Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Hydrogen Cars Won't Make a Difference for 40 Years
wired.com — President Bush, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the big automakers agree on this much: They love hydrogen-powered fuel cell technology and its promise of a zero-emission, petroleum-free future.
TalSiach- 572 diggs
- digg it
- jon30041, on 05/12/2008, -6/+19Ok, and if we don't start it now then it won't be making a difference until 2100. So, know what? Put more money into it, damnit. 1,000 new low-emission vehicles in 2012? Yeah, THAT'S a big ***** difference.
Damnit, all they're doing is paying lip service to zero-emission vehicles.- fudsak, on 05/12/2008, -2/+6You are obviously not an engineer. 1000 new low-emission cars in 4 years?
- grumpyrain, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4You know the International Engine of the Year awards have just come out.
BMWs new 2L Diesel is amazing. At 150 KW, this is no sloth, yet it manages 5.2L/100km (~45MPG) and passes the Euro emissions requirements. A wholesale changeover of technology to PHEVs needs to happen, but improvements in efficiency are also necessary to minimise our dependency on oil in the near future.- N00F, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2When highway driving, I typically get 5.1 L/100km in my 2006 Jetta wagon. Typical speed is kept at 110 Kph.
- grumpyrain, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4My parents have an 07 Jetta (diesel) and yes they are very good cars, but you will find the power to be in the 75 - 80KW range. In fact I was very seriously considering a Skoda Octavia (has the same engine) but settled on the Subaru. The (VW) engine has a mountain of torque so you still get pushed against the seat, but next to the BMW it does not have the same performance. Simply put, you need to be in a V6 or have a turbo before you start getting to the 150KW levels in most cars. This one gives you that grunt in something that would shame the fuel economy of most non hybrids.
- N00F, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1You must live in Europe or the U.K. If so, you have the advantage of a wide selection of diesel cars at your disposal. Here in Canada, We have VW or the little Smart car. That's it! I have had my Jetta Turbo upgraded a bit and love it. Wish I could get one of the V6 diesels though.
- grumpyrain, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Australia actually. Diesels (as passenger cars) are still reasonably rare. Subaru haven't got a diesel boxer on sale here yet. Btw, the BMW diesel I mentioned isn't a V6 - it is a flat 4, which makes 150KW particularly impressive. My Liberty (badged Legacy in other markets) is only 127KW and it has quite reasonable performance, but I could only dream of sub 7L/100km in this car.
Again, the VW diesel is quite a good motor and the Jetta is a very practical car (love the boot/trunk), but the BMW engine is just something else. - N00F, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Wow, that BMW sounds very exciting. There has been rumors of BMW bringing an oil burner to Canada, I will keep my fingers crossed. I do know that Audi are bringing a good number of their diesel engines to Canada, starting this fall. I used to have an A4 and will probably give them a serious look. Test drives will be a must.
What is the price of fuel where you are now? Here in Ontario, Petrol is about $1.22 a liter and Diesel is $1.33 a liter.
- grumpyrain, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4My parents have an 07 Jetta (diesel) and yes they are very good cars, but you will find the power to be in the 75 - 80KW range. In fact I was very seriously considering a Skoda Octavia (has the same engine) but settled on the Subaru. The (VW) engine has a mountain of torque so you still get pushed against the seat, but next to the BMW it does not have the same performance. Simply put, you need to be in a V6 or have a turbo before you start getting to the 150KW levels in most cars. This one gives you that grunt in something that would shame the fuel economy of most non hybrids.
- N00F, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2When highway driving, I typically get 5.1 L/100km in my 2006 Jetta wagon. Typical speed is kept at 110 Kph.
- fatrandy13, on 05/12/2008, -5/+5the problem is that Bush gets criticized for not taking a strong enough stance on the environment. Then when he wants to put some money into the research and development of hydrogen fuel cells, they still need a way to criticize him.. Its a lose/lose situation - not just for him..
these ignorant "liberals" (i use that term loosely) are praying for drastic undeniable global warming. They don't care about it actually happening, they just want to be able to point fingers and stroke their own ego's- sk11, on 05/12/2008, -2/+5That's like giving people two crap options and then whining when they aren't happy. Hydrogen fuel cells are decades away as a viable tech and have numerous problems associated with them. Research would be better spent on viable, renewable sources of energy, such as thin film solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, etc.
Electric cars were a reality and had good potential until they were scrapped completely for dubious reasons, even though demand was very high.- fatrandy13, on 05/12/2008, -3/+6i'm sorry but simply saying that the development of hydrogen fuel cells is a "crap option" is just blatantly ignorant
- qwertydvorak, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2actually it is a crap option. all of the platinum in the world is only enough to replace all of the current cars on the roads with hydrogen fuel cells one time. then it is gone.
a good article on the rarity of many important metals:
http://www.science.org.au/nova/newscientist/027ns_ ... - EtherGnat, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3Hydrogen doesn't solve any of our fuel problems. It's just another way to make energy portable. Electric vehicles actually require significantly less electricity to operate than hydrogen vehicles, which are quite inefficient.
- Nerys, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Well I have to say there IS one single good thing about hydrogen cars. It puts electric cars on the road all we have to do is rip out the useless pointless fuel cell and replace it with a battery pack. The LFF NIMH patent chevron is sitting on expires in 2015. After that they can not stop the production of these EV batteries any longer.
- grumpyrain, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2Actually fuel cell vehicles are all EVs. A fuel cell is a just a type of battery, and a horribly inefficient one at that.
It is a white elephant, the only advantage fuel cells would have is that a quick roadside recharge would be a very similar process to refueling a petroleum vehicle. If appropriate R&D was made in battery technology, this could be quite unnecessary. - sk11, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Exactly,hydrogen fuel cells mean we'd still rely on companies providing "refuelling" stations, creating a dependence. Just having battery packs would mean we could recharge at home, work or where ever there was an electric outlet. We just need to put more funding into improving battery efficiency and recharge time.
- qwertydvorak, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2actually it is a crap option. all of the platinum in the world is only enough to replace all of the current cars on the roads with hydrogen fuel cells one time. then it is gone.
- fatrandy13, on 05/12/2008, -3/+6i'm sorry but simply saying that the development of hydrogen fuel cells is a "crap option" is just blatantly ignorant
- MWeather, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3"the problem is that Bush gets criticized for not taking a strong enough stance on the environment. Then when he wants to put some money into the research and development of hydrogen fuel cells, they still need a way to criticize him.."
Of course we do. He wants to get the hydrogen from OIL! And he used the program as an excuse to cut research on efficient IC engines.
It's a loose/loose situation for US. Either way we're stuck with oil, but at least with more efficient IC engines, we can see some sort of a difference in the short term.- Nerys, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Lets see. Hydogen cars. the equivalent of a "gallon" of H2 is going to cost $7 to $8 and that "gallon" will net us the equivalent of 35 miles to the gallon. EXACTLY how is this a good deal for me already getting 30+ mpg? sounds to me like its going to cost me a very expensive new car that will cost me TWICE AS MUCH to run every day??? HOW is that NOT a loose loose situation ???
Know what it will cost me to drive an electric car 200 miles (with NIMH batteries) if it were possible for me to buy one? $2
Know what it would cost me to drive that car if I stuck a $1000 nano solar panel on the roof and $1600 grid tie in in the garage?
NOTHING. EVERY AGAIN.
And you wonder why people are SOUR on hydrogen WHICH IS BTW just an ELECTRIC CAR without the good aspects that a battery pack gives to it. It still makes you a damned SLAVE at the fuel pump to pay any damned price they demand.
UPS paid a million dolllars for software to avoid left turns. In the first YEAR they saved 3 million dollars in gasoline! NOW consider this. that 3 million is NOTHING IMPORTANT. what you should really be wondering right now is this
If they saved 3 million dollars JUST avoiding left turns JUST HOW MUCH DO THEY SPEND IN GAS A YEAR !!!
Imagine if they and all other companies never had to buy gas again. I bet the FIRST YEAR of savings in gasoline would pay for the electric conversion if the market was not gimped intentionally. If it cost GM $4500 to SELL the E95 (ie thats what YOU would have paid for it) 10 years ago what would it cost today if production was ramped up to a global scale? I think it would have been a $500 battery today. Even $4500 is worth every penny. UPS might need say 6 or 7 of these in each truck (I really do not know guessing here)
Maintenance costs? vanish. Break downs? Vanish. Fuel Costs ? Vanish! REPAIRS!! virtually vanish!!
Unemployment would likely go away almost completely. America would save so much money it would be like a new golden age as never seen before. The first MASS transfer of wealth BACK into the hands of the people. - fooljoe, on 05/12/2008, -0/+0i wonder what a tight/tight situation is like
- Nerys, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Lets see. Hydogen cars. the equivalent of a "gallon" of H2 is going to cost $7 to $8 and that "gallon" will net us the equivalent of 35 miles to the gallon. EXACTLY how is this a good deal for me already getting 30+ mpg? sounds to me like its going to cost me a very expensive new car that will cost me TWICE AS MUCH to run every day??? HOW is that NOT a loose loose situation ???
- sk11, on 05/12/2008, -2/+5That's like giving people two crap options and then whining when they aren't happy. Hydrogen fuel cells are decades away as a viable tech and have numerous problems associated with them. Research would be better spent on viable, renewable sources of energy, such as thin film solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, etc.
- Spuy767, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3Some of us operate on this assumption that if a HFC car comes out that it will instantly be owned the world over; this is simply not the case. It would take decades for a fuel cell car to propogate through even a majority of society if it was introduced tomorrow. There's a problem with a hydrogen car future. There is no infrastructure to fuel the cars, but people say, "We'll build the filing infrastructure when people are buying the cars." Meanwhile, people are saying, "We'll buy the cars when there is a fueling infrastructure." That is the root problem of any alternative fuel economy, readily available fueling options.
- Nerys, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2The root problem EXCEPT for electric cars. Last I checked the Grid was already in place. Just plug in. some of the new battery tech can 85% recharge the battery in 5-8 minutes about the same time it takes to fill an SUV tank today. You could not do this fast charge at home (well you can not fill your GAS tank at home now either ehh??) so fueling stations would install a new "pump" for high speed electric charging.
The infrastructure is already there. The wealthy people just do not want it because it would TRANSFER wealth back into the population.
- Nerys, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2The root problem EXCEPT for electric cars. Last I checked the Grid was already in place. Just plug in. some of the new battery tech can 85% recharge the battery in 5-8 minutes about the same time it takes to fill an SUV tank today. You could not do this fast charge at home (well you can not fill your GAS tank at home now either ehh??) so fueling stations would install a new "pump" for high speed electric charging.
- apeweek, on 05/12/2008, -0/+7Or drive a battery electric vehicle, which is much closer to reality than any fuel cell vehicle.
Hydrogen Fuel cell cars are electric cars - including batteries, since the fuel cell doesn't make enough current for the car to accelerate quickly. So take an electric car, and add a big fuel cell and H2 tank on top. This means an FCV will *always* be more expensive, heavier, and more complicated than a plain battery-powered electric vehicle. Oh, and it will always be less efficient, and more expensive to fuel than a plain EV.
The one advantage of H2 over batteries, fast fueling, is already solved with fast-charge batteries (google Altairnano.)
Once you've got a decent EV, why bother with the H2? The answer is that your local petroleum company would like something they can distribute to you, once you've said goodbye to gasoline. - jpnadia, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2They're paying lip service to anything that's not the Iowa farm caucus.
If the government diverted the funding that's currently going to corn farmers into green energy research, we'd have a better shot at some form of independence and maybe the farmers would grow products that would add value to the economy instead of reaping present-day benefits from an antiquated law. Wheat shortage, anyone?- Nerys, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2***** the farm industry. OK I got it. Send the damned corn to PECO and let them burn it to produce the power for my electric car. HOW ABOUT THAT. Grrrrr
- theholyraptor, on 05/12/2008, -6/+23Hydrogen uses more energy to produce and compress. Sure the vehicles don't make any emissions, but that just means more coal plants and other sources of electricity will pop up to support the new demand in electricity needed to supply the hydrogen. Hydrogen is just the next buzzword hung in front of the consumer to keep them waiting and relying on oil.
- CressCrowbits, on 05/12/2008, -2/+18So we need more efficient ways of generating the energy.
But to begin with, pretty much ANY way of generating energy is more efficient than the internal combustion engine.- Micropolis, on 05/12/2008, -6/+2Not true the combustion engine is one of the most efficient and that is why we use it and it is so hard to replace.
- apeweek, on 05/12/2008, -1/+8A combustion engine can approach 30% efficient on a lab bench - in the real world, it's hard to get 15 - 20% efficiency out of a gas engine. Efficiency can drop below 10% in city driving. How is this "one of the most efficient"?
Fuel cell electric vehicles are no as efficient as battery electrics, but they sure beat combustion vehicles.- Nerys, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2Really? $7 to $8 a gallon equivalent and 35 MPG equivalent is the quotes I hear coming out of FCV makers. HOW is that better than the $3.43 a gallon 35 mpg I am getting now exactly?
The most efficient ICE converts 50% of the combustion into physical motion. its cam shaft is 83 feet long and it burns almost 1700 gallons of diesel an hour. its the engine in one of those bigger than your house dump trucks they use at mining pits :-)
NO ICE currently in the hands of the average consumer gets anywhere even CLOSE to 30% your right apeweek 15% to 20% high end is about it. and that 20+% is for the diesels not the gassers.
Micropolis you are also right but you used the wrong word. Efficient is not the right word. CONVENIENT is the right word. Until recently gasoline WAS the most "convenient" way it putting energy in a tank to motivate a car. Convenience has nothing to do with efficiency :-)
Battery electrics are BY FAR the most efficient means of moving a car. light years ahead of any ICE. Even if it was the LEAST efficient I would want it for the PURE convenience factor. 100% clean 100% free if you put some solar panels on your roof and sell the juice back to the electric company. $2600 investment will be enough to accomplish this if Nano solar can get 90cent a watt panels into consumer hands.
- Nerys, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2Really? $7 to $8 a gallon equivalent and 35 MPG equivalent is the quotes I hear coming out of FCV makers. HOW is that better than the $3.43 a gallon 35 mpg I am getting now exactly?
- apeweek, on 05/12/2008, -1/+8A combustion engine can approach 30% efficient on a lab bench - in the real world, it's hard to get 15 - 20% efficiency out of a gas engine. Efficiency can drop below 10% in city driving. How is this "one of the most efficient"?
- Micropolis, on 05/12/2008, -6/+2Not true the combustion engine is one of the most efficient and that is why we use it and it is so hard to replace.
- mlavergn, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4Hopefully it means more nuclear, hydro, wind, tidal, solar, geothermal plants ... none of which have the massive downside of coal power. The other option is using battery / hydrogen hybrids. Battery tech is improving and may get to the point where for anything but trips over 100 miles, everything can run on batteries. The downside is that battery tech is still poor for northern winter months.
- MWeather, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Nuclear needs it's waste stored and guarded for 10,000 years, hydro destroys river ecosystems, and geothermal can cause earthquakes if we pump in water ourselves. Wind and solar are pretty side-effect free though.
- themajor, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Source for the geothermal - earthquake connection? I've never heard that one before.
- Nerys, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Cold climates "should" work out ok. WHen you plug the car it it will just need to "warm" the battery like you do with old diesels. Same for running them. Just need a slightly larger pack so some juice can be used to warm the battery. A fix will come once some REAL R&D dollars gets spent on it.
Coal does have one major advantage. its all homebrew IE NO foreign purchases all the coal we need is here. Even with PURE coal power pollution with electrics will be a FRACTION of what it is now. Also the "load" on the grid of electric vehicles is zero. we use more power right now to support out gas economy than the electricity that would be consumed by electric cars. It costs 8000 watts for the equivalent of 5 gallons of gasoline How many watts is consumed to get 5 gallons to your cars tank? I am betting its more than 8000 watts and this again ignores self production of power.
battery tech has been here for over a decade. Chevron bought it and refuses to license. the large format E95 NIMH batteries.
- MWeather, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Nuclear needs it's waste stored and guarded for 10,000 years, hydro destroys river ecosystems, and geothermal can cause earthquakes if we pump in water ourselves. Wind and solar are pretty side-effect free though.
- barnett25, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2The advantage of centralized energy is that as new fuel sources are developed, they can be implemented relatively easily. You don't have to change thousands of gas stations all over the country to the new fuel. Plus, if we can ever get nuclear working safe and efficient we can have nearly free power.
- PicoZico, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3We do have nuclear working safely, but the people who have convinced themselves that it is more dangerous than it really is yell pretty loudly whenever the issue is brought up, and usually fail to recognize it as a green energy.
- Nerys, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Well I do not consider nuclear to be green. MASSIVE amounts of heat pollution are added to rivers to keep them cool and you still have to get rid of that radioactive waste. Once we have a space tether it might be practical to toss it into the sun but till then its not overly safe or green.
FUSION nuclear now thats a green option :-) still have heat to worry about but at least no radioactive waste. - jackalsclaw, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1radioactive waste of 3rd generation nuclear plants is mostly recyclable or will be turned into inert glass in 25 year. the waste produced in a america is mostly cause 1st generation plants have been force to stay in operation for 40 years because no one want new plants to be built, even thought they are cleaner and safer.
as for heat polution, that is wasted energy, new plants collect most of it.
- Nerys, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Well I do not consider nuclear to be green. MASSIVE amounts of heat pollution are added to rivers to keep them cool and you still have to get rid of that radioactive waste. Once we have a space tether it might be practical to toss it into the sun but till then its not overly safe or green.
- PicoZico, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3We do have nuclear working safely, but the people who have convinced themselves that it is more dangerous than it really is yell pretty loudly whenever the issue is brought up, and usually fail to recognize it as a green energy.
- jerbaker, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3I'm interested in the fuel you propose that doesn't require energy to produce and store.
Keep in mind that all fuel is essentially a chemical battery. It is a way of storing energy. That energy has to come from somewhere. For oil it was the sun millions of years ago. For hydrogen it can be the sun and wind now. It doesn't have to be coal that produces the electricity.- grumpyrain, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2Of course all fuel takes (or did take at some time) energy to produce. The problem with hydrogen is that you can not just drill into the ground and extract some. It needs to be manufactured, either by applying energy to water, or by applying energy to some hydrocarbons like natural gas. It is also the least dense element in existence, so to store it in a portable way, it needs to be compressed or liquified and finally transported in much the same way as petroleum products are today (pipes and trucks).
There is nothing stopping us using renewable energy to source the hydrogen conversion. The real question raised is whether that is the most efficient way of using that renewable energy. The following article is still one of the best IMO at explaining the issue.
http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html
You are comparing an EV with ~70% efficiency (including grid losses) to a fuel cell vehicle with ~25% efficiency. Or in another way, you travel nearly three times further on the same amount of electricity using an EV rather than a fuel cell vehicle.- jerbaker, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2Of course using electricity directly is more efficient than using electricity to generate a fuel and then burning that fuel for energy. I don't think anybody with an understanding of physics questions that. The real question is of practicality. Even if electric vehicles are more efficient per unit of energy, who cares if you can only drive 50 - 100 miles on a fill up and when it takes 8 hours to recharge? If hydrogen will get you 200 miles to a tank and a fill up in under 10 minutes, then it's going to win regardless of efficiency.
- grumpyrain, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Actually I don't think inefficiency of the hydrogen process is understood by the wider community. Most people would be quite shocked to see that 75% of the electricity was wasted in the hydrogen process.
In terms of practicalities, fuel cells using titanium are going to be more expensive, and they will cost nearly 3 times as much to run due to their inefficiency plus more again to roll out refueling infrastructure. I agree that the EV as the only vehicle owned by a family is a long way off because of the charge time and limited range. PHEVs however are a different story. They are heavier (and hence less efficient around town) than EVs, but are just as convenient as todays petroleum vehicles.
95% of the time, your trips (if like mine) are well and truly within the range of a nightly battery charge. If I need to buy a tank of petrol or diesel when I go on holidays, that is fine by me.
- grumpyrain, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Actually I don't think inefficiency of the hydrogen process is understood by the wider community. Most people would be quite shocked to see that 75% of the electricity was wasted in the hydrogen process.
- jerbaker, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2Of course using electricity directly is more efficient than using electricity to generate a fuel and then burning that fuel for energy. I don't think anybody with an understanding of physics questions that. The real question is of practicality. Even if electric vehicles are more efficient per unit of energy, who cares if you can only drive 50 - 100 miles on a fill up and when it takes 8 hours to recharge? If hydrogen will get you 200 miles to a tank and a fill up in under 10 minutes, then it's going to win regardless of efficiency.
- grumpyrain, on 05/13/2008, -0/+2Of course all fuel takes (or did take at some time) energy to produce. The problem with hydrogen is that you can not just drill into the ground and extract some. It needs to be manufactured, either by applying energy to water, or by applying energy to some hydrocarbons like natural gas. It is also the least dense element in existence, so to store it in a portable way, it needs to be compressed or liquified and finally transported in much the same way as petroleum products are today (pipes and trucks).
- PicoZico, on 05/12/2008, -3/+1Also don't forget that H2O, the sole emission of these cars is one of the most potent greenhouse gasses out there. So, "charging" theses systems and running them could actually make for a worse environmental situation. This is why loads more research needs to be done before we start jumping on board these new technologies.
- apeweek, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Sorry, your point is completely invalid. Remember, H20 is the byproduct of burning gasoline, as well. And since FCVs are more energy efficient than gas vehicles, the total amount of H20 emissions would go down, not up.
- themajor, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Aside from being a greenhouse gas, H20 (more commonly called di-hydrogen monoxide) is flat out dangerous. In high enough concentrations it can cause asphyxiation leading to death. It can also be very harmful to (and even destroy) woodwork and other materials.
- apeweek, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Sorry, your point is completely invalid. Remember, H20 is the byproduct of burning gasoline, as well. And since FCVs are more energy efficient than gas vehicles, the total amount of H20 emissions would go down, not up.
- CressCrowbits, on 05/12/2008, -2/+18So we need more efficient ways of generating the energy.
- srg13, on 05/12/2008, -3/+12Has anyone worked out a method of generating hydrogen without causing even more emissions yet?
- tsotha, on 05/12/2008, -1/+16Sure. Nuclear, solar, wind, or biogas. You can make hydrogen gas from water as long as you have electricity.
- 4abtrlife, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Apparently Nicola Tesla, the Hall of Famer did back in 1906. But according to popular belief this was all suppressed by the oil companies. I mean if you think about the principal, it makes obvious sense. Technology is so high tech nowadays, and yet you can't get hydrogen out of water! Doesn't that sound fishy? You can extract out exact genes or even parts of genes from a whole genome that has like 30.000 genes, but you can't break water into hydrogen and oxygen the only two components with which water is made out of. That just doesn't make sense in the 22nd century. Nowadays they talk about MagneGas, and magnecules and microbursts of energy from the static field (check it out on http://www.water4gas-scam.com ), such is the power of hydrogen and yet they don't want to give it life for 40 years. It's absurd.
- korvan504521, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Anyone can get hydrogen from water. . . it just requires a simple process of electric current. Use a renewable resource to generate your electricity and you're fine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykBryrK2OrM - tsotha, on 05/14/2008, -0/+0Oh, I think electrolysis, or at least how to perform it, is pretty well understood by anyone who passes high school chemistry. The problem is the power has to come from somewhere. There's no point in using oil to make electricity which you then use to make hydrogen for vehicles - that's just a roundabout, inefficient way to burn oil in your car.
Electrolysis really only makes sense if all electric power production is non-oil based and there's a large enough surplus to produce hydrogen over and above the needs of the grid. I don't see any move in that direction, personally, but it could certainly be done.
- korvan504521, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Anyone can get hydrogen from water. . . it just requires a simple process of electric current. Use a renewable resource to generate your electricity and you're fine.
- 4abtrlife, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Apparently Nicola Tesla, the Hall of Famer did back in 1906. But according to popular belief this was all suppressed by the oil companies. I mean if you think about the principal, it makes obvious sense. Technology is so high tech nowadays, and yet you can't get hydrogen out of water! Doesn't that sound fishy? You can extract out exact genes or even parts of genes from a whole genome that has like 30.000 genes, but you can't break water into hydrogen and oxygen the only two components with which water is made out of. That just doesn't make sense in the 22nd century. Nowadays they talk about MagneGas, and magnecules and microbursts of energy from the static field (check it out on http://www.water4gas-scam.com ), such is the power of hydrogen and yet they don't want to give it life for 40 years. It's absurd.
- blackinthmiddle, on 05/12/2008, -3/+6Unfortunately, there's none that I know of. Look up the paragraph entitled "Hydrogen production cost" here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicle
There are other issues with hydrogen as well. Keeping it from freezing at lower temperatures and the fuel cell being fragile being two of them.
For now, there doesn't seem to be one solution to oil. However, I would LOVE for the president to put out a mandate that by, for example, 2025, 50% of new housing starts must use solar shingles. That and a little bit of government funding would reduce the cost to maybe a few extra thousand, instead of the $25K or more that it now costs. If we could at least run our homes on solar panel (as some do now), that would be a start. Basically, a multi-pronged solution MAY be the way to go.- MiNGLED, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Yes, just imagine id every new house had, by law, a solar panel built in when first built. The result? Millions of panel generating Gigawatts of power, which doesn't have to be sent miles down cables. Also mass production will drive the cost down making it suitable to most people to pick up a panel for a couple of hundred pounds/dollars rather than the thousands they are today. Won't solve all the energy problems but it will help a lot.
- jololli, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3mandatory solar panels.... that's a pretty good idea
- MattNF, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4Keeping hydrogen from freezing? Uh, Hydrogen doesn't even have a (known) freezing point. It's been brought close to absolute zero and it still hasn't frozen. Get your facts straight before you post random *****.
- blackinthmiddle, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Sorry, I didn't mean the hydrogen itself freezing. I was referencing this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicle#Free ...
- tsotha, on 05/12/2008, -1/+16Sure. Nuclear, solar, wind, or biogas. You can make hydrogen gas from water as long as you have electricity.
- aflaks, on 05/12/2008, -7/+12The hydrogen engines they are rolling out with today are extremely powerful. As top gear pointed out (and this time, their facts are straight), one engine is powerful enough to power an entire neighborhood, so unlike electric engines, performance does not go down.
Hydrogen does require energy to produce, but so does the extra electricity you use when you plug your electric car into the socket of your house at night.- carve, on 05/12/2008, -2/+6That was nonsensical. First of all, no automaker is producing hydrogen engines. Second of all, saying "one engine is powerful enough to power an entire neighborhood, so unlike electric engines, performance does not go down" made even less sense. The power any engine produces depends only on the capacity of that particular engine- not what fuel it runs on.
- blackinthmiddle, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4Do you have a link to what you're stating?
Yes, the electric car requires energy to product if your house is running on electricity from the grid. However, if your house is being run on solar power, you conceivably could also plug in your car and run that from solar power as well.
There are a number of people who have added solar shingles to their house. I'm too lazy (Edit: here's the link: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bgoodsel/solar/blog ... to look up a link now, but one guy I was looking at even charted his energy use and sometimes he'd go three months without drawing energy from the grid. Some months, he'd get so much sunlight that the excess was just wasted, as he had no more battery collectors to store it. I think the solution is to stay connected to the electrical grid for times when you go long periods with no sunlight (or snow on the roof, etc) and at least reduce our electricity (and thus, oil) dependency.
The key is to make the manufacture of solar shingles cheap. If houses were required to use solar shingles, the cost would go down. Alas, there *currently* doesn't seem to be one quick, easy solution. - tnoy, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4With Hydrogen, you're creating electricity to get hydrogen from water. You then need to transport that hydrogen to various locations. The you put the hydrogen to again produce electricity to drive electric motors.
Now, how is that better than just using electricity?
An oversimplified example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Battery_EV_vs._ ...- Nerys, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Nice thanks for that link!!
- goscript, on 05/12/2008, -5/+2No wonder Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger love hydrogen-powered fuel cell technology, as he's already used it in his movies
- 9bpm9, on 05/12/2008, -4/+8Unfortunately, experts say it will be 40 years or more before hydrogen has any meaningful impact on gasoline consumption or global warming, and we can't afford to wait that long.
And that's the problem with the world today, nobody wants to wait. The thing is, we can wait most of the time, but you always have crack pots telling us that we have to do something now, yet the only thing we can do is to do something that will help 40 eyars down the road.- OisinT, on 05/12/2008, -1/+5I agree... but I also think it's silly (as someone quoted in the article pointed out) to say that you should cut funding to hydrogen since it's not going to be viable for 40 years. Wouldn't it make more sense to increase funding so hopefully we can get it BEFORE 40 years?
Or am I missing something?- EtherGnat, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3I wouldn't say funding should be cut, but there are more promising options to focus our attention on.
- Nerys, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2Funding should be eliminated. IF i had the power I could put Battery Electric cars on the road inside 3 years. Here is how. Step #1 VOID chevron's patent on Large Format NIMH batteries and put it in the public domain.
Step #2 mandate that all major automakers must produce X% electric cars by X date (within 3 years) or they will NO LONGER be welcome to do business in this country. We have enough used cars to last a decade at least WE can outlast auto makers THEY WILL cave. Cars MUST be under $20,000
Step #3 the Carrot. Offer this reward to auto makers. The first 3 auto makers to meet the BEV guidlines (details later but basically 120mile drop dead range standard mid size 4 door sedan family car with basic features (heat air radio etc..) and 100,000mile warranty minimum on ALL electric components. for UNDER $10,000 and continue to improve and or lower cost. DO THIS by the 3 year deadline and your TAX FREE forever!. NO taxes of ANY kind would ever have to be paid by those 3 as long as they continued to produce and innovate. The tax revenue lost from those 3 companies would be NOTHING compared to the tax revenue gained by the prospering economy that would result.
THERE problem solved. We would have a massive infusion of electric cars within 3 years time. With the patent tossed into the public domain withing 2-4 years you would also begin to see mass CONVERSIONS of gas cars to electric. Converting a car to electric is actually CHEAP the only problem is drum roll the batteries :-) Stripping that patent SOLVES the battery problem.
THATS how you get solutions and results RIGHT NOW.
- OisinT, on 05/12/2008, -1/+5I agree... but I also think it's silly (as someone quoted in the article pointed out) to say that you should cut funding to hydrogen since it's not going to be viable for 40 years. Wouldn't it make more sense to increase funding so hopefully we can get it BEFORE 40 years?
- LokitheComplex, on 05/12/2008, -0/+5It would be nice of the governments, green groups and car industries could get together and make a few decisions on what to do. Like spending lots and lots on new energies and committing to replace fossil fuels. Even if you don't think they're running out, even if you don't think they cause climate change they still pollute hugely and are supplied by a politically unstable cartel.
- Nerys, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Wrong answer. The right answer is the PEOPLE to get together and set down some DEMANDS for the governments automakers etc..
If you leave the decisions to the governments and auto makers they will 100% of the time decide based on what is in THERE own best interest. NOT YOURS.- LokitheComplex, on 05/24/2008, -0/+1Well until "people" arrive I guess we are stuck with governments, NGOs and corporations.
- Nerys, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Wrong answer. The right answer is the PEOPLE to get together and set down some DEMANDS for the governments automakers etc..
- FuckXboxx, on 05/12/2008, -8/+8As long as anything resembling the current US government exists, the paradigm will never shift.
- blackinthmiddle, on 05/12/2008, -2/+3I'm not sure why you're getting dugg down. Does anyone really feel that Bush wants us off oil?
- PicoZico, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2Well his Crawford Ranch IS a model of environmental living, running on geothermal, if I remember correctly. So maybe he does, but he's just using some ol reverse psychology on us. Okay, probably not, but his ranch is pretty damn efficient.
- Nerys, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2NO. HE wants off oil because he is not stupid. HE WANTS US on oil so he can profit from it. THERE IS a difference. IIRC one of the first things bush did on getting into office was to REMOVE the solar panels from the whitehouse. Why?
- fooljoe, on 05/12/2008, -0/+0People love to bring up how Al Gore's house is a big consumer and Bush's ranch runs on geothermal or whatever. Who the ***** cares? How about pay some attention to the policies they had/have the power to enact that affect BILLIONS of people and actually matter?
I'm sure plenty more people would get rooftop solar in the coming years if Bush didn't threaten to veto any energy bill with an extension on solar tax credits. But oh, he must be *green* because he uses geothermal on his ranch and loves to talk about the hydrogen scam. ugh.
- PicoZico, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2Well his Crawford Ranch IS a model of environmental living, running on geothermal, if I remember correctly. So maybe he does, but he's just using some ol reverse psychology on us. Okay, probably not, but his ranch is pretty damn efficient.
- blackinthmiddle, on 05/12/2008, -2/+3I'm not sure why you're getting dugg down. Does anyone really feel that Bush wants us off oil?
- sylved, on 05/12/2008, -7/+11A switch to a hydrogen economy is the solution to our carbon based climate change & related health issues. Burning carbon - in any form - by definition - has no future. Anyone who thinks otherwise is in denial. To produce clean hydrogen, we should encourage local nuclear, wind, geo-thermal, tidal, and solar electric generation. A hydrogen based economy should be a clear sole global objective.
- carve, on 05/12/2008, -0/+12Then you won't have a hydrogen economy- you'll have a nuclear, wind, geo-thermal, tidal, and solar electric economy. For the last time, HYDROGEN IS NOT AN ENERGY SOURCE!
- EtherGnat, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4To be fair (or maybe pedantic) hydrogen is an energy source. The problem is there's not any significant amount of pure hydrogen out there we can easily gather up. We have to separate it from water or other sources and that takes more energy than the hydrogen produces.
- Nerys, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2STOP SAYING THIS. I want to smack everyone who says this. BY YOUR definition there is no such thing as an energy source. Technically they are energy mediums. WAYS OF MOVING energy. Hydrogen does this just fine. Its just NOT cheap and NOT efficient and its ANTI CONSUMER.
By the time you create enough electricity to make enough hydrogen to go 100 miles you have ALREADY MADE enough electricity to go 1000 miles in a battery electric car!
THATS the problem.- EtherGnat, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1Huh? Did you mean to reply to me? I agree with you.
- Nerys, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2STOP SAYING THIS. I want to smack everyone who says this. BY YOUR definition there is no such thing as an energy source. Technically they are energy mediums. WAYS OF MOVING energy. Hydrogen does this just fine. Its just NOT cheap and NOT efficient and its ANTI CONSUMER.
- EtherGnat, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4To be fair (or maybe pedantic) hydrogen is an energy source. The problem is there's not any significant amount of pure hydrogen out there we can easily gather up. We have to separate it from water or other sources and that takes more energy than the hydrogen produces.
- OisinT, on 05/12/2008, -1/+7I absolutely agree! Now the problem is that big oil is in bed with the government and they won't be ready to switch to hydrogen or magic pixie dust even until THEY control the infrastructure and supply of hydrogen. They're not going to lose profits.
- scamerica, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4You nailed it
- fooljoe, on 05/12/2008, -1/+0big oil already controls the supply of hydrogen and it wouldn't be that much of a chore to add h2 pumps at your local filling station. of course it'd be ridiculously expensive and guess who gets the costs handed down to them? YOU! big oil and the pols they support are the biggest fans of this h2 farce.
- blackinthmiddle, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2I don't get it. How's switching to nuclear, wind, etc., going to help with the hydrogen economy?
- carve, on 05/12/2008, -0/+6Think about where hydrogen comes from. It isn't a replacement for oil. IT IS NOT AN ENERGY SOURCE. It only stores energy produced somewhere else, and the cleanest ways to produce it would be nuclear, wind, etc. But it would take a MASSIVE amount of that kind of energy since hydrogen is so inefficient to produce, especially compared to charging a battery.
- Nerys, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1YES IT IS. It just takes more energy to produce than GASOLINE. OH wait you thought that gasoline jumped into your tank via pixie dust? Where do you think the energy in gasoline COMES FROM.
- carve, on 05/12/2008, -0/+6Think about where hydrogen comes from. It isn't a replacement for oil. IT IS NOT AN ENERGY SOURCE. It only stores energy produced somewhere else, and the cleanest ways to produce it would be nuclear, wind, etc. But it would take a MASSIVE amount of that kind of energy since hydrogen is so inefficient to produce, especially compared to charging a battery.
- carve, on 05/12/2008, -0/+12Then you won't have a hydrogen economy- you'll have a nuclear, wind, geo-thermal, tidal, and solar electric economy. For the last time, HYDROGEN IS NOT AN ENERGY SOURCE!
- 533n, on 05/12/2008, -3/+7Considering our children's children have to live in this world for a lot longer than 40 years it seems worth it
- Nerys, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2Fine then you go pay $8 a gallon for hydrogen netting only 35mpg. NO THANKS count me out.
- korvan504521, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1well, my truck gets about 17, and at the rate we're going we'll be paying 8 bucks a gallon for gas by 2010.
And before you tell me to ditch my truck, i'm in construction and use it at work.
- korvan504521, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1well, my truck gets about 17, and at the rate we're going we'll be paying 8 bucks a gallon for gas by 2010.
- fooljoe, on 05/12/2008, -1/+0an investment in our children's future is certainly a good one, but what about the question of whether or not this is the RIGHT investment??? end all subsidies on oil companies and stop funding bogus h2 research and the most economical solution will emerge a lot sooner than 40 years from now. spoiler alert - the clear winner is battery electric cars and plug-in hybrids for those long distance drivers, especially when coupled with rooftop photovoltaic. this is an economical solution TODAY, not 40 years from now (if only you could actually buy an electric car). and this DESPITE government hindrance as our duly elected thieves waste money on this h2 scam.
if the goverment is picking technological winners, then we're all losers.
- Nerys, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2Fine then you go pay $8 a gallon for hydrogen netting only 35mpg. NO THANKS count me out.
- goscript, on 05/12/2008, -11/+5Also don't forget how dangerous hydrogen is. You are basically turning your car into a bomb on wheels.
- OisinT, on 05/12/2008, -2/+4That's a total myth.
