HONDA rolls out fuel cell car (HYDROGEN)

reply to post by Zepherian


It's a start, and you need to start somewhere. It is too expensive at the time, yes, but once the technology becomes more familiarized, stations are more widespread, etc, costs come down. Keep in mind, at one point, gasoline engines were only available to a "select few", and gas stations didn't exactly pop up all over the country in an instant.

Some will argue that it takes energy to get the hydrogen from water. Well, yes it does, but things like solar, nuclear, wind, geothermal, etc, could do this. Take a look at part of Iceland's transit system. Some of their busses run on hydrogen, I believe. The electrolysis gets its energy from their extensive geothermal supply - free energy, in a way.

When gas reaches 5, 6, 10 dollars per dollar, scientists and engineers will really be put to the test, and ideas like this will become more popular. Way to go Honda. With more research, a combination of other energy methods to power the electrolysis, and the hopeful lessening of big oil lobbying, I believe we can, at some point, slowly wane ourselves off of oil... maybe in a decade or two.

[edit on 16-6-2008 by el_madmaster]

[edit on 16-6-2008 by el_madmaster]

reply to post by el_madmaster


Agreed, better for the earth but same for us, I imagine the same people that sell gas will sell hydrogen. Or different people same suit.
Now a car that runs on tears and dignity, that I can use.

If people are stupid they will let the elites control the supply of hydrogen, but there is NO reason this should be the reality. Hydrogen has the potential of democratization of energy, and that is what people should aim for, not just the zero emissions.

Water can and should be fuel, it is abundant and once a hydrogen economy is up it can be made from seawater after evaporation. Hydrogen changes everything, unless people are deeducated from the possibilities. There is a dumb way to use hydrogen, that is to buy it. Sure, a grid can be handy if you're out of town, and I'm sure there's a legitimate market, but it should be decentralized and an alternative to the domestic generation of fuel.

Once a hydrogen economy is up and running there is no reason sea water can't be piped all over the world for fuel, hydrogen economy and cheap plentifull energy will result in the end of water shortage at a global level. Once there is energy everything is possible.

Technology has been surpressed for so long. I think multiple technologies are going to come out in the next 5 years.

Hydrogen, water, and there are prototypes to over unity self propulsion systems.

I think hydrogen is going to be flop. I thought there was a problem with hydrogen tanks blowing up. Much more complicated to contol gases and compress them than have liquid like water i think.

I think water will beat hydrogen and then free energy will come out after that and void them both. Maybe water could be used as secondary or for some specific purpose.

theres just too many guys onto the real interesting antigrav physics and free energy. Then we can get rid of G-forces and move at much faster speeds.

Man im so excited to one day fly to asia for like $50 in 1 hour for the weekend. This is gonna be so tight. All the asia bitches and brazilian coming to see us.

Its gonna make people so lively and renewed. Here everyones dead, nobody wants to talk to anyone except their click. When u go to a whole new world, people are anxious to mingle.

WOOOOOOOOOO

どうもありがとうございます

Domo Arigatou Gozaimasu

In never thought it would happen this fast. Just goes to show, that greed is not the best motivator. I am looking forward to the end of big oils dominance of the world.

It won't take long for these types of vehicles to take over. The cost will drop like a rock, especially as gas continues to climb towards $10 a gal in the U.S.. I feel for all those people who bought giant SUVs and trucks.

Will cheap hydrogen powered vehicles come too soon for a large expansion in public transportation? I hope not, the price for driving your own vehicle these days is the total elimination of your liberty.

reply to post by Long Lance


Hydrogen storage technology is mature enough to start the hydrogen economy now. However all attempts to do so have been crushed. I know of one small businessman, selling hydrogen conversion technology who was shut down by the fed.s. Then there is Bob Lazar's system, which as inefficient as it might be, allowed people in states with sufficient sun to generate all their own hydrogen via solar power and be totally independent of the oil machine. That too was shut down.

www.switch2hydrogen.com...

