The biggest foe for fuel cells is always going to be cost vs power ooutput. For it to take over it must best internal combustion all together in price per power int the buying of the car, which it isn't even close now and keeping it running. A hybrid Hoda with pathetic power is over $20K, you can get teh same output and amenities form a $12K car these days. It looks like good stuff but they have a ways to go.

On that site i linked to there is a section listeding the developement of the automanufactures toward electric cars, fuel cell and hybrids. I think maybe they are doing much more with these technologies then peolple realize, many of them several hundred million dollars worth.

I have been reading through the site and Now I am off to the other one you mentioned.

By the way i think we Hi_jacked another thread

 

I checked out the site. Powers not that impressive. 200 horse power but make it fast they had to utilize extreamly light materails and keep the car very small. which in there own words.

We expect a price somewhere between a Porsche and a Ferrari.

I think considering the amazing amount of luxury these cars come with this little guy can't seriously compete for a buyer no over welmed by in not needing gas.

Another thing i noticed of some concern was the batteries life and cost. The fallowing is from the site.

How long does the battery pack last? What does it cost to replace?
Pack life is on the order of two to three years, or 15,000 to 20,000 miles. At current prices, a set of new batteries costs about $3,000 from Optima.

Yet another issue is the very limited range only one hundred miles and I bet you this isn't utilizing any real power. I bet if you accelerated just a few time hard to 80 mph your run time would cut in half. Now you'll need to stop every 50 miles to charge the battery which although less expensive then gas, you still have to pay your electric bills, Takes an hour. I don't know about you but I make more in an hour then I spend in gas per fill up, well i did before the turbo. Basicly I wouldn't realy be gaining anything.

I sure the car will sell some units. Also its a good step in the right direction. If that same 200 ho could be had without the ferrari price tag, short run times and long recharges then we'll have a serious compeditor.

I'm wondering will electric cars rid the world of rice boys or will there be a Fast and Furious 3k3, Electric Rice.

 

Sorry to be a newbie just butting into your conversation here...

Useable water reserves are projected to run out by 2025. Hydrogen for fuel cell vehicles is expected to come from water as opposed to fossil fuels. This brings a new problem into the equation and forces the use of desalination plants to allow sea water use. Solar power WILL NOT provide the necessary energy needed for splitting water on the order required to power all of the vehicles for the US. Desalination is even more energy intensive than electrolysis of water and requires high maintenance/material costs (most components won't last very long at high temperatures in salt water). Of course there are quite efficient nuclear powered desalination plants but I guess everyone is opposed to nuclear in this conversation.

Yes fuel cells are better...BUT it is not more economically viable at this point in time and the majority of the electricity used to generate the fuel (hydrogen) will come from fossil fuels.

Hybrid vehicles are a much better solution at this moment and if you think they are slow that is because you are looking at vehicles made purely for gas mileage and economy (Insight, Prius, etc) instead of looking at SPORTS CARS which you compare them too (think Honda Dualnote here when you try to speak of hybrids in a sports car manner).

 

Always feel free to jump in bro. The conversations are open to everyone.
I am not personaly opposed to nuclear power at all.
Do you have asource of reference about the water and 2025. I would like to read more about it.
This is one of the reasons I ask the number of questions I do. There is always a catch and a solid reason why other types of transportation aren't available. The "oil companies won't allow it is a completely unlogical and in many ways idiotic answer.
Thanks for the info

 

SOmehting to add to this in general for alternative fuel vehicals. Chevy's 5.3 liter V8 can run on ethanol blends.

 

Well you can read up on the "theories" concerning the available potable water in the science journal "Nature" but it is also available in a compressed version on www.spacedaily.com.

I do believe that most of the US auto manufacturers are creating "flexible fuel vehicles" that can run on anything from gasoline to E85 (85% alcohol 15% gasoline).

 

Good stuf, thanks.

On one of the links I posted earlier it actualy lists the different technologies each automanufacturer is developing and how much they are puting toward reaserch.

 

Yes i agree with you. But did you realize that current study is being focused a materials to boost the efficiency of photodissociation? Accoding to the latest Chemical and Engineering News, a porous titanium dioxide electrode has increased efficiency (to 7%, but hey, it's almost doubled the previous conversion)
Fresh water is a precious a dwindling resource, however, co-generation facilities which harvest, treat, and distill water, using biologically produced fuels may lend an answer in dealing with waste water, landfill methane, and fuel sources.
Additionally, since methane can be used (with reformer) for fuel cells, there are also many pathways for CH4 production. This includs methane hydrates (actully an untapped potential fuel source with more caloric energy than all of the other fossil fuel sources - tho' the rape of the seafloor would insue)
Also there is high tech composting, wherein the methane effluent is harvested from organic detrital. And, even better, methanogenesis via microbial activity. Enslave the bugs!!!
In the meantime, hybrids and/or biofuels will have to serve as an intermediate form.

 

This has been among the coolest discussions on this board!

I would have to admit that hybrid cars are currently our best alternative in terms of a 'today technology' that we can use to improve the efficiency of our vehicle fleet. In fact, Toyota announced that within several years their ENTIRE product line will be hybrid (including their sporty cars!). I applaud this forward thinking, honorable move by Toyota. They represent the hallmark of a good company (i.e. they're not Ford).

That said, I still believe that, in a lot of ways, it would be better if we focused exclusively on fuel cell research and stopped wasting time on a "Band-Aid" solution to our internal combustion engine problems. The bottom line is the ICE is going to die. Period. It's going away, and there are no logical reasons to continue pursuing such technology.

In an earlier post I mentioned the inherent nastiness of ICE's: You've got thousands of archaic moving parts (wasting massive amounts of energy all the way), heinous, toxic lubrication required to protect those moving parts (which, for the most part, are also crude oil based), noise... I tell you guys-- In a few decades I swear there will be young folks who ask us, "How the hell did you deal with all this crap!? Your cars were smelly, disgusting pieces of toxic junk!".

You've got fuel that can leak out and get all over everything... nasty engine oil that's carcinogenic and a major disposal problem... engine cooling systems that leak and spill out disgusting green vomit (that kills your pets when they drink it because it tastes sweet)... toxic waste products spewn out into the atmosphere that choke and poison people…

I mean, what the hell are we doing with ICE’s, anyway? It’s a weird phenomenon, actually-- I like engines and have a technical interest in them, but when you really think objectively about them they’re in reality disgusting pieces of junk that use fire, like we're in the stone age, to move us around. It's fundamentally ancient, almost embarrassing, technology. Some day people will laugh at how we're currently getting around...

Weird thought, eh?

 

I unfortunately agree completely with you ProtegeMaster. By the way, the really rich people of the world own oil It's not in their interest to further research these new technologies.
A local company here, Ballard, has signed a contract with Mercedes a couple of years ago to start producing hydrogen cells for them..... Hopefully it will work fine

Internal Combustion engines compared to the other means mentioned here are like typewriters compared to computers.

 

Again with the rich people crap. Reality of oil is simply it will be around as long as it is the most profitable way of doing things.

No one is represssing technology becuase it will put them out of buisness. This concept is fundamentaly stupid. IF someone has a shitload of money and market share and a new technology comes along that will make them more money, they will use it themselves not repress it. They are the ones with the capital to make use of the technology and develope it.

The real reason many forms of technology for cars don't make it and are not implemented is becuase they will dramaticly rasie the price of a car or its maintence. A new method must be much more then cleaner or efficent, it must also be less expensive and easier to use. If its not it doesn't have a chance.

 

Okay, but in 20 years, when the earth is polluted, and you have to go to North Pole to get away from the smog, what will be more important, that you saved money instead of opting for a cleaner and more efficient transportation???

Please tell me that I'm wrong, but you seem like the kind of people that would throw debris on the highways just for your own convenience. If in future you could drive a 100hp car that's cleaner and more efficient or a 150hp car that's less expensive and easier to use, which would you pick?

I honestly would pick the cleaner one if the prices were reasonably close.

 

actually the largest exporters of oil to the U.S are: Saudi Arabia then Mexico and finally Canada.... Iraq is a distant 6th.....

Something to keep in mind

http://www.public-i.org/Latam_Importsl_tables.htm

 

Hmmm... the "profitability" of oil over "alternate" sources is b/c there are so many hidden "costs" that either aren't recouped or subsidized.
Examples:1) Health care costs for increased respiratory illness and cancer cases. Oil companies don't pay for that aspect. Yet it is borne by society, at large.
2) degradation of the environment in general, due to pollutants, and possible global warming. Hell we can't even calculate these costs; we usually don't even understand the systems to the extent we can even identify those portion which are affected.
3) US intervention in the Middle East, and enforcement of the Oil Lanes costs multi-billions to the taxpayer.
4) Not to mention that our policies, in such regions may very well be the reason we have become a terrorist target. How much has this cost the US, not only in damages (WTC, USS Cole, etc.), but now the need to increase security?

By the way, 1st MP3, if you happen to believe that ALL systems operate within the Laws of Physics, then consider the effects of Inertia. Capitalism is yet another physical system, thus, it requires much more effort to change the course rather than stay the course.
Considering that Big Oil does not pay for all of its consequences (above partial list of reasons), then there is simply no incentive for change. Couple this with the close relationship b/n Coporate Moguls and the Politicos and payola, then, the situation seems even more bleak