honda creates first hydogen powerd car

[Robert.B]

http://green.yahoo.com/news/ap/20080616/ap_on_bi_ge/japan_honda.html

http://youtube.com/watch?v=c-6B9jYQFm8

although there are a few catches to owning this vehicle and the obviously issue of mass establishing hydrogen stations nationwide, its still good to see another automotive company putting development in the right area.

[Justice Von Brandt]

As long as they make the thing practically un- explodable then I'll be happy driving it.

[Peter Coene]

thats not the 1st, BMW had one of those running in 2003.

[Gory]

Actually hydrogen powered cars have been around for a while. It's not exactly "cutting edge" it's just that there's inherent difficulties with hydrogen power as a fuel source. Look up "Hydrogen Economy" on Wikipedia to get an idea.

I'm more in favor of alternative fuel sources that don't require a drastic change in infrastructure. Hydrogen isn't one of them. I'm more in favor of research into all electric technology.

Oh well, kudos to Honda.

[Peter Coene]

I'm more in favor of alternative fuel sources that don't require a drastic change in infrastructure. Hydrogen isn't one of them. I'm more in favor of research into all electric technology.

Oh well, kudos to Honda.
Most electricity is generated either using fosil fuels or else hydroelectric which causes a different negative environmental impact. Since it still requires the same ammount of energy to drive the car and energy is lost when changed from one form to another electric cars are an even greater drain on the environment then regular fuel powered ones. The only difference is that the pollution is more concentrated (at the power plants) instead of being dispersed over a wider area by the cars.

[wassermelone]

They are talking about the first hydrogen cell car being put into consumer production. So it IS (a) first.

Other than that... woo hoo :rolleyes:

The common misconception is that the hydrogen in hydrogen cells is somehow a power source. That would be nice considering its the most common element in the universe. Unfortunately... it makes a fantastic BATTERY. Hydrogen cells are great energy storage devices. All the energy stored has to come from the usual suspects: oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear, wind, etc etc.

[Jabo]

I'm so off from Earth as soon as it's possible.

[Gory]

In many areas you can actually request from your power company that your energy comes from clean energy sources. I know in Baltimore you can request that your energy comes directly from wind farms, although for a higher rate. (Anywhere from 2-4 cents more per KWh)

There's also nuclear, solar, hydroelectric.... A whole bunch of alternative power plants that have no carbon emissions.

Aside from that, Electric cars have a high energy conversion efficiency. Coupled with regenerative braking and the fact that electricity doesn't need to be shipped to get to you the consumer, you're already looking at massive carbon emission savings.

If you look at the technologies being developed for electric cars it really does look a lot more promising than anything else we have planned.

Please, take a look at this article on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy

And especially this part:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy#Efficiency_as_an_automotive_fuel

edit- Also think about this one little part: Recent all electric Li-Ion vehicles cost approximately 1-2 cents per mile to drive. Depending on the cost of electricity in your area.

[Peter Coene]

In many areas you can actually request from your power company that your energy comes from clean energy sources. I know in Baltimore you can request that your energy comes directly from wind farms, although for a higher rate. (Anywhere from 2-4 cents more per KWh)

There's also nuclear, solar, hydroelectric.... A whole bunch of alternative power plants that have no carbon emissions.
Hydroelectric is harmful in that it ruins rivers as habitats for the ecosystems that otherwise live there, causing flooding on one side of the dam and drought on the other.

Nuclear has been effectively fazes out in the US due to the same econuts that are now making a fuss about emissions having made a fuss about nuclear waste.

As for solar, the technology that we currently have is not advanced enough to replace fossil fuels unless we were to ruin miles of unselltled land by covering them with solar fields.

Aside from that, Electric cars have a high energy conversion efficiency. Coupled with regenerative braking and the fact that electricity doesn't need to be shipped to get to you the consumer, you're already looking at massive carbon emission savings.
It needs to be sent allong power lines, in which case it looses energy allong the way. Also, the fuel to create the electricity needs to be shipped to the power plant, which means you aren'y saving anything there. The conversion from fuel to elecricity is not efficient at all. All you are doing by driving an electric car is adding a step to the process and changing the location of where the damage to the ecosystem occurs.

