Alternative fuel sleds

[Cat Kid]

Well I'm getting ready to wrap up this semester's batch of classes next week. One of them that I had to sit through was an environmental science class (gen ed) which was interesting yet depressing (its the end of the world as we know it people). Anyway, its lead me to wonder if any of the big 4 manufactures are working on sleds that use energy sources other than gasoline?

I don't want to start another greeny tree hugger bashing thread, I just know that there is quite a gap between protype and production and am wondering if anyone has any info as to when/if we will see sleds using differnt sources of fuel any time soon.

 

[Polar Express]

there is a huge problem with the common ideas for 'alternative fuels' out there. Many are supporting hydrogen as the answer, but containment and the explosive range are difficult to deal with safely.

The smartest and easiest solution it four-stroke applications is actually a pretty good one. I don't think it would work too well in 2-stroke applications because the liquid gasoline does add to the lubrication in conjunction with the 2-cycle oils.

compressed natural gas.

1) gaseous fuel lines, fuel control and injectors are easy to find, and not very expensive.

2) as more and more stuff goes EFI (sleds and cars) it makes it even easier.

3) a simple re-map of the ecu is not hard to do

4) container technology is getting better. - 12 years ago, when I was in college earning a BS degree in Vehicle Research and Design, the Brunswick company had successfully tested pressure vessels to over 40,000 PSI, but they were $$$$. When I was in college, we built several experimental cars, and modified a small, production Dodge Neon. (yeah, I know its a crappy car, but it was free!) anyway, we figured that if we could get our hands on one of those 40,000 psi cells, about 18" dia, and 24" long (pressure vessels have to be either a sphere or cylinder) if I remember right, we could fill it up in Seattle, and drive it to N.Y city on one fill up, at 70 MPH. Im pretty sure that was the car we crunched the numbers for, but I might be mistaken on exactly which car we did that for....

5) the infrastructure is already in place to distribute NAT GAS on a large scale, and I know 12 years ago, you could even buy a compressor over the counter in Canada to refill your car from your house supply (thereby bypassing the road taxes we all pay with Gasoline)

6) The cool thing is that natural gas has an effective octane rating of 104-108 I think, (I can't find my notes to remember for sure, but it is significantly higher than gasoline) and thus, you can increase the compression ratio to compensate for the fact that it has a lower heat energy than gasoline.

7) no more fouled plugs, (I know its almost gone with EFI anyway)

8) no more fuel pump (the CNG fuel is under pressure) so you can eliminate one system and simplify the sled. - not a huge deal, but still a 'pro'.

Keep in mind that compression ratio is 'free' power. What I mean by that is that as long as your fuel mix does not detonate, there is no measurable decrease in longevity or reliability to an engine. In a gasoline engine we add race gas to be able to boost compression ratio, and thereby add power ,but with the CNG fuel, you can boost your compression ratio without any additional wear on mechanical parts. But, keep in mind that you HAVE to boost your compression ratio in order to maintain the same power you would have with gasoline because of the lower heat-energy in CNG. So, it's really an 'even', not a boost, but because of the octane in CNG, you CAN DO IT, so you are not compromising power by making the switch.

I'm a fireman by trade, and we go to all kinds of car wrecks. I can tell you that I am much more concerned about a fuel spill from gasoline than I am about a CNG leak. CNG dissipates so quickly, and is lighter than air (FYI, propane is not, it is heavier than air, and will collect in low spots if there is no air movement, and propane is 104 octane) it is actually much safer than gasoline.

When natural gas is burned inside an internal combustion engine, the byproducts are carbon dioxide (trees and plants really love that!) and water (they like that too!) My guess is that it is because of political pressure why the major automakers are not marketing it more. Many city vehicles already use CNG, including police and administrative vehicles. Even private Taxis as well.

Imagine having a fuel cell the size of a household fire extinguisher that you can ride all weekend long with! And, the pressure vessel does not have to be steel. Our air packs we wear for fires are filament-wound aluminum, so they are very light weight.

I've always thought it would be cool to build an old classic muscle car, and have it fueled entirely with CNG.

and this is just my personal opinion based on my real world experience, and personal college education.

