Will Hydrogen get us 30 MPG by 2016?

.......I think it's very possible, and more than likely probable. That means to me that I get to keep on driving my truck until they come out with an add on that will get the mileage up close to the goal. With the possibility of engines like this...
http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/blog...ax-hydrogen-internal-combustion-engine-video/ - (read the responses too)

The above engine specs.......
http://www.ahanw.org/library/atv/radexengine.php

.....I hope an add-on is not far away with a solid reputation.

I'm extremely thankful that someone has finally built a fire under the auto makers to reach this goal and get us away from control by other oil bearing countries and the oil companies and create jobs at the same time.

 

I used to think hydrogen was great. That is until you realize that you can't get away from the fact that it takes two times as much energy to produce it. GM has been working on their HydroGEN system for almost 10 years. They have a fleet of over 100 fuel cell vehicles at various military installations around the US. They have a fuel cell SUV that goes 300 miles on a tank.

Again- the problem is that it is inefficient to produce. I'd say fully electric cars have a better chance at survival. Tesla motors out here in Norcal has a prototype sedan ( Model S) that goes 300 miles on a single charge and will cost $50,000.

 

Yeah, even electric is better than hydrogen. Better range and more efficient use of energy from start to finish.

Imagine the off road capability of a vehicle that had a motor for each wheel. You could do some sick stuff with your suspension if you didn't have to worry about drive shafts (raising or lowering).

 

A more modern electrical power grid in this country is needed before the electric car can become common place, but I do believe electric cars are the future. Hydrogen uses electricity to make electricity so it doesn't make since. I have heard that natural gas can be used to make hydrogen fuel, but the environmentalists wont let us drill for it even though our country has an abundent supply. Nuclear power creating tons of clean electricity is probably the answer. Oh wait, we can't build Nuclear power plants either. I guess they want us to walk.

 

The problem is that Hydrogen (H) is "created" using electricity to separate water, producing Oxygen (O) as well. Then the car combines the stored H with atmospheric O in a reverse process to produce electricity to power a motor and run the car.

It's much more efficient to store the electricity that would have been used to produce the H in a battery.

Electric cars that could be charged at your home would be no Tesla super car, but could easily be created. People are alredy doing it custom all over the country.

 

Flux Capacitor Mod = 30mpg in a Tacoma LOL

 

Electric cars that could be charged at your home would be no Tesla super car, but could easily be created. People are alredy doing it custom all over the country.[/quote]

I guess my point was that if every house in the country was charging their cars overnight, the current powergrid would not be able to handle the demand. Maybe I'm wrong. It's been known to happen.

 

But the thing is that not everyone in the whole country is going to go out and buy a new electric car overnight. It will be a slow, gradual process. I look at it like this: Before and during WW2, the typical American household used maybe 20 amps of electricity. They used hardly any because most people just had electric lights, coal heaters, and a few random electrical appliances. After WW2, there was an explosion in home electronics which had been supressed during the war. We're talking TV sets, stereos, washing machines, deep freezes, central heating and air, garage door openers... you name it. That and there was a housing explosion and they were slapping up houses left and right. The electrical grid was gradually enlarged to accommodate that demand. That's what they'll do for electric cars too.

Another thing is that electronics use a lot less energy than they used to. My new computer uses a fraction of the power my 8 year old Mac does. The new TV sets they have use LEDs and are a lot more efficient. So perhaps the same time that electric cars come out, some of that demand will be countered by more efficient appliances.

 

Excellent conversation going on here! I know that it will take some break throughs in technology like a very efficient solar panel and lighter, more efficient battery packs, etc., etc., to run hydrogen. But it is available and engines could still have the power that is needed to haul loads from tools in our beds to semi loads of freight and be pollution free. Alternative fuel sources will be developed no matter what.

 

LoL!

