digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at popularmechanics.com

Hydrogen Car Tester: Chevy Fuel Cell Car Better Than Prius

popularmechanics.com — Indeed, the Equinox is no slouch when it comes to performance. The first few times I put my foot to the floor, the torque of the electric motor really set me back in the seat. I really was impressed —and that’s coming from a guy used to driving a V8 Jeep Grand Cherokee (yes, I know it gets terrible gas mileage).

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • guillebravo6, on 07/02/2008, -1/+13Chevy is trying to make a comeback, they ware also coming out with the Volt.
    • JQP123, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2The Volt is on the right track and has potential in my judgment.

      The Equinox FCEV does not for a number of reasons --- the most obvious being the lack of re-fueling stations.

      The re-fueling station for an all electric vehicle is called an "outlet" and most people already have one in their garage.
      • CptCoolguy, on 07/04/2008, -0/+0What if you live in an apartment?
      • JQP123, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1"What if you live in an apartment?"

        Uhhh, run an extension cord outside?

        The point is that electricity is a universal energy source with an extensive production and distribution system already in place. Once there is demand for it, apartments can easily add secure outdoor "refueling" stations for electric vehicles. The electric meter is already outside in most cases, tapping into it involves minimal expense.
    • hoodratthangs, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2So their comparing a hydrogen fuel cell to a hybrid vehicle? Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that like comparing the 1st gen iPod to the iPod touch and saying the Touch is better? I mean come one, of course it is! It damn should be better if its new technology.
      • onelikeseabass, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1*they're
      • EtherGnat, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1No, it's not like your example at all. In fact it's ridiculous to compare the two at all. The Prius is a car that's already available on the market and is well suited to today's infrastructure. The Equinox fuel cell vehicle is still in testing, uses a fuel that is not readily available, and has a number of drawbacks: 140 mile range, fuel cells that are only good for 50,000 miles, 1/3 the efficiency of pure electric vehicles etc..

        The only thing the author said was better about the Equinox was that it is more quiet.
  • Luigison, on 07/02/2008, -1/+15But how much will it cost?
    • oscargamble, on 07/03/2008, -2/+10I've heard six figures. Better to stick with a used car that gets good mileage and ride a bike when possible.
      • stk198323, on 07/04/2008, -2/+1WOW your such a dumb ass! Six figures... sure thing now GM would release the equinox at a price higher then the Z06 corvette... I also hears toyota will release the prius for half price if you ask them...

        Stupid import fanboy's.
    • yngtimmy, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1The Volt will supposedly be $50,000. (OUCH?)
    • apeweek, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2A fuel cell car is an electric car (including batteries) with a fuel cell and H2 tank on top. So it will be more expensive (and heavier) than an EV with the same range.

      The Equinox weighs about 4800 pounds - almost twice as heavy as the Tesla, for example.
      • stk198323, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Comparing a SUV to a 2 place sporter car... WOW!
      • apeweek, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1Okay, compare it to the Toyota RAV4 EV, then, which is an electric SUV. The point is the weight. For a given weight, an EV will have more range than an FCV. It has to. The FCV is an electric vehicle, with added hardware.
  • mmilton, on 07/03/2008, -23/+2Hydrogen fuel is a dumb idea. I met some design engineers at GM who told me that if the hydrogen tank explodes it will create a crater in the freeway 2 lanes wide. I said, "what would cause it to explode?" They said getting rear ended.

    Can you say Hindenburg? A shopping mall parking mall would be the perfect place for a terrorist threat. Stop promoting hydrogen. It's too volatile.
    • canewediggit, on 07/03/2008, -6/+1well if the people at gm are so damn smart how come their stock price hasn't gained any value in the last 50 years?

      that's like saying art shell told me my offensive scheme is stupid and would never work.
    • Rudegar, on 07/03/2008, -3/+2they worked out how to not have hydrogene in fuild form a long time goe
      they can store it in metal now

      but they still have to solve it burning when being exposed to water when in metal form
      where it of cause also take up much less room then in fluid form
    • Kanele, on 07/03/2008, -5/+0GM is a failure, let's hear what they say
    • Seanseritz, on 07/03/2008, -2/+2Hydrogen technology is also super expensive, not affordable by most people, and it still requires energy to make the hydrogen gas and does not take any huge strides in efficiency.

      While this is the same for electric cars as energy is needed to charge the batteries, at least electric cars don't explode though (unless the battery is made by dell : ) ). Electric is also affordable.
      • MaynardJK, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3Dell's exploding batteries were made by Sony.

        Just picking some nits :)
    • spxiii, on 07/03/2008, -1/+15Hindenburg didn't explode. Also, gasoline is not exactly the safest fuel, yet we can't get enough of it.
    • sonoran, on 07/03/2008, -1/+11What a crock! If you *really* spoke to GM engineers and they told you that, it's no wonder GM's on the verge of bankruptcy. The only chance of having an significant explosion with hydrogen is by releasing the gas in a small enclosed area. When hydrogen gas is released in the open it travels upward at about 35 mph, since it's much lighter than air. You can't contain it long enough to make it explode in the open. Gasoline vapors on the other hand are heavier than air and build up to an explosive point easily. Hydrogen in the "tank" is kept in chemical combination with a metal, usually lithium, as lithium hydride, not combustable, not explosive.
      • lead2thehead, on 07/03/2008, -0/+0People said the same thing about gasoline.
  • LiquidFusion, on 07/03/2008, -16/+9And they'll still find a way to ***** this up.
  • remety, on 07/03/2008, -17/+3It is still unreliable American junk.
  • ChaseLudwick, on 07/03/2008, -1/+18good to see an American car company working on alternative fuels. We need to see more of this happening in the future to restore our slouching US sales.
    • 0xbaadf00d, on 07/03/2008, -0/+6It shouldn't be a surprise, GM has spent far more on hydrogen fuel cell tech than any other car company.
  • davewashere, on 07/03/2008, -2/+19It's comparing apples to oranges. The Prius is a gasoline-powered hybrid. Isn't the Equinox fuel cell concept/prototype hydrogen based, meaning that it can only be fueled at a few public fueling stations in the country? The infrastructure is already in place for the Prius, while tens of billions of dollars would need to be invested to make hydrogen as common at gas stations as gasoline is.
    • Twee, on 07/03/2008, -0/+10You can fill it up if you're a rich asian living in the city of Irvine, CA.
    • prisoner24601, on 07/03/2008, -2/+8Honda's Hydrogen Home Energy Station is a perfect solution to this. Put it in your garages and plug it into your natural gas line.

      The oil industry is terrified that future hydrogen vehicles will kill NO ONLY their *product* business (oil/petroleum) BUT ALSO their *services* business (local filling stations.) The constant sniveling drone of "there's no infrastructure for hydrogen" is straight from the boardrooms of the oil companies. It has not basis in reality. Natural gas gets to your *home* already and is easily converted. Electrolysis (powered by solar, wind, whatever) of water is a straightforward process. It's only that oil is so easy and cheap that we keep using it, not at all that there are problems using hydrogen. As gas prices go up, even the arguments based on price start to go away.

      Don't fall for the ignorant "infrastructure" argument. You can make hydrogen anywhere you can get water to. In case you haven't noticed, that's pretty much every single home in the modern world. The infrastructure problem is a lie.
      • MScrip, on 07/03/2008, -2/+2Also, if everyone switches to tiny 3 cylinder 80 mpg cars, the oil industry is screwed too... except for work trucks and 18 wheelers.
      • marx2k, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2Um, passenger vehicles are only one aspect of the oil business. Although it's a somewhat large part, there's also other types of travel (airlines, for instance), there's petroleum manufactured goods, trucks, etc...
    • JQP123, on 07/03/2008, -2/+3"Put it in your garages and plug it into your natural gas line."

      And watch dumbfounded as the price of natural gas soon starts to climb.
      • MissMyZDtv, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1we really need home solar powered H2O cracking. Use sunlight over the course of the day to split H2 from O, and pump it in a tank in your garage. Refuel when you get home... Won't work for everyone. My wife drives 260 miles a week to work, I drive 40 miles a week to work. Probably more reliable for me than her...
      • JQP123, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1"we really need home solar powered H2O cracking."

