98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
On May 9, 11:41 am, SnoMan <a...@snoman.com> wrote:
> On 9 May 2007 07:52:55 -0700, nrs <neale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Energy in itself is not a problem, we have solar, wind, nuclear, coal,
> >etc. The serious problem is how to run vehicles. Petroleum fuels are
> >the only viable way to do it right now, just think of a jet. Ethanol,
> >hydrogen, nothing is efficient enough yet to compete with direct
> >burning of fossil fuels. We also need to save some petroleum for
> >lubrication of machinery. Another thing that is often overlooked is
> >that food production is what it is thanks to the use of fertilizers
> >made from petroleum, we are actually eating our oil supply.
>
> Hydrogen is very efficent but there is two problems with using it.
> First currently it is made from crude and cost about 10 to 12 bucks a
> gallon. Next is its storage. To be stored in a liquid state for
> greatest fuel density it has to be keep extremely cold. (about 423
> degrees below zero) As far as energy density, gasoline has about
> 18,500 BTU's per pound and Hydrogen about 60,000 BTU's per pound (and
> a gallon weighs about .6 lbs). Pure ethanol has only about 8500 BTU's
> per pound. As a comparison, Propane has about 22,500 BTU's per pound
> and a #2 Deisel has about 21,500 BTU's per pound or just a bit less
> than Propane (this is lbs not gallons and a gallon of Propane weighs 4
> lbs)
> -----------------
> TheSnoMan.com
Those are interesting facts. About hydrogen, what I'm considering is
that
1) if it is obtained from crude, it is more efficient to burn the
fossil fuel directly rather than use it to get hydrogen and then burn
the hydrogen. Plus we end up using more fossil fuels. If the
separation here takes less energy than what is released when burning
hydrogen by reaction with oxygen, it might work but I donīt think any
existing process is this efficient yet. Any chemist here that could
clear up this point?
2) if it is obtained by separating from oxygen in water, then it takes
more energy to seperate than you get back by burning.
There is no way around this, in the end hydrogen is just a way to
transfer (not all that efficiently) the energy used to obtain it to
another use like running a car. Itīs not really a source of energy.
Its like a compressed spring, once it is compressed it can provide a
lot of energy, but not as much as it took to compress the spring.
> On 9 May 2007 07:52:55 -0700, nrs <neale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Energy in itself is not a problem, we have solar, wind, nuclear, coal,
> >etc. The serious problem is how to run vehicles. Petroleum fuels are
> >the only viable way to do it right now, just think of a jet. Ethanol,
> >hydrogen, nothing is efficient enough yet to compete with direct
> >burning of fossil fuels. We also need to save some petroleum for
> >lubrication of machinery. Another thing that is often overlooked is
> >that food production is what it is thanks to the use of fertilizers
> >made from petroleum, we are actually eating our oil supply.
>
> Hydrogen is very efficent but there is two problems with using it.
> First currently it is made from crude and cost about 10 to 12 bucks a
> gallon. Next is its storage. To be stored in a liquid state for
> greatest fuel density it has to be keep extremely cold. (about 423
> degrees below zero) As far as energy density, gasoline has about
> 18,500 BTU's per pound and Hydrogen about 60,000 BTU's per pound (and
> a gallon weighs about .6 lbs). Pure ethanol has only about 8500 BTU's
> per pound. As a comparison, Propane has about 22,500 BTU's per pound
> and a #2 Deisel has about 21,500 BTU's per pound or just a bit less
> than Propane (this is lbs not gallons and a gallon of Propane weighs 4
> lbs)
> -----------------
> TheSnoMan.com
Those are interesting facts. About hydrogen, what I'm considering is
that
1) if it is obtained from crude, it is more efficient to burn the
fossil fuel directly rather than use it to get hydrogen and then burn
the hydrogen. Plus we end up using more fossil fuels. If the
separation here takes less energy than what is released when burning
hydrogen by reaction with oxygen, it might work but I donīt think any
existing process is this efficient yet. Any chemist here that could
clear up this point?
