Hydrogen Honda debuts in 2008. Only emission is water

[4X4]

Ok, ok... Yeah I'd prefer not to inhale fumes and for the earth to be better off. But really. Constantly wet roads mean constantly dirty cars and more car washes and more WW fluid consumed. More wipers and maybe more accidents increasing the demand for more new cars. More rust means more rust protecting chemicals.

Maybe thats going a little overboard, but I don't think you're looking at the big picture when you say that its negligible.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Ok, ok... Yeah I'd prefer not to inhale fumes and for the earth to be better off. But really. Constantly wet roads mean constantly dirty cars and more car washes and more WW fluid consumed. More wipers and maybe more accidents increasing the demand for more new cars. More rust means more rust protecting chemicals.

Maybe thats going a little overboard, but I don't think you're looking at the big picture when you say that its negligible.

That's quite a dubious claim to make, and provides too easy of an answer. There are far more complications than what you have described. Want an easier answer for all that? Look at humid places such as Vancouver or Singapore, and see how humidty impacts vehicles.

Regardless, wet roads are no fun, but I think it would be hard to believe it would be as bad as rain, or snow. Assuming the hydrogen cars don't emit water vapour, you have miniscule amounts dropping, which are easily soaked up by other people's tires and being on heated asphalt or concrete. I seriously don't think it's that big of a deal to cause any serious concern

[4X4]

I casually overlooked the earlier post that says that these cars would emit about the same amount of water as regular cars. If that is true, then yeah, you're right. I was imagining a little more water than that. Not exactly a fire hose, but maybe a p*ss stream worth. That'd add up pretty quickly.

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Ok, ok... Yeah I'd prefer not to inhale fumes and for the earth to be better off. But really. Constantly wet roads mean constantly dirty cars and more car washes and more WW fluid consumed. More wipers and maybe more accidents increasing the demand for more new cars. More rust means more rust protecting chemicals.

Maybe thats going a little overboard, but I don't think you're looking at the big picture when you say that its negligible.

And that folks, is the best example I've heard of the slippery slope fallacy.


...but it's true.

[Nehkara]

I will repeat myself... perhaps a little louder so everyone can hear me:

The emission of water from Hydrogen powered vehicles is THE SAME AS GAS-POWERED VEHICLES.

Also of note is that the tanks being used are extremely strong, to the point where they are able to sustain impacts from armor-piercing shots and remain completely intact. (The company making the tanks was demonstrating for the military but the tanks are essentially the same ones being used commercially.)

In addition, hydrogen vehicles are completely silent and require MUCH LESS maintenance because the powerplant of the vehicle has no moving parts!

Hydrogen is really a great way of powering a vehicle... Now we just need to set up some plants to produce hydrogen and connect them to solar power plants and wind power generators and we will have completely clean cars.

[Bobblehead]

Does anyone know how much water a hydrogen powered vehicle emits?


joking

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Does anyone know how much water a hydrogen powered vehicle emits?


joking

Not that it would matter in Calgary much. They named Canada Dry after our city. hehe

[skins]

Besides storage and distribution, I think the biggest obstacle for this concept will be efficient production of hydrogen. Electrolysis of water is actually not the most efficient means of extracting hydrogen. There are other chemical processes that will do the trick, but I think they're all far less efficient than a combustion engine and end up burning more fossil fuel than your car would running on gas.

[Nehkara]

Originally Posted by skins

Besides storage and distribution, I think the biggest obstacle for this concept will be efficient production of hydrogen. Electrolysis of water is actually not the most efficient means of extracting hydrogen. There are other chemical processes that will do the trick, but I think they're all far less efficient than a combustion engine and end up burning more fossil fuel than your car would running on gas.

Not if you connected whatever you are producing hydrogen with to solar and/or wind power generation... or hydro power.

