Article

2004-04-29 Home Front: Tech

Hydrogen-Powered Fords Set for Test-Drive in Sacramento, Calif.

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Mark Espinola 2004-04-29 3:16:58 PM|| || Front Page|| [11130 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Hybrid cars - He he he

One of the liberal talk show hosts here in LA, Ken Minyard, bought a hybrid car, but complained when the Highway Patrol puled him over and gave him a $100.00 ticket for not wearing his seat belt.

But I am such a good boy with high MPG. . .

Posted by BigEd 2004-04-29 5:33:14 PM|| 2004-04-29 5:33:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 So - where is this hydrogen fueling station located? I want to be sure and stay far, far away from it.

Posted by mojo 2004-04-29 6:13:24 PM|| 2004-04-29 6:13:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 mojo, gasoline is a far more dangerous explosive than hydrogen. hydrogen is so light that it would disperse in the atmosphere once released from the initial explosion. Gas just blows up and keeps on burnin.

Posted by Damn_Proud_American 2004-04-29 6:23:41 PM|| [http://brighterfuture.blogspot.com] 2004-04-29 6:23:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 ima never thought of that dpa ima glad the shuttle not full of gasoline

Posted by HalfEmpty 2004-04-29 7:19:44 PM|| 2004-04-29 7:19:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 We have a hybrid option that should be available on the 05' Sierra and Silverado. We made 2000 or so for corporate customers to make sure all the bugs are worked out. The box bed has a plug where that I think is regular AC that you can use for tailgating and such. [/shameless product plug]

Posted by Super Hose 2004-04-29 8:26:55 PM|| 2004-04-29 8:26:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 SH - although I'm now a Ford guy - good on ya' - it will become a viable option when the filling points proliferate (to the same availability as gas). Until then, it's an experiment....but one I hope succeeds

Posted by Frank G 2004-04-29 8:30:26 PM|| 2004-04-29 8:30:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 I seem to remember someone used hydrogen as fuel for a mode of transportation sometime in the past. What was that name again....?

Oh, yeah - Hindenburg.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2004-04-29 8:46:25 PM|| 2004-04-29 8:46:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 The goal is to reduce dependence on foreign oil.

I get really tired of reading this nonsense. Introducing indirection into the system, in this case replacing one fuel burning/conversion process in a gas powered car by two processes one to produce the hydrogen and a second to burn the hydrogen, more-or-less doubles the innefficieces which are over 50%. I.e. a lot more energy is required to achieve the same result. The USA has only 3 ways of substantially increasing its energy supplies. Burn more coal, build more nuclear power stations or import more oil/gas.

Posted by Phil B 2004-04-29 9:07:42 PM|| 2004-04-29 9:07:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 If you refuse to burn coal in power plants and instead burn clean Natural Gas and Oil, then the consumer is forced to compete with utilities for a scarce resource. Either we can burn coal to heat our homes or we can let the utilities burn coal in as clean a fashion as practical. And yes, this will produce carbon dioxide, as does breathing.

Posted by Super Hose 2004-04-29 10:42:35 PM|| 2004-04-29 10:42:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Note: I believe all domestic manufacturers have ceased production of all-electric automobiles: the ones which received similar accolades (and lots of PR) when they were introduced. They all failed in the marketplace. And the overarching problem facing hydrogen powered ANYTHING is just this: there are no hydrogen wells.
In order to generate the base needs of any hydrogen-fueled system, you must first expend more energy to fuel these systems than the systems themselves can ever turn into usable work. This is true of ALL systems, of course, but the non-existence of hydrogen wells makes the energy penalty hugely inefficient and a stupid general solution: you just wind up spending more nuclear/fossil fuel/solar/other energy to fuel these systems than you would to simply improve current technologies.

Posted by BK 2004-04-29 11:11:27 PM|| 2004-04-29 11:11:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Ouch. Sorry Phil B. I did not read your post prior to submitting. We are exactly in agreement, which is not surprising since the underlying principles are the basic laws of physics, which are often at odds with the basic laws of marketing.

Posted by BK 2004-04-29 11:33:49 PM|| 2004-04-29 11:33:49 PM|| Front Page Top

11:41 Gentle
11:41 Gentle
10:24 Gentle
10:24 Gentle
09:51 Gentle
09:51 Gentle
09:51 Gentle
09:51 Gentle
21:23 Patriot62
11:51 Jen
11:44 Gentle
11:09 Dave D.
10:52 Jen
10:42 Gentle
10:25 Gentle
10:22 Jen
10:17 Dave D.
10:08 Gentle
10:00 Jen
09:51 Gentle
09:42 Dave D.
09:16 Jen
08:56 Gentle
05:51 Jen