future when they test drove cars powered by hydrogen fuel
cells and heard about the need for more hydrogen fueling
stations to bring the technology into the mainstream....
"Gather round,folks, gather round..."
Posted on 02/28/2009 10:28:53 PM PST by Coleus
Local residents and officials took a peek into the future when they test drove cars powered by hydrogen fuel cells and heard about the need for more hydrogen fueling stations to bring the technology into the mainstream. The demonstration, held at Mahwah Township Hall, was organized by Mahwah Councilman John DaPuzzo and attended Thursday night by about 50 people, including Assemblyman David C. Russo, R-Midland Park, employees from the Oakland Department of Public Works, the Bergen County Police and residents. They got an up-close look at four Chevrolet Equinox sport utility vehicles that are part of a year-old program called Project Driveway. General Motors has more than 100 of the cars being test-driven worldwide to explore the boundaries of the environmentally friendly technology.
Representatives from the automaker and Linde Gas, which designs hydrogen fueling stations, declined to discuss the cost of the vehicles or refueling fees, saying the production is too limited as this point to make the cost reasonable. They did stress the need for fueling stations to be built before the hydrogen fuel cell vehicles become widely available.
"It's up to all of us to get that infrastructure to happen," said Brad Beauchamp of GM. "We can't do this without the infrastructure." The closest hydrogen fueling station is in White Plains, N.Y., he said. DaPuzzo said after the meeting that his long-term goal is to get a fueling station as a municipal shared service. "We can seek grant money from the federal and state governments for alternative fuels," he said
There were an estimated 400 to 500 hydrogen-fueled vehicles in the United States as of October, according to the Energy Information Administration. Beauchamp described the hydrogen vehicles as twice as efficient as a gas-powered car and an improvement over plug-in electric cars because hydrogen vehicles have a quick charge — with the ability to be refueled in 3 to 5 minutes.
"This has great promise," said Bergen County Police Capt. Uwe Malakas, citing the quick acceleration and potential for fuel efficiency. "I'm listening and trying to make reasonable comparisons to see what is in the best interest of the officers and the taxpayers." But, Malakas said, the technology is not as far along as propane-fueled cars, which the department retained last year.
Still, taking the wheel of the futuristic vehicles was a treat for Luis Ruiz, who says, "whatever contributes to the environment is what I go for." The Clifton resident commutes in the warmer months from his home to his job at Fed Ex in Mahwah via train and an electric scooter. Driving the hydrogen car "was a good experience," he said.
"It pretty much felt like it was regular combustion engine. There was no difference in power. And when you wanted to slow down, the electric motor seemed to help you to slow down." The faint whistle of the motor — no rumbling engine, because there aren't moving parts, or exhaust, since the only byproduct is water — make a ride in these cars more pleasant, too, he said. "You can have a normal conversation, in a low tone of voice, and people in the back seat will hear you," Ruiz said. "You can't do that in normal cars unless people shout."
The problem with the fuel cell approach is that hydrogen is an energy transfer medium for power created in other ways. Think chemical battery. We don’t drill for it or mine it, we use other energy sources to make it. Therefor the energy balance is negative. Good luck explaining that to a libtard, though.
The one way a hydrogen economy works is using nuke power to make H2 from water. The libtards have cut that route off, too, so it is unworkable.
None of them would be crazy enough to strap into a car fueled by an extremely volatile gas like hydrogen.
None of them like paying taxes either.
All of them believe that everybody else should cut down on their "emissions" and pay more in taxes.
You can’t do that in normal cars unless people shout.
~~~~~~~~
What cars is this person riding in?? A 1970 drag racer?
"Gather round,folks, gather round..."
no obligation, no salesman will visit your home
We got a jackpot, jackpot, jackpot, prizes, prizes, prizes, all work guaranteed
How do we do it, how do we do it, how do we do it, how do we do it
We need your business, we’re going out of business
We’ll give you the business
Get on the business end of our going-out-of-business sale
Receive our free brochure, free brochure
I'm glad petrol isn't volatile. You can put a lit match to a pool of petrol and it just won't burn.