        Fuel production/distribution is just one of many problems with hydrogen. The fuel cells themselves are way too expensive (the catalyst is usually platinum) and they don't last very long. The best fuel cell is still less efficient than a battery. Since a fuel cell vehicle is ultimately electric, it makes more sense to just store and use the electricity directly and forget all about the conversion to/from hydrogen.

        In way you look at, there are better alternatives than hydrogen.
  • liquidfirex, on 07/03/2008, -3/+20Now we just have to build an entire infrastructure based on transporting hydrogen, and discover a way to create it cleanly.
    Or we could just use electricity.
  • glucoseboy, on 07/03/2008, -3/+6Nice, where's my nearest hydrogen station? Oh, about 400 miles south of here.
  • djm19, on 07/03/2008, -10/+4Its still a crap Chevy.
  • BESTenemy, on 07/03/2008, -5/+2"Chevy Vader"
  • jaredcat, on 07/03/2008, -0/+8It might be closer than you think...

    http://www.hydrogenassociation.org/general/fueling ...
    • lazn, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3My question is what would converting to all Hydrogen vehicles do to greenhouse gas emissions?

      Water Vapor is already the biggest greenhouse gas by a huge margin, no matter who's numbers you use.

      Hydrogen powered vehicles emit Water Vapor, isn't adding to the worst problem a bad idea? Carbon Dioxide is a smaller % of the greenhouse gas problem.

      Does anyone have any research into this? I have looked and looked and can't find it.
      • jaredcat, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1chicken little?
      • stk198323, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2I have a breaking new's for you about that green house effect of water vapor.

        Some scientist made some incredible measurement and they came to the conclusion that...

        Water vapor get's condensed back to the earth crust when rain happen!

        Crazy ***** right?
    • marx2k, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Solution: feed vapors through a condensing chamber.
  • DDMX, on 07/03/2008, -10/+6American Cars > Foreign Cars
    • bproven, on 07/03/2008, -3/+3LOL - I think you have a typo there. Nice try though...
    • sublimemm, on 07/03/2008, -3/+7I agree. My Honda (built in the midwest (except the motor)) is much better than any mexican/candian Ford or Chevy...
      • FairDinkumMate, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2I just love that you think your Honda is an American car!

        So except for the engine, design, planning & importantly PROFIT from the sale of your car, the rest is American.
    • LowFuel, on 07/03/2008, -0/+5I think it's actually:

      Good Cars > Bad Cars
  • Raider007, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3not to rag on it because i'm all for alternative fuels and developments... but that being said, hopefully an SUV can pull harder and feel like it has more power than a economy car... i mean really is that even something to compare?
    • stk198323, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Yes it is,

      Look at the number's, the SUv doesnt even put off 150hp for a gigantic beast like that one compared to the prius!
  • RegalGSX, on 07/03/2008, -10/+4GM and Ford will eventually go out of business to make way for higher quality import cars.
  • SpaceDreamer, on 07/03/2008, -1/+3"better"?
    Better at what?
    price? range? performance? efficiency?
    • Seidoger, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1" Chevy Fuel Cell Car Better Than Prius "

      Besides, this is comparing apples with oranges
      One is electric, one is gas with electric assist (standard 'old-generation' hybrid)
  • DiggGeek24, on 07/03/2008, -4/+2Introducing the Chevy Equinox starting at $100,000.
  • digitallysick, on 07/03/2008, -6/+1But its a Chevy what type of quality can we come to expect from a brand that touts hybrid suvs at 20 mpg as a selling point..
    • Tourney3p0, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3All of their hybrid offerings are larger with greater towing capacity than the Toyota Highlander hybrid, which only gets about 22 mpg.
  • curtisag, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2My Honda Civic Hybrid gets 50 MPG easily as long as I stay at 60 mph on the freeway. It's the opposite of the Prius, it uses a small efficient gas engine primarily and electric motor assist to go up hills or accelerate. Breaking or slowing down charges the battery.
    • Tourney3p0, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1It's been a couple of years, but the Civic Hybrid I drove was an absolute nightmare. I'm not a religious person, but I found myself praying while attempting to merge onto the interstate. We got about 50 mpg at first on the interstate, but after about an hour and a half of interstate driving it dropped down to the low 20's. I don't really see why anyone would go with the Civic over the Prius.
    • kimgh, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1As the owner of 2 Prii, I don't see that this is quite the "opposite" of a Prius. The Prius uses a small efficient gas engine (with Atkinson, rather than Otto, cycle), and uses a pair of electric motor-generators to assist in acceleration or up hills, and to charge the battery in cruise or for regerative braking. Actually sounds about the same. I think the main difference is in how the gas engine and motor-generators connect to and transfer power to the drive train. I believe the Honda is a parallel system, while the Prius is essentially a combination parallel/serial system, through the use of the unique power split device.
  • LegoLooney27, on 07/03/2008, -1/+3After putting up a somewhat large initial investment, you could easily create your own hydrogen fuel. Don't whine about the hydrogen fueling station being 400 miles away...
    • JQP123, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1"After putting up a somewhat large initial investment, you could easily create your own hydrogen fuel."

      No thanks!. I think I'll just continue to buy gasoline and wait for a practical, efficient, low cost, all electric vehicle ... while laughing at idiots who spend 6 figures on a stupid hydrogen SUV and that much again to create their own re-fueling station.
    • Allibaster, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1Are you kidding? It is a HUGE refinement process!
    • apeweek, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Or pull the dumb H2 tanks out of your fuel-cell car (it's an electric car, after all), and just plug the darn thing in.
  • BESTenemy, on 07/03/2008, -2/+11A decade old GM EV1 fitted with Li-Ion batteries (instead of the lead-acid it was bundled with) goes the same 160 miles. Why do they have to re-invent the wheel when a perfectly good alternative already exists. Also, over hydrogen production, compression and storage, electrochemical alternative provides much greater efficiency.

    Electricity is used to make hydrogen only to be converted back into electricity through inefficient fuel cells? A good battery retains 85-95% of the original energy input. Hydrogen cycle efficiency is 30% at best with the current technology. I'd rather invest into research that would deliver cheaper batteries than deal with hydrogen.
    • rironin, on 07/03/2008, -1/+6They don't want to re-invent the EV 1. They killed the EV 1 and all the other electrics on purpose. Hydrogen is just the faux-solution that's "only ten or so years away" (like it was ten years ago) that was foisted on the public to take their minds off the actual, immediate promise of electric vehicles.

      The only way hydrogen cars will ever become popular is if
      1) We run out of oil, and only after paying top-dollar for every last drop and destroying the environment to get it.
      2) Oil companies corner and control the market for Hydrogen fuel.

      Until then, the oil companies that first touted hydrogen as the "real" alternative fuel solution have no need to actually deliver on whatever promise hydrogen might hold. They will stall and delay until the last possible moment.
      • BESTenemy, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3 Exactly. Electrolysis is not going anywhere, being less than 50% energy effective. The best way to get hydrogen currently is out of natural gas, coal and oil, which means the access to cheaper hydrogen is in the hands of those that are running oil.

        In terms of fuel distribution infrastructure, hydrogen is also the closest item to gasoline. Same gas stations ran by same companies can distribute new fuel. God forbid for any of us to ever charge our cars at home!

        Here in California the law that made EV program possible was a regulation that demanded car manufacturers made a certain percentage of cars emission-free. The loophole was that it said nothing about having to sell those cars to the general public. Hence, the failed EV program. Few people were smart enough to lease them and simply not give the cars back, going though piles of paperwork to keep using them legally.

        Today the best way to go is to do conversions from gas cars to electical. Costs less than 10K for an average project, but the problem is that cars modded are mostly made of metal and that eats away efficiency. Carbon fiber composite structure is the best for electric cars, but making something like that at home and having it street-legal is next to impossible.
      • brad3378, on 07/03/2008, -2/+1According to:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1#Co ...
        each EV1 cost the General Motors about US$80,000

        I think this was a pretty damn good reason to kill the EV1
      • apeweek, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2"...each EV1 cost the General Motors about US$80,000 "

        A little insight into auto pricing. Every new model car costs big bucks. Ford's Mondeo, for example, had a $6 billion development cost.

