Where are our hydrogen-powered cars?

[Centre Parting]

Centre Parting wrote:



Because it would change the environment we live in, more quickly and
faster than we can adapt either our bodies or infrastructure

Wow.
So we'd have to evolve to cope with the water vapour ?
(Mental note to self : - Must find some time to fit in a bit more evolving
this weekend)

What a mind!

(just

 

[Tim McNamara]

Wow.
So we'd have to evolve to cope with the water vapour ?
(Mental note to self : - Must find some time to fit in a bit more evolving
this weekend)

What a mind!

There you go again, distorting what others say. You're a liar, pure and
simple. See ya.

 

[Centre Parting]

There you go again, distorting what others say. You're a liar, pure
and simple. See ya.

Now I'm not the sort to mock the congenitally retarded, but you really do
need to grow up or shut up.

 

[Retiree]

Now I'm not the sort to mock the congenitally retarded, but you really do
need to grow up or shut up.

Dear Centre: Remember, you never, ever can win a pissing
contest with a skunk ;-)

 

[Centre Parting]

Dear Centre: Remember, you never, ever can win a pissing
contest with a skunk ;-)

What is it they say ?

Never argue with a fool.

 

[z]

Where are our hydrogen-powered cars?http://www.techespot.com/2009/05/hydrogen-powered-cars.html

as soon as they got fuelled up, they floated away. D'oh!

 

[z]

Where are our hydrogen-powered cars?
http://www.techespot.com/2009/05/hydrogen-powered-cars.html

Don't want them.  Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, after all.  And
imagine the local effects of 1 million cars spewing water vapor during
rush hour.  Ugh in the summer, wheeeeee! at 30 below zero in winter.  
Hydrogen is a non-starter as a fuel- it's expensive to make, dangerous
to transport, difficult to store in a car in adequate quantities.  It's
an attempt to keep thinking inside the box (e.g., maintaining some form
of internal combustion engine).

At the risk of perturbing some folks, the simplest future for individual
urban transportation is the bicycle.  Infrastructure is already in place
and less expensive to maintain (bicycles causing dramatically little
wear and tear on roads compared to cars).  

Locally (Minneapolis) the number of people going to work by bike has
more than doubled in the past two years (from 1.7% to 3.6%, so a little
more than 100,000 people), increasing particularly when gas hit $4 a
gallon but interestingly not dropping much after gas prices receded.  
The bike arterials in Minneapolis are seeing traffic counts 25-30%
higher than for the same periods one year ago.

The percentage of daily trips done by bike in various cities:

Copenhagen - 55% [37% in Greater Copenhagen]
Gronningen, Netherlands - 55%
Assen, Netherlands - 40%
Amsterdam, Netherlands - 40%
Münster, Germany - 40%
Utrecht, Netherlands - 33%
Ferrara, Italy - 30%
Malmö, Sweden - 30%
Linköping, Sweden - 30%
Västerås, Sweden - 30%
Odense, Denmark - 25%
Basel, Switzerland - 25%
Osaka, Japan - 25% [est.]
Bologna, Italy - 25%
Parma, Italy - 25%
Oulu, Finland - 20%
Rotterdam, Netherlands - 20-25%
Berne, Switzerland - 20%
Tübingen, Gemany - 20%
Aarhus, Denmark - 20%
Tokyo, Japan - 20% [est.]
York, UK - 18%
Munich, Germany - 15%
Davis, USA - 15%
Cambridge, UK - 15%
Berlin, Germany - 12%
Turku, Finland - 11%
Stockholm, Sweden - 10%

Hydrogen doesn't have to be fuel for IC engine, can also serve in fuel
cell to run electric motor.
Advantages are that it could therefore bridge while we switch over,
and that it maintains the paradigm of being able to stop and refuel in
a couple of minutes when you run out of fuel, which a lot of the
battery setups won't let you do.

On the other hand, of course, it requires construction of an entire
new infrastructure which would become instantly obsolete when and if
somebody ever discovers a decent battery technology.

 

[z]

Because it would change the environment we live in, more quickly and
faster than we can adapt either our bodies or infrastructure (just like
global warming), hence we would not want to jump in without proper study.

The global warming problem has happened because we assumed the
environment was an infinite sink, or at least that we cannot
significantly affect it.  Which of course cannot be true in either case,
all it takes is bigger industry and enough consumers.  If I was going to
make a replacement suggestion for transporting energy I would think we
should have learnt this lesson to not just look past our own noses for
potential problems.

The problems with an H2 consumption infrastructure are many, and perhaps
the humidity worries could be removed with a simple condensing system,
however greater problems exist in the storage and conversion.  For
example power cells require Platinum and if you were to try to replace
all cars with current fuels cells, there would not be enough to go around..

Generally the efficiencies do not look good, with batteries more
efficient and materials in greater supply (but not infinite either).

H2 is not currently viable and most trials seem to be winding down until
there is some breakthrough in storage and conversion technology.

ah, but: the hydrogen will, in all probability be generated from
water, so it's essentially a closed cycle, rather than generating any
additional water.

 

[James Sweet]

Hydrogen doesn't have to be fuel for IC engine, can also serve in fuel
cell to run electric motor.
Advantages are that it could therefore bridge while we switch over,
and that it maintains the paradigm of being able to stop and refuel in
a couple of minutes when you run out of fuel, which a lot of the
battery setups won't let you do.

On the other hand, of course, it requires construction of an entire
new infrastructure which would become instantly obsolete when and if
somebody ever discovers a decent battery technology.

It's not worthless, it is a decent way of storing a large amount of
energy in a small space. It is not however, the world-saving panacea
that a lot of people seem to think it is.