Hypermiling for cheap using iPhone - Page 2

optikalefx · 05-07-2009, 03:47 PM

I'm really looking forward to hydrogen cars or air powered cars, but until then, I can drive less aggressively to save money :P

CraziFuzzy · 05-08-2009, 06:49 AM

Getting off topic I guess (since not really hypermiling), but I still think CNG is a better alternative than both hydrogen OR compressed air. The only downsides of CNG are decreased range (though still higher than the equivalent volume of Hydrogen or compressed air). CNG is FAR cheaper than Hydrogen. Natural Gas is already piped to a majority of homes in the United States, all that is required to fill your car at home is a small compressor. Natural Gas is a virtually raw product, limiting production costs. Natural Gas, unlike hydrogen or compressed gas, is actually an energy source - H2 and Air are just storage mediums.

Anyway, the cngchat site is a discussion group... There is a link to cngprices.com on there that is the station locater. Either way, I like driving my expedition around town on $1.27/gge fuel...

optikalefx · 05-08-2009, 09:59 AM

I agree storing hydrogen in cars is more work then needed. But what I'm talking about is storing water in your car, any water, and it's then filtered and the molecules are extracted. I've only seen this concept a few times but I think that would be optimum efficiency, all you need to do is find water and your good.

Bugbyte · 05-08-2009, 11:43 AM

I think the consensus on that idea is that it requires more energy than you can extract as hydrogen. There are plenty of people who don't believe that the law of conservation of energy is real but I've yet to see them disprove it scientifically.

What is probably more likely is the reverse - a fuel cell that takes oxygen and hydrogen and generates electricity from them to power a set of batteries.

If you generate/compress the oxygen and hydrogen from wind or solar, it would be green. However, most hydrogen is derived from natural gas right now. Might as well just use the natural gas directly.

CraziFuzzy · 05-08-2009, 01:41 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by optikalefx

I agree storing hydrogen in cars is more work then needed. But what I'm talking about is storing water in your car, any water, and it's then filtered and the molecules are extracted. I've only seen this concept a few times but I think that would be optimum efficiency, all you need to do is find water and your good.

this concept is wron on many levels. You have to add energy to water molecules (a significant amount of it) to free the hydrogen bonds holding the molecule together. This energy is then returned when the hydrogen is allowed to rejoin the oxygen. This can be done in one of two ways. Combustion, where it returns the energy in the form of heat, or electolytic, where it is returned in the form of electric power. Either way, the conversion losses (which are basically waste heat) make it much less effiient than just using the natural gas to begin with.

As for making the hydrogen from wind or solar, you'd be better off using that electricity directly ni an electric battery vehicle.

There is no such thing as a water powered vehicle, and never will be, because there is no free energy to be found in water. Water is a relatvely stble, content molecule...one of the reasons there is so much of it on the planet. Once it is formed, it doesn't like to dissassociate.

2k1Toaster · 05-08-2009, 05:29 PM

Hydrogen/Oxygen fuel cells will be the way to go once they setup some electrolysis stations until something better comes along in 10 years.

Either have each station be self maintaining using solar panels for the most part, or do it more practically and build some nuclear power plants to power the electrolysis machines. Logically there isn't enough physical room for solar/wind to provide enough energy even with huge farms running at optimal efficiency. Slap down 1 nuclear plant and bingo problem solved. The current US nuclear plants are barely running above 70% output now. It is considerably greener, very safe, and make very very very large outputs.

So fission-->electrolysis-->fuel cell-->battery bank-->EV Vehicle-->water

TimmyM · 05-08-2009, 05:33 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by CraziFuzzy

Getting off topic I guess (since not really hypermiling), but I still think CNG is a better alternative than both hydrogen OR compressed air. The only downsides of CNG are decreased range (though still higher than the equivalent volume of Hydrogen or compressed air). CNG is FAR cheaper than Hydrogen. Natural Gas is already piped to a majority of homes in the United States, all that is required to fill your car at home is a small compressor. Natural Gas is a virtually raw product, limiting production costs. Natural Gas, unlike hydrogen or compressed gas, is actually an energy source - H2 and Air are just storage mediums.

Anyway, the cngchat site is a discussion group... There is a link to cngprices.com on there that is the station locater. Either way, I like driving my expedition around town on $1.27/gge fuel...

how hard is it to convert from propane powered to CNG? My step van runs on propane. I get it for about $1.60 currently at U-haul's. I'm thinking of converting to CNG next year and filling it from home if possible.

CraziFuzzy · 05-09-2009, 01:28 AM

Quote: Originally Posted by 2k1Toaster

Hydrogen/Oxygen fuel cells will be the way to go once they setup some electrolysis stations until something better comes along in 10 years.

Either have each station be self maintaining using solar panels for the most part, or do it more practically and build some nuclear power plants to power the electrolysis machines. Logically there isn't enough physical room for solar/wind to provide enough energy even with huge farms running at optimal efficiency. Slap down 1 nuclear plant and bingo problem solved. The current US nuclear plants are barely running above 70% output now. It is considerably greener, very safe, and make very very very large outputs.

So fission-->electrolysis-->fuel cell-->battery bank-->EV Vehicle-->water

I keep seeing stuff like this. How is that process BETTER than fission-->battery bank--EV? Hydrogen is a great buzzword, because most people believe that since it's in water, it's a matter of filtering it out and running the car from it. The only reason there is any significant strides towards hydrogen cars, is because a few energy companies convinced the US government to pay for it. It's just the newer version of corn ethanol... it's amazing how well that's working out, isn't it?

CraziFuzzy · 05-09-2009, 01:32 AM

Quote: Originally Posted by TimmyM

how hard is it to convert from propane powered to CNG? My step van runs on propane. I get it for about $1.60 currently at U-haul's. I'm thinking of converting to CNG next year and filling it from home if possible.

Probably not worth it. It's actually quite a different system than CNG, and most components would have to be changed out. Also, the at home fueling cost isn't THAT significant to make it worth the effort. Better bet would just be, when you are looking for a replacement vehicle, go with a CNG. The already propane van is probably better off staying propane. CNG offers great fuel pricing, but has a higher up-front cost. This is why it makes the MOST sense for fleet vehicles, as the fuel costs rapidly pay for the higher build cost. A small CNG tank alone is a few grand.

2k1Toaster · 05-09-2009, 01:47 AM

Quote: Originally Posted by CraziFuzzy

I keep seeing stuff like this. How is that process BETTER than fission-->battery bank--EV? Hydrogen is a great buzzword, because most people believe that since it's in water, it's a matter of filtering it out and running the car from it. The only reason there is any significant strides towards hydrogen cars, is because a few energy companies convinced the US government to pay for it. It's just the newer version of corn ethanol... it's amazing how well that's working out, isn't it?

you want to split atoms under your hood? That's crazy 50's 60's "Jetson's" era talk. I saw the "prototype" for the car of the future in a car museum all bubble with a happy model saying we will all drive these by the year 2000!

Anyways, you cant carry enough coolant to keep a reaction of that magnitude under control. Let alone the mayhem that would ensue everytime you get in an accident...

Hydrogen is a great buzz word and most people believe it is in water because it is. And it is just a matter of splitting it back into hydrogen and oxygen (huge energy cost there) and then allow them to go together (mediocre energy gain). The whole process is extremely inefficient, but completely clean if done correctly. That and it is just water essentially. You can desalinate and then seperate some good old H2O and you have fuel.

Fuel Cell technology is just a different implementation of compressed natural gas. Hydrogen and Oxygen are natural gasses after all. They have to be compressed big time to fit the required volume into a consumer vehicle (and go farther than a kilometre). Only difference is you burn it directly, while fuel cells take advantage of a cleaner chemical reaction.

