Is Hydrogen Economy Viable Without Fusion Energy?

[russ_watters]

That much? Surprising. I was under the impression that the burn was already highly efficient and most of the loss was in the nature of the mechanically driven heat engine regardless of burn efficiency.

Dunno, is 9% a lot? Keep in mind that when you add hydrogen, you are adding football rules to baseball. You can pour a billion dollars into a typical gas engine and only squeeze another percent or two efficiency out of it, but once you start playing with other fuels, you change the rules of the game somewhat. Since the 9% doesn't include the losses from generating the hydrogen or the cost of the generator, I don't consider 9% to be a lot.

So that rules out on board generation but what if you bottle H2 locally? For instance: Some renewable source of energy...

Once you bring up renewable energy, there isn't anything left to talk about: if the energy is free, the energy is free. You can use it however you want. If you have free hydrogen on hand, why bother with the gasoline at all?

 

[mheslep]

...Once you bring up renewable energy, there isn't anything left to talk about: if the energy is free, the energy is free. You can use it however you want. If you have free hydrogen on hand, why bother with the gasoline at all?

Well of course the energy is only 'free' in the sense that its never exhausted, it still has an economic cost and that can be compared to the $/bbl cost of fuel.

 

[RMForbes]

I didn't say it did. In fact, I said nothing whatsoever about the mechanism. I only analyzed the resulting numbers. You missed my point completely. That's all quite true, but the numbers are still the numbers. No, there isn't. A quick look at the efficiency equations or calculator for ideal Otto cycle shows the maximum possible efficiency is around 55-60%. It isn't possible - even in theory - to exceed that. And that's before you take away even the mechanical losses.

I guess I really don't understand. Are you saying that modern engines are already getting optimum fuel economy? It seems obvious to me that they aren't. Just the fact there is unburnt fuel left at the end that needs to be dealt with, is proof to me. Maybe I just don't get it.

Another way to look at it: billions and billions of dollars have been pumped into researching these engines over the past hundred years. It would be illogical to believe that there is a shortcut to a massive improvement in efficiency. Please keep the forum guidelines in mind when discussing this subject. I'm giving quite a bit of leeway here, but the reality is that there is no scientific controversy on this issue, but there is a ton of crackpottery. Claims such as those are not supported by the science of the issue. It is a crackpot claim and I will not allow discussion of a crackpot claim here.

Don't ask me to understand the motivations of the auto industry, it has never made sense to me. All I know is that these steam reforming systems have been in use for decades. The auto industry has purchased hundreds of patents for fuel reforming systems and sat on them. That is public record. Do you know why they have not developed any of these patents?

While I appreciate the leeway, I thought that this forum was about the hydrogen economy. I was not aware that because some people are exploiting the basic principles of hydrogen injection in ways that can only be considered scams, that all hydrogen based systems were automatically proven invalid. That sounds like throwing the baby out with the bath water, thinking to me. The facts are good people and good companies are already getting incredible results by developing these principles, saving millions of gallons of fossil fuels with real systems. They are nothing like the Water4Gas type junk. I hope you are referring to these MLM type websites, I really don't think you would call me a crackpot.

 

[russ_watters]

I guess I really don't understand. Are you saying that modern engines are already getting optimum fuel economy? It seems obvious to me that they aren't.

No, I'm not. Fuel economy and thermodynamic efficiency are two very different things. You can, for example, decrease the weight and drag coefficient of a car and see a huge gain in fuel economy. But the engine that drives that car will have roughly the same thermodynamic efficiency as any other. The thermodynamic efficiency is what is pretty close to optimal.

That's for an engine powered exclusively by the Otto cycle, which includes virtually all of the hydrogen injection info we see (the ones that use the alternator and electrolysis). Connect an aft-end boiler of some sort and you can improve overall thermodynamic efficiency by quite a bit by adding a completely separate, secondary thermodynamic cycle.

Just the fact there is unburnt fuel left at the end that needs to be dealt with, is proof to me. Maybe I just don't get it.

Now that's a third thing. Combustion efficiency is not the same as thermodynamic efficiency or fuel economy. Combustion efficiency of a modern car is on the order of 95% and can't get any higher. These devices do not affect the combustion efficiency, they effect the thermodynamic efficiency by changing where and how the energy is applied in the thermodynamic cycle, not by changing how much energy is expended in combustion. Combustion efficiency is a matter of chemistry: making sure you get all carbon dioxide and no carbon monoxide when you burn gas. And due to emissions regulations, the combustion process is very tightly computer controlled.

Do you know why they have not developed any of these patents?

They aren't technically/economically viable.

While I appreciate the leeway, I thought that this forum was about the hydrogen economy. I was not aware that because some people are exploiting the basic principles of hydrogen injection in ways that can only be considered scams, that all hydrogen based systems were automatically proven invalid. That sounds like throwing the baby out with the bath water, thinking to me. The facts are good people and good companies are already getting incredible results by developing these principles, saving millions of gallons of fossil fuels with real systems. They are nothing like the Water4Gas type junk. I hope you are referring to these MLM type websites, I really don't think you would call me a crackpot.

I was referring specifically to the electrolysis-based systems, which you cited in your claim. I don't know enough about the steam reforming ones to comment much, but it does have a similar smell to it.

 

[RMForbes]

Now that's a third thing. Combustion efficiency is not the same as thermodynamic efficiency or fuel economy. Combustion efficiency of a modern car is on the order of 95% and can't get any higher. These devices do not affect the combustion efficiency, they effect the thermodynamic efficiency by changing where and how the energy is applied in the thermodynamic cycle, not by changing how much energy is expended in combustion. Combustion efficiency is a matter of chemistry: making sure you get all carbon dioxide and no carbon monoxide when you burn gas. And due to emissions regulations, the combustion process is very tightly computer controlled.

I don’t want to belabor this point, but your suggestion that combustion efficiency is already near optimum is contrary to the conclusions of the NASA engineers. On the NASA channel early this week one of the NASA engineers was talking about engine efficiency in regards to an electric car they were testing. He stated that the electric car was about 85% efficient, all but 15% from the stored energy is converted to torque. He compared that to the gasoline engines, around 15% from the energy of combustion is converted to torque and 85% is lost as heat out the exhaust. He went on to say that diesel is only a couple points better than gasoline. In the 1977 study the NASA engineers found that adding hydrogen to gasoline reduced the energy lost as heat in the exhaust by as much as 37%. Some of that energy was lost to the cooling system but most was converted to torque. That sounds like a rather significant improvement in combustion efficiency to me, but I think we are just arguing symantics now.

Here is link to NASA study for those not familar with it.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19770016170_1977016170.pdf

They aren't technically/economically viable. I was referring specifically to the electrolysis-based systems, which you cited in your claim. I don't know enough about the steam reforming ones to comment much, but it does have a similar smell to it.

Actually not true, most of the patents had working models that were well documented. Many of these basic ideas are being used in Europe but cannot be imported to the U.S. because of our protectionist laws. Do some research on SAAB engine enhancements, you may be surprised.

 

[vanesch]

Here is link to NASA study for those not familar with it.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19770016170_1977016170.pdf

If you look at figure 11 on p 32, you see that the thermal efficiency of the motor goes from something like 29% for gasoline to 32% for gasoline/hydrogen.

That's the marginal gain Russ was talking about. And note that this was with a monster engine of 7.4 liters of 1969

 

[russ_watters]

If you look at figure 11 on p 32, you see that the thermal efficiency of the motor goes from something like 29% for gasoline to 32% for gasoline/hydrogen. That's the marginal gain Russ was talking about.

Right: about 9%. With bottled hydrogen (not generated by the engine).

