[stevesnj]

If you live in California you can lease a Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle soon.
I would definately do this but I live in NJ. This is a great step on ridding our world of refined oil vehicles.

Honda FCX Clarity - Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle - Official Web Site

[CMYKid]

niiice. it's got that weird little rear smoky hatch window a la Prius, Insight, Honda CRX.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Yeah. That's a solid design. Still not sold on the hydrogen, though.

greg

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Just noted, it's now possible to start up at -30 C (-22 F). This would rule out many areas of Canada in the winter if "possible" means what it often does in marketing speak. I wonder if performance decreases as it gets below zero? That's been one complaint about hybrid cars in Canada that I've heard.

Also, I wonder if you could plug in a hydrogen car? I assume so...but I wonder how that works? Is it just like a regular block heater? I would think it's different than that? Interesting....

greg

[brassplayersrock²]

my folks were talking about possibly doing this. the color of the car is very awesome IMHO

if anyone is interested: Honda FCX Clarity - Frequently Asked Questions - Official Web Site

[peeb]

Hydrogen is a terrible idea. The main purpose seems to be to make it look like people are trying to move away from gas, without the possibility that it will ever happen.

[Kevin]

At least it doesn't have that ugly back wheel covered look.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

At least it doesn't have that ugly back wheel covered look.

Haha, seriously!

[mindwaves]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

At least it doesn't have that ugly back wheel covered look.

QFT. I never got that idea although I realized the purpose for it. Function over form that time.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

What was the purpose of it? I always thought it was just ugly style.

greg

[peeb]

aerodynamics - reduced drag.

[sek929]

It seems like it would trap air in the wheel well, but I'm no expert in drag coefficients.

[peeb]

I think the effects will vary at different speeds, and that the wheel well is optimised for certain speeds, but the idea is that fast moving air passing by it does not enter the wheel well.

[sek929]

After some quick googling the car with the lowest drag I could find was the GM EV-1 with just .19 after that the Honda Insight has .26.

Both cars have covered rear wheel wells.

[olePigeon]

The problem with hydrogen (and electric cars) is that it takes electricity to separate the hydrogen from the water. That electricity is being generated by nuclear, natural gas, or coal, all of which have nasty side effects.

There have been some cool discoveries such as bacteria, viruses, and algae that produce pure hydrogen as a byproduct. There're also various supercells for solar (with over 40% conversion), but they're prohibitively expensive for commercial application.

[stevesnj]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Hydrogen is a terrible idea. The main purpose seems to be to make it look like people are trying to move away from gas, without the possibility that it will ever happen.

[stevesnj]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

The problem with hydrogen (and electric cars) is that it takes electricity to separate the hydrogen from the water. That electricity is being generated by nuclear, natural gas, or coal, all of which have nasty side effects..

Why is that a problem? The whole idea is to avoid cars from relying on fossil fuels and polluting the atmosphere. It's not a perfect system but the world has to start somewhere.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by stevesnj 

Why is that a problem? The whole idea is to avoid cars from relying on fossil fuels and polluting the atmosphere. It's not a perfect system but the world has to start somewhere.

Unless the electricity that is used to extract the hydrogen comes from a non-polluting source (i.e. NOT coal, gas, or nuclear power plant) then you don't solve the pollution problem. What do you do with all the nuclear and ammonia byproducts from the power plants? How much soot will be put into the air from coal power plants?

That's why I mentioned the supercells for solar energy conversion. Another reasonable possibility down the road are fusion power plants.

I'm not arguing against it, I'm just putting some perspective out there. It is, indeed, a better immediate solution to petroleum. It certainly has the potential to be a permanent solution, just need to work out the kinks.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

But the issue is that the amount of energy used by a single power plant results in less emissions than the same amount of energy used by a multitude of cars (and, those emissions can be better localized to a less populated area).

Plus, separating hydrogen from water can be done with electricity from, say, solar or wind power instead of emitting power plants. Your options are widened.

I still haven't heard good things about the realities of developing a hydrogen supply system though.

greg

[CMYKid]

Nuclear Power plants are virtually the definition of a non-polluting source.

Unfortunately there are far too few of them, especially in regions where this car is
going to be in use.

I wouldnt mind trying one, but nobody should be under the assumption that it's
yet a big savings, either fiscally or environmentally.

[peeb]

Hydrogen is basically a battery, but a less effective one that the batteries we have right now. The technology to make effective battery electric cars exists already, but rather than work on that, we're investing in hydrogen, something which is permanently 20 years away from mainstream production.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by CMYKid 

Nuclear Power plants are virtually the definition of a non-polluting source.

Say that again with a straight face! Have you ever heard of nuclear waste? Or uranium mining?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

What do you do with all the nuclear and ammonia byproducts from the power plants?

Find a place under the ocean where one tectonic plate slides under another. Insert nuclear waste. Problem solved. It won't reappear for literally millions of years. The Nuclear Renaissance we're seeing now is a good thing.

[sek929]

It's pronounced nu-cu-lar.

[brassplayersrock²]

Originally Posted by sek929 

It's pronounced nu-cu-lar.

i can say what i want to: nukeular, it's pronounced nukeular...

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Find a place under the ocean where one tectonic plate slides under another. Insert nuclear waste. Problem solved. It won't reappear for literally millions of years. The Nuclear Renaissance we're seeing now is a good thing.

Do a bit of homework, and say that again with a straight face when you know something about the issue.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

But the issue is that the amount of energy used by a single power plant results in less emissions than the same amount of energy used by a multitude of cars.

Yes, that's very true.

Originally Posted by CMYKid 

Nuclear Power plants are virtually the definition of a non-polluting source.

Nuclear power plants have a radioactive byproduct that has to be stored indefinitely.

[Arty50]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Find a place under the ocean where one tectonic plate slides under another. Insert nuclear waste. Problem solved. It won't reappear for literally millions of years. The Nuclear Renaissance we're seeing now is a good thing.

Why would we do that when we can just have Superman throw it at the sun.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Yeah, I don't know if "inserting nuclear waste into a subduction zone" would work terribly well. I mean, in theory it would, but those things only move at a pace where thousands to millions of years would be needed. Plus, at some point a lot of it gets shot back up to the surface in volcanic arcs...lava is bad enough without being radioactive! As well, most of those subduction zones are underwater, which makes it harder.

But drilling it into the earth is probably the best bet I would imagine....that, or sending it off out into space, which could also work but just might really piss the hell out of some aliens in a few million years. Considering how little we've drilled into the earth (what, maybe 12km at one spot?), the expense, perhaps the amount of waste needed to be stored...the uncertainty of exactly what happens to it after that (we haven't gotten near to getting through the crust yet....yadda yadda....

greg

[stevesnj]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Unless the electricity that is used to extract the hydrogen comes from a non-polluting source (i.e. NOT coal, gas, or nuclear power plant) then you don't solve the pollution problem. What do you do with all the nuclear and ammonia byproducts from the power plants? How much soot will be put into the air from coal power plants?

That's why I mentioned the supercells for solar energy conversion. Another reasonable possibility down the road are fusion power plants.

I'm not arguing against it, I'm just putting some perspective out there. It is, indeed, a better immediate solution to petroleum. It certainly has the potential to be a permanent solution, just need to work out the kinks.

Solar Cell run Hydrogen generator/refueling stations would be the ultimate for sure !

[peeb]

We can already do better at solar / battery charger systems.

[Kevin Moon]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Unless the electricity that is used to extract the hydrogen comes from a non-polluting source (i.e. NOT coal, gas, or nuclear power plant) then you don't solve the pollution problem. What do you do with all the nuclear and ammonia byproducts from the power plants? How much soot will be put into the air from coal power plants?

That's why I mentioned the supercells for solar energy conversion. Another reasonable possibility down the road are fusion power plants.

I'm not arguing against it, I'm just putting some perspective out there. It is, indeed, a better immediate solution to petroleum. It certainly has the potential to be a permanent solution, just need to work out the kinks.

The efficiency of power plants is higher than that of individual cars. This also brings up the point that maintenance is easier to control at one place than every car around. Many cars aren't kept up which results in more pollution and more fuel use than needed. Pollution is much easier to control at a single point.

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Yes, that's very true.



Nuclear power plants have a radioactive byproduct that has to be stored indefinitely.

Work is being done on bacteria that can eat the nuclear waste. I remember reading something a year or two ago about a bacteria that has been made or found in nature that does this. I believe the article I read was talking about how scientist are trying to get the bacteria to turn the waste into lead which can then be stored safely or sold to industry. I will try to find the article that I saw or one similar to it. A national repository is the best option until a better solution is found. I'm not going to get into the whole Yucca Mountain issue as it is too heated for the regular lounge. I would rather have the waste in one or two areas than at many places which may not be guarded or kept in the safest manner. We have the containers to move and do move radioactive waste safely around the country everyday.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by CMYKid 

Nuclear Power plants are virtually the definition of a non-polluting source.

Unfortunately there are far too few of them, especially in regions where this car is
going to be in use.

I wouldnt mind trying one, but nobody should be under the assumption that it's
yet a big savings, either fiscally or environmentally.

Washington uses a lot of Hydroelectric. I don't consider Hydroelectric a system that is impact free, but dams are helpful in some parts of the state, and they put out no emissions.

[King Bob On The Cob]

FutureGen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia <- This.

[smacintush]

There are no great electric power generating schemes put there right now, but Nuclear is the 'best" option we have at the moment. Seems as if some of you are still anti-nuke based upon 25 year old propaganda. Much of the waste can be recycled so it would only have to be stored for 50 years or so, and even so at this point the entire American waste stockpile would fit in a single high school gymnasium. Air pollution isn't a problem and radioactive emissions are tiny, especially when compared to coal, and safety issues aren't much of an issue these days.

Seems kinda silly to avoid it in order to sit around and wait for something better. Someday green power will grow up or fusion will be viable and widespread or something else will be invented, but for now there is no better choice.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Do a bit of homework, and say that again with a straight face when you know something about the issue.

Oh, you mean like the bit of homework I did for my Alternative Energy Sources class, where we thoroughly went through and wrote papers on nuclear power and current issues with production and storage? That kind of homework?

[CMYKid]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Say that again with a straight face! Have you ever heard of nuclear waste? Or uranium mining?

It's hardly my fault if you don't pay attention. Nuclear "waste" is a minor issue, the amount produced is tiny compared to the amount and value of the energy it produces during its usable life. While OlePigeon is right that it has to be stored (at least for the present) again, its a small amount comparatively and its a big country, there's NO shortage of places in which it can be safely stored.

As far as mining goes, sure you have to mine LOTS of things to make use of them and the space we devote to mining any kind of nuclear material is going to pale in comparison to the acreage we already devote to those endeavors.

With regard to safety, its hardly an issue. As somebody already mentioned, people are doing all their opinioning based on halfway understandings of twenty-five year old technology. There are already a substantial number of nuclear power plants operating, both stateside and on other countries and with almost no exceptions they operate safely day in and day out. Yes, there are one or two spectres that people love to raise such as Three Mile and Chernobyl, but none of those are recent and with the exception of Chernobyl (which had more to do with the crappiness of the Soviet Bloc than the safety of the technology) none are serious in terms of loss of life or danger to the public.

[Laminar]

We also had a nuclear engineer come in and do a presentation for our class. Nuclear plant operators go in for a week of training every six weeks. The accident rate for someone working at a nuclear plant is the same as a real estate appraiser. You must believe me, I'm using italics.

[RAILhead]

Give me 18-inch wheels, a bed at least 6 feet long, and room for five 6'4" tall men, and I'm all over it.

[CreepDogg]

Nuclear (or is it new-cue-ler) certainly isn't perfect or problem free, but since we humans place value on moving energy around and storing it for our use, it clearly has the most 'bang for the buck' in terms of the energy you get out for the waste and risk that's produced. At least for now.

When there are problems, it's more catastrophic, but as others have pointed out they're few and far between and a risk we've generally shown to be willing to take. It seems to me it's worth it for what we get.

What I want to know is when I can lease something useful that I can actually get fuel for - like a BATTERY electric car I can plug in? A hydrogen car is useless when you can't get hydrogen.

I seriously don't understand all the hullabaloo about leasing a hydrogen car - we have a more usable technology we can't get. And a leasing program on them has already been (arguably) successful in the past. I just don't get it...

[Kevin Moon]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

Give me 18-inch wheels, a bed at least 6 feet long, and room for five 6'4" tall men, and I'm all over it.

DefenseLink News Article: Hydrogen Fuel Cells May Help U.S. Military Cut Gas Usage

The military is testing out a fuel cell truck.

University of Alabama News

Fuel cell/desiel hybrid.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

But the issue is that the amount of energy used by a single power plant results in less emissions than the same amount of energy used by a multitude of cars (and, those emissions can be better localized to a less populated area).

The first part is a fallacy. Emissions are emissions for the most part. It's the efficiency of the process that determines any net gain or loss. The localized part may be relevant for ground level pollution, but overall atmospheric pollution can't be localized.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by sek929 

It's pronounced nu-cu-lar.

That's how Jimmy Carter, the nu-cu-lar engineer from Annapolis, says it.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by finboy 

The first part is a fallacy. Emissions are emissions for the most part. It's the efficiency of the process that determines any net gain or loss. The localized part may be relevant for ground level pollution, but overall atmospheric pollution can't be localized.

It's not a fallacy - there are two important factors here - the first is that any unit of power generated by a large facility is usually more efficient than a car, plus, if it is a renewable plant, that's gravy. Secondly, installing decent scrubbers on a plant is easier than on a car, resulting in better opportunities to capture pollution at source.

[Kevin Moon]

Originally Posted by peeb 

It's not a fallacy - there are two important factors here - the first is that any unit of power generated by a large facility is usually more efficient than a car, plus, if it is a renewable plant, that's gravy. Secondly, installing decent scrubbers on a plant is easier than on a car, resulting in better opportunities to capture pollution at source.

Similar to the DOE's Future Gen project that is going to be built. Some of those technologies will be able to be adapted for older plants.

DOE - Fossil Energy: DOE's FutureGen Initiative