Hydrogen Vehicle Generates Its Own Fuel

It's near performance already by AKAImBatman · 2004-10-07 05:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

Although the truck performs as planned, it's more of a demonstration project than a practical vehicle. The four solar panels and hydrogen-generating system create only enough fuel per day to travel a few miles.

And it's not going to go any farther. On an average day, you're lucky to receive about 200 watts/m2 of sun power. The rest of the energy (about 1.3kw/m2) is lost to diffusion and blockage by the atmosphere.

We've discussed this before on Slashdot, and it has been felt that Sun power could be a great "fuel saver" idea for hydrogen cars. But moving something the size of a modern car is going to require more energy than you can collect from sunlight. (IIRC, ~2 kw to cruise and 10kw to accelerate a small car.)

That being said, I applaud their efforts in the direction of alternative energy sources. Hydrogen is simply not as powerful as petroleum products, but it's pretty close. Concepts like creating fuel with a built-in electrolyzer could be the key to making hydrogen cars seem just as powerful and efficient as petroleum vehicles.

Now if they wanted to prove that hydrogen fill stations could use large Solar Power arrays to power their electrolyzer, then I'm with them all the way. :-)

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade

Re:It's near performance already by officepotato · 2004-10-07 05:34 · Score: 5, Interesting

For someone that lives in a tightly-knit community, and only drives a few miles to work and school each day, this seems like it could really be a "free fuel" solution though. Expecially with the switchable conventional gas system for longer trips.
Re:It's near performance already by carlos_benj · 2004-10-07 05:36 · Score: 5, Interesting

Our average day here in the Phoenix area is a little better than the average elsewhere. Still not enough to make this practical for now. If this is the same guy I talked to a few years ago, he's building a hydrogen "refinery" and they're looking into all kinds of ways of generating hydrogen for automotive use.

He had a hard time getting his truck to pass emissions at first since the exhaust was so much cleaner than the air around the test station. The machine just said he registered "off the scale". Finally got a waiver from the state.

--
--

As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
Re:It's near performance already by Fred_A · 2004-10-07 05:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

It seems to me that someone who lives in a tightly knit community and only drives a few miles to work and school should invest in a bicycle.

Much cleaner.

--

May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
Re:It's near performance already by TykeClone · 2004-10-07 05:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

I live near work and walk most of the time, but there are instances when it is handy to drive because I'm planning on carrying around more than what would be easy to carry.
There are cases where a commuter vehicle like this would make sense.

--
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
Re:It's near performance already by justanyone · 2004-10-07 05:48 · Score: 5, Funny

Bicycles are NOT cleaner. WARNING: SATIRE ALERT! SATIRE ALERT!

The power from bicycles comes from humans eating food and producing poop. The food production takes an unbelievably large amount of energy intensive fossil fuel burning machinery to produce, and quite a bit of value-add from packaging, marketing, etc. (grin).

Likewise, the 'CLEAN ENERGY' aspect of this ignores POOP. Humans that bicycle would use more energy and create more Poop. This would in turn create proportionately more feces, which would have to be processed in an energy intensive sewage treatment plant.

Manufacturing the bicycles, paving for the roads suitably, etc. is very inefficient and Anti-Green (shall we say RED?). The most GREEN thing we can do is stop emitting greenhouse gasses ("farts"), poop ("feces"), and consuming valuable resources by eating things. I recommend all humans should hold their breath until they die and save the planet.

SATIRE ALERT! The above is Satire. Any correspondence between this and a valid opinion would be in the direct opposite direction, ideologically speaking.

--
Unitarian Church: Freethinkers Congregate!
Re:It's near performance already by azaris · 2004-10-07 05:48 · Score: 4, Informative

It seems to me that someone who lives in a tightly knit community and only drives a few miles to work and school should invest in a bicycle.
Except if the tightly knit community is located in a geographical area that gets snow for four months of the year, at which point cycling to work/school every day gets to be at best inconvenient if not downright dangerous for a good time of the year.
Re:It's near performance already by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-07 05:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

Ride the bus.
Re:It's near performance already by TykeClone · 2004-10-07 05:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

No bus. Small town of 600 people and no transportation like that around. Like I said, there are uses for such a commuter vehicle.

--
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
Re:It's near performance already by DarkBlackFox · 2004-10-07 05:53 · Score: 2, Interesting

The article also mentions if the hydrogen tanks are charged from an external source, it can go as far as a conventional vehicle. The big deal here is it's capable of producing it's own hydrogen/fuel, even if only a little bit at a time. If fuel stations were set up to use larger solar arrays than would fit on a car, or even power from the grid, much more fuel could be produced. If I'm not mistaken, the byproduct of hydrogen combustion is water, so assuming a closed system, it would theoretically have the capability/raw material to run for a good long time. So long as there's a source of electricity (solar, battery, generator on bike pedals), there's the potential to refuel itself. Imagine running out of gas, where all you have to do is wait a bit for the sun to do it's thing, or unpack a stationary bike and pedal for a while until you have enough hydrogen to get on your way. Or how about using an alternator to continuously generate power as the vehicle is moving? It still wouldn't be a whole lot of hydrogen generated, but heck, I don't see mobile oil refineries happening any time soon to generate gasoline on the fly.
Re:It's near performance already by cbr2702 · 2004-10-07 06:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

The energy you get from reacting Hydrogen and Oxygen should be equal to the amount of energy you have to put in to separate water into Hyrdogen and Oxygen (plus inneficiencies).

--

This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.
Re:It's near performance already by bfields · 2004-10-07 06:00 · Score: 4, Informative

Except if the tightly knit community is located in a geographical area that gets snow for four months of the year, at which point cycling to work/school every day gets to be at best inconvenient if not downright dangerous for a good time of the year.

Nah, it's not that bad. People in northern climes ride year round too. Good sites for ideas include icebike and bikewinter. Also I wrote up some suggestions on riding in winter.
Where I live in Michigan it's pretty easy as the streets usually get cleared early on all but a few of the worst days, so it's not really the ice and snow as just a matter of dressing right for the weather. (Main points: protect extremities, but don't dress *too* warm, since you'll warm up as you exercise.)
--Bruce Fields
Re:It's near performance already by bdeclerc · 2004-10-07 06:03 · Score: 3, Informative

Wrong. Just think about it:
The solar panels are used to split water into Hydrogen & Oxygen, the Hydrogen engine then recombines hydrogen & oxygen to produce energy. How much energy? Exactly the amount needed to split the water in the first place. SO even with 100% conversion efficiency (a physical impossibility) you need to get just as much energy from the solar panels as you later need to move the car. In reality, the conversion is way below 100%, so you need even more.
Hydrogen on earth is nothing more than a special kind of "battery", it is used to "store" energy, not to create it out of thin air...
Re:It's near performance already by AKAImBatman · 2004-10-07 06:04 · Score: 5, Informative

No matter how many ways I try to parse your post, you're not making any sense. Allow me to explain:

The energy used by the car for propulsion is the energy already stored in the water.

No, it's stored in the hydrogen. The water is "pre-burned" hydrogen and oxygen. At a perfect conversion rate, it takes exactly as much energy to convert water to hydrogen and oxygen as you get from making hydrogen and oxygen into water.

In other words, you add energy to the system and it gets stored in a fuel form. The energy doesn't already exist in the system.

The energy from the solar panels is not the limiting factor.

Eh? Let's say we get 200 watts/m^2 of sunlight. The solar panels are only going to be ~20% efficient. That brings us down to 40 watts of energy. The electrolyzer is probably about 50% efficient, bringing our final storage rate to ~20 joules per second. That works out to about 72 kilojoules per hour. Which at a "mere" 2kw of constant use would provide exactly 36 seconds of driving time. (Actually less due to further inefficiencies.)

They'd actually get more power by storing the solar power in batteries, then using an electric drive. The only trick is that batteries tend not to be as energy dense as hydrogen.

Now, it might be true that even at perfect efficiency, you'll never get enough hydrogen from the water using solar power, but that's a different calculation that what you're doing.

What calculation am I doing? Energy is energy, and power is power. You've only got so much of it in a system, so you have to make the most of it.

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Re:It's near performance already by evilpenguin · 2004-10-07 06:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

The 200w/sq. m is based on monocrystalline silicon PV. This is the cheapest but also almost the least efficient PV solution because the actual absorption is in the indirect bandgap energy of silicon.

There are thin-film PV solutions with much higher efficiencies (and much higher costs, and much higher toxicity involved in production). But there is also research going on on other semiconductor materials the hold out promise of high efficiency at fairly low cost. (I don't think we'll ever make thin films where there aren't some danged scary chemicals involved.)

Even so, your point is well made. Insolation is such that even if you could acheive 100% PV efficiency, you would still only have about 2kW/sq. meter.

Any realistic ground-based fuel production will require large arrays of PV. You'll need a lot of area to power your car.

But there are plenty of people powering their homes entirely off PV (entirely is a bit of stretch -- they use Propane or other combustion for a lot, including, often, for refrigeration).

People also have entirely solar charged electric cars, but again, they require a fairly large of field of PV panels. The real advantage here is that the efficiency of hydrogen as the energy storage is much greater than the efficiency of chemical batteries.

And, oh yeah, there are 100% solar powered cars right now that run on what they generate at the moment. But these are the cars in the American Solar Challenge which are a long way from practical household commuter cars.

But we have barely begun to put resources and research and capital into energy alternatives. I have always said that it wouldn't begin until oil prices went way up. I'm not even sure that we'll a lot of progress now. But I'm quite confident that the stability and price of oil will not steadily increase anymore. We're already seeing wind power become a fairly significant energy source. PV will follow. I think it will become common for homes to have grid-intertied solar power systems.