Hydrogen fuel cells have been around for a long time. The US government has a role to play, but it is not always a bad thing. And it is not the newer version of corn ethanol. People with any minds always said "e-85" as it is commonly marketed as was a completely stupid idea. Notice how the only people who implemented the "Flex-Fuel" vehicles were the big 3 automakers that dont get any decisions right to begin with... Anyways, it takes way more energy to produce than you get out of it again, but the problem there is that the world is not 80% corn. If it is was, I doubt it would be a problem. Even if it was corn type B and needed a special process to convert to normal corn, if it accounted for most of the planet, and after the process a corn husk plopped out of your exhaust then it would be similar. But it doesnt, and it is isnt. Not in the least.

Plug-in electrics would be a great option only problem is people like a car that can be refueled in less than 12 hours... Now lithium batteries just had a big improvement with little needed to be done to the manufacturing process. Basically before with charging they send in the electrons and they randomly jumped around. When the electrons match a hole, voila a itty bitty bit of charge. Problem is very little of these electrons match properly before they shoot out the other end or turn to heat. Hence the slow recharge rate. Now they have been able to create channels that sort of funnel the electrons into the slots. Much much more efficient. They are saying they can fully charge a small battery (like a 4000mAh to 6000mAh laptop battery) charge in less than a minute. Similar improvements or lots of parallel batteries like that, you can plug in your car and drive away fully charged in 5 minutes and all will be happy. But that is probably still a decade in the future before anything comes to the consumer market.

Fuel cells on the other hand are already here and work just as well.

RipplingHurst · 05-13-2009, 01:39 AM

This:

Quote:

Avoid coming to a complete stop
Try to accelerate as slowly as possible

This really upsets me. I hate those guys who see a yellow 600ft ahead and complete lift their foot...and don't get me started on slow accelerating...

Oh boy. This is America though, there is nothing I can do, but it's frustrating. If you're not on the far most right lane though, I do protest.

80 year olds should be driving 55, IMHO.

Tidder · 05-13-2009, 01:42 AM

Quote: Originally Posted by RipplingHurst

This really upsets me. I hate those guys who see a yellow 600ft ahead and complete lift their foot...

600ft? I would think if I'm already that close to a yellow, I'd be braking by that time... how fast are we talking here?

RipplingHurst · 05-13-2009, 01:47 AM

It depends on the road...Of course, it can be 800ft, or 1 and 1/2 mile, if you were at 55.

I guess the point I'm making is not difficult to grasp, though.

2k1Toaster · 05-13-2009, 01:51 AM

Why though? You either get to the light really fast and then wait dead stopped, or you get there slowly. Either way the light still takes the same amount of time to change. So you can either keep moving and burn less gas when you get going again if you time it right, or get to the light really fast and stare into the yonder or twiddle your thumbs...

CraziFuzzy · 05-13-2009, 04:24 AM

Quote: Originally Posted by 2k1Toaster

you want to split atoms under your hood? That's crazy 50's 60's "Jetson's" era talk. I saw the "prototype" for the car of the future in a car museum all bubble with a happy model saying we will all drive these by the year 2000!

Anyways, you cant carry enough coolant to keep a reaction of that magnitude under control. Let alone the mayhem that would ensue everytime you get in an accident...

I never said to put the fission on the car.. that IS a stupid idea. I was referring to the post that I quoted, saying that we should use nuclear generated electricity to split water, fuel the cars with the H2, use a fuel cell to charge a battery bank and that to drive the car. Whole lot of unneccesary conversions there, and much better off just using that initial electricity to charge the battery.

Quote: Originally Posted by 2k1Toaster

Hydrogen is a great buzz word and most people believe it is in water because it is. And it is just a matter of splitting it back into hydrogen and oxygen (huge energy cost there) and then allow them to go together (mediocre energy gain). The whole process is extremely inefficient, but completely clean if done correctly. That and it is just water essentially. You can desalinate and then seperate some good old H2O and you have fuel.

Fuel Cell technology is just a different implementation of compressed natural gas. Hydrogen and Oxygen are natural gasses after all. They have to be compressed big time to fit the required volume into a consumer vehicle (and go farther than a kilometre). Only difference is you burn it directly, while fuel cells take advantage of a cleaner chemical reaction.

