US Army Pursues Hydrogen Fuel Concepts

securitas writes "According to GlobeTechnology/AP, the US Army is excited about the potential of hydrogen-powered tanks. The interest is the result of a technology demonstration that took place at Auburn University in December. Scientists have invented a process that removes the carbon and sulfur from hydrocarbon fuels like oil and gasoline. Hydrogen-powered vehicles could go three times farther than diesel-powered counterparts. DoD officials say 'it costs about $40 to move one gallon of diesel fuel from Kuwait to Baghdad.' The new process could let them take advantage of the existing oil industry infrastructure. Auburn University scientists 'realized there is already a lot of hydrogen in hydrocarbon fuel' and 'took jet fuel, which is very similar to diesel, and catalytically converted it, separating out the sulfur, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, and the fuel cell ran.' The Auburn team is now pursuing military funding."

Comments

Oil?

[guarddonkey]

Does it seem kind of backwards to be using Oil in the fuel cell process?

Re:Oil?

[Sarojin]

Not really - right now hydrogen fuel is really only useful as a container of energy, not as an energy source.

Re:Oil?

[Anonymous Coward]

they're not USING oil, the article states that a development such as this, whereas the military is actually investing in fuel-cell, would give it more hope and better results that it will take over the industry, in the long run

Re:Oil?

[mbcx4jrh]

I guess one of the biggest prblems in H powered engines is how to store the hygrogen ... they are using oil here as the storage medium.
However I would have thought it rather defeats the point of switching to Hydrogen...

Re:Oil?

[Xolotl]

It's useful as a trnasition technology, exploiting the existing infrastructure and increasing use of hydrogen engines until a critical mass is reached where it becomes economically viable to create a dedicated hydrogen distribution system. And because they use catalysts the energy cost should be small. Very clever indeed.

Re:Oil?

[overunderunderdone]

Does it seem kind of backwards to be using Oil in the fuel cell process?

No that is the usual way of getting hydrogen. The other way involves getting it from water but that requires a great deal of energy - in fact, the same amount of energy that you get back when you turn it back into water in the fuel cell (really a fair bit more due to inefficiencies).

This is the problem with many alternative energy sources - they all sound good but there are always downsides that don't get much press. People talk about hydrogen like it's magic energy for free - but you have to GET the hydrogen from somewhere, either from oil, in which case we're back were we started. Or from water which takes more energy to process than you get from the fuel cell. At that point you can simply think of fuel cells as a type of battery. It's a way to store energy which must be produced in some other way.

Re:Oil?

[Catbeller]

Not oil - diesel fuel.The process has been well known for a while. Remove the oxygen and carbon with catalysts, then burn the liberated hydrogen.

Can be done with gasoline, too, of course. When car manufacturers go on about "fuel cells", they are not talking about hydrogen tanks. They want to use plain old gas out of a plain old gas station.

Makes sense to the oil companies as well.

Not quite a perfect process, emissions wise, but at least you get three times the miles per gallon, and fewer impurities are spewing into the air.

Re:Oil?

[notbob]

I saw on tv last night they were discussing using pond scum to get hydrogen from water, so who knows it could be virtually free, just add sun to water and some scum and you get hydrogen.

Was technology for the huge pyramid they were talking about building tokyo bay, on extreme engineering.

Re:Oil?

[cluckshot]

The process actually has many advantages for the Military and for civilians. But first people have to quit viewing hydrogen as a fuel and see it more like a battery that they charge up. It is not a Energy Source. It is an Energy Storage Media.

Working on such research myself for the USAF *yes military* I have learned a lot about what is going on. The process and demand for such changes is not exactly like what the media tend to report.

The reason we burn gasoline etc is to provide the Heat Catalyzed Hydrogen for conversion to Steam when reacted with Oxygen. While the carbon provides some energy it is really for running a Steam Engine. This cycle is limited thermally to about 38% efficient of the original energy in the steam. This is functionally further limited by other factors leaving current petrol engines about 25% to 28% efficient thermally.

The process for Cracking Hydrogen from fuel uses about 25% of the gross energy entering the process. Then the process of running a fuel cell drive eats another 15% (more or less) This leaves a potential thermal efficiency of a drive train at something close to 60%! This is more than double the current efficiency. Curiously this is not the military reason for doing this. It is but one fairly lessor factor. The military reasons for doing this have to do with issues of "Readiness" and "Dual Use."

If you have a tank that runs this way and you have no longer use for the tank if it runs on standard engines you have a very expensive item to leave just sitting around doing nothing. But if you drive the tank using Hydrogen and produce Electric energy to drive it, the tank can just plug in and become a "Generator" for many uses after battle is done. The savings to the military here by going to such systems is about a 4 to 1 ratio in machinery that they don't have to haul around. This coupled with increased milage etc makes the process very attractive

In Iraq this would have allowed us to just "Plug In" and have the electrical grid up and running. But this is hardly all. There are very big issues here on the weight of drive trains and also in issues such as stealth. Current engines would allow an enemy to hear the Soldiers coming for many miles.(often 20 or more miles) This system is very quiet.

This will spin off into civilian use. The technology is going to do many things. It will make cars which are profoundly less noisy. The technology also has pollution control issues. It is essentially a clean burn for the fuel.

There are other issues here that many people could hardly imagine. The storage of Hydrogen as a liquified gas, or compressed gas is essentially impossible for use in normal conditions. The losses of Hydrogen alone would kill the use. The natural solution is to store the Hydrogen as a Hydride. Much experimentation has been done with Hydrides. All solutions come back to the natural solution that Carbon Hydrides and essentially about 6 to 20 carbon Alcane chains (Gasoline Jet fuel etc) are just about the optimal solution.

What is going to develop will probably be that Gasoline or similar fuel will be made using either Coal for the Carbon or by Hydration of poor quality vegitable oils or vegitable mass like Hydrilla or Algea. This will provide the store for the Hydrogen that may in fact be made from the same process fairly directly. This can be SOLAR in energy source.

There are other features here that are most desirable. This provides a stable store which works with current technology. It is energy optimal. It is fairly clean and allows the addition of regenerative braking and other mechanisms.

This is more or less what is going on. Sorry for those who thought that gasoline was going away, it looks as though it is here to stay for a long time to come. Fuel Reformers (Crackers for Hydrogen) will just make you have a 50 Kg Primary Energy Converter insted of a 500 Kg one. You will no longer have brakes or a transmission. Your controls will be as simple as computer joysticks. The

Re:Oil?

[Catbeller]

You guys do know they didn't invent this? The technique has been known for years. The car manufacturers will be using it for the first fuel cell vehicles -- gasoline to hydrogen via catalysts, then feed the H2 to the fuel cell, making electricity to run the electric motors that drive the car. Almost no moving parts.

Just saying, it's not the military that came up with it. They are jsut waking up to what it implies about the logistics of refueling vehicles -- a factor of three improvement in range means fewer refueling trucks, and longer supply lines.

Re:Oil?

[DoraLives]

you have to GET the hydrogen from somewhere,

The hidden key to this story is actually catalysis. Methinks that sooner than you'd expect, we're going to be doing just fine throwing grass clippings, old newspapers, orange peels, and most any old kind of organic residue into the hopper and then driving off, leaving a cloud of water vapor and a stash of nicely organized chemical elements, which will also turn out to have some interesting uses.

Re:Oil?

[Polkyb]

But, what are they going to do with the excess Carbon Monoxide/dioxide and sulfur...

Maybe they can find a way to reimpregnate it with hydrogen...? Thus creating a much safer means of transporting hydrogen about than in a pressurised liquid form, especially if it's possible to use heavier oils than petrol, or diesel, which would take even more heat/pressure to burn

Or would that make the world too perfect. :-)

Re:Oil?

[mwood]

Since there are no wells of molecular hydrogen anywhere on the planet, hydrogen will *always* be only a storage medium, *never* a direct energy source. Hydrogen production will be coupled with some other source of energy because that's the only way to get free hydrogen around here.

But the extraction-from-hydrocarbon method has got to go. Notice the byproducts: carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide. Sound familiar? Aren't those a large part of the reason people have been whining about the need for alternative fuels?

The nice thing about hydrogen is that you can make it from many different energy-producing processes and ship it fairly easily. (Try loading 40 tons of electricity on a truck.) We *should* be looking into efficient industrial-sized water electrolysis, or maybe some kind of thermolytic or photolytic process. The wind, wave, and solar power installations that some think will save the world can easily drive an electrolytic converter, for example, and the only byproduct is oxygen. So the air is actually *better* downwind of an electrolytic hydrogen plant (if they don't bottle all the oxygen and sell that too), and the system is closed and fully recycling, since burning the hydrogen gives you the water back.

Liberating hydrogen from oil is expedient in the short term, but it's stupid in the long term. Isn't short-term thinking how we messed up our atmosphere in the first place?

That said, I'm happy to see an outfit with the size and clout of the U.S. Army getting serious about hydrogen. They can drive development to the point that the consumption end is a going concern, whether the production end is well thought out or not. Once there's a sizable demand for hydrogen fuel, there'll be money enough for bright people to tune up the supply side.

Re:Oil?

[Hard_Code]

Doesn't thermodynamics imply that expending energy to remove the impurities can never result in more net energy? Sure your fuel might be cleaner and pack more punch...but presumably some energy somewhere was expended to "clean" the fuel.

Are you talking about a preprocessing, or dynamic processing of the fuel in the car?

Re:Oil?

[mwood]

Think a little longer. Getting hydrogen from oil *also* consumes as much energy as it gives back, and then some. The oil is destroyed. The oil represents every bit of the energy latent in the hydrogen, plus some more. Breaking down water might turn out to be *more* efficient since nearly all the energy put in will be stored in the output, while the energy that could be gotten from burning the carbon in oil goes, well, where *does* it go? I hope it's used in driving the hydrogen production process, since we get stuck with the combustion products anyway. (Please tell me we're not throwing away millions of BTUs via cooling towers just to get the hydrogen. That would be pathetic.)

People do talk as though hydrogen is free energy, but I can't help it that so many didn't listen to primary-school discussions of thermodynamics. All we can do is to correct them until the light dawns.

Re:Oil?

[Hungus]

Don't worry nobody is violating the laws of thermodynamics. The difference comes from efficiency. Gasoline reciprocal engines are really not very efficient. Plus depending on the transmission you can loose 75% of your power output from the engine through the differential. Move the engine to the wheels and engine output == force at wheel plus you no longer need brakes as the engine can now be used as a brake. I have been tinkering for a while with a turbine generator driving the rear wheel of a 3 wheeled vehicle based exactly on this process, Currently I use diesel fuel but the idea could be done with hydrogen by changing the injection system and converting the blades to a ceramic rather than metal , and thats still using combustion! Diverting the hydrogen through a fuel cell should be even more efficient.

Re:Oil?

[tunabomber]

Not at all. The technology to strip hydrogen atoms off of common hydrocarbons is really the big missing link in the idea of a hydrogen-based economy because it solves the the big problems:

1. How do we get hydrogen in the first place (without wasting energy)?
2.If our cars are hydrogen-powered, how do we distribute the hydrogen to them without rebuilding our infrastructure?
3. How do we store hydrogen in a way that doesn't take up a lot of space or weigh a lot.

How well the Auburn students' solution can address these problems depends on how small and cheap they can make the equipment that does the hydrocarbon->hydrogen conversion. The "holy grail" is to have a system so small that it will fit onboard a car so we won't have to make any modifications to the current fuel distribution infrastructure.
Using the hydrogen from hydrocarbons to directly make electricity will undoubtedly be much more efficient both because it eliminates all the wastefulness inherent in combustion and internal combustion engines, and because electricity can be used much more efficiently than mechanical energy, ie. you don't have to have your motor running continuously, you can use regenerative braking to recover some lost energy.
Finally, electrical engines are much cheaper to buy and maintain than internal combustion engines because they don't have to withstand the stress of thousands of explosions per minute that force dozens of parts to move at high speed.

Re:Oil?

[Orion442]

I know jack and shit about this, so please forgive my ignorance. What was the source of hydrogen they used in blimps? Can't it be used in fuel cells?

Re:Oil?

[Rostin]

The nice thing about hydrogen is that you can make it from many different energy-producing processes and ship it fairly easily.

Actually, one of the big obstacles to using hydrogen as a fuel is that it ISN'T very easily transportable. As a gas, you have to employ very high pressures that involve expensive tanks. Compress it all the way to a liquid and you've burned up so much energy that its no longer attractive as a more efficient source. Chemical storage (metal hydrides, etc) is being researched, but AFAIK, it isn't ready to be main-streamed.

We *should* be looking into efficient industrial-sized water electrolysis, or maybe some kind of thermolytic or photolytic process.

That's a great plan, except that the energy to do those things has to come from somewhere. It can't be hydrogen, because it would take more hydrogen than you are making to do it.

The wind, wave, and solar power installations that some think will save the world can easily drive an electrolytic converter, for example, and the only byproduct is oxygen.

Let's be clear about what we're talking about. I'm not sure how much hydrogen you are planning on making (total replacement of hydrocarbon fuels?) but you will have to build enough solar/wind/wave/hydro/whatever installations to nearly match the amount of energy being produced by hydrocarbons for whatever application you are interested in. The "nearly" shows up because hydrogen power IS generally more efficient than hydrocarbon based power. This is a nice theoretical solution, but practically it would be very expensive and difficult, even if it is possible.

So the air is actually *better* downwind of an electrolytic hydrogen plant (if they don't bottle all the oxygen and sell that too), and the system is closed and fully recycling, since burning the hydrogen gives you the water back.

A lot of people consider water vapor to be a green house gas.

Re:Oil?

[Short Circuit]

Not quite correct...The instability of a substance represents how readily it will convert to another substance. The fact that you can burn oil at all shows that it only requires heat and oxygen to break it down. And that means you provide a little energy to get much more out.

Water doesn't burn at all in oxygen. You talk about burning carbon as though it were there waiting to be burned. When you're burning a substance, you're not doing anything on the elemental level, you're only breaking and making chemical bonds. Since the vast majority of hydrogen in oil is bonded to carbon (Try CH8O8 as an example. Octane, IIRC.), a weak bond, getting hydrogen from oil is a simple and cheap process. (At least, in terms of energy.)

And considering that most of the energy output from the process came from the fuel at the input, your (energy applied)/(energy retrieved) is well in excess of 100%. You can't say the same thing about electrolysis or even plasmafication of water.

(Disclamer, before someone throws the laws of thermodynamics at me, note that most of the energy in the output of the process is stored in the fuel being processed, which is not included when considering the energy applied.)

Re:Oil?

[mark-t]

The chief advantage of Hydrogen over fossil fuels isn't so much that it's cheaper, but that it's truly an infinitely renewable resource that's virtually perfect in terms of environmental friendliness.

There is an inescapable fact that is often overlooked by advocates of conventional fuel usage: There is a finite amount of fossil fuel on this planet. Once that's used up, that's it. We're screwed... BIG time. There's no getting it back without waiting a few million years for its users to all decompose back into oil. Now how long this oil is going to last us at the rate we are currently using it may be up for debate, but it is irrefutable that we are consuming it faster than it gets created, so eventually, however long from now, if we keep using it at the rate that we are, we *WILL* run out.

Hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the entire universe. Further, even though there is a finite amount of it on this planet as well, when you burn it, the exhaust is pure water vapour. No more dumping poisonous gasses into the atomosphere. Further, this water vapour will eventually fall back as rain, and the net result will be cleaner rain water as hydrogen fueled cars become more popular.

With the application of some amount of energy (yes, I know it isn't cheap), hydrogen can always be extracted from water (which, considering hydrogen combustion exhaust *IS* water, makes it infinitely renewable). It is the energy for this extraction process that would be the greatest contributing factor in determining how much an end consumer would pay for gasoline. I don't think any serious advodate of Hydrogen fuel would insist that this process would be for free. But because such extraction processes could be large scale and centralized, alternative energy sources such as geothermal, hydro, wind, solar, or even nuclear power could be employed to obtain the energy ncecessary to extract the water from the hydrogen (a process which, as a convenient byproduct, also produces pure Oxygen which can be collected or released immediately as seen fit). Stricter pollution control measures could reasonably be enforced at such centralized locations than might be also possible in mobile internal combustion engines, so again the negative impact that using such fuel would have on the environment could be minimized.

Would worldwide adoption of Hydrogen fuel spell an end for the oil companies that have invested so much in their current industry? Not at all. Why couldn't current oil companies instead choose to run the plants that extract hydrogen from water for shipping to fuel pumping stations? That way, they would still get the same slice of the pie that they were always getting. Oh, their monopoly may be cut into a bit, but they currently have the resources at their disposal to implement such processes on a scale that would, in general, be likely to be cleaner and more efficient than the processes that might be employed by those with lesser capital to start out with. Further, if they wait until after there isn't enough oil to go around before starting this, their income will have already taken a hit and they simply won't have the same resources that they do now.

Also, there will always be a demand for oil, even if it is not used as a fuel. Oil is employed in many different manufacturing processes, not to mention also used as lubrication. Oil pumps won't be useless in such a world, they just wouldn't need to be as plentiful.

Re:Oil?

[Dun Malg]

the only byproduct is oxygen. So the air is actually *better* downwind of an electrolytic hydrogen plant

Better for who? High concentrations of oxygen are bad for plants.

Re:Oil?

[Fnkmaster]

Generally, the H20->H2+O2 process is at most 50% efficient in practice. There have been several crazy pseudoscientists who've come up with unreproducible results that claim 90%+ efficiency rates (these results are not repeatable by anybody else), but standard "cracking of water" is not a perfectly efficient process by any means.

Likewise, you need to get energy from some source to drive the hydrogen production process. Hopefully you don't plan on getting that from fossil fuel sources, since they you have the power generation inefficiencies, plus the hydrogen production inefficiencies. Given how hard and expensive to transport the resulting product (hydrogen) is, if you're going to go through all the effort of transforming your energy source into something, you'd think you might want to make ethanol (which can be relatively efficiently produced from cellulose, which we really do have in renewable, limitless supply) that is cheap and easy to transport and adapt to our existing infrastructure.

Re:Oil?

[Anonymous Coward]

We *should* be looking into efficient industrial-sized water electrolysis, or maybe some kind of thermolytic or photolytic process.

That's a great plan, except that the energy to do those things has to come from somewhere. It can't be hydrogen, because it would take more hydrogen than you are making to do it.


Um, the energy will come from heat or light, hence the terms "thermolytic" and "photolytic" in the post you replied to.

Moron.

Re:Oil?

[Phronesis]

A lot of people consider water vapor to be a green house gas.

Anyone who knows anything understands that water vapor is indeed a greenhouse gas and contributes more to the natural greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide does.

However, the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere is very close to its saturation value, so excess water vapor will precipitate out quickly.

The saturation vapor pressure of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is about 1000 PSI, so excess carbon dioxide introduced into the atmosphere will not precipitate. It must be removed by other processes (e.g., photosynthesis), which run a lot more slowly. Current estimates of the residence time of anthropogenic carbon in the atmosphere are around 60 years.

Other than this, your criticisms of hydrogen as fuel is right on target. I would only add that nuclear power looks like a very good source of power for industrial-scale electrolysis. This still wouldn't address the question of transporting hydrogen, though.

Re:Oil?

[Short Circuit]

If you're lucky, you can use chemical catalysts to perform chemical changes on a substance while expending virtually no energy. That's what a catalytic converter does in a normal unleaded-fuel automobile.

Re:Oil?

[cryptochrome]

Only suckers and congressmen think hydrogen is a fuel source. It's just another type refined fuel, essentially. It has the great advantages of packing more energy per weight than just about any chemical compound, easy production from water or hydrocarbons and energy, and producing only water as an emission, and the great disadvantage of being a very difficult to store gas. From a practical standpoint, liquid fuels like diesel are far easier to work with and have the infrastructure to back their widespread distribution, which I why I was always in favor of diesel fuel cell technology for cars (they do exist).

As far as energy sources are concerned - solar and solar-derived (aka wind hydro and bio) energy is the way to go. Unless they start using helium 3, of course.

Re:Oil?

[Hoser McMoose]

Since there are no wells of molecular hydrogen anywhere on the planet, hydrogen will *always* be only a storage medium, *never* a direct energy source

Err, well unless you count nuclear fussion. I suppose that's a little ways off though!

But the extraction-from-hydrocarbon method has got to go.

Have you got any other suggestions? There are only two widely available sources of hydrogen. The first is water, which is all well and good except that you only ever get out less energy than you put in (ie it's purely an energy transport mechanism, you still need a power plant to provide the electricity in the first place). The second widely available source of hydrogen is in hydrocarbons.

Of course, there are some advantages to getting power from hydrocarbons the fuel cell way instead of internal combustion engines. First off, the real big problem with current energy production is that burning hydrocarbons produces all kinds of sulpher dioxide, nitrogen monoxide/dioxide, etc. By separating out the hydrogen using a membrane you shouldn't get nearly as many of these emissions. Also, if the claim of 3x the efficiency is accurate than it would be a BIG bonus, though most numbers I've heard place the efficiency as being much lower. Finally, a fuel cell powered car would probably work better with regenerative breaking than what you get in current hybrid cars, since you would now just have an all-electrical system instead of a gas motor and an electrical motor. At the very least it should make things easier/cheaper than hybrids.

The nice thing about hydrogen is that you can make it from many different energy-producing processes and ship it fairly easily

Err, actually it's not all that easy to ship hydrogen. It's a gas, and a VERY light gas at that. You really need to compress it a whole lot before you can get any meaningful quantity. You also then have the problem of shipping a lot of highly compressed and highly combustable gas. In short, it's not easy at all. Storing is extremely troublesome for the same reasons. Shipping and storing fossil fuels is MUCH easier.

The wind, wave, and solar power installations that some think will save the world can easily drive an electrolytic converter, for example, and the only byproduct is oxygen

I love wind, solar, wave, etc. energy as much as the enxt guy, but lets face it, they aren't anywhere near capable of providing us with our CURRENT energy needs, let alone the SIGNIFICANTLY higher energy needs if we started doing electrolytic converters for all of our cars!

Re:Oil?

[index72]

The objective in this case is not one of simple economy but to gain an advantage over one's opponents.

Re:Oil?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right that it is used to store energy, but the idea is to use solar, wind, etc. to extract hydrogen from water, then the hydrogen can be stored and transported easily.

Re:Oil?

[parnasus]

...but you will have to build enough solar/wind/wave/hydro/whatever installations to nearly match the amount of energy being produced by hydrocarbons...

One possibility for producing this much power (for liberating hydrogen and energy storage) would be to employ large tracks of Arizona, NM, and Nevada as solar collection sites. The power would be clean in the sense no pollutants are being liberated, but there are the environmental impacts to the desert ecosystem to consider. The Southwest United States could become the new OPEC. To reduce the risk to "National Security" of having all of our hydrogen in one place, the electricty generated from solar collection could be distributed on the electrical grid to local hydrogen processing stations.

