Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Hydrogen Powered Toy Car

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | 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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


All the cool stuff comes out after I grow up (4, Funny)

gwhenning (693443) | more than 7 years ago | (#15773459)

So will all the kids be able to setup hydrogen stands when the real cars comeout?

Re:All the cool stuff comes out after I grow up (5, Funny)

dominique_cimafranca (978645) | more than 7 years ago | (#15773545)

This is already the real thing. The next step is to breed smaller and smaller people so that they will be able to fit in a car like this. This will also solve the world's population density problem in the larger cities.

Just kidding.

Re:All the cool stuff comes out after I grow up (3, Insightful)

doti (966971) | more than 7 years ago | (#15773647)

Just kidding.

You just ruined the otherwise fine joke.

Re:All the cool stuff comes out after I grow up (1)

Isotopian (942850) | more than 7 years ago | (#15773942)

Agreed, I wondered why he was only at a +2 Funny till I read that last bit.

Swiftly thinking about it (2, Funny)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#15773820)

The next step is to breed smaller and smaller people so that they will be able to fit in a car like this. This will also solve the world's population density problem in the larger cities.

That's a modest proposal [wikipedia.org]. Now how small would these people have to be? About 1/12 scale [wikipedia.org]?

I get... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15773460)

3 miles to a mole of hydrogen!!!

Re:I get... (1)

ncc74656 (45571) | more than 7 years ago | (#15773895)

3 miles to a mole of hydrogen!!!

...but how many rods to the hogshead is that? That's what we really want to know.

Big Oil (1, Interesting)

ronark (803478) | more than 7 years ago | (#15773464)

"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 simply get a clue instead of being blind to the changing times. Unfortunately there is more money in forcing people to deal with and dated and often poorly implemented technology than in the new stuff, or so they think. Reminds me of groups that have two AA's in their names.

Re:Big Oil (5, Interesting)

gatzke (2977) | more than 7 years ago | (#15773498)

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 (5, Funny)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 7 years ago | (#15773537)

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!


Re:Big Oil (1)

nostriluu (138310) | more than 7 years ago | (#15773601)

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.

Re:Big Oil (1)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 7 years ago | (#15773652)

"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.


* I'm really libertarian, but I didn't really know it at the time.

Re:Big Oil (3, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 7 years ago | (#15773554)

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.

Re:Big Oil (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 7 years ago | (#15773599)

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 (2, Insightful)

nuggz (69912) | more than 7 years ago | (#15773628)

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.

Re:Big Oil (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 7 years ago | (#15773682)

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 "new" impact.

Re:Big Oil (4, Insightful)

hiryuu (125210) | more than 7 years ago | (#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.

Re:Big Oil (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 7 years ago | (#15773904)

well.. if you look at that from 2 standpoints.. I think that concern can be tied up rather nicely.

If youre from the camp which believes in global warming.. harvesting that energy from the system could very well diminish the strength of hurricanes.. and add a nice closure to the loop of human climactic impact by removing from the ocean heat we already put there

if youre not from this camp.. keep in mind Humanity has yet to actually put a dent in juggernaut that is nature.. for instance in the illution(sp?) islands in wwII we lost more planes and men to the natural forces of alaska than we did to the japanese.

Re:Big Oil (1)

hiryuu (125210) | more than 7 years ago | (#15773953)

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].

windows and some righteous ranting (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15773811)

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.

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 (mostly) is probably an old computer user, dropped serious cash on technology you have to pay to have hauled away now, it is that old and useless..but we all dropped serious coin on it in the olden days. But because current alternate energy tech isn't "perfect" yet--oh noes, it'll never work, it has too many problems, too 'spensive..oh mee oh my!!! etc.

Rubbish. Ask any one of those people across the country right now who has NO electricity from relying on the centrally located mega profits companies grid supplied electric whether or not a little de-centralized electric production might be better. You know, like more power plants, wind is nice, or solar panels on individual houses, etc. Go ahead, once they get back online how they feel about the big cos electric supply.

We've tried that "all your eggs in one basket" approach and take a look-it has a lot of problems too, from sticker shock, utility rates rising every year, to enron scams (you really think they are over, or they are just hiding their thievery better?), you get to be a perpetual renter of electricty to just plain lack of same-when you need it the most.

If you wait for computers to be the ultimate and perfect you'll never own one. If you wait for "alternative" energy to be ultimate and perfect before you use it on a mass scale..you'll be shivering in a cave someplace. That is what is going to happen if people keep procrastinating and just "studying" it or waiting for government to "do something" about it. Go ahead, wait for perfection, go buy another 10 kilowatts of juice sucking devices and keep hoping things will get magically better. That should work.

    Go look at real numbers, we are running out. There hasn't been a SINGE mega field of oil found in decades now-decades. Gee, "the market" can't come up with another mega field. Wonder why..maybe it DON'T EXIST? Ok-swell, we'll switch to "coal". Uh huh, check about 98% of all scientists latest papers, that stuff is killing the atmosphere, you know, AIR, that stuff? Global climate change, etc? What a *wonderful* solution-not! And my fav, "we'll just build more NUKES!" I DARE anyone-you to try and find one commercial reactor that has electricity being sold "too cheap to meter", like I personally remember being said way back in the day. Where is the penny (or less) a kilowatt hour stuff? Decades ago, DECADES, they PROMISED to come up with a clean way to dispose of spent reactor fuel, the best they had back then was "submerge in pools of water or deep burial". Guess what, the pompous science-twits have since then, after billions of dollars in study come up with "submerge in pools of water and deep burial", along with keep fingers crossed. And have to install SAM missiles at all sites, in perpetuity. lovely.

It's never been cheap (barely beats coal by only a fraction of a cent now and today DOESN'T beat natgas), and there is NO long range viable solution for de buggifying nuclear waste. You can re process it-then what-the crap that is left over is "nasty stuff", as in WMD styled nasty stuff. Oh ya, we NEED more of that! Shoot, we might run out! They can't do it, there's no way to do it cheap and clean, and you want to trust them industry bozos with a track record of lying and obfuscation with 1,000 or 2,000 new nuke plants around the globe? Go ahead, run the odds..let's see, humans always have wars...every podunk "military force" now from small to huge has missiles..couple thousand new nuke plants around the planet..one missile gets through..whoops!

When that happens-and it will if a couple thousand new nuke plants get built and humans keep having wars of various sizes, I sincerely hope *all* the pro-nuke guys run their moving vans where their mouths are now and move directly downwind of that place. They can then "prove" how safe it is.

Yep, let's just IGNORE alternative energy because it isn't perfect yet..even though no other product on the planet earth is perfect...tell me, what's the "return on investment" of some videogame rig? How about all the new iPods because the older ones, like two years old, aren't "good enough" anymore? When do they "break even" and produce more power than they consume and "make money"? How about all the fancy electronic GPS radar cruise control power seat lard butt massager BS crap on cars, where's the ROI? Giant televsions? Neon signs in big cities? Oh, never? Same with 99.999% af all other manufactured stuff, but no one bitches about that, do they? But alternative energy stuff we have now, that is working now, has this ton of FUD around it. It's not per-r-r-r-r - fect yet so we can't use it, it's not "economical".

Humans-weirdest creatures evah! Most can't think beyond two steps or extrapolate past two days it appears.

There is an old saying that fits pretty well with this whole energy debate-"You are part of the problem, or part of the solution"

And that's it! Anyone can *pretend* they aren't part of the problem, or even weirder try to claim to be "neutral", but the reality is, you are part of the problem or part of the solution. Your choice. The human species choice, our children, grand children, great grand children. let's just use it all up now and screw them! Who cares! It's not 'economical" to think about the future according to wall street and the mooing herds.

I prefer to be on the solution side, even if it isn't "perfect" yet.

Re:Big Oil (0, Flamebait)

Killall -9 Bash (622952) | more than 7 years ago | (#15773692)

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

Right, and that still leaves the question of where the energy comes from. The hippes don't want nuclear energy, cause nuclear waste is "like, bad for the environment, and stuff"..... they don't want to deal with the reality that tidal energy isn't feasable... they think wind power is great, but bitch when birds die.... fossil fuels, and generally anything else that burns things is evil.... and im pretty sure they don't want us clear cutting billions of acres of wildlife habitat to build the ammount of solar collection arrays that would be nessicary to fuel the world.... so where the fuck is the energy supposed to come from?