2) if it is obtained by separating from oxygen in water, then it takes
more energy to seperate than you get back by burning.
There is no way around this, in the end hydrogen is just a way to
transfer (not all that efficiently) the energy used to obtain it to
another use like running a car. Itīs not really a source of energy.
Its like a compressed spring, once it is compressed it can provide a
lot of energy, but not as much as it took to compress the spring.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
On May 9, 11:41 am, SnoMan <a...@snoman.com> wrote:
> On 9 May 2007 07:52:55 -0700, nrs <neale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Energy in itself is not a problem, we have solar, wind, nuclear, coal,
> >etc. The serious problem is how to run vehicles. Petroleum fuels are
> >the only viable way to do it right now, just think of a jet. Ethanol,
> >hydrogen, nothing is efficient enough yet to compete with direct
> >burning of fossil fuels. We also need to save some petroleum for
> >lubrication of machinery. Another thing that is often overlooked is
> >that food production is what it is thanks to the use of fertilizers
> >made from petroleum, we are actually eating our oil supply.
>
> Hydrogen is very efficent but there is two problems with using it.
> First currently it is made from crude and cost about 10 to 12 bucks a
> gallon. Next is its storage. To be stored in a liquid state for
> greatest fuel density it has to be keep extremely cold. (about 423
> degrees below zero) As far as energy density, gasoline has about
> 18,500 BTU's per pound and Hydrogen about 60,000 BTU's per pound (and
> a gallon weighs about .6 lbs). Pure ethanol has only about 8500 BTU's
> per pound. As a comparison, Propane has about 22,500 BTU's per pound
> and a #2 Deisel has about 21,500 BTU's per pound or just a bit less
> than Propane (this is lbs not gallons and a gallon of Propane weighs 4
> lbs)
> -----------------
> TheSnoMan.com
Those are interesting facts. About hydrogen, what I'm considering is
that
1) if it is obtained from crude, it is more efficient to burn the
fossil fuel directly rather than use it to get hydrogen and then burn
the hydrogen. Plus we end up using more fossil fuels. If the
separation here takes less energy than what is released when burning
hydrogen by reaction with oxygen, it might work but I donīt think any
existing process is this efficient yet. Any chemist here that could
clear up this point?
2) if it is obtained by separating from oxygen in water, then it takes
more energy to seperate than you get back by burning.
There is no way around this, in the end hydrogen is just a way to
transfer (not all that efficiently) the energy used to obtain it to
another use like running a car. Itīs not really a source of energy.
Its like a compressed spring, once it is compressed it can provide a
lot of energy, but not as much as it took to compress the spring.
> On 9 May 2007 07:52:55 -0700, nrs <neale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Energy in itself is not a problem, we have solar, wind, nuclear, coal,
> >etc. The serious problem is how to run vehicles. Petroleum fuels are
> >the only viable way to do it right now, just think of a jet. Ethanol,
> >hydrogen, nothing is efficient enough yet to compete with direct
> >burning of fossil fuels. We also need to save some petroleum for
> >lubrication of machinery. Another thing that is often overlooked is
> >that food production is what it is thanks to the use of fertilizers
> >made from petroleum, we are actually eating our oil supply.
>
> Hydrogen is very efficent but there is two problems with using it.
> First currently it is made from crude and cost about 10 to 12 bucks a
> gallon. Next is its storage. To be stored in a liquid state for
> greatest fuel density it has to be keep extremely cold. (about 423
> degrees below zero) As far as energy density, gasoline has about
> 18,500 BTU's per pound and Hydrogen about 60,000 BTU's per pound (and
> a gallon weighs about .6 lbs). Pure ethanol has only about 8500 BTU's
> per pound. As a comparison, Propane has about 22,500 BTU's per pound
> and a #2 Deisel has about 21,500 BTU's per pound or just a bit less
> than Propane (this is lbs not gallons and a gallon of Propane weighs 4
> lbs)
> -----------------
> TheSnoMan.com
Those are interesting facts. About hydrogen, what I'm considering is
that
1) if it is obtained from crude, it is more efficient to burn the
fossil fuel directly rather than use it to get hydrogen and then burn
the hydrogen. Plus we end up using more fossil fuels. If the
separation here takes less energy than what is released when burning
hydrogen by reaction with oxygen, it might work but I donīt think any
existing process is this efficient yet. Any chemist here that could
clear up this point?
2) if it is obtained by separating from oxygen in water, then it takes
more energy to seperate than you get back by burning.
There is no way around this, in the end hydrogen is just a way to
transfer (not all that efficiently) the energy used to obtain it to
another use like running a car. Itīs not really a source of energy.
Its like a compressed spring, once it is compressed it can provide a
lot of energy, but not as much as it took to compress the spring.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
On May 9, 11:41 am, SnoMan <a...@snoman.com> wrote:
> On 9 May 2007 07:52:55 -0700, nrs <neale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Energy in itself is not a problem, we have solar, wind, nuclear, coal,
> >etc. The serious problem is how to run vehicles. Petroleum fuels are
> >the only viable way to do it right now, just think of a jet. Ethanol,
> >hydrogen, nothing is efficient enough yet to compete with direct
> >burning of fossil fuels. We also need to save some petroleum for
> >lubrication of machinery. Another thing that is often overlooked is
> >that food production is what it is thanks to the use of fertilizers
> >made from petroleum, we are actually eating our oil supply.
>
> Hydrogen is very efficent but there is two problems with using it.
> First currently it is made from crude and cost about 10 to 12 bucks a
> gallon. Next is its storage. To be stored in a liquid state for
> greatest fuel density it has to be keep extremely cold. (about 423
> degrees below zero) As far as energy density, gasoline has about
> 18,500 BTU's per pound and Hydrogen about 60,000 BTU's per pound (and
> a gallon weighs about .6 lbs). Pure ethanol has only about 8500 BTU's
> per pound. As a comparison, Propane has about 22,500 BTU's per pound
> and a #2 Deisel has about 21,500 BTU's per pound or just a bit less
> than Propane (this is lbs not gallons and a gallon of Propane weighs 4
> lbs)
> -----------------
> TheSnoMan.com
Those are interesting facts. About hydrogen, what I'm considering is
that
1) if it is obtained from crude, it is more efficient to burn the
fossil fuel directly rather than use it to get hydrogen and then burn
the hydrogen. Plus we end up using more fossil fuels. If the
separation here takes less energy than what is released when burning
hydrogen by reaction with oxygen, it might work but I donīt think any
existing process is this efficient yet. Any chemist here that could
clear up this point?
2) if it is obtained by separating from oxygen in water, then it takes
more energy to seperate than you get back by burning.
There is no way around this, in the end hydrogen is just a way to
transfer (not all that efficiently) the energy used to obtain it to
another use like running a car. Itīs not really a source of energy.
Its like a compressed spring, once it is compressed it can provide a
lot of energy, but not as much as it took to compress the spring.
> On 9 May 2007 07:52:55 -0700, nrs <neale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Energy in itself is not a problem, we have solar, wind, nuclear, coal,
> >etc. The serious problem is how to run vehicles. Petroleum fuels are
> >the only viable way to do it right now, just think of a jet. Ethanol,
> >hydrogen, nothing is efficient enough yet to compete with direct
> >burning of fossil fuels. We also need to save some petroleum for
> >lubrication of machinery. Another thing that is often overlooked is
> >that food production is what it is thanks to the use of fertilizers
> >made from petroleum, we are actually eating our oil supply.
>
> Hydrogen is very efficent but there is two problems with using it.