        What happens, assuming the auto company wants a successful car, is the price is set where it brings maximum return from sales. Then, you sit down and figure out how far down the road your development cost gets repaid. Need more returns? Do some advertising, or streamline production some more. (The EV1 was never even assembly-line built.)

        You don't set your price by dividing $6 billion by your first production run, and then act dismayed nobody buys your car. (Or *pretend* to be dismayed, for the press.)

        Once development costs have been incurred, it's water under the bridge. You're not getting it back. You might as well sell the car, even with a slim profit margin. Crushing all your cars causes returns from sales TO GO TO ZERO.
    • KLowD9x, on 07/03/2008, -0/+4Dude, it was the NiMH cells that allowed the car to go 160 miles to a charge.

      Lithium cells gave the car a range of over 300 miles and could be charged to 85% capacity in 10 minutes!

      Fuel cells, hydrogen, bio fuels are a scam. The technology is here now for a proper battery electric vehicle.

      We don't need the oil companies but they are screwing us over and forcing us to buy vehicles that run on THEIR fuels!

      This has got to stop!
      • brad3378, on 07/03/2008, -1/+210 minutes?

        I'm calling ***** on that one.
        220 volts * 1/6 hour (10 minutes) * 30 amps (unrealistic) = 1.1 kilowatt hours.

        (assumes 100% efficiency)
      • apeweek, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2Not sure, but he may be talking about Altairnano batteries. They can be charged in 10 minutes, from a special high-power charger (not the kind of thing you can have in your garage)

        The poster is correct that the EV1 used NIMH batteries, which gave a range of about 150 miles. I am not aware that lithium batteries were ever tried in an EV1 - they were all crushed before the Li-Ion tech really emerged.

        Based on relative energy densities of the battery technologies, though, a 300-mile range would have been plausible.
      • KLowD9x, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1You do realize that a 220 volt outlet can supply up to 3 kilowatt hours, right?

        Also, I'm not talking about your typical home charger here (those are 1-6 hours, depending on setup). I'm talking about very high current chargers that can pump out 250kw.
      • brad3378, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1I stand corrected - bury me.
        I had no idea batteries could withstand that much power without melting.

        Our Metal Foundry @ my former school could melt large blocks of aluminum with "only" 50,000 watts.

        This website supports your argument:
        http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/01/phoenix_mo ...

        I can only suspect that they use a high voltage low amperage approach to transfer that much energy without causing a meltdown whereas our foundry probably used a high amperage low voltage approach to melt metal.




      • KLowD9x, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Oh no, you can't just force a whole lot of voltage onto a battery pack, it will damage the cells. ESPECIALLY lithium cells. It is very high amperage and a very controlled voltage to prevent battery failure.

        The EV I helped build would get about 200 volts into it's 156 volt traction pack (which, in my opinion was way too high, I would have liked to see about 180 volts). Of course, this was also on a 115volt circuit.
    • digid, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Why do you argue that we need ONE solution? We can have both. Everything we know about alternative energy applied on mass scale is completely theoretical. Until we actually try and fail we will never know what works the best. What's your solution for evacuating Gulf/East Coast from a hurricane when everyone has an electric car? Tell everyone to move? I would love to have an electric car for my daily commute it would satisfy 90% of my driving but I am not against hydrogen at all. They can both complement each other.
      • KLowD9x, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Hydrogen has already failed.

        It failed when we started using natural gas fuel cells and horribly inefficient electrolysis systems to produce the hydrogen. It failed when the oil companies became the self appointed suppliers of our fuel.

        You know what is going to happen? The same thing that is happening now. We are all going to take it up the rear because it is the only thing we can do to get where we have to go to make the money that we will be giving the oil company execs.

        Why waste our time with a technology that is "10 years away" when we have a solution now!?
  • swordedge, on 07/03/2008, -2/+5That this guy was surprised by the torque of an electric motor shows lack of research/education. The type of electric motors used to propel cars are not only powerful, they have several times more torque at 0 RPM then the rating. This is why the Tesla can out accelerate far more powerful gas cars.
  • juliehardman, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2Honda FCX Clarity is way better!

    http://www.cellounge.com/2008/04/17/2009-honda-fxc ...
    • PimpinOnWelfare, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2*FXC
    • CptCoolguy, on 07/04/2008, -0/+0***** rip off of a Prius. It looks exactly the same. Also, why does a hybrid have to look like it is from the future.
  • Suzilla, on 07/03/2008, -0/+4"... drive a weekend loner (sic) hard ..." (first paragraph)

    I guess it just doesn't have the same electricity when you're by yourself.

