Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerys
"I'm delighted that you mention that electrolysis is the least efficient,most expensive, and highest entropy form of producing hydrogen."
well most expensive is incorrect. Electrolysis is by far the cheapest. Very little materials are required and electricity is dirt cheap.
ie the REASON end users go with electrolysis is because its the ONLY viable means of "end user" hydrogen production and its simple and very cheap. The biggest problem is end users trying to use CAR POWER to power the generator.
And yes as the next few posters mentions the COMPUTERS in the cars will resist and fight you. If you only have one upstream O2 sensor you have a fighting chance but if you have up and down stream sensors its going to be dicey since you will be sending "triggers" to the computer that will result in it RICHING up your fuel mixture even though it does not need it. Some think this is intentional but I think its just because of the triggers the "simple" computers look for.
|
I just lost 20-minutes of typing so I'll try again.
Steam-reforming was listed as the most efficient form of hydrogen production and electrolysis as worst,at 3X to 4X the energy.
On-board electrolysis appears to be vindicated in the greencarcongress papers,with a net energy gain.
If you were charging batteries off the grid and using them,there would be inertia issues with acceleration and momentum issues with handling and deceleration.
I've missed many posts so I will close and try and catch up.
The only glitch I found in Vosper's paper,was that I could find no vehicle in production around 1998 when he did his testing that got as low as mpg as he reports ( 12.05 mpg hwy ).