Researchers say hydrogen powered cars would need 100,000 wind turbines or 100 nuclear plants, Full stoty at http://www.physorg.com/news1471.html

http://www.physorg.com/news1471.html

Actually a very good point.

Yes, good point, but no surprise. So when do we get started?

DO we get started? What are the current economic drivers ... the viable business model ... for this kind of an investment? There are lots of conspiracy theorists who blame Big Oil for the lack of current alternatives, but the truth remian that these "better" alternatives are just too darned expensive to pay their own way.

I can't speak for the UK, but if the US is to achieve this kind of "energy independence" it's going to take national committment on the scale of the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo program(s), with subsidies everywhere. Generation, transmission, storage, vehicle modifications, ... the whole works.

Hang onto your wallets!!!!!

Hi ChiRaven

from the UK I couldnt agree more

AR

New wind is already cost equivalent to new black coal generators. The sooner we get started the better. There is also wave generator, in particular, oscillating water column, that is in already in pilot installation and the Salter Duck that can utilise the higher energy density water waves or maybe reduce coastline wave damage by converting the wave energy before it reaches shore. How much has it cost the US in cyclone damage this year? There are many "economic" arguments against cleaner energy but fossil energy is stored energy that is not sustainable. Hydrogen is an energy storage medium usurpted by petroleum for over 100 years about time the perception changed and we grasped the vision of a sustainable future for spaceship earth.

Money Money Money perhaps it has talked for too long. When we talk about the cost of this clean technology compared to fossil fuels lets figure in the huge amount of money the gov't has spent on nuclear power (including research), oil exploration and retrieval and any wars that were required to obtain the oil and stabilize its price.

In the early 1970's a college programmed a computer with all the information they believed would be available about 1850, one projection stands out in my memory.
In the year 1950 the USA would have four feet horse manure over it. So much for projections.

Hydrogen? Let's finish the roll out of the hybrid. My honda hybrid is
loved by all who drive in it. Half the oil dependence.

Hydrogen is politics for "not gonna fix the Hummer tax-break loophole this year."

Even here in California, where there is a greater-than-average number of people who're supportive and indeed profess to be extremely interested in going with other sustainable energy methods like wind, the general public just hasn't exerted the pressure on government or industry to start making these things a reality.

I for one am appalled that after the last California energy crisis, there wasn't a RUSH by manufacturers to build low-cost wind generators. If there had been viable ways for the average homeowner to offset even a SMALL portion of their electricity with their own wind (or even solar) generator, people would go for it.

There's just too much "old thinking" getting in the way though. (Reminds me of the couple in Iowa this Christmas that wanted to erect a windmill on their property to power a good portion of their community's electric needs. In the end, it got blocked by the local power company that had a contract with the town for a few more years to be the exclusive provider of power. What small-minded fools.... In the end, the couple took the same money that could have powered the town for YEARS, and just paid the town's citizens' electric bills for December. Hrumph.)

The research focused on generating hydrogen using hydrolysis. What (if any) research has been done looking at generating hydrogen through chemical reactions, such as hydrochloric acid and zinc?

If you want to renovate your house, you very rarely smash your house down and start all over. You very rarely work on every room in your house at the same time. You go room by room, make changes to your position as needed.

This needs to be applied to oil dependency. This needs to start in peoples heads.

If hydrogen is too difficult to produce, this does not mean we have to stick with oil. Oil is not going to last for ever at the rate we are using it. Then what?

Why not try something else. Technology exists to have electric vehicles for example. Yes you have to make bateries but these are one-off's compared to hydrogen which would need to be constantly created.

There is a problem. Refuel points. No point in buying such a vehicle cos how would you charge it? No point making such a vehicle cos no one will buy one. So what is the point in running a refuel point if no one has such a vehicle. This loop needs to be broken, someone need to take loss for a while...

Governments should work on refuel points at a loss. Car manufacturers should use some of their MASSIVE profits to fund alternative vehicles at a loss, being supported by regular oil based vehicles. Get the vehicles into the consumers hands. Eventually with education of society, people will slowly switch over. Car manufacturers will start to reduce their losses, governments will have to fund recharge points less. Project the outcome in 50 years time.

Forget hydrogen altogether. Let's start using those new batteries Toshiba created and just go straight electric. Sure we might need to build a few new power plants, but transmitting electricity is a lot more efficient than shipping hydrogen. The infrastructure seems to be half of the problem.

what happened to using natural algae to produce hydrogen from water? i remember reading a story somewhere that swamps smell funny because the algae in the water extracts hydrogen from the water and releases it into the air.

regardless i have faith in the scientific community that they will come up with some efficient alternative means of extracting hydrogen from water. the saying goes that only "death and taxes" are certain in life, but it’s wrong. it's "death, taxes and scientific/technological advancement".

also, if someone can crack nuclear fusion (if you believe the hype) then generating electricity to extract hydrogen won't require fossil fuels. if cold fusion (e.g. using ultrasound to generate collapsing bubbles in water) is possible then this is even better.

No one wants to operate at a loss (especially the American car companies who are already not doing very well right now, like GM). This is why hybrids are more expensive. Even the imports. It's also why there are government subsidies. I don't think the American car companies are going to move forward much on this unless there are big government subsidies. I won't hazzard a guess at what the odds of that are. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader.

WaterBreath,

Regarding car companies not doing well right now. That "not doing well" is relative to previous years, not absolute. I pulled this from Yahoo finance [March this year]:

>400,000 cars per MONTH is not bad if you ask me.

Yet ironically, whilst there I read the following: