Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS Dallas/Ft. Worth)   Hyundai to sell hydrogen cars in 2014. Officials concede that it may be a bit difficult to sell a family vehicle that runs on the same fuel as the Hindenburg   (dfw.cbslocal.com) divider line 68
    More: Cool, Hyundai, zero-emissions vehicle, California Air Resources Board, Chevrolet Equinox, first mass, Los Angeles Auto Show, fuel cells, product pipeline  
•       •       •

829 clicks; posted to Business » on 20 Nov 2013 at 9:51 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



68 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-20 08:26:25 AM  
Same fuel as the Hindenburg? So.... diesel?
 
2013-11-20 08:38:47 AM  

Donnchadha: Same fuel as the Hindenburg? So.... diesel?


Blaugas.
 
2013-11-20 08:40:59 AM  
Like gasoline is completely non-flammable.

Actually, hydrogen would be safer in some ways:  Hydrogen, being a very light gas (in fact, the lightest) will rise.  Gasoline, being a liquid, seeks the lowest area.
 
2013-11-20 08:56:55 AM  

dittybopper: Donnchadha: Same fuel as the Hindenburg? So.... diesel?

Blaugas.


Actually, I'm wrong.  The Graf Zeppelin was powered by blau gas.  The Hindenburg did indeed use diesel.
 
2013-11-20 09:57:55 AM  
So that's why my Elantra's heated seat is so warm
 
2013-11-20 10:01:06 AM  
Oh the Hyundainity!
 
2013-11-20 10:05:42 AM  

dittybopper: Donnchadha: Same fuel as the Hindenburg? So.... diesel?

Blaugas.


Balugas?

static2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-11-20 10:13:45 AM  
Simpsons Honda did it.
 
2013-11-20 10:14:55 AM  
This just in: all methods of storing a lot of energy contain a lot of energy.  Energy can be dangerous.  Stick to walking.  Your fat cells are unlikely to spontaneously combust.
 
2013-11-20 10:27:47 AM  

Nightjars: This just in: all methods of storing a lot of energy contain a lot of energy.  Energy can be dangerous.  Stick to walking.  Your fat cells are unlikely to spontaneously combust.


Unless, of course, you happen to be drumming for Spinal Tap.
 
2013-11-20 10:32:05 AM  

dittybopper: Nightjars: This just in: all methods of storing a lot of energy contain a lot of energy.  Energy can be dangerous.  Stick to walking.  Your fat cells are unlikely to spontaneously combust.

Unless, of course, you happen to be drumming for Spinal Tap.


Touché
 
2013-11-20 11:04:07 AM  
United Nuclear had a cool hydrogen conversion thing going.

It burned it, by injecting hydrogen gas as the fuel in the fuel/air mix. Required new controllers but used the same engine.

It stored the hydrogen chemically bonded, as lithium hydride. Heat the hunk of lithium hydride, it gives off hydrogen gas which then gets piped to the engine. (I forget how it got put back for refueling). Lithium hydride won't burn even when red hot.
 
2013-11-20 11:07:34 AM  
In 2004 a liquid hydrogen tanker truck caught fire as it was making a delivery to a company in my city. I couldn't find the news video online, but you can read about this terrible incident here.
 
2013-11-20 11:08:18 AM  
Because the fuel they use now is perfectly safe, never catching fire or explodi.....oh, right.
 
2013-11-20 11:16:54 AM  
That car will be the bomb!

/had to do it
//feel dirty
 
2013-11-20 11:38:59 AM  
Hyundai marketing hype aside, fuel cell vehicles are a non starter--but not for safety reasons.  For the actual reasons I'll just copy and paste what I wrote for the Tesla stock price thread.
 
2013-11-20 11:41:52 AM  
Kraftwerk Orange: So, why exactly do you think FCVs are "horse shiat"?

Since fuel cell vehicles would have to be accompanied by a network of hydrogen infrastructure they would have to have widespread adoption. In order for that to occur, they have to have a clear advantage over other options. When I review their pros and cons over other options--particularly battery electric vehicles which are their main competition--it becomes clear that fuel cell vehicles are late to the party and will never be the best choice. It's worth repeating that the only thing that matters is the actual merits of the technology--not the list of people who claim to be working oh so hard at developing the technology.

Advantages:

1. Fast refueling. This is literally the only real advantage that I have heard given for fuel cell vehicles (again, if you have others, feel free to give them). But this one is compelling for many people as a way of combating the "range anxiety" associated with electric vehicles. But this isn't as big of an advantage as people imagine, and by the time they could get a hydrogen infrastructure set up, it won't be an advantage at all. Hydrogen fueling fits the current paradigm we have of driving a couple hundred of miles until we run out of fuel and then stopping at one of the omnipresent fueling stations for a few minutes and getting more fuel. But just because this paradigm is familiar doesn't mean that it's the best. The EV paradigm is not designed for "refueling" on the run. Instead, you recharge when the car is just sitting around, so the speed is not as much of an issue. Now, if things break down and you have to recharge on the run, and that ends up being slow, then you have a problem. With the current offerings for EVs, this sometimes happens, which is why range anxiety is an issue. But FCVs aren't around (and couldn't be) today, so we have to look instead to where EVs are going in the next few years. Tesla and Chevy have both announced plans to bring affordable EVs with range of more than 200 miles in the next few years. Presumably other manufacturers are making plans to answer to this development. With this range, you would never have to stop and charge when just driving around the city or to nearby communities. So "fueling" speed becomes completely irrelevant for the vast majority of driving--in fact, the idea of having to stop to refuel a few times a week, even if it only is for 5 minutes or so, becomes unappealing.

That still leaves the issue of cross country trips (ones longer than 200 miles). But this issue is rapidly disappearing. The latest version of the Tesla Supercharger charges at a rate of 133kW (although not everyone can use this system, it shows what is possible with current battery technology). At 3+ miles per kWh, that means it is charging at a rate of 7 miles per minute--a 20 minute stop for lunch adds 140 miles of range. So still not quite to the point where charging speed is irrelevant for long trips, but we are close--and that is with today's technology. It's hard to "prove" but my knowledge of the industry suggests that we will have affordable 300 mile cars, along with 200kW charging (10 miles/minute) before we could possibly have a working Hydrogen network (even if we started aggressively pursuing it today). At that point you don't have to spend any more time charging than you would eating, using the bathroom and, yes, refueling. So fuel cell vehicles come along to solve a problem that doesn't exist, and sticks you with the annoying paradigm of having to stop to refuel even when you are just driving around town.

Disadvantages: (Note: I am assuming that environmental cleanliness is considered an important factor. If you don't believe this, then stick with gasoline)

1. Lack of a good source of Hydrogen. Most Hydrogen is produced by reforming natural gas. While this is cleaner than driving a gasoline car, it does produce plenty of emissions, and probably we would be better off just using the natural gas directly. The other option is electrolysis, but since this is relatively inefficient, it will always be dirtier than just using the electricity directly in a battery electric vehicle.

2. Inefficiency of fuel cells. Although fuel cells are more efficient than gasoline engines, they are significantly less efficient than batteries. Combined with the inefficiency of the Hydrogen electrolysis, the overall system efficiency is much lower for fuel cell vehicles than for battery EVs.

3. Cost. Both fuel cells and batteries are currently expensive, but fuel cells face stronger headwinds in bringing those costs down. There hasn't been much success in coming up with an automotive capable (i.e. low temperature) fuel cell that does not use platinum as a catalyst. So this material cost limits how low costs can be driven down. Most things that have the potential to make fuel cells cheaper (such as better electrode design) would also make batteries cheaper.

4. Difficulty in developing widespread infrastructure. There is currently no Hydrogen infrastructure, so this would have to be developed. Electric vehicles also faced an infrastructure challenge (and still do to some extent). However, the Hydrogen infrastructure will be much harder for two reasons--First of all, there will have to be many more fueling stations than there needs to charging stations. The reason for this is that EVs benefit from home charging. Basically since EVs start each day with a full charge, they have to stop at public chargers far more infrequently. As ranges creep upward, the need to use public charging stations will become less and less, ultimately being limited only for long cross country trips. By contrast, to support a full fleet of FCVs you would need as many hydrogen fueling stations as there are gas stations now. Second, the chicken and the egg challenge is greater for Hydrogen based vehicles, again because of the home charging advantage of EVs. With an EV, you could get a Leaf along with an EVSE for home charging and drive 150 miles a week around town even if there didn't exist a single public charging station. By contrast, a FCV could not be driven at all if you were not in range of a Hydrogen fueling station. Don't get me wrong--the EV infrastructure has a ways to go, particularly in terms of more fast chargers between cities, and in terms of EVSEs for apartment dwellers. But the challenges are much less, and with EVSEs being as cheap as they are these days, expect the apartment problem to evaporate within the next year or two, at least in places where people value driving EVs.

Anyway, that's why I think fuel cells are horse shiat. To me they represent a step backwards, and the one category in which they perform will be solved in better ways faster than they will ever survive. As far as saying that they are a good idea just because the US government thinks they are worth spending a lot of money on, I have one word for you: Ethanol.
 
2013-11-20 11:51:40 AM  
Oh, the fuelmileagey!
 
2013-11-20 12:05:00 PM  
Oh cool. Another alternative fuel car I won't be able to afford. I can't wait!
 
2013-11-20 12:08:16 PM  

Ivo Shandor: In 2004 a liquid hydrogen tanker truck caught fire as it was making a delivery to a company in my city. I couldn't find the news video online, but you can read about this terrible incident here.


"There was no damage to the Ballard facility, Ballard treasurer Michael Rosenberg told H&FCL. The truck itself sustained about $1,000 worth of damage, mostly scorched paint and damaged wiring, according to Praxair's Horner. It was driven away by the same driver under its own power, with part of the liquid hydrogen load still in the tank, to a Praxair facility in Delta, B.C. for further investigation.
Rosenberg said the fire was visible as a small bluish flame - about 1 foot in diameter and about 3 feet high, according to Horner."

3.bp.blogspot.com

/assume you were being sarcastic
 
2013-11-20 12:10:54 PM  
There's a lot of reasons why hydrogen may not be the 'gas' of the future.

Safety is NOT one of them, subby.
 
2013-11-20 12:16:48 PM  
I guess it will be non-smoking?

24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-11-20 12:20:27 PM  

Gaseous Anomaly: United Nuclear had a cool hydrogen conversion thing going.

It burned it, by injecting hydrogen gas as the fuel in the fuel/air mix. Required new controllers but used the same engine.

It stored the hydrogen chemically bonded, as lithium hydride. Heat the hunk of lithium hydride, it gives off hydrogen gas which then gets piped to the engine. (I forget how it got put back for refueling). Lithium hydride won't burn even when red hot.


No. I have no idea where you got that from. Like most metal hydrides it will burn quite nicely if you give it a chance. I'm finding an autoignition temp of about 200°C. Also, highly reactive toward water, generating hydrogen and heat. Not to mention all the hideous hazards of the metallic lithium formed after driving off the hydrogen from the hydride (lithium also reacts with water to make hydrogen, and when ignited it will even burn in pure nitrogen). If a car was in an accident with a lithium hydride cell that cracked open, it would require incredibly specialized fire fighting equipment to deal with, because you absolutely could not extinguish it using water.
 
2013-11-20 12:34:04 PM  
Hydrogen's energy density is very poor compared to gasoline, or even ethanol.  Plus one little leak in your fuel system, and your vehicle is dead and useless.

No thanks.
 
2013-11-20 12:44:31 PM  
If I had mad photoshop skills, I'd make a fake ad for the Toyota Hindenburg, a very blimp looking car, with a multiracial family smiling and the tag line "Oh, the Humanity!"
 
2013-11-20 01:06:30 PM  

dittybopper: Like gasoline is completely non-flammable.

Actually, hydrogen would be safer in some ways:  Hydrogen, being a very light gas (in fact, the lightest) will rise.  Gasoline, being a liquid, seeks the lowest area.


Soooooooo..... Floating cars?
 
2013-11-20 01:12:59 PM  
media.cmgdigital.com

this headline is stupid. and I'm stupid for biting.
 
2013-11-20 01:19:27 PM  

dittybopper: Like gasoline is completely non-flammable.

Actually, hydrogen would be safer in some ways:  Hydrogen, being a very light gas (in fact, the lightest) will rise.  Gasoline, being a liquid, seeks the lowest area.


You do know that the liquid isn't what burns don't you?
 
2013-11-20 01:21:09 PM  

LeroyB: dittybopper: Like gasoline is completely non-flammable.

Actually, hydrogen would be safer in some ways:  Hydrogen, being a very light gas (in fact, the lightest) will rise.  Gasoline, being a liquid, seeks the lowest area.

Soooooooo..... Floating cars?


www.designbuzz.com
 
2013-11-20 01:30:16 PM  

neversubmit: LeroyB: dittybopper: Like gasoline is completely non-flammable.

Actually, hydrogen would be safer in some ways:  Hydrogen, being a very light gas (in fact, the lightest) will rise.  Gasoline, being a liquid, seeks the lowest area.

Soooooooo..... Floating cars?

[www.designbuzz.com image 600x512]


Yes! Awesome!
 
2013-11-20 01:41:34 PM  

CMYK and PMS: dittybopper: Like gasoline is completely non-flammable.

Actually, hydrogen would be safer in some ways:  Hydrogen, being a very light gas (in fact, the lightest) will rise.  Gasoline, being a liquid, seeks the lowest area.

You do know that the liquid isn't what burns don't you?


You do know that liquid is highly volatile (i.e. puts off a lot of fumes), and it's fumes are explosive and flammable, right?

But go ahead and tell all the people burnt in gas fires how technically it wasn't the liquid that burned them, and see how much they care.
 
2013-11-20 02:02:02 PM  

neversubmit: LeroyB: dittybopper: Like gasoline is completely non-flammable.

Actually, hydrogen would be safer in some ways:  Hydrogen, being a very light gas (in fact, the lightest) will rise.  Gasoline, being a liquid, seeks the lowest area.

Soooooooo..... Floating cars?

[www.designbuzz.com image 600x512]


Almost there!

www.mountainx.com
 
2013-11-20 02:03:18 PM  

Hollie Maea: Kraftwerk Orange: So, why exactly do you think FCVs are "horse shiat"?

Since fuel cell vehicles would have to be accompanied by a network of hydrogen infrastructure they would have to have widespread adoption. In order for that to occur, they have to have a clear advantage over other options. When I review their pros and cons over other options--particularly battery electric vehicles which are their main competition--it becomes clear that fuel cell vehicles are late to the party and will never be the best choice. It's worth repeating that the only thing that matters is the actual merits of the technology--not the list of people who claim to be working oh so hard at developing the technology.

Advantages:

1. Fast refueling. This is literally the only real advantage that I have heard given for fuel cell vehicles (again, if you have others, feel free to give them). But this one is compelling for many people as a way of combating the "range anxiety" associated with electric vehicles. But this isn't as big of an advantage as people imagine, and by the time they could get a hydrogen infrastructure set up, it won't be an advantage at all. Hydrogen fueling fits the current paradigm we have of driving a couple hundred of miles until we run out of fuel and then stopping at one of the omnipresent fueling stations for a few minutes and getting more fuel. But just because this paradigm is familiar doesn't mean that it's the best. The EV paradigm is not designed for "refueling" on the run. Instead, you recharge when the car is just sitting around, so the speed is not as much of an issue. Now, if things break down and you have to recharge on the run, and that ends up being slow, then you have a problem. With the current offerings for EVs, this sometimes happens, which is why range anxiety is an issue. But FCVs aren't around (and couldn't be) today, so we have to look instead to where EVs are going in the next few years. Tesla and Chevy have both announced plans to bring affordab ...


Cogent, well-reasoned arguments have no place on Fark. The correct response was "because Socialism!" and/or "notsureifserious.jpg".
 
2013-11-20 02:10:14 PM  

impaler: and it's its fumes

 
2013-11-20 02:25:15 PM  

Hollie Maea: Anyway, that's why I think fuel cells are horse shiat. To me they represent a step backwards, and the one category in which they perform will be solved in better ways faster than they will ever survive. As far as saying that they are a good idea just because the US government thinks they are worth spending a lot of money on, I have one word for you: Ethanol.


FCVs are still a bit more realistic than battery-powered electrics, IMO.  I don't see that battery recharge times coming down to anywhere near where they'd need to be to make them viable in the near future.

My guess is that our solution lies somewhere in non-ethanol biofuels.
 
2013-11-20 02:27:42 PM  

CMYK and PMS: dittybopper: Like gasoline is completely non-flammable.

Actually, hydrogen would be safer in some ways:  Hydrogen, being a very light gas (in fact, the lightest) will rise.  Gasoline, being a liquid, seeks the lowest area.

You do know that the liquid isn't what burns don't you?


Yes, it's the vapor, but the vapor comes from the liquid, so that's a distinction without much difference.

Go ahead and pour some gas on the ground and throw a match on it, and tell me the practical distinction between the actual liquid burning, and the vapor burning.
 
2013-11-20 02:55:31 PM  
Now available with a sleek, silvery paint job of hi-tech Aluminium Oxide....
 
2013-11-20 03:00:44 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: I don't see that battery recharge times coming down to anywhere near where they'd need to be to make them viable in the near future.


I devoted about half of my (extremely long) post to that very issue.  What parts of it do you dispute?
 
2013-11-20 03:03:14 PM  

Gaseous Anomaly: It burned it, by injecting hydrogen gas as the fuel in the fuel/air mix. Required new controllers but used the same engine.


 Mazda stumbled across this as well.  Their Wenkel rotary engines were always fuel-inefficient compared to piston engines, but the larger chamber and separate fuel/air injection and combustion spaces means it doesn't overheat like a piston engine when burning hydrogen.

 Here's their Renesis engine in an RX-8 converted to burn hydrogen.  It only produced 108hp vs. 207hp on gasoline, but as a proof-of-concept I like it.
 
2013-11-20 03:17:01 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: I don't see that battery recharge times coming down to anywhere near where they'd need to be to make them viable in the near future.


Also, I would argue that we are "near" already with today's technology.  Today I could drive a Model S from my home in Portland to Sacramento stopping the following times, using existing superchargers (note, this is based on the realistic EPA ranges, not some empty Tesla marketing speak)

First stop: 5 minutes at Springfield, OR to piss and stretch my legs
Second stop: 20 minutes at Grant's Pass, OR to eat lunch
Third stop: 5 minutes at Mt. Shasta CA, to stretch my legs and look at the mountain.
Fourth stop: 15 minutes at Corning, CA to get the last juice I need to get to Sacramento and, uh, check out the olive factory?

Apart from the stop at Corning, that's pretty much what my trip would look like in a gasoline car.  Again, that's with today's technology (I have some friends who have actually done this trip).  Sure, it will take longer than it would back in my college days when I would fill up my Tercel, throw some food on the passenger's seat, strap on a catheter (ok, not really) and drive until I can't keep my eyes open, but to say we can't get "anywhere near" viability isn't even true today.
 
2013-11-20 03:19:17 PM  

foo monkey: neversubmit: LeroyB: dittybopper: Like gasoline is completely non-flammable.

Actually, hydrogen would be safer in some ways:  Hydrogen, being a very light gas (in fact, the lightest) will rise.  Gasoline, being a liquid, seeks the lowest area.

Soooooooo..... Floating cars?

[www.designbuzz.com image 600x512]

Almost there!

[www.mountainx.com image 600x450]


I saw one of those the other day at the EV association meeting.  Still needs a bit more work, I think.  I read this morning that they are going to try to develop and build these further here in Portland.
 
2013-11-20 03:32:58 PM  
In my MBA program we had to work with the GM hydrogen project for our marketing class. GM's response here: "has no fuel-cell vehicles currently in its new product pipeline, spokesman Dan Flores said Monday. He said more work needs to be done on cost and infrastructure to make the cars viable." was essentially our recommendation, but the professor (a left wing nutjob) rejected it because GREEN IS THE FUTUREEEEEEE.

Also having an engineering background and generally being educated on a lot of things, hydrogen cars are really funny. They are "no pollution" because the byproduct of the reaction is water vapor. If you believe in global warming from the greenhouse effect, water vapor is a far larger and more effective contributor than carbon dioxide. So, unless global warming is a crock of shiat, hydrogen cars would actually MAKE THE PROBLEM WORSE.
 
2013-11-20 03:42:39 PM  

Hollie Maea: HMS_Blinkin: I don't see that battery recharge times coming down to anywhere near where they'd need to be to make them viable in the near future.

Also, I would argue that we are "near" already with today's technology.  Today I could drive a Model S from my home in Portland to Sacramento stopping the following times, using existing superchargers (note, this is based on the realistic EPA ranges, not some empty Tesla marketing speak)

First stop: 5 minutes at Springfield, OR to piss and stretch my legs
Second stop: 20 minutes at Grant's Pass, OR to eat lunch
Third stop: 5 minutes at Mt. Shasta CA, to stretch my legs and look at the mountain.
Fourth stop: 15 minutes at Corning, CA to get the last juice I need to get to Sacramento and, uh, check out the olive factory?

Apart from the stop at Corning, that's pretty much what my trip would look like in a gasoline car.  Again, that's with today's technology (I have some friends who have actually done this trip).  Sure, it will take longer than it would back in my college days when I would fill up my Tercel, throw some food on the passenger's seat, strap on a catheter (ok, not really) and drive until I can't keep my eyes open, but to say we can't get "anywhere near" viability isn't even true today.


But I only stop for gasoline. I choose to piss in empty Mountain Dew bottles and then toss them out the window into the bar ditch, so an electric car would never work on a road trip for me therefore they are stupid and nobody should ever drive one no matter what.

This is what a typical anti-electric vehicle moran sounds like...
 
2013-11-20 03:42:51 PM  

Bullseyed: In my MBA program we had to work with the GM hydrogen project for our marketing class. GM's response here: "has no fuel-cell vehicles currently in its new product pipeline, spokesman Dan Flores said Monday. He said more work needs to be done on cost and infrastructure to make the cars viable." was essentially our recommendation, but the professor (a left wing nutjob) rejected it because GREEN IS THE FUTUREEEEEEE.

Also having an engineering background and generally being educated on a lot of things, hydrogen cars are really funny. They are "no pollution" because the byproduct of the reaction is water vapor. If you believe in global warming from the greenhouse effect, water vapor is a far larger and more effective contributor than carbon dioxide. So, unless global warming is a crock of shiat, hydrogen cars would actually MAKE THE PROBLEM WORSE.


Yeah, but at least we get the hydrogen from the magical lake of hydrogen that only Jeremy Rifkin knows about.
 
2013-11-20 03:47:32 PM  

poorjon: Gaseous Anomaly: United Nuclear had a cool hydrogen conversion thing going.

It burned it, by injecting hydrogen gas as the fuel in the fuel/air mix. Required new controllers but used the same engine.

It stored the hydrogen chemically bonded, as lithium hydride. Heat the hunk of lithium hydride, it gives off hydrogen gas which then gets piped to the engine. (I forget how it got put back for refueling). Lithium hydride won't burn even when red hot.

No. I have no idea where you got that from. Like most metal hydrides it will burn quite nicely if you give it a chance. I'm finding an autoignition temp of about 200°C. Also, highly reactive toward water, generating hydrogen and heat. Not to mention all the hideous hazards of the metallic lithium formed after driving off the hydrogen from the hydride (lithium also reacts with water to make hydrogen, and when ignited it will even burn in pure nitrogen). If a car was in an accident with a lithium hydride cell that cracked open, it would require incredibly specialized fire fighting equipment to deal with, because you absolutely could not extinguish it using water.


Huh. I'm probably remembering it wrong then. (Or they might be wrong, or both). Thanks.
 
2013-11-20 03:50:51 PM  

Bullseyed: having an engineering background and generally being educated on a lot of things, hydrogen cars are really funny. They are "no pollution" because the byproduct of the reaction is water vapor. If you believe in global warming from the greenhouse effect, water vapor is a far larger and more effective contributor than carbon dioxide. So, unless global warming is a crock of shiat, hydrogen cars would actually MAKE THE PROBLEM WORSE.


Has anyone ever told you that you're an idiot that doesn't understand how stuff works?

Because I'm doing it right now.
 
2013-11-20 04:04:26 PM  

Bullseyed: If you believe in global warming from the greenhouse effect, water vapor is a far larger and more effective contributor than carbon dioxide. So, unless global warming is a crock of shiat, hydrogen cars would actually MAKE THE PROBLEM WORSE.


If only there was some mechanism by which the injection of excess water into the atmosphere would result in that water returning to the ground in liquid form somehow.  I'm cloudy on how the necessary nucleation sites would form, and we should brainstorm if that precipitates a snowball effect.

Bullseyed: Also having an engineering background


No.  Unless you mean you've been on a train.  I would believe that.  You're a consistent derp factory on this topic.

Bullseyed: They are "no pollution" because the byproduct of the reaction is water vapor.


Only true if the hydrogen is being delivered by a magical fairy.  Otherwise, it's no cleaner than the energy source that feeds into it.  Well, including the fact that hydrogen generation will be ~70% efficient on a good day.  And that you would need to stand up a nationwide infrastructure for delivery/transfers.
 
2013-11-20 04:38:25 PM  
Instead of using methane to create hydrogen to create electricity to create mechanical motion, why not just use the methane to power an existing internal combustion engine?

An entire network of pipelines already serves the vast majority of our population. The only problem is the 'last mile' problem of creating more nat gas filling stations (there are already more than you think), which is surmountable...

Honda's natural gas powered civic is here today, has a 230+ mile range, is only about 5k more than the regular civic, and is an IIHS top safety pick.
 
2013-11-20 04:38:47 PM  

Bullseyed: generally being educated on a lot of things


Sounds good....

Bullseyed: If you believe in global warming from the greenhouse effect, water vapor is a far larger and more effective contributor than carbon dioxide. So, unless global warming is a crock of shiat, hydrogen cars would actually MAKE THE PROBLEM WORSE.


Aaannd there's the fail.  My grandfather would say "Bullseyed knows many things, some of which are true".  You know a couple of facts, but you don't understand them enough to arrive at the correct conclusion.
 
2013-11-20 06:03:49 PM  

CMYK and PMS: dittybopper: Like gasoline is completely non-flammable.

Actually, hydrogen would be safer in some ways:  Hydrogen, being a very light gas (in fact, the lightest) will rise.  Gasoline, being a liquid, seeks the lowest area.

You do know that the liquid isn't what burns don't you?


Yes, but if the hydrogen escapes straight up, it's unlikely to find a spark to make it explode. Liquid gas seeks the low areas-then evaporates. Result-a nice, low lying cloud of boom juice.
 
Displayed 50 of 68 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report