Alternative F1 fuels

[SZ]

refueling actually could be very easy, just swap out tanks like they would a driver's drink bottle in a long distance endurance race, quick connections and such.

I'm sure they've been working on low weight CF tanks to hold hydrogen, so they shouldn't too difficult to move around.

It would just be different than pumping fuel the old fashioned way.

Most CF tanks presently are still big. And bulky.

[tok-tokkie]

I hope that image displays. Shows that hydrogen has best energy density per kg but woeful energy density per litre even as a liquid.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density

[Ciro Pabón]

Thanks, tok-tokkie, nice graph, it makes everything clearer. BTW, energy density of hydrogen it's more or less the density of natural gas.

It's true that the tank is larger, but not much when compared with a regular gasoline tank.

Tank for NGV, with similar energy density of hydrogen (this is a large tank, duplex, btw)


NGV (Natural Gas for Vehicles) shows clearly that there is no significant problems in switching from one source of fuel to another, even if it has less energy density.

Colombia has moved from 6,000 vehicles using NGV to 290.000 in seven years (since 2000 until 2007). Right now Brazil (with 1.9 million vehicles) and Argentina (with 1.5 million) has an NGV fleet larger than the colombian one.

In only seven years Colombia has moved up to eight place in the world in terms of NGV use, no big deal: the main factor is the price of NGV, it's cheaper than gasoline (60% or 70% of the cost after taking in account the different energy density).

The cost of a conversion kit goes around 1.500 to 2.000 U$, so only new cars take the "price hit", it's not practical to convert a car with less than 5 years of use, because of the time it takes to repay the conversion by the fuel money savings.

This is not the case of public transportation vehicles (taxis and buses) because they have a yearly mileage that can be four or five times the one of a regular car, so they repay the investment in a year or so. In the end, most taxis and buses have moved to NGV.

A network of 500 gas stations was created in those seven years.

Natural Gas is the most used fuel source in the world after oil, it has around 24% of the world market of energy. It contaminates less than oil, btw.

After watching the growth of infrastructure, once the government had a policy in place, I don't see why hydrogen couldn't follow the same trend, except, as I mentioned, because of the contamination and price issues that makes hydrogen a poor choice nowadays.

About the cooling issues, the system in place moves the gas through pipes and delivered in gas form into the stations. There is a compressor at the gas station (moved by gas, of course) that liquefies the NGV while it is being served to the client.

[flynfrog]

Ciro you would still need 3 times as much H as CNG volume wise. Those tanks start to add weight in a hurry. This goes around the board too hauling store ect of the H before it ever gets to the car. The limited range of even a large CNG tank would make life pretty tough where I live. I would have to have a dual fuel system so I can burn gasoline.

Want to save gas buy a motor cycle

[Mikey_s]

This thread is totally hypothetical... I have no objection to intellectually speculative threads - I've started a few myself!, but frankly it's ludicrous to consider hydrogen as a spark ignition (or any reciprocating) engine fuel.
It would be crazy to use hydrogen in an internal combustion engine (ICE). Notwithstanding the technnical problems already outlined regarding storage and refuelling, the ICE is a ridiculously inefficient means of turning any fuel into power. This topic has also been done to death in other threads.
In the event that it was feasible (which it is not), thermodynamically it doesn't make sense due to the energy required to make the hydrogen in the first place. As such whilst the emissions at the tailpipe may be low, over the life cycle they would be substantial and probably no better than fossil derived fuels.

Secondly if you were to use hydrogen why would you do so in an motor that is at best 35% efficient when you could use a fuel cell which would be more like 60-70%. Irrespective of the fact that it is prevented by the rules, it just makes no sense on a volumetric basis (as has already been pointed out). The density of liquid H2 is 70g/l (at 20K!!!!) compared with e.g. octane which is approximately 10x higher at 273K (which is, incidentally, much simpler to store, pump, etc.)

Hydrogen is currently a fuel of academic interest only - it's interesting from the perspective of local air quality, but it doesn't stack up thermodynamically, practically and is forbidden by the rules. Even if it weren't it wouldn't be practical to have a fuel tank 10 times bigger than current (and worse again next year when refuelling is banned).

If we're in the business of speculating on interesting fuels for ICEs then why not consider a return to the 'good old, bad old' days when some of the more 'esoteric' fuel additives were used to enhance the show (even if some of the rocket fuels weren't quite so good for either the planet, or the refuellers!).

[SZ]

Mikey, have a good read of the link I posted. The amounts required are so small that there are some interesting possibilities raised.

[timbo]

Interesting article, any additional info on the chemistry of the process? I'm curious why they chose hydrogen... My guess methane could also perform well and would be easier to store.

[Mikey_s]

SZ,
I had read your link, it is interesting and offers some possibilities. However, I think this is different from the original concept floated in the thread.

[malbeare]

I agree with Timbo ,
If you want to burn hydrogen efficiently the add a carbon =D> atom or two

[010010011010]

I'm curious why they chose hydrogen... My guess methane could also perform well and would be easier to store.

I chose it cause its an alternative to fossil fuels. Also it isn't carbon rich and if produced right has little pollutants.
In a while (in a long while i suppose) we wont be able to run cars on fossil fuels, because it'll either have run out or will be crazy expensive as the Saudi's try to squeeze the last bit of wealth out of it. But even before that with all this climate change stuff, unless we stop producing crap loads of carbon we wont have any racing! (well maybe boat racing )
So the other options are Hydrogen, bio-fuels and electric energy.

Bio-fuels are massively flawed, at the moment at least. They are mass produced from plants that were previously used to create food for people. In Brazil this is causing food prices to rocket and people are going to die because of it. So which is it food for the people or food for our cars? Furthermore on the carbon side of things, they say the carbon that is released is almost equal to the carbon the plant took in to grow in the first place so it evens out, that could well be true, but in the rush to grow biofuel crops they are cutting down huge trees in the rainforest to clear land. and which do you think recycles more carbon, a 80ft tree or a 8inch plant?

electricity is grand, no complaints, provided its produced without fossil fuels otherwise its kinda pointless. Once they sort out the battery issue there will be millons of electric cars about IMO. but as i said before, theyre grand for commuting and running to the shops in, but as a sports car where its about the driving i just wouldnt want one. it'd be like driving a large golf cart. and im not talking about acceleration or speed (as they have exceptional pick up with their 100% torque) but theres no clutch, no gear changes, no hum of a nice v12, no Smokey breakdowns, no tuning. as with hydrogen their could be. i know its impractible at best, but to me, its worth it.

p.s. its a bit like the vw sicrocco. it got the top gear car of the year because its like a golf, but less practical.

[SZ]

SZ,
I had read your link, it is interesting and offers some possibilities. However, I think this is different from the original concept floated in the thread.

Of course it's different... the point is to prove that some form of hydrogen use may in future be viable.

Interesting article, any additional info on the chemistry of the process? I'm curious why they chose hydrogen... My guess methane could also perform well and would be easier to store.

I would guess its flame speed.

The person who referred me that link mentioned that one of the authors did this for a Ph.D topic, and that it's online somewhere. I'm not sure which.

[riff_raff]

Technically, hydrogen is already used as a fuel in F1. Gasoline is a hydrocarbon compound and F1 regulations require that it should be composed mostly of hydrocarbons, with less than 3% oxygen. When gasoline is combusted, some of the energy comes from the hydrogen component, but most of the energy comes from the carbon components.

The thermal energy that is released as a result of combusting long chain molecules of hydrocarbons, as opposed to shorter diatomics like hydrogen, is due to the greater energy that is released when the very strong bonds between carbon atoms are broken as opposed to the weaker bonds that exist between hydrogen atoms.

As a fuel, hydrogen is difficult to store safely and has low energy density even when highly compressed to a liquid state. However, its primary benefit is that it has an extremely high equivalent octane rating (130+).

[autogyro]

Hydrogen is a red herring promoted by the oil industry to continue the use of fossil fuels.
It has been taken from the technology developed by NASA where it is sensible for use in space vehicles where there is plenty of available high pressure frozen hydrogen.
As a fuel to distribute and use in ordinary vehicles it is a silly joke.
Ethanol is the fuel to use and it is already in use in F1.
It can be produced from almost any vegetable matter including waste and is a far better fuel for obsolete internal combustion engines than fossil fuels from oil.
It can also be used in fuel cells to produce electricity directly.
It should be possible to design an ethanol plant to be self sufficient on energy and also to produce other products as well as fuel, alcohol for various uses, vinegar and even fertilizer.
All it takes is the political will to balance production without damaging food production. Essential to keep the yanks out if possible or it will never happen.

[Mikey_s]

Auto,

Before going into print I propose that you should carry out a little more reearch about the topic AND provide factual information as this is a technical forum. There are plenty of threads where this topic has been done to death already, no need to do it again here.

Hydrogen is a red herring promoted by the oil industry to continue the use of fossil fuels.

Whilst many oil companies do have a hydrogen string to their bow I don't believe that it is in their interest to promote it as a fuel. There is far more readily available Hydrogen sitting around in the form of water than in fossil fuels.

It has been taken from the technology developed by NASA where it is sensible for use in space vehicles where there is plenty of available high pressure frozen hydrogen.

erm... on a practical basis hydrogen doesn't freeze (Mpt 14K), it is liquid at the lowest temperatures you can practically get to under pressure - otherwise, the BPt is 20K. In any case, whilst it is true that there are indeed vast quantities of Hydrogen in space it is rather broadly spread out (except in stars, but there are other technical issues to overcome before harvesting that stuff!). Space is, for all practical purposes, a vacuum, so there is certainly not pleny of Hydrogen just sitting around waiting to be harvested.

As a fuel to distribute and use in ordinary vehicles it is a silly joke

Agreed! Although for far more practical reasons, mainly relating to thermodynamics

Ethanol is the fuel to use and it is already in use in F1.

There are numerous technical reasons why ethanol is NOT the fuel to use, not least of which concern the same thermodynamic issues surrounding Hydrogen; you simply use more energy to derive the ethanol that you get as a consequence. Generation of Ethanol from cellulose is not straightforward, the yields (although improving) are still rather poor and the self sufficiency to which you refer is a long way away.
The Hygroscopic nature of ethanol makes it unsuitable for practical use as the sole fuel, added to that aldehyde formation during combustion leads to urban air quality issues too. A quick look in Wiki will highlight most of the issues surrounding the use of ethanol in the Internal Combustion Engine (ICE).

The biggest issue with any fuel for an ICE is the appalling (in)efficiency of the ICE.

The political will that you speak of would be better placed in allocating the true costs of driving our cars to the user; that would lead to a demand for fuel efficient technology development and ultimately the development of a motor that is substantially better than the ICE for moving people around...

[autogyro]

Auto,

Before going into print I propose that you should carry out a little more reearch about the topic AND provide factual information as this is a technical forum. There are plenty of threads where this topic has been done to death already, no need to do it again here.

Hydrogen is a red herring promoted by the oil industry to continue the use of fossil fuels.

Whilst many oil companies do have a hydrogen string to their bow I don't believe that it is in their interest to promote it as a fuel. There is far more readily available Hydrogen sitting around in the form of water than in fossil fuels.

It has been taken from the technology developed by NASA where it is sensible for use in space vehicles where there is plenty of available high pressure frozen hydrogen.

erm... on a practical basis hydrogen doesn't freeze (Mpt 14K), it is liquid at the lowest temperatures you can practically get to under pressure - otherwise, the BPt is 20K. In any case, whilst it is true that there are indeed vast quantities of Hydrogen in space it is rather broadly spread out (except in stars, but there are other technical issues to overcome before harvesting that stuff!). Space is, for all practical purposes, a vacuum, so there is certainly not pleny of Hydrogen just sitting around waiting to be harvested.

As a fuel to distribute and use in ordinary vehicles it is a silly joke

Agreed! Although for far more practical reasons, mainly relating to thermodynamics

Ethanol is the fuel to use and it is already in use in F1.

There are numerous technical reasons why ethanol is NOT the fuel to use, not least of which concern the same thermodynamic issues surrounding Hydrogen; you simply use more energy to derive the ethanol that you get as a consequence. Generation of Ethanol from cellulose is not straightforward, the yields (although improving) are still rather poor and the self sufficiency to which you refer is a long way away.
The Hygroscopic nature of ethanol makes it unsuitable for practical use as the sole fuel, added to that aldehyde formation during combustion leads to urban air quality issues too. A quick look in Wiki will highlight most of the issues surrounding the use of ethanol in the Internal Combustion Engine (ICE).

The biggest issue with any fuel for an ICE is the appalling (in)efficiency of the ICE.

The political will that you speak of would be better placed in allocating the true costs of driving our cars to the user; that would lead to a demand for fuel efficient technology development and ultimately the development of a motor that is substantially better than the ICE for moving people around...

Hi Mike
I have a number of ICE running on ethanol and I also ran a dragster on methanol/nitro in the 70, I am also qualified in LPG conversions and have even run a tractor on powdered straw.
Can you enlarge on your thermodynamic objections to the use of Ethanol?
Fermentation is a chemical process with no energy input and distillation of ethanol is at below 80 degrees so how do you conclude a larger energy input to output.
We are not talking of hydrogen here, which is a waste of time other than to the oil companies trying to sell CNG and oil. Trying to get hydrogen from water is a joke.
Storage of ethanol requires tank design that eliminates contact with air, not nearly as difficult as low temperature high pressure storage for hydrogen and I was aware of the freezing point of hydrogen a simple error in my last post.

I agree that the ICE has been obsolete for decades and the lay shaft gearbox since the 19th century. The electric vehicle revolution is in progress however, although few have yet recognized it.
Ethanol can also be used in fuel cells and if enough investment was made available as was done for hydrogen, we would have a fuel for use in ice hybrids and fuel cell electrics from the same source, in balance with the environment.
There is little comparison to filthy fossil fuels. Only that they make huge profits for the investors in oil companies.