Of course, there are logistical concerns to take into account that I may not have considered. This is Slashdot after all.

Re:Oil?

[CrashPanic]

The power to strip off hydrogen atoms is insignificant next to the power of the Dark Side!

Re:Oil?

[mwood]

"And considering that most of the energy output from the process came from the fuel at the input, your (energy applied)/(energy retrieved) is well in excess of 100%."

Rubbish. The energy input to a catalytic oil-cracker includes *all of the energy you could have got by burning the oil*. As ALWAYS, you get out useful energy that is less than 100% of the useful energy you put in.

As for burning elemental carbon, take a look at any coal-fired engine to see it happen. C + O2 -> CO2 + delta. Did I miss something?

Re:Oil?

[mwood]

"...ethanol...that is cheap and easy to transport and adapt to our existing infrastructure."

And contains carbon, meaning we get carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide when we burn it. This causes both political and practical problems, and is one reason we're looking at something other than fossil hydrocarbons in the first place.

Alcohols are also corrosive and hard to keep dry.

Plus, how do you explain to the greens that now you're cutting down *trees* to make your car go? :-/

Re:Oil?

[Fnkmaster]

Funny you mention it, in theory at least, ethanol production from cellulose is actually net carbon neutral in its impact on the environment. Remember, plants take carbon dioxide and produce cellulose, then you break down cellulose to ethanol, and produce carbon dioxide when you burn the ethanol.

Whereas with hydrogen production, assuming traditional fossil fuel production, you produce substantially more CO2 because you consume more energy with the aforementioned inefficiencies then you would just combusting the damn fossil fuel in the first place. Bioethanol is a far more environmentally sustainable product than pretty much any proposed hydrogen production methodology. What, you think the oil->hydrogen catalyzing process described here is any different? The article describes that it releases CO2 during the H2 production process. All that carbon has to go somewhere.

Now if you can make all that hydrogen from solar, hydro, nuclear power, there's an argument for it, sure. But that's just not even remotely feasible for obvious reasons.

As for the corrosiveness/dryness problems, they are pretty much conquered already. FFV engines can already run on E85 directly for only a couple hundred bucks (tops) extra manufacturing cost over a regular engine. In other words, alcohol is slightly more corrosive than gasoline, but the changes to storage and handling are pretty trivial. I don't know about the hard-to-keep-dry thing. Haven't heard that described as a major problem before.

Re:Oil?

[mwood]

"Have you got any other suggestions? There are only two widely available sources of hydrogen. The first is water, which is all well and good except that you only ever get out less energy than you put in (ie it's purely an energy transport mechanism, you still need a power plant to provide the electricity in the first place)."

How many times does this have to be said? Extract hydrogen from hydrocarbons and you no longer have the hydrocarbons for use as fuel, so cracking oil costs roughly as much energy as cracking water. The only difference is what you put in (expensive oil vs. cheap water) and what you throw away (carbon vs. oxygen).

If you absolutely must remain dependent on fossil hydrocarbons, you can burn 'em to generate the energy to crack the water. It would still be cleaner and more efficient to operate 100 huge cracking plants with regular maintenance than 100 million consumer-grade IC engines, most of which don't get nearly the kind of maintenance they need.

Re:Oil?

[mwood]

*sigh* If you go back and read my original posting, you'll see that I said liberating hydrogen from hydrocarbons was not the way to go, for precisely the reasons you give.

Re:Oil?

[Fnkmaster]

You're right you did, my bad, I didn't notice that you were the OP I responded to. :) Nonetheless, my point about net carbon neutrality of bioethanol production in a full lifecycle analysis still stands as a counterargument to those who get hot and bothered over the fact that they see CO2 come out when ethanol is burned.

Re:Oil?

[cheesybagel]

Actually, one of the big obstacles to using hydrogen as a fuel is that it ISN'T very easily transportable. As a gas, you have to employ very high pressures that involve expensive tanks. Compress it all the way to a liquid and you've burned up so much energy that its no longer attractive as a more efficient source. Chemical storage (metal hydrides, etc) is being researched, but AFAIK, it isn't ready to be main-streamed. Yes, elaborating further, the main problem of hydrogen is that despite having a high energy per mass, it is very low density. Liquid hydrogen @ -253C is 0.071 g/cc, gaseous is even worse, Hydrocarbons like Kerosene have 0.81 g/cc. So you need large and heavy tanks for hydrogen. Compressing it or making it colder so it gets into the liquid or even solid state doesn't help enough. Hence this research into the lithium hydrides, borax, etc. To have a compromise that has about the same energy per weight, but much more energy per volume. BTW, this is one reason why rockets are huge like blimps.

That's a great plan, except that the energy to do those things has to come from somewhere. It can't be hydrogen, because it would take more hydrogen than you are making to do it.

The idea is to replace heavy and slow charging batteries, not to have a new energy resource. Electricity is not an energy resource, yet we use it because it is easy to transport on cable and is readily convertable to heat, light, mechanic energy, etc. Despite the minor conversion losses.

Re:Oil?

[JimFromJersey]

They use helium in blimps.

Re:Oil?

[jdray]

We know how to get hydrogen out of a lot of things (water, for instance, through electrolosys). Compressed hydrogen is a common commodity (you can buy a cylinder of it at your local welding supply, I believe). The hydrogen that filled the blimps, like the Hindenburg, was likely from compressed tankage on the ground for the main fill, then from smaller, more portable tanks while in flight.

Re:Oil?

[Orion442]

They do now, after the Hindenburg and others did their Roman candle impressions. Then they switched to helium. I remember that from a Discovery documentary.

Re:Oil?

[KillboyPHD]

IANAC (Chemist), but shouldn't there be a way to bind Hydrogen with Carbon-Dioxide to form a more stable and transportable fuel? I.e. make our own gasoline/oil?

I'm sure this would add some inefficiencies to the system, but maybe lack of losses while storing and transporting pure hydrogen would make up for it.

Re:Oil?

[Short Circuit]

Point taken on the oil-cracker. I'm no expert. However, I didn't say that carbon couldn't be burned, I said that it was already involved in existing chemical bonds.

Re:Oil?

[k98sven]

>We *should* be looking into efficient industrial-sized water electrolysis, or maybe some kind of thermolytic or photolytic process.

That's a great plan, except that the energy to do those things has to come from somewhere.

Well.. Solar Energy-->photolytic process is one environmentally popular option.

Now you could just use an existing solar cell and electrolytic process, and get a reasonable efficiency, but as always solar cells are expensive.

So what a lot of research is going into is making organic or biomolecules as a catalyst which can do the whole process for you in one step.

Personally, I'm enthusiastic about the bio-approach, e.g. engineering an enzyme (probably one of the photosynthesis ones) into a hydrogen gas producer. The benifit here is that you could then use existing biotech to make a bacteria who could mass-produce the catalyst for you.

Creating an organic-chemical catalyst is also possible, but the synthesis required to produce the catalyst might make it as cost-prohibitive as solar cells.

Re:Oil?

[francium de neobie]

Yes, indeed. But, owing to conservation of energy, that will not serve as a source of energy. And last time I heard methods to manufacture hydrocarbons from H2 and C is still under heavy development and won't be around anytime soon.

Re:Oil?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, hydrogen may pack a lot of potential energy per pound, but it also has the disadvantage of having very low energy per volume. This makes it hard to store and transport. Of course being made of nothing but single protons, it's hard to prevent it from leaking, too.

aQazaQa

Re:Oil?

[Anonymous Coward]

Try CH8O8 as an example. Octane, IIRC.

Actually, I think octane would just be C8H18. I really have no idea though. Just guessing from methane, ethane, propane, ....

I'm guessing that CH8O8 would be meth-something, but I don't think you could ever fit that many hydrogen atoms on.

Re:Oil?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, Hydrogen is NOT the most common element in the universe.

STUPIDITY is the most common element.

Re:Oil?

[abradsn]

Interesting how you sign your posts. :)

Re:Oil?

[cheesybagel]

For those reading from around the world, it should be noted that few if any such spin-offs come from the (non US) Military operations around the world. This comes from a completely different point of view of what we are about than what the other nations have been about in the past.

English military: Radar, Jet engines.

German military: Practical liquid fueled rockets, asphalted highway network.

I could likely come up with more examples, but I will stop here. The fact is the military has always pushed technology since the dawn of time. Or at least most militaries did. Those which did not often paid the price. Just ask the Byzantine empire which refused to buy the cannon technology from a guy who afterwards sold it to the Turks. Oh right, you can't ask them anymore.

Re:Oil?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that their figures are highly misleading. You get about 0.5 kg hydrogen from 3.8 l (1 gal) of diesel. You can go about 5 times further per kg of hydrogen than you can per kg of Diesel but 1 gal Diesel weighs more than 3 kg. So with six times more of a fuel that is five times less efficient you still get more mpg from the diesel direct than by converting it to hydrogen. So how does this improve efficiency?

Re:Oil?

[MechaStreisand]

How many times does this have to be said? Extract hydrogen from hydrocarbons and you no longer have the hydrocarbons for use as fuel, so cracking oil costs roughly as much energy as cracking water. The only difference is what you put in (expensive oil vs. cheap water) and what you throw away (carbon vs. oxygen).

Read the article. When you extract hydrogen from hydrocarbons, you can burn that hydrogen for energy, and you have a net output of energy. You can make the process self-perpetuate. Separating water into oxygen and hydrogen, on the other hand, takes away more energy than you can get back from burning the hydrogen.

So the two processes are not at all equivalent.

Re:Oil?

[joib]

Mr Fusion here I come!

Re:Oil?

[Anonymous Coward]

Coudn't resist. Canned food: French military (Napoloeon)

Re:Oil?

[MechaStreisand]

Getting hydrogen from oil *also* consumes as much energy as it gives back, and then some.

Utterly ridiculous. In the article it mentions that by separating hydrogen from hydrocarbons and putting it in a fuel cell, they actually get MORE useful energy out of the fuel, not less. There's no net consumption of energy, as there would be by cracking water. There's a net release of energy. It's a more efficient system.

Re:Oil?

[joib]

As you certainly know, burning any hydrocarbon fuel essentially boils down to the reactions

H2 + 2 O2 => 2 H2O

C + O2 => CO2

Obviously, with a hydrogen fuel cell one can't utilize the second reaction for electricity generation. So, for say diesel fuel, how large fraction of the total thermal energy is from the coal reaction? I gather from your post that it is in fact quite small? Anyway, I guess this energy is not totally wasted, but used as a heat source in the reformer, right? Does a reformer then need any external heat source like waste heat from the fuel cell, or burning some of the diesel to heat it, or is it "self-sufficient"?

Re:Oil?

[goodviking]

"A lot of people consider water vapor to be a green house gas."

It's all true, not to mention all of its other horrible effects! You can trust these guysthough brother, they have seen the light.

Re:Oil?

[mwood]

You are ignoring the energy that the oil represents *as oil*. Burning the oil gives you 2.H2 + O2 -> 2.H2O + delta(1), *plus* C + O2 -> CO2 + delta(2). The hydrogen extraction process throws away the carbon so in burning the resulting hydrogen you only get delta(1); delta(2) is not in the resulting fuel because the carbon is not there. Burning the hydrogen gives you less energy than burning the hydrogen plus the carbon.

The *only* way this makes sense for the Army is that they can pack more energy into a given volume, meaning that vehicles go farther without resupply, meaning fewer resupply runs and delays plus recapture of battle opportunities that would have had to be foregone because the range of their vehicles made the operations too risky. It's especially attractive if they have it and the enemy doesn't, because that gives them a vital "edge" over the competition. They are going to pay a premium for something that is worth it in their situation.

Re:Oil?

[Urkki]

• Actually, one of the big obstacles to using hydrogen as a fuel is that it ISN'T very easily transportable. As a gas, you have to employ very high pressures that involve expensive tanks. Compress it all the way to a liquid and you've burned up so much energy that its no longer attractive as a more efficient source. Chemical storage (metal hydrides, etc) is being researched, but AFAIK, it isn't ready to be main-streamed.

I wonder if, when using nuclear power plant to make H_2, it would be possible to get the produced gas compressed efficiently as part of the operation of the nuclear plant, which involves high pressures anyway. Obiviously it would still take power, but if there was a clever way to partially use power that would otherwise go to waste, it would still be almost free.

Re:Oil?

[chainsaw1]

No, but the military is a very powerful force in terms of presenting money for research grants. The other advantage is the military prefers everything they develop or acquire to conform to any relevant standard so they can switch vendors if necessary. Yes the technology is already there, but an influx of money could drastically shorten the time it takes for it to come to market (or as in the article's dev scale, a '10'). It also will probably increase the likleyhood of the use of standards, because you can't bid on a government contract if you don't meet standards requirements.

Re:Oil?

[burbilog]

There is a finite amount of fossil fuel on this planet. Once that's used up, that's it. We're screwed... BIG time.

Wrong point of view.

The problem is that fuel-efficient technologies alredy exist. And alternative fuel techniques exist too. But they don't make any sense if you look at money. As long as the oil is cheap enough to make $2/barrel hole in the earth and make $30/barrel profit we will never have hydrogen or other type of engine. Because it will never survive the competition.

On other hand, if the price of barrel goes over $40 and stays here (and banks will be sure that it never goes down) investments would be made into fuel factories that make sythetic fuel from coal. We have shitloads of coal around the world, AT LEAST several hundred years. This technology was developed by Germans during WWII, their tanks used synthetic fuel.

If the price goes over $50 and stays here (again, humans will have to build a lot of factories, so we must be sure that oil price doesn't go down and doesn't bankrupt biggest investments in the history) we can produce synthetic fuel from methane.

It's quite possible to produce fuel from plants, especially from hemp. Some people say that you burn more fuel during growing hemp than you get out ot it, but they don't realise that fuel consumption of farmer's vehicles is SHIT. Nobody ever tried to mandate fuel consumption of tractor. The room for improvement is enormous.

Now let's look at the fuel efficiency. This car http://www.autointell-news.com/european_companies/ volkswagen/vw_marke/volkswagen-1-liter/volkswagen- 1-literauto-02.htm consumens ONE liter per hundred km (230 MPG). Today nobody will buy this car, the will snuff at it and buy SUV because it's cheap to maintain. But if you fuel price jumps up 15 times, this 1-liter car will be the best selling car in US.

So don't scream "we are going to die". Let the economy sort things out. When oil price goes up high enough we'll switch to the best economy-wise option. May be it would be cars like Volkswagen's, may be something else. But no doomsday, sir.

Re:Oil?

[cheesybagel]

What a mighty fine invention that is too. Remember what Napoleon said: an army marches on its stomach.

Re:Oil?

[Rostin]

Dear Moron,

Do you expect the heat or light to just create itself?

Yours sincerely,
Rostin

Re:Oil?

[Razor Blades are Not]

shoeheels : Roman military.

gunpowder : China.

Hand Gonne : French military

Oh - were you thinking the world didn't exist before the US was founded ? Sorry. I forgot.

Re:Oil?

[mark-t]

The problem isn't fuel economy... no matter *HOW* efficient we make it, we will still use it up... eventually. All that being more economical about it means is that it will take a lot longer.

No matter how economical our engines get, as long as they are based on fossil fuel, the planet will inevitably be run dry as far as oil is concerned. More fuel efficient engines only delay that fact, they cannot ever hope to prevent it.

To illustrate this, look how much oil there is inside the planet, and look how many millions of years it took to create it. I recall hearing that by the time human civilization started consuming oil there was approximately a trillion barrels of oil on Earth, but let's be generous and triple that. The amount of time it took the earth to create that amount of oil is not exactly certain but it's probably not any better than a few thousand barrels every year. So unless you are proposing making fossil fuel engines so efficient that the entire world's demand can be met by mere thousands of barrels of oil each year then you may have a point... otherwise, we _WILL_ run out.

Re:Oil?

[njh]

Actually, C + O2 => CO2 is quite a good source of energy, it is the standard source of energy for steel production, for example.

If you want to extract more hydrogen from this carbon, you can convert carbon and water into methane and carbon monoxide by 'burning' the carbon in steam. This is the basis of 'water gas', the original town gas. Further reactions can reduce more water into methane, then the methane into hydrogen.

Another interesting energy store is Boron as covered in this article:

http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html

Re:Oil?

[bleeper4]

Army Superintendent: "That way, when the tank explodes, hopefully it will be in enemy territory, and it will make a big BANG!" What? Day of Defeat officials?

Re:Oil?

[Anonymous Coward]

To me? Yes. If they can prove that this process gets more or equal mileage with less overhead (i.e. less fuel, complexity and more armor, ammo, safety, and reliability) then it's seriously worth looking into. I doubt it, but any real improvements in our forces are quite welcome by me.

Re:Oil?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if the fuel tanks don't explode violently enough to destroy the rest of the vehicle, a breach will result in no fuel for the vehicle in short order. Nothing more dangerous to a tank than being stuck in one spot.

Re:Oil?

[Wintensis]

Actually - you can modify a standard diesal engine to burn a fuel made from canola oil. My father runs a diversified agri-business. We looked into it. We could convert 1/3 of our growing acreage to canola, and produce all our own fuel - become energy self-sufficient.

However, the econimics of it - cheaper to use it for cropland (income) and buy cheap fuel. No need to invest in fuel production infrastructure, etc.

Re:Oil?

[DoktorRedhook]

Hydrogen is not a resource. It's just an element. It is neither more or less 'renewable' than carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, etc. As has been pointed out by others here, the energy released by using Hygrogen in a fuel cell has to come from another source. Energy from another source, (burning fossil fuels, maybe even some that are dirtier like coal) would be required to produce electricity for water electrolysis, or to catalytically convert other hydrogen containing compounds to molecular hydrogen.

The energy put into making hydrogen WILL be less than the energy retrieved in it's use. Anyone with a passing familiarity of thermodynamics would comprehend that. From an energy storage efficiency standpoint, Hydrogen isn't even as good as many other chemical alternatives. Far more energetic compounds like nitroglycerin store energy very efficiently, although the controlled release portion of the reaction could use some research ...

The only advantages of hydrogen in fuel cells are it's potential (but as yet not completely resolved) efficiency in generating electricity locally, adn the ability to use 'alternate' fuel sources to create the hydrogen in the first place. Before anyone gets too excited about beneficial ecological consequences of those 'alternative' sources, they would as pointed out earlier likely be coal (which the US has a lot of) or nuclear power. Neither of those options is going to be popular with many people.

Re:Oil?

[Nefarious Wheel]

Actually, one of the big obstacles to using hydrogen as a fuel is that it ISN'T very easily transportable.

It leaks, too, quite easily. Leetle tiny molecule, H2.

Wasn't there a method bandied about some years back about cracking H2 from ammonia using spare ergs from the back end of a nuclear power plant? I know, fission-based power is dirty (yadda yadda) but some day we'll be able to press those little puppies together in Mr.Fusion and we may yet find an alternative to burning all our valuable hydrocarbon chemical manufacturing feedstocks. Looking forward to it, I am.

Re:Oil?

[mark-t]

With regards to extracting hydrogen from water, it's worth remembering that such productions can be centralized, and therefore effective pollution control measures could be taken, so as to have significantly less of an impact on the environment than the combined pollution of automobiles that it provides fuel for.

Yes, I am aware that you use more energy getting hydrogen out of water than you get by burning it, but it's the cost of that energy difference that I was suggesting be factored into the actual cost of obtaining hydrogen at a convenient filling station in the first place. Hydrogen isn't necessarily free, or even necessarily cheap to obtain, it's just renewable because once you've burned it, it's immediately in the form necessary where the hydrogen can be extracted again. Of course, you need yet more energy to do this, but it seems that is a more reachable goal than what you'd need to do with oil, which is to wait a few million years for it to reaccumulate.

Re:Oil?

[Hoser McMoose]

Extract hydrogen from hydrocarbons and you no longer have the hydrocarbons for use as fuel, so cracking oil costs roughly as much energy as cracking water.

No, no it doesn't take as much energy. When you separate out the hydrogen you get a net gain of energy. Hydrocarbons are at a fairly high energy state, that's why they do things like burn. Water, on the other hand, is at a VERY low energy state, which is why it doesn't do much of anything.

As for burning all the fossil fuels in plants to separate hydrogen from water, you are ignoring one very important problem, getting the hydrogen from the power plants (or processing plants, or wherever) into your car. Hydrogen is a very-lighter-than-air gas, so it needs to be compressed a whole lot to get any meaningful quantity of it moved. Lugging around and storing a bunch of highly pressurized gas is MUCH more difficult than doing the same thing with liquids. Combine that with the total lack of any sort of infrastructure for transporting hydrogen vs. the multi-billion dollar infrastructure in place for transporting gasoline, and you're plan is a real losing proposition.

Besides, why burn hydrocarbons in a power plant if you can get 3x more energy out of them by separating out the hydrogen and using them to power a fuel sell? That was the whole thrust of the article!

Re:Oil?

[mwood]

"Besides, why burn hydrocarbons in a power plant if you can get 3x more energy out of them by separating out the hydrogen and using them to power a fuel sell?"

How? how? how? The only way you can get less energy from burning hydrocarbons than by burning only the hydrogen extracted from the same hydrocarbons is if breaking the C-H and C-C bonds takes more energy than forming the C-O bond releases. Humph, my CRC Handbook is at home....

Burning hydrocarbons to generate electricity to liberate hydrogen from water is indeed silly. I only mentioned it because people seem fixated on the idea that energy must ultimately come from fossil hydrocarbons.

I still think you're figuring in only the energy used to run the process, not the *total* energy input to the process, which in the case of cracking hydrocarbons is dominated by the latent energy in the hydrocarbons, MUCH OF WHICH IS DISCARDED IN THE PROCESS. It's turned into pollution, not work.

Oh, wait, I think I see it: there's that factor of three. You get *that* because hydrogen is compressible. A liter of gasoline occupies 1000cm^3 no matter how hard you sit on it, but you can compress hydrogen quite a lot before it liquefies. Apparently at practicable pressures a given volume of hydrogen has three times the energy density of the same volume of (uncompressed) diesel fuel, but how much diesel would you have to crack to get that much hydrogen? A whole lot more than three times as much, I think. Where's a phase diagram? Blotz, Handbook at home....

As for storage and transport, I see natural-gas powered vehicles all the time, and they have the same problem. LNG is a liquid, but does not exist at STP; LNG vehicles also store their fuel under considerable pressure. The infrastructure must be upgraded and expanded, but it is there. We have a large and expensive network for delivery of gaseous fuels already in place, and the opportunity to make more money off it will not go un-noticed even if the necessary preparations are expensive.

The chicken/egg problem appears to have been solved. If the Army want it badly enough, they'll get it, at whatever price they can negotiate, and then the manufacturers will be wanting to achieve greater economies of scale by expanding into other markets. The same guys who are saying today, "oh, you don't want hydrogen" will, without even blinking, begin chanting, "you WANT hydrogen".

