Date:         Wed, 20 Mar 2002 10:18:35 -0800
Reply-To:     MDC Vanagon <vanagon@SPEAKEASY.ORG>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         MDC Vanagon <vanagon@SPEAKEASY.ORG>
Subject:      Re: Gas went up $0.13 a gal overnight what's up?
In-Reply-To:  <009201c1d039$401f7040$6401a8c0@vista1.sdca.home.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

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.