Regenerative breaking can still be used in a hybrid car, which as far as I can tell is at this time the best option for cutting back on fuel usage.

[TASmith]

I'm interested in more urban planning that revolves around walking and biking.

[VulgarDragon]

Good idea, TASmith. My city, for example, does not have many bike paths, If you want to ride your bike to work, you have to share the road with all the cars and SUVs.

I heard that the Japaneses invented a car that runs on water (http://autos.canada.com/news/story.html?id=0bbcec45-63a2-4c00-8347-53b0b0468a33). Don't know much about it, but apparently, it breaks water down into hydrogen and oxygen for fuel.

[enrigo]

We need one of these :gasmask:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon

Nuclearpunk, anyone ?

[stoph]

As for solar, the technology that we currently have is not advanced enough to replace fossil fuels unless we were to ruin miles of unselltled land by covering them with solar fields.


australia has so much spare desert we dont know what to do with it. unsettled land? not many could survive in the most arid of regions, so they should seriously consider doing more in those parts. as far as eco systems are concerned, yes there are animal groups that manage to thrive in the desert, but if measures were made to compensate for the displacement then i think its probably the more viable option. we got wind, and thermo-energy potential, too. also, keep in mind you guys in the States are having a ball with petrol (gas) prices - its what, US$4.10/gallon? thats about US$1.10/litre. we are paying upwards of AU$1.60-70/litre (almost $1.90 for diesel), and the aussie dollar is worth almost US$0.94

go figure. the world jus needs to get some smarts and quick

[gruve24]

Hydrogen energy is not practical and to expensive to produce it will never make it to the mainstream.

Electrical powered cars were the wave of the future but were recalled by force because it would put oil companies and maintenance shops out of business.

[Kresh]

gruve24: How is hydrogen impractical when it can be seperated from just about anything? The only thing that is expensive are the fuel cells , because they aren't being mass produced. Then you also have to consider there is no infastructure for fuel stations.

Now for the electric powered cars , they need a battery. The tech for batteries these days just isnt there for cars , and duracel and energizer wouldn't be too happy about super effecient batteries either. And then what the hell do we do with all that battery acid?

An idea is only impractical nowadays when you can't make a fucking buck off of it.

[gruve24]

electrical powered cars were already released in the mainstream and did better than anyone had expected. People who owned electric cars plugged them into their houses over night to recharge the battery. The technology IS indeed already here, but again these cars worked TO WELL and were recalled and scrapped because oil companies and auto maintenance companies would go out of business. Think about how much money the planet has invested in oil !!! think about how much money is invested in tuning up your car and replacing various filters !!!!! Thats is the reason why you don't see electric cars anymore !!

Kresh you answered your own question within the 1st two sentences but your missing how difficult it is to extract hydrogen. It costs far more money to extract hydrogen than it does to use gas.

The process is much more flawed than you think. Gas when burned in cars produces carbon monoxide and other poisonous gases not to mention it is a non renewable resource. Hydrogen while some may think is a cleaner burning energy source need to think about where and how it is harvested. Coal or natural gas is converted into hydrogen and left over material (carbon dioxide) is emitted into the atmosphere.

The problem is you still need oil or coal (NON RENEWABLE RESOURCE) to create hydrogen and you still pollute the air with poison even though it may not be from your car, it will be from the factories that create the hydrogen.

[s.ketch]

electrical powered cars were already released in the mainstream and did better than anyone had expected. People who owned electric cars plugged them into their houses over night to recharge the battery. The technology IS indeed already here, but again these cars worked TO WELL and were recalled and scrapped because oil companies and auto maintenance companies would go out of business. Think about how much money the planet has invested in oil !!! think about how much money is invested in tuning up your car and replacing various filters !!!!! Thats is the reason why you don't see electric cars anymore !!

Kresh you answered your own question within the 1st two sentences but your missing how difficult it is to extract hydrogen. It costs far more money to extract hydrogen than it does to use gas.

The process is much more flawed than you think. Gas when burned in cars produces carbon monoxide and other poisonous gases not to mention it is a non renewable resource. Hydrogen while some may think is a cleaner burning energy source need to think about where and how it is harvested. Coal or natural gas is converted into hydrogen and left over material (carbon dioxide) is emitted into the atmosphere.

