[Hitstirrer]

I'm hoping that the many technical boffins in SpeakEV can evaluate the incredible claims being made here and see if they stand up in any way. If true this could become a real world disrupter that still uses EV propulsion but enabling rapid filling and long range. What do you think guys?

Recyclable wonder-fuel promises twice the range and zero emissions at half the price

 

[ebyard]

Smells like BS to me.

I know for a fact that Esso Research at Milton Hill, Oxon, "invented" a synthetic fuel in the mid 90s which could replace petrol/diesel and cost about 10p a liter to make. It got binned as the Arabs who were big Esso shareholders. A colleague of mine did his PHD there.

 

[freddym]

Generally with any scientific breakthrough, there are peer reviewed papers published in credible learned journals: almost always there is academic research and partnership into the research. Otherwise, it's just hocum to get a bunch of suckers to invest in what may turn out to be a scam.

 

[freddym]

Smells like BS to me.

I know for a fact that Esso Research at Milton Hill, Oxon, "invented" a synthetic fuel in the mid 90s which could replace petrol/diesel and cost about 10p a liter to make. It got binned as the Arabs who were big Esso shareholders. A colleague of mine did his PHD there.

Cost to manufacture has little to do with retail pricing of any motor fuel. Think fuel duty and the frozen escalator.

For synthetic fuels, technology has been around for a long time and is in commercial operation today. One problem is that the feedstock is natural gas so still greenhouse emissions. Another problem is that large cheap to extract natural gas is found in middle East and Russia so take your pick with regards geo-politics.

 

[DBMandrake]

What a load of BS.

Electriq says it has worked out a way to stabilize hydrogen in a liquid form that's around 60 percent water.

When it's fully loaded, the fuel contains about three percent hydrogen and 97 percent supporting material.

Using a standard sized fuel tank, the Electriq system would, according to modeling, cost less than half the equivalent gasoline price to fill up, and it would deliver around twice the range, while being completely emissions-free – at least, back to the fuel production plant.

So of the total liquid volume only 3 percent is devoted to the hydrogen, which is the bit that is carrying the energy ? So how on earth do they expect to get twice the range of petrol ?

Hydrogen has about 3x the energy per unit mass of petrol, but in terms of volume when stored in a fuel tank it falls well short. Even in compressed cryogenic liquid form hydrogen only has about 25% the energy density per litre of petrol.

Now consider that they're saying that 60% of their "stuff" is plain water contributing nothing to the stored energy, and the fuel cell will be at best 50% efficient, I don't see how this could come anywhere near having the same range as a petrol car let alone twice with a normal sized fuel tank.

Have I missed something ?

What's the well-to-wheels energy efficiency of the process?
"The overall thermodynamic efficiency of the process is over two thirds," says Michrowski. "Most of it is during the fuel recycling process. No energy is lost on-board the vehicle. Energy loss in the fuel cell (typically <50 percent) and EV are the same as with EVs using compressed hydrogen."

So, poor, then ?

 

[Hermit Dave]

Indeed a lot of hot air

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[peterboat]

Snake oil?

 

[markweatherill]

What a load of BS.

Yes, a magic fuel that is 60% water, but contains just 3% hydrogen.
A chemist could probably guess what the other 40% of the 'fuel' mix is; if I worked it out right, whatever it is, it's 8.1% hydrogen.
(It isn't a hydrocarbon, is it??)

Oh, and wouldn't this system need two tanks? One for the magic fuel, and one for the spent fuel?

But anyway WHERE DO I SIGN???

 

[jmacneil]

So it's an altenative hydrogen carrier for a Hydrogen FCEV. We've already shown elsewhere on this site that Hydrogen is a terrible alternative to batteries for a ground vehicle and most of the workings apply equally as well here.

No thanks.

 

[donald]

Hydrogen has about 3x the energy per unit mass of petrol, but in terms of volume when stored in a fuel tank it falls well short. Even in compressed cryogenic liquid form hydrogen only has about 25% the energy density per litre of petrol.

Now consider that they're saying that 60% of their "stuff" is plain water contributing nothing to the stored energy, and the fuel cell will be at best 50% efficient, I don't see how this could come anywhere near having the same range as a petrol car let alone twice with a normal sized fuel tank.

^^This.

This bit stuck out like a sore thumb.

Tell me what they claim the substance is and I can give you an idea if it is plausible.

They seem to be saying it is 'open source' (words that appear on their web site) but no mention of what they are open-source-ing.

FWIW you can't patent a chemical substance either, which is what it is, but you can patent the process to make it. So there would be no patentability issue with them coming clean on it and explaining what it is.

The thing that sticks out and makes it 99.9% BS is that they might as well say what it is because as soon as they release it commercially everyone else will figure it out and make it for themselves, in which case they'd apply for a patent, which I cannot trace. So that option is out.

OK, there is another alternative which is that they think the process to make it is so fiendishly complicated that they want to keep it a secret because no-one else will figure it out. That is a good reason not to patent something. but if that were true, they'd have no qualms at explaining what this substance is. In fact, there is a good reason to do so, because there is no point creating a manufacturing infrastructure around something you think no-one else can copy only for them to copy it easily. If you release a description of the substance then others will try and you'll know soon enough if you are deluding yourself [that others can't make it] or if it is easily made by others [in which case you would think twice about your business model].

So, yeah, the appearance of the thing given their behaviour is that it is an investment con. It is for them to demonstrate otherwise. What is this substance?

 

[AnotherJoe]

What is this substance?

I dont see the mystery.
We know its 3% hydrogen and 60% water, so clearly the other 37% is pure best quality bs.

 

[Big277wave]

Anyone taking bets on nuclear fusion? Or is that still 50 years away?

 

[Hermit Dave]

Anyone taking bets on nuclear fusion? Or is that still 50 years ago.

We need compact donut fusion reactor.. that's probably long way away

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[markweatherill]

Anyone taking bets on nuclear fusion? Or is that still 50 years away?

Well, people are already working on 'cold fusion' so given that this is water based, I think this must be 'wet fusion'.

 

[AtTheVan]

There have been some promising rumours going around about fusion, there are some startups that have a few ideas with newer high temperature superconducting magnets, still quite chilly ones, but better than helium cooled ones.

It’s still a long way from production though, but they say working prototypes within 5 years.

 

[JeffG]

This sounds a lot like the hydrogen-embedded fuel that comes out of my tap.

 

[AtTheVan]

This sounds a lot like the hydrogen-embedded fuel that comes out of my tap.

Better than the methane embedded fuel that comes out of taps in the states.

 

[JeffG]

Better than the methane embedded fuel that comes out of taps in the states.

Sorry I don't follow. They have smelly water?

 

[Hermit Dave]

Sorry I don't follow. They have smelly water?

Methane per se isn't smelly.. they add H2S to make it detectable to us.

Not sure I follow either.. Gas pipelines even in UK come with a mix of hydrocarbons including CH4

 

[AtTheVan]

Methane per se isn't smelly.. they add H2S to make it detectable to us.

Not sure I follow either.. Gas pipelines even in UK come with a mix of hydrocarbons including CH4

It’s because they use underground storage for natural gas and that seeps into the water that comes out of their taps or that fracking has managed to let the gas contaminate ground water.
So they end up with flammable water being fed into their homes.