http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/owning/
Read this before dismissing this car. They’re gonna test it in certain areas with infrastructure. Yeah these people won’t be able to take trips with it, but you’ve gotta test something before you spend millions/billions building hydrogen stations or whatever. We should probably wait to dismiss this technology until we actual see whether it works or not.
You were thinking that we could just pour the hydrogen (liquid, supercooled? gaseous?) into the simple underground tanks without altering or replacing the tank and filling system (which would likely involve ripping out and replacing most of the station), or perhaps maybe distributing new batteries or hamsters via the liquid pumping systems currently in place. In other words, you’re totally ignoring the potential costs or impracticality of swapping out the delivery systems. That’s no less hyperbolic than my ignoring the potential costs or impracticality of swapping out the innards of the cars.
First propose what the fueling system will entail, next detail the changes that will need to be made to the fueling stations to support it, then demonstrate that to do so would be reasonably affordable (through either low actual cost or goverment subsidy or other method), and then you can announce that merely making it illegal not to support your system will cause gas stations to support it, rather than just putting gas stations out of business across the country.
But that assumes you have a personal garage and henceforth charger. In urban areas which would be the car’s Great White Hope not everyone owns a garage.
Ummm . . . no.
I was simply pointing out that there is an infrastructure in place already - the friendly neighborhood gas station. Would it cost money to add a hydrogen pump? Of course - but if these cars were popular enough, I’m sure that they would be more than happy to add a few.
But my point was that if need be, the government could mandate that hydrogen pumps would be in place by oh 2017 to ensure the public that they can buy one and not be out of luck fuelwise.
I know some of you will pick apart this idea as well, and to tell you the truth, it’s probably not my best idea ever. I simply proposed it to answer those critics that claim, “There’s no infrastructure to support hydrogen!” There could be one within a year if need be - so it’s a nonpremise.
Well…I don’t even think the governent would have to mandate it. IF hydrogen powered vehicles became popular enough then you’d see companies scrambling to fill the need in the market. After all…big dollars would be at stake.
I don’t think that any prediction is possible at this point as to what will become THE (or IMHO, one of THE) primary next generation fuel source for personal transport. I see benifits and problems with the various flavors of EV’s…as I see benifits and problems with things like alternative fueled vehicles. Personally I think that hydrogen WILL factor heavily in the next generation of personal transport fuels, but this is more a gut feeling on my part based partly on the similarites in use and distribution to our current hydrocarbon based fuels and partly on the fact that I think methane exploitation and use will weigh in heavily if some of the technical hurdles are overcome. My guess is…we’ll go through a period where myriad choices are available. Some will go all or partial EV, some will go with hybrid technologies, some alternative fuels…and that eventually one (or possible some combination…say hydrogen with plug in battery) will win out to become THE next generation technology.
To me it’s an exciting time…sort of like the folks who lived through the competition between whether we would end up using gasoline, steam power, electric…or chuck it all and go back to riding horses. It will be facinating (to me anyway) to see how it all pans out in the next 50 odd years (assuming I live so long), and what we finally end up with.
-XT
Okay. Let’s back up here. We’ve mixed several things together. I’ll try to separate them out.
Hydrogen and fuel cells. I think we’ve covered our differing opinions regarding how near or far this is from being a viable option and what sort of obstacle infrastructure and source of the hydrogen may or may not be. Certainly it can be agreed that it is not a viable option for more than a very small niche at this particular time and is not likely to be for any near term future. And just as a digressive aside, if one accepts that the likely source of most of the hydrogen is going to be from natural gas, then why not just go directly to a natural gas powered car? You could even keep the pleasure of going to the pump!
Pure battery EVs (BEVs), no range extender. No one here is arguing that these are ready to be the vehicle for the masses, at least in America. We will see how Agassi’s experiment works out in Israel as a test case for a swap system. They are ready for several sizable market segments in America however. Vehicles like the Phoenix sport ute truck (which despite being a sizable behemouth uses a fraction of the energy and produces a fraction of the carbon as a Prius), or even the Smith electric truck can easily pay for themselves in high mileage commercial applications. Sedans like those coming out next year under the Miles Auto Group badge will be attractive to another demographic, for whom 120 miles of range is plenty to spare, who either have another family car for the occasional road trip if they take that trip by car at all, and who are smart enough to remember to plug in when they park at night. This may not be the mainstream. But some of us would love not having to go to the gas station ever, even for oil changes. Miles isn’t alone. Subaru has their own ready to roll out if they determine that the market will buy it. Zap is in partnership with the Chinese battery maker GBT, Lam of Lotus fame, and car manufacturer Youngman to import affordable EVs to America as well. Among others. Long term the possibility of rapid recharge on the interstate may even allow these as an attractive option for the masses. Maybe. And then there is the smaller niche served by true city cars, small and cheap ev commuters that are not highway capable.
