Why aren't we using Hydrogen as a source of fuel for cars?

[Xyius]

What I mean by the title is, why isn't it more popular? (I know there DO exist some hydrogen powered cars.)

To me it just makes sense to use hydrogen. It is very explosive and it's byproduct is water! The only draw back I can see is storing the gas in the vehicle to be used.

Can anyone shed some light onto why hydrogen powered cars isn't kicking off the way hybrid powered cars are? I feel like there must be some major draw backs.

Thanks!

 

[JaredJames]

What I mean by the title is, why isn't it more popular? (I know there DO exist some hydrogen powered cars.)

To me it just makes sense to use hydrogen. It is very explosive and it's byproduct is water! The only draw back I can see is storing the gas in the vehicle to be used.

Can anyone shed some light onto why hydrogen powered cars isn't kicking off the way hybrid powered cars are? I feel like there must be some major draw backs.

Thanks!

Emphasis mine.

I believe one of the biggest issues is storing it. It's something you really don't want strapped to you during a car crash if it isn't contained correctly.

A regular fuel leak is dangerous, but it doesn't ignite as easily as Hydrogen.

 

[Pengwuino]

You also have to consider distribution. Hybrid cars still use gasoline. How do you transport hydrogen throughout entire countries? It's not easy, but there are plans in the work for creating a hydrogen fuel infrastructure.

Hydrogen in liquid form is -250 C. In a gaseous form, the only way you can get high enough densities to have substantial amounts for a car would be very high pressure containers. So the solution is not so simple as shoving a bunch of hydrogen into your car's gas tank.

 

[Drakkith]

Hydrogen isn't a viable source of energy. It is merely a viable source of energy STORAGE.

Hydrogen does NOT exist by itself on earth. It is always bound to one material or another. (Water as a case in point) It takes a large amount of energy to separate Hydrogen from whatever it is bound to, and where do we get this energy? Petroleum mostly. There is practically no benefit to using hydrogen as a fuel source over gasoline or diesel. The only exception I can think of is using petroleum for electricity generation or to generate Hydrogen MIGHT be slightly more efficient than using gasoline and diesel in vehicles. But the expense involved in shifting the whole industry over would probably vastly outweigh the meager savings you would get, if any. At least for the short-medium term.

 

[russ_watters]

What I mean by the title is, why isn't it more popular? (I know there DO exist some hydrogen powered cars.)

To me it just makes sense to use hydrogen. It is very explosive and it's byproduct is water! The only draw back I can see is storing the gas in the vehicle to be used.

Can anyone shed some light onto why hydrogen powered cars isn't kicking off the way hybrid powered cars are? I feel like there must be some major draw backs.

Thanks!

The drawback is that you're operating on a misconception: hydrogen is not a naturally occurring fuel. It has to be manufactured by reversing the process that burns it, so it doesn't actually provide any net gain of energy.

 

[Andrew Mason]

One problem is that its energy density by volume is very low - much smaller than gasoline. So not only do you have the problems outlined here by the previous posters, you have to transport a lot more volume of H2 fuel than you would gasoline.

Hydrogen-gasoline hybrid engines might be effective, using a small tank of H2 to supplement gasoline. One of the problems with gasoline engines is their inefficiency and emissions due to incomplete combustion especially during acceleration. One could develop an engine that ran on both hydrogen and gasoline using gasoline during constant load operation and hydrogen for acceleration. I am sure these kinds of things are being looked at.

Hydrogen could be produced in large volumes from electricity generated by renewable sources such as wind and solar. That might make it economical and environmentally benign. Producing H2 from fossil fuels doesn't make much sense to me.

AM

 

[Xyius]

Wow very good points! Thanks a lot everyone! :D (Feel free to keep posting if you have any more!)

 

[Jobrag]

There are problems with hydrogen embrittlement causing engine block failure.

 

[jack action]

From the http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/en/consumer/hydrogen/basics/utilization-ice.htm" :

There are four basic issues regarding hydrogen-fueled engines and vehicles: engine backfire and susceptibility of hydrogen to surface ignition, somewhat reduced engine power, high nitric oxide (NOx) emissions, and the problem of on-board storage of the fuel and safety. Although partial solutions have been found to most of these problems, there still is no general consensus of the best method to finally resolve all of these issues.

 

[rcgldr]

Producing H2 from fossil fuels doesn't make much sense to me.

Except that it's a relatively cheap to obtain from the refining process for natural gas. From what I recall, it's still the cheapest way to get H2.

http://www.getenergysmart.org/files/hydrogeneducation/6hydrogenproductionsteammethanereforming.pdf

 

[Drakkith]

Except that it's a relatively cheap to obtain from the refining process for natural gas. From what I recall, it's still the cheapest way to get H2.

http://www.getenergysmart.org/files/hydrogeneducation/6hydrogenproductionsteammethanereforming.pdf

You are still burning fossil fuels to get the hydrogen though. The end products of that production method are CO2 and H2.

