hydrogen car from 1980

Miscellaneous Forums/General Discussion/hydrogen car from 1980

sorry, its a youtube link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJVzySk0Pks

here is Jack Nicholson from what I GUESS is 1980 talking about the hydrogen car that is working

1978 actually. One of the major arguments against hydrogen is that it takes twice as much energy to create it than it outputs. So I hear. But when you use solar power, I suppose there's no environmental impact to worry about making the stuff. I hear the cost of hydrogen cells are astronomical though.

One of the major arguments against hydrogen is that it takes twice as much energy to create it than it outputs.
That there is a complete fabrication. If you take one look at the oil sands in Alberta, for example, you will see an incredible ammount of perfectly good fossil fuels going into extracting oil from the ground. (Which then must be further processed to finally be burned uncleanly in a car's engine).
The actual waste generated by these extractions is remarkable. It's plainly visible in satellite imagery; absolute devastation of the landscape. I don't think it takes much thought to realize how much energy is involved there in setup alone.

The Only reason oil can be considered easy to acquire is because an infrastructure has been building around it for ages, and because the powers that be would prefer us to believe that.

Besides this, consider batteries. They do not deliver quite as much energy to a device as they initially charge with; you are paying a little for convenience. In the case of hydrogen fuel, you are paying a little extra for any associated waste to be centralized -- much like with power going to houses.

One of the major arguments against hydrogen is that it takes twice as much energy to create it than it outputs.
Which is actually quite remarkable, compared to other forms of energy. Second law of thermodynamics and all that.

I hear the cost of hydrogen cells are astronomical though.
As opposed to the cost of petrol, I assume?

I'm saying that using dirty energy to create clean energy is not helping the environment very much, if at all. 95% of American hydrogen is created using fossil fuels. BMW predict a hydrogen fueling system in place by 2020, which is pretty cool.

As opposed to the cost of petrol, I assume?


Exactly. I don't know what the current prices are, but I visited my local university and they deal with hydrogen fuel cells to power mopeds, and those fuel cells cost $80k.

would it be possible to use solar panels to power hydrolysis?

I thought that Fisker Karma was a cool hybrid. has a small petrol engine that doesn't drive the car, only generates electricity when the battery is down. If you do 50 miles you don't use the engine unless its in sport mode. Still have to plug it in every night though.

Looks pretty cool, 4 seater, RWD, in sport mode o-60 in 6 seconds top speed 125.

Seems pretty cool, and allthough expensive at $80,000 its still a step forward for those that hope to drive a efficient sports car someday.



would it be possible to use solar panels to power hydrolysis?

Yup, they're doing that right now in some places. That's the idea for the future anyways, using clean energy to make the hydrogen, otherwise it's kind of all for nothing.

I'm saying that using dirty energy to create clean energy is not helping the environment very much, if at all.
I don't really care much about the environment. I want a fuel cell car because it's COOL!

Exactly. I don't know what the current prices are, but I visited my local university and they deal with hydrogen fuel cells to power mopeds, and those fuel cells cost $80k.
Well obviously if they're using fossil fuels to create the fuel cells, then the price is going to be just as prohibitive as fossil fuels. On Iceland public transportation uses "Fuel Cell Bus Club", buses powered by hydrogen extracted using energy made from their cheap and abundant geothermal energy.

Any small company that tried to put something like this out would get bought out. If they refused, or could not be taken over hostily, the owners would be killed.

Solar panels are great until you remember they have a half-life (generate less electricity with time) and generally a usefulness of around 10 years. The most efficient are the most effective and themselves take energy to create. They also use environmentally unfriendly and non-reusable componds.

Sticking batteries in cars is not the answer either. Batteries are extremely environmentally unfriendly when they come to the end of their life (which they will do within 2 years if used for a daily commute). Also, I don't know about elsewhere in the world, but electricity in the UK is extremely expensive. Charging your electric car every night is going to cost more, mile for mile, than petrol or deisel.

The electricity to charge your eletric car is generally created by burning fossil fuels. Nuclear power isn't the defining answer here either, uranium supplies are a lot less plentiful and subject to more rapid market fluctuations than the fossil fuel industry.

