sorry the mythbusters busted this one.

No, not really. All they really "proved" is that the fabric wasn't entirely responsible. Any idiot knows that, that's the equivalent of saying the spark plugs provide all the power to run your car. The hydrogen did in fact burn, but the skin is what started it burning. And the way the ship was designed, a pure hydrogen fire wouldn't have been the catostrophic failure that actually resulted.

their working on it.

Quite possibly true (I haven't been able to find that segment online in its entirety) but they tested the flammability in a really half-assed manner. More importantly, an actual hydrogen fire would not match any of the witness acounts, nor the film of the incident. Given the vent design on the ship, flames would not have been visible as early in the fire as they were if the fire started from the hydrogen instead of the skin.

A vent fire would have been nearly invisible until the skin caught fire from radiated heat, which would have taken several seconds and a good percentage of the total hydrogen on board (the skin was designed to reflect outside heat, remember?) And when it did start, much of the top would have flashed at once, due to the explosive nature of the paint.

Much the same argument dictates against an internal hydrogen fire. If it was contained, it would have exploded, not burned. It certainly would have consumed all the oxygen in the crew spaces, which clearly isn't true because there were survivors. The witnesses would not have described seeing a glow from burning hydrogen - hydrogen flames do not emit visible light. If they saw fire, it wasn't hydrogen they saw burning (or at least not only hydrogen).

I really love the argument some people bring up that not all of the outside skin burned. It's true, but the part that didn't burn was on the tail, which wasn't full of hydrogen and didn't have the heat-reflective explosive paint on it because of that. Gee, the only part of the skin that didn't burn was the part not coated with explosives? Who would expect that to happen?

And power plants are generally FAR more efficient then a small gasoline engine and produce comparitively less emissions, if that is your main concern.

However, you are making a huge assumption about powersources. Electricity is very flexible. You can produce it from just about any possible power source, anything from sunlight to fossil fuels, to water movement. Cars running with electric engines would essentially not be tied to any one power source any more.

Besides, we now have the technology to run a house entirely on it's own solar and wind power. It's being done and will be done more and more. Add an electric car into the mix and you get something really efficient, free to run, infinite in supply and producing no pollution to speak of.




True, it has less potential, but does have some advantages. It shares electricity's flexibility, although to a much lesser extent. In addition, emerging technologies will make it possible to convert current waste material, such as straw, which is often just burned or plowed into the ground, into viable fuel. The pollution argument is not what it appears to be. True, it would put CO2 into the air, but no more than the plant materials it was made from took out of the air in the first place! Of more concern to me would be the more noxious fumes and some of the lung issues which gasoline and diesel also cause.

The biggest advantage, though, would be the relative ease of converting. The engines work exactly the same, just with reinforced metallics to resist the corrosion. It only costs a couple hundred more bucks to make a car with this capability.

Really, though, the internal combustion engine is obsolete and should be replace if something better is made, which it will, eventually.

They have those now but they changed the name. They are called planes.

Have any of you heard of solar updraft towers? link is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower

Put a couple of these in the Sahara is what I was thinking of doing.

Every type of energy here on Earth is indirectly solar energy if you think about it.
The future of energy production is doing what the sun does, fusion. Until we do that, capturing solar energy is what we need to do.

Fuel cells are inherently more efficient than internal combustion engines (ICEs). Current ICEs are approximately 40% efficient, meaning 60% of the energy in the fuel is wasted. Switching fuels won't affect the inherent problems. Fuel cells are not only more efficient, they have fewer moving parts so they won't break down as often.

You have your fusion technologies switched. We currently have marginally useful HOT fusion, but not cold. The problem with hot fusion is the energy required to contain and regulate the reaction is large, and output is currently pretty low. The most advanced reactors are just now passing the break-even point, and cost millions to make.

Speaking of fusion reactors, would you believe there is one (well, half of one) across the hall from where I work? It doesn't work any more, and is about 15 years behind current technology, but still... I have parts to a fusion reactor. Makes a great conversation piece for incoming freshmen.

One question, didn't a group of scientists create a table-top fusion device? Was that just a hoax or did it not count as cold fusion?

Second, what ever happened to the idea of putting huge solar panels in space and sending the energy it obtained back to earth via radio or microwaves? I saw it in a children's "The Future" book. Is there anyone out there trying that now?

Thirdly, for hydrogen creation, couldn't you simply use an Indium-Palladium alloy to create the H2? Would this not be less energy intensive that electrolosis?(bad spelling)

Fourthly: Is lack of fuel essentially the only thing preventing us from building hydrogen cars? We have the electric motors, and the fuel cell concept, but no where to replenish the hydrogen, correct?

Sorry to come in a bit late, but . . .

A few things to note:

-Water vapor may be considered a "greenhouse gas," but it's very, VERY short lived - it has a tendency to form something called "rain" and exit the atmosphere very quickly. As others have said, this is just working with the existing water cycle: Overall, it's always the same amount of water.

"Stored hydrogen can be an explosion hazard,"

As opposed to gasoline ? I think that to get from place to place, people are fine with some risks, as long as the risks can be minimized.

"One potential hurdle for electric cars is infrastructure."

Yes and no - in the northern states and in Canada, there's actually some pretty good outdoor electric infrastructure due to to the cold weather: In many places, it is common for people to use electric engine heaters during the winter, so a lot of parking lots in northern states and Canada already have the infrastructure necessary for electric vehicles.

I used to live in Minnesota - yes, a lot of parking lots there had electric outlets. As counter intuitive as it sounds due to how many batteries react in cold weather, the northern states may actually be one of the best places to introduce electric cars. A little bit of electricity could even be used to keep the batteries warm while charging them (the charging process itself probably warms them up as well).

"electricity just moves the tailpipe to the power plant."

For the sake of argument, let's assume 100% of our energy is produced by fossil fuels (even though we *do* produce a *lot* of energy by other means) - even then, it's a lot more efficient than gasoline. People have done the math, and any way you figure it electricity is a whole lot better.

The infrastructure required to distribute gasoline is very expensive - you've got to pump the fuel, you've got to transport it to the ocean, you've got to transport it across the ocean, you have to transport it to the refinery, you have to refine it, you have to transport it to storage, you have to transport it from storage to the gas stations across the country - when all is said and done, just transporting the gas alone is probably a lot less efficient than distributing power over wires.

Add that to the inefficiency of the gasoline engine compared to the electric motor, and the "long exhaust pipe" argument totally breaks down. People have done the math on this, and even the worst estimates look a lot better than using gasoline.

I think electric and plug-in hybrids hold the most promise over all of the other alternative fuels. Hydrogen is nice, but it's gonna be at least five years or so before the technology is anywhere near ready to be put into production, and the same can be said for other technologies (and a lot of them have additional problems as well).

The electric car, on the other hand, is already available and it has been proven to be competitive to gasoline in nearly all areas. The only really big hurdle left is the range and recharge time of the batteries.

Even with that limitation, however, the electric car can still be useful as a car for going to work and for errands in town. I personally have a full time job - I drive to work every day, and I'd save a LOT on gas if I were to own an electric vehicle.

Which brings me to another point: These vehicles are not just about saving the environment.

-They're about saving you money - with gas prices skyrocketing, the amount you're going to save by using an alternative fuel gets better all the time.

-They're about decreasing our dependency on oil from countries that we can't trust. Quite frankly, we're giving a lot of money to some pretty bad people and governments.

Maybe this environment thing is a big deal, maybe it isn't - but it's not the only reason to look at alternative fuels, and even ignoring the environmental benefits a good case can be made for using something besides gasoline.

"One question, didn't a group of scientists create a table-top fusion device? Was that just a hoax or did it not count as cold fusion?"

If I remember correctly, nobody was able to reproduce the cold fusion results.

"Second, what ever happened to the idea of putting huge solar panels in space and sending the energy it obtained back to earth via radio or microwaves?"

It's still a good idea - and we have in fact been able to transfer energy in experiments using microwaves. Unfortunately, our space funding is now a fraction of what it used to be and a lot of great ideas were abandoned simply because there's no budget for much anymore.

And oh, yeah - NASA's top priority right now is getting people to the moon again, and hopefully eventually Mars. Lest we forget, that's one of the goals George Bush set. It seems we've been so wