patrick.net

John Bailo says

H28RS..what's the argument now?!

Lack of cost information. I notice it doesn't say what the costs are other than 120k for what looks like a honda accord. What is the cost for the fuel made this way? Hydrogen from water is a long, long way from being able to compete on cost. Hydrogen from natural gas is ridiculous on so many levels.

The other obvious problem is why use the solar cells to make hydrogen to put into a car to burn? Why not use the energy directly into an electric car. Taking a form of energy, sunlight, to convert water into another form of energy, hydrogen, to burn to create another form of energy, heat, of which 65% is lost in a typical IC engine doesn't make much sense. Why not put the electricity directly into a battery (chemical storage) which then converts it directly into motion at a 90% efficiency rate. Plus electric cars can use regenerative braking to recapture energy back into the battery to be used again.

I have no objection to hydrogen powered cars themselves. Just the fantasy that hydrogen is anywhere close to being able to compete with gas anywhere in the foreseeable future.

Anyone besides me remember when turbine cars were going to replace pistons? Then rotary engines? Yet pistons soldier on year after year. Gas soldiers on year after year because it makes sense. Some day it won't, but that day is a long way away.

bob2356 says

Yet pistons soldier on year after year. Gas soldiers on year after year because it makes sense.

But, but, but ... there's peak oil, remember???

The piston engine stayed with us because of the image of Victor Ashe's dick in Bush's ass.

HydroCaBRon says

The piston engine stayed with us because of the image of Victor Ashe's dick in Bush's ass.

More like Bush sucking King Abdulla's cock.

bob2356 says

Hydrogen from water is a long, long way from being able to compete on cost.

Does that include the total costs of pollution and environmental destruction?

Blurtman says

bob2356 says

Hydrogen from water is a long, long way from being able to compete on cost.

Does that include the total costs of pollution and environmental destruction?

Of course not. In a perfect world the costs would be included in cost. It's not going to happen in the real world. In the real world price at the pump is al anyone cares about.

A gradually increasing carbon tax starting with the oil shocks of the 70's would have been ideal. By now the US would have been the world leader in renewable energy and the costs would have escalated so slowly the economic impact would have been minimal. Instead we got more incentives for oil production and fracking.