While most of the world is wondering when the car industry as a whole is going to
decide on a replacement for the combustion engine
and stick to it, Ford's off trying to break land speed records. Ford has released details on a planned 200 MPH attempt for its new Ford Fusion Hydrogen 999 car, which would make it
the fastest fuel cell car in the world. The car itself will be cooled through "ice bath cooling" because the front is sealed in order to keep the drag coefficient as low as possible: at this point we're going to transfer you to the
Autoblog Green guys. They know a lot more than us about cars, and happen to have a comprehensive gallery of the Hydrogen 999, too.
[Thanks, Omar]
Read - Live shots of the Hydrogen 999
Read - Hydrogen 999 land speed record attempt
posted July 11th 2007 10:32AM
One thing people don't realize about hydrogen fuel. It takes 1.15 units of fossil fuel to create 1 unit of hydrogen. So ultimately, it is presently MORE costly and a more harmful fuel to use as it is how it is created that is a serious problem.
One thing *you* don't realize about hydrogen fuel - the separation process requires energy but nothing says that it must come from fossil fuels. Many viable alternatives exist.
Back to science class with you.
Another thing you missed is that the burning of that 1.15 units of fossil fuels to create electricity at a plant can be made significantly less polluting than the same 1.15 unit's emissions coming out the tailpipe of a car, in that the pollution controls are not size-limited to account for portability.
99% of the hydrogen is currently being made with fossil fuel. Also, you can't go as far on a tank of hydrogen as you can with current fossil fuel. It just isn't there, it will probably be a LONG tiem before it is.
Personally, I like other technologies that don't requre fuel, but they are still in development. Magnetic engine technogy seems promising.
Also, for many uses, compressed air makes sense, also higher grade biodiesel makes sense.
Making hydrogen is not as simple as sending electricity through water. And even if it was, there are all kinds of extra costs that factor in to it's very high cost. Transportation and storage (high pressure tanks) are but some of them. Others like the increased cost of new cars and new ways of making cars safe with a highly-compressed explosive gas on board, not to mention the fact that in order to get the same range as a gas car the hydrogen fuel tank would have to be gigantic in comparison. Bigger cars == more fuel consumption == more waste in the long run.
By no means is it prohibitively expensive, but it's not even close to 'clean' energy like solar/electricity power is. Solar panels + batteries + Electric Vehicles == the solution. The trick is to get people to realize that they don't NEED a car that can go 200 miles before they fill up for day-to-day driving. Most vehicles only take 5 hours to charge, and you do that at night when you are sleeping.
Wake up
unplug
drive to work (plug in there if you are lucky)
drive home
plug in
go to sleep
When you need to go to grandmas, then you can fire up the gas/hydrogen/whatever vehicle because it would not make sense to wait 5 hours in between charges when the total trip only takes an 1.5 hours going 65MPH.
"The trick is to get people to realize that they don't NEED a car that can go 200 miles before they fill up for day-to-day driving."
I was reading your comment regarding hydrogen-tank size, and thinking the exact same thing. I'm glad you wrote this.
For many city dwellers, 200 miles in a week is a LOT of driving. As I say below, I'd love to have a safe and street-legal car that had a 100 mile range. It would serve almost all my needs. Perhaps for longer trips, some sort of battery supplementation could be added to the boot.
The one thing that pure electrics haven't addressed is long-distance high speed travel. You can drive them around, but you can't drive them over the hills and through the woods to grandma's house. This is where a fueled car shines, and AFAIK Hydrogen is the most likely candidate for a pollution-reduced energy source that won't run out. Next up, I'd agree with David on the Biodiesel; some of VW's turbodiesels can run it and are exciting, fun car platforms.
As with all emerging technology, we have to develop and prove the base system before we master the infrastructure to support it. This is just an example of Ford stepping up and developing viable transportation technology ahead of the hydrogen industry. Don't discount the project just because of the costs of hydrogen production. Personally, I'm happy that Ford and Honda etc are developing hydrogen fuel cell test vehicles. It's not like they're building massive fleets of unusable vehicles; they're simply exploring new technology such that if/when that breakthrough that drastically reduces the costs associated with hydrogen production comes along, the industry is ready or at least has a good understanding of the technology to make use of it.
You seem to have a problem with the energy industry in general, rather than the prospect of hydrogen fuel cells. Where do you think the energy for the magnets will come from? How do you think air gets compressed?
currently it takes more energy to make hydrogen, but sooner or later there will be a much efficient way of making hydrogen.
a car burning fuel makes more greenhouse gas than a power plant mass producing the same amount of hydrogen. fuel is refined and has a lot more additives inside it than coal or gas.
just my idea: the scientists say ice caps melting will cause flooding. so why dont they start converting sea water to hydrogen and oxygen, with the rest of the dissolved content dehydrolysed?
Personally, I think if they dumped more money in magnetic engines, maybe those will solve everyone's problem as they don't require any fuel. Cycclone has been working on prototypes, I think there might be something useful.
Also, for many purposes compressed air seems kinda cool. Maybe not for everyone, but certainly for a lot of uses. They are small engines, but maybe larger ones can be built.
From what I have read, the experts are predicting 15 to 20 years before Hydrogen is actually usable to the point where it is mainstream... That's a long, long time from now.
@ David: Yeah, but you could make hydrogen fuel using green energy.
BTW: Gotta love the rims!
Yeah, I sorta wondered why they put the car in such a hideous body style. Tesla has the right idea; make electric SEXY and people will buy. I'm still waiting for the "Skateboard" car to go to production - the thought of swapping gearing and cabins for different driving needs is exciting.
Agreed. I'd just like to see someone do something sexy - and hell, even 4-passenger can be sexy. I'd like to see something from a non-boutique seller that made people excited about the possibilities of electric vehicles, in a realistic way. There's no reason, for instance, that Mazda couldn't fuel-cell a Miata body, or Infinity couldn't fuel-cell a g35 coupe or something. The Fusion is just a boring car - and certainly a boring platform to use as a tech demonstrator.
Uh, this is a streamlined car with "Ford Fusion" graphics. This has as much in common with a production vehicle as a stock car or F1 racer.
Nice to see Ford pretending to be green by showing a one off fuel cell vehicle though.
@ Iscariote:
Actually, its a Ford Fusion body with a modified front fascia to reduce drag. This has as much in common as a normal Fusion but with a different power train.
The TESLA is a tiny car for 2 people. The Ford fusion is a mid sized sedan. In America, its 4 seats -4 doors that's gonna sell above all else.
On styling, I like the Ford Fusion and its sister, the Lincoln MKX. Very nice styling which I feel is similar to the Cadillac CTS - but will look extremely dated when the 2008 CTS hits the streets.
As for the Hydrogen power, I don't see the neccessity of developing high HP cars. I think for the future, hybrid cars should have a speed limiter of about 100 MPH [with a 0-60 of about 8 seconds] so we can make our streets safer.
I'd say yes on the speed limiter (there is NO reason to exceed 100mph, ever, on current highways), but not on the acceleration limitation. Slow acceleration puts you in danger for a longer period if a timing mistake is made while driving.
"there is NO reason to exceed 100mph, ever, on current highways"
How about this: I'm driving through the desert on a deserted long stretch of road. It's perfectly straight and I can see ahead for miles and miles. Why on earth would I limit myself to 100 mph?
Now STFU.
The only reason to go faster than 100mph is that I want to. I would not support nor buy a car that is that slow in the first place.
As for a top speed limiter in the ECM, mine was factory set at 160mph currently its at 999mph.
@Nobuyuki Idei
"How about this: I'm driving through the desert on a deserted long stretch of road. It's perfectly straight and I can see ahead for miles and miles. Why on earth would I limit myself to 100 mph?
Now STFU."
Here's a reason. My tax money will be used to pay someone to scrape your remains off the highway after you wreck at 150 mph. I'd rather have my money spent on more important things.
I don't care what kind of car you drive, exceeding 100 mph on public roads is dangerous and stupid for more reasons than I care to list.
@Big: "As for the Hydrogen power, I don't see the neccessity of developing high HP cars. "
Ah, but Ford doesn't produce just cars. A High HP hydrogen-engine could very-well sell a lot of pickup trucks in the U.S.
@ jakep_82:
You obviously don't drive or know how fun it is to go fast... Either that or you're a pussy.
Fast cars aren't necessary, no, but they are fun. Why would someone buy a boat or a Jet-Ski/Sea Doo/etc? Because it is fun, and that is why people buy these fast cars. It is fun to feel the power under your right foot, and being pushed into your seat as your car accelerates into the triple digits.
I don't advocate speeding, but like another person said, if you're in the desert, theres a really long ass stretch of road, why wouldn't you?
As long as you are responsible and not a total idiot, fast cars aren't a problem.
Lol, there ought to be an after-burner...nothing like flaming hydrogen gas to give you a boost!
And yes, I know that doesn't work with the whole "fuel cell" and "don't burn down the forest" idea. Laugh a little!
Nice try Ford Jr, but this gets a big fat MEH! You are dying a slow death as you continue to SUCKLE your Oiligarch Pals! It’s all about solar powered electric cars, PERIOD!!
http://www.teslamotors.com/
PS Hey Bill Clay, at this sloooooow pace to green you will be know in the history of the family dynasty as “the Ford that lost the business” to foreign competition. If you were anything like the icon HENRY you would GROW A SET and say FU to the Oiligarch over Lords buy building electric cars NOW. If a skunk works operation like Tesla can do it, why can’t you, especially with that vast amount of resources? Answer, you’re a Spineless Suck azz with no sense of family heritage and you’re willing to LOOSE the Dynasty to appease the Oiligarchs. Shame on YOU!!
As in another thread I would ask that if you wish to insult someone, do it with proper spelling. I mean really - "LOOSE" the dynasty? C'mon!
BTW, I'm surprised you didn't mention the Illuminati in there too.
That said, minus the conspiracy slant I agree with you. All-electrics are currently well within the means of current tech, and would be quite suitable for most American drivers that are traveling less than 100 miles or so in a day. My morning commute is just 5 miles, and averages about 14 miles an hour. I'd love an electric car (I can't bike or motorscoot, since I have a small baby that I have to drive around).
FYI, this is considered an electric vehicle by those sanctioning land speed racing... it just draws power for its ELECTRIC motor from fuel cells rather than batteries etc.
If Tesla could come out with a $20k model, then I'm game, but at a $98k price tag, this won't be good for the environment because the majority of people won't be able to afford it.
I would much rather get an electric/solar powered/plug-in vehicle, than a hydrogen powered car. If this is the way this country/planet goes, it will just replace the Oil companies with H2 companies. We'll probably still pay a premium for fuel, so there's no benefit to consumers, other than having a green friendly car.
Doesn't doing land speed record runs kinda miss the point here?
Shouldn't the competition for this type of stuff be something along the lines of...."here's a gallon of gas, how far can you go."
This is simply a research vehicle where Ford is pushing the current fuel cell technology to the limits. It has to be done in all commercial technology. I'd be willing to hedge a huge bet on Ford applying what they learn with this vehicle to a car that you or I might buy in a decade or so. After all, while their current profits might say otherwise, Ford is about making money. They're not stupid and they're not going to pour money into some dreamland project that won't some way improve the products that make them money.
Silly rabbits, FORD et al, you just don't get it: we don't give a rat's ass about these EXOTIC projects or your can't-touch-this CONCEPT cars.
BUILD us sheit that's better than the rest and then put it in showrooms PRONTO.
The Ford might become the fastest fuel cell car in the world, but not the fastest electric car.
Eliica already has the speed record of 230MPH back in 2004, and they say it is more energy efficient than a fuel cell car.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliica
Some pics and movies from Discovery Channel:
http://japan.discovery.com/we/we003/index.html
Actually, the fastest electric car in the world is the Buckeye Bullet from The Ohio State University. It currently hold a US Land Speed record at 315 mph and an international land speed record at 272 mph.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckeye_Bullet
What none of you realize is that Hydrogen Fuel Cell cars have the ultimate capibility of being a closed system, IE: pour 1-2 gal of pure water into a tank, and the system can recycle that water over and over. only problem right now is keeping the oil from the cylinders out of the gas tank. after a week or so, top off the water. it can also get to the point where you only need to change the water as offen as you change your anti-freeze.
As for Fueling stations, theres also experiments with solar powered fueling stations, as in, off the power grid completely. and retrofitting current gas stations to this new fuel type is easier then loosing thousands of jobs nation-wide, keeping the "conveince" store infrastructure in place.
All this test is showing is that people like Ford are trying to produce viable alternitives to what we have now, doesnt mean that they are going to produce this anytime soon, but all it takes is one person to take this to the next step and get the US off its oil addiction.
And by making this car from an existing body style, it shows that theres a possibilty that its closer then you think. and its cheap advertising for a current generation vehicle, and it gives hope to being able to upgrade to this kind of system on current cars, and it saves R&D money, not having to build a car from teh ground up. the first Ford hydrogen car engine was little more then a beefed up version of their "Vulcan" engine and computer.
Those rims are special, low-drag land speed racing wheels.
And that most certainly is a modified Fusion body. Take a look at a NASCAR next to a real Fusion and then compare this to the real Fusion. This is much much much much closer to the real thing. The rear end appears to have been extended a little bit, the roof rails and stability treatment in the rear have been added, and the grilles etc in the front have been sealed and painted. But seriously, anybody with functioning eyes can see that this is an actual Fusion (door seams anybody??) and nothing like what they do for NASCAR.
Why would Ford want alternative fuel for their vehicles?
They are owned by Saudi's. They are owned by oil companies.
Of course they are just going to put their alternative fuel vehicles up for show.
@Zeus the God
"You obviously don't drive or know how fun it is to go fast... Either that or you're a pussy."
That's a pretty bold and immature statement, but I guess the immunity of the internet sometimes brings out the worst in people.
Here's a couple snips from the US DOT regarding speeding and how it relates to accidents and fatalities. The original document from June 2005 is linked below.
"In 2002, 13,713 fatalities -- about a third of all fatalities that occurred in motor vehicle traffic crashes were speeding-related, i.e., at least one of the drivers involved in the crash was speeding."
"A major proportion of fatal, speeding-related single-vehicle crashes occur on rural roadways.
There has been a recent increase in the number of fatalities in speeding-related single-vehicle
crashes that occur on local roads in rural jurisdictions."
So it would seem that the US DOT and common sense are on my side.
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809839.PDF