By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
With Hydrogen production from nuclear plants, it is a much more efficient process utilizing the sulfur-iodine cycle. And last I checked according to anti-nuclear organizations they rate nuclear power to be $3000-$4000 per kWh to install, more than half of which is beaurocratic and legal fees. Nuclear plants then last well over 100 years (the true lifetime is still unknown despite the current licensing that limits them in the US to 60 years). As far as operating expenses go, according to the IAEA, the nuclear fuel cycle including uranium mining, enrichment, reprocessing, and permanent storage adds about 0.6 cents/kWh to the cost. In Albuquerque we pay 8 cents per kWh thanks to Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant. In California they pay 15 to 26 cents per kWh thanks to the fact that some of the grid has been laced Wind, Solar, and Natural Gas Plants. Uranium is abundant on the earth (Uranium) and there is enough for the foreseeable future (Nuclear Future). And it is not going away with a 700 million year half life. Nuclear technology is cheap today (Cost of Nuclear) and does not need to rely on future development just a political scene that allows for its construction. Finland, India, China, Argentina, Japan, Korea, Ukraine, Romania, Russia, and Iran all have nuclear power plants under construction.
The fact is that hydrogen production is not the main show stoppers in the hydrogen economy. The main show stoppers is the cost of the platinum that goes into fuel-cells along with the technological and economic challenges of getting the needed energy densities of hydrogen/battery power to allow for a long drive without having to frequently refuel. It seems that the golden eggs for fuel cells is coming up with a catalysts that works as good as platinum but costs much less, and a hydrogen storage system that is economical.
By the way using nuclear technology the IAEA estimates that the cost of desalinating water would be about $1/cubic meter of pure water. That is about 4 times what it costs for the commodity charge for water here in Albuquerque, NM (excluding charges for pumping, delivery systems, taxes, and other charges). Sounds like it may be a reasonable alternative in the future.
The bottom line is, we need to stop burning carbon-based fuels (fossil and biological). We need to look strongly at "zero-emission" hydrogen fuel cells.
We can extract hydrogen from crops, livestock operations, coal and water. Note also that when hydrogen is combusted, you get water. Electrolysis of water yields hydrogen and oxygen.
This cycle only takes seconds. We will never run into scarcity issues that can lead to war and the exploitation of people.
See www.h2now.info for more information about the Direct Hydrogen Usage Movement.
All interesting information. How much does it cost to drive a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, such as the Honda Civic 100 miles? Hydrogen is competing with gasoline and now E85. Until the supplies of cheap fuel are GONE, why would anyone pay much more for a hydrogen car. We are looking for cheaper transportation not more expensive.
The current info I have is that the fuel cell vehicle Civic costs over $100,000 to build. Hydrogen costs to produce from natural gas about $16 for the equivalent to a gallon of gas. Hybrids are bad enough, who are you going to get to dump that kind of money on personal transportation?
Well, I never really wanted to live in Nevada, but it has nothing to do with the proposed nuclear waste storage site. I would move there; that stuff isn't going to leak for thousands of years (if at all).
That is highly speculative thinking. How much needs to be spent? How many billion more is what I should say. Every time the question is posed to those that are spending our money on research, we get the same, at least 20 more years. After 20, 20, 20 & 20 who cares? I am thinking it will not be in my lifetime. Probably not my childrens lifetime.
We can extract hydrogen from crops, livestock operations, coal and water."
How many times must we go through this.....
Yes, you can extract hydrogen from those sources. But to do so takes ENERGY. In fact, the laws of chemistry dictate that to get hydrogen from water (electrolysis) takes MORE energy (substantially more energy) than you can get using the hydrogen in a fuel cell.
You advocate the "direct" usage of hydrogen? Fine. So where does all that excess energy COME FROM that you intend to use to extract the hydrogen? You've just eliminated burning carbon-based fuels as well as nuclear fission. Do you seriously believe/espouse that we could even theoretically convert ALL of our energy needs to renewables (solar/wind/geothermal/tidal/etc. etc.)?
hydrogenase research:
http://www.ks.uiuc.edu/Research/hydrogenase
storage:
http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2006/03/15/1463319.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ss/stories/s1615551.htm
WE NEED TO INVEST MORE MONEY ON RESEARCH LIKE THIS SO WE CAN DEVELOP A HYDROGEN ECONOMY SOONER RATHER THAN LATER
Bookmark http://www.h2now.info/news for updates on research efforts to bring the costs of a hydrogen economy down.
From the above articles, the conclusion is:
Robyn Williams: And some of the people, the critics we’ve heard about, who say it’s 10, 15, maybe 20 years off, you’d regard them as being somewhat pessimistic?
Omar Yaghi: No, I think this is a reasonable expectation based on what we have done so far.
Are we any closer than we were 5, 10 or 20 years ago? It is "Pie in the Sky". Someday maybe, not likely in our lifetime. Putting more known reserves of oil into production is money better spent.
[gargrice] you are right about the hydrogen fuel cell vehicles currently costing on the order of $100,000, hopefully through innovation this will be able to come down. In the meantime there are other hydrogen powered vehicle alternatives such as the hydrogen ICE which has already been demonstrated to be both technologically feasible and more economically viable than the current fuel cell designs. The current Toyota Prius can be converted to run off of Hydrogen, see: Hydrogen Prius. As well both Toyota and GM plan to have Hydrogen Powered cars in dealer showrooms as early as 4 years from now, see: www.clean-air.org. Ultimately, I believe a fuel-cell version will win out any Hydrogen ICE by nature of the technology. Its just a matter of time.
Hydrogen when used in a fuel cell/electric drive is about twice as efficient plant-to-wheel. Which means that the energy equivalent of 1 gallon of gasoline will get you twice as far. [gargice] Yes, it currently costs $16 to produce enough hydrogen to equal 1 gallon of gasoline equivalent energy, but that is through the reformation of natural gas, not through a thermochemical process combined with a generation IV nuclear reactor such as the GFR. Worst analysis has shown that with a generation IV nuclear reactor hydrogen could be produced at a cost of $1.53/kg. While using Natural Gas at 2005 prices costs $2.70/kg of hydrogen. The nuclear production of hydrogen could already save industry tens of billions of dollars not even assuming that we also use hydrogen in cars. The fact is that these system will be coming on line for hydrogen production at relatively low costs, the question is will we use this hydrogen production capability for vehicles. I believe that we will.
Currently, there are nine new nuclear power reactors that have been submitted for license for construction to Nuclear Regulatory commission in the United States. I hope they hurry the process, because if we start using hydrogen in vehicles now it will be produced by one of four antiquated methods: electrolysis (indirect use of nuclear power), reformation of natural gas, reformation of coal, or reformation of oil.
It may start out as not so ideal but the ball is quickly rolling that will make it competitive with current gasoline powered cars, and possibly save transportation for not just the economically elite.
Yes, it would be terrific if we could marginalize many of the oil exporting countries by switching over to alternate sources of energy. I think that everyone just needs to understand that to do so will require increased consumption of other fossil fuels (coal) and/or increased production of nuclear energy.
We can't simply 'switch over' to hydrogen from oil without some source of energy. Hydrogen should be treated more like a liquid 'battery' than as a fuel since it takes more energy to produce the hydrogen than can be extracted from it in a fuel cell. So, in order to move to a hydrogen-based society, we must have LARGE amounts of excess energy in some form to produce the hydrogen.
In the short term, I think this will be natural gas (of course, this is simply a transition from the consumption of one form of fossil fuel to another). In the near term, I hope and anticipate a greatly expanded nuclear fission industry. Renewables (solar/wind/geo/hydro/etc.) will certainly have a place in the overall picture but by no means do I believe they are the complete solution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IBw1DK8QWw
http://willyoujoinus.com./discussion/comment.aspx?pid=5514
On another note I found that 1 million BTU of Natural gas produced about 2.08kg of hydrogen through steam reformation. That means as of today's closing price of $6.38 per mmBTU (meaning thousand thousand BTU and is the low point of the last couple of months). The cost of hydrogen from natural gas steam reformation would be approximately $3.07/kg almost double the cost of producing it by using thermochemical process in connection with a nuclear reactor.
I am trying to get this straight in my mind. At the current cost of producing hydrogen from natural gas it is about $16 to equal the energy in a gallon of gasoline. If we cut that in half with this more efficient nuclear process we are still at $8 to equal the energy in one gallon of gas. That is if we ever build any more nuclear power plants. Hydrogen just seems so "Pie in the Sky" to me. Most are saying at least 20 more years. At that time I probably wont care.
Hydrogen is highly dependent on the transportation method and therefore if one has a hydrogen car perhaps a good method for fuel production is electrolysis at least until an infrastructure is available that will drive the price down. This website also stated that on 02/23/03 the price of hydrogen was $6.68/kg to $10.21/kg if shipped by compressed gas in a tube trailer (the most expensive method). On 02/23/03 the price of Natural Gas was at about $6/mmBTU about the same price it is at today. Here is another very good article on the current costs of hydrogen. I hope this gives you an idea of what hydrogen produced by steam reformation may cost today. I am not sure as to how the 1.53/kg for nuclear/thermochemical water-splitting price of hydrogen was derived. Nor, do I know where the $16 per gallon of gasoline equivalent you have been quoting came from.
Here is an interesting article that explains the issues associated with off-shore oil drilling. It sounds like oil and natural gas face the same environmental and regulatory hurdles that nuclear does, just less known by the public. There is a lot of fossil fuel left out there it is just the problem of being able to access it. BTW: Cuba is developing its gulf coast oil and natural gas production and guess what: they have very few political and environmental hurdles.
Although the presence of fossil fuels is still very large around us the problem is the environmental and political hurdles will continue to drive the price up.
My understanding is they are 45 miles from Key West.
As far as hydrogen production, I was quoting a price point that was given and never refuted here on Edmunds. I do know that much of it is produced from natural gas in Alaska. Then it is made into anhydrous Ammonia and shipped to the US as fertilizer. I think that is the biggest user of hydrogen at this time. It is hard to get serious about hydrogen powered cars when the cost of fuel cells run the cost of a Civic over $100k. As long a platinum is the prime component at $1300 per ounce, fuel cells seem a long way into the future.
Also here is an article on Cuban oil development: Cuba.
It seems that if we can resolve the platinum catalyst issue in fuel cells then hydrogen fuel-cells would be a viable future alternative. If we are unable to resolve this issue then with some more increases in the price of gasoline and the hydrogen ICE may be a reasonable alternative. What would be cool is a hydrogen/E85/gasoline/electric hybrid with both electric and internal combustion engines. That way the car could be fueled off the cheapest available source, or just according to your driving needs since hydrogen will not have the range that many want, given the current storage methods. But, this would be a very difficult problem considering the fact that hydrogen and gasoline/E85 would need separate tanks, not to mention the different compression ratios needed. Anyway, just dreaming.
Currently the nuclear fuel cycle, including uranium mining and milling accounts for 0.5-0.6 cents per kWh of generated electricity. It does not seem that increasing Uranium cost would affect the economics of nuclear too much. And I know that all major technological breakthroughs are just 20 years away well here is another one from the IAEA. "Spent reactor fuel still contains more than 98 percent of its original energy. About one third of the world's spent fuel is currently reprocessed and recycled to extract some of the remaining energy. Breeder reactors are capable of extracting it all, which would extend the usable fuel from known uranium resources by a factor of sixty." Recycling fast reactors and breeder reactors help to conserve Uranium, extending its lifetime and reducing the waste. Recycling supposedly reduces waste by a factor of 10. Breeder reactors have not been fully deployed, only in research laboratories.
I would appreciate it if we could find a way to fully develop fossil fuels, but it seems that the easily extractable sources have already been discovered, are already being fully pumped and are slowly drying up. And I don't see much political momentum in opening up other areas for exploration.
Well sure, any process which could be harness to produce electricity could be used to then generate hydrogen.
But the amount of energy you get OUT at the end (in hydrogen) will be less than the amount of energy you put IN at the beginning of the cycle.
Now, consider how much energy (hydrogen) would be consumed to commute (say on a 20 mile round trip). Now, try to picture how much time on the excercise bike you need to generate the electricity to produce that hydrogen. It would be FAR FAR FAR FAR simpler (and easier) to simply bike to work.
PV? How much electricity would a PV generate and how much hydrogen would that produce? I'd honestly like to know how much H2 the Honda fuel cell vehicles require to travel 20 miles and how big the PV cell would need to be to generate that amount of electricity in an 8 hour day.
As far as biking to work goes, doing so would be far more dangerous, not allow air conditioning and transporting items would increase the amount of work and danger.
Really? Wow. Is this new? (sarcasm).
Yes, one can burn hydrogen in cars. A number of manufacturer's have converted ICEs to run on both hydrogen and gasoline. Including a concept RX-8 by Mazda. Whether or not one can burn hydrogen in an ICE is besides the point.
WHERE DO YOU GET THE HYDROGEN.
Again, I want to see what size PV panel is required to generate enough H2 to run Honda's fuel cell vehicle. Size of panel and hours of sunlight for # of miles driven.
Now, let's consider this whole excercise bike to generator to H2 production to car refueling. I'll give you a huge gigantic massive benefit of the doubt and assume that the process to generate electricity from your bike is 100% efficient. And the process to generate H2 from the electricity is 100% efficient. And that the process to convert that hydrogen into forward motion in a car is 100% efficient. In other words, for every single watt of energy generated on a bike, I'll give you a watt used to move a H2 powered car.
So, how much electricity can be produced on a human powered bike/generator?
"As discussed in Pedal Power: In work, leisure, and transportation by James McCullagh (1977), tests at Oxford by Stuart Wilson on a bicycle showed that 75 watts of power is possible to be generated by an average rider at road speed in a one hour time frame."
http://www.humboldt.edu/~ccat/pedalpower/hec/hpeg/index.html
75 watts. For one hour of pedaling, one could generate 0.075kwh.
My wife's hair dryer uses 1200 watts. So, I could power her hair dryer with 16 guys on 16 excercise bikes running 16 generators. To power 1 hair dryer. And you're telling me that the one can generate enough H2 to POWER A CAR on an excercise bike?
Honda's FCX fuel cell car has an 80kw motor. So, for one hour of pedaling I can go full throttle in the FCX (using all 80kw) for a grand total about 3.4 seconds. And then all the H2 generated in my magical 100% efficient process would be gone. But since each of those steps is far from 100% efficient, in reality 1 hour of pedaling would give you about 1 second of full throttle juice in an FCX.
As I said, it make much more sense to simply bike to work.
Based on your responses I am starting to see that pedal power can only produce a minor portion of the juice needed to produce enough hydrogen for commutes back and forth to work. Nonetheless, pedal power still offers health benefits and people would feel good about reducing even a small amount of greenhouse gases. Further developments in Microbial (hydrogenase) production, wind and animal power (animals running on wheels) are other options to consider for producing the juice needed.
If we keep telling ourselves that there are NO "zero-emission" WAYs to produce enough hydrogen to make a hydrogen economy a reality, we will let self-fulfilling prophecy dictate our future. I am not about to give up on American and human ingenuity. We will find the answers and will do so sooner with more people involved in collaborative research and more investment in direct hydrogen usage.
We have the means and ability to run very clean CNG in cars. The Civic GX was rated as the cleanest car the EPA ever tested. Why add the hydrogen step to the process. The holy grail of hydrogen society and zero emissions has not even been demonstrated in a laboratory. Yet we keep dumping billions of dollars into the black hydrogen hole. Scientists have tried to harness the combustion of hydrogen since the 16th century. We still cannot produce it in large enough economical quantities to be of any significant value as an automotive propellant.
