From the NY Times article:
But the least-expensive methods of hydrogen production use fuels like coal or natural gas, and those create pollution, experts say. Hydrogen is also difficult to ship and store. In addition, power from fuel cells is far more costly than the same amount of power from a gasoline engine.
“Real revolutions have to occur before this is going to become a large-scale reality,” said one of the report’s authors, Dr. Antonia V. Herzog, a staff scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “It very possibly could happen, but it’s not a sure thing.”
The report said battery-powered cars or hybrid cars, which use gasoline and electric motors, could turn out to be better choices. And over the next 25 years, the effects of hydrogen cars on oil imports and global-warming gas emissions “are likely to be minor,” the report said.
The Economist attacks the ITER fusion project as a hyper-expensive boondoggle, and predicts no near-term practicality for fusion energy:
PS – Ricky, there must be a URL to edit a post after the fact – care to give up the secret?
Michelins Challenge Bibendum has demonstrated many times where the future of transportation is heading.
Check out all out winner, AC Propulsions’ tZero
http://www.definity-systems.net/Transportation/EV/TZero/
Another one, that id buy in a heartbeat
http://www.definity-systems.net/Transportation/EV/Tango/
Poorly thought out cheesy poll. How about
Capacitors
Other presently unknown power source
There will be no need for cars
How about specifying what future is meant – tomorrow, 1 year from now, 10 years, 100 years, 1000.
You’re an editor. You deserve it, AP, so enjoy figuring out the new buttons. Be careful what you delete, it’s irreversible. You also can post your own stories now without waiting for votes. Let me know if you have questions / problems.
are par for the course :-) Good suggestions!
We’re closing in on how plants split water using chemicals to generate the oxygen we breathe – and the hydrogen we could use…
Let us not forget about methanol. The oceans contain a lifetime source of methane. However, it is too difficult/expensive to transport as gas. All that is needed is a new type of catalyst that can properly control the methane to methanol conversion.
You might also consider letting readers vote for boron, as I would.
Check out the Musashi 2 on the hydrogen car timeline. It’s 1975, and this car has gone 2,800 lH2-fuelled km in a rally.
It is the world’s first liquid hydrogen car; but BMW engineers will duplicate the accomplishment within four years. Clearly when that Bimmer starts up, such cars will be within a very few years, if not months, of a commercial rollout.
By the late 80s, some of the rich early adopters will be looking to trade up. Those of us of lesser means can buy their hydrogen cars second-hand, or in the early 90s, third-hand. Hydrogen power will be available for everyone!
Um, actually, hydrogen power for cars turns out to be a rather ignorant idea. It’s fine to have nuclear stations breaking a strongly bound oxide into oxygen and whatever element it is bound with, and motorists getting power by reuniting them, but several other choices for the oxophile work out better in terms of on-board weight and volume — and hugely better in terms of safety and desirability to motorists.
Many years ago(1970s) i lived in rural farming areas of west Texas. many farmers would use what was called Drip in their tractors and farm vehicles. the drip was basicly condensed natural gas from the local gas wells. the trick was that they would add a quart of motor oil to every 55 gallons so that it did not burn up the valves on the engine. other than that it ran great.
The point behind a "hydrogen economy" is that hydrogen can be transported safely from places where it can be generated cheaply. Where can it be generated cheaply? Deserts close to oceans, via solar energy. But to make that happen, we have to start somewhere, and that’s by first creating enough demand so that people will start generating and transporting hydrogen. That’s why, for now, we need to generate hydrogen using other means, which are indeed both somewhat more polluting and somewhat more expensive than other methods.
What does hydrogen add to the electric car? Or are you talking about direct conversion of sunlight to hydrogen (which is mentioned in the NAS report)? Otherwise keeping the energy in electric form has the lowest losses and seems what we already know how to do well. The new NiMH and other batteries have better energy/weight characteristics and other properties than lead-acid, but it seems little money is being spent on R&D in this area.
but not quite as heavy in an air-breathing system as in a NiMH battery; in fact lighter by a full order of magnitude.
In the NiMH-powered GM EV1s the battery mass was 521 kg and its yield was 26.4 kWh(DC), which translates into almost 20 kWh at the driveshaft. So 26 kg per driveshaft kilowatt-hour.
The liquid hydrogen tank that Magna-Steyr was reported 18 months ago to be planning to make for BMW’s hydrogen cars masses 145 kg empty, 154.5 with a full load of lH2, which load yields 299 kWh based on delta ‘G’ of oxidation, should give 75 kWh at the driveshaft. So 2.06 kg per driveshaft kWh.
The boron cars I hope will soon be built will get heavier as they go, due to their onboard retention of the B2O3 their boron combustors will produce. But at their heaviest, when all the boron in them is in the form of oxide, such vehicles’ B2O3 inventories will be no more than about 1.2 kg per driveshaft kWh. Along with containment, this won’t likely exceed 1.3 kg per driveshaft kWh.