Future car fuel technology

tgotb

The "silent car" issue would be far less signficant if all motor vehicles were equally quiet. Electric cars aren't silent at all, but the whining sound of their motors is lost in the general traffic noise. Once the traffic noise is reduced, we'd probably be able to hear them again (though the whining might drive everyone mad). As an added bonus, cyclists would also be more easily heard.

As for power, we should be building lots of nuclear power stations. If we don't, we'll end up with an electricity shortfall which we'll fill by buying electricity from France. Guess how they generate most of their power (and many of their nuclear power stations are on their North coast, directly upwind of the UK...)

There were some figures in New Scientist recently, comparing the number of deaths caused by different methods of power generation. Annoyingly I can't find the article, but hydro-electric came out on top, with the most deaths per unit of electricity generated (mostly due to accidents involving failed dams); coal wasn't far behind (mining is a dangerous business). Nuclear power was right at the bottom, at least an order of magnitude better than coal/hydro, and that was based on a pessimistic figure for the number of deaths caused by Chernobyl.

EKE_38BPM

DonDaddyD wrote:

Rant rant rant...there are other sources of clean energy.

DDD, you repeatedly proposed a perpetual motion machine and then said that you didn't see why hydrogen wouldn't work when many others pointed out its shortfalls. I was spelling it out for you. Nice and simple like. A bit like the explanation of 'The Troubles' a few weeks back that you said you didn't get.

As I sort of said, every form of energy is dirty in one way or another. Its just a matter of how dirty you are willing to get. By 'dirt' I mean anything ranging from air pollution to starving third world babies.

sketchley

Here you go

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths ... ource.html

Energy Source              Death Rate (deaths per TWh)

Coal – world average               161 (26% of world energy, 50% of electricity)
Coal – China                       278
Coal – USA                         15
Oil                                36  (36% of world energy)
Natural Gas                         4  (21% of world energy)
Biofuel/Biomass                    12
Peat                               12
Solar (rooftop)                     0.44 (less than 0.1% of world energy)
Wind                                0.15 (less than 1% of world energy)
Hydro                               0.10 (europe death rate, 2.2% of world energy)
Hydro - world including Banqiao)    1.4 (about 2500 TWh/yr and 171,000 Banqiao dead)
Nuclear                             0.04 (5.9% of world energy)

davmaggs

There was an interesting R4 documentary on the deaths from Chernobyl. Worth checking out.

It appears that there was a minor rise in cancer, which accounts for a tiny number of deaths (about a dozen IIRC). It was very interesting as it's always been implied in the telling of the story that thousands died and it appears not to be the case at all (obvious workers did sacrifice themselves)

Aidy

I'm not entirely sure why I bother, but....

So, the problem with hydrogen is that of producing it.

The most common source of hydrogen is as a component of water.

2H2O + E => 2H2 + O2 (where E is some energy that you provide to cause the reaction).

In burning hydrogen to produce energy, and water as a byproduct. In a perfect world, this energy output is the same E - can't create or destroy energy, see.

(Apologies to any chemists who may be reading this)

So even ignoring losses in the system, you're merely using hydrogen/water as a method of transporting stored energy - much like charging up a battery to use elsewhere.

This is different to petrol, although syphoning it up and processing it does require energy, you effectively retrieving a form of stored energy from the ground, and spending it.

I suppose it's vaguely within the realms of the imagination that given an appropriate chemical reaction and sufficient feedstock you could produce hydrogen for cheaper (in energy terms, not in fiscal terms). Thinking back to chemical bond energy, I think it's a bit unlikely, though.

MichaelW

Hydrogen fuel cells powering direct drive electric wheels is probably the right direction for motorised transport, delivery and agricultural vehicles.
Hydrogen is only a storage medium for energy.
I like the idea of fusion reactors, and using their electricity to electrolise water and /or desalinate.
Fusion reactors remain, as always, 30 years in the future but we are approaching the time when rich governments and corporations will start to panic and throw large amounts of cash at the problem. We need a Manhatten Project approach with the worlds finest brains and an unlimitted budget.

Once we have free, limitless energy we wont need to buy or search for much oil.

greg66_tri_v2.0

I've been tied up with w-o-r-k this pm, so have missed a lot of this and am late to the debate. Having only skimmed the preceding posts, some of this may be repetition, but my 2 penneth follows, in no particular order ...

- the cold cynical heart in me says peak oil is a myth. It suits oil companies to run it (drives up prices) and suits governments (drives up tax revenue). I am prepared to believe that (say) 20 years ago oilcos thought peak oil would be hit in (say) 40 years. But that was then and this is now. Tar sands are the current big thing (and shale gas is the corresponding new big thing for gascos). There will be another one after that, mark my words.

- the vast majority of energy used globally is (I'd guess) in the form of electricity. The "free" sources of energy are sun (solar direct), wind and wave (solar indirect). Those seem to me to be the obvious candidates for expansion. I think I have read that covering Arizona or some such with solar panels, even using today's tech, would service the US's power needs. Even now there are companies that will cover part of your roof in enough solar panels to run your house and generate enough surplus to sell back to the national grid. Floating solar panels in the equatorial Atlantic/Pacific?

- Hydrogen seems like a Really Nice Idea for cars. But it has the production and storage issues already mentioned. And moreover, it produces H2O as its by product. What's the biggest greenhouse gas by volume and effect? H2O. So maybe H2 isn't such a good idea.

- Electric cars are fundamentally flawed until they can be recharged in the time it takes to fill a tank with petrol. Useful for nipping around town? Yes, right up until you need to recharge for 8 hours. Then utterly useless. The battery tech is way too immature right now. Furthermore, electricity isn't exactly carbon neutral at the moment (if that is important; doubtful). The CO2 saved by not burning petrol gets produced at the coal-burning power station instead. Only this morning I read something saying that the net reduction in CO2 output by a massive switch to electric cars would be c 15%. Hardly world-changing.

- Hybrid cars. Probably the medium term solution. Not ideal - the back end environmental cost of producing a Prius is >> the front end environmental saving by running one. IIRC Jaguar recently produced an electric concept car (C75?) which powered the motors with two gas turbines. Sounds better.

- Weaning cars off petrol generally. Governments make £££ from duties and taxes on petrol and diesel. How are they going to make up that lost income if we switch to electricity?

- Planes. Hands up who wants to take a ride across the ocean in the electric plane! No, didn't think so.

- Nuclear. Well, all right, it's a bit toxic if you get it in your eyes, but it's a mature proven tech. Just site the reactors where no one goes.

- Fusion. If it's ever cracked, great. But I remember reading stuff >30 years about how it was the Holy Grail. Still is, and we're not obviously closer. Good for bombs though.

- Antimatter. Now we're talking. The only reaction that converts 100% of mass to energy. Unfortunately, still the stuff of sci-fi.

So, I see a rather slow shift from petrochems dependency, and a very gradual move towards direct and indirect solar sources of energy generally, and a push towards hybrid cars.

greg66_tri_v2.0

DonDaddyD wrote:

An electric car drove past me quite close. I heard nothing and was plunged into all kinds of startled shock as I looked to my right and BAM there it was.

That's because you're deaf.

In truth, most cars make most of their noise from tyre roar. Electric cars (a) are slow (b) have thin tyres (because they have to keep weight down, they don't do "handling", and they are sh!t) so don't make a lot of tyre noise.

DonDaddyD wrote:

Also, as we become more environmentally aware we, as a society - except Greg, are beginning to understand that oil/petrol/diesel is EVIL.

That reminds me - we were supposed to have that chat about brainwashing, and not believing everything you hear on TV/'net...

ride_whenever

Hydrogen for use as a vector won't be hydrogen. It'll either be stored in light metal oxides or most likely IMO as methanol. You can run certain fuel cells on methanol, the energy density is good and the current infrastructure is perfect for it. The cycle is also carbon neutral as you burn/use in fuel cell the methanol to produce carbon dioxide and water and then combine the two to generate the fuel.

Far better than the 'hydrogen' economy as most people understand it and far fewer barriers to entry versus pure hydrogen infrastructure.

bearfraser

Steamcars are one way to go apart from the need to "Steam-up" before you can get under way ,however they are very nearly as silent as electric vehicles. you can burn allmost anything to produce the steam but do use a supprising amount of water per mile but are very rapid off the mark.




