Do I really need to say anything more?

–Charlie

Burnable free hydrogen does not occur in nature in any great quantity. It must be created from hydrogen compounds, and energy must be used to do this. Effectively, you must add sunlight.

Therefore, hydrogen is not a fuel. Hydrogen is an inefficient low-density energy storage mechanism.

One could easily convert all the petrol filling stations in the world into hydrogen filling stations. Simply burn a portion of the gasoline in a generator to drive a PEM conversion process to turn the rest of the gasoline into hydrogen. This would allow the existing energy infrastructure to remain substantially unchanged, only with higher cost to the consumer, less total efficiency, faster depletion of petroleum reserves, and (possibly) more pollution. We can call this the “Detroit Plan”. If hydrogen cars become commonplace, that is how they will be fueled in places where high-volume natural gas pipelines do not reach.

Actually, that story kind of confuses me. I…

I need a drink. Or several.

Also hydrogen is probably the worst alternative fuel to be promoting right now, but that’s neither here nor there.

Let A = 1st car driven
Let B = 2nd car driven
Let Y = 1st SUV
Let Z = 2nd SUV
Let D = distance of trip

A travels 0.5D, B travels 0.5D. A+B=D. Y travels 0.5Dx2=D, Z=0.5Dx3=1.5D. Y+Z=2.5D

So, the hybrid SUVS travelled 2.5x the total distance. The fuel cell cars drove the distance. So in total, 3.5x the distance from NY to Washington was driven to get his ass from NY to Washington. So the SUVs would have to have 40% the emissions (assuming zero emissions from the fuel cell cars) of the alternative to make this trip anywhere approaching worthwhile. If he’d just driven one of the hybrid SUVs to Washington, it would be a 150% improvement!

That’s assuming that the 2nd car was at the halfway point by some magical means. If another SUV towed it there and returned, that adds another 1D to the SUV cost. Now requiring 28% of the emissions to be worthwhile.

A better example would have been to set up a temporary fuel cell refuelling station at the halfway point. It might still have worked out to being worse, but at least would have shown the viability and hidden the costs. Look! If we had hydrogen refuelling stations, this could be a zero-emissions trip! As opposed to: I’m a total moron.

Not to mention what this probably cost the taxpayers.

The U.S., having given billion$ to GM should now force them to restart manufacturing the EV-1, the electric car they “killed”.

Electric cars are far cheaper and more practical than hydrogen fuel cell cars. Electricity is available everywhere, hydrogen almost nowhere.

It is obvious that his handlers may have the right idea when it comes to political propaganda, but their implementation in a manner that fully supports the professed ideology is a little lacking.

Sure, the vehicle was a prototype, and there was not likely to be a fuel cell recharging station along the way, but couldn’t he have worked out a deal with GM to have a recharger/fuel tanks dropped off along his route via some sort of scheduled transport? Or at least hitched up a trailer to carry the extra juice? Maybe put a reactor in the trunk and split the trip into an evening and a morning drive; then plug in at a hotel.

I think that every politician should hire a geeco (geek+eco , c’mon people, adopt my meme, I want my 15GB of internet fame) to advise them whether or not their schemes are feasible within the constraints of both technology and ideology.

The then UK Minister of State for Science and Innovation, Ian Pearson came to speak. He was a little late, because he refuses to travel anywhere except by public transport (his previous post was Minister of State for Climate Change and Environment). This created minor inconvenience, since the Genome Campus is about 3km or so from the nearest train station, but they sent a taxi for that short part of the trip.

The point is, although I think New Labour have enormous flaws and are more Thatcherite than is good for them (or the rest of us), you have to respect Mr Pearson. He didn’t put on a single, cheap stunt – he made a lifelong commitment.

(He also doesn’t seem to get any press for it.)

That does not make vehicular fuel cells a good idea… it is just a fertilizer-free supplement to the bogocity you be spreadin’.

@23: So what? Do we argue in any other case that the means of electrical production should be right there at the power consumption site (except aluminum smelters)? No, not often. Quit spreading fertilizer.

As a veteran of the fuel cell industry,, with thirteen years experience in pushing rocks up hills, I have to say that fuel cells are not a panacea to anyone’s energy problems, like @Adralien said, “not an energy source, just a storage medium”. They meet some needs for distributed stationary generation very well, and backup power for critical applications (my last 7-1/2 years at ReliOn).

A general comment on the “Hydrogen Economy”:
This is a code word for, “wouldn’t a buncha nuke plants be great? Then at night when no one needs all that juice we could just electrolyze water…”

I’m all ranted out, damn…

Although it seems like the real message of this stunt, what I got out of it anyway, is that a pure electric car will require much less infrastructure upgrading than a fuel-cell based vehicle. If he’d been driving a pure electric, he could have stopped along the way to just plug the thing in.

As far as environmentalism goes, I believe the LOL-cats would say:
UR DOIN IT WRONG

Hydrogen is not a fuel, it’s a storage medium, and most hydrogen today is generated from natural gas, which is non-renewable, and already available all over the US/Canada.

I remember when Ballard had a fire on a hydrogen tanker truck here… The fire dept evacuated a 1km radius of houses around it, and had to fly in Praxair guys from California to deal with it… they sprayed water on the tanker and let it burn off.

Now imagine thousands of hydrogen stations around the country manned at minimum wage.

Just getting profile pics working would be nice, thnx

Or you could get Detroit screaming at the blasphemy of a Steam engined SUV.

The reason to evaluate Fuel Cells Vs Recreating S team cars? Why the question gets raised is simple. We “had” the tech for Stanleys. That tech was REAL. It would fit into a Suv’s engine bay easily.

We still do not have a REAL tech base for mass marketed FC’s of any portable designs. Cost effective,Reliable,Safe- Pick any 2 for using Hydrogen at all. Let alone in Fuel cells. But if Hydrogen is to eventually end up in FC cars starting with Steamers might be that needed bootstrap for the infrastructure. We could arguably get some fixed route captive fleets steaming quicker and cheaper than FC’s Look for example at “piston taps steam pintle” conversion kits that screw into spark plug holes… Existing bus engine becomes steamer “cheaper” than tearing it out for replacement. Later on we could work up refits to Electrics and FC’s

Steam powered vehicles have an interesting synergy with hydrogen to mitigate the “choose any two” gotchas. The “already there” aspect of steam tech lets production ramp up faster. The water produced from burning H could potentially be reused as feed water makeup. Comparatively low pressure hydrogen stored in the ullage of a steamer’s water tankage could exploit the needed pressure ratings for multitasking’s overall cost assist too.