What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
You and You and You. view!
youtube.com - You don't need to get a phone. You need a phone that gets you.
26 Comments
- nickaster, on 09/17/2009, -2/+15This is excellent - Iceland, of course has the luxury of doing this given their massive geothermal resources. Why the US state of Hawaii doesn't do the same thing is beyond me.
- Colecoman1982, on 09/17/2009, -1/+7It makes sense to select a technology that actually exists in the marketplace as opposed to one that doesn't. The idea of a hydrogen economy has always been a red herring intended to distract from any real improvement. Fuel cells have been around since the turn of the century and even the more optimistic people think it will be decades before they are able to be produced at a reasonable price. Pair that with a need to install a massive infrastructure of hydrogen filling stations and you have a technology that would probably take 50 years to become a reality. This was intentional. By the time all the present oil companies and car companies would be expected to make good with their promises, all the present executives would be long since retired and, probably, dead.
On the other hand, we had commercially produced electric cars at the turn of the century. We have a small number on the market right now (in some parts of the world) and most of the major car companies were able to whip together, in a very short time, cars for release in the next few years. Compare this to the Hydrogen fuel cell prototype cars which, according to news stories, would cost over $1 million each if put into production today. - bringitontimx, on 09/17/2009, -1/+6this makes me happypolla.
- dalittle, on 09/17/2009, -0/+3They are not switching from hydrogen cars, they could not get them.
FTA "largely because fuel-cell vehicles remain in short supply" - tnoy, on 09/17/2009, -0/+3Its a step forward.
Hydrogen is often created using water and electricity. For hydrogen powered cars, follow the chain of events that get the car to move. Electricity is generated in some form, then the electricity is used with water to create the hydrogen. The hydrogen is then compressed using a system that needs fuel of some kind. The liquid hydrogen will then likely then have to be transported in vehicles that use fuel to fueling stations, or pumped using a system that uses fuel pump the liquid hydrogen. You then have to pump the fuel into the car. Once in the car, the fuel cell converts the hydrogen back to electricity to then power the car. You'll use more electricity creating the hydrogen than you get out of the whole system.
With electric cars, you generate the electricity, add it to the grid, charge batteries/super capacitors/etc that power the car. There is very little loss in the system. Once engineers sort out the issues with power storage and charging time, there will be zero reason to use hydrogen at all.
The other changing factor will be if there is some huge advancement in the creation of hydrogen that makes it VERY cheap and requires next to no power to do so. For example, if we were to start a massive migration to nuclear power, we'd have access to a lot more hydrogen. Then again, we'd also have a ***** more cheap and clean electricity. - tehknotte, on 09/17/2009, -0/+2i dont know why this isn't being dugg up more...
- bookelly, on 09/17/2009, -1/+3I thought they'd be powered by Bjork floorf.
- Ultomato, on 09/18/2009, -0/+2hydrogen is not a fuel source, since hydrogen cars actually use electricity to power the motors.
- JQP123, on 09/18/2009, -0/+1Hydrogen creates more problems than it solves. Nice to see Iceland finally catch on.
- shubh09, on 09/18/2009, -0/+1Both the technologies have their own benefits and disadvantages. I think both should be used, it will reduce dependency upon single source of energy or fuel.
- andrihb, on 09/17/2009, -2/+3This is news to me. I'd love to have an electric car though. Electricity here is so cheap.
- tnoy, on 09/17/2009, -0/+1They've been saying we're a decade away for the past 20 years.
- buzaman, on 09/17/2009, -3/+4Considering that government destroyed the savings of every individual in that nation last year, they should be focusing on other things instead of electric cars or their 10 hydrogen cars.
- marinist, on 09/17/2009, -0/+1Hawaii does--in the Puna region of the Big Island:
http://www.punageothermalventure.com/ However, geothermal resources are not located on the island with the highest energy consumption (Oahu). Each island currently has independent grids.
Iceland has better access to geothermal and more need for heat simply due to climate. They also have better hydroelectric reserves, making a switch to electric cars more feasible. - inactive, on 09/17/2009, -4/+5This is just a step back. Hydrogen is actually sustainable.
- Nerys, on 09/20/2009, -0/+1No it won't. THEY BOTH use Electricity. Except Hydrogen costs MANY TIMES MORE in every way (price energy environment and out of pocket)
Oh and it uses at LEAST 5 times the electricity as electric cars use. - Nerys, on 09/18/2009, -0/+1Hah I typed a message bigger than digg could post. Here is the rest
Its even better with electric cars. Nano Solar is working on ramping up production of there solar panels. at $1 a watt. a Grid Tie in is $1700 a solar array large enough to COMPLETELY offset the power your car uses each month would be LESS than $2000
so add $2700 to the price of the car and now you are 100% clean 100% green 100% renewable and its 100% FREE to drive.
Can not do that with hydrogen. It would take a solar array at LEAST 5 times larger AND you would need even MORE power to COMPRESS the hydrogen and then you would need an ULTRA expensive tank to STORE the hydrogen. and now you have a dangerous tank of hydrogen sitting in your garage. Is hydrogen is a car dangerous. not really but STORING large amounts of it CAN be dangerous. If hydrogen leaks through your car tank it blows away in the wind.
if it leaks in your storage tank it could ignite. this would form a tiny blow torch right in the side of the skin of your tank. this could start a fire or worse weaking the tank causing a rupture and them BOOM since this is not not LOOSE hydrogen rising an escaping but LOTS of COMPRESSED Hydrogen being release and IGNITED all at once. Thats a big boom.
SO you can BET that even if it IS cheap enough for you to do all this the government will make it ILLEGAL to do this out of safety concerns (real or imagined) ie your STUCK paying at the pump my good little slave. They currently estimate hydrogen will net the "equivalent" of 35mpg and cost the equivalent of $7 per gallon. (that is where I got the $21 to go 100 miles figure)
Hydrogen is a SCAM on the american people and the people of the world to keep PROFITS in the equation. To keep you enslaved to the "pump" - logir, on 09/18/2009, -0/+1Iceland spends a hefty chunk of cash on importing petrol every month, and with the króna having lost half its value, the price has effectively doubled.
It would be a huge improvement for individual Icelanders, as well as the economy in general, to spend this money on locally produced electricity. - luke1457, on 09/18/2009, -0/+1If you get a hydrogen car, that means you're still reliant on getting that hydrogen fuel from a "hydrogen company". ie: an oil company that produces hydrogen. Which means you're going to get reamed up the ass the same way we all are now with artificially inflated petrol prices. So personal transportation based on hydrogen is the oil company's way of maintaining their business model of essentially controlling the world's energy supplies. Furthermore, producing hydrogen takes a ***** of energy. Where is that meant to come from, without harming the environment?
If you get an electric car - you have the option of using various renewable energy sources to recharge your car. As technology progresses, you can invest in various power generators for your home (wind, solar, portable-nuclear, ZPMs, whatever comes out) and you're free!
The environmental burden may be temporarily shifted from millions of cars' exhausts, to hundreds of polluting power plants, but those can/will be replaced by renewable energy sources. - visionviper, on 09/17/2009, -1/+2Even the car makers (who are probably more optimistic then they should be) say it will be at least a decade before hydrogen fuel cell powered cars are affordable.
- gkiltz, on 09/18/2009, -0/+1Hydrogen, by itself it simply NOT a fuel!
It has so little energy in it's pure form that reasonably efficient extraction of that energy flat out AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!!!
Hydrogen only acquires an extractable, usable amount of energy when it is made into either of two types of compounds with carbon.
Hydrocarbons are the compounds that actually contain the most energy. Problem is they can only have their energy extracted through combustion.
Carbohydrates contain less actual energy, but that energy is extractable by biological processes.
Carbohydrates do not combust as efficiently as hydrocarbons.
If you had stayed awake in physics class, and actually followed all the math, you would see why. - buzaman, on 09/18/2009, -0/+1They wouldn't be spending double if the Krona hadn't lost half it's value. It would be an improvement to individual Icelanders if their government didn't print up cash, but instead took a policy of slow long term deflation to restore the stolen wealth.
You can't morally justify the Iceland government in spending more money to solve a single symptom of a larger problem they caused. Food's doubled in that time, other basic essentials have doubled as well. What do you do about these?
Further more, where are they getting the money to do this? They have massive inflation, their economy is in the tank. I'm almost sure they are printing more money to get this new infrastructure in place. It's counter productive.
Even after 5-6 years when all this is in place, how much more inflation have the people of iceland experienced to get this new local power generation and electric car capability. Its a shame after all the money that was spent putting in place the 'Hydrogen' economy.
I'm not against the concept of what they are doing, hell!, I'm quoting out 4kW of solar panels for my house. But it's the manor in which they are doing it that is the problem.
It's not a boost to the economy because the individual would have to spend double at the pump or the government uses tax money or printed money to buy the gas at near double the cost. Either way they are both essentially paying double. Sure the government could work out a deal and maybe getting the gas or electric power a little cheaper in bulk, but the cost to the Icelander is the same, either through direct consumption, taxation or inflation. - Nerys, on 09/18/2009, -0/+1I really hope you all will read this. its huge. its massive. its a bit of a tirade on my part. but its GOOD honest real information. It will educate on this scam. I spent well over an hour typing it. PLEASE read it.
Hydrogen is a DEAD END and a SCAM
Efficiency of GRID to WHEELS for an electric car 89%
Efficiency of GRID to WHEELS for a hydrogencar 24%
and you think thats a good thing?
COST to fill up your the "Gas tank" in your electric car to drive 100 miles ? $1
COST to fill up your Hydrogen Tank in your fuel cell car to drive 100miles? $21
More expensive car - More expensive parts - shorter life span - more expensive maintenance
and you think this is GOOD ?
They BOTH use precisely the same source of power. ELECTRICITY
so how can you say an ELECTRIC CAR is not sustainable but Hydrogen is using 4 times more of the same damned electricity?
Octoberful. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOUR COGNITIVE SKILLS TODAY.
I am going to guess there is NOTHING wrong with your brain today. I am going to guess you simply don't know. That your information is the propaganda spewed by oil and car companies ad government (you do know what the current PRIMARY source of hydrogen is right?)
ANYTHING that makes hydrogen cheap makes ELECTRIC CARS even cheaper. because the ONLY way to make hydrogen renewable is to use WATER as your source. This means Electrolysis this means its an ELECTRICITY POWERED CAR.
Come with me folks down memory lane to 5th grade. Conservation of mass and energy.
Electric car. Grid to batteries to wheels.
Where do you LOSE power in conversions? well once in "charging" the battery and again in USING the power through the motor. so 2 points of loss. battery/charger and battery/motor
Hydrogen Car Grid to Transformer into water. Then more power to COMPRESS PUMP AND STORE the hydrogen.
They MORE power to MOVE and PUMP hydrogen into your car
Then MORE power to run it through your fuel cell conversion into ELECTRICITY to your electric motor.
and this ignores LOSSES since there is no such thing as a container that can perfectly hold HYDROGEN it will leak out of ANY container. (yes electricity leaks out of batteries too but it does not cost me $7 for the equivalent of a gallon to put that electricity back INTO the battery)
And you wonder why electric cars are 89% efficient and Hydrogen cars are only 24% efficient.
SCREW GREEN. thats just damned EXPENSIVE and keeps the corporations and government hands IN my pockets.
Electric Cars are EVEN GREENER and keep both of them OUT OF MY POCKETS and its Cheaper.
they could put a $13,000 electric car on the road TODAY if they wanted to.
GM did not want that to happen so they sold the NIMH patent to Texaco/Chevron. only 10 years to go. Then they won't be able to as easily kill the electric car. another 5 years on the patent and I figure 5 more after that for someone to manage to "tool up" to produce the batteries. (you see the only company currently tooled up to make the batteries is also owned by chevron so you can bet patent expired or not they will simply decline to make the batteries at any price)
Let me break down the numbers so you know I am not talking through my ass.
Ovonics (inventer of the E95 NIMH battery pack) and GM together quotes the FULL RETAIL PRICE of the battery pack at $4500
You can buy a vehicle electric motor OFF THE SHELF for $2000 (and these are powerful enough now for DIRECT DRIVE ie no Transmission needed)
You can buy a Controller off the shelf for another $2000 and the Charger is $500
so far we are at $9,000 FULL RETAIL PRICE.
we already know auto makers can build a ready to go full retail price Gasoline car for $8,000
even now in todays economy with more safety standard and amenities you can still right now buy a brand new car for under $10,000 with a few under $9,000
I am going to use the $8,000 car because I want a strict econo box. (note this price is for a 4 door mid sized sedan NOT a 2 door micro hatch back)
NOW thrown away WELL OVER 50% of the cost of that car.
Engine - Transmission - Radiator - ENTIRE EXHAUST system - entire cooling system - alternator - water pump - power steering pump - All the fluids all the smog equipment EVERYTHING from the front of the engine to the drive shaft GONE.
That is EASILY more than 50% of the cost and retail price of that car. BUT lets keep the numbers simple and use HALF 50%
so the car is $4000 add that to the pool and FULL RETAIL PRICE they could sell a 100mile range 4 door midsize sedan electric DIRECT drive single central motor electric car for $13,000
add another $2000 (lets be generous) to go with an aluminum frame and plastic body.
So now $13,000 stripped down or $15,000 for the alum and plastic version you can walk off with an electric car.
FULL RETAIL PRICE
Your cost to drive this car? first in the drive train you have removed 100% of all moving parts and replaced them with a SINGLE moving part. The electric motor.