 

hydrogen is produced (from water) by hydrolysis. The only practically scalable hydrolysis process is electrolytic. electrolytic hydrolysis is horribly inefficient. even if you acheive economic production, hydrogen requires a LOT of tankage relative to petroleum.

in addition to lack of infrastructure, electric cars aren't going to acheive practical range for highway travel in our lifetimes.

i have a basic technical education (two engineering degrees) and the rhetoric flying right now is ridiculous fantasy. no wonder the japanese laugh at us. although this stuff makes people feel good, in the end physics will trump politics every time. green energy is the next star wars: billions in and neat color brochures out.

wanna travel green? take a train. cutting edge efficiency for 100 years now.

 

No "breakthroughs" are going to overcome the basic physics of the hydrogen energy balance, i.e., takes more energy to separate it from water than you get out of it. Beware all the internet scams with folks claiming to have overcome this by applying some unusual frequency to the electrolysis cells. Most H2 now is reformed from natural gas, which takes energy, produces CO2, and places demand on the natural gas supply. The scenario in which H2 might make sense is if we had gigawatts of excess nuclear power generation capacity to produce the H2 in a carbon free way. Not gonna happen anytime soon, if ever. Bottom line, no free lunch, no cars running on water, and IMHO, H2 will never be a mass transportation fuel.

 

Don't know if I'd say that quite yet. That Model S Tesla I mentioned earlier goes 300 miles on a single charge and it can be charged in 45 minutes. If you think about it, this technology was non-existent even 10 years ago. That's really impressive.

The GM EV-1 had a range of 160 miles and took 5-8 hours to charge. The batteries were Nickel Cadmium and weighed twice as much as those used in the Model S. The EV-1 was leased from 1996-1999. They cost well over $100,000.

So in my opinion, its logical to think that if electric cars could go from costing over $100,000, have batteries that are double the size, half the range, ( EV-1) to an electric car that goes twice as far, charges in 1/8th the time, costs 50% less, has batteries that are 50% smaller, and so on in 10 years time that they could easily exceed this standard and reach ranges of 500 and 600 miles.

Honestly, my wife and I carpool 50 miles each way. I could easily see driving a Model S as my primary car( if they were cheaper) because I'd only have to charge it when I get home every 2-3 days. For my occasional, twice a year road trip, I'd use my truck. I'd do so until a longer range electric car came out.

Anyhow, yes- a nice CIVIL conversation here. Good job guys!

http://www.teslamotors.com/models/index.php

 

Keep in mind whatever tech does prevail, it will naturally become more efficient over time. Look at computers, and how rapidly advanced they get year by year.

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

Anything used in mass, it will become profitable to continue development to make it cheaper to build, more efficient to use to best 'the other guys.'

Also if I come into enough money, I want a tesla myself. Also the Ariel Atom 500, and the Nissan GT-R, an R34, '99 3000GT VR-4... uh list goes on.

 

This could help make electric cars more viable, but it still takes a huge electrical pipeline to recharge (180kW):
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/03/12/new-lithium-ion-process-could-lead-to-super-fast-charging-still/

 

It's still non-existent, but that is a nice color brochure.

"up to 300 miles range"

Will actually be impressed when one passes me on the interstate in west Texas.

 

I was the same way. Then I started reading about all the problems. It's not just making it. There's also storage and transporting. http://www.energybulletin.net/node/4541

 

So the Shell Oil ad that is telling me they are putting Nitrogen in my gas is not going to solve all these problems???

Gee I was sure that adding more inert gases in my fuel would make it all better

 

Thing is, technically a hydrogen powered car is still an electric car. It just uses a fuel cell rather than a battery. Both take electricity, convert it into another form of energy for storage purposes, then convert it back to electricity when it's needed. This process of converting electricity to another form of energy and back is always going to result in some inefficiencies (heat loss...), but both technologies are making huge leaps forward. Whichever wins out in the end, I think we're going end up with the "energy storage unit" as just another option where we'll be able to choose from short range batteries, to long range batteries, depending on our needs. Some batteries are also able to convert the energy faster than others, which means that A, they'll charge faster. and B, they release the energy faster, which enables faster acceleration & more available power for towing/hauling. It means a means a faster discharge, but that's no different from a gas engine in that a heavy foot will drain the fuel faster.