What about "Dilithium Crystals??

rjsterry

Greg66 wrote:

- the cold cynical heart in me says peak oil is a myth. It suits oil companies to run it (drives up prices) and suits governments (drives up tax revenue). I am prepared to believe that (say) 20 years ago oilcos thought peak oil would be hit in (say) 40 years. But that was then and this is now. Tar sands are the current big thing (and shale gas is the corresponding new big thing for gascos). There will be another one after that, mark my words.

Whilst I wouldn't put it past oil companies to ramp up fears to justify price hikes, I think there might be a bit more to it than that. The fact that we are digging up naturally occurring tarmac to extract the useful hydrocarbons suggests that the easy stuff has already gone. There's supposed to be plenty of coal left under the UK, but until prices get high enough to make extraction worthwhile, it'll stay there. I suspect the more likely scenario is that hydrocarbons will get too expensive for even the likes of wealthy Londoners (let alone the majority of the world for whom it's already a big problem, long before it actually runs out.

I'd have thought (maybe someone has already done this) that we should be able to calculate how much carbon is 'down there' based on the length of the carboniferous period and some sensible assumptions about the amount of plant matter that has been entombed and compressed into fossil fuels (as opposed to just rotting away on the surface). We know pretty well how long we've been seriously burning coal for, and even more accurately how long we've been burning oil and gas for, so we should be able to subtract one from the other and see what's left. Mind you, the margin of error might be ±200 years.

andysol

If you say electric cars are "slow" you are mistaken. The power from an electric motor has a much better power / torque availability. eg 100% torque available at all ranges (almost) petrol engines have a torque / power band. And when not in this range perform pants.

Electric cars are fast (eg leaf has the accleration of an equivalent 2.3 Ltr petrol car) but charge /range is an issue. Reportedly there will be the capability for fast charge. Eg 20 mins upto 80% charge. Also long charge point at your house.

Electric is the future (short term / med term). It pushes the ineficincies of burning oil from the car to the power generation companies. Eg Nuclear power at the generators, plug in at home = no oil / gas.

Hybrid cars are a marketing ploy and are not green. They will be dead in x years.

The udoubted problem with electric is batteries and range. This will get better. Another downside to batteries is the rare earths used to make them. CHina has almost all rare earth mining and Japan own most of the knowledge for battery manufacturing. All our mony will head east again.
Andy

greg66_tri_v2.0

rjsterry wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

- the cold cynical heart in me says peak oil is a myth. It suits oil companies to run it (drives up prices) and suits governments (drives up tax revenue). I am prepared to believe that (say) 20 years ago oilcos thought peak oil would be hit in (say) 40 years. But that was then and this is now. Tar sands are the current big thing (and shale gas is the corresponding new big thing for gascos). There will be another one after that, mark my words.

Whilst I wouldn't put it past oil companies to ramp up fears to justify price hikes, I think there might be a bit more to it than that.

I'd have thought (maybe someone has already done this) that we should be able to calculate how much carbon is 'down there' based on the length of the carboniferous period and some sensible assumptions about the amount of plant matter that has been entombed and compressed into fossil fuels (as opposed to just rotting away on the surface). We know pretty well how long we've been seriously burning coal for, and even more accurately how long we've been burning oil and gas for, so we should be able to subtract one from the other and see what's left. Mind you, the margin of error might be ±200 years.

Ah, but there's "down there", "economically accessible and down there", "economically accessible now and down there", and "economically accessible maybe in the future and down there". Which do you use for the calculation? Would shale gas, for example, have fallen into the last category 10 years ago? If it is truly inaccessible, then I suppose you can forget about it, but who's to say that in 50 years we won't be drilling for oil on the bottom of the mid-Atlantic?

rjsterry

Greg66 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

- the cold cynical heart in me says peak oil is a myth. It suits oil companies to run it (drives up prices) and suits governments (drives up tax revenue). I am prepared to believe that (say) 20 years ago oilcos thought peak oil would be hit in (say) 40 years. But that was then and this is now. Tar sands are the current big thing (and shale gas is the corresponding new big thing for gascos). There will be another one after that, mark my words.

Whilst I wouldn't put it past oil companies to ramp up fears to justify price hikes, I think there might be a bit more to it than that.

I'd have thought (maybe someone has already done this) that we should be able to calculate how much carbon is 'down there' based on the length of the carboniferous period and some sensible assumptions about the amount of plant matter that has been entombed and compressed into fossil fuels (as opposed to just rotting away on the surface). We know pretty well how long we've been seriously burning coal for, and even more accurately how long we've been burning oil and gas for, so we should be able to subtract one from the other and see what's left. Mind you, the margin of error might be ±200 years.