Everything else is solid state.
this means the car basically has no moving parts to fail. Its virtually maintenance free!
You have normal stuff off course. tires brakes bearings etc.. but in the drive train NOTHING TO REPAIR
These are heavy duty parts folks. this is not the little electric motor in your RC car. this is a motor most of us could NOT PICK UP if we had one on the floor beside us. They are beasts. I can assure you with 100% certainty that motor will OUTLIVE YOU. Literally.
These parts have to deal with HUNDREDS of amps of power. They have to be built well and built tough to handle this power load. Even a lightweight car accelerating gently will suck down 400amps doing it. Typically 600+ amps to accelerate.
That controller is solid state. Its just not likely to fail in your lifetime. Same with the charger.
add the aluminum frame and plastic body and you now have a FOREVER rust free chassis and body that is also nearly corrosion proof if reasonably cared for. (the core reason cars are junked)
So now you have a car that can literally last longer than you will. Possibly longer than your children will.
Now lets talk about the BATTERY because this is where I hear all the ruckus over.
First Lithium SUCKS. bad for the environment expensive and NOT long lasting. The ONLY thing lithium has going for it is lighter mass and higher power density. I don't need either. I just need GOOD enough mass and GOOD enough power density. NIMH does this just fine.
The E95 NIMH batteries that ovonics developed for GM were rated to last 250,000 miles to 80% capacity.
lets explain that Batteries don't usually just "die" they "degrade" over time ie they wear out.
what 250k to 80% means is that if you could say go 200miles on a charge brand new after 250,000 miles you could expect 80% of that range on a charge ie 160miles. So the battery does not just go splat at 250k
SO how long would it take the average american to "wear out" an E95 NIMH battery. about 20-22 years.
Thats right. That battery has a life span of AT LEAST 20-22 years. and even at TODAY's prices would only cost you $4500 to replace (I spend that much in gasoline in 15 months) and it will only get cheaper as more are made and the tech is improved. in 20 years a replacement battery might only be $500
If you have a battery where you need less than 80% of the range between charges it will last a LOT LONGER than that.
a 100mile range is more than I need. I need 65 miles to play it safe. (54mile one way commute so add 11 miles as a safety buffer) once at work I would plug in to recharge.
So I could keep using that battery right down to 65% capacity. that might be 30 or more years.
Then I get people saying what is the cost of the battery production to the environment.
My reply is I DON'T CARE. I have no idea. But I can tell you this. I am 100% certain it is a LOT SMALLER AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT THAN THE FOLLOWING
in 30 years the average person buys 3 cars. (average car is kept for 9 years)
so thats THREE of all of the following.
Engine - Transmission - Radiator - ENTIRE EXHAUST system - entire cooling system - alternator - water pump - power steering pump - All the fluids all the smog equipment EVERYTHING from the front of the engine to the Drive shaft.
PLUS all the parts fluids and maintenance to keep those things GOING over a 9 year average life.
Even if you just use ONE of all of that your STILL going to have a much much much much larger enviro hit than that ONE SINGLE BATTERY PACK.
In fact I believe that JUST THE FLUIDS YOU USE in 30 years of driving a car. In just TEN years of driving a car is a greater environmental impact than that ONE SINGLE BATTERY PACK. NOT counting the gasoline!!!!!
Its a DUH scenario. There is no contest. Its precise and clear cut.
And do you know the most common OTHER argument I hear.
What happens if I want to go more than 100miles. First the TECH will improve as its adopted by the public and more R&D dollars flow into it. 500mile range batteries are NOT far off. Batteries that recharge in MINUTES (under 8 minutes some under 5 minutes) are ALREADY IN THE WORKS right now.
but in the mean time the solution seems so painfully easy to me its laughable.
Hmm. lets see. How do I go more than 100 miles.
I DRIVE THE GOD DAMNED GAS CAR I ALREADY HAVE !
now sure not all of us can have 2 cars (parking etc..) but you know something. MOST OF US CAN. Not everyone can have a hummer or ferrari but they have no problem selling enough of those.
Another complaint I hear is that I am just going to transfer my GAS bill to my ELECTRIC bill.
YES you will. but the difference is staggering. A well build electric car will go 100miles on about $1 to $1.50 in electricity ($2 to $2.50 if your in an area with EXPENSIVE electricity 95% of us DON'T live in those places)
for me it would be $1 per 100 miles. (keep in mind HALF of my electricity would be paid for by charging at work in fact with a 100 mile range I could get almost 90% of my electric charge from work but lets ignore that for the moment)
I drive 30,000 miles a year minimum. so my electric bill would go up $300 per year to charge the electric car.
