Not a drop of gas, but a ton of hydrogen... which was most likely derived from fossil fuels. Electrolysis isn't a main producer of hydrogen so far...
Besides, what's the point in hydrogen cars? First, electricity must be harnessed via solar cells, then converted into hydrogen via electrolysis, then put into the vehicle. Then, the vehicle uses hydrolysis, to convert it to water and electricity. Electricity is then stored inside BATTERIES and used to power the vehicle.
Electric cars (if built well) can be recharged at any 120v outlet, then will simply store the electricity in the battery until it needs to be used by the vehicle.
Hydrogen cars just add an extra step... paying for hydrogen from Shell, Chevron or some other current gasoline company.
Agree, this fuel cell technology is not even out of the labs, not to mention zero installed infrastructure, not as remotely reliable as a plug in electric vehicle. When are you going to get one? Probably 10 years from now or even never... It the oil companies stalling for time, continue to get us hooked on fossil fuel.
Telsa is the one to watch, their technology is highly innovative and highly scalable (using induction motor and common stock lithium cell with individual monitoring circuit), they need not invent the wheel (they got Lotus behind that), once pass the developmental stage, with shrinking electronics, it is just going to get better.
Electric cars produce no emissions. Water can have harmful side effects. All the oil spilled on the road due to leaking gasoline vehicles (both hydrogen and electric cars do not need oil, as they do not reach such high temperatures, they use water-lubrication and cooling systems) would be exposed with the water.
However, in a perfect world, there is no real difference between the two, but it's still much better to pay $1-2 than $10-20 for the same mileage, eh?
Not to mention hydrogen cars simply cost more because you're paying for batteries and a fuel cell. The engine is electric.
Okay, well, you forgot to think about the new technology of Lithium-ion polymer batteries. For lower capacities (in 1kWh and so), recharges can be completed in 10-15 minutes. For higher capacities, perhaps 4-5 hours. Thing is, these are meant for low-ish use, rather than long trips.
Hydrogen would be even worse on a long trip, you'd have to actually plan your trip around either A) finding more hydrogen fuel stations or B) bringing extra hydrogen tanks along with you.
Ignatius...the game HAS changed. Your statement "Electrolysis isn't a main producer of hydrogen so far..." is no longer true. I am aware of a company that has surpassed the DOE 2011 goal for hydrogen generation efficiency via electrolysis. Their technology can and one day will be used for on-board hydrogen generation. Solar is an example of an electric source used in electrolysis but by no means is solar required.
Shell, Chevron, etc. are not in the game unless you stop in to fill up with water or need to use their restrooms.
Hydrogen cars might be more feasible because fuel suppliers would not go out of business. They would be able to distribute hydrogen the same way gas is provided by a gas station.
I'd like to reply to that wonderful comment about batteries in electric cars...
I stated that both HYDROGEN AND ELECTRIC cars both use batteries. When the hydrogen is 'burned' to create electricity, the excess energy is stored into batteries until needed. So, if your fuel cell busts and your battery busts... say hello to several tens of thousands of dollars in repairs!!
Electric cars at least have one less thing to fail. Skip the hydrogen car, electric cars are much better than hydrogen cars will ever be.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Not a drop of gas, but a ton of hydrogen... which was most likely derived from fossil fuels. Electrolysis isn't a main producer of hydrogen so far...
Besides, what's the point in hydrogen cars? First, electricity must be harnessed via solar cells, then converted into hydrogen via electrolysis, then put into the vehicle. Then, the vehicle uses hydrolysis, to convert it to water and electricity. Electricity is then stored inside BATTERIES and used to power the vehicle.
Electric cars (if built well) can be recharged at any 120v outlet, then will simply store the electricity in the battery until it needs to be used by the vehicle.
Hydrogen cars just add an extra step... paying for hydrogen from Shell, Chevron or some other current gasoline company.
True, but the only substance coming out of the tailpipe is water vapor, not nitrous oxide and carbon monoxide.
The difference is that you can drive to a refueling station and instantly fill up your tank, not wait 8 hours for your batteries to recharge.
Agree, this fuel cell technology is not even out of the labs, not to mention zero installed infrastructure, not as remotely reliable as a plug in electric vehicle. When are you going to get one? Probably 10 years from now or even never... It the oil companies stalling for time, continue to get us hooked on fossil fuel.
Telsa is the one to watch, their technology is highly innovative and highly scalable (using induction motor and common stock lithium cell with individual monitoring circuit), they need not invent the wheel (they got Lotus behind that), once pass the developmental stage, with shrinking electronics, it is just going to get better.
Electric cars produce no emissions. Water can have harmful side effects. All the oil spilled on the road due to leaking gasoline vehicles (both hydrogen and electric cars do not need oil, as they do not reach such high temperatures, they use water-lubrication and cooling systems) would be exposed with the water.
However, in a perfect world, there is no real difference between the two, but it's still much better to pay $1-2 than $10-20 for the same mileage, eh?
Not to mention hydrogen cars simply cost more because you're paying for batteries and a fuel cell. The engine is electric.
electric cars also have that awesome economic battery that runs for the low price of $2000, that must be changed every 3 yrs......YAY!!!!
Okay, well, you forgot to think about the new technology of Lithium-ion polymer batteries. For lower capacities (in 1kWh and so), recharges can be completed in 10-15 minutes. For higher capacities, perhaps 4-5 hours. Thing is, these are meant for low-ish use, rather than long trips.
Hydrogen would be even worse on a long trip, you'd have to actually plan your trip around either A) finding more hydrogen fuel stations or B) bringing extra hydrogen tanks along with you.
Ignatius...the game HAS changed. Your statement "Electrolysis isn't a main producer of hydrogen so far..." is no longer true. I am aware of a company that has surpassed the DOE 2011 goal for hydrogen generation efficiency via electrolysis. Their technology can and one day will be used for on-board hydrogen generation. Solar is an example of an electric source used in electrolysis but by no means is solar required.
Shell, Chevron, etc. are not in the game unless you stop in to fill up with water or need to use their restrooms.
Go blue oval!
Hydrogen cars might be more feasible because fuel suppliers would not go out of business. They would be able to distribute hydrogen the same way gas is provided by a gas station.
I'd like to reply to that wonderful comment about batteries in electric cars...
I stated that both HYDROGEN AND ELECTRIC cars both use batteries. When the hydrogen is 'burned' to create electricity, the excess energy is stored into batteries until needed. So, if your fuel cell busts and your battery busts... say hello to several tens of thousands of dollars in repairs!!
Electric cars at least have one less thing to fail. Skip the hydrogen car, electric cars are much better than hydrogen cars will ever be.