around 6.8 megajoules converted from gas and around 4.5 from Hydrogen fuel using an electric motor.
Also all this stuff about "yeah but making hydrogen fuel is as damaging to the environment". You just need electrical power to make hydrogen fuel which CAN come from multiple sources - some very green. Oil drilling is only going to get more difficult and dangerous ... BP anyone?
Give hydrogen and electric the investment oil has had and it just makes sense.
Hydrogen is a terrible way of storing energy, which is why Nature invented "OIL" (and carbohydrates)
when the FOSSIL oil, runs out, we're back to the rate at which it can be produced by sunlight (eg. by plants), we simply wont have the same level of civilization & technology (at least not for the same number of people, a small elite maybe)
@walter0bz Looking at energy density per litre which I presume is what you are referring to you are correct in saying petrol is much higher at 34 megajoules compared to hydrogen compressed to 700 bar having 5.6 megajoules (wikipedia). However if you also take into account that a total combustion engine has AT BEST a 15 - 20% efficiency compared to around 80% efficiency of an electric motor (not to mention regenerative breaking), you will see there isn't that much difference -
the salient point is, oil is ready made stored energy.
hydrogen must be made from another energy source - it can't replace the main role of Oil in our civilization it's like a rechargeable battery. I object to people who present that it is a saviour.
@walter0bz Where exactly do you think we get oil? IT IS DRILLED AND PROCESSED AND REFINED! It isn't mana delivered from heaven by the oil gods, there are similar amounts of processing required for hydrogen as well.
I never called it the "saviour" I don't think there will be one "saviour", but we are quite capable of moving away from such extreme dependence on oil. I love your point "it's like a rechargeable battery" .... ummmm isn't that kind of the point -> renewable?
bicycles are the only viable future personal transport, if we're lucky enough to be able to manipulate materials like aluminium to that level without fossil fuels, maintain roads etc.
show me a bicycle, let alone a car, made purely from renewable resources.. can you mine, refine, smelt, machine metals on sunlight? I doubt it. can you engineer 'solar-recycling' as intricate as biology? i doubt it.
@walter0bz Ummm trying to understand what you are going on about here ... why is a bike the only viable future personal transport? How exactly do you believe fossil fuels affect how we manufacture items? We use electricity primarily as the energy source for manufacturing.
You don't run things on sunlight you run things on electricity ... which can be made from many many things - hydrogen fuel is an example of such. Also there is wind, water, sunlight, fission, fusion etc etc ...
if we get fusion, then we might keep this civilization going. Without it, cars will be a luxury for super rich only. We only have abundance of metal/plastic/powered tech because we're digging up stored energy that took millions of years to accumulate. splurging an energy lottery win. When we go back to using sunlight to recycle surface materials.. i doubt we can match plant-animal symbiosis. After peak oil, peeps who can live without car will have HUGE advantage over car-addicts
"We use electricity primarily as the energy source for manufacturing."
-no, we use fossil-fuels, electricity is an energy carrier not an energy source. If wind/solar were enough to make that electricity we'd have an independant economy of solar-powered solar panel factories. Nature already did that (plants). I think you get cause and effect the wrong way round. Our tech adds very little 'information' compared to evolutions 'designs'.our tech is crude fossil-fueled brute force.
hydrogen & electricity should not be mentioned in the same way as Oil, Fission, Fusion, Sunlight. The former are only energy Carriers. the latter are energy Sources. If you want a technological world to continue for such a large population, only Fusion will cut it. it doesn't work yet,it may never. Fission has same problem as oil, its finite. peak uranium. enough reactors might mean a chernobyl or fukushima every year ? (still I'm pro fission, its the least bad option now)
@crazybear38 - solar panels will compete for food production.
some say use solar to electrolyze water. if you have sunlight+water you can make food. biofuel or spirulina? currently oil has multiplied useable food & hence population 8X.
without fossil-fuel energy input there will be a population crash - billions will starve or die fighting to the death over dwindling resources. Future is soylent-green+mad max.
@walter0bz Hi I see your stance on "energy carrier" vs "energy source" now. It is true fossil fuels has provided a relatively easily exploitable energy source for years; however I believe our discussion is all based on subjective opinion whether you believe without massive dependence on fossil fuels "we're all doomed!" (btw I hope you have watched Dad's Army to get the reference :)) or whether you believe a combination of other energy sources and new energy carriers will pick up the slack
@walter0bz I personally feel that we are too inventive to just let shit slide, fission will be more than sufficient to supply major electrical needs for next 50-100 years, forget about the bullocks with chernobyl or fukushima - there are loads of reactors on the planet now and only 3 have ever really buggered up. If the mass media stops scare mongering its no problem (whats the damage compared to say how much fossil fuel burning powerplants have done over their lifetime!)
@walter0bz Then within 100 years will have at least 1st gen fusion plants will most likely have 2nd gen plants within that time as well. To me the future is a time for optimism not pessimism, we will convert to an almost complete use of electricity/hydrogen (as an energy carrier as you call it) with energy sources being a complete set of renewables with fusion eventually being major supplier. Of course to get that far we have to not wipe each other out in a war, or over populate the planet!!!
@walter0bz Final point, on "bikes and cars". To be honest with you people who can live without cars are already at a huge advantage - petrol is bleeping expensive! I'm from the UK and it is fairly easy to get along without a car, due to decent public transportation infrastructure. Now in the states I realise that isn't as easily realised still ... So I believe that using a hydrogen cell instead of a battery will make current ebikes more efficient which will be a good thing.
If we try to produce/consume fuel cells +electric cars in same quantities as combustion vehicles currently, we'd rapidly run into material shortages (copper, platinum etc). The masses will not have abundant tech after the oil age. The average person is going back to the middle ages in lifestyle. (thats if they survive). Hydrogen Fool Cells are pushed by governments and car companies pretending they have a future. if everyone understood, whats coming, we'd have bigger riots...
metals, plastics... all our material choices are an artefact of the oil age. nature creates materials like spidersilk and mother of pearl with remarkable properties, superior to our engineering. all our current tech (even the infrastructure to make fuel cells , solar panels) depends on material choices and manufacturing processes that simply wont be viable without fossil fuels. And its terrifying how many people can't see this , or think that cars are some god given right
@crazybear38 recommended reading for you: google "peak oil die off introduction" i agree with 90% of this text . if you can debunk the other 90% i'm all ears ! it covers fuel cells. where i disagree, - its 2billion not 0.5; elec CAN do anything oil can, just nowhere near same qty. and 9/11 was not inside job (stress approaching peak enough for pre-emptive strike by aqt). but threats may have been made to provoke them.
@walter0bz Oh dear you really have bought the "we are all doomed" idea hook, line and sinker haven't you? Regression of society predominantly occurs because of lack of communication which is why it is usually seen with the fall of empires. Historically lack of resources leads to ADAPTION & INVENTION not death. We have the Internet, free media etc all INDEPENDENT of fossil fuels we aren't going to regress but we will change. I think my generation in Europe already are: Smile we get to live!