Also, there are many industrial processes currently that produce hydrogen as a byproduct but it is simply wasted because it is of little use. Perhaps if there was a solid market for hydrogen they would sell it instead of wasting it.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

I will repeat myself... perhaps a little louder so everyone can hear me:

The emission of water from Hydrogen powered vehicles is THE SAME AS GAS-POWERED VEHICLES.

Just curious, but how do you know this? I figure you likely have a good source, but would like to know for my own education. Partly because I cannot see how it would work. Here's my thinking:

60 kg of gas mixes with 120 kg of oxygen from the air. (I pulled that number out of my hat.) End result is 180kg of exhaust consisting of CO, CO2, and H2O.

Now that same 60 kg of H2 mixes with the same 120 kg of oxygen; how would that not produce 180 kg of water; and seeing as now there's no CO or CO2 that would mean more water; wouldn't it?

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Just curious, but how do you know this? I figure you likely have a good source, but would like to know for my own education. Partly because I cannot see how it would work. Here's my thinking:

60 kg of gas mixes with 120 kg of oxygen from the air. (I pulled that number out of my hat.) End result is 180kg of exhaust consisting of CO, CO2, and H2O.

Now that same 60 kg of H2 mixes with the same 120 kg of oxygen; how would that not produce 180 kg of water; and seeing as now there's no CO or CO2 that would mean more water; wouldn't it?

Make it stop make it stop... I'm being haunted by Chemistry 20..

[Nehkara]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Just curious, but how do you know this? I figure you likely have a good source, but would like to know for my own education. Partly because I cannot see how it would work. Here's my thinking:

60 kg of gas mixes with 120 kg of oxygen from the air. (I pulled that number out of my hat.) End result is 180kg of exhaust consisting of CO, CO2, and H2O.

Now that same 60 kg of H2 mixes with the same 120 kg of oxygen; how would that not produce 180 kg of water; and seeing as now there's no CO or CO2 that would mean more water; wouldn't it?

http://www.ballard.com/About_Ballard...htm#transport8

How much water does a fuel cell vehicle produce? What happens to the water? Won't it ice up the roads and make them slick?
The majority of water generated by a fuel cell engine is expelled from the vehicle as vapour, and rapidly evaporates into the atmosphere. It is expected that the volume of water produced by fuel cell engines will be no more than is currently produced by internal combustion engines.

[Bill Bumface]

nm

[Nehkara]

Another thing I wanted to mention quickly is that the Honda FCX has been around for awhile. It is great to have a thread on it but I figured it was worth mentioning.

It was first built in 1999 (prototype), first delivered in 2002, first production model was 2006.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

Another thing I wanted to mention quickly is that the Honda FCX has been around for awhile. It is great to have a thread on it but I figured it was worth mentioning.

It was first built in 1999 (prototype), first delivered in 2002, first production model was 2006.

I wonder how well it would work in extreme cold weather. My civic hybrid shuts off the electric engine when it's below -30. hehe

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by fleury

And that folks, is the best example I've heard of the slippery slope fallacy.


...but it's true.

Would have been better if he used the words terrorists and win.

But yet, he is correct.

[Neeper]

So the new pollution in the future will be humidity!

I really hope to see this mass produced. The time is right to get rid of the dependence on oil.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Neeper

So the new pollution in the future will be humidity!

I really hope to see this mass produced. The time is right to get rid of the dependence on oil.

Its going to be a looooong time before we can replace the 85 million barrels a day we consume... There just isnt enough fuel to go around if they mass produce hydrogen cars quickly.. I think there will be a slow expansion of hydrogen infrastruction but it will be 30-50 years before we can shut the taps and shift from crude..

[Hakan]

Fueling the car is the major problem. We just aren't on a path dependent on hydrogen. From my research plug-in hybrids look like they will be the next dominant technology personal transport technology. It aligns much easier with our current technological infrastructure.

Synthesizing hydrogen, transporting it and then building hydrogen fueling stations is way more costly than just building battery powered cars.

Hydrogen's cool and all but I personally think it's a pipe dream.

[HeadlessChicken]

This seems appropriate here.....

Microbial Hydrogen

HC