Great advance for the fuel-cell car, no explosive gas on board
 

Its a water powered fuelcell car, it eliminates the one thing holding back fuel cell technology, having to carry hydrogen for power. It actually makes it's fuel on the fly.
http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/13/g...-cell-vehicle/

That looks sweet but would hate to get hit by a truck in it.

Wouldn't mind the PLP50 - 49cc mini
http://www.moonbuggy.org/archive/200...-plp50-review/

I saw that, I wonder if a 22 series neu and a 12 s lipo would power it good enough

very cool. Its exciting to see what's going to be possible in the near future. If this technology takes off, companies wouldn't need to build new hydrogen fill stations. Without that obstacle, fuel cell cars could become genuinely viable. People could just use their garden hose to refill. :yipi:

Honda is also rolling out their next gen fuel cell cars this week too. They still use hydrogen tanks, but this one looks like a normal civic. Its supposed to be roomy and have a very nice ride.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/honda_dc;...dvEsJEiAkDW7oF

I wonder how something like this would work in a larger vehicle. I hope that top speeds will also be increased. I wonder what that generator would cost.

Hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the universe...I have been preaching the positives to people at work for a while and the next progression in space travel will be a hydrogen powered ramjet engine where you could get your fuel while flying...what a concept....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bussard_ramjet

Either is still uber expensive - Honda will only lease them.

Hydrogen still has to be produced if it goes that way and electrolysis is prob the best way, so we will just move the pollution to a series of new central power stations and take it off the highways. Problem not solved, just rearranged.

If they can truly manage to efficiently and safely (we don't want to be driving around in bombs) split water on the fly to generate hydrogen, that would be the way to go. Ultimate green transportation!!

I found this conversion kit for your car..I dont know if it is BS or not but interesting

http://www.poweredbyhydro.com/

Then you have to worry about an overabundance of oxygen in the air......... :oops:

Too much is poison you know........... :tongue:

But seriously, it's good to see solutions that don't involve raiding our food sources to produce fuel. We just need to remember that there is no miracle cure all for energy and there will always be unwanted effects.

using electricty to remove elements you want from a common material is nothing new to me...I have a salt swimming pool that has a generator connected to the filter that uses electricity to remove chloride ions from salt that was poured in the pool at startup and turns that into chlorine and as the chlorine kills the bacteria it returns to the sodiumchloride molecule where it repeats the process and you only have to add more salt if it physically gets removed due to draining or excessive splashing..and the water feels softer on your skin versus a traditional pool

Actually, if you were burning the hydrogen in an ICE the oxygen would be burned as well. The holy grail of FCV is creating such a system which can recycle the water from the exhaust and split it back into HHO fast enough to sustain combustion. In effect a "closed-system" powerplant. Imagine NEVER having to put any type of fuel into your car again.

imagine coming up with that invention..people would be saying "Thomas Edison who"...I saw a documentry on Edison and he was so over the top with inventions it came to just over as thousand

Technically it can be done, now. The area required for the HHO producing apparatus is so great that it would have to be towed behind the vehicle, however. :lol: That kind of defeats the purpose. Many more advances in this technology are required before the aforementioned system can become a reality.

The split process in my link is through the membrane, of the fuel cell. If you could catch and resplit as you mentioned, you could possibly power a car as a hybrid, with using the same molecules two times. Not only would you be getting something for free, but you'd do it twice :intello:.

I have actually been thinking, that someone needed to figure out, how to split water for fuel cell purposes, to eliminate the one thing holding up fuel cell power from becoming mainstream. Hydrogen is dangerous, if accidentaly ignited like in a crash. There is also the hydrogen pump infrastructure, that needs to be built. With the water powered fuel cell, that kills two birds with one stone. Now to slim down to fit in one of these cars :lol:

We obey the laws of thermodynamics in this house! So unless you can make it 100% efficient it ain't gunna happen :P

Is that Jason or michael myers in the driver's seat?:gasp:

Jason :P

Sad fact of reality in this dimension - there is no free anything, everything comes with a price. Nothing can be or will be 100% efficient.

There are no perpetual motions machines allowed in this dimension.

I read somewhere last year or maybe real early this year that somewhere in Japan they were powering homes with fuel cells - something about the size of a water heater/sm refrigerator. Su[pposed to run a house for a few months. No costs given, no discussion if it was for 12v DC system or inverted AC or any details. This is what its going to take - mass usage, mass production to make costs affordable. I'd hate to think what the fuel cells flying in the Shuttle cost.

I am sorry, but the plan is to take water, split it, recombine it and harness the energy?
If they found a way to split water with less overall cost (energy) then the amount of energy that can be harnessed from a FCV then they just revolutionized the world.
Being as I do not believe that they overcame the problem of the Law of Conservation I think that they are hiding something. If their chemical reaction to produce hydrogen from water uses less energy then you get back from the hydrogen/oxygen reaction to power the car then that energy is coming from somewhere. How often does this chemical need to be replaced? how expensive is it? how toxic is it?

I worked for an automotive company in their fuel cell facility, I think the technology is applicable. But it is not ready yet. Those Honda's will probably spend 10-20% of the time at the shop.
Additionally the lease Honda is charging will not even cover a quarter of the cost of the car, probably much less (when I left the facility I was at the cars would cost 50k if mass produced, but were running around 200k in the quantities being produced at the time).
Also,
Where is the hydrogen going to come from?
The statement that hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe is true but misleading. Almost all of the hydrogen in the universe is in the stars. On our planet the easiest ways to get hydrogen is either cracking natural gas (methane) or electrolysis of water. Both of which are very energy intensive, where is that energy going to come from?

Oh, btw hydrogen is not that dangerous, if the tank is pierced the hydrogen will dissipate quickly. In anything expect the worst accident, a hydrogen car would be safer then a gasoline powered car.
The technology is coming, it will work, I am just sick of all these gimmick to make people think it is viable now and/or it solves all of the problems. The only problem is solves is you do not need gasoline. But you will need electricity to create the hydrogen, and to increase demand for electricity by the amount that would be required you would need coal/natural gas/nuclear. The enviro energies (wind/solar) would require way to much of a footprint.
Honestly an electric car or plug in fuel cell (with larger batteries) would be better suited to fix the transportation issues.

My thoughts on this topic:

Wasn't there talk that the next generation of Prius would be all electric? Also, there was a new type of solar cell that had more output, was flexible, and was cheaper. Couldn't the body panels be impregnated with such cells to somewhat charge the batteries during the day? They wouldn't fully charge the battery, but could add quite a bit back in...

A while back I was looking at the whole splitting water to get Hydrogen method and I too read that the energy used to split the water was more than you get from the process; a net loss. However, I thought I read somewhere that there was a chemical that could be added to the water to facilitate the splitting process, something like a catalyst? Don't know if the net gain (if any) would still be worth anything...

If I had more disposable income, I'd like to build a "single person city conveyance vehicle". Basically, something like two mountain bikes (for better winter driving) welded together with a bubble in the middle for me. Make it electric of course with enough power to get to ~45mph in the city. Maybe use a 2-speed tranny similar to the two speed setups our R/Cs use (centrifugal clutch) to get a better balance of power and top speed. Make the battery pack/charger removable (briefcase?) to bring inside to charge when home or at the office. Would have to know what the minimum requirements for road driving is though - so probably would be limited there.

Not to ruin your pipe dream but:
if it has 4 wheels and goes over 30mph it needs to meet same crash test results as a car...
A trike on the other hand only has to meet motorcycle crash test ratings.

I too had heard of a chemical catalyst, and although I do not know the specifics (we wanted to make fuel cells, a different group worried about fuel storage/delivery) I am guessing the chemical is expensive and possibly carcinogenic (as many organics are).
I have read some on "solid storage" in which the hydrogen is stored in a metal honeycomb kind of tank (hydrogen goes in the pores of the metal, just like how oil is in the pores of bedrock). And it only takes a small amount of electrical shock to remove the hydrogen from the storage matrix, that way if the tank is pierced the hydrogen is still safe. The problem with this system is cost and weight as the metal storage matrix would add several hundred more pounds (these things aren't light).
Right now, the biggest problem with fuel cells is the cost of platinum. With current technologies there is between $1000 to $5000 in platinum in each fuel cell car. If they can increase efficiencies, or throughput of the fuel cell that will go down. Mind you that is just raw material cost, this stuff needs to be processed, coated, assembled, ect.

Ok, ok. I know there would be SOME losses so I'll change it to "very rarely having to put any fuel into your car". :mdr:

Hay everyone go to Carver.com it is the coolest.

I figured there would be some limitations like that. Do the same rules apply for individuals as for manufacturers? I figured those rules were more for liability reasons, but I'm not gonna sue myself if I crash. :smile: Ok then, I'll make it go 29.99mph and/or only have three wheels. A reverse trike (2 wheels in ront, 1 in back) might be better for stability. I just gotta get off my butt and research a little more. But it's kind of a moot point if I don't have the funds to finance my dream.

Here is a different method to use sunlight (along with TiSi2) as a catalyst: http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/85/i41/8541notw4.html

I found out the catalyst I had read about; it was salt and RF waves. After more reading (this article and resulting comments in particular) it seems that burning water is similar to changing lead into gold. Despite the suspected potential, it just isn't going to happen. The article linked above basically says that there is little energy "stored" in water. Even when broken down through electrolysis, that energy does not get bigger just because we're talking about hydrogen. The problem is that the energy we put in is larger than we get out. Period.

Now, if we could harness "free" energy like sunlight (yeah, I know it's not technically free, but I don't pay for it) for the electrolsis, then the energy we get is free as well. but then, why not cut out the middle man and get the energy from the sun directly? More R&D needs to be done to harness all the energy from the sun IMO.

Or, what about harnessing lightning? The pulse isn't very big, but there's a LOT of energy everytime a bolt strikes! And since each bolt is up to 200,000,000V and between 30,000A and 300,000A, that's as high as 60 trillion watts, or only 80 billion HP. :smile: Too bad there isn't a way to store that kind of power. According to this, lightning strikes US soil about 25-30 million times a year!!

The wheels/speed are department of transportation rules. If you want to legally put the car on the road (thus have access to the road) it needs to meet those specs.
Also, I saw a few "sport trikes" that looked like racing bikes but with two front wheels. Looked pretty cool.

As for solar power: My opinion is, it is great for the individual, but bad for the general public.
What does that mean? Most people who own homes have enough land/roof to produce enough solar power to meet their own needs. Some light manufacturing (warehouses) and schools, perhaps even malls/walmarts could do it as well. But per kilowatt hour it is to expensive for heavy energy usage companies, and for society as a whole. Additionally, in order to make a real dent in energy, we would have to cover a large amount of the county with solar panels, and they would only work during the day.

Essentially, I see a future where solar and wind supplement hydro and nuclear power for commercial energy production. Perhaps someone will figure out something new, or increase efficiencies, but only some areas are perfect for wind and solar. Almost all of the good rivers have been dammed up for hydro, but a nuclear power plant can be build anywhere (within reason) and if carefully monitored does not directly emit anything into the environment. Plus the waste that is produced can be shipped and stored anywhere (maybe inside a mountain in the middle of the nevada desert?).

I always wanted one of these:

http://www.arielatom.com/

I just have to look up what the rules are. Something small, like a Smart car, but electrical would be a good idea for work commutes, particularly for those who live <15 miles from the office. But even a Smart car is too heavy really. You could lighten a lot by getting rid of the extra seating, climate control system, aesthetic interior trim, etc.

Yeah, I was talking about the individual consumer - I agree, commercial power needs are too high. But if enough individuals utilize alternate power sources, the overall oil-based demands would be MUCH lower, in turn lowering the costs (hopefully) and dependency on those oil tyrants. The newer solar cells are supposedly much cheaper than the ones of old - they're just not out yet. Within a few years of market release, the prices should drop enough to allow most people to afford it. I would think even the government would provide some sort of tax break for this type of thing. Even if you couldn't live totally off the grid, it would surely help. There are just some things that are energy hogs in a house: electric heaters, electric dryers (anything that has electric heating elements really), and some motors (eg: washing machines). But lighting and many small appliances could be powered through alternate means, with the power grid providing supplemental power where needed. And IIRC, power companies are required by law to buy excess power from the individual (something to do with the monopoly laws).

back to the lightning idea, we really should do more research into harnessing that!

Geothermal is the way to go for heating...

http://www.climatemaster.com/index/res_geothermal

http://waterfurnace.com/how_it_works.aspx

http://geothermal.inel.gov/

We need more power in the short term, as long as our population is growing and std of living is going up we'll need more power short term. You can't get a nuclear plant even on the drawing board without getting taken to court by enviro groups. This kind of activity pours money into lawyers pockets thus nothing gets done about stopping it or even just restricting it legislatively. It's no wonder its been years since a new one has even been proposed in the US. 30yrs estimated to geta new one thru the court challenges and actually built and making power.

Other countries have or will have a more secure energy future than we will because of this silliness. We're smarter than they are, but we're the ones that'll be sitting here in the dark waiting for the rolling blackout to end.

We will just end up paying a fortune to foreign companies for energy because we refuse to drill for/produce/make our own. Oh wait, we already are.......

It would seem our (USA) government ignores all but the bad things. Such as war, tax hikes, climbing gas prices. Nobody wants them but they give 'em to us anyways. Yet all the good things they refuse to listen too and simply set them on the wayyyyyy back burner. Offshore wind turbines, for example. The government needs to say "f*** off Greenpeace we're putting them everywhere!". As for the people who complain about their "view" being obstructed; would they rather have $7 per gallon gas or a grid of wind turbines 2 miles off the coast giving them an abundance of clean power yet "obstructing" their precious view? :slap:

For those watching the news. Mcain is pushing legeslation, that will eliminate the moratorium on contential shelf drilling. It will still be up to each state to allow it, but the federal giudlines could be dropped. They also could increase the sharing of the profits to each state to allow the drilling to happen.

When i started this thread, I wasn't a greenie by any idea. I been fastinated by electric cars. I know the short term answer for oil independance, is home drilling. Now if the government would get off the green horse and fix things in the economy, we could see middle east independance, then invest in green tech

down here in arizona you would think solar energy would be a top priority with over 300 days of sunshine per year....
but no...its something I dont understand. At present it would cost me about $40k to install a 4kw solar syestem on my house I would love to do this but it would take over 10 yrs to see the cost benifits and when the average home buyer will stay in thier home for 5yrs it doesnt make much sense...the government does offer some kickbacks but that cost needs to come down under $20k for me to consider it

I agree with you, on the new energies technology. Thats why i say, let loose the oil companies to solve our problems now. I read that there is enough oil on the contential shelf, to last for 10 to 12 years, using it exclusively over middle east oil. In the mid west, there is supposed to be 800 million barrels of oil locked in shale. Thats enough, if extracted, to make us an oil giant in the world. I say we look to our oil options for the short term and then invest in green tech when we can develop without pressure

Edit: I forgot to mention, with the coal to oil conversion, we got more coal than the middle east has oil. Using the conversion tech that was pioneered in the early 90's, could be made for about half what the current oil prices are. I'm sure the process has been improved since then

I'm not one for conspiracy theory, but are the high oil prices in part caused by the gov't setting them high? Maybe to give us US citizens someone to hate/be mad at (middle east) and then the gov't can come in and "save the day"? How much is political and how much is economic?

The only gov't involvement (that I believe) is taxes. Sense oil is an international commodity China, Japan, Europe, ect would not willingly let our politicians jack up the price of oil without compensation (lots of it).
Do, I do personally believe that not drilling more in alaska and on the continental shelf (political decisions) is raising the cost of oil, but that is because of reduced supply (if we announce we are going to drill, even if it will 7 seven years to get to full production we would see an immediate reduction in the speculation of oil because the "crisis" would be seen as less severe).

I don't think its a conspiracy as much as speculation, Its a world wide problem, so i think its the people actually buying the oil thats responsible. With china and india becoming manufacturing powerhouses, they are buying all the oil they can get. For us (U.S.) and the rest of the world, we got to pay the piper to play. That means pay what the rest of the world pays

I don't think its the gov't doing this, But i do believe there is, or was, a colusion of sorts, that spun out of control. I do however believe, that whoever of the candidates, that does the right thing to help solve this, will win the white house

The best our government can do right now is open up domestic drilling/exploration and lower the fuel taxes.

I agree with you crazy, whoever is on the side of dropping the fuel prices will own the White House. I know one thing for sure, raising taxes on the oil companies ain't going to drop our prices any......

not to start a political forum...but....politics has a lot to do with the gas situation, if Bush wanted to put the skids on it he could, but remember who it was that was backing him financially, it was the energy companies especially oil, the Bush family have been in the oil business for 3 generations with deep ties to the Bin Ladens....You think George W knows where Osama is? Of course he does....

Have you ever had a relative that was so messed up your family disowned him?
Maybe you have a relative that commited a crime. Does your relation to that relative make you a criminal?
I do think Dub could have pushed harder to get oil proces lower, but I do not think that he intentional raised prices (at least not this high). And I definetly do not think that Dub knows where Osama is but isn't doing anything about it.
I am guessing that the Bin-Laden's would even be willing to pay for Osama put away or dead as their family (which is a legit business family) is not trusted/taken seriously outside of the arab world.