How amazing is this?

[swamp]

I thought the big hope was for methanol fuel cells. It's a convenient, stable liquid fuel, and only one carbon atom per four hydrogen atoms. OK it still chucks out a bit of CO2 but not as much as higher-polymer fossil fuels.

[dang65]

People keep thinking of hydrogen as a fuel source. James May sort of conceded this fact when he said "the one problem with hydrogen is that it first needs to be created"!

Don't forget the miracle of hydrogen producing bacteria. That should save the planet some time in about 2010. Apparently.

Also, re the problem of storing hydrogen. Why is it always cars that are the first priority with this kind of technology? Why not concentrate on using hydrogen fuel cells to power buildings, street lights, canal boats, heating for schools and public swimming pools etc etc. ICE vehicles could then get priority on all the oil, because that's obviously the most efficient fuel for mobility, but emissions would be cut back hugely via the other, far more practical, uses of hydrogen.

[deano]

methane fuel cells, nuclear power, hydrogen storage, carbon capture, chimney stack scrubbers... all "solutions" to a problem.

The point is, is that any solution to the problem of emiting carbon dioxide will come from scientists and engineers, funded by companies who can see a profit to be made and are therefore willing to invest in the technology.

The solution will not come from vegan socialists blocking runways, congestion-charging councils destroying their town centres by closing car-parks, or self-promoting, air-head celebrities with big mouths and nothing to say.

[deano]

Why not concentrate on using hydrogen fuel cells to power buildings, street lights, canal boats, heating for schools and public swimming pools etc etc.

Because Honda, Ford, BMW etc all sell cars, so if they invest in the technology, they want a return on that invetment by selling more cars.

If the public swimming baths want to invest in the technology as well then they are free to do so, but if they are not willing to invest the billions needed than they will just have to wait for the trickle down of the technology.

Besides, cars are a vital part of our economy. Swimming pools are not, therefore they can be prioritised downwards.

[stackpole]

You're thinking like a user. Fuel cells may be an alternative to batteries as a storage medium (which currently suck in terms of energy density, but continue to improve), but they don't address the issue of where the energy comes from.

That was the whole point of my caustic remark, and I guess you deserve it too.

This car is not INTENDED to address the problem of where the energy comes from (required to produce hydrogen). If a football team buys a good goalkeeper, you are doing the equivalent of criticising him for not scoring enough goals.

Energy is another problem, being addressed elsewhere, in parallel. Maybe hydrogen generation plants will be run on electricity generated from a nuclear power station, ten thousand windmills in the north sea, or 100,000 cows arses. Who knows?

The point of this vehicle is to run on a motor using electiricity, a transferable energy, however the electicity is generated in the future. Nit-pick all you like on the technology today, but it is early days and will mature.

[deano]

I like the idea of genetically modifying the cow to either produce less methane, or to emit it in a form that can be collected and used.

I wonder what the turnover of the british herd is? How long would it take to replace the whole herd from viable, breeding pairs?

[TimberWolf]

That was the whole point of my caustic remark, and I guess you deserve it too.

This car is not INTENDED to address the problem of where the energy comes from (required to produce hydrogen). If a football team buys a good goalkeeper, you are doing the equivalent of criticising him for not scoring enough goals.

Energy is another problem, being addressed elsewhere, in parallel. Maybe hydrogen generation plants will be run on electricity generated from a nuclear power station, ten thousand windmills in the north sea, or 100,000 cows arses. Who knows?

The point of this vehicle is to run on a motor using electiricity, a transferable energy, however the electicity is generated in the future. Nit-pick all you like on the technology today, but it is early days and will mature.

That's why I said you are thinking like a user. What you see is that you can fill up more or less as normal and can drive about as far as normal on a tankful of liquid hydrogen, so this appears to be a fantastic solution and the technicalities are mere detail. This ignores energy inefficiencies, where the energy comes from and how tricky hydrogen is to store. I'm surprised it will even be legal to leave a tank full of liquid hydrogen in a public place. Even though a tankful of liquid will have the same energy content of a tankful of petrol, it's properties are nowhere near as benign as petrol.

Other more practical means of containing may be developed, but liquid hydrogen looks to be over-hyped - it fails everywhere except in the sales hype. These include on-board extraction of hydrogen from water (a reaction with Aluminium) and other solid or liquid compounds of hydrogen (petrol being a one of these, albeit a complex one).

[NotAllThere]

Once you've abolished all that pollution, the glaciers will come.

[dang65]

Because Honda, Ford, BMW etc all sell cars, so if they invest in the technology, they want a return on that investment by selling more cars.

Yeah, I'm not saying that the car companies themselves should concentrate on this necessarily, just that technologists in general should be. Anyway, companies like Honda make generators and other such equipment, Ford make agricultural machinery and so on.

It just seems to me that it would be so much more practical to be, well, practical. If it's not practical for a car to carry its own hydrogen then concentrate the advantages of hydrogen into places where hydrogen can be stored realistically - farms, local electricity sub-stations, large buildings, canal boats etc.

Those would all make money for the manufacturers of such technology, so the investment would be worthwhile, and it would negate some of the urgency of removing vehicle emissions.

[BrilloPad]

Once you've abolished all that pollution, the glaciers will come.

Not for 200 years.