Automakers working on next generation of engines

Discussion in 'General Motoring' started by Greg Houston, Oct 1, 2004.

  1. Greg Houston

    Greg Houston Guest

    The Wall Street Journal had an interesting article this week about a new
    type of engine that the major companies, including Daimler Chysler and
    GM, are working on.

    The new technology works by using the compression of the piston to
    ignite the gasoline instead of a traditional spark plug. Personally, I
    think this is called a "diesel" engine, but the big key here is that
    gasoline is used, not a heavier fuel oil. It actually is called HCCI,
    for Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition. It appears that HCCI can
    yield a 30% efficiency gain over spark gasoline engines. NOx are very
    low compared to traditional spark gasoline, and the soot associated with
    oil diesel is not present. Challenges include making the HCCI engine
    run smoothly and high and low speeds.

    Another new technology includes directly and separately injecting
    gasoline and air into the cylinder to boost effiency. However, so far
    this has yielded higher NOx and HC emissions.

    There is a lot more research that needs to be done to understand these
    engines and the nature of how they operate, or could operate.

    If you're the CEO of an automaker, in today's tough market conditions,
    how much resources would you allocate to this type of research?
     
    Greg Houston, Oct 1, 2004
    #1
  2. 50 percent of my vehicle powerplant research budget. 5 percent would go to
    alternative fuels (CNG, Propane, alcohol), and 45 percent would go into
    hybrid and full electric.

    In five years, 55 percent would go into hybrid (with the push-developed
    high-efficiency combustion engines) and 45 percent into advanced
    combustion engine research.
     
    Daniel J. Stern, Oct 1, 2004
    #2
  3. Why isn't there any mention of using turbines in pure hybrid drive
    systems? (by pure I mean a system that has electric drive only, no
    transmission, and the engine is only used to drive a generator). Ships and
    airplanes use turbines not piston engines. I was under the impression that
    if you don't need a wide power curve a turbine was a more effecient
    engine. In a pure hybrid the engine can be optimized to run in a very
    narrow speed band because it's used solely for charging the batteries.
     
    General Schvantzkoph, Oct 1, 2004
    #3
  4. Emissions.
     
    Daniel J. Stern, Oct 1, 2004
    #4
  5. Greg Houston

    Matt Whiting Guest

    And cost. The initial price of even a small turbine is more than the
    entire cost of most new cars.


    Matt
     
    Matt Whiting, Oct 1, 2004
    #5
  6. Greg Houston

    Guest Guest

    The auto industry needs to move towards liquid hydrogen. Hydrogen - the
    most abundant element in our universe. When burned it produces water
    vapor - no toxic emissions.

    BTW - this is in use today - rocket fuel! When a rocket is launched those
    huge, billowing clouds are not smoke - water vapor.

    The major drawback with liquid hydrogen is the fuel oil companies would take
    a terrible beating and millions of people would be out of work. Sure some
    would go to work in the new industry but if liquid hydrogen be came a common
    use fuel - automobiles, home heating, etc... it wouldn't be all that
    difficult to build a molecule splitter.

    Water - H2O - would be broken back down into hydrogen and oxygen molecules.
    The hydrogen and the oxygen could then become fuel sources. Igniting in the
    cylinder and exhausting as water once again. Close to a perpetual fuel
    source. Water to gases and back to water again and so on and so on
    and...........

    We will now return you to your regularly scheduled program. GIANT. :)


    Jim
     
    Guest, Oct 2, 2004
    #6
  7. Greg Houston

    Greg Houston Guest

    I doubt that, since if hydrogen were profitable, those same energy companies
    would have a nice business and they wouldn't need expensive refineries and
    imports either.
    That's great, but breaking down water into hydrogen and oxygen molecules
    requires a lot of energy. In other words, before you can utilize the kinetic
    energy of burning H2 +O2 you first need to have them in the first place. Where
    do you get that energy from, burning oil? I suppose that perhaps hydroelectric
    (which we can't build for environmental reasons) or nuclear (which we can't
    build for political and waste reasons) or wind power (which we can't build for
    environmental reasons and it kills the birds) could be used to power this
    process, but hydrogen doesn't appear for free.

    Even if hydrogen was free to obtain, storing it in an economically viable,
    compact, and safe vessel for a car presents a challenge as well.
     
    Greg Houston, Oct 2, 2004
    #7
  8. Both quite wrong. When burned, Hydrogen produces NOX in addition to
    water vapor. Liquid hydrogen also requires heavily insulated tanks due
    to it's low boiling point.
    Yah, sure. And so where exactly would the fuel-hydrogen companies come from
    to replace them?

    If hydrogen ever became viable the fuel oil companies would easily switch to
    making hydrogen.
    And run it how? By plugging it in?

    Ah, I get it. Your now going to use 4 times the amount of electricity in
    your
    home as before you got your molecule splitter. That means now the power
    companies
    are going to be 4 times bigger when everyone else starts using their mocule
    splitters. Who's going to work at them?
    And where does the energy come from to break down the hydrogen?

    Oh, I get it. We run our molecule splitters off the electricity produced
    from
    burning the hydrogen that the mocule splitters consume. Hmmm.. I wonder
    if the power companies know this? Hey, maybe they could shut down that
    coal burning plant. All they have to do is build a power plant and put a
    huge
    water storage tank in it with a mocule splitter. They burn the hydrogen and
    make electricity to run the molecule splitter that makes the hydrogen and
    then plug the rest of the city in. Limtless free electricity forever!!!

    Can I patent this perpetul motion machine now?

    Ted
     
    Ted Mittelstaedt, Oct 2, 2004
    #8
  9. Greg Houston

    Matt Whiting Guest

    And where does all of this energy to split the water come from?


    Matt
     
    Matt Whiting, Oct 2, 2004
    #9
  10. Greg Houston

    Threeducks Guest

    Temperature is not an issue. You need to make it cold to liquify it, but
    once it's stored in a vessel at high pressure in liquid form, it's not
    going to suddenly become vapor (there's no space for the vapor to form).
    The high pressure storage is one of the major problems, which is why
    you see a lot of research on microporous matertials, such as carbon
    nanotubes, for the storage of hydrogen.

    There are other tactics, such as filling your tank with gasoline, which
    is fed to a reformer (in the vehicle) to make hydrogen as needed. This
    is a much safer alternative to storing a big tank of hydrogen. Again,
    the problem is you are going to lose some of the energy of the gasoline
    when you convert it to H2.

    In the long run the real problem isn't going to be emissions from
    vehicles, but running out of energy. Hydrogen powered vehicles do not
    solve that problem.
     
    Threeducks, Oct 2, 2004
    #10
  11. Greg Houston

    Dave Gower Guest

    There's a lot of technical development yet to be done, but in theory one can
    break down water in the presence of catalysts using sunlight. Another
    possible source of energy would be floating platforms in tropical oceans
    using the temperature difference between surface and deep water, which is in
    fact another completely renewable form of solar energy. There are a few
    experimental plants working in places like Hawaii, land-based and making
    electricity for general use.

    All this is a bit OT for an auto brand newsgroup, but there are many
    interesting discussions on energy newsgroups and various websites.
     
    Dave Gower, Oct 2, 2004
    #11
  12. Greg Houston

    Dave Gower Guest

    A major portion of my R&D budget, but in concert with other companies to
    share the costs and benefits.

    We are so used to the conventional piston engine that we lose sight of the
    fact that there are many other ways to convert chemical energy to physical
    power.
     
    Dave Gower, Oct 2, 2004
    #12
  13. No. Manufacture, transport and storage.

    DAS
    --
    For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
    ---

    [....]
     
    Dori A Schmetterling, Oct 2, 2004
    #13
  14. That would be taking over from the Almighty.

    Hydrogen + oxygen = water (which is, of course, hydrogen plus oxygen) +
    nitrogen/nitrogen oxides. That's good. How do you patent that?

    DAS
    --
    For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
    ---

    [.......]
     
    Dori A Schmetterling, Oct 2, 2004
    #14
  15. Greg Houston

    Matt Whiting Guest

    Yes, there is LOTS of development to be done. And getting enough energy
    from solar to power all of the vehicles in the world with hydrogen is
    far from trivial. I'm not saying we shouldn't be working on this
    approach, but people who think this will happen within the next 30 years
    are deceiving themselves.


    Matt
     
    Matt Whiting, Oct 2, 2004
    #15
  16. Greg Houston

    Dave Gower Guest

    The whole thing depends on the cost of oil. The technology to convert
    solar-heated tropical ocean water to useful energy is neither exotic nor
    untried. The technology to economically convert energy to hydrogen is at the
    experimental phase but there are no known scientific laws to prevent it. So
    given expensive oil, you may be surprised what can be done in 30 years.
    Anyway, let's stick around and find out. Hey, I'll only be 91 ;<).
     
    Dave Gower, Oct 2, 2004
    #16
  17. Greg Houston

    Greg Houston Guest

    Liquid hydrogen is no warmer then about 20 K. (-253 C). It takes an enormous
    amount of energy to cool the hydrogen to that point, about 30-40 percent of
    the energy in the amount of hydrogen that is being cooled. Because nothing is
    perfectly insulated, the hydrogen will eventually constantly be boiling off at
    some rate in a container. This vapor must be vented after a maximum of about
    3-4 days to avoid a large pressure rise and container failure. Lawrence
    Livermore labs has been spending a lot of effort on this problem. BMW is also
    studying liquid hydrogen.

    Gaseous hydrogen can also be stored a higher density at very cold
    temperatures, such as 80 K.
     
    Greg Houston, Oct 3, 2004
    #17
  18. Greg Houston

    Greg Houston Guest

    Turbines operate at fairly high speeds and require more exotic materials to
    withstand the temperatures and rotational speeds inside these engines. They
    also require much more precise machining & tolerances then piston engines. For
    these and other reasons, such as size, turbines would be far more expensive then
    many or most cars today. Even in airplanes, turbines are not seen that much in
    aircraft that cost less than 1 million dollars new. Turbines ARE extremely
    reliable though, and well suited for airplanes and high end generators.
     
    Greg Houston, Oct 3, 2004
    #18
  19. Most vehicle hydrogen schemes I've seen take atmosphere in and burn it with
    stored hydrogen. Rockets don't because there isn't air in space, you have
    to carry the oxydizer. Believe me in a vehicle, a pure oxygen spill during
    a collision would be even worse than a hydrogen leak.

    With a hydrogen leak, it rapidly disperses and so you might get a flame
    at the escape point, but that's about it.

    With an oxygen leak, EVERYTHING in the vicinity that is even the slighest
    bit burnable, ie: the vinyl or cloth seats, the carpet, the plastic, the
    asphalt,
    the rubber tires, etc. will in the presense of 100% pure oxygen, immediately
    burst into extremely hot flame with the slightest bit of ignition.

    You do NOT want to be carrying pure oxygen in a vehicle!!!

    When you burn a mix of Nitrogen, Hydrogen and Oxygen (atmosphere is
    about 80% Nitrogen, and 20% Oxygen) some of the energy will bond some
    of the nitrogen atoms to some of the oxygen atoms and you get NOX. You
    do not get perfect combustion unless you use just Oxygen and Hydrogen
    in the vehicle. Note of course that other than some of it getting tied up
    into NOX, the rest of the nitrogen does nothing for the combustion process.

    Ted
     
    Ted Mittelstaedt, Oct 3, 2004
    #19
  20. I hate to break it to you but if the cost of vehicle fuel (whether hydrogen
    or oil) rises too high, and there is no cheap
    substitute, it will make it uneconomical for private automobiles to be
    used in this country and we will all be riding mass transit.

    What I don't think most people really understand about this debate is
    that the only reason that the average Joe can afford to own and operate
    a personal car is because EVERYBODY has one, (or nearly everyone)
    thus the economies of scale allow mass production of automobiles to
    even occur at all. And the only reason that everybody has one is
    because fuel is still affordable.

    If fuel costs quadrupled to the point that hydrogen or other alternative
    fuels would be economically competitive against gasoline for vehicle
    fuel, then you would probably lose a quarter to a half of all vehicle owners
    in the country, simply because they couldn't afford to drive. Once that
    happens then demand for vehicles drops which is going to put a lot of
    automakers out of business - for a while there will be an oversupply of
    vehicles and prices on them will nosedive - but once the extra manufacturing
    capability has been cleared away due to bankruptcies, etc. the economies of
    scale will not be as good as they were before, and vehicles will become even
    more expensive than they are now.

    The other thing is why generate the electricity to break down hydrogen
    just for vehicle fuel when you can just take the generated electricity and
    use it in a battery in the vehicle? Much less losses due to conversion of
    energy from 1 form to another.

    It is most likely the 'car o the future' will be an electric car that you
    charge up
    at night in your garage, and is only usable for short trips in the city, and
    for
    commuting to and from work.

    Ted
     
    Ted Mittelstaedt, Oct 3, 2004
    #20
Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.