I wouldn't mind..

[Grendel]

..trying one of these

[Lothar]

I likes it... though I'd prefer traditional control systems.

[Krom]

Yeah, if you want to change the way to control a car, do it with a joystick (or two) and pedals. It will let you see the road in front of you far better then a steering wheel ever would and would probably cut down on some fatigue if you positioned the joystick correctly.

Other then that, I WANT ONE!

[Duper]

wow.. now THAT is cool. although the price tag is a bit out of my buget. still. this is viable tech that we'll get to see. I agree with Lothar on this one. Traditional controls might be preferable. I understand that they were \"rethinking\" the car and in the advent of flying cars (god forbid) we would need our feet free to do something else.

Also, there is no airbag setup. The rearview camera would have to be moved for an airbag system. They might still be able to integrate it, but I'm not sure how well a steering wheel like that would handle the stress of an airbag going off on a setup like that. That could be reengineered of course.

Great find Grendel! Thanks!

[Mobius]

I'd rather slide down a 40 foot razor blade using my testicles as brakes.

Honestly, could you make a more ugly car if you tried? I don't think so. Did you see how much foot room there was? None.

Nope - that car is NOT the future. Thankfully, it is also NOT the present.

[ccb056]

Hydrogen power is possibly the most retarded idea ever.

Lets take some water, pump electricty through it to make hydrogen and oxygen, then take that same hydrogen and oxygen and combine the two together to get electricity.

Unless you break some physical laws, you spend more energy than you get in the process...

[Stryker]

And if you use gas, you must pump the gas from underneath the earth, ship it thousands of miles, refine it, ship it to its precise destination, use electricity to pump it into your car, then burn it.

Doesn't that lose energy too?

Mobius--that's part of the APPEAL of the car. You can change the top of it at will. Not just the top, the entire interior. You could probably get a sports car chassis with plenty of legroom provided someone designs one.

I must agree on the traditional controls--but with a car like this, with a totally electronic control system, you could use a playstation controller to drive the thing if you wanted to.

Airbags, again, would depend on the chassis you mount on the base frame. As would the steering method.

[Lothar]

Lets take some water, pump electricty through it to make hydrogen and oxygen, then take that same hydrogen and oxygen and combine the two together to get electricity.

Unless you break some physical laws, you spend more energy than you get in the process...

"But what's the point of a battery? You take some energy from the electric outlet, turn it into crystals inside a battery, then turn it back into energy, but you lose some energy!" WELL NO DUH. I bet you use batteries sometimes, too.

The point isn't the existance of the energy, but where the energy is. Just like any other form of a BATTERY, this thing takes energy from the power plant and puts it into a portable format... fairly cleanly and efficiently, though not 100% on either count.

[ccb056]

All I'm saying is that Hydrogen power is NOT the cure for \"global warming\".

You know what the largest contributor is to \"global warming\"?

Wrong

It is not carbon dioxide, it is water vapor. Water vapor causes more \"global warming\" that carbon dioxide.

You know what the product of hydrogen power is?

Right

Water Vapor

You know how we get hydrogen? We burn oil, natural gas, coal, and even nuke a few atoms to generate the 100 Joules of electricity to electrocute water to get 75 Joules of useable energy in the form of hydrogen.

Unless you make some sort of over-unity machine, which you won't, hydrogen power will be almost as useful as using alkaline batteries to power your car.

The \"cars of the future\" will not be powered by this technological failure known as \"hydrogen power\".

[Lothar]

All I'm saying is that Hydrogen power is NOT the cure for "global warming".

Then maybe you should say that.

Personally, I couldn't care less. It's not an issue for me. I'm not looking to reduce global warming; I'm looking for a nice efficient car. Having one that doesn't require Saudi oil would be even better. Combining this technology with efficient solar would be better still (but don't expect solar to become efficient any time soon.)

hydrogen power will be almost as useful as using alkaline batteries to power your car.

I expect hydrogen to be much more efficient and lighter than batteries of equal output.

[fliptw]

The "cars of the future" will not be powered by this technological failure known as "hydrogen power".

It can't be that much a of a failure, its a vital component in your combustion engine.

[Admiral Thrawn]

I'd rather slide down a 40 foot razor blade using my testicles as brakes.

Honestly, could you make a more ugly car if you tried? I don't think so. Did you see how much foot room there was? None.

Nope - that car is NOT the future. Thankfully, it is also NOT the present.

Considering how your girlfriend looked, I would think you'd have an appreciation for the ugly things in life mobious.

I actually like it. The outer shell could use some changes, but I'm really digging the interior. And again, it's a concept car. There are things that still need to be implemented like air bags, and various other safety/comfort features. By the time it's released, it will look just as good if not better (most likely) than the cars we currently have on the road.

[Ferno]

I'd rather slide down a 40 foot razor blade using my testicles as brakes.

Honestly, could you make a more ugly car if you tried? I don't think so. Did you see how much foot room there was? None.

Nope - that car is NOT the future. Thankfully, it is also NOT the present.

What car did you see?

[Duper]

Global warming?? huh??

it produces water. It's one part of a very complex problem.

They probably use a reserve oxygen supply to start the process much like a battery is used to start your car engine.

To learn MORE.. go HERE


Here is some more info.


Interesting.. no energy is lost. It's used then rearranged. My question is the life of the battery.

Stats:

• Top speed: 100 miles per hour (161 kph)
• Weight: 4,185 pounds (1,898 kg)
• Chassis length: 14 feet, 3 inches (4.3 meters)
• Chassis width: 5 feet, 5.7 inches (1.67 meters)
• Chassis thickness: 11 inches (28 cm)
• Wheels: eight-spoke, light alloy wheels.
• Tires: 20-inch (51-cm) in front and 22-inch (56-cm) in back
• Fuel-cell power: 94 kilowatts continuous, 129 kilowatts peak
• Fuel-cell-stack voltage: 125 to 200 volts
• Motor: 250- to 380-volt three-phase asynchronous electric motor
• Crash protection: front and rear \"crush zones\" (or \"crash boxes\") to absorb impact energy
• Related GM patents in progress: 30
• GM team members involved in design: 500

[Genghis]

whaddya whaddya electrolysis

It's my understanding that the plan is not to get hyrdogen from electrolysis of water (ccb is right about the energy deficit there) but rather to extract the hydrogen from fossil fuels using a reformer. That's how we do it now. That's why Bush has pushed the hydrogen economy. It's still based on oil.

[roid]

ooo, i've been researching fuelcells and running numbers for the past week. So i'm right primed to compare this .

Ok, if the tanks hold a total of 2KG of Hydrogen, in 3x 50 Litre Carbon Fibre hydrogen tanks - that means it holds 22,242Liters @ 2200psi - which would give it (as a battery) a total energy storage of 66.67 kWh. If the motor is running at it's max of 60kW, this means you get 67mins of foot-to-the-floor flat out driving. But this 60kW figure might actually mean 60kW (80 horsepower) at the crank.
In which case if you assume the Fuelcell is running at it's max of 94kW (ie: assuming this is what is needed to max out the motor at 60kW at the crank). Then you get only 42mins of foot-to-the-floor flat out driving.

If the top speed is 100mph, that's less than 100miles from a recharge (driving top speed). That is TERRIBLE. No wonder they arn't advertising it's range.
I'm unsure how much driving at top speed reduces efficiency though, maybe if you drive at a more sane speed you can avoid the problems of wind resistance and get a better range per charge/tank.
(Mike Strizki's fuelcell car gets 470+miles to a tank/recharge).

How does it compare? Off hand i can say that you can get hydrogen tanks that hold 2x the hydrogen as the ones in the Hy-wire. 5000psi vs the Hy-wire's 2200psi, it'd double the range of the Hy-wire.
Also there is some new developments in hydrogen storage research. The peak of which enables you to store the equivalent of 17,706psi of hydrogen in solid tablet form without the need for a pressure vessel, but you'd need an onboard catalytic reformer onboard to convert ammonia gas into hydrogen. Ignoring the weight of the reformer, this would increase the range of the Hy-wire by 8 times.
http://www.amminex.com/

Can any of your rev-heads tell me:
100mph max speed for a 1,900 kg (4,185 pounds) 80 horsepower car. How is that, good? bad?

You know what the largest contributor is to "global warming"?

Wrong

It is not carbon dioxide, it is water vapor. Water vapor causes more "global warming" that carbon dioxide.

Wikipedia is telling me that "Water vapor concentrations fluctuate regionally, but human activity does not directly affect water vapor concentrations except at very local scales."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse ... ater_vapor

Considering that water vapour is also the result of all CURRENT combustion; all cars, all coal burning power plants. Yet we still don't think our influence on air humidity extends anything above very local, so i'm tipping it's a non-issue. Unless you know something we don't.

As for Hydrogen. It's simply a fantastic electrical battery that you can create easily with just electricity and water.
Currently our sources of Hydrogen are mainly fossil fuels. This is because we have a huge fossil fuel infrastructure already in place.
But to create Hydrogen all you really need is water and electricity. You can make it yourself, and some people do - using a source of electricity (solar panels), an electrolyser, water, some way of storing the hydrogen (normally pressure tanks) and a fuel cell altogether is an effective battery system to power their home and car from solar energy.

You can't make gasoline or coal from solar energy. That's why Hydrogen is so useful as a fuel - it can be easily and cleanly manufactured from environmentally friendly electricity sources, if we're so inclined - which i am.

[ccb056]

oil and coal are hydrocarbons
this means they have a bunch of carbon atoms and some hydrogen atoms, the more carbon atoms a hydrocarbon has, the longer it's chain, and the more energy you get from oxidizing it

when you oxidize a hydrocarbon, you get 2 waters and anywhere from 2 to 16 carbon dioxide atoms, depending on the length of the chain

as you can see, burning gas and coal produces alot more carbon dioxide than water, thats why water vapor concentrations aren't due to human activity, because our chemical reactions produce so little

however, if we were to switch from buring hydrocarbons to burning hydrogen, we wouldnt be producing any carbon dioxide, and instead be prodcuing pure water vapor

[snoopy]

ccb's point about efficiency is something I have been curious about in the past.

Let's assume that his 75% efficiency for eletrolysis is correct, and that eventually eletrolysis is the preferred means of hydrogen generation. I understand that fuel cells are something like 95% efficient? Furthermore, for the storage of the gas to be practical, additional energy needs to be expended- lets say 10% (I have no idea how realistic this number is.) Your average electric motor is 80-85% efficient at peak efficiency, less at startup (so you're still going to get different city and highway gas milages out of your car.) Plus, you have to have control elecronics- lets say they are 95% efficient.

So, going from the powerplant to moving the car, you have an ~40% efficient process. Note, that doesn't take into account energy expended to get energy from (insert natural resource here) through the power plant into the form of electricity.

Now, internal combustion engines are ~60% efficient, and a gear-based drive train is ~85% efficient, so overall your car (not including tires- an equal factor for both cases) is around 45% efficient. True, it takes more to pump, refine, and transport gas as it does to generate electricity, but not that much more. Power plants have to transport fuel, etc., too. Plus, turbines are only ~65% efficient. In the end I'd say that efficiency-wise (over the whole process), fuel cell cars and internal combustion cars are pretty much on equal footing. One has fewer, less efficient energy conversions, and the other has more processes with higher efficiencies. If you go with the method of extracting hydrogen from oil, the process would have to be more than 80% efficient to be able to beat internal combustion cars in overall efficiencies. The only advantage is that you free yourself from having to use oil. I'm not convinced that hydrogen is the ideal way to store energy.

[Kilarin]

burning gasoline and coal does not produce water vapor, it produces carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide

Correct me here if I'm wrong, but gasoline and coal are HYDROcarbons. ONE of the byproducts is water vapor.

Wax is also a hydrocarbon. When you look at a candle flame, You'll notice its blue near the wick, and yellow further away. That's because hydrogen is combusts at a lower temperature than carbon. So the first thing to burn is the hydrogen, with a pretty blue flame. Stick a knife blade into the blue part of the flame and you will get water condensation because the hydrogen has combined with oxygen to become water.

BUT, if you put the knife near the top of the yellow part of the flame, it is becomes covered with soot. Thats because the carbon has not completely burned up there, so carbon (soot) collects on the blade. Place the knife above the flame and there is no more soot because all (well most) of the carbon has combined with oxygen and become carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide.

Right?

[edit]Never mind, the original post was edited[/edit]

[fliptw]

if water vapour is such an issue, we really need to do something about those oceans.

[roid]

when you oxidize a hydrocarbon, you get 2 waters and anywhere from 2 to 16 carbon dioxide atoms, depending on the length of the chain

ccb056 are you sure about that superlow production of water in hydrocarbon combustion? According to my knowledge when you burn hydrocarbon chains you typically get MORE water than CO2, as hydrocarbon chains generally have OVER 2x as much Hydrogen as Carbon. Look at Propane - C3H8
Or are you referring to ringed hydrocarbons? Something like Naphtaline C10H8 would give over double as much CO2 than water. That's still a LOT of water.

It would be an interesting question: how much water vapour would a fuel cell exhaust per kW, as compared to burning hydrocarbons. But i need you to be in consensus that "burning hydrocarbons does produce a lot of water" first.

I'm not convinced that hydrogen is the ideal way to store energy.

What are the alternatives? Fossilfuels are great but if we can't PRODUCE them we're not really storing energy it them at all are we? All of the hydrocarbons we CAN produce are grown and harvested - like vegetable oils and ethanol (and the combination of the 2: Biodiesel). It's labor intensive and is best done large scale. Whereas Hydrogen can be done smallscale and entirely automated. Every house can have it's own solar panels and produce hydrogen off the grid.

[Lothar]

... of course, if you produce your hydrogen from water and then turn it back into water, you haven't increased the net amount of water out there. You've only changed its form.

[Grendel]

Like CO2, CO & H2O are the only things a gas engine releases. If I had the choice betw. gas & hydrogen as fuel I'd choose the latter. I don't have any problems releasing H2O into the environment instead of the nasty stuff that my current car exhausts. cbb -- stop sweating, you'll make the greenhouse effect worse if you don't..

[ccb056]

Other than the energy deficit that goes with a hydrogen economy (which it seems you guys arent grasping) there is also the issue of storage and transportation of hydrogen fuel. Here's an equation most of you are probably familiar with, its taught in basic high school chemistry:

PV=nRT

That's the ideal gas law.

The trick is, petrol is a nice highly dense liquid at room temp, this makes petrol an excellent fuel as far as storage and transportaion is concered. Hydrogen, on the other hand, is a gas at room temp, and with gases, to have enough moles of the gas to make any sort use useful energy, you are either going to have to compress it or freeze it. Neither of which is very energy efficient. The amount of energy you use to either raise the pressure or decrease the temp of the gas is alot more than when you raise the temp or decompress it. Again, another energy deficit for hydrogen.

I would recomend everyone who is interested in this to look at a few wiki articles involving thermodynamics, specifically the 3 laws of thermo dynamics, most, if not all your questions about heat and energy transfer will be answered there.

[Krom]

... of course, if you produce your hydrogen from water and then turn it back into water, you haven't increased the net amount of water out there. You've only changed its form.

Actually the process of separating the hydrogen and oxygen, and then combining them back together involves some energy loss at every stage, probably as heat. So at the other end when it is turned back into water, you have less water then you started out with.

Now if we were talking nuclear fusion instead of fuel cells, hydrogen most likely would be the ultimate fuel of the future...

[Ferno]

CCB's on the money about hydrocarbons.