If as you say it should be used on a very localized scale, that would take the government and big business out of the equation. Personally I don't want my neighbors experimenting with the stuff. Have you forgotten the Oklahoma City bombing. Kind of shows you what you are messing with when it comes to hydrogen.
PS
Forget using wind to produce hydrogen. PETA is trying to eliminate wind generation as it kills too many birds.
YES! If one is really that worried about reducing emissions, it's as simple as riding a bike.
"If we keep telling ourselves that there are NO "zero-emission" WAYs to produce enough hydrogen..."
I'm glad you put 'zero-emission' in scare quotes since that concept seems to mean different things to different folks. Personally, I think that any meaningful changeover to a hydrogen society will require additional nuclear plants. Long range (perhaps 50-100 years) I'm hopeful for a breakthrough on fusion.
You are right I have a hard time making everybody happy, in fact if you try to you will make nobody happy. The best we can do is to make the largest crowd as possible happy, and this may not even be most of the people.
"The Civic GX was rated as the cleanest car the EPA ever tested."
The Honda FCX received a zero-emision rating from the EPA. I am not sure what is lower emission than that.
"The holy grail of hydrogen society and zero emissions has not even been demonstrated in a laboratory."
I have been thinking this whole time that the Holy Grail to a hydrogen economy is the fact that hydrogen is flexible in the source it is made from. Hydrogen can be made from photovoltaics, electricity, nuclear reactor heat, natural gas, oil, coal, biomatter, and many others; therefore we are not dependent on a single energy source. Gasoline can only be made from oil, CNG obviously can only be made from Natural Gas, ethanol and methanol can only be made from biomatter/biowaste (as far as I know).
"Personally I don't want my neighbors experimenting with the stuff. Have you forgotten the Oklahoma City bombing. Kind of shows you what you are messing with when it comes to hydrogen."
Thats interesting because the Oklahoma City bomb was made from Ammonia Nitrate and diesel fuel both of which are widely available and both consume large amounts of hydrogen in their production processes. I haven't been able to conceive of a way that a normal individual could ever make a large scale bomb like the Oklahoma City Bomb from hydrogen simply because it diffuses so quickly in the air and is hard to get a high concentration of it in any one area to burn simultaneously.
We still cannot produce it in large enough economical quantities to be of any significant value as an automotive propellant.
I agree, but the cleaner we want our fuels the more hydrogen we have to consume to make that fuel clean. Here is an article on an industrial web site that contains the following quote:
"Hydrogen is used to process crude oil into refined fuels, such as gasoline and diesel, and for removing contaminants, such as sulphur, from these fuels. Total hydrogen consumption in oil refineries is estimated at 12.4 billion standard cubic feet per day, which equates to an average hydrogen consumption of 100-200 standard cubic feet per barrel of oil processed. Hydrogen consumption in the oil refining industry grew at a compound annual growth rate of 4% from 2000 to 2003, and growth in consumption is expected to increase to between 5% and 10% through to 2010 [Oil & Gas Journal, CryoGas International]. The principal drivers of this growth in refinery hydrogen demand are:
* Low sulphur in diesel fuel regulations - hydrogen is used in refineries to remove sulphur from fuels such as diesel.
* Increased consumption of low quality 'heavy' crude oil, which requires more hydrogen to refine.
* Increased oil consumption in developing economies such as China and India.
Approximately 75% of hydrogen currently consumed worldwide by oil refineries is supplied by large hydrogen plants that generate hydrogen from natural gas or other hydrocarbon fuels, with the balance being recovered from hydrogen-containing streams generated in the refinery process."
100 standard cubic foot equals 0.255 kg of hydrogen so to make 39 gallons of gas it currently requires 1/4 to 1/2 kg of hydrogen. 39 gallons of gas is what the best (light) crude oil can be refined to at our most efficient refineries. To me it seems as through hydrogen production is getting close to being economical. I few more pollution restrictions, start using more diesel (requires more hydrogen in production), boost the price of oil a little more, and start processing heavy sulfur oil (such as tar sands) and we will be to the point that hydrogen will be produced on a scale sufficient to make a large industrial network of hydrogen production and transportation well above and beyond the current hydrogen production and transportation network (including 700 miles of compressed hydrogen pipeline in Texas).
