bmwsit Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 I hope this is as good as it sounds. $1.50 gas Link to comment
Paul Mihalka Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 I dunno. If it seems too good to be true... Link to comment
Quinn Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Impossible for me to believe. No reprocussions for Arab countries and oil companies in the Stock Market. Would be interesting to see what changes it would make if OPEC lost its stranglehold. ------ Link to comment
boatzo Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 I hope it works but as the others have said, sounds too good to be true. The EPA probably will find that it emits a strange hormone that causes Killer Bees to multiply by the trillions Link to comment
Whip Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 More... here. It will never happen till Big Bro can find a way to tax it. Link to comment
dhanson Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Sounds like it will be a better fuel to burn even at the same prices. Oh, wish I had not said that. Putting the oil companies out of business will turn you into "Bourne IV" tho. Link to comment
Polo Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 It does sound too good to be true, but one can only hope for Humanity. If (big IF) it is actually true that no modifications need to be made to vehicles, this is awesome. However, there are still many Countries where the Oil industry is nationalized, and they simply will keep this off their market. Also there will be a great deal of pressure to keep the oil flowing for some time. I agree with Whip about taxation. Link to comment
bmwsit Posted January 30, 2011 Author Share Posted January 30, 2011 I hope it is a workable solution since they were just talking this morning on the news that gas is expected to rise once again due to the frivolity in Egypt. Oregon just got hit with another 6 cent gas tax on Jan 1, don't need any more cost. But of course, if BMW and others would just bring over their high MPG diesels to the US, that may help too. Just read today the new Mini Countyman has diesel that get 60 MPG. And as for the beads, what happens to them in the combustion chamber? Do they consumed too? What happens to the ceramic particles? And for tax, oh I am sure the government would suddenly tax hydrogen heavily. I wonder if this could be mixed with regular gas? If it could, that would make the transition for the gas companies easier as they could still produce gas as they bring this tech online and intergrate it into the system, them scale back their gas production to a level US oil wells could support etc. Im going to keep watching this I think. Here's more info, looks like the beads would be collected somewhere in the system. Cella Link to comment
Bullett Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 I hope it works but as the others have said, sounds too good to be true. The EPA probably will find that it emits a strange hormone that causes Killer Bees to multiply by the trillions I dunno, there would be better pollination for farmers; we would all simply have to add a beekeeper's suit to our wardrobe. Link to comment
Bob Palin Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Don't hold your breath - from the research web site talking about the nano-carrier for the hydrogen part of the fuel: Although ideal for our proof-of-concept work and potentially useful for the initial demonstrator projects it is not currently a viable commercial material: it is expensive to make and cannot be easily re-hydrided or chemically recycled. Link to comment
Twisties Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Sounds like there might be issues with these hydrides. They mention ammonia and boron. Ammonia has nitrogen and when that burns we get NOx. A class of pollutants. Not sure the effects of widespread boron releases have ever been contemplated. They want to style this as hydrogen, and yes, I see that point as the material acts similarly in some respects, but it is not hydrogen. The exact chemistry would need careful study. Link to comment
roydog007 Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 If it works the gas companies & the the government will bury it Link to comment
Joe Frickin' Friday Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Sounds like there might be issues with these hydrides. They mention ammonia and boron. Ammonia has nitrogen and when that burns we get NOx. NOx isn't a new issue; since the atmosphere is 4/5 nitrogen, we NOx in pretty much any situation where fuel is burned in atmospheric air. In fact, some modern emissions controls strategies use urea - which contains nitrogen - to reduce engine-out NOx levels. But of course, if BMW and others would just bring over their high MPG diesels to the US, that may help too. Just read today the new Mini Countyman has diesel that get 60 MPG. They can't. European diesel fuel is different than US diesel fuel, and the emissions rules are also different. A friend of mine bought a VW Jetta diesel 14 years ago that got 60 MPG; a late-model Jetta diesel now gets only 40. The big difference is NOx emissions regs, which have tightened up considerably. Among other things this requires later injection timing so as to limit peak combustion temps; the downside is that late injection timing results in lower efficiency. Link to comment
Twisties Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Well, the NOx we get when fuel is burned in air (79% N2) is trace, e.g. very little N2 is oxidized. The urea you mention is apparently in a catalytic converter, and not burned. It is used to help remove that trace NOx which does form, as I understand it. The issue here in this scheme is that now nitrogen is proposed as a large percent of the actual fuel and clearly subject to oxidation (burning). This is very different. The fate of the nitrogen will need to be understood. Link to comment
bobbybob Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Hmmmm....the guy in that link looks strangely familiar. Wait--Nick---Deadboy? Is that you? Or your evil twin brother? Is AMA behind this? Link to comment
pickersgill1 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 That sounds great we are paying $3.59 per US gallon & the cost is due to increase again soon. Link to comment
bmwsit Posted January 31, 2011 Author Share Posted January 31, 2011 Well, I still hope this works out in the near future or leads to something else. As for diesel, sorry, don't buy it. From what I can tell, our diesel standards are only slightly looser than the EU, our ultra low sulfer diesel alowing 15ppm and the EU mandate being 10ppm, with some countries taking it further with tax incentives to 5ppm. A bit more tweaking on our part and we can have the same engines the europeans have that provide more torque, less pollution and better mileage. If the US is serious about all of this, it can be done, make the change, stop taxing diesel at a higher rate, bring in the higher MPG cars and watch people start snapping them up. Link to comment
Dietrich Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 Wouldn't that be graet. While we are waiting with great suspense, oil is going over $100 a barrel again and I bet within not too long a time we will be paying a buck fifty for a liter of gas, sorry that's about $6 a gallon, maybe by this summer. There goes the fragile recovery. OPEC will milk it as long as they can for as much as they can get. Democracy is great but it sure has some disadvantages. Link to comment
bmurphypdx Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Here is the reality - even if this development is true, anyone who markets this will do so for $.01 less than hydrocarbon based fuel. Basic economics. Link to comment
Bob Palin Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Here is the reality - even if this development is true, anyone who markets this will do so for $.01 less than hydrocarbon based fuel. Basic economics. Also consider that even if it can be used in unmodified vehicles it would almost certainly need a seperate distribution and retail system from gas, that would be expensive. Link to comment
Joe Frickin' Friday Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Here is the reality - even if this development is true, anyone who markets this will do so for $.01 less than hydrocarbon based fuel. Basic economics. If they sell significant quantities, demand for HC fuels will be reduced, which should cause the price of both to drop. Once the patent expires (be patient...), expect even more competition/supply which should further decrease prices. Link to comment
bmwsit Posted February 3, 2011 Author Share Posted February 3, 2011 And if this new stuff flows like a liquid, the distribution system in in place. Pump it into a clean gas truck, drive it to the station, pump it into a clean holding tank and you're done. The system and network are in place. It would just have to be tweeked a bit for what ever new item comes on line. Link to comment
bmurphypdx Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Y'all are far more optimistic than I. Link to comment
ragtoplvr Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 This requires a modified vehicle. Has to have a hydrogen gas fuel injection system. I think you have a pellet hopper, and probably a spent pellet hopper. When the pellet hopper is near empty, you pull in to fuel station, and dump the spent pellets for recharge, and buy new ones. So extensive modifications are needed. Of course the pellets will be taxed, you think roads are free. Rod Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.