Go to Windows 7 Insider Guide
Car Tech: What do you think of hydrogen fuel cell cars?
- 4/12/07 2:04 PM
EV's are the answer
by jaguaraja - 4/13/07 9:47 PM In reply to: What do you think of hydrogen fuel cell cars? by wcunning
Right now an EV car would be powered off the grid, which of course comes from oil or coal. However cleaner sources of electricity are growing, including solar, wind and hydro. If we can derive all our electrical needs from these sources, then EV cars become a real solution. There also needs to be growth in the battery arena. There needs to be a way to quickly charge a battery when making those long trips.
80% in 60 seconds.
by R. Proffitt
- 4/14/07 11:43 AM
In reply to: EV's are the answer by jaguaraja
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1782283,00.asp
Toshiba announced this years ago. Fast recharges are possible so be sure to point this out if any naysayer says it ain't possible.
What's interesting is that Toshiba appears to exited the battery business that year.
Bob
100% in under 100 seconds
by cyberpoet - 4/16/07 2:18 AM In reply to: 80% in 60 seconds. by R. Proffitt
There are now technologies in the process of being patented & commercialized that provide real-world super capacitors using carbon nano-tubes and nano-scale electrolytes (see http://www.aist.go.jp/aist_e/latest_research/2005/20050203/20050203.html for an example article). If these super capacitors arrive at market as and when expected, you will see batteries that weigh mere ounces capable of storing 10^7 to 10^12 orders of joules of energy with recharge times in the under 100 second range (provided you can get a source capable of flowing that high a level of energy into the unit -- think very heavy wires).
When this comes to commercial fruition (i.e. - when the technology to mass reproduce these units is in place at a free-market commerically viable cost), automotive power systems will radically change, first with the very widespread advent of large-storage hybrid systems** in virtually all vehicles, and more-over, with the removal of in-vehicle gasoline useage (electricity from mass-generated sources instead, whether that means solar, wind, coal, fuel-oils, debris-based-plasma-reduction, nuclear, etc.). This will mean a shift away from a hydrogen (or other liquid-fuel) future as it's currently cast for all but the largest load vehicles (transcontinental cargo ships & most aircraft won't be able to benefit sufficiently).
** Imagine a prius capable of going 500+ miles just on the electrical storage using the same amount of space as the current hybrid battery area before it kicks on it's onboard gasoline motor (provided if you plug it in at home overnight, or service stations offer super-high currency recharge stations to reload it in the shortest possible time). Or having a 800 mile range on a high-performance motorcycle, using the same volume as would be freed by removal of the components needed to store, dispense and contain the explosion of gasoline (and gaining the benefit of reduced mass and increased mass centralization in the process as a result).
These are not future dreams for dreamers, but hard science that has been shown and proven as prototypes with fully functional demonstrators; what is lacking at this instant are the licensing of the technologies, the bulk reproduction methodologies required to mass-produce them (and that will follow given the increadible "need" that this concept has in so many market sectors, including the military-armaments industry who can afford to pay through the nose right now using your tax dollars), plus an infrastructure designed to support fast-reloading on demand at the equivilent of service stations for those on the move.
Cheers,
=-= The CyberPoet
Forget that.
by Andy77e - 5/26/07 4:28 PM In reply to: EV's are the answer by jaguarajaNot all of us have money for 2 or 3 cars. I have one. And I'm not going to buy a car that has an 80 mile limited range, that I can't recharge anywhere but home, and never be able to leave the city, nor be able to carry 4 people, or cargo.
And with such a limited car, even if I considered it, I wouldn't pay much more than 8 thousand for it, which is way too little for GM or someone to build it for.
If you want an EV, there's a place down town, that sell little in town EVs. Feel free to buy one. As for me, forget it. Just so you know, there more people on my side, than yours.
I think Hydrogen is a stupid alternative fuel
by PCEMP - 4/14/07 1:15 AM In reply to: What do you think of hydrogen fuel cell cars? by wcunning
All these "educated" people speak about hydrogen and if it ever comes to pass it will be the same issues we face now with oil, its hard to make expensive, maintenance will be unbearable when the simple answer to the U.S. oil issue is biodiesel; diesel engns are more efficient, newer technology. Jeep/Daimler has a plan in place with Cummins diesel corp to produce a diesel engine that is 40% more fuel efficent than a regular 6 cylkander daimler truck. Which means where looking at 40+mpg on biodiesel. Which can be made from just about any biodegradeable product. The fat from fast foods, oil from chinese restaurants etc. To sit here and waste time with hydrogen or the idiot who thought up ethanol fuel is obsurd. Brazil produces biodiesel, Puerto RIco will soon be producing %100 biodiesel(no petroleum) Willy Nelson is pushing biodiesel in the south. The answer is so easy and every one ignores it.
