Hydrogen powered motorcycle proves concept

The world's first fuel cell motorbike designed by UK firm Intelligent Energy got its international premiere at the Pacific Design Centre in Los Angeles at the weekend.

The hydrogen-powered ENV is scheduled to hit the commercial market next year, according to United Press International.

In addition to being nearly noise-free, the ENV is entirely environmentally friendly, hence its name which stands for Emissions Neutral Vehicle.

Estimated to sell at around $6,000 (£3,288), the ENV has a running time of four hours before its hydrogen engine needs refuelling.

Fuel cells are expected to have a major impact on the automotive sector, offering a credible alternative to fossil fuels.

Projects in a number of major cities have already seen fuel cell powered buses deployed.

but but but . . .
there is no hydrogen? so sombody better start making lots of solar hydrogen generators.

generating hydrogen with the grid, is going to be a negative loss, especially when the grid is supplimented with coal and natural gas burning.

they do have low peak times that the grid power can be sent to another task, but still the process of aquiring the hydrogen is a large energy consumer.

sounds really clean, till you find out how much hydrogen is available to the world now, so far if we all did this, we would be all on the side of the road, with our thumbs out.

so when we hear "totally viable solution to fossile fuels" sombody better tell me how they plan to get the FUEL.

so far the people who have realized this, have thought about how to use the hydrogen IN fossile fuels to run the fuel cells.

when the CLEAN, is nothing more than a LOOP of excessive energy loses, the clean is only in the eye of the beholder, the rest of the world is still sucking fumes.

reduction in consumption again comes to mind as actual solutions. for now i will leave out the fact that there is a very high ammount of energy required to make a solar cell, vrses the ammount it puts out in many years.
right after i create the perpetual motion machine.

I saw that $6000 price in the article, but it's not mentioned anywhere on their website nor in their press releases.

I wonder where that number originated?

Daniel

Guess you missed my other post a while back VidPro....

They figured out how to use nanotubes and a little sunlight to split water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen.

There is your fuel.


Some enjoy bashing Bush, critizing him for spending our money on the infrastructure to handle hydrogen as a fuel...

***Edited at request of Empath

umm, ya okkkaaay, nanotubes are made of what?
and fossile fuel is dirty because of what?
and basically fossile fuel is hydrogen and what , and somehow the magic nanotubes, which hydrogen will LOVE to recombine with, will have to magically UN recombine with the hydrogen to be burned as a clean fuel.
and that is what? another energy loss loop.

so you seperate the hydrogen out of the water, then its still STUCK to something, that it was already stuck to to begin with /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif in the plentifull earth compression solar created , water dependant , slowly decreasing, fossile fuels. AKA the plants and animals that supposdly made them.

and i would be a flamer that thinks there are a sufficient quantity of reserchers in the private sector, who would gladly be funded by the sufficient quantity of investors , who could stike OIL mabey any day now, by a magic source of hydrogen, and become emensly ritch beyond thier means.

energy in, energy out, and always less out in the form you want it in. some scientist guy said it 100 years ago, and untill i perfect my perpetual energy machine, it will still be true today.

the real questions is, is the energy in from the humans, to destroy eveything that is killing them, greater than the energy they could directally use of thier own? a capacity to function in place of the machines, the greatest loss of them all?

We are not talking about the method used to store hydrogen with nanotubes. Thats a separate research project.

Using nanotubes to produce oxygen.

http://www.mos.org/cst/article/6059/1.html

lol
i live next to that lab, thier last miraculous capacity to output energy was 500MW in, 2W out. (note, if i abreviated that correctally that would be MEGAwatts, not Miliwatts)

they dont even have the "proof of concept" out on that, according to your own link. its just a theory.

ok, so lets assume for a moment we have this unlimited source of hydrogen, from solar, solar great source for masses of energy, just there for someone/anyone to harness .

the methods for storage, require huge energy to be practial.

From http://www.fuelcellstore.com/information/hydrogen_storage.html#5
(which we can assume is trying to sell us on this stuff)

Compressed Hydrogen
Hydrogen can be compressed into high-pressure tanks. This process requires energy to accomplish and the space that the compressed gas occupies is usually quite large resulting in a lower energy density when compared to a traditional gasoline tank. A hydrogen gas tank that contained a store of energy equivalent to a gasoline tank would be more than 3,000 times bigger than the gasoline tank.

then at the same link observe the other available tanking methods, they are either huge, require huge energy, or are basically just a farse.

should we mention the hindenburg? or just assume that helium wont be part of this method?

basically what i am observing, is that the fuel cell , and EXCELENT battery, will likely be operated on none other than , the fossile fuels , that the claim is they will replace.
at the least, it is likely to be operated via a stable at room temperature liquid, that is easily seperated into its parts, and widly available through no means of generation that has great losses.

earth compressed hydrocarbons, cleaned for your immediate disposal /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

oops i think i just solved both problems, with microbes and waste.

Ammonia NH3 amonia hydroxide NH4OH
first ammonia a caustic oderless gass, and the ammonia hydroxide the liquid based version of it, not only is it loaded with hydrogen, but any race horse owner will tell you its plentifull /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
ok will dismiss the fact that it can kill everything in a 50 mile radius if it get out.

they could take all the human and animal waste, encourage the microbes to do thier ammonia conversion, by manipulaing thier DNA so it eats humans . . . i mean human waste faster.
then store the hydrogen as ammonia in the vehicle.

they could make specialty Fuel for electic ricerockets and jet planes, out of cheeta waste, and use Mink waste for mecedes and bmws.
it would formulate an entierly new industry, where they would come to your door, beggin to clear out your septic tank.

it would be just like bio-desil, cept it wouldnt smell like french fries. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
the emissions would be only NITROGEN, which will asfixiate anyone if it was the only thing in the air they were breathing, but heck it already makes up 70% of our air, and it would make great fertalizer for the ashfault, so something can actually live on them.

dang, that just leaves one problem and the reason why none of this stuff is "clean" it always burns the oxygen out of the air were breathing. minor detail.

I looked at the nano tube link. It calls for using platinum too, just like most of the hydrogen fuel cells. Last I heard, there's not enough platinum in the world to convert all the US cars to fuel cells, much less that much more to create the nano-tube hydrogen generating plants.


Newbie, you should leave the politics (griping about "bush bashers" in the underground. Calling a fool a fool does not make one a basher any more than praising a great man makes one his supporter.

Personally, the "hydrogen highway" appears to be an anvalid concept. As vidpro pointed out, the vast amounts of energy needed to compress the gas in the first place exceeds the power available from the gas.

Back on subject....

What I liked best from the Intelligent Energy web site is their scenario where you use this fuel cell to drive to the lake, then move it to your motor boat for the ride to your remote cabin, then power the cabin, recharging the hydrogen on site at the cabin.

As Penn and Teller would say... BullS...!!!

If the cell runs for 4 hours, and you've used aprt of it to get to the lake, isn't the middle of the lake the last place you want it to run dry? Once you get to the cabin, how many hours of power are left? 30 minutes? Long enough to get the hydrogen compressor running, I hope. That assumes you have copious amounts of power and hydrogen available at your remote cabin.


Now, lets's repeat that scenario with simple batteries. You can still drive to the lake. Once there, the boat has it's own battey and motor, properly charged from a solar array. When you get to the remote cabin, another solar array has kept your cabin's batteries topped off and ready to use. You have energy efficient lighting and entertainment at the cabin, so the modest battery bank will get you through weeks of gloomy weather. The batteries are Toshiba's new NiMH (due in 2006) that have an almost unlimited number of cycles.

As shown in another thread, Solar PV cells should be considered 'renewable' resources. A solar cell will produce enough energey to create a second cell in less than a year. The cell will last about 30 years, so the energy payback is pretty good.

Daniel

"" A solar cell will produce enough energey to create a second cell in less than a year.""

that isnt what they told me, and it was at the renewable energy forum.
its logical that its just doped up silicoln melted. i think i need more info on that to believe it.

I also have my doubts about that fuel cell motorcycle. Top speed of 50MPH isn't going to impress anyone.

It does sound like one "refuels" by connecting the fuel cell stack to an AC-powered hydrogen generator - or perhaps it's a "reversable" fuel cell where you apply power to the output and it reverses the reaction.

I will never understand the American public's death-grip on fuels. Energy is energy - you just need it to work. Charged batteries represents more overal useful energy than a fuel tank - you can extract nearly 100% of the energy for useful work, unlike fuel where 50% is an amazing conversion rate.

Almost everything comes from solar power anyway... 'Only a matter of time before we're left with nothing but solar and the immediate derivatives.

speaking of unsafe power, this was posted in the battery forum
http://www.molienergy.com/Press%20Releases/release040117.htm

I didn't notice anything unsafe about that press release. I did notice that they did not list how many charge cycles it can handle.

What caught your eye?

Daniel

This is based on Porphyrin nanotubes, different than earlier devices. These full spectrum light-active nanotubes are engineered to have minute deposits of platinum and other metals and semiconductors on the outside or inside of the tube.

The Porphyrin nanotube with the gold inside and platinum outside is the heart of a nanodevice that may split water into oxygen and hydrogen. The porphyrin nanotubes are micrometers in length and have diameters in the range of 50-70 nm with approximately 20 nm thick walls.

Their research team has already demonstrated that the nanotubes with platinum particles on the surface can produce hydrogen when illuminated with light.

To complete the nanodevice that splits water, a nanoparticle of an inorganic photocatalyst that produces oxygen must be attached to the gold contact ball that naturally forms at the end of the tube. The gold nanowire and ball serve as a conductor of electrons between the oxygen- and hydrogen- producing components of the nanodevice. The gold conductor also keeps the oxygen and hydrogen parts separate to prevent damage during operation.

Shelnutt says the nanodevice could efficiently use the entire visible and ultraviolet parts of the solar spectrum absorbed by the tubes to produce hydrogen, one of the Holy Grails of chemistry.

More on the Hydrogen Motorcycle

ENV, pronounced "envy," was engineered and purpose-built from the ground up, utilizing Intelligent Energy's world-renowned CORE, a radically compact and efficient fuel cell, in order to demonstrate the everyday applicability of fuel cell technology. The CORE is detachable from the bike and is capable of powering anything from an ATV or a personal watercraft, to a small home.

http://pesn.com/2005/06/21/9600114_ENV_fuel_cell_motorbike/

As far as platinum production...
The annual supply of platinum is about 130 tons, which is over 260,000 lbs per year.

I'm all for generating our power renewably.

Regarding hydrogen, it is basically an energy carrier, just like a battery.

If I put in 100 watts of renewable electricity into a hydrogen "battery" (tank of hydrogen), my electric drive vehicle can go X miles. If I put that same 100 watts of electricity into a NiMH or Lithium battery, my electric drive vehicle can go 3-4 times X miles.

Why would I ever choose the hydrogen "battery"?

If the answer is for rapid refueling (since batteries take time to recharge), when will we build up the massive infrastructure to refuel our hydrogen vehicles at many points along our roads? Will people buy a vehicle than can only be recharged at their house...but when they travel to the next state over there are no recharging/refueling stations? Seems unlikely to me. So if people won't buy the vehicles, who will build the refueling stations hoping that customers will come by?

This is a real issue.

E85 (85% ethanol) is already a practical fuel. And...we have over 5 million such vehicles on the road already. But there is a shortage of E85 stations (none in my area) cause the vehicles haven't reached a critical mass yet.

Why would people buy an E85 vehicle if they couldn't be sure of getting E85?

Because it is a FlexFuel vehicle. It runs fine on either gasoline OR E85 or any blend in between.

The same is true of my 2003 VW Golf TDI (diesel). It runs fine on regular diesel or B100 (100% biodiesel). It is a FlexFuel vehicle.

FlexFuel vehicles allow us to gradually transition to other fuels like E85 or B100.

How is hydrogen going to make that happen? I don't see a way.

A Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV) is also a FlexFuel vehicle.

I can charge it up at home on 120v electricity (because since it would only have a 20 mile all-electric range, the batteries could be small and recharge in a few hours on 120v). I can charge it up wherever I end up...'cause almost everywhere has 120v electricity. And...in between home and destination, I can run on a liquid fuel (E85/gasoline or B100/diesel) that is commonly available everywhere if my distance is more than 20 miles.

I gotta tell you, my vote is on PHEVs with FlexFuel engines for getting us off of oil.

We will stop using oil. There is no doubt about that.

The question is how to make the transition. FlexFuel PHEVs will make that possible.

Right, but you forgot the efficency loss in producing that 100W of electricity. It is terrible, think coal and natural gas which generate much of California's electricity, and not included in the Cali numbers, is the stuff that Wyoming and North Dakota produce for Cali by burning huge amounts of coal.

For that reason, EV vehicles charged off the power grid, in reality, cause alot of carbon emissions.

This new nanotube stuff uses the full spectrum of sunlight to produce the hydrogen and oxygen from water, which is burned, and produces water.

[ QUOTE ]
NewBie said:
...EV vehicles charged off the power grid, in reality, cause alot of carbon emissions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, yes! But not more than burning gasoline for those same miles. Our grid power is a mix of solar grid-tie, coal, gas, oil, nuclear, water and wind energy. Way less carbon emissions from that mix than burning gasoline directly.

I'm very interested to see the energy balance of hydrogen from nanotubes. It could be something interesting.

Although, no matter how good that balance is, we'd still have the chicken and the egg problem of how the fueling infrastructure gets built. FlexFuel PHEVs don't share that transitional problem.

[ QUOTE ]
NewBie said:
Using nanotubes to produce oxygen.

http://www.mos.org/cst/article/6059/1.html

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm... I finally got around to following that link.

This technology is pretty (shall I say) "new" and the article didn't have much on it. Got any links that discuss its energy balance? This IS an interesting idea, but it seems a little early to build much energy policy around.