Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Hydrogen Powered Toy Car 165

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the who-will-be-the-first-to-just-use-the-hydrogen dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hydrogen Powered Toy Car

Comments Filter:
  • by gwhenning (693443) on Monday July 24, 2006 @08:40PM (#15773459)
    So will all the kids be able to setup hydrogen stands when the real cars comeout?
  • I get... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24, 2006 @08:40PM (#15773460)
    3 miles to a mole of hydrogen!!!
  • Big Oil (Score:1, Interesting)

    by ronark (803478)

    "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."

    This could be solved in a single day if the world's major oil corporations would embrace this new technology instead of relying on a fuel system that will one day be depleted. Imagine the energy problems that could be solved if these companies would

    • Re:Big Oil (Score:5, Interesting)

      by gatzke (2977) on Monday July 24, 2006 @08:52PM (#15773498) Homepage Journal
      Do you have any clue about fuel cell technology? PV solar cells? You can't just spout off "oil companies are bad, mmmkay."

      Current PEMFC fuel cells use a lot of platinum and are generally pretty big for automotive use. There are a lot of hurdles to get past (including hydrogen storage).

      And hydrogen is not energy, it is a way to transport / store energy. Hydrogen won't solve all our problems.

      And soloer has been five years out for thirty years. They are getting better, but it still is not economically viable.

      If oil stays up above $60, maybe we will see more new technology. Most likely, we will see a lot of coal gasification plants go up, since we have 200 years of coal in the US.

      You personally can get all the hippee environmental technology you want, you just have to pay 2x or 3x or 10x for it. Have fun.
      • Re:Big Oil (Score:5, Funny)

        by pete-classic (75983) <hutnick@gmail.com> on Monday July 24, 2006 @09:04PM (#15773537) Homepage Journal
        I would like to withdraw my post in this thread. Seeing this guy get bitch-slapped by a Chemical Engineering Professor with a four-digit user ID was way better than what I said!

        -Peter
        • Are you trying to say that professors are unbiased? (particularly judging by the choice of words)

          To make things worse, an avid Slashdot user. sheesh.
          • "Everybody has an agenda. Everyone." --Banky Edwards

            When I went to school I was what most people would classify as "conservative"*. I am very aware that Profs have their own points of view.

            Professors are, at least in theory, highly skilled in their respective disciplines. The poster in question is, apparently, a Professor of Chemical Engineering. I think what you were picking up on was that I think this guy's field is relevant to the discussion at hand.

            In short, no, that's not what I'm trying to say.

            -P
      • Re:Big Oil (Score:4, Insightful)

        by TubeSteak (669689) on Monday July 24, 2006 @09:08PM (#15773554) Journal
        If oil stays up above $60, maybe we will see more new technology.
        One of the OPEC countries came right out and said that they aren't happy about oil prices being so high, as it will encourage investment in alternative energy.

        It was a relatively recent news article that I read it in.
      • What about biodiesel?

        Also.. we have plenty of viable sources of clean energy.. hydroelectric turbines come to mind..

        making it portable is where the kink is..

        make battery technology cheap enough and dense enough and there's no need for chemical storage.
        • Re:Big Oil (Score:2, Insightful)

          by nuggz (69912)
          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.
          • yeah.. well so is there one to humans building houses.. maybe we should just all die..

            placing turbines at the bottom of the ocean... say at the foot of the arctic circle where there are massive deep currents caused by cooling surface water would be an excellent idea.

            Design them with catchers designed to keep out the majority of sea life and theyll have all the environmental impact of large boulders.

            The point is minimize the impact.. dont refuse options with less impact than the ones now because it will be "
            • Re:Big Oil (Score:5, Insightful)

              by hiryuu (125210) on Monday July 24, 2006 @11:14PM (#15773884)
              placing turbines at the bottom of the ocean... say at the foot of the arctic circle where there are massive deep currents caused by cooling surface water would be an excellent idea.

              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 [sciencenews.org] idea [aip.org]. 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 [wikipedia.org], myself, but I'm also aware of the limitations we face in trying to use it currently.

              • this is something that must be considered before we start possibly causing unanticipated effects

                This is the problem I have with these arguments. We are burning oil faster than ever before with glaciers melting at unheard of rates which can have huge consquences; yet we should sit and wait until we understand how some new idea will affect the planet?