BioDieselHogWash
by mrpresident1776 - 4/18/07 6:17 PM In reply to: I think Hydrogen is a stupid alternative fuel by PCEMP"PCEMP"
BioDiesel and similar fuels such as ethanol and another not so similar fuel such as hydrogen are not the answer. The reason they are being pushed as the answer is because in 2006, the top US oil companies made a combined rough amount of 60 billion dollars off of gasoline[I love how they make more money as gas prices rise]. Point being, they push these fuels as the answer because they want to find something to sell you and make at least 60 billion per annum. You use more BioDiesel fuel than you do gasoline; in fact, you use about 50% more to go from A to B. This is because BioDiesel doesn't have as much energy stored in it as gasoline. Gasoline is a very explosive fuel and BioDiesel, ethanol and hydrogen aren't. This also makes for a less clean and complete burn of the fuel in the engine and thus more pollution. Finally, transportation of such fuel is not economical. You can't put any bio fuel [Ethanol, bioDiesel etc] into a pipeline for distribution because the mixture of fuel doesn't bond well and will have to be reprocessed at the end of the line. Clearly, the tried and true fuel is all around you. Electricity is the wave of the future because 1) Batteries are constantly improving 2) Its been tried before in California in the early 90's to much success and 3) Telsa Motors has developed an all electric super car that uses lithium ion batteries found in laptop computers. They don't even have to develop their own batteries as the computer industry will do that for them. Another concept is GM's Volt, one of the best idea's to come out of the General since the Corvette. Basically, BioDiesel, Ethanol and Hydrogen are an oil company's dream that has been propagandated upon you.
BioDiesel not hogwash
by albizzia - 4/22/07 11:21 PM In reply to: BioDieselHogWash by mrpresident1776I'm afraid someone got a little confused. Biodiesel, like petroleum diesel, has more energy per gallon than gasoline. It is Ethanol that has less energy (thus reduced milage) than gasoline.
Biodiesel requires a diesel engine to run and cannot be directly substituted for gasoline. Ethanol can be mixed with gasoline, but for concentrations above 10%, require special adjustments or a "flex fuel" engine that will adjust automatically.
More promising is Butanol, which can be made from the same feedstocks as Ethanol, but has similar characteristics to gasoline and will run in standard gas engines without modifications. Even better, butanol has an energy content similar to gasoline, thus has little effect on milage.
Energy content.
by alv7722 - 4/25/07 10:48 PM In reply to: BioDiesel not hogwash by albizziaEthanol can be an efficient fuel, but you have to push the compression ratio up in the 16/18:1 range, poss higher. Ditto for using hydrogen as a direct fuel. Honda did some research in the 60's and found they could use something like 60 octane gasoline with 16:1 compression ratios, but the engind had to stay over 16,000 rpm and the pistons could not exceed something like 50mm. It may be conceivable that technology may allow ethanol or hydrogen to be used at unheard of compression ratios, along witgh turbo, or supercharging.
Comparing Hydrogen and Gas is Wrong
by jchatsam - 4/14/07 7:42 AM In reply to: What do you think of hydrogen fuel cell cars? by wcunning
You really don't understand the difference here between hydrogen and gasoline. Gasoline is a source of energy. Hydrogen (on the planet earth) is only a means to transport energy.
Yes, it takes some energy to get the gas and it takes some energy to get the hydrogen but the ratios are very different and will always remain so.
You can thing of getting gas out of the ground as having to grab a shovel and dig up a battery. It takes some energy but what you dig up has energy as well and, eventually, if you build a digging machine, you could power it from the batteries you dig up and the system will run until all of the batteries have been dug up. This is where we are now with gas, it is a large but finite source of energy.
Hydrogen is different. You are still digging up a battery but it is not charged at all. So, after you dig it up, you then have to get on a bike hooked to a generator, pedal and charge it up. You can't build a digging machine and power it from the batteries you dig up because they are always dead. You always have to put energy into the system and what you get out is always less than what you put in. So, when we talk about a hydrogen economy, we are really still talking about either a coal, oil, solar, wind, nuclear or perhaps soylent green economy and we are just using the hydrogen to as a low energy density way of moving the soylent green around.
This does not mean we never will switch to hydrogen. It just means that we will be switching to hydrogen + something else.
Steam Reforming of Natural Gas
by j_a_s_p_e_r - 4/14/07 2:41 PM In reply to: What do you think of hydrogen fuel cell cars? by wcunning
The big downside of steam reforming of natural gas is the release of carbon monoxide.
Hydrogen Fueled cars
by marthart - 4/14/07 4:00 PM In reply to: What do you think of hydrogen fuel cell cars? by wcunning
I don't think I will live long enough to ever see this concept.
Instead of wasting money on this impractical solution, we should implement steps that can be completed NOW.
Place a federal tax of ten percent on all cars, imported and domestic, that do not meet a combined 20 mpg.
Limit the size of the engines on passenger cars. Cars operating in this country need not go 0-60 in less than 7 or 8 seconds.
Limit the use of unecessary options that increase the weight and lower the mpg (and distract the driver).
Require the use of diesel powered vehicles by all vehicles that are for hire (taxis and limousines, etc.) At the same time require gasoline stations to dispense diesel fuel.
Adjust traffic lights so you don't have to stop at every one.
Enforce maximum speed laws.
These may seem drastic but our use of fossil fuel is is a problem that needs to be addressed not in ten years but now. OPEC should not be able to hold us hostage any longer.
I'm sure others can come up with many more ways to reduce our dependence on fossil fuel.
Let's stop talking about about it and ACT, NOW.
Art Henoch
Dillwyn VA.
dangerous and inefficient hydrogen battery
by verdyp - 4/16/07 11:21 AM In reply to: Hydrogen Fueled cars by marthartWhat a nightmare we will have to manage in our cities and in every parking if there are so many cars aligned that are leaking their dangerous hydrogen without closed area! The risk: explosion, fires... Remeber that cars are mobile, have recurrent shocks and are not as much protected and controled as fixed conducts of liquified gas in cities.
And I yes I do think that hydrogen is not a power source, it is just a very inefficient battery, and its production actually is polluting as well and will become even more costly, as it directly depends on natural gas cracking (so it is really a subproduct of the natural gas resources that are also depleting).
There are true energy resources that are unused now: think about garbages, and fermenting excrements or subproducts produced by agriculture (NO I don't like too the proposal of using alcohol, because it will burn food that is needed by humanity).
Better things to investigate: the production of energy by culture of bamboo: they are extremely efficient at fixing the CO2 from the atmosphere and at converting the solar energy into chemical subproducts. Their daily growth is tremendous, but it requires water resources. MAy be it's time to think about adapting the culture of bamboo to salted water resources, they will fix the phosphate that are polluting our rivers, and will help clean the sea water from polluting algae.
Think about the culture of microscopic algaes that can produce oils and sugars within barils exposed to sun light. Think about how these subproducts of algae could be combined with other natural chemical products to produce heat that will directly move motors and give propulsion force, without going through electricity.
Think about how wacan fix the carbon from the atmosphere within some saline solutions whose acidity can be used directly to create current: carboxilic acid produced by the solution of CO2 are directly usable products that can be used to recycle the energy. We can clean our atmosphere of CO2 by pumping it directly. If you pump the CO2 from the atmosphere and fix it in high pressure solutions below the ground, you can even have it produce natural gas.
Think about how to recycle urea produced by animals and humane dejections. Yes bacteries can help us there, notably extremophiles (found in the far ocean depth) that can live in extreme chemical conditions.
Think about pumping the heat from the deep soil (geothermy): inject fresh water and get vapor for warming houses and generate electricity: even if the water is not warm enough to generate vapor, you can save tons of oil or any other energy resources to make the process usable, without adding more pollution (it's even safer than managing nuclear plants, because all subproducts can be reinjected in the soils where they come from!) Look at how Iceland produces most of its heat (thanks to volcanic activity) but the same can be performed by using some deeper soils. the difference is not so much different.