Apparently he is moving to Michigan, who is so desperate for jobs they are willing to take on the NWO and protect Lazar so he can develop his conversion kits.

This is good but none of us will get one of these vehicles for years. And this is nothing new either. Ford has had hydrogen focuses out since 2005.

www.motortrend.com...

media.ford.com...

Plus BMW has their hydrogen car, but ive heard one of the complaints about that car is if you dont drive it for a few days, all of your gas evaporates.

Whats really interesting is this vehicle

www.ford.com...


www.usatoday.com...

a plugin hybrid hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. anyways, with more and more automakers exploring hydrogen fuel cells, maybe it wont be too far off before we all can have one.

reply to post by SevenThunders


Thanks for the link. I have a few vehicles I would like to keep in operation, so if I could switch them to hydrogen fuel in the future, that would be great. Also, the idea of producing hydrogen at home is very nice. Who knows, get familiar with the technology, and it could become a very efficient future business.

Sounds like Ford is still moving forward with hydrogen technology, as well as BMW. The introduction of this Honda version only ups the stakes.

Looks like the future has arrived sooner than we thought.

If this philosophy of designing car engines picks up then big oil industry will feel threatened unless there is a way they can be absolutely positively sure the common folk wont circumvent their services, eg find plenty of ways to replenish his/hers vehicle energy source on their own, without resorting to any of the suggested certified methods from the energy corporations conglomerate.
This could be their biggest problem.

We all know, that thousands of inventive individuals will have a plan for a zero cost method of replenishing energy ready, to test if the opportunities arise.

Such opportunities arising would more or less signal the end of the era of the energy costs dependent society.

Our current technological philosophy is holding us hostages in a system where very few actually benefit.

I would just like to thank the last several posters for bringing great contributions to this thread. This thread turned out much better than the Japanese water car thread.

reply to post by SevenThunders


the website claims a range of 650 miles, which sounds good and absorbing materials will certainly improve overall efficiency, because less compression will be required, so maybe an improvement by a third is on the table, compared to purely compressed storage

www.physorg.com...

which would give 30% efficiency, derived from electric, compared to ~70% for EVs. electrolysis is a b****, isn't it?.

www.greencarcongress.com...

Of course, if combined efficiencies could be vastly improved (high 90%iles) it would even become a viable large scale power storage, which would instantly solve many issues.

PS: it's probably unreasonable to expect a prototype to cost as much as your run of the mill car, it's more of a technology demonstrator. even if it was sold at a good price, fuel would currently be hard to come by, you'd really have to make your own and still be locked into your own state, unless you have a supply chain set up (buddies with smilar outfits).

One day I looked toward the sky line of L.A. and thought, "What if all that smog was cloud coverage?". The next week L.A. was flooded in a matter of hours during a sudden and severe storm. I also read this which now leads me to be very fearful of hydrogen cars.

reply to post by galduke


Did you actually read the whole article? There's absolutely no reason, even if it is true, to fear hydrogen cars.

Shaidurov has concluded that only an enormous natural phenomenon, such as an asteroid or comet impact or airburst, could seriously disturb atmospheric water levels, destroying persistent so-called 'silver', or noctilucent, clouds composed of ice crystals in the high altitude mesosphere (50 to 85km).

Unless you're planning on launching thousands of hydrogen cars on transorbital trajectories and blowing the fuel cells at the apex, there's really no way that any of the emissions can effect the mesosphere.

[edit on 6/17/2008 by PsychoHazard]

reply to post by Quazga


That's because the serial debunkers cannot do anything to a technology that is proven and available. If they could come up with a counter argument they would. Even CNN has accused this car of not being enviromentally friendly because "it uses more energy to produce hydrogen than it gives us".

This technology is amazing, if those brave folks at Honda release the hydrogen generation system seperately they will have broken the oil economy technological blockade and given humanity the first step to energy independence and real economic democracy.

reply to post by Quazga


uhmmm...where do you fuel back up? just a thought. by the way, notice how the pure electric car doesn't seem to go into production? could it be that people could put solar cell panals on their roof and power their home and their car? long live corporate control!!!!!

I found this on someone's site...

It seems to indicate that the whole hydrogen fuel idea is just a means for the oil companies to continue their domination of the fuel industry...

There are some very specific examples here...

www.thenewatlantis.com...

I read a few paragraphs and I think that's just another debunking article, biased and fundamentally untrue. The fact is we have hydrogen cars on the road, the technology is proven.

The problem is not the technology is unviable, the problem is it is too good for those that want use caught up in a false scarcity economy, which in no way mirrors nature.

reply to post by Zepherian


First of all, thanks for replying to my post and taking me seriously. I appreciate it.

Second... what about the argument that these fuel companies are just going to keep up the pollution by releasing hydrogen from hydrocarbons?

I will fully admit I am not well versed on the science of electrolysis (sp) and hydrogen separation in general, but some of the points later in the article seem to have some science backing them.

And yes, though the article is debunking hydrogen as the much touted replacement to gasoline... and the solution to the energy crisis... it seems to be implicating the energy companies that are controlling the industry in a cover up/misdirection scheme in the process... which I thought was worth discussing at least...

Unless of course none of the science/arguments is accurate in the least...

It just seems like these large energy companies backing hydrogen all of a sudden means that they've got a good handle on how to make some big money off it... and even though that's secondary to my main concern -the environment- it still concerns me.

I mean, these are the companies that killed the electric car. If they can't find a way to dominate, they terminate... and this article seems to indicate possible domination of a hydrogen fuel economy, and debunk the environmental aspect because of that domination, to some degree.

The reality about hydrogen cars, be it fuel cell or hydrogen combustion using browns gas is they are completely within the current environmental cycle, because the biproduct is water. Think of it this way, you take water and use it as a battery to hold energy, which you use in the process, and then you get water vapour as biproduct. That vapour you either release through an exaust or you save to reuse in the process. This won't be 100% efficiency, some water will be lost each cycle, but that's the possible reality. Releasing water vapour into the atmosphere is not a problem, because the energy yield of water, if you can get it to decombine the molecule, is very high, so you're using relatively small quantities. Mileage will probably be high on water. And even if you have billions of units, as you might, the net result is you would counter desertification on a global level and end up with a greener more lush planet.

You'll still have extreme weather with or without hydrogen tech. And if you have a high energy economy you are better prepared for the environment anyway, as reduced cost of energy will allow for increased standards in everything else.

There is no real downside to hydrogen, except perhaps the short term economic crysis an energetic paradigm shift might provoke, but which would be a worthwhile sacrifice. Our economic stability is based on a violent conflict and artificial scarcity all over the world, it is no big loss.

reply to post by galduke


the correct reaction would be to ask if the fear of carbon dioxde was justified, not to fear water instead.

clouds are water, but there's much more, invisible to the naked eye, the atmosphere is full of it, 70 percent are covered with water and it evaporates under sunlight, comes down again as rain, which is of course very good for us.

i mean seriously, GW is a scam, as outlined many times.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

hydrogen would be much preferrable to petroleum and even methane (aka. 'natural' gas) if H2 generation an fuel cells and could be made to work at seriously high efficiencies, read approaching or surpassing those seen in electric power distribution and generation.

it could then be consumed locally via fuel cell, eliminating complicated wide area electric power network infrastructure (you'd need pipelines, though) and it could be stored easily, unlike electric energy.

if such a goal is attainable, it's certainly worth it, the question is how realistic these goals are.

en.wikipedia.org...

it's obvious, though that the underlying assumption is the use of nuclear primary power, although i presume you could use solar for heat and any renewable for electricity, since storage is no real issue.


reply to post by ChefPrudhomme


he left out absorbing materials for storage purposes, much of the rest is accurate, though and without adressing the more fundamental issues, fuel cells will remain white elephants. i have no doubt that the whole thing is set up for failure, but that does not mean it will, just that the odds are stacked against the 'hydrogen economy'.

[edit on 2008.6.17 by Long Lance]