Slashdot Mirror
Hydrogen Powered Toy Car
Harmonious Botch writes "CNN is reporting that Shanghai's Horizon Fuel Cell Technologies will soon begin sales of a tiny hydrogen fuel-cell car, complete with its own miniature solar-powered refueling station." From the article: "Automakers and energy companies view hydrogen fuel cells as a promising technology that could wean the world from its addiction to crude oil. But it's expensive and technological hurdles remain despite billions of dollars that have been poured into research."
Personally, I think that this is a great idea, not so much because of the concept itself, but it might at least make the current kid generation think a bit more about the science behind it. As soon as I read the summary, without even going into the article itself, I thought back about the rechargeable racing cars that I had when I was a kid -- put two D batteries in the charger, plug the cable into the little racing car, hold the button for one minute to charge the car, put it on the plastic Hot Wheels track, and let it speed along. It always fascinated me how I could recharge the car over and over again. Granted, this was the early 1980s, but it was one of those things that got me interested in science -- how the hell does this silly car work?
Now rechargeable batteries are the norm. But "rechargable" hydrogen? I can see where the kids of today (and maybe even some adults) would take an interest in this and think about getting involved in expanding it on a larger scale. I even like the thought about how this technology could be used to reduce the amount of batteries that get thrown into landfills every year.
Of course, having worked with hydrolysis in 7th grade, science class might give me a bit more interest in this than it would most people.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
Congratulations, that's the stupidest thing I've ever read on Slashdot, and I've seen some doozies.
-Peter
*Hint: There is something on the order of one hundred million cars on the road in the US. Think you can retrofit and/or replace them all in a year?
We're really dealing with inertia here, not to mention technology issues (i.e., efficiency of alternative fuel technologies), corporate alignments (i.e., how many companies would lose money by the shift), and -- shudder! -- politics (i.e., what would the shift away from oil mean for the Middle East and Russia) So really, we're up against some pretty big barriers, and they can be pretty ugly. You know what I mean.
On the other hand, necessity is the mother of invention. Will all the oil wells suddenly run dry at the same time? I don't think so. Ultimately, it's economics that will force us to look at alternative sources. It's happening now as oil shoots past $60 range because of You-Know-What.
Me? I'm waiting for Doctor Brown's Mister Fusion machine.
It was a relatively recent news article that I read it in.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
We need choices, and bio-diesel is one of them. Ethanol from corn or sugar or switch grass is an option, cellulosic ethanol is another (harder to get ethanol from cellulose) Solar and wind are some of my favorites, and we certainly could use new nuclear plants. They even are developing new nuclear cycles that generate hydrogen efficiently.
We need lots of options, and maybe a few will be viable. You can't just bet on one, they all need to be looked at to some extent. Diversification in the energy realm will also make us more robust.
There are few remaining sites for hydroelectric.
Plus they have a HUGE environmental footprint.
One of the big negatives with the wind turbines is the amount of birds they kill.
There is no perfect power source, either we have to conserve or pay more.
You just ruined the otherwise fine joke.
factor 966971: 966971
... so why grow up?
Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
You personally can get all the hippee environmental technology you want, you just have to pay 2x or 3x or 10x for it.
Usually because of all the extra fossil fuels it takes to keep it going. Not only does the hydrogen need the energy added to it in the first place, but platinum does not mine and refine itself. Biofuel schemes all overlook the amount of energy needed to grow the plants in the first place, like the gas/petrol in that harvester over there, which itself consumed a lot of fuel to create it.
Virtually all schemes for "alternatives" to oil amount to "can you please burn 10% more of it over there, where I'm not looking? Thank you. I feel so much better now."
It's the same way makers of "perpetual motion" machines demonstrate that they "work." They plug them into the wall.
I've got a dashiki and a peace sign around somewhere. I used to actually wear them. I wear ancient, unsewn clothing today. Sandals even. I've hugged a tree. I grow some of my own food in an urban setting. I ride a bicycle. I don't own a car. There's a tipi folded up in a corner of the room, right over there. If I designed a city you couldn't see it from the air. The trees would be all in the way and shit.
But I try not to let all of that make me stupid.
KFG
Normal window glazing and peoples little fuzzy house pets kill orders of magnitudes more birds every year than wind chargers. And the neurons are TEARING DOWN currently constructed water dams so that some fish, which could be easily trucked around the dam by the thousands, can "swim unhindered" upstream.
Idiots!
So, we should kill all the house cats and tear down all the buildings, or board up the windows at least as well? For the birds?
I just don't get it on slashdot with alternative energy. Everyone here (mostly) is probably an old computer user, dropped serious cash on technology you have to pay to have hauled away now, it is that old and useless..but we all dropped serious coin on it in the olden days. But because current alternate energy tech isn't "perfect" yet--oh noes, it'll never work, it has too many problems, too 'spensive..oh mee oh my!!! etc.
Rubbish. Ask any one of those people across the country right now who has NO electricity from relying on the centrally located mega profits companies grid supplied electric whether or not a little de-centralized electric production might be better. You know, like more power plants, wind is nice, or solar panels on individual houses, etc. Go ahead, once they get back online how they feel about the big cos electric supply.
We've tried that "all your eggs in one basket" approach and take a look-it has a lot of problems too, from sticker shock, utility rates rising every year, to enron scams (you really think they are over, or they are just hiding their thievery better?), you get to be a perpetual renter of electricty to just plain lack of same-when you need it the most.
If you wait for computers to be the ultimate and perfect you'll never own one. If you wait for "alternative" energy to be ultimate and perfect before you use it on a mass scale..you'll be shivering in a cave someplace. That is what is going to happen if people keep procrastinating and just "studying" it or waiting for government to "do something" about it. Go ahead, wait for perfection, go buy another 10 kilowatts of juice sucking devices and keep hoping things will get magically better. That should work.
Go look at real numbers, we are running out. There hasn't been a SINGE mega field of oil found in decades now-decades. Gee, "the market" can't come up with another mega field. Wonder why..maybe it DON'T EXIST? Ok-swell, we'll switch to "coal". Uh huh, check about 98% of all scientists latest papers, that stuff is killing the atmosphere, you know, AIR, that stuff? Global climate change, etc? What a *wonderful* solution-not! And my fav, "we'll just build more NUKES!" I DARE anyone-you to try and find one commercial reactor that has electricity being sold "too cheap to meter", like I personally remember being said way back in the day. Where is the penny (or less) a kilowatt hour stuff? Decades ago, DECADES, they PROMISED to come up with a clean way to dispose of spent reactor fuel, the best they had back then was "submerge in pools of water or deep burial". Guess what, the pompous science-twits have since then, after billions of dollars in study come up with "submerge in pools of water and deep burial", along with keep fingers crossed. And have to install SAM missiles at all sites, in perpetuity. lovely.
It's never been cheap (barely beats coal by only a fraction of a cent now and today DOESN'T beat natgas), and there is NO long range viable solution for de buggifying nuclear waste. You can re process it-then what-the crap that is left over is "nasty stuff", as in WMD styled nasty stuff. Oh ya, we NEED more of that! Shoot, we might run out! They can't do it, there's no way to do it cheap and clean, and you want to trust them industry bozos with a track record of lying and obfuscation with 1,000 or 2,000 new nuke plants around the globe? Go ahead, run the odds..let's see, humans always have wars...every podunk "military force" now from small to huge has missiles..couple thousand new nuke plants around the planet..one missile gets through..whoo
This is not a bad idea, but like any other notion of harvesting energy from the kinetics of the planet, I think we ned to make sure we understand the full impact of removing that energy from the system that is the planet. Weather patterns rely on the energy inherent in air movement - and harvesting that, while seemingly innocuous, could be a bad idea. Aside from the other issues that come from wind-power farms, such as scaling, etc., this is something that must be considered before we start possibly causing unanticipated effects. Bear in mind, too, the scope and scale of ecological and meteorlogical impacts. Personally, I like the notion of an external source, myself, but I'm also aware of the limitations we face in trying to use it currently.
Karma: Excellent, but still won't get you laid.