Will This New Toyota Hydrogen Car Change the World?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/11/10/will-this-new-toyota-hydrogen-car-change-the-world.aspx By John Rosevear | More Articles
November 10, 2013 | Toyota (NYSE: TM ) this week released the first photos of its latest concept car, called the Toyota FCV Concept. The Toyota FCV Concept, which will be shown later this month at the Tokyo Motor Show, is an electric car.

It's a "concept car", meaning that it's just for show, but you'll be able to buy something very similar in a couple of years. Toyota says that it will begin selling a car like the FCV-R in 2015 or thereabouts.

But the FCV Concept isn't an ordinary electric car. It doesn't have a battery pack. Instead, it has a system that makes its own electricity, right on board — from hydrogen.

Electric cars, without the batteries
That system is called a fuel cell, and Toyota is just one of several automakers that have made heavy bets on fuel cells — and hydrogen — as a way to power the automobiles of the future.

Fuel cells convert the energy in hydrogen to electricity by oxidizing it. That means the hydrogen atoms are combined with oxygen atoms. The result is electricity — along with water, or water vapor. That water vapor is the only "exhaust" emitted by a fuel-cell car.

Fuel-cell cars have all of the advantages of electric cars. Electric cars are clean and quiet, and Tesla Motors (NASDAQ: TSLA ) and its hot Model S sedan have shown that they can be stylish and fun to drive, too.
But electric cars like Tesla's are powered by batteries, special lithium-ion batteries encased in a big battery pack. Those batteries have proven to be a big challenge for engineers and car designers.

Right now, those special batteries are heavy, bulky, and expensive. That means that an electric car that has the range of a conventional gasoline-powered one is also going to be heavy and expensive. Tesla's Model S is sleek and fast, but "heavy and expensive" also describes it pretty well.

Just a few years ago, many analysts believed that electric-car batteries would be getting a lot lighter and cheaper by now. But battery technology hasn't advanced as quickly as electric-car fans have hoped.

That has led automakers to look for alternatives, and fuel cells might be the best of the bunch.

Where will fuel-cell cars get "gas"?
Of course, a fuel-cell car can't be recharged. It requires a tank of hydrogen in order to make electricity. That means you'll still have to refuel your fuel-cell car, at a "gas" station that sells hydrogen.

There aren't very many of those, at least not yet. But researchers are betting that they'll quickly become common if fuel cells show promise. Hydrogen can be made from natural gas, which is both cheap and abundant. It can also be made from water, using a process like a fuel cell in reverse.
I sure hope this pans out better than the solar powered car, the electric car using batteries, etc. Imagine if we could advance past having to be held hostage to ME oil?? They know their power and influence will evaporate should America solve the oil use problem. Which is why the Arab surge and new push for the Islamic caliphate has hit high gear. They know they have to strike while they still can but our government hides this reality from us. We should be asking why and demanding answers .--Tyr

[Arbo]

This car will be a failure. And we can divest ourselves from middle east oil, if those 'in charge' would let us do what is needed and shut the environmentalist weenies up.

[logroller]

The problem that i foresee is that fuel cells, like batteries, are expensive to produce. Then of course theres the issue of needing an infrastructure to provide hydrogen.

[fj1200]

It won't. Unless they've just started mining for domestic hydrogen.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

It won't. Unless they've just started mining for domestic hydrogen. Surely you jest.. Water yields hydrogen as does natural gas which we have in abundance because its so often a natural by product coming from oil wells.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The problem that i foresee is that fuel cells, like batteries, are expensive to produce. Then of course theres the issue of needing an infrastructure to provide hydrogen. The savings and the removal of the foreign influence coming from the need to buy foreign oil are greater compensation. If they perfect it and bring the cost of the vehicle down the infrastructure will come on from private enterprise filling the need IMHO. -TYR

[fj1200]

Surely you jest.. Water yields hydrogen as does natural gas which we have in abundance because its so often a natural by product coming from oil wells.

Yes, I jest. :) I know we can get hydrogen but it's an expensive process and would require the use of other natural resources to tap. It doesn't seem to be an energy winner especially considering the fuel cell and distributions issues that Log raised.

[logroller]

The savings and the removal of the foreign influence coming from the need to buy foreign oil are greater compensation.
Politically-speaking perhaps, but not economically. I only buy domestically-sourced fuels for political reasons but I often pay more. Thats my choice. Do you believe that government should subsidize that choice?


If they perfect it and bring the cost of the vehicle down the infrastructure will come on from private enterprise filling the need IMHO. -TYR
Thats a big 'if' and considering we've been developing fuel cells for several decades its perfection from a technical standpoint is well-established; its just a question of cost and, practically speaking, the cost of alternatives-- chiefly, oil. So long as the cost of conventional fuels and engines are lower than hydrogen and fuel cells there is little incentive for private enterprise to scale up production of such alternatives because the market is already balanced and while subsidies MAY stimulate innovation that could lower the cost of alternatives they ALWAYS generate Dead-weight losses (an imperfection). To what degree should we support market imperfections?

[jafar00]

If the technology and infrastructure is there in 5-6 years when my current new car is getting old, I would consider one of these. Anything that allows us to clear the air so to speak should be embraced and made cheaper by mass adoption.


It won't. Unless they've just started mining for domestic hydrogen.

Should I register Jovian Mining Pty Ltd now? :)

[logroller]

If the technology and infrastructure is there in 5-6 years when my current new car is getting old, I would consider one of these. Anything that allows us to clear the air so to speak should be embraced and made cheaper by mass adoption.



Should I register Jovian Mining Pty Ltd now? :)
Realistically modern cars are very low in emissions already. The biggest contribution of air pollution where I'm from are particulates-- to which even electric cars contribute through brake dust, stirring up latent duct particles etc. The number one indicator for air pollution is vehicle miles travelled (VMT). Reducing this is easily accomplished through such tried and true methods as route planning, car pooling and mass transit.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Politically-speaking perhaps, but not economically. I only buy domestically-sourced fuels for political reasons but I often pay more. Thats my choice. Do you believe that government should subsidize that choice?


Thats a big 'if' and considering we've been developing fuel cells for several decades its perfection from a technical standpoint is well-established; its just a question of cost and, practically speaking, the cost of alternatives-- chiefly, oil. So long as the cost of conventional fuels and engines are lower than hydrogen and fuel cells there is little incentive for private enterprise to scale up production of such alternatives because the market is already balanced and while subsidies MAY stimulate innovation that could lower the cost of alternatives they ALWAYS generate Dead-weight losses (an imperfection). To what degree should we support market imperfections? Money--profit makes technology leap-- tyr


http://news.discovery.com/tech/gear-and-gadgets/40-years-of-the-cell-phone-pictures.htm "Joel, this is Marty Cooper, I'd like you to know that I'm calling you from a cellular phone." Exactly 40 years ago, on April 3, 1973, Motorola engineer Martin Cooper placed this call -- the first ever on a cell phone -- to Joel Engel, his rival at AT&T’s Bell Labs. Cooper, now 85, made history in downtown Manhattan using the bulky prototype he had developed.

[logroller]

Money--profit makes technology leap-- tyr


"Joel, this is Marty Cooper, I'd like you to know that I'm calling you from a cellular phone." Exactly 40 years ago, on April 3, 1973, Motorola engineer Martin Cooper placed this call -- the first ever on a cell phone -- to Joel Engel, his rival at AT&T’s Bell Labs. Cooper, now 85, made history in downtown Manhattan using the bulky prototype he had developed.
Theres plenty of money/profit in traditional fuels but I've not heard of one publicly traded fuel cell company to turn a profit.

[fj1200]

Politically-speaking perhaps, but not economically. I only buy domestically-sourced fuels for political reasons but I often pay more. Thats my choice. Do you believe that government should subsidize that choice?

How do you know?


Should I register Jovian Mining Pty Ltd now? :)

I suppose. Do they have a long-term stream of revenue identified?


