Hydrogen Powered Toy Car 165
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."
All the cool stuff comes out after I grow up (Score:4, Funny)
Re:All the cool stuff comes out after I grow up (Score:5, Funny)
Just kidding.
Re:All the cool stuff comes out after I grow up (Score:4, Insightful)
You just ruined the otherwise fine joke.
Swiftly thinking about it (Score:3, Funny)
That's a modest proposal [wikipedia.org]. Now how small would these people have to be? About 1/12 scale [wikipedia.org]?
Re:All the cool stuff comes out after I grow up (Score:5, Insightful)
I get... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I get... (Score:2)
Re:I get... (Score:2)
Glad to have been of help there...
That's nothing (Score:2)
Re:I get... (Score:2)
Big Oil (Score:1, Interesting)
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)
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)
-Peter
Re:Big Oil (Score:2)
To make things worse, an avid Slashdot user. sheesh.
Re:Big Oil (Score:1)
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)
It was a relatively recent news article that I read it in.
Re:Big Oil (Score:1)
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)
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.
Re:Big Oil (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:Big Oil (Score:2)
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
Re:Big Oil (Score:2)
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
Re:Big Oil (Score:2)
Good points both, if a little dichotomous. I'm not the alarmist type of tree-hugger - just one who advocates asking lots and lots of questions before taking big steps into unknown territory. As an aside, I think the islands to which you were referring are the Aleutian Islands [wikipedia.org].
Re:Big Oil (Score:2)
A very good point, along with your mention of solar as a "fixed" amount source of energy. I hadn't thought of the impact of solar harvesting beyond the fact that plants obviously won't be growing in the area where the energy hasn't been completely collected - but if taken to an extreme, and not allowing envi
windows and some righteous ranting (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
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
Re:Big Oil (Score:2)
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.
Re:Big Oil (Score:2)
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
Re:Big Oil (Score:2)
And this is why the people who are trying to do this have a point. I don't think anyone is ar
Re:Big Oil (Score:2)
You sorta alluded to fertilizer. I think most fertilizers are produced from petrochemicals, natural gas I think. All those great strides in increasing our crop output are built on continued availability of petrochem for fertilizer production.
I have been pushing the Firefox series of books on friends. Great intro to living off the land, I think. Wish I had time to have a decent garden and live more natural a life. My HOA won't let me have solar, and my yard is not big enough for a decent garden...
Re:Big Oil, 200 years? (Score:1)
http://www.harbornet.com/sunflower/hotter.html [harbornet.com]
Re:Big Oil (Score:2)
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
Re:Big Oil (Score:2)
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
Re:Big Oil (Score:2)
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,
Electric cars (Score:2)
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)
Re:Big Oil (Score:2)
Re:Big Oil (Score:2)
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
Re:Big Oil (Score:2)
Yep, exactly. Something like 80% of the driving that we do is easily within the range of an EV (I don't have the exact numbers but it's something like 80% of our driving is within 35km). Long term, public transportation will probably be used for long distance travel.
Re:Big Oil (Score:2)
I doubt the battery technology will last 100k, especially in the heat and cold.
You always have capacity fade with time. Maybe you can get 100k, but the last 25k may be 50 mile charges, not 200.
And what do you do with 6000+ bats? They are not very environmentally friendly or cheap to dispose of. I don't think you can just melt it down and make a new humvee like you can with steel.
I see your point on long distance travel, most people commute. When you do have a long trip, maybe a gas / EtOH rental would w
Re:Big Oil (Score:2)
Now this presents an interesting question. Government could make this cost ratio tke place _today_ via the us
Re:Big Oil (Score:2)
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
Re:Big Oil (Score:2)
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
Re:Big Oil (Score:2)
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
Re:Big Oil - Cash is King (Score:2)
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
Re:Big Oil (Score:1)
That's why things like bio-die
Re:Big Oil (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Big Oil (Score:2, Insightful)
Congratulations, that's the stupidest thing I've ever read on Slashdot, and I've seen some doozies.
Re:Big Oil (Score:2)
AARP? Quit pickin' on the old folks, man!
Re:Big Oil (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:Big Oil (Score:1)
Hydrogen ain't happening. . . (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Hydrogen ain't happening. . . (Score:2)
Speaking of which (out of my bum, of course), Monsanto, where the hell's the cold-growing sugar cane? Get on it.
algae biomass (Score:2)
Re:algae biomass (Score:2)
how much of a hurry are you in (Score:2)
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.
Re:algae biomass (Score:2)
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
Re:algae biomass (Score:2)
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
Re:Big Oil (Score:1)
http://www.teslamotors.com/learn_more/white_papers
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
Re:Big Oil (Score:1)
Re:Big Oil (Score:2)
Hydrogen-powered toys are a good start. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Hydrogen-powered toys are a good start. (Score:2)
I recharged my hot wheels cars by putting them at the top of an inclined track.
general misconception (Score:3, Informative)
H Generator- Pulsed High Voltage, Low Current (Score:2, Interesting)
China? (Score:2)
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.
Re:China? (Score:2)
already on sale in australia (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.jaycar.com.au/productView.asp?ID=KT252
They also sell fuel cell's separately!
Automakers response (Score:1, Funny)
Are tiny people gonna drive these tiny cars with tiny fuel cells?
Huh? Huh??? (while prodding someone smaller nearby)
Re:Automakers response (Score:2)
That's as close as we'll get to real ones (Score:2)
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
Funny -- I already have one! (Score:2)
Hydrogen != energy source (Score:1)
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)
this toy is cheaper and comes with radio controls (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=
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=bloge
LoB
Re:this toy is cheaper and comes with radio contro (Score:2)
Re:this toy is cheaper and comes with radio contro (Score:2)
Got something other than your 'belief' that there's nothing to this?
LoB
Re:this toy is cheaper and comes with radio contro (Score:2)
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.
Re:this toy is cheaper and comes with radio contro (Score:2)
So, things changed for me in the 2000/2001 period when I started looking at converting a car to an EV but i
Re:this toy is cheaper and comes with radio contro (Score:2)
Re:this toy is cheaper and comes with radio contro (Score:2)
How many of those hybrids were American made? And let me see, the one American made hybrid on the market is an SUV and even its hybrid system is licensed from Toyota.
End of this waste of my time.
LoB
Re:this toy is cheaper and comes with radio contro (Score:2)
Re:this toy is cheaper and comes with radio contro (Score:2)
I think that the results Cabasys has had on what the biggest battery makers is more telling of what's going on here than one example of a guy named Adam Duskes selling batteries from Canada. Good try though.
LoB
Just what I needed! (Score:2)
Re:Just what I needed! (Score:2)
Cost of Petrol (Score:1)
And they think it's a toy?! (Score:2, Funny)
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!"
Re:And they think it's a toy?! (Score:2)
Instructions to build your own fuel cell ... (Score:2)
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
china..... you used to be cool. (Score:1)
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]
Article is misleading. (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Article is misleading. (Score:2)
Yes. Any day now. Also flying cars.
Re:Article is misleading. (Score:2)
Yes, there is flying cars have been built too.
Pyrotechnics (Score:2)
Want. (Score:2)
I'm not sold on Hydrogen as a carrier... (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Kaboom? (Score:2)
Re:Water/hydrogen engine? (Score:2, Funny)
Pretty cool idea. All we'd need to do is load the car up with a bunch of batteries. . .
KFG
Reference? Hoax? (Score:2)
I could find no mention of that in their episode guide [discovery.com].
Re:Romanian solution (Score:2)