Our only truly renewable energy sources are geothermal (virtually undepletable), tidal, wave, wind and via dams.

Burning hydrogen may be an elegantly clean reaction, but creating it, transporting it and making use of it safely are still problems yet to be solved.

If they refused, or could not be taken over hostly, the owners would be killed.

There is a legend that Rudolf Diesel was murdered because he was developing an engine that ran on water.

I don't care about the environment to the point a lot of people seem to. I do think its important to develop more efficient engines, or more efficient hybrids. Newer batteries will be developed like in the Karma sports car and better.

I'm more interested in getting over the dependance on oil, and if Diesels were clean enough to be sold in California I'd get a diesel as my hauler car to compliment my MX5.

I do think they should stop making 3000 - 4000 lbs sports cars with gigantic engines. But of course everyone is scared of health and safety and silly gadgets to disconnect drivers from the road. 15 years ago most sporty little cars weighed around 2000lb and had decent power to weight ratios so you didn't need big thirsty engines.

2005 VW golf weighs 400 - 500 lb's more than a 1995 model.

today the VW rabbit (polo) in the us comes with a base 2.5L 5 cylinder engine. thats the smallest you can buy.

Smallest engine in a Ford focus here is a 2.0 liter.

Diesels are not sold in California because they havent been able to pass SMOG emissions tests.

One interesting thing is that this year was the first time petrol consumption dropped in the USA. When I first came here around y2k petrol was about $1.50 a gallon, now it often hits $4.20 for premium, people are starting to take notice which is why the prius is so popular over here now.

... was about $1.50 a gallon, now it often hits $4.20 for premium ...
It still amazes me how cheap fuel is in the states!

We're over £1 per litre for regular fuel, let alone premium... So that's around £5 per gallon, which is about $10 per gallon.

My car is a awesome powerhouse that is a 1.4L VW Polo.

I filled my car up today at £1.18 per litre (or £5.37 per UK gallon, if you like).

In US gallons, it equates to $8.70 per gallon (A US gallon being quite a bit smaller than a UK one).

BTW: My car is a Focus 1.8TDDI that does nearly 60 miles to a UK gallon.

yeah, Diesel cars arent currently allowed to be sold here in California. Only heavy duty trucks can be bought with a diesel option.

They need to go back to smaller engined lighter cars. I drive a 1.8 MX5 and a 15 year old 1.8 V6 Mazda MX3. Both cars are high reving and not really designed for economy, but both get pretty good mpg for over here.

Average mpg of all 2004 vehicles avaliable for sale in the us was 24.7 mpg. Whilst the average in france 46mpg. Of course our gallons are 20% smaller and I'm not even sure you can buy a new car under 2.0L now.

Only reason I can think of for not allowing small slow cars is that people are useless drivers and there is no land disciplin on US roads. Here in CA people do 74 in the slow lane and 18 wheelers overtake at upto 80mph in the middle lane, whilst passenger cars overtake at 75 - 90 in any lane they fancy (without indicating). Even a your average minivan will do 0-60 in about 7-8 seconds.

my 1.8 MX5 is underpowered and some motorway ramps habe stop lights at the end just before you merege into the slow lane with traffic often doing 70mph+.

The stop light is at the end of the motorway entrance to spread out the traffic entering the freeway and make it easier for people to merge in rush hour traffic. Pretty crazy stuff.

oh, check out this on/off ramp near where I used to live. I used to hate that place, exiting and entering traffic have to cross over at speed with very little room. Pretty crazy trying to get speed to enter the freeway not knowing if someones going to be braking hard to exit whilst speeding incase someones entering the freeway at high speed.



Richards boulevard that passes over the motorway in the pic isn't another motorway, its just a regular street in a small town. Funny how the roads are over here.

Heh, Davis...Marxist hell full of hideously ugly people.

hehe, was wondering if you would see that pic. Didn't like Davis either :).

I remember some old hippie standing behind me in line at the grocery store started telling me I didn't need to have the North Face logo on my jacket.