I bought a Hydrocar fuel-cell hydrogen powered toy car last week; JC Penney was clearing them out and I got it for $10 (supposed to retail for $120). The manual is full of flowery talk about global warming because of carbon-based fuels, and that hydrogen power is the best solution. Well guess what, you have to use a battery pack to create the hydrogen. Then the hydrogen is converted back to electricity to power the car! If I directly hooked up the battery pack to the car's motor it would run faster and further! So why bother using the conversion to hydrogen? That's lost on these libtards who created the toy, or they're trying to put one over kids using these toys.
The fuel cell is neat though because it's reversible. Put some water in, connect an electrical supply and it generates hydrogen and oxygen. Then the hydrogen and oxygen fed into it will generate electricity and some water. But with a lot of waste in the conversion process!
“It’s up to all of us to get that infrastructure to happen,”
Ummmm, no it isn’t. Pardon me while I barf on your boondoggle.
Many hydrogen fuel cells require expensive platinum. The Japanese might have found a way around the cost.
(gas fueled car) None of them would be crazy enough to strap into a car fueled by an extremely volatile gas like hydrogen.
And you think, perhaps, that it doesn't take a hell of a lot of energy to drill for, transport, refine, transport and sell gasoline and diesel??? Guess what---the "energy balance" for those is also "negative", as what you get out the end in usable fuel is less than the energy you started with as feedstock.
For non-carbon-based energy generating technologies (and that includes nuclear), an energy storage and transport medium is exactly what is needed if you intend to use it as a transport fuel. Electricity (as currently generated [no pun intended] and used) cannot be easily stored. Present battery technology simply isn't good enough.
Well Uwe, the "Fuel Cell Police Car" has already been tested; first thing you do is read this:
"Fuel Cell Traffic Stop"
http://www.eng.wayne.edu/news.php?id=852
“And you think, perhaps, that it doesn’t take a hell of a lot of energy to drill for, transport, refine, transport and sell gasoline and diesel??? Guess what-—the “energy balance” for those is also “negative”, as what you get out the end in usable fuel is less than the energy you started with as feedstock.”
Actually no, it is not. Not even close. Wherever you are getting your “facts” is just plain wrong.
Actually, I shouldn’t have been that hard on you as there are a lot of games being played with the numbers out there. Mosr depend on where in the process the analysis is started and also how the energy value of byproducts are parsed or flat out ignored. For example, some analyses start with the energy content of oil, computer the energy of gas and the inputs to get that gas from the oil, and then say “voila, negative energy balance” - all while ignoring the energy content of coproducts such as diesek, kerosene, fuel oil, etc. They then play the same parsing game for each of those, showing negative energy balances for each component while ignoring the total aggregate.
Simple question, though: If it really took more energy to produce usable oil based fuels than the resulting energy content of those fuels, then where has that extra needed energy come from to keep the system running for the last several decades?
That is kinda cool. And I get what you are saying about the car running better off the battery pack directly. But you know what would really make the thing scream? Put a little glow pug model airplane motor in it and run it on nitromethane.
Totally, completely wrong.
"Simple question, though: If it really took more energy to produce usable oil based fuels than the resulting energy content of those fuels, then where has that extra needed energy come from to keep the system running for the last several decades?"
Look, I'll explain it simply. Suppose you extract 1000 BTU of stored energy from the ground. You burn some of that 1000 BTU to make a usable product, so at the end of the process you have less than 1000 BTU available. That is a negative net energy balance. A positive energy balance would be where you end up with MORE than 1000 BTU of usable product. And it might even be the case that the energy used for production is greater than that contained in the product.
I has it explained to me differently by a friend in the oil & gas biz. Your explanation makes sense, though. Maybe I misunderstood or he was snowing me.
So, which has the better energy balance, gas or H2 (leaving nuke to the side)? Isn’t that the question that matters?
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.