Fuel Of Tomorrow Here Today

[Christopher Jordan]

Thanks, but my zero-fuel EV baby just got some new shoes today; so it is zero anything for a while!

[tasdrouille]

So, from the information PDF we can read that Carbamide is currently made from natural gas. So as we speak this is still fossil fuel. But you are trying to change that, making Carbamide from "renewably-produced hydrogen".

How much energy consuming is the Carbamide creation process?

Sometimes what is interesting is not only all the greatness of the technology, but its drawbacks. So does Carbamide only have a bright side?

[bikin' Ed]

Originally Posted by mtgeekman

From what I can tell from the information from the Patent # in the PDF its an amonia based fuel cell tech?

Urea based composition and system for same - Patent Review 7140187
"Urea based composition and system for same"

Abstract from the patent:

Isn't this like catching the gas coming off of a puddle of urine

[bennelson]

I do have concerns about any fuel made from fossil fuels, as it can just become a "greenwashed" way of using oil, coal, and similar fuels.

I am generally not pro-hydrogen fuel cells, because they use natural gas to create hydrogen to create electricity. Why not just charge an electric car with electricity? Skips a few steps, and we have lots of renewable electricity sources.

In a conversation I had with a fuel cell guy, he did point out that fuel cells have potential for range far more than a battery electric car.

What kind of range can be expected from a ZeroFuel car? If the hydrogen is renewably generated, and the car has good range, it might be a great system, fitting the same niche as gas-electric hybrids, eco-friendlier, long-range vehicles!

[ZeroFuel]

Originally Posted by tasdrouille

So, from the information PDF we can read that Carbamide is currently made from natural gas. So as we speak this is still fossil fuel. But you are trying to change that, making Carbamide from "renewably-produced hydrogen".

How much energy consuming is the Carbamide creation process?

Sometimes what is interesting is not only all the greatness of the technology, but its drawbacks. So does Carbamide only have a bright side?

Yes, the current art of producing carbamide is with natural gas. With all the stranded gas that is available around the world we could set up skid factories at the drilling sites & produce carbamide in large quantities. Shipping will be inexpensive & safe. We can do this in conjunction with our renewable program with the later being the final art.

The energy penalty for carbamide is similar to other petroleum products, 10-15%.

Looking at the other technologies that are on the horizon, we feel carbamide can take the first real step in helping relieve oil dependence while being environmentally friendly.

Thanks for the questions.

[ZeroFuel]

Originally Posted by bennelson

I do have concerns about any fuel made from fossil fuels, as it can just become a "greenwashed" way of using oil, coal, and similar fuels.

I am generally not pro-hydrogen fuel cells, because they use natural gas to create hydrogen to create electricity. Why not just charge an electric car with electricity? Skips a few steps, and we have lots of renewable electricity sources.

In a conversation I had with a fuel cell guy, he did point out that fuel cells have potential for range far more than a battery electric car.

What kind of range can be expected from a ZeroFuel car? If the hydrogen is renewably generated, and the car has good range, it might be a great system, fitting the same niche as gas-electric hybrids, eco-friendlier, long-range vehicles!

EV's will have a place on the future landscape, but as you state they do not have the range & there are other issues. Plus, when you plug them in your most likely dirty.

Millennium Cell did have the NJ Genesis make a world record fuel cell run, but that is another story. With a hydrogen on demand fuel cell you have safety & long range, far superior to any EV.

A ZeroFuel vehicle will have the same range as current gas powered vehicles, if not more. One of the attributes of ZeroFuel is the 130+ octane. There have been tests with ammonia powered engines that supported a 60:1 compression ratio. New vehicle production for ZeroFuel will have compression ratios of 25-30:1. With this higher compression the engine is a lot more efficient & powerful. Motors can be built smaller there by getting even greater MPG. For the performance & motorsports markets expect huge HP gains. Retrofit of existing fleet is similar to CNG, but not with all the weight penalties & safety issues associated with CNG.

Thanks for your questions.

[ZeroFuel]

Originally Posted by bikin' Ed

Isn't this like catching the gas coming off of a puddle of urine

That's why we don't use the term urea in the public arena.

