, offer significant advantages over current and
proposed electrochemical battery technologies, both in performance
and economy. An automotive propulsion concept is presented which
utilizes liquid nitrogen as the working fluid for an open Rankine
cycle. When the only heat input to the engine is supplied by ambient
heat exchangers, an automobile can readily be propelled while
satisfying stringent tailpipe emission standards. Nitrogen
propulsive systems can provide automotive ranges of nearly 400
kilometers in the zero emission mode, with lower operating costs
than those of the electric vehicles currently being considered for
mass production. In geographical regions that allow ultra low
emission vehicles, the range and performance of the liquid nitrogen
automobile can be significantly extended by the addition of a small
efficient burner. Some of the advantages of a transportation
infrastructure based on liquid nitrogen are that recharging the
energy storage system only requires minutes and there are minimal
environmental hazards associated with the manufacture and
utilization of the cryogenic "fuel."
Hakan Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The problem with Pimentel is that he does not really understand what he is
talking about, or that he deliberately misinform, in order to support a
hidden agenda. Also the conversion of crude to gasoline, cost more energy
than you get and have no real energy benefit either. Diesel is better than
gasoline, but no real energy benefit either. He have a funny and irrelevant
view on the issues. To suggest hydrogen, is even a worse energy solution
and only show his complete ignorance.
If we apply Pimentels logic to its consequences, liquid fuel is very
inefficient, and he has a point here. This has nothing really to do with
energy efficiency, but rather with energy application. Unfortunately, we do
not really have a viable alternative to the combustion engine.
Ethanol and biodiesel can be produced with no fossil energy input. The
energy for the processes can come from biomass and this will give an
equally reasonable energy transformation, or better, as conversion of crude
oil to gasoline. The major part of energy use in the process, is heating
and you do not distill Ethanol with Ethanol. If you do, then you will not
get Ethanol to use for fuel. You will of course have a better conversion,
if you heat with plant waste, that are not used for Ethanol distilling source.
The problem with Pimentel is not what he say, but the way he says it. He is
using his position to make banalities to valid technical arguments. It is
amazing that anyone with the slightest energy knowledge, take the time and
energy to deal with him, that is the real waste. On the other hand, he is
spreading a invalid argument to a public that do not understand the issues.
Including ignorant politicians, who think that they can make educated
energy decisions, based on Pimentel banalities.
Hakan
At 03:50 AM 7/24/2005, you wrote:
>This press release below produced the AP story that follows it.
>
>July 5, 2005
>Cornell ecologist's study finds that producing ethanol and biodiesel from
>corn and other crops is not worth the energy
>
>By Susan S. Lang
>
>
>
> Chris Hallman/University Photography
>
> Ecologist David Pimentel, shown here pumping gas, says that his
> analysis shows that producing ethanol uses more energy than the resulting
> fuel generates. Copyright © Cornell University
>
>ITHACA, N.Y. -- Turning plants such as corn, soybeans and sunflowers into
>fuel uses much more energy than the resulting ethanol or biodiesel
>generates, according to a new Cornell University and University of
>California-Berkeley study.
>
>"There is just no energy benefit to using plant biomass for liquid fuel,"
>says David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell.
>"These strategies are not sustainable."
>
>Pimentel and Tad W. Patzek, professor of civil and environmental
>engineering at Berkeley, conducted a detailed analysis of the energy
>input-yield ratios of producing ethanol from corn, switch grass and wood
>biomass as well as for producing biodiesel from soybean and sunflower
>plants. Their report is published in Natural Resources Research (Vol.
>14:1, 65-76).
>
>In terms of energy output compared with energy input for ethanol
>production, the study found that:
>
> a.. corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced;
>
> b.. switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel
> produced; and
>
> c.. wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel
> produced.
>
>In terms of energy output compared with the energy input for biodiesel
>production, the study found that:
>
> a.. soybean plants requires 27 percent more fossil energy than the fuel
> produced, and
>
> b.. sunflower plants requires 118 percent more fossil energy than the
> fuel produced.
