I want my Vanagon to be retro fitted with a hydrogen fuel cell...

waste product: fresh water

see: http://www.geocities.com/jlightner777/Hydrogen0312.html

and also:

http://www.commutercars.com/h2/

**********************8

this was taken from: http://www.geocities.com/jlightner777/Hydrogen0312.html

World conditions have recently brought about a surge of interest in hydrogen energy technology. Many complex and serious problems could be drastically reduced, or even eliminated, if society could successfully transition from dependence on a fossil-fuel-based economy to the proposed hydrogen energy/electric economy of the future.

THE CASE FOR HYDROGEN The United States is extremely dependent on imported oil. In 1987, 41 percent of the oil consumed in America was imported from our trading partners, representing the single most important contributor to our national balance of trade deficit. In that year, 64 percent of the oil consumed in the United States was used by the transportation sector, which is almost totally dependent on petroleum [1].* The consumption of primary energy by the various sectors of our economy is presented in Figure 1. Clearly, any meaningful attempt to reduce the oil consumption in this country will require the reduction in the demand for transportation, the increase in the efficiency of transportation systems, or, alternatively, the substitution of fuel from an alternative primary energy source.

Another serious problem resulting from our current energy strategy is the detrimental effect on society resulting from urban air pollution. Each year, millions of tons of toxic pollutants are pumped into our atmosphere as the inevitable result of direct hydrocarbon combustion. Medical researchers are now learning that long-term exposure to photochemical oxidants causes chronic permanent changes in lung tissue and lung function [2]. Other reports indicate (1) high levels of carbon monoxide can result in heart attacks, strokes, and death; (2) sulfur-based pollutants irritate respiratory epithelium and aggravate asthma; (3) total suspended particulate causes inflammation of respiratory epithelium and can lead to death; (4) oxides of nitrogen can cause chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and decrease normal breathing capacity; (5) lead pollution is permanently absorbed by the body and causes neurological problems [3].

Recent, reputable studies have documented an alarming increase in the level of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere. Dr. James E. Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, indicates that as a matter of probability the CO2 phenomena is already of a sufficient magnitude so as to compete with climatic factors in determining weather. In congressional hearings he testified that although a specific drought cannot be traced specifically to the greenhouse effect, the probability of a hot summer has increased from 33 percent for the period of 1950 through 1979 to 50 percent currently; and if current trends continue, the probability of a hot summer will reach 60 percent some time during the 1990's.

Historical concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have been estimated by analyzing air trapped in glacier ice. Interesting results produced by this method are presented in Figure 2 [4]. According to Dr. Guenter Beckmann of Huels AG, an increase in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere of from 270 ppm to 350 ppm represents a 30 percent increase in the carbon dioxide-to-oxygen ratio. Based on experience obtained when carbon dioxide concentrations were increased in commercial greenhouses, the result was an increased plant vulnerability to fungi and other living organisms which attacked the plant's vitality [5].

In addition to the problems associated with hydrocarbon combustion, perhaps the most significant and ofttimes overlooked reason to stop the large-scale burning of hydrocarbons is for the simple reason of perpetuating hydrocarbons. Numerous important and valuable medicines, plastics, clothing, and other consumer products are derived from petrochemicals. Since these products are difficult and thereby expensive to produce artificially, we should only consider burning such a valuable commodity as petroleum as a last resort.

"Hydrogen is considered as an attractive candidate for vectorizing renewable primary energy sources because of its compatibility with any type of source, as well as its almost zero ecological impact and also because these advantages are matched by a rather high efficiency in energy conversion and storage" [6].

"Replacing the ICE (internal combustion engine) with a non-petroleum-based alternative system will, therefore, have at least two beneficial effects. First, it will lessen or eliminate our need for imported oil which will reduce our trade deficit; and it will, if the right alternative is selected, reduce the pollution in our urban areas... "The fuel cell, which produces electricity by catalytically reacting hydrogen and oxygen to form water, is the best technology available today that offers promise of a solution" [7].

The agenda, which seems to be becoming more popular with high-level decision makers in this country and internationally, is that we must find ways to generate, distribute, and utilize non-polluting renewable energy sources. Hydrogen, by nature of its simple chemistry, is an obvious candidate for facilitating such an agenda.

REQUIRED TECHNOLOGIES Since the primary impetus for implementing a hydrogen energy system stems from previously described problems associated with combusting petroleum-derived fuels, and since the majority of petroleum is consumed by the transportation sector, the highest priority for hydrogen energy implementation is in the transportation sector.

Fleet operators, transportation fuel vendors, vehicle manufacturers, and the commuting public have all expressed a considerable amount of interest in hydrogen-fueled vehicles [8]. However, the initial enthusiasm is cut short when some of the practical considerations of hydrogen fuel implementation are considered. Although the environmental and societal benefits associated with conversion to a hydrogen-based economy are substantial, the cost of operating a hydrogen-fueled vehicle along with the penalties of hydrogen storage have, so far, made widespread implementation of hydrogen vehicle systems impractical [9]. Considerable effort has been undertaken to resolve the hydrogen production and storage problems, with limited success to date. An alternative approach to resolving these problems would be to better utilize hydrogen on board the vehicle, resulting in a lower fuel cost per mile and a simplified storage system because it would not be necessary to store so much fuel. Such a possibility can become a practical reality with the advent of the automotive fuel cell.

The cost of operating a commuter vehicle on current day petroleum-based fuels is approximately 5.3 cents per mile. This price includes state and federal taxes, which vary from area to area. Figure 3 compares the fuel cost of operating a commuter vehicle on gasoline, diesel fuel, hydrogen generated from electricity by electrolysis, hydrogen produced from coal, and hydrogen produced with photovoltaic solar collectors [10]. These cost comparisons are based on the assumption that the standard internal combustion engine of the commuter vehicle be modified for hydrogen operation. In this scenario, the fuel cost of operating the hydrogen vehicle is roughly three times the cost of petroleum-based fuels even without adding the burden of federal and state taxes to the hydrogen fuel.

In Figure 4, the fuel cost of operating the same commuter vehicle is presented, but this time with a hydrogen fuel cell replacing the standard internal combustion engine. Because the fuel cell utilizes the hydrogen much more efficiently than does the internal combustion engine, the economic comparisons become much more interesting. The fuel cost per mile for hydrogen does not include state nor federal taxes. This may be a reasonable assumption based on legislation such as that recently enacted in Sweden where taxes are removed for hydrogen vehicles in recognition of the societal benefits of a clean-burning fuel.

The improved energy conversion efficiency of the fuel cell also has a dramatic impact on the weight and size of the fuel storage system. Utilizing the assumption of a minimum acceptable range for a vehicle to be 180 miles and assuming an average fuel efficiency of 15 miles per gallon, comparisons of fuel storage systems can be made. As depicted in Figure 5, 85 pounds of gasoline is the equivalent of 1,440 pounds of hydrogen stored in the iron-titanium hydride form [11]. Metal hydrides are a safe and an exciting way to store hydrogen, but, simply stated, conventional commuter vehicles cannot tolerate a 1,440-pound hydrogen storage tank without major modifications to the frame, drive train, and braking systems. Hauling such a large "dead weight" imposes a serious penalty on the vehicle's performance and fuel efficiency. The replacement of the hydrogen engine with a hydrogen fuel cell drastically reduces the quantity of hydrogen to be stored. For the same vehicular range, the metal hydride vessel would now weigh 480 pounds. Such a storage vessel is still heavy, but manageable with some effort.

Figure 6 depicts the volume of fuel storage for each of the systems. As can be seen, the hydride storage tank with a 180-mile range is reduced from 72 gallons to 24 gallons by replacing the internal combustion engine with the fuel cell. It is difficult to integrate a 72-gallon container into the design of a commuter automobile. The 24-gallon storage capacity required for the fuel cell car is more in line with the usual fuel storage envelope of a petroleum vehicle and much more easily accommodated.

Recognizing the tremendous benefit of a hydrogen fuel cell automobile, one must consider the feasibility of such a vehicle. Fuel cells are an old and proven technology [12]. They were the source of electricity for the Apollo space ship and today provide the only electric power source for the space shuttle. In space applications, a very reliable technology is required with little consideration given to the fuel cell cost. An automotive fuel cell, on the other hand, must be affordable and require a minimum of maintenance. Additionally, an automotive fuel cell must be sufficiently light-weight and compact so as to be compatible with the engine compartment of the vehicle.

The specific weight of several power plants are compared in Figure 7. The data for the gasoline engine, the diesel engine, and the jet turbine are presented for the purpose of comparison [13]. As can be seen, the phosphoric acid fuel cell is very heavy, weighing 31 pounds per horsepower [14]. Such a system would be too heavy in an automotive vehicle application. By changing the fuel cell technology from phosphoric acid to a solid polymer electrolyte, the weight can be substantially reduced. The so-called "Patent Cell," developed by the American Academy of Science, produces power at a weight of 8 pounds per horsepower [15]. The latest fuel cell design under development at the American Academy of Science, the "Laser Cell", is capable of converting hydrogen into power with the weight of just 1.3 pounds per horsepower [16]. As can be seen, this system competes directly with gasoline and diesel engines.

Unless researchers are able to make magnificent breakthroughs in the economics of producing hydrogen, and in the size and weight of hydrogen storage systems, the practical application of hydrogen as a fuel for transportation vehicles may be dependent upon the development of an automotive fuel cell system.

The fuel cell is an electrochemical system in which the chemical energy of a fuel and an oxidizer are directly converted into electrical energy. A fuel cell can continuously produce electricity as long as the supply of fuel and oxidizer are sustained [17]. In the case of a fuel cell vehicle, the electricity, which is very efficiently produced by the fuel cell, is used to power an electric motor, which in turn drives the wheels.

There are five different processes or types of fuel cells. They are alkaline, ion exchange membrane, phosphoric acid, molten carbonate, and solid oxide. Although research into the development of commercial fuel cells can be traced back to the late 1800's, a very large resurgence of interest into the development of commercial fuel cell technologies is underway [18]. The Federal Government is presently funding a program aimed towards the development of a fuel-cell-powered mass transit vehicle [19]. One of the reasons for selecting a mass transit vehicle for the program stems from the current inability to produce fuel cells with the size and weight requirements necessary for a commuter vehicle.

As the promises of a hydrogen energy economy create increasing incentives for a clean energy system based on renewable fuels without environmental deterioration, the ability to convert hydrogen into useful energy on board a vehicle will become increasingly important.

1.P.G. Patil, U.S. Department of Energy, C.C. Christianson, Argonne National Laboratory, and S. Romano, Georgetown University, 1988.

2.Kilbourn, Warsaw, and Thorton, "Pulmonary Functional Impairment and Symptoms in Women in the Los Angeles Harbor Area," American Journal of Medicine, June 1985, pp 23-28.

3.Robert M. Zweig, MD, "Hydrogen -- Solution to Union of Socialist Soviet Republic's Environmental Problems," Proceedings of the 7th World Hydrogen Energy Conference 1, 1988: pp. 23-31.

4.A.E. Neftel, et al., "The Increase of Atmospheric CO2 in the Last Two Centuries. Evidence from Polar Ice Cores," Nature 315, 1985: pp. 45-47.

5.The Hydrogen Letter 4:1, 1989.

6.C.M. Marschoff, "Niches for Hydrogen Energy Applications in Argentina," Proceedings of the 7th World Hydrogen Energy Conference 1, 1988.

7.Ibid., p. 1.

8.R.E. Billings, Hydrogen From Coal, Oklahoma: Pennwell Publishing, 1983, pp. 314.

9.R.E. Billings, "A Hydrogen-Powered Mass Transit System," First World Hydrogen Energy Conference, 1976.

10.J. O'M. Bockris and J.C. Wass, "About the Real Economics of Massive Hydrogen Production at 2010 A.D.," Proceedings of the 7th World Hydrogen Energy Conference 1, 1988, 101-151.

11.R.E. Billings, "Hydrogen Fuel in the Subcompact Automobile," Society of Automotive Engineers, June, 1976, 760572

12.H.S. Murray, et al., "DOT Fuel-Cell-Powered Bus Feasibility Study," Final Report, Los Alamos Naitonal Laboratory, December, 1986.

13.Aviation Week and Space Technology, March 9, 1987, pp. 164-166.

14.H.S. Murray, et al., "DOT Fuel-Cell-Powered Bus Feasibility Study," Final Report, Los Alamos National Laboratory, December, 1986.

15.R.E. Billings, "Method and Apparatus for Electrolyzing Water," U.S. Patent Number 4,720,331, January 19, 1988.

16.R.E. Billings, "Laser Cell Fuel Cell," Internal Publication, American Academy of Science, 1988.

17.H.S. Murray, et al., "DOT Fuel-Cell-Powered Bus Feasibility Study," Final Report, Los Alamos National Laboratory, December, 1986.

18.Ibid.

19.S. Romano, "Future Role of Fuel Cells in Transportation," XV Energy Technology Conference, February 18, 1988.

http://www.geocities.com/jlightner777/Hydrogen0312.html (taken from)

This report is available at the INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE from the Academy's Online Bookstore. In the Hydrogen Tech Papers. It is document #89001.

-----Original Message----- From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com]On Behalf Of developtrust Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 10:01 AM To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM Subject: Re: Gas went up $0.13 a gal overnight what's up?

Didn't someone demonstrate that when you factor in the cost of military and government to keep oil flowing here, the true cost of gasoline is over $10 a gallon?

William 1989 Vanagon GL 1988 Mercedes 300 SE

> >*If* fuel prices skyrocket in our lifetime (which is very likely), many > >things will change, but that is good. There are many things that *need* > >to change. snip > Fuel price leaps are counterproductive for oil investors/owners. > > Dave > -- > Dave Carpenter > > Whatever you wish for me, > May you have twice as much.