Speak EV - Electric Car Forums banner

1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,206 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,136 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,136 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,417 Posts
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 ? ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,006 Posts
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???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,851 Posts
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.
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
23,019 Posts
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,578 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,578 Posts
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.

 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top