Am I right to be skeptical about tuning?

[dollyman]

I have to agree, hydrogen is the way forward People forget what it takes to produce electric vehicles, and there is no infrastructure to charge them if even 10 % of car owners swapped to them
It is still fun to have a play with our cars whilst we still can

Tony.

[cleverusername]

If anyone can give me some real world facts regarding how a remap can enable an engine to produce more power from less fuel I would be delighted to hear it.

Perhaps the remap increases the energy density of the fuel?
Or maybe the remap somehow has a means of altering the laws of physics?

Maybe not less fuel but you can sometimes get more power without a fuel consumption penalty. Sometimes manufacturers cripple an engine in the map, so a cheaper model or brand has a lower output. It can be cheaper to fit the same engine to all the cars and just reduce the power in the map.

So if that map isn't quite optimal, you might not be getting the best economy out it. If you compare my fathers 115 Rover 75 and my 130, there doesn't seem to be any difference in fuel consumption. Yet mine has more power and more low down torque.

[cleverusername]

I have to agree, hydrogen is the way forward People forget what it takes to produce electric vehicles, and there is no infrastructure to charge them if even 10 % of car owners swapped to them
It is still fun to have a play with our cars whilst we still can

Tony.

Another option is fuel from air tech. You can make petrol from the atmosphere, hardly surprising, it is where it goes when you burn it. The trick is making fuel from air technology energy efficient enough.

If you're going to go with hydrogen, then you may as well consider keeping hydrocarbons. There is no free hydrogen on earth, you either extract it from natural gas, a fossil fuel or you split water, which is going to take allot of energy.

So why not making petrol instead? We already have the infrastructure for petrol, it has higher energy density than hydrogen and it is easier to handle. You don't need pressurised fuel systems. If we extract it from the atmosphere using green electricity, it would be carbon neutral.

[Carledo]

If you're going to go with hydrogen, then you may as well consider keeping hydrocarbons. There is no free hydrogen on earth, you either extract it from natural gas, a fossil fuel or you split water, which is going to take allot of energy.

So why not making petrol instead? We already have the infrastructure for petrol, it has higher energy density than hydrogen and it is easier to handle. You don't need pressurised fuel systems. If we extract it from the atmosphere using green electricity, it would be carbon neutral.

So get Hydrogen from seawater (which is plentiful) via green electricity (the tech is already available) and use that, no pollution and the atmosphere cleans itself up as the only emission is water vapour. All the hydrogen and oxygen returns. It's not only carbon neutral, it's EVERYTHING neutral, nothing is gained, nothing is lost. And storing and transport of gas under pressure is well understood, even in private car terms, with LPG. It's not rocket science or sci fi, (which I think getting petrol from air sounds like) the only thing fighting it is the oil companies and the handful of middle eastern states whose very survival depends on keeping petrol flowing.

All the system is, is an energy transfer, you put energy in, to get the hydrogen to separate from the oxygen in water, then get it back out again (minus frictional losses) when they recombine in the engine. It's the next best thing to cold fusion!

Steve

[cliftyhanger]

But all those systems are horrendously inefficient, nowhere near as good as charging a battery.
And we are all saying where is the electricity coming from to charge cars (and replace our gas boilers at home with electric heating) so we need a massive amount of RELIABLE/CONSISTENT/PREDICTABLE renewable energy to achieve that, which we just don't have at the moment. That is the challenge

[Carledo]

But all those systems are horrendously inefficient, nowhere near as good as charging a battery.
And we are all saying where is the electricity coming from to charge cars (and replace our gas boilers at home with electric heating) so we need a massive amount of RELIABLE/CONSISTENT/PREDICTABLE renewable energy to achieve that, which we just don't have at the moment. That is the challenge

We also need a massive supply of "rare earth" minerals, mined responsibly, to make batteries, which we are never going to have (the clue is in the name, "rare earth") and better methods of recycling said batteries when they are life expired!

Like I said, with all these problems and challenges, battery electric is NOT a long term solution to our problems with currently available tech. Something that governments (which historically DON'T contain engineers, they have more sense) just don't understand! They say "you MUST do THIS" as if wishing will make it so, without any regard for just how us poor engineers are going to actually DO it!

There is another fly in the ointment attached to battery electric that no-one has mentioned yet, that being aviation!

Compared to aircraft, cars are like a breath of spring air in pollution terms. Just a fortnight of no jet airliners has cleaned the upper atmosphere beyond recognition, we NEED a substitute power source for aircraft or stop flying, batteries CAN'T and WON'T ever do that, Hydrogen at least offers a possibility.

Steve

[cleverusername]

If you're going to go with hydrogen, then you may as well consider keeping hydrocarbons. There is no free hydrogen on earth, you either extract it from natural gas, a fossil fuel or you split water, which is going to take allot of energy.

So why not making petrol instead? We already have the infrastructure for petrol, it has higher energy density than hydrogen and it is easier to handle. You don't need pressurised fuel systems. If we extract it from the atmosphere using green electricity, it would be carbon neutral.

So get Hydrogen from seawater (which is plentiful) via green electricity (the tech is already available) and use that, no pollution and the atmosphere cleans itself up as the only emission is water vapour. All the hydrogen and oxygen returns. It's not only carbon neutral, it's EVERYTHING neutral, nothing is gained, nothing is lost. And storing and transport of gas under pressure is well understood, even in private car terms, with LPG. It's not rocket science or sci fi, (which I think getting petrol from air sounds like) the only thing fighting it is the oil companies and the handful of middle eastern states whose very survival depends on keeping petrol flowing.

