Hydrogen proposal

Given that My "dream car" is a fully faired bent with a fuel cell/battery booster kit, I thought
this might be an interesting idea for my fellow benters to spread.

National Hydrogen Pilot Project

If we are planning on using alternative produced hydrogen fuel cell transportation, we are running
out of time. Waiting for energy prices to drive a transition will leave us attempting to replace 200
million vehicles and their fuel infrastructure when we no longer have the cheap energy to run them,
much less build a new fleet.

Using electricity (the most costly form of energy) to get a 60% or so return in hydrogen (the least
dense and least valuable form of energy) itself isn't smart. As Denis Hayes mentioned, hydrogen is
best used as a way to store and transport energy.

The North Seas are by far our best source of wind energy, not to mention cheap real-estate. If we
are to make a serious attempt at alternative/hydrogen, the Aleutians or similar locations are our
best hope. Liquefying hydrogen for ship transport takes an additional 40% energy input. The key is
recouping this energy, turning an otherwise 40% waste into a 40% increase in energy load. Liquefied
natural gas (LNG) tankers will soon be surplus. Air conditioning is our highest non-transport energy
use. Parking the tankers off of our southern cities will provide both chilled water for air
conditioning and hydrogen for many uses. In temperate regions, this could also be used to chill or
even freeze groundwater reservoirs summer cooling use.

Everyone owning a car that they use 1 hour a day is already a waste of money. Fuel cell cars will
cost more than present cars for some time. Replacing 200 million conventional cars when we
simultaneously run out of the energy used to produce them (not to mention oil for asphalt, rubber,
etc.) is impossible. So the fuel cell car revolution should start with a citywide rental system in
conjunction with the above. Since air conditioning is a challenge for fuel cell vehicles, cars would
recharge an i nsulated ice tank while they fill up with hydrogen. This would run chilled water
through the car's seats, just like NASCAR's driver's suits.

It may not be the best idea, but it is the best one I've seen.

Looking forward to my fuel cell hybrid bent.

Cheers

 

I'm not yet convinced that hydrogen is a practical fuel for cars. Storage problems require very
expensive containment that must use a lot of energy to produce and create a lot of pre-production
pollution - thus negating the 'clean' hydrogen.

For rental cars in a City, I suspect that the hybrid electric/fossil fuel is the most practical,
with vegetable oil as the fuel for the generating motor. Even pure electric would suffice for most
rental journeys in Cities - but alas not here in Australia. We're just too spread out.

There is a huge inertia in the production lines of modern cars - changing that is going to take
decades. I nearly said dickheads, but we've got enough of 'them' in charge already.

Lightweight hybrid vehicles are very vulnerable when mixing it with our existing SUV and 4wds -
which are gaining popularity here as I believe they are in the US.

Paul W

 

Robert Haston wrote:
>
> Given that My "dream car" is a fully faired bent with a fuel cell/battery booster kit, I thought
> this might be an interesting idea for my fellow benters to spread.

Here is a prototype fuel cell bike using the Manhattan Scientiic cell:

http://www.apriliaenjoy.com/eng/fuelcell.htm

Zap is talking about FC bikes as well:

http://www.totalbike.com/news/get_news.php3?id=170

Manhattan Scientific site:

http://www.mhtx.com/

As far as cars go, would any of this be necessary if the weight of the average vehicle was something
like 500 or 1,000 lbs. less in weight? Are we proposing to turn the world upside down just so we can
drive 4-5,000 lb vehilces?

John Riley

 

I don't think we want an alternative automotive fuel at this point. Hydrogen is expensive to
produce, and I'm not convinced that any alternative hydrogen generation system (including the one
presented here) can be more economical than fossil fuels. Nuclear power is attractive but given the
negative publicity, I'm not very optimistic about it.

The real problem isn't gasoline, it's cars. As long as we are dependent on personal vehicles we'll
be consuming an inordinate amount of energy regardless of where that energy comes from. We'll also
be stuck with traffic problems and auto accidents (40,000 lives a year is a high price to pay!).
We should be thinking of ways to reduce our dependency on cars, not just our dependency on
imported oil.

Ken Kobayashi [email protected] http://solarwww.mtk.nao.ac.jp/kobayashi/personal/

 

Whenever I read about companies trying to introduce power-assisted bikes, I always think "They just
don't get the point".

People who ride bikes do so because they enjoy cycling (at least, this is so in the affluent parts
of the world where they try to sell these hybrids). Those who want a power-assisted bike can already
buy a moped.

Actually, if everybody rode mopeds we'd save a lot of energy without recourse to exotic plans to
ship liquid hydrogen around the world. Personally, I wouldn't be seen dead on one, so I'll keep on
pedalling.

Chris

"Robert Haston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> Given that My "dream car" is a fully faired bent with a fuel cell/battery booster kit, I thought
> this might be an interesting idea for my fellow benters to spread.

 

On 13 Mar 2003 06:12:15 -0800, [email protected] (Chris Walker) wrote:

>People who ride bikes do so because they enjoy cycling (at least, this is so in the affluent parts
>of the world where they try to sell these hybrids). Those who want a power-assisted bike can
>already buy a moped.

I have to disagree here. There are people who enjoy cycling but would like just a bit of help
up the hill.

Also, in many countries, mopeds require license and registration. Power-assisted bikes are less of a
hassle to own and and operate.

Ken Kobayashi [email protected] http://solarwww.mtk.nao.ac.jp/kobayashi/personal/

 

In article <[email protected]t>, Ken Kobayashi
<[email protected]> wrote:

> On 13 Mar 2003 06:12:15 -0800, [email protected] (Chris Walker) wrote:
>
> >People who ride bikes do so because they enjoy cycling (at least, this is so in the affluent
> >parts of the world where they try to sell these hybrids). Those who want a power-assisted bike
> >can already buy a moped.
>
> I have to disagree here. There are people who enjoy cycling but would like just a bit of help up
> the hill.
>
I second that. I would occasionally welcome some help up a steep hill, since sometimes I'm in the
mood for a ride, but not for a workout. Fuel cells might be ideal for a bike or trike since they
offer light weight and extended range.

> Also, in many countries, mopeds require license and registration. Power-assisted bikes are less of
> a hassle to own and and operate.
>
> Ken Kobayashi [email protected] http://solarwww.mtk.nao.ac.jp/kobayashi/personal/

 

Robert Weltman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<130320031229080296%[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]t>, Ken Kobayashi
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On 13 Mar 2003 06:12:15 -0800, [email protected] (Chris Walker) wrote:
> >
> > >People who ride bikes do so because they enjoy cycling (at least, this is so in the affluent
> > >parts of the world where they try to sell these hybrids). Those who want a power-assisted bike
> > >can already buy a moped.
> >
> > I have to disagree here. There are people who enjoy cycling but would like just a bit of help up
> > the hill.
> >
> I second that. I would occasionally welcome some help up a steep hill, since sometimes I'm in the
> mood for a ride, but not for a workout. Fuel cells might be ideal for a bike or trike since they
> offer light weight and extended range.

and a third... I rode a heavy (40 pound) delta trike 1980 to 2001. I got a tadpole in 1999,
motorized it, threw away my delta, got a faster and safer WizWheel a year later, motorized it, and I
still kick myself for being so stubborn and waiting. Never going back!

The technological upgrades in battery weight and gearing in 2 years is a pleasant surprise. With gas
nearing $3 (over $4. somewhere nearby) I am twice or three times happier (cheap - power -
recumbent)! But I do not want to wait until 2007 for possible hydrogen. After all; the other
continent has faired velomobiles- they are coming sooner.

Chris Jordan Santa Cruz, Ca.
>
> > Also, in many countries, mopeds require license and registration. Power-assisted bikes are less
> > of a hassle to own and and operate.
> >
> > Ken Kobayashi [email protected] http://solarwww.mtk.nao.ac.jp/kobayashi/personal/

 

Can't we just call a motorized cycle (gas, electric, hydrogen, hamster-wheel) a MOTORCYCLE?

That is what it IS, no?

 

On 14 Mar 2003 12:09:43 -0800, [email protected] (Seth Jayson) wrote:

>Can't we just call a motorized cycle (gas, electric, hydrogen, hamster-wheel) a MOTORCYCLE?
>
>That is what it IS, no?

There's a big difference between a motorcycle and a power-assisted bicycle. Motorcycles get all
their power from gasoline or electricity. Power-assisted bicycles are human/something hybrids which
run mostly on human power.

Actually the word "moped" refers to motorcycles with pedals, but I think the word meaning has
shifted to include small motorcycles without pedals.

Ken Kobayashi [email protected] http://solarwww.mtk.nao.ac.jp/kobayashi/personal/

 

You are correct, but only from a "bikes as toys" worldview, versus a "bikes as transportation" one.

I may like getting a workout going to work, but not coming home at 1 AM when I will soon be trying
to sleep. Conversely, a worker who wants to preserve her hairdo and makeup, but doesn't mind getting
all sweaty going home could use a power assist.

As individual transportation, every MPH under 15 really starts eating away at your time. Imagine a
vehicle that worked with your HRM. The "exercise mode" would keep you at 20 MPH as long as you kept
your pulse in your target zone.

As a system, cyclists are a mess, I fly around at over 20 MPH on my semi-low, passing people who are
doing about 5-10 MPH. The people on bikes (POBs) not cyclists who constantly swap back and forth
from pedestrian to cyclist mode are a huge problem. If they were faster, they would drive like us
cyclists, stop confusing everyone (driver to self: "Is this guy a cyclist or a POB?") and getting
themselves killed. Imagine a freeway with people doing anywhere from 20 to 80 MPH. Hybrid vehicles
would allow every rider to go the speed limit whether they were pedaling their guts out or not
pedaling at all.

Hybrid bikes would help unify cyclists, most of whom are afraid to get off the path or side streets.

"Chris Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Whenever I read about companies trying to introduce power-assisted bikes, I always think "They
> just don't get the point".
>
> People who ride bikes do so because they enjoy cycling (at least, this is so in the affluent parts
> of the world where they try to sell these hybrids). Those who want a power-assisted bike can
> already buy a moped.
>
> Actually, if everybody rode mopeds we'd save a lot of energy without recourse to exotic plans to
> ship liquid hydrogen around the world. Personally, I wouldn't be seen dead on one, so I'll keep on
> pedalling.
>
> Chris
>
>
> "Robert Haston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > Given that My "dream car" is a fully faired bent with a fuel
cell/battery
> > booster kit, I thought this might be an interesting idea for my fellow benters to spread.

 

Thanks to passage of H.R. 727 in 2001, the legal definition has been set nationwide in the US.

Anything less than 1 HP (a 29cc four cycle engine, or 750 watt electric) or 20 MPH is
legally a bike.

I guess by this definition, you could get away with a 50cc engine on your tandem that would govern
or max out in high gear at 20 MPH. It would carry two people up a steep grade at 20 MPH, but
wouldn't add any boost above this speed regardless of terrain.

Boost up then motor off, coast down, pedal on the flats, sort of like a tri-brid that uses both
terrain and your bodies three means of power production to store energy. Add streamlining as a way
to conserve energy normally lost to drag on the downhill side.

Moped, motorized bike, or scooter laws vary as far as I know. For example, a vehicle must have at
least 5 HP to go on an interstate.

Motorcycles are anything above these.

"Seth Jayson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Can't we just call a motorized cycle (gas, electric, hydrogen, hamster-wheel) a MOTORCYCLE?
>
> That is what it IS, no?

 

Chris I think these companies DO get the point, you just understand it. The suggestion that cyclists
should just get a Moped proves you don't get
it.When you use a Moped, you don't pedal. The pedals are there to use to pedal to a gas station and
to pedal start the under 50cc motor. Mopeds (in most countries) fall under the same laws as
Motorcycles and cars...power-assists don't. I don't pay for parking, I don't pay for a licence,
for insurance, for registration and I don't have to do a written and riding test. I don't support
Iraq when I use an E-motor assist and the thing you are missing here is that a cyclist is a pedal
pusher 1st and uses the motor only to (assist). Mopeds are NOT designed to Assist pedalling.
Maybe (you) see people pedalling their Mopeds, but I have never heard of anyone doing it.

> "Chris Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Whenever I read about companies trying to introduce power-assisted bikes, I always think "They
> > just don't get the point".
> >
> > People who ride bikes do so because they enjoy cycling (at least, this is so in the affluent
> > parts of the world where they try to sell these hybrids). Those who want a power-assisted bike
> > can already buy a moped.
> >
> > Actually, if everybody rode mopeds we'd save a lot of energy without recourse to exotic plans to
> > ship liquid hydrogen around the world. Personally, I wouldn't be seen dead on one, so I'll keep
> > on pedalling.
> >
> > Chris

 

RE/
>Thanks to passage of H.R. 727 in 2001, the legal definition has been set nationwide in the US.
>
>Anything less than 1 HP (a 29cc four cycle engine, or 750 watt electric) or 20 MPH is
>legally a bike.

Sounds like the path is clear for Segways.
-----------------------
PeteCresswell

 

Gosh - I'm gonna have to stop training so I will generate less than 750 watts with my massive
quads......

