British boffins have unveiled what they believe is the future of urban personal transport - a prototype two seater micro-car powered by a single hydrogen fuel cell.
RUC_03 Riverside's hydrogen-powered car
Inside the Riversimple Urban Car (RUC) lurks a 6kW fuel cell that drives the car’s four electric motors – with one motor …
If this weren't a UK-based project I'd suspect Al Gore was mixed up in it. He may yet be, as this is exactly the sort of eco-scam he's famous for. It's a pity that entrepreneurs, engineers, accountants and scientists seem unable to speak the same language. If they could, projects like this would likely never see the light of day. One thing I DO agree with, though, build the damn nukes, already. The efficiency far supasses any hydrocarbon-based or passive collection system. As for the waste, in a few years it'll be technically and economically feasible to launch the crap at Sol, which will gobble it up without a burp.
Once a composite material has been made, it is not recyclable, even if it were made from recyclable base materials. And don't forget the toxicity and non-degradability of the material-binder. The claim that this car is 'green' is spurious at best: Far better to make it from easy-to-separate alu and steel - this can be recycled many times over.
(And lets face it, you WILL want to recycle it real soon after getting it, because it looks like the East-German Trabant.)
Hydrogen production doesn't need to use any electricity at all, never mind lots. There's no need to break the 2nd rule of thermodynamics either. Chloroplasts have been doing it for billions of years using only sunlight.
Personally I don't like the idea of sitting on 1Kg of hydrogen whilst surrounded by a plastic box, but that's a survival instinct not an environmental or technical feasibility issue. I do agree that we're going to have to get a decent amount of energy from renewable sources though (or at least the sun - who cares about where the leccy is coming from when the sun goes out/swallows Earth) but I don't think current thinking on hydrogen tech is the way forward.
>>What were you expecting from the poor molecule - a violation of thermodynamics?
Hmm.... if you crack water into hydrogen and oxygen and then join them back into water again you can't possibly gain any energy, and you will lose some (heat, compression etc.) but if you crack something at a higher energy state (methane) then join them back to something of a lower energy state (water) depending on the efficiency of the process you may have a net gain, this is true for getting hydrogen out of fossil fuel.
energy of H2O bond - energy of CH4 bond - energy used in process = net gain
And if you had bothered to check the link that Gary F used (rather than just duh'ing) you'd see that it does explain that some processes release 25% of the net energy.
Hydrogen production doesn't need to use any electricity at all, never mind lots. There's no need to break the 2nd rule of thermodynamics either. Chloroplasts have been doing it for billions of years using only sunlight.
It's news to me that Chloroplasts generate free hydrogen. However, if the general point is that photosynthesis takes in light and produces chemicals that can be used to generate (and, some sub-stages work without increasing entropy) then fine. But that's not much use in producing hydrogen for a fuel cell. You could be better off using old-fashioned things like bio-ethanol, but be warned. Plants are (overall) very inefficient turners of light into usable energy. A photocell does vastly better in that respect.
Direct light to hydrogen production by splitting of water without electrolysis has been a dream among many for a long time with very little success, and electrolysis remains the only currently viable way of doing it although there is a tremendous amount of effort being put into it. Of course that's if you start with light - if you have electricity generated from other "green" sources, such as geo, wind, tidal or hydro then you are stuck with electrolysis.
Generating hydrogen from other hydrocarbon resources looks more efficient, but it is a spurious saving as it sacrifices some of the chemical potential energy in source material.
For £200 pcm I want a car that will do more than transport me. I'd like room for my shopping. I'd like to go somewhere with luggage and a passenger. Fat chance. Oh, and I'd like to not have to use a disabled spot to have room to open my doors.
Why can't they just take the technology that they've produced, and ask GM if they'll put it in a Corsa?
Register
British boffins have unveiled what they believe is the future of urban personal transport - a prototype two seater micro-car powered by a single hydrogen fuel cell. RUC_03 Riverside's hydrogen-powered car Inside the Riversimple Urban Car (RUC) lurks a 6kW fuel cell that drives the car’s four electric motors – with one motor …
Page:
@Preece
"If 1KG takes it 240 miles, why not give it a 3KG tank? iI's not like it's a massive amount of weight...."
