Is the GM V8 dead? Not so fast.

VolvoHeretic said:

I predict that the battery electric changeover is going to be pushed out another decade at least if not two. There is no way that battery infrastructure will be ready in only 12 years.

It won't be a battery issue.  We just are using great big batteries now because the only real objection that has any validity at all is Range.

 The solution of big batteries speaks to all those who wanted a 454 to commute to work with.  Trade size of battery ( and resulting range)   For cubic inches  or a bigger diesel engine to roll coal with  

  . 
 

Opti said:

There is a bunch of hydrogen used a year, related to something like gasoline, its not even on the same planet. 

I have to do some math but it's not as far off as you would think. Most of the world's fertilizer is made with steam reformed hydrogen as feedstock and it's a critical component to refining as well. 

In reply to Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) :

Not really. We use about 10 million tons of hydrogen a YEAR in the US. We use over a million tons a DAY of gasoline.

From a logistical and production standpoint these two things are different planets.

How about a hydrogen fueled turbojet powered semi truck? I'd like to see one on the interstate.

Opti said:

In reply to Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) :

 

 

Not really. We use about 10 tons of hydrogen a YEAR in the US. We use over a million tons a DAY of gasoline.

 

From a logistical and production standpoint these two things are different planets.

 

"With approximately 10 million metric tons (MMT) hydrogen currently produced in the United States each year, the primary demand for hydrogen today is for petroleum refining and ammonia production."

 Energy.gov: Hydrogen Production

Big, heavy vehicle with a turbine engine you say? I think we already solved for that: 

In reply to VolvoHeretic :

Yes thats what I meant to type, so I edited it. The point still stands.

Im having problems posting from my phone and I missed it on the transfer from notes to forum.

In reply to Opti :

No problem, I can barely type using a keyboard.

In reply to alfadriver :

Oops my fault. The turbine made 94 horsepower and weighed 77 pounds. 
   While there are no doubt 94 horsepower ICE  engines I doubt you'll get them functional ( radiator etc ) for 77 pounds.  
    With regard to price points?   Much of that depends on volume.  A start from scratch design the turbine would be simple blades on a shaft.
     Rather than Block , head, pistons, rings pins valves camshaft crankshaft  flywheel, water, pump, oil pump etc etc 

   Noise 

frenchyd said:

In reply to alfadriver :

Oops my fault. The turbine made 94 horsepower and weighed 77 pounds. 
   While there are no doubt 94 horsepower ICE  engines I doubt you'll get them functional ( radiator etc ) for 77 pounds.  
    With regard to price points?   Much of that depends on volume.  A start from scratch design the turbine would be simple blades on a shaft. Rather than pistons, rings pins valves camshaft crankshaft  flywheel etc etc 

Are you sure you know what a turbine engine is? Seems awfully close to Plato describing humans as featherless bipeds.

In reply to frenchyd :

As I've pointed out, for cars, weight is less of an issue than in an airplane.  

But feel free to assume you are right.  Doesn't matter to me- but just noticing how many gas turbines are used on the road makes me think, well.... I'll let you make that conclusion.

alfadriver said:

In reply to frenchyd :

As I've pointed out, for cars, weight is less of an issue than in an airplane.  

But feel free to assume you are right.  Doesn't matter to me- but just noticing how many gas turbines are used on the road makes me think, well.... I'll let you make that conclusion.

 

Turbines really weren't suitable for road use. Operate more efficiently at one speed Level.     Unless they are used to drive a generator to charge a battery  to drive an electric motor. 
  Since we already have cars like Toyota Prius. The principle is easily understood.  I just think instead of a the Rube Goldberg arrangement that an ICE is. 
    The potential of a turbine efficiency is very attractive. 
  You know I love ICE engines. The more cylinders and valves the better.  
 But I love them precisely because  of  the bizarre nonsense  of them. Piston up stop, piston down stop,   valves dancing to the tune played by the camshaft etc. it's like watching a steam engine.   
  If airlines still flew radial engines,  and propellers.   It would be fun. But not very efficient. 

In reply to alfadriver :

Weight doesn't matter on cars? When did Alfa start using cast iron blocks and heads?  Frankly I've never seen a Ferrari  engine made of cast iron. 
   Of course weights  important when efficency matters. 

Opti said:

In reply to VolvoHeretic :

Yes thats what I meant to type, so I edited it. The point still stands.

Im having problems posting from my phone and I missed it on the transfer from notes to forum.

Its only a single order of magnitude different. I have the global numbers on my work computer the kg of gasoline used in the world isn't quickly googled. Global hydrogen is about 94Mt yearly 

I remember a Cartoons Magazine Krass and Bernie comic strip in a Car Craft magazine back in the 70s where Krass is giving Bernie a ride in his new homemade electric car. It was super fast and Bernie was asking how he got it to go like that. Krass stopped, got out, and showed Bernie the blown v8 engine connected to a generator stuffed sideways in the trunk.

In reply to Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) :

I didnt do global I did US. I had US at 10 million metric tons annualy and about 370 million metric tons of gasoline.

I did US because largely the rest of the world doesnt care.

Its more than a single order of magnitude. You can make it seem like not a big deal, but in the real world, from a logistical and manufacturing perspective these two things are different planets. Hydrogens use on a large scale is far from solved.

