Added: 5 years ago
From: InaElly
Views: 277,370
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (1,069)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • there's one flaw.......if hydrogen is abundant and an unlimited resource, why should it cost as much as traditional gas or cost anything at all? Sounds to me like there's some FatCats that are going to build a empire out of this just like the oil tycoons. This needs to be made freely and available to all people! Especially if production is all automated to produce this hydrogen, and it will make for a better environment.

  • hydrogen bomb on wheels

  • water, by an electrelytic unit is split into hydtogen and oxygen, the hydrogen is fed into the engine. No gasoline needed, the exhaust is essentially steam.

  • Why can't GM etc produce these or an auto that runs on water???

  • @ulen210 -

    because water is not an energy source

  • The future of transport is BICYCLES, not cars.

  • @walter0bz yup. just wait three hours for me to travel 60 k. and its raining outside. oh shit it just turned to snow. wish i had a hydrogen car.

  • @crodd63 -

    the future is , being rained on, and taking 3 hours to travel 60k

    hydrogen cars for a small elite. we simply wont have abundant modern luxuries in a post oil world..

  • gay ass le mis music. well i guess its better than the terrible techno that plays in 99% of car videos...

  • I love Honda

  • This is *cough* ama *cough* ziiinnnggg.. Sorry, too much *cough* gasoline in the air.

  • this is the direction man kind should be long time ago. but the problem is "where the electricity (energy) will come from?". to separate h2 from h2o, or other processes to obtain h2, demands lots of energy. and to manufacture the fuel cells, and so, are very expensive (lots of materials like platinum). to obtain those materials also demands lots of energy. as ones die from starve in africa, others drive big unefficient cars and throw food in trash. maybe man kind should rethink their prioritys

  • Comment removed

  • fuck gas... oil companies should burn in hell for the fucking prices

  • @ReviewerElectronics

    The problem is due to western dependence and willingness of consumers to continue to fund Saudi Arabian oil for transportation. That dependence is due to monopoly of resources. Blame nature. But the west is a willing hostage, and we see plainly that western governments are dragging their feet to provide a new, "oil free" infrastructure so that Honda and other manufacturers will be guaranteed hydrogen fuel support for their new vehicles. We must help Honda to deliver HHO.

  • @ReviewerElectronics But bottled water companies are completely justified?

  • WHAT I WANT TO KNOW IS HOW FUCKING MUCH THESE THINGS COST!

  • every carmakers let's build hydrogen cars and let the saudi arabians eat their dust !

  • @shadow479 About that, saudi arabia also wants to get away from petroleum

  • do they make a pickup truck with this system?

  • It's nice that there are at least these concept cars... It will take just one manufacturer to go to production and the energy revolution will begin... but there is no need to make the cars look like they are from The Jetsons though!

  • We all know that they will never let these get on the roads in the United States of Communism formerly the USA. Big business will not allow oil to be a thing of the past.

  • @lfvfd421 its already in your country. I just wish they would wake up in my country. Shell is producing Hydrogen in California and Honda have put these on the road there.

  • It is almost 2011! Where is my Hydrogen car!!!!!!!

  • gorgeous !! wow

  • gasoline = hydrogen at price or even more expensive ...no more saudi, welcome some other bastards who own hydrogen production plants.....bigger price on a galon of hydrogen...only diference is no polution...srry for bad english...english is not my language...and this Hondas r not for sale..only leas... :((

  • that looks soo awesome. but it doesn't look like it will ever go in production. everyone is going electric right now

  • Fuck the oil companies in their tight, money grubbing, neoconservative assholes.

  • @VitaminsAndPiss hell yeah!

  • This is the future... Honda!

  • hydrogen car will surely power the future

  • this is better than the Hydrogen internal combustion engine, because you dont ignite the hydrogen

  • Bravo Honda, I am sorry that in France because of retrogressive minds we lost bet on future!

  • Bravo Honda , je suis désolé qu'en France à cause d'esprits rétrogrades nous avons perdu le pari sur l'avenir !

  • Is it the oil companies slowing this technology or the UAW? My guess is both, and the UAW will not let Honda sell these cars in the US where they aren't equipped or able to build them.

  • HYDROGEN,HYDORGEN,HYDROGEN,HYD­ORGEN,HYDORGEN,HYDROGEN,HYDORG­EN,HYDORGEN,HYDROGEN,HYDORGEN,­HYDORGEN,HYDROGEN,HYDORGEN,HYD­ORGEN,HYDROGEN,HYDORGEN,HYDORG­EN,HYDROGEN,HYDORGEN!! PASTE THIS ON EVERY NEW ENERGY!!!!!!!!!!!! SO WE CAN CHANGE NOWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!­!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • its 2010!! where the hell is it???

  • also the riskes of hydrogen killing ppl is fare more dangerous then gas

  • @42marshmellow Only Americans can spell like this.

  • @42marshmellow Far more dangerous?? how?

  • heres my problem i dont really care about the invirment and deffenatly (epic fail in spelling i know) not foren cars because im a full blooded american u can hate me but when we buy all foren cars then the american muscle ( or cars) cars r fucked, that means millions of americans r out of jobs and cant afford a car or house so im all about the gas guzziling v8 american muscle thumbs up if u agree.

  • @42marshmellow umm you realize most of the parts are made overseas on American cars right? they're only assembled in the U.S.

  • "This is my quest, to follow that star." The man must have been a paparazzi.

  • @hummlyhummly wow gaga has invaded ever channel including cars thought that was the final barrer but it was broken damn.

  • Honda is the best innovation company, and I'm sure Honda will be stay on this way forever! So, Well done Honda ! You're the best - and I love your products and I'm using one of them - Acocrd EuroR CL7 - wowcar!

  • Hydrogen Fool Cells

    auto industry trying to fool us into thinking it can survive peak oil.

    no chance.

  • Lets say I just finished filling a car with hydrogen. I then unknowingly drive off forgetting to remove the refuelling hose from the car.  Any risks?

  • Give me a pure electric vehicle and I'll fill it up myself from my house..

    Hydrogen- still 5 years away and still too expennsive

  • Thanks to Honda, we will no longer have to be fucked in the ass by the oil companies. The hydrogen fuel cell is the future

  • @mrlukese i reckon your ass will still hurt untill ya start making your own hydrogen to run this shitbox.Internal combustion engines can run on Hydrogen no pollution out the exhaust just steam H2O.

  • @2karriizman Yeah, but not as efficient as a fuel cell car. You forget that we can use hydrogen as an energy storage device, with high efficiency, and no large batteries that are expensive and cause harmful pollution in the long run.

    Internal combustion engines (ICEs) have been well engineered to run on hydrocarbon fuels, whereas fuel cells (historically) have been engineered to use hydrogen. Why can't you understand the difference in technology?

  • @mrlukese Unfortunately most the large oil companies have large fuel cell divisions, they'll still be around during the change. But they won't be raping the environment as much (hopefully)

  • Nice car,shit song,hope they do bikes soon as well..

  • fuck petrol.

  • The day America and the world gets off fossil fuel the better off we will all be. Especially with this disaster with the Gulf Oil Spill. Just goes to show that off shore drilling is both dangerous and too high risk.

  • A second in August

    We have installed systems in cars burning hydrogen without altering the characteristics of the engine is unique in the world that works very efficiently, deenvolvemos a device to produce hydrogen without electrolysis meted, unused solution, only water.

    we have several project Ignitron replacing the plugs / cable velas.distribuidor coil, it operates 100% on where it comes from burning fuel economy and provide power and pollute less. temosmais projects.

    joel

  • Fuel Cell Vehicle = Pipe Dream.

  • @jlwade3 They said the same thing about the Space Program too.... some pipe dreams are worth investing into.

  • "This car is coming in 2008" I lol'd.

  • Dont kid yourselves, the only purpose the hydrogen hoax is being pushed is to distract people from the fact that practical cost-effective EVs could be built today, well for decades actually. FCV are a non-solution, really, a means of stalling and delaying to keep gas-powered ICEs and the oilcos monopoly on liquid fuels intact. H2 is NOT a fuel source, its an ENERGY CARRIER, like a battery or the grid. The world does not have an energy-carrier crisis. We are faceing an energy SUPPLY crisis.

