The Future of Fuel and Energy Technology

Artie60438 wrote:

LoisLane wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

LoisLane wrote:

I said government...not Democrat or Republican...they then want to bring their hypocrisy to the health care industry...No thank you.

Which is why I took the time to point out the error in your allegation. Don't try and include Democrats when in fact it's republicans that cause the problems.

Republicans are always whining about how Gov't doesn't work after they are the ones who screw things up.

Democrat Congress...Tobacco Subsidy...Still Exists, doesn't it? Now, where was that error, gramps?

Couldn't do anything about it when Bushbaby was in charge. Heretic asked you a question. Plan on answering it?

Sorry gramps, Heretic can ask questions till the cows come home...He's already proven to me how low he can stoop to start a fight...I chose not to acknowledge his efforts to engage into a flame war. He, like you you can rot in hell...

LoisLane wrote:

Sorry gramps, Heretic can ask questions till the cows come home...He's already proven to me how low he can stoop to start a fight...I chose not to acknowledge his efforts to engage into a flame war. He, like you you can rot in hell...

Good to know my instincts weren't wrong after all.

Quote :

The Hydrogen-Boosted Gasoline Engine
by Bob Brooks

Faced with the ever increasing cost of gasoline, automakers worldwide are working overtime to cost-effectively improve vehicle fuel economy, while still meeting today's strict emissions requirements.

One promising way to boost fuel economy is to add hydrogen to the fuel/air mixture in a conventional gas engine. It's called a hydrogen-boosted gas engine. However, since hydrogen isn't readily available at your local filling station, selling a hydrogen-boosted gas engine hasn't been on the short list at many automakers. That is until now.

There's a new technology that utilizes a fast-response on-board reformer to generate a small amount of hydrogen from gasoline. This hydrogen is added to the engine's normal air/fuel mixture. Engines designed to run on a mix of hydrogen/gasoline can see a fuel-economy gain of 20 to 30 percent with no requirement for control of harmful NOx emissions, oxides of nitrogen.
http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/the-hydrogen-boosted-gasoline-engine-cga.htm#

Thanks for the link. Looks promising...

Scorpion wrote:

Thanks for the link. Looks promising...

Thanks, Shell has been using hydrogen enriched gasoline in this country for about 9 months...at the pump. Their claim is it reduces "gunk"...

sparks wrote:

There have been ads for "miracle" devices designed to boost fuel mileage running in Popular Mechanics for fifty years now. Every one of them has been shown to be bogus. According to your link, there hasn't been any real world testing of this device by independent laboratories, only "virtual" modeling done with computer programs. I think this is an idea that will probably be "precycled" after venture capital investors pass on it. Then again, maybe Crown Point might pony up some start-up cash. They've been scammed before.

Apparently reading the article would take up too much of your valuable time!

sparks wrote:

There have been ads for "miracle" devices designed to boost fuel mileage running in Popular Mechanics for fifty years now. Every one of them has been shown to be bogus. According to your link, there hasn't been any real world testing of this device by independent laboratories, only "virtual" modeling done with computer programs. I think this is an idea that will probably be "precycled" after venture capital investors pass on it. Then again, maybe Crown Point might pony up some start-up cash. They've been scammed before.

Yeah. Well when you consider the fact that the "reformer" technology was "invented by scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and is being perfected by auto industry supplier ArvinMeritor" which IIRC, is a Fortune 500 company, your comments seem more than a little off base.

Scorpion wrote:

sparks wrote:

There have been ads for "miracle" devices designed to boost fuel mileage running in Popular Mechanics for fifty years now. Every one of them has been shown to be bogus. According to your link, there hasn't been any real world testing of this device by independent laboratories, only "virtual" modeling done with computer programs. I think this is an idea that will probably be "precycled" after venture capital investors pass on it. Then again, maybe Crown Point might pony up some start-up cash. They've been scammed before.

Yeah. Well when you consider the fact that the "reformer" technology was "invented by scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and is being perfected by auto industry supplier ArvinMeritor" which IIRC, is a Fortune 500 company, your comments seem more than a little off base.

I made my comments because the story that was linked was published on 3/30/2006. When you click on ArvinMeritor's home page, they don't have any press releases about trials of this concept this year. If the claims had proven to be true and economically feasible, I would think they would be promoting it. Given the current financial upheaval in the auto supplier sector because of decreased sales, it's very possible that this Fortune 500 company decided not to continue investing in this technology.

sparks wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

sparks wrote:

There have been ads for "miracle" devices designed to boost fuel mileage running in Popular Mechanics for fifty years now. Every one of them has been shown to be bogus. According to your link, there hasn't been any real world testing of this device by independent laboratories, only "virtual" modeling done with computer programs. I think this is an idea that will probably be "precycled" after venture capital investors pass on it. Then again, maybe Crown Point might pony up some start-up cash. They've been scammed before.

Yeah. Well when you consider the fact that the "reformer" technology was "invented by scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and is being perfected by auto industry supplier ArvinMeritor" which IIRC, is a Fortune 500 company, your comments seem more than a little off base.

I made my comments because the story that was linked was published on 3/30/2006. When you click on ArvinMeritor's home page, they don't have any press releases about trials of this concept this year.

True that. I didn't notice the date of the piece when I read it. I did some looking around, and found precious little that was more recent.

sparks wrote:

If the claims had proven to be true and economically feasible, I would think they would be promoting it. Given the current financial upheaval in the auto supplier sector because of decreased sales, it's very possible that this Fortune 500 company decided not to continue investing in this technology.

Yeah, well I'm certainly not a scientist, so I don't feel that I'm qualified to determine whether the technology is feasible or not. All I know is that the companies involved were shooting for production of this system in 2010. Will it happen? Hell if I know. I just thought that it looked promising, and was impressed with the players involved... and I am certainly not convinced that this is all some bogus scam.

Quote :

Evidence found that NASA knows that Supplemental Hydrogen improves Fuel Efficency

Compelling Evidence found that NASA, U.S. Dept. of Transportation, U.S. Patent Office and Detroit, as well as Scientists from around the world, all know and claim that Supplemental Hydrogen improves Fuel Efficency, reduces Harmful Emmissions and allows Leaner Operation of Internal Combustion Engines:
The list below is a partial collection of references regarding supplemental hydrogen, from official publications of NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration), DOT (United States Department of Transportation), USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office) as well as other Patent Offices, JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology) and surprisingly, “Detroit” itself (The Society of Automotive Engineers of Troy, MI). Obviously not all documents are saying exactly the same thing, but the overall picture is clear when you look at the collective pointers and you observe where they are pointing.
http://malaysiangreencar.wordpress.com/2009/03/27/evidence-found-that-nasa-knows-that-supplemental-hydrogen-improves-fuel-efficency/

LoisLane wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Thanks for the link. Looks promising...

Thanks, Shell has been using hydrogen enriched gasoline in this country for about 9 months...at the pump. Their claim is it reduces "gunk"...

Do you happen to have a link on that, Lois? All I've been able to find is a reference to "Nitrogen Enrichment."

Shell announces new nitrogen-enhanced gasoline

In any case, if you do find a link about Hydrogen enrichment, and could post it when you have a moment, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks!

Wikipedia had some interesting links: Hydrogen fuel enhancement

Heretic wrote:

Wikipedia had some interesting links: Hydrogen fuel enhancement

Yeah, thanks. I saw that. It all looks promising, doesn't it?

At best, these "advancements" using fossil fuels are interim technologies that will soon become obsolete. While the technology advances may result in better mileage, they do little to mitigate the principle cause of AGW, which is the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by the refining and burning of fossil fuel. In fact, it can be argued that by continuing to develope new systems based on burning petroleum, we are delaying implementation of electric vehicles which can lower the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere.

Scorpion wrote:

Yeah, thanks. I saw that. It all looks promising, doesn't it?

If it's part of a bigger plan towards alternatives and less energy use overall, yes. But if we're just using this to power our gas guzzling SUVs (and probably even farther than before - Jevon's paradox) while pretending we're solving the energy crisis, then it's impact will be greatly lessened. We're still desperate for alternatives, and what we have is only worthwhile when gas prices are high. Like sparks said, I just hope this doesn't stall development by giving the false appearance that things can continue as they are.

Heretic wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Yeah, thanks. I saw that. It all looks promising, doesn't it?

If it's part of a bigger plan towards alternatives and less energy use overall, yes.

Yeah, well to me, that requirement is a given.

sparks wrote:

At best, these "advancements" using fossil fuels are interim technologies that will soon become obsolete.

I wish that statement was true, but it isn't. Granted, this is merely a "bridge" technology. But I don't know of any workable plans to power trucks and buses on batteries, do you?

sparks wrote:

In fact, it can be argued that by continuing to develop new systems based on burning petroleum, we are delaying implementation of electric vehicles which can lower the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere.

Following this line of reasoning, you would have to oppose hybrid vehicles as well. I just don't think that "making the perfect the enemy of the good" is the solution to our problems.

Scorpion wrote:

LoisLane wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Thanks for the link. Looks promising...

Thanks, Shell has been using hydrogen enriched gasoline in this country for about 9 months...at the pump. Their claim is it reduces "gunk"...

Do you happen to have a link on that, Lois? All I've been able to find is a reference to "Nitrogen Enrichment."

Shell announces new nitrogen-enhanced gasoline

In any case, if you do find a link about Hydrogen enrichment, and could post it when you have a moment, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks!

The only link available is about nitogen enriched gasoline...but I know I read it somewhere, and I'll find it.

Scorpion wrote:

Heretic wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Yeah, thanks. I saw that. It all looks promising, doesn't it?

If it's part of a bigger plan towards alternatives and less energy use overall, yes.

Yeah, well to me, that requirement is a given.

sparks wrote:

At best, these "advancements" using fossil fuels are interim technologies that will soon become obsolete.

I wish that statement was true, but it isn't. Granted, this is merely a "bridge" technology. But I don't know of any workable plans to power trucks and buses on batteries, do you?

sparks wrote:

In fact, it can be argued that by continuing to develop new systems based on burning petroleum, we are delaying implementation of electric vehicles which can lower the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere.

Following this line of reasoning, you would have to oppose hybrid vehicles as well. I just don't think that "making the perfect the enemy of the good" is the solution to our problems.

As more studies are released about the escalating impact of AGW, it is apparent to me that the only way to combat it's effects is to power vehicles without using fossil fuels. An electric vehicle that is recharged by generating renewable power is an option that can be built today. Since hybrids still rely on burning fossil fuel as their principle means of propulsion, I do not believe they are part of the solution to lowering the emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. However, hybrids have lead to improved batteries, which are helping electric car development. IMO, the threat posed by AGW is so grave that our government needs to go "all in" and start crafting legislation to shift us away from dependence on fossil fuel as quickly as possible.

Yeah, well lets hope that the energy bill that passed in the House gets through the Senate. It's not going to be easy.

Scorpion wrote:

Yeah, well lets hope that the energy bill that passed in the House gets through the Senate. It's not going to be easy.

I agree that the "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009" faces substanial opposition in the Senate from Senators representing states that are involved with coal mining. What is really disturbing to me is that when the House passed this legislation, it was the first time that either house in Congress had passed any legislation to limit greenhouse gases. I believe that as the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, the US must step up and not allow special interest groups to derail legislation that is vital to our future survival.

sparks wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Yeah, well lets hope that the energy bill that passed in the House gets through the Senate. It's not going to be easy.

I agree that the "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009" faces substanial opposition in the Senate from Senators representing states that are involved with coal mining. What is really disturbing to me is that when the House passed this legislation, it was the first time that either house in Congress had passed any legislation to limit greenhouse gases. I believe that as the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, the US must step up and not allow special interest groups to derail legislation that is vital to our future survival.

Cap and Trade is dead...

LoisLane wrote:

Cap and Trade is dead...

It is,troll? How come it passed in the House in June?

I like pie.