[ccb056]

no krom, the net change of water molecules is 0, the net change in energy is -25%

you don't loose nor gain water molecules, you loose 25% of the energy you used in the process

Simple Example:

split 10 water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen using 100 J of energy

combine the 20 hydrogen atoms and 10 oxygen atoms (H20) and get 75 J of energy

nothing happened to the number hydrogen or oxygen atoms, but you lost 25 J of energy in the process

think about hydrogen power as a spring; every time you use water to get hydrogen, you stretch the spring; every time you use that hydrogen to generate energy you release the spring; now, after every permutation you shorten the length of the spring (or decrease it's strength), eventually, its either going to break or cease to exist, thats hydrogen power in a nutshell for you



However, you bring up an interesting point about fusion/fission, one which I was probably going to bring up tomorrow, and that is this:

If you want hydrogen power to become mainstream you will have to implement nuclear power generation on a much larger scale than it currently is. Because of the massive energy loss due to using hydrogen cars, and the supposed rarity of oil, the only viable option is to use nuclear power to split the water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen.

I'm sure the NIMBY crowd doesn't like that at all.

Just an interesting aside, energy is nothing like money, the government can't call someone up and ask them to print more for them, no politican nor lawyer can break the laws of thermodynamics, energy on a global scale only flows in one direction, down. The only thing we can do about it is use the most efficient form of power generation and distribution to slow down the inevitable. That form is not hydrogen power, it would probably be fusion but we aren't there yet, right now it is nuclear energy followed by either coal or petrol (pretty much the same thing).

[Lothar]

the energy deficit that goes with a hydrogen economy (which it seems you guys arent grasping)

Learn to read.

Seriously.

Learn to read.

I'm going to say it again.

Learn to read.

Several people have expressed an understanding of the energy deficit that goes with any sort of energy storage source. What you seem to have trouble grasping is that we're OK with that -- we have no problems with using batteries, even though there's an energy deficit, because they give us enough portable energy that we consider them worthwhile.

petrol is a nice highly dense liquid at room temp... Hydrogen, on the other hand, is a gas at room temp

... so? There are lots of ways to store it in more compact states. They take energy, of course, but I don't care.

[Kilarin]

the energy deficit that goes with a hydrogen economy (which it seems you guys arent grasping)

EVERY energy system has a deficit.
The advantage of a hydrogen based system, or any electrical system, is that it puts the polution in one big source at the power plant instead of scattering it all over the place in each vehicle.

Polution at the power plant is easier to control and reduce than polution coming out of millions of tail pipes. Who knows, we might even come up with a rational nuclear policy so that we could have relatively polution free energy.

[ccb056]

Lothar, the price of a product is determined by demand and the costs needed to produce it, since the process of producing hydrogen is much more inefficient and costly compared to petrol, the price per mile driven by hydrogen is going to be much higher than the price per mile driven by petrol. That will continue to be the case, even with the rise in petrol prices. As petrol prices rise, so will hydrogen prices. The only way to stop that is to use nuclear power.

[Lothar]

the process of producing hydrogen is much more inefficient and costly compared to petrol

Yes, it is, for now. Which is why we're not driving hydrogen cars.

As petrol prices rise, so will hydrogen prices.

Unless we come up with alternative energy sources -- nuclear is a good one, and solar will be nice if and when someone finally comes up with a solar cell that doesn't suck.

[Ferno]

Or create solar panels that are more efficient.

[ccb056]

With all the water vapor that we will be dumping into the air, I doubt solar panels will do much good. However, I expect global warming to increase much more with the increase in water vapor emissions to such a state where geothermal energy and nuclear energy will become popular methods of generating the hydrogen.

[Kilarin]

With all the water vapor that we will be dumping into the air, I doubt solar panels will do much good.

Hmmm, I've got an idea, most of the world is suffering from water shortages. Why not COLLECT that steam, cool it, and reclaim it?

[ccb056]

I hope that's sarcasm I'm detecting ...

[Kilarin]

I hope that's sarcasm I'm detecting

Yes. While I suppose there MIGHT be a way to make it work, I doubt if it would be practical. The mechanisim for collecting and cooling the steam would be large and bulky. And if they DID make it work, on board reclaimed water storage would be limited, so now, instead of just the kids, the car keeps asking if you could stop at a gas station "with nice clean bathrooms".

[Will Robinson]

With all the water vapor that we will be dumping into the air, I doubt solar panels will do much good.....

