platypus

iTrader: (1)

I obviously just looked at the pictures. Neat, with the atom chassis you could be looking at a wicked light electric racer.

MVWRX

iTrader: (1)

Well, the way I think about this situation is the reason things are expensive is because of the energy they require. That's how the world works for all intensive perposes. And since the problem is really a lack of energy, not a lack of money (because money is just a way to trade energy in today's world), then making the hydrogen and distributing it both run into problems with the second law of thermo; one advantage they DO have is that it consolidates the burning of fossil fuels to several plants where H2 would be made rather than having every car burn it; however you can never get around the fact that hydrogen cannot possibly store as much energy as it takes to make. Unless, of course, you can defy the laws of physics.

ish

iTrader: (7)

I understand what you are saying and I agree that using fossil fuels to create hydrogen is a waste. I just think I am looking at it slightly differently.

Hydrogen is extracted from water through the process of hydrolysis. You pass an electrical current through water and you can split the hydrogen from the oxygen. While that electrical energy needed in the process is generally created by use of fossil fuels (this is the point that I believe you are focusing on). The reason I stressed it was so expensive is because of using renewable energy sources instead of fossil fuels (wind, solar, hydroelectric, etc) to create the hydrogen (thus removing the whole dirty way of doing it). We all know that while renewable energy is good and all it is not cheap to produce a lot of energy, especially when compared to fossil fuels. once the cost of renewables comes down in the future and we get better at it, then hydrogen powered vehicles will be more economical and catch on imo. I am not holding my breathe though for it to happen soon.

flipmode

iTrader: (3)

i wonder when it was at infineon

verc

iTrader: (12)

That's actually not that great of an argument, it's usually thrown around by opponents of hydrogen fuel. So we step back and realize you had to compress the hydrogen b/c the energy density at atmospheric pressure is far lower than that of gasoline. In terms of volatility, the energy stored is a hydrogen car is probably less than a gasoline powered car. I would be more afraid of a camry blowing up than a hydrogen car.

In terms of highly compressed tanks, that's not really a problem either. Long term storage and mechanics of highly compressed gases is an area that has ALWAYS been heavily researched. I suppose your concern then is in automobile collisions. I don't know much about that but I did pull this off of the DOE's website: "Composite, 10,000-psi tanks have demonstrated a 2.35 safety factor (23,500 psi burst pressure) as required by the European Integrated Hydrogen Project specifications."



In a nutshell summary (I apologize, but for other people who don't know as much as you) basically that's why gasoline is good. There must be a balance in energy density per unit area and per unit volume with the efficiency of extracting that energy. With this regard gasoline far outstrips any other stable fuel source. And THAT is the underlying problem with why alternative fuels get developed slowly, because they simply are not better than gasoline. It's like, what if the world was running out of Tungstun for lightbulbs and fluorescent bulbs don't exist - people would not pour R&D into making better candles just because bulbs are running out because they suck in comparison.

verc

iTrader: (12)

O yeah, back on topic. I actually got to drive (like 10 feet lol) in the Wrightspeed Atom a few days ago. Cool car.

excel

iTrader: (2)

only a 100 mile radius will keep me from buying it

platypus

iTrader: (1)

the range wouldn't be a deterrant to me, but the $100,000 price tag might put me off a bit...

ish

iTrader: (7)

I would rather just buy an aerial atom for half the price

stevenkhau

iTrader: (11)

I disagree I believe distribution is still the true impediment. Transportation over a long distance is not feasible with compressed hydrogen. Besides, the energy density may be a LOT lower, but the volatility of the gas as a reagent with OXYGEN when a small charge is applied leads it to be much more dangerous. And who the heck is gonna pump it into your car.

But in the end, all these problems are fairly easily solved...with MONEY. and Like ish and I said previously, the infrastructure cost is enormous and there is absolutely no incentive for oil companies to convert right now.

I also disagree with you about the efficiency of gasoline. Plug-in electric based off of renewable resources is already at LEAST twice as efficient and up to many more times efficient if you count the infrastructure inefficiencies. Aside from pure electric, bio-diesel can also be more efficient on the vehicle side of things...

But as always, for the past 200 years, we've invested in an oil based economy/infrastructrure and nobody is willing to lose all that investment.

The science is already there, but the market and economy is lagging quite a bit.

Kostamojen

iTrader: (2)

And if you get the base engine models, either the Ecotec or the Honda motor, you would probably get 30-40mpg