Alternative fuel cars are coming. Hybrids are just a first step. I don't know which technology will catch on, fuel cells or hydrogen combustion, but I'd bet we'll see petrochemical powered vehicles in the minority in my lifetime.
(I'm in my late 30's).
Re:It's near performance already by timster · 2004-10-07 06:07 · Score: 3, Informative

More specifically, the "water" state is a low-energy state (chemically speaking) whereas the "oxygen+hydrogen" state is a higher-energy state. Energy (from the sun) is used to break the bonds; since this a move from a low state to a high state it requires energy input. Then when the two are reacted together into the low energy state, the energy is released.

None of the energy that moves the car is energy that was in the water in the first place. The water/hydrogen conversion is actually just a way to store the solar energy.

--
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
Re:It's near performance already by KilobyteKnight · 2004-10-07 06:09 · Score: 3, Funny

The most GREEN thing we can do is stop emitting greenhouse gasses ("farts"), poop ("feces"), and consuming valuable resources by eating things.

Or we could capture and burn the farts and poop. Perhaps the turbo button could be shaped like a toilet flush lever.

Yes Ma'am, this car uses solar power to produce hydrogen. But it will also run on fossil fuels and feces. Notice the plush padding around the fecal collection bin in the drivers seat and the lighted mirror on the sun shade? Yes Ma'am, we do have one in brown.

--
When will Windows be ready for the desktop?
Re:It's near performance already by Cheeko · 2004-10-07 06:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

And its not those pesky automakers you have to worry about, a car sold is a car sold to them, whatever technology they have to put in it. Its the oil companies this guy would really have to watch out for. If he can mature the technology, GM or Ford would likely pay a nice sum for the rights to it, so that they can break into a market that the Japanese companies currently have a lock on. The Prius is in gigantic demand, and I'm sure the American companies wouldn't mind getting a piece of tha action.
Re:It's near performance already by AKAImBatman · 2004-10-07 06:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

The article also mentions if the hydrogen tanks are charged from an external source, it can go as far as a conventional vehicle.

I understood that perfectly.

The big deal here is it's capable of producing it's own hydrogen/fuel, even if only a little bit at a time.

Nothing new here. The idea has been considered many times, but rejected for its low energy yield. The project is cool, but it's not groundbreaking.

If fuel stations were set up to use larger solar arrays than would fit on a car, or even power from the grid, much more fuel could be produced.

That's a very good idea. That's why I believe I included it at the end of my original post.

If I'm not mistaken, the byproduct of hydrogen combustion is water, so assuming a closed system, it would theoretically have the capability/raw material to run for a good long time.

Assuming a closed system (your car), you'd run out of water sooner than you would have run out of gasoline. Hydrogen is less energy dense than petroleum.

So long as there's a source of electricity (solar, battery, generator on bike pedals), there's the potential to refuel itself.

Agreed. The problem everyone is trying to solve is, "where can we get a constant dozen or so kilowatts of power?"

or unpack a stationary bike and pedal for a while until you have enough hydrogen to get on your way

Perfectly feasible. Your body can sustain about 200 watts of constant output (sometimes a bit more if you're in good shape). That means you should be about to get about 10 minutes of drive time in only (10,000 j * 60 seconds * 10 minutes / 200 j/s = 30,000 seconds = 500 minutes = 8.3 hours). I suggest you walk.

Or how about using an alternator to continuously generate power as the vehicle is moving?

Where do you think the power is coming from to drive the alternator? Probably the engine. The engine is powered by hydrogen. The hydrogen contains X amount of power and no more.

I know it sounds like it would work on the outset, but you just described a perpetual motion machine. :-)

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Re:It's near performance already by jubei · 2004-10-07 06:21 · Score: 3, Interesting

Regarding cold weather and snow, I doubt this truck would work well. First, they generate hydrogen from water, which could easily freeze. Second, it is solar powered, and sunlight is much reduced in the winter.

If it is too dangerous to bike, it is probably too dangerous to drive also. Bikes can be fitted with studded tires that dig into the ice.

Also, if it is only a few miles a day, walking is an adequate substitute, in any temperature.

The best practical use I can see for this is hauling large amounts of goods short distances.
Re:It's near performance already by Xaroth · 2004-10-07 06:21 · Score: 5, Funny

I recommend all humans should hold their breath until they die and save the planet.

I could not agree more! Save the planet! Kill yourself!

http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/

--
That green slime had it coming.
Re:It's near performance already by AKAImBatman · 2004-10-07 06:27 · Score: 2, Informative

The 200w/sq. m is based on monocrystalline silicon PV.

Actually, I was speaking of 200w/m^2 before PV conversion. At 1au, the Earth receives about 1.3kw/m^2 in space. By passing through the atmosphere, most of that energy is lost.

The best you could do is ~1kw/m^2 somewhere near the equator.

With PV losses, your actual power produced will range from 40 watts/m^2 to an absolute maximum of 200 watts/m^2.

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Re:It's near performance already by termigan · 2004-10-07 06:36 · Score: 2, Interesting

Unfortunately sunshine is also hard to come by for those four months, so this truck will be stuck in the driveway because of an empty hydrogen tank, since this assumes there is no hydrogen infrastructure.

--
Today is all we really have. We should all live it well: it is our stepping stone to all of our tomorrows.
Re:It's near performance already by FLEB · 2004-10-07 06:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

But wouldn't the electrolyzing hydrogen car be cleaner than the petrol-powered carpool vehicle? Granted, it's marginal, taking into account the pollution generated by actually manufacturing the car, but for many usage patterns, I'd imagine things would work out in favor of the solar/hydrogen.

--
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
Re:It's near performance already by AKAImBatman · 2004-10-07 06:57 · Score: 2, Informative

You don't drive a car 100% of the time.

Correct.

The Solar panels would be potentially working around the clock (Very little at night)

Sort of correct. They'll produce only a trickle of power in the morning and evening, with their maximum output around noon time. At night the amount of power they produce is too small to measure.

And even some on a cloudy day.

Correct.

If you had a Cell capable of storing X energy + the time running the car and the hydrogen/water conversion would it not be possible in a period of driving lets say 1hr to run the car every day of the week at full potential?

Well, if you read my post, you'd know you'll probably get an average of about 36 seconds of drive time per hour. Since one hour is 3,600 seconds of drive time, you'd need about 100 hours of charge time for every hour you drive.

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Re:It's near performance already by sl3xd · 2004-10-07 07:21 · Score: 4, Interesting

You don't seem to get the point: You can't electrolyze that much hydrogen from the sun; or more accurately, from the amount you would be able to get from the surface area of the vehicle. It would require the vehicle, sitting in the sun for DAYS to be able to generate enough hydrogen to go a few miles to work.

Hydrogen powered cars aren't that new of an idea, really -- it's simply a case of the percieved 'safety' of having hydrogen in a vehicle. Most people remember something about the Hindenberg exploding, and know it was filled with hydrogen. Nevermind the blimp was coated with aluminum oxide -- one of the oxidizers in the Shuttle's Rocket Boosters, and a key ingredient for Thermite. So there is this irrational 'fear' of hydrogen when compared to gasoline. That irrational fear is one of the largest hurdles to hydrogen powered cars. The other is getting the hydrogen (solar power->hydrogen is much less cost effective than wind turbine->hydrogen.)

A far more practical idea is to have a regular fuel tank holding Hydrogen, and then have your home covered with solar cells to convert water to hydrogen (and oxygen). Even BETTER is to have gas stations that provide Hydrogen, and use electrical sources like wind to provide energy for electolysis. (This is the idea that most engineers are following. Photovoltaic->Hydrogen generation is simply too inefficient, and MUCH more expensive.)

The electrolyzing equipment (as well as photovoltaics, etc.) adds unnecessary weight, bulk, and complexity to the vehicle, greatly reducing the efficiency and reliability of the vehicle.

It's sorta like the Unix mantra: Lots of little tools that are very good at their single job -- not a huge app that combines them all. You don't want to put unnecessary equipment on the car -- putting the fuel generating source ON the vehicle makes about as much sense as putting a machine shop inside the vehicle. Sure, you can make replacement parts 'on the spot', but it sure is a waste when you're driving.

Believe it or not, this is also true when driving the vehicle with electrolyzing equipment onboard -- the amount of H2 it generates at any given moment is inconsequential to the amount burned. It's certainly not enough to extend the operating time by more than a few seconds on the average daily commute.

--
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
Re:It's near performance already by NanoGator · 2004-10-07 07:35 · Score: 3, Informative

"It seems to me that someone who lives in a tightly knit community and only drives a few miles to work and school should invest in a bicycle.'

It's easy to oversimplify this down to 'get a bike', but there are a couple of things to consider.

1.) It adds a significant amount of time to your job. One can spend 10 minutes driving, or half an hour riding. That does't include the time it takes to change clothes, assuming you work up a sweat. A coworker friend of mine used to ride to work, and he mentioned he had to leave an hour before work. Dunno if that's true in every case, but it is a significant amount of time lost. I never asked him about it, but he stopped using his bike to go to work shortly after his child was born.

2.) Who's to say that their course home is safe after dark? I'm thinking about my current job. I don't think I'd be in danger of being mugged or anything, but there is a long dark road with a 50 mph limit. I think I could reroute, but it'd be at a significant distnace cost. I'm sure others would have similar concerns.

My point? I'm not saying you're wrong. However, I do hope you'll consider that one needs to meet more than a couple of conditions to consider switching to a bike to get to work. Mass transit is a much broader option.

--
"Derp de derp."
Re:It's near performance already by Infinite93 · 2004-10-07 07:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

far more practical idea is to have a regular fuel tank holding Hydrogen, and then have your home covered with solar cells to convert water to hydrogen (and oxygen). Even BETTER is to have gas stations that provide Hydrogen, and use electrical sources like wind to provide energy for electolysis. (This is the idea that most engineers are following. Photovoltaic->Hydrogen generation is simply too inefficient, and MUCH more expensive.)
That is why the project plan for next year includes setting up the school with PV for a 'fueling station'. They can get 70 miles with high compression on the tanks.
I agree that this does not seem a path to a viable final form. It is a proof of concept for the general idea (and a cool class project--we never did anything that cool in high school). This is the kind of imaginative thinking we need to promote in our kids. Even they said it not practical, but there are lessons learned and imaginations are brewing.
Re:It's near performance already by daviddennis · 2004-10-07 08:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

What's the point of being so rude to this nice fellow?

The odds are pretty good that in a town of 600, there aren't two people who want to go to exactly the same place at the same time. And as long as that's the case, a bus or carpool simply won't work.

I'm in a large urban area and there STILL aren't two people who do anywhere near the exact same commute as I do. And often I want to shop or run errands on the way to work and back. Carpools don't work well if you like flexibility.

You can be as anti-car as you want, I suppose, but it in terms of time, it's still by far the most efficient way to go around. And if you can eliminate the ecological impact of driving, why not do it instead of wasting away your life at bus stops or waiting to be picked up or dropped off?

D

PS Note that traffic congestion is not a problem in a rural community of 600. It's not a problem in Los Angeles, either, if you simply live close to where you work, as I do. I have a trouble-free 10 minute commute.
Re:It's near performance already by gordyf · 2004-10-07 08:08 · Score: 2, Informative

aluminum oxide ... a key ingredient for Thermite
Nope.
Re:It's near performance already by gstoddart · 2004-10-07 09:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

Nah, it's not that bad. People in northern climes ride year round too. Good sites for ideas include icebike and bikewinter. Also I wrote up some suggestions on riding in winter.

Most definitely. I live in Ottawa Canada, which is recognized as the second coldest national capital. Believe me, in the deepest darkest coldest parts of winter there are die-hards still commuting to work with studded tires and good storm gear.

Never underestimate what the die-hard group of cyclists will do. Once in the middle of a blizzard I rolled down my window at a stop light and expressed my awe to a rider I'd seen every single day for months -- this man was out in -20C weather with fresh snow falling, and he was completely unphased by it.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:It's near performance already by Dyolf+Knip · 2004-10-07 10:35 · Score: 3, Informative

Got a link? Because every single Google result I checked, and I do mean every single one, turned up a skin coated in aluminum powder and iron oxide with poor conducting cables grounding it. Which _is_ thermite, and is a disaster waiting to happen. They actually tested it with an old piece of the skin, and with no H2 at all; it ignited instantly. Records research in Germany yielded reports from experiments done by Zeppelin Company engineers that showed that the skin, under the right circumstances, was a firebomb.
So please, enlighten us as to how the fact that the Hindenburg was painted with thermite and electrically bonded with poor conductors which would have caused a high-energy discharge during an electrical storm (and there was one) constitutes a myth.

--
Dyolf Knip
Re:It's near performance already by Dyolf+Knip · 2004-10-07 10:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

Minor nitpick. Aluminum Oxide is an output from the thermite combustion reaction. The inputs are iron oxide and aluminum. The outputs are aluminum oxide and iron and a whole whole mess of energy.

--
Dyolf Knip
Re:It's near performance already by cnaumann · 2004-10-07 14:03 · Score: 3, Interesting

Auminum oxide is not used in thermite nor in the space shuttle booster. Thermite is Iron Oxide (Fe2o3) and Aluminum powder. The Shuttle Booster uses Ammonium Perchlorate as an oxidizer and Aluminum for fuel.

People are not afriad of hydrogen because of the Hindenberg any more than they are afraid of gasoline because of the world trade center. Hydrogen is not used as a motor fuel because it is expensive to make and difficult to store. My fears of a hydrogen powered car have to do with storing a gas at 10,000 psi. Even an inert gas would be dangerous at the kind of pressures required to get hydrogen to a useful energy density.

Conflict of interest? by SIGALRM · 2004-10-07 05:31 · Score: 4, Interesting

Built for less than $10,000, the project has caught the attention of experts in alternative-fuel research

I find it curious that the commercial fuel/automotive manufacturing sector can't (or maybe won't) make significant, transparent headway in the arena of alternative fuels and vehicles. No conflict of interest, is there? Couldn't be that they already have made advancements, but have kept their R&D under wraps.</sarcasm>

Recycling fuel is anathema to the petroleum industry--BP commercials ("it's a start") aside.

--
Sigs cause cancer.

Re:Conflict of interest? by antifoidulus · 2004-10-07 05:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

Well, one caveat of private research, you only hear about their successes, never their failures. For instance, for a university, a truck that goes a few miles is quite an accomplishment, but could you imagine the PR disaster if Ford unveiling something like this?
Not saying you are wrong, I agree that private sector research and development has lagged for a long time(well, ever since the term ROI became a buzzword really, everyone is focused on short term) but I don't think it's fair to say they are doing nothing, they just don't publicize as much as universities do.

--
Monstar L
Re:Conflict of interest? by flabbergast · 2004-10-07 05:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

What about FutureTruck? Or the GM HyWire? How is it a conflict of interest for auto manufacturers to build fuel cell/diesel/hybrid vehicles?
Yes, their project was built for I think this is a step forward but to sit there and claim that there's some kind of conspiracy is laughable. To produce a viable alternative to the combustion engine takes time. It took us over 100 years to get engines that last 100K miles, while at the same time get 30 miles to the gallon, and go 0-60 in around 7 seconds (2004 Honda Accord V6) while at the same time have enough space to seat 5, and put all their stuff in the trunk. And that's what people expect; go around 300 miles before fillups, be able to carry all their stuff and not worry about their engine breaking down on them. That's why we're seeing hybrid technology first so we can build on top of proven technology.
Re:Conflict of interest? by LWATCDR · 2004-10-07 06:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

"I find it curious that the commercial fuel/automotive manufacturing sector can't (or maybe won't) make significant, transparent headway in the arena of alternative fuels and vehicles."

That is because it is hard. Liquid fossil fuels do have a lot of advantages over every alternative fuel so far.
1. Cost. It is a lot cheaper than any of the alternative right now.
2. Power to weight. It beats the daylights out of batteries. Try and build a car that will go 200+ miles on a charge. It is easy to with gasoline.
3. Density. You can pack more energy in a smaller volume than Hydrogen, Natural Gas, or Propane.
4. Ease of use. It is a lot quicker to just fill your tank than to charge an electric car. It is a lot simpler to pump gas into your tank than to refuel a tank of Hydrogen.
5. Infrastructure. When is the last time you say a hydrogen station?

Bio DieselD is the best alternative fuel right now but then you have the moral issue of is it right to use that land for fuel instead of feeding people?
Frankly the first car company that makes a car that does not use fossil fuel but works as well as gas car they will make a mint.
The idea that all the auto makers in the world are including Japan "Japan has to import 100% of its fuel" are keeping a workable alternative powered care a secret is well into the realm of the tin foil hat crowd.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:Conflict of interest? by plover · 2004-10-07 06:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

It really bothers me to find people believing that the car companies aren't already researching this already. For example, Daimler-Benz (now Daimler-Chrysler) has been working on a hydrogen powered fuel cell car for over 10 years. I'm going to focus my argument on fuel cells because I'm most familiar with that topic, but most of the argument remains true regardless of the technology that the alternative fuel drives.
Daimler's first fuel cell vehicle started as basically a large mobile laboratory in the back of a panel van (even larger than this school's truck.) They then installed one in a bus, and another in a minivan, and they now have one in a car the size of a Cooper Mini.
The problem isn't getting a vehicle like this on the road. The problem isn't even getting a fleet of them deployed to a single commercial customer (like a bus transit line.) The problems they're encountering now is scaling the entire transportation system so that Joe Sixpack can afford to buy one, drive it home, and fill it up every week.
The most efficient fuel for fuel cell (electric) cars is raw hydrogen. Compressed hydrogen would require an entire new infrastructure to deliver, and would be probably the most hazardous product ever sold to consumers. Liquid hydrogen would be even worse, because of the dangers inherent in delivering tanks of products at 3 degrees Kelvin. So, because of the fuel delivery problems one of the first compromises they had to make was to figure out how to fuel these vehicles with easily delivered, stable-at-room-temperature liquids, instead of compressed gasses. That took time and research. The next problem is that the catalyst required to crack the liquids into raw hydrogen is based on rare precious metals like platinum. Besides taking enough metal to make these engines prohibitively expensive, there simply isn't enough of it on earth to build the number of vehicles that a big car maker like Chevrolet builds every year. So, they've had to experiment with different ways to get the liquid fuels cracked into the base hydrogen.
The vehicle these kids built only cost $10,000, but much of the expense (solar panels) was donated. And it still won't scale, because the solar panels are already operating at something like 30% of their theoretical output. Making a vehicle go from 3 miles per day to 10 miles per day still isn't going to sell.
And despite the best conspiracy theorists determinations, it is far and away in the best interests of a car company to be the first to market selling a truly revolutionary fueled car. Think about what would happen to Ford's stock price if they announced a "sunlight and water powered car" were available. It would truly be a license to print money. The petroleum companies could offer no bribe in the world big enough to slow down a cash cow of that magnitude.

