News: We are saved: Screw petrol, 0.4$/L hydrogen gasoline FTW

Petrol companies wont let this happen for now

x2

But I think a new synthetic fuel is definitely more practical than electric cars.

Both of which would take a long time to become common unfortunately. But we can keep using gasoline forever!
 
Looks good but there are a couple things to sort out. You have to look at the big picture.

Hydrogen is more powerful/volume than gasoline or batteries however you must take into account it's distribution infrastructure, the current market, and the usability.

Hydrogen is not the solution just because it's quite volatile, hard to transport, cannot be meshed into the current gas station infrastructure easily and becomes way to expensive to be profitable for a number of years into its life.

Seeing this looks like a good stepping stone but ultimately with hydrogen you don't want to explode it but use it in a fuel cell.

Also in the end you're still dependent on somebody for your fuel source. Technically if today I had a Nissan Leaf or Mitsubishi MiEV I could buy myself maybe 5000$ worth of equipment to harness renewable energies and for the life of the car i wouldn't have to pay a black cent to anybody for fuel. Supply and demand could fluctuate all it wants I wouldn't care and the bonus is that in the off time instead of charging the car I'd be pumping energy into the house to lower the hydro bill.
 
Looks good but there are a couple things to sort out. You have to look at the big picture.

Hydrogen is more powerful/volume than gasoline or batteries however you must take into account it's distribution infrastructure, the current market, and the usability.

Hydrogen is not the solution just because it's quite volatile, hard to transport, cannot be meshed into the current gas station infrastructure easily and becomes way to expensive to be profitable for a number of years into its life.

Seeing this looks like a good stepping stone but ultimately with hydrogen you don't want to explode it but use it in a fuel cell.

Also in the end you're still dependent on somebody for your fuel source. Technically if today I had a Nissan Leaf or Mitsubishi MiEV I could buy myself maybe 5000$ worth of equipment to harness renewable energies and for the life of the car i wouldn't have to pay a black cent to anybody for fuel. Supply and demand could fluctuate all it wants I wouldn't care and the bonus is that in the off time instead of charging the car I'd be pumping energy into the house to lower the hydro bill.

Instead of spending more on electricity, you can simply move closer to your workplace. I, for one, drive my car for fun only. I spend more money on rent and less on the car now. Also, living next to school/work means you get to snooze a lot longer!:bigup:

By the way, this technology completely solves the issue of explosions, volatility, high pressure, low temperature, dangers of transportation. You are actually transporting nano-sized plastic marbles around. This is probably the best we can do as far as I know.
 
Instead of spending more on electricity, you can simply move closer to your workplace. I, for one, drive my car for fun only. I spend more money on rent and less on the car now. Also, living next to school/work means you get to snooze a lot longer!:bigup:

By the way, this technology completely solves the issue of explosions, volatility, high pressure, low temperature, dangers of transportation. You are actually transporting nano-sized plastic marbles around. This is probably the best we can do as far as I know.

The main issue would be nano-contamination. As for your remarks about wasting electricity, I guess you are part of the global warming crowd. I understand it's nice to pretend and imagine that you can make a difference by using less water or using your car less, but the fact is it doesn't.

More so, synthetic fuel has been a possibility for the past 15 years. Japan already produces it. Petroleum companies are owned by conglomerates and they are very deeply involved with the green taxation frenzies and government policy. They would rather make you pay indulgences to use your car and use gas then to have you use a product that is less harmful and more efficient. Cars are 30% efficient, imagine if they were 50% or even 35% efficient that is billions of dollars lost to the petroleum/green tax movement.
 
The main issue would be nano-contamination. As for your remarks about wasting electricity, I guess you are part of the global warming crowd. I understand it's nice to pretend and imagine that you can make a difference by using less water or using your car less, but the fact is it doesn't.

More so, synthetic fuel has been a possibility for the past 15 years. Japan already produces it. Petroleum companies are owned by conglomerates and they are very deeply involved with the green taxation frenzies and government policy. They would rather make you pay indulgences to use your car and use gas then to have you use a product that is less harmful and more efficient. Cars are 30% efficient, imagine if they were 50% or even 35% efficient that is billions of dollars lost to the petroleum/green tax movement.

30% efficient is being nice. From tank to wheels it could be less than 10% efficient. A combustion motor itself is about 30% efficient at translating the energy of gasoline into mechanical power. From there you need to take into account the loss in transmission and other components. Electric provide less energy but it's much more efficient.

Instead of spending more on electricity, you can simply move closer to your workplace. I, for one, drive my car for fun only. I spend more money on rent and less on the car now. Also, living next to school/work means you get to snooze a lot longer!:bigup:

By the way, this technology completely solves the issue of explosions, volatility, high pressure, low temperature, dangers of transportation. You are actually transporting nano-sized plastic marbles around. This is probably the best we can do as far as I know.

Your right moving closer would help but regardless of outside improvements if you take 1 situation and apply it to gas, hydrogen and electric, unless you lived more than 200km round trip from work the electric takes it hands down.

It does solve most problem that pure hydrogen has but like I said it's still intended to go into a combustion engine which is prehistoric technology. 100 years it's about time to dump it. It's time for a mechanical electric engine.

Lastly like Od_man pointed out nano is bad. We look to it as our savior however at that level it can easily permeate the body and some systems in the body and we haven't got the means to stop it.

I'm almost done school, my goal in life is to create an open source electric vehicle. I don't care about the money I just want things to change.
 
The main issue would be nano-contamination. As for your remarks about wasting electricity, I guess you are part of the global warming crowd. I understand it's nice to pretend and imagine that you can make a difference by using less water or using your car less, but the fact is it doesn't.

More so, synthetic fuel has been a possibility for the past 15 years. Japan already produces it. Petroleum companies are owned by conglomerates and they are very deeply involved with the green taxation frenzies and government policy. They would rather make you pay indulgences to use your car and use gas then to have you use a product that is less harmful and more efficient. Cars are 30% efficient, imagine if they were 50% or even 35% efficient that is billions of dollars lost to the petroleum/green tax movement.

Sorry, not a hippie:D

I don't think about the world. Whichever direction it is heading toward, I have very little influence on it. Hippies simply do not understand that. They think that by recycling their bottles that the world would be saved. I recycle because there is a recycling bin next to the dumpster.

Cars i.e. passenger vehicles are not suppose to be efficient. When I think cheap and efficient transportation, I think of the Deux-Montagnes train line. It is an electric train that takes thousands of passengers to-and-from work everyday. I know what the commuters on that line will say: "Doesn't come often enough." Well, assuming enough people take it, it would come more often.

Also, nano-structures is my research domain, so I enjoy this topic very much! :bigup:

I don't think that big oil companies are going to stop this innovation from completion because the papers have been published. Even if England doesn't do it, someone else will.

I agree with some of the people in this thread though; the common combustion passenger vehicle is played-out and won't last forever.
 
30% efficient is being nice. From tank to wheels it could be less than 10% efficient. A combustion motor itself is about 30% efficient at translating the energy of gasoline into mechanical power. From there you need to take into account the loss in transmission and other components. Electric provide less energy but it's much more efficient.



Your right moving closer would help but regardless of outside improvements if you take 1 situation and apply it to gas, hydrogen and electric, unless you lived more than 200km round trip from work the electric takes it hands down.

It does solve most problem that pure hydrogen has but like I said it's still intended to go into a combustion engine which is prehistoric technology. 100 years it's about time to dump it. It's time for a mechanical electric engine.

Lastly like Od_man pointed out nano is bad. We look to it as our savior however at that level it can easily permeate the body and some systems in the body and we haven't got the means to stop it.

I'm almost done school, my goal in life is to create an open source electric vehicle. I don't care about the money I just want things to change.

Electric car = the end of fun cars to drive. One-speed, completely silent boring 30 kpm with a 160 km autonomy isn't what I'd like to have when 20 years from now.
 
^The market for electric simply never came, nor will it. Even with gas at 3$/L.

It will never come probably because they probably had decent enough technology back in the day, repressed it and now if we learned of the truth they'd leap frog it.

You know cars actually started as electrics back in the day right, like late 1800's.


Electric car = the end of fun cars to drive. One-speed, completely silent boring 30 kpm with a 160 km autonomy isn't what I'd like to have when 20 years from now.

What are you talking about.

Look at the Tesla roadster available today. Far from boring the only problem is manufacturing hasn't become main stream so components are very expensive and production cost high. Give it time and it'll become cheap.

Nice thing about electric is the things you can do. Like put 4 smaller motors one in each wheel and you not only get the efficiency way higher but you can have a much better electronic control system and even get to a point where you can make the car spin on itself.

I'm not for electric car necessarily for the environment (although it is a bonus), but what the potential electric car can bring if we develop the technology further.
 
Look at the Tesla roadster available today. Far from boring the only problem is manufacturing hasn't become main stream so components are very expensive and production cost high. Give it time and it'll become cheap.

Yeah, real fun. A shit-ton of batteries, push button transmission and no noise. That's the exact definition of driving pleasure right there.

Fast doesn't always equals fun.
 
Yeah, real fun. A shit-ton of batteries, push button transmission and no noise. That's the exact definition of driving pleasure right there.

Fast doesn't always equals fun.

And fuel prices, key ignition and a rumbling engine are?


Don't get me wrong i enjoy the sound of a nice exhaust but please tell me what you think is fun in a car.

Your right in that fast doesn't always equal fun. To me it's handling and an electric car has the potential to be greater in that regard.

The real kicker is I find cars boring. To cruise I get on my bike. Top speed is only 160kph but it's more fun than just about every vehicle on the road.
 
There is still no point to scrap existing combustion engine vehicules just to replace them. It could give combustion engines a second life...
 
The combustion engine is going to stay. No Global warming hoax will take away a device that has had 100 years of success.

By the way confirmed:


http://news.discovery.com/tech/synthetic-gasoline-for-150gallon-and-no-emissions.html

It's not the fact that the planet is warming up faster then it normally should that will make the combustion engine obsolete. It is the fact that it's an old, out dated, design. It as served it's time. Following your logic (or lack off) we should keep lighting everything with incandescent bulbs because...

device that has had 100 years of success

Afraid of changes or what??
 
It's not the fact that the planet is warming up faster then it normally should that will make the combustion engine obsolete. It is the fact that it's an old, out dated, design. It as served it's time. Following your logic (or lack off) we should keep lighting everything with incandescent bulbs because...



Afraid of changes or what??

The planet isn't warming up, global warming never was real. It's a part of the same imagination process that brings reason to meaningless life like yours.

We are celestial beings with a life span of a 100 years, this Earth is Billions of years old, don't flatter yourself, we have no effect.

Global warming is not a fact, it's not even a hypothesis that your green friends bring up at seminars or discussions anymore. The term now, is climate uncertainty. Even the green crowd has been partitioned a thousand fold because of the flagrant manipulation of data, it's not you, nor me that can deny that.

More so, I once was convinced like you, it's years of being around climatologists and environmental Engineers that I was convince that Climate Change was not an issue.

GMO, Depleted Uranium, PM 2.5, Radioactive waste, Water contamination now those are issues.
 
If hydrogen fuel really pans out, imagine the economic benefits to the province of Quebec! Building those hydrogen pills near the hydroelectric station would be best because it is a clean source of electricity! I see a good future for out province if it works in the end!
 
All this is just pure frame. 0.4$/L is still more expensive than gasoline !

A typical hydrogen car will consume approximately 3.7 times more fuel to generate the same amount of energy. So you guys choose : paying 1.20$/L of gasoline or 1.48$/L for liquid hydrogen ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency

Please note that I'm not only talking about money here... not the advantages/disavantages of both technologies...
 
Back
Top