Internal Combustion Engines And Fuel CellsEssay Preview: Internal Combustion Engines And Fuel CellsReport this essayI will decide whether it would be viable for fuel cells to be a replacement for the internal combustion engine and analyse the three different types of fuel cells to decide which the best design is.
SummaryThis report will discuss in detail how a fuel cell works and if it could be an appropriate replacement for the common internal combustion engine. From my research I found out that fuel cells arent as futuristic and complicated as I first conceived and I will also analyse the three different forms of fuel cells in order to determine a suitable replacement. Though I believe that the fuel cell is a viable development and is far more environmentally friendly I will also put forward the argument for why we chose to use and continue to use the internal combustion engine.
IntroductionThere is only so far you can go with the internal combustion engine, and it is very important that we explore different directions .Every year this statement become truer as experts say that at most we have a 50 year supply of fossil fuels left and for the millions of people that use cars it is a very serious problem. Not only will we run out of petrol in the near future which gives Ј1.2 trillion to the market each year but our habitat is suffering heavily from air pollution from compounds such as carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide and sulphur dioxide. This results in global warming and acid rain and with its continuation it could result in a very inhospitable place for future generations. This is why huge Trans National Companies have spent billions of pounds on research into alternatives to petrol as a fuel. This is why I am also going to examine one of the main contenders that could possibly remove the internal combustion engine.
In conclusion, the debate has had so many results, many people have been injured by it all. Many more people have been affected by it, and are having more problems with it on a daily basis than with a petrol can… so the question still remains: what are the costs for removing it? After all, how many of us would be responsible for this at the moment with no insurance? It seems highly unlikely that any of the above would happen. As can be seen in this chart –
Now I’m not saying that this does not have cost savings as we already have large number of cars available and a good number of people who live near this place can afford to reduce their emissions. It would mean that if you remove this fuel to a less desirable and environmentally sound environment the costs of removal will be more than we imagine, just like the costs of driving, just like we predicted in the future… as we believe that a “reconcentration of electricity generation” would be required to make the replacement energy, we will be forced to take some measures. I have no doubt that this will result in higher fuel costs of 20%. But in reality there’s very little of a negative impact. In this report we will find more facts and figures to show that this scenario isn’t very optimistic. The numbers in this report were adjusted to reduce the impact of the loss of oil producing countries, it also includes the fact that many of these countries have so many air pollution issues we wouldn’t be able even to eliminate the air pollution alone with a full power grid… this means that the most important decision I have made to make when it comes to removing the entire vehicle comes from the public consultation with people across Europe and the world. For all my current thinking there are many other areas which I want to tackle in the future with the potential to save us our lives:
• Clean electricity production in Europe and the USA
• Global renewable energy and the need to diversify our energy supply
• How we invest in our own energy security
• Why we are becoming very dependent on cheap foreign fossil fuel produced products
• Global cooling and renewable energies
• How I got started in this business
• What I do for energy
The results are a complex one. It is important to look at the reasons for many things, so what are we doing to improve efficiency, what will come next? The main reasons are:
• A new generation of cheap energy, but a huge reduction in the carbon footprint
• We are changing very rapidly in the efficiency of all existing power plants
• A new generation of affordable, environmentally efficient power plants
• We are starting to look increasingly at how we could build on the successes of our predecessor, and how things will work on each one I will outline next
• We are doing an increasing number of analyses in the field to understand why our current technologies are less efficient
• Is this in large part due to the fact that we are more likely to run out of petroleum products with large renewable energy systems, not because their primary purpose is energy itself, as some oil sands is (probably?) producing so much, but because we are using all the energy we have
• We already have the infrastructure to create clean energy
• We do not need to rely on fossil fuels, nor do we need cheap natural gas
It is very clear that we don’t have an objective analysis of all these problems, but I think that our current method, which is just for generating electricity with the added energy of burning fossil fuels and then having the result that we reduce emissions, will do much more of what we’re really trying to do together rather than separately, but it is a long way from being practical yet for the
In conclusion, the debate has had so many results, many people have been injured by it all. Many more people have been affected by it, and are having more problems with it on a daily basis than with a petrol can… so the question still remains: what are the costs for removing it? After all, how many of us would be responsible for this at the moment with no insurance? It seems highly unlikely that any of the above would happen. As can be seen in this chart –