Actually it's exactly like that. One of GM's efforts along this line had a tank complex that massed 75 kg empty, 77 kg full.
(<em><a href="http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/">How fire can be domesticated</a></em>)
Wait, don't I know that guy?
If this weren't a UK-based project I'd suspect Al Gore was mixed up in it. He may yet be, as this is exactly the sort of eco-scam he's famous for. It's a pity that entrepreneurs, engineers, accountants and scientists seem unable to speak the same language. If they could, projects like this would likely never see the light of day. One thing I DO agree with, though, build the damn nukes, already. The efficiency far supasses any hydrocarbon-based or passive collection system. As for the waste, in a few years it'll be technically and economically feasible to launch the crap at Sol, which will gobble it up without a burp.
End of recycling cycle
Once a composite material has been made, it is not recyclable, even if it were made from recyclable base materials. And don't forget the toxicity and non-degradability of the material-binder. The claim that this car is 'green' is spurious at best: Far better to make it from easy-to-separate alu and steel - this can be recycled many times over.
(And lets face it, you WILL want to recycle it real soon after getting it, because it looks like the East-German Trabant.)
Hydrogen production
Hydrogen production doesn't need to use any electricity at all, never mind lots. There's no need to break the 2nd rule of thermodynamics either. Chloroplasts have been doing it for billions of years using only sunlight.
Personally I don't like the idea of sitting on 1Kg of hydrogen whilst surrounded by a plastic box, but that's a survival instinct not an environmental or technical feasibility issue. I do agree that we're going to have to get a decent amount of energy from renewable sources though (or at least the sun - who cares about where the leccy is coming from when the sun goes out/swallows Earth) but I don't think current thinking on hydrogen tech is the way forward.
@Filippo
>>What were you expecting from the poor molecule - a violation of thermodynamics?
Hmm.... if you crack water into hydrogen and oxygen and then join them back into water again you can't possibly gain any energy, and you will lose some (heat, compression etc.) but if you crack something at a higher energy state (methane) then join them back to something of a lower energy state (water) depending on the efficiency of the process you may have a net gain, this is true for getting hydrogen out of fossil fuel.
energy of H2O bond - energy of CH4 bond - energy used in process = net gain
And if you had bothered to check the link that Gary F used (rather than just duh'ing) you'd see that it does explain that some processes release 25% of the net energy.
@Ross 7
Hydrogen production doesn't need to use any electricity at all, never mind lots. There's no need to break the 2nd rule of thermodynamics either. Chloroplasts have been doing it for billions of years using only sunlight.
It's news to me that Chloroplasts generate free hydrogen. However, if the general point is that photosynthesis takes in light and produces chemicals that can be used to generate (and, some sub-stages work without increasing entropy) then fine. But that's not much use in producing hydrogen for a fuel cell. You could be better off using old-fashioned things like bio-ethanol, but be warned. Plants are (overall) very inefficient turners of light into usable energy. A photocell does vastly better in that respect.
Direct light to hydrogen production by splitting of water without electrolysis has been a dream among many for a long time with very little success, and electrolysis remains the only currently viable way of doing it although there is a tremendous amount of effort being put into it. Of course that's if you start with light - if you have electricity generated from other "green" sources, such as geo, wind, tidal or hydro then you are stuck with electrolysis.
Generating hydrogen from other hydrocarbon resources looks more efficient, but it is a spurious saving as it sacrifices some of the chemical potential energy in source material.
Form over function.
For £200 pcm I want a car that will do more than transport me. I'd like room for my shopping. I'd like to go somewhere with luggage and a passenger. Fat chance. Oh, and I'd like to not have to use a disabled spot to have room to open my doors.
Why can't they just take the technology that they've produced, and ask GM if they'll put it in a Corsa?
Page: