hydrogen-powered car VS diesel
Wednesday, March 12, 2003 by joetheblow | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
Someone tell me why million of government money is going into hydrogen-powered car when a diesel cars is very effiecent with fuel and pollution? I know hydrogen-powered car is better, but here and now couldn't we start to change over to diesel?
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/08/automobiles/08AUTO.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/08/automobiles/08AUTO.html
 |
|
Page 2 of 8 | |
|
|---|
joetheblow
Reply #22 Thursday, March 13, 2003 11:04 PM
Reply #22 Thursday, March 13, 2003 11:04 PM
hmmmm... I am going to hav to do more research on this subject. I just find it funny that diesel seems to work better for fuel economy. but I also read that diesel fuel cost more... but that only seems to be because of the supply/demand rule.
I like SUV's but I don't like the mileage AT ALL. Then I saw the perfect one... the volvo XC 90. (15/20).
Still horrible but usually when I drive I coast allot and the last time driving a suv, I got--- drum roll... 18/24!! (its all in the wrist... urrm foot)
But that is still not good enough. what I really don't get is how come there can't be more hybrid cars. ESPECAILLY in suv's since there is so much space in the car for it? Why can't there be a generator on the car that uses the cars motion to generate power?
I guess there is just no simple answer.
I like SUV's but I don't like the mileage AT ALL. Then I saw the perfect one... the volvo XC 90. (15/20).
Still horrible but usually when I drive I coast allot and the last time driving a suv, I got--- drum roll... 18/24!! (its all in the wrist... urrm foot)
But that is still not good enough. what I really don't get is how come there can't be more hybrid cars. ESPECAILLY in suv's since there is so much space in the car for it? Why can't there be a generator on the car that uses the cars motion to generate power?
I guess there is just no simple answer.
kona0197
Reply #23 Thursday, March 13, 2003 11:23 PM
Reply #23 Thursday, March 13, 2003 11:23 PM
diesel is not more efficent. And diesel costs and pollutes more. No research needed.
Aqua.
Reply #24 Friday, March 14, 2003 12:40 AM
Oh, they can do that, but it would slow you down. Then you would have to use extra energy to maintain speed, etc.
Actually kona, they've solved many of the problems that plagued older diesels. More research is needed. Right now the issue is that because America has such a large existing base of gas stations, our future vehicles will run on gas in some way, augmented by addatives or electricity. Europe is in a similar situation with diesel.
Reply #24 Friday, March 14, 2003 12:40 AM
| Why can't there be a generator on the car that uses the cars motion to generate power? |
Oh, they can do that, but it would slow you down. Then you would have to use extra energy to maintain speed, etc.
Actually kona, they've solved many of the problems that plagued older diesels. More research is needed. Right now the issue is that because America has such a large existing base of gas stations, our future vehicles will run on gas in some way, augmented by addatives or electricity. Europe is in a similar situation with diesel.
kona0197
Reply #25 Friday, March 14, 2003 12:46 AM
Reply #25 Friday, March 14, 2003 12:46 AM
I have heard that we in the US pollute the most. But the diesels we have here do pollute more than gas.
IPlural
Reply #26 Friday, March 14, 2003 2:45 AM
Reply #26 Friday, March 14, 2003 2:45 AM
OOPSY seens the other not Gas fossil fuel is nixed...
at least they are going to have to start all over...
By Jeff Hecht ENGINEERS have been barking up the wrong tree in their efforts to make diesel engines run cleaner and more efficiently.
A new X-ray study has revealed a type of supersonic shock wave that no one has seen before in the high-speed fuel jets used in diesel cars. "Nobody had any idea this was going on," says Jin Wang of the Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois. Engine designers will now have to scrap their old models of fuel mixing and combustion.
In a diesel, fuel ignites spontaneously when it is injected into the combustion chambers. The way the fuel mixes with air is crucial to how it burns, so knowing how the fuel sprays out is important for boosting efficiency and reducing pollution.
Researchers use light scattering from fuel droplets to profile the shape of the injected fuel jet. However, droplets in the jet scatter light many times, obscuring what's going on.
To see through the haze, Wang and his colleagues tried using a single-wavelength X-ray source and a high-speed detector that recorded an image every 5 microseconds. They sprayed standard diesel fuel, mixed with a caesium compound to enhance its X-ray contrast, into a chamber containing the inert gas sulphur hexafluoride to stop it combusting. As the jet moved through the gas, they took a series of pictures.
The team's research was funded by the automotive systems company Robert Bosch in Stuttgart. To simplify measurements, they used a modified version of a standard fuel-injector nozzle that had only one hole rather than the usual five or six.
They found that 90 per cent of the fuel was concentrated in a thin jet behind the V-shaped shock wave, with the densest concentration of fuel right behind the shock front. And while the gas in the chamber slowed down the leading edge of the fuel jet, the trailing edge moved several times faster, at supersonic velocity. As the tail end of the fuel jet caught up with the leading edge, most of the fuel became concentrated in a blob just behind the point of the shock cone. "Nobody knows why that should be, but we're going to try and find out," Wang told New Scientist.
The finding will send fuel efficiency researchers back to their drawing boards, says Oleg Vasilyev, a fluid dynamics specialist at the University of Missouri in Columbia. Fuel distribution in the initial jet is critical to how the fuel spreads through the chamber to be burnt. A better understanding could lead to new injector nozzle and chamber designs that improve fuel efficiency and reduce pollution, says Vasilyev.
at least they are going to have to start all over...
By Jeff Hecht ENGINEERS have been barking up the wrong tree in their efforts to make diesel engines run cleaner and more efficiently.
A new X-ray study has revealed a type of supersonic shock wave that no one has seen before in the high-speed fuel jets used in diesel cars. "Nobody had any idea this was going on," says Jin Wang of the Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois. Engine designers will now have to scrap their old models of fuel mixing and combustion.
In a diesel, fuel ignites spontaneously when it is injected into the combustion chambers. The way the fuel mixes with air is crucial to how it burns, so knowing how the fuel sprays out is important for boosting efficiency and reducing pollution.
Researchers use light scattering from fuel droplets to profile the shape of the injected fuel jet. However, droplets in the jet scatter light many times, obscuring what's going on.
To see through the haze, Wang and his colleagues tried using a single-wavelength X-ray source and a high-speed detector that recorded an image every 5 microseconds. They sprayed standard diesel fuel, mixed with a caesium compound to enhance its X-ray contrast, into a chamber containing the inert gas sulphur hexafluoride to stop it combusting. As the jet moved through the gas, they took a series of pictures.
The team's research was funded by the automotive systems company Robert Bosch in Stuttgart. To simplify measurements, they used a modified version of a standard fuel-injector nozzle that had only one hole rather than the usual five or six.
They found that 90 per cent of the fuel was concentrated in a thin jet behind the V-shaped shock wave, with the densest concentration of fuel right behind the shock front. And while the gas in the chamber slowed down the leading edge of the fuel jet, the trailing edge moved several times faster, at supersonic velocity. As the tail end of the fuel jet caught up with the leading edge, most of the fuel became concentrated in a blob just behind the point of the shock cone. "Nobody knows why that should be, but we're going to try and find out," Wang told New Scientist.
The finding will send fuel efficiency researchers back to their drawing boards, says Oleg Vasilyev, a fluid dynamics specialist at the University of Missouri in Columbia. Fuel distribution in the initial jet is critical to how the fuel spreads through the chamber to be burnt. A better understanding could lead to new injector nozzle and chamber designs that improve fuel efficiency and reduce pollution, says Vasilyev.
IPlural
Reply #27 Friday, March 14, 2003 2:50 AM
Reply #27 Friday, March 14, 2003 2:50 AM
on another note:
By Max Glaskin A chemical originally obtained from urine might be able to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides from diesel engines by up to 80 per cent. A diesel truck has set off from a lab in the Netherlands to test the idea as it trundles around Europe's roads.
ack who came up with this and what were they smoking when they thought of it?
By Max Glaskin A chemical originally obtained from urine might be able to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides from diesel engines by up to 80 per cent. A diesel truck has set off from a lab in the Netherlands to test the idea as it trundles around Europe's roads.
ack who came up with this and what were they smoking when they thought of it?
IPlural
Reply #28 Friday, March 14, 2003 3:07 AM
Reply #28 Friday, March 14, 2003 3:07 AM
now a link from the same site about Hdro...
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/cars/article.jsp?id=99992230&sub=Alternative%20fuels
seems it isn't so a negative after all....
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/cars/article.jsp?id=99992230&sub=Alternative%20fuels
seems it isn't so a negative after all....
Fuzzy Logic
Reply #29 Friday, March 14, 2003 5:15 AM
Reply #29 Friday, March 14, 2003 5:15 AM
kona0197: yeah but if you (Karmagirl) had to pay over $2 dollars a gallon (When 5 months ago it cost only $1.20)
Think yourself fortunate. Here the equivalent price is about $6 per gallon and rising.
Think yourself fortunate. Here the equivalent price is about $6 per gallon and rising.
IPlural
Reply #31 Friday, March 14, 2003 5:55 AM
Reply #31 Friday, March 14, 2003 5:55 AM
dang Fuzzy! ouch.. whats the online time costing now? is it still by the minute on the connection after a certain time passes or is that only at university?
Fuzzy Logic
Reply #32 Friday, March 14, 2003 7:16 AM
Reply #32 Friday, March 14, 2003 7:16 AM
I'm on DSL which is always on. The cost of that is just under £30 per month. Goodbye dial-up 
IPlural
Reply #33 Friday, March 14, 2003 7:28 AM
Reply #33 Friday, March 14, 2003 7:28 AM
cool I had a couple of riends at Nottingham who would say BYE and poof, cause of the costs of the dial up
kinda freaked me out a bit when they explained it to me, we really don't hae much complaining room over here is the states on bunchs of things, like oh, gas... for one thing
I had a couple of riends at Nottingham who would say BYE and poof, cause of the costs of the dial up kinda freaked me out a bit when they explained it to me, we really don't hae much complaining room over here is the states on bunchs of things, like oh, gas... for one thing
KarmaGirl
Reply #35 Friday, March 14, 2003 8:31 AM
Reply #35 Friday, March 14, 2003 8:31 AM
kona0197, you *do* need to do some research. Diesels have the same emissions standards as gas engines. You are comparing a semi to a gas engine. How many semis have gas engines in them? (Go find that one out) What are the 2003 EPA emissions standards? My husband works at a very large diesel engineering company, he works on engines that are used by buses, ambulances, semis, and other large uses. Trust me, each year the emissions standards get tighter and tighter (a few diesel manufacturers are still not able to get all their engine line up to emissions this year). And, they are always engineering for the future (they are already working on 2007 standards). The problem is, and I will state this again- the higher the emissions standards, the less fuel efficient the vehicle. So, you cut down on the emissions per gallon of fuel used, but you then need to use more fuel to accomplish the same horsepower. Diesel *is* more efficient. That is why big trucks, buses and large use vehicles use diesel.
And, nobody needs to tell me about the cost of gas. My husband and I spend around $250 a month in gas just to get back and forth to work. We also commute together. But, it is a fact of life. You have to get to work to pay your bills, and even fuel efficient vehicles still cost a lot to run. Even if gas was $4.00 a gallon, I would still have to get back and forth to work.
Fuel cell technology is still the most logical choice at this time. Please look into it. It makes a lot of sense, and it is getting close to being feasible. (Yes, they *do* have some hybrids out there right now, but they really aren't to the standards that they should be). Bush has also been pushing alternate fuel technology research. He has been pushing bills to get funding for the next 10 years.
On the other side of pollution, vehicles are only a portion of the problem. We need to look at the whole issue and make improvements on many things to reduce pollution. Yes, vehicles do need improvement, but we need to improve other things as well.