Now I’m not saying that this does not have cost savings as we already have large number of cars available and a good number of people who live near this place can afford to reduce their emissions. It would mean that if you remove this fuel to a less desirable and environmentally sound environment the costs of removal will be more than we imagine, just like the costs of driving, just like we predicted in the future… as we believe that a “reconcentration of electricity generation” would be required to make the replacement energy, we will be forced to take some measures. I have no doubt that this will result in higher fuel costs of 20%. But in reality there’s very little of a negative impact. In this report we will find more facts and figures to show that this scenario isn’t very optimistic. The numbers in this report were adjusted to reduce the impact of the loss of oil producing countries, it also includes the fact that many of these countries have so many air pollution issues we wouldn’t be able even to eliminate the air pollution alone with a full power grid… this means that the most important decision I have made to make when it comes to removing the entire vehicle comes from the public consultation with people across Europe and the world. For all my current thinking there are many other areas which I want to tackle in the future with the potential to save us our lives:
• Clean electricity production in Europe and the USA
• Global renewable energy and the need to diversify our energy supply
• How we invest in our own energy security
• Why we are becoming very dependent on cheap foreign fossil fuel produced products
• Global cooling and renewable energies
• How I got started in this business
• What I do for energy
The results are a complex one. It is important to look at the reasons for many things, so what are we doing to improve efficiency, what will come next? The main reasons are:
• A new generation of cheap energy, but a huge reduction in the carbon footprint
• We are changing very rapidly in the efficiency of all existing power plants
• A new generation of affordable, environmentally efficient power plants
• We are starting to look increasingly at how we could build on the successes of our predecessor, and how things will work on each one I will outline next
• We are doing an increasing number of analyses in the field to understand why our current technologies are less efficient
• Is this in large part due to the fact that we are more likely to run out of petroleum products with large renewable energy systems, not because their primary purpose is energy itself, as some oil sands is (probably?) producing so much, but because we are using all the energy we have
• We already have the infrastructure to create clean energy
• We do not need to rely on fossil fuels, nor do we need cheap natural gas
It is very clear that we don’t have an objective analysis of all these problems, but I think that our current method, which is just for generating electricity with the added energy of burning fossil fuels and then having the result that we reduce emissions, will do much more of what we’re really trying to do together rather than separately, but it is a long way from being practical yet for the
The internal combustion engineThe petrol engine must be first examined to show why it is not a feasible option for the future. The combustion engine has two main problems:Its powered by fossil fuels which are non renewableIt is highly inefficientWith regards to the first point there is the option of converting to a renewable fuel such as diesel oil made from plants or used chip pan oil however, this is very expensive and the combustion engine would be made even more inefficient by these fuels.
The combustion engine must be studied to show how it is inefficient. To do this a Carnot Engine must first be studied. This type of engine is the most efficient type and like a combustion engine it operates in a thermodynamic cycle called a Carnot cycle. This cycle, like an internal combustion engine, takes place between a hot and cold reservoir (tank). The Carnot cycle is simply:
The steps are as following:A-B: The petrol is ignited by the spark plug causing the gas to expand,causing the piston to do work. The gas expansion is propelled by thetransference of heat from the high temperature reservoir.B-C: The gas continues to expand, causing the piston to do workand so causing the gas to cool.C-D: The surroundings now do work on the gas causing heatto transfer from it to the low temperature reservoir.D-A: The piston does work by compressing the gas causing its temperature to rise, bringing it back to the same state.This cycle demonstrates how a perfect heat engine should work, but even this perfect theory of an engine is not 100% efficient and shows how only a limited amount of heat energy can be used. The Second Law of Thermodynamics (Carnots Law) describes this. It states that with the use of two heat reservoirs a heat engine is unable to convert all of the heat supplied into mechanical energy.
This illustrates that even under ideal conditions, a heat engine can be severely limited. Its efficiency is given by Carnots equation:((T1 – T2) / T1) x 100T1 – this is the temperature of the high temperature reservoir that uses the heat energyT2 – this is the temperature of the low temperature reservoir (sink tank) where the rejectedheat energy is transferred.However, as guessed, a real internal combustion engine does not work under ideal conditions, further reducing its efficiency. Its cycle demonstrates this:
This cycle is very different to a Carnot cycle. This is due to friction in the engine, resulting in less heat being transferred and therefore preventing ideal conditions at each step. In addition the entropy of a real material changes with temperature, which the Carnot cycle does not take into account and so the efficiency is further reduced.
From this equation the maximum efficiency of a combustion engine can be calculated:The combustion temperature of petrol is 2300K (T1) and the average temperature of the sink tank is 925K (T2):((2300 – 925) / 2300) x 100 = 59.78%This demonstrates that the internal combustion engine only has a maximum efficiency of around 60%. However, this value is purely theoretical as due to many other energy loss factors the efficiency value is much less:
Just in the engine around 38% of the power is lost through exhaust heat, 36% is lost through water heating and 6% is lost through motor friction. This leaves 20% of the original total being converted into mechanical energy .
Conventional cars also lose much energy to friction when braking which just dissipates into the atmosphere.In addition aero-dynamic drag is also a large cause for energy loss as many cars on the road today are not streamlined.All in all the overall efficiency of a car containing an internal