  • nedzalife, on 07/03/2008, -3/+2I want to see crash tests from all sides of the vehicle to ensure I won't be driving something that will explode like a bomb when it's in an accident.
    • krazykid, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Gasoline is more explosive than hydrogen.
  • iofthestorm, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2Except how you can buy a Prius now, and not this. But it's nice to see other companies work on alternative fuel sources and increased efficiency.
  • Brian48216, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2I would hope a next generation car would be better then a car that's running on 5 year old technology. Wake me up when he compares it to Honda's Clarity.
  • paulsabo, on 07/03/2008, -6/+4Tests Confirm Commonly Known Fact: Chevrolet makes better cars than Toyota.
    • 99butcher99, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1
      By whom? I would take a Toyota over a chev any day. They just have better production values, better resale values and last longer.
      • truck87bp, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1By whom, well that would be Toyota and Honda....Honda says GM's sheet metal kicks ass and they aren't anywhere near GM. Chevy Malibu gets better mileage than Camry and fit and finish is also better than Toyota.
        GM is charging...the American public and Digg woke up the sleeping giant.
    • CptCoolguy, on 07/04/2008, -0/+0paulsabo - from what I have experienced as well as read, I wouldn't consider that to be a "Commonly Known Fact", or even a fact at all!
  • dagamer34, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2A concept car being better than something in production? AMAZING!
  • srodolff, on 07/03/2008, -0/+6I'm holding out for the Canyonero Hybrid.
  • BryGy, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Dugg for the sound clips! It sounds like a steampunked small jet engine with all the valves clicking and blowers going.
  • Allibaster, on 07/03/2008, -6/+2Hydrogen fuel-cell powered vehicles sound attractive at first, but there are some major issues. 97%-99% of the gas that causes global warming is water vapor(the byproduct of a hydrogen fuel cell.) The amount of energy it takes to produce and refine pure hydrogen is ridiculous. Also, there's the problem with the fuel infrastructure, be we'll have to deal with that eventually anyway. In the end, it's not much better than fossil fuels.
    • atbnet, on 07/03/2008, -1/+3You know what happens when there is too much water vapor in the air? It rains you dumbass!
      • Allibaster, on 07/04/2008, -2/+1Pure ignorance. Do some research.
    • apeweek, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2While I agree that fuel cell technology is largely a waste of time (compared with electric vehicles), the water comment is misinformed.

      Present day gasoline vehicles create water vapor as well - it is a byproduct of all hydrocarbon fuels. If anything, assuming FCVs are more efficient than gas vehicles, the net amount of water vapor would decrease, not increase.
  • paker, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2I'd only have to drive from Tampa to Orlando to fill up my hydrogen car.
    • digid, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Or they could just build a station in Tampa.
  • Evildudetx, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Another waste of time and money. I'll stick with my Harley and get 50 mpg and not wonder where the hell my next fill up is going to happen.
    • CptCoolguy, on 07/04/2008, -0/+0Your Harley may be fuel efficient but it doesn't mean it is environmentally freindly.
  • Fratz, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Did anyone listen to the audio of the car starting up? http://avmedia.popularmechanics.com/audio/ChevyEqu ... I really hope that ~16kHz whine is an artifact of the mp3 compression and not a part of the normal engine operation. That would rule that engine out for me.
  • 99butcher99, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1these cars are at least 5-10 years away from production. They have major problems. No where to fuel up is minor compared to no practical way to store enough hydrogen to actually make a trip anywhere.

    There was a good electric car available that worked and worked well. It was loved by the people who drove it. Now chevy is taking years to bring out a new improved version that will probably not see the light of day until they are forced to sell it.
    There is just no money in selling automobiles. The money is in the service of these autos. Electric=no service and little follow up so it becomes a one time deal.
    • digid, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Yah because electric devices never have problems
  • beauley, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2There have been many attempts to design an electric powered vehicle for as long as the the internal combustion engine has been around. Unfortunately, battery power was never a formidable contender to the present internal combustion engine, but it looks as though the future looks more pronising.
    http://www.gomestic.com/Consumer-Information/The-E ...
    The Electric Vehicle, is It the Answer?
  • rjt69, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Ammonia is used in almost every state for fertilizer so there is already an infrastructure for Ammonia and multiple people have developed ways to efficiently extract. Hydrogen from Ammonia.

    http://www.chiefengineer.org/content/content_displ ...
    • apeweek, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Extracting hydrogen requires energy. This makes hydrogen an energy carrier - like a battery. You will not get more energy out than what you put in, just like any other battery.

      Unfortunately, this particular battery is not very efficient, and also requires a large infrastructure and complicated processes. Better to stick with existing battery technology research.
    • digid, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Most ammonia is created by using natural gas. They extract hydrogen from natural gas and then react it with nitrogen. Why would we use hydrogen to create ammonia and then extract the hydrogen back out from ammonia?

      Honda has a hydrogen home filling station that would hook into your natural gas line and basically extract the hydrogen the same way they would for creating ammonia. Except now you wouldn't really need to create the ammonia you would just use the hydrogen.

      The problem is that natural gas is non renewable as well and a lot of people are against importing liquified natural gas because of the disaster scenarios of an LNG ship or port blowing up.
  • MacNyce, on 07/04/2008, -2/+1The Prius is better because it actually exists, you can't buy a Chevy electric car so who cares.
  • MrFurious2k, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2Hydrogen could complement a future energy strategy based on Nuclear power and other alternative energies. As everyone here knows, there is energy loss in producing hydrogen. It's sort of like a battery in that it is basically a storage medium for energy. You’re going to have to get the energy from somewhere to produce hydrogen and that’s probably from the power grid.

    From what I understand, nuclear power plants produce the same amount of energy all the time. At night, costs are less because there is less demand on the system but in the case of nuclear plants, there is essentially a loss of energy since they continue to produce the same amount. This “lost” energy could be diverted into hydrogen production thereby storing it (albeit in another form). This hydrogen then could be shipped to distribution centers (gas stations?) for sale to the general public.

    In addition to nuclear power, things like wind turbines could be used to produce hydrogen. At night wind turbines could shuttle off their unused power to producing hydrogen as well (instead of batteries). In this sense, we might be able to better utilize the power we’re currently generating and reduce demand for oil. Of course, in order for this to work, we’d have to adopt a strategy of hydrogen fuel cells, nuclear power, and additional wind farms.

    Finally, hydrogen cars make sense because like gasoline they have the potential for greater range, a faster “refueling” period, and with the right infrastructure, more convenience for refueling. If GM can answer some nagging questions (both technological and marketing-wise) and politicians get past their fear of nuclear power, we could really have something here.


  • RegalGSX, on 07/04/2008, -1/+0That's right, bitches. You have no reply to that because you know it's true. ***** America. The world has outgrown America. I am American and even I know that. I can't wait for us to die.
  • savagesteve13, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1The fuel cell car is a fraud perpetrated by the oil industry on us all. They have pushed governments to avoid battery technolgies while subsidizing fuel cells, fully knowing that:
    1) Fuel Cells will never be cheap
    2) Hydrogen fuel has limited range
    3) Fuel cells are highly sensitive to weather conditions

    This is a cynical way for the industry to keep their business from being handed over to the coal and nuclear industries (electricity providers to charge battery powered cars), and a way to look-eco friendly and give the false impression that they really want to keep the planet clean and reduce pollution.
  • star7, on 07/04/2008, -0/+0A concept car being better than something in production!
    http://www.autonovosti.com.ua
  • JQP123, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1"What if you live in an apartment?"

    Uhhh, run an extension cord outside?

    The point is that electricity is a universal energy source with an extensive production and distribution system already in place. Once there is demand for it, apartments can easily add secure outdoor "refueling" stations for electric vehicles. The electric meter is already outside in most cases, tapping into it involves minimal expense.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.