Re:Big Oil (5, Insightful)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#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.


Re:Big Oil (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 7 years ago | (#15773812)

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.

Re:Big Oil (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#15773881)

I live in upstate NY, not too far from the southern boundry of the Adirondack Forest Preserve. Six million acres. If you flew over my city of only 60,000 you'd be hard pressed to spot a tree. Ironic, isn't it?

There is no such word as "alot," and if there is, there shouldn't be. It's "a lot." Two words, not one.

That is really some thing, innit? None the less . . .


Re:Big Oil (1)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | more than 7 years ago | (#15774122)

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.

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 oil to cultivate the field of whatever you're using to make biofuel.

The part of the equation you're missing is, how much biofuel do you get out of it? Let's say you get the equivalent of 750 gallons of oil out of the field you spent 1000 gallons of oil to cultivate. Well, then it's probably not worth it. Let's say you get the equivalent of 1500 gallons of oil. Well, you'll be net positive in year 3. Remember, you don't have to buy a new American Harvester every year.

So the question is will you get a positive return? If so, at what point will it exceed the energy investment? 3 years? 5 years? 10 years? 100 years?

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."
Well, there are some advantages to doing it "over there."

It's certainly easier/cheaper to install pollution controls or upgrade, say, 100 oil-burning powerplants that power 100,000 electric cars than it is to upgrade 100,000 gasoline-powered cars.

Re:Big Oil (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#15774221)

These are pulled out of my rear-end numbers. . .

Then I'm afraid that's what they're worth.

The part of the equation you're missing is. . .

I'm not missing any part of the equation. I'm quite familiar with it.

Go get an acre of land, plug it into itself, as I also challange the "free energy" people to do with their machines. See how you do. I'm serious. Do It!

Well, there are some advantages to doing it "over there."

I have not addressed pollution at all. I haven't even addressed oil directly. I'm talking about energy.


Re:Big Oil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15774676)

Go get an acre of land, plug it into itself, as I also challange the "free energy" people to do with their machines. See how you do. I'm serious. Do It!

The land doesn't power itself. The energy comes from the sun.

It's not the same as a perpetual motion machine. You're an idjit.

Re:Big Oil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15773717)

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.

If there were more environmental hippies, there'd be no extra cost for better technology.

Re:Big Oil, 200 years? (1)

canatech (982314) | more than 7 years ago | (#15773804)

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]

Please pray with me. (1)

SolarVisionary (990827) | more than 7 years ago | (#15774000)

It's not the Earth I am concerned with...

The Earth will be fine... it's the flora and fauna with which we might choose to treat with more respect. Included with the fauna is man.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter what anyone says about global warming, all we've got to work with is the various solutions that reduce our footprint on the planet. Of those, we have various forms of generating power (and storing it) that result in no or substantially less off-gassing of CO2. We get to choose them or die. It's just that simple.

My favorite solution is photovoltaic and passive solar power. PV has been around for 50 years, and is quickly becoming cost-effective. It can quickly replace fossil fuels should we choose to get serious about it.

PV is capable of being used as a catalyst to separate water allowing the energy of the sun to be stored as hydrogen. Although storage is an issue, there are a number of solutions. They don't need as much to be researched and developed as much as simply chosen and implemented by you, the public.

Wind is a viable player, water (of course), among a variety of other smaller players such as geothermal, wave, tidal and nuclear. Not any one of these could save our species, currently teetering on the brink of extinction, embracing them all probably would, however. Additionally, we must capture and store CO2. These are technologies for solving the problem. The method to do so involves education and prayer. I'm praying that we have time to provide a home for the children. Please pray with me. This is not a subject that we should bicker and argue about.

I suggest that we embrace all of them, but place particular emphasis on solar power. Solar is the most viable technology because it is produced centrally, and deployed anywhere. It is much less geographically sensitive, and is a viable source of energy for the vast majority of the users of power. This issue is not being argued, but is is being proven (regardless of what certain naysayers here on this board have spouted with such wild abandon).

My company (http://iTitanium.com/) has found a new source of silica. When our process of this new mineral is proven to have a low enough boron and phosphorus content, we may be able to substantially reduce the cost of producing solar grade silicon. Anyone aware of the industry would know that the high cost of solar grade silicon is the only reason you don't have a solar PV array on your roof right now.

I have the vision, and I've shared it with a number of people who want more than just impressive returns on their investment but also a good feeling about doing what they can to return the planet to a condition that supports human life (not to mention millions of other species).

Thank you for saving the planet with me.


Re:Big Oil (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 7 years ago | (#15773939)

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 the line of there being one true energy source is selling something or has been deluded by salesfolk.

Re:Big Oil (1)

humina (603463) | more than 7 years ago | (#15774072)

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 can be refueled at home while most people won't do home hydrolysis.

Hydrogen is not the fuel of the future. Hydrogen is the solution that is pushed by oil companies and the auto industry. It is a perfect technology for them. By proposing a solution that is nowhere near complete, profits from the internal combustion engine and oil can be reaped while the consumer waits for the companies to deliver.

The major car manufacturers made electric cars before. GM did in 1996:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EV1 [wikipedia.org]
Honda did in 1997:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_EV_Plus [wikipedia.org]
toyota in 1997:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_RAV4_EV [wikipedia.org]
Ford in 1998:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Ranger_EV [wikipedia.org]
There is just too much money to be made using the internal combustion engine (oil filter, oil, gas, exhaust, spark plugs, and much much more). There is no rush to switch to a different technology from an automaker or oil companies point of view.

Re:Big Oil (1)

gatzke (2977) | more than 7 years ago | (#15774671)

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, you would never generate hydrogen that way.

Batteries are a decent storage medium for electricity (but maybe not due to energy density issues). Hydrogen is a good storage medium for chemical energy (maybe nuclear if they get new high temp hydrogen cycles working).

Gas prices may not be so bad, due to inflation. We are not 2x, just equal to the max value:
http://zfacts.com/p/35.html [zfacts.com]

And your hybrid may not be the way to go, using a full life cycle analysis:
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?7a1f3b0c- 8232-4e9d-89f6-622a5327b670 [hawaiireporter.com]

Re:Big Oil (1)

jvalenzu (96614) | more than 7 years ago | (#15773517)

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-diesel really have the largest ability to help us on the tail end of peak oil. It's suitable as a drop-in replacement in a lot of environment (for diesel engines), and can be mixed with petrodiesel in colder environments where the viscosity is insufficient. People might want to check out http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com] or http://www.theoildrum.com/ [theoildrum.com] for more in-depth discussion.

Re:Big Oil (4, Insightful)

gatzke (2977) | more than 7 years ago | (#15773579)

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:Big Oil (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 7 years ago | (#15773885)

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 friends close, keep your enemies closer".

While Chinese national security is part of the issue as stated, another reason is to bring their poor class of farmers to a better standard of living. Currently, food is dirt cheap in that country at the local level. While the availability of the food varies and thus it's price, it's only because China doesn't have the advanced transportation infrastructure that we have in the USA. So what does China do with these farmers that can't make a profit because the local market is flooded? Why, turn it into Ethanol! Not only will the farmers become richer tapping into this industry, but they will be educated in advanced science and agriculture too. Also, what ever surplus of Ethanol is left over in China will no doubt be sold on the global market.

Being that American labor is very expensive (as are other 1st world nations); I would expect the US to be importing vast amounts of ethanol form China and perhaps India in the future. No doubt will China find security in keeping America dependant on its goods and services. So far it's working as we don't give them any political BS.

Re:Big Oil (2, Insightful)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 7 years ago | (#15773524)

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-frame of less than years?*
  3. Do you really think that oil companies are forcing you to eschew alternatives to gasoline? (Or do you think it is the job of the oil companies to yank their product from the market to force people to find an alternative?)


*Hint: There is something on the order of one hundred million cars on the road in the US. Think you can retrofit and/or replace them all in a year?

Re:Big Oil (2, Insightful)

dominique_cimafranca (978645) | more than 7 years ago | (#15773532)

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 invention. Will all the oil wells suddenly run dry at the same time? I don't think so. Ultimately, it's economics that will force us to look at alternative sources. It's happening now as oil shoots past $60 range because of You-Know-What.

Me? I'm waiting for Doctor Brown's Mister Fusion machine.

Re:Big Oil (1)

Mikachu (972457) | more than 7 years ago | (#15773569)

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 probably find some reason to share it with everyone else anyway.

Worth it? I don't think so.

Hydrogen ain't happening. . . (4, Interesting)

alizard (107678) | more than 7 years ago | (#15773648)

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.

Re:Hydrogen ain't happening. . . (1)

CosmeticLobotamy (155360) | more than 7 years ago | (#15773974)

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.

algae biomass (1)

alizard (107678) | more than 7 years ago | (#15774007)

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.

Re:algae biomass (1)

CosmeticLobotamy (155360) | more than 7 years ago | (#15774033)

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.

how much of a hurry are you in (1)

alizard (107678) | more than 7 years ago | (#15774097)

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.

Re:Big Oil (1)

smilindog2000 (907665) | more than 7 years ago | (#15773664)

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]

Re:Big Oil (1)

AaronHorrocks (686276) | more than 7 years ago | (#15773806)

What about those darned LAWS OF PHYSICS? Aside from the fact that it Hydrogen bonds to everything, and it takes a serious about of energy to break those bonds to get enough hydrogen to do anything with it...

There's also the problem of storage. You just can't store it for very long, at least not at high pressures. Hydrogen is so small that it leaks out of any container you can put it it. It's a "technological hurdle" that cannot be overcome, because it's a problem on an atomic scale!

Re:Big Oil (1)

AaronHorrocks (686276) | more than 7 years ago | (#15773883)

Oh and I forgot, Hydrogen isn't a power source, it's a means to transport energy - Like a battery... Except it's a fuel in gas form. It's not like you can pump it out of the ground and fuel the world with it (like most of today's energy). With Hydrogen you have to consume energy to make the stuff.

So really what's the whole point? If you give up on oil and convert to Hydrogen... You still need energy to make the stuff. Where is that energy going to come from? The same Flower Power concepts that think that the world can still work with growing energy needs while political pressure is put on governments to prevent building new power plants. Brilliant!

Re:Big Oil (1)

itlurksbeneath (952654) | more than 7 years ago | (#15773832)

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.

Re:Big Oil (1)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 7 years ago | (#15773961)

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.

Hydrogen-powered toys are a good start. (4, Insightful)

WidescreenFreak (830043) | more than 7 years ago | (#15773505)

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.

general misconception (3, Informative)

Tokin84 (919029) | more than 7 years ago | (#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.

Re:general misconception (1)

Dunarie (672617) | more than 7 years ago | (#15773992)

You get the hydrogen from water, and power the electrolysis from a dedicated Solar/Wind/Nuclear power plant located next to, or made part of the electrolysis plant. Hydrogen should be thought of as an energy storage medium (a battery) rather than an energy source (like hydrocarbons).

China? (1)

Deliveranc3 (629997) | more than 7 years ago | (#15773521)

Is China another word for porn?


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? (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 7 years ago | (#15773683)

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 is high price, it is too expensive to use.

Automakers response (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15773546)

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)

Re:Automakers response (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#15773660)

No. They drive those damn loud but small motorcycles up and down the street that make normal motorcycles sound wimpy in comparison.

Re:Automakers response (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15774105)

What iz this! A car for ANTS?! (smash!) How are people to drive it if they can't even fit in the door!

That's as close as we'll get to real ones (1)

Locutus (9039) | more than 7 years ago | (#15773547)

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.


Warning (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15773572)

May contain small parts. Do not swallow!

Funny -- I already have one! (1)

FlyByPC (841016) | more than 7 years ago | (#15773582)

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.

Re:Funny -- I already have one! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15773591)

For a second there I thought Kang and Kodos have produced a fuel cell car kit.

They didn't. Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

Hydrogen != energy source (1)

notshannon (704145) | more than 7 years ago | (#15773585)

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.

Re:Hydrogen != energy source (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15773668)

Well no, you can't get much hydrogen from the ground... but there is that crazy liquid covering what? 70% of the planet?

Who needs to suck it out of the ground when we can syphon it off the surface?

this toy is cheaper and comes with radio controls (3, Interesting)

Locutus (9039) | more than 7 years ago | (#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]


Re:this toy is cheaper and comes with radio contro (1)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 7 years ago | (#15773905)

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.

Re:this toy is cheaper and comes with radio contro (1)

novus ordo (843883) | more than 7 years ago | (#15773958)

Why look, another fine example of patents encouraging innovation...

Something similar has been around awhile. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15773654)

I bought a Thames Kosmos Fuel Cell Car and Experiement Kit a couple of years ago. It's a neat little demo of fuel cell technology, and uses distilled water, a solar panel, and a fuel cell.
http://www.thamesandkosmos.com/products/fc/fc2.htm l [thamesandkosmos.com]

Thats the way you do it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15773679)

Get 'em while they're young. This is genius.

Hydrogen is nice and all... (1)

ktlewis02 (987315) | more than 7 years ago | (#15773710)

But who killed the electric car?!

Just what I needed! (1)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 7 years ago | (#15773714)

I needed a mobile launch platform for my hydrogen-fueled rockets [estesrockets.com].

Re:Just what I needed! (1)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | more than 7 years ago | (#15774157)

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... :^)

Cost of Petrol (1)

JamesHart (990820) | more than 7 years ago | (#15773723)

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]

Re:Cost of Petrol (1)

donaldm (919619) | more than 7 years ago | (#15774455)

I live in Australia and I fully agree with you, however the people in the UK and Europe are paying much more. That is why diesel and bio-diesel are becoming popular (approx 50% of new cars sold in Europe are diesel).

In Australia diesel cars are just starting to take off since they are becoming trendy and the same is happening in the US although the uptake is slower. I have just got a VW 2.0 diesel (TDI) Passat (the Direct Sift Gearbox is impressive) which was actually AU$2000 cheaper than the petrol version (FSI) so I start saving on fuel immediately. This however may not be true if you decide to buy a smaller car (ie. Golf TDI, Peugeot 307 TD and quite a few others) where the diesel model is normally AU@2k to AU$6k more. You may have to do alot of km's to make up the difference.

With regard to performance don't expect to beat a car like a Subaru WRX (my last car) at the lights but start from zero to the top of a steep hill and you will wonder what most people are doing because one thing a diesel has is torque and accelerating up a hill at low revs (think 1700 rpm) is no problem.

If you are thinking of buying a diesel vehicle it is best to do your homework prior to making a decision. It is no good getting a diesel car, truck or SUV if the overall costs are greater than the equivalent petrol engine for the amount of km (or miles) you do.

At the moment in Australia VW and other diesel makers are "fence sitting" with regard to bio-diesel, so I have to be careful since I could void my warranty. Bio-diesel is approx 5c to 10c cheaper than fossil diesel, although that depends on the percentage, with B100 being the cheapest. There actually is an Australian standard although car makers can't seem to find or acknowledge it (see link below) even though it's ok in Europe where some countries are mandating a minimum of 5% (B5). This may soon change in Australia when Shell and BP start putting bio-diesel (B2 or B5) in their diesel. Conspiracy theory anyone?

http://www.deh.gov.au/atmosphere/fuelquality/stand ards/biodiesel/index.html [deh.gov.au]

With regard to bio-diesel, like every technology there are advantages and disadvantages. The advantages are, virtually zero sulfur, lower CO2 , greater lubricity, less toxic than common salt and is a renewable resource (there are others but most web sites cover this). The major downside of bio-diesel is there is a requirement for growing vast amounts of oil producing plants (eg. canola, sunflower, coconut, kelp? ... etc) or even animal products (ie. fat) and in many countries this is a real dilemma because you have to balance land that is normally used to grow food and land that will be used to grow bio-diesel. The same applies to sugar for alcohol as well although IMHO bio-diesel is more environmentally friendly (plenty of web sites cover the pro's and con's on this and even the differences as well).

And they think it's a toy?! (2, Funny)

Assassin bug (835070) | more than 7 years ago | (#15773730)

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!!!

Instructions to build your own fuel cell ... (1)

vandan (151516) | more than 7 years ago | (#15773731)

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 anything, it's worth it just for the reading.

You americans are fucked (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15773735)

Really, you are. China's going to be - fuck, it is - the new superpower. You're going to be stuck without a super-powerful military to protect you, forced to pay back the bottomless debts you owe to all the countries you've fucked over during the past hunderd years of the american century. Think of it! All the guilt, none of the physical force to push down the human slime that demand recompense. China's going to do the same - screw small countries into fueling its global dominance - but it'll take another hundred years before people start to automatically view it as the villian. You're there, gringos, and you're weak. You can't even take over a two-bit oil dictatorship! Shit!

All I can say is I'm glad I don't live in Kansas.

Re:You americans are fucked (0, Troll)

wtfman (990751) | more than 7 years ago | (#15774354)

Haha! America is the best fucker, and don't forget it. You haven't the slightest clue about jack shit- It's called Globalization. America isn't going anywhere. The evils of the world are lucky we haven't lost our temper yet. Semper Fi //

Re:You americans are fucked (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15774431)

"All I can say is I'm glad I don't live in Kansas."

Makes two of us- please stay in the shithole you currently reside, k thx bye..

Fuel Cell cars? Bullshit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15773756)

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 is what we call bull shit. You see, Fuel cell cars require fuel. That fuel comes from somewhere... most likely, converted fossil fuels sourced from natural gas or methane. Fuel cells provide no additional efficiencies because the conversion process from fossil fuel to hydrogen to electricity to an electric drivetrain is simply less efficient than just burning that fossil fuel in an efficient internal combustion engine.

Sure, you can use Nuclear or Solar power to make hydrogen too... but you know what? That's more expensive than using fossil fuels.

So why the hype?

1. Venture captialists love anyone "investing billions" into their start-ups.
2. Even oil companies love this kind of an investment, because it limits investment in other, non-fossil areas such as "reducing consumption", solar, geothermal, and nuclear.

Fuel Cells do have their place... they can be very effective for energy storage and conversion. But they will never be energy efficent in an automobile. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either ignorant or looking for a handout.

Aussie version (0, Redundant)

redcane (604255) | more than 7 years ago | (#15773858)

Here in Australia, I noted with interest from Jaycar (http://www.jaycar.com.au - an electronics distributor), had a fuel cell model car in their latest catalogue, along with a (small) fuel cell. Generates hydrogen given electricity, produces electricity given hydrogen. The model car is here:http://www.jaycar.com.au/productView.asp?ID=K T2525 [jaycar.com.au]

Jaycar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15773927)

I know Jaycar http://www1.jaycar.com.au/ [jaycar.com.au] have had a fuel cell powered toy car out for a while. They also have the 30mW Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) Fuel Cell for sale seperately.

Article is misleading. (3, Informative)

kahrytan (913147) | more than 7 years ago | (#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.

Water/hydrogen engine? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15773952)

How about just putting water in your car and doing electrolysis on it before injecting the hydrogen and oxygen into the motor? You know, water = H2O = fuel x 2 + oxygen?

Then we won't have to worry about accidents... "Oh no, there's water everywhere!"

Re:Water/hydrogen engine? (2, Funny)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#15773997)

How about just putting water in your car and doing electrolysis on it . . .

Pretty cool idea. All we'd need to do is load the car up with a bunch of batteries. . .


Re:Water/hydrogen engine? (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 7 years ago | (#15774339)

All we'd need to do is load the car up with a bunch of batteries. . .

Nah, just pile solor cells on top of the car. A quarter acres worth ought to do it.

G.I. Joe will get better milage? (1)

kemo_by_the_kilo (971543) | more than 7 years ago | (#15774261)

G.I. Joe will get better milage while fighting the Cobra/opec forces? or will the new batmobile not have its trademark jet?

Pyrotechnics (1)

csk_1975 (721546) | more than 7 years ago | (#15774329)

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.

Hydrogen in a gas engine ... (1)

one_red_eye (962010) | more than 7 years ago | (#15774437)

In a recent episide of the Mythbusters on the Discovery channel, Adam and Jamie tested rather unscientifically, blowing pure hydrogen directly into the carbeurator. The car ran.

We don't need to wait for highly advanced fuel cells to run our cars. With some modification a gas engine can on run hydrogen and oxygen from the air. Maybe not with a 300 mile cruiling range, but it works. Alternatively, a diesel engine can burn veggie oil with _no_ modification, refuse from your local McDonalds. What are we waiting for?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account