> First currently it is made from crude and cost about 10 to 12 bucks a
> gallon. Next is its storage. To be stored in a liquid state for
> greatest fuel density it has to be keep extremely cold. (about 423
> degrees below zero) As far as energy density, gasoline has about
> 18,500 BTU's per pound and Hydrogen about 60,000 BTU's per pound (and
> a gallon weighs about .6 lbs). Pure ethanol has only about 8500 BTU's
> per pound. As a comparison, Propane has about 22,500 BTU's per pound
> and a #2 Deisel has about 21,500 BTU's per pound or just a bit less
> than Propane (this is lbs not gallons and a gallon of Propane weighs 4
> lbs)
> -----------------
> TheSnoMan.com
Those are interesting facts. About hydrogen, what I'm considering is
that
1) if it is obtained from crude, it is more efficient to burn the
fossil fuel directly rather than use it to get hydrogen and then burn
the hydrogen. Plus we end up using more fossil fuels. If the
separation here takes less energy than what is released when burning
hydrogen by reaction with oxygen, it might work but I donīt think any
existing process is this efficient yet. Any chemist here that could
clear up this point?
2) if it is obtained by separating from oxygen in water, then it takes
more energy to seperate than you get back by burning.
There is no way around this, in the end hydrogen is just a way to
transfer (not all that efficiently) the energy used to obtain it to
another use like running a car. Itīs not really a source of energy.
Its like a compressed spring, once it is compressed it can provide a
lot of energy, but not as much as it took to compress the spring.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
Funny that, from what I understand:
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe
:-)
nrs wrote:
> On May 9, 11:41 am, SnoMan <a...@snoman.com> wrote:
>
>>On 9 May 2007 07:52:55 -0700, nrs <neale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Energy in itself is not a problem, we have solar, wind, nuclear, coal,
>>>etc. The serious problem is how to run vehicles. Petroleum fuels are
>>>the only viable way to do it right now, just think of a jet. Ethanol,
>>>hydrogen, nothing is efficient enough yet to compete with direct
>>>burning of fossil fuels. We also need to save some petroleum for
>>>lubrication of machinery. Another thing that is often overlooked is
>>>that food production is what it is thanks to the use of fertilizers
>>>made from petroleum, we are actually eating our oil supply.
>>
>>Hydrogen is very efficent but there is two problems with using it.
>>First currently it is made from crude and cost about 10 to 12 bucks a
>>gallon. Next is its storage. To be stored in a liquid state for
>>greatest fuel density it has to be keep extremely cold. (about 423
>>degrees below zero) As far as energy density, gasoline has about
>>18,500 BTU's per pound and Hydrogen about 60,000 BTU's per pound (and
>>a gallon weighs about .6 lbs). Pure ethanol has only about 8500 BTU's
>>per pound. As a comparison, Propane has about 22,500 BTU's per pound
>>and a #2 Deisel has about 21,500 BTU's per pound or just a bit less
>>than Propane (this is lbs not gallons and a gallon of Propane weighs 4
>>lbs)
>>-----------------
>>TheSnoMan.com
>
>
> Those are interesting facts. About hydrogen, what I'm considering is
> that
> 1) if it is obtained from crude, it is more efficient to burn the
> fossil fuel directly rather than use it to get hydrogen and then burn
> the hydrogen. Plus we end up using more fossil fuels. If the
> separation here takes less energy than what is released when burning
> hydrogen by reaction with oxygen, it might work but I donīt think any
> existing process is this efficient yet. Any chemist here that could
> clear up this point?
> 2) if it is obtained by separating from oxygen in water, then it takes
> more energy to seperate than you get back by burning.
> There is no way around this, in the end hydrogen is just a way to
> transfer (not all that efficiently) the energy used to obtain it to
> another use like running a car. Itīs not really a source of energy.
> Its like a compressed spring, once it is compressed it can provide a
> lot of energy, but not as much as it took to compress the spring.
>
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe
:-)
nrs wrote:
> On May 9, 11:41 am, SnoMan <a...@snoman.com> wrote:
>
>>On 9 May 2007 07:52:55 -0700, nrs <neale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Energy in itself is not a problem, we have solar, wind, nuclear, coal,
>>>etc. The serious problem is how to run vehicles. Petroleum fuels are
>>>the only viable way to do it right now, just think of a jet. Ethanol,
>>>hydrogen, nothing is efficient enough yet to compete with direct
>>>burning of fossil fuels. We also need to save some petroleum for
>>>lubrication of machinery. Another thing that is often overlooked is
>>>that food production is what it is thanks to the use of fertilizers
>>>made from petroleum, we are actually eating our oil supply.
