Hydrogen fuel cell cars won’t hit the market until 2015, but with the right investment in infrastructure, more than a million and a half of us could be driving one by 2030, with annual sales topping 300,000 vehicles, an evaluation conducted by government and industry has forecast. A timeline drawn up by UKH2Mobility - a …
""Steam would of course provide a simple enough alternative - fireless steam""
Note : the fireless steam is generated from methanol + hydrogen peroxide + catalyst. This does not seem a realistic method for transport etc. Local, small scale generation of steam without heat maybe.
"Note : the fireless steam is generated from methanol + hydrogen peroxide + catalyst. This does not seem a realistic method for transport etc. Local, small scale generation of steam without heat maybe."
Not to mention the going rate for high test peroxide. $10/l IIRC?
OTOH "Conventional" fireless (highly heated water in high pressure vessel venting to atmosphere or possibly closed circuit) could be quite viable.
The 'speed-in' tariff
The government is planning to introduce a speed-in tariff of 23 pence per mile to be paid to early adopters, inflation linked over the next 25 years. The scheme will be similar to that which was used to encourage adoption of photovoltaic energy and wind power, with the costs being distributed across the broad range of users of existing technologies.
Are 'hydrogen fuel cell cars' likely to run on straight H2? I thought (though I may well be out of date) that liquid fuels such as ethanol are more popular as a source of hydrogen for fuel cells. Hydrogen is a pig to store, being both bulky and having a tendency to leak through most substances (or requiring continual cooling if in liquid form).
Ethanol fuel cells are great, if they can crack the platinum cataylst problem. On the other hand, anything that makes ethanol is probably better used for food production than automotive fuel.
I think it's far more likely that the battery charge-time problem will be licked before anyone comes up with a cheap and efficient car-size fuel cell. The fact that a few cars exist are entirely besides the point - it' EASY to make a car run on hydrogen. What's hard is making, storing, and safely handling the hydrogen, and all of those are really difficult problems.
You just get so much farther with hydrogen!
see: Hello Kitty catonaut
What we need
Is a way of storing that Hydrogen power, in a way that it keep is bang, but in a way that would ideally be liquid at normal temperatures. Wouldn't make it too explosive and to increase the energy density. As even liquid hydrogen is remarkable week in energy stored per litre. A way that helps stop it leaking out of everything (which hydrogen does with remarkable ease). I suggest something like a carbon atom which does all of the above.. oh wait..
The Easiest and Best way to make even a V8 turbo greener is to KEEP THE CAR ON THE ROAD for longer as almost all the carbon of any car is in its production. But no think thank is suggesting tax brakes for older cars are they?
I agree with you on the storage front. Hydrogen is not an energy dense fuel. There are so many things that make sense about a hydrogen economy built on mass nuclear and renewable generation. But hydrocarbons are just so useful, there is many times more hydrogen in a pint of petrol than there is in a pint of hydrogen, the physics of it is our enemy otherwise it would get my vote.
Hydrogen is a scam by oil companies to retain centralized control of energy
Hydrogen is a low energy-density fuel, hard to store safely.
Hydrogen is far more powerful greenhouse gas (if it leaks, and it will) than CO2.
H2 a greenhouse gas
I did not know this - thanks for the edjamacation!
Have one on me.
There was a Caltech paper published last year in which they said yes there was a possibility that leaking hydrogen would affect the ozone layer, but that there was no need to worry since there was plenty of time for us to carry out thorough impact studies before anyone committed to widespread use of the technology.
The same issue was raised in 2003.
What do you expect from an OIL COMPANY?
Are their products so green?
Hold Front Page
Bunch of vested interests claim their version of "42" is going to be FABULOUS & Succesful!
In other news:
Cardinals assert "Pope definitely remaining Catholic"
think of the budget! ;)
propped by (what, over 50% of end user price) tax on fuel.
The Hydrogen Hoax
Article examining the practicalities of large-scale hydrogen adoption for transportation...
Hydrocarbons are much better than Hydrogen for portability...
I can't see pure hydrogen ever taking over from a Hydrocarbon..
I'd take electric over hydrogen any day for a car... but diesel before that at current prices!
I drive a large saloon, but I still get upwards of 50 Mpg!
>>I can't see pure hydrogen ever taking over from a Hydrocarbon..
Even when the latter run out or are scare enough the price goes up 10X?
not even then. synthetic diesel would be cheaper and far safer and could use existing infrastructure.
Hydrogen is not a fuel
It's a carrier. You have to make hydrogen first, that is put energy into it to make it, and with efficiency losses you get less out of it then you put into it.
Doomed to fail.
Re: Hydrogen is not a fuel
All fuel sources have inefficiencies. It is however as you point out inappropriate to consider it like you would a hydrocarbon. It is closer to steamin that it is a material that is not easily procured without putting in your own energy to create it.
It is actually fairer to compare the technology to a battery. Except one that is about as far from practical energy density as you can get. For a practical range, you need to liquify it which wastes even more energy. You then have to truck and pump the volitile highly compressed gas to a service station and accept that you can't completely contain it so
I guess it is lucky that the fuel cells themselves are not made from large quantities of very rare materials..... hmmm
And my personal view.
That is all.
Hydrogen is a PITA to generate, transport and store in any form.
A good question would be how much do batteries have to improve and what "Moores law" for batteries? How fast does power storage take to doubleand equally speed to charge to halve?
I'd expect better of El Reg - the "hockey stick" promotional graph ought to ring some warning bells but you've mostly just regurgitated the press release. The physics (production, energy density, transport) wouldn't seem to favor H2 as a fuel. I guess it might work if these rent seekers could get enough subsidy - but electric cars haven't been a great success.
Why not just convert your existing car?
What doesn't make sense to me, is that a certain famous Daniel Dingle in the Philippines (see his story on Google) has been running his modern standard production cars on hydrogen for more than 30 years. Several Philippine President's even rode in his vehicles.
He was generating the hydrogen on-demand using simple electrolysis, extracting the gas from natural water. The cars engine was almost un-modified.
A certain Steven Meyers in the US (find his story on Google too), also perfected this but was killed while trying to turn it into a commercial interest.
The yahoo group "Watercar" has many members, all people busy developing and using the technology themselves, most though are careful not to say, when they have it working, for fear of a similar end to Mr Meyers.
So why would we pay for Hydrogen? The modifications to the engine are so minor that almost all who read this will be able to do it themselves with items available at their local hardware store.
Some will argue that the amount of electricity necessary to extract the hydrogen is prohibitive, but using a square wave generator instead of an unmodified signal, the amount of current required is significantly reduced to within the scope of a standard car battery and unmodified alternator. The fuel is more powerful and efficient than Petrol or Diesel, causing the engine to run cooler and increasing it's responsiveness.
The exhaust contain zero harmful emissions and is mostly oxygen.
I have the complete plans right here and it really is simple. They can be found online too in varying amounts of completeness.
Re: Why not just convert your existing car?
"he amount of current required is significantly reduced to within the scope of a standard car battery and unmodified alternator."
Perpetual motion then ! Should make a fortune !
Re: Why not just convert your existing car?
> I have the complete plans right here and it really is simple
I'll bet you can hook the engine up to an alternator and use the square wave energy to create all the hydrogen you need to run the engine, as well. You could call it "perpetual motion".
Re: Why not just convert your existing car?
"He was generating the hydrogen on-demand using simple electrolysis, extracting the gas from natural water. "
And the source of the electricity for this is.....
"boom" in the context of hydrogen fuel?
I don't think I like the sound of it ...
Do electric, hybrid, hydrogen 1 man x thousands all taking 100 sq ft of road space at 8;45 am in the morning resolve congestion and the crappy commuting lives we lead?