H2 Fuel cell cars are not all that analagous to CNG vehicles for one major difference. The H2 is not the energy source. In a CNG system, the 'fuel' IS the CNG. an H2 Fuel cell vehicle is much more analogous to a battery electric, in that the H2 is just a storage medium. The energy itself is derived elsewhere.

Quote: Originally Posted by 2k1Toaster

Hydrogen fuel cells have been around for a long time. The US government has a role to play, but it is not always a bad thing. And it is not the newer version of corn ethanol. People with any minds always said "e-85" as it is commonly marketed as was a completely stupid idea. Notice how the only people who implemented the "Flex-Fuel" vehicles were the big 3 automakers that dont get any decisions right to begin with... Anyways, it takes way more energy to produce than you get out of it again, but the problem there is that the world is not 80% corn. If it is was, I doubt it would be a problem. Even if it was corn type B and needed a special process to convert to normal corn, if it accounted for most of the planet, and after the process a corn husk plopped out of your exhaust then it would be similar. But it doesnt, and it is isnt. Not in the least.

The only reason the Big 3 made the Flex Fuel vehicles is that the federal government decided that government fleets could purchase them to meet their clean car quotas. With this, the Big 3 all stopped making CNG vehicles, and started selling the cheaper/easier to build flex-fuel cars to the fleets. Most never get a drop of E-85 put in the tank.

Quote: Originally Posted by 2k1Toaster

Plug-in electrics would be a great option only problem is people like a car that can be refueled in less than 12 hours... Now lithium batteries just had a big improvement with little needed to be done to the manufacturing process. Basically before with charging they send in the electrons and they randomly jumped around. When the electrons match a hole, voila a itty bitty bit of charge. Problem is very little of these electrons match properly before they shoot out the other end or turn to heat. Hence the slow recharge rate. Now they have been able to create channels that sort of funnel the electrons into the slots. Much much more efficient. They are saying they can fully charge a small battery (like a 4000mAh to 6000mAh laptop battery) charge in less than a minute. Similar improvements or lots of parallel batteries like that, you can plug in your car and drive away fully charged in 5 minutes and all will be happy. But that is probably still a decade in the future before anything comes to the consumer market.

Modern battery EV's already have extremely quick charging systems. The Phoenix can be brought to 95% in 10 minutes using the stationary off-board charger. The onboard 'charge anywhere' charger can fully charge the vehicle in 5 hours.

Quote: Originally Posted by 2k1Toaster

Fuel cells on the other hand are already here and work just as well.

Fuel cells are not 'here' until the cost is at a point where a consumer can actually buy one and the company still make a profit. There is also significant safety concerns with H2 storage. Current H2 storage systems involve either 5,000 or 10,000 psi storage. The pressure is far more dangerous than the H2 itself. CNG, instead, is stored at a much lower 3600psi. The H2 is also more dangerous in that it's combustion range is anywhere between 4% and 75%, while methane has much tighter limits, only being combustible between 5% and 15%.

The other huge advantage CNG has, and what is probably the most important factor, is economics. Because of the energy efficiencies involved in CNG from extraction to use, and as long as Natural Gas is the primary energy source for H2 production, it will always be the FAR cheaper than H2. Convenience also leans heavily towards CNG, as it is much more readily available, in that it is already piped over nearly the whole country. The cost to build a 3600# CNG fueling facility, fed from the NG infrastructure is ridiculously less than the cost to build a hydrogen production facility, with a 10,000 psi compression system.

As far as cleanliness, as long as NG remains a major source of electrical production, and assuming the only clean way to produce H2 is from clean energy sources such as wind/solar/nuclear, you would get better results using that clean electricity to offset the NG electrical production, and use that offset NG in cars, then to create H2 for the cars.

In the vehicle itself, the energy advantages of H2 lie not in the fuel, but in the electric drive-train. It would be far cheaper to use that electric drivetrain in a CNG hybrid vehicle, gaining most the advantages of the H2/Electric system, while still costing far less to build AND drive.

User Name		Remember Me?
Password