>>
>>Hydrogen is very efficent but there is two problems with using it.
>>First currently it is made from crude and cost about 10 to 12 bucks a
>>gallon. Next is its storage. To be stored in a liquid state for
>>greatest fuel density it has to be keep extremely cold. (about 423
>>degrees below zero) As far as energy density, gasoline has about
>>18,500 BTU's per pound and Hydrogen about 60,000 BTU's per pound (and
>>a gallon weighs about .6 lbs). Pure ethanol has only about 8500 BTU's
>>per pound. As a comparison, Propane has about 22,500 BTU's per pound
>>and a #2 Deisel has about 21,500 BTU's per pound or just a bit less
>>than Propane (this is lbs not gallons and a gallon of Propane weighs 4
>>lbs)
>>-----------------
>>TheSnoMan.com
>
>
> Those are interesting facts. About hydrogen, what I'm considering is
> that
> 1) if it is obtained from crude, it is more efficient to burn the
> fossil fuel directly rather than use it to get hydrogen and then burn
> the hydrogen. Plus we end up using more fossil fuels. If the
> separation here takes less energy than what is released when burning
> hydrogen by reaction with oxygen, it might work but I donīt think any
> existing process is this efficient yet. Any chemist here that could
> clear up this point?
> 2) if it is obtained by separating from oxygen in water, then it takes
> more energy to seperate than you get back by burning.
> There is no way around this, in the end hydrogen is just a way to
> transfer (not all that efficiently) the energy used to obtain it to
> another use like running a car. Itīs not really a source of energy.
> Its like a compressed spring, once it is compressed it can provide a
> lot of energy, but not as much as it took to compress the spring.
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
Funny that, from what I understand:
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe
:-)
nrs wrote:
> On May 9, 11:41 am, SnoMan <a...@snoman.com> wrote:
>
>>On 9 May 2007 07:52:55 -0700, nrs <neale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Energy in itself is not a problem, we have solar, wind, nuclear, coal,
>>>etc. The serious problem is how to run vehicles. Petroleum fuels are
>>>the only viable way to do it right now, just think of a jet. Ethanol,
>>>hydrogen, nothing is efficient enough yet to compete with direct
>>>burning of fossil fuels. We also need to save some petroleum for
>>>lubrication of machinery. Another thing that is often overlooked is
>>>that food production is what it is thanks to the use of fertilizers
>>>made from petroleum, we are actually eating our oil supply.
>>
>>Hydrogen is very efficent but there is two problems with using it.
>>First currently it is made from crude and cost about 10 to 12 bucks a
>>gallon. Next is its storage. To be stored in a liquid state for
>>greatest fuel density it has to be keep extremely cold. (about 423
>>degrees below zero) As far as energy density, gasoline has about
>>18,500 BTU's per pound and Hydrogen about 60,000 BTU's per pound (and
>>a gallon weighs about .6 lbs). Pure ethanol has only about 8500 BTU's
>>per pound. As a comparison, Propane has about 22,500 BTU's per pound
>>and a #2 Deisel has about 21,500 BTU's per pound or just a bit less
>>than Propane (this is lbs not gallons and a gallon of Propane weighs 4
>>lbs)
>>-----------------
>>TheSnoMan.com
>
>
> Those are interesting facts. About hydrogen, what I'm considering is
> that
> 1) if it is obtained from crude, it is more efficient to burn the
> fossil fuel directly rather than use it to get hydrogen and then burn
> the hydrogen. Plus we end up using more fossil fuels. If the
> separation here takes less energy than what is released when burning
> hydrogen by reaction with oxygen, it might work but I donīt think any
> existing process is this efficient yet. Any chemist here that could
> clear up this point?
> 2) if it is obtained by separating from oxygen in water, then it takes
> more energy to seperate than you get back by burning.
> There is no way around this, in the end hydrogen is just a way to
> transfer (not all that efficiently) the energy used to obtain it to
> another use like running a car. Itīs not really a source of energy.
