Hydrogen Vehicle Generates Its Own Fuel 662
An anonymous reader writes "Our friends at The Arizona Republic have the scoop: 'The truck is hydrogen-powered and creates its own fuel from solar energy and water, a technical feat that rivals the advanced technology being researched by major auto companies and universities. The four-cylinder engine is tuned to run on hydrogen, which is produced by a hand-built electrolysis system mounted in the bed.' You can also help this project."
It's near performance already (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:It's near performance already (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It's near performance already (Score:5, Insightful)
Much cleaner.
Re:It's near performance already (Score:5, Insightful)
There are cases where a commuter vehicle like this would make sense.
Re:It's near performance already (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's near performance already (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's near performance already (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:It's near performance already (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It's near performance already (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's near performance already (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:It's near performance already (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:It's near performance already (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Dying isn't green (Score:5, Funny)
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.:-)
Ok, It's Satire, But.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Ok, It's Satire, But.. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Ok, It's Satire, But.. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Ok, It's Satire, But.. (Score:3, Interesting)
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...
Re:It's near performance already (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re:It's near performance already (Score:5, Funny)
I could not agree more! Save the planet! Kill yourself!
http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/ [churchofeuthanasia.org]
Re:It's near performance already (Score:5, 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 (Score:5, Informative)
Nah, it's not that bad. People in northern climes ride year round too. Good sites for ideas include icebike [rcn.com] and bikewinter [bikewinter.org]. Also I wrote up some suggestions on riding in winter [fieldses.org].
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
Most definitely. I live in Ottawa Canada, which is recognized as the second coldest national capital [greatestcities.com]. 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 midd
Re:It's near performance already (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:It's near performance already (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:It's near performance already (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:It's near performance already (Score:3, Interesting)
True but now chance a few things (Score:3, Interesting)
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 get
Re:True but now chance a few things (Score:4, Insightful)
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).
Re:It's near performance already (Score:2)
Duh! the answer is obvious (Score:5, Funny)
Problem solved.
Re:Duh! the answer is obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
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 gen
Re:Duh! the answer is obvious (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re:It's near performance already (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's near performance already (Score:3, Insightful)
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 pow
Re:It's near performance already (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [formulasun.org] 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 (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:It's near performance already (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's near performance already (Score:4, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:It's near performance already (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:It's near performance already (Score:3, Informative)
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 sto
Conflict of interest? (Score:5, Interesting)
Recycling fuel is anathema to the petroleum industry--BP commercials ("it's a start") aside.
Re:Conflict of interest? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Conflict of interest? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 Hond
Basic economy might counter your idea (Score:4, Informative)
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?
Re:Conflict of interest? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Conflict of interest? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Conflict of interest? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you opt for the solar version, it comes wi
i want one! (Score:5, Funny)
Brilliant idiots... (Score:3, Informative)
Brilliant!
Re:Brilliant idiots... (Score:2, Insightful)
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... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd say that the choice of the S10 was deliberate, and absolutely brilliant.
Text of project description page (Score:5, Informative)
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.
not a new concept. (Score:2)
This concept isn't new by anymeans. The challenge to projects like this lay in the efficiency of solar cells. One would almost think that wind generators, with a combination of dynamic breaking (sticking a generator on the axles to slow the viehicle) woudl generate more hydrogen and do so more efficiently.
Re:not a new concept. (Score:2)
Showing my ignorance (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Re:Showing my ignorance (Score:3, 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
Whoop! Whoop! Whoop! (Score:4, Funny)
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."
Re:Whoop! Whoop! Whoop! (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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why convert electricity to H (Score:2, Insightful)
No performance comparison to batteries (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Mod parent up read below (Score:5, 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:
Re:Why convert electricity to H (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why convert electricity to H (Score:3, Interesting)
Hydrogen to Methane Converter? (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?
Re:Hydrogen to Methane Converter? (Score:3, Informative)
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? (Score:3, Funny)
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
Re: Hydrogen to Methane Converter? (Score:3, Informative)
nice, but where can you fill it up? (Score:3, Insightful)
why not just connect to the power grid? (Score:4, Interesting)
Not hydrogen powered (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
MOD PARENT UP (Score:3, Insightful)
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 stil
Re:MOD PARENT UP (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Not hydrogen powered (Score:3, Insightful)
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 i
Yes, you're correct. (Score:3, Insightful)
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 so
Well... (Score:5, Funny)
BC
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Cool (Score:4, Funny)
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!
who remembers (Score:3, Informative)
hmmmm...
The electrolysis equipment is the interesting part (Score:3, 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.
Why detroit avoids H2 (Score:3, Insightful)
instead of a land-based vehicle (Score:3, Interesting)
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...
Great, but the problem now is storing energy. (Score:4, Interesting)
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. (Score:3, 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.
Brasilian ethanol fuel effort (Score:3, 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) [renewables2004.de] 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 [msn.com] 2 [fleet-central.com]
I LOVE this from their faq: (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Seriously (Score:3, Insightful)
What's the big deal? (Score:3, Funny)
Big whoop.
Absolute Rubbish (Score:3, Insightful)
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!
Look at the numbers on this (Score:5, Informative)
They say they have four solar panels. Suppose they're Shell Solar SP150 units. [realgoods.com] 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.
WTH With The Complaints! (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Interesting)
- 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.
Out of water? (Score:3, Funny)
I'd piss on a sparkplug if I thought it'd do any good
Hydrogen has its problems (Score:3, Interesting)
We'd do much better exploring biodiesel [unh.edu] than trying to pursue solar/hydrogen as a fuel system.
From the article:And that's not including the subject of efficiency. Solar/hydrogen is extremely inefficient.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!
Re:Not sustainable? (Score:3, Interesting)
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 shop
Re:Not sustainable? (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:just imagine (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Ice Age (Score:5, Informative)
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.