"History" lesson?

As for other fuels, it's not a matter about what 'could' work, or what 'will' work, it's what is 'practical' and also, what is economically sound.

Economically not just being about wether money can buy it, but about the cost of being able to put logistical infrastructure in place to contain and handle other fuels, AND... to have the fuel-energy-density worthy of the opportunity cost.

See, the concept of using 'hydrogen', would be no different than using 'helium', or Sodium, or Magnesium, or Phosphorous... you're talking about not a chemical compound, you're talking about an ELEMENT. Raw elements are not typically very 'stable' in a pure form... they tend to be rather reactive. Take white phosphorous, for example... take a handful... hold it for a few seconds... you'll not like the experience, nor will you live to write about it. The infrastructure necessary to hold and transport elemental forms is 'not' practical... the cost to try to contain it is WAY out of reach for simple consumer fuel.

Now consider that hydrogen, while touted as a 'wonder fuel', will seek to become bonded with anything it can (+ oxygen = water... + many things = corrosion), but it's just one tiny molecule, so the resultant chemical energy output per-volume, is very low.

Carbohydrate fuels... Ethanol, Methanol... they work well for many things- my Grandfather traded his gasoline rations for farm materials during WW2, and ran his Waterloo Boy as a stationary sawmill engine... on wood alcohol... and aside from low power output and rather caustic and hygroscopic nature of it, he survived, as did the WB. The CH fuels have lower energy density- it's due to the strength of the chemical bonds, and quantity per molecule that break... that determines how much thermal energy is available.

Petroleum fuels are Hydrocarbon... the HC bonds are stronger, so when they split, they offer more heat energy on combustion... thus, more energy density per volume.

Here's something very simple to contemplate:

When you consider the amount of energy found in a gallon of diesel fuel, and the weight, complexity, and tolerances required to make it an 'effective', stable, maintainable and SAFE power source within the constraints of everything from manufacture to fuel supply infrastructure to maintenance and final disposal/recycling... then compare that to other energy-source concepts, you'll see why we still have it. It's like a hammer... 25,000+ years of human evolution, and a store now has 100+ styles of hammers, but they all operate on the same principle, and the user-interface hasn't been changed much, either... it is NOT without good reason.

Dan- Electric motors aren't 'more efficient' than a diesel engine-- they're simply incomparable... to do so, is logical fallicy... like saying all cats have four legs, and all dogs have four legs, so all cats must be dogs.

An electric motor's function is to convert electric energy into mechanical.

A diesel engine's function is to convert a liquid fuel (chemical energy) into mechanical.

In order to properly compare the two, one must start with the same prime energy source. An electric motor is totally inefficient at converting bacon grease into mechanical energy. A diesel engine is terribly inefficient at converting AC current into hay bales.

whew

I'm late to the party, but to me, John Deere seemed to phone a lot in. A post on the first page mentioned the 4520. I can elaborate on that:

We owned one since before I was born. Until last year, it was our only tractor. It doesn't hold a candle to our White (Basically, a warmed over Oliver). The 404 in there burned fuel at exponential rates. Our White uses about half the fuel, and pulls the plow much more smoothly- and it's rated for 15HP less.

The Deere Synchro-Range was actually a nice feature- forward to reverse without stopping. That said, ours tended to "lock" you into gears. We had to shut the tractor off in gear many times to get enough leverage to force it into neutral. I shutter at the thought of the PowerShift in a larger machine like that.

Serviceability was non-existent. Doing anything to the 404- which was often, was a nightmare. The rest of the machine wasn't any better. In fact, dealing with two of their machines- the 4520 and a 6600 combine, I doubt I'll ever purchase anything major from John Deere.

I certainly wouldn't pay the Deere premium so that I could have the privilege of operating a lesser machine.

Dave one other small point for you to consider if diesel fuel is soo much more powerful then hydrogen per volume then why does NASA use hydrogen and oxygen liquid fuel tanks to launch the space shuttle.   Surely there are diesel supplies they could have used in Florida.   
The answer is that a tank of liquid hydrogen and oxygen have alot higher energy density because each atom in the fuel tank is an atom the engine can use for power. Judging by the smell of diesel exaust there are alot of spare atoms in diesel that the motor didn't use. The argument that the bonds in hydrocarbons is stronger then the bonds of elements is wrong they are bonds of elements and the strongest bonds are always found in the things with the biggest bang when you break the bonds. Diesel fuel does have an advantage that it is very stable at room temp the same can't be said for the gas we all pump into our cars everyday.   Batteries are much more stable then gas.

Nope. That was long gone before we bought the tractor. Guess what killed it in the end.... engine problems, again!

Also, on the 4520, the PTO was 1000 only (At least on ours). Having to run everything at 1100 RPM made that thing almost useless average jobs.

Lithium Ion or lithium aluminum battery no nickel needed. Lithium is found on the earth surface in high plans deserts in central American the entire process of "mining" is to scoop up the sand and devolve the lithium out of the sand in water. Very safe to the environment.   Lead acid batteries are almost 100% recycled in the US and work pretty good for alot of off grid houses. Solar panels are now cheap enough to make that there are companies out there installing an array on your house for you and you pay them less per month then you save in your electric bill. Alternative fuels are becoming cost effective.   
As to the damage done drilling for oil just ask the people around the hydro franking wells where waste water from the process is being pumped into the ground causing earthquakes every few hours if they think this has improved their environment. The oil companies doing the drilling have admitted that they are causing earthquakes they just argue that the damage is already done and that you can't prove that their stopping will reverse the damage and stop the earthquakes so they see no reason to stop.   Or look at photos of LA in the 70s and major cities in china now to see if less Government regulations will improve our air quality and environment.   Oil companies only care about one thing using there investment in infrastructure to make the most money they can for as long as they can. Fossil fuel is on its way out it is just a mater of what will replace it who will profit from it and when.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/8864669/Cuadrilla-admits-drilling-caused-Blackpool-earthquakes.html
http://abcnews.go.com/US/oklahoma-admits-oil-gas-industry-responsible-dramatic-rise/story?id=30502267
Those are just the first couple of Google results from a search oil companies admitted responsibility for earthquakes looks like there is on proof of the same story NPR ran a few months back to me.

Cost of solar search first result I got is a company explaining how you can lower your electric bill by having the install panels on your house must be one of those left wing companies that loves to give money to everyone.   Why didn't I think of that.
Sorry it just really bugs me when someone defends the status quo by simply saying anything they disagree with leftist liberals wrecking things. If wanting to farm protect and pass on in better shape then i found it the property that my family fought for in the revolutionary war and has farmed ever since makes me a leftists liberal then I say ok I will be happy not to be one of the right wing sellouts to big business.   Worked for heartless companies that only cared about profit margins and would tell us at every quarterly meeting how there was no money for the employees for the about 10th year in a row but they where able to buy another company this year and had almost reached their goal of being a 1 billion dollar company. After 17 years of engineering for some of those companies and changing jobs every few years as the only way to get a raise. I would rather raise cows and try to get by without them. Funny how often when you tell your boss you found a new job they spend the next two weeks telling you how invaluable you are and offers for more pay all the sudden show up. Been there done that moving on now.

Lonn wrote: Deere had several duds back then The 5010, 5020 and 6030 come quickly to mind.

Lonn wrote: Deere had several duds back then The 5010, 5020 and 6030 come quickly to mind.

yep. those can all be over looked because the company is still around? right? in green world it sure can be!

oh and don't forget the whole 1010/1020 and 2010/2020 deal...

CrestonM wrote: Lonn wrote: Deere had several duds back then The 5010, 5020 and 6030 come quickly to mind. My granddad has a 6030 and it's a nice tractor, for a Deere. It'll sure pull!

They were duds around here. Too heavy which made them dogs and the engines weren't very reliable. Now if you get pump work and turn out 250 to 300 hp then they pull but you increase engine unreliability. A dairy farm near me had two 5020s (same as an unturned 6030), only two in the area, and they blew the engine on one after they turboed it to make it pull a chisel better. The other snapped the front axle off and I believe both are bone yard material now......... Could be one or both have been resurrected after the collectors drove their worth up.

Did you seriously just refer me to a UK telegraph story,as well as reporting from ABC and NPR...come on bud...you're gonna have to do better than that

This is why, Dan, these subjects need to be taken on over to the political forum. As soon as I saw the environment being brought up I knew it was going to get political. BTW I quit listening to NPR when they were spouting that only whites can be racist. I jest not!

It's not that I don't like your sources,its just those sources have been proven to be wrong more than they are right.Yes I watch fox news but I also work for an oil company that does acrual drilling, so when you cite life experiences, I tend to believe my experience with fracking can be better talked about than some left wing rag from England or a democrat controlled radio station that 10 liberals and one independent listen to.

Jwmac7060 wrote: It's not that I don't like your sources,its just those sources have been proven to be wrong more than they are right.Yes I watch fox news but I also work for an oil company that does acrual drilling, so when you cite life experiences, I tend to believe my experience with fracking can be better talked about than some left wing rag from England or a democrat controlled radio station that 10 liberals and one independent listen to.

Knowing that you work for a company doing this please feel free to debunk the report about a Oklahoma city town meeting if i am wrong and a rep for the oil company doing the drilling didn't say that or my understanding of how hydrofraking works is incorrect I am will to admit it. My comment about life experience was in reference to the fact that I have worked for big companies which only care about profit and nothing else. I personally feel oil companies have prove. Themselves to have the same mindset with that respect as the companies I worked as a engineer for over 17 years.
As to news casts fox cnn npr you name it they have all been proven wrong and of pushing their own agenda. It is very hard to find the truth.