--
John
Re:Conflict of interest? by plover · 2004-10-07 13:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

You can keep thinking your conspiracy theories, but your own argument shows the problems a car maker would have trying to sell a system like this. When you buy one of your H2 cars, it will have to come with a home installation kit. It's a refrigerator sized box that lives in your garage. Now, you get to drive no more than 30 minutes in one direction, because there's no filling station at your destination. Don't get caught in traffic on the way home, either.
If you opt for the solar version, it comes with 90 square feet of panels. Current "cheapo" prices for solar panels are $3.69 per watt. A car uses something like 10kwh of energy per hour. To provide you with enough energy to drive constantly powered from the sunlight, they'll cost you about $36,900, plus installation. Want to drop that to your $5000 limit? It'll take over 7 hours of direct sunlight to generate enough hydrogen for that one hour of driving.
Ok, so maybe solar isn't the way to go for a home installer. Let's just plug it into the wall and buy cheap electricity for our converter. Do you want a hydrogen compressor running in your garage unattended, and a tank of compressed hydrogen on hand? Remember, hydrogen is very, very tiny and it leaks from machinery rapidly. So, now you have to install adequate vents in your garage to ensure you don't blow up the next time you start your car.
Sounding good or insurable yet? It gets worse.
This science project completely side-stepped another difficult problem that you raise: how do you engineer a completely safe compressed hydrogen gas fuel transfer system? How do you keep tramp air out of the connectors, and ensure there can be NO sparks? Today, most compressed gasses are handled by trained professionals. They understand the risks, they follow proper grounding procedures, they don't accidentally smoke while they transfer the gasses. Small consumer quantities of things like propane are readily dealt with, but even then does the service station let you fill your own propane tanks? Probably not -- in this state at least, only the station operators can refill tanks. And liquid pressurized gas is still easier and safer to deal with than a compressed explosive gas.
OK, so maybe we take a lesson from these kids and leave the hydrogen generator on board the car, and just plug the whole car into a wall outlet when we get to our destination. Infrastructure solved -- anybody can hang an outlet. Assuming the hydrogen splitter can be built small enough, a 15 amp circuit will still take six hours to deliver 10kwh, enough energy for one hour of driving. That's sounding much closer to practical, but it still retains a lot of the problems and risks associated with storing and handling raw compressed hydrogen (even in the closed system.) It's not a vehicle you would park indoors, for example. And the other problem most engineers have with compressed gas fuels is: how do you protect the occupants from it in a crash? The tanks have to be crashworthy in all manner of collisions, and not just have a 35 MPH front impact resistance warranty.
The auto makers reduced their efforts to use raw hydrogen as a direct-to-consumer fuel many years ago for all these reasons. They certainly could pick it up again at any time, but for now they're still focusing on direct liquid fuel-cells as a safer alternative. The infrastructure already exists to deliver liquid fuels, and the handling risks are much, much lower. Remember, the water is not the fuel in this truck, it's merely an extremely convenient storage mechanism. External fuel still is required to split it.

--
John

i want one! by Narcocide · 2004-10-07 05:31 · Score: 4, Funny

can i get mine with hoverlift?

Brilliant idiots... by Duncan3 · 2004-10-07 05:33 · Score: 2, Informative

Solar power woohoo... lets put it on a vehicle that weighs as much as a small house!

Brilliant!

--
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/

Re:Brilliant idiots... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-07 05:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

What the bloody hell are you talking about? A Chevy S-10 is NOT a terribly heavy truck.

They are cheap...can be had with an economical 4 cylinder, they are easily modifiable, and have a reasonable sized bed to put crazy things like...solar cells...and hydrogen generators. You know...for doing what it does. And stuff.

What would you prefer for this application, O wise engineer?
Re:Brilliant idiots... by bshroyer · 2004-10-07 06:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

Actually, I think that this was a smart move. Want to get the average gas-guzzling American interested in alternative sources of energy? Which is a more effective illustration: a nearly transparent, one-passenger 50-pound "car" that my poodle could pull, or a '98 S10 running on sunlight and water?

I'd say that the choice of the S10 was deliberate, and absolutely brilliant.

--
The cure for cancer is coming: Reovirus

Text of project description page by greg_barton · 2004-10-07 05:34 · Score: 5, Informative

From http://centralphysics.com/discuss.htm before it was slashdotted...

History

Since the Mid 1990's Central High School in Phoenix has been involved in Alternative Fuel Vehicles. Originally the club was called "The Electric Vehicle Club" and we built and raced an electric car. Over the last 10 years our interests have broadened to many areas of environmental technologies and thus we are now the E-tech Club.

During the 2000-2001 school year, Senior Laci Blackford, president of our club (then the electric vehicle club) proposed that we design and build a hydrogen vehicle. Laci began research and some electrolysis design that year. Over the next 3 years several students were involved, but it was club president Soroush Farzin who, with Sponsor Mr. Waxman, coordinated the progress and turned Laci's idea into reality!

This project, to make a cleaner transportation vehicle, was motivated by the threats to our health and environment due to automobile-related pollutants. The hypothesis was that a vehicle can be powered by water and sunlight. The ultimate goal of this four-year project was to design and build a vehicle powered by hydrogen, which is generated on the vehicle from water and sunlight. The basic components of this include electrolysis cells, solar panels, a hydrogen purifying system and a storage system, all of which are mounted on a vehicle with an internal combustion engine that has been modified to run on hydrogen.

In fall 2001, we began by building a 5-watt solar-hydrogen unit and researching many safety issues associated with this technology. During the 2002-2003 school year, a 4-cell solar-hydrogen producing unit with over 320 watts of power and a purifying system were built.

In school year 2003-2004 an entirely new electrolysis unit was assembled, various components such as float valves were designed, built and tested. A storage system was also designed and tested. Ultimately, a 1998 Chevy S-10 pickup truck was purchase and modified to run on hydrogen. The solar-hydrogen system was mounted on the truck and the first vehicle in the world to run on sunlight and water was working.

Conclusion

Solar-Hydrogen Transportation Vehicle was motivated by threats to our health and environment. It was planned to build a self-sufficient vehicle that was powered by a renewable source of energy, hydrogen. This three-year project proved that a vehicle can be engineered so that it is capable of creating its own fuel by using water and sunlight, which are literally free.

This project proves that it is possible for a vehicle to produce its own fuel from sunlight and water. A Solar-Hydrogen Producing Unit has been made, which is capable of producing, purifying, pressurizing and storing hydrogen. Also, a vehicle has been converted to run on hydrogen, which is capable of doing whatever a regular vehicle can do. This project gathered known technologies and put them together to make a new field of technology.

The members of this project understand that this vehicle is not the ultimate solution to conventional gasoline-powered cars, but if it is shown that a car can run on water and sunlight, improvements may eventually lead to a practical alternative to fossil fuel powered vehicles.

The first air plane flew a few feet before it landed. Today, airplanes fly between continents. This is the example the club has kept in mind throughout the whole project.

Note: Soroush has moved onto studying mechanical engineering at Arizona State University and is interested in high performance engines. Laci is in her final year of her undergraduate program in mechanical engineering at Cooper Union College in New York City. She has continued her research in hydrogen production as well as storage in metal hydrides.

Showing my ignorance by Dark+Paladin · 2004-10-07 05:35 · Score: 2, Interesting

One of the questions I've seen regarding hydrogen is "OK, less pollution - but how are we going to get the hydrogen without using up even more energy?"

I keep wondering why solar can't provide some of this. Build a series of solar panels, collect water (say from a local river), break down the water into H2+O, let the latter out into the air and keep the former for fuel.

Is solar not strong enough/inconsistent enough for such an endeavor? Sure, you'd need a large area with a local water supply (again, a river might be nice), and probably a backup generator for when there wasn't enough sunlight, but overall you'd probably have a very efficient and low-pollution system.

Though perhaps there are engineering issues I'm not aware of. Any energy geeks out there want to help me out?

--
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel

Re:Showing my ignorance by gatzke · 2004-10-07 05:48 · Score: 2, Informative

Solar / Wind / nuclear are effectively clean energy production, no CO2 emmissions and good almost indefinitely.

You really need to look at overall efficiency. If you use solar to make electricity, then use that electricity for hydrolosys making H2, then use that in a fuel cell, is that more or less efficient than just charging a battery. From what I hear, you have less loss, more energy density, and lower cost using batteries right now.

Supposedly, making H2 from H20 and electricty is around 50% efficient. The fuel cell adds another loss, so you get maybe 25% of your electricy you managed to collect to the motor.

There is no clear cut solution, but there are many options and many things one must consider when looking into these problems.
Re:Showing my ignorance by jubei · 2004-10-07 06:40 · Score: 2, Informative

Actually, hydrogen is so small that it leaks out of pretty much any container.

Whoop! Whoop! Whoop! by ackthpt · 2004-10-07 05:35 · Score: 4, Funny

The truck is hydrogen-powered and creates its own fuel from solar energy and water

National Security Risk in Sector 14 "Come along with us sir" "What have I done?!?!?" "You're charged with subverting US foreign policy, energy policy and corrupting minors. President Cheney is most displeased."

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar

Re:Whoop! Whoop! Whoop! by MonkeyGone2Heaven · 2004-10-07 06:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

No, I'm pretty sure the parent meant President Cheney refering to the popular view that Dick Cheney is to George Bush as Frank Oz is to Kermit the Frog; i.e., the guy with his hand up George's ass making him say what he does.

Why convert electricity to H by drgonzo59 · 2004-10-07 05:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

Doesn't it make sense to just run a small electric motor with, wich would make the vehicle weigh much less. I guess this would work only if they plan this to be an add-on modules to the already existing hydrogen cars.