>
>In assessing inputs, the researchers considered such factors as the energy
>used in producing the crop (including production of pesticides and
>fertilizer, running farm machinery and irrigating, grinding and
>transporting the crop) and in fermenting/distilling the ethanol from the
>water mix. Although additional costs are incurred, such as federal and
>state subsidies that are passed on to consumers and the costs associated
>with environmental pollution or degradation, these figures were not
>included in the analysis.
>
>"The United State desperately needs a liquid fuel replacement for oil in
>the near future," says Pimentel, "but producing ethanol or biodiesel from
>plant biomass is going down the wrong road, because you use more energy to
>produce these fuels than you get out from the combustion of these products."
>
>Although Pimentel advocates the use of burning biomass to produce thermal
>energy (to heat homes, for example), he deplores the use of biomass for
>liquid fuel. "The government spends more than $3 billion a year to
>subsidize ethanol production when it does not provide a net energy balance
>or gain, is not a renewable energy source or an economical fuel. Further,
>its production and use contribute to air, water and soil pollution and
>global warming," Pimentel says. He points out that the vast majority of
>the subsidies do not go to farmers but to large ethanol-producing corporations.
>
>"Ethanol production in the United States does not benefit the nation's
>energy security, its agriculture, economy or the environment," says
>Pimentel. "Ethanol production requires large fossil energy input, and
>therefore, it is contributing to oil and natural gas imports and U.S.
>deficits." He says the country should instead focus its efforts on
>producing electrical energy from photovoltaic cells, wind power and
>burning biomass and producing fuel from hydrogen conversion.
>
>-30-
>
>
>
>Publication: Frederick News-Post; Date:2005 Jul 18; Section:Nation; Page
>Number: A-1
>
>"Cornell researchers say ethanol inefficient source"
>
> ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - Farmers, businesses and state officials are
> investing millions of dollars in ethanol and biofuel plants as renewable
> energy sources, but a new study says the alternative fuels burn more
> energy than they produce.
> Supporters of ethanol and other biofuels contend they burn cleaner than
> fossil fuels, reduce U.S. dependence on oil and give farmers another
> market to sell their produce.
> But researchers at Cornell University and the University of
> California-Berkeley say it takes 29 percent more fossil energy to turn
> corn into ethanol than the amount of fuel the process produces. For
> switch grass, a warm-weather perennial grass found in the Great Plains
> and eastern North America United States, it takes 45 percent more energy
> and for wood, 57 percent.
> It takes 27 percent more energy to turn soybeans into biodiesel fuel
> and more than double the energy produced is needed to do the same to
> sunflower plants, the study found.
> "Ethanol production in the United States does not benefit the nation's
> energy security, its agriculture, the economy, or the environment,"
> according to the study by Cornell's David Pimentel and Berkeley's Tad
> Patzek. They conclude the country would be better off investing in solar,
> wind and hydrogen energy.
> The researchers included such factors as the energy used in producing
> the crop, costs that were not used in other studies that supported
> ethanol production, said Pimentel.
> The study also omitted $3 billion in state and federal government
> subsidies that go toward ethanol production in the United States each
> year, payments that mask the true costs, Mr. Pimentel said.
> Ethanol is an additive blended with gasoline to reduce auto emissions
> and increase gas' octane levels. Its use has grown rapidly since 2004,
> when the federal government banned the use of the additive MTBE to
> enhance the cleaner burning of fuel. About 3.6 billion gallons of ethanol
> were produced last year in the United States, according to the Renewable
> Fuels Association, an ethanol trade group.
>
>_________________________________________________________
>
>Perhaps some whould like to enlighten Professor David Pimentel at
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Very Respectfully,
>
>Michael
>
>http://RecoveryByDiscovery.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Content-Type: image/jpeg;
> name="Cornel finds producing ethanol & biodiesel is not worth the"
> energy_html_16639bcb.jpg"
>Content-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Biofuel mailing list
>Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
>http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
>
>Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
>http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
>
>Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
>http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
_______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
