| | |
|
|
Water as fuel?
#641479 - Thu Jan 15 2009 06:15 PM
|
|
|
Recently it's come to my attention that there's a potential fuel that may have been over-looked by the world at large:
Water.
While many people may say that steam power has had it's day, and I'm living in a coal miners dream by just posting this, I think I am not the only one.
Example 1 shows us John Kansas' salt water method with radio waves. (And a hilarious look on the reporter's face.... I mean, that's just perfect.)
Example 2 shows us Stan Meyer's fuel cell running a dune buggy. This can use everything, he claims from snow melt to salt water, to tap and well water.
Example 3 shows us Danny Klein's welding method using once more, water.
Now, most people would argue that there would be water shortages if people wanted to get this used en mass, and still others would argue that companies that manufacture engines would not put out the money to get this sort of technology mass produced, or get people's cars re-fitted.
To that I answer that there's other ways to produce water and the push for hybrid cars has seen fuel cell production rise and the outlay seems then to be a moot issue.
If anyone else wants to look at other sides to the water-as-fuel possibilities, please throw more on the pile.
Forrest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know that a lot of conspiracy theories have sprung up around big oil hold this technology back, so let me say I've all ready seen this movie and there's no way I'm schleping this into Debate.
As an additional note, you can find more information on DIY hydrogen at:
http://www.water4fuel.com/
Exciting times to be alive!
Forrest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The B.S.C.C. would disagree with you.
Full text here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's no actual way to use water as a fuel. The molecule is tapped-out energy wise just in it's base state. It does make a great way to shuffle energy around which explains why steam turbines are such an important part of many power plants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alec take note though, gas is being used to heat the water. So the fuel is not water, but gas, steam is basically used as the piston to run the engine. Gas is still the fuel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm also going to note that the water4fuel has all the earmarks of a scam, among them being physically impossible. Even if you have a limitless electricity source there's no way a mason jar full of water is going to electrolyze enough hydrogen to let you go very far.
Edit: Also combustion in gasoline engines is so near complete that there's only a percentage point or two to be gained there in highest theory. Even anecdotal evidence can't be trusted because of confirmation bias. Mythbusters already tried this one and they're usually technically apt enough to make anything work. You can run a car on hydrogen if you've got a ton of it, but this will never give you that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nullcast & Whatsit said:
There's no actual way to use water as a fuel. The molecule is tapped-out energy wise just in it's base state. It does make a great way to shuffle energy around which explains why steam turbines are such an important part of many power plants.
Technically, you don't need steam to turn a turbine as hydro-electrical plants have shown us. (If you want to get technical you can use a whole lot of hamsters on steroids.)
ShishiOsa said:
Alec take note though, gas is being used to heat the water. So the fuel is not water, but gas, steam is basically used as the piston to run the engine. Gas is still the fuel.
Ah, you mean the heated air caused by the flame is used to heat the water in a steam-powered system. Still, it could be said to be more accurate to say transferred thermal energy is being used via the media of air, or a flame, or heated metal.
Nullcast & Whatsit said:
I'm also going to note that the water4fuel has all the earmarks of a scam, among them being physically impossible. Even if you have a limitless electricity source there's no way a mason jar full of water is going to electrolyze enough hydrogen to let you go very far.
Edit: Also combustion in gasoline engines is so near complete that there's only a percentage point or two to be gained there in highest theory. Even anecdotal evidence can't be trusted because of confirmation bias. Mythbusters already tried this one and they're usually technically apt enough to make anything work. You can run a car on hydrogen if you've got a ton of it, but this will never give you that.
To be fair, I never said that it was a dead certainty that their system was perfect for cars, I just said that it was interesting that hydrogen gas could be extracted en mass from water, and a single mason jar running a car sounds a little under-powered without proof.
Yet imagine the implications of an industrial plant extracting water from the air using condensation and then producing enough hydrogen to supplant that nation's dependence on petrol and diesel for it's cars?
You could even see the return of lighter-than-air craft, like zeppelins. (The Hindenburg disaster was a poor example and the cloth was actually to blame as I've seen it researched.)
Forrest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forrest said:
To be fair, I never said that it was a dead certainty that their system was perfect for cars, I just said that it was interesting that hydrogen gas could be extracted en mass from water, and a single mason jar running a car sounds a little under-powered without proof.
Yet imagine the implications of an industrial plant extracting water from the air using condensation and then producing enough hydrogen to supplant that nation's dependence on petrol and diesel for it's cars?
You could even see the return of lighter-than-air craft, like zeppelins. (The Hindenburg disaster was a poor example and the cloth was actually to blame as I've seen it researched.)
Forrest.
Sigh, okay chemistry lesson time. You know how you get energy out of hydrogen? You burn it. You know what comes out when you burn hydrogen? Water.
In other words getting hydrogen out of water to later burn, by conservation of energy, requires exactly as much energy as you get by burning it. Practically since nothing is 100% efficient you lose a lot energy as waste heat in the process. Anything else makes an instant perpetual energy machine as you get free energy out of the system (ie: water to H+O, burn H to get water, use energy to power first step and make poptarts, repeat till poptarts cover planet). It's actually trivial to get hydrogen out of water, a child's science experiment, however it's not that practical (except for rocket engines).
Hydrogen in the "hydrogen economy" concept is nothing more than an inefficient energy storage method (ie: battery). You still need some source of energy to "charge" it with which right now usually comes down to burning some type of fossil fuel (coal and natural gas are popular choices). Technically fossil fuels are also a storage medium but nature did the job of charging that "battery" over millions of years while we'd have to charge the hydrogen "battery" ourselves.
You also don't want to burn hydrogen in a car engine as I understand it since that's only about 30% efficient at best (as are gasoline engines, lots of waste heat). A hydrogen fuel cell running an electric motor on the other hand is I believe capable of 60% efficiency (might be off a bit on that number).
The only way to make any such devices work requires claiming that the device utilized non-chemical reactions. And, to be honest, if you have a desk sized (edit: net energy positive) fusion reactor I doubt you'd be selling it online to power cars.
edit: Also in terms of airships, hydrogen is not in any way a limiting factor since like I said it's easy to make. It's actually a lot easier and cheaper to get than helium (a fifth the price per equal volume I think) and doesn't have the "limited natural reserves" problem either. It'd cost, if my calculations are right, under $100k to fill a Hindenburg sized airship with hydrogen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm also going to add for airships that at standard temperature and pressure hydrogen weighs 1/4th as much and so provides more bouyancy.
|
|
|
| | |
Reply Main
New Thread
Flat
Threaded
Edit
Quote
