Just watched it tonight on tv I cant believe how stupid GM is crushing all the EV1 cars like that. They havent learned anything in 100 years and never will. Hydrogen is a complete waste of money I think the one comment sums it up. On the EV1 the only maintence is to rotate the tires and fill the washer fluid. Any one else see the show and have any thoughts?

Watching the end of it right now. I wonder how fast they really were... Too bad they're ugly as sin.

quote Originally posted by red85gt: Just watched it tonight on tv I cant believe how stupid GM is crushing all the EV1 cars like that. They havent learned anything in 100 years and never will. Hydrogen is a complete waste of money I think the one comment sums it up. On the EV1 the only maintence is to rotate the tires and fill the washer fluid. Any one else see the show and have any thoughts?

1 thought:
Cars--as God intended them--without the demon electricity!

I predict in ten years there wont be any american car makers. Either they will all merge into one or the japanese and koreans will secretly take them over from the inside lol Be like world war with the americans teaming up against the rest of the world. The only thing is they have pissed away any chance of winning by scrapping every good vechicle they make wasting millions of dollars.

That was the old GM though. Although I'm sure this new GM isn't much different. However, I believe a lot of that movie was brainwashing as well. Whilst it probably was a good car, and it was scrapped for all the wrong reasons, I think a lot of it was exaggerated, as are most environmental reports these days..

The main point was clear though why would any car company sell a car that they cant sell any service on. They love hybrids cause the electric motor dose nothing really and the motor still needs oil changes and tune up and all that. A pure electric car would need nothing besides light bulbs tires and washer fluid. Maybe glass now and then but realistically you could buy a new car and drive it for the whole lease and not spend a dime back to the car maker for maintence. I made a point of never spending a dime when I leased my ranger at ford. Walmart did my oil changes and tire rotations. There afraid of going broke cause they cant make any money doing repairs. If thats true how do tv and microwave people stay in buisness. IF they dont go broke why would a car maker go broke. I also read that the savings of driving a hybrid get wiped out if you need to replace the battery. IF you save 5K in 5 years and the battery goes dead its 5K to replace it making your savings zero.

[This message has been edited by red85gt (edited 01-11-2010).]

Oh, I completely agree with you that it was a big conspiracy on GM's part. My comment was more directed towards the whole global warming/environment/the need for an electric car non-sense that's in the air as of lately.

I for one would love to own a car that is cheap to maintain needs zero maintence and we have to plug in our cars anyways most nights(canada) sounds like a good idea I also found it quite stupid that after spending all that money and actually making a assembly plant they were actually getting the public to think they were a bad idea so they could scrap everything. As we all know looks can be modified

[This message has been edited by red85gt (edited 01-11-2010).]

Pfft, you Saskatchewaners have it easy! I just saw a +6 degrees in the forecast for you! That's ridiculous! Meanwhile, over here, it's supposed to be -4. Curses!

There's no conspiracy from GM on this. I'll tell you who killed the electric car: YOU DID.

The reality is that there just isn't much market for an electric car. You can say all you want about how GM killed off the EV-1, but the last time I checked, GM wasn't the only car maufacturer in the world. So the question I have to ask all of you who think it was a conspiracy is this:

Why aren't Toyota, Honda, and Nissan selling hundreds of thousands of electric cars every year?

The answer is because no one will buy them. A car that can only go 150 miles before needing to be refueled for a long period of time doesn't fit with most people's lifestyles. Just like Ed Begley said in the documentary: This car doesn't meet the needs of 100% of the people, it only meets the needs of 95% of the people.

That's only part of the issue. The issue is that it meets the needs of 95% of the people 90% of the time. The other 10% of the time, you're basically without a car.

Here's how you can see how you would be impacted: When you leave the house every day, reset your trip odometer. If the odometer ever hits 150 miles before you make it home, then stop at a convenient spot, and wait for 4 hours. Now, you'll be able to do this almost every day without needing to stop and "recharge". But at some point, you're going to need to go more than 150 miles, and you're stuck. Which means you need another conventional car to drive a couple of times a year when you need more range and no long refueling times. So you now you need TWO cars, one of which is just going to sit and rot most of the time.

Now see why there are no electric cars on the market? If they can increase the range to about 300 miles and make the cars where they can be charged in 10 minutes, and THEN you'll have a car that will sell. And yes, many people already have two or more cars...but most people have two cars because they already need two cars.

Don't forget, GM was leasing these vehicles, with no option to buy. There were GM's product and frankly, they were old technology and people wouldn't want to pay the REAL price to buy one. It was a test of the idea, just like Chrysler and the turbine engine. They test mules. The problem is that the hippies who had the EV-1 thought that they deserved to have these cars. What the hippies got was a "free" car from GM. They just had to pay the lease and drive the car.... no other catches.

There will be electric cars and hydrogen cars and gasoline cars... etc in the future. Hydrogen is not that bad of an idea and could have a distribution similar to propane or gasoline.

J.

quote Originally posted by Valkyrie: Pfft, you Saskatchewaners have it easy! I just saw a +6 degrees in the forecast for you! That's ridiculous! Meanwhile, over here, it's supposed to be -4. Curses!

A balmy -4. Meanwhile here in the tropical part of the country it's -8 and snowing!

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: There will be electric cars and hydrogen cars and gasoline cars... etc in the future. Hydrogen is not that bad of an idea and could have a distribution similar to propane or gasoline. J.

Actually, Hydrogen is a terrible idea. Hydrogen is basically a really inefficient storage battery. It is NOT a fuel. The technology to use hydrogen to power a car is sound....how and where to actually get the hydrogen is the problem.

It's like saying electricity is a fuel. It's not. The fuel is whatever the power plant uses to make the electricity.

Pure electric cars do not require zero maintenance. Here are a few things that need to be replaced besides the wiper fluid and blades. You have tires (usually high pressure, low rolling resistance tires that cost more than regular tires), brake pads (these may last longer if the car uses regenerative braking, but they still will need to be replaced), shocks or struts (most of Americas roads aren't pot hole free), head lights, tail lights, and marker lights (DRLs don't last as long as regular bulbs and HIDs are more expensive). Don't forget bodywork, there are many who are careless driving and opening their doors into yours, accidents do happen. I also believe the cars will still need oil changes for their transmissions (not as much as engine changes, but they still will be needed). The point is anything mechanical still needs some sort of maintenance to keep it working at peak efficiency.

The EV-1 was a GM test car. You couldn't buy one, only lease.

Think of it this way. You are renting your home on a lease. You have to move when the lease expires. Why do you think you get to keep the home after the lease expires? Same with the EV-1. It was property of GM. They wanted them back, so they got them back/crushed them, etc.

It was their property, not the leesee's.

GM didn't crush them all, there are at least 2 still around. One is at the Peterson Museum in LA and the other in GM somewhere.

As for the car itself, it didn't sell. It was a limited market (2 states I believe) and a two seater. I never seen any in Texas at any time.

Its no wonder GM killed it.

No conspiracy at all. The program was terminated, GM wanted its property back. Game over.

no one killed the electric car. you could buy one anytime.

picture the samething done with Fiero's. You'd get a sappy documentary, heavily skewed, and only showing the opinions of those of us who like Fiero's.

there are still some basic, what we today call essentials, which electric cars (and hybrids) just dont overcome easily: heaters, AC & headlights. kick these items on, and all of a sudden all the benifts of electric cars disappears. and - go thru a work week without these items.....

I am all for electric - but I am realistic enough to know that we are not quite there yet. but - by all means - keep trying. with just a little more efficenciy out of the fuel powered side of hydrids - and we will be there.

Hydrogen is nifty - but seem way to cumbersome to make wholesale infrastructure changes for.

that "who killed the EV" documentary is nothing but nostalgia. there is magic time of car ownership for most folk, and that car will always be a birght star when looking back. the EV was nothing special.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: Hydrogen is nifty - but seem way to cumbersome to make wholesale infrastructure changes for.

No, hydrogen is a boondoggle. It is not the fuel of the future, and infrastructure is the least of the problems. In order to use hydrogen as a fuel, you'll need to repeal those pesky laws of thermodynamics. Good luck with that.

quote that "who killed the EV" documentary is nothing but nostalgia. there is magic time of car ownership for most folk, and that car will always be a birght star when looking back. the EV was nothing special.

Agreed. People thought it was something that would solve a ton of problems, while ignoring or being ignorant of the deficiencies of the product.

Most people don't understand how much energy is stored in a gallon of gasoline. That's difficult to replicate with another fuel in a vehicle that can't be tethered to the fuel supply.

The technology was already in place to use a battery that could go 300 miles between charges. If you wanted to go on a trip somewhere thats why we have trains and planes and busses. For everyday use they worked just fine I bet I havent checked but I think they already sell EV cars in Japan and europe. The reason they dont sell here is cause there is no law requring them. Like the show said the only reason cars got seat belts airbags cat converters is cause the goverment forced then to do it. GM dosent care about how many people they save if they had it there way cars would still have none of there saftey items. Cause its cheaper to make cars without it. When you compare the attitudes of american car makers to the europeans and japanese you can see why I dont think GM and the rest will be around much longer. There already in bankrupsy and have no good vehicle line to make a profit anymore. Maybe when were all walking around with breathing masks on cause of constant smog alerts people will start to think the enviroment is worth saving. The Toyota rep said on camera hydrogen gets worse milage is slower and costs three times as much. There hydro car only went 180miles on a fill up.

[This message has been edited by red85gt (edited 01-11-2010).]

quote Originally posted by SGS: No, hydrogen is a boondoggle. It is not the fuel of the future, and infrastructure is the least of the problems. In order to use hydrogen as a fuel, you'll need to repeal those pesky laws of thermodynamics. Good luck with that.

well, I understand that, in the process of "creating" hydrogen - then using it as fuel. but - being solar power can be used easily to do this as the "energy in". yes, while individuals getting 100% of their motoring power from the sun is unlikely - getting over 60% is not. and, at that point - the unbreakable thermodynamics laws are moot.

also - what is it that makes gasoline - and other fuels - powerful? HYDROcarbons - Hydrogen.
and, gasoline is not exactly a energy zero item either - much power goes in to get gasoline. tho over 50 years of refinement has made that highly efficient.

I just want to get away from gasoline, so the middle east will once again be just idiots living in the sand - and not the center of the world. noone gave a $hit about them before oil - and same will apply when we are done with it. sucks oil works so well....

Hydrogen is much more viable than people think. There is already a lot of CNG tanks at a lot of gas stations. It would not take much to add another tank full of hydrogen.

I don't see how the laws of thermodynmics has anything to do with using hydrogen as a replacement for gasoline. Hydrogen is in effect a much more efficient "battery" for electricity than anything else that is even on the horizon. Since we have access to a technology that can provide unlimited electricity, it only makes sense to replace gasoline in vehicles with something that can be created with our unlimited electric resource.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: well, I understand that, in the process of "creating" hydrogen - then using it as fuel. but - being solar power can be used easily to do this as the "energy in". yes, while individuals getting 100% of their motoring power from the sun is unlikely - getting over 60% is not. and, at that point - the unbreakable thermodynamics laws are moot.

I wouldn't say it's EASY with solar. It's still ridiculously energy intensive. And if you have solar power to make hydrogen, you're better off putting the solar generated electricity in batteries and running cars off that.

Running a car off hydrogen is about like running a car off compressed air. It can be done, but you're actually reaching Rube Goldberg status, and in the process wasting a LOT of energy.

quote also - what is it that makes gasoline - and other fuels - powerful? HYDROcarbons - Hydrogen. and, gasoline is not exactly a energy zero item either - much power goes in to get gasoline. tho over 50 years of refinement has made that highly efficient.

There's much more energy in a gallon of gasoline than it takes to obtain it. That's what makes it work, and this exact concept is one of the roadblocks in the debate over ethanol. And just because there's hydrogen in hydrocarbons doesn't mean much. Compounds often have drastically different characteristics than the elements they are composed of. For example, sodium is a metal that burns spontaneously in air and explodes on contact with water, and chlorine is a poisonous yellow gas. But if you combine them to make sodium chloride, the result is tasty on french fries.

quote I just want to get away from gasoline, so the middle east will once again be just idiots living in the sand - and not the center of the world. noone gave a $hit about them before oil - and same will apply when we are done with it. sucks oil works so well....

No way to argue against that!

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: ..... I don't see how the laws of thermodynmics has anything to do with using hydrogen as a replacement for gasoline. .....

because you need to expend energy to create hydrogen. why not use that same energy to propel the vehicle, instead of doing the energy dance to make hydrogen. and - every step in that dance is energy lost.

which is why I mention solar. a 8x8 collector in your yard can produce quite a bit of hydrogen - which would take care of 50-70% of most peoples driving needs. which is pretty damn good.

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: Hydrogen is much more viable than people think. There is already a lot of CNG tanks at a lot of gas stations. It would not take much to add another tank full of hydrogen. I don't see how the laws of thermodynmics has anything to do with using hydrogen as a replacement for gasoline. Hydrogen is in effect a much more efficient "battery" for electricity than anything else that is even on the horizon. Since we have access to a technology that can provide unlimited electricity, it only makes sense to replace gasoline in vehicles with something that can be created with our unlimited electric resource.

We have the technology to create unlimited electricity? Sure, the technology exists but it's far from being practical due to the cost.

And why would you generate tons of electricity, then waste half of it in the process of generating hydrogen, then wast 2/3 of the energy from the hydrogen to power an IC engine or a fuel cell to power a car? From the original electricity in, you get about 17% out.

I could just take the same electricity and charge batteries and run the car on batteries and only lose about 15%.

So, use the electricity directly and waste only about 15% of it, or use the electricity to make hydrogen and waste over 80% of it. Which do you think is a better idea?

quote Originally posted by SGS: We have the technology to create unlimited electricity? Sure, the technology exists but it's far from being practical due to the cost. And why would you generate tons of electricity, then waste half of it in the process of generating hydrogen, then wast 2/3 of the energy from the hydrogen to power an IC engine or a fuel cell to power a car? From the original electricity in, you get about 17% out. I could just take the same electricity and charge batteries and run the car on batteries and only lose about 15%. So, use the electricity directly and waste only about 15% of it, or use the electricity to make hydrogen and waste over 80% of it. Which do you think is a better idea?

batteries have loss too. once the hydrogen is made - it is ZERO loss.
also - hydrogen storage is mighty clean, compared to batteries & to gasoline refinement.
and, with a heavy solar base - the loss is somewhat moot. tho - I do agree with a decent battery system - that would be the better way to go - but I worry about the battery lifespans & waste. a compressed gas container is a fairly simple item vs Litium Ion, NiCad, Lead Acid. and endlessly storable. even gasoline in a tank is junk after a year.

but - I do agree we are not quite there yet. but - you must also make allowances for new prototypes vs endlessly refined systems. gasoline wasnt always as smooth as it is now. I would expect there was tremendous "energy loss" in the early days of oil. heck - just looking at the engines which used the gasoline in the early days - not exactly thermodynamicly efficient

quote Originally posted by SGS: We have the technology to create unlimited electricity? Sure, the technology exists but it's far from being practical due to the cost. And why would you generate tons of electricity, then waste half of it in the process of generating hydrogen, then wast 2/3 of the energy from the hydrogen to power an IC engine or a fuel cell to power a car? From the original electricity in, you get about 17% out. I could just take the same electricity and charge batteries and run the car on batteries and only lose about 15%. So, use the electricity directly and waste only about 15% of it, or use the electricity to make hydrogen and waste over 80% of it. Which do you think is a better idea?

While all of that sounds good in theory, in practice it is a whole different picture. Apples to apples, if you compare two vehicles with similar performance, range and passenger space, a hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicle will be better is all categories. Hydrogen fuel cells can be refueled quickly and in a similar way that our current vehicles are fueled. Batteries take hours to charge.

Efficency is irrelavant when, as I said, we have the potential for unlimited electricity. You cite costs but that is debatable. Either way we need more electricity to power either battery powered or hydrogen powered so your point is moot.

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: Don't forget, GM was leasing these vehicles, with no option to buy. There were GM's product and frankly, they were old technology and people wouldn't want to pay the REAL price to buy one. It was a test of the idea, just like Chrysler and the turbine engine. They test mules. The problem is that the hippies who had the EV-1 thought that they deserved to have these cars.

You make a very important point. How was the price to be determined if indeed GM had decided to sell them to the people who leased them? I believe it was Car and Driver magazine that esitmated the price to be somewhere on the order of $1 million each and GM would still lose money on them. The car was a tech exercise for GM, nothing more. They were never intended for resale.

Another important point is that Califormia changed the rules regarding its desire for "zero-emissions". Being electric, the EV1 was a true "zero-emissions" car and thus met California's requirements that such-and-such percent of each car maker's products be zero-emissions by a certain time frame. California didn't consider hybrids to qualify at first. Later California changed its legislation to give the auto makers leeway to include hybrid sales as credit towards "zero-emissions" and thus the urgency to have an all-electric car as soon as possible was gone.

The concept that GM killed the electric car is just like the idea that GM killed the trolleys and streetcars all across the country. Sure GM may have bought controlling interest in trolley lines in some cities, but even in the cities were GM wasn't involved, their trolleys were replaced by busses and cars just the same. The unlimited flexibility and enormous infrastructure and operating savings of busses (and cars) are what doomed the streetcars. And hey, busses and cars are modern! America was in love with cars and there was no stopping the switchover. However its more fun to paint GM as the villian.

quote Originally posted by SGS: An 8'x8' collector in full sun will net you something like 1200W, give or take. So, you can run a microwave oven. You won't be making much hydrogen with that. And let's discuss what that would cost. You have the cost of the solar panels, which aren't cheap....About $6/watt installed. So there's $7000 worth of solar panels. Then you have to have some sort of rig to generate the hydrogen, then you have to have storage tanks, AND you have to have a compressor to compress it. Since hydrogen, unlike propane, doesn't liquify under a relatively small amount of pressure, the only way to get decent capacity is to put a LOT of squeeze on it. Natural gas is the same way, and people using NG for cars have compressors that pump the tanks in the cars to 3600 psi. One of those compressors is about $10k. And this is before you've even purchased the car that runs on hydrogen.

2'x4' panels are $300
and getting cheaper all the time
the hydrogen generation at it simplest - and fairly wasteful - is electrolysis, which is endlessly simple
the compressor - yes - this maybe an issue - BUT - I think we also have a solution: no reason we cannot use a percentage of the H & O generated to power the compressor as well.

I believe Iceland is attempting to switch from oil to Hydrogen as it can readily produce it locally.

quote Originally posted by newf: I believe Iceland is attempting to switch from oil to Hydrogen as it can readily produce it locally.

yes, isnt Iceland blessed with endless Geothermal Power?

there are spots down in the ocean too, which have enough geothermal energy to power the entire USA. but - harnessing is a holw 'nother can of bees.
not sure what is bad about a can of worms - opening a can of bees is much scarier....

quote Originally posted by red85gt: Just watched it tonight on tv I cant believe how stupid GM is crushing all the EV1 cars like that. They havent learned anything in 100 years and never will. Hydrogen is a complete waste of money I think the one comment sums it up. On the EV1 the only maintence is to rotate the tires and fill the washer fluid. Any one else see the show and have any thoughts?

I haven't seen the documentary, but I do know of it, and the project in question (as well as the protests in Hollywood, etc...).

There are still three that exist from what I understand, but I don't necessarily think it has to do with a huge conspiracy.

Just using logic, I would assume that GM probably had their reasons, those being:


1 - The range of the vehicle is limited. The top range estimated for the vehicle was 75 miles. Sure, it uses no gasoline, but what happens when you run out of power? Are they going to offer free towing for the life of the car? America as a generation are idiots when it comes to automobiles. They "gas and go". That's all most people know how to do. How many times do you see a person driving down the street really slowly with a flat tire and their hazards on because they don't know how to change the tire? When your gas gauge begins to go down, you pull into a gas station, of which there are many. When your battery gauge goes down... then what do you do? Drive home???

2 - Based on other electric vehicles I've seen, they usually require 220-volt 30+ amp outlets to be installed in your garage in order to properly charge the vehicle. That means the only place your vehicle can be charged is at home. Charging a car usually happens "overnight". What if you forget? You cannot rely on the vehicle as being your only primary means of transportation. Even if you don't use the vehicle, you'll still need to charge it every so often.

3 - The life of the batteries. Have you ever owned a battery powered golf cart? Deep cycle batteries (which would be required for an all electric vehicle) are extremely expensive. For a golf cart, which uses six 6v deep cycle batteries, it costs $1,300 bucks... that's HALF the cost of the vehicle itself. Batteries only last on average about 4-5 years (usually 3 to 4 in heavy use). The cost for an EV1 replacement battery (it was a large battery pack that was custom made) would be exponentially higher than anything like that. You would realistically be looking at a cost of around $5,000 bucks every 4-5 years. If the battery didn't make it that long, then GM would likely have to absorb the cost if the battery needed to be changed out before 32k miles and 3 years... imagine the cost implications it would have on them?


Plain and simple, the technology has been there for a LONG time... there have been electric cars as early as the late 1800s. This wasn't a test of technology, it was a test of consumer culture. They obviously could tell that it would have failed, and that's why they pulled the plug.

There was no conspiracy, there was no secret agenda...

GM simply realized this would be more trouble than it was worth, and cancelled the project.

These are the EXACT SAME PROBLEMS that GM anticipated in their Chevy Volt, and it is for that very reason that they decided to add a gas powered engine in the Volt to recharge the batteries because they KNEW that people were going to be stupid.

------------------
Todd,
2008 Jeep Patriot Limited 4x2
2002 Ford Explorer Sport 2dr 4x2
2002 Ford Crown Victoria LX
1987 Pontiac Fiero SE / V6
1973 Volkswagen Type-2 Transporter

Fast charging of batteries can be done, but that too is controversial because of the power levels needed to be able to do this.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/gr...outs-10minute-fillup

Nissan has a pilot project for this in Arizona.
http://gas2.org/2009/03/10/...-network-in-arizona/

Here is another article on the reality of fast charging batteries and what is involved. They claim a battery can be charged in about 2 seconds, but the demands to do this are significant.
http://www.matternetwork.co...lectric-vehicles.cfm

quote it looks like even if we can technically charge the batteries in 2 seconds it isn’t feasible using the supply in our homes

[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 01-11-2010).]

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: yes, isnt Iceland blessed with endless Geothermal Power? there are spots down in the ocean too, which have enough geothermal energy to power the entire USA. but - harnessing is a holw 'nother can of bees. not sure what is bad about a can of worms - opening a can of bees is much scarier....

It is discussed on this Nova episode:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/6...ure#x-0,vepisode,1,0

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: While all of that sounds good in theory, in practice it is a whole different picture. Apples to apples, if you compare two vehicles with similar performance, range and passenger space, a hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicle will be better is all categories. Hydrogen fuel cells can be refueled quickly and in a similar way that our current vehicles are fueled. Batteries take hours to charge.

Hydrogen being refueled quickly depends on how big the compressor is. For fueling at home, a $10k compressor takes overnight. Fast fill commercial fueling stations are big $$$.

quote Efficency is irrelavant when, as I said, we have the potential for unlimited electricity. You cite costs but that is debatable. Either way we need more electricity to power either battery powered or hydrogen powered so your point is moot.

When speaking of energy, efficiency is THE most relevant thing to consider. You have to PAY for all of the energy, even if it's waste. Your statement is about like saying that what mileage your car gets is irrelevant. Yeah, if you have infinite money it is, but none of us are in that situation. So if you're paying for it (and you have to), then you damn well better be concerned about efficiency.

And as I mentioned, using hydrogen to power a car is about like using compressed air to power a car....it can be done, there are just more efficient and less costly ways to do it.

And I'm curious about this unlimited electricity you keep speaking of....because we can't use solar panels to even power a decent sized office building....and that's assuming that we don't want to run it at night. There is a finite amount of solar energy striking the earth, and there is a limitation to how much of it you can cover with PV panels and mirrors for CSP. So to say that we can generate unlimited electricity is just simply not true.

Before you get your shirts all in knots, remember the context. Number 1, the car was a looser.

Number 2, the "documentary" comes from the same left wing conspiracy source as Al Gore, David Suzuki, and let us not forget the publicly owned and paid for, but not publicly controlled CBC.

They like nothing better than to malign anything American. They'll go out of their way to create a culture of resentment toward America, Canada's best friend and ally. I would ignore it.

Arn

quote Originally posted by SGS: When speaking of energy, efficiency is THE most relevant thing to consider. You have to PAY for all of the energy, even if it's waste. Your statement is about like saying that what mileage your car gets is irrelevant. Yeah, if you have infinite money it is, but none of us are in that situation. So if you're paying for it (and you have to), then you damn well better be concerned about efficiency. And as I mentioned, using hydrogen to power a car is about like using compressed air to power a car....it can be done, there are just more efficient and less costly ways to do it. And I'm curious about this unlimited electricity you keep speaking of....because we can't use solar panels to even power a decent sized office building....and that's assuming that we don't want to run it at night. There is a finite amount of solar energy striking the earth, and there is a limitation to how much of it you can cover with PV panels and mirrors for CSP. So to say that we can generate unlimited electricity is just simply not true.

Yes, we do have the capability to produce unlimited energy. We have had the technology for over half a century. It is called nuclear.

If we used that technology then the price of electricity would be so cheap that it would become irrelevant just like when gasoline was $1 a gallon. How many hybrid cars do you think people would buy if gas was $1 a gallon?

We have a supply problem, not a efficency problem. As long as the regressive environmentalists stand in the way of all progress then we will continue on the road we are on.

quote Originally posted by SGS: A 2x4 panel with what output exactly? Let's see what it takes to generate hydrogen. It takes about 11,000 BTU per pound of water to actually break the bonds between the oxygen and hydrogen in water. In order to break those bonds, I have to put in WAY more energy because of the losses in the process. Let's say that it's pretty efficient at 50%. That means I have to put in 22,000 BTU for every pound of water I'm going run through my electrolysis process. That's over 183,000 BTU/gallon of water. Backing that back into electrical terms, that's 53.8 kwh.....for ONE gallon of water to be electrolyzed into hydrogen. That means with a 1200 W solar panel array, it would take 44 hours of FULL sun to turn ONE gallon of water into hydrogen. In other words, it would take you a week. And how much hydrogen is that? Well, at a fuel cell efficiency of 33%, I can get 3600 BTU - a little over 1kwh - out to run a motor. Not much.

yup - I agree solar panels are sloppy in efficiency. there are more direct approaches.
http://www.hionsolar.com/n-hion96.htm is a completely mechanical approach
I myself am working on a Stirling Engine, which will be solar powered
and, there are catalysts which can be added to water to make electrolysis more efficeint
there is alot available - and - when the base fuel (solar) is abundant & free - and no Arabs get $$$ for it - I find it tasty - but I agree completely we are not quite ready - very close tho.
and, 2/3 gallon of liquid hydrogen is ALOT of power