 

[Cat Kid]

Cool, informative post. What about methane? I only ask because in the industry I'm getting into (Dairy production) there is lots of talk about methane collectors.

 

[Dogmeat]

there is a huge problem with the common ideas for 'alternative fuels' out there. Many are supporting hydrogen as the answer, but containment and the explosive range are difficult to deal with safely.

.

The major and underlying problem with hydrogen as an alternative fuel source is not the actual technology of portable hydrogen storage, fuel cells, etc... that technology can and is being developed to be viable for use in our every day lives...

The major and underlying problem with hydrogen as an alternative fuel source is the simple fundamental fact that it takes quite a bit of power to produce hydrogen.

Even given a %100 effecient idealistic scenerio, the most basic fundamental process of electrolyzing water takes something in the neighborhood of 237 kJ/kg of electrical energy to produce. I cannot remember the exact numbers off my head (I did some reasearch for this for my senior design project as a mechanical engineering student) but the bottom line is, it takes a pretty sizeable amount of electrical energy to produce hydrogen.

So where do you get this electrical energy from? Well, currently, we burn coal.

AKA, what's the point? Burn even more coal, the most filthy fuel we currently use today, to produce "clean" energy? It doesn't make any sense at all ...

 

[ruffryder]

yah, people don't understand that hydrogen is an energy transporter, nothing more. We still need to get the energy from somewhere. Though, when Hydrogen is used in combination with an electrical system that has a lot of wind and solar and other renewable energy, it can be used as a variable load for times when generation is more than what the load is. Rather than curtailing generation and wasting the ability to harness a free fuel, the energy can be used to create hydrogen. It would work really good, especially in weak grids where the total renewable energy generation has limits due to regulation issues, voltage and frequency.

I believe the best so far is 70% efficient from electricity to hydrogen.

Burn even more coal, the most filthy fuel we currently use today, to produce "clean" energy? It doesn't make any sense at all ...

Per unit of energy produced the dirtiest fuel that is being widely used/consumed is gasoline. While coal is dirty, the large scale and ability to operate in very few operating states allows for a lot of the process to be optimized, as well as the ability to use really complicated and expensive emissions equipment as compared to small engines. This allows for the price of emissions per unit of energy to be lower than that of automobiles.

Combustion processes are only around 30-40% max. I believe the US gets around 50% of its electricity from Coal.

Gasoline is a pretty interesting fuel source. It has an extremely high energy density, and also a very large energy by weight.

The propane and natural gas fuels are interesting opportunities, but there costs are lower (compared to gasoline) due to their limited usage. If a large percentage of the population switched to nat. gas, prices will skyrocket, as there is currently not enough infrastructure to handle the needs of a new usage (transportation) along with space heating and unfortunately electricity generation. I think it is almost up to 20-30 % of generation capacity is from Nat. Gas, and there are already problems with supplying that amount of fuel.

I think diesel will be an interesting option.... I know I want one of the diesel KLR's that the army is running. 100mpg would rock.

 

[SNOW JW]

So say you added CNG to a Turbo 4-stroke how big of a fuel cell (tank) would you need to run say 70 mountain miles or what 10Gal of race gas gives us today with a tank that is out on the market today and is cost effective???

Sounds good also how much power would be lost if you ran it VS Race gas at say 14lbs of boost. Approx.

 

[SNOW JW]

Also I know as far as a safe fuel I would rather deal with NG than propane any day of the week.

 

[revelized]

they should just start mass producing jack daniels like crazy... i bet all motors would run great on it little for it... little for me

 

[Polar Express]

So say you added CNG to a Turbo 4-stroke how big of a fuel cell (tank) would you need to run say 70 mountain miles or what 10Gal of race gas gives us today with a tank that is out on the market today and is cost effective???


Sounds good also how much power would be lost if you ran it VS Race gas at say 14lbs of boost. Approx.