Ah, but there's "down there", "economically accessible and down there", "economically accessible now and down there", and "economically accessible maybe in the future and down there". Which do you use for the calculation? Would shale gas, for example, have fallen into the last category 10 years ago? If it is truly inaccessible, then I suppose you can forget about it, but who's to say that in 50 years we won't be drilling for oil on the bottom of the mid-Atlantic?

Fair point, to some extent addressed by edit to my original post above - I suspect extraction costs will put hydrocarbons out of the reach of most long before supplies are exhausted. I think you'll hit magma before you hit oil in the mid Atlantic, though.

sketchley

Peak oil is not a myth, it's a fact that the number of new barrels of oil per year discovered (new oil fields) has not exceeded the number of barrels extracted (from exisiting fields) for some time. So basically we are using oil discovered by are ancestors each and every year. In otherwords it's running out.

Now this is not the same thing as there is no oil left, fortunatley some of those fields discovered in the 30s are pretty big.

SteppenHerring

Most car journeys are well within the range of an electric (battery) car. How many people commute more than 40 miles each way? If you could change mindsets then the idea of owning a battery car for commuting shopping and then renting a petrol/diesel for long trips like holidays would be cheaper and cleaner all round. Or will be when the battery tech improves. Nevertheless, people out to get that you don't need a 1,500kg 150hp car to get the 9 miles to work.

There's another side effect of lot of battery cars: as many detractors point out, the problem with wide/tidal/wave power is that it's intermittent (although I seem to always have a brisk headwind). If you had a huge number of batteries plugged into smart points most of the time, you have a place to put that energy and a place to recover it from (when people are not driving but at home watching old Buffy episodes on the satellite TV).

You will always struggle to come up with something that has the energy density of fossil fuels and the speed of delivery. A litre of diesel contains roughly 38MJ of energy. Say it takes 2 seconds to put a litre of fuel into your car, that's 19MJ/s or 19megawatts. Seen how thick that 30 amp cable to your immersion heater is? Well, at 240V that's 80,000 amps.

Nuclear can more than match the energy density but there are some other issues there.

(Yeah, I'm a hypocrite - I often drive to work)

simonc2806

I remember they was debating the problem with electric cars vs other road users ie cyclists and pedestrians. They came to the conculsion that they should be fitted with a siren to warn others of their presence. the not the car you have to worry about they have electric buses and they sound like a milk float but a lot quieter. we will probably go back to horsepower the four legged kind. you think there is people who live in the remote parts of the world and they don't even know what a motor vehicle is and they survive. we have become to depend on the car and that will be our downfall.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Sketchley wrote:

Peak oil is not a myth, it's a fact that the number of new barrels of oil per year discovered (new oil fields) has not exceeded the number of barrels extracted (from exisiting fields) for some time. So basically we are using oil discovered by are ancestors each and every year. In otherwords it's running out.

Now this is not the same thing as there is no oil left, fortunatley some of those fields discovered in the 30s are pretty big.

Ok. I should have been clearer. It's a myth that we are now at peak oil. Or are likely to be so at any time in the near future.

Wiki on peak oil isn't too gloomy, although I don't generally regard wiki as gospel.

tailwindhome

* paging Porgy

jimmypippa

I think that hydrogen is probably the more long-term solution for transport, but there is another problem that I don't think has been mentioned yet

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

Hydrogen embrittlement is the process by which various metals, most importantly high-strength steel, become brittle and fracture following exposure to hydrogen. Hydrogen embrittlement is often the result of unintentional introduction of hydrogen into susceptible metals during forming or finishing operations.

SmellTheGlove

Hydrogen production is looking like a possible good way to soak up all that wind power that operators might otherwise have to pay the grid to dump. From my reading, hydrogen has some promise, yes even as a fuel for cell-powered road vehicles.

However I find it almost impossible to engage with this debate in isolation, in other words, without considering that, when fossil fuels become scarce, what we power our cars with will be the least of our worries, since all the paraphernalia of the oil economy is needed to produce so much of our other everyday stuff that we take for granted.