>>"Historically lack of resources leads to ADAPTION & INVENTION"
no.
historically geological ages come and go and entire species go extinct.. we wont but this over-adapted state wont last. Earth is 4billion years old, our history is a very short blip and I remind you, our 'tech' has very low information content compared to the biosphere as a whole. Seriously compare the engineering in a microprocessor to the 'human body' or even 'an amoeba'
@crazybear38 - industrial revolution has fast-forwarded a geological age (like supervolcano) FF's took 10m's of of yrs to accumulate.. gasses all returned in the blink of an eye (200 yrs). we are going through a manmade mass extinction now. Know why earth accumulates so many symbioses (such as fruit-bearing plants+seed-dispersing animals?) - when a new creature evolves, if it behaves symbiotically, the whole sys thrives as does it.But reverse, damage feeds back to itself and it goes extinct :)
>>"We have the Internet, free media etc all INDEPENDENT of fossil fuels"
- wrong. The web is dependant on a highly specialized society facilitated by movement of materials, villages can't make their own microprocessors. Web is dependant on continuous manufacture of hard-drives , neither they not sollid state are lasting information stores. like biology our information must be continuously churned by burning energy -ENTROPY is natures' law,total disorder always increases.
euopeans are better than americans at living without cars for sure, because the cities are older. I'm sure some smart americans will manage though. but cars aren't the problem, the problem is food & water for 6+billion people currently 'bred' by global trade & industrial agriculture which amplified useable food. 8x pop based on fossil-fuels since industrial revolution.
back to web/telecoms, its also reliant on energy to maintain long cables/beam signals
i've always known we wont have petrol cars in the future, but in recent years learned that FF"s are the basis for the entire industrial age, including things like computers, telecoms and even bicycles. we won't be able to extract refine manipulate metals to the same extent. Seriously, you go and try and make a bike using renewable resources only. welding..
@walter0bz I think we may have to agree to disagree. You seem to think any divergence from the status quo in terms of technology is impossible and so we therefore must live and die by fossil fuels. Nothing I can say will make you recognise that this simply is not true, humanity is endlessly adaptable and inventive we will live and further develop on past the loss of abundant fossil fuels. Ideas like this ebikes, ecars, hbike, hcars, public transportation is the bow wave of this needed change.
it appears I understand energy and you dont. We use fossil fuels not because of engineering properties, but because they are a ready made energy store. Technologies like hydrogen fuel cells and electric motors were discovered simultanously. I would argue solar concentrators/windmills are actually easier to master than offshore drilling rigs. I've seen DIY on youtube. Humanity is not 'endlessly adaptable'. our tech is crude and simplistic compared to what evolution created.
@crazybear38 - our tech only looked good for 200yrs years while we have millions of years of stored algae energy to splurge our way through. the rest of the biosphere uses solar-powered recycling nanotechnology. Computers are great, i love them,but the brain generates consicousness using 20 watts of power ? our comps are nowhere near. how will they look when we have no more ff's for manufacture .. material choices etc. we can't make anything as good as spidersilk, spiders have built in.
most will transition to Dormitories, Teleworking, Public transport (electric trains) and Bicycles. bicycles will be the superior form of transport. electric trains already existed and they are why you can see our TECHNOLOGY is not the problem, its the reliance on the overall energy levels. people rejected Sinclair C5 because they didn't like low energy transport compared to luxurious Private Cars.
Future of transport is Push-Bikes, if we're lucky.
There's no garantee that the remnants of industrial civilization post fossil-fuel age will still be able to produce the appropriate materials and precision engineering, and maintain roads to the extent that Push Bikes will continue to be widely available.
First of all, hydrogen is not a fuel, it is an energy carrier. MORE energy must go into isolating the hydrogen into that tank, than can ever be gotten out of using it. Second, hydrogen is 20x more explosive than gasoline, and burns with an invisible flame. Hydrogen is a poor "fuel" choice, yet people still insist on having a TANK because TANKS need to be filled, and that employs an industry, and pads executive's wallets. Just ride a normal friggin' bike! Healthier too. It won't kill you!
@x86op That Hindenburg fire was pretty visible, though, and most people died from jumping and getting crushed. That's because hydrogen doesn't pool on the ground like oil-based fuels (that took more energy to produce than they deliver when burned).
I'd add that beef is another poor "fuel" choice compared to insect protein. Imagine riding a cow across America using only your muscles! Insects and their food can be brought along and reproduce quickly.
Whats needed here is a nuclear fuel cell, imagine the distance you`d get out of that !!!
as an added bonus you could refuel it when needed with sea water obtained from around the fukushima power plant, im sure they`d let you have some for free.
It takes more energy to compress hydrogen into a convenient transportable format than you get out of the hydrogen in energy. Complete waste of our energy.
@VCat2006 80% efficient is only for the conversion, not storage, compression and conversion back to mechanical energy, The overall exergy is about 3%. It's a waste of resources.
@larryllix "Exergy"? Even with 50% efficient fuel cells, hydrogen beats natural gas on a well-to-wheel basis. The Prius is the best gasoline engine, and the ell-electric Tesla Roadster is twice as efficient. The 2009 Riversimple open source hydrogen car is said to get 300 mpg equivalent, twice as good as the Tesla Roadster.
@VCat2006 All a bunch of buloney. Hydrogen is a dead issue until it can be stored without losses, compressed without energy and hydrogen wells can be found outside of your brainspace.
@VCat2006 Yes, everything has losses but why pick a product with an exergy of about 3% ? ALmost all other forms of common energy have exergies much higher than hydrogen. Are we trying to waste our energy or conserve it here?
.
You don't appear to understand much about the processes involved in hydrogen exergy. Do some research first. Do some hunting for a popular author from the old days named "Don Lancaster"
@VCat2006 Here... Read up. Research "fuel cell" on wikipedia and especially read the "In Practice" section that explains some of the poor efficiencies in fuel cells and hydrogen economy.
Again: Unless you need to move the poullution of an energy storage system there is no point in using hydrogen at the cost of wsting more energy to do it. Petroleum based ICE or electric bikes are much more efficient
@larryllix I think you got distracted by the passive production efficiency. Efficient steam reforming is used for almost all hydrogen production. And batteries don't emit water, but they do take longer to recharge than putting in a relatively light gas tank. Hydrogen beats natural gas and, according to Wikipedia's tank-to-wheel ratio, diesel as well.
@VCat2006 I have to listen to the people that are experts in the field and they state hydrogen is a dead issue as it wastes too much energy from our other resources. That makes it a dirty energy storage method. Here is a direct quote for wikipedia that you obviously didn't read
The tank-to-wheel efficiency of a fuel cell vehicle is greater than 45% at low loads [26] and shows average values of about 36% when a driving cycle like the NEDC (New European Driving Cycle) is used as test procedure
@VCat2006 Read the whole wikipedia article. It tells you how none of the processes are very efficient. Fuels cells waste more than half, comnpression wastes much of the energy, hydrogen can't be stored as it's molecules leak through the container molecules , hydrolysis is very innefficient.....
.
The overall efficiiency of electricity to hydrogen to wheel energy is about 3% whereas petroleum runs 20-30%. It is valuable to defer pollution elsewhere at an increase in CO2 production.
@larryllix Stop being a hypocrite and read the whole article yourself. In Germany, the leakage rate is only 0.1% (less than the natural gas leak rate of 0.7%). At most, such leakage would likely be no more than 1–2% even with widespread hydrogen use, using present technology.
@VCat2006 You need to stop defending your alter ego's video. Hydrogen is dead and almost all researchers that can multiply two fractions has discovered this lately.
.
Good luck with your quest. Your comments tend to get repetitive and based on brainwashing from the wannabe crowd. The bike is cool but serves very little purpose except to line somebody's pockets. Hydrogen is known to increase greenhouse gases in it's production as you should have read from your own recommended article.
@larryllix You're delusional, saraklis is not my alter ego. Gasoline is a popular, fossil (dead), and dirty way to store hydrogen. Even pure hydrogen cars are still in production, despite non-interstate range. I'd use my energy for constructive comments like comparing ammonia fuel cells to current technology.
Thank you and likewise. A weekly beef dinner adds more greenhouse gases than using a SUV for a year does.
how efficient is the process to make hydrogen compared to charging a nano lithium battery? i thought hydrogen was a expensive and wasteful high amounts of pollution if you use fossil fuels. i like that it is light weight , but it too has a motor, so as batteries get smaller as they are with nano ,what is the future?
@rainbowsalads Batteries have a 60-99% exergy factor. Hydrogen has about 3% exergy. It's a dead waste and is being dropped by most governements as scientists know it has too high a LEL and HEL range and cannot be stored efficently, most of the energy is wasted compressing it and it doesn't have the energy output for the weight of it.
@larryllix Fuel cells are also quite a lot more efficient, 2-3 times more efficient (h >40%) than internal combustion engines (h » 26%), sbg.ac.at /ipk/avstudio/pierofun/fuelcell/fuelcell.html
@VCat2006 Fuel cells require an internal combustion engine to operate the same as most other energy storage mediums, usually. Nuclear engines are a lot more efficient than ICE too. You are attempting to compare a very inefficient energy storage system (fuel cells) with an energy converter system (ICE). If you take into account the petroleum wasted making the fuel cell the gasoline enegine wins hands down every time.
True, most people can pedal a bike 5 to 10 miles in an hour, but it's also true that not using the available solar energies available is also a waste. The hyrdogen assist/ride bike can give you much more range and faster times of travel. With oil and gas prices rising, there is less and less to complain about with green energies.
@VCat2006 Pedal a 200W generator? Are you an olympic class cyclist?
.
Why would you waste all that energy making hydrogen, compressing it, storing it and then burning it and wasting 97% of it. Just pedal the damn bike or charge a decent battery and use it and stop wasting energy with poor hydrogen exergy.
@larryllix Hydrogen Bike Generator HHO human power 255 watts: watch?v=DFUL7XtTG7k
That's 55 extra watts on a normal bike. I'd use a lay down bike so i wouldn't only have gravity to push the pedals.
Good point about lithium batteries currently being superior to hydrogen fuel cells in cost, though. In 2003 George W. Bush announced aims to develop hydrogen, fuel cell and infrastructure technologies to make fuel-cell vehicles practical and cost-effective by 2020.
@larryllix Subsidies and taxes don't skew the cost if i mean the cost to all of society.
Hm, it appears Obama changed the energy research plans for the better. I'm still waiting for ethanol phones.
As Top Gear pointed out in 2006 (watch?v=7rdB1Xq2y9k) and 2007 (watch?v=-PzAm1WKuOU), hydrogen fuel cell cars are great, but require hydrogen refill stations that are only in socialist places like Norway (watch?v=GZUv98gpee0).
@VCat2006 Yes I see the hydroegen funding may have been resumed, somewhat. Most researchers feel that hydrogen is a dead issue. It all sounded great in the beginning but it has come to the sad realization that it is **NOT** a fuel and only a battery for storage of energy. For storage and as a fuel it is a very inefficient one. About 3% recovery as a battery (hydrogen exergy) and way too much space and weight for a fuel. Most hydrogen is made from petroleum, the cheapest, and wastes it badly.
@larryllix Hydrogen is not a fuel? Tell that to NASA.
And here i thought hydrogen was made from water with excess electricity or heat. Turns out NASA's supplier's new facility in Indiana uses two steam methane reformers that have a total capacity of 200 million standard cubic feet per day. BP uses hydrogen to produce ultra-low-sulfur gasoline and diesel fuels. November 17, 2010 -- Praxair, Inc. (NYSE: PX)
@VCat2006 Why waste natural gas on something much less efficient and a waste of our natural resources.
.
Again, hydrogen is **NOT** a fuel. Hydrogen is a way to store energy in a very inefficient form. Usually about 97 of energy is wasted. See "hydrogen exergy" articles
@VCat2006 Hydrogen is a method to store energy...not a fuel unless you have a hydrogen well in your backyard. It's a total waste of our precious resources now.
@larryllix Do you have a sugar well in your backyard? No? I guess sugar's ain't fuel either.
"fuel: a substance that can be consumed to produce energy; "more fuel is needed during the winter months"; "they developed alternative fuels for aircraft"- wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Hydrogen is so unaccepted because of the Hindenburg accident its really just as safe or dangerous as gasoline, i personally think even safer because if their was a "spill" it would just float upward because its lighter than air and gas stays on the ground just waiting to ignite and the fuel tanks that are considered "hydrogen bombs" are not anymore dangerous than propane tanks - no oxygen = no fire and theres no oxygen in either so...... hydrogen is the future
@JoeFitant Yea maybe for now but i still think sometime into the future we will be using hydrogen in some way, whether it nuclear fusion or combustion a bathtub of water contains enough energy to supply someones entire energy needs for 30 years. You can tell me im wrong i dont care but we will see as the future comes nobody thought back in the middle ages their would be something like cars today and we cant predict what were going to discover or create
@rayr84a63y42 Hydrogen can only act like a battery to store energy unless somebody has discovered a hydrogen mine.
.
Hydrogen is a very poor energy battery. It is very poor efficiency to convert, costly to compress and difficult to store, all wasting our existing energy sources. Chemical batteries do it much better and there is less environemental contaminents and less danger on the road from them.
.
OTOH hydrogen works for space shuttles but maybe a necessity due to severe polution on pad
@larryllix Hydrogen burns better than carbon, which is why regular fuel spaceships are launched from airplanes so they don't have to move up the extra fuel mass through the dense atmosphere.
@rayr84a63y42 We can predict it. There is an entire genre about extrapolated science, called sci-fi. Star Trek had mobiles, touch screens, heat rays, fusion power, and teleportation before those became common.
@JoeFitant O and why would you use hydrogen in cars a big high pressure hydrogen tank is not something you want anywhere near a collision of cars if you did the tanks would be made out of some sort of composite like carbon fiber
@rayr84a63y42 OK. Type this in your browser google(dot)ca and then in the search box type the words I gave you then hit the search button with your mouse.
.
If this is too hard you need some basic web browsing training, first.
Frankly, we don't have this for any vehicle. We need fill-up stations for hydrogen before dealers will carry something like this, but why would you open such a station unless there was demand for hydrogen?
I want 1, i WANT1, I WANT 1!!! BUT, does anyone who has at least half a brain think that this will ever be alowed to be produced? No i don't think so because you can produce your own hydrogen no probs which would take the nob heads (we all know who i'm talking abou don't we?) out of the equasion and make them loose money, even though they have more than they could literally, actually spend in ten life times. Selfish evil pillocks! How can sum1 sit with billions in the bank wen people r starvin??
@Ifukinhatethesething A reasonably fit person can ride a conventional bicycle at 30 km/h. The only advantage this has is that you can ride it and be lazy. No-one syopped the conventional bike being produced.
yea but the catalyst for the fuel cell is made from platinum. Why strap a can of hydrogen to your butt when you can PEDAL at speeds up to 30 kilometers per hour????
people wear ties to work. ties are not only functionless they are cleaned with petroleum products .This is waste of energy. Wearing a tie is not environmentally positive. Get rid of ties.
Dams that produce electricity could produce hydrogen. I would like to see gasoline, natural gas and especially coal taken out of the hydrogen production cycle.
You see. You have to attack the claimant and call them an idiot. Hold on... I have a phone call from the oil boys who pay me to debunk....OK. I'm back....Oh I see you already called them an idiot. Good job. Us debunkers know this is real...but we aint tellin them......
I'm amazed at the clueless idiot comments by people who have no idea what they are looking at, how much it costs, why it's not OK for some people to ride a peddle/electric bike to bike to work. You peddle what a stud! now STFU. Invented 1999. Aprillia put out a bike with this fuel cell in 2001, NY Times called it one of the "inventions of the year" cost $2,500 and pennies a day to ride. Plus it's non-poluting. The product failed, mostly because of dill hole idiot know nothing attitudes. Stupid!
A powered bicycle requires no drivers licence, registration & licence fees or insurance. Permitted to have 1000 to 750 Watt motor, 3 to 4 times the power a fit rider normaly produces. They are limited to 20 mph under power, you must be 16 years old to ride one. Some states are different.
When he says, propel the bicycle to 30 kilometers, at 2:06, what unit of measurement is he using? 30 k/m an hour? a minute? a second....... that''s just plain lazy talk.
Wow, sorry but that's just plan laziness. I mean I can see if they was being use to transport heavy cargo, but merely riding around for the fun of it is rather pointless. If you where going to do that you minus well just actually peddle the bike, that's what the peddles are there for......
Also I guess going "green" means not being safe? Wheres the helmets?
It's not laziness if it can replace a car that someone is using just to move one person to and from work. Even if you don't want one, each one sold in your area means one less driver clogging the streets ahead of you.
So your say that you would be the one on the bike? That kinda defeats the point. I bike 16 miles a day to work and back, and I don't seem to have a problem with cars clogging the streets ahead of me.
Not everyone can either show up to work sweaty or find a place and time to shower after arriving at work, and if bikes like this, or electric bikes, allow people who would otherwise drive to bike, that's a win in my book.
Anyway, while it's admirable that you bicycle commute that far, you would do more for the environment if you simply moved 16 miles closer to work so that you could just walk, there is a carbon footprint associated with manufacturing an unpowered bicycle too.
True but i don't get sweaty, i give myself enough time to bike slower so i don't. I also don't have a place to shower at work.
This video wasn't showing going to work, and the amount of energy that would go in to making the hydrogen to fuel this would probably be close to what a car would use?
Also, If I lived 16 miles closer to work my rent would nearly triple, and I am just getting by with what i got now.(also why i don't have a car, no money to fund it.)
Wow....levianthan28, have a bad day on the oil drilling platform at work? Take a day off and rest up, I'm sure us Americans will excuse your lame attempt at shaming us, as soon as we get a day off from all the hours we work a week. Shame on you for your ignorant remarks.
what a bunsh or shit now u need a 300 liter cilinder in ya back yard :s
all and all it ont solve shit. just like the prius that shity car produces more toxic waste to the world then it should save jada jada the cost to make a prius is wors then a normal petrol car... look it up this bike is the same deal. fat americans that to lazy to ride a bike normaly no insted waste billions on this crap. GG...
around 6.8 megajoules converted from gas and around 4.5 from Hydrogen fuel using an electric motor.
Also all this stuff about "yeah but making hydrogen fuel is as damaging to the environment". You just need electrical power to make hydrogen fuel which CAN come from multiple sources - some very green. Oil drilling is only going to get more difficult and dangerous ... BP anyone?
Give hydrogen and electric the investment oil has had and it just makes sense.
crazybear38 4 months ago
RUN YOUR BICYCLE ON GRAVITY!!! JUST ONLY GO DOWNHILL....
idiots
Xero555000 6 months ago
so does he mean that a hydrogen tank under her ass feels better than a recyclable battery?
assa123assa123 7 months ago
SO WHY THE ... HELL....DON'T WE START SELLING THESE IN YOUR LOCAL BIKE STORE ???
hipstarchild 7 months ago
Wait, you have to refuel the hydrogen tube from a big hydrogen canister? WTF? FAIL!
stopcraponutube 7 months ago
Hydrogen is a terrible way of storing energy, which is why Nature invented "OIL" (and carbohydrates)
when the FOSSIL oil, runs out, we're back to the rate at which it can be produced by sunlight (eg. by plants), we simply wont have the same level of civilization & technology (at least not for the same number of people, a small elite maybe)
walter0bz 9 months ago
@walter0bz Looking at energy density per litre which I presume is what you are referring to you are correct in saying petrol is much higher at 34 megajoules compared to hydrogen compressed to 700 bar having 5.6 megajoules (wikipedia). However if you also take into account that a total combustion engine has AT BEST a 15 - 20% efficiency compared to around 80% efficiency of an electric motor (not to mention regenerative breaking), you will see there isn't that much difference -
crazybear38 4 months ago
@crazybear38 - whatever.
the salient point is, oil is ready made stored energy.
hydrogen must be made from another energy source - it can't replace the main role of Oil in our civilization it's like a rechargeable battery. I object to people who present that it is a saviour.
walter0bz 4 months ago
@walter0bz Where exactly do you think we get oil? IT IS DRILLED AND PROCESSED AND REFINED! It isn't mana delivered from heaven by the oil gods, there are similar amounts of processing required for hydrogen as well.
I never called it the "saviour" I don't think there will be one "saviour", but we are quite capable of moving away from such extreme dependence on oil. I love your point "it's like a rechargeable battery" .... ummmm isn't that kind of the point -> renewable?
crazybear38 4 months ago
@crazybear38 -
bicycles are the only viable future personal transport, if we're lucky enough to be able to manipulate materials like aluminium to that level without fossil fuels, maintain roads etc.
show me a bicycle, let alone a car, made purely from renewable resources.. can you mine, refine, smelt, machine metals on sunlight? I doubt it. can you engineer 'solar-recycling' as intricate as biology? i doubt it.
walter0bz 4 months ago
@walter0bz Ummm trying to understand what you are going on about here ... why is a bike the only viable future personal transport? How exactly do you believe fossil fuels affect how we manufacture items? We use electricity primarily as the energy source for manufacturing.
You don't run things on sunlight you run things on electricity ... which can be made from many many things - hydrogen fuel is an example of such. Also there is wind, water, sunlight, fission, fusion etc etc ...
crazybear38 4 months ago
@crazybear38 -
if we get fusion, then we might keep this civilization going. Without it, cars will be a luxury for super rich only. We only have abundance of metal/plastic/powered tech because we're digging up stored energy that took millions of years to accumulate. splurging an energy lottery win. When we go back to using sunlight to recycle surface materials.. i doubt we can match plant-animal symbiosis. After peak oil, peeps who can live without car will have HUGE advantage over car-addicts
walter0bz 4 months ago
@crazybear38
"We use electricity primarily as the energy source for manufacturing."
-no, we use fossil-fuels, electricity is an energy carrier not an energy source. If wind/solar were enough to make that electricity we'd have an independant economy of solar-powered solar panel factories. Nature already did that (plants). I think you get cause and effect the wrong way round. Our tech adds very little 'information' compared to evolutions 'designs'.our tech is crude fossil-fueled brute force.
walter0bz 4 months ago
@crazybear38 -
hydrogen & electricity should not be mentioned in the same way as Oil, Fission, Fusion, Sunlight. The former are only energy Carriers. the latter are energy Sources. If you want a technological world to continue for such a large population, only Fusion will cut it. it doesn't work yet,it may never. Fission has same problem as oil, its finite. peak uranium. enough reactors might mean a chernobyl or fukushima every year ? (still I'm pro fission, its the least bad option now)
walter0bz 4 months ago
@crazybear38 - solar panels will compete for food production.
some say use solar to electrolyze water. if you have sunlight+water you can make food. biofuel or spirulina? currently oil has multiplied useable food & hence population 8X.
without fossil-fuel energy input there will be a population crash - billions will starve or die fighting to the death over dwindling resources. Future is soylent-green+mad max.
walter0bz 4 months ago
@walter0bz Hi I see your stance on "energy carrier" vs "energy source" now. It is true fossil fuels has provided a relatively easily exploitable energy source for years; however I believe our discussion is all based on subjective opinion whether you believe without massive dependence on fossil fuels "we're all doomed!" (btw I hope you have watched Dad's Army to get the reference :)) or whether you believe a combination of other energy sources and new energy carriers will pick up the slack
crazybear38 4 months ago
@walter0bz I personally feel that we are too inventive to just let shit slide, fission will be more than sufficient to supply major electrical needs for next 50-100 years, forget about the bullocks with chernobyl or fukushima - there are loads of reactors on the planet now and only 3 have ever really buggered up. If the mass media stops scare mongering its no problem (whats the damage compared to say how much fossil fuel burning powerplants have done over their lifetime!)
crazybear38 4 months ago
@walter0bz Then within 100 years will have at least 1st gen fusion plants will most likely have 2nd gen plants within that time as well. To me the future is a time for optimism not pessimism, we will convert to an almost complete use of electricity/hydrogen (as an energy carrier as you call it) with energy sources being a complete set of renewables with fusion eventually being major supplier. Of course to get that far we have to not wipe each other out in a war, or over populate the planet!!!
crazybear38 4 months ago
@walter0bz Final point, on "bikes and cars". To be honest with you people who can live without cars are already at a huge advantage - petrol is bleeping expensive! I'm from the UK and it is fairly easy to get along without a car, due to decent public transportation infrastructure. Now in the states I realise that isn't as easily realised still ... So I believe that using a hydrogen cell instead of a battery will make current ebikes more efficient which will be a good thing.
crazybear38 4 months ago
@crazybear38 -
If we try to produce/consume fuel cells +electric cars in same quantities as combustion vehicles currently, we'd rapidly run into material shortages (copper, platinum etc). The masses will not have abundant tech after the oil age. The average person is going back to the middle ages in lifestyle. (thats if they survive). Hydrogen Fool Cells are pushed by governments and car companies pretending they have a future. if everyone understood, whats coming, we'd have bigger riots...
walter0bz 4 months ago
@crazybear38 -
metals, plastics... all our material choices are an artefact of the oil age. nature creates materials like spidersilk and mother of pearl with remarkable properties, superior to our engineering. all our current tech (even the infrastructure to make fuel cells , solar panels) depends on material choices and manufacturing processes that simply wont be viable without fossil fuels. And its terrifying how many people can't see this , or think that cars are some god given right
walter0bz 4 months ago
@crazybear38 recommended reading for you: google "peak oil die off introduction" i agree with 90% of this text . if you can debunk the other 90% i'm all ears ! it covers fuel cells. where i disagree, - its 2billion not 0.5; elec CAN do anything oil can, just nowhere near same qty. and 9/11 was not inside job (stress approaching peak enough for pre-emptive strike by aqt). but threats may have been made to provoke them.
walter0bz 4 months ago
@walter0bz Oh dear you really have bought the "we are all doomed" idea hook, line and sinker haven't you? Regression of society predominantly occurs because of lack of communication which is why it is usually seen with the fall of empires. Historically lack of resources leads to ADAPTION & INVENTION not death. We have the Internet, free media etc all INDEPENDENT of fossil fuels we aren't going to regress but we will change. I think my generation in Europe already are: Smile we get to live!
crazybear38 4 months ago
@crazybear38 -
we are all doomed, its called reality.
>>"Historically lack of resources leads to ADAPTION & INVENTION"
no.
historically geological ages come and go and entire species go extinct.. we wont but this over-adapted state wont last. Earth is 4billion years old, our history is a very short blip and I remind you, our 'tech' has very low information content compared to the biosphere as a whole. Seriously compare the engineering in a microprocessor to the 'human body' or even 'an amoeba'
walter0bz 4 months ago
@crazybear38 - industrial revolution has fast-forwarded a geological age (like supervolcano) FF's took 10m's of of yrs to accumulate.. gasses all returned in the blink of an eye (200 yrs). we are going through a manmade mass extinction now. Know why earth accumulates so many symbioses (such as fruit-bearing plants+seed-dispersing animals?) - when a new creature evolves, if it behaves symbiotically, the whole sys thrives as does it.But reverse, damage feeds back to itself and it goes extinct :)
walter0bz 4 months ago
@crazybear38
>>"We have the Internet, free media etc all INDEPENDENT of fossil fuels"
- wrong. The web is dependant on a highly specialized society facilitated by movement of materials, villages can't make their own microprocessors. Web is dependant on continuous manufacture of hard-drives , neither they not sollid state are lasting information stores. like biology our information must be continuously churned by burning energy -ENTROPY is natures' law,total disorder always increases.
walter0bz 4 months ago
@crazybear38 -
euopeans are better than americans at living without cars for sure, because the cities are older. I'm sure some smart americans will manage though. but cars aren't the problem, the problem is food & water for 6+billion people currently 'bred' by global trade & industrial agriculture which amplified useable food. 8x pop based on fossil-fuels since industrial revolution.
back to web/telecoms, its also reliant on energy to maintain long cables/beam signals
walter0bz 4 months ago
@crazybear38 -
i've always known we wont have petrol cars in the future, but in recent years learned that FF"s are the basis for the entire industrial age, including things like computers, telecoms and even bicycles. we won't be able to extract refine manipulate metals to the same extent. Seriously, you go and try and make a bike using renewable resources only. welding..
walter0bz 4 months ago
@walter0bz I think we may have to agree to disagree. You seem to think any divergence from the status quo in terms of technology is impossible and so we therefore must live and die by fossil fuels. Nothing I can say will make you recognise that this simply is not true, humanity is endlessly adaptable and inventive we will live and further develop on past the loss of abundant fossil fuels. Ideas like this ebikes, ecars, hbike, hcars, public transportation is the bow wave of this needed change.
crazybear38 4 months ago
@crazybear38 -
it appears I understand energy and you dont. We use fossil fuels not because of engineering properties, but because they are a ready made energy store. Technologies like hydrogen fuel cells and electric motors were discovered simultanously. I would argue solar concentrators/windmills are actually easier to master than offshore drilling rigs. I've seen DIY on youtube. Humanity is not 'endlessly adaptable'. our tech is crude and simplistic compared to what evolution created.
walter0bz 4 months ago
@crazybear38 - our tech only looked good for 200yrs years while we have millions of years of stored algae energy to splurge our way through. the rest of the biosphere uses solar-powered recycling nanotechnology. Computers are great, i love them,but the brain generates consicousness using 20 watts of power ? our comps are nowhere near. how will they look when we have no more ff's for manufacture .. material choices etc. we can't make anything as good as spidersilk, spiders have built in.
walter0bz 4 months ago
@crazybear38 -
private car will become luxury for super-rich.
most will transition to Dormitories, Teleworking, Public transport (electric trains) and Bicycles. bicycles will be the superior form of transport. electric trains already existed and they are why you can see our TECHNOLOGY is not the problem, its the reliance on the overall energy levels. people rejected Sinclair C5 because they didn't like low energy transport compared to luxurious Private Cars.
walter0bz 4 months ago
Future of transport is Push-Bikes, if we're lucky.
There's no garantee that the remnants of industrial civilization post fossil-fuel age will still be able to produce the appropriate materials and precision engineering, and maintain roads to the extent that Push Bikes will continue to be widely available.
walter0bz 9 months ago
@GHICAGO71 you can still power the bike with pedaling you know, he said it
juki0h 9 months ago
holy crap! thats actually pretty cool. could customize that tech into something else. but where do you get the hydrgogen?
juki0h 9 months ago
@juki0h tht is the main quetion...
thinkmanworld 3 months ago
First of all, hydrogen is not a fuel, it is an energy carrier. MORE energy must go into isolating the hydrogen into that tank, than can ever be gotten out of using it. Second, hydrogen is 20x more explosive than gasoline, and burns with an invisible flame. Hydrogen is a poor "fuel" choice, yet people still insist on having a TANK because TANKS need to be filled, and that employs an industry, and pads executive's wallets. Just ride a normal friggin' bike! Healthier too. It won't kill you!
x86op 9 months ago
@x86op That Hindenburg fire was pretty visible, though, and most people died from jumping and getting crushed. That's because hydrogen doesn't pool on the ground like oil-based fuels (that took more energy to produce than they deliver when burned).
I'd add that beef is another poor "fuel" choice compared to insect protein. Imagine riding a cow across America using only your muscles! Insects and their food can be brought along and reproduce quickly.
VCat2006 9 months ago
Whats needed here is a nuclear fuel cell, imagine the distance you`d get out of that !!!
as an added bonus you could refuel it when needed with sea water obtained from around the fukushima power plant, im sure they`d let you have some for free.
fergawdsache 10 months ago
Whats needed here is a nuclear fuel cell, imagine the distance you`d get out of that !!!
fergawdsache 10 months ago
ATTENTION> This is only a SCAM to raise the hit count of this video entry. The author knows that hydrogen is a waste of energy.
.
STOP COMMENTING HERE.
JoeFitant 1 year ago
@JoeFitant Probably quite accurate and I agree.
ATTENTION: This scam is to raise the hit count only.
STOP COMMENTING HERE.
larryllix 1 year ago
If anybody doesn't know what "hydrogen exergy" is then don't even consider arguing the validity of this hydrogen scam.
larryllix 1 year ago
It takes more energy to compress hydrogen into a convenient transportable format than you get out of the hydrogen in energy. Complete waste of our energy.
larryllix 1 year ago
@larryllix Compressing gas is 90% efficient.
VCat2006 1 year ago
anyone know why my video here is blury
theonethatgoofs 1 year ago
--- --- --- ---
Hydrogen conversion from other fuels is a wasteful, expensive process.
Use the original fuel directly for a lower cost of operation unless the lower poluttion DUING USAGE ONLY*** is required.
.
.
larryllix 1 year ago 4
@larryllix Hydrogen conversion from natural gas is 80% efficient.
Hydrogen is useful for shuttle launches and city traffic.
VCat2006 1 year ago
@VCat2006 80% efficient is only for the conversion, not storage, compression and conversion back to mechanical energy, The overall exergy is about 3%. It's a waste of resources.
larryllix 1 year ago
@larryllix "Exergy"? Even with 50% efficient fuel cells, hydrogen beats natural gas on a well-to-wheel basis. The Prius is the best gasoline engine, and the ell-electric Tesla Roadster is twice as efficient. The 2009 Riversimple open source hydrogen car is said to get 300 mpg equivalent, twice as good as the Tesla Roadster.
VCat2006 1 year ago
@VCat2006 All a bunch of buloney. Hydrogen is a dead issue until it can be stored without losses, compressed without energy and hydrogen wells can be found outside of your brainspace.
larryllix 1 year ago
@larryllix Anything has losses, and you're resorting to the ad hominem fallacy.
VCat2006 1 year ago
@VCat2006 Yes, everything has losses but why pick a product with an exergy of about 3% ? ALmost all other forms of common energy have exergies much higher than hydrogen. Are we trying to waste our energy or conserve it here?
.
You don't appear to understand much about the processes involved in hydrogen exergy. Do some research first. Do some hunting for a popular author from the old days named "Don Lancaster"
larryllix 1 year ago
@VCat2006 Here... Read up. Research "fuel cell" on wikipedia and especially read the "In Practice" section that explains some of the poor efficiencies in fuel cells and hydrogen economy.
Again: Unless you need to move the poullution of an energy storage system there is no point in using hydrogen at the cost of wsting more energy to do it. Petroleum based ICE or electric bikes are much more efficient
larryllix 1 year ago
@larryllix I think you got distracted by the passive production efficiency. Efficient steam reforming is used for almost all hydrogen production. And batteries don't emit water, but they do take longer to recharge than putting in a relatively light gas tank. Hydrogen beats natural gas and, according to Wikipedia's tank-to-wheel ratio, diesel as well.
VCat2006 1 year ago
@VCat2006 I have to listen to the people that are experts in the field and they state hydrogen is a dead issue as it wastes too much energy from our other resources. That makes it a dirty energy storage method. Here is a direct quote for wikipedia that you obviously didn't read
The tank-to-wheel efficiency of a fuel cell vehicle is greater than 45% at low loads [26] and shows average values of about 36% when a driving cycle like the NEDC (New European Driving Cycle) is used as test procedure
larryllix 1 year ago
@larryllix I've quotes experts who write better than "Don Lancaster".
The comparable NEDC value for a Diesel vehicle is 22%.
VCat2006 1 year ago
@VCat2006 Read the whole wikipedia article. It tells you how none of the processes are very efficient. Fuels cells waste more than half, comnpression wastes much of the energy, hydrogen can't be stored as it's molecules leak through the container molecules , hydrolysis is very innefficient.....
.
The overall efficiiency of electricity to hydrogen to wheel energy is about 3% whereas petroleum runs 20-30%. It is valuable to defer pollution elsewhere at an increase in CO2 production.
larryllix 1 year ago
@larryllix Stop being a hypocrite and read the whole article yourself. In Germany, the leakage rate is only 0.1% (less than the natural gas leak rate of 0.7%). At most, such leakage would likely be no more than 1–2% even with widespread hydrogen use, using present technology.
rael(.)berkeley(.)edu/files/2003/Kammen-Tromp-Science-2003.pdf
You may also want to contact ANL about transportation(.)anl(.)gov/pdfs/HV/300.pdf
VCat2006 1 year ago
@VCat2006 You need to stop defending your alter ego's video. Hydrogen is dead and almost all researchers that can multiply two fractions has discovered this lately.
.
Good luck with your quest. Your comments tend to get repetitive and based on brainwashing from the wannabe crowd. The bike is cool but serves very little purpose except to line somebody's pockets. Hydrogen is known to increase greenhouse gases in it's production as you should have read from your own recommended article.
larryllix 1 year ago
@larryllix You're delusional, saraklis is not my alter ego. Gasoline is a popular, fossil (dead), and dirty way to store hydrogen. Even pure hydrogen cars are still in production, despite non-interstate range. I'd use my energy for constructive comments like comparing ammonia fuel cells to current technology.
Thank you and likewise. A weekly beef dinner adds more greenhouse gases than using a SUV for a year does.
VCat2006 1 year ago
@larryllix agree with you, that is why you create Hydrogen from water like this guy did watch?v=r0habREaSyQ
Does not even have to be clean water.
Every house a power plant with Hydrogen + solar + wind and no need for oil/gas or nuclear.
Esp since nuclear is so incredibly expensive every alternative energy system is easily cheaper.
Consider re-casking every 50 years for the next 240,000 years or 3,600 years (Cesium per Chernobyl 25 years later) Nuclear is only cheaper / lies.
cbemerine 3 weeks ago
@larryllix Get a solar panel, turn it into hydrogen. Now its portable!
Justinba1010 1 week ago
Ok this video is 2 years old where are these sold they have had time to produce them?
cdltpx 1 year ago
how efficient is the process to make hydrogen compared to charging a nano lithium battery? i thought hydrogen was a expensive and wasteful high amounts of pollution if you use fossil fuels. i like that it is light weight , but it too has a motor, so as batteries get smaller as they are with nano ,what is the future?
rainbowsalads 1 year ago
@rainbowsalads Batteries have a 60-99% exergy factor. Hydrogen has about 3% exergy. It's a dead waste and is being dropped by most governements as scientists know it has too high a LEL and HEL range and cannot be stored efficently, most of the energy is wasted compressing it and it doesn't have the energy output for the weight of it.
larryllix 1 year ago
@larryllix Fuel cells are also quite a lot more efficient, 2-3 times more efficient (h >40%) than internal combustion engines (h » 26%), sbg.ac.at /ipk/avstudio/pierofun/fuelcell/fuelcell.html
VCat2006 1 year ago
@VCat2006 Fuel cells require an internal combustion engine to operate the same as most other energy storage mediums, usually. Nuclear engines are a lot more efficient than ICE too. You are attempting to compare a very inefficient energy storage system (fuel cells) with an energy converter system (ICE). If you take into account the petroleum wasted making the fuel cell the gasoline enegine wins hands down every time.
larryllix 1 year ago
True, most people can pedal a bike 5 to 10 miles in an hour, but it's also true that not using the available solar energies available is also a waste. The hyrdogen assist/ride bike can give you much more range and faster times of travel. With oil and gas prices rising, there is less and less to complain about with green energies.
trailkeeper 1 year ago
..Hooking one of these to my machine will make it even more greener..
blueshadow1996 1 year ago
746 watt equals 1 horsepower. It's a nice prototype, but with 670 watt it should look the part.
VCat2006 1 year ago
Hydrogen is not GREEN to make and not cheaper. Very lossy battery system. Nice concept though.
JoeFitant 1 year ago 2
@JoeFitant Not green? Even if i pedal it out of water with a 200 watt bicycle generator after having a large organically grown meal?
VCat2006 1 year ago
@VCat2006 Pedal a 200W generator? Are you an olympic class cyclist?
.
Why would you waste all that energy making hydrogen, compressing it, storing it and then burning it and wasting 97% of it. Just pedal the damn bike or charge a decent battery and use it and stop wasting energy with poor hydrogen exergy.
larryllix 1 year ago
@larryllix Hydrogen Bike Generator HHO human power 255 watts: watch?v=DFUL7XtTG7k
That's 55 extra watts on a normal bike. I'd use a lay down bike so i wouldn't only have gravity to push the pedals.
Good point about lithium batteries currently being superior to hydrogen fuel cells in cost, though. In 2003 George W. Bush announced aims to develop hydrogen, fuel cell and infrastructure technologies to make fuel-cell vehicles practical and cost-effective by 2020.
VCat2006 1 year ago
@VCat2006 My statements had nothing to do with the cost of batteries. It had to do with preserving the preciosu energy more efficiently.
.
US Energy Secretary Steven Chu has announced the end of the US government's program to develop a hydrogen-powered car.
larryllix 1 year ago
@larryllix Subsidies and taxes don't skew the cost if i mean the cost to all of society.
Hm, it appears Obama changed the energy research plans for the better. I'm still waiting for ethanol phones.
As Top Gear pointed out in 2006 (watch?v=7rdB1Xq2y9k) and 2007 (watch?v=-PzAm1WKuOU), hydrogen fuel cell cars are great, but require hydrogen refill stations that are only in socialist places like Norway (watch?v=GZUv98gpee0).
VCat2006 1 year ago
@VCat2006 Yes I see the hydroegen funding may have been resumed, somewhat. Most researchers feel that hydrogen is a dead issue. It all sounded great in the beginning but it has come to the sad realization that it is **NOT** a fuel and only a battery for storage of energy. For storage and as a fuel it is a very inefficient one. About 3% recovery as a battery (hydrogen exergy) and way too much space and weight for a fuel. Most hydrogen is made from petroleum, the cheapest, and wastes it badly.
larryllix 1 year ago
@larryllix Hydrogen is not a fuel? Tell that to NASA.
And here i thought hydrogen was made from water with excess electricity or heat. Turns out NASA's supplier's new facility in Indiana uses two steam methane reformers that have a total capacity of 200 million standard cubic feet per day. BP uses hydrogen to produce ultra-low-sulfur gasoline and diesel fuels. November 17, 2010 -- Praxair, Inc. (NYSE: PX)
VCat2006 1 year ago
@VCat2006 ..and it is made from petroleum products...such a waste.
larryllix 1 year ago
@larryllix Bulk hydrogen is usually produced by the steam reforming of methane or natural gas, at 80% efficiency.
VCat2006 1 year ago
@larryllix Also, "Fuel cell hybrids offer significant benefits on a well to
wheel basis assuming hydrogen production from natural gas
– Efficiency improvements
– Green House Gas emission reduction" - SAE 2004.
VCat2006 1 year ago
@VCat2006 Why waste natural gas on something much less efficient and a waste of our natural resources.
.
Again, hydrogen is **NOT** a fuel. Hydrogen is a way to store energy in a very inefficient form. Usually about 97 of energy is wasted. See "hydrogen exergy" articles
larryllix 1 year ago
@larryllix Fuel cell hybrids offer significant benefits on a well to wheel basis assuming hydrogen production from natural gas.
Hydrogen is a fuel, just like biodiesel.
VCat2006 1 year ago
@VCat2006 Hydrogen is a method to store energy...not a fuel unless you have a hydrogen well in your backyard. It's a total waste of our precious resources now.
larryllix 1 year ago
@larryllix Do you have a sugar well in your backyard? No? I guess sugar's ain't fuel either.
"fuel: a substance that can be consumed to produce energy; "more fuel is needed during the winter months"; "they developed alternative fuels for aircraft"- wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
VCat2006 1 year ago
@VCat2006 You didn't know that hydrogen was burned in an ICG on this bike. Get educated first, then argue for it.
larryllix 1 year ago
@larryllix I don't even know what you mean by "ICG". The description says "fuel cells".
VCat2006 1 year ago
@larryllix but the oil giants want us to use it ,
rainbowsalads 1 year ago
Hydrogen is so unaccepted because of the Hindenburg accident its really just as safe or dangerous as gasoline, i personally think even safer because if their was a "spill" it would just float upward because its lighter than air and gas stays on the ground just waiting to ignite and the fuel tanks that are considered "hydrogen bombs" are not anymore dangerous than propane tanks - no oxygen = no fire and theres no oxygen in either so...... hydrogen is the future
rayr84a63y42 1 year ago
@rayr84a63y42 Sorry. Hydrogen is a dead issue and most governments have dropped support now that the truth is out there.
Research "Hydrogen Exergy". 97% of energy using hydrogen is wasted.
BTW: Hydrogen leaks through steel container walls. It's molocule is smaller then the holes in steel.
JoeFitant 1 year ago
@JoeFitant Yea maybe for now but i still think sometime into the future we will be using hydrogen in some way, whether it nuclear fusion or combustion a bathtub of water contains enough energy to supply someones entire energy needs for 30 years. You can tell me im wrong i dont care but we will see as the future comes nobody thought back in the middle ages their would be something like cars today and we cant predict what were going to discover or create
rayr84a63y42 1 year ago
@rayr84a63y42 Hydrogen can only act like a battery to store energy unless somebody has discovered a hydrogen mine.
.
Hydrogen is a very poor energy battery. It is very poor efficiency to convert, costly to compress and difficult to store, all wasting our existing energy sources. Chemical batteries do it much better and there is less environemental contaminents and less danger on the road from them.
.
OTOH hydrogen works for space shuttles but maybe a necessity due to severe polution on pad
larryllix 1 year ago
@larryllix Hydrogen burns better than carbon, which is why regular fuel spaceships are launched from airplanes so they don't have to move up the extra fuel mass through the dense atmosphere.
VCat2006 1 year ago
@VCat2006 I would be sure **you** would have alot of problems to burn carbon...LOL
larryllix 1 year ago
@rayr84a63y42 We can predict it. There is an entire genre about extrapolated science, called sci-fi. Star Trek had mobiles, touch screens, heat rays, fusion power, and teleportation before those became common.
VCat2006 1 year ago
@JoeFitant O and why would you use hydrogen in cars a big high pressure hydrogen tank is not something you want anywhere near a collision of cars if you did the tanks would be made out of some sort of composite like carbon fiber
rayr84a63y42 1 year ago
@rayr84a63y42 On the bright side, gas wouldn't form a burning pool under everything.
VCat2006 1 year ago
@JoeFitant Its molecules are smaller than the holes? I think i read about it still staying inside zeppelins because of the hydrogen bonds it forms.
VCat2006 1 year ago
@rayr84a63y42 Do you understand what "LEL" and "UEL" means?
larryllix 1 year ago
@larryllix no you should explain it to me
rayr84a63y42 1 year ago
@rayr84a63y42 OK. Type this in your browser google(dot)ca and then in the search box type the words I gave you then hit the search button with your mouse.
.
If this is too hard you need some basic web browsing training, first.
larryllix 1 year ago
Now why cant we have this for our cars?
livnlarge1980 1 year ago
@livnlarge1980
Frankly, we don't have this for any vehicle. We need fill-up stations for hydrogen before dealers will carry something like this, but why would you open such a station unless there was demand for hydrogen?
50meguy 1 year ago
@50meguy Hydrogen costs too much to store and takes way too much space for the energy stored.
JoeFitant 1 year ago
@JoeFitant Hydrocarbons and water are compact. Using mercury and aluminium to split water can be dangerous and expensive, though.
VCat2006 1 year ago
@livnlarge1980 Been there, done that, waste of energy.
JoeFitant 1 year ago
Thanks for the video and please let me know how to purchase this or an urban update bike.
laurasIs2c 1 year ago
We have a thing already that can go 30 km/hr its a standard bicycle. No wonder Americans are fat.
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
NOTHING NEW!
I've seen this vid in 2004 and have asked them "Manhattan Scientific" for more info, but no reply. So no new vids & info since then?
Guesswhokk 1 year ago
Hydrocycle
FreeEnergyDevices 2 years ago
I want 1, i WANT1, I WANT 1!!! BUT, does anyone who has at least half a brain think that this will ever be alowed to be produced? No i don't think so because you can produce your own hydrogen no probs which would take the nob heads (we all know who i'm talking abou don't we?) out of the equasion and make them loose money, even though they have more than they could literally, actually spend in ten life times. Selfish evil pillocks! How can sum1 sit with billions in the bank wen people r starvin??
Ifukinhatethesething 2 years ago
@Ifukinhatethesething A reasonably fit person can ride a conventional bicycle at 30 km/h. The only advantage this has is that you can ride it and be lazy. No-one syopped the conventional bike being produced.
KrunchyJD 1 year ago
So where is this bike? Any thing that doesn't use fossil fuels won't be allowed because the demons of the world would loose their profits.
zweedledee 2 years ago
how much is this?
alviandar 2 years ago
mopeds dont poulute as much as cars and some arent loud
vankyfwa 2 years ago
lol that was Honda's old skool scooter LMAO
boysinblack 2 years ago
yea but the catalyst for the fuel cell is made from platinum. Why strap a can of hydrogen to your butt when you can PEDAL at speeds up to 30 kilometers per hour????
coolsciencetech 2 years ago
people wear ties to work. ties are not only functionless they are cleaned with petroleum products .This is waste of energy. Wearing a tie is not environmentally positive. Get rid of ties.
HYDROGENCARS 2 years ago 31
why produce hydrogen with natural gas?
Dams that produce electricity could produce hydrogen. I would like to see gasoline, natural gas and especially coal taken out of the hydrogen production cycle.
HYDROGENCARS 2 years ago
I dare you to actually do/make/build something half as cool as the stuff you flame on youtube!
lionronin 2 years ago
You see. You have to attack the claimant and call them an idiot. Hold on... I have a phone call from the oil boys who pay me to debunk....OK. I'm back....Oh I see you already called them an idiot. Good job. Us debunkers know this is real...but we aint tellin them......
FreeEnergyDebunker 2 years ago
Comment removed
lionronin 2 years ago
I'm amazed at the clueless idiot comments by people who have no idea what they are looking at, how much it costs, why it's not OK for some people to ride a peddle/electric bike to bike to work. You peddle what a stud! now STFU. Invented 1999. Aprillia put out a bike with this fuel cell in 2001, NY Times called it one of the "inventions of the year" cost $2,500 and pennies a day to ride. Plus it's non-poluting. The product failed, mostly because of dill hole idiot know nothing attitudes. Stupid!
lionronin 2 years ago
A powered bicycle requires no drivers licence, registration & licence fees or insurance. Permitted to have 1000 to 750 Watt motor, 3 to 4 times the power a fit rider normaly produces. They are limited to 20 mph under power, you must be 16 years old to ride one. Some states are different.
lionronin 2 years ago
Cool.
1Volans 2 years ago
When he says, propel the bicycle to 30 kilometers, at 2:06, what unit of measurement is he using? 30 k/m an hour? a minute? a second....... that''s just plain lazy talk.
trumpettom001 2 years ago
oh didems ! ........ fuckin nerds on parade on these comments WOW !
dasikotm 2 years ago
Wow, sorry but that's just plan laziness. I mean I can see if they was being use to transport heavy cargo, but merely riding around for the fun of it is rather pointless. If you where going to do that you minus well just actually peddle the bike, that's what the peddles are there for......
Also I guess going "green" means not being safe? Wheres the helmets?
iwanderabout 2 years ago
It's not laziness if it can replace a car that someone is using just to move one person to and from work. Even if you don't want one, each one sold in your area means one less driver clogging the streets ahead of you.
northbrookil 2 years ago 13
So your say that you would be the one on the bike? That kinda defeats the point. I bike 16 miles a day to work and back, and I don't seem to have a problem with cars clogging the streets ahead of me.
iwanderabout 2 years ago
Not everyone can either show up to work sweaty or find a place and time to shower after arriving at work, and if bikes like this, or electric bikes, allow people who would otherwise drive to bike, that's a win in my book.
Anyway, while it's admirable that you bicycle commute that far, you would do more for the environment if you simply moved 16 miles closer to work so that you could just walk, there is a carbon footprint associated with manufacturing an unpowered bicycle too.
aldehyde777 2 years ago
True but i don't get sweaty, i give myself enough time to bike slower so i don't. I also don't have a place to shower at work.
This video wasn't showing going to work, and the amount of energy that would go in to making the hydrogen to fuel this would probably be close to what a car would use?
Also, If I lived 16 miles closer to work my rent would nearly triple, and I am just getting by with what i got now.(also why i don't have a car, no money to fund it.)
iwanderabout 2 years ago
when they build a system that runs off tap water then thay will have somthing
but they want you to have to buy from them to keep it on the road and it is still all about $
just like oil but there supply of Hydrogen that they will sell to you
dexter2433 2 years ago
stroll on.......The damn governments around the world would tax the consumer dearly for hydrogen gas supplys.
hipstarchild 3 years ago
Then people will make their own through hydrolysis of water.
zecnobot 3 years ago
how can i get one?
everyonelikescars 3 years ago
can i have the bike and that girl ?
mrlucifer88 3 years ago
Wow....levianthan28, have a bad day on the oil drilling platform at work? Take a day off and rest up, I'm sure us Americans will excuse your lame attempt at shaming us, as soon as we get a day off from all the hours we work a week. Shame on you for your ignorant remarks.
nrgrevolution1 3 years ago
i will fuck your ugly balls biaci
AmericansSexualPreds 3 years ago
well, had to slam YOU a THUMBS DOWN up your fuzzy cornhole!
Nudelsalatbomber 2 years ago
what a bunsh or shit now u need a 300 liter cilinder in ya back yard :s
all and all it ont solve shit. just like the prius that shity car produces more toxic waste to the world then it should save jada jada the cost to make a prius is wors then a normal petrol car... look it up this bike is the same deal. fat americans that to lazy to ride a bike normaly no insted waste billions on this crap. GG...
levianthan28 3 years ago
So true indeed, MSI pioneered this concept, and still have the best mid range fuel cell around!
I can hardly wait to see more!!
nrgrevolution1 3 years ago