- Callik, on 05/12/2008, -2/+7Good point. Lets stick to that totally non-flammable, non-volatile petrol instead.
- OisinT, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2lol yeah... cars are ALREADY bombs on wheels!
- goscript, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3You probably don't realize how powerful hydrogen is.
- Nerys, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1You probably have NO FRAKING CLUE how hydrogen works. DID YOU EVER ACTUALLY WATCH the hindenberg event on video? GO WATCH IT. what does the hydrogen DO. it goos WOOSH and UP. Know what killed most of the people on hindenberg? HINT not hydrogen and NOT fire. 100+foot falls tend to be pretty damned fatal.
Hydrogen is magnitudes safer than gasoline. If I had no choice but to immerse myself in HYDROGEN and light a match or immerse myself in gasoline and light a match.
TAKE A WILD GUESS which I would not only pick but likely walk away with nothing but minor injuries from.
My problem with hydrogen is not safety its COST. its too damned expensive and inefficient. I have ZERO interest in $8 a gallon 35mpg equivalent fuel.
- Nerys, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1You probably have NO FRAKING CLUE how hydrogen works. DID YOU EVER ACTUALLY WATCH the hindenberg event on video? GO WATCH IT. what does the hydrogen DO. it goos WOOSH and UP. Know what killed most of the people on hindenberg? HINT not hydrogen and NOT fire. 100+foot falls tend to be pretty damned fatal.
- Callik, on 05/12/2008, -2/+7Good point. Lets stick to that totally non-flammable, non-volatile petrol instead.
- 4321234, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1The steam power fans used to say the same thing about the internal combustion engine.
- fooljoe, on 05/12/2008, -0/+0and they were right
- OisinT, on 05/12/2008, -2/+4That's a total myth.
- carve, on 05/12/2008, -3/+5That's a good thing- hydrogen is less efficient than batteries.
- heystoopid, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3There is no quick fix solution and never has been and never will be , the industry is playing all for suckers whilst maintaining the rigid old ways unto the death by promising gold at the end of the circle which has no start or finish line !
But if six and half billion people start taking small steps in the right direction then it will make a difference !
Alas , some people will always put profit before logic as they cannot count past one and look beyond "Me , Myself and I" in world where greed is absolute in a century where propaganda has ruled the mass media in the first decade absolutely !- carve, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1You're absolutely right! You should prove it by opening your own hydrogen fuel station! You could be one of those 6 billion people moving in the right direction, trying to make a difference. Be part of the solution! Sure...you probably won't see a customer for a few years, and then you may only see a couple of customers per month, but who is going to buy a hydrogen car in your town if there is no fuel station? . Or, are you only concerned with profit and "Me, Myself, and I".
Does it sound different if it is your own money? - Nerys, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Nothing is more important than me myself and I. anyone who says otherwise is a moron or deluding themselves. You can not "help the poor" or "save the world" if your dead.
hydrogen is a criminal CON of the american people.
You know I really hate this god damned force is strong with you wait a few minutes crap. Grrrrr
- carve, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1You're absolutely right! You should prove it by opening your own hydrogen fuel station! You could be one of those 6 billion people moving in the right direction, trying to make a difference. Be part of the solution! Sure...you probably won't see a customer for a few years, and then you may only see a couple of customers per month, but who is going to buy a hydrogen car in your town if there is no fuel station? . Or, are you only concerned with profit and "Me, Myself, and I".
- CressCrowbits, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3Would it be too much to ask for all taxes paid on fuel and energy be fenced off to pay for development on more efficient forms of energy production and fuel?
Also, this stuff affects everyone, internationally. How about a more international body to work on this new technology for everyone? Or is current research more designed towards patentable, profitable technology which won't get shared out like it needs to be?- floorman56, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4Would it be too much to ask for all taxes paid on fuel and energy be fenced off to pay for development on more efficient forms of energy production and fuel?
Yes it would ...Those taxes are used to pay for bridges and roads - LokitheComplex, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3If its done internationally then it should be cheaper and the risks are shared. I wish the green groups would get real and commit to technology rather than some medieval wonderland. Most still seem to be play the "raise awareness" game. The issue is wider its about monopolies, air quality and national competition. They need some opt in international agency that groups could commit to. It would open source the science and technology, run x prizes, try out technologies.
- floorman56, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4Would it be too much to ask for all taxes paid on fuel and energy be fenced off to pay for development on more efficient forms of energy production and fuel?
- jontalisman, on 05/12/2008, -1/+12Translation: This won't happen until we're set up to maximize profits on selling hydrogen to consumers.
- robthom, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2^^Exactly. But you can say it till your blue in the face and lemmings will still ignore you as long as a rerun of american idol is on tonight.
- carve, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4Your guys are right. Profits be damned! You two should prove how unimportant profits are by opening your own hydrogen fuel station! Sure...you probably won't see a customer for a few years, and then you may only see a couple of customers per month, but who is going to buy a hydrogen car in your town if there is no fuel station? . Or, are you only concerned with profit? We're right behind you, now get out there and lead! Be somebody! Don't be a lemming.
- Nerys, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2Its not about profits man. Its about WHO GETS the profits. Its about distribution of wealth. Currently about 90%+ of the worlds wealth if owned by less than 2% of its adult population. This is a pretty serious UNBALNCED distribution of wealth.
Battery electrics would not ELIMINATE profit. They would just "transfer some of it" back to the people and away from the major corporations. IE it would redistribute some of that wealth BACK to the other 98% of us. Within a few years I could even see unemployment vanishing!! We would be VERY prosperous compared to what we are now. NOTE I said WE not the top 2% of the corporations.
Car companies would still make money. Just not as much. Oil companies would be severely downsized if not many of them eliminated (I am just fine with that) They can either move on or die.
WE as a population would SOAR. Business expansion would explode. Eliminating the need for OIL for our cars and trucks would infuse over a trillion dollars yearly BACK into the economy!!!
Just think what that would do. Imagine if you could put $2600 in solar panels and grid tie in equipment in your garage and NEVER AGAIN have to pay even ONE PENNY to drive your car.
JUST IMAGINE what that would do to our economy! Now granted it would CRUSH the economy ... of the top 2% but the economy of the lower 90% of us would explode into a new golden age.
ME ALONE! I would save $3500 or more a year in gasoline!! and thats even if the thing only has a 75 mile range !!! at my desired goal of a $10k electric car (very possible and still profitable) it would be FREE in 3 years. the solar and tie in free 8 months later. After that less than 4 years I am driving anywhere I want for absolutely NOTHING and 100% pollution free
Add on being nearly everlasting and virtually maintenance free.
YOU decide.
OR go with the $8 a gallon 35mpg Hydrogen CON JOB
- Nerys, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2Its not about profits man. Its about WHO GETS the profits. Its about distribution of wealth. Currently about 90%+ of the worlds wealth if owned by less than 2% of its adult population. This is a pretty serious UNBALNCED distribution of wealth.
- misfit410, on 05/12/2008, -5/+4Here is proof that you global warming cultists have no idea what the hell you even believe.
With the greenhouse effect CO2 makes up less than 8% of the effect, 10% on a really good day.
Man Made CO2 makes up less than 4% of that 8-10%
but Water Vapor however makes up 50-80% of the effect.
so what do you do? get behind Hydrogen and say "it's only byproduct is WATER"- carve, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3Water condenses and falls back to the ground. Also, the primary exhaust component of ANY engine is water. You can see it dripping out of your tail pipe or in big billowy clouds on a cold morning. I think you've been listening too many conspiracy theory radio shows.
- randumbusername, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1the point is someday people will be complaining about excess water vapor and how it's destroying the environment. trends don't have to make sense to become trends.
- 4321234, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2You don't have to deny global warming is real any longer. It is no longer party policy. The directive came straight from the top. Exxon.