                It is like a fat person drinking a six-pack of beer, smoking two-pack of cigarettes with a dinner of pork-rinds waits for a report on "how bad vitamins are

                • This is the problem I have with these arguments. We are burning oil faster than ever before with glaciers melting at unheard of rates which can have huge consquences; yet we should sit and wait until we understand how some new idea will affect the planet?

                  You've attributed to me a statement I didn't make - as I didn't address our dependence on fossil fuels (nor the effects of doing such). Moving to a specific alternate energy source and reducing our usage of oil, while connected, are not the same action.

                  I

          • by Anonymous Coward
            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 (m
      • Re:Big Oil (Score:5, Insightful)

        by kfg (145172) * on Monday July 24, 2006 @10:09PM (#15773713)
        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
        • If I designed a city you couldn't see it from the air. The trees would be all in the way and shit.


          I live in Los Angeles. When I take Sepulvida Pass into the San Fernando Valley by day, what I see is occasional large buildings rising up through the trees, and the bigger streets. I'm sure there are many other cities like that. The only reason you see the buildings from an airplane is that the trees don't, in general, cover the roofs.

        • 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.

          Sigh...

          Okay, let's throw some numbers out, just for laughs. These are pulled out of my rear-end numbers and they could very well be wrong. But I'm using them to make a point.

          Take our dear ol' American Harvester. Let's say it takes a thousand gallons of oil to build one. Let's say it takes a thousand gallons of o

      • 200 years of coal you say. There might not be anyone around to run the plants...

        http://www.harbornet.com/sunflower/hotter.html [harbornet.com]

      • You personally can get all the hippee environmental technology you want

        Water running through turbines to generate electricity, windmills pumping water out on the farm, solar cells on navigation beacons or pocket calculators - hippee technology?

        Sometimes it's better to consider the best tool for the job instead of getting all emotional. Even some nuclear power technology which looks stupid on economic grounds has its place - need some plutonium to be produced in your small country? CANDU!

        Anyone who pushes t

      • You are already paying 2x for oil than you were a few years ago:
        http://www.atg.wa.gov/consumer/gasprices/images/gr aphs/Slide5.GIF [wa.gov]
        Oil prices are not dropping anytime soon. Have fun with that.

        From what I've read electric cars are better for the environment than gas even when one considers that most of the energy produced to power the car is produced by coal firing plants(in the US).

        Hydrogen is a replacement for the battery in an electric car. It's actually a really bad replacement because an electric car c
        • People buy SUVs because they work. You can haul a boat or your entire basketball team. You can't do that in your EV1 or prius.

          People buy SUVs because they are convenient. You can refuel in 5-10 minutes almost anywhere and drive 300 miles. Your EV1 is ready to go 100 miles (maybe) in just a few hours using a special charger.

          People buy SUVs because they last. You can drive a SUV into the ground, while you need to replace batteries in your EV1 in just a few years.

          Electrolosys causes maybe 85% energy loss,
        • Why be so recent, google electric cars.
          One link points out they existed back in the 1800's
          http://www.didik.com/ev_hist.htm [didik.com]

          They just weren't competitive then and aren't competative today.

          Hydrogen is being pushed because it is a zero emissions solution, and that makes people happy. Problem is that NIMBY becomes less relevant when you're talking global issues (warming and oil shortages)
      • Hydrogen is dead anyway [thewatt.com]. Way too much energy is required to make hydrogen. Batteries are at least 3 times more efficient, today they are 2.5 times cheaper than PEM fuel cells (although, still way too expensive) and the new Tesla EV actually has a better range (at 250 miles) compared to Honda's FCX which has a range of only 190 miles.

        ...yes, hydrogen is hype, and unfortunately ethanol seems to be the new hydrogen.

        • Right, Ethanol may not be the best way. Energy costs to harvest, energy costs to convert biomass to ethanol, and land use issues get in the way. You only get 1-2 harvests per year, while PV solar goes on any sunny day.

          Tesla costs what, $100k? That is a bit unreasonable. And the batteries need replacing periodically.

          Coolest tech I have seen recently are mutant algae that produces butanol. Butanol should separate from water easily (ethanol separation from water is quite energy intensive). Algae ponds ca
      • Perhaps the most salient point of the chemeng professor's post is the one about cost. If the hydrocarbon stocks are finite then the sooner we burn them up that happier we will all be because by doing so the cheapest energy solution will be something other than oil as soon as possible. It is not until the hydrocarbon _at the bowser_ price reaches more than "alternative" that this problem will go away.

        Now this presents an interesting question. Government could make this cost ratio tke place _today_ via the us

        • I don't like taxes as a solution either, but it could work to discourage undesirable behaviors, like our dependence on oil.

          The way we usually do it here in the states is offer tax breaks, so it does not generate new income to be mis-managed by the gubbament, only reduces the budget.

          If you are mostly driven by environmental concerns (global warming / cooling / change) you run into the kyoto problem, where a boatload of countries don't have the same standards and you end up just costing a group of people a lo
      • by orn (34773)
        The only problem I see is with your 2x - 10x cost calculation. The problem is that the price that we pay at the pump (and for the car when we buy it) doesn't roll in the total cost of the vehicle.

        There's a cost that is not captured by that calculation, but it is very real.

        It's the cost that it's going to take to clean up the pollutants left over after you burn the oil or coal or even hydrogen. In the first two cases, it's very expensive to scrub the atmosphere of CO2 and the other pollutants produced. Cl
        • You are totally correct, you need to examine life cycle costs.

          Costs can include:

          Economic (intial, use, disposal)
          Environmental
          Personal (inconvieniece)
          Local (big stinky local plant)
          National (security)
          Global (sustainable)

          So really it is a neat multi objective optimization problem, Pareto optimality and Nash equilibria and all that stuff. Your objective function is a weighted objective:

          obj = w1 E + w2 P + w3 L + w4 N + w5 G

          Since those values aren't all $ costs, it also depends on how you evaluat
          • Cash is King

            I'm no game theorist, but I definitely don't believe that this is a pareto optimality or any one of Nash's game systems. In those, the rules are known by the participants (or assumed, anyway). I don't really believe that the average person at the pump knows the rules to this particular game.

            I agree with your categorization. Those are definitely characteristics that need to be considered in whichever fuel system to use.

            But I'd like to see more cash values assigned to those categories. Economi
    • I think that's a little naive. A lot of money has been invested in hydrogen power, and not much to show for it. Not to mention any technology that involves the mass deprecation of existing internal combustion engines is not likely to be cheap to roll out, or popular in most quarters (not just Big Oil). Why would you expect that they would invest in something outside their expertise anyway? We (the people) really have to take the initiative and mandate research with funding.

      That's why things like bio-die
      • Re:Big Oil (Score:5, Insightful)

        by gatzke (2977) on Monday July 24, 2006 @09:15PM (#15773579) Homepage Journal

        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.
        • From what I've read, China is seriously looking into ethanol production after these past few years of Middle Eastern conflict. They know the handwriting is on the wall with Iran. The recent events with Israel further solidified shit hitting the fan. Despite their budding up with Russia, they still don't quite trust them. In fact, China trusts the US far more than Russia from an economic standpoint. Yes, I know they conduct military training with Russia but that's because they have a policy of "keep your fri
    • Re:Big Oil (Score:2, Insightful)

      by pete-classic (75983)

      This could be solved in a single day if the world's major oil corporations would embrace this new technology [. . .] Unfortunately there is more money in forcing people to deal with and dated and often poorly implemented technology [. . .]

      Congratulations, that's the stupidest thing I've ever read on Slashdot, and I've seen some doozies.

      1. Is it the oil companies job to put themselves out of business?
      2. Do you really believe that this problem can be parallelized down to the point that it can be solved on a time-f
    • Reminds me of groups that have two AA's in their names.

      AARP? Quit pickin' on the old folks, man!

    • Re:Big Oil (Score:2, Insightful)

      We-eeell, probably longer than a single day.

      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 inve

    • You have to keep in mind that research, by itself, is not profitable. Think about it this way: you own a company that sells crude oil. You know that in quite a bit of time that the oil reserves will be depleted. Now, you could continue selling that oil that you already know exists and you know where it is, all you have to do is pull it out of the ground and sell. Or, you could put tons of money into research for something that is already being researched elsewhere, and when/if you find something big, you'll
    • by alizard (107678) <alizard&ecis,com> on Monday July 24, 2006 @09:45PM (#15773648) Homepage
      At last weekend's Lucerne Fuel Cell Conference, Ulf Bossel, the organizer, made a pretty signinficant announcement: the European PEMFC Forum series will not be continued because hydrogen fuel will never contribute to a sustainable world [yahoo.com]. Instead they will focus on phosphoric acid fuel cells, molten carbonate fuel cells and solid oxide fuel cells which "can meet the challenges of a sustainable future".

      When the researchers themselves are packing it in despite the increasing availability of funding for alternative energy research, it's all over.

      The places where hydrogen is viable are the ones where there's plenty of cheap "green" energy... like Iceland. The US is not one of those places. Ethanol isn't going to replace all the gasoline we use, either, no matter how many agribusinesses want to make it so. There isn't enough farmland. The Brazillians can make it work because their climate and soil favor sugar cane in a way that ours doesn't and because there aren't as many of them or as many motor vehicles.

      The main use that hydrogen has for the rest of us is a "desperately needs a clue" detector... anyone who talks about "the hydrogen economy of the future" can automatically be pigeonholed as being full of shit. Let this be a lesson to you with respect to who you ought to be listening to about "green" energy.

      This isn't to say that Kunstler's babbling bullshit about "there is NO alternative energy future" is true, either. The most interesting research I know of is algae biomass > biodiesel, which already has a couple or three VC-funded efforts going on.

      • The Brazillians can make it work because their climate and soil favor sugar cane in a way that ours doesn't

        Speaking of which (out of my bum, of course), Monsanto, where the hell's the cold-growing sugar cane? Get on it.
        • is probably considerably more cost-effective. We want a vegetable oil that can be changed into biodiesel, for us, leaves, stalks and roots are just a waste of solar energy and fertilizer in this case. An algae species suitable for biomass fuel can be looked at as a cellular membrane enclosing a mixture of PUFA, water, and crud.
          • I know nothing about algae: How thick can you grow it? What's the biodiesel/ethanol yield per square mile in a layer of algae as compared to big sugar stalks? And can you grow it on dirt? If the people the government pays to grow corn can't grow it, it won't happen.
            • to get the answers? If you want them from me, you're going to be waiting quite a long while. I'm researching information to be used in a biomass > biodiesel business plan myself at this point.

              In general, it depends on which species and what conditions they're grown under. If you want an overview, go here [unh.edu].

              Note: one area on which there seems to be a consensus. If one is primarily interested in growing biomass energy, don't bother with open air ponds. Too hard to keep unwanted algae species from growing.

          • algae biomass is probably considerably more cost-effective.

            Definately not. Algae biomass has some great things going for it, the biggest of which is that it can scale to produce large quantities of biodiesel using a small amount of land. Compare this to traditional biomass sources, which would need all the aritable land on the earth to match our current gasoline and diesel consumption. However, it is not even close to being economical. When the DOE ended it's algae program in the late 90's, the optimistic e
            • I wish the researchers all the best luck

              Thank you.

              Where are you getting your "NREL" numbers?

              Mike Brigg's paper [unh.edu] is derived from the NREL numbers from the final NREL Aquatic Species Project report, and he says that our cost per barrel drops based on operating costs.

              My own unpublished work (published and NDA doesn't go well together) says that output can be sold for under the current price of oil ($75/barrel), including capitalization and profit margin... and my numbers are more current than the 1996 NRE

    • There's a great white-paper on Tesla Motor's site:

      http://www.teslamotors.com/learn_more/white_papers .php?js_enabled=1 [teslamotors.com]

      Basically, hydrogen sounds like it wont work, not in the near-term. On the other hand, new battery technologies are hopefully close at hand, like the ultra capacitors from EEStor. If we get this working, it could mostly eliminate our oil imports, and clean up the air. I posted a blog entry at:

      http://www.billrocks.org/ideas/index.php?/archives /15-Saving-the-World-with-Electric-Cars.html [billrocks.org]
    • Hey, hot shot... You forget one thing. Most of today's hydrogen is made from what? Natural Gas. Even the alternative, electrolysis, is expensive and requires lots of electricity which is produced mostly from what? Natural Gas and Coal. So much for the squeaky clean hydrogen fuel theory, huh.
    • Because changing national infrastructure that was originally designed to transport a large-molecule liquid into one that can transport a gas with the smallest atomic weight is a trivial problem that can be solved and implemented overnight. While I sincerely doubt big oil's good intentions, it's not them who needs to get a clue.
  • by WidescreenFreak (830043) on Monday July 24, 2006 @08:53PM (#15773505) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • by Tokin84 (919029) on Monday July 24, 2006 @08:58PM (#15773516)
    while it is clear that hydrogen appears to be the future, it is important to recognize that our current hydrogen supply is derived from hydrocarbons like oil and coal. although coal gassification + the water-gas shift reaction do provide hydrogen and carbon dioxide, it is not in pure form (containing too much water vapor) which will allow for a closed loop system necessary for a car. additionally, getting hydrogen from a hydrocarbon source does not remove our dependency on foreign sources of fuel, but merely recycles them. we need to find ways to gain hydrogen and alternative energies which allow us to be independent of others.
  • Is China another word for porn?

    Kudos!

    My idea is for inside the city, at intersections put solar cells in the middle (under thick glass), and have hydrogen injectors for cars at red lights.
    • As much as I am not wild about China, in some ways, they are our best friend. Our politicians (esp. Reagan and W.) would not take a long term look at making our country dependant on nations such as Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, etc. Now, China is forcing the demand to increase, which is forcing oil prices up. Now, is the time for the west to break our dependancies on Oil and Coal. That is not to say that our use of it will disappear. In fact, Oil is far more useful in manufactuering than for energy. But while it i
  • by narkotix (576944) on Monday July 24, 2006 @09:05PM (#15773538)
  • by Anonymous Coward
    A true American drives an SUV.
    Are tiny people gonna drive these tiny cars with tiny fuel cells?

    Huh? Huh??? (while prodding someone smaller nearby)
  • I guess next the auto industry is going to start advertising that these prove that fuelcell vehicles are going to be here real soon now.

    I find it funny that the press will 'bang' on the Tesla for costing 80,000 but they'll show those $1,000,000 hydrogen fuelcell vehicles without mentioning the cost. :-/

    I guess it's all in days work of keeping the public naive.

    LoB
  • Thames and Kosmos already have produced a fuel cell car kit [thamesandkosmos.com] that works fairly well. (I.E. you really can use photovoltaics to split distilled 2*H20 into 2*H2 + O2, and recombine it to provide power to run the car.) This has been out for what, two years? Good to see they're getting more popular, I guess.
  • as in, you can't get (meaningful) quantities of hydrogen
    out of the ground.

    See also for example:
    http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/081803_h ydrogen_answers.html [fromthewilderness.com]
    http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&st oryid=581 [evworld.com]

    among many other reports of why the heralded hydrogen economy
    has a place in the pantheon of the FSM and his noodly appendage.
  • hellooooooo (Score:2, Informative)

    by d1g1taltv (896476)
    nobody provides any freakin links on this site http://www.horizonfuelcell.com/buynow.php [horizonfuelcell.com]
  • by Locutus (9039) on Monday July 24, 2006 @09:43PM (#15773640)
    It's a dream that's been pursued for years by governments, energy companies and automakers so far without success: Mass-producing affordable electric-powered cars that spew nothing from their tailpipes. So Jada Toys decided to start small. Really small....yada yada yada....

    http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=L XKGY5&P=7 [towerhobbies.com]

    The article quoted:
    "Public awareness and education are the first steps toward commercialization," said Horizon founder Taras Wankewycz, 32. "We want to make sure this technology gets adapted globally."

    what bull. This is just a ploy to delay the use of existing, disruptive, technologies while the oil industry cranks out as much profits as it can.

    Go see "Who Killed the Electric Car" and read this on how the oil industry won't let battery makers build NiMH batteries large enough for EVs:

    http://www.evworld.com/blogs/index.cfm?page=blogen try&authorid=51&blogid=104 [evworld.com]

    LoB
    • Get with the program. That was last year's conspiracy theory! This year we're supposed to talk about how Lex Luthor is causing global warming because he bought beach front property in Nevada.
      • Sounds like the same response one would get if they brought up the old WMDs in Iraq issues. What I've found is that those who just pull out the "conspiracy theory" card tend to live their lives on more faith than fact.

        Got something other than your 'belief' that there's nothing to this?

        LoB
         
        • Got something other than your 'belief' that there's nothing to this?

          Not really. But I do have forty years of experience with people telling me there's a global oil industry conspiracy to keep alternative power sources off the market. Maybe it's true and Bush/Cheney are the culmination of a half century skullduggery by Rockefeller's ghost, or maybe it's not. But the theory itself is boring and decrepit.
          • same here but without facts, those theories are/were just that, theories. I did not just pretend they were all wrong, just theories without enough proof that they were valid. You probably don't believe Microsoft prevents OEMs from shipping Linux based product too. Consiracy theory is what I hear over and over. It's bull and I've heard product managers from companies like HP saying what really happens.

            So, things changed for me in the 2000/2001 period when I started looking at converting a car to an EV but i
    • Why look, another fine example of patents encouraging innovation...
  • I needed a mobile launch platform for my hydrogen-fueled rockets [estesrockets.com].
    • From the link (emphasis mine):
      Now you can generate the fuel of the future yourself and launch a rocket into orbit! This new hydrogen fuel technology uses water to generate the hydrogen fuel needed to thrust a sleek rocket 200 feet into the sky.
      Pretty low orbit, if you ask me... :^)
  • With the cost of petrol in Australia, we should be encouraging manufacturers to develop alternate fueled vechicles. Other Alternative is: http://www.biodiesel.org.au/ [biodiesel.org.au]
  • Bwa hahaha ha HAaaaaaaaa...

    Pinky: "Gee, Brain, what should we do tonight?"
    Brain: "The same thing we do every night Pinky."
    Pinky: "What's that Brain?"
    Brain: "Try to take over the world!" ... WITH MY TOY CAR!!!
  • Check out: http://www.goodideacreative.com/fuel_cell.html [goodideacreative.com].

    They have a number of downloadable PDF booklets for sale that go to incredible detail in explaining how to make fuel cell systems. I bought one about a year ago. Admittedly I haven't built anything yet ( procrastinating ), but I've sourced all the parts, and it looks like you can built cells for around $40 ( Australian ) per cell ... which gives you about 0.5V. Of course you need to built a lot to do anything useful. Anyway, even without building any
  • I'm so sick of china pumping out shit they swear up and down they invented.

    Not like fuel cell toy cars haven't been around for a while.

    http://www.discoverthis.com/fuelcelcaran.html [discoverthis.com]

    http://www.fatbraintoys.com/toy_companies/thames_k osmos/fuel_cell_car.cfm?CFID=17758445&CFTOKEN=6801 3201 [fatbraintoys.com]
  • by kahrytan (913147) on Monday July 24, 2006 @11:40PM (#15773948)
    Though, it is neat to see such a toy car. And I would be interested in this little toy as a simple display model. I like the idea of holding tommorrow's future cars now.

    However, automakers already have a hydrogen fuel cell car. It's not just an experiment or in progress car. It is a real concept car that is ready for the road. The Honda FCX [honda.com] (The first company to bring us the hybrid with Insight.) announced last January that it will begin production of it's concept car in 3 - 4 years in Japan. Also, they got home fueling stations in the works.

      Many california residents product may seen Honda's working model FCX car driven by many of it's residents. It's been reported around 100 cars and buses. California also has dozen or so fueling stations scattered across LA and SF. NC will also have one built at Camp Pendleton.

    I only wish the Communist News Network (CNN) would stop spreading lies and saying Hydrogen cars aren't ready yet. They are here, being used and will be ready for commercialization in 3 - 4 years.
  • Cool. Does this mean you dont need gunpowder anymore to blow up your toys? After firecrackers were banned it was pretty hard to wreak suitable destruction, what with the local gunsmith refusing to sell me blackpowder and then the farming supply shop refusing to sell me weed killer and fertiliser, it was just too hard. A cannister full of hydrogen sounds like a hoot.
  • Where do I get one?
  • I still the electricity is the way to go. At least then, the process would be:

    Fuel->Generator->Power Grid->Car

    Instead of

    Fuel->Generator->Power Grid->Hydrogen Refinery->Transport->Car

    Seems to me the first one will be much more efficient, especially when Toshiba's new Lithium batteries [toshiba.co.jp] are available (in 2008 I heard). As long as it only takes a few minute to "recharge" your car, I'm sure range won't matter so much.
  • What's the chance of it going Hindenburg [wikipedia.org] on you(r kid)?

Pohl's law: Nothing is so good that somebody, somewhere, will not hate it.

Working...