And note that this was with a monster engine of 7.4 liters of 1969

I didn't think about that - that's before computer control of the combustion process. The combusion efficiency today is considerably better than it was back then. Just throw a gigantic engine at the car and don't worry about how efficient it is. Even besides that, iirc, emissions of everything but carbon dioxide have dropped 90% since the 1970s due to technology forced by regulation.

And again, that 9% is not combustion efficiency, it is thermodynamic efficiency. Though, a lot of the thermodynamic efficiency gain in the paper probably comes from gains in combustion efficiency due to the poor combustion efficiency at the time (as vanesch pointed out). RC, you really need to start paying attention to the difference.

 

[mheslep]

I don’t want to belabor this point, but your suggestion that combustion efficiency is already near optimum is contrary to the conclusions of the NASA engineers. On the NASA channel early this week one of the NASA engineers was talking about engine efficiency in regards to an electric car they were testing. He stated that the electric car was about 85% efficient, all but 15% from the stored energy is converted to torque. He compared that to the gasoline engines, around 15% from the energy of combustion is converted to torque and 85% is lost as heat out the exhaust. He went on to say that diesel is only a couple points better than gasoline. In the 1977 study the NASA engineers found that adding hydrogen to gasoline reduced the energy lost as heat in the exhaust by as much as 37%.

A heat engine such as the internal combustion engine can never be as efficient as the electric drive train. The heat engine efficiency is limited by thermodynamics.

 

[buffordboy23]

Here's some work that focuses on hydrogen supplementation via a plasmatron gas reformer developed by researchers at MIT. There are some pretty outrageous claims for efficiency improvements in the pdf file.

http://www.psfc.mit.edu/research/plasma_tech/PDF/dan_cps.pdf

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2003/plasmatron.html

 

[russ_watters]

I don’t want to belabor this point, but your suggestion that combustion efficiency is already near optimum is contrary to the conclusions of the NASA engineers.

As I have demonstrated, no it isn't. Heck, my company has a combustion gas analyzer. If you want, I'll stick it up the tailpipe of my car (already done that when I learned to use it) and take a picture of the output!

On the NASA channel early this week one of the NASA engineers was talking about engine efficiency in regards to an electric car they were testing. He stated that the electric car was about 85% efficient, all but 15% from the stored energy is converted to torque. He compared that to the gasoline engines, around 15% from the energy of combustion is converted to torque and 85% is lost as heat out the exhaust.

You threw a lot of scientific words around in previous posts, but this paragraph shows you really have no idea what thermodynamics even is. Gas engines are thermodynamic engines. Electric motors are not. Electric motors can be up to about 96% efficient at converting electrical energy to mechanical energy. But thermodynamic engines that use the Otto cycle can only be about 50% efficient at converting heat energy to mechanical energy. They are a completely different animal. You really need to get onboard with this concept. If you don't understand why it is, you need to learn.

He went on to say that diesel is only a couple points better than gasoline.

Yes, the Otto and diesel cycles are similar. The biggest difference is the way the fuel burns and what it allows to be done: higher compression ratios in diesels.

In the 1977 study the NASA engineers found that adding hydrogen to gasoline reduced the energy lost as heat in the exhaust by as much as 37%. Some of that energy was lost to the cooling system but most was converted to torque. That sounds like a rather significant improvement in combustion efficiency to me, but I think we are just arguing symantics now.

Here is link to NASA study for those not familar with it.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19770016170_1977016170.pdf

As vanesch noted, you aren't properly analyzing the results. The drop in exhaust temp was largely due to running the engine lean, but that isn't directly translateable to thermodynamic efficiency (someone mentioned it before: less fire + more air = cooler exhaust, but not necessarily improved efficiency). Not to worry, though: Thermodynamic efficiency was specifically listed in the results.

Actually not true, most of the patents had working models that were well documented. Many of these basic ideas are being used in Europe but cannot be imported to the U.S. because of our protectionist laws. Do some research on SAAB engine enhancements, you may be surprised.

No, RC. Now you're dealing with both crackpottery and conspiracy theory. There is no mass production vehicle in any country that utilizes hydrogen generation/injection.