The problem is you still need oil or coal (NON RENEWABLE RESOURCE) to create hydrogen and you still pollute the air with poison even though it may not be from your car, it will be from the factories that create the hydrogen.

You can use water to extract hydrogen. Of course if you don't have a well and use city supplied water, then the price would probably be raised. But, you're still not using coal or any other fossil fuel.

Its unbelievably obvious that the oil industry and government isnt going to support something they can't sell at the same price as gas or tax heavily, I dont think anyone is under that delusion. I think the general opinion here is that science has the ability to go around that no matter what the government or big business wants and science is one step closer to winning.

[Vhan Juju]

That is gotta be the most flustrateing thing...really, I mean electrical cars WERE a REALITY, but its well documented that the goverment played a part in its demise. I think they even made a movie about it.

The same thing happend with the old trolly system, the goverment replaced it with the Bus system because GM, and the goverment got togeather on it...

Alternitves are availible, but people have to start thinking, and getting a little clever...

[CouchPotato]

You can use water to extract hydrogen. Of course if you don't have a well and use city supplied water, then the price would probably be raised. But, you're still not using coal or any other fossil fuel.

Its unbelievably obvious that the oil industry and government isnt going to support something they can't sell at the same price as gas or tax heavily, I dont think anyone is under that delusion. I think the general opinion here is that science has the ability to go around that no matter what the government or big business wants and science is one step closer to winning.

I really shouldn't be doing this while at work, but I can't help it. You don't use water to extract hydrogen. You use water as a source to get hydrogen. I think the common misconception is that since hydrogen is everywhere, it should be easily available to use. It's basic chemistry. Hydrogen sits at the top of the periodic table of elements, and it's a highly volatile substance. It cannot exist in a stable state by itself in nature, therefore you will always find hydrogen as a compound molecule, for example oxygen as water.

So although there is hydrogen everywhere in nature, it is also almost certainly combined with something else. To use it you have to extract the hydrogen from it's component molecule. So the basic question is, are you able to get MORE energy from extracting hydrogen then you do from the energy you PUT IN to extract it in the first place, and if you do do so, is it at a rate efficient enough to justifiy it's uses? Right now, I think the answer is no, and coupled with the fact that hydrogen is so hard to store, and it's so easy to cause an explosion with it, that at the moment, it's not really realistic to think that hydrogen is a viable alternative.

And my boss is just round the corner, so later!

Edit: To your other point about not using coal or fossil fuel, the answer is that in order to get the hydrogen from water, you have to run it through electrolysis, and to do that you need electricity. And unless someone has mastered Call Lightning as a skill or some such, you are going to have to get electricity from how we've always done so; by burning fossil fuels, by nuclear, by solar, wind, thermal, etc. etc. and as pointed out before, ALL of them comes with their own impact. As a rule, if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

[s.ketch]

You don't use water to extract hydrogen. You use water as a source to get hydrogen.

Thats what I meant. I know water is a source of hydrogen, its in the name. I did not mean to imply that water is poured over a brick or turns the turbine of a hydrogen extractor to get hydrogen (or whatever scientists do all day with water).

I didnt know about the electrolysis thing though, so thanks for that info.

[wiggum]

My lunch break is almost over so I have to make this quick. If the infrastructure were put in place today, GM, Honda, Ford and Toyota could all begin mass production of Hydrogen cars in under a year. Aside from what Honda has, Ford has a test fleet of Hydrogen fuel cell cars somewhere on the west coast.

The problem is that their isn't anywhere near enough infrastructure for the fuel cell cars to make any kind of impact on us into the forseeable future. Plug in electric series hybrids like the Chevy Volt and Opel Flextreme and even plug in parallel hybrids like the next generation Prius are much better solutions for the next decade or so, at least until Hydrogen fuel cell charging stations become commonplace.

I believe the plug in hybrids are better because every home owner in america can get a 220volt plug installed in their garage or outside to plug in their cars at night when they would be charged on energy that would otherwise have been wasted.

I know this is sloppy, I'll come back and edit this to make sure everything is right later today or tomorrow. In the meantime you should all check out http://www.gm-volt.com to get more information on the mass produced electric cars that are comming out in the relatively near future.

Crap, boss is behind me...