What happens to water vapor in the air?
It seems like you are implying that once it's vapor it just hangs around and becomes a permanent problem, won't it just condense and, you know...rain?

[fliptw]

ccb's is also unaware of the amount of energy involved in going from crude oil to gasoline for your car's tank.

if you start with oilsands, then its even worse.

I demand an explanation from ccb's about his worry over water vapour.

[roid]

i don't get you ccb056. Do you think we dig rechargable batterys outof the ground?

Hydrogen is a battery, it is not a source of power. We all know this, for some reason you think we don't? As Lothar said, learn to read.

Hydrogen is a way of storing power you have already produced.

Can you use petrol or coal to store power you have already produced? NO.

The Hydrogen ecconomy isn't about using the most dense energy source, as this would be fossil fuels, and they're more energy dense leaving them as they are!

The Hydrogen ecconomy is about eventually removing CO2 entirely from the equation. But in the meantime it's just about providing a superbly efficient and dense rechargable electrical battery technology. We do not dig rechargable batterys outof the ground.

\"Oh, but currently we just use fossil fuels to get Hydrogen\" you may say. Yes, this is the precursor step, we're not done yet. Although this precursor step still uses fossil fuels and produces CO2, by centralising the CO2 producing process in power plants OUTSIDE OF CITYS it improves air quality in the population centers. It also allows you to use CO2 capturing technologys - ie: piping it back underground. But (becides the CO2 capturing tech) this still isn't reducing the amount of global CO2 we are producing - and \"isn't reducing CO2 suppose to be the whole purpose?\" i can hear you asking.

But i havn't finished... I repeat, THIS IS STILL NOT THE FINAL PURPOSE OF THE HYDROGEN ECCONOMY. The final purpose is to allow an eventual TOTAL switch over to renewable energy while still being able to power our vehicles. Nuclear power? Yes, as far as centralised methods of producing electricity go this would be one of the best. However, the Hydrogen ecconomy is not tied to centralised power production like the old energy ecconomy was. You can produce energy at your home with solar panels, and then store it as hydrogen effectively providing a good battery for your home. And you can even fill up your car - AT HOME.

Hydrogen technology (ie: proton membrane fuelcells) in it's current iteration is competing with electrical Battery technology - IT IS NOT YET COMPETING WITH FOSSIL FUELS.
Are we clear ccb056?
It is not a primary fuel source, it is an ELECTRICAL BATTERY. It can be used to store fossil fuel energy, but really all that would do is move the fossilfuel exhaust away from our population centers - but it's still going into the atmosphere. So, Hydrogen's main use going for it is it's ability to store electricity from renewable sources - and ability to be decentralised.

[ccb056]

I agree that hydrogen can be considered a battery, but it doesn't really matter because the term battery is so broadly described that almost any energy source can be considered one. By calling it a battery you aren't making your case any better. When you calculate the net energy transfer at the end of the day, youre just as well off as the guy who used alkaline batteries to power his car.

The price per mile driven on hydrogen will always be more than the price per mile driven on petrol as long as we are using petrol to make the hydrogen. Hydrogen will only replace petrol when their is either no petrol left or a massive shift to nuclear power takes place. I don't see either one occuring.

The purpose for a hydrogen based economy as I understand it is to lower carbon dioxide emissions, to save more energy, cheaper transportation, and to become less dependent on foreign oil. Unless a large shift to nuclear power is made, none of those goals will be fullfilled.

As to the water vapor and global warming issue, here are a few links and excerpts:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... rming.html

\"It is an experiment that clearly shows which factors are driving the higher temperatures. It is not the clouds, not the sun, not the aerosols. It is the increased greenhouse gases and the strong water vapor impact,\" Philipona said.

http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/ ... uses12.jsp

The effect of water vapor is so significant that the global average temperature would be below freezing without it.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/p ... 00128.html

\"Water vapor is really the primary greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and has a greater influence on global warming than carbon dioxide, but we're not sure whether this increase of water in the atmosphere will lead to an increase in global warming.\"

http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/16/5/7

Water vapour is responsible for 70% of the known absorption of incoming sunlight, particularly in the infrared region.