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.

(TG Daily)   Tuktuks going to run on h-h   (tgdaily.com) divider line 23
    More: Spiffy, hydrogen, compressors, fuel cells, metal hydride, low-pressures, Birmingham City University, electric cars  
•       •       •

1776 clicks; posted to Geek » on 10 Feb 2014 at 9:53 AM (45 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



23 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-02-10 10:12:40 AM  
The point of tuktuks is that they're probably the cheapest form of motorized transport you can build. Making them hydrogen powered is just going to create a really pricey toy that's too expensive for the crowd that uses tuktuks. I'm all for hydrogen powered cars but I'll be surprised if these catch on.

This project looks like one of those electric bicycles which are great for the environment but end up costing 15 grand.
 
2014-02-10 10:16:12 AM  
Let me know when some place other than India builds these. No, I don't mind. I'll wait.

/engineers who subscribe to reincarnation do not inspire confidence.
 
2014-02-10 10:16:48 AM  
Or "in reincarnation", for that matter.

/FARK needs an "edit" button.
 
2014-02-10 10:25:44 AM  
I loved destroying tuk-tuks in burnout 3.
 
2014-02-10 10:42:16 AM  
Hydrogen fuel still requires transporting protons across continents. It still requires finds stored energy in digging up fossil fuels. And there's the added wastefulness of the fuel cell mechanism itself.

Hydrogen is not a solution to the problems of fuel. Electrons or photons as infrastructure energy is far better. Hydrogen is a con by fossil fuel companies.
 
2014-02-10 10:50:44 AM  
upload.wikimedia.org

"Ride the tuk-tuk!"

"Chase the tuk-tuk!"

"Hit boxes!"
 
2014-02-10 10:53:55 AM  

Valiente: Or "in reincarnation", for that matter.

/FARK needs an "edit" button.


No, "subscribe to" is the proper use of the phrase.

Incidentally, what's wrong with reincarnation? Wouldn't it mean you're invested in the future of the world after you die, because you'll come back and live in it again?
 
2014-02-10 10:55:06 AM  

ex0du5: Hydrogen fuel still requires transporting protons across continents. It still requires finds stored energy in digging up fossil fuels. And there's the added wastefulness of the fuel cell mechanism itself.

Hydrogen is not a solution to the problems of fuel. Electrons or photons as infrastructure energy is far better. Hydrogen is a con by fossil fuel companies.


There's a concept being thrown around called hydricity: convert hydrogen to electricity or vice versa as required depending on which is most efficient for transport or storage or utilisation or whatever.  It will require massive investment in infrastructure and it won't happen tomorrow, plus there's an inherent loss of energy every time you make the conversion.

Ob-board hydrogen storage is a major hurdle as well, but research is in progress.
 
2014-02-10 11:05:12 AM  
First thought:
How can they manage this when they can't manage a god damn election?

Then I realized it wasn't Thailand.
Glad to know I won't be missing the beloved 2 stroke LPG fume belch noise machines anytime soon >_>
 
2014-02-10 11:25:58 AM  
Sounds unworkably complex given that most tuk-tuks belong to small-time owner/operators who keep them operating with spit and baling wire... Two-stroke and motorbike engines can be fixed by anyone with cheaply available parts.
Fuel cells not so much.
 
2014-02-10 12:57:39 PM  
img.fark.net
Damian, what's the dealie dude? Are we gonna blow up this tree line or what? Tuk-Tuk and Kim got the blue balls and I wanna let em squirt it for a go... Peter, can he hear me?  That's C-4, dipshiat. Put that back. I said a detonator! I need some dudes who speak American god dammit! He's making a farking sweater here, I'm tryin' to put Tiger Balm on this jungle's nuts.
 
2014-02-10 01:07:05 PM  

Arkanaut: Valiente: Or "in reincarnation", for that matter.

/FARK needs an "edit" button.

No, "subscribe to" is the proper use of the phrase.

Incidentally, what's wrong with reincarnation? Wouldn't it mean you're invested in the future of the world after you die, because you'll come back and live in it again?


Nothing's wrong with reincarnation, but believing one will return to live again is no reason to build vehicles the Indian way:

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/business/tata-nano-other-indian/ 97 5208.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buMXtGoHHIg
 
2014-02-10 01:14:37 PM  
Fuel cell scooters are being demonstrated in Taiwan.

www.fuelcelltoday.com

They're refueled with canisters that are exchanged at one of seven stations, and which are then refilled using electrolysis via solar power.

www.fuelcelltoday.com
 
2014-02-10 01:14:50 PM  

Valiente: Arkanaut: Valiente: Or "in reincarnation", for that matter.

/FARK needs an "edit" button.

No, "subscribe to" is the proper use of the phrase.

Incidentally, what's wrong with reincarnation? Wouldn't it mean you're invested in the future of the world after you die, because you'll come back and live in it again?

Nothing's wrong with reincarnation, but believing one will return to live again is no reason to build vehicles the Indian way:

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/business/tata-nano-other-indian/ 97 5208.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buMXtGoHHIg


I see...
 
2014-02-10 02:06:36 PM  

ex0du5: Hydrogen fuel still requires transporting protons across continents. It still requires finds stored energy in digging up fossil fuels. And there's the added wastefulness of the fuel cell mechanism itself.

Hydrogen is not a solution to the problems of fuel. Electrons or photons as infrastructure energy is far better. Hydrogen is a con by fossil fuel companies.


Actually, you can use solar power to create hydrogen through electrolysis.  Then you have storable, transportable solar power.  And you can store a lot of hydrogen in activated charcoal; that would keep it from leaking from a ruptured tank fast enough to risk explosions.
 
2014-02-10 03:17:09 PM  

Iszael: ex0du5: Hydrogen fuel still requires transporting protons across continents. It still requires finds stored energy in digging up fossil fuels. And there's the added wastefulness of the fuel cell mechanism itself.

Hydrogen is not a solution to the problems of fuel. Electrons or photons as infrastructure energy is far better. Hydrogen is a con by fossil fuel companies.

Actually, you can use solar power to create hydrogen through electrolysis.  Then you have storable, transportable solar power.  And you can store a lot of hydrogen in activated charcoal; that would keep it from leaking from a ruptured tank fast enough to risk explosions.


Sure, but the inefficiencies introduced just by the process make it _optimally_ around 12-13% the efficiency of just putting that power in a battery.  Typically, the efficiency has been 2-6%, depending on process.  And the process doesn't scale to be an infrastructure energy, though it could definitely be used in some early deployment situations.  Most of the time I've seen those, I see them sponsored heavily by fossil fuel companies.  One has to wonder why a solar power solution is sponsored by fossil fuel unless it is possibly not due to humanitarian concerns, but simply a way to get a market started for fuel cells that can be provided by their industry.
 
2014-02-10 03:28:34 PM  

ex0du5: Iszael: ex0du5: Hydrogen fuel still requires transporting protons across continents. It still requires finds stored energy in digging up fossil fuels. And there's the added wastefulness of the fuel cell mechanism itself.

Hydrogen is not a solution to the problems of fuel. Electrons or photons as infrastructure energy is far better. Hydrogen is a con by fossil fuel companies.

Actually, you can use solar power to create hydrogen through electrolysis.  Then you have storable, transportable solar power.  And you can store a lot of hydrogen in activated charcoal; that would keep it from leaking from a ruptured tank fast enough to risk explosions.

Sure, but the inefficiencies introduced just by the process make it _optimally_ around 12-13% the efficiency of just putting that power in a battery.  Typically, the efficiency has been 2-6%, depending on process.  And the process doesn't scale to be an infrastructure energy, though it could definitely be used in some early deployment situations.  Most of the time I've seen those, I see them sponsored heavily by fossil fuel companies.  One has to wonder why a solar power solution is sponsored by fossil fuel unless it is possibly not due to humanitarian concerns, but simply a way to get a market started for fuel cells that can be provided by their industry.


If you store that solar power in a battery, how are you going to transport it to another location?  Batteries are very heavy and bulky to transport.

Solar hydrogen can be transported in tanks, or in the natural gas grid (how the Germans are doing it).
 
2014-02-10 03:58:28 PM  
Tuktuks in Laos are basically motorcycles attached to covered flatbeds with benches.

Road one as long as 35 minutes, over unpaved roads. Bumpiest ride of my life.

img.fark.net
 
2014-02-10 04:05:02 PM  

Kraftwerk Orange: ex0du5: Iszael: ex0du5: Hydrogen fuel still requires transporting protons across continents. It still requires finds stored energy in digging up fossil fuels. And there's the added wastefulness of the fuel cell mechanism itself.

Hydrogen is not a solution to the problems of fuel. Electrons or photons as infrastructure energy is far better. Hydrogen is a con by fossil fuel companies.

Actually, you can use solar power to create hydrogen through electrolysis.  Then you have storable, transportable solar power.  And you can store a lot of hydrogen in activated charcoal; that would keep it from leaking from a ruptured tank fast enough to risk explosions.

Sure, but the inefficiencies introduced just by the process make it _optimally_ around 12-13% the efficiency of just putting that power in a battery.  Typically, the efficiency has been 2-6%, depending on process.  And the process doesn't scale to be an infrastructure energy, though it could definitely be used in some early deployment situations.  Most of the time I've seen those, I see them sponsored heavily by fossil fuel companies.  One has to wonder why a solar power solution is sponsored by fossil fuel unless it is possibly not due to humanitarian concerns, but simply a way to get a market started for fuel cells that can be provided by their industry.

If you store that solar power in a battery, how are you going to transport it to another location?  Batteries are very heavy and bulky to transport.

Solar hydrogen can be transported in tanks, or in the natural gas grid (how the Germans are doing it).


You transport solar as electricity. You consume it held in batteries, and possibly hold grid surplus in (non mobile) batteries. Transport should ideally be done in the lightest form. Electron = 1/1837 proton.
 
2014-02-10 04:43:08 PM  

ex0du5: Kraftwerk Orange: ex0du5: Iszael: ex0du5: Hydrogen fuel still requires transporting protons across continents. It still requires finds stored energy in digging up fossil fuels. And there's the added wastefulness of the fuel cell mechanism itself.

Hydrogen is not a solution to the problems of fuel. Electrons or photons as infrastructure energy is far better. Hydrogen is a con by fossil fuel companies.

Actually, you can use solar power to create hydrogen through electrolysis.  Then you have storable, transportable solar power.  And you can store a lot of hydrogen in activated charcoal; that would keep it from leaking from a ruptured tank fast enough to risk explosions.

Sure, but the inefficiencies introduced just by the process make it _optimally_ around 12-13% the efficiency of just putting that power in a battery.  Typically, the efficiency has been 2-6%, depending on process.  And the process doesn't scale to be an infrastructure energy, though it could definitely be used in some early deployment situations.  Most of the time I've seen those, I see them sponsored heavily by fossil fuel companies.  One has to wonder why a solar power solution is sponsored by fossil fuel unless it is possibly not due to humanitarian concerns, but simply a way to get a market started for fuel cells that can be provided by their industry.

If you store that solar power in a battery, how are you going to transport it to another location?  Batteries are very heavy and bulky to transport.

Solar hydrogen can be transported in tanks, or in the natural gas grid (how the Germans are doing it).

You transport solar as electricity. You consume it held in batteries, and possibly hold grid surplus in (non mobile) batteries. Transport should ideally be done in the lightest form. Electron = 1/1837 proton.


Um, we were talking about transporting *stored* energy.  That's why batteries were even mentioned.  If there were transmission wires available, batteries and other forms of storage wouldn't be needed.

That aside, there are times when the grid simply can't handle those excess electrons, which is why physical storage methods are used.  Pumped hydro, batteries, hydrogen, flywheels, etc.  Each has a list of pros and cons, based on a matrix of cost, amount of energy stored, volume efficiency of energy storage, and length of storage times.

www.scotland.gov.uk

Of those forms of *storage*, only hydrogen is easily shipped in a physical form.  Batteries are, as I mentioned, quite bulky and heavy.

Hydrogen, as renewable energy storage, also has an added degree of flexibility in that aside from being converted into electricity, it can also be burned directly.  That makes it useful in the natural gas grid, as well as the electrical grid.  Flexibility of energy use is a very high value factor.
 
2014-02-10 05:13:13 PM  

lostcat: Tuktuks in Laos are basically motorcycles attached to covered flatbeds with benches.

Road one as long as 35 minutes, over unpaved roads. Bumpiest ride of my life.

[img.fark.net image 850x637]


Is that Luang Prabang? Love that place.

/want some laap and a cold Beerlao.
 
2014-02-10 06:15:52 PM  

Mr_Fabulous: lostcat: Tuktuks in Laos are basically motorcycles attached to covered flatbeds with benches.

Road one as long as 35 minutes, over unpaved roads. Bumpiest ride of my life.

[img.fark.net image 850x637]

Is that Luang Prabang? Love that place.

/want some laap and a cold Beerlao.


This one was in Vientiane (2008), but the exact same tuktuks were in Luang Prabang.

I've been back to Vientiane in the last couple years, but not Luang Prabang. When I was there in 2008 there were no big buildings with glass facades, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's all changed now.
 
2014-02-11 07:57:58 AM  

Kraftwerk Orange: ex0du5: Iszael: ex0du5: Hydrogen fuel still requires transporting protons across continents. It still requires finds stored energy in digging up fossil fuels. And there's the added wastefulness of the fuel cell mechanism itself.

Hydrogen is not a solution to the problems of fuel. Electrons or photons as infrastructure energy is far better. Hydrogen is a con by fossil fuel companies.

Actually, you can use solar power to create hydrogen through electrolysis.  Then you have storable, transportable solar power.  And you can store a lot of hydrogen in activated charcoal; that would keep it from leaking from a ruptured tank fast enough to risk explosions.

Sure, but the inefficiencies introduced just by the process make it _optimally_ around 12-13% the efficiency of just putting that power in a battery.  Typically, the efficiency has been 2-6%, depending on process.  And the process doesn't scale to be an infrastructure energy, though it could definitely be used in some early deployment situations.  Most of the time I've seen those, I see them sponsored heavily by fossil fuel companies.  One has to wonder why a solar power solution is sponsored by fossil fuel unless it is possibly not due to humanitarian concerns, but simply a way to get a market started for fuel cells that can be provided by their industry.

If you store that solar power in a battery, how are you going to transport it to another location?  Batteries are very heavy and bulky to transport.

Solar hydrogen can be transported in tanks, or in the natural gas grid (how the Germans are doing it).


You can always transmit energy by wire, where possible. Its simple and relatively cheap.
Its the fact that Hydrogen can be made wherever there is energy and water that makes it attractive.

Hydrogen is a good storage media for cars because it can be quickly refilled, and when battery technology comes around you've already got an electric infrastructure ready for it (remove tanks, install batteries).

/And I't think tuktuks make a good test bed for commercial technology because they are simple and common.
/If these guys can find a way to make it work, putting it into wester cars would be easy as pie.
/all without having to risk millions of dollars on crash testing vehicles that might not get built otherwise.
 
Displayed 23 of 23 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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