signerror
- 175
- 3
Phrak said:I'll stop kicking the sod, and get to the main issue. What's the price of a fuel cell? Without a answer to this, the rest is window dressing.
You're missing the discussion. I'm not advocating fuel cells. Neither is Ivan. We are advocating hydrogen combustion engines, taking a hit in efficiency in exchange for vastly reduced cost. The BMW I've been showing pictures of, it has a combustion engine. No fuel cells.
http://www.wired.com/news/images/full/hydrogenbmw4_f.jpg
"12-cylinder, 6.0-liter engine"
Phrak said:Hydrogen produced on site, in the US means that nominally, 40 percent is from burning coal, with a site delivery efficiency of about 36%. But coal is bountiful and cheap. It costs only 100 bucks a ton. It's the reason we can sit a a desk and argue about hydrogen and wring our hands over global warming.
I think the whole point of this thread is we're talking about replacements for petroleum-burning cars, exactly because of climate change. There is no point to EVs, or hydrogen cars, if their energy source is simply another carbon fuel. In my example, I am suggesting we use nuclear power to produce hydrogen, directly splitting water with heat (thermochemistry). Someone else suggested hydrogen from algae, and yet someone else solar thermolysis of water (far earlier in this thread).
Last edited by a moderator: