Taxis should all be electric cars

Stupido

They can do it in New York.....why not here?

Government subvention could help (Green Party Policy) with dedicated 'recharging stations' around the city. This would allow a critical mass of electric cars on the road to make the recharging stations commercially viable, and encourage private car users to switch. Power could also be obtained from green energy.

Would reduce emmissions by 20,000 cars a day. Also stop the drivers moaning about cost of fuel, as the energy could be regulated.

Buses can be next.


Thoughts?

veryangryman

Best idea ive heard in years

Stupido, your have risen above your name

Definitely viable in the city. But you know that Dublin wont do anything until London or another big English city does it

We are a nation of copycats. Now, im off to watch the Apprentice :pac:

smog

veryangryman wrote: »

Best idea ive heard in years

Stupido, your have risen above your name

Definitely viable in the city. But you know that Dublin wont do anything until London or another big English city does it

We are a nation of copycats. Now, im off to watch the Apprentice :pac:

Smoking bans ... plastic bag levy ??? I dont think so ...

Good idea. considering most cars on the road in Dublin city are taxis during unsocialable hours

paulm17781

smog wrote: »

Smoking bans ... plastic bag levy ??? I dont think so ...

New york (and probably other parts of America) had the smoking ban before us. France definitely had the plastic bag levy before us. - I like both of these but we were not the fist to introduce them.

L1011

We generate our electricity from fossil fuels for the most part so this would be of zero benefit. The Greens are never going to concede to nuclear...

blahblah06

should have put a cap on licences and there wouldnt be 20,000 carsin the city.

or why not make every car electric in ireland that will cut emmisions completely

paulm17781

MYOB wrote: »

We generate our electricity from fossil fuels for the most part so this would be of zero benefit. The Greens are never going to concede to nuclear...

I used to think this. The most inefficient part of a motor is starting and accelerating, this is where most fuel is burned, with electric this is far more efficient (same with trains).

That said, I wish they would do more with renewable energy, an electric card grid from green energy would be ideal.

Outkast_IRE

Or at least hybirds until a better solution , They are perfect for hybrids around city centers etc.

edanto

MYOB wrote: »

We generate our electricity from fossil fuels for the most part so this would be of zero benefit. The Greens are never going to concede to nuclear...

It's FAR more resource efficient to generate electricity at a power station and then use that to power cars instead of oil.

It's all about the electric cars!

L1011

Are any of you taking transmission losses in to account? As well as the losses incurred with fast charging and other problems. I seriously doubt the difference in efficiency can be described as 'far', if it is not actually negative.

edanto

I admit I'm just repeating something that someone credible told me, as opposed to having a detailed appreciation of the overall system, energy losses etc.

However, as much as you have pointed out transmission losses with grid electricity, I would have to point out the carbon cost of extracting, processing and transporting car-fuel to the point of purchase, on top of the actual emissions.

bk

The problem with this is the vast majority of power in Ireland is generated by dirty coal burning power plants (with some nicer gas fired plants).

Saying things like:

Power could also be obtained from green energy.

is a cheap platitude, what exactly is "green energy", where exactly do we get it?

When you look at the details of so called "green energy" you soon realise that most are completely inadequate and are simply a way for some business people to get rich.

If we had lots of Nuclear power like France (over 80% of all power generated by Nuclear) then it is a good idea, but we seriously need to sort how we generate power before we start looking at very expensive and largely pointless initiatives like this.

BTW it is worth noting that New York gets much of it's power from Nuclear plants, so it makes sense for them.

waraf

blahblah06 wrote: »

should have put a cap on licences and there wouldnt be 20,000 carsin the city.

Yes we really should regulate the taxi industry

Victor

Cue 3:32am Sunday morning all the taxis run out of electricity as they've all been on the go for hours.

dowlingm

Stupido wrote: »

They can do it in New York...

erm... let me stop you there
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/31/judge-blocks-hybrid-taxi-requirement/

MYOB

MYOB wrote: »

Are any of you taking transmission losses in to account? As well as the losses incurred with fast charging and other problems. I seriously doubt the difference in efficiency can be described as 'far', if it is not actually negative.

Transmission losses will always be an issue, fast charge losses could be mittigated by having a large battery at the charging station that is continually being "trickle charged" at a reasonable current.

As we allknow the real problem with electricity is the generation in the first place.

bushy...

I reckon charging (a large number of centrally controlled ) batteries would be ideal with nuclear power . Reactors would nice n happy looking after a steadyish load. Would beat having to increase/reduce power output of other stations to keep the reactors at a steady pace.

Capt'n Midnight

electric cars would mean an end to 1995 corollas

if we move to more renewables then the taxis will be greener

taxi in the city centre is start stop so electric good, but for trips to the airport and longer runs would electric be good / fast enough ?

Petrol Hybrids are a waste of time as the resources needed to make the car outweigh the savings compared to a diesel. A diesel hybrid on the other hand would be interesting especially when you take into account that diesels work most efficiently at constant load so you would run them at an optimal charging rate.

lostexpectation

MYOB wrote: »

We generate our electricity from fossil fuels for the most part so this would be of zero benefit.

its as much about getting fumes (and noise) out of city centers as it about reducing all over pollution

Capt'n Midnight

How do you know if and electric car is a taxi ?

You can still hear the whining after the engine is turned off.

thebman

lostexpectation wrote: »

its as much about getting fumes (and noise) out of city centers as it about reducing all over pollution

Agreed and noise pollution. Dublin is a very noisy city (and ranked as such if I remember correctly).

I agree with nuclear power but try to get it built FFS

bk

bushy... wrote: »

I reckon charging (a large number of centrally controlled ) batteries would be ideal with nuclear power . Reactors would nice n happy looking after a steadyish load. Would beat having to increase/reduce power output of other stations to keep the reactors at a steady pace.

Batteries like that simply don't exist at the scale of power plants and they are terrible for the environment (lots of nasty chemicals involved).

The ideal is to use Nuclear for your base load generation (the steady power that is always required), which typically is roughly 80% of the max required.
Then you use hydro (dams, etc.) for your very fast spine up generation (hydro basically work like a battery) and a little gas for medium spine up. Also use a little wind and solar to keep people happy and sell to the UK.

In the longterm, the ideal solution is to use Nuclear (eventually fusion) to produce hydrogen to be used in hydrogen powered cars.

paulm17781

bk wrote: »

In the longterm, the ideal solution is to use Nuclear (eventually fusion) to produce hydrogen to be used in hydrogen powered cars.

I'd disagree, hydrogen is being led by oil companies, to keep their revenues up. I don't think it's really a solution.

Here's a question, please let me know if I'm wrong. If we're going to be using hydrogen powered cars, is this going to water shortages? All that hydrogen has to come from somewhere? If you have some useful info for me to read, please post.

Terrontress

Surely it isn't feasible for taxis to be wholly electric. They are already complaining about lack of rank space as it is. Can you imagine the complaints if they couldn't get in to a charging rank!

Maybe if they had a taxi charging station somewhere that they sell breakfast rolls instead of on the rank they might do better.

petergfiffin

Looking at rough figures your average (if not best) electric car can go 160km before having to refuel. A Toyota Avensis Diesel (pretty average taxi) has a range of 1200km (5 l/km * 60l tank). This means your electric taxi driver will have stopped 7 times before your diesel counterpart has to do his first topup, I don't know how long these electric cars take to charge but if it's 30 mins you've lost nearly half a day's potential earnings out of your working week. I know these are very rough figures but you get the idea.

Stupido wrote: »

They can do it in New York.....why not here?

Taxis in NY are run by a smaller number of very large companies, in Ireland you would have to engage with either the union or individual taxi drivers (good luck on both counts!!)

Stupido wrote: »

Government subvention could help (Green Party Policy) with dedicated 'recharging stations' around the city. This would allow a critical mass of electric cars on the road to make the recharging stations commercially viable, and encourage private car users to switch.

Where will this money come from? Who will operate them and profit from them? Will we offer incentives to take the existing taxis off the road??

Stupido wrote: »

Power could also be obtained from green energy.

Yes, it could be but for probably the next 10-15 years it won't be given our performance to date

Stupido wrote: »

Would reduce emmissions by 20,000 cars a day.

This has to be offset against the extra electricity which has to be generated which as many have pointed out will be generated in fossil fuel powered stations.

Stupido wrote: »

Also stop the drivers moaning about cost of fuel, as the energy could be regulated.

Given the way energy has been regulated in this country they will (rightly) just be complaining about the price of electricity instead of petrol

Capt'n Midnight

bk wrote: »

Batteries like that simply don't exist at the scale of power plants

Pumped storage like Turlough Hill

Pumped storage with compressed air, but to get maximum benefit you use the air in a jet engine rather than a passive turbine.

Fuel cells can also be used to store electricity but too costly to do on such a scale. Not sure if it's energitically worth while storing hydrogen in caverns or old oil/gas wells for use in natural gas, you would not use it to generate electricity but rather to reduce imports of fuel.

KevR

bk wrote: »

In the longterm, the ideal solution is to use Nuclear (eventually fusion) to produce hydrogen to be used in hydrogen powered cars.

paulm17781 wrote: »

I'd disagree, hydrogen is being led by oil companies, to keep their revenues up. I don't think it's really a solution.

Here's a question, please let me know if I'm wrong. If we're going to be using hydrogen powered cars, is this going to water shortages? All that hydrogen has to come from somewhere? If you have some useful info for me to read, please post.

If oil companies are leading this research then they must think there's money to be made from it in the future; and if they think it, they're probably right.

I thought I saw something on tv a while back that the only emissions from hydrogen cars would be water vapour - meaning water used in hydrogen production wouldn't be lost, it would return to the atmosphere. I could be totally wrong with that though and am more than happy to be corrected.

I wonder if it's possible to manufacture hydrogen from sea/salt water. Would be much better if it was possible. Better to use sea water and leave our fresh water in rivers and lakes.

The ideal solution in my opinion would be to produce hydrogen from nuclear, wind, wave, hydroelectric, solar (not really Ireland as such) electricity. It's no good producing it with electricity from coal, oil and even gas power plants.

bk

paulm17781 wrote: »

Here's a question, please let me know if I'm wrong. If we're going to be using hydrogen powered cars, is this going to water shortages? All that hydrogen has to come from somewhere? If you have some useful info for me to read, please post.

Hydrogen is the most abundant substance in the Universe. On earth it is rarely found on it's own, but can be found as part of water (H20). It can be extracted from water using just electricity. And yes it can be extracted from salt water (sea water) so it is pretty damn abundant. Also water is the product of the end of the process, so very little water is actually lost.

You are right, oil companies are interested in it as it requires the continued use of petrol stations (converted to hydrogen) and much of the oil industries infrastructure, versus electric batteries, which don't need the oil industry.

However electric batteries have their own disadvantages (short mileage and long recharge times) so the ideal is a hybrid electric/hydrogen vehicles. Basically use the battery first and then switch to hydrogen store when the battery runs low.

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Pumped storage like Turlough Hill

Pumped storage with compressed air, but to get maximum benefit you use the air in a jet engine rather than a passive turbine.

Yes Turlough Hill is very impressive, but not particularly useful on a large scale. I read an interesting report done in the UK, that looked at what would happen if they tried switching to 100% wind power, with pumped storage as a battery. They found that you would need to cover every green field in the UK with wind turbines, plus flood something like 4 counties in order to meets the UK's power needs, not very realistic unfortunately.

Heroditas

bk wrote: »

The problem with this is the vast majority of power in Ireland is generated by dirty coal burning power plants (with some nicer gas fired plants).

The vast majority of electricity in Ireland is produced by gas ... then coal ... then oil.

Capt'n Midnight

bk wrote:

Yes Turlough Hill is very impressive, but not particularly useful on a large scale. I read an interesting report done in the UK, that looked at what would happen if they tried switching to 100% wind power, with pumped storage as a battery. They found that you would need to cover every green field in the UK with wind turbines, plus flood something like 4 counties in order to meets the UK's power needs, not very realistic unfortunately.

Then again our whole country only uses as much electricity as Birmingham so a huge difference.

and 100% wind power would be madness

And we have plenty of scope for wave power
tidal turbines are good since we have some of the highest tides in the west and a double tide along the east
we could also use coppicing to fuel regional turf type stations
and we could use the interconnector to store electricity , just like the UK do with french electricity for the kettles after corrie.

In fact with our wet climate we could make a small industry of growing biomass, and turning it into charcoal, the gases being used for electrity or fossil fuel or pharma or what have you and the charcoal being buried so we can sell carbon credits

BendiBus

bk wrote: »

I read an interesting report done in the UK, that looked at what would happen if they tried switching to 100% wind power, with pumped storage as a battery. They found that you would need to cover every green field in the UK with wind turbines, plus flood something like 4 counties in order to meets the UK's power needs, not very realistic unfortunately.

Who were they? And nobody anywhere is suggesting 100% wind power with pumped storage! Not a very realistic report unfortunately.

Cool Mo D

Just to put some efficiency figures in perspective, an average petrol engine can get about 20 - 25% of the chemical energy in fuel converted to motive energy. A diesel car is 30 - 40% efficient, and a power station around 60% efficient. So even using the same fossil fuels, there is lots of scope for reducing fossil fuel use by switching to electric cars.

paulm17781

Thanks BK, I was wondering a lot of that.

The thing is, if electric cars became big, you'd probably see huge increases in their ability, once the market goes that way, innovation would follow. I would prefer that to depending on oil companies still cornering a market. Even if they converted every petrol station to a charge point, and charged for usage, I would prefer that to having to be dependent on them they they want hydrogen to be.

bk

BendiBus wrote: »

Who were they? And nobody anywhere is suggesting 100% wind power with pumped storage! Not a very realistic report unfortunately.

I've been looking for the report, but I can't find it.

I think the point of the report was to dispel some unrealistic ideas that some people have about the capabilities of "green" energy. I've certainly meet many people who actually think we could use wind for 100% of our energy needs.

Realistically wind may reach 10%, maybe another 5% with others like hydro and wave, but realistically 80% of our power will continue to be generated by coal/oil/gas and we probably need to decide do we want to continue with that or potentially switch to nuclear.

ianwalsh2

petergfiffin wrote: »

I don't know how long these electric cars take to charge but if it's 30 mins you've lost nearly half a day's potential earnings out of your working week.

Currently they can take anything from 6 hours up to 12 hours to charge, this combined with the short range (160 - 200km) I really can't see the electric car in its current form being hugely practical for a taxi! The only person it may be useful for is the short distance commuter or the person dropping the children at school etc who can leave the car charging overnight. Although there surely will be improvements on the charge times, in fact the new Mitsubishi iMIEV has a short charge option which takes a half an hour to get something like 80% of the charge. However as you have said, a half an hour to get 128km (80% of 160km) really isn't feasible.

paulm17781 wrote: »

I'd disagree, hydrogen is being led by oil companies, to keep their revenues up. I don't think it's really a solution.

Here's a question, please let me know if I'm wrong. If we're going to be using hydrogen powered cars, is this going to water shortages? All that hydrogen has to come from somewhere? If you have some useful info for me to read, please post.

Hydrogen is surely the realistic future. It allows us to continue as we have done for the past 100 years, whereas the electric car woud be a huge step backwards for motorists and motor technology. After seeing the episode of Top Gear where they tested the Honda Clarity Link I became interested in the subject. In this car there is a cell which reacts the hydrogen with oxygen to form water, the energy caused by this reaction generates electricity which powers the electric motor (the same type as the ones which drive the rechargable electric cars).

The main stumbling block for the hydrogen car is creating the hydrogen in the first place. There are a number of ways of producing Hydrogen however the realistic way of producing the amount which may be required in the future is to split water into H2 and O, which requires a lot of energy! The law of conservation of energy states that "energy cannot be created or destroyed, the only thing that can happen with energy is that it can change form". That means that the amount of energy created by the hydrogen and oxygen joining can only be equal to the energy (electricity) required to seperate them in the first place. The hydrogen car in this form probably uses as much electricity as charging the electric car, however it will allow us to continue refuelling cars as we always have.

By the way in answer to the question, theoretically there is absolutely no water lost, as the hydrogen reacts with the oxygen and comes out of the exhaust as water vapour and back into the water cycle.

thebman

ianwalsh2 wrote: »

The main stumbling block for the hydrogen car is creating the hydrogen in the first place. There are a number of ways of producing Hydrogen however the realistic way of producing the amount which may be required in the future is to split water into H2 and O, which requires a lot of energy! The law of conservation of energy states that "energy cannot be created or destroyed, the only thing that can happen with energy is that it can change form". That means that the amount of energy created by the hydrogen and oxygen joining can only be equal to the energy (electricity) required to seperate them in the first place. The hydrogen car in this form probably uses as much electricity as charging the electric car, however it will allow us to continue refuelling cars as we always have.

By the way in answer to the question, theoretically there is absolutely no water lost, as the hydrogen reacts with the oxygen and comes out of the exhaust as water vapour and back into the water cycle.

There was this on digg a while back:
http://digg.com/d1oDMi

ianwalsh2

thebman wrote: »

There was this on digg a while back:
http://digg.com/d1oDMi

If that works out it makes the hydrogen car even more ideal.

Actually I have a question about the batteries for the electric car. I bought my laptop two years ago with a battery life of 6 hours, two years later this battery lasts less than one hour, less than 17% of the original capacity. I believe the batteries in these cars are basically a very large laptop or mobile phone battery and as we know, these batteries all lose capacity over a year or two and die eventually. So does this mean that after 2-3 years the car will only be capable of a small fraction of the original capacity? Will the battery need to be replaced every year or two? Judging by the prices of mobile phone and laptop batteries surely these battery-packs will cost the guts of a grand, if not more.

I remember back in the 70's, there were several ideas put forward for electric cars to have slot-in battery modules. The idea being that you drive into a charging station that was a bit like a carwash. The machine under the car disengaged the battery module, lowered it away and then replaced it with a fully charged set.

Then the original batteries were placed into a charging bank.

thebman

Deleted User wrote: »

I remember back in the 70's, there were several ideas put forward for electric cars to have slot-in battery modules. The idea being that you drive into a charging station that was a bit like a carwash. The machine under the car disengaged the battery module, lowered it away and then replaced it with a fully charged set.

Then the original batteries were placed into a charging bank.

What happens when you get a bad battery that won't hold the charge?

Personally I think hydrogen is the way forward. I don't want to charge my car every night and I don't want to have to change batteries. Not to mention the jobs that disappear if all the filling stations in the country close down because everyone is charging at home.

Where are the current filling stations going to keep these hundreds of batteries? They'll take up a lot of space.

thebman

thebman wrote: »

What happens when you get a bad battery that won't hold the charge?

Personally I think hydrogen is the way forward. I don't want to charge my car every night and I don't want to have to change batteries. Not to mention the jobs that disappear if all the filling stations in the country close down because everyone is charging at home.

Where are the current filling stations going to keep these hundreds of batteries? They'll take up a lot of space.

As I said, it was an idea from the 70's, as for bad batteries and stowage of charged batteries, that's the garages responsibility - you never actually own them you just buy the charge and return them, like gas bottles.

As for jobs, new industry, just like mechanics replaced blacksmiths & farriers at the start of the 20th century.

But anyway, more than one way to skin a cat!

Spook_ie

Victor wrote: »

Cue 3:32am Sunday morning all the taxis run out of electricity as they've all been on the go for hours.

More likely to be

" Northside bud, Nah don't do Northside my cable isn't long enough! "

MOH

thebman wrote: »

What happens when you get a bad battery that won't hold the charge?

Personally I think hydrogen is the way forward. I don't want to charge my car every night and I don't want to have to change batteries. Not to mention the jobs that disappear if all the filling stations in the country close down because everyone is charging at home.

I'm onto you and your Stonecutter propaganda!

Two articles in yesterday Irish Times motors supplement:

2020 target for 350,000 electric cars

and underneath it, proving once again that we're not ahead of everyone else:

Norway: plan to ban petrol, diesel cars by 2015

bk

Deleted User wrote: »

As I said, it was an idea from the 70's, as for bad batteries and stowage of charged batteries, that's the garages responsibility - you never actually own them you just buy the charge and return them, like gas bottles.

Again I can't remember where I read this, but supposedly people are looking into this option again.

One disadvantage of Hydrogen over electric, if that it is less efficient. People normally talk about well to wheel efficiency, basically taking into account all the energy used to extract, process, transport and use the energy.

Electric is excellent at 93%, petrol comes in around 80% and hydrogen comes in around 60%, as it is quiet power intensive to create, then it needs to be compressed and liquefied which also uses a lot of energy so that it can be transported.

So electric is actually the best way to distribute power, but as others have pointed out it's weakness is it's batteries, which are expensive, only give limited mileage and tend to degrade over time.

That is why the volt is such an excellent idea. It has only a relatively small battery which gives you 40 miles on the battery (enough for most peoples daily commute) and after you have used that, a petrol motor kicks in giving you an additional 600 miles. IMO this is the way to go, in the long term the petrol should be replaced by hydrogen produced from a nuclear power plant.

spank_inferno

Regarding making taxi's Electric....

Can anyone tell me how much batteries it takes to power a taxi.
By their nature taxi's have to be larger with a big boot for luggage.

My father owns a former taxi car, its a skoda diesel that is 10 years old, has over 200,000 miles on it, can seat 5 adults can store 3 large suitcases and a few other bags in the boot. It can tow well over a quater of a tonne load when the need arises also.

Does anyone know of an Electric vehicle that can do this?

AFAIK Lithium batteries lose about 15% of their power per year of operation?
How much room do they take?
Is there enough Lithium on the planet to make it happen?

Capt'n Midnight

The BIG problem with hydrogen is storage. It's the lightest substance know. 5g of it would take up 100 Litres, while providing a bit more power than a teaspoon of petrol. If you compress it you will need very large heavy tanks and the power to weight ratio falls. You can use it as a metal hydride but that adds a lot of weight as metals may only hold a few % hydrogen and only release it at 400 C.


If we develop a cheap reliable Methanol fuel cell then Hydrogen can be bypassed. Methanol can be made synthetically from carbon dioxide and water and lots of power.

Recycling of batteries / their life is why cradle to grave analysis of petrol hybrids doesnt show them to be better than diesels.

BTW Peru has half of the worlds lithium and they don't want any foreign operations taking it over since they've been repeatedly screwed over gold , silver, oil , gas and every other natural resource by big corporations.

Taxis spend a LOT of time at the ranks so having chargers there is a no brainer. Also reserve more of the ranks for electric cars to encourage conversions.


But if the scheme is just to promote petrol-hybrids then it will lead to cleaner air in the city centre, but won't show up as a reduction in resources used or as a reduction in balance of trade

ianwalsh2

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If we develop a cheap reliable Methanol fuel cell then Hydrogen can be bypassed. Methanol can be made synthetically from carbon dioxide and water and lots of power.

I'm not sure of the ins and outs of a methanol fuel cell, but surely it involves releasing methane out of the exhaust pipe and into the atmosphere? As methane is 20 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide that'd leave us out of the frying pan and into the fire in relation to climate change. The big advantage of hydrogen is that the emissions are completely harmless to the environment, i.e. water.

thebman

MOH wrote: »

I'm onto you and your Stonecutter propaganda!

Two articles in yesterday Irish Times motors supplement:

2020 target for 350,000 electric cars

and underneath it, proving once again that we're not ahead of everyone else:

Norway: plan to ban petrol, diesel cars by 2015

Lol stonecutter WTF?

I just don't like electric cars. I don't think they are as practical as environment nuts go on like they are. I think hydrogen has much more potential in the long run and requires a less dramatic shift in how we do things currently. A lot of people in favor of electric cars just seem to want to get one over on oil companies more than anything else.

We've been trying to make efficient batteries for years and we have never succeeded in making a major breakthrough that would make them good enough for electric cars on long distance journeys that I've seen.

I don't see the point or the efficiency in having a commuter car and a weekend car for driving half way across the country. Makes even less sense in bigger countries.

I agree that the Chrysler Volt is about the smartest electric car I've seen so far but hydrogen will ultimately replace electric cars IMO. I know I won't be buying one until they become affordable and they have worked out all the problems with batteries and long distance journies.

Cool Mo D

ianwalsh2 wrote: »

I'm not sure of the ins and outs of a methanol fuel cell, but surely it involves releasing methane out of the exhaust pipe and into the atmosphere? As methane is 20 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide that'd leave us out of the frying pan and into the fire in relation to climate change. The big advantage of hydrogen is that the emissions are completely harmless to the environment, i.e. water.

There's no reason why a methanol fuel cell would release methane. It would have to release CO2 and water though, as opposed to hydrogen, which reacts with oxygen to give only water.

Capt'n Midnight

ianwalsh2 wrote: »

I'm not sure of the ins and outs of a methanol fuel cell, but surely it involves releasing methane out of the exhaust pipe and into the atmosphere? As methane is 20 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide that'd leave us out of the frying pan and into the fire in relation to climate change. The big advantage of hydrogen is that the emissions are completely harmless to the environment, i.e. water.

methanol can be a renewable fuel or a way to store methane / hydrogen's energy is a liquid form that mixes with water easily
and I said a methanol fuel cell there is no exhaust

methanol is to methane as water is to hydrogen, it's different by an -OH :pac:

Hydrogen is a great fuel to burn (fuel cells are still expensive) but storage and transport is a problem.
project suntan was a 1960's project for a hydrogen powered aircraft for the US military. Aircraft have no limits of the size of the tank, you simply make a bigger aircraft. Also all the places where the plane was to refuel were owned by the airforce so no problems with infrastructure. They shelved the project because it would cost $2 billion in todays money to provide the infrastructure.

Also hydrogen has to be made, it's an artificial fuel so it's really an energy store like a battery and by volume doesn't store a whole lot of energy.

MOH

thebman wrote: »

Lol stonecutter WTF?
.

Simpsons episode where Homer joins a secret group very like the Freemasons. In a song about themselves, they claim responsibility, among other things, for holding back the electric car.

Just figured this would be my only chance to use it

paulm17781

thebman wrote: »

I just don't like electric cars.

Fair enough.

thebman wrote: »

I don't think they are as practical as environment nuts go on like they are.

Have you seen the latest ones? They're rapidly approaching a level with petrol cars.

thebman wrote: »

I think hydrogen has much more potential in the long run and requires a less dramatic shift in how we do things currently.

Change isn't a bad thing, often it makes things better. Just look at the internet. You may have hated it 20 years ago. A dramatic shift is often what is needed to break the old inefficient ways. Why use machinery and pay well when slaves used to do all the construction work for nothing? That was surely a dramatic shift.

thebman wrote: »

A lot of people in favor of electric cars just seem to want to get one over on oil companies more than anything else.

If you want to be dependent on oil then so be it. I would rather have the option to charge my car, at home, overnight (possibly by own generated electricity) than have to go to a petrol station. It's not about hating oil companies, it's about not seeing the need for them or wanting to depend on them.