I'm not trying to be coy, but that would depend on the pressure you were able to get it too. And that is dependent on 1) your compressor, and 2) your storage vessel. It's been a looooooong time since I messed with any of those numbers, but I might be able to find out for you given some time. Our old '30 minute' bottles off of our MSA breathing packs would be a nice size, and they are light, and good to 4500 psi. That would be interesting.

again, I'd have to make some phone calls on this one, and there are still some variables, but I think off hand its approx 10% power loss. Meaning that when we had an engine set up for pump gas, when we simply ran it on CNG, I think we lost about 10%, maybe 15% of power. So, if you are running enough octane in your race gas blend to equal the octane of the CNG, plus adding the boost, (assuming equal to each scenario) I think the CNG motor would be making about 10% less than the one running race gas. But, to some (I would be in that group) that 10% is worth not having to pay big $$ for race gas. But, the initial investment (I think it's a couple thousand) into one of those fancy compressors, and the cost to convert over to a gaseous system, that would buy a lot of race gas.

But, being a Tech Geek, i think it would be cool to do. Besides, if you can find those tanks at a bargain ( I think our dept. sold them cheap to a dept. in Mexico when we switched) buy 4-5 for each sled, fill them up at home, and take a few with you on a long trip. The connection is a hand-screw nut, with a quick clamp band.... talk about a fast, clean, no spill refuel! like I said, cool......And, if someone wants to write the check to buy it, hey, it'd be fun to do. I just can't write that check right now, maybe in a few years though. If I do ever build a custom sled, I would definitely consider just that.

PM me if you want to chat more....

 

[Ollie]

Where I work they are ramping up to get serious about hydrogen fuel cell research.
I talked to the head guy for the project.
He was telling me the major things they are looking for are.
1. a cheap easy way to produce hydrogen. electricity (as already stated) is expensive and there are other ways to produce it using a chemical reaction vs electricity.
2. a good way to store it. seems it is hard to keep hydrogen for long periods of time without it degrading. That and the number of times it is transfered from one point to another can be a problem.
3. dealing with what can be done to pre-treat water to see if they could do an "in tank" conversion system. Actually make hydrogen in the tank of the car. This would remove the whole problem of storage, transport ect. They have already found a way to do this using some fancy metal that reacts with water to produce hydrogen. Problem, the metal cost 3500 an once and only last for about 15 gallons.

According to him it should take 2-5 years to make it a viable source of fuel.

 

[ruffryder]

I think solar is going to be a good source. I remember hearing about solar cells that would convert the suns (light) energy directly to hydrogen. This gets rid of the conversion from electricity to hydrogen, and I think gets better efficiency of converting the light energy to another form.

Hydrogen sounds like a really interesting part of the future.

 

[xcfire]

644 hp should be able to tow your sled!

I wonder what impact on the economy this would make if it ever gets to the public.

http://suv-buster.blogspot.com/2007/02/zap-x-crossover-electric-car-to-be.html

 

[Ex-Member]

Where I work they are ramping up to get serious about hydrogen fuel cell research.
I talked to the head guy for the project.
He was telling me the major things they are looking for are.
1. a cheap easy way to produce hydrogen. electricity (as already stated) is expensive and there are other ways to produce it using a chemical reaction vs electricity.
2. a good way to store it. seems it is hard to keep hydrogen for long periods of time without it degrading. That and the number of times it is transfered from one point to another can be a problem.
3. dealing with what can be done to pre-treat water to see if they could do an "in tank" conversion system. Actually make hydrogen in the tank of the car. This would remove the whole problem of storage, transport ect. They have already found a way to do this using some fancy metal that reacts with water to produce hydrogen. Problem, the metal cost 3500 an once and only last for about 15 gallons.

According to him it should take 2-5 years to make it a viable source of fuel.

!!!
I want in on this action.

The "fancy metal" is a "hydride", same stuff used in those "nickel metal-hydride" batteries. Heat it up, hydrogen comes out. Much safer than compressed gas cylinders, but they require heat to work.

Hydrogen has fascinated me for some time... I'd love to get into the R&D stuff with it. Incredible amount of energy in a hydrogen bond.

 

[ruffryder]

Incredible amount of energy in a hydrogen bond.

Pretty amazing that the bond between hydrogen and oxygen can hold so much potential for humans.

We can drink it, and now we are looking to get power from it. It falls from the sky, yet we look to it to help save it.

Maybe we need a glass of water icon, cheers to a glass of water.