Extended Range EVs (EREVs) and Plug-in hybrids (PHEVs). These vehicles can have batteries large enough to provide for most daily commutes on grid-derived power alone. Beyond that range they keep going using the ICE either as a generator to the batteries or in a traditional parallel hybrid fashion. The Volt is an archetype for the class, but Ford is positioning itself to come out with their own versions if they see the Volt make good sales (they have the Volvo Recharge and a PHEV Escape both well along their development paths). There is plenty of excess generating capacity from 6pm to 6am right now. It is a false statement to say that huge amounts of extra capacity would need to be built. Yes, it is true some increased generating capacity would be needed once all cars were charging overnight, and likely some smart charging technology to time charging to most off peak times (and most discounted rate times) would be developed as well. That said such an outcome would even out the generating demands, make it easier for utilities get the most out of their generating capacity, and make wind in particular an even more attractive generating option. (Some people in Western windy states might even opt to have a home wind generator just for this purpose.) But the infrastructure for beginning a roll out of these sorts of vehicles exists now for most American car owners. And while battery technology is in no way improving anywhere nearly as rapidly as semiconductors have, they are nevertheless in a phase of rapidly becoming cheaper, lighter and more powerful.
It may be that fuel cells will someday become an affordable and practical option. But if one believes that the time to start switching the fleet over to energy sources that add much less carbon is now, or if one believes that the time to become less dependent on oil from the ME and Venezuela and Russia is now, then waiting for them to maybe become an option is untenable when other practical choices are available in the much nearer term.
On preview I see xtisme’s reasoned post. True enough, it is unlikely that any one alternative will “take-over” the market anytime soon. I mean we haven’t even mentioned the new improved diesels, which outperform many hybrids for fuel economy and price! And biodiesels are a more practical option than ethanol at this time as well.
You mistyped, you mean the friendly neighborhood grocery store. Or rather, the friendly, neighborhood pet store. Or your friendly neighborhood vacant lot. You’ve given no reasons that gas stations are any better for converting to supply hydrogen than these.
Unless and until you can show that gas stations are more amenable to conversion to hydrogen stations, then you’ve reduced your position to waving a hand at an undeveloped field and declaring “look at all the infrastructure!” Essentially you’ve handwaved your own position away.
If we’re going to handwave away implementation issues, it would be just as easy to mandate that all cars be EVs, or maybe to mandate that global warming reverse.
I’m not convinced there could be one within a year. So it’s a premise, even if I do let you time-displace the goalpost 12 months.
This issue has been gone over about a thousand times on these boards, with various ideas tossed out, shot down, resurrected, shot down again, stake driven through it’s heart, and risen yet again.
Folks, as much as the good ol’ US of A loves the automobile, we’re not the growth market for cars. It takes about 18 years for the fleet to turn over in the US. The growth market for cars is China and India. If you think we’ve got infrastructure problems here in the US (and we do, to some degree), they’re nothing when compared to those two countries. China’s building enough dirty coal plants (and I mean “dirty” because they have little to no emission controls) every year to power all of England and still can’t meet demand.
No doubt you are right TF, China in particular is growing in demand. US auto sales are expected to be about 15.5 million vehicles in 2008- which is dropping. Meanwhile Chinese auto sales are at 8.8 million vehicles already, have been growing at a 25% annual growth rate, and while that growth rate is expected to slow, China is expected to continue to increase sales at least by 10-15% per year for many years to come. No doubt there will soon be more cars sold in China each year than in America.
And China doesn’t have lots of oil, doesn’t want to depend on oil from the ME or Russia, and has major pollution problems especially in its cities. China also has every reason to be even more concerned about the effects of global warming as anyone else. Increased droughts centrally and flooding coastally? Not good. China does have lots of coal, a fair amount of natural gas, lots of biomass potential, and good lithium stores. In fact the major lithium battery makers are located either in China or nearby. China also has the governmental structure to actually make those mandates of Saint Cad happen just by waving the wand.
So what will China do? Fuel cells? Some combination of biofuels, diesel, and EVs of the various stripes? Or just buy ICE cars and pay whatever it takes to whoever has the oil? And what will what China does do to spur product development by the international majors?
Tell the rest of the world to suck on their shit.
Apparently, the alternative of industrializing in low polluting ways isn’t something they’re interested in.
Controls on their industries is a different discussion, don’t you think? How about if we leave Global Climate Change out of it entirely and just focus on what they will do in regards to the need to import more and more oil for vehicles? Just the economic aspects and dependency issue if that’s what keeps the conversation focused. Will they decide to mandate vehicles that use energy produced domestically and may include technology mainly made in China?
They plan to hook up with Africa.
They’re going to finish raping Africa for everything they can possibly get out of it and have no trouble cuddling up to despotic regimes. They’re working on getting a lock on all the African oil they can get their hands on.
TF, also without doubt China is trying to get as much oil out of Africa as it can and agreed that China has little concern about “the internal affairs” of other nations so long as they can get resources from them. And some African nations have some oil. For them it is a big potential resource. It’s not chicken feed. But on the scale of China’s needs it isn’t really all that much. Even if they could somehow manage to get a lock on all of the SubSahara’s oil they’d still have made just a dent compared to their growing demands.
So my question remains. If they allow their car culture to grow as a traditional ICE one, and build an infrastructure for it, then they will remain dependent on foreign resources. African oil will not be enough to sustain them and their rapid growth. They’d need to rely on the ME and increasingly Russia as well and increasingly pay more for it. Will they do that gladly or will they develop an alternative system sooner rather than later? If so which one and what influence will that choice have on the rest of the world?
There was some talk about them using LPG powered cars, but that seems to have died on the vine, and while their fuel economy requirements are more restrictive than ours, you can still get good ol’ American gas hogs there. I do not believe that China’s the least bit concerned about the future, they’re too busy building.
They’re letting their people choke to death on pollution, saying that it’s necessary in order to industrialize, they let coal miners die by the thousands every year, just so they can feed their growing demands for energy. I cannot see a nation like that taking a common sense approach to automobiles (not that we’re any better). The only solution which stands a chance under such situations is not one anyone with money is thinking of.
BTW, it takes 18 years for the US auto fleet to turn over, and a lot of our cast-offs end up in developing nations in one form or another.
Hydrogen-powered external combustion? How do you solve the corrosion problem? (See post #33.)
Well that seems to be a bit of hyperbole. For a developing economy they are doing a fairly good job of thinking about the future. Those fuel economy regs put ours to shame.
They’ve been working on developing a home grown EV industry beginning in planning stages almost a decade ago.
The biggest growth area for vehicular sales has not been cars; it’s been electric scooters or “e-bikes”. These are expected to hit 25 to 30 million in sales this year. They are the perfect choice for those who want to trade up from their bicycles but cannot yet afford a car. Of course, people are buying them partly because they have no choice as motor cycles and gas scooters are banned from many city centers.
Electric cars are still a work in progress, but the emphasis really is on the progress. There are the cars to be produced by BYD and more to be produced by Tianjin-Qingyuan Electric Vehicle Co both for Miles and for domestic production.
Bluntly put, they are being more proactive than we are.
Stainless steel.
As I said before.
Right, but as soon as they can afford a car, they go out and buy one. China is also one of the top destinations in the world for stolen cars. It seems that it’s pretty easy to get them registered in China.
And everything I’ve heard about their vehicles still put them in the “gimmick” category.
Not really. A good deal of their environmental laws aren’t enforced.
Well, I’m no expert about hydrogen or energy, but I have a problem with hydrogen and I don’t see how it’ll catch on. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for promoting new, clean, alternative energy sources, but I don’t see how hydrogen is so great. While the hydrogen is clean and renewable itself, how will we be able to extract the hydrogen out of water then freeze it to usable fuel afterward in a clean way that wouldn’t use up the energy we just made?
I’m optimistic that there is a logic behind Europe’s madness of investing to Hydrogen, but I don’t see it. Does any straight dope member know?
If you ask me, I would predict solar energy catching on in the future. It seems great to me because it’s a clean renewable energy source that you don’t need to extract off anything, the sun basically shins on the pannels and that’s your energy. True, it’s goddamn expensive, but once its used as more of a common standard of living, it shouldn’t bring such a price burdon.
I realize solar energy has its own major problems, but it seems like the best long-term energy alternative.
I believe it’s compressed, not frozen. And you don’t “make” energy by electrolyzing hydrogen, you just convert it into a different form – a fuel to be burned. The advantage over gasoline is that (1) the global supply of petroleum is limited and nonrenewable and must increasingly be imported from dangerous parts of the world, but we can keep making more hydrogen so long as we have a power source; and (2) burning gasoline produces CO and CO2, burning hydrogen produces only H2O – another “greenhouse gas,” but a less problematic one, and one the ecosystem is already set up to handle.
The problem is that the sunlight that strikes the surface area of a car does not contain enough power to be practical for ordinary automotive transportation, only for demonstration models like these specially designed and not very useful solar vehicles.
Not completely correct. Burning hydrogen can and does produce things besides water (NOX, for example), but it’s combustion byproducts that are of the unpleasant variety can be more easily controlled than those of gasoline.
The big problem with solar cells (that nobody likes to talk about) is the amount of hazardous chemicals needed to make solar cells. Then there’s the fact that at the end of their life they become ewaste. Right now, the only environmentally benign forms of solar power (IMHO) are solar thermal generators.