Thread: "First hydrogen fuel-cell powered cars now being commercially produced"

Originally Posted by Baron von Lotsov

To separate hydrogen from oxygen requires more energy than the energy obtained by combining hydrogen with oxygen. I think the loss is about 25% to convert into hydrogen and on top of that you have the inefficiency of converting it back to mechanical power, which is about 50% approximately.

Quite so.
The car might be green. Fuel production not so green.

Originally Posted by Baron von Lotsov

To separate hydrogen from oxygen requires more energy than the energy obtained by combining hydrogen with oxygen. I think the loss is about 25% to convert into hydrogen and on top of that you have the inefficiency of converting it back to mechanical power, which is about 50% approximately. So you will need to burn more coal, oil or gas than if you didn't use this round about way of doing things. Of course it would be emission free if you generated the electricity with windmills but then that would cost twice as much as using oil!

On the other hand we do need to start finding other ways of getting around.

Inventions start less efficient when they our first brought into production then as time progresses the technology is refined and becomes cheaper.

It would appear nuclear power is in all reality the only way forward and if the government truly believe if we don't change our ways the world will end then they can use the tax on petrol to subsidize these cars or something along those lines. We all know they won't because in reality green taxes are a stealth tax and I have no doubt special interest groups and the oil cartels will do all in they're power to stop it.

Yet again why are the EU and the UN and the IPCC not promoting this and helping to get this on the road successfully.

Be sure that Gov'nt won't be thinking about the technical issues - they will be concentrating on the best way to tax the new power source.

The rationale for this will be that there are just too many cars on the road and road pricing probably catch everyone.

These schemes for "hydrogen economies" and "sustainable" power are manifestly not going to happen. They are not practical and there is no longer anywhere near enough time to attempt to implement them.

The simple fact is that there is no replacement for oil as a fuel. No alternative offers anything like the energy density, the chemical stability under ordinary circumstances, the ease of transportation and storage or is as easy to get hold of cheaply.

The average barrel of oil contains 6.0 Million BTU's, or the equivalent of 18,000 man hours of effort, approximately 8 years worth at 40 hours a week.

The fact is our society is only viable given the existence of cheap oil and gas, not just for transportation but for food production, the chemical industries and the logistics chains. It is probably that the British economy, and society which rests upon it, can sustain 100 dollar plus oil for about 12 months at the most in any recognizable form. Of course anything above that figure increases the strain upon the economy, exponentially increasing the chance of a catastrophic systematic collapse.

By my reckoning we have already progressed about half way to the point where the economy implodes, I believe we are already passed the point of no return. Northern Rock, 120 a liter petrol, inflation at 3.3%, wage demands of 13% this is the situation now. It will take a little time for this to feed into the economy and begin an age of mass unemployment and social fragmentation but when it does the results will be unprecedented and the 70's will appear like a golden age of prosperity by comparison. With the crucial difference that this time there is no North Sea to bale us out.

Its going to take a hell of a lot more than a car that runs on hydroygen and can refuel in one service station in the entire country to sort this one out.