"(Pete Cresswell)" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> RE/
> >Thanks to passage of H.R. 727 in 2001, the legal definition has been set nationwide in the US.
> >
> >Anything less than 1 HP (a 29cc four cycle engine, or 750 watt electric)
or
> >20 MPH is legally a bike.
>
> Sounds like the path is clear for Segways.
> -----------------------
> PeteCresswell

 

I believe this refers to "electric bikes only" and NOT pure HPVs

BILL H.R.727 To amend the Consumer Product Safety Act to provide that low-speed electric bicycles
are consumer products subject to such Act. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives
of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY ACT. The
Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2051 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:
LOW-SPEED ELECTRIC BICYCLES SEC. 38. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, low-speed
electric bicycles are consumer products within the meaning of section
3(a)(1) and shall be subject to the Commission regulations published at section 1500.18(a)(12) and
part 1512 of title 16, Code of Federal Regulations.
(b) For the purpose of this section, the term `low-speed electric bicycle' means a two- or
three-wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts (1
h.p.), whose maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a motor while
ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20 mph.
(c) To further protect the safety of consumers who ride low-speed electric bicycles, the Commission
may promulgate new or amended requirements applicable to such vehicles as necessary and
appropriate.
(d) This section shall supersede any State law or requirement with respect to low-speed electric
bicycles to the extent that such State law or requirement is more stringent than the Federal law
or requirements referred to in subsection (a).'. SEC. 2. MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS. For
purposes of motor vehicle safety standards issued and enforced pursuant to chapter 301 of title
49, United States Code, a low-speed electric bicycle (as defined in section 38(b) of the
Consumer Product Safety Act) shall not be considered a motor vehicle as defined by section
30102(6) of title 49, United States Code. Union Calendar No. 4 107th CONGRESS 1st Session

e. R. 727"Robert Haston" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> Thanks to passage of H.R. 727 in 2001, the legal definition has been set nationwide in the US.
>
> Anything less than 1 HP (a 29cc four cycle engine, or 750 watt electric) or 20 MPH is
> legally a bike.
>
> I guess by this definition, you could get away with a 50cc engine on your tandem that would govern
> or max out in high gear at 20 MPH. It would carry two people up a steep grade at 20 MPH, but
> wouldn't add any boost above this speed regardless of terrain.
>
> Boost up then motor off, coast down, pedal on the flats, sort of like a tri-brid that uses both
> terrain and your bodies three means of power production to store energy. Add streamlining as a way
> to conserve energy normally lost to drag on the downhill side.
>
> Moped, motorized bike, or scooter laws vary as far as I know. For example, a vehicle must have at
> least 5 HP to go on an interstate.
>
> Motorcycles are anything above these.
>
> "Seth Jayson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Can't we just call a motorized cycle (gas, electric, hydrogen, hamster-wheel) a MOTORCYCLE?
> >
> > That is what it IS, no?

 

Many riders can break 750 watts in a sprint.

"Pieter Litchfield" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Gosh - I'm gonna have to stop training so I will generate less than 750 watts with my massive
> quads......
>
> "(Pete Cresswell)" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > RE/
> > >Thanks to passage of H.R. 727 in 2001, the legal definition has been
set
> > >nationwide in the US.
> > >
> > >Anything less than 1 HP (a 29cc four cycle engine, or 750 watt
electric)
> or
> > >20 MPH is legally a bike.
> >
> > Sounds like the path is clear for Segways.
> > -----------------------
> > PeteCresswell

 

Motor = Motor Cycle = Cycle

Motor + Cylce = Motorcycle

Y'all congressmen can spare me the legaleeeze. You start putting motors on bicycles, and you have
motorcycles, plain and simple. Then the arguments begin about how much motor it takes before it's no
longer a bike. Next the arguments will begin about whether or not it's allowed on the bike path.

How about that ear-splitting, 2-cycle motorized scooter with the weedwhipper engine that blows out
more particulates than a car? Small engine, though. Guess it's still a bicycle.

This seems a bit kooky to me.

"I only use it to go uphill"

I feel the same way about that nice big Hummer SUV I just bought. Five miles to the gallon, but I
only use it, I swear, when I want to go up hills. Or other times when I don't feel like
pedalling.

Where does it end? (Answer, I guess: "wherever the lobbiests with the deepest pockets want it
to end...")

 

RE/
>How about that ear-splitting, 2-cycle motorized scooter with the weedwhipper engine that blows out
>more particulates than a car? Small

Probably a bicycle if their PR flaks pay off (Oops, I mean make campaign contributions to...) the
right people.

We've got them around here - kids riding on the streets and they are LOUD.
-----------------------
PeteCresswell

 

> Many riders can break 750 watts in a sprint.

Shoot, I can break all kinds of things in a sprint.