 

[russ_watters]

Here's some work that focuses on hydrogen supplementation via a plasmatron gas reformer developed by researchers at MIT. There are some pretty outrageous claims for efficiency improvements in the pdf file.

http://www.psfc.mit.edu/research/plasma_tech/PDF/dan_cps.pdf

Now that's interesting. It says that by using hydrogen injection, you can increase the effective octane number. This does nothing whatsoever for an existing car engine, but it would allow the use of higher compression ratio engines, which is the key to higher thermodynamic efficiency. I don't know why they mention turbochargers, though - those are an efficiency improvement you can already bolt to just about any car.

 

[buffordboy23]

I don't know why they mention turbochargers, though - those are an efficiency improvement you can already bolt to just about any car.

The turbocharger would likely permit the car to run ultralean. The hydrogen would protect the engine due to its influence on combustion properties. Efficiency will increase.

The NASA article posted by RMForbes actually looked at hydrogen being used to extend the lean operating limit of an engine.

 

[RMForbes]

You threw a lot of scientific words around in previous posts, but this paragraph shows you really have no idea what thermodynamics even is...Gas engines are thermodynamic engines...You really need to get onboard with this concept. If you don't understand why it is, you need to learn...No, RC. Now you're dealing with both crackpottery and conspiracy theory. There is no mass production vehicle in any country that utilizes hydrogen generation/injection.

You are right, I'm not a scientist. I'm a technician by profession. I take ideas from the researchers, designs from the engineers, and make them work. I may not have the terminology correct but I understand the concepts. I know these technologies are real by hands-on experience. I have done several experiments, some successes and some failures. I installed one of my successes on my personal vehicle almost a year ago. It still works great. Through experimentation is where real knowledge is gained. Dismissing ideas, no matter how far out they seem to you without experimenting, is not good science. I cannot remember any major innovation that was not called a crackpot idea by the people of the day. I happened onto a website the other day that listed just about every technology in common use today and the reactions by the respected people of that time as they demeaned the technologies. It was enlightening.

I suggest you review the MIT link again. Do you really think they are the only facility researching this technology or developing similar products?

I can understand your comment about conspiracies, but just because I think they are out to get us, doesn't mean they aren't.
Do I believe that the Oil industry has too much power? aaaaaaaaa yes!
Do I believe that they have used their power to stifle new technologies that threaten their market dominance? Guilty.
Have their lobbyists written most of the current legislation regulating their industry? Without a doubt.

 

[russ_watters]

I may not have the terminology correct but I understand the concepts.

No, you clearly do not.

Dismissing ideas, no matter how far out they seem to you without experimenting, is not good science. I cannot remember any major innovation that was not called a crackpot idea by the people of the day.

Those are common crackpot fallacies about science. They just plain aren't true. First, a good experiment is based on pre-existing science. Second, good science is recognized by scientists virtually instantly. Common [wrong] examples often thrown around on that are Einstein's Relativity (it really was recognized quickly) and breaking the sound barrier (scientists did not think it was impossible).

I happened onto a website the other day that listed just about every technology in common use today and the reactions by the respected people of that time as they demeaned the technologies. It was enlightening.

I really would be curious to see it.

 

[vanesch]

I happened onto a website the other day that listed just about every technology in common use today and the reactions by the respected people of that time as they demeaned the technologies. It was enlightening.

People can make mistakes... in both directions. Here's a funny museum of great inventions that didn't work:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm

(now that I think of it, I think it was Russ who showed it to me first )

Read especially http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/impossible.htm

Now, I know we're not talking about perpetuum mobile here, but the ideas apply all the same.

 

[buffordboy23]

Here is a wikipedia link that discusses hydrogen fuel-enhancement. There are a lot of cited sources that discuss both positive and negative results.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_Fuel_Injection

 

[russ_watters]

I thought someone said earlier you could produce hydrogen via steam reforming of water. Part of the reason I didn't comment on that before is I hadn't heard of it and didn't know how it worked. The Wiki talks about steam reforming of methane. No doubt, you can increase the gasoline fuel efficiency of a car by adding a second ready-to-burn fuel to it. I guess the real question would be does the hydrogen provide more of a benefit than if you had just injected the methane itself into the engine. Methane is already quite a good fuel.