If you want batteries, it's most probable that batteries will know their revolution, using better technologies (notably using microscoping supraconductor loops where electric current can be stored for a long time, in a better way than when using chemical processes: electricity could be used directly by extracting it from the current loops)
And why not imagining converting electricity power to magnetic power? The electric field is not what makes an electric motor rotate: it is magnetic field that makes it run. So why not storing magnetic energy and using it directly? Here we are talking about nanotechnologies to product nanoscopic magnets, possibly combining the effect of electron spin in supraconductors.
And yes we need a way to compensate the energy we use, and ways to fix the extra energy we dissipate to the atmosphere: here the best way is through agriculture and using solar resources efficently.
There are lots of unexplored domain where we have still not explored. All our terrestrial energy comes from the Sun: the Earth is a giant battery that is accumulating solar energy.
The system to imagine will not be a single solution, but a large and complex system of recycling various forms of energy coming from the Sun. But the worst solution would be to use unique chemical reactions only as it creates pollution (including hydrogen) by changing the fragile equilibrium of components.
Agreed!
by Andy77e - 6/2/07 5:41 PM In reply to: Hydrogen Fueled cars by marthartWe should also place higher taxes on electricity, food, clothes and everything else. In fact lets just ban car completely. everyone can drive mopeds. They are slower, thus safer. we wouldn't need so many big roads, thousands of tiny moped can fill a highway without causing a jam, like cars would. With a top speed of 30 mile per hour, we wouldn't need traffic cops cause no one could speed.
In fact, I'm likeing this idea so much, let's just do away with freedom, and have government dictate every aspect of our lives. They know better than us anyway. Let's force everyone to walk everywhere. No one will ever die in a traffic accident again, because there will be no cars at all. We'll have electricity rations, so you only get power to your home for 5 hours a day. That will save the planet cause we can use less coal in our power plants. Everyone will get the same rationed meal, that will prevent over eating and no one will get fat which saves our government health care millions.
What a great idea. Totalitarian socialist government controls it all. Someone should have come up with this a long time ago.
Where Have You Been?
by plcard - 6/3/07 4:27 AM In reply to: Agreed! by Andy77eI am not so sure about the mopeds, but I believe we have already lost the freedoms you suggested. I know this off the radar so far as hydrogen cars, but if ... IF mind you, we could talk ol' Ted into starting a car company with up-to-date technology, either hydrogen, electric or a combination of both, bet your sweet bippie, he would run into more roadblocks with our (their) government than you could shake a stick at.
I am not a physics major by any means. All I know is what I read and have seen. But having said that there must be vehicle technology available today, that would give us 400 miles on a fill up or charge and attain speeds of 70 mph.
Does anybody have Ted's home number? I lost it when he and Jane got a divorce.
No, I'm sorry.
by Andy77e - 6/10/07 3:01 PM In reply to: Where Have You Been? by plcardI must have left it in my other wallet.
400 miles a fill up is nothing. You can retro fit an extra tank in your trunk and get 500 to 600 miles a fill up. Of course you need to buy 40 gallons when you fill up. But I know what you meant:
Yes there is a car like that. I can make it myself. Hope you don't mind a one seater plastic car with a 1 cylindar engine, no cargo space either. It will get to 70 mph, hope you don't mind a 10 minute acceleration rate. Oh btw, don't hit anything cause a stick will disintegrate your car. And God forbid anything hit you, then your just dead.
I run into this all the time. There simply *must be* technology available to do X... why must there be?
Because there isn't. Or I should say, there is, but it's not going to happen. I can get you incredible mileage, but who wants a tiny one seat car that wouldn't survive hitting a speed bump at 20 mph? We can make a plastic car. We can make it weight 500 lbs. But it wouldn't be safe.
We can make a carbon fiber car. Carbon Fiber weights less, and is stronger than steel. But do you have the $100 thousand for it? No, and I don't either.
Ted Turner isn't going to make a perfect car. He maked millions every year from farm subsidies growing corn for Ethanol. He's not going to make a car the will undercut his own income, especially income he gets so freely at tax payer expense.
Further we don't need Ted. We just need government to reduce it's regulations on the Auto industry. Then maybe independent upstarts will spring up, like they do in other countries, and this would cause more competition in areas not yet seen.
See right now I could open a company making cars. But I'd be limited to a set number of cars per year. Then after that, the government would step in and dump 80 tons of regulations and red tape and certifications on me, I'd never be able to build another car. That's a problem. That is why the big six auto makers have so little to worry about.
I'm not worried about GM stopping me from building cars, just the government. And the Government is exactly who would do it.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
|
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
