BRUSSELS (Reuters) - DaimlerChrysler's first hydrogen-powered car using fuel cell technology will be on sale from 2012, a company executive said on Wednesday.
The firm has sent 60 Mercedes-Benz A-Class cars to Japan, Germany, Singapore and the United States for tests. Many car companies are developing hydrogen-powered cars to help wean the globe off diminishing oil supplies.
The Mercedes car uses fuel cell technology where electricity is generated through the chemical reaction between hydrogen and air, emitting only water vapor.
"It (commercialization) will start in 2012," Herbert Kohler, Vice President of the Body and Powertrain research unit at DaimlerChrysler told reporters in Brussels, on the margins of a hydrogen car technology exhibition.
AA777 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 2557 posts, RR: 26
Reply 4, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1948 times:
Its only 2005.... thats seven more years. 10 dollars says it wont be out till 2015. CAR Companies rarely meet their projected deadlines.... BMW is always late etc...anyhow...it might be one of those things that fizzles out-- remember the electric cars-- of the mid 90's. But that comes back a few years later. Anyhow, if hybrids grow in popularity, it will help the fuel consumption A LOT... Now.... how to fix fuel consumption in airplanes....
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14635 posts, RR: 62
Reply 5, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1946 times:
Theoretically hydrogen generation would be an option for today´s oil producing countries in the Middle East. They are sited in a region with lots of sun light. They could set up huge solar farms in the desert and use the electricity to electrolyse water. The resulting hydrogen gas could be liquified and transported e.g. to Europe on slightly converted Liquified Natural Gas tankers (the type used to transport methane type natural gas). The temperature of liquid hydrogen is a bit lower than the temperature of liquid methane.
Another option would be countries with water resources (hydroelectric power).
Also, even if hydrogen would be generated using conventional plants, in most cases big stationary plants work more efficiently than small installations, so it would decrease pollution.
GoCOgo From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 701 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1924 times:
Right now, just about all hydrogen is produced from oil. Producing oil by electrolysis is too energy intensive at this point. The article says that Europe alone would need 50 Million tons of hydrogen. What do you think the world would need, 1 Billion tons. Pave the Sahara with solar panels. You still won't get enough power. For electrolysis to work, nuclear power would be necessary. Of course, what we really need is a Dyson Sphere, but that's not happening in the this millennium.
"Why you fly is your business, how you fly is ours"
Lehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 20
Reply 11, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1914 times:
Quoting GoCOgo (Reply 10): You still won't get enough power. For electrolysis to work, nuclear power would be necessary. Of course, what we really need is a Dyson Sphere, but that's not happening in the this millennium.
Ahem...Geothermal? Within 50 years they could be anywhere on the planet, preferably where the Earth's crust is thinnest but stable. The only way we could run out of energy is if the planet decided to die - that is 4 BILLION years from now. I suppose there is no hurry...
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
There is not currently an effective and efficient way to turn geothermal heat into electricity. If there were, wilderness areas would function off geothermal, not generators. There may be many alternative forms of energy out there, but the challenge is getting them in usable forms.
Quoting Lehpron (Reply 11): The only way we could run out of energy is if the planet decided to die
Um, the planet is not "alive" now. While there in a crap-load of energy down there, whats there is there and that's it. It does not continue to produce energy.
"Why you fly is your business, how you fly is ours"
MxCtrlr From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 2485 posts, RR: 33
Reply 13, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1882 times:
I remember reading somewhere that scientists had discovered how to trigger pond scum into making hydrogen at will, thereby side-stepping the pollution issue. I could be mistaken about this but I seem to clearly remember seeing that somewhere...
ANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1871 times:
I'm sure the day will come when oil fired vehicles are obsolete, if not illegal. I'm fine with all that, and would even today, consider an alternate source of fuel type vehicle . . . IF it could meet me requirements. It must have the size, weight and stability of a BAFDT. It my be able to pull, at will, without strain, 20,000 pounds in, around and through Alaskan terrain (and Yukon, BC and NW Territories too). It must be all wheel drive. It should be at least a 4 door and have a covered cargo box capable of carrying anything I deem necessary to carry, beginning with my current basic load of fuel cans (what ever form they may take), water, emergency rations, first aid kit, spare tires, survival gear, and mountain bike rack. IF someone can produce it, and it's dependable, and I can get fuel generally anywhere, I'll hop on the alternate fuel vehicle bandwagon. Until then, I'll keep pissing off the bunny huggers and adding to the profits of the oil companies and Ford.
Sebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3718 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1867 times:
Quoting NWADC9 (Reply 7): Yes. That's why I think hydrogen cars are pathetic. The amount of pollution making the hydrogen would be equivalent to that car running on fuel. It's pointless.
This just proves that you are brainwashed by your president and his team.
There are other source of energy on earth than oil ! Learn a bit.
Solar, wind, agricultural oil, tidle are huge possible sources of energy.
Of course nuclear is another usable right now.
SpinalTap From New Zealand, joined Mar 2005, 441 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1857 times:
At the moment the problem is hydrogen is made from natural gas or oil. What I can't understand is even if there were cheap supplies of electricity why you would want to convert perfectly useful electrical energy that could be used to power an electric car in to chemical energy (hydrogen), that you would then use in a fuel cell to produce (guess what) electrical energy . The only possibility I see to use hydrogen as a fuel is if it was produced biologically as MxCtrlr mentioned. However hydrogen has other problems. Storage is the main problem, hydrogen is the smallest molecule and therefore is very prone to leak. Hydrogen causes reactions in the atmosphere to produce greenhouse gases so global warming won't necessarily end.
Biofuels would seem to have more of a future in the shorter term. Biodiesel does not require any further infrastructure for fuel delivery and diesel engines are well developed. Other biofuels, bioethanol (actually used in Brazil I believe) and biomethane in particular, are also a possibility.
"I get what they call a stipend, a stipend is like money but its such as small amount they don't really call it money"
SK A340 From Germany, joined Mar 2000, 845 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1845 times:
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 5): Theoretically hydrogen generation would be an option for today´s oil producing countries in the Middle East. They are sited in a region with lots of sun light.
I've somewhere red that Iceland is going to be an all hydrogen society in not too many years. They sure have the energy (and access to water) to produce it, but the question still remains; How is it going to be stored?
Also, what's better: doing like Mercedes (and many other) and let the hydrogen pass a fuel cell and create electricity and then let electric engines do the job or do like BMW and use hydrogen in a internal combustion engine (like in a diesel or gasoline powered car). Also, how does BMW's hydrogen car work? Does it use the Otto-cycle or the Diesel-cycle?
Alessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1839 times:
Spinaltap, tried out in Sweden, problem with cold, the bio-fuel tend to become
stale in below Celcius.
Also LNG is located in many remote areas where aviation and other fuel have
to be shipped, also a lot LNG burnt on off-shore rigs while pumping up oil,
all this could be used...
FlyVirgin744 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 1313 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (10 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1787 times:
Quoting Sebolino (Reply 15): This just proves that you are brainwashed by your president and his team.
Actually Sebolino, I think bringing up the fact that hydrogen production needs oil is being OPPOSITE of the president. The prez technically could support hydrogen when really he knows he'll get just as much profits from oil. When people hear hydrogen they think clean, they don't realize the oil involved. So by knowing hydrogen is just a better way of saying oil, you are actually being against the president and his hydrogen policy.
Notice: What I said above is me just trying to make a point, I don't really mean to sound like an extreme left winger by talking about Bush and oil profits.
Sometimes I go about in pity for myself and all the while a great wind carries me across the sky.