> Its like a compressed spring, once it is compressed it can provide a
> lot of energy, but not as much as it took to compress the spring.
>
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe
:-)
nrs wrote:
> On May 9, 11:41 am, SnoMan <a...@snoman.com> wrote:
>
>>On 9 May 2007 07:52:55 -0700, nrs <neale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Energy in itself is not a problem, we have solar, wind, nuclear, coal,
>>>etc. The serious problem is how to run vehicles. Petroleum fuels are
>>>the only viable way to do it right now, just think of a jet. Ethanol,
>>>hydrogen, nothing is efficient enough yet to compete with direct
>>>burning of fossil fuels. We also need to save some petroleum for
>>>lubrication of machinery. Another thing that is often overlooked is
>>>that food production is what it is thanks to the use of fertilizers
>>>made from petroleum, we are actually eating our oil supply.
>>
>>Hydrogen is very efficent but there is two problems with using it.
>>First currently it is made from crude and cost about 10 to 12 bucks a
>>gallon. Next is its storage. To be stored in a liquid state for
>>greatest fuel density it has to be keep extremely cold. (about 423
>>degrees below zero) As far as energy density, gasoline has about
>>18,500 BTU's per pound and Hydrogen about 60,000 BTU's per pound (and
>>a gallon weighs about .6 lbs). Pure ethanol has only about 8500 BTU's
>>per pound. As a comparison, Propane has about 22,500 BTU's per pound
>>and a #2 Deisel has about 21,500 BTU's per pound or just a bit less
>>than Propane (this is lbs not gallons and a gallon of Propane weighs 4
>>lbs)
>>-----------------
>>TheSnoMan.com
>
>
> Those are interesting facts. About hydrogen, what I'm considering is
> that
> 1) if it is obtained from crude, it is more efficient to burn the
> fossil fuel directly rather than use it to get hydrogen and then burn
> the hydrogen. Plus we end up using more fossil fuels. If the
> separation here takes less energy than what is released when burning
> hydrogen by reaction with oxygen, it might work but I donīt think any
> existing process is this efficient yet. Any chemist here that could
> clear up this point?
> 2) if it is obtained by separating from oxygen in water, then it takes
> more energy to seperate than you get back by burning.
> There is no way around this, in the end hydrogen is just a way to
> transfer (not all that efficiently) the energy used to obtain it to
> another use like running a car. Itīs not really a source of energy.
> Its like a compressed spring, once it is compressed it can provide a
> lot of energy, but not as much as it took to compress the spring.
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
Funny that, from what I understand:
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe
:-)
nrs wrote:
> On May 9, 11:41 am, SnoMan <a...@snoman.com> wrote:
>
>>On 9 May 2007 07:52:55 -0700, nrs <neale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Energy in itself is not a problem, we have solar, wind, nuclear, coal,
>>>etc. The serious problem is how to run vehicles. Petroleum fuels are
>>>the only viable way to do it right now, just think of a jet. Ethanol,
>>>hydrogen, nothing is efficient enough yet to compete with direct
>>>burning of fossil fuels. We also need to save some petroleum for
>>>lubrication of machinery. Another thing that is often overlooked is
>>>that food production is what it is thanks to the use of fertilizers
>>>made from petroleum, we are actually eating our oil supply.
>>
>>Hydrogen is very efficent but there is two problems with using it.
>>First currently it is made from crude and cost about 10 to 12 bucks a
>>gallon. Next is its storage. To be stored in a liquid state for
>>greatest fuel density it has to be keep extremely cold. (about 423
>>degrees below zero) As far as energy density, gasoline has about
>>18,500 BTU's per pound and Hydrogen about 60,000 BTU's per pound (and
>>a gallon weighs about .6 lbs). Pure ethanol has only about 8500 BTU's
>>per pound. As a comparison, Propane has about 22,500 BTU's per pound
>>and a #2 Deisel has about 21,500 BTU's per pound or just a bit less
>>than Propane (this is lbs not gallons and a gallon of Propane weighs 4
>>lbs)
>>-----------------
>>TheSnoMan.com
>
>
> Those are interesting facts. About hydrogen, what I'm considering is
> that
> 1) if it is obtained from crude, it is more efficient to burn the
> fossil fuel directly rather than use it to get hydrogen and then burn
> the hydrogen. Plus we end up using more fossil fuels. If the
> separation here takes less energy than what is released when burning
> hydrogen by reaction with oxygen, it might work but I donīt think any
> existing process is this efficient yet. Any chemist here that could
> clear up this point?