- PicoZico, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1No logical person denies global warming, they simply call into question the source, asking for the source to be determined definitively before we move ahead with excessive spending to fix something that may not even be a problem.
//Learn your enemy- Nerys, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Who cares about the source? Electric cars ELIMINATE our vehicular contribution to it. Reduce waste Reduce costs and is nearly free to drive. What is the downside? They are cheaper better faster long lasting. What downside is there? sure early on they will have short range but thats ok. My commute to work is 53 miles each way and I can charge at work. How many of you have a longer commute than that?
- PicoZico, on 05/13/2008, -0/+0R&D, especially when subsidized by the government can have a negative influence on our economy if it turns out that all the R&D won't actually change anything if the source of global warming turns out to be nature.
The source is a big deal. Anyone who claims not to care about the source is a cynic and has turned a scientific issue into a political or, worse, an emotional one.
- PicoZico, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1No logical person denies global warming, they simply call into question the source, asking for the source to be determined definitively before we move ahead with excessive spending to fix something that may not even be a problem.
- carve, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3Water condenses and falls back to the ground. Also, the primary exhaust component of ANY engine is water. You can see it dripping out of your tail pipe or in big billowy clouds on a cold morning. I think you've been listening too many conspiracy theory radio shows.
- robthom, on 05/12/2008, -2/+2Bush loves something that would cut into texas oil profits? Thats so stupid that I'm not gonna read the article.
- Shao00, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4Listen hydrogen can be distributed just like oil, it is currently produced by fossil fuels and they don't have to worry about it running out. That's why all these guys are getting behind it.
- Nerys, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2No they are getting behind it because they can CONTINUE TO FLEECE YOU AT THE PUMP FOR IT.
- Ultomato, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1This is true... electric cars are the future
- Shao00, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4Listen hydrogen can be distributed just like oil, it is currently produced by fossil fuels and they don't have to worry about it running out. That's why all these guys are getting behind it.
- HolyJuan, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3The best time to start designing a hydrogen car is 40 years ago. The second best time to start is today.
- fooljoe, on 05/12/2008, -0/+0the real best time is never, just like the real best time to design an ICE car. the best design, the electric car, was made 100 years ago, we just need to start using it.
- ElAssoWipo, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4What a load of crap.
"In the meantime, fuel cells are diverting resources from more immediate solutions."
No they aren't. There are many alternatives being studied, fuel cells are one of them. And the government is mostly investing in ethanol, not hydrogen.
And I'll tell you who'll decide which alternative it will be: auto makers.
When some car company finally makes a car that doesn't cost an arm and a leg, can compete with a fossil fuel engine, can last as long as a tank of gas and that doesn't look hideous: that alternative will sell and that'll be it.
"In the short and medium term, however, other technologies offer far greater benefit at far less cost: Cleaner internal combustion engines, hybrids and plug-in hybrids."
Hybrids that sell well: no hydrogen car until we run out of oil.
If we keep buying fossil fuel cars, hybrid or not, they will exploit it and maximize their profit, because that's the purpose of business.- carve, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Yeah...they aren't diverting resources. All automakers have limitless R&D budgets, don't they?
- ElAssoWipo, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4I'm sorry, the subject of this article is the government, not automakers.
Automakers aren't investing a dime in hydrogen.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story ...- carve, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1OK...fine...believe it or not, the government doesn't have an unlimited R&D budget either.
- ElAssoWipo, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1It doesn't have any R&D budget.
It uses incentives like taxes and subsidies to help companies spend more on R&D. - carve, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1So, NASA, the National Renewable Energy Lab, Los Alamos and Sandia national labs, and Air Force Research labs aren't government R&D?
- ElAssoWipo, on 05/12/2008, -0/+4I'm sorry, the subject of this article is the government, not automakers.
- carve, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Yeah...they aren't diverting resources. All automakers have limitless R&D budgets, don't they?
- corryface, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1maybe instead of bush pumping a load o money into invading iraq to secure all this oil, he could have spent it more wisely and funded a ***** load o research projects for this hydrogen power and maybe we'd all have cleaner ar to breathe and more money to spend.
- PicoZico, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1So he secured gas and prices went up and all the parties involved kept their mouths shut. Someone doesn't understand supply and demand.
Yes, our going into Iraq was a mistake, but it wasn't about oil.
PS: We get most of our oil from Canada...Iraq is only number 10.- Nerys, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1The point of going to iraq.
Patriot Act I
Patriot Act II
Mill Comm Act 2006
Signing Letters
Warrantless Searches
Terrorism Laws
Homeland Security
Need I say more? THOSE are why we went to war with iraq. WITHOUT said war they would NOT have been able to pass those bills.
- Nerys, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1The point of going to iraq.
- PicoZico, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1So he secured gas and prices went up and all the parties involved kept their mouths shut. Someone doesn't understand supply and demand.
- griffeycom, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3All I know is that Honda's Clarity, is a pretty sweet car:
http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/- carve, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3If that is all you know, you should probably try to learn more about hydrogen
- tbechtx, on 05/12/2008, -0/+3You are so jaded! We have to start somewhere. This "won't make a big difference so we should just blow it off and do what we've been doing for the last 60 years" is exactly our country's problem. We need to start and start now. If it is not H powered cars then something else but, SOMETHING!
- Nerys, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Electric Cars powered by Batteries. THAT IS the solution. Cheaper Faster Less maintenance longer lasting 100% clean potential.
- zacharytelschow, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3When are people going to realize that the answer is a shift in the way we design cities and keeping things within walking distance rather than figuring out different ways to move cars?
- 4321234, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Yep, upgrading the powerplants in our cars is years away and prohibitively expensive. In the mean time, let's just get new cities.
- Nerys, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Screw that. I HATE CITIES. I live near philly. I DREAD anytime I have to go near the nasty place. I LIKE living outside the city. I DO NOT WANT to change my lifestyle. I want auto makers oil companies and governments to stop fleecing me for it.
Electric cars means we can KEEP out lifestyle without ANY penalties at all.
- davbmn68, on 05/12/2008, -2/+5I hate to rain on everyone's parade, but if you do a little research the most efficient way to recover hydrogen at the moment is... yes you guessed it oil refining. So if you think your gonna free us from foreign oil by going to a Hydrogen car, you're hopes are misplaced.
That being said we're on the right track, we just need to find a more efficient way to extract hydrogen from water or another compound.- ATLien74, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2I'm not saying it's the answer, but Kanzius discovered a new way to perform electrolysis by accident by blasting salt water with radio frequencies. It's pretty cool: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kKtKSEQBeI
- apeweek, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2It is interesting, but still energy-neutral. You won't get more energy out of this (or any other) system than what you put into it.
- ATLien74, on 06/24/2008, -0/+1Exactly.
- apeweek, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2It is interesting, but still energy-neutral. You won't get more energy out of this (or any other) system than what you put into it.
- ATLien74, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2I'm not saying it's the answer, but Kanzius discovered a new way to perform electrolysis by accident by blasting salt water with radio frequencies. It's pretty cool: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kKtKSEQBeI
- JustinTX, on 05/12/2008, -1/+2You don't have to put a fuel cell in a car to make it run on hydrogen. Any existing internal combustion engine can be modified to burn hydrogen. Witness the BMW hydrogen 7. Hydrogen can start making a difference a lot sooner if we'd just do it. We could retrofit a large portion of our existing fleet. Even us classic car guys could have our cake and eat it too. I dream of a '67 Camaro Z28 with a DZ302 and a 4 speed that runs on hydrogen.
- fooljoe, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1and why would you want to run an ICE on hydrogen? because gasoline isn't expensive enough for you? a much better solution if you're in love with an ICE is natural gas.
- JustinTX, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1I'll admit to being in love with the ICE. My heart yearns for elaborate old mechanical monsters with 8 chambered hearts pumping ferociously away. They make a wonderful noise. Natural Gas/Propane is an attractive option, but unfortunately is not nearly as clean as just burning hydrogen.
