Slashdot Mirror
Los Angeles City Employees To Drive Hydrogen Power
mace_15 writes "According this CNN article the mayor of Los Angeles has signed a lease with Honda to allow city employees to drive experimental hydrogen powered cars. The cars can reach speeds up to 93mph and Honda claims they have a range of 220 miles before refueling. More information on the car can be found here. Mercedes-Benz has a similar car."
A CNN article on hydrogen cars details this as well. Now, the question is, which comes first: hydrogen refueling stations so that people will buy cars, or hydrogen powered cars to drive the need for refueling stations?
Overrated / Underrated : Moderation
They can travel on congested freeways at speeds up to 6 miles per hour for 13 miles.
The expression is "I could NOT care less." Think about it.
Picture this. You go to buy a car and decide to shell out the extra $$$ to get an efficient gas/electric hybrid so that you can do your part to sustain the environment. Next thing you know, it's two years later and everyone is driving hydrogen cell cars which are even more environmentally friendly. Now, everywhere you go you get dirty looks for being so irresponsible.
- These pretzels are making me thirsty. -
Except that with gasoline autos ALL of the infrastructure had to be created, and there simply wasn't an alternative. Right now people can just shrug and use gasoline instead of anteing up for hydrogen infrastructure.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
What lessons there are here for alternative energy cars, I don't know. Aside from the folks who burn used french-fry oil in their diesels, opportunities to run alternate-fuel vehicles without special support appear to be few and far between (save for block-heater-friendly Canadian cities being EV-friendly)
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
I used to think that too, until I did some reading. If a hydrogen tank is punctured, the hydrogen gas rises so quickly that there is very little danger. Even if it does ignite, it will burn up, and has the advantage of not sticking to things like gasoline will do. Hydrogen will dilute with the atmosphere so quickly, there's less danger than a similar incident with gasoline powered vehicle.
Hydrogen is not an energy source. It is a storage medium. All this will do is lull people into a false sense of 'I'm green', when all that's going to happen is a redistribution of the pollutants. So instead of having cars pump out pollutants, power plants will.
...
The real long term solution is for people to stop being so damn energy intensive for every little thing. Walk. Bike. Relax.
But this won't happen until it's way too late. People won't change, they will want their comfort above all. This is why Max Planck said that for ideas to change, people must die. It's too bad the life expectancy is so long now.
And what will happen when every car is pumping out steam? Do people think smog just hangs around because it's smog, but water vapor will just float away immediately? When cities will be turned into saunas, we'll see
please enlighten me, i fail to see your logic, and please don't tell me you're thinking about tritium used to add some 'zip' to nuclear weapons...
Anyone remember those "fly-wheel" cars that were all the hype a few years ago, which involved having a big-ass flywheel spinning at 50k+ RPM mounted in the back of a car, well one of those could certainly do a lot more damage than a tank-full of hydrogen, and i don't remember anyone even mentioning what would happen if someone got into an accident and allowed a 55,000 RPM flywheel to take off down the sidewalk...
-tid242
With a few exceptions, secrecy is deeply incompatible with democracy and with science. --Carl Sagan
From this article
To use either methanol or gasoline on a PEM fuel cell vehicle, the fuel must be converted to hydrogen with an onboard fuel processor - every car would have to be equipped with essentially a high temperature mini-refinery or chemical factory to convert methanol or gasoline to hydrogen. This is an enormous challenge. Converting gasoline to hydrogen in a stationary plant operated steady-state 24 hours per day is feasible. But making hydrogen onboard a moving car to meet the full start-up and transient response of an automobile would be a complex task, with unknown cost and reliability implications. The differences between stationary fuel processing (such as the H2Gen HGM) and onboard mobile fuel processing is summarized in the following chart, where green indicates superior performance, yellow is cautionary, and red indicates inferior performance.I had such high hopes that the global warming from current vehicles would eventually make Northern Canada a decent place to live. Now all my dreams are shattered... Thanks a lot.
While the idea of a Hydrogen-powered vehicle is a great one, if Slashdot readers are interested in a "more" environmentally-friendly vehicle there are options right now.
Biodiesel (more info here and here) is diesel fuel that will work in any new-ish diesel-powered vehicle with out ANY modifications. Benefits?
- Availability of the vehicle. Volkswagen produces a line of turbo diesel injected vehicles right now. They are available from about US$15k - $30k, depending on which model and features you ask for.
- Availability of the fuel. Biodiesel is NOT as wide-spread as diesel - not by far. But it IS available. There's a station in my hometown, Portland, OR and one down in Eugene, OR. According to the map of refueling sites provided by biodiesel.org, there are nine biodiesel stations in California.
- Cost of the fuel. B20, that is 20% biodiesel and 80% regular diesel, costs about US$1.75/gallon in Portland, OR. That's about what premium/super goes for here, give or take 10 cents. I don't have info on what B100 costs - probably around $2.25 or more or possibly less. Depends on your supplier.
- Biodiesel benefits the American (or local) economy. Biodiesel is created from plants. Soy and such. Soy beans can be grown locally in many places of the world. Oil can be had in America, too, but there's not much of it and one it's gone, it is GONE. More soy beans can be grown at any time.
- Biodiesel is "environmentally friendly". According to the US EPA in this PDF document, use of B100 biodiesel will reduce the output of carbon monoxide from a single veh by 50%. B100 will reduce particulate emissions by 70% (less smog). Total hydrocarbon emissions reduced by 40%. Reductions in sulfate emissions by 100%.
- Biodiesel takes less energy to make than diesel and much less energy to make than gasoline.
- Diesel vehicles, particularly the TDI's from VW, are VERY fuel efficient. Expect to get 40/city, 45+/highway (expessed in miles per gallon). Many people report getting 600+ miles to the tank.
Hydrogen-powered vehicles will be great when they are mass-produced in 10 years. Until then, look at Biodiesel. I think the benefits far outweigh the added expense of the fuel.
Exocet Industries - Taking over the world, one computer at a
As opposed to cars filled with harmless, fire-resistant gasoline?
Hydrogen burns upwards.
Gasoline pours out on the ground and surrounds you with an incinerating puddle of fire.
It amazes me that people worry about cars with hydrogen, as if they weren't currently driving cars powered by miniature gasoline explosions.
And it was the aluminum paint on the fabric that caught FIRE, not the hydrogen. Hydrogen EXPLODES with a nearly invisible blue light.
I have done extensive, um, experiments with garbage bags full of hydrogen. (Put lye, al foil, water in gas can attached to hose.)
To explode, hydrogen needs a lot of oxygen. To make a bag full of hydrogen explode, you have to introduce quite a bit of air into it. (Enough air to render the bag unable to float) If you don't put any extra air in, the hydrogen just burns along the outside of the bag, and it actually takes a few seconds for all of the hydrogen to be consumed.
The Hindenburg did not explode because of the hydrogen. (A spark could not catch the hydrogen on fire on the inside. There is no oxygen) A spark must have caught the fabric on fire, which was doped with dangerous compounds like saltpeter. (Which actually rendered the skin very, very flammable).
So, it was mostly the skin catching on fire, which was aided by the heat of the hydrogen combustion. Also, those huge yellow flames you see? That's the skin burning. Like the previous poster said, hydrogen burns with a nearly invisible flame.
If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
bush is going to fight tooth and nail to keep his oil interests in power... granted, this article talks about electric cars, but still, it is clear that our current administration's long term energy policies are all about PETRO!
Satanists get good grades too...suspiciously good grades
I once told a friend that modern diesel trains run on electricity. The lights are electric, the controls are electric, even the drive train is electric. The only thing diesel about them is that they use a diesel engine to turn the electric generator. "Oh really?" she replied, blondly. "Why don't the run the generators on electricity too?"
Probably for the same reason that an energy conversion that produces lots of heat is efficient, I suppose.
Overall, hydrogen costs energy to produce. You can't just go dig it up out of the ground. You have to produce it somewhere, and then store it, transport it, and eventually burn it. By the time you do all that, you've used considerably more energy than just using the electricity, or heat, or whatever energy source you used to create the hydrogen.
That it takes more energy to produce the hydrogen, than is recovered from it is not new. This fact is true of any fuel source. We've just gotten used to having most of the work done for us.
If you want to see more effecient, cleaner burning engines on the road, you should start pressuring the auto manufacturers to bring over more of the small diesel engines that are running in Europe.
This still will not solve the problem of pollution. All it will do is give temporary relif. Diesel still pollutes, and also kicks out lots of soot, which is staring to be linked to developmental lung problems. This is the big advantage of Hydrogen fuel cells, they only directly produce water, which is usually linked to drinking and water-fights. As for the indirect effects, this is just a matter of working up the supply chain to create a cleaner source. For example:
We fixed the cars at this point, and the H2 stations would be much cleaner (no more fuel tanks leaking gasoline, just H2 which disapates in the atmosphere harmlessly.)
The delivery trucks that bring the H2 to the stations could be H2 powered themselves, so little pollution there.
The H2 producing factories would be the only thing left, and those could be solar powered. And unlike solar cars, they could be placed in areas that have very high amount of sunlight (Arizona is pretty empty, so is much of Nevada). And bigger usually means more efficent in power production.
In the end we have an end to end solution that is cleaner than what we currently have. It may not be as effiecent, but it is cleaner, and that is what we are after at the moment.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.