Please correct me if there is something I do not understand here. From what I read from the industrial website I previously quoted, it said that 75% of all hydrogen consumed worldwide is supplied by large hydrogen plants that generate hydrogen from natural gas or other hydrocarbon fuels, and the remaining 25% is recovered from hydrogen-containing streams generated in the refinery process. I thought this 25% was the hydrogen recaptured from the refining process.
The World's Smallest Hydrogen Fuel Cell Car!
Using the same technology that international automobile companies are implementing to develop zero- emission vehicles, this car is fueled entirely by hydrogen, the most abundant element in the universe, and powered without combustion while emitting only water from the exhaust system.
An external fueling station uses electrolysis to extract hydrogen gas from distilled water and sends the gas to a small balloon inside the car that acts as the hydrogen storage tank. The hydrogen is slowly released from the balloon into the onboard fuel cell where it reacts with oxygen to generate electricity to propel the car's motor. Refueling takes 10 minutes and the car can run in a straight line for three minutes and can travel up to 325' on a full tank.
The fueling station is powered by a solar panel or 2 AA batteries. 6 1/3" L x 2 3/4" W. (7 oz.)
Item 73595 ................... $129.95
Expected ship date 11/30/2006.
http://www.hammacher.com/publish/73595.asp?promo=new_items
They also have an experiments Hydrogen Car Kit: http://www.hammacher.com/publish/64680.asp?promo=xsells
:P
i am writing an essay on fuel cells and how they workk and are beneficial
The problem is basic chemistry. Hydrogen as a stand alone element HATES being by itself and bonds (very STRONGLY bonds) to other fairly common elements: like oxygen and carbon.
There is no 'free' hydrogen floating around for us to gather up and use in fuel cells; all the hydrogen available to us is chemically bonded to other elements (like oxygen in water).
The problem is that fuel cells DON'T run on water, they run on hydrogen. So, one must BREAK DOWN some molecules containing hydrogen in order to release the hydrogen for use in a fuel cell. There are several ways to do this. One is to use electricity to break up the chemical bonds of water (hydrolysis) to release hydrogen and oxygen. Another is to break up the chemical bonds in Natural Gas (methane) in a process called 'reformation' to release Hydrogen and CO2.
Before you make an assessment of whether or not fuel cells are beneficial, you need to understand that it takes ENERGY to get the hydrogen for use in a fuel cell. For the process of electrolysis (using electricity to get hydrogen and oxygen from water) it takes MORE energy to break down the chemical bonds than you get back out of the hydrogen in a fuel cell. If you have an abundance of electricity, it makes more sense (IMO) to figure out the best way to use electricity DIRECTLY to power the cars rather than go through the electrolysis to hydrogen to fuel cell to electricity process.
Using natural gas and the method of 'reformation' to generate Hydrogen and CO2 has potential. However, from what I understand of the process, it is more efficient to simply use the NG in a conventional engine than it is to 'reform' it into hydrogen and then run it through a fuel cell.
The only way to determine the benefit for fuel cells is to understand WHERE the hydrogen comes from and the cost (energy requirements) to get the hydrogen.
I would add that most of the hydrogen production is from natural gas. The bulk of which becomes anhydrous ammonia and is used to fertilize our corn to higher production. Then we make ethanol from the corn. Strange world we live in.
A start-up touting technology developed by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory plans to announce a breakthrough on Tuesday that could make hydrogen fuel a stronger contender in the alternative-energy race.
Ecotality plans to produce a prototype of an apparatus called the Hydratus that generates hydrogen fuel, from a reaction between magnesium and water, as it's needed by a vehicle's fuel cell.
Hydratus at work
The Jet Propulsion Laboratory, run for NASA by the California Institute of Technology, has developed a new version of the Hydratus that offers double the mileage of the old version, but at the same weight and volume. Ecotality, based in Scottsdale, Ariz., plans to unveil its prototype by the end of 2007, which will give the company time to put refinements into the newer version of Hydratus, according to Ecotality's CEO, Jonathan Read.
"Hydrogen on-demand is going to be what catapults hydrogen from being a great concept to a great reality," said Read.
The Department of Energy has been encouraging research in alternative-energy technologies such as that used in hydrogen fuel-cell cars, whose only byproduct is water. But large-scale implementation of hydrogen fuel faces obstacles that many critics say could be almost insurmountable.
Even if we could get hydrogen with a modest energy hit, there is a severe problem on containment in the vehicle. If you have it as a gas, it would require huge pressure to have enough of it. So, the container (tank) would have to be strong and likely quite massive. To store it as a liquid is much more efficient since your density is much greater (more hydrogen for a given volume) and you can use a much lighter tank since it need not hold greater than atmospheric pressure. But, to keep the pressure for increasing, one must bleed the tank, i.e., release some hydrogen. This might work if you never stop running the car. (It works on rockets because the rocket is launched soon after the hydrogen tank is filled.
Now, to be fair, there is technology that is trying to store the hydrogen as a solid in the form of an unstable compound. The hydrogen could be released by heating the compound. The problem is releasing it quickly enough to provide the car high good acceleration. (Currently, that's a problem even with battery power.) I just can't see fueling a drag car or racing car with hydrogen and getting the performance of gasoline or nitromethane.
Am I making any sense? Comments anyone?
I have a good understanding of how the internal combustion engine operates and some of the power derived form Gasoline, LNG, Methanol, and Nitro-Methane.
Pound for pound, I don't think any of the fuels listed have as much energy potential as Hydrogen.
If so, back in 1948 we would have detonated the G-bomb instead of the H-bomb (maybe?)
Back in the early 60's at UCLA, they converted a Gasoline powered car to run on Hydrogen.
Making it run wasn't a problem, keeping the Hydrogen in the fuel tank, specially made Hi-pressure tank, like a SCUBA tank.
Seems that Hydrogen can find it's way through any material, since it is the smallest atom known to man at his time. Can't just put it in a can and expect it to stay there
Driving Michelin's Zero-Pollution Car
Working in a skunkworks in Switzerland, researchers have developed the Hy-Light, a fuel-cell car that drives 80 mph and refuels at a solar-powered pump
by Bruno Giussani
Innovation & Design
While every carmaker in the world is tailing the successful Toyota (TM) Prius by developing low-emission hybrid models of various kinds (flex-fuel; gasoline-electric; gasoline-natural gas; gasoline-hydrogen), the real innovation in automotive is taking place in a nondescript industrial building on the outskirts of the Swiss town of Fribourg.
There, recently, Pierre Varenne sat me behind the wheel of a small prototype called Hy-Light and told me to drive. I found myself in a silent car with great speed and acceleration and amazing stability, but no gear box, clutch, or anti-roll bar. And it produces zero air pollution. As we stopped beside a group of solar panels, Varenne pointed and said: "That's the fueling station."
Switzerland may seem an unlikely home for the reinvention of the auto industry, since there are no Swiss carmakers. Yet that also frees Varenne from the pressures of domestic car and oil conglomerates, creating an ideal environment for his project. This soft-spoken engineer with sharp opinions believes that the only way to truly reinvent the car and make it sustainable is to also reimagine the system that procures the energy to power it. "We need to create 'clean' cars as well as 'clean' ways to generate the energy," he says.
Looking forward to all your comments!
Look at evolution and see where it has taken us. most of the life on earth uses some greater free energy to power themselves (plants and the sun.. DUH)
so, if you still wanted to burn hydrogen, then you must find a way to make emission free form of extracting hydrogen if thats the crap you care about..
I really honestly dont care about global warming, im tired of paying at the pump though.
hydrogen is everywhere, in water its easily gotten. anywhere.