> 2) if it is obtained by separating from oxygen in water, then it takes
> more energy to seperate than you get back by burning.
> There is no way around this, in the end hydrogen is just a way to
> transfer (not all that efficiently) the energy used to obtain it to
> another use like running a car. Itīs not really a source of energy.
> Its like a compressed spring, once it is compressed it can provide a
> lot of energy, but not as much as it took to compress the spring.
>
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe
:-)
nrs wrote:
> On May 9, 11:41 am, SnoMan <a...@snoman.com> wrote:
>
>>On 9 May 2007 07:52:55 -0700, nrs <neale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Energy in itself is not a problem, we have solar, wind, nuclear, coal,
>>>etc. The serious problem is how to run vehicles. Petroleum fuels are
>>>the only viable way to do it right now, just think of a jet. Ethanol,
>>>hydrogen, nothing is efficient enough yet to compete with direct
>>>burning of fossil fuels. We also need to save some petroleum for
>>>lubrication of machinery. Another thing that is often overlooked is
>>>that food production is what it is thanks to the use of fertilizers
>>>made from petroleum, we are actually eating our oil supply.
>>
>>Hydrogen is very efficent but there is two problems with using it.
>>First currently it is made from crude and cost about 10 to 12 bucks a
>>gallon. Next is its storage. To be stored in a liquid state for
>>greatest fuel density it has to be keep extremely cold. (about 423
>>degrees below zero) As far as energy density, gasoline has about
>>18,500 BTU's per pound and Hydrogen about 60,000 BTU's per pound (and
>>a gallon weighs about .6 lbs). Pure ethanol has only about 8500 BTU's
>>per pound. As a comparison, Propane has about 22,500 BTU's per pound
>>and a #2 Deisel has about 21,500 BTU's per pound or just a bit less
>>than Propane (this is lbs not gallons and a gallon of Propane weighs 4
>>lbs)
>>-----------------
>>TheSnoMan.com
>
>
> Those are interesting facts. About hydrogen, what I'm considering is
> that
> 1) if it is obtained from crude, it is more efficient to burn the
> fossil fuel directly rather than use it to get hydrogen and then burn
> the hydrogen. Plus we end up using more fossil fuels. If the
> separation here takes less energy than what is released when burning
> hydrogen by reaction with oxygen, it might work but I donīt think any
> existing process is this efficient yet. Any chemist here that could
> clear up this point?
> 2) if it is obtained by separating from oxygen in water, then it takes
> more energy to seperate than you get back by burning.
> There is no way around this, in the end hydrogen is just a way to
> transfer (not all that efficiently) the energy used to obtain it to
> another use like running a car. Itīs not really a source of energy.
> Its like a compressed spring, once it is compressed it can provide a
> lot of energy, but not as much as it took to compress the spring.
>
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
Funny that, from what I understand:
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe
:-)
nrs wrote:
> On May 9, 11:41 am, SnoMan <a...@snoman.com> wrote:
>
>>On 9 May 2007 07:52:55 -0700, nrs <neale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Energy in itself is not a problem, we have solar, wind, nuclear, coal,
>>>etc. The serious problem is how to run vehicles. Petroleum fuels are
>>>the only viable way to do it right now, just think of a jet. Ethanol,
>>>hydrogen, nothing is efficient enough yet to compete with direct
>>>burning of fossil fuels. We also need to save some petroleum for
>>>lubrication of machinery. Another thing that is often overlooked is
>>>that food production is what it is thanks to the use of fertilizers
>>>made from petroleum, we are actually eating our oil supply.
>>
>>Hydrogen is very efficent but there is two problems with using it.
>>First currently it is made from crude and cost about 10 to 12 bucks a
>>gallon. Next is its storage. To be stored in a liquid state for
>>greatest fuel density it has to be keep extremely cold. (about 423
>>degrees below zero) As far as energy density, gasoline has about
>>18,500 BTU's per pound and Hydrogen about 60,000 BTU's per pound (and
>>a gallon weighs about .6 lbs). Pure ethanol has only about 8500 BTU's
>>per pound. As a comparison, Propane has about 22,500 BTU's per pound
>>and a #2 Deisel has about 21,500 BTU's per pound or just a bit less
>>than Propane (this is lbs not gallons and a gallon of Propane weighs 4
>>lbs)
>>-----------------
>>TheSnoMan.com
>
>
> Those are interesting facts. About hydrogen, what I'm considering is
> that
> 1) if it is obtained from crude, it is more efficient to burn the
> fossil fuel directly rather than use it to get hydrogen and then burn
> the hydrogen. Plus we end up using more fossil fuels. If the
> separation here takes less energy than what is released when burning
> hydrogen by reaction with oxygen, it might work but I donīt think any
> existing process is this efficient yet. Any chemist here that could
> clear up this point?
> 2) if it is obtained by separating from oxygen in water, then it takes
> more energy to seperate than you get back by burning.
> There is no way around this, in the end hydrogen is just a way to
> transfer (not all that efficiently) the energy used to obtain it to
> another use like running a car. Itīs not really a source of energy.
> Its like a compressed spring, once it is compressed it can provide a
> lot of energy, but not as much as it took to compress the spring.
>
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe
:-)
nrs wrote:
> On May 9, 11:41 am, SnoMan <a...@snoman.com> wrote:
>
>>On 9 May 2007 07:52:55 -0700, nrs <neale...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Energy in itself is not a problem, we have solar, wind, nuclear, coal,
>>>etc. The serious problem is how to run vehicles. Petroleum fuels are
>>>the only viable way to do it right now, just think of a jet. Ethanol,
>>>hydrogen, nothing is efficient enough yet to compete with direct
>>>burning of fossil fuels. We also need to save some petroleum for
>>>lubrication of machinery. Another thing that is often overlooked is
>>>that food production is what it is thanks to the use of fertilizers
>>>made from petroleum, we are actually eating our oil supply.
>>
>>Hydrogen is very efficent but there is two problems with using it.
>>First currently it is made from crude and cost about 10 to 12 bucks a
>>gallon. Next is its storage. To be stored in a liquid state for
>>greatest fuel density it has to be keep extremely cold. (about 423
>>degrees below zero) As far as energy density, gasoline has about
>>18,500 BTU's per pound and Hydrogen about 60,000 BTU's per pound (and
>>a gallon weighs about .6 lbs). Pure ethanol has only about 8500 BTU's
>>per pound. As a comparison, Propane has about 22,500 BTU's per pound
>>and a #2 Deisel has about 21,500 BTU's per pound or just a bit less
>>than Propane (this is lbs not gallons and a gallon of Propane weighs 4
>>lbs)
>>-----------------
>>TheSnoMan.com
>
>
> Those are interesting facts. About hydrogen, what I'm considering is
> that
> 1) if it is obtained from crude, it is more efficient to burn the
> fossil fuel directly rather than use it to get hydrogen and then burn
> the hydrogen. Plus we end up using more fossil fuels. If the
> separation here takes less energy than what is released when burning
> hydrogen by reaction with oxygen, it might work but I donīt think any
> existing process is this efficient yet. Any chemist here that could
> clear up this point?
> 2) if it is obtained by separating from oxygen in water, then it takes
> more energy to seperate than you get back by burning.
> There is no way around this, in the end hydrogen is just a way to
> transfer (not all that efficiently) the energy used to obtain it to
> another use like running a car. Itīs not really a source of energy.
> Its like a compressed spring, once it is compressed it can provide a
> lot of energy, but not as much as it took to compress the spring.
>