 

[RMForbes]

No, you clearly do not.

Please, instruct me to which concept I don't understand. At least, I am willing to admit when I don't get it exactly right. Or are you calling the guys at MIT crackpots too? This technology is far too important to be dismissed out of hand. We have the opportunity to drastically reduce emissions and end our countries dependence on foreign oil within just two to five years with a concentrated focused effort. But first people like you must stop ignoring the proof and help us work out the details. We have to start working together.

Those are common crackpot fallacies about science. They just plain aren't true. First, a good experiment is based on pre-existing science. Second, good science is recognized by scientists virtually instantly. Common [wrong] examples often thrown around on that are Einstein's Relativity (it really was recognized quickly) and breaking the sound barrier (scientists did not think it was impossible). I really would be curious to see it.

I understand what you are saying, but that is not exactly what I was taught in college. However, that was quite a few years ago now and things may have changed. I thought you first observed a process in nature then designed an experiment so that the processes can be revealed. We were taught that preconceptions usually taint the experiment. Designing a good experiment so that all is revealed, is actually an art form. I guess they now teach that there is no need to experiment if you are sure that the observed process can't possibly work.

http://www.null-hypothesis.co.uk/science/strange-but-true/item/invention_failure_never_work_disaster

I especially like the last one. "X-rays are a Hoax" Lord Kelvin ca. 1900

 

[vanesch]

Please, instruct me to which concept I don't understand.

I think Russ is pointing you to the Carnot efficiency of a thermal engine.

 

[Topher925]

I think Russ is pointing you to the Carnot efficiency of a thermal engine.

And this the Gibbs free energy for thermodynamic efficiency.

Can we get back to battery vs. hydrogen economy yet? I've seen this same conversation on at least 5 other forums.

http://coreygilmore.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/beating_a_dead_horse.jpg

 

[RMForbes]

I think Russ is pointing you to the Carnot efficiency of a thermal engine.

While I agree that mathematical models are very useful but these two do not allow combustion speed to be a variable. Do you have a model where combustion speeds can be varied to show the effect on efficiency? This would be useful.

By the way, I just received an email from the CEO of Dutchman Enterprises. They have announced a partnership with Ford Motor Company to supply their HAFC (hydrogen assist fuel cell) and PICC (Pre Ignition Catalytic Converter) for their SUV and truck lines. At least someone is starting to take this seriously.

 

[russ_watters]

Please, instruct me to which concept I don't understand.

There are several, but the biggest are that you don't understand the different measures/types of efficiency and how they are arrived at. Ie, you have said you think there is a lot of combustion efficiency to be gained (when, in fact, it is already well in excess of 90%) and that there is a lot of thermodynamic efficiency to be gained (when, in fact, it has a real, hard limit of around 50%).

Or are you calling the guys at MIT crackpots too?

No. You are just reading things in these papers that aren't there.

This technology is far too important to be dismissed out of hand. We have the opportunity to drastically reduce emissions and end our countries dependence on foreign oil within just two to five years with a concentrated focused effort.

No, we don't.

But first people like you must stop ignoring the proof and help us work out the details. We have to start working together.

You need to learn the science that will tell you where the boundaries of technology are. The "proof" does not say what you think it says. I have explained quite succinctly (and you have completely ignored) what the papers actually say.

http://www.null-hypothesis.co.uk/science/strange-but-true/item/invention_failure_never_work_disaster

I especially like the last one. "X-rays are a Hoax" Lord Kelvin ca. 1900

Though that site is great fodder for crackpots, the vast majority of the quotes do not come from scientists and those that do are more about viability than possibility.

While I agree that mathematical models are very useful but these two do not allow combustion speed to be a variable. Do you have a model where combustion speeds can be varied to show the effect on efficiency? This would be useful.

An "ideal" model assumes perfection in everything including combustion speed. Thus it provides an upper boundary based on the assumption that every possible source of inefficiency, including improper timing of the combustion, can be overcome. By comparing the ideal to the actual, you can determine exactly how much room there is for technology to improve a thermodynamic device.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

RMForbes, no one here is being overly negative. These concepts are well understood and have been for over a century. The fact is that if this was truly a viable technology, there would be no need to argue for it.

Hydrogen is a great energy carrier - one that is relatively easy to make. But we do have to make it, so it is not an energy source. There is no mystery here.

 

[vanesch]

While I agree that mathematical models are very useful but these two do not allow combustion speed to be a variable. Do you have a model where combustion speeds can be varied to show the effect on efficiency? This would be useful.

The Carnot efficiency is a maximal efficiency that is theoretically possible in the conversion of heat into useful work - it doesn't have anything to do with a specific process. It is pretty fundamental. So given the combustion temperature of the ideal fuel mixture, and the temperature of the environment, one can easily calculate what is the maximal fraction of the thermal energy that could, by an imaginary engine of just any type, be converted in mechanical work.

The formula is extremely simple: that fraction is equal to 1 - T2/T1, where T2 is the temperature of the environment (in Kelvin), and T1 is the temperature of the combustion temperature (also in Kelvin).

For instance, consider boiling water at 100 centigrade, or 373 K, and the environment at 300K. Well, no matter what kind of machine you build, it will not be able to convert more than 1 - 300/373 = 19.5% of the heat that makes the water boil, into mechanical work.

If one goes in somewhat more detail of the specific process at hand, such as using the ideal gas law, and a compression, burning and expansion stage, one can get sometimes more detailed estimates of what is *in principle* possible.

In our example, if you have a genuine working steam engine which converts, say, 17% of the heat into work, then you have a pretty good machine, and you will only be able to improve it with about 2% absolulte, or something like 10% relative percents.

 

[RMForbes]

RMForbes, no one here is being overly negative. These concepts are well understood and have been for over a century. The fact is that if this was truly a viable technology, there would be no need to argue for it.

Hydrogen is a great energy carrier - one that is relatively easy to make. But we do have to make it, so it is not an energy source. There is no mystery here.

Again, I agree these processes have been well understood for almost as long as the internal combustion engine itself. So have steam reforming systems and alternative fuels. And yes, hydrogen is an excellent energy transfer agent, but again that is not what makes hydrogen enrichment work. Hydrogen reduces ignition lag and speeds combustion which allows the conversion more energy to torque instead of heat. Now, that sounds like an increase in efficiency to me but you all disagree. So can we say it increases gasolines octane?

 

[RMForbes]

I thought someone said earlier you could produce hydrogen via steam reforming of water. Part of the reason I didn't comment on that before is I hadn't heard of it and didn't know how it worked. The Wiki talks about steam reforming of methane. No doubt, you can increase the gasoline fuel efficiency of a car by adding a second ready-to-burn fuel to it. I guess the real question would be does the hydrogen provide more of a benefit than if you had just injected the methane itself into the engine. Methane is already quite a good fuel.

I was referring to an article I read on a alternative fuels website. You misunderstood my point. Here is a short quote to make things more clear;

”The main problem with ethanol is that the majority of engines on the road today are not designed for it. The exception is the Saab 9-5 Biopower engine, which IS optimized for ethanol. It outperforms gasoline, getting 20% more power, 16% greater torque, and 10% better mileage. The Lotus Exige 265E “Flexi” gets 45 more horse power on E85 than it gets on gasoline. Within the next two years, Suzuki, Ford, GM and numerous other car makers will introduce engines which exploit the advantages of ethanol, for its high octane and compatibility with water. Our system of blending 15% gasoline into ethanol is not necessary. Ethanol can be denatured without using gasoline. That was how politicians created an incentive for oil companies to distribute ethanol, by giving them a 51 cent per gallon tax credit to blend it with gasoline. Problem is, ethanol performs better when it’s mixed with water rather than gasoline. This is called hydrous ethanol. Nothing new. In the 1920's, the model A Ford cars and trucks ran on 165 proof ethanol, 17.5% water and 82.5% ethanol. Recently, a Pratt Community College engine testing team lead by instructor Greg Bacon, mixed 20% water with pure ethanol, and efficiency in the combustion chamber doubled. When the ethanol explodes, the water instantly turns into additional power in the form of steam and also provides hydrogen and oxygen inside the cylinder. Next year, Ford is introducing the EcoBoost engine, which may also have advanced ethanol technology that doubles efficiency. Brazil has been using 4% hydrous ethanol for years. They laughed at us when we started mixing ethanol with gasoline. Phil Ratte, Mechanical Engineer, BME University of Minnesota said: “From 1981 to 1989, I worked with Herb Hansen, who had been an engineer on a WW II submarine, and a former captain of a nuclear submarine. We developed two prototype cars, a Ford Pinto Station Wagon and a Mitsubishi Sedan, that ran as well on 65 proof ethanol (2/3 water and 1/3 ethanol) as they did on unleaded regular gas.” What is the one thing that the big oil companies fear the most? Water. The State of Louisiana now has an experimental hydrous ethanol program that may also be replicated in other states. Dongfeng, a major Chinese auto maker is introducing a car this year, with a slightly modified fuel system, that runs on 65% ethanol and 35% water. They claim hydrogen is formed. Toyota also has a similar hydrous ethanol prototype that produces on board hydrogen. The BTU argument that ethanol is inferior to diesel and gasoline is not valid. Since ethanol is water soluble and high octane, with advanced engine technology, it can outperform gasoline 2 to 1 or better. Major automakers are scheduled to produce smaller, lighter, high compression, turbocharged ethanol optimized engines that are far more efficient than current gasoline and diesel engines. And the fuel will be cheaper. If you prefer an ethanol powered fuel cell, the Swift Direct Proton Fuel Cell developed by Purdue University’s Research Park in West Lafayette, Indiana is about $2,000, only 1/10 the price of a hydrogen fuel cell. Maybe that’s why Toyota is building ethanol plants in Brazil, and GM is investing in ethanol development in the U. S…They must know something we don’t know about ethanol. “

 

[Topher925]

The BTU argument that ethanol is inferior to diesel and gasoline is not valid. Since ethanol is water soluble and high octane, with advanced engine technology, it can outperform gasoline 2 to 1 or better.

How can the BTU argument not be valid? So because a substance A has 85% of the internal energy of substance B, substance A can produce twice the energy as B because it has a higher octane rating? Do you even know what an octane rating (R+M test) means?

RMF, you really need to stop posting your propaganda and go read some books. Ethanol is not a viable energy source, its actually a very poor one. The only reason E85 and all its hype was created was because the US had a huge surplus of corn. Thats it. Not because it makes some "super duper" fuel source.

 

[RMForbes]

How can the BTU argument not be valid? So because a substance A has 85% of the internal energy of substance B, substance A can produce twice the energy as B because it has a higher octane rating? Do you even know what an octane rating (R+M test) means?

RMF, you really need to stop posting your propaganda and go read some books. Ethanol is not a viable energy source, its actually a very poor one. The only reason E85 and all its hype was created was because the US had a huge surplus of corn. Thats it. Not because it makes some "super duper" fuel source.

It's not my propaganda! This is a paragraph that I copied from a E-zine on the Green Fuels website. I made no value judgement on it, you did.

 

[Topher925]

It's not my propaganda! This is a paragraph that I copied from a E-zine on the Green Fuels website. I made no value judgement on it, you did.

Oh ok, it must be true then.

 

[RMForbes]

Oh ok, it must be true then.

I don't know. But they did give references that you could check out without much effort. Do you know how to do a Google search?