Money--profit makes technology leap-- tyr

Link to cost of hydrogen production?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Link to cost of hydrogen production?


http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/news-events/news-archive/2013/september/infrastructure-and-cost-reduction-key-to-european-deployment-of-hydrogen-fuel-cell-electric-vehicles In what was termed as the ‘chicken and egg’ scenario, the message was clear: Fuel cell and hydrogen technology is market ready and the ideal route to clean transport in Europe. Private public partnerships will continue to be essential to deliver an affordable European-wide hydrogen fuelling infrastructure. Europe must now decide whether it wants to lead the transition to clean transport and secure the associated growth and jobs or whether it wants to follow other global leaders. Public awareness for hydrogen fuel cell technology is imperative. “To maintain Europe’s leading position on clean technology for transport, a stable political framework and joint action is needed to address emissions targets, create new jobs and harness the advanced technology that exists. To deploy hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicles requires a combination of reducing costs and increasing efficiency. Consumer acceptance is key for take-up. Decisive European action from industry and Member States is critical to make our transport system more sustainable and environmentally responsible,” said Commissioner Siim Kallas, Vice President of the European Commission in charge of Transport. Industry speakers stressed that no technology succeeds in isolation. Increased production of hydrogen from renewables and hydrogen application for energy storage has the potential to deliver growth and jobs far beyond the transport sector. Other highlights from industry included: Hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicles are already on the road, they are safe and ready for the market. Their ranges are comparable to those of internal combustion engine vehicles. They produce no emissions and they are quiet. The cost of the necessary European-wide hydrogen fuelling infrastructure could be five times lower than the cost of the charging network required for battery and plug-in hybrid vehicles. Costs continue to fall on average, by 25% per annum over the last 10 years. The costs of fuel cell systems for vehicles are expected to further decrease by 90% by 2020. The lack of an adequate refuelling infrastructure is the only significant remaining obstacle to a successful roll-out of hydrogen powered fuel cell vehicles across the EU. There are significant efforts on-going in several Member States, such as in Germany, the UK, Scandinavia, Netherlands, France, Italy and other countries. These efforts must be brought together in a coordinated strategy and given a political boost. The event - under the patronage of Carlo Fidanza, MEP and Rapporteur for the Clean Power for Transport Package of the European Parliament’s Transport and Tourism Committee - was organised by Air Liquide, Daimler, Honda, Hyundai, Intelligent Energy, Toyota and Linde in partnership with the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking. The high level policy debate included contributions from Siim Kallas, Vice President of the European Commission in charge of Transport, Carlo Fidanza, MEP, Rapporteur of the Clean Power for Transport Package and Dirk Inger, Director, Climate Change, Energy and Environmental Policy, Electric Vehicles, Federal Ministry of Transport, Germany. The day also included an exhibition and opportunities for policymakers, NGOs and media to test-drive four different models of fuel cell electric cars by Daimler, Intelligent Energy, Honda and Hyundai. “Strong public-private partnerships are essential to bringing innovation to the mass market. In Europe, car makers, gas companies and other industry players have been working closely with decision-makers to make clean fuel cell electric vehicles an everyday reality for consumers. A long-term strategy enabling private investment to scale up production to reduce costs and to build sufficient infrastructure is critical for success. We need a decisive European deployment action underpinned by continued cross-border R&D activity. The continuation and further strengthening of the European Research & Development tool, the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking, is the right way forward,” added Pierre Etienne Franc, Air Liquide Advanced Business & Technologies Vice President and Chairman of the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking. The EU is currently the world's largest producer of motor vehicles, producing almost a third of the world's passenger cars. The automotive industry employs a large number of skilled workers and is responsible for 12 million jobs. It is therefore a key driver to support innovation (€20 bn a year in R&D) and Europe’s competitiveness (annual turnover of €780 bn and a value added of over €140 bn). - See more at: http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/news-events/news-archive/2013/september/infrastructure-and-cost-reduction-key-to-european-deployment-of-hydrogen-fuel-cell-electric-vehicles#sthash.IQPrsobA.dpuf After finding this I am starting to have my doubts. I am not a fan of the EU and have not much confidence in what a bunch of damn socialists do. Yet if they are correct and it leads to a viable and affordable use of hydrogen then all bets are off. A great idea and useful new technology is not to be ignored or condemn because of purely political bias. By the way , I have not and will not endorse government funding this effort here or over there. It should be private enterprise all the way IMHO. --Tyr