All the system is, is an energy transfer, you put energy in, to get the hydrogen to separate from the oxygen in water, then get it back out again (minus frictional losses) when they recombine in the engine. It's the next best thing to cold fusion!

Steve

The problem with hydrogen is energy density and storage. Petrol and diesel are far easier to handle and we have got pretty good at making clean petrol and diesel engines. So if you're going to make fuel, using non fossil fuel means, you may as well stick with what you know.

As for renewables, economics is already solving that problem. The price per unit for solar and wind power is rapidly falling. Soon it will be cheaper than coal, for example. It still leaves the problem of baseload, my solution to that is nuclear power, modern nuclear are allot safer than people think.

[cleverusername]

But all those systems are horrendously inefficient, nowhere near as good as charging a battery.
And we are all saying where is the electricity coming from to charge cars (and replace our gas boilers at home with electric heating) so we need a massive amount of RELIABLE/CONSISTENT/PREDICTABLE renewable energy to achieve that, which we just don't have at the moment. That is the challenge

The challenge is more one of storage. Take wind power, it can generate a large percentage of what we need, we simply don't have a way of storing the surplus for later use.

That would be one advantage of electric cars. When they are no in use, they could be used to store baseload for the grid.

[James467]

You're all looking at this from the wrong perspective!

Think AA Batteries

Don't worry about charging your batteries, you never 'own' them, you rent them for the duration of the charge.

Your car has a universal battery port, or ports. When the battery charge is depleted you go to a garage and swap out your used batteries for fresh recharged ones. The design of the battery is universal, much like AA's or AAA's, these are produced by a company which also takes the old depleted end of life batteries and recycles them.

Pull in, swap batteries, pay, off you go!

[cliftyhanger]

I still believe that until we have fusion working (always 30-50 years away) then tidal lagoons are a simple, cost effective solution. They are totally predictable, simple technology and extremely long life. Not a lot to dislike. Dot them around the coast, 100% job done.

No need for much storage, as they will be producing 24hrs a day. And yes, excess generation could be used to make fuels, hydrogen or otherwise.

[marshman]

You're all looking at this from the wrong perspective!

Think AA Batteries

Don't worry about charging your batteries, you never 'own' them, you rent them for the duration of the charge.

Your car has a universal battery port, or ports. When the battery charge is depleted you go to a garage and swap out your used batteries for fresh recharged ones. The design of the battery is universal, much like AA's or AAA's, these are produced by a company which also takes the old depleted end of life batteries and recycles them.

Pull in, swap batteries, pay, off you go!

Mercedes is already well ahead of you

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEjTwsfqHOY

Mercedes AA Class

[sprint95m]

There have been a couple of hydrogen fuel cell buses in daily use in Aberdeen for a few years now. The issue is making the hydrogen in an energy efficient way, and setting up a distribution network.

Indeed, it is the making of hydrogen fuel that the Orkney Islands Council is looking at.
Produce it locally and avoid transportation cost implications.....




Ian.

[sprint95m]

The challenge is more one of storage. Take wind power, it can generate a large percentage of what we need, we simply don't have a way of storing the surplus for later use.

There is energy banking here in the UK but it is concentrated in Scotland,
wind power is used to pump water up into reservoirs, said water can be released thereafter as and when required.
Obviously geography comes into play in this instance (Scotland is about 40% of Britain by area but has 90% of the fresh water).

There are several alternative solutions being developed/considered currently.




Ian.

[dursley92]

As for porting and polishing. I studied civil engineering at Uni, so I had to do a bit of fluid mechanics. What I learnt was fluid mechanics is extremely complicated and trying to working out gas flow is no simple task. The gas flow in a cylinder head will be affected by the shape of the ports, so I suspect it is a bit more complicated than make ports wider and polish.

Current thinking is that polishing inlet ports is not such a good idea, it looks ok but leaving them with a nice machined finish encourages a little turbulence in the air flow and encourages better fuel mixing and so better combustion and improved power.

[Bumpa]

You're all looking at this from the wrong perspective!

Think AA Batteries

Don't worry about charging your batteries, you never 'own' them, you rent them for the duration of the charge.

Your car has a universal battery port, or ports. When the battery charge is depleted you go to a garage and swap out your used batteries for fresh recharged ones. The design of the battery is universal, much like AA's or AAA's, these are produced by a company which also takes the old depleted end of life batteries and recycles them.

Pull in, swap batteries, pay, off you go!

But as Steve pointed out a few threads back, the production of suitable batteries is an environmental disaster in terms of laying waste vast areas of land to find the minerals, and very inefficient and polluting techniques needed to refine them for use. It is extremely doubtful that the world contains enough lithium and whatever else is needed for everyone to have a battery car.

I don't see why petrol is easier to handle than hydrogen. Its just that we are more geared up for it. In fact a pressurised hydrogen cylinder is much safer than a flimsy steel or plastic tank of petrol. I saw a video sometime ago where a marksman fired a high velocity bullet at an H2 cylinder and at a petrol tank. The petrol tank exploded in a most alarming way with a big fire resulting. The H2 cylinder was punctured but simply leaked out the gas. There was no explosion and no fire.

If you spill petrol you have a messy and dangerous problem. Leaked hydrogen just blows away on the wind. Having worked with gas cylinders in my job, I think it would be most unlikely for a hydrogen cylinder to be punctured in most car crashes. Those things are strong.