  • @Mebantiza it can be burned, if it can be burned then it can boil water and turn turbines

    theres alot more hydrogen around than oil, as soon as it becomes cost effective to extract and compress it then it will slowly begin to take over.

    im currently studying mechanical engineering with renewable resources and hope to go on to design hydrogen fueled cars, buses, trains, power stations you name it, its the fuel of the future like, stop holding on to oil

  • @Mebantiza ...want a cookie? Most of the entire population knows this. Also, these advancements that simply 'put off' this 'crisis' are just what comes before we find the solution.

  • They already produce this car in California. BMW also has their Hydrogen 7.

    By the way, check out my facebook page if you wish, Hydrogen Powered Engines Should Replace Petroleum and Electric Engines

    Join up to the page and please, sign the petition if I ever get permission to start it in the first place! lol.

    Come on, the WORLD should be investing in this rather than investing in modern warfare and scaremongering tactics.

    Rome wasn't built in a day, so lets get this ball rolling guys!

  • one more thing....in case of an accident....hydrogen will not explode???...boom :)

  • @jonnydorobantul the tanks are designed not to fail catastrophically, i.e they will be more likely to slowly leak than release all their hydrogen at once,

    if there is sufficient heat due to a fire etc after an accident then an explosion is certainly a possibility, but the same is true for any fuel

  • this car sux...is only for leasing...why not sell???...like EV1 this would be destroyd in 2 or 3 years...fck this...

  • Because there's not enough hydrogen fueling stations yet. Beside technology still need some more improving before it began muss production in 2015 asuming there is enough fueling stations. But because of economic crises I don't think 2015 would be starting year.

  • honda hydrogen car is king of road

  • Look at fuel cells on wikipedia, it use hydrogen and oxygen + a platinum mesh catalyst to produce a flow of electron.

  • water + hydroelectricity = free hydrogen gas

  • electric cars and hydrogen are both good, it's just to figure out which one is most effective and cheapest to mass produce. :)

  • no more saudi arabia gasoline

  • @hotcuts6064 exactly! enough is enough! we all must say our word, to make big oil corporation shut up! there are hundreds of inventions which were acquired and not used by such corporations for only one reason...

  • why buy new cars for hydrogen? it is like the most flamable element that exists. why not burn it directly in a combustion engine of an ordinary car? the result would still be water

  • exactly, i couldn't say it better my self

  • Because ICE's are ineficient. You will get just 1/2 the range then of the fuel cell from the same amount of hydrogen.

    Sorry, my english is bad.

  • When it is combusted with the air from the atmosphere it creates harmful elements. Not to mention combustion is extremely inefficient most of the energy is converted to heat.

  • when most of things burn on our planet (nearly all) they are combined with oxygen. when hydrogen combines with enough oxygen it creates what is called "perfect combustion" since all of it's elements are being used. Provided that there is enough air intake the resulting gases would be water vapor only. any car that runs on methane gas can reach 400-500 km easy. so even with 60% losses burning hydrogen is still Far more efficient.

  • yeh but the burn speed is incredibly quick + the gas rises because its so light, therefore the flame created is very short lived, also the fuel cell is around twice as efficient as combusting the hydrogen,

  • rock man au.....u are dumb first off they dont want the water H2O they want the hydrogen (H) by the way thats the most abundant element in the universe hmm. oh and ....(quote)...when instead you could just 1/ make electricity to 2/ run an electric motor?...well instead of using hydrogen to make electricity they will use gas which is what we are running out of..! bullshit maker oil companies use to get billions of dolars with...p.s sorry i yelled at u this shit just pisses me off...iloveu rockman

  • A hydrogen genarator should be in the car. So you just a water. Of course The powers to be would want stations because how would they make their money. Period. . It's been around for a long time, yet how do you tax it. Follow the money and there is the answer to all fuel issues...

  • wow i want one,no more gasoline

  • @hotcuts6064 A second in August

    We have installed systems in cars burning hydrogen without altering the characteristics of the engine is unique in the world that works very efficiently, deenvolvemos a device to produce hydrogen without electrolysis meted, unused solution, only water.

    we have several project Ignitron replacing the plugs / cable velas.distribuidor coil, it operates 100% on where it comes from burning fuel economy and provide power and pollute less. temosmais projects.

    joel

  • @hotcuts6064 man, how do i hate the corrupts and incompetent in my government!!! over here if you split in ground grows a cane sugar plant and the ethanol price is R$2,20/L (US$4,9/Gal)!!!

  • Well I think its hydrogen gas and oxygen that mix and create electricity with a byproduct of water vapor. In my Environmental biology class my teacher said one hydrogen fueling station would cost about 1 million dollars so I bet they would be built pretty safe but who knows...

  • Hydrogen Fuel cell cars can be refilled at home. Never go to "Gas Station Again"

  • no you can't refill them at home call your local zoneing board and see if you can have a hydrogen tank in your yard

  • Not all people can do that. If you live in an apartment you dont' have the room to put refueling system. And what if you have to go somewhere beyond the range of the vehicle. You still need public refilling stations.

  • Diverseonthetube,

    you would fill up at future Hydrogen Fueling Stations

  • does the car use Hydrogen only or does it extract it from water? cos fuel stations full of hydrogen is a bit of a safety hazard...

    one spark and BOOM!

  • It use pure hydrogen from a onbord tank. Some stations are on demand. They make hydrogen from water with electricity. No thank.

  • got ya

  • Just accept the change... We need more eco-friendly vehicles to stop global warming and air pollution...And who knows these cars might look better in the future

  • your exactly right xspec. and think about it: the car takes in water, and probably gives out steam or oxygen from the exhaust. thats 100% CLEAN! why arent they doing MORE of this?

    Hell this might even prevent the world flooding, there will be too much water being pumped out of the sea to fill up at all :P

  • where do you fill up at

  • ugly

  • Uglyass honda xD

  • اتخبلت عليها

  • yea and still we will save more than $100 milllon a month in america buying gasoline from overseas

  • by the way this car is shit no good get a American car tards

    japan needs to see American and European cars are better like the comparison of gulf 63 mpg vs prius 43 mpg and Toyota full size truck 17 mpg ha silverado gets 22 mpg America and Europe rule in power and efficiency

  • Yeah but American cars fall apart because you twats cant get your fat fingers into tight spaces to do up the bolts properly.

  • American cars are better? Try telling that to Mr. Pontiac Aztek over there.

  • winerrrr is honda fcx hydrogen car zero emission,more jobs in america

  • yea but when we perfect the process they will ship the jobs overseas to " save money" but yet the price will somehow not go down to reflect the cheaper labor

  • This video makes me want to buy a Hummer H1 and park it on top if this Honda

  • lol u uuuuuuuuuu petrolhead ( just joking)

  • funny

  • That's fine, just convert it so all the exhaust goes inside the car so we don't have to worry about it giving our kids cancer asshole!

  • EV versus FCV:

    EV is safer, more efficient, has infrastructure, has cars for sale now and more coming out soon for the general public.

    FCV is a bomb on wheels, less efficient, no infrastructure, no cars for sale to general public and none coming in the near future.

  • hi,ndyt and mrwobbeslots wow you guys need sitting toghter with obama beer

  • 10,000 PSI hydrogen bomb on wheels.

  • Wow that one brain cell must have been working overtime to come up with that nugget of misinformation. Are you just going to go back to spouting nonsense again ndyt?

    Firstly the FCX like most FCVs will use a 5000 PSI tank. Secondly a hydrogen bomb is a thermonuclear device requiring a nuclear bomb to set off a hydrogen fusion reaction. Lastly the chance of a rupture in that tank as said by the DOE 'is very unlikely under any conceivable circumstance.' Believe what you want but that's the truth.

  • And thats not even mentioning low pressure storage solutions like metal hydride of carbonized chicken feathers, or did you forget about those too? Honestly arguing with you is like arguing with a goldfish; every few days you forget what you've been told and go back to the same worn out arguments. Really is that all you have?

  • mrwobbleslots, show me a running FCV with a metal hydride or chicken feathers tank.

  • Texaco Ovonic Hydrogen Systems are converting petrol ICE to hydrogen ICE using metal hydride storage.

  • More then odd that Texaco Ovonic Hydrogen Systems web site is down (txohydrogen). Sure they are still around? You cant show me even one running prototype? Also, metal hydride storage requires high purity which makes the hydrogen more expensive and cannot come from natural gas.

  • Less than surprising you seem to be inventing a website. Try ovonic or ovonic-hydrogen. They are listed as ENER on the NASDAQ, turned over >$300m and gave dividends last year so yes I am 100% they are still around.

    Simple CO2 removal can be and is being used to produce H2 >99.9% pure, this does thou add a marginal cost to production. This is irrelevant, however, seeing as biological, nuclear and electrolytic methods produce 100% pure hydrogen.

  • mrwobbleslots, with electrolysis it uses so much energy you could charge 5 EVs for every one tank of hydrogen. Thus, you would need 5 times the grid infrastructure to support FCV versus EVs and this assuming that batteries don't get better, which they will.

    Still, there is no working prototype for your hydrogen storage.

  • Are you ignoring the NASDAQ listed company that is currently selling them? Also where are you getting this 5x figure? You've used it a number of times but have yet to back it up with a reliable source.

    Currently the efficiency of electrolysis lies between 50% and 70%. At best you could charge two EVs for one tank. At worst you'll get a little over one and a half EVs. Given the maximum efficiency of electrolysis is ~95% you're assumptions are just plain wrong. Again.

  • mrwobbleslots, the 5 times figure comes from three things which are all on Wikipedia. 1) electrolysis is about 50% 2) the fuel cell is about 50% 3) energy to compress the hydrogen about 15%. Add these and you get about 5 times the energy compared to charging and using an EV.

    The company is selling them? Really? Where? You and I cant even find their website.

  • An all the energy magically jumps to the EV's wheels does it?

    Its not surprising that when you quote wiki you will make a mistake. For a start the figures on the wiki page are over 10 years out of date for electrolysis efficiency, they are 7 years out of date for the fuel cell and since we are talking low pressure storage, a compressor is not needed due to electrolysis producing H2 at 500-700PSI.

    Its just you thats having the problem, try ovonic or ovonic-hydrogen. Both link to the same site.

  • Since the FCX is 60% efficient and modern methods put electrolysis at 65-70% efficient and no compression needed the total efficiency is 39-42%.

    Since grid transmission 98%, AC/DC transformation 85%, battery charging-discharging (85-95%), battery cooling 80-90% and the 100+% extra weight needed to get a 300mile range BEV all need to be taken into account.

    0.98*0.85*0.85*0.85*0.8*0.5=22­.6576% efficient on a mile per kW basis.

  • mrwobbleslots, if you are going to do a 300 mile range comparison then you have to include on the FCV side a $50K+ 10,000 PSI bomb on board. There is no way you will ever convince me that is safe or that it will be cheap. There is no way to make a cheap and safe 10,000 PSI tank. 250 PSI can kill you. 10,000 PSI can kill everything in 100 meters.

  • This is based on what? Your own intuition or can you back up any of what you just said with reliable sources? If you could you would've by now.

    For a start the FCX uses one 5000 PSI tank that the DOE has stated is bulletproof, fireproof and able to withstand any conceivable impact. This achieves 270 mile range. Are you really going to argue over 30miles?

    So no scientific, peer-reviewed study, government report or any NGO report would ever change your mind? Way to remain open-minded.

  • mrwobbleslots, red car in this video has a 10,000 PSI tank. The FCX you are talking about is a very small, no expenses bared, prototype.

    I have a lot of experience with high pressure systems. They always break or leak.  That pressure is constantly trying to find a way out and it always does. AC system is only 250 PSI and they leak. 10,000 PSI is going to find a way to get out. That is why they are saying you will have to replace the tank every 5 years.

  • Odd that the Honda website says that the FCX Clarity has a 5000 PSI tank. Comparing a low tech low grade material AC duct to a high grade carbon fiber composite tank, really? And who are they? If you wouldnt mind, a reference, please.

    So to deflect from the massive inefficiencies in weight and battery cooling and charging you want to go back to an argument youve brought up about ten times?

    Its clear noone will ever change ur mind, not the DOE or wider scientific community so whats the point?

  • mrwobbleslots, here is a reference for you:

    Wikipedia, "Hydrogen vehicle", bottom of the page graphic:

    EV Total eff. 86%:

    Grid => Charger 93% Eff. => Batt. 93% Eff. => Electric Motor

    FCV Total eff. 25%:

    Grid => Electrolysis 70% Eff. => Compressor 90% Eff. => FC 40% Eff. => Electric Motor

    The EV is more then 3 times efficient.

    5,000 PSI is still 34 times the pressure of combustion! That is still very dangerous! Still very expensive tank!

  • So the grid doesnt lose any electricity in transfer to the home, it magically converts from AC to DC with no loss in efficiency, loses electricity charging but not discharging, the battery doesnt need cooling and the added weight has no effect?

    On top of that you quote a 40% efficiency for the fuel cell when Honda are producing a 60% efficient FC.

    Lastly that graphic isnt referenced and using Wikipedia as a source would get you fired from any academic post without question. It aint credible.

  • mrwobbleslots, Wikipedia is more credible then the manufacturing links you have shown me. I don't trust what the manufacturer says about its future vaporware produces.

  • Okay then quoting the Wikipedia Hydrogen Vehicle article you referenced.

    EV

    0.93*0.85*0.93*0.93*0.85*0.71= 41.3%

    FCV

    0.7*0.6*0.9 = 37.8%

    Hardly 5x more efficient is it?

    That manufacturer is governed by law regarding trading standards; Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. Also I cant find anything about Vaporware products. I can find however links to websites selling metal hydride storage tanks, which you said dont even exist in prototype form.

  • mrwobbleslots, FCVs are vaporeware seeing as no one has ever sold one to the public. There are no plans to sell one to the public any time soon. There are EVs on sale and more coming out soon.

    Where are these tanks for sale? I don't see any. Provide links.

    You changed the math for the EV it is supposed to be:

    EV:

    .93 * .93 = 86%

    Where did you get your numbers?

  • So regardless of the inefficiency, probable GHG emissions and extra cost we should all get PHEVs? If you cant wait 3 years then buy a high performance diesel.

    Where are you getting yours? Those figures have been removed. If you had've checked the reference for the graphic it has been removed from the Tesla Website. Why? Because its wrong.

    Jeez are you that dumb you cant find anything without someone walking you thru it?

    Ovonic > ovonic material > hydrogen > where to buy > fuelcellstore

  • mrwobbleslots, fuelcellstore? that a toy, lets see it work full-scale in a real car.

  • A toy? Where did you get that?

    ndyt you cant back up any of the with facts. Its just you spouting the same old garbage because you are so insecure about your precious PHEVs that you cant even admit their shortcomings. Let alone consider improvements to a FCV drivetrain.

    Either way none of what you said changes the fact the PHEV's are more expensive and more polluting than standard ICE hybrids. And both of these are less efficient and more expensive than high performance diesel.

  • mrwobbleslots, I just realized how pointless this argument is: there are no FCVs for sale. There wont ever be any. I am arguing against vaporware. The bottom line is: EVs are here and FCVs are not.

  • Hmmm Tesla Roadster £90K, 100 mile range. Mini-E lease only, GM Volt not out till next year, G-Wiz top speed 50mph & 20 mile range, Fiat e500 £25k, 75 mile range & 60mph top speed... I can keep going if you want?

    EV's are here I don't deny that, they just aren't the best solution currently available. They also will be driven by mainly coal generated electricity. Compared to standard hybrids or high performance diesel (available now much cheaper) they aren't the optimum choice now.

  • No BEV for sale today has a range even remotely near the 300 mile range you is required by the American consumer. There is only one PHEV being sold today the Chinese-made F3DM PHEV-68. Most PHEV are scheduled for release in the first years of the next decade. This is around the same time most manufacturers aim to have their FCVs out.

  • Furthermore most people living in built up areas such as London have on street parking. Certainly in the more central areas it would impossible for most people to charge their cars at night. This is the same in most if not all major metropolitan cities in the UK.

  • You might also want to check out what Gordon Murray, one of the world's leading automotive engineers, designer of the McLaren F1 and Chief Engineer on the McLaren F1 team, had to say about electric vehicles. I tend to believe people who actually work in the industry and not some crazy fool on the internet who claims to know everything but can prove nothing.

  • mrwobbleslots, the fact that you call me names over and over shows the weakness of your position. Name calling is all you have, FCVs are vaporware.

  • I've provided you with several sources of information, some governmental, some scientific, quotes from industry leaders, examples of working infrastructure, working metal hydride solutions, safety reports, detailed well to wheel analysis and still you haven't referenced a single credible fact. Hence the name calling.

    It's not surprising that you ignore all the facts and focus on two words, seeing as you have no case that you can back up. All you do is talk nonsense that you later cant prove.

  • When I supplied you with the name of the DOE report that said in very clear terms that high pressure tanks are very unlikely to rupture under any conceivable circumstance, you ignored it and continued calling the tanks bombs. This is the actions of either a crazy person or a fool.

  • mrwobbleslots, DOE report is nuts if they think millions of those on the road are safe. Did they even cycle test them? No one should be anywhere near a tank pressurized to 680 atmospheres. That is insane.

  • The cycle test, heat test, crush test and fire a bullet at the tank. Those are just a few of the safety checks, if you'd read the report you would know that.

    So your response to a scientific study conducted by a Governmental organization is that its nuts? Can you see why I think you are either crazy or a fool?

    btw its 350bar.

  • 1 bar = 0.986923267 atmosphere, they are not the same.

  • mrwobbleslots, you really think such a super tank can be made cheaply?

  • Since they've been making CNG cylinders to similar pressure cheaply for that last two decades I can see no logical reason why not.

    I never said they were. I was saying its a 350bar tank not a 700 bar (680 atmospheres) one like you keep insisting despite most manufacturers using 350bar or less.

  • mrwobbleslots, they don't make CNG tanks out of carbon fiber so you cant compare cost to CNG tanks. People have been killed by CNG tanks, saw that when I was googling for people killed by hydrogen tanks.

  • Yes they do, in fact in that DOe report they talk about tests on carbon fiber CNG tanks and possible comparisons between the two.

    Thousands of people die every year from petrol tank fires yet you aren't concerned about their safety. Either way you are still 100x less likely to die from a CNG fire than a petrol tank fire after taking account of the different numbers on the roads.

  • mrwobbleslots, still: hydrogen is too expensive, it comes from NG. There is no infrastructure. The fuel cell itself is too expensive. The tank is too expensive. Less efficient. There are no FCVs for sale and none are coming any time soon. EVs are here and more are coming. The only thing that needs improvement on EVs is batteries, that's it, while FVCs need improvements in many areas.

  • You've said all of this before ndyt, ive proved you wrong on all of them before I cant be bothered doing it again.You cant reference any facts on efficiency of either system. You know next to nothing about hydrogen production. Improvements in all of the areas you mention have already been solved yet low weight high range batteries are at least a decade away. You havent shown me one source to say carbon fiber tanks will be expensive. In fact you havent shown me a source for anything.

  • Oh and you might want to check that wiki page again for exactly why it would get you fired from an academic post.

  • I dont think you get how much power is behind 10,000 PSI. That is 680 times our atmosphere. The combustion pressure in a Corvettes engine is 10 times our atmosphere. The pressure in a 10K tank is 68 times the combustion pressure in a Corvettes engine! It is not safe to put such a tank in a car. You could drive the car for miles just using the pressure of the tank!

  • only actors, actresses and high profile executives were allowed to get this car in certain areas like southern cali, oridinary ppl were shut out by Honda from obtaining this car.

  • a guy from the uviversity of china figured a way to make hydrogen cells without the use of platinum instead nickle which is way cheaper. think weill see it?

  • Probably not in the first generation of vehicles, but I think for mass production to be cost effective nickel catalysts are a necessity.

    ndyt, do you believe me now? Or are the DOE, GM, Ford and everyone else in the scientific community lying?

  • By 2015

    -Tank will still be $50,000+

    -5000 PSI tank will only get you 150 miles, need 10,000 PSI to just get 300 miles.

    -Fuel cell will still cost $300,000+

    -Hydrogen will still come from natural gas

    -No infrastructure

    While we can have an ER-EV like the GM Volt right NOW!

  • ndyt till you can show me a reference for any of what you just said it means nothing. You are making it up as you go along. In fact you've just been repeating yourself this whole time, even when presented with contradictory evidence from reputable sources.

  • AND the Volt isnt available till November 2010 you stupid moron!

    And thats from GM themselves before you go calling me a liar.

  • ndyt are you ever going to stop lying or will you just keep going back to the same old BS?

    Denmark, Sweden, Norway and part of Germany all have extensive hydrogen infrastructure, entirely derived from clean sources like wind-electrolysis. Thats two of your lies put right.

    You dont need anywhere near 5000 PSI to get 300miles. It can be achieved with low pressure tanks with as little as 200PSI quite probably costing as low as $200. Thats four lies put right

  • And finally, fuel cells can made with Nickel that costs 1% the cost of their platinum counterparts. So by your estimation that will be $3,000.

    Mercedes expect their B-class F-cell to cost less than $30,000 on the road by 2015. So where did you get these figures?

    Answer: Your ignorant, misguided single brain cell.

  • On top of that the GM Volt will only reduce GHG emissions by 15% more than when compared to the average hybrid. It will cost an estimated $40,000 and GM will make a loss on this of at least $8,000. Compared to the $25,000 price tag of the Prius currently Hybrids are a more cost effective solution at reducing both GHG and petrol dependancy. Till hydrogen fuel cells are available Hybrids represent a better purchase.

  • If just 1% of the of 140+ million cars were GM Volts it would cost GM a total of $11 billion, given that they just received a $5 billion bailout I dont think they can afford that kind of loss. Even at 0.1% some 140,000 cars you are talking a $1.1 billion loss. Great idea, bankrupt one of Americas biggest car manufacturers. Any other wonderfully well thought out ideas to save the world and the American car industry?

  • mrwobbleslots, the Volt will benifit from econimies of scale. Or did you forget about that?

    Nickel only works in a fuel cell if the hydrogen and oxygen are pure. Where are you going to get the pure hydrogen? Are you now proposing a second 5000 PSI tank to carry the pure oxygen? Who has the one brain cell now?

  • No im quoting the CEO of GM who said that it wont turn a profit on either the first or second generation Volt vehicles.

    Um its still you, the first fuel cells were developed to run on pure oxygen. This was in 1960. Since then we've managed to develop fuel cells that work just using air. Pure hydrogen isnt even needed thou this can easily be manufactured by wind electrolysis and 99.99& pure hydrogen is being produced in Denmark by this very method as we speak. Your move moron.

  • mrwobbleslots, show me a Nickel based fuel cell that doesn't need pure hydrogen.

  • Comment removed

  • Comment removed

  • Why would pure hydrogen be an issue? Pure hydrogen is easy to manufacture.

  • mrwobbleslots, currently the only way to make pure hydrogen is electrolysis of water which uses 5 times more energy then you get out of burning the hydrogen. You would be much better off charging EV batteries then turning water into hydrogen.

  • Wrong again, natural gas reformation produces trace CO2 92% of which can be removed by a ZnO bed leaving 99.999% pure H2. This process is 82% efficient, ie 82% of the energy in the gas is converted to energy in H2. It takes a further 7% to fuel the process leaving you 75% total energy in to useful energy out. This comes from MRT thou I've read unconfirmed reports of up to 90% efficiency thou this doesnt account for the energy requirements for the process.

  • Thou estimating a similar energy requirement that gives you a total efficiency of >80%. This is far higher than the 30-40% efficiency achieved by steam boilers fueled by fossil fuels. Seeing as these account for 2/3 of energy produced in the US, your arguments are just plain wrong.

    In fact natural gas reformation is twice as efficient as coal and gas fired power stations. Time to put that one brain cell back to use...