They are going to have to generate the hydrogen locally to the hydrogen filling stations with a combination of solar and wind saving it in local storage tanks. It's going to take a lot and be brand new but at least it will be spread out throughout the country. Other than local plumbing, there won't be any long distance pipelines.

In reply to frenchyd :

Not in MD and HD trucks and semis.  We are not talking cars here.  But even then, the cost of weight isn't so much that gas turbines are worth the money.  And gas engines can be very efficient, especially for the cost.

But you keep conceptualizing....

In reply to alfadriver :

True enough.
  Like other Jaguar people I'm concerned about the future of the brand and got distracted. 
 Now back to HD and MD trucks.  Most MD trucks are local and it would be rare for them to get more than 200 miles a day   That's about 4 hours of road time.  With regen braking. Batteries should be fine.  You wouldn't need hybrid except for out off town routes  it was extremely rare for me to approach 300 miles in a day. A lot of my time was spent delivering product and having it checked in. Displaying it and then  facing everything.   
  Those long days were opening of fishing season/ Memorial Day /4tb of July/ Labor Day. and  I'd start at 6:00am and typically not get finished until after 10:00 pm.   Minnesota is a big state.400 miles long but resorts were all within 250 miles of the twin cities. 
     Regular deliveries were closer  to 10 hour days.   
   HD trucks  like Semi's really would benefit from electric drive. Peak torque at zero RPM exactly where it's needed just like a train. 
  OK range would benefit from a hybrid   Pulling 80,000 pounds up Donner pass or the grapevine.   Those are really long pulls I suspect ( guess is more like it) 250 continuance  horsepower is what's called for.   But  a 12 liter diesel and gearbox probably weighs 3500 pounds  plus 5-7000 pounds of fuel.  So that's  the  target weight to beat. 

Paul_VR6 (Forum Supporter) said:

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

alfadriver said:

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

 

The biggest problem is large quantities H2 plus atmospheric levels of oxygen is explosive. 

And that's different than any HC fuel, how?  Well, other than H2 having less energy than HC fuels, which is why HC fuels are used for thermobaric bombs....  

we all already know I'm the dumbest guy in the room

Correct, the adults are talking. There are already MASSIVE amounts of H2 out there used in industry, it is not a problem that doesn't already have a solution.

Anytime some refers to themselves as an adult to get credibility, I have to laugh.  
 

Yep the solution for H2 is don't let it mix with O2.  Covered that already.  

Prototype 2007 windmill to hydrogen project for 3 tri-fuel pickups. They eventually converted a couple of turbo diesel tractors as well. I can't find any information about how it worked even though it was government funded.

Wind-to-hydrogen plant first in nation

frenchyd said:

  OK range would benefit from a hybrid   Pulling 80,000 pounds up Donner pass or the grapevine.   Those are really long pulls I suspect ( guess is more like it) 250 continuance  horsepower is what's called for.   But  a 12 liter diesel and gearbox probably weighs 3500 pounds  plus 5-7000 pounds of fuel.  So that's  the  target weight to beat. 

On some of those mountains they can make use of a lot more than 250hp continuously.  Even 400+ hp semis will be running at WOT on a climb like that, just going a bit less slowly than the lower powered trucks. 

As far as weight, yes, if enough weight can be saved (and therefore extra load carried) then it's likely companies would accept a bit of extra cost for a turbine solution.  But there's still the question of how much extra it would cost by the time you make it quiet and emissions compliant. 

Turbine powered trains were done at times, but they died out in favor of conventional diesels.  In the end, the turbines were expensive and burned more fuel (one of the issues was that putting air filters on the intakes to keep them from dying a dust-induced early death hurt efficiency).  And at least some of the turbine setups were more fussy to keep working than a conventional large diesel as well. 

In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :

I still don't understand why you think H2 is more dangerous than all of the other HC's we use.   They all have the exact same risks.  Mix it with the right amount of air, and it will burn really quickly.  Mix it perfectly, and you get an explosion.  And HC's have more energy than H2, which is why they are used for special air bombs than H2.

It's the exact same risk of combustion.  So if we can deal with HC, we can deal with H2.

Back to the original question- big gas V8's are going to be around for a while to satisfy MD and HD vehicle rules that are currently being put into place.  And while a hybrid massive V8 may happen someday, customers are going to need to see a massive benefit of doing that.

New big gas engines are capable of running WOT at stoich all day long without damage.  Pretty amazing progress in engine materials.  And the extra cost for that is not all that high.  If we could update our racing motors with those materials, they would be considerably more robust.  (and by that, I mean our old engines, not the new ones coming out)

alfadriver said:

Back to the original question- big gas V8's are going to be around for a while to satisfy MD and HD vehicle rules that are currently being put into place.  And while a hybrid massive V8 may happen someday, customers are going to need to see a massive benefit of doing that.

New big gas engines are capable of running WOT at stoich all day long without damage.  Pretty amazing progress in engine materials.  And the extra cost for that is not all that high.  If we could update our racing motors with those materials, they would be considerably more robust.  (and by that, I mean our old engines, not the new ones coming out)

Out of curiosity, what kind of changes are being made to enable this?  Reduced fuel enrichment under heavy load would close the gas vs diesel fuel economy gap a lot in faster boats, for example.