Posted on 12/11/2013 3:27:33 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
If it’s reliable and the cost of owning and operating it make sense, sure. But the environmentalist crowd will eventually realize that water vapor is by far the most prevalent source of “greenhouse gas.” I don’t much care but they will, and they’re going to be the early adopters while the numbers don’t make economic sense. They may shoot it down before economies of scale can kick in.
I have been waiting for hydrogen powered automobiles for forty years. Hydrogen will be the solution to the range anxiety that haunts battery powered vehicles. We will be able to eliminate carbon from the fuel cycle.
I thought there was a “hot” problem....and lifting the hood alone was dangerous. Read that a long time ago???
I’m guessing that’s what has taken so long to work on.
Water is also a combustion product of existing fuels.
This is a breakthrough, usually cars are made out of metal and plastic.
/bingo
It’s not about the environment, it’s about A) scrambling for power and B) trying to avoid holding a job.
There’s two problems, or three really — hydrogen storage doesn’t yield good density, liquid fuels are always more compact; there is no hydrogen distribution network and it will cost a fortune to build one; and hydrogen has to be made and stored, and SOLD, all of which will require MORE production of electricity while Clinton and Obama have both fought against coal mining, a fight they have been doing on behalf of their OPEC masters.
Huh? What about liquified gas? Plentiful, easily managed, and your existing car can be converted to dual fuel use in a few hours for a few hundred bucks.
Also it’s well known that hydrogen gas leaks eat the ozone layer. The big ozone scare of the 70s was the successful template for the global warming scam.
Storage is the problem with LNG, as I understand it. They have a design contest going on to fix that.
Only about thirty for me. I remember a NOVA show about this, "The Invisible Flame", from the early 80s. IIRC there was a town somewhere out west (Colorado?) where the vehicles had been adapted to run on either hydrogen or gasoline. The switch back and forth was accomplished by only throwing a couple of valves under the hood. Never heard the outcome of that experiment..
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, since you brought it up. It wouldn’t matter what energy source you came up with, completely free, non-carbon based, limitless, and non-polluting in any way. Liberals will come up their usual delusional rants about why it’s evil / destructive / good for the rich & bad for the poor, yada, yada, yada, unto infinity.
Simple chemistry tells me that breaking bonds to free hydrogen from the molecules it is always bound up in costs at least as much energy as is retrieved by reforming the bonds with oxygen to make water. Even if the bond energy is identical (i.e. the hydrogen is extracted from water and later used to make water), there is always some energy loss to the system.
Where is the energy coming from to break the R-H bonds? (By chemical notation convention, “R” is any atom that functions in that position in the chemical reaction.)
How in the world can hydrogen fuel cell cars solve our energy problems?
I wanna see methane cars.
You just light a match over the tail pipe and off they go!
I think the eco-nuts will be opposed to it right from the start because it is not a “solution” that comes from govt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.