My CURRENT yearly GASOLINE bill is $3500-$4000 a year. need I say more?
Average american drives 11,000 miles a year or $110 onto your electric bill PER YEAR.
lets go even further. Well your transferring the pollution to the power plants. Your joking right.
Really your kidding? $110 in electricity PER YEAR. the average person uses this much power in a MONTH powering their home. We are talking about $2.11 in electricity PER WEEK
The average light bulb burns for 4 hours a day. Turn on 7 - 75 watt bulbs for 4 hours a day and you just use MORE POWER than your electric car will using in the same month.
Turn on an electric heater for 39 hours (less than 2 days) and you just used MORE POWER than the electric car will use ALL MONTH.
this amount of power is NOTHING in the reality scale.
this leads into the next myth. The grid can not take so many cars being plugged in.
Let me get this straight. an electric heater uses more power in 40 hours than your electric car will use ALL MONTH LONG and you think the grid will even "blink" if everyone plugs in electric cars?
NOT ONLY that but we will tend to plug in our electric cars at NIGHT when the grid is producing TONS of UNUSED POWER that just goes to waste!
Every executive in the power industry who has been asked this question has stated it would NOT be ANY burden on the grid at all. Yet this myth No its worse than that this LIE continues to propagate.
For the american citizen there is simply NO DOWNSIDE to electric cars.
but its a MASSIVE downside to OIL companies. and to Car Companies and to Government.
Hydrogen means you have to buy expensive cars. means oil is sold to make the hydrogen till it runs out THEN they goto electrolysis and you have to keep PAYING AT THE PUMP for your fuel.
that and ONLY THAT is why they are pushing so hard for Hydrogen.
Hydrogen is NOT dangerous. its safer than gasoline. People cry Hindenburg but do you know what REALLY killed the people on that dirgible? it was NOT the hydrogen. Hydrogen rise and does so QUICKLY. when it burns its VWOOOSH and its gone.
What killed them was the 130 foot fall.
If you say I am going to spill gallons of gas in those close room or I can empty gallons of hydrogen into the room. Which would you prefer.
Well I would prefer neither but if i had to chose I would take the hydrogen. Much safer in fact I am very likely to walk out with NO injury in fact at worse some singed hairs.
you see Hydrogen RISES. and does so quickly. Not only that its the smallest ELEMENT you can make short of a hydrogen ion (ie protons) it will LEAK out of a STEEL TANK. right through the skin of the tank itself right through the atomic structure of steel. its that small.
Most of the hydrogen will rise to the ceiling of your garage and leak RIGHT THROUGH the cracks and openings in your roof and even right THROUGH the roof itself before you can draw a match from your pocket and light it.
Why am I saying this in support of hydrogen? well my problem with hydrogen is not safety.
Hydrogen COSTS MORE MONEY USES MORE ENERGY AND IS LESS GREEN AND MAINTAINS THE GREED OF Corporations.
Hydrogen SUCKS. I will never buy a hydrogen car. its an INSULT to my intelligence. It takes an electric car and REMOVES THE CHEAP CLEAN USER FRIENDLY CONSUMER FRIENDLY battery and replaces it with a CORPORATE friendly Fuel Cell.
No thanks.
Its even better with elect - Nerys, on 09/18/2009, -0/+1Grr so many posts. It took so long I was so tired I did not proof read my post. Massive quantities or little typo's and grammar/spelling goofaahs' Please excuse them and consider the MESSAGE not the delivery. I REALLY hate that I hit T instead of W at times so instead of NOW I get NOT which can completely reverse the meaning of the message. Annoying.
- Nerys, on 09/18/2009, -0/+1Grr took me so long to type all that I forgot a real world example.
you have the 120-160mile range EV1 but its not a good example. its a 2 seater.
Toyota used the same battery in a RAV4 they took a RAV4 rolling chassis and fitting it with electric parts for the RAV4EV
this vehicle ACTUALLY got sold to people (not taken back and CRUSHED like the EV1) Cost? $40,000 10 years ago.
Its a 4 seater SUV. No special aluminum chassis and plastic body (which would make it lighter and allow MORE range)
users who drive this car STILL to this day over 10 years later get 80-110miles PER CHARGE.
Some of these RAV4EV's have over 150,000 miles on the original 10+ year old battery pack. When they analysed the battery performance so far ZERO degradation in battery life. ZERO.
I would KILL to have one of these. Never have to buy gas every again. - Lifehedge, on 09/18/2009, -1/+1Hydrogen FTW... But both alternatives relies on producing clean energy in the first place.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is