 

[rcgldr]

Except that it's a relatively cheap to obtain from the refining process for natural gas. From what I recall, it's still the cheapest way to get H2.

http://www.getenergysmart.org/files/hydrogeneducation/6hydrogenproductionsteammethanereforming.pdf

You are still burning fossil fuels to get the hydrogen though. The end products of that production method are CO2 and H2.

It's not "green" (environment friendly) but it is cheap. I wouldn't think it would be necessary to burn fossil fuels to heat the steam used to produce the CO2 and H2, but again, it's probably just cheaper.

 

[Drakkith]

It's not "green" (environment friendly) but it is cheap. I wouldn't think it would be necessary to burn fossil fuels to heat the steam used to produce the CO2 and H2, but again, it's probably just cheaper.

Cheaper than what? Cheaper than other ways of producing hydrogen, or cheaper than using gasoline to run a car?

 

[rcgldr]

Cheaper than what? Cheaper than other ways of producing hydrogen, or cheaper than using gasoline to run a car?

Cheaper than other ways of producing hydrogen, such as electrolysis. It's not currently cheaper than using gasoline to run a car if you ignore the fact that fossil fuels are non-renewable resources.

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

 

[Drakkith]

Cheaper than other ways of producing hydrogen, such as electrolysis. It's not currently cheaper than using gasoline to run a car if you ignore the fact that fossil fuels are non-renewable resources.

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

Ah ok.

 

[xxChrisxx]

I believe one of the biggest issues is storing it. It's something you really don't want strapped to you during a car crash if it isn't contained correctly.

A regular fuel leak is dangerous, but it doesn't ignite as easily as Hydrogen.

Hydrogens autoignition temperature is far higher than petrol or diesel (500C vs 250C). As such petrol will autoignite on a hot exhaust, hydrogen won't. Exhausts realisitically achieve petrol AI temps, especially in the cat which is about 600C at woking temp.

So on that front hydrogen is a safer form of fuel. The next problem is a fuel leak.

In the event of a cracked fuel tank, Hydrogen (being much lighter than air and stored under high pressure) rapidly disperses making it very hard to ignite after a few seconds, the change of fire reduces rapidly with time. Petrol tends to sit around, getting hot and forming vapour. The longer fuel leaks and stays around a hot car the higher the chance of a fire.


Fuel cell cars are as safe as regular cars. The Honda FCX Clarity has passed all the tests required in the US (and now the UK as well I believe) for production car safety, its acutally classed as a production vehichle.

 

[DrDu]

BMW was developing and running a fleet of cars with hydrogen engines until 2009, when they stopped the project. From a talk I heard from the head of developement, the burning of hydrogen in the motor was much more homogeneous than of gasoline and the general characteristics of the motors very advantageous. I think the main problems which lead to stopping the project are problems to store and to produce hydrogen.

 

[xxChrisxx]

BMW was developing and running a fleet of cars with hydrogen engines until 2009, when they stopped the project. From a talk I heard from the head of developement, the burning of hydrogen in the motor was much more homogeneous than of gasoline and the general characteristics of the motors very advantageous. I think the main problems which lead to stopping the project are problems to store and to produce hydrogen.

Storage is no problem, Honda have got a system, there are also tons of non car related Hydrogen storage possiblities that can be adapted (we have the technolgy to safely store and transport compressed hydrogen).

The production is more of an issue, as commercially there is no point in making a hydrogen car until there are hydrogen filling stations and there is no point in making filling stations until there are enough cars to make it viable.

The main difference was that BMW used liquid hydrogen storage through cooling. The Honda system uses the compressed gas. As far as I remember the BMW engine was designed to run on both petrol and Hydrogen.

 

[JaredJames]

Hydrogens autoignition temperature is far higher than petrol or diesel (500C vs 250C). As such petrol will autoignite on a hot exhaust, hydrogen won't. Exhausts realisitically achieve petrol AI temps, especially in the cat which is about 600C at woking temp.

So on that front hydrogen is a safer form of fuel.

Not true. At least not from what I've read.

Three things are needed for a fire or explosion to occur: a and a source of ignition. Hydrogen, as a flammable fuel, mixes with oxygen whenever air is allowed to enter a hydrogen vessel, or when hydrogen leaks from any vessel into the air. Ignition sources take the form of sparks, flames, or high heat.

