[OctaneZ28]

That's what Chrysler, Daimler, and BMW seem to think. They're all using GM's hybrid technology for their new trucks and SUVs

http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/nov2007/bw20071113_975898.htm

Better watch out Toyota, people are starting to learn the truth about you.

 

[USA1Camaro]

****, a whole bunch of green news from GM. It's been out there, but the regular media seldom reports it. I even saw a couple of my comments vindicated as well in these articles.

 

[Dragoneye]

That's what Chrysler, Daimler, and BMW seem to think. They're all using GM's hybrid technology for their new trucks and SUVs

http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/nov2007/bw20071113_975898.htm

Better watch out Toyota, people are starting to learn the truth about you.

Can anyone else say Company 'T's demise is "imminant"?
First Consumer reports has decided to actually test Toyota's before the reccomend them, genius idea, really. and now this.

I think they've entered into a game with GM that they don't have a chance in hell at winning. Even with Li-Ion batteries...GM is developing them, while Toyota "can't".

 

[Grims]

I think anything that uses a battery assisted drive mode is counter productive. Batteries are very unenvironmentally friendly to produce. Not to mention they only last bout 5 years or less, which means increased freight, and a large cost to the consumer.

There are many reports on how hybrid cars actually increase fosil fuel consumption a a whole.

 

[brandonppr]

atriot:

 

[Luwinkle]

There are people in this thread: http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?t=171144&page=1&pp=15
Discussing that new honda fuel-cell commercial..and atleast one guy is ranting on and on about how GM doesn't care about the environment, trying to lower MPG standards, etc. etc.

Just wish GM would advertise more of what's going on so idiots like him can be properly educated.

And another idiot by the name of "tatatank" that is saying the Volt isn't "that impressive".

 

[Grims]

From what I have read about fuel cell technology is it isn't the end all be all of our problems by any means. It doesn't run off water, but alluminum. The water is just the catalyst to 'burn' the aluminum. Equivalent amounts of alluminum when compared to gas will cost about 3 dollars per gallon if mass produced, and the effects of producing it isn't suppose to be that great on the environment either.

What good I do see from it is it may drive gas prices down, but when that happens the fuel companies can just drop gas down to a buck per gallon until fuel cell tech dies out...and then raise them back up again.

 

[Dragoneye]

What?!

The fuel cells I know of, and GM is testing in the Equinoxes run off hydrogen.

The catalyst is Titanium, which causes a reverse hydrolysis. Meaning that instead of passing electricity through water to creat hydrogen and oxygen; it combines hydrogen and oxygen, to produce electricity and water. Really cool stuff.

I've never heard of a fuel cell that 'burns' aluminum, that's not to say they don't exist, though...

And currently, hydrogen fuel cells need a jumpstart in order to create the infrastructure to supply them. But after that, I agree it can't be a "be all and end all". But it can be a significant source of power and transportation. Hydrogen is in excess quantites in our world, and oxygen, nor hydrogen for that matter, are lost during the process. They are just converted into water: H2O

I think the future of automobiles is going to include many different sources of fuel. I believe that our muscle cars, and other high-power vehicles like trucks etc...will run for some time off of Ethanol. probably cellulosic ethanol, but electric motors that produce realistic enough power in such heavy vehicles(trucks) are just too big. and the batteries required to supply enough power to such motors, too would be too huge. but the vast majority of passenger cars, and small SUVs will probably be run off of some version of E-flex
:shrug: That's my take on it.

 

[Grims]

My bad, not all fuel cell technologies use aluminum and gallium to make hydrogen, but the most stable technology does. The big problem with hydrogen is the super pressurized tanks that can be dangerous in an accident, and tricky for the owner to refill and service.

Using Aluminum and gallium together to produce hydrogen on demand removes the need for a hydrogen storage tank, which will make it the prime canidate for a full scale production push.

The concept could eliminate major hurdles related to developing a hydrogen economy. Replacing gasoline with hydrogen for transportation purposes would require the production of huge quantities of hydrogen, and the hydrogen gas would then have to be transported to filling stations. Transporting hydrogen is expensive because it is a "non-ideal gas," meaning storage tanks contain less hydrogen than other gases.

http://www.physorg.com/news98556080.html

 

[Dragoneye]

Oh, okay. Now I know what you're talking about. :BangHead:
I forgot all about that method

 

[Cobalt LT]

ummmm what? lol

 

[Luwinkle]

Hydrogen is really no more dangerous than regular gasoline. People tend to think that if we drive Fuel Cell cars around, we'll all be driving mini-hindenbergs. Which is simply not true, it's not the hydrogen that caused the airship to go supernova. The mix of paint in the skin made close to a form of thermite which ignited..and subsequently ignited the Hydrogen. Hydrogen burns with an almost entirely clear flame..and in video it shows it being definately not-clear.

 

[Grims]

Hydrogen is really no more dangerous than regular gasoline. People tend to think that if we drive Fuel Cell cars around, we'll all be driving mini-hindenbergs. Which is simply not true, it's not the hydrogen that caused the airship to go supernova. The mix of paint in the skin made close to a form of thermite which ignited..and subsequently ignited the Hydrogen. Hydrogen burns with an almost entirely clear flame..and in video it shows it being definately not-clear.

I think mythbusters did a video on the Hindenburg, and the outcome was the thermite had a minimal effect. But, then again some of their videos could be a little bit more scientific. Although they took a blow torch to some thermite mixed paint like what was on the Hindenburg and could hardly keep the stuff on fire if I remember correctly.

The main point I was getting at though is the actual storage of hydrogen. If you don't pressurize it then you would need massive tanks to hold it, and if you did pressurize it, then the cost to buy it would be much higher, because pumps would need to have heavy duty compressors on them. Also, there is the potential chance of a a tank bursting in an accident and propelling into a school bus killing 50 kids.

Here is a a small portion from wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_storage

Hydrogen storage is the main technological problem of a viable hydrogen economy. Some attention has been given to the role of hydrogen to provide grid energy storage for unpredictable energy sources, like wind power, but most research into hydrogen storage is focused on storing hydrogen in a lightweight, compact manner for mobile applications.

Hydrocarbons are stored extensively at the point of use, be it in the gasoline tanks of automobiles or propane tanks hung on the side of barbecue grills. Hydrogen, in comparison, is quite difficult to store or transport with current technology. Hydrogen gas has good energy density by weight, but poor energy density by volume versus hydrocarbons, hence it requires a larger tank to store. A large hydrogen tank will be heavier than the small hydrocarbon tank used to store the same amount of energy, all other factors remaining equal. Increasing gas pressure would improve the energy density by volume, making for smaller, but not lighter container tanks (see pressure vessel). Compressing a gas will require energy to power the compressor. Higher compression will mean more energy lost to the compression step.