It's hydrogen, nitrogen & carbon dioxide. It is a solid when first produced.

Hope this helps.

[conradpdx]

Though being able to power my car on pee does sound tempting one should note (I call dibs on the vanity plate that reads "peepwr":

Commercial production
Urea is commercially produced from two raw materials, ammonia, and carbon dioxide. Large quantities of carbon dioxide are produced during the manufacture of ammonia from coal or from hydrocarbons such as natural gas and petroleum-derived raw materials. This allows direct synthesis of urea from these raw materials.
The production of urea from ammonia and carbon dioxide takes place in an equilibrium reaction, with incomplete conversion of the reactants. The various urea processes are characterized by the conditions under which urea formation takes place and the way in which unconverted reactants are further processed.
Unconverted reactants can be used for the manufacture of other products, for example ammonium nitrate or sulfate, or they can be recycled for complete conversion to urea in a total-recycle process.
Two principal reactions take place in the formation of urea from ammonia and carbon dioxide. The first reaction is exothermic:
2 NH3 + CO2 ↔ H2N-COONH4 (ammonium carbamate)
Whereas the second reaction is endothermic:
H2N-COONH4 ↔ (NH2)2CO + H2O
Both reactions combined are exothermic.
The process, developed in 1922, is also called the Bosch-Meiser urea process after its discoverers.

----Wikipedia

Is a fuel fossil free if it's produced with fossil fuels. And lets not even get into the CO2 released from the process. Or has your company found a silver bullet to nix the CO2Hazards

Urea can be irritating to skin and eyes. Too high concentrations in the blood can cause damage to organs of the body. Low concentrations of urea such as in urine are not dangerous.
It has been found that urea can cause algal blooms to produce toxins, and urea in runoff from fertilizers may play a role in the increase of toxic blooms.[3]
Repeated or prolonged contact with urea in fertilizer form on the skin may cause dermatitis. The substance also irritates the eyes, the skin, and the respiratory tract. The substance decomposes on heating above melting point, producing toxic gases, and reacts violently with strong oxidants, nitrites, inorganic chlorides, chlorites and perchlorates, causing fire and explosion hazard."

This kind of reminds me of my Grandfather in law. To put it bluntly he was basically a snake oil sales man. But he did "invent" a few cleaners and what not. One of which was a mastic remover. Anyway, he had a stroke and while cleaning his house I given his experiment journals, recipes, and the patent info for a few of them. He always claimed that his mastic remover (for those not aware mastic is basically a glue that was heavily used for asbestos installation) was organic and you could drink it.

The hype in family was that it was a million dollar idea since it basically would speed up the the safe removal of asbestos. It was a liquid so it'd keep the dust in place and it basically would make the mastic peel off. I poured over his journals and what not searching for the recipe and alas there it was. Apparently my grandfather in law had a different idea of organic than most of us. One of the major components has strict laws and regulations on its use in products, and is pretty toxic stuff.

It did make me wonder the cause of his stroke.


Well that was more than I intended to type, and I'm not trying to belittle you or your company or your efforts. But your site leaves little to go on, and typically anything of this scope wouldn't come to a message board to get the word out. They usually like CNN, FOX, Car and Driver etc. What news station could pass up on a car that runs on pee, come on.

[ZeroFuel]

Originally Posted by conradpdx

Though being able to power my car on pee does sound tempting one should note (I call dibs on the vanity plate that reads "peepwr":

----Wikipedia

Is a fuel fossil free if it's produced with fossil fuels. And lets not even get into the CO2 released from the process. Or has your company found a silver bullet to nix the CO2Hazards



This kind of reminds me of my Grandfather in law. To put it bluntly he was basically a snake oil sales man. But he did "invent" a few cleaners and what not. One of which was a mastic remover. Anyway, he had a stroke and while cleaning his house I given his experiment journals, recipes, and the patent info for a few of them. He always claimed that his mastic remover (for those not aware mastic is basically a glue that was heavily used for asbestos installation) was organic and you could drink it.