All fuels burn only in a gaseous or vapor state. Fuels like hydrogen and methane are already gases at atmospheric conditions, whereas other fuels like gasoline or diesel that are liquids must convert to a vapor before they will burn. The characteristic that describes how easily these fuels can be converted to a vapor is the flashpoint. The flashpoint is defined as the temperature at which the fuel produces enough vapors to form an ignitable mixture with air at its surface.

If the temperature of the fuel is below its flashpoint, it cannot produce enough vapors to burn since its evaporation rate is too slow. Whenever a fuel is at or above its flashpoint, vapors are present. The flashpoint is not the temperature at which the fuel bursts into flames; that is the autoignition temperature.

Although hydrogen has a higher autoignition temperature than methane, propane or gasoline, its ignition energy at 1.9 x 10–8 Btu (0.02 mJ) is about an order of magnitude lower and is therefore more easily ignitable. Even an invisible spark or static electricity discharge from a human body (in dry conditions) may have enough energy to cause ignition.

Hydrogen has the added property of low electroconductivity so that the flow or agitation of hydrogen gas or liquid may generate electrostatic charges that result in sparks. For this reason, all hydrogen conveying equipment must be thoroughly grounded.

Flammable mixtures of hydrogen and air can be easily ignited.

www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/tech_validation/pdfs/fcm01r0.pdf[/URL]

 

[BrendonBayliss]

ok, I am new here. but for what the person above was meaning for a leak is that if you get a leak then the dilution of the hydrogen escaping would then cause less of a ignition danger. I have a few ideas about how it could be stored somewhat safely well as safely as one may get but all these calculations people are doing well wouldn't the best way to work out how much is needed to be produced use the math of how much fuel would be needed is to find out what a specific engine uses of a gas that used to be in Australia and New Zealand called CNG or compressed natural gas.

when a gas is cooled or pressurised it will turn to a liquid, is it possible to compress hydrogen into a liquid on its own H2? or would

Now on the subject of producing it I have seen many videos on you tube two in particular the firs is one that has already been mentioned here and that is one called. "run your car on water this guy does just that"
now he used lithium 6 deuteride in four gas cylinders for a hydride to which he then heated to produce enough gas to run his car although we don't hear or see it run. (Im not doubting it just an observation)

now some here have suggested that this form of lithium would be a good way of storing hydrogen, please correct me as I am just a 25 year old with very basic knowledge and sick of paying stupid money for fuel.
But after a quick google search Wikipedia stated that to produce hydrogen the lithium 6 would be needed to heated to 700degrees C now he could not possibly be getting that sort of heat into those cylinders, does this mean that using less heat can produce hydrogen. the other video of interest is one

please look at this one and tell me your thoughts?

 

[Drakkith]

when a gas is cooled or pressurised it will turn to a liquid, is it possible to compress hydrogen into a liquid on its own H2?

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

now some here have suggested that this form of lithium would be a good way of storing hydrogen, please correct me as I am just a 25 year old with very basic knowledge and sick of paying stupid money for fuel.

There isn't a fuel source that will ever be invented that will result in free fuel. As the saying goes, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

 

[BrendonBayliss]

well did you look at the video of the motorcycle claiming to run on water, interesting you can now no
longer get the original site. and know one has heard from this since

 

[glappkaeft]

People claiming to run engines on water are either frauds, trolling or delusional...

 

[AlephZero]

now he used lithium 6 deuteride in four gas cylinders for a hydride

Hmm... I wonder where he got it from. Just about the only "commercial" use of lithium 6 deuteride is as fuel in thermonuclear weapons.

 

[Dale]

Can anyone shed some light onto why hydrogen powered cars isn't kicking off the way hybrid powered cars are? I feel like there must be some major draw backs.

1) H2 isn't found in nature
2) It is expensive to produce cleanly
3) The cheap ways to produce it have all the same emissions as fossil fuels
4) Terrible compression ratios
5) Low power density for engines
6) Dangerous and/or expensive to store
7) Metal embrittlement

I'm sure there are others, but IMO these pretty much kill it. 1-3) would mean that we have to compeltely re-do our fuel delivery infrastructure. 4-7) mean that we would have to replace our current fleet of vehicles. There doesn't seem to be any economic or environmental benefit to doing either. Hence, it ain't going to happen.

 

[QuantumPion]

If only there was a way to combine hydrogen with some other molecules so that it would have a higher energy density. Maybe even one that is liquid at room temperature and atmospheric pressure! Then it would be REALLY useful! I've even got the perfect name for it. Hydrogen is a gas by itself, right? And it's very lean, right? So we could call this new liquid fuel gas-o-lean! :)

 

[CWatters]

8) Hydrogen is a greenhouse gas (and leaks more easily than some other fuels).