From: aas7@po.CWRU.Edu (Andrew A. Spencer)
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: Re: NOx, hydrogen, and zero emmissions
Date: 23 Nov 92 03:51:19 GMT
Reply-To: aas7@po.CWRU.Edu (Andrew A. Spencer)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, petebre@elof.iit.edu (Brent A. Peterson) says:

>In article <1en8bnINN7qm@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> aas7@po.CWRU.Edu (Andrew A. Spencer) writes:
>>
>>In a previous article, wilsont@rahul.net (Timothy Wilson) says:
>>
>>>First off, NOx is produced whenever there is combustion of any sort in 
>>>our atmosphere.
>>>
>>>Emmission control is through the fuel/air ratio. The ratio is so extreme, 
>>>( i forget which way) that there is a serious power loss.
>>>
>>>
>>>Zero Emmisions: Its just that... ZERO. a zero emmission vehicle does not 
>>>have a tail pipe!
>  Not really.... Electric's DO produce emmisons... it just doesn't come
>from the car itself... but rather the plant that made the electricity that
>it is using. (since nuclear plants have their waste, and besides I don't think
>that they will be built to supply a nation of electric cars with power, it will
>most likely be good old coal plants, burning cheap and dirty coal.)
>
>    Hydrogen engines will only produce water and NOx, and hopefully there will
>soon be a NOx catalayst that works without the presence of hydrocarbons.
>>>
>>fifteen page paper or no, i do not believe what you are telling me. but that
>>is ok, since you obviously are going to disagree with me. So, you can be happy
>>with whatever makes you happy, and i'll do the same. H power is still not
>>a very viable option in the immediate future, or at least, i do not see it.
>>perhaps you do. i think H power is STUPID. there are better and easier 
>>and just as Efreindly solutions.  but i know that i would be told that i
>>am a dork and stupid, and thus will not "publish" what i think here, aside
>>from what i have heard/think i know about H power not being viable..now at
>>least.
>>DREW
>
> Actually, a switch to hydrogen would be much easier that electrics.

electric sux too, if you bothered to read what i said, i agreed with what
you posted above, about where their emmissions come from.

>first, piston engines will require new fuel systems and heads, rotories only
>a new fuel system. This is a minimal tooling and desgin change when compared
>to eletrics, which change the entire weight balence of the car, requiring
>changes to structure, suspension, drive drain, controls, new ways of operating
>all the accesories that run on engine vacume (power breaks, power steering, etc)
>among other things. actually to make hydrogen work will be best option. 
>the major problem with hydrogen is storage and transport. metal hydride storage,
>where the H2 is dispressed in the metal's atom lattice until it is realeased by
>heat, is as I remember a bit heavy, but does work. The goal is to get a fuel
>that has the same energy to weight ratio as gasoline, and as of today nothing
>comes close. (except for prehaps some other HC fuels, but they produce other
>emissons that there is no way at present to control)
>               -Bp
>

DREW
-- 
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????-----whatever!