I merely mention burning hydrogen in traditional cars as a possible (relatively) smooth transition to the hydrogen infrastructure. A way to get hydrogen to make a difference sooner rather than later, if at all.- fooljoe, on 05/15/2008, -0/+0thanks for replying. it seems your intentions are noble, but if you looked at the numbers you'd see that the goal of a hydrogen infrastructure is simply not a worthwhile goal. this is simple physics, not something that you can throw tax dollars at and magically fix. it takes an enormous amount of energy to produce, compress, deliver, and store that hydrogen before that last clean burning step in your car. yes, that energy could, in theory, be produced by solar/wind/etc, but the facts are that for the foreseeable future, it's not. and since energy, however produced, is becoming increasingly scarce, we can't afford all the wasteful losses of a hypothetical "hydrogen economy".
I'm not saying we should just continue doing what we're doing, I'm saying there's a better alternative: battery powered electric cars. With a given amount of electricity you can either split water to make hydrogen, compress it, transport it, then convert it back into electricity with a wildly expensive platinum fuel cell, OR you can just fill up the battery in an electric car and drive 5 times as far. hydrogen is a lot of extra effort for lesser results!
I mention using CNG because in the near term it's cheaper than gasoline, domestically produced, already has an infrastructure, and in fact is cleaner than hydrogen when you look at all the emissions produced getting that hydrogen to your tank. and even though you still get CO2 when you burn it, if the CH4 were released into the atmosphere instead it'd be a much more powerful GHG. - JustinTX, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1Battery-electrics have the problem of having to have a battery. Battery technology isn't there yet. They are expensive, only last a few years (at best), and have to be disposed of properly.
There are technology hurdles to overcome either way. There has been a lot of work on the electrolysis techniques as well as storage. I'm not against battery-electrics but I want my "green"-'67 Camaro Z/28 to have a real 302ci small block... not an electric motor... and no CO2 emissions! :D
(Of course I also want my solar panels and my wind turbine to make the hydrogen that fuels it and be totally self-sufficient and "off-grid", but I'm a dreamer.) - fooljoe, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1I vomit a little in my mouth every time I hear someone parrot the GM party line that "battery technology isn't there yet." do some fact-checking instead of just repeating what the auto/oil industry and the MSM says. try starting with the battery-electrics made during the ZEV mandate in california that are STILL ON THE ROAD TODAY.
that's right, cars with 10-year-old battery technology, like the toyota rav4-ev, quietly plod along, making liars of GM and others on a daily basis. many have topped the 100,000 mile mark and still have seen no battery degradation, not to mention almost zero maintenance along the way.
get the proof of this at www.evnut.com. click on rav4 ev then owners to see the cars and their drivers and read of the 100k mile club, and think twice next time you take a GM press release as fact. these people prove every day that the only hurdles for EVs to overcome are political, not technological.
anyway, of course if you want to keep your small block you're not going to be putting in batteries, but I reiterate that CNG is a much more practical solution than hydrogen for your situation.
- fooljoe, on 05/15/2008, -0/+0thanks for replying. it seems your intentions are noble, but if you looked at the numbers you'd see that the goal of a hydrogen infrastructure is simply not a worthwhile goal. this is simple physics, not something that you can throw tax dollars at and magically fix. it takes an enormous amount of energy to produce, compress, deliver, and store that hydrogen before that last clean burning step in your car. yes, that energy could, in theory, be produced by solar/wind/etc, but the facts are that for the foreseeable future, it's not. and since energy, however produced, is becoming increasingly scarce, we can't afford all the wasteful losses of a hypothetical "hydrogen economy".
- JustinTX, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1I'll admit to being in love with the ICE. My heart yearns for elaborate old mechanical monsters with 8 chambered hearts pumping ferociously away. They make a wonderful noise. Natural Gas/Propane is an attractive option, but unfortunately is not nearly as clean as just burning hydrogen.
- fooljoe, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1and why would you want to run an ICE on hydrogen? because gasoline isn't expensive enough for you? a much better solution if you're in love with an ICE is natural gas.
- frosted, on 05/12/2008, -3/+2Hydrogen is a pipe dream. There is NO INFRASTRUCTURE to support hydrogen. It would have to be built, it's a scam, like the monorail. It will never be built. The best technology will be the kind that does not change the infrastructure significantly.
- 4321234, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Like water, electric and phone grids. The internet, the transcontinental railway and communication satellites. Those things are nice pipe dreams, but they'll never happen.
- EtherGnat, on 05/12/2008, -1/+4Hydrogen isn't the answer, but any solution to our energy needs is going to require a significant change to our infrastructure.
- Nerys, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Really? what change would electric cars need? (SIGNIFICANT change as installing a high amp charging pump at local gas stations is NOT a significant or even expensive change)
- EtherGnat, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1You forget the power grid is part of our infrastructure as well. It would need to be massively upgraded over time to support a nation of electric vehicles, not to mention the fact we have to switch to renewable energy to really make a difference. Our aging power grid is barely able to meet current needs sometimes. Other changes, like charging stations at places of employment, shopping, and lodging would be quite helpful as well. I'm a huge propenent of electric vehicles, but we shouldn't stick our heads in the sand as to what will be required to really make a difference.
- Nerys, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Really? what change would electric cars need? (SIGNIFICANT change as installing a high amp charging pump at local gas stations is NOT a significant or even expensive change)
- brettg102, on 05/12/2008, -1/+3http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3554109/Who.Killed.The ...
Who Killed the Electric Car....watch it. - 4321234, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2I think we need to look at what we want to end up with and pursue that technology. Either hyrogen cell or plugin electric. Whichever is the cleanest and cheapest in the long run, factoring in lifespan and recycling of worn out vehicles. Ethanol, hybrids, or more efficient internal combustion are just stop gap fixes.
- mbhakti, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Putting out 1000 Hydrogen or Electric cars will not make any difference at all globally, but putting 1000 Hydrogen or Electric 18 wheelers/trains/ships would make a huge difference. I don't understand why the focus is on the consumer end? Don't get me wrong, we should do both, but I think the money should be put into the areas where it would make the most difference.
The average 18 wheeler gets 4.5 to 7.5 mpg and has a 300 gallon tank. Switch that to hydrogen or electricity. Power it from clean energy sources. Work towards an actual solution, not a green-washed marketing tactic. - PicoZico, on 05/12/2008, -0/+0Let's just pave all the roads with solar cells and have them deliver power to the cars via induction...problem solved. Where's my trillion dollar prize?
- Garofoli, on 05/12/2008, -0/+0http://www.john-daly.com/press/sunspots.jpg
How coincidental... - bincoder, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1hydrogen is wonderful if you can drill a hole in your backyard and pump it up for free. The rest of us may have to suffer with flywheels doing 60k RPM on frictionless magnetic bearings. Quick chargetime, brute force power instantly available when needed, 5 times the energy storage capacity by weight than batteries and a lifetime of 15 to 20 years rather than the 2 or 3 years for a battery. Just no spiffy 'gee wiz' factor or kewl sounding name to impress the masses.
- Dagojay, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Two words: LOTUS TESLA.
Read the last paragraph:
http://www.topgear.com/content/features/stories/20 ... - Dagojay, on 05/12/2008, -0/+2Two words: LOTUS TESLA.
Read the last paragraph
http://www.topgear.com/content/features/stories/20 ...- Dagojay, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1oops.
- Dagojay, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1oops.
- RicDesan, on 05/12/2008, -2/+1I laugh at the plug-in hybrid statement! There is NO infrastructure for plugin unless you own a home with a drive-way.
- carguy25, on 05/22/2008, -0/+1Hey, they cropped Bob Lutz out of the photo.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by
