Comments on: Alternative Forms of Energy : Part II http://www.allpar.com/weblogs/2006/05/30/alternative-forms-of-energy-part-ii/ Chrysler, car, and other discussions by Allpar contributors Thu, 04 Dec 2008 23:19:56 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc By: Allpar Weblogs » Global Warming & Alternative Fuels : Part III http://www.allpar.com/weblogs/2006/05/30/alternative-forms-of-energy-part-ii/#comment-1732 Allpar Weblogs » Global Warming & Alternative Fuels : Part III Wed, 27 Sep 2006 07:31:21 +0000 http://www.allpar.com/weblogs/2006/05/30/alternative-forms-of-energy-part-ii/#comment-1732 [...] Previously I have written two blogs that have attempted to explain/understand why there is a need for Alternative Fuels and what where some of the pros and cons of each of the different technologies. The first blog was titled What Will be Powering Our Cars in the Future? and the second was called Alternative Forms of Energy : Part II in which I was a co-author with allpar member jstwe314. [...] [...] Previously I have written two blogs that have attempted to explain/understand why there is a need for Alternative Fuels and what where some of the pros and cons of each of the different technologies. The first blog was titled What Will be Powering Our Cars in the Future? and the second was called Alternative Forms of Energy : Part II in which I was a co-author with allpar member jstwe314. [...]

]]> By: Si http://www.allpar.com/weblogs/2006/05/30/alternative-forms-of-energy-part-ii/#comment-1357 Si Sat, 12 Aug 2006 01:59:48 +0000 http://www.allpar.com/weblogs/2006/05/30/alternative-forms-of-energy-part-ii/#comment-1357 Issues with Hydrogen fuel for conventional engines (Piston and Wankel). The speed at which Hydrogen ignites is much faster than normal fuels, like petrol and ethanol. You might have notices higher 'Octane' (R.O.N) fuels are "better", as they burn slower, and allow a more efficient combustion as the travel of the engine crank. Hydrogen releases a very quick burst energy and is therefore inefficient. This is also detrimental to the engine components and will cause sever engine ware and damage. To run Hydrogen you need comparatively retarded ignition timing and low compression (or at lease low static compression). On a 8.2:1 engine at 0 degrees timing at 800rpm, advancing to 5 degrees to 4000rpm, an engine will run on Hydrogen, although it denotes, and I estimate the engine would last 10k-20k km’s. 9.7:1 compression engine and a variety of timing's, the rings give way and the engine seizes. Those are the 2 most successful of my tests. The use of Hydrogen to power cars requires another 100yrs of engine development. Or, if given the funds from US defence, 1 week. Issues with Hydrogen fuel for conventional engines (Piston and Wankel). The speed at which Hydrogen ignites is much faster than normal fuels, like petrol and ethanol. You might have notices higher ‘Octane’ (R.O.N) fuels are “better”, as they burn slower, and allow a more efficient combustion as the travel of the engine crank. Hydrogen releases a very quick burst energy and is therefore inefficient. This is also detrimental to the engine components and will cause sever engine ware and damage. To run Hydrogen you need comparatively retarded ignition timing and low compression (or at lease low static compression). On a 8.2:1 engine at 0 degrees timing at 800rpm, advancing to 5 degrees to 4000rpm, an engine will run on Hydrogen, although it denotes, and I estimate the engine would last 10k-20k km’s. 9.7:1 compression engine and a variety of timing’s, the rings give way and the engine seizes. Those are the 2 most successful of my tests.

The use of Hydrogen to power cars requires another 100yrs of engine development.
Or, if given the funds from US defence, 1 week.

]]> By: Kevin http://www.allpar.com/weblogs/2006/05/30/alternative-forms-of-energy-part-ii/#comment-786 Kevin Sat, 03 Jun 2006 02:53:19 +0000 http://www.allpar.com/weblogs/2006/05/30/alternative-forms-of-energy-part-ii/#comment-786 (where's the edit button?) I forgot to add this from the end of that wired article:"insiders say the Union of Concerned Scientists has a growing pro-nuke faction." (where’s the edit button?) I forgot to add this from the end of that wired article:”insiders say the Union of Concerned Scientists has a growing pro-nuke faction.”

]]> By: Kevin http://www.allpar.com/weblogs/2006/05/30/alternative-forms-of-energy-part-ii/#comment-785 Kevin Sat, 03 Jun 2006 02:42:50 +0000 http://www.allpar.com/weblogs/2006/05/30/alternative-forms-of-energy-part-ii/#comment-785 I agree with the points you make about safety concerns Dave . I remember the Three Mile Island scare. I used to live down wind of Nine Mile point. The federal government dose'nt have a good record with any oversight responsibility that I know of. But personally I'm at the point of which is scarier, Nuclear technology or Global warming? We earthlings are not in the position to endlessly debate the options for the next 50 years. I agree also that Wired magazine has a smarta$$ editorial style but I believe this article makes a good case supporting Nuclear power to replace our carbon problems. I personally believe in thrifty energy use (I drive a lousy escort for cry'n out loud) but I don't think conservation alone is gonna do it. "An MIT study forecasts that worldwide energy demand could triple by 2050. China could build a Three Gorges Dam every year forever and still not meet its growing demand for electricity. Even the carbon reductions required by the Kyoto Protocol - which pointedly exempts developing countries like China - will be a drop in the atmospheric sewer" If your in the market for a generator Dave, I suggest this combination hybrid car/ home generator I saw on the web! It has a onboard reformer that converts methanol and water into hydrogen which then feeds a fuel cell. http://www.allpar.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=72126&hl= I agree with the points you make about safety concerns Dave . I remember the Three Mile Island scare. I used to live down wind of Nine Mile point. The federal government dose’nt have a good record with any oversight responsibility that I know of. But personally I’m at the point of which is scarier, Nuclear technology or Global warming? We earthlings are not in the position to endlessly debate the options for the next 50 years. I agree also that Wired magazine has a smarta$$ editorial style but I believe this article makes a good case supporting Nuclear power to replace our carbon problems. I personally believe in thrifty energy use (I drive a lousy escort for cry’n out loud) but I don’t think conservation alone is gonna do it. “An MIT study forecasts that worldwide energy demand could triple by 2050. China could build a Three Gorges Dam every year forever and still not meet its growing demand for electricity. Even the carbon reductions required by the Kyoto Protocol - which pointedly exempts developing countries like China - will be a drop in the atmospheric sewer”
If your in the market for a generator Dave, I suggest this combination hybrid car/ home generator I saw on the web! It has a onboard reformer that converts methanol and water into hydrogen which then feeds a fuel cell.
http://www.allpar.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=72126&hl=

]]>