Slashdot Mirror


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."

6 of 442 comments (clear)

  1. Oil? by guarddonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Oil? by Sarojin · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      --
      HOW'S MY POSTING? CALL 1-800-POSTING
    2. Re:Oil? by Xolotl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Oil? by mwood · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  2. Costs by pubjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

  3. Re:Nuclear Alternative by WegianWarrior · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.