Re:Why convert electricity to H by AnonymousNoMore · 2004-10-07 05:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

There is no way that the current fleet of vehicles will be discarded in favor of electric cars. Conversion of the conventional fleet to hydrogen power will allow a transition to alternate fuels.
Re:Why convert electricity to H by drinkypoo · 2004-10-07 05:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

The answer is pretty obvious, you need some way to store that power. This sort of thing would be most useful for a farm truck that went to market once a week. Over the week it can be sitting still, maybe making a few trips around the farm to drop off hay bales or something, and then at the end of the week it can be driven into town to the farmer's market. Hydrogen is the most efficient method of storing that power simply because batteries are heavy and wear out. Plus, you can retrofit almost any existing gasoline engine to run hydrogen by installing an injection system that will support it, and raising the vehicle's compression, possibly through a supercharger.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Why convert electricity to H by somethinghollow · 2004-10-07 05:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

It would also make more sense to fabricate a lighter vehicle rather than use an existing (heavy) platform. The lighter the vehicle, the less energy it would take to move it. I was thinking, perhaps, a carbon fiber and aluminum body. But, then the 10 grand figure would increase (but it would probably be worth it as far as bragging rights are concerned).

Hydrogen to Methane Converter? by justanyone · 2004-10-07 05:40 · Score: 5, Interesting

It seems to me the thing we need is a hydrogen to methane (natural gas) converter.

The widely acknowledged problem with hydrogen is the storage density stinks. The tank is too big and too pressurized for safety, size, and weight concerns.

This vehicle, and many other applications, would be well suited to having a hydrogen to methane converter. Many existing fleets use natural gas in their ONLY SLIGHTLY MODIFIED internal combustion engines.

Methane is CH4, a fairly simple molecule; could we come up with a carbon source to use here? Ethane is C2H6, etc.

Likewise, there are Nitrogen compounds to use. Can someone in chemical engineering comment on the possiblities here of creating more energy-dense storage using some kind of catalyst and raw H or H2 hydrogen?

--
Unitarian Church: Freethinkers Congregate!

Re:Hydrogen to Methane Converter? by kognate · 2004-10-07 05:53 · Score: 3, Informative

This has been studied at length. the Mars direct people even built a machine to do it.

The paper, called:

Mars In-Situ Resource Utilization Based on the Reverse Water Gas Shift: Experiments and Mission Applications

can be found at: http://www.nw.net/mars/

And you're right, the density does suck. Another problem with this truck is wrapped up in the same reason trees don't run down antelopes. The sun is a great power source, but it's just not enough for some applications.
Re:Hydrogen to Methane Converter? by gollum123 · 2004-10-07 05:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

The problem with methane is that it will still produse CO2 which is a green house gas, and in any new form of fuel we will want to get rid of any green house gas emissions. This is the biggest reason to switch to H2 as it only produces water on burning. The storage density of H2 is bad if u store it as a gas or liquid. Its only when you start storing h2 adsorbed on some materials that the density will be practical enough for applications. Lots of work is going on in this area of adsorbing h2.
Re:Hydrogen to Methane Converter? by roman_mir · 2004-10-07 06:05 · Score: 2, Funny

Obviously now we have to produce a car that uses cows for its fuel. There are various methods of doing that, the cows can be pulling the car for example.

Other methods include chopping the cows into small pieces, drying out those pieces, then placing them all over the car. Surely someone will move the car, noone wants to see that.

Some of those crazy farmer folks would say - why not use a bus? I don't know, I never thought of planting grass on busses roofs before, but now to think about it. We will need a method of putting the cow on the roof of the bus. Once it's there plugging a tube up the cows ass is just a small technical problem.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re: Hydrogen to Methane Converter? by gidds · 2004-10-07 06:13 · Score: 2, Informative

Just on the off-chance that you were being at all serious, you should know that methane itself doesn't stink -- it has no odour at all. That's why gas companies have to add in a separate chemical to make it smell. If you associate a smell with methane, it's probably the trace organic chemicals, especially the sulphur-containing ones, that are also produced when digesting food...

--
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.

nice, but where can you fill it up? by lawngnome · 2004-10-07 05:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

While I agree this is a nice step in the right direction - until we can get cars that 100% fuel themselves (not likely to happen) or can fill up with hydrogen/whatever at the local corner - I fail to see how these will get mass market appeal.

why not just connect to the power grid? by DunbarTheInept · 2004-10-07 05:42 · Score: 3, Interesting

As to the idea of having a solar-powered 'gas station' for the hydrogen recharging, why bother doing the solar collecting at the gas station? Wouldn't it be a lot more practical to just hook up to the electrical power grid, and then let the power company run a large farm of solar panels. That's pretty much the main reason electricity is such a useful form of energy - you can put the machinery that produces it quite far from the consumer that uses it, and thereby consolodate the energy production into a few places. And if you're concerned about the environment, keep in mind that checking for pollution at a small number of large facilities works better than checking for the sum of all pollution made by each individual's own usage.

--

Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

True but now chance a few things by SmallFurryCreature · 2004-10-07 05:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

Make the car a not so asshole american version removing at least 2 tons from the weight to be moved. Now put the solar panels on the roof of the house as well as the other equipment saving yet more weight and space plus gaining a lot of area for solar panels.

So what you got? Free fuel when you park the car at your house. Will enough be generated? Well depending on the money and eviromental cost of the setup it might make a difference not just because of less fuel consumed but also in less fuel consumed getting the fuel to you.

A few miles isn't that impressive yet but if you can save a few liters of bought fuel per day it might start to add up.

--

MMO Quests are like orgasms:

You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

Re:True but now chance a few things by Rei · 2004-10-07 06:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

Part of the problem with this is thus:

Best (expensive!) solar cells on the market available for the average person efficiency: ~25%
Best electrolysis conversion efficiency: ~80%
Best fuel cell efficiency: ~70%
Best overall net efficiency: ~14%

Note that this doesn't factor in important things like compressing the hydrogen into tanks. I'd imagine you'd probably lose another 20% or so of your energy in that process.

Combine this with the low energy input imparted by the sun to an area the size of a car's roof, and there's not much going for this plan. Having an unfoldable sun-umbrella might make it slightly more realistic, but not very.

Even when you get your hydrogen from oil, you get a well-to-wheel efficiency of about 58%, vs. 88% for normal and hybrid cars. And you still need regenerative braking and the other hybrid improvements if you care about energy efficiency, which means that you still need the batteries (electrolysis isn't that fast!).

All in all: good motive, dumb concept. If they wanted a more realistic approach, they'd solar cells on the house hooked up to batteries in the vehicle (battieries have notably higher charge/discharge efficiency, and are less likely to explode... lower energy density, of course, but higher power density).

--
"She was out of her depth in a shallow pool." -- Peggy Noonan on Sarah Palin

Not hydrogen powered by rumblin'rabbit · 2004-10-07 05:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

This is not a hydrogen-powered truck - it's a solar-powered truck. The hydrogen is just a way of internally storing and transmitting the energy.

Presumably they could also have used batteries and an electric motor rather than hydrogen and an engine.

I only bring this up because I find it annoying when people refer to hydrogen as an energy source.

Re:Not hydrogen powered by data1 · 2004-10-07 06:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

By your convention, all current internal combusion vehicles are solar powered. The fuels we burn(gasoline, methane, diesel, kerosine) all come from crude oil which was created from plants that got their energy from the sun millions of years ago.

Just stating the obvious here but your point is a moot one since you imply (however correctly) that oil is just the sotrage medium for the energy from the sun.
Re:Not hydrogen powered by Single+GNU+Theory · 2004-10-07 06:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

This is not a solar-powered truck, this is a fusion-powered truck. The light energy is just a way of transmitting the power from the fusion source kept at a safe distance.

Presumably, they could have run a wire to the sun's magnetic field to induce a current rather than use batteries.

I only mention this because I find it annoying when people don't refer to the last step in the process as the energy source.

It's a hydrogen-powered truck. The solar plant is a nifty method of obtaining hydrogen to combust in the engine. By using a regular internal combustion engine, they offer fuel flexibility as the truck can also be powered by petroleum (it's gasoline-powered now!) and maintainability (you can get your spark plugs at Pep Boys).

--
Little Debian: America's #1 Snack Distro!

No performance comparison to batteries by Engineer-Poet · 2004-10-07 05:44 · Score: 5, Informative

And it makes you wonder. When you've got a very limited amount of power input, you want to get it to your load (the axle) as efficiently as possible. Is electrolysis and an internal-combustion engine even remotely competitive with batteries for that purpose?

From what I've seen, the answer is no (electrolyzer @ ~70%, engine @ 25%, overall efficiency ~18%; batteries ~70%). It appears that you could get 4x as much range out of a solar-battery system, even more than you can get out of an electrolysis/fuel cell cycle.

--

Sustainability and energy independence essay

Well... by BigChigger · 2004-10-07 05:45 · Score: 5, Funny

it still uses water. That's as scarce as gas in Arizona.

BC

Re:Well... by debrain · 2004-10-07 07:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

it still uses water. That's as scarce as gas in Arizona.

Interestingly and scarily enough, (clean) water is a lot more expensive than gas. It's what, $1 for an 8 oz bottle, versus $1 for a gallon of gas?

The developing world is interesting because they still have no notion of paying for drinking water, for better or worse.

Mod parent up read below by Brigadier · 2004-10-07 05:45 · Score: 4, Informative

Going directly from electricity to mechanical energy is much more effcient that using electricity to liberate hydrogen, then using the chemical energy from the hydrogen to creat mechanical energy. in the latter process a significant amount of energy is lost to heat and a very mechanically in-effcient system (52% See link below.) also solar panels are only about 22% effecient as is. So all in all this makes a cool science experiment for the kids but it isn't proactical by any means.

http://ecen.com/content/eee7/motoref.htm
http:/ /www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/vss/docs/ Power/2-how-efficient-are-solar-panels.html

Cool by roman_mir · 2004-10-07 05:45 · Score: 3, Funny

And at night, they can use a lamp connected to the battery to power the solar panels on top of the car.

Sure it would look strange, a car with a lamp mounted on the roof to shine down towards the roof surface, but think of the possibilities, we may never have to stop for gas ever again! :>

--
You can't handle the truth.

Not sustainable? by Control+Group · 2004-10-07 05:46 · Score: 2, Informative

Someone correct my figures if I'm off, but according to my scratch calculations, this isn't theoretically sustainable without major advances in engine efficiency. Given 3.3 kWh/m^2 (which is average solar radiation in Seattle, according to here), and assuming your average car is about 5m x 2m (rough numbers, recall), it looks like you've got 49.5 kWh to play with.

Then, given 125,ooo BTU/gallon of gasoline, and around 3400 BTU/kWh (from here), you're looking at 37 kWh/gallon of gasoline. No current gasoline-engine car I know of burns less than 1.3 gallons per hour under any normal driving conditions.

Now, obviously, Seattle is the worst-case location in the continental US, but even in the best location (AZ, at 5.7 kWh/m^2), you've got to have a car which burns less than 2.3 gallons per hour. The more fuel-efficient of modern cars hit this pretty well, but I don't think the average is near that.

Or am I making some gross, embarassing error in my figuring?

--

Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...

Re:Not sustainable? by lpangelrob2 · 2004-10-07 06:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

We may be able to use existing hybrid/electric engines to get more out of our 1-2 gallons. A Prius rates 60/55, while a Civic Hybrid rate 48/47 (city MPG/highway MPG). So if we're talking 100% effeciency in getting those watts into our engine, you can go 47 to 110 miles in an hour. Not optimal for highway driving for sure, but then consider my normal day.
I drive 8 miles to work in the morning, and 8 miles home in the afternoon. I might go 5 miles out of my way to go to church. If I schedule my grocery shopping, that's only 2 miles down the road. Suburbanite living sounds like a fine application for such a vehicle.
I'll probably stick with my 27 MPG CR-V for as long as I can have it for longer days, but the above consists of about 75% of my miles during a given week.

--
-Rob
Marriage doesn't have to suck!
Re:Not sustainable? by Control+Group · 2004-10-07 06:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

True, but that's because I'm trying to recognize the fact that for an alternative-energy vehicle to gain mass adoption, it has to perform at least as well as current gasoline-engine vehicles.
One of the advantages of current cars is that it can be run essentially indefinitely, only stopping once every ~5 hours, and then only for ~5 minutes.
The other problem is that the most common and significant period of "down time" for the car is when it's parked overnight, which is also exactly when parking it doesn't help at all.
No matter how rationally compelling a system such as this would be for the common driving habits of almost everyone (drive to work, park the car for ~9 hours, drive home, park the car for ~12 hours), very few people will buy a car that they can't just get in and drive to a different state (never mind that they haven't done that with their gasoline-engine cars in two decades).
So yes, your point is well-taken. But I think that's how you have to look at alternative-energy cars, if you seriously want them adopted into the marketplace.
OTOH, perhaps I'm overly pessimistic.
(In either case, though, you're right insofar as I should have stated that assumption. Sorry about that)

--

Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...

Duh! the answer is obvious by 955301 · 2004-10-07 05:47 · Score: 4, Funny

Just have a group of other cars follow it around with mirrors pointing more light on the solar panels.

Problem solved.

--
You are checking your backups, aren't you?

Re:Duh! the answer is obvious by Jeremi · 2004-10-07 07:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

Excellent idea! :^) But perhaps a slightly more realistic solution would be to have the solar panels mounted on your roof or in your yard, where there is more surface area available. They could generate hydrogen all day, and when you got home in the evening you could transfer it to your car.

Combine that with advances in solar panel efficiency (both in terms of watts per square meter and watts per dollar) efficient automobile designs (so that less hydrogen is necessary), commercial renewable hydrogen generation (roof not producing enough hydrogen? Supplement your supply with an extra bottle from the solar/wind far across town), and we might have something...

--

I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Re:Duh! the answer is obvious by value_added · 2004-10-07 08:02 · Score: 2, Funny

"Just have a group of other cars follow it around with mirrors pointing more light on the solar panels."

Why? Just sleep in the shade until it's sunny enough, and/or you think you're recharged.

Learned that from my dog -- he can't drive worth a shit (I think the wind speed affects either his vision or concentration when his head out the window), but he does has a firm grasp of energy states.

who remembers by pair-a-noyd · 2004-10-07 05:48 · Score: 2, Informative

that movie about 10 years ago named "The Water Engine" where some guy in the 30's invented an engine that ran on water and some shyster lawyers screwed him around and stole his invention then he ended up dead.

hmmmm...

The electrolysis equipment is the interesting part by drinkypoo · 2004-10-07 05:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

At least, to me. Why have this stuff installed on the vehicle at all? All you're accomplishing is adding weight to the vehicle and limiting the maximum size of your solar array. Doesn't it make more sense to install the solar panels on the roof of your dwelling and put the electrolysis equipment in the back yard?

Does anyone have complete information on building one's own electrolysers, from disassociation to storage? I really don't want to figure it out myself, I just want to build something.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Why detroit avoids H2 by SirLanse · 2004-10-07 05:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

Detroit sees large H2 gas stations as a hazard. They see cars with H2 tanks as a hazard. This avoids the gas stations. How about plugging this in at the house to run the electrolyzer? Or set up a solar panel at the house and fill the tank at night? Keep the regular fuel option for long trips, but use H2 around town. Very much like the hybrids use electric.

instead of a land-based vehicle by WormholeFiend · 2004-10-07 05:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'd put this system on a blimp, to power the rotors.

Given the right design, a blimp has a very large surface to put solar panels on, and it can fly above the clouds for optimal sun exposure.

Now, cue the Hindenberg jokes...

Basic economy might counter your idea by SmallFurryCreature · 2004-10-07 05:50 · Score: 3, Informative

Blocking alternative fuel depends entirely on the block working. If somehow such a blockade is broken by some third party then the fuel companies will have spend a lot of money on giving someone else a free market.

It is like price fixing, keeping the prices high by making agreements between all the parties only works if all the parties keep to it. This is hard as in it will also make it extremely lucrative to then go under the fixed price and get all the business.

So the fuel companies are researching very hard because to them it is better to be in the future the hydrogen industry at the cost of some profit to their current petroleum industry then risk a future where they will be the petroleam industry when the market has gone hydrogen. Further more there will still be a market for oil, just what do you think plastics come from?

Such a system as this would still have to be built by someone. BP/Shell doesn't care how they make money. Who does care? Goverments, no fuel tax on hydrogen yet. Same with bio-diesel. Or how about the arab nations. Without the dependency of oil exactly who would give a shit anymore?

--

MMO Quests are like orgasms:

You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

Great, but the problem now is storing energy. by Eminence · 2004-10-07 05:54 · Score: 3, Interesting

This project shows clearly, that right now the main problem is storing the energy. After all, making hydrogen with electricity from solar panels to then turn an internal combustion engine with it has to be inefficient as compared to running directly on electricity. However, you can't squeeze that amount of energy into an accumulator which would be the size of a typical (even hydrogen) fuel tank. So as long as we won't be able to make such accumulators running purely on solar energy would be hard to achieve for a normal-sized family vehicle.

But hey, there are easier ways to make cars less polluting and everyone less dependent on oil! Take alcohol for example, you can produce it cheaply, even in your own backyard from some potatoes or grain, it is way easier and safer to handle than hydrogen and typical car engine can be easily modified to run on it. Same applies to vegetable oils and diesel engine (which was originally designed for vegetable oil).

Re:Great, but the problem now is storing energy. by Eminence · 2004-10-07 06:18 · Score: 2, Informative

I seem to recall reading somewhere that ethanol requires more petroleum to create than it saves when used in internal combustion engines...
Are you kidding? Ethanol was mass produced long before petroleum was anything more than a medicine. After all, people were drinking for centuries.
It only takes some heat to distillate it. And heat can come from many sources.

MOD PARENT UP by Jesrad · 2004-10-07 06:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

This truck is a poor-efficiency solar vehicle using hydrogen tank as a battery to store power generated during the day.

I still don't get why people imagine that hydrogen will solve anything. If you have to make the hydrogen by electrolyzing water, you've already lost. Water is an ash, turning it back into gases and recombining it severly limits the efficiency of your system : you're losing around one third of the energy when electrolyzing water, and losing again when making it back into water. And you still need an energy source... so why shoot the already poor efficiency of the whole thing to hell by using solar power ?

Save up on the high solar panel costs and weight (unacceptable on a vehicle !) by storing the hydrogen in a more convenient, easy to use way than water, like methanol produced externally. If you really want to use solar power, then extract it from plants, that's the dirt cheap way.

--
Maybe we deserve this world ?

Re:MOD PARENT UP by Jesrad · 2004-10-07 06:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

We're not even sure how we got the oil in the first place.

My point is that it's a much better design decision to unload the hydrogen production off the vehicle, where the added mass and inefficiency are critical, and instead use another method to store the solar energy. Using plant fields for this production saves the weight of solar panels and electrolyzer on the vehicle, while allowing a larger surface to convert more solar power. And you not only get water but food in the process. And we like food, too.

--
Maybe we deserve this world ?

I LOVE this from their faq: by Sebby · 2004-10-07 06:00 · Score: 4, Interesting

Q: Have You Patented This Idea?

Answer: NO. First of all, the idea of building a solar-hydrogen internal combustion vehicle is neither new or original. As far as we know, nobody has built one before this since the production rate of hydrogen is so low. Secondly, one of our main goals is to promote this technology, and contribute to this field without putting any restrictions on others.

--

AC comments get piped to /dev/null

Re:Not Not hydrogen powered by caldaan · 2004-10-07 06:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

The original poster is right. The primary energy source entering the truck is solar energy. While the engine is a combustion engine, the fuel for the truck is created via solar power. The Hydrogen tank is nothing more then a battery to store energy from the solar power. It isn't terribly efficient either, and would be more efficient if it was an electric motor instead. Though the Hydrogen tank may store more usable energy then conventional batteries.

Re:Flamebait? by ackthpt · 2004-10-07 06:01 · Score: 2, Informative

The truck is hydrogen-powered and creates its own fuel from solar energy and water

Wow looks like the Republicans are getting all the mod points today!

This was the subject of a MAD Magazine cartoon, about 30 years ago, drawn IIRC, by Al Jaffee: A man invents a car that runs on water and is hauled away by government agents due to the threat it posed to the big oil companies and their grip on Washington.

30 years later, the idea still rings with some conspiracy theorists that the powers that be don't want alternative transportation and fuels to work.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar

Seriously by over_exposed · 2004-10-07 06:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

Is anyone else impressed just by the simple fact that these are all high school kids? This is fantastic to see high school students working with technology like this. I applaud their efforts.

--
"The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his." - Patton

Dying isn't green by nathan+s · 2004-10-07 06:04 · Score: 5, Funny

Decomposition releases all sorts of gases, possibly methane and carbon dioxide, although I'm not a biologist.

Obviously then, dying isn't green. And since you suggested it, I can tell that you're an evil RED spy masquerading as a GREEN supporter.:-)

--
picpix image polls. create - share - vote. fun!

What's the big deal? by tjic · 2004-10-07 06:04 · Score: 3, Funny

So he's re-invented a solar car...except instead of conventional battery technology, he's using a big tank of highly flammable gas.

Big whoop.

Absolute Rubbish by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-07 06:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

Why not use Lithium Polymer batteries that can be recharged from solar cells while the car is parked, or recharged from the power grid anytime.

The other advantage of Lithium Polymer batteries is energy can be captured from regenerative braking. Hydrogen cycle is a complete waste of energy.

Industry should be concentraing on Lithium Polymer car battery mass production and lower costs, not riding the hydrogen fantasy that will never amount to anything for the mass public!

Ok, It's Satire, But.. by ackthpt · 2004-10-07 06:09 · Score: 5, Interesting

On an average weekend I ride over 100 miles on a bicycle, averaging about 20 mph. The amount of food and water required for these rides is actually very minimal and close to what I normally consume. My metabolism doesn't just store unneeded energy and make me bloated, it's just chucks it (it's called Inefficient Metabolism) so however much you normally eat, if you don't store it, you waste anyway for whatever level of activity you engage in which may be limited to sitting on a chair all weekend fine tuning your drivers, playing d00m 3, or hitting Reload.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar

Re:Ok, It's Satire, But.. by hankwang · 2004-10-07 06:45 · Score: 5, Informative

On an average weekend I ride over 100 miles on a bicycle, averaging about 20 mph. The amount of food and water required for these rides is actually very minimal and close to what I normally consume.
At that kind of speed (pretty impressive, unless you're doing that in a flock), your muscles deliver 200 W to the bicycle, which is about 800 W in terms of burned food. For those 100 miles, that is 14 MJ, equivalent to 0.9 kg carbohydrates, or 0.4 kg of fat/oil. A normal daily consumption for an inactive adult male is around 10 MJ. I strongly doubt that your inefficient metabolism is converting 14 MJ per non-weekend day into heat. It is more likely that you use your body fat (a couple of kg) and the glycogen storage in the muscles and liver (up to 700 g carbohydrates for a trained athlete). The rest of the week you replenish your fuel stock.
My experience is that I feel too tired to be hungry after a single day of cycling, which seems to agree with your observation. However, during a cycling holiday (3 weeks, 5-7 h per day) I surely eat massive amounts.
Anyway, fat and gasoline have about the same energy content, so a fast cyclist does 400 km per liter (1000 miles per gallon). Which is quite efficient compared to a car.

--
Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
Re:Ok, It's Satire, But.. by pluggo · 2004-10-07 07:33 · Score: 2, Funny

Anyway, fat and gasoline have about the same energy content...

I can see the next big thing already... fat-powered cars. Hop in, dump in a bucket o' lard, drive for miles.

How's that for alternative energy sources?

--
Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny. Free men pull in all kinds of directions. It's the only way to mak
Re:Ok, It's Satire, But.. by hankwang · 2004-10-07 08:12 · Score: 4, Informative

Where did you get your information though?
You know, when you spend many hours on the bike while on quiet roads, you have things to think about. :)
200 W for cycling 32 km/h: my own measurements (measure deceleration as soon as you stop pedaling, combine with mass and velocity to obtain dissipated power), and an equation from a book about bicycle training (Dutch, forgot the title): P=4v+0.2v^3 (P in watts and v in m/s), which applies to racing bikes with lean athletes sitting on them.
Efficiency of the human body in converting food to energy: sitting on a computer-controlled stationary bike in a gym that says how many calories I burn per hour and how much power I deliver. That turns out to be a factor 4. Agrees roughly with what I've seen in tables (1 hour of cycling takes so-and-so many calories) in comparison with the previous point.
Glycogen storage: 300 g to 700 g depending on physical condition and activity/food intake during the past days, from aforementioned book.
Cycling holidays: personal experience. Food intake is usually between 18 and 24 MJ (4500-6000 kcal) per day.
Energy content of carbohydrates and fat: doesn't everybody know those? 18 MJ/kg and 35 MJ/kg. Fat is mostly hydrocarbons, as is gasoline. The small fraction of glycerol in fat won't make a big difference.

--
Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
Re:Ok, It's Satire, But.. by ChumpusRex2003 · 2004-10-07 08:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

Clearly you must have some metabolic disease, or be some non-human lifeform. Metabolism is very well understood, and is very simple. Every calorie absorbed from food is either burned for energy or is stored - unless a disease (e.g. diabetes) causes them to be lost. The body has no mechanism to dump unneeded calories. This is precisely the reason why obesity is such a common problem today. Sure, some energy is needed to keep body temperature up and for the idle (basal) metabolism - but again, this is an extremely closely regulated mechanism, with virtually no difference between people (in the absence of significant illness - e.g. thyroid disease). A healthy stomach/intestine can easily absorb 15,000 calories a day without wastage - if your stomach/intestine didn't absorb all the calories in your food, you'd have hideous diarrhoea/flatulance/stomach cramps.
Re:Ok, It's Satire, But.. by JayBat · 2004-10-07 09:25 · Score: 3, Interesting

A healthy stomach/intestine can easily absorb 15,000 calories a day
Yes, Tour de France riders run at this sort of level.
If your stomach/intestine didn't absorb all the calories in your food,
Hmmm, no. Humans are quite capable of passing un-needed calories through undigested. Not as high a percentage as McDonald's-snarfing Americans might like, but...

Look at the numbers on this by Animats · 2004-10-07 06:14 · Score: 4, Informative

A few miles per day? That sounds about right. Must be on the flat.

They say they have four solar panels. Suppose they're Shell Solar SP150 units. Four of those would about cover a truck. You'd get about 600 watts in bright sunlight, about a tenth of what they need to move the truck at all. They might get 5KWH per day, or 18 MJ, if they're lucky. One gallon of gasoline is about 100 MJ. So they're getting no more than 1/5 of a gallon of gas equivalent per day.

With batteries, you'd get about 80% of that energy out of storage. Electrolyzing hydrogen and then burning it is less efficient. Probably a lot less efficient.

They're pushing a pickup truck around, so they'd get maybe 15-20MPG. So it looks like they can drive maybe two miles on the flat on a good day.

Of course, if you park it all week, you can go maybe ten miles on the weekend.

With super-light cars and ultra-expensive gallium arsenide photocells, things look better. But no way is putting some solar panels in a pickup truck ever going to accomplish much. The energy just isn't there.

Transition strategy? by Shambhu · 2004-10-07 06:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

The project is cool overall, but the thing that interested me the most was the dashboard switch. How hard is it to make an IC engine that can run off of two different fuels without sacrificing much efficiency? The reason I ask is, people often say that a large problem for the adoption of hydrogen fuel cars is the chicken or the egg problem of popularity and infrastructure. I'm not saying there aren't other problems, but you hear that one a lot.

If we started out with switchable IC engines, then people could buy the cars as long as there was some chance of using hydrogen part of the time - regular gas would always be available for backup. I bet the state of California would be interested in conceding some CAFE (do they still use that?) points to manufacturers who came out with such vehicles.

--
Rome wasn't bilked in a day.

reduction in successful suicides? by CrazyDwarf · 2004-10-07 06:20 · Score: 2, Funny

I wonder if cars that produce things like water for waste or oxygen will result in a reduced number of successful suicide attempts.

What is sad is that people will probably still try with those cars that do not produce anything you could asphyxiate on. I realize if you got into a car that produced something other than oxygen, you could still kill yourself when the amount of oxygen drops below a certain point, but what if...

--
It's easy to stand out when the general level of competence is so low.

WTH With The Complaints! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-07 06:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

OMFG people!

Have you built a car that runs on sunlight and water?

How far did the first airplane fly?

Are you saying this proof of concept is impractical?

Congratulations CHS kids!

X Prize? by Quixote · 2004-10-07 06:32 · Score: 3, Interesting

I think it's about time some foundation (i.e. someone other than unemployed old me) came up with an "X Prize" for these sorts of endeavors. For example:
- the first gasoline engine to give 100mpg (sustained) in normal driving conditions (heck, even a highway) for a medium-sized sedan.
- First electric car that can take 4 adults 300miles on 4 hours of charge
etc.

Some good-old competition combined with good-old American ingenuity should do wonders for these projects.

Diesel-Electric? by 32bitwonder · 2004-10-07 06:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

Why not use Diesel-Electric as an alternative? By this I don't mean a hybrid solution as is currently being used by Honda & Toyota, but rather a miniaturized version of a diesel-electric locomotive. This being a small common-rail diesel engine connected directly to a generator. The transmission would be replaced with by an electric motor which would use electricity generated on demand to drive the wheels. This would solve the fuel storage issue present with hydrogen, replaced by diesel (more efficient than gasoline). The electricity would be generated on demand which wouldn't require bulky batteries or complex circuitry of current hybrid systems.

So what are the barriers preventing a setup like this from working? Is it simply more efficient to drive the wheels directly from the engine? Would the generator/electric motor add too much weight to the vehicle in order to achieve similar performance levels?

--
www.brownsauce.org

It is still using electricity by caldaan · 2004-10-07 06:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

The step of creating hydrogen still requires electricty. Hydrogen isn't a natural resource on this planet, it must be created, and it is created via electricity. Electricity is normally created via combustion of fossil fuels, typically in plants that are not as environmentally efficient as combustion engines in cars. As a result the use of hydrogen in a car is a pipe dream, the efficiency of the conversion of electrical to chemical to mechanical energy is horrible. Electrical straight to mechanical is much more efficient. What we need is electric cars, not a car that relies on combustion of any fuel. This is nothing but a solar powered car with chemical battery.

Re:just imagine by eutychus_awakes · 2004-10-07 07:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's hard to say. The history of the US shows, however, that military buildups are generally GOOD for scientific R&D. Some of those billions are going toward the things to which you speak - but the "power equation" always comes back around to where the ultimate source is. Hydrogen cars consume way more electricity than a pure battery-powered car does - both get their power from "the plug," afterall. But even then, our supply of clean electrical power is way inadequate to power every car, house, business, factory, etc. - we'd need solar panels and wind turbines on every street, hill, field, rooftop - you name it. SO, the agency and policy to which you speak is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. More nuclear power will mean more electric cars. Of course, the general public will need to be able to embrace nuclear power without some of the current (needless) regulatory oversight.

BTW, I am allergic to raw spinich.

--
This sig is a test. If this had been an actual sig, you would be reading something quite a bit wittier than this now.

Out of water? by Nuclear+Elephant · 2004-10-07 07:23 · Score: 2, Funny

So what if you run out of hydrogen AND water, can you use the left over mountain dew in your cup, or what about converting urine?

I'd piss on a sparkplug if I thought it'd do any good

Brasilian ethanol fuel effort by Eminence · 2004-10-07 07:32 · Score: 2, Informative

Ok., so I did some research and it is really better than I thought. They were wise enough to start a program for biomass fuels after the first fuel crisis in early 70-ties, since 1979 there were 5.4 million cars running on ethanol in Brasil. Wow! This source (PDF) describes the program. It turns out that combined effect was beneficial for the environment, but it wasn't cost effective in the late eighties and early nineties due to low oil prices. But now, prices are rising again so...

Some other links: 1 2

Big deal.... by kd7wpc · 2004-10-07 07:40 · Score: 2, Funny

I want to see humans that excrete their own food! Never again will I have to rely on McDonalds again!

--
Another one bites the ...

The Oglemobile by honestmonkey · 2004-10-07 07:40 · Score: 2, Informative

Interestingly enough, this has already happened (which may in fact be what you are alluding to). In the late 1970's in El Paso, TX, there was an inventer (Tom Ogle) who said he had a car that would get something like 100 mph or more, although I think that some more "reasonable" claims were in the 55-60 range. Drove it to Phoenix, AZ on a couple gallons of gas as I recall. Everyone said it must be fake, couldn't happen. I had a physics teacher at the time that gave extra credit to anyone doing a paper on what the minimum energy needed to move a car given certain assumptions.

Anyway, Ogle was found dead in 1981 of an apparent suicide. Conspiracy theories abounded. This was in my neighborhood, and I often went by the garage he worked at. I may have even met him once, but he was a few years ahead of me in school. There are patents of his device. Here's a link: http://www.rexresearch.com/ogle/1ogle.htm

--
Everything you know is wrong, Just forget the words and sing along.

Re:The Ice Age by pclminion · 2004-10-07 08:10 · Score: 4, Informative

Widespread use of solar would reflect some sunlight, and capture the rest, rather than having it absorbed into the ground. This would, at a certain scale, cool the earth--less enegy being converted to heat.

No. Thermodynamics. All energy eventually ends up as heat. Unless you intend to permanently store the collected energy, it will eventually end up as heat again. We just had the opportunity to do something useful with it before that happened.

Now, let's look at the total energy available from the sun, and compare that to what we use. The earth's radius is 6378 kilometers. Its cross sectional area is therefore 127,800,491 square kilometers. Assuming a solar constant of 1370 watts per square meter, this means that, on average, 175,086 terawatts of solar energy fall on the Earth's surface.

In comparison, the current rate of power consumption by humans (and this includes gasoline and other fuels, not just electric consumption) is about 5.5 terawatts.

Thus, we are only using about 1 part in 32,000 of the available power at the surface of the earth. If we produced the entire 5.5 terawatts using solar energy, we would have to intercept 1/32,000 of the incoming solar radiation -- in other words, we would change the Earth's albedo by 0.003%. Now, given the fact that solar panels are only about 25% efficient, we must multiply by 4. So, ultimately, we change the albedo by 0.012%.

The albedo of Earth fluctuates by much more than 0.012% due to natural causes. Thus, any affect we would have on the solar energy balance at the surface of the Earth would be indistinguishable from natural random variations.

In short, we don't have jack to worry about.

Re:they have those stations in germany by hackwrench · 2004-10-07 08:59 · Score: 2, Informative

Maybe, but since we're puuling the numbers to demonstrate that something is in fact the solution out of thin air, perhaps one of these is actually the solution: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Top10

Yes, you're correct. by Otto · 2004-10-07 09:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

By your convention, all current internal combusion vehicles are solar powered.

And he'd be correct too. All of the power we use in any form is ultimately solar powered, with the exception being nuclear fission/fusion. And the elements we use for those once came out of stars too, you know.

In this particular case, however, it's generating it's own fuel. Therefore you can consider it to be like a closed system with only one energy input: solar power via the solar panels. Considered that way, this truck is solar powered.

Now, if you yank off the electrolysis bits and put them in a fueling station somewhere, then it's not a solar powered truck anymore. It's a system that gets its power from the hydrogen you pump into the tank.

Almost energy we use ultimately comes from the sun. It's just a question of what part of the total system you are talking about. I don't think that it's unreasonable to include the electrolysis device as part of the system of "this truck" because a) it's hauling the thing around with it and b) they expressly designed it to be part of the truck in the first place.

Therefore this truck is solar powered, because "this truck" includes the electrolysis equipment.

--
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.

Hydrogen has its problems by mcrbids · 2004-10-07 09:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

Hydrogen is hard to keep, not very energy dense, easily explosive, etc.

We'd do much better exploring biodiesel than trying to pursue solar/hydrogen as a fuel system.

From the article:

There are many problems with using hydrogen as a fuel. The first, and most obvious, is that hydrogen gas is extremely explosive. To store hydrogen at high pressures for as a transportation fuel, it is essential to have tanks that are constructed of rust-proof materials, so that as they age they won't rust and spring leaks. Hydrogen has to be stored at very high pressures to try to make up for its low energy density. Diesel fuel has an energy density of 1,058 kBtu/cu.ft. Biodiesel has an energy density of 950 kBtu/cu.ft, and hydrogen stored at 3,626 psi (250 times atmospheric pressure) only has an energy density of 68 kBtu/cu.ft.4 So, highly pressurized to 250 atmospheres, hydrogen's volumetric energy density is only 7.2% of that of biodiesel.

And that's not including the subject of efficiency. Solar/hydrogen is extremely inefficient.

A common dream from the environmentalist community is having a solar panel on the roof of a home to electrolyze water, producing hydrogen for a fuel cell vehicle. It's a nice dream, but not particularly realistic. As a real world example, consider Honda's facility in California that requires an 8 kW solar array to produce enough hydrogen to drive one small hydrogen vehicle roughly 7,500 miles per year. Such an array could power several homes in California, but is only enough for powering one small car half the normal driving range in the US. For an average family with two vehicles that drive an average distance of 15,000 miles per year, an array of 32 kW would be needed - considerably more with larger vehicles. A 32 kW array would cost on the order of $160,000, and could not be installed just on the rooftop of a single home - it would likely require the south-facing rooftops of at least 4-8 houses to power the vehicles from one home (and that's if you live in sunny California...

It's a neat project - I'll grant that easily. However, the end result is that at this time, it's just not feasible.

However, biodiesel is competetive (or close to competetive) with diesel at today's prices. It requires NO modification to your car (assuming your car runs diesel, of course) and can be mixed freely with diesel.

So, there's no penalty for using biodiesel. That's where the money should be put!

--
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.

Slashdot Mirror

Hydrogen Vehicle Generates Its Own Fuel

115 of 662 comments (clear)