And, nobody needs to tell me about the cost of gas. My husband and I spend around $250 a month in gas just to get back and forth to work. We also commute together. But, it is a fact of life. You have to get to work to pay your bills, and even fuel efficient vehicles still cost a lot to run. Even if gas was $4.00 a gallon, I would still have to get back and forth to work.
Fuel cell technology is still the most logical choice at this time. Please look into it. It makes a lot of sense, and it is getting close to being feasible. (Yes, they *do* have some hybrids out there right now, but they really aren't to the standards that they should be). Bush has also been pushing alternate fuel technology research. He has been pushing bills to get funding for the next 10 years.
On the other side of pollution, vehicles are only a portion of the problem. We need to look at the whole issue and make improvements on many things to reduce pollution. Yes, vehicles do need improvement, but we need to improve other things as well.
kona0197
Reply #36 Friday, March 14, 2003 8:40 AM
Reply #36 Friday, March 14, 2003 8:40 AM
I have been looking into it. In fact, if you ask anyone I know they would tell you I hate cars, gasoline, diesel, and anything else except nuclear power because it is all hurting the world. The reason my name is Kona is because I ride a Kona bicycle. takes me 20 minutes to get to work, and I stay in shape to. I have 2 cars and they sit around alot. My vehicles only cost me maybe $50 dollars a month. Maybe. My bicycle costs nothing.
Aqua.
Reply #37 Friday, March 14, 2003 12:45 PM
Reply #37 Friday, March 14, 2003 12:45 PM
So why don't you hate all that radioactive waste that nuclear plants produce that will last for tens (or hundreds) of thousands of years?
On the other hand, pollution from internal combustion engines is cleaned by the normal environment every day. The pollution controls simply allow us to use more vehicles before we overload the cleaning capability of the environment.
As for riding to work, I'd hate to ride a bicycle 36 miles to work and back again every day, rain, snow, cold, etc. Bikes may be great for short distances such as what you have to go, but not for most of us.
On the other hand, pollution from internal combustion engines is cleaned by the normal environment every day. The pollution controls simply allow us to use more vehicles before we overload the cleaning capability of the environment.
As for riding to work, I'd hate to ride a bicycle 36 miles to work and back again every day, rain, snow, cold, etc. Bikes may be great for short distances such as what you have to go, but not for most of us.
craeonics
Reply #38 Friday, March 14, 2003 1:27 PM
Reply #38 Friday, March 14, 2003 1:27 PM
We'll just have to store our nuclear waste in kona's backyard then?
IPlural
Reply #39 Friday, March 14, 2003 1:35 PM
Reply #39 Friday, March 14, 2003 1:35 PM
you know, actually Helium 3 would be the best source of power, burns clean and the energy return is leaps and bounds beyond anything on this planet and it is all through space, but they would have to structure a collection system and storage process... It is actually one of the sources of deep space exploration fuels they have and are looking at with ram jets...
paxx
Reply #40 Friday, March 14, 2003 1:44 PM
Reply #40 Friday, March 14, 2003 1:44 PM
I take the train to work. I walk 15 minutes to get to the train station, ride 1 hour in the train, and 15 more minutes from the train station downtown to the office. Total 1 hour and a half each way. I could probably save half that time if I took the car, but it would be a lot more expensive.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 2 of 8 | |
|
|---|
Reply #21 Thursday, March 13, 2003 9:52 PM
It takes more energy to extract and compress Hydrogen into a form that vehicles can use than it does to use that energy directly without the intermediate step, i.e. Hydrogen.
Where will the energy to extract and compress the Hydrogen come from? Nuclear plants? Coal fired plans? Gas turbines? It won't come from solar or wind. Hydroelectric power won't increase much either, we've already placed dams on most of the rivers that would generate signifigant energy.
BTW, it takes more energy to crack water to get hydrogen than you get from the hydrogen powered fuel cells. Also, the current most cost effective way to get hydrogen is to crack it out of fossil fuels.... oops, isn't that what we're trying to get away from?