[fj1200]

Their ranges are comparable to those of internal combustion engine vehicles. They produce no emissions and they are quiet. The cost of the necessary European-wide hydrogen fuelling infrastructure could be five times lower than the cost of the charging network required for battery and plug-in hybrid vehicles. Costs continue to fall on average, by 25% per annum over the last 10 years. The costs of fuel cell systems for vehicles are expected to further decrease by 90% by 2020. The lack of an adequate refuelling infrastructure is the only significant remaining obstacle to a successful roll-out of hydrogen powered fuel cell vehicles across the EU.

After finding this I am starting to have my doubts.

I think the bold is rather the key. Battery powered cars have range problems and also rare-earth mining/sourcing (Afghanistan/China???) problem which I think could be solved by hydrogen but the problem still remains of obtaining hydrogen; You need to expend one resource to tap that resource.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I think the bold is rather the key. Battery powered cars have range problems and also rare-earth mining/sourcing (Afghanistan/China???) problem which I think could be solved by hydrogen but the problem still remains of obtaining hydrogen; You need to expend one resource to tap that resource.

Here is a possible solution ---
http://cleantechnica.com/2013/08/31/inexpensive-hydrogen-fuel-from-water-producing-hydrogen-with-charcoal-powder-and-lasers/ Inexpensive Hydrogen Fuel From Water — Producing Hydrogen With Charcoal Powder And Lasers
Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/08/31/inexpensive-hydrogen-fuel-from-water-producing-hydrogen-with-charcoal-powder-and-lasers/#sLHk5deECtU7Fbi0.99 Originally published on sister site Green Building Elements.

A new, relatively inexpensive means of producing hydrogen fuel from water — relying on charcoal powder and lasers — has now been created by researchers. The new method owes its relative affordability to the cheaper materials involved — charcoal and carbon powder rather than expensive catalysts or high-power electric currents.

As of now, though, the technique is only proven on very small scales — until the method is modified to produce larger quantities of hydrogen, applications will be limited.
Akimoto’s team tested carbon and charcoal powders by adding them to water and beaming a laser in nanosecond pulses at the mixtures. The experiment generated hydrogen at room temperature without the need for costly catalysts or electrodes. Its success provides an alternative, inexpensive method for producing small amounts of hydrogen from water.

The new research was just published in ACS’ Journal of Physical Chemistry C.

The researchers acknowledge that they received funding from the Original Research Support Project of Wakayama University.



Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/08/31/inexpensive-hydrogen-fuel-from-water-producing-hydrogen-with-charcoal-powder-and-lasers/#sLHk5deECtU7Fbi0.99

[logroller]

How do you know?

I ask. Im in an oil producing region so perhaps it makes the supply chain a little easier to assess.

[jafar00]

Here is a possible solution --- Inexpensive Hydrogen Fuel From Water — Producing Hydrogen With Charcoal Powder And Lasers
Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/08/31/inexpensive-hydrogen-fuel-from-water-producing-hydrogen-with-charcoal-powder-and-lasers/#sLHk5deECtU7Fbi0.99 Originally published on sister site Green Building Elements.

A new, relatively inexpensive means of producing hydrogen fuel from water — relying on charcoal powder and lasers — has now been created by researchers. The new method owes its relative affordability to the cheaper materials involved — charcoal and carbon powder rather than expensive catalysts or high-power electric currents.

As of now, though, the technique is only proven on very small scales — until the method is modified to produce larger quantities of hydrogen, applications will be limited.
Akimoto’s team tested carbon and charcoal powders by adding them to water and beaming a laser in nanosecond pulses at the mixtures. The experiment generated hydrogen at room temperature without the need for costly catalysts or electrodes. Its success provides an alternative, inexpensive method for producing small amounts of hydrogen from water.

The new research was just published in ACS’ Journal of Physical Chemistry C.

The researchers acknowledge that they received funding from the Original Research Support Project of Wakayama University.



Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/08/31/inexpensive-hydrogen-fuel-from-water-producing-hydrogen-with-charcoal-powder-and-lasers/#sLHk5deECtU7Fbi0.99

Now you're talking!

I always wanted a car fitted with Lasers!

[revelarts]

There are several new technologies that have a potential to change the game.
It will be dieruptive.
and we shouldn't be looking for something that can have Smooth tranistion iMO.
detroit has had a smooth decline i soppose but it aint pretty.
the oil industry and gas and coal jobs all down the line will be hurting as well.

ONE of the new ones that's now reproducable and companies are working on rolling it out.
Cold Fusion

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/

What everyone wanted was something that Rossi has been promising was about to happen for months: An independent test by third parties who were credible. This report was delayed several times to the point where many were wondering whether it was all nothing more than what we have come to see as Rossi’s usual “jam tomorrow” promises. But much to my, and I suspect many other people’s surprise, a report by credible, independent third parties is exactly what we got.
Published on May 16, the paper titled “Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device (http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913)” would appear to deliver what we wanted.
The paper was authored by Giuseppe Levi (http://www.unibo.it/Faculty/default.htm?TabControl1=TabRicerca&UPN=giuseppe.levi%40unibo.it) of Bologna University, Bologna, Italy; Evelyn Foschi (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/evelyn-foschi/5/7b8/645), Bologna, Italy; Torbjörn Hartman (http://katalog.uu.se/simpleinfo/?languageId=1&id=N96-5170), Bo Höistad (http://katalog.uu.se/empInfo/?languageId=1&id=XX1060), Roland Pettersson (http://katalog.uu.se/empInfo/?id=XX1360) and Lars Tegnér (http://katalog.uu.se/empInfo/?languageId=1&id=N9-1431)of Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden; and Hanno Essén (http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hanno_Essen/), of the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. While some of these people have previously been public in their support of Rossi and the E-Cat they are all serious academics with reputations to lose and the paper is detailed and thorough.
The actual test reactor, called the E-Cat HT, was described by the testers as:

… a high temperature development of the original apparatus which has also undergone many construction changes in the last two years – is the latest product manufactured by Leonardo Corporation: it is a device allegedly capable of producing heat from some type of reaction the origin of which is unknown.
They described the E-Cat HT as:

… a cylinder having a silicon nitride ceramic outer shell, 33 cm in length, and 10 cm in diameter. A second cylinder made of a different ceramic material (corundum) was located within the shell, and housed three delta-connected spiral-wire resistor coils. Resistors were laid out horizontally, parallel to and equidistant from the cylinder axis, and were as long as the cylinder itself. They were fed by a TRIAC power regulator device which interrupted each phase periodically, in order to modulate power input with an industrial trade secret waveform. This procedure, needed to properly activate the E-Cat HT charge, had no bearing whatsoever on the power consumption of the device, which remained constant throughout the test. The most important element of the E-Cat HT was lodged inside the structure. It consisted of an AISI 310 steel cylinder, 3 mm thick and 33 mm in diameter, housing the powder charges. Two AISI 316 steel cone-shaped caps were hot-hammered in the cylinder, sealing it hermetically.
Here’s a picture of the E-Cat HT during one of the tests:
http://b-i.forbesimg.com/markgibbs/files/2013/05/Screen-Shot-2013-05-20-at-6.16.20-PM.png (http://b-i.forbesimg.com/markgibbs/files/2013/05/Screen-Shot-2013-05-20-at-6.16.20-PM.png)
There were two test runs of the E-Cat HT (the emphasis is mine):

The present report describes the results obtained from evaluations of the operation of the E-Cat HT in two test runs. The first test experiment, lasting 96 hours (from Dec. 13th 2012, to Dec. 17th 2012), was carried out by the two first authors of this paper, Levi and Foschi, while the second experiment, lasting for 116 hours (from March 18th 2013, to March 23rd 2013), was carried out by all authors.
The authors also note various assumptions they made about the test and that they weren’t in control of all of the aspects of the process but they apparently didn’t consider any of these to be egregious enough to be showstoppers.
And now, the big reveal … the authors’ conclusions are (again, the emphasis is mine):

… if we consider the whole volume of the reactor core and the most conservative figures on energy production, we still get a value of (7.93 ± 0.8) <del>102</del> 10^2 MJ/Liter that is one order of magnitude higher than any conventional source.
To put that in perspective, the following graph plots the peak power of various energy sources against their specific energy (energy per unit mass). As you can see, gasoline is way out in front in terms of how much energy is available and how much power can be delivered but if this paper is correct, you can make that “gasoline was way out in front” because, as can be seen, the E-Cat has roughly four orders of magnitude more specific energy and three orders of magnitude greater peak power than gasoline!

http://b-i.forbesimg.com/markgibbs/files/2013/05/130520_ragone_04-1024x624.png (http://b-i.forbesimg.com/markgibbs/files/2013/05/130520_ragone_04.png)
Graph [UPDATED 05/21/13 @ 09:08] courtesy of Alan Fletcher


Ponds and Flasmen were right.
it's real.


there's also a tech coming with Nano carbons that work via solar energy. in an working with low voltage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghhgUmGBjX8

And others..

the question is how it can be rolled out.

[logroller]

There are several new technologies that have a potential to change the game.
It will be dieruptive.
and we shouldn't be looking for something that can have Smooth tranistion iMO.
detroit has had a smooth decline i soppose but it aint pretty.
the oil industry and gas and coal jobs all down the line will be hurting as well.

ONE of the new ones that's now reproducable and companies are working on rolling it out.
Cold Fusion

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markgibbs/2013/05/20/finally-independent-testing-of-rossis-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-maybe-the-world-will-change-after-all/


Ponds and Flasmen were right.
it's real.


there's also a tech coming with Nano carbons that work via solar energy. in an working with low voltage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghhgUmGBjX8

And others..

the question is how it can be rolled out.

While the alleged energy produced is on the order of nuclear reactions, i didn't hear of any reported detection of nuclear byproducts. Too many unknowns to conclude fusion occurred imo but exciting research nonetheless.

[KitchenKitten99]

Weren't the zeppelins such as the Hindenberg, supported by hydrogen? And how did that go for them?

Or the hydrogen bomb?

I'm not sure I'd want a fuel THAT touchy sitting anywhere near me.

[DragonStryk72]

I sure hope this pans out better than the solar powered car, the electric car using batteries, etc. Imagine if we could advance past having to be held hostage to ME oil?? They know their power and influence will evaporate should America solve the oil use problem. Which is why the Arab surge and new push for the Islamic caliphate has hit high gear. They know they have to strike while they still can but our government hides this reality from us. We should be asking why and demanding answers .--Tyr

Actually, the electric and solar cars only really failed because they were ahead of their time. Nowadays, we're seeing electric models that are starting to compete with their gas-using cousins. I believe you could begin to see some solar/electric hybrids, where they have both improved solar panels, and a plug for recharging the battery.

However, Hydrogen fuel cell-powered cars are likely the next real step, and would completely get rid of the need for gasoline. Truthfully, due to the number of plastics in the world, the oil industry still has life left in it, it just won't be needed on the level that fuel for our vehicles is. What oil we would need for plants, oils, and whatnot, would be within our own capacity to obtain, without having to go outside the country at all.

[DragonStryk72]

Weren't the zeppelins such as the Hindenberg, supported by hydrogen? And how did that go for them?

Or the hydrogen bomb?

I'm not sure I'd want a fuel THAT touchy sitting anywhere near me.

Well, there are differences here. For the one, with zeppelins, hydrogen was kept in a gaseous form inside the balloon, and was ignited when it wasn't supposed to be by enemy fire. The explosion was only as large as it was because of the amount hydrogen. Instead, we would have fuel cell roughly the size of a soda can up to maybe the size of a 12-pack. The Hindenberg had basically a football field of hydrogen.

As for the A-Bomb, let's keep it in bounds: more than 96% of your body contains hydrogen, and it's in everything that you drink. It can't be THAT touchy.

[logroller]

Duplicate post deleted

[logroller]

Weren't the zeppelins such as the Hindenberg, supported by hydrogen? And how did that go for them?

Or the hydrogen bomb?

I'm not sure I'd want a fuel THAT touchy sitting anywhere near me.

gasoline isnt exactly care-free handling.
http://youtu.be/8wiUBCMdO7Yo

That hydrogen would most likely be in a compressed gas adds some concern, but we've had propane powered engines for a long time. A welding truck has more of an explosive risk than a hydrogen fueled car.

So far as h-bombs, they also had lithium in them; thats the same stuff thats in your cell phone's battery. That certainly adds some credence to not using you cell phone while driving:explosion:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Weren't the zeppelins such as the Hindenberg, supported by hydrogen? And how did that go for them?

Or the hydrogen bomb?

I'm not sure I'd want a fuel THAT touchy sitting anywhere near me. A hydrogen bomb requires an A-bomb explosion to set off the hydrogen based explosion. Hydrogen used in cars would be in a gaseous form not different that propane. Of course its explosive but so is gasoline. The explosions are what powers the vehicles. So hydrogen would be not greater threat than is the gasoline IMHO.--Tyr

[fj1200]

The explosions are what powers the vehicles. So hydrogen would be not greater threat than is the gasoline IMHO.--Tyr

Actually I think hydrogen cars are fuel cell based which is a chemical reaction and not combustion based; could be wrong though. It's that the hydrogen needs to be stored in a pressurized tank which creates some concern.


The type of fuel cell used in cars is the polymer exchange membrane (or PEM) fuel cell. PEM fuel cells have the advantage of being light and small. They consist of two electrodes (a negatively charged anode and a positively charged cathode), a catalyst and a membrane. Hydrogen is forced into the fuel cell at the anode in the form of H2 molecules, each of which contains two hydrogen atoms. A catalyst at the anode breaks the molecules into hydrogen ions (the protons) and a flow of electricity (the electrons). The ions pass through the membrane, but the electricity has to go around. While it's doing so, it can be harnessed to do work. Just as hydrogen is forced into the fuel cell at the anode, oxygen is forced in at the cathode. The protons and electrons reunite at the cathode and join with the oxygen to form water, most of which become the fuel cell's exhaust. Fuel cells are designed to be flat and thin, mainly so they can be stacked. The more fuel cells in the stack, the greater the voltage of the electricity that the stack produces.
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/hybrid-technology/hydrogen-cars1.htm

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Actually I think hydrogen cars are fuel cell based which is a chemical reaction and not combustion based; could be wrong though. It's that the hydrogen needs to be stored in a pressurized tank which creates some concern.


http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/hybrid-technology/hydrogen-cars1.htm


http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/tech/hydrogen Hydrogen is also found in many organic compounds, notably the hydrocarbons that make up many of our fuels, such as gasoline, natural gas, methanol, and propane. Hydrogen can be separated from hydrocarbons through the application of heat - a process known as reforming. Currently, most hydrogen is made this way from natural gas. An electrical current can also be used to separate water into its components of oxygen and hydrogen. This process is known as electrolysis. Some algae and bacteria, using sunlight as their energy source, even give off hydrogen under certain conditions.

Hydrogen is high in energy, yet an engine that burns pure hydrogen produces almost no pollution. NASA has used liquid hydrogen since the 1970s to propel the space shuttle and other rockets into orbit. Hydrogen fuel cells power the shuttle's electrical systems, producing a clean byproduct - pure water, which the crew drinks.

A fuel cell combines hydrogen and oxygen to produce electricity, heat, and water. Fuel cells are often compared to batteries. Both convert the energy produced by a chemical reaction into usable electric power. However, the fuel cell will produce electricity as long as fuel (hydrogen) is supplied, never losing its charge.

Fuel cells are a promising technology for use as a source of heat and electricity for buildings, and as an electrical power source for electric motors propelling vehicles. Fuel cells operate best on pure hydrogen. But fuels like natural gas, methanol, or even gasoline can be reformed to produce the hydrogen required for fuel cells. Some fuel cells even can be fueled directly with methanol, without using a reformer. I was under the impression the hydrogen was under pressure to be liquidfied then used to produce electricity to power the vehicle.