The hype in family was that it was a million dollar idea since it basically would speed up the the safe removal of asbestos. It was a liquid so it'd keep the dust in place and it basically would make the mastic peel off. I poured over his journals and what not searching for the recipe and alas there it was. Apparently my grandfather in law had a different idea of organic than most of us. One of the major components has strict laws and regulations on its use in products, and is pretty toxic stuff.

It did make me wonder the cause of his stroke.


Well that was more than I intended to type, and I'm not trying to belittle you or your company or your efforts. But your site leaves little to go on, and typically anything of this scope wouldn't come to a message board to get the word out. They usually like CNN, FOX, Car and Driver etc. What news station could pass up on a car that runs on pee, come on.

All new technologies have a starting point that will then proceed to new stages. As stated before, we can take advantage of the current art until the renewable can take over. So, do we just keep letting the stranded gas burn off, or do we use it to make a true alternative fuel? You have to start some where if you want to make a change.

You did omit this part of the description:

Synthetic production

Urea is a nitrogen-containing chemical product that is produced on a scale of some 100,000,000 tons per year worldwide.

For use in industry, urea is produced from synthetic ammonia and carbon dioxide. Urea can be produced as prills, granules, flakes, pellets, crystals, and solutions.

More than 90% of world production is destined for use as a fertilizer. Urea has the highest nitrogen content of all solid nitrogenous fertilizers in common use (46.7%). Therefore, it has the lowest transportation costs per unit of nitrogen nutrient.

Urea is highly soluble in water and is, therefore, also very suitable for use in fertilizer solutions (in combination with ammonium nitrate: UAN), e.g., in 'foliar feed' fertilizers.

Solid urea is marketed as prills or granules. The advantage of prills is that, in general, they can be produced more cheaply than granules, which, because of their narrower particle size distribution, have an advantage over prills if applied mechanically to the soil. Properties such as impact strength, crushing strength, and free-flowing behaviour are, in particular, important in product handling, storage, and bulk transportation.


I assume you read the slide deck that shows the path we are trying to achieve.
Sequestration of carbon dioxide is one of the key elements for the sustainable path.

With the growing demands for energy & transportation fuel we feel this is the only true alternative fuel that can meet the growing demands without disrupting the food supply. Carbamide supports it.

Ecomodder is one of the best green sites on the web for transportation, that is why we posted here. Once our prototype is up & running we will be doing real world tests & inviting the news media to witness. Our main goal is to be ready for the X Prize in 09' which will have world wide coverage.

[conradpdx]

I did read that part of wiki. It just didn't have any bearing to the topic, and I'm a bit surprised that you'd point that all out since in an offhand way it exposes another eco-hazard (one that I did pick out right away, but didn't really want to get into).

And thats got to do with what happens when it's spilled? That much fertilizer spilled into a river or lake could be devastating to that body of water. Not only would directly kill higher organisms, it would also feed the algae (which already really like this stuff) which could choke out nearly all other lifeforms. Sure the other plants in the lake would love it, but they being a more complex organism process the nutrients slower than the algae can and slower than the algae can reporduce.

As it now in the ocean we have what are called green tides and dead zones where nothing lives. It was a mystery that has been recently was figured out, and it is algae and other smaller organisms for some unknown reason undergoing a massive population growth and choking out all the fish that didn't escape the cloud. If this happens in a system as big as the pacific ocean imagine the results in a smaller body of water.

This is also one of the goals of "green" soaps and detergents. They try to remove the fertilizer elements of soap so that it wont go down the drain into the water table. Just for this reason.

Let me cut off the oil spill retort to this. Oil floats and though it's messy and ugly is is containable, your product is water soluble there would be impossible to clean it up, and in fact would dramatically change the chemical composition of the body of water.

My last point is I didn't read the side bar. I'm one of many that wont. I'm not going to risk it on a thread that someone posts after creating a new account from left field promising in vague language to have solved the fossil fuel problem. And personally I'm not sure I'm all that excited about something that doesn't even have running prototype yet.

Now after all this I do wish you good luck, and I can appreciate people efforts into looking for solutions. After all science is the process of getting it wrong a thousand times hoping to get it right once. But I don't see how any product is going to compete with electricity, the distribution aspects are already in place and it's getting "greener" everyday.