Tesla sues Top Gear

[Sphinx]

I think everyone is failing to miss my point. I NEVER stated this was the best fuel source or the wave of the future. I merely stated that of available NOW fuel sources its the cleanest and renewable. All the facts I stated are 100% correct in my original post when compared to any fuel used in cars today. Sure maybe some lab hydrogen engine might be better, but its NOT available now and not able to be used NOW.

So yes of all available fuels today for vehicles bio diesel is EVERYTHING I said it was. Will it be in 10 years? 50 years? 100 years? I cannot say. But for now its the best we can put into use NOW by a long shot.

Then food prices go up, the opportunity cost is not worth it.

If the crops are taken from farmers not growing for fuel. The reason corn (and corn byproducts) went up when e85 came out is that farmers lost 20% of their yeild for fuel making. If dedicated farms are setup for growing that shouldn't effect food prices much if at all.

[Sphinx]

Take back the on paper/ theorized comment as there just isn't enough supporting evidence for most theories to be condemed or confirmed.

[Step666]

Vehix is a car buying site. Id accept a better link and no wikipedia is NOT a valid link.

Wikipedia has been found in studies to be quite accurate, at least on a par with the likes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
And why would any other site be any better? If you're going to start ruling out one site, what's to stop you from choosing to ignore any other links people post.

>.< Hydrogen is HIGHLY volatile. NEVER did I say it was the fuel, just that its volatile and like the Hindenburg disaster which WAS CAUSED BY HYDROGEN volatility.

No it wasn't, it was caused because the material used for the outer skin has been proven to ignite when an electrical charge is applied - if that were not the case, the hydrogen would never have ignited either.
So no, it was not the cause - the cause was the electrical charge in the atmosphere combined with the composition of the outer skin.

But that's besides the point - as has already been mentioned, the way hydrogen would be stored in a fuel-cell vehicle would be much more secure than it was on the Hindenburg rendering your 'witty' comment entirely without merit.
Had hydrogen been the fuel and not the lifting gas of the Hindenburg, it would've been stored differently and never have ignited.

[Sphinx]

Oh I forgot that fuel cells were literally indestructable and that cars never get in serious wrecks that cause more damage then a 50 caliber bullet.

[Judicator]

The current safest plan on storing hydrogen in cars involve the hydrogen being bound chemically to other materials, and being released via various mechanisms (link here, since you won't accept Wikipedia). The hydrolysis reaction systems seem particularly safe, considering that to get the hydrogen out, it involves mixing the "fuel" with water, which we can probably agree is something that won't be readily found in most cases where fire is involved (although it could make fighting car fires more interesting... foam would be required, much like with kitchen fires).

[Sphinx]

Wikipedia has been found in studies to be quite accurate, at least on a par with the likes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
And why would any other site be any better? If you're going to start ruling out one site, what's to stop you from choosing to ignore any other links people post.


No it wasn't, it was caused because the material used for the outer skin has been proven to ignite when an electrical charge is applied - if that were not the case, the hydrogen would never have ignited either.
So no, it was not the cause - the cause was the electrical charge in the atmosphere combined with the composition of the outer skin.

But that's besides the point - as has already been mentioned, the way hydrogen would be stored in a fuel-cell vehicle would be much more secure than it was on the Hindenburg rendering your 'witty' comment entirely without merit.
Had hydrogen been the fuel and not the lifting gas of the Hindenburg, it would've been stored differently and never have ignited.

So to get the sum of your thesis of the thread: Hydrogen is NOT volitale.

Just needed to get my ducks in a row on what youre getting at.

The current safest plan on storing hydrogen in cars involve the hydrogen being bound chemically to other materials, and being released via various mechanisms (link here, since you won't accept Wikipedia). The hydrolysis reaction systems seem particularly safe, considering that to get the hydrogen out, it involves mixing the "fuel" with water, which we can probably agree is something that won't be readily found in most cases where fire is involved (although it could make fighting car fires more interesting... foam would be required, much like with kitchen fires).

Im not against other ideas, I just dont like poor links and fanboy attitudes. This post is intelligible, informing and not attacking my ideologies and thoughts. Rather its full of information, good links and a good attitude.

Good points and Ill read the link. If this is what hydrogen is about then Ill retract some of my statements. Some others should take note at how a real rebuttal looks like. You dont just say someone is has baseless/flawed claims and say your idea is better. You reply like this and have a healthy debate.

[Sphinx]

Reading this page makes me lose a little faith on the matter, but again for an idea on paper these are all normal issues that must be confronted with all fuels. After reading this page do I think hydrogen is ready for outside a lab? Not yet. Is it the wave of the future? Dont know. But I do know Ill keep tabs on the technology now.

[Judicator]

Well, part of the issue is what hydrogen has to be compared against. Hydrogen fuel technology in its current state is probably comparable to gasoline technology from about, oh, say the 1960s or 70s. You know, back when fuel efficiency was somewhere like 5 mpg (exaggeration... I think). In that respect, there is possibly more potential for improvement with hydrogen than there is with gasoline (speculation). Essentially agreed that for the time being, hydrogen isn't really in a state to be used outside of the lab yet. There was a magazine article I recall from several years ago (I think 5 or more) about how they were using a metallic compound that would absorb hydrogen and release it when heated (this would have been one of the metal hydride solutions from my link) in a test car. It worked, but due to weight could only manage a range of, IIRC, 100 miles or so. And of course there were the recharge/refueling issues.

Personally, I suspect that at least half of the problems are still the fact that research into hydrogen fuels is still dreadfully underfunded compared to most other alternatives. It's just not "sexy" enough, and will be harder to convert to than many other/most other alternatives.

[Tinderbox (UK)]

The Flintstones had the right idea, remember the planes

Also using food to make fuel is not a good idea.

[Sphinx]

Well, part of the issue is what hydrogen has to be compared against. Hydrogen fuel technology in its current state is probably comparable to gasoline technology from about, oh, say the 1960s or 70s. You know, back when fuel efficiency was somewhere like 5 mpg (exaggeration... I think). In that respect, there is possibly more potential for improvement with hydrogen than there is with gasoline (speculation). Essentially agreed that for the time being, hydrogen isn't really in a state to be used outside of the lab yet. There was a magazine article I recall from several years ago (I think 5 or more) about how they were using a metallic compound that would absorb hydrogen and release it when heated (this would have been one of the metal hydride solutions from my link) in a test car. It worked, but due to weight could only manage a range of, IIRC, 100 miles or so. And of course there were the recharge/refueling issues.

Personally, I suspect that at least half of the problems are still the fact that research into hydrogen fuels is still dreadfully underfunded compared to most other alternatives. It's just not "sexy" enough, and will be harder to convert to than many other/most other alternatives.

Agreed, sorta. I would say more like gasoline in the 1920s. Hydrogen as a fuel is still in its infancy and while showing needs for improvement, it also shows lots of potential.

As for the research funds, that is the problem with most non dino fuels. Oil companies have little motivation to get rid of their stocks and hasten the obsolescence of all the stock and infrastructure they have in place. They are the ones with the funds/technology/know how/ability to make and produce mass quantities as well as research better fuels. But until the wells run dry and they run out of surpluses or dino fuels are outlawed wheres the motivation to stop riding the money train and invest loads of cash into something else? Sad state is there isnt much.

So its left to much smaller companies or even individuals to come up with something better and market it to the world and governments. There in lies problem number two; How do you market new fuels to a world that, for the most part, doesnt care about alternative fuels? What about governments that have a HUGE surplus and cannot fund or do not want to waste what they have already funded? Hard up hill battle to say the least.

Sadly there is alot in the way from cleaning things up and sadly it will probably take all the oil wells drying up to make the world seek alternatives seriously. Sad...no I take that back VERY Sad.