EKE_38BPM

SmellTheGlove wrote:

Hydrogen production is looking like a possible good way to soak up all that wind power that operators might otherwise have to pay the grid to dump. From my reading, hydrogen has some promise, yes even as a fuel for cell-powered road vehicles.

However I find it almost impossible to engage with this debate in isolation, in other words, without considering that, when fossil fuels become scarce, what we power our cars with will be the least of our worries, since all the paraphernalia of the oil economy is needed to produce so much of our other everyday stuff that we take for granted.

I'm sure that in the distant future when oil is properly scarce that people will be amazed that in the 20th and 21st centuries people burnt oil just to move around.

Crude oil contains so many chemicals that we use to make useful stuff that the idea of burning it will seem really primitive to them. A bit like us thinking about human sacrifice, building pyramids or supporting Spurs.

ride_whenever

But that really is such a non-issue when you have enough energy. The big issue as I see it is not how do we power our cars. But how do we meet out energy needs at all?

Once you have enough energy then everything else is relatively simple as you can simply make things like pharmaceuticals and petrol from carbon dioxide given enough energy.

The vast bulk of research into the future (current) energy crisis revolves around hydrogen cars and fuel cells, there doesn't seem to be nearly enough focused on putting the energy into the cycle. If I had the purse strings to research money I'd be looking a lot more at energy production and considerably less into the hydrogen economy.

With an eye to money-making I'd be looking at synthetic petrol...

SmellTheGlove

ride_whenever wrote:

Once you have enough energy then everything else is relatively simple as you can simply make things like pharmaceuticals and petrol from carbon dioxide given enough energy.

Energy so cheap it won't be worth metering? I understand your points RW but research-scale plants don't become commercial overnight. Today's infrastructure has been built over a century. If a massive shift is required we have to bank on perhaps decades to get a new infrastructure into place. I reckon Tesco will probably be in the forefront of building it in the UK; they are an example of the kind of business that has the most to lose from inertia.

Personal mobility of the future? To begin with, you can forget about owning it.

...for another thread.

EKE_38BPM

ride_whenever wrote:

Once you have enough energy then everything else is relatively simple as you can simply make things like pharmaceuticals and petrol from carbon dioxide given enough energy.

No. Carbon dioxide only contains carbon and oxygen.
Fossil fuels contain a whole soup of hydrocarbons which leads to all sorts of useful chemicals. Alcohols to ashpalt, pharmaceuticals to plastics,fuels to fabrics (nylon, lycra etc)..

snailracer

EKE_38BPM wrote:

ride_whenever wrote:

Once you have enough energy then everything else is relatively simple as you can simply make things like pharmaceuticals and petrol from carbon dioxide given enough energy.

No. Carbon dioxide only contains carbon and oxygen.
Fossil fuels contain a whole soup of hydrocarbons which leads to all sorts of useful chemicals. Alcohols to ashpalt, pharmaceuticals to plastics,fuels to fabrics (nylon, lycra etc)..

OMG we'll have to start hunting whales for oil again!

DonDaddyD

Isn't it possible to get stored energy from pee?

I mean the Matrix has made it clear that we are just one big powerplant of energy. Why can't you get the stuff from our byproducts?

jonginge

DonDaddyD wrote:

Isn't it possible to get stored energy from pee?

I mean the Matrix has made it clear that we are just one big powerplant of energy. Why can't you get the stuff from our byproducts?

Certainly there are many things in urine. Phosphorus was discovered in pee. It burns, I tell you! Trufax.

EKE_38BPM

DonDaddyD wrote:

Isn't it possible to get stored energy from pee?

I mean the Matrix has made it clear that we are just one big powerplant of energy. Why can't you get the stuff from our byproducts?

The Matrix is a science fiction film, not a documentary.

I suppose there is energy in our waste, but it is at a really low density and would take more energy to extract than it would provide.

DonDaddyD

EKE_38BPM wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Isn't it possible to get stored energy from pee?

I mean the Matrix has made it clear that we are just one big powerplant of energy. Why can't you get the stuff from our byproducts?

The Matrix is a science fiction film, not a documentary.

Wow! Really, are you sure? Like absolutely sure?

I suppose there is energy in our waste, but it is at a really low density and would take more energy to extract than it would provide.

I think if evolution held as much contempt for possibilities as you do it would have given up at single cell life forms.

Jeez.