Re:Oil?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you expect the heat or light to just create itself?


No, I expect the sun to take care of that.

Re:Oil?

[Hoser McMoose]

The problem is that it's rather difficult to harness the energy you get by burning hydrocarbons. Sure you get lots of energy, but most of it is lost as heat. Internal combustion engines only manage to convert about 1/4 of the total energy produced by burning the hydrocarbons into useful energy. You could probably do better than that when burning fossil fuels in a power plant, but that's another story altogether.

As for you're comments about compressing hydrogen, you obviously didn't read the article and have no clue as to what I was talking about. The article specifically states that they were able to travel 3x further using this process of splitting out the hydrogen from standard diesel fuel. 1 gallon of diesel fuel in a standard tank vs. 1 gallon of diesel fuel in a fuel-cell tank with a membrane to split out the hydrogen.

And what about the natural gas thing? Natural gas is generally stored as a liquid by keeping the temperature low and pressure up. Doing the same thing is just not practical with hydrogen, which would require EXTREMELY low temperatures and high pressures. Sure, it's possible, but not all that practical at this time. You're talking about a VERY LARGE upgrade to the infrastructure.

Re:Oil?

[mwood]

"The article specifically states that they were able to travel 3x further using this process of splitting out the hydrogen from standard diesel fuel."

So why has *no one* been able to explain where the magic free-as-in-beer energy comes from? Energy that wasn't put into the fuel during the cracking process, so it must have been in the feedstock? What is eating up 2/3 of the energy latent in the feedstock when it is burned rather than cracked?

I had not read the article, but I have now. It gets off to a poor start, confusing the fuel cell with the catalytic process that provides the hydrogen. I'm not sure how much to trust anything else they say after that. The writer seems confused as to whether the advantage is "three times more efficient" (which would be 4x as much energy) or 3x as much energy (which would be two times more efficient). The article says, "a truck with a given amount of diesel," but the truck is not burning diesel anymore; it's burning hydrogen and the amount it carries is not stated. I may have been away from the chem. lab. for a long time, but I remember how to report experiments precisely and this reporter doesn't even come close. It's impossible to determine what the article really means.

Re:Oil?

[overunderunderdone]

The chief advantage of Hydrogen over fossil fuels isn't so much that it's cheaper, but that it's truly an infinitely renewable resource that's virtually perfect in terms of environmental friendliness.

No, no, no! Without deposits of pure hydrogen lying around to use it is NOT! If you are getting the hydrogen out of water you CAN'T get more energy out when you burn it to get the water back! At that point it is an energy storage medium and the energy you are storing must be generated in some other way. I realize you acknowledge that, as well as why that is a good thing later in your post but the shorthand you use in your introduction (and other Hydrogen advocates use as well) is wrong and leads people to think about the benefits of Hydrogen in a wrong, starry-eyed, way.

The only advantage to hydrogen is that it would let us run our cars using energy that was originally generated as electricity which we can generate centrally and through a variety of techniques. Still, many of the cheapest techniques we have available are still fossil fuel based - coal, oil, natural gas etc.

There are a lot of advantages. We aren't anywhere near as dependent on foreign oil for electrical generation than we are for transportation. We have our own vast supplies of coal, a fair amount of natural gas, and if the ignorance stopped making it politically unfeasible plenty of uranium. If other "greener" energy sources become feasible we can use those. There are lots of advantages - but "hydrogen is a renewable energy source" is NOT one of the advantages.

Re:Oil?

[Anonymous Coward]

"What was the source of hydrogen for blimps?" "Tanks of hydrogen." Brilliant! Tanks of hydrogen can easily be mined from the mountains!

Hindenburg

[RobertTaylor]

Lets hope the tanks are not covered in iron oxide and aluminum paint as well ;)

Cheers,
rob.

Re:Hindenburg

[redhawk1044]

Yea, I would hate for us to just be giving terrorists weapons to use against us. Later, Joel

Re:Hindenburg

[fuzzybunny]

Damn, beat me to it.

"This is Wolf Blitzer reporting from the 1st Cavalry Divi...Oh the humanity!"

Re:Hindenburg

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Joke apart, isn't hydrogen a major safety concern for standard road vehicles? I mean, they even have to store it as hydrates to make it safe, at the cost of limited trunk space and complicated heating equipment to get the gas out.

If it sounds dangerous for an average car, it's probably even more so for tanks, that may be hit by any kind of nasty projectile while in battle. And if the tank stores the stuff as hydrates, or has a lot of shielding to protect the compressed gas area, that's as much less ordnance it can carry.

Diesel fuel on the other hand is quite difficult to ignite, let alone explode. For example, pour a bit of diesel fuel in a small glass and try to light it up with a match : it won't ignite, no matter how hard you try. Diesel therefore would actually be a rather suitable combat-situation fuel.

Re:Hindenburg

[HeghmoH]

You may be right about tanks, but there's no worry about regular cars, which normally use gasoline. If you try your little experiment with gasoline, you could well be headed for the hospital if you're not careful. And people drive around with enormous amounts of this stuff stored in their vehicles. Hydrogen is much less dangerous.

Re:Hindenburg

[Umrick]

See others for why hydrogen really isn't that dangerous.

As to a tank getting hit by a nasty projectile... If it's a big enough hit to ignite the fuel, then odds are very good that tank will suffer ammunition cookoff, where the rounds of ammo it carries burns off it's propellant.

That is a thousand times worse than any fuel burn off you might have. Even if you have blow off armor over the ammo cache. Besides, nothing stopping you from doing the same with the fuel storage.

Let's not even consider the projectiles that'd be in the compartment from impact or spraying molten metal.

Exploding hydrogen would be such a small concern at that point...

Re:Hindenburg

[mwood]

If you'd think for a moment, you'd realize that the fuel tank is just about the least of a tanker's worries. He's riding in a vehicle that carries hundreds of pounds of high-explosive ammunition.

They deal with this problem by carrying the dangerous stuff outside the main hull until they want to use it. Obviously the fuel tank can be put there too.

Re:Hindenburg

[Dusabre]

A M1 tank is full of high explosive ammunition (as in BIG BOOM) and jet-grade fuel (as in BIG BOOM). Exchanging the jet fuel for hydrogen doesn't make the tank less likely to explode or require more shielding. If anything, hydrogen is less volatile than jet fuel so less shock shielding might be needed.

Re:Hindenburg

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

oh ok, I was under the impression that tanks ran on diesel. My bad, I know next to nothing about military equipment.

Thanks for the precision.

Re:Hindenburg

[Firethorn]

Actually the turbines on an abrams can burn just about any liquid hydrocarbon.

Dumb

[heletek]

Why would they want to do this? Isn't there enough hydrogen in say, seawater? Why destroy an already depleted resource, or is there something here I'm not seeing?

Re:Dumb

[Stile 65]

To split any kind of water into H2 and O2 actually takes more energy than their recombination (burning H2 to produce H2O) provides. This is the principle of conservation of energy.

What this method has created is a cheap (energy-wise, and apparently, money-wise too) way of producing hydrogen, which can then combine with oxygen in the energy-producing burning reaction to produce water.

Re:Dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the principle of conservation of energy.

Euh, not really. It's the second thermodynamics principle (the Entropy). Wich states that in any energy exchange, a part of it is lost, degradated into heat. This is why perpetual motion is impossible.

Re:Dumb

[francium de neobie]

Ever heard of the Haber process?

Haber process combines H2 and N2 into ammonia, which can then be oxidized into various nitrogen oxides to produce many other useful chemicals (e.g. explosives).

In Haber Process, nitrogen is obtained from the air... that's only natural. What about the hydrogen? Chemistry n00bs tend to guess the H2 is obtained from electrolysis of water. That's not the case though. In reality, the H2 in Haber Process is obtained from hydration of refinery gases (or, with some other catalysed reactions). The reason is it uses much less energy than electrolysis. If you obtain H2 from electrolysis of, say, sea water, you have to put in almost all the energy of breaking the H-O bond yourself. If you start with some lower alkanes however, you only have to input a fraction of that energy. It is because the refinery gases has a certain "potential energy" themselves (which is why you can burn it). In the hydration process, despite the H2 you need, other more stable compounds, e.g. CO, are formed. In the formation of these compounds, energy is released, which can compensate the energy absorbed in breaking the C-H bonds.

Re:Dumb

[Colonel Cholling]

To split any kind of water into H2 and O2 actually takes more energy than their recombination (burning H2 to produce H2O) provides. This is the principle of conservation of energy.

This doesn't necessarily make producing hydrogen fuel from water an impractical idea. Batteries, after all, are pretty inefficient, but their usefulness comes from their portability. An example of how this could work: it would be unfeasible to put a nuclear reactor in a tank, or to make electrically powered tanks with lead-acid batteries, but if you've got a ground-based nuclear power station where you can produce the hydrogen fuel, and can then put that fuel in the tanks to be used in a combustion engine, the overall savings in cost vs. drilling, refining, and shipping fossil fuels might justify the drop in efficiency. This is why the early rockets were fueled with liquid hydrogen: sure, they might not make use of every milliwatt coming out of the power plant, but just try moving a rocket with an onboard coal-burning generator.

Re:Dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

Knowing enough about chemistry to show that I know next to nothing, I ask the following:

Is there some sort of chemical catalyst that lowers the energy required to break the H-O bond?

Re:Dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

Paragons of nature? You mean like the Dutch who destroyed part of a sea to live in it? Or like any other country on Earth?

Re:Dumb

[uberdave]

It is easier and cheaper to get hydrogen from hydrocarbons than it is to get it from water.

Re:Dumb

[francium de neobie]

Should be no, never heard of one. But even if there's one, it won't be useful in making the H2O -> H2 and 1/2 x O2 reaction any more useful than catalytic hydration or steam reforming of hydrocarbons.

Catalysts are used only to provide an alternative pathway of the same reaction, i.e. only the intermediate products and processes of a catalysed reaction is different from an uncatalysed one. It is useful in reducing the reaction requirements. e.g. it reduces the temp and pressure requirements of cracking hydrocarbons, so you can make the reaction happen with cheaper equipments. It can also increase the rate of reaction.

However, since the end products are the same even for a catalysed reaction, the bond energy of the end products are just the same as in an uncatalysed reaction. So even tho you can use less expensive equipments with a catalyst (which is not the case for electrolysis - you can already do that with dirt cheap graphite electrodes), the net energy you transferred to or from the chemical won't change. In the catalytic hydrocarbon cracking example above, while you may use a lower temperature and lower pressure, the reaction also gives out less heat energy compared to the uncatalysed one - the net energy difference between the two reactions are the same. Therefore even if there's such a catalyst, you must still pay pretty much the same amount of energy in converting water into hydrogen.

hmmm... i dunno

[MrRTFM]

depending on how much this costs, it seems like a waste of time extracting the hydrogen from 'oil', when there is a *chance* it could get up to 3 times more energy.

Surely, the answer has to lie in getting the hydrogen from water - we just need a massive breakthrough in solar panel technology.

Re:hmmm... i dunno

[johnburton]

The problem at the moment is that there is little point building hydrogen powered vehicles because there is no ready source of hydrogen - and little point building a hyrdrogen distibution system because there are no vehicles to use it. This breaks the deadlock by letting hyrdogen powered vehicles run on existing fuel. Once there are enough it will make economic sense to distribute hydrogen from other sources instead.

Re:hmmm... i dunno

[swordboy]

Surely, the answer has to lie in getting the hydrogen from water - we just need a massive breakthrough in solar panel technology.

There doesn't need to be a breakthrough because that has already happened. Stan Ovshinsky, pioneer of disordered materials, has developed a thin-film solar technology that is competitive with grid-supplied fossil fuel electricity. Now, he believes that they can achieve this feat with 100MW of production economy so they aren't quite there yet (they currently run a 30MW machine).

They just partnered with HaveBlue to develop a fuel cell hydrogen sailboat with solid hydrogen storage. The sailboats sit in the harbor most of the time so they are perfect vessels to soak up the sun and convert it to hydrogen.

Water is the best battery. We just need an affordable fuel cell to convert it back into electricity. Stan is working on that too.

Re:hmmm... i dunno

[krymsin01]

No ready source of hydrogen? It's the most abundant element in the universe...

Re:hmmm... i dunno

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes...but there still isn't any easily available source of it.

If you think there is, please tell us where.

Re:hmmm... i dunno

[Anonymous Coward]

That's so idiotic, I'm speechless. Are you one of those tree-hugging hippie leftist environuts, or just plain stupid?

Re:hmmm... i dunno

[Anonymous Coward]

your mom?

Re:hmmm... i dunno

[Jonny Cat]

The massive breakthrough in Solar Panel technology has been around for a decade. I was given an offer to work for a canadian firm that claimed it could power all of north america with six football fields of solar panels. Its not about "inventing" the technology, its about getting it out from under the shoe of big business (read: Standard Oil).

Its the same deal with medicine. There is no profit in curing AIDS, cancer or any other disease. When you have people trapped into buying your product at your prices, why would you take away the demand?

-- I do not approve of this or support it in any way. But I can understand why it happens.

Re:hmmm... i dunno

[Hoser McMoose]

A 100% efficient solar panel gives you about 500-1000KW/km^2 during the day, and nothing at night. In North America we consume about 2KW of energy on average throughout the day.

So, let's take a near best-case scenario of putting solar panels on the equator, getting full-intensity (ie noon hour) sun for 12 hours a day, we're still talking about only being able to provide power to 500 people per km^2. For the United State's 270 million people, that works out to 540,000km^2, or about halfway between the size of California and Texas.

Of course, if we were to use real numbers, even with 100% effective solar panels you would need an area MUCH larger than the size of Texas to support out current energy needs.

Note that this isn't even starting to consider the HUGE extra burder to the power grid if we were to try and power all our cars by it like you're suggesting. Our total energy consumption is up around 7 or 8KW/person when you add in non-electrical energy sources (mainly internal combustion engines for vehicles, heating, etc.).

Re:hmmm... i dunno

[Anonymous Coward]

Massive breakthrough, huh? Well, the sun irradiates about 1kW/m^2, but you only get this at high noon. Assuming that your average North American uses 200kWh of energy per day (mostly from driving), and that you would need 10m^2 of area to collect 24kWh, that's 80m^2 per person. Multiply that by 300M people, and you get 25e9 m^2, or about 2.5Mha. If your solar panels were 30% efficient, you would have to cover 8Mha.

In other words, you would have to turn all of the Mojave Desert black with solar panels to power North America.

aQazaQa

Re:hmmm... i dunno

[Anonymous Coward]

> halfway between the size of California and Texas.

Covering California and Texas with solar panels is probably the best use for them.

Not just tanks

[Eric S Rayrnond]

The APU is a new invention that could also reduce the military's reliance on oil. It doesn't drive the engines of the Army's long-haul trucks, but it will run almost everything else, from the heating and air conditioning to the vehicle's water pump and other accessories. It's powered by a hydrogen fuel cell. The hydrogen comes from a small set of tanks attached to the cab, but eventually the hydrogen could come directly from the diesel fuel that runs the engine itself. A fuel-cell APU can increase the efficiency of a typical diesel engine by as much as ten-fold. And the less noise and emissions a truck generates, the lower the chance it'll be spotted by the enemy.

Personally, I think that best solution is a reduction in military and government spending on fuel, along with everything else. After all, the government is the greatest polluter on the planet.

Re:Not just tanks

[Anonymous Coward]

A fuel-cell APU can increase the efficiency of a typical diesel engine by as much as ten-fold

Since the efficiency of a modern diesel engine is around 30% (certainly more than 10%) this would mean that you've got a perpetuum mobile on your hands. So Not So.

Re:Not just tanks

[mhifoe]

Quite correct. In fact the most efficient diesel in the world is 50% efficient, allthough it is rather large.

Re:Not just tanks

[Dr. Evil]

Improbable, I think the people in the photos are just really small.

Re:Not just tanks

[heironymouscoward]

Ah, brave words, but remember that every barrel burnt is a dollar earnt.

Pollution is highly profitable for those who hold the levers of power. I've not yet seen a single example of people voluntarily stopping a profitable activity.

So in this case the best solution is not going to happen. If the tanks don't burn the oil, the SUVs will. When the oil has almost gone, we will be left scrabbling for the few remaining drops. Until then it will be burnt at maximum possible speed.

Incidentally, did anyone else notice that BP has restated its oil reserves with a massive reduction on what it previously said it had. We're possibly closer to the end of oil than we thought.

Re:Not just tanks

[timeOday]

So in this case the best solution is not going to happen. If the tanks don't burn the oil, the SUVs will.

The eventual consumption of all oil doesn't bother me. Ultimately I don't see any point in NOT using it up. But we should delay the transition and get as much out of the oil as we can, since we might not find anything as cheap and convenient for the forseeable future. And burning it more slowly might dissipate the effects of pollution.

When the oil has almost gone, we will be left scrabbling for the few remaining drops. Until then it will be burnt at maximum possible speed.

Not really. There's a whole range of oil deposits, from gushers near the surface to low-grade shale from which oil must be extracted. As the supply dwindles, it will be a gradual process, drawn out by new ways to economically harvest sources that weren't economically viable before. The price will definitely rise. At some point it will be cheaper to use other sources. But unless we hurry and find some acceptable "other," it will really depress the economy.

(Personally I think we'd be fine if we just started using nuclear power to get hydrogen from water but maybe I shouldn't even open up that can of worms. Oops.)

Re:Not just tanks

[joib]

Incidentally, did anyone else notice that BP has restated its oil reserves with a massive reduction on what it previously said it had. We're possibly closer to the end of oil than we thought.


I read in the paper today that Shell has dropped it's estimates by a fifth. The article also gave as the reason some changes in how the US government requires the companies to report their reserves. I haven't heard about the BP thing, but I suspect it's the same reason.

US Army Pursues Hydrogen Fuel Concepts

[dameon]

...From Haliburton!

Re:US Army Pursues Hydrogen Fuel Concepts

[Anonymous Coward]

---The Previous was a post from a third shifter who couldn't afford caffeine all night.

Re:US Army Pursues Hydrogen Fuel Concepts

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure---let's mod down the sleep deprived guy .... great idea. Wow ....

When you're a kid and you wanna go WHEEEEEEEE!

But you ain't got drugs yet. You hold on for your life .... you hold on for your little GONADS ..... .GONADS AND STRIFE

forty bucks?

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

it costs about $40 to move one gallon of diesel fuel from Kuwait to Baghdad.

Considering the war in Iraq cost the US military $1bn per week, I'd say that, even considering that one single tank guzzle more gas that a whole lot of SUV, they're not too worried about that, unless they start to run tank grand prix in the deset every day.

Good luck finding fund to justify that saving ...

Re:forty bucks?

[Anonymous Coward]

are you in any way related to John Coltrane?

Re:forty bucks?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I have a friend called Ahmed who will do it for $30, honest!

And he is a very good friend. He also has a nice line in Italian made "swiss" watches.

Re:forty bucks?

[agilen]

Well, think about it this way...its about 300 miles from Kuwait to Baghdad. M1 Abrams tanks get about 0.6 miles to the gallon. So, that means a single tank needed about 500 gallons of gas to get to Baghdad. Cost @ $40/gallon: $20,000. (Yes im not figuring in the fact that it is consuming gas, but the return trip should account for the difference) If a hydrogen tank got 3 times the gas mileage, the cost of getting it to Baghdad would be $6,667. A fine savings by my standards, but multiply that by the number of tanks going in there (say 500, im not sure the exact number), and $10 million in fuel costs drops to $3.3 million. Or maybe they could use 3 times the number of tanks. When it comes down to it, the more Dubya plays with his tanks, the more money could be saved by converting them to hydrogen.

Re:forty bucks?

[Oliver Wendell Jones]

When it comes down to it, the more Dubya plays with his tanks, the more money could be saved by converting them to hydrogen.

Wow! If we just had a trillion tanks, we could save enough to pay off the national debt!

Re:forty bucks?

[Anonymous Coward]

Trust me, if Mobil had to move that oil overland in armed convoys with one man for every few thousand gallons, it would cost them a lot more, too.

A large ocean tanker can be up to 500,000 tons, is very efficient to move through water, and requires a relatively small crew. There is quite a significant economy of scale there.

aQazaQa

neat idea

[ch-chuck]

remove the carbon from hydrocarbons - does the C in ordinary gasoline combustion contribute any energy or is it just a greenhouse gas pollutant? This way they can please the greens and Shell/Exxon/BP etc at the same time.

Re:neat idea

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

remove the carbon from hydrocarbons - does the C in ordinary gasoline combustion contribute any energy or is it just a greenhouse gas pollutant? This way they can please the greens and Shell/Exxon/BP etc at the same time.

Hey, I have another NEATER idea : remove the C *and* the H from hydrocarbons, and you have vaccuum, so you can run a piston engine out of that vaccuum, and you keep your original hydrocarbon stuff at the same time, to start the process all over again.

FREE ENERGY!

Re:neat idea

[Xolotl]

What releases energy in chemical combustion is making new chemical bonds which are lower energy (i.e. stronger) than the ones you have to break to start the reaction. In hydrocarbon burning you break the C-H bonds and form much stronger H-O and C=O bonds, releasing energy. So yes, the C does contribute energy, its just that the byproduct is CO2, a greenhouse gas.

Re:neat idea

[Stile 65]

Absolutely. Add to this that even on its own, carbon is used as fuel (coal) and as part of some explosives (black powder).

Re:neat idea

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

carbon is used as fuel (coal)

Speak for yourself, I burn diamonds in the BBQ myself, as the efficiency of the reaction is somewhat better than coal, so the meat takes less time to cook and is much tastier. And the flame is prettier too ...

Re:neat idea

[francium de neobie]

This tehnique (steam reforming of hydrocarbons) has existed for quite a long time, and the reason of using it is about costs. The reaction generally involves passing steam and refinery gases over some catalysts.

http://www.google.com.hk/search?q=steam+reformin g+ hydrocarbon&hl=zh-TW&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&start=0 &sa=N

Re:neat idea

[ch-chuck]

carbon is used as fuel (coal)

Here's an interesting fact that demonstrates a failure of democracy (govt by public opinion):

"large quantities of uranium and thorium and other radioactive species in coal ash are not being treated as radioactive waste. These products emit low-level radiation, but because of regulatory differences, coal-fired power plants are allowed to release quantities of radioactive material that would provoke enormous public outcry if such amounts were released from nuclear facilities. Nuclear waste products from coal combustion are allowed to be dispersed throughout the biosphere in an unregulated manner. Collected nuclear wastes that accumulate on electric utility sites are not protected from weathering, thus exposing people to increasing quantities of radioactive isotopes through air and water movement and the food chain. "

from: http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/ colmain.html

This is a great first step!

[Qwerpafw]

The giant barrier for fuel cells is, and has been, transportation and distribution of fuel. Pure hydrogen is enormously expensive to transport and store since it "leaks" out of most containers (the molecules fit through the walls or something equally frustrating). Strides were made with that (boron?) chemical storage, but it's still pretty labor intensive and would require a vastly different infrastructure. This, however, manages to use the existing system (for diesel fuel) for hydrogen cells. That's a giant breakthrough.

The article describes the technology as being "a four or a five" on a scale where 10 is production-level, so the whole thing is, to an extent, still vapourware. BUT, the transition path to hydrogren is so advantageous, I wouldn't be surprised if we were to see production examples of fuel-cell diesel trucks (apparently the tech works better with diesel...) in a few years domestically. First a transition for trucks, then a gradual increase in diesel/hydrogen fuel availability for the rest of America's car fleet, and finally a total switch to hydrogen tech. All without having to significantly rework the fossil fuel distribution network. This is the stuff of the future and I, for one, look forwards to it eagerly.

Re:This is a great first step!

[overunderunderdone]

so the whole thing is, to an extent, still vapourware.

LOL

Re:This is a great first step!

[wrt2]

I'd agree strongly that an energy storage and distribution system which leverages the existing fossil fuel network has a better chance of adoption. It seems to me, however, that catalysis of diesel or gasoline is much less of a solution than catalysis of biodiesel or methanol. Methanol can be combined with cooking grease and/or plant oils to make biodiesel; methanol also can be distributed directly utilizing the same road/rail/station network moving diesel today. It has high energy density, less excess carbon, very little sulfur contamination, and can be produced in sufficient quantities from biomass to be a sustainable, renewable energy solution. Of course, methanol also can generate electromotive force through catalysis directly, as more than one story on Slashdot has reported.

Re:This is a great first step!

[TALlama]

...so the whole thing is, to an extent, still vapourware.

Isn't that the goal, though?

Cost

[sangfroid]

They're using a catalytic converter to draw the hydrogen out of readily available, pre-processed fuel -- probably still in the form of hydrocarbons instead of pure hydrogen. This is cheap. Seperating salt water into Hydrogen, Oxygen, Salt, and extraneous junk is expensive.

From the article:

"Scientists have known about the advantages of hydrogen fuel since they began using it to power rockets. But super-cooled liquid hydrogen is difficult to store and move.

Thus, converting to widespread use would be expensive and take years, and would require creating an alternative to the world's trillion-dollar infrastructure.

But they realized there is already a lot of hydrogen in hydrocarbon fuel -- diesel fuel, jet fuel, gasoline. All they would have to do is invent a process that removes the carbon and sulfur and they could take advantage of the oil industry infrastructure."

Re:Cost

[jsebrech]

Seperating salt water into Hydrogen, Oxygen, Salt, and extraneous junk is expensive.

Except that you can use renewable power to separate the hydrogen from water. First you distill the water to purify it, then you electrolyse it to separate it into hydrogen and oxygen. It's really not a complicated process. All you need is electricity, which is what the majority of "clean" and renewable energy sources deliver.

The whole point of "the hydrogen economy" is abandoning oil and its costly and politically risky infrastructure (generate fuel where you need it, instead of shipping it in from dictatorships). Reusing the oil infrastructure to fuel hydrogen cars is pointless. You're wasting even more energy than you would be if you just burnt the oil directly.

Ofcourse, it's probably cost efficient for the specific case the military has in iraq, but for general use it's not a good strategy.

Great!

[Stile 65]

Between this and Thermal Depolymerization, which can turn any organic material into oil, we're going to be in hog heaven. Who needs to import oil anymore? :)

Costs

[pubjames]

DoD officials say 'it costs about $40 to move one gallon of diesel fuel from Kuwait to Baghdad.'

It really costs that much? Seems a hell of a lot to me. How many gallons does an oil tanker hold? Let's me guess at 20,000. If so, then to drive an oil tanker from Kuwait to Badhdad is costing $800,000!!

I guess these must be the prices that Haliburton etc. are charging. The war in Iraq looks like a damn efficient means to move money from the American taxer into the hands of friends of those in power in the USA. Go Bush!

Re:Costs

[Stile 65]

I'm guessing those costs are due to the difficulty of transporting oil in hostile territory. Oil tankers in general don't have rocket-propelled grenades flying at them. Plus, you aren't moving oil via the ocean - to get to Baghdad, you have to move over quite a bit of land, which gives hostile forces the opportunity to attack your supply line.

Re:Costs

[aziraphale]

> $40 to move one gallon of diesel fuel from Kuwait to Baghdad.

You're forgetting that when that gallon of oil set out from Kuwait, the entire Iraqi army was trying to stop it from going to Baghdad. When you even out the cost of changing the regime of an entire country, that's really not that expensive.

Still, can't help wondering if the US military's next project will be seeing how much they can make it cost to transport coal to Newcastle...

Re:Costs

[pubjames]

I'm guessing those costs are due to the difficulty of transporting oil in hostile territory.

Sure, that's going to make it more expensive. But there has to be a reasonable limit to costs. $800,000 to drive an oil tanker about 400 miles - is a cost of $2,000 a mile reasonable, even given the circumstances? I don't think so.

Re:Costs

[pubjames]

When you even out the cost of changing the regime of an entire country, that's really not that expensive.

But that's not a logical approach. The cost of transportation should be exactly that, otherwise it does not make any sense that the US army is excited about hydrogen fuel concepts because of the cost of transporting oil from Kuwait to Bagdad.

Re:Costs

[Anonymous Coward]

How much would you charge a to drive a tanker truck from Kuwait to Badhdad?!

Think about it, at least 600 miles, 20000 gallons of flammable fuel, every American hating extremist with a rocket powered grenade knows that YOU are coming and all they have to do is be somewhere around the vicinity of the road.

The extremist isn't worried about dying, are you?

Now think about how much security YOU would want to do the job.

Now pay for it.

What, you were expecting the US Army to secure the shipments? That very expensive security and as a tax payer I want them out hunting bad guys and not babysitting your ass and a tanker truck.

So you hire you some security. Guess how much it costs... :o)

Re:Costs

[sql*kitten]

If so, then to drive an oil tanker from Kuwait to Badhdad is costing $800,000!! I guess these must be the prices that Haliburton etc. are charging.

I'd guess that is the cost for actually getting the fuel there - including escorting it with armoured vehicles, patrolling above with helicopter gunships, etc etc, salaries for the bureaucrats keeping track of it, cost of labour at both ends for loading and unloading, etc etc etc.

Fighting a modern war is not cheap, and the winner is almost always the one that can throw the most money at it.

Re:Costs

[commo1]

Am I missing something here? What is the point of the US Army or any other organization trying to get gallons of oil from Kuwait (a protected seaport) to Baghdad? Baghdad is in the middle of Iraq! Aside from domestic use of the oil, what's the point? Getting it to Baghdad is only 1/3 of the way to anywhere it could usefully be transported. Sounds like military posturing to me to try to drum up support for this new H-cell tech, not a solution to move oil.....

Re:Costs

[pubjames]

How much would you charge a to drive a tanker truck from Kuwait to Badhdad?!

If someone was going to pay me $800,000 each truck to get trucks from Kuwait to Bagdad, I'd jump at the chance.

I wouldn't do it myself. That would just be dumb. Locals would be a) much cheaper and b) a lot more likely to get through, because they understand the local conditions, can speak the language, know the roads, local tribes, risks etc. I would pay the driver half at the start of the journey and half on delivery, this would reduce losses should tankers not get through and would give the driver motivation to deliver.

I would also think about more creative ways of getting the oil delivered. At $40 a gallon it would probably be cheaper to fly it. Or setup a scheme whereby public passenger cars can opt to take one barrel each for payment on delivery. Hey, why bother at all, I'm sure if you let it be known on the streets of Bagdad that you'd pay an extra $40 a gallon, plenty of willing locals be keen to find a way to sell it to you.

Re:Costs

[Short Circuit]

If you drive a tanker, it's going to have about a foot of armor around it. My guess it that they transport it in much smaller chunks. For one, that increases tactical capabilities. For two, it minimizes your losses if part of a convoy gets taken out.

Re:Costs

[Syberghost]

I guess these must be the prices that Haliburton etc. are charging. The war in Iraq looks like a damn efficient means to move money from the American taxer into the hands of friends of those in power in the USA. Go Bush!

$40 is what it costs for the Army to do it.

$3 is what Halliburton charges. Cost plus a percentage is what they were authorized to charge when they competitively bid to be the LOGCAP supplier.

Yes, I know it comes as a shock that they got the Iraq gig because of a competitive bid process, but that's what happens when you listen to the mainstream press and web sites.

Re:Costs

[mamba-mamba]

20,000 gallons of oil in a tanker? That has to be one of the most outrageous under-estimates I've ever seen.

Sort of like looking up at the night sky and saying, "Look at all the stars! Why, there must be HUNDREDS of them!"

Oil tankers are very large. The largest super tankers are something like 350 meters long, and over 50 meters wide.

You could probably spill 20,000 gallons of fuel on the deck of a supertanker and not even have a deep puddle. (I'm not going to do the math.)

MM
--

Re:Costs

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow...

Let's just hope the road to bagdad is very straight then, I wouldn't like doing a U-turn in one of them!

Re:Costs

[mamba-mamba]

Well. If the OP meant "tanker truck," he could have said that.

But based on the geography, which I guess I didn't pay much attention to at first, I probably should have realized that we weren't talking about ships.

Thanks for straightening me out.

MM
--

Re:Costs

[darkmeridian]

You can't just drive regular tankers over there. This is an active warzone and you need to back them up with mechanized tanks and machinery. These also consume fuel and require personnel. These costs go up really fast and account for high prices.

Re:Costs

[BigBadBri]

can't help wondering if the US military's next project will be seeing how much they can make it cost to transport coal to Newcastle... >/i>

Wayaay, ye bastid!

Ye divvent have no call te come ovver heer with yer fancy Amurican ways, man.

We find yer pasty asses on Bigg Market on a Friday neet, all covered up an that, we'll give yus a dandy kicking.

Re:Costs

[jafac]

I'd guess that is the cost for actually getting the fuel there - including escorting it with armoured vehicles, patrolling above with helicopter gunships, etc etc, salaries for the bureaucrats keeping track of it, cost of labour at both ends for loading and unloading, etc etc etc.

You're forgetting the cost of compensating ex-executives who are now the president's administration acting as proxy lobbyists, and the cost of getting said ex-executives INTO office via soft campaign contributions, and the cost of buying large chunks of newsmedia outlets to ensure that negative stories don't make it to the public.

Hey, keeping the oil flowing is HUGELY expensive.

Re:Costs

[jafac]

But I thought major combat was over?

Re:Costs

[sql*kitten]

You're forgetting the cost of compensating ex-executives who are now the president's administration

Let's not talk about the Clintons and their legal bills, shall we?

What do they do with the CO2????

[dew-genen-ny]

Obviously I have not RTFA....but... Surely the biggest question is what they do with the CO2 they extract. I half expect them to just expel it into the atmosphere but I so hope they don't...

Re:What do they do with the CO2????

[cagle_.25]

Unfortunately, into the atmosphere it goes. The point of this process is not to reduce greenhouse gases or improve overall fuel efficiency. The point is that since tanks have a limited fuel space, they need to be able to stuff as much power as possible into themselves before leaving for a mission. H2 (apparently) has a 3:1 advantage over hydrocarbons in that regard.

Re:What do they do with the CO2????

[Ba3r]

sorry to be a stickler, but the point is to improve overall fuel efficiency.

Just as you said, "they need to be able to stuff as much power as possible into themselves ... [and] H2 (apparently) has a 3:1 advantage"

That means that a fuel cell will get 3 times as much energy from the same amount of hydrocarbon fuel, in other words, is 3 times more efficient. However you are still right in that this will not reduce greenhouse gases directly, but the increased efficiency (especially 3:1!), will most definetily have a signficant effect on the amount of greenhouse gases releaed.

Re:What do they do with the CO2????

[cagle_.25]

Sorry; I may not have been clear. Take one mole of hydrocarbons and subject it to the Auburn process. Take a second mole and subject it to ordinary high-T combustion. The amount of energy released will be (at best!) the same in both cases.

Thus, I am not claiming, and neither is Auburn, that the process is 3x more efficient than combustion.

But now consider storage: the H2 can be compressed into a smaller space than the corresponding hydrocarbons. Thus, a tank can hold the same amount of energy in only one third of the space.

Flip this around; fix the volume of the fuel tank. For this fixed volume, the tank can hold three times as much energy in hydrogen as it can in hydrocarbons. All this means, though, is that the tank has a higher-capacity gas tank, not that we have made the tank a more efficient user of gasoline.

The point, then, is that the overall process does not make a gallon of gas go any further; hence, it is not environmentally advantageous. It is battlefield advantageous, because tanks will be able to travel further without having to refuel, but it does not help the DoD one bit in terms of total gasoline used.

Re:What do they do with the CO2????

[Anonymous Coward]

That C02 is going to make a hell of a lot of soda
for Coca Cola

Re:What do they do with the CO2????

[Ba3r]

Take one mole of hydrocarbons and subject it to the Auburn process. Take a second mole and subject it to ordinary high-T combustion. The amount of energy released will be (at best!) the same in both cases.
However, the amount of energy released that can be utilized is far higher in the case of the fuel cell.

"The electrons from the hydrogen then power a battery. The process is chemical, and there is no combustion" - the article

Without combustion, the energy lost to 1) heat, 2)friction, and 3) underutilized fuel ("running rich") is signficantly reduced. Fuel cells are chemcial processes, and there are several that are very low temperature (minimal loss of energy due to heat). And, perhaps the most important point, fuel cells produce electricity, not hydrogen to be used in a combustion engine (which is very dangerous).

And storage of H2 is not the issue, as the only place it is stored before being used in the fuel cell to produce electricity, is in the hydrocarbon fuel, the storage of which we are quite familiar.

Again from the article: "But with a fuel cell, a truck with a given amount of diesel can run three times the usual distance". Once again, the conclusion that the fuel cell is thus 3 times as efficient is utterly obvious. If I fill 2 trucks with 25 gallons of fuel, and one goes 100 miles, the other goes 300 miles, the comparative efficiency, rated in miles per gallon, is 4mpg versus 12 mpg. Hence each gallon of fuel will then go 8 miles further. Consider that in one month, Dod Combat Tanks drive (utter guess) 40,000 miles combined. Now, going to our previous made up figures, say we have the old tanks and new tanks. The old tanks, at 4mpg will require 10,000 gallons of fuel in the service of the Dod that month. The new tanks with a fuel effciency of 12mpg, will only require 3,333 gallons of fuel, thus saving the Dod 6,666 gallons of fuel, or in other words, the Dod will only use 1/3 of the fuel. Quite frankly, just about everything you stated (minus the mole part) is absolutely wrong. I suggest you brush up on your understanding of fuel cells (fuelcells.org), and actually read the article.

Re:What do they do with the CO2????

[lakkdainen]

Put it in a tank and use it do dispense beer. Duh!!

Re:What do they do with the CO2????

[cagle_.25]

I went back and re-read the article, just to see if I read it correctly. And, I perused the site you recommended. I don't think the problem is my reading skills. Here are some quotes from the article:

Fuel cell technology takes a regular fuel and pulls off its hydrogen molecules, which are stored as gas.

Seems to me that the article is indicating that the H2 is stored, not generated in situ, as you indicated. (To give your claim some credit, however, the discussion of "reformers" on the site utcfuelcells.com talks about in situ production of H2.)

Here's another:

They took jet fuel, which is very similar to diesel, and catalytically converted it, separating out the sulfur, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, and the fuel cell ran.

Leaving aside the niggling problem that jet fuel doesn't actually contain CO2 or CO, this seems to make clear that the Auburn process strips hydrogen from hydrocarbons to generate hydrogen for fuel cell use. From this, I would have to conclude that the purpose of the Auburn process is to efficiently generate hydrogen to store in tanks for use in fuel cells.

Now for the numbers: octane has a heat of combustion of 5504 kJ/mol. At a 13% efficiency, that's 720kJ from one mole of octane.
Now, strip the hydrogens from the mole of octane and carry them through the fuel cell reaction, assuming 100% efficiency; the result is 2569kJ, again from one mole of octane. That's a 3.5-to-1 improvement. But, according to the fuelcells.org site, a pure-hydrogen Toyota operates at 48% efficiency, "tank to wheel." Taking that number as normative, since the Auburn process does not address the "tank-to-wheel" process, you get at most a 1.75-1 efficiency ratio from hydrogen fuel cells, with actual numbers lower than that.
Clearly, it's not possible to achieve an actual 3-1 efficiency ratio from "well-to-wheel", so the article's claim is wrong. So what should I, the reasonable reader, do with this conflict in information? Especially since I have already noticed several errors in fact in the article? I decided that the fuel was stored as hydrogen, and that the 3:1 ratio claimed was not fuel efficiency, but mileage-per-gallon-of fuel, and that the line

But with a fuel cell, a truck with a given amount of diesel can run three times the usual distance

was simply a misunderstanding of the claims of the Auburn group. Obviously, something's missing here. Perhaps you can fill in the details?

Re:What do they do with the CO2????

[Ba3r]

I am sorry for the aggressiveness of my response earlier, that was uncalled for.

My point of contention was mostly centered on your statement that there was no increase in efficiency. A fuel cell vehicle necessitates an electic drivetrain, which i believe is also a factor in the increased efficiency.

Clearly, a fuel cell is also techincally combustion (oxidization), however the amount of energy retrieved from hydrocarbon fuel in the Auburn reformation, and then utilized in the fuel cell, is higher than that of the dated (100 years?) method of internal combustion. A gas or diesel engine loses signficant amounts of energy to heat, friction, and un-utilized fuel (lost though exhaust). A reformer with high efficiency will extract more potential energy from the fuel, and the fuel cell will more efficiently convert this to electricity (kinetic), and finally an electric drivetrain will more efficiently utilize this in propelling the vehicle (instant torque, less energy lost in a transmission, clutch, etc). The resulting efficiency may be 3:1 as the article says, or 1.75:1 as you say, I don't really know, but the net result is more mpg either way. That is the critical detail that makes fuel cell research so compelling (hitched to the fact that the entire world's energy distribution infrastructure is already built around hydrocarbon fuel, and would not need to be rebuilt).

Hydrogen isn't the answer

[corebreech]

Here's a tank truck that can carry 5000 gallons of gas. You can get one for less than $120,000.

The drive from Kuwait to Baghdad is approximately 400 miles. This means a truck can do at least one round trip between Kuwait and Baghdad per day.

That means that over the course of a year, this one truck with a driver that is paid, say, $50,000 a year, can haul 1,825,000 gallons of gas for a price of approximately $200,000 ($120,000 for the truck, $50,000 for the driver, and say $30,000 for incidentals... fuel, windshield wipers, those mud flap things with the pictures of naked woman on them... whatever.)

That works out to about $.10 per gallon.

The Pentagon is paying $40 per gallon.

Re:Hydrogen isn't the answer

[GangstaLean]

Don't forget the extra $50,000 you gotta pay the driver for hazard pay, and the 2 HumVees and 6 soldiers that have to accompany the tank truck to stop guerillas from rocket launching the truck into oblivion.

(ok, even then it doesn't add up to $40/gallon. How can I become a Pentagon supplier?)

Re:Hydrogen isn't the answer

[Anonymous Coward]

Once again someone who is trying to compare peace-time oil transportation to war time supply lines. Keep in mind that trucks like these need to travel in convoys, with escorts. All the guys who are escorting the truck? Yea, they want to be paid, the last time I checked.

Re:Hydrogen isn't the answer

[pubjames]

I pointed out that $40 a gallon sounded extrordinarily expensive in another posts, but it got modded down as flamebait.

If the truck carries 5000 gallons then the journey of 400 miles is costing 200,000 dollars, or about $500 a mile. And I believe that is a relatively small oil transporter, they come much bigger.

Of course, it's going to cost more in times of war, but what is reasonable? $40 a gallon sounds way off the scale to me.

Re:Hydrogen isn't the answer

[philbert26]

Don't forget the extra $50,000 you gotta pay the driver for hazard pay, and the 2 HumVees and 6 soldiers that have to accompany the tank truck to stop guerillas from rocket launching the truck into oblivion.

Plus the losses you incur when the guerillas succeed. I reckon a lot of the cost would be in air cover for the fuel convoys. Flying planes and helicopters not only costs large amounts of fuel, it also costs a lot in aircraft maintenance. That's before you consider the loss of any multi-million dollar aircraft.

I'm sure Haliburton (or whoever) is making money on this (otherwise they wouldn't be doing it). I don't know what the convoy protection cost is but I'd be careful about concluding that most of the $40 is going to their bank account.

Also, let's not forget that fewer trucks means fewer targets for the guerillas and therefore hopefully less casualties, so maybe this fuel cell idea isn't so bad.

Re:Hydrogen isn't the answer

[kmeister62]

What you forget about is the cost of insurance of transporting flamable material in a hostile environment. In addition, the byzantine contracting rules that the Military asked for caused the very high cost of fuel delivery.

Re:Hydrogen isn't the answer

[Hektor_Troy]

INSURANCE??? You have GOT to be kidding!

Who the hell would insure a load like that? Worse - who'd PAY for it?

- "Yeah, we'd like to transport 5,000 gallons of highly flammable materials through hostile territory, where people are attacking us on a daily basis. How much would that cost?"
- "How about a million bucks per mile?"

Insurance should be called "incase" because you have it "in case shit happens". When transporting flammable materials through hostile territory it's not a matter of if and when, but simply when it won't happen.

Re:Hydrogen isn't the answer

[tiled_rainbows]

And then you have to factor in the fuel used by the air cover and so on, which also has to be transported to base - so, in order to move a gallon of fuel from Kuwait to Baghdad, you've got to move a hell of a lot of fuel about other places, too, to power the vehicles that:

1. Carry the fuel
2. Protect the vehicle carrying the fuel
3. Carry fuel to the vehicles protecting the vehicle carrying the fuel
4. Protect the vehicles in point 3
5. Ad infinitum.

So, once you've worked out a realistic base-rate per mile per gallon for fuel transportation costs, you should probably square it or something, due to the recursive nature of the overheads.
It could be a fun resources-management strategy game.

Re:Hydrogen isn't the answer

[Anne Thwacks]

And you think they want to be paid less for escorting a tanker full of hydrogen through enemy teritory?

If the US army has tankfulls of hydrogen roaming around, its hard to see why anybody would bother making weapons of mass destruction!

Re:Hydrogen isn't the answer

[Lars T.]

Just finance the President's election campaign and make your CEO his VP.

Re:Hydrogen isn't the answer

[Anonymous Coward]

You're all missing the point. The largest part of the $40/gallon cost is the security that goes with it. It's the soldiers that guard the tanker from being destroyed in an attack.

M.

Re:Hydrogen isn't the answer

[corebreech]

You know what, I was wrong.

Assign an enlisted man to drive the truck. We pay them peanuts after all, and Bush has rescinded/reduced combat pay.

So instead of $50 thou, we're looking at what? $15K?

As for the guerrilas with the RPG's, as we've seen now repeatedly, ALL vehicles in theater are subject to that threat. Ergo, an escort would be pointless.

Re:Hydrogen isn't the answer

[corebreech]

What good is air cover going to do? One RPG is all it takes... ain't a thing that air cover is going to do about that (or do you propose gunning down every passing vehicle/individual en route?)

Besides, the RPG's are a threat to most all vehicles in threater. The guerrilas are clearly going for American lives, not fuel, and since you're looking at one man per fuel truck, it makes for a low-priority target.

So no costs for air cover.

And see my reply to a previous poster... I was wrong to say that the salary being paid here is $50K. We'll just get an enlisted man to drive the truck.

Re:Hydrogen isn't the answer

[corebreech]

What air cover? What do you think air cover is going to accomplish? Cutting down on the time it takes for HQ to learn that the truck has been hit by an RPG?

Re:Hydrogen isn't the answer

[corebreech]

The guys who are escorting the trucks are military, so they get paid peanuts anyways (don't even get combat pay, thanks to the Bushie.)

So we're talking two, maybe three Humvees for a convoy of what, a dozen trucks?

The overhead is negligible.

(and btw, I take back the idea of paying the driver $50K... you just assign an enlisted man to do that too.)

Re:Hydrogen isn't the answer

[dyte]

tankfulls of hydrogen

RTFA-There will be no transporting of raw hydrogen

Re:Hydrogen isn't the answer

[cfradenburg]

You forgot to add in the equipment to load the fuel into the the tanker, the people to work the equipment, the other vehicles in the convoy to take the tanker down, and the soldiers in the convoy to make sure the thing isn't attacked. That probably doesn't add up to $40 but it makes it a lot more than ten cents and I don't think the military needs over a million gallons of gas in Baghdad which increases the price per gallon even more.

Re:Hydrogen isn't the answer

[hetairoi]

Anyone who has every worked in the transportation industry can tell you there is more cost involved in shipping than just paying for the truck and driver. If you don't understand that then you are either ignorant or biased.

Add in the cost of administration, labor, maintenece and many other things that most people don't realize are actual cost of transporting any material. Then add the fact that you are moving fuel needed for a military force that is a prime target for resistance fighters, therefore requiring much more administration and support costs. Now your much closer to an actual cost figure. Maybe it's not $40/gallon, but it's much closer than your numbers.

I don't like Bush/Chaney/Rumsfield either and I think it's obvious that Haliburton is profiting from this war, but it appears to me that your just grasping at any straw that might make them look bad.

Re:Hydrogen isn't the answer

[nigelc]

Given the US Air Farce's propensity for attacking friendlies on the ground, I think you'd be safer without air cover.

Re:Hydrogen isn't the answer

[GooberToo]

People also seem to be forgetting that Hal-whatits, was charging way more than the commonly accepted price for fuel. Comming from an oil rich country, he was charging something like 4 or 5 bucks a gallon. On the news, they stated there was supposed to be talks to work something out. I never heard what happened. More than likely, Bush steped in and infomred them that he was a buddy of his and to leave the deal alone. It's war, after all.

Re:Hydrogen isn't the answer

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing you seem to forget, the supply route you mention is currently raided arround the clock by Iraqies with moderate succes because the main road is still scattered in pieces.

Have fun ;-)

Re:Hydrogen isn't the answer

[British]

Don't we learn anything from movies?

We drive tanker trucks full of sand across into Baghdad, and if those get hit by RPGs, no big deal.

The secret is, we carry the oil in boring, nonimportant trucks behind them. Use ambulances or something. Once the tanker truck tumbles over, the insurgents will celebrate, whatever only to realize the trucks they didn't care about was carrying the precious fuel.

Re:Hydrogen isn't the answer

[Michael Snoswell]

What about the trucks of soldiers escorting the tanker? Maybe 10 soldiers and their vehicles and the maintenance costs (where spares parts have to be flown in from the US) and the truck was flown in from the US and the mechanics to fix the truck were flown in from the US. Then there's the fuel cost for the escorting trucks and the food costs for the soldiers and their training costs and their uniform and weapons costs (all done over several years in the US and shipped to Iraq). How much do you think it costs to train 10 soldiers? Then all they do is drive next to a tanker - but they still had to be trained anyway just-in-case. This all adds up to a lot! There's the cost of the logistics guys planning the operation, the cooks, the tents/accomodation etc etc. The list just goes on and on. I read somewhere the cost to the US to get a trained soldier kitted up an on the ground in Iraq is over $US1m. So once they're there it'd be nice if the fuel some of them protect can do twice as much work!

Here's some more info

[swordboy]

Here's a company that has part of the contract on this. They are developing the solid (hydride) hydrogen storage system for these tanks. The hydride is like a hydrogen sponge that holds more hydrogen than high-pressure tanks. The biggest problem with hydrogen really is storing it since it is so low in density. Liquid hydrogen is actually lighter than air...

Re:Here's some more info

[Anonymous Coward]

Liquid hydrogen is actually lighter than air...
No it's not, "Liquid hydrogen has a density of 0.07 grams per cubic centimeter" (quoted from) while "The density of air under standard conditions is only 1.239 milligrams per cubic centimeter under standard conditions." (quoted from)

Jet fuel is close to diesel?!?

[erwin]

In that they're both hydrocarbons? IANAC(hemist), but I've always though that diesel was toward the "heavy" less-refined end of the fuel product spectrum compared to kerosene (and jet fuel) and gasoline. I could be way off base, though. Chemistry class was a long time ago.

I would think that the DoD would be interested in a fuel processing/fuel-cell system that would be able to take any hydrogen-rich fluid (alcohol, vegetable oil, etc) that could be found in the field and converted into on-demand fuel. Wasn't there some talk a couple years about "tunable" scrubbers for the hydrogen generation process?

Re:Jet fuel is close to diesel?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Any diesel car will happily run on kerosene without modification. You can even use a mixture of petrol and diesel in a diesel car. IANAC either but that would make me suspect that diesel, kerosene and petrol are all fairly close. IIRC kerosene is very close to jet fuel too.

Re:Jet fuel is close to diesel?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's nearly the same ... if I remember my chem lessons correctly.

M

Re:Jet fuel is close to diesel?!?

[WegianWarrior]

There are in fact different grades of jetfuel. JP-4 is a relatively volatile, 'light' fuel, while JP-8 - which is very close to the civilian Jet-A1 - are basicly ordinary dieselfuel with a few additives. Then you got the more excotic types like JP-5 (used AFAIK by the SR-71) and RP-1 (basicly a superrefined JP-4 for use in rocketengines). So yes, jetfuel is quite close to diesel and also a long way from diesel - it all depends on what sort of jetfuel you're talking about.

Going ona tangent, here in Norway the armed forces are using 'unified fuel F-34' for cars, tanks, helicopters, fighterjets, you name it... it's very close to JP-8 (we only have to add some water-suspension addetives to make it into JP-8) and it works very well in engines buildt to burn diesel.

Re:Jet fuel is close to diesel?!?

[Dr. Evil]

Warning.... Check the rec.outdoors faq before you start pouring any chemicals in any tanks:

http://www.amelunxen.onlinehome.de/drofaq/kocher.h tml#ih3

( I can't find the english one anymore )

Re:Jet fuel is close to diesel?!?

[ID_Roamer]

It all depends on the grade of jet fuel. The US Navy uses JP-5. JP-5 has the same flash point and burn charecteristics as DFM, Diesel Fuel, Marine (if my memory is right, the flash point was 140F)

I served in the engineroom of a Navy ship for 4 years. We burned DFM in our boilers and used JP-5 in all the diesel engines on board the ship, from the emergency diesel generator to the small boats. It burned cleaner and required less maintenance on the engines. We also refueled the occassional helicopter.

I was told that non-nuclear aircraft carriers burned JP-5 in their boilers as well. That way when they refueled from an oiler, they only had 1 type of fuel to use. Was used for the planes, helicopters, boilers, diesel engines and all their escorts ships (which were powered by gas turbine (jet) engines.

Very dumb indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe because Water is burned Hydrogen, whereas Hydrogen is partially burned Oil?

It's not about Resources, it's about energy density. The energy density of Hydrogen is higher than that of Oil, but part of the Oil energy already is lost when the Hydrogen is formed. Making Hydrogen from Water requires one to put energy into it. The energy total the tank gets is less than from the same amount of oil, but the energy density (and so the storage space needed) for the fuel will sink dramatically.

Re: Tanks?

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't it seem kind of backwards to use an explosive gas to power vehicles that are designed to drive into a gunfight?

There's a reason tanks run on diesel and not gasoline...

Love them or hate them...

[billmaly]

Military research and spending is often times the catalyst that drives innovation. If it takes the DoD to FINALLY create a means of providing hydrogen power to vehicles, I see it as a good thing. New tech, if it works, ALWAYS trickles down to the civilian world.

Re:Love them or hate them...

[gomel]

I agree, but my explanation is as follows:

Private companies will not fund risky projects with only long-term benefits. Let's say you develop the rocket technology. If you make a tiny mistake the rocket will explode during testing. No company will take the risk because it would go broke before the technology is mature.

Government projects have the advantage, that the government simply cannot go broke. DoD and DoEnergy pockets are very deep. If nine rockets explode during lift-off, but only the 10th succeeds fully, thats fine. There is no profit motive in national security.
Only if the same goals can be achived through cheaper means will the project be scrapped.

OTOH, the private sector is better at making the technology cheaper.

Re:Love them or hate them...

[Anonymous Coward]

New tech, if it works, ALWAYS trickles down to the civilian world.
woot! have you seen the new personal anthrax sprays on thinkgeek? way cool!

Re:Love them or hate them...

[parlyboy]

New tech, if it works, ALWAYS trickles down to the civilian world.

Ha! That's what YOU think!

My 1970's work on Quantum Hyper-Boson Quasi-Magneto-Induction allows makes time travel practical, and should have won me the Nobel prize. But those bastards at the Pentagon will never let it see the light of day!

Re:Love them or hate them...

[orkysoft]

Yeah, have you seen my stealth car lately? They can't measure its speed, but it's a bitch to parallel park.

Re:Love them or hate them...

[Anonymous Coward]

> New tech, if it works, ALWAYS trickles down to the civilian world.

Yeah. A shitload trickled down onto the civilians in Iraq.

what happened to talking

[frankmu]

Gen. Watson said Auburn is "dialoguing significantly" with the army's tank-automotive and armaments command, which supervises the Anniston Army Depot.

i hate dialoguing.

i guess this is another way for bush/halliburton to stiff the country for more money

Promising Technology

[Brown Line]

Any technology that promises 90 miles to the gallon (if I'm doing my conversion from klicks to miles correctly) is worth pursuing. Regardless of how the hydrocarbons are disposed of, such a huge increase in mileage will lower the total amount of greenhouse gasses pumped into the atmosphere.

Another advantage is that it works off of less refined fuels, like jet fuel (i.e., kerosene) and diesel, instead of high-octane gasoline; these fuels are cheaper than gas, more abundant, and a lot safer to handle.

And yes, lowering the amount of oil that we have to import from troubled regions like the Middle East is definitely for the good.

Re:Promising Technology

[Anonymous Coward]

imagine if you used hybrid gas/electric technology. that number might easily double! can you imagine driving around a CAR that gets 180mpg? lol. (almost 200mpg!)

Nuclear Alternative

[catherder_finleyd]

A good alternative to burning Oil for the Hydrogen would be to use Nuclear Energy to split Hydrogren from water.

I could see the Navy building Nuclear Powered "Hydrogen Tankers", ships that could both store and provide Hydrogen Fuel. These ships could be moved to an operational zone and parked to produce all the Hydrogen fuel needed for an expeditionary force.

Re:Nuclear Alternative

[WegianWarrior]

Off course, the other name for such a ship will be "target". Not only would an enemy dry up the fuelsupply for your landbased forces, but he would also be able to spread radiactive waste (if he gets a good hit) among your fleet.

Re:Nuclear Alternative

[catherder_finleyd]

No more than any other nuclear powered Naval ship. As it is now, a number of key naval combatants, such as Aircraft Carriers, Submarines, Cruisers are nowadays Nuclear-Powered. The same sort of measures now used by those ships to protect their nuclear reactors can be employed here. Unlike civilian tankers, these tankers will likely be fitted with Anti-Aircraft / Missile defenses. They will also enjoy the protection of the naval fleet and ground forces with which they will operate.

Re:Nuclear Alternative

[mwood]

Those hydrogen ships would of course be guarded, just as big slow aircraft carriers are guarded. A carrier battle group is just about the most dangerous thing you'll ever encounter at less than interplanetary scale. I wouldn't mess with one, and a nuclear-powered ship full of vital fuel will likely be protected as well or better.

Re:Nuclear Alternative

[sloepoke51]

Right now the US Navy has only two type of ships that are nuclear powered. Submarines and Aircraft carriers, and not all of the current 12 active carriers are nuclear powered. The non-nuclear carriers are the USS Shitty Kitty (former crew member) USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63) and the USS John F. Kennedy CV-67. USS John F. Kennedy (CV 67) See "Navy Fact File: Airecraft Carriers" for more info.

Re:Nuclear Alternative

[catherder_finleyd]

I stand corrected on the CGN's. I thought 1-2 were still in service.

I do suspect that the widespread use of fuel cells would increase the number of Nuclear ships in the fleet. An example would be Amphibious Assault ships (LHA/LHD).

Re:Nuclear Alternative

[Short Circuit]

Big and slow? You'd be amazed at how fast their engines can push those things through water. My step dad (a fire controlman) was ordered to clear his radar screen when the group his ship was in spread out because of a MiG sighting. The XO didn't want anyone else in the room to realize what it meant when those little blips could move off the screen so quickly.

Re:Nuclear Alternative

[Ugmo]

I still like the idea.

You can use a Nuclear Submarine Blueprint. Replace the missle bays with hydrogen tanks. Use the electricity from the engines for splitting the hydrogen from seawater while out at sea somewhere hidden. Come in near the coast to offload.

In order to make it harder to guess where the sub is while offloading run multiple temp pipelines into the water. The sub docks with a random one of these out at sea and pumps in the hydrogen to a land based fuel station. When you are done, the sub goes out to deep water and hides and the pipelines get rolled up and put on a plane.

Re:Nuclear Alternative

[WegianWarrior]

Off course the 'Hydrogen Tanker' will be well protected, but I'm an airforce guy. We're more conserned with how to take targets out than how to defend them. One of my favorite stunt when a naval officers points out that his ship has the capability to engave X number of targets at once is to ask what will happen if someone attacks with X+1 missiles... it's called 'swamping the defence' and has been a good tactic since man first started doing war.

I'm not saying a 'Hydrogen Tanker' is a bad idea - it will allow an armed force dependant on hydrogen for fuel to make their own (provided their relatively close to water off course) and can also be employed to make drinkingwater. BUT it will be a _juicy_ target for an enemy to hit, so a determined attemt to take it out is bound to happen.

Re:Nuclear Alternative

[MechaStreisand]

Did you not read the article, sir? Why would the Navy want to do this, and have the additional burden of protecting a new class of vulnerable ship, when they could just separate the hydrogen from the hydrocarbons inside the vehicles themselves?

Re:Nuclear Alternative

[tmortn]

Just going with quick back of the napkin calcs I don't know how likely this is. Electrolysis conversion rarely tops 50%, then recovery of power in a fuel cell is also 40-50% thus in the whole process you take a double hit in efficiency.

100 megawatt reactor could produce 50 megawatts worth of hydrogen ( 100% potential ) then you would recover 25 in the fuel cells when used. So 24*25 nets you 600 megawatt hours potential energy per day per 100 megawatts. Sounds like a lot but if you look into the needed energy for an expeditionary force on the move You would find it exceeds that by a fair margin.

Think of it in HP. 1mw is a million watts, 1hp is about 750w. So 25mw represents about 33,333 hp or about 22 maximum powered M1's. The loss due to inefficiencies of conversion are a gold plated biatch. Using the power directly generated is great, but converting to a storage medium and back takes a large chunk of it out thus in the end your tanker can't really supply a vary substabtial mobile force using typical sized navel reactors ( 50-200 MW range ). Probably need a terawatt or more of reactor capacity to support a batallion... and even then you would likely be playing a balancing act between storage capacity and generating capacity.

Not that it can't be done... uranium is certainly plentiful. And if you went for breeder reactors and nuclear battaries then making enough reactors to make it work is feasible... and available fuel where ever enough water is provides very important capacity for an armed force. But a hydrogen fuel source provided by fission reactors will requires a serious proliferation of reactors, and a military system will require numerous such mobile reactors.

Re:Nuclear Alternative

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

We already have 12 of these "targets". In addition to being nuclear powered, they also offer the platform from which all air operations are run. And they have 5,000 people on them. And they run in the middle of a big battle group.

We call them "supercarriers".

Re:Nuclear Alternative

[CSharpMinor]

This is wrong, not insightful. We already have naval fuel tankers, and we already have nuclear reactors on EVERY DAMN SHIP THAT'S BIG ENOUGH TO HOLD ONE. The only difference between hydrogen and the hydrocarbon fuels we already lug around is that hydrogen causes less damage when it burns. (And it burns, not explodes.)

We haven't had any of the trouble he's forecasting.

Re:Nuclear Alternative

[tenchiken]

Actually, the nuclear cruser class and the frigates, as well as the supply ships are no longer nuclear, and I believe that all of them have been retired.

The supper-carriers are still nuclear (I was told by a commander in the navy that the carriers would be the fastest ships in the surface navy if they left their support groups behind) because they have a) a lot more mass and b) tend to be on station a lot more then usual ships.

Subs stay nuclear because it extends their duration dramatically. In fact, most subs have two seperate staffs, "blue and gold" typically that rotate onto the same ship to keep them at sea more often. Last I heard they were thinking of doing the same thing with the carrier fleet.

The smaller ships now use gas turbine engines (think jet engine).

Re:Nuclear Alternative

[tenchiken]

I had a chance to spend some time on a navy cruiser a bit ago. I asked the XO (commander, 2nd in command) what the fastest ship in the fleet was. He didn't even bat a eye, and said that if a carrier left her support fleet behind she could out race anything else out there because of the amount of power the ships have.

They figured out hydrogens in hydrocarbons??

[Viol8]

"Auburn University scientists 'realized there is already a lot of hydrogen in hydrocarbon fuel'"

Wow, theres no fooling with these guys. Those sharp megawatt intelligences are really on the ball, I mean its only been over a hundred years since
most chemists realised the very same thing and even put "hydro" in the name of hydrocarbon as clue.

Re:oil is the source?

[vandan]

Yes.

It's actually quite funny watching the Yanks scurry around looking for ways to deal with the problem that profits depend on fuel, and their fuel is running out.

Of course it's not nearly so funny for the Iraqis, or the Palestinians, or anyone else who gets caught up in their 'quest for world peace and democracy' that they bullshit on so much about. But at least from here, for now, I can see some humour to it.

Tanks run on diesel?

[kwpulliam]

I haven't read the article yet, but to my kowledge, modern tanks run on Turbo-shaft engines, just like helicopters, and fast water craft.
Not sure off the top of my head, but I think the 3-1 comparison made in the summary is likely to go up, perhaps more to 5-1 when comparing this process to JP-8.

Re:Tanks run on diesel?

[uradu]

> modern tanks run on Turbo-shaft engines

ONE major modern tank does so, the Abrams. Most others are diesel.

Re:Tanks run on diesel?

[chess]

Well, if it has to be, German Leopard 2 may run on on anything combustible - including Schnaps. But diesel, kerosene or petroleum is the usual diet.
And it's a huge turbocharged "diesel" engine.

US M1 seems to use a gas turbine that can be run with diesel fuel, any grade of gasoline, kerosene, or JP-1 jet fuel according to wikipedia.

chess

decent transitional solution

[westcourt_monk]

To me this makes sense.. they found a way to use the current infastructure with new technology. Is this not what hydrogen fueled vehicles were waiting for? It also helps that they have something the size of a tank and the funding of the Bush fueled military to develop it.

I always thought that if you could convince the military of real savings you will get your new technology developed.. but saying your tanks can fight longer, requiring less resources, with relatively slight modifications probably is the key selling point here.

If I am not mistaken, the only thing that slowed the march in Iraq was the fuel chain....

Re:decent transitional solution

[aziraphale]

> the Bush fueled military

Ah, now there's a fuel solution they hadn't considered. Did you have some sort of hot-air solution in mind, or are we talking about extracting all of his hydrogen?

Re:decent transitional solution

[Lars T.]

Alcohol reserves?

Re:decent transitional solution

[brett_sinclair]

> Did you have some sort of hot-air solution in
> mind, or are we talking about extracting all of
> his hydrogen?

You're probably thinking of the "Burning Bush", which is an ancient middle east concept.

a cunning plan..

[monkey_jam]

..what if they could combine superconducting motors and hydrogen fuel cells to make some kind of superefficient tank thingy?

Use the liquid H to cool the motors AND generate the electricity needed to run them...

Well this is great . . i guess?

[subjectstorm]

At first i was thrilled that hydrogen power was finally getting a little more mainstream. I'm a big fan of hydrogen power.

But one of my main reasons for endorsing hydrogen power so strongly was that it would cut our dependence on FOSSIL FUELS. I don't like oil politics and such.

Re:Well this is great . . i guess?

[overunderunderdone]

But one of my main reasons for endorsing hydrogen power so strongly was that it would cut our dependence on FOSSIL FUELS.

The question is why did you think hydrogen power would cut our dependence on fossil fuels? The hydrogen has to come from somewhere.

Re:Well this is great . . i guess?

[francium de neobie]

Hydrogen fuels in the form mentioned in the article, will never be cut off from fossil fuels until another major source of energy is found. You need an energy source to for inputting the energy into the hydrogen, anyway (e.g. extracting the hydrogen from water)

However, if the hydrogen fuels under discussion is used in the form of a nuclear fusion reactant, then that's another story.

Re:Well this is great . . i guess?

[dyte]

The hydrogen has to come from somewhere.
Yes, in this case the hydrogen does come from fossil fuels, but, it does not have to.
The conversion from exclusivly fossil fuels to hydrogen and electricity as a component of moving from point a to point b is a step in the right direction. When a more efficient (better) method of storing hydrogen becomes available the fossil fuels can be removed from the equation. I see this article and the research involved as a stepping stone technology. It's biggest potential advantage for consumers is that it utilizes the existing infrastructure, easing the conversion process. But it's early, lets see what happens!

Re:Well this is great . . i guess?

[curmudgeous]

Once this bleeds over into civilian use it will make a great transitional step. Hydrogen is too difficult to transport in bulk, and we can't afford to just up and replace the existing fuel transport infrastructure. If the catalytic converter can be made small enough it can be installed at individual gas stations allowing the Hydrogen to be produced on demand or in small batches that are stored locally. Using a calytic conversion process also allows us to capture the carbon dioxide, sulfur and other by-products at a control point for further processing, rather than just dumping them into the atmosphere as we currently do.

Re:oil is the source?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know, I'm not saying he shouldn't have the right to, I'm somewhat libertarian too, but I just find it sad that he does have this right in his particular case, that's all.

Diesel doesn't explode

[OglinTatas]

On the otherhand, tanks have a lot of explosive ordnance on board anyway, separated from the crew compartment by thin blast doors (if the loader manages to close them before something hits the magazine)
I suppose a heavily armored fuel tank isolated from the crew would be OK.

Re:Diesel doesn't explode

[OglinTatas]

Sorry, the article didn't really state how the conversion would be done, other than catalytically. I assumed large factories near refineries making Hydrogen, and I guess other posters did too, judging by the other "it is hard to store hydrogen" posts.
But the article did mention that "a truck with a given amount of diesel can run three times the usual distance" which of course means that the catalytic reactor is on the vehicle, diesel is the fuel, and converting it to hydrogen and waste products is an intermediary step in the process of extracting some energy and using it to do work. This sounds ideal.
Hey, at least I read the article, even if I read my own predjudices into it.

Re:oil is the source?

[Anonymous Coward]

You really do walk into these things don't you?

Now watch yourself be modded down, and make a little prayer to the Troll god ...

(+5, Patriotic)

[Anonymous Coward]

The Transatlantic Alliance.

Great explosive potential here

[tigersha]

Blowing up a H2 powered tank would make a hell of a nice bang. Wait until Hollywood gets a hold of this!

Re:Great explosive potential here

[ljavelin]

A hydrogen-powered military tank wouldn't make any more of a bang than a diesel powered tank. Heck, the Hindenberg, with an incredibly large volume of hydrogen held in an unsafe container, didn't even make a huge bang - it simply burned quickly, and there were may survivors. If you ever see the pictures, note that the metal tower next to the air ship wasn't even knocked down by the so-called "explosion".

Then again, hollywood often makes things "more exciting" than physical reality. I've seen lots of cars "blow up" in the movies. But for all the car fires I've seen, I've never seen a car explode. Or even heard of one exploding. Except in the movies and Grand Theft Auto.

Remember, most of Hollywood is based on entertainment, not science.

Re:Great explosive potential here

[rampant poodle]

A good part of the available space in a tank is used to store propellant charges and an assortment of explosive filled projectiles. The hydrogen, (or diesel/benzine etc.), isn't going to make much of a difference in the noise level.

Re:Great explosive potential here

[francium de neobie]

In order to make hydrogen explode, you have to mix it with oxygen in the air quickly. Since the Hindenberg was just a large bulk of hydrogen gas, it would only burn up (tho quite fiercely, it was not an explsion nevertheless) at the interface between the bulk of hydrogen and air. This is akin to an elementary science school experiment: fill a bottle with some hydrogen and air, and another bottle with all hydrogen. Make a spark at the bottles' opening. The first one explodes, the second one just burns. (don't try this at home)

However, that is not the case with a hydrogen powered tank. Remember that the hydrogen in the tanks are compressed - compressed hydrogen gas is a whole different story to the bulk of hydrogen inside Hindenberg. If a missile penetrated a hydrogen powered tank, the hydrogen gas inside would be depressurize into the air and ignited by the heat the missile generated. The depressurization mixes the hydrogen thoroughly with air and makes the oxidation extremely vigorous. The result would be like igniting a can of pressurized natural gas - definitely an explosion.

Re:Great explosive potential here

[Anonymous Coward]

You have fire proof skin then ;-)

LOL

Re:Great explosive potential here

[DaveWhite99]

Grrrr...yet another Slashdot post with glaring logical flaws in it gets modded up.

(1) The Hindenberg used uncompressed H2.

(2) Any vehicle wishing to travel more than a few miles will need to use highly compressed H2. To get the same range as diesel, you will need to compress it to around 2,000 atmospheres, or 14,000 PSI.

(3) What do you think a tank with a large volume of explosive gas at 14,000 PSI will do when ruptured ? I'll give you a hint : "simply burn quickly" is not one of them.

unextinguishable 60-ft. flames would be a better guess.

Re:Great explosive potential here

[Anonymous Coward]

Ruptured? A battle tank with a ruptured fuel tank is no longer a tank.

I don't think the tank operators will have much to worry about, at they'll likely be dead long before any fuel fire kills them.

Re:Great explosive potential here

[Anonymous Coward]

Cylinders? How about storing it in a metal hydride. Heavy? Yup. But tanks need to be heavy, like a sub, so there's no real downside. In addition, a hydride can store a shitload of hydrogen. It's really amazing.

I think your problem is a lack of thinking about alternatives, and the ability to rush to judgement. Not all gas needs to be stored in a huge gas bag, tank, or simple high pressure cylinder. There are other options. Not being a scientist or engineer actively involved in this problem prohibits you from seeing potential alternatives.

Hang on...

[RMH101]

...if we can power vehicles using hydrogen, then what would be the point of invading all those oil-rich countries, anyway?

Re:Hang on...

[overunderunderdone]

RTFA - where do you think the hydrogen comes from?

This is great!

[ktanmay]

Well, not quite to the expectations of science fiction authors, but it's a start, and a very promising one.

Just imagine the net reduction of CO2 emissions, also if it's combined with this the mileage will futher increase with even lower emissions.

Re:oil is the source?

[jgalun]

What an inane comment:

The Palestinians have nothing to do with fuel.

If invading Iraq were simply about attaining oil, we would have just dropped the sanctions. It would have been $200 billion cheaper and been faster to bring a lot more oil onto the world market (to lower oil prices). Which is not to say that Iraq isn't partially about protecting oil supplies, but it's not as direct as you seem to think.

Finally, it's not just "the Yanks" who have to deal with the problem that the world economy depends on fuel. If there were a major oil crisis - let's say the Saudi fuel depots get hit by a terrorist attacks, which makes oil prices rise by 80% (totally possible) - everyone is fucked. China is a major oil importer now whose economy becomes more dependent on oil every day. Japan is hugely dependent on foreign oil. Europe is dependent. America is dependent. You think the world economy will do well after America, Europe, China, and Japan (jointly responsible for, what, 80% of world GDP?) go into recession? You think you're still going to have a job after that?

Shit, maybe you should thank the Yanks for safeguarding the foundation of the world economy, rather than attacking it.

Hmmmm.....

[PhuckH34D]

[quote]DoD officials say 'it costs about $40 to move one gallon of diesel fuel from Kuwait to Baghdad.[/quote] So... uhm... why dont they come back to America then? its much cheaper there i think....

Oil costs?

[Anonymous Coward]

costs about $40 to move one gallon of diesel fuel from Kuwait to Baghdad

Only when it's shipped by no-bid contract run by Bush cronies. (More Links...)

This is not news

[Maury Markowitz]

Devices like this, known generally as "reformers", have beeen in use for a decade at least. They universally share the problem of leaking contaminents into the hydrogen output, where these stray molecules stick to the catalyst inside the fuel cell and slowly degrade it.

If this team has invented a new type of reformer, great, but as it stands the article is a joke.

Re:This is not news

[uradu]

> Devices like this, known generally as "reformers", have beeen in use for a decade at least.

My thoughts exactly. What's news about this, other than that the military are all of a sudden interested in fuel economy? A clean and compact/cheap reformer has been the holy grail of fuel cells for quite a while, I don't see anything Auburn has done to change that. Perhaps they just had the brilliant insight that there's hydrogen in them thar fossil fuels?

Re:This is not news

[hetairoi]

Perhaps they just had the brilliant insight that there's hydrogen in them thar fossil fuels?

I think it was more like 'Thar's boatloads of cash in this here military research!'

Think long term

[voss]

This process can use ANY oil, not just the nice sweet crude from Saudi Arabia. What is the benefit of this

1) Oil from sources that are not usable now. There are many areas that have high sulfur oil that would pollute if burned but could converted into usable non-polluting hydrogen.

2) Once you have a workable fuel cell that runs on hydrogen (with some oil-to- Hydrogen converter) you can fairly easily just switch over to your nice politically correct solar created hydrogen which will by then be much more economically viable and not just green welfare.

3) Even if you never got beyond a gasoline powered fuel cell, the emissions would still be FAR less (90+% less) than an internal combustion engine.

Re:Think long term

[Azghoul]

You're crazy with that kind of talk around here :)

This article is about the military, AND oil. You think there's some hope for a reasonable conversation about it?

Thanks though, I hadn't thought about the "unusable oil" bit. In fact, given that I hadn't even realized there /was/ "unusable oil", you've educated me twice. :)

I'm wondering: when you speak of emissions, does that just look at the emissions of burning the fuel? What about "emissions" from the conversion process? It occurs to me, if you could separate out the contaminants, maybe you have a nice secondary source of pure sulfur...

So what happens to the rest?

[Anonymous Coward]

So what do we do with the CO2, CO, and Sulfer that are waste products generated by this process?

Re:So what happens to the rest?

[Anonymous Coward]

What we normally do with waste products: sell them to third world countries.

The stupidity lies in the article, not Auburn U

[cagle_.25]

Don't rip on the Auburn University team; the article itself was badly written. For starters,

The process is chemical, and there is no combustion.

makes it sound like combustion is a non-chemical process. Combustion is, of course, a chemical process: reaction with oxygen. In the case of fuel cells, the hydrogen is allowed to react with atmospheric oxygen (or another oxidizer) in a controlled fashion. So combustion is a very apt description of a fuel cell reaction.

Also, the sentence

They took jet fuel, which is very similar to diesel, and catalytically converted it, separating out the sulfur, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, and the fuel cell ran.

seems to imply that hydrocarbons contain carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide within them. They don't, of course. The CO2 and CO are simply by-products of the hydrogen removal process: the carbon comes from the fuel, the oxygen from an outside source (most likely air, in which case combustion is directly involved again.)

The byproducts from this process are pretty much the same ones that come from an ordinary engine.

And then the quote you noticed,

But they realized there is already a lot of hydrogen in hydrocarbon fuel

completely ignores the fact that hydrocarbons are currently the primary source of hydrogen in fuel cells. It's just badly written.

Good news all round

[Anonymous Coward]

This is good news. It has already been demonstrated that vegetables provide a good renewable source of hydrocarbons. Perhaps now we will find a use for all those cucumbers

Re:oil is the source?

[dave420]

Stop trying to defend America's shitty foreign policy.

True, Palestine has nothing to do with oil, but by the same logic America should have nothing to do with Israel, and look how that's going.

The US is in Iraq partly for the oil, and partly because one of America's old friends got a bit too big for his boots. There was no humanitarian reason. America only cares about Americans - everyone knows that.

We know everyone's shafted when the oil runs out. However, not all nations on earth insist on wasting so much of it every day. Stupid gas-guzzing SUVs clogging up US streets doing 1mpg. Wow. Way to go.

America is doing nothing to solve the problem. As usual, the american principle of superficiality comes in to its own. The stop-gap solution is the best for the US government, as they're only going to be in power for a short time. Instead of working on a solution to decrease everyone's dependence on oil, they just want to secure more. That helps no-one in the long run.

There is absolutely, positively no way on earth anyone can justify the US government's foreign policy. Seriously. It's a joke.

Halibertan

[Anonymous Coward]

'it costs about $40 to move one gallon of diesel fuel from Kuwait to Baghdad.'

Incorrect. It is a well known fact that the cost is $40, but the USA pays $170 per gallon. This is because our president and vice of president is in bed with Halibertan.

Cheap sulfur and carbon for all!

[Uninvited Guest]

Finally! A cheap, abundant source of sulfur and carbon as an industrial byproduct. Soon, I'll be able to take all that waste carbon and sulfur to make my... uh... (a little help here, please?)...

Re:Cheap sulfur and carbon for all!

[Anonymous Coward]

sulfur is good to use as organic fertiliser and for making low-grade explosives. It can also be used in some plastics and various chemical weapons.

Carbon can be used as fuel, in pencils, tennis raquets and as an additive to some metal alloys.

Re:Cheap sulfur and carbon for all!

[SFBwian]

Well then, if we get this technology ramped up quick enough, we can have the biggest Fourth of July celebration in Baghdad ever with our new carbon-fueled fireworks while playing badmitton on green fields as far as the eye can see! ;)

Err... wait a minute, this is the DoD we're talking about. Nevermind, maybe next year?

Re:Cheap sulfur and carbon for all!

[Trurl's Machine]

...well, from carbon and sulfur you can, obviously, make carbon disulfide, an agent used quite commonly in textile industry. Among the side effects, it causes impotence in the worst possible scenario - you just cannot get it up. The army could use it as a non-lethal weapon to weaken the enemy's morale (just imagine the panic THIS sort of weapon would cause in Baghdad)!.

Re:Cheap sulfur and carbon for all!

[index72]

...roadsurfaces.

Re:Cheap sulfur and carbon for all!

[Anonymous Coward]

take all that waste carbon and sulfur to make my... uh... (a little help here, please?)...

sulfur, carbon(charcoal?).... all you need is some saltpeter and you've got gunpowder... the real reason the military is interested?

Re:Cheap sulfur and carbon for all!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well that are 2 of the 3 ingredients for Blackpowder. So you can make firecrackers or amunition out of it.

Damn you fox news!

[Anonymous Coward]

"DoD officials say 'it costs about $40 to move one gallon of diesel fuel from Kuwait to Baghdad."

But, I thought it wasn't about the oil?
You mean.. Fox News lied to me? ~frown~

Re: Tanks?

[diersing]

And the Hindenburg proved Hyrdogen can easily handle minor problems.

Wrong: its just about the money

[Anonymous Coward]

Spend the military budget completely on research
and the spin off will be much bigger.

The 2004 budget for the war against ghosts and
self-inflicted demons is a 6-fold of the yearly
NASA budget.

Your statement is pure progaganda

Re:Costs - NOT FLAIMBAIT

[YomikoReadman]

It is flamebait, and here's why.

The comment itself brings nothing relevant to the conversations, as much as you'd like to think it does. What on earth does the cost of moving oil have to do with the Army's research into a new type of hydrogen fuel cell technology.

Second, all you are really doing is taking a quote from the blurb, spewing some crap about the possible cost of moving an oil tanker from kuwait to Baghdad, which is landlocked anyway, and using that to bash Pres. Bush for Haliburton being the low bidder on the rebuilding efforts.

Go troll elsewhere.

But were are they hiding the sulphur?

[rtz]

Although the article isn't entirely clear on the subject, I guess the fuel will have to be converted in the vehicle, otherwise you get all the usual problems with storing the hydrogen.

This means that all the waste products (sulphur, carbon compounds etc) must either be stored on board, to be collected/processed later, or vented to the atmosphere.

Perhaps I'm overly cynic, but given the extra cost of handling the waste, they will probably just dump it. Not much gain emissions-wise then.

Re:But were are they hiding the sulphur?

[Uninvited Guest]

They took jet fuel, which is very similar to diesel, and catalytically converted it, separating out the sulfur, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, and the fuel cell ran.

While it's at least possible the catalytic conversion could be done on the vehicle, it seems they intend to remove the excess sulphur and carbon products before tranporting the fuel or filling vehicles.

Re:Costs - NOT FLAIMBAIT

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the /. blurb/article/posting mentioned the $40/gallon pricetag, this pricetag is VERY MUCH relevant to the discussion. That said, we all know that there are a lot of Americans with mod points who just cannot stand the uncomfortable truth that Bush and his buddies have turned the US gov't into a "get rich(er) quick" scheme.

(I'm not the original poster, but I am too lazy to log in.)

Re:oil is the source?

[overunderunderdone]

America only cares about Americans - everyone knows that.

And France only cares about the French, Germany only about the Germans, Russia only about the Russians, etc. etc. etc. Nation states serve their own interests - welcome to the real world.

Seriously. It's a joke.

Make up your mind.

Re: Tanks?

[Ralph Wiggam]

If a round penetrates the diesel fuel tank of a current vehicle, the crew is pretty screwed anyway. If they could make the hydrogen tank smaller than the diesel fuel tank, thus less likely to be hit, it would be an improvement.

-B

Pursues?

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll never catch it, given their track record on pursuing Bin Laden.

Ouch!

.

Hydrogen doesn't explode either

[HeghmoH]

You're right that diesel doesn't explode, and tanks have a lot of other explosive junk onboard, but I can't decide why you posted it. Hydrogen is not particularly dangerous either. Hindenburg went up in flames because it was painted with thermite.

moving tanker

[Anonymous Coward]

As already pointed out: you don't move the tanker to Baghdad. That's like moving a tanker to Las Vegas (which would be rather expensive). The military isn't just running unguarded tankers through commercial shipping lanes; they need to run their own transport, including trucks, and guard those transports. Not the same as driving a truck in the US (well, maybe like driving a truck during a Teamsters strike).

Re:moving tanker

[Anonymous Coward]

By "Oil Tanker" he means a truck. Take a look at the capacity he mentioned. An oil tanker doesn't carry 20,000 gallons, it carries closer to 200,000 tons. A truck however...

Anyway, his point about the cost being crazy is spot on.

Re:Costs - NOT FLAIMBAIT

[YomikoReadman]

I'm always logged in, but despite the fact that the blurb had it, what does it actually add besides the same old bush-bashing that everyone with mod points seems to love so much?

Re: Tanks?

[Catbeller]

Actually, yes it did. The flame burned upwards, rather than out and down, napalm-like, as gasoline does. The heat was flaring away from the passenger compartment. Most of the people died from jumping from the airship when it was still too high from the ground. Those who kept their heads waited for the ship to drift to the ground, then hopped off and ran. They survived for the most part.

And, oh yes, the bright searing flame you see in the picture? It's the paint. It was basically thermite. Powdered metal. The company wanted pretty silver shiny skin. One electrical arc, and WHOOMP - hydrogen gets the blame.

And fuel cells fueled by gasoline or diesel are in no way more dangerous than a straight IC design! As a matter of fact, since you get more MPG, you can have a smaller tank of what is essentially napalm.

Hydrogen is not "dangerous" in the sense that gasoline is. Gasoline is heavy, adhears to surfaces, ignites easily when vaporized, burns outward in a mushrooming effect, and also is every vehicle in America - and is dispensed from gas pumps like it is as safe as water!

Re:Costs - NOT FLAIMBAIT

[floodle]

Second, all you are really doing is taking a quote from the blurb, spewing some crap about the possible cost of moving an oil tanker from kuwait to Baghdad, which is landlocked anyway, and using that to bash Pres. Bush for Haliburton being the low bidder on the rebuilding efforts.

FYI - Haliburton didn't have to bid on any of its contracts. They were all given to Haliburton by the Bush administration.

Linky linky.

Re:oil is the source?

[dave420]

"Nation states serve their own interests"

You have to be American. Did you know nations also act altruistically? It's not uncommon for one nation to do something with no benefits for itself (or even potentially hazardous to itself) for another country. Just because it doesn't happen in the US don't assume it happens everywhere else. Not all countries have the stupendous hypocrisy the US does.

Mod Parent Up

[DoraLives]

Ah, where's my mod points when I really need 'em?

Nicely said.

And so, how does this help the planet?

[MROD]

OK, now we can convert fossil fuels to hydrogen to power the vehicles.

Can anyone else see the logic flaw here?

Hydrogen fuel was being touted as a replacement fuel which would mean that not only did we not need to use up the fossil fuel reserve but also that the polutants produced would be just water vapour in stead of the longer lived greenhouse gases of carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. The idea being that you'd generate the hydrogen using some renewable energy resource, hence not merely moving the polution stage elsewhere.

So, now we have hydrogen powered vehicles being proposed which catalyse oil from the fossil fuel reserves, filter out the greenhouse gases and sulphurous polutants and vent them to the atmosphere, no doubt.

Re:And so, how does this help the planet?

[Azghoul]

How about this: Get everyone hooked on using hydrogen while in the meantime (the decades that the said stated 'hooking' will require to take place) hydrogen generation NOT using fossil fuels can have a chance to get efficient.

That's what the market is all about: Get the consumer hooked on something while you go about finding the best way to get it to him.

This also provides more incentive for the Big Evil Oil Companies to work on making the hydrogen economy work.

Re:And so, how does this help the planet?

[sprekken]

That's the beauty of the plan...

To make the transition now from gasoline to hydrogen not only improves emissions from vehicles, but creates a powerful demand for more hydrogen. The process that extracts hydrogen from refined oils doesn't have to release the pollutants into the atmosphere, I'm sure that it could be used elsewhere.

Besides, once the infrastructure is built, there are several alternatives to getting oil from the ground.

Re:And so, how does this help the planet?

[BinxBolling]

Well, apparently the process allows you to get a lot more usable energy out of your hydrocarbons -- a 3x improvement in MPG is mentioned.

So while this certainly won't end the problems related to fossil fuel consumption, it has the potential to mitigate them quite a bit.

Re:oil is the source?

[Anonymous Coward]

Give me back all my foreign aid money mother fucker! Unappreciative bastard.

Re:Costs - NOT FLAIMBAIT

[YomikoReadman]

Go RTFA. It only says no bid in the headline, all the article text reports it as a secret bidding process, which is allowable in relation to National Security issues.

Re:oil is the source?

[Anonymous Coward]

if we are ever going to be free of the subhuman Mudslums/ragheads
And there, my nazi friend, is the reason why people around the world laugh and cheer whenever a US soldier is blown up.

Re:frosty piss

[Anonymous Coward]

Fotze? So wie in "du dumme Fotze"?

Re:Costs - NOT FLAIMBAIT

[Anonymous Coward]

> secret bidding process

LOL! 'Nuff said.

Re:frosty piss

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, according to my beautiful wife, I am the master of the clit, "my friend"...

I sometimes wonder if the trolls actually expect people to believe them or if they just brainwashed themselves hard enough that THEY start to believe it...

Re:Costs - NOT FLAIMBAIT

[Anonymous Coward]

> using that to bash Pres. Bush for Haliburton being the low bidder on the rebuilding efforts

First, that should be "Pres." Bush. Secondly, functions like "low" and "high" only apply to sets of multiple items. A secret handshake in the Skull and Bones lounge does not a bidding process make.

Green tanks

[mark2003]

Fantastic - now we have tanks that don't harm the environment...

Re:Green tanks

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, other than that whole decayed uranium bit.

Re:Costs - NOT FLAIMBAIT

[floodle]

I RTFA. A secret bid is (essentially) no different from a no-bid because the outcome is the same: no independent verification of the process. For all we know, the "secret" bid process went like this:

"Ok, which company with 'Haliburton' in their name would like to open the bidding on this contract?"

(Haliburton) - "Ooh, us! Eleventy bazillion dollars"

"Anyone else? Any other company with 'Haliburton' in their name? No one? Ok, sold!"

Did it happen like that? Almost certainly not. But since it was secret bidding, neither you nor I can know that information. So on a practical level, no-bid == secret bid.

Re:oil is the source?

[Anonymous Coward]

But the rest of the world love towelheads, right? That is why they are being fought in Russia, Australia, the Phils, and why the French don't even want Muslim women wearing hajibs in schools anymore?

Moron. Everyone hates muslims.

Re: Tanks?

[Anonymous Coward]

"company wanted pretty silver shiny skin"

Sorry, no. You need that shiny surface for thermal regulation, otherwise when the blimp gets warm, it goes wayyy up....

Re: Tanks?

[KDan]

Hydrogen is not any more explosive than diesel. It is combustive, so it will burn, but it doesn't explode in the sense that you seem to imply.

Daniel

Re:frosty piss

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people are so brainwashed into thinking that Slashdot is a quality tech discussion site so anything is possible.

Re:frosty piss

[Anonymous Coward]

You might actually have had more sex than me, but always with your hand.

Carbon Dioxide???

[advocate_one]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the waste product of this catalitic conversion CO2, one of those nasty greenhouse gases... surely, all they're doing is moving the point of pollution from the car exhaust to the catalitic plant??? they've still got to deal with the CO2.

Re:Carbon Dioxide???

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, yes, you are wrong. Firstly, it appears (though it is not explicit in the article) that the idea is to keep the diesel fuel tank, take out the diesel drivetrain and replace it with the reformer/fuel cell unit and a much more efficient electric drivetrain. The claim is triple the miles per gallon, or the other way 1/3 the emissions per mile.

Re:Carbon Dioxide???

[advocate_one]

bad news... the process of extracting Hydrogen from the diesel fuel creates Carbon Dioxide as a waste product. Exactly the same amount as would be released by burning the diesel fuel in the engine. This system is not the be all and end all wonder thingy it is being touted as as there is still the problem of disposal of the CO2 byproduct.

The whole thing smacks of the Oil lobby doing it's level best to claim to have green leanings but all along continuing to push for the reliance on oil and continuing our dependency on it. Hydrogen as a fuel for vehicles is an excellent idea, but this hydrogen is not "clean" hydrogen. It is extremely "dirty" hydrogen coming as it does from non-renewable sources and still causing just as much pollution as burning the diesel in the first place but merely moving the pollution off the streets to the cracking plants instead.

What we really want is real investment into developing "clean" sources of hydrogen, ie. using fusion power or "clean" renewable sources of power to split water into Hydrogen and Oxygen... We have oodles of sea water to use... we do not have oodles of oil left and that oil is best used as feedstocks for the plastics industry.

Re:frosty piss

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure you're a failure in bed. You might have had more sex than me, but I certainly had better sex.

Too iconic

[hey]

The two Iraq wars have been for the oil.
All the critics said the money was better
spent developing alternate energy sources.
Imagine what the billions wasted on the war
could have done for solar, wind, fuel cell tech.

Now the military is moving away from oil
because it costs too much.

Re:Too iconic

[Anonymous Coward]

You are right, all for the oil.

What, you mean that if the US had been playing footsies with Saddam over the past decade instead of suppressing him, they could have had all the oil they wanted at well below market rates? And now that this "War for Oil" has happened, oil prices are higher than ever, and the Iraqi people will soon own the oil? What a maroon.

Re:Too iconic

[Anonymous Coward]

The official reason for the war was the search of weapons of mass destruction.

Re:Too iconic

[KennyP]

What a completely ignorant statement...

Talk to someone who was there in the sh!t before you open your piehole. The atrocities that were known about - we didn't know how completely bad they were. And we found some that were not even known to us. My brother Chuck got back from there a couple of months ago, and the pictures and stories he'd tell would make you PUKE!

Just remember - many have died so you can be as ignorant as you are - protecting your freedoms with their lives!!!

Kenny P.
Visualize Whirled P.'s

Re:Too iconic

[Anonymous Coward]

There are many countries that have far more horrible governments than the old Iraq.
Why aren't we sending troops there? Lack of oil, of course.

Er, how is Chuck, et al protecting my freedom in Iraq.

Dictators R Us

Re:Too iconic

[danharan]

*Exactly*.

For some background, you might enjoy the RMI's Battling Fuel Waste in the Military

Interesting highlights:

• DOD uses 5 Billion gallons of fuel a year
  
• B-52 bombers could be refitted to modern ones using a third less fuel to achieve up to half again as much range. There are hundreds more similar examples.
  
• fuel was assumed to cost $1/gallon, but actual delivery costs can put that at $400-600 on the battlefield.
  

Hopefully this article is a sign that the RMI's work is finally paying off, and we might see some of that technology percolate down to we unwashed masses. And maybe, just maybe, there will be less structural incentive to go to war next time.

Re:Too iconic

[hey]

Yes, I enjoyed that article by RMI very much.
Thanks.

I had never heard of them before.
I'll watch them in the future.

Buy the gas from Turkey

[krysith]

According to this article, the iraqi state oil marketing agency imports their gas from Turkey for 98 cents a gallon.

Someone earlier commented on the cost of bringing coals to Newcastle.

Of course, you know that Schlumberger is the major global competitor to Halliburton. Why didn't they get to bid on the delivery? Maybe it has something to do with their Paris headquarters...

Re:oil is the source?

[dave420]

That doesn't even make sense :-P

Patents?

[Dr. Evil]

Who holds the patents on these technologies? The University of Pennsylvania had a direct hydrocarbon burning fuel cell back in 2001. Theirs seems to require non-room-temperature reaction, but with a tank of fuel around, it doesn't seem impractical to burn a little fuel to get up to reaction temperatures.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/09/01090 5072008.htm

Stupidity?

[Transcendent]

Auburn University scientists 'realized there is already a lot of hydrogen in hydrocarbon fuel'

Wow... I wonder how long it took them to realise that...

Rightfully Moderated Flamebait

[goldspider]

"I pointed out that $40 a gallon sounded extrordinarily expensive in another posts, but it got modded down as flamebait."

And it was rightfully moderated flamebait, as you A. obviously lack sufficient knowledge of wartime logistics (I work for the military and know what I'm talking about), and B. come from an undisguised position of bias against the current Commander-in-Chief.

As such, your comments should be taken with a truckload of salt.

Re:Rightfully Moderated Flamebait

[Anonymous Coward]

A. obviously lack sufficient knowledge of wartime logistics (I work for the military and know what I'm talking about),

So, you're a computer programmer for the military and that means you know all about the costs involved in transporting oil from Kuwait to Bagdad?

B. come from an undisguised position of bias against the current Commander-in-Chief.

I don't like the president so that means everything I say is factually incorrect?

I must apologise to you, as apparently you are distinguished and all-knowning...

Re:Rightfully Moderated Flamebait

[goldspider]

"So, you're a computer programmer for the military and that means you know all about the costs involved in transporting oil from Kuwait to Bagdad?"

I work in the logistics command of the Navy; I believe I come from a stronger position of knowledge on the subject than the average disgruntled Slashdotter.

"I don't like the president so that means everything I say is factually incorrect?

No, but that bias should be considered when weighing the credibility of your statements.

I must apologise to you, as apparently you are distinguished and all-knowning..."

There's hope for you yet!

Re:Rightfully Moderated Flamebait

[LaCosaNostradamus]

Well, goldspider, you posted twice around this topic, and it appears that this is all the evidence you gave for justifying a $40 charge for a $1 item:

"I work in the logistics command of the Navy; I believe I come from a stronger position of knowledge on the subject"

"sufficient knowledge of wartime logistics (I work for the military and know what I'm talking about)"

Run the numbers for us, 'K? Step by step, how a $1 item becomes $40. With your superior knowledge, that shouldn't be much of a chore.

Time to put up or shut up, Mr. Bullshit Artist.

Dude,

[2names]

The government has a fuel cell that runs on water. On water, man!!!

Uh-huh

[spectasaurus]

And maybe if you hadn't have bombed out all the roads and train tracks, it might not cost so damn much.

Bunch of jackasses.

Re:Uh-huh

[Anonymous Coward]

The nerve of some armies, bombing roads during a war! Don't they know that the only types of wars that America can support anymore are those involving cruise missiles into aspirin factories?

Re:frosty piss

[Anonymous Coward]

Kathleen Fent, is that you ?

Which is precisely why we should

[2names]

put in more hydroelectric, wave, wind, and solar generation stations. We could then use the electricity from these sources to separate H20 and use the H2 in fuel cells.

As has been stated so many times before on /., just changing how we use oil is not the answer, we need to stop using oil altogether.

Alternate way to save money on fuel

[Ben Hutchings]

Buy from anyone but Halliburton.

Re: Tanks?

[Short Circuit]

Yes and no, I think. It would let them pack more fuel into the same space, but would also let them pack more armor around the tank.

Re:Costs - NOT FLAIMBAIT

[Azghoul]

Last I checked Halliburton got mucho dineiro and many contracts from the Clinton admin too...

Great, this is the reason I left Auburn.

[johnny cashed]

More defense funded research. Fuck that. That is why I quit working for Auburn. Most of the research I was involved in was DoD funded. After the iraq war started I couldn't continue to do research funded by the DoD. A friend of mine did fuel cell research at Auburn. I hope he doesn't have any conflicts. There is nothing worse than seeing your work perverted into being used for an offensive war that was not needed. Fuck the DoD!!

Re:Great, this is the reason I left Auburn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I hope you quit before the offensive wars against Bosnia and Kosovo as well. Wouldn't want politics to get in the way of your morality.

Uhhh... Diesel *does* explode...

[Scrooge919]

How do you think a diesel engine works? It mixes fuel and air, then compresses it to the point where it explodes... See for yourself here... Now, diesel fuel won't ignite with a match, etc, but that's a different issue.

Re: Tanks? The paint on the Hindenburg

[let_freedom_ring]

Catbellar, "And, oh yes, the bright searing flame you see in the picture? It's the paint. It was basically thermite. Powdered metal. The company wanted pretty silver shiny skin. One electrical arc, and WHOOMP - hydrogen gets the blame."

Actually, the company wanted paint that would reflect rather than absorb sunlight so that the outer skin would not expand and contract. It was not based on esthetics.

mod eric s rayRNond down

[Anonymous Coward]

please stop being so stupid and gullible with your mod points. tia

Look what California is planning

[dyte]

Speaking of mainstream, did anybody else see this
California is planning to put hydrogen fuel stations every 20 miles on interstate highways. I've seen several articles on it, but I've not seen any discussion anywhere. I don't know how they are planning in producing the hydrogen, etc.

Cost

[ThurstonMoore]

'it costs about $40 to move one gallon of diesel fuel from Kuwait to Baghdad.' At least that's what it costs if the company moving it doesn't have to bid to get the contract.

Re:Costs of moving fuel over land w/shooting

[A55M0NKEY]

People always find ways of heaping the costs of tons of other things onto a cost they are calculating when trying to make a point. For instance, when a hacker does some damage to a company, like posting 100 stolen credit card numbers, they will come up with a damages number in the billions. They might, for instance, say that if it wasn't for hackers like him, they wouldn't need a IT Security department ( which in this case failed to prevent a breach ) Then you consider that every person in IT Security needs a network connection, so any part of the cost of the corporate network that would be essential to providing the IT Security department with internet access, even if those same routers etc also serve the rest of the company will be tacked onto the cost of IT Security's maintenance and so also tacked onto the damage figure for the breach. If another breach is made next week, the same expenses that were previously attributed to the damage done by the first breach will be attributed to the second breach
in their entirety a second time.

And the loss of customer trust caused by the breach will reverberate throughout the company. Loss of customer trust, caused by the breach and publicised in a small article on the 12th page of the newspaper will disrupt the entire marketing campaign for the conglomerate. The image the company has strived for including customer confidence in the security procedures of MegaCorp Inc, is now tarnished and so the entire mega-millions cost of all marketing for MegaCorp Inc's products for the last 5 years will have to be included in the damage estimate. This figure will be included again in estimates for any future breaches.

So when they calculate the cost of moving a gallon of oil into baghdad they are probably calculating the cost of the Tank Escort, and all the troops in the troop carrier in the same convoy, as well as the bradley fighting vehicles and air cover. All these vehicles would be going to baghdad anyway even if they required no fuel, and air cover would still be provided to the convoy regardless of there being a fuel truck. But the entire cost of all these vehicles will be tacked onto the cost for transproting the gas as if bringing gas to baghdad were the end goal for going there. The gas truck is, in reality just tagging along.

And we probably already had the gas truck.

If you calculate the cost of maintaining a piece of military equipment and personel between wars, and then use that number as the cost incurred by using that equipment and personel *in* a war, even though the cost would have been incurred with or without the war, then you can really jack up the numbers.

If the cost of war were calculated as the cost of consumables, plus increased pay & benefits ( since we have a military regardless of whether we are fighting a war ) then it might turn out that war is cheap in terms of money...

Re: Tanks?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hydrogen is highly expolsive. Hrom az material savety sheet of hydrogen, the lower and upper explosion boundery's are 4 and 74%. That means that hydrogen will explode if the concentration in the air is between those bounds. When a hydrogen fire must be extinguished, it is important to let the fire burn until the suply of gas can be closed. Aa other interestng fact is, hydrogen burns with an invisuible flame

The Army

[Anonymous Coward]

The Army is excited about and interested in a lot of stupid technology that will never see the light of day. For example, tank-mounted rail guns.

Eliminate Energy Waste

[Walrus99]

How about not spending billions of dollars on an unpopular and unnecessary war. Think of all the energy we could have saved if the war in Iraq had not taken place. And oh yea, we may have saved a few innocent human lives also.

Re:Eliminate Energy Waste

[otis wildflower]

Think of all the energy we could have saved if the war in Iraq had not taken place. And oh yea, we may have saved a few innocent human lives also.

Well, given that Saddam averaged 16,667 killed per year over his 24 year reign, we've actually reduced the death toll in Iraq significantly, at least among the innocent.

Kind of like how the first gulf war resulted in a cleaner persian gulf because of all the spilled oil that didn't get spilled in the normal course of shipping...

Re:Costs of moving fuel over land w/shooting

[Short Circuit]

You can't just add a gas truck to a convoy and say, "Oh yeah, and you guys have to protect him (jearking a thumb)" ... The entire process and strategy, defense plan and whatnot have to be written to include the truck.

I would assume they'd send a bit of fuel with every vehicle, so that tactical costs were reduced, and so that losses in case of an attack were reduced. (How many video games have "destroy the (rich target)" as a mission objective?)

However, I do take your point about it being possible to tack on costs. I just don't think it applies as much in this scenario.

Re: Tanks?

[trailerparkcassanova]

The "powdered metal", aluminum, is added to the nitrate dope for UV protection of the fabric, not to make it look "pretty".

Re:Logic and Politix = mutually exclusive

[A55M0NKEY]

If the war were simply about oil, then we would have simply dropped the sanctions

The war was simply about oil, but dropping the sanctions especially after 9/11 would have been political suicide.

The first Gulf War was not about saving Kuwait, a country most Americans had never heard of nor could give a damn about from Saddaam, it was about protecting the spigots that lead into the vast oil aquifer shared by Iraq and Kuwait. If it weren't for that original oil war, then Saddaam would not have been on our shitlist after 9/11 and would still be in power now. He would probably be currying favor with the US by letting us send captured Al Queda types to his torture dungeons for 'clean hands' interrogation.

Things that make you go boom!

[theolein]

Using Hydrogen as a fuel source in a military vehicle :D

Saving money? Our government? Is that right?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me get this right - you want the government to fund a program that uses less fuel? Along the lines of saving money? You want to not spend $40 a gallon on gas?

Sorry kids, nice delusion but welcome to the bizarre land of military contracts and presidents with double digit IQs - also known as the flag waving, brown people blowing up, proud not to have national health insurance and proud to throw potheads in jail US OF A.

As long as Halliburton makes $40 per gallon transporting oil, there will never be a reason for cheaper anything.

Damned bright those Auburn scientists...

[mikerich]

Auburn University scientists 'realized there is already a lot of hydrogen in hydrocarbon fuel'

Kind of implied in the word 'hydrocarbon' isn't it?

Besides, the novelty kind of wore off about 50 years ago when the vast majority of global hydrogen production switched from reacting iron with steam to the catalytic conversion of methane and petroleum gases in oil refineries.

And catalytic production of hydrogen from heavy hydrocarbons goes way back to the Fischer-Tropsch process for making synthetic fuels from coal, originally developed in the 1920s, perfected in the 1930s under the Nazis and used until relatively recently in South Africa.

The article doesn't really make clear what is new here - perhaps the team have perfected a table-top system???

Best wishes,
Mike.

Re:oil is the source?

[Anonymous Coward]

Kaboom!

[clap clap clap]

Why not just use the Carriers?

[cryptochrome]

The carrier is the center of all modern fleets, and also the prime consumer of aviation fuel. Why not just use the existing nukes on board to refine the hydrogen?

Same goes for subs, they could be pressed into fuel service. It'd be an effective use for older missle boats, since there's little need for cold war strategy vessels these days. However, they may not have the reactor capacity for it.

Of course, the steps necessary to refit your ships to run on hydrogen are not trivial. It'd probably be easier to just phase in such vessels.

Re:Why not just use the Carriers?

[catherder_finleyd]

It could be, especially for the internal needs of the carriers. They use large amounts of fuel for their air wings. Using Hydrogen generated by their Nuclear Reactor can lessen / eliminate this requirement, lowering the need for extra fuel tankers.

Against it operational needs would come to play. The Navy tends to keep Carrier battle groups out to sea, in order to keep them away from close-in threats. A "Hydrogen Tanker" would need to be brought close-in and moored for the duration of operations.

Re:Why not just use the Carriers?

[cryptochrome]

Well in that case you wouldn't want to use an expensive, dangerous nuclear vessel close-in to the battlefield. Too big a target, too big a liability. Regular oilers are just big cheap tanks.

Re: Tanks?

[ID_Roamer]

A little known fact about the Hindenburg

The designers were well aware of the dangers of Hydrogen gas and designed the airship to use Helium.

At the time the only source of Helium in large volumes was the United States. Already the US Government wasn't thrilled with the Nazi Government and blocked the exportation of Helium to Germany for use in Airships. So the owners used the only lifting gas that they had readily available, Hydrogen. BTW it had the unfortunate side effect of allowing them to increase the number of passengers on that final flight over what was originally designed.

burning diesel and other diesel tidbits

[green pizza]

How do you think a diesel engine works? It mixes fuel and air, then compresses it to the point where it explodes... See for yourself here... Now, diesel fuel won't ignite with a match, etc, but that's a different issue.

Diesel burns well in certain conditions, but doesn't explode unless it's under great pressure. Have you ever seen a smudge pot? Basiclly diesel and a wick (often a metal pail with a couple inches of diesel and a diesel-soaked ball of twine). Makes for a long-lasting bright torch (but smokes like crazy). A more refined method is atomization, burning a fine mist. This is what fuel oil burners use (fuel oil is a slightly lower grade of what's basiclly diesel).

In the case of a diesel engine, air is brought into the cylinder, compressed to somewhere between 14:1 and 24:1, at which point diesel is injected into the already-compressed cylinder. The heat of compression plus the properties of diesel result in a powerful explosion. (This is where diesel engines differ from gasoline engines... a gas engine has lower compression, sprays in the gasoline before the cylinder is compressed, and relies on a spark plug to ignite the mix). The higher compression of a diesel engine as well as the powerful injection system requires beefier components which, when combined with the really fast ignition of the diesel, results in a loud clattering engine. The new breed of CDI disels are almost as quiet as modern gasoline cars, though.

Re: Tanks? The paint on the Hindenburg

[uberdave]

You're detracting from the point. Regardless of the reason for the coloration, the paint was the main contributing factor in the disaster, not the hydrogen.

Re:oil is the source?

[Geek_in_Marketing]

IMO, as far as the US administration is concerned, the long-term economic benefits of invading Iraq outweighs the interim costs.

America now has strong links with Saudi Arabia and, since 1991, even stronger links with Kuwait - both members of OPEC.

Who controls oil supply?

Got it in one.

So roll to 2003:

(1)Invade Iraq;
(2)Install pro-US puppet regime;
(3)Tighten US influence over OPEC decisions;
(4)PROFIT!

The invasion and subsequent Americanisation of Iraq will permit the US to gain further global control, exerting influence and pressure over countries such as those you mention.

China upsets the US? Not if they don't want 'technical difficulties' with supply or pricing.

The current US Administration almost all have ties to the oil business. The war was started and prosecuted for oil. And money. Nothing more.

Next thtign you know.....

[Darth23]

the military will try to make WEAPONS using hydrogen.... maybe BOMBS even.

forty bucks?

[linoleo]

it costs about $40 to move one gallon of diesel fuel from Kuwait to Baghdad.

Funny, it costs Mobil less than a buck to move one gallon of diesel fuel from Kuwait to Los Angeles. Ahh, the efficency of the army.

- nic

Ever heard of the M113?

[DG]

The fine folks at FMC (look up the acronym for a chuckle) won the contract to provide the Army with a tracked Armoured Personnel Carrier, and what they came up with was the M113.

In order to meet weight targets though, they couldn't use steel armour. Instead, they used an aluminum/magnisium alloy. Tough and light, it provided the required level of protection, but it had one wee little drawback....

We used to scrape shavings off the armour and burn them in front of recruits. Nice bright white magnesium flare. :)

Now in practice, it took a LOT of effort to get the armour burning. There wan't much danger of your carrier suddenly igniting.

But...

A few years ago, a small brush fire got started in a training area. This happens all the time when you do live fire with tracers, and is nothing new. But this time, a couple of mental midgets thought the bast way to put it out was to run over it, repeatedly, with their M113.

Somehow, they managed to get the hull temperature up to the point of ignition - and once lit, that sucker was NEVER going out.

They bailed, but all that was left once the fire burnt out was the engine block and the torsion bars. :)

DG

(no, it wasn't me. _My_ tracer-ignited brush fire story has a happy ending)

US Army

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing the US Army is excited about is to wage WAR. By any means.

Shaken, not stirred.

Re:US Army

[Anonymous Coward]

War? Really? Damn, I thought it was like a big book club for people who wear green trousers.

PARENT IS TROLL

[Anonymous Coward]

cut'n'past whore and fake name

PARENT IS TROLL

[Anonymous Coward]

The APU is a new invention that could also reduce the military's reliance on oil. It doesn't drive the engines of the Army's long-haul trucks, but it will run almost everything else, from the heating and air conditioning to the vehicle's water pump and other accessories. It's powered by a hydrogen fuel cell. The hydrogen comes from a small set of tanks attached to the cab, but eventually the hydrogen could come directly from the diesel fuel that runs the engine itself. A fuel-cell APU can increase the efficiency of a typical diesel engine by as much as ten-fold. And the less noise and emissions a truck generates, the lower the chance it'll be spotted by the enemy.

Re:oil is the source?

[BlackCobra43]

Why would terrorists attack oil? Most terrorist groups are FUNDED by oil money.

I'm sure the risk of oil-producing nations deciding to cause their consumers to be unable to buy anymore is gargantuan.

Seriously, why would they shoot themselves in the foot like that?

Re:Saving money? Our government? Is that right?

[otis wildflower]

As long as Halliburton makes $40 per gallon transporting oil, there will never be a reason for cheaper anything.

Don't know much about the military, do you?

Who cares how much the fuel _costs_.. Requiring less fuel shrinks the logistics train significantly, and in our projected-force military logistics is more critical than just about anything besides training.

The B2 bomber might cost $2B (thanks to a reduced # of planes vs. a fixed development and tooling investment), but its reduced deployment support requirements (no escort fighters or anti-radar wild weasels, precision bombs for fewer runs and fewer bombs per run) bring down its operational costs in theory below those of a traditional B52.

If you could halve the number of fuel trucks (and concomitant supply officers, mechanics, fuel monkeys, etc) to support a particular mobile formation, you've made your combat forces much more effective, and the fuel savings are just a nice little side plus.

Additionally, imagine hybridized tanks and other vehicles: like diesel-electric subs they can run efficiently on fuel when in transition, and for the approach to contact they can switch to battery-only power for silent surprise.

Then figure in the codevelopment of civilian products (in this generation the military is heavily COTS oriented and would probably push its researchers to make hybrid technologies available for mass-production) which would bring down fuel use in the overall economy and you've got a huge win.

Hybrid power in the military is a huge win any way you look at it, unless you are a terrorist.

Size of oil tanker

[jeti]

As far as I could make out, oil tankers usually ship
between 200 000 and 300 000 tons of oil. 200 tons
are 53 000 000 gallons.

However, it's often more costly to get something on
board of a ship than to actually ship it around the
globe. And that's even when you're not delivering to
a battlefield.

PBMR

[mrmeval]

Well a pebble bed modular reactor (nuclear) can be 9-feet in diameter by 24-feet in height. Make the tank Bolo sized and forget all these lesser storage solutions.

http://www.pbmr.com

More recent news

[oerlikon]

In more recent news Auburn University scientists 'realized there is a substantial amount of carbon in carbohydrates' and that 'hydrochloric acid truly tends to be acidic.'

What will they discover next? Sliced bread? Geez. Your tax dollars in action, no doubt.

Re: Tanks?

[DaveWhite99]

The parent post is "5, Informative" ? "1, Troll" should be more appropriate.

Hydrogen as a transportation "fuel" is actually less safe than gasoline.

The Hindenberg used gaseous H2. Any vehicles that wants to travel more than few miles on H2 will need to use highly compressed H2, which becomes extremely dangerous should a rupture occur. Think of a high-pressure flame-thrower than you cannot easily douse, sort of like an oil-well fire.

PARENT IS TROLL

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I think that best solution is a reduction in military and government spending on fuel, along with everything else. After all, the government is the greatest polluter on the planet.

Re:Saving money? Our government? Is that right?

[Big_Breaker]

M1 Abrams uses a turbine engine like a helicopter. It is so quiet already that its nickname is "Whispering Death"

The real benefit of hybrid vehicles will come from the ability to BEAM the fuel to the forward areas via microwaves. I'm thinking of the same technique proposed for orbital solar power. This energy is used to top off the batteries.

This refueling technique is particularly useful if the tank uses a rail gun. Freed from carrying huge shells the tank won't have to reload projectiles (It will carry hundreds on board) and the energy needs can be supplied by a support vehicle that captures the microwaves.

Now we just need to figure out what to do after we "win"

PARENT IS TROLL

[Anonymous Coward]

vehicle's water pump and other accessories. It's powered by a hydrogen fuel cell. The hydrogen comes from a small set of tanks attached to the cab, but eventually the hydrogen could come directly from the diesel fuel that runs the engine itself. A fuel-cell APU can increase the efficiency of a typical diesel engine by as much as ten-fold. And the less noise and emissions a truck generates, the

MOD PARENT UP!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Right on the money!

Re:Costs - NOT FLAIMBAIT

[orim]

Yeah, I think about the only thing we haven't seen from this administration is a pyramid scheme letter with George W. Bush, 1400 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington DC address at the top.

You too can quit your job! Just send $5 to each of the five addresses at the top of this letter...

Dick Cheney made $3,555,400 in just the first month of signing up with our program! When reached for comment, he said: "I can now finally afford growing my own clone to with a brand new heart!" Thank you, originators of this letter!

Re:Costs - NOT FLAIMBAIT

[orim]

Do you live in the US? If so, you better be pissed cause every cent of this money will have to paid at some point by you or your children!

Reality: the all-Diesel army

[Animats]

The U.S. Army is really converting to all-Diesel, as part of the "Single Fuel on the Battlefield" program. The "single fuel" is JP-8, which is usable in Diesel engines, jet aircraft, and gas turbine vehicles like the M1 tank. The Army decided in the 1990s that gasoline tankers had no place on the battlefield - they're too attractive as targets.

Army policy on alternative fuel R&D is that any fuel considered must be less flammable than JP-8.

No, H2 actually has three times LESS energy

[DaveWhite99]

Sure, H2 has three times more energy per mass, but it has three times less energy per volume, which is what really matters for transportation.

So, no, that tank won't go three times farther on H2 than on diesel. It will actually have only 1/3 the range.

As usual, distorted facts are reported on Slashdot as gospel.

Re:No, H2 actually has three times LESS energy

[danharan]

Actually, volume is not the only thing that counts- with a smaller motor, we can devote more space to a fuel tank.

We also squeeze more actual energy out of a fuel-cell than we can out of an ICE. What is it, 38% that is lost in heat exhaust, 6% in motor friction? IIRC, some fuel cells are around 80% efficiency- that is 80% of the stored energy in hydrogen is converted to usable electricity.

What's more, lighter motors mean less total energy is required to move the whole thing.

Aah, efficient war-making. According to critics, if we had put in place higher efficiency guidelines, we wouldn't be there in the first place. Oh, the irony! :)

Re:No, H2 actually has three times LESS energy

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, for chrissake, read the article.

The gain in distance is an efficiency-based gain. The tank takes diesel. It cracks the diesel to produce H2. The H2 is used in a fuel cell. They are not trying to compare storage mechanisms. They are saying: 1 gallon of diesel, burnt, goes X miles. 1 gallon of diesel, cracked and fuel-celled, goes 3X miles.

Given that IC processes are usually 20-30% efficient, and fuel cell processes are more on the order of 50-70% (IIRC), the 3:1 advantage is probably entirely from efficiency gains.

Re: Tanks?

[smithmc]

And, oh yes, the bright searing flame you see in the picture? It's the paint. It was basically thermite. Powdered metal. The company wanted pretty silver shiny skin.

The pretty color was not the reason (though it might have been a factor). They needed a lightweight, flexible, airtight coating for the fabric of the gas bag, and that's what they came up with.

Re: Tanks?

[Tom Rothamel]

If a round penetrates the diesel fuel tank of a current vehicle, the crew is pretty screwed anyway.

This is less true of the M1 Abrams tank than Soviet models. A big problem with Soviet models is that they tend to do things like storing ammunition in the turret, or even worse in cut-outs in the fuel tank. This makes it very bad if the tank is hit, and leads to the classic image of a tank with its turret blown off.

The M1 stores ammunition in the turret itself, and has-blow out panels on the turret so that if the ammunition explodes, the energy is taken away from the crew.

Energy in, energy out

[Zilfondel2]

Note: IANA Engineer...but:

The energy required to create hydrogen gas through electrolysis should be the same amount you get out of a fuel cell - they are just reverse processes.

However, because internal combustion engines are so inefficient, fuel cells are very attractive due to their efficiency.
Additionally, in the future we may have invested in wide-scale solar electrolysis plants, making it a cleaner source of fuel than burning fossil fuels to do the separating.

Re:Saving money? Our government? Is that right?

[Zilfondel2]

Tank? Silent??? You've got to be kidding! Squeak! Squeak! Squeak! Iraq soldier to another: I didn't think there were any overgrown chirping birds in the middle of the desert. Highly unlikely scenario, imo.

hydrogen BATTERY not FUEL

[peter303]

Hydrogen is not a naturally occuring energy source, but has to be created from other energy source. So it makes for sense to call it a battery, i.e. an intermediate energy storage for conversion to useful work. So the main drawback is where do you get the energy to create the hydrogen? The tradeoffs are whether a total energy system using hydrogen has advantages or disadvantages over the status quo. There are advantages and disadvantages either way discussed elsewhere in this thread.

PARENT IS TROLL

[Anonymous Coward]

tached to the cab, but eventually the hydrogen could come directly from the diesel fuel that runs the engine itself. A fuel-cell APU can increase the efficiency of a typical diesel engine by as much as ten-fold. And the less noise and emissions a truck generates, the lower the chance it'll be spotted by the enemy.

PARENT IS TROLL

[Anonymous Coward]

ntion that could also reduce the military's reliance on oil. It doesn't drive the engines of the Army's long-haul trucks, but it will run almost everything else, from the heating and air conditioning to the vehicle's water pump and other accessories. It's powered by a hydrogen fuel cell. The hydrogen comes from a small set of tanks attached to the cab, but eventually the hydrogen could come directly from the diesel fuel that runs the engine itself. A fuel-cell APU can increase the efficiency of a typical diesel engine by as much as ten-fold. And the less noise and emissions a truck generates, the lower the chance it'll be spotted by the enemy.

Personally, I think that best so

And you wonder why your economy is shit...?

[Anonymous Coward]

Doing things on military funding means that resourceful people instead of solving technical problems that would make the economy more efficient are "taken out of circulation" by giving them fiat money (and devaluation the hard-earned bucks of those living off the market) in a distant hope that this military innovation will somehow trickle down to the real economy.

The country in which I was born (the Union of SSR) went down the drain the same way. Militarize your industry and watch them produce stuff that is radically different from what is demanded.

Military spending is killing competitiveness BIG WAY.

Re:And you wonder why your economy is shit...?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, military R&D never internet solved anything.

Re:oil is the source?

[vandan]

The Palestinians have nothing to do with fuel.

Bullshit. If it weren't for the incredible oil resources in the middle east, the US couldn't give a flying fuck about Israel, Palestine or Iraq, in much the same way they couldn't give a flying fuck about anything else not related to power and profit. I suppose you'll argue that the US sells and gives Weapons of Mass Destruction to Israel because it is simply a bastion of peace, love and understanding in a cold, hard, backward Arab world. But the rest of the world disagrees. Do a google search on the number of UN resolutions against Israel that the US has vetoed, which has the direct effect of fucking over millions of innocent Palestinians, all in the name of having a western 'watchdog' in the middle east if things go sour ( which is highly likely considering the rest of their foreign policy ).

Shit, maybe you should thank the Yanks for safeguarding the foundation of the world economy, rather than attacking it.

Oh suck my dick. The US only safeguards what is in it's best interests, and then it does a shitty job of that. Look at your balance of payments defecit. How many more TRILLIONS of dollars are going to go buy before you start paying your way like the rest of the world? And I suppose the antics of the World Bank and the International Monetary Funds are also all in the name of 'safeguarding' the 'world economy'. Well the rest of the world disagrees with you on this point to. US foreign policy does nothing but cause catastrophe in all but the largest and most established capitalist nations of the world. Nothing is being safeguarded here. In fact, the US is creating an economic time-bomb, and even the right-wing press are picking up on it. It's time you did too.

Re: Tanks?

[PinkyGigglebrain]

Actualy test have shown that gaseous H2 is safer than liquid gasoline.

To adress your points;

should a rupture of the H2 tank occur the H2 would disapate upwards and be dispersed, lowering the danger of an explosion. In the same scenario with gasoline the fuel vapors would hug the ground and spread out till it was ignited, then the flame would travel back to the liquid and ignite that. What would you rather have if you where traped in a car? a single flame venting AWAY from the car, or a buring pool of gasoline and a fuel tank that would explode? An interesting point that was made about 9-11 is that if the planse had been using H2 instead of J4 fuel the WTC towers would not have colapsed, remember that the towers survived the impacts, it was the fire, the burning jet fuel, that caused the structure to melt and colapse.

As to your concern about "..a high-pressure flame-thrower.." yes there would be a flame jet, but thats all, one localized hot flame, not a spreading pool of burning liquid. Also, in a case where a vehicle powered by H2 where to catch fire the H2 tank would heat up till the relief valve triggered then the H2 would vent and dissapate, a gasoline tank would explode when the fuel hit flash point and then you would really have a mess.

Some years back (pre-net, no link sorry) I watched a safety demonstration of H2 tanks verses gasoline, H2 won hands down, here is why.

Puncture test, they fired bullet though a gasoline tank, BOOM!!!!, flaming gas in a 10 meter radius. Bullet through the H2 tank, small flame jet from the puncture till the tank was empty, no other damage.

Heat test, tank of sealed gasoline tank placed in a fire, result, BOOM!!!, flaming gas everywhere. H2 tank, release valve trips and the H2 vents (yes it ignited) away from tank.

fire supression, gasoline floats on water so you have to use CO2 or foam, plus it splaters when you hit it with a jet of water (think napalm), very bad. H2, a concentrated water mist can put out the flame in some cases and at minnimum it keeps the surounding matierial cool to prevent the fire from spreading.

Say what you want about H2 v. Gasoline, if my life was on the line I would want H2 fueling my vehicle. As soon as it becomes viable I'm getting my car converted.

Costs $40 to Move One Gallon of Fuel

[Master of Transhuman]

a couple hundred miles.

Sure it does.

One word: Halliburton.

Second word: Cheney.

Third word: war profiteer. (Okay, two words...)

Wouldn't be nice if there was already a way to...

[h3499]

generate the needed chemicals for this process? he storage of Hydrogen as a liquified gas, or compressed gas is essentially impossible for use in normal conditions. The losses of Hydrogen alone would kill the use. The natural solution is to store the Hydrogen as a Hydride. -cluckshot (658931) I thought that the process was already done out in the desert, near death valley, where plants generate borax and wonderful things like that? I don't know what exactly they extract, but I know these plants get it from one place, it's this lake out there (in northern california?) that was so poisonous birds landed on it like it was a roach motel, they just don't fly back up... this 'lake' has all sorts of mineral deposits, right? That is the place where these chemical plants get the borax. I bet there are alot of EPA people who are busy dealing with the hydride byproduct (as a byproduct of adding something to the 'lake water' to get the borax). It would be neat to see something already in place be used for another reason too, besides borax, like helping the hydrogen fuel effort... I don't know much about how these chemical (borax) plants work, and it would probably do to have a little research on the subject.

Not in Oregon

[rufusdufus]

Oregon state recognizes the danger of gasoline and does not allow you to pump your own gas into your car. The law was created when a bride in her wedding gown burned to death while at the pumps.

Re:Not in Oregon

[InadequateCamel]

Asinine.

That is one of the most compelling cases against legislating for human behaviour I have ever seen.

Re: Tanks?

[Tassach]

IIRC the M-1 Abrams uses a turbine engine runs on gasoline, not diesel. Anyway, if a container of diesel gets hit with a HEAT or APFSDS round it's going to make a really nice fireball.

Kilometres per gallon?

[Anonymous Coward]

...no wonder that Mars probe crashed.

Carbon Nanotubes!

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with this approach is that it still gives off carbon dioxide. On the other hand, since it's three times more efficient than simply burning the fuel, it only gives off a third as much CO2 for a given amount of work. It may also reduce other unwanted by-products of burning, like carbon monoxide.

As other posters have pointed out, the alternative hydrogen storage methods currently available also have problems, such as high volume, high weight, high complexity, and so on.

Here is an excellent presentation I found on the subject of hydrogen storage:

(PDF:) Hydrogen. Fueling a Cleaner Future.

One of the most interesting alternatives mentioned in the paper was the use of carbon nanotubes to provide high-density hydrogen storage. Here is another article on that subject:

Singapore Physicists Report High Hydrogen Storage Capacities in Alkali-Doped Carbon Nanotubes

If this works for TANKS...

[craXORjack]

Let's just hope that the technology is practical enough to be upscaled to larger vehicles like SUV's!

Re: Tanks?

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, and a side note: ever touched a flame to a hydrogen balloon? No?

I sat in chemistry class as one of my profs did this once with a long extension pole. I was 10 rows back (he made the people in the front move) and the blast just about knocked my hat off. Blew some chunks of plaster out of the ceiling too. It was quite impressive.

Re: Tanks?

[Anonymous Coward]

Say what you want about H2 v. Gasoline, if my life was on the line I would want H2 fueling my vehicle. As soon as it becomes viable I'm getting my car converted.

That'll be an expensive conversion for a vehicle not originally designed to use hydrogen. Since the exhaust is water, you need the entire system to be made from rust-resistant materials.

Re: Tanks?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hydrogen isn't a high explosive, but it undergoes extremely rapid combustion (due to being a very light gas). Therefore the effect of igniting it is quite powerful. In a similar vein, the diesel-fertilizer bomb used in the Oklahoma City attack was also, technically not a high explosive (it burns very rapidly, rather than detonates).

Igniting plain diesel on the other hand, is more like burning a rag soaked in oil. It will just merrily burn away, but relatively slowly compared to hydrogen. In engines, it is the compression that causes it to combust in a controlled manner -- spark plugs are not required.

Just because two things burn doesn't mean they both burn the same.

www.ocees.com

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.ocees.com

Re: Tanks?

[the pickle]

It is combustive, so it will burn, but it doesn't explode in the sense that you seem to imply.
I'm sure that's a great comfort to the survivors of the Hindenburg.

Er...what survivors?

p

Pressurizing the oil deposit with waste CO2?

[geoswan]

One of the complications with the oil industry is that to maintain the pressure within the oil deposit they pump in something else. They are never able to fully extract all the oil from an oil bearing deposit. The "gusher" that is so photogenic occurs when the deposit is under high pressure. But there will still be lots of oil down there, once the pressure has dropped.

So they pump some other fluid into the deposit to keep the pressure up. Water is what is commonly used. But fresh water is at a premium nowadays too. And oil is commonly found in arid environments.

Experiments have been done pumping carbon dioxide gas back underground to keep up the oil pressure. Great idea, except how do you ship a high volume of CO2 to the well-head? Well, if you produce CO2 at the well head, as a byproduct of extracting Hydrogen, there you are.

Who knows, maybe in a thousand years we may find a use for all that CO2 we stored?

As for the difficulty in shipping a gas back from the wellhead? A difficult problem. I believe that there are still oilfields that burn off the natural gas that comes out with oil, rather than capture it and transport it back to be put to a useful purpose.

Re: Tanks?

[Anonymous Coward]

M1 turbine runs on diesel or JP-8; not gas. Fire suppression system in the engine compartment will prevent a fireball, but a constant leak dripping on hot metal will eventually deplete the suppression system and the tank WILL burn if other outside fire suppression is not available. Hydrogen storage in a tank is ludicrous given the amount of volume that would be required. The M1 is constrained by onboard fuel supply now. Only the idiots in the Army are excited about hydrogen-powered tanks. Fuel cells will find a home in the Army, but not powering tanks, and probably not any other vehicle, either.

Re:oil is the source?

[overunderunderdone]

Did you know nations also act altruistically? It's not uncommon for one nation to do something with no benefits for itself (or even potentially hazardous to itself) for another country.

Fine, give me an example.

I'll grant you that on the margins many nation states engage in "altruism" but not at any real cost and it is always incidental to their primary motivations and actions. The U.S. engages if a fair amount of such marginal altruism itself. It engages in even more "altruism" that benefits it's own interests. (The Marshal plan comes to mind)

France and Germany did not oppose the war in Iraq for any sense of altruism, they were serving their own interests. In fact they were serving their own OIL interests. They thought the best thing for the interests of their citizens was to deal with Saadam rather than depose him. Attempting to bring the U.S. down a notch was also, in their opinion, in the best interests of their respective governments and peoples. The U.S. obviously reached the opposite conclusion regarding Saadam's continued reign. Neither side was any more altruistic, even while both sides claimed to be (France & Germany claiming to uphold pacifism while the U.S. claimed to uphold liberal democratic values and human rights)

To a large extent this is HOW IT SHOULD BE. The French government exists to serve the French people. Any French official that says: "This would be bad for France, and hurt the French people. But, it's really a nice thing to do for Belgium and will be of great benefit to the Belgians - lets do it" SHOULD be fired. His job is to protect and serve the people of France, not Iraq, not the U.S. - Nations should pursue those interests within some bounds of civility, good grace and respect for others peoples (if not always with respect for other governments), but within those bounds it is still their job to pursue the particular interests of their own people that they are responsible for, and to.

No blood, no foul

[cagle_.25]

:-)

Do you happen to know whether the Auburn reformer is intended to be a part of the tank, or is a pre-fueling, stand-alone machine? Reason I ask is that I calculate the pressure required to hold enough hydrogen to generate 3x efficiency to be about 11,000atm! That can't be good. So I'm inclined to agree with you (in spite of the article!) that the fuel has to be stored as diesel in the tank, then converted into H2 as the tank rumbles along. If so, that might provide extra energy as well: the conversion of C into CO2 releases even more energy than H2 into H2O.

I'm all for fuel cells, BTW, especially the methanol variety; I just wanted to make clear that the environmental advantages are often exaggerated in these discussions. (Witness: the large number of posts from people talking about the end of the hydrocarbon era...) Because the H2 is generated from hydrocarbons, greenhouse gases will continue to be generated. Also, some but not all claims of better efficiency are hyped. For that reason, I particularly appreciated fuelcells.org's discussion of "well to wheel" efficiency.

Regards, Jeff Cagle

Re: Tanks?

[KDan]

All the people who didn't jump off, and just made their escape after the thing hit the ground and before the burning carcass fell down on them?

If hydrogen had been explosive, the whole thing would have been blown to bits, rather than just igniting and slowly falling to the ground. Most of the hydrogen was burned within a few seconds of it igniting, tops.

Daniel

Re:oil is the source?

[cas2000]

> IMO, as far as the US administration is
> concerned, the long-term economic benefits of
> invading Iraq outweighs the interim costs.

more to the point, the interim costs don't matter, because those who make the profit aren't the ones who are paying.

the guiding principle of those in charge of the US (and world) economy is "socialise expenses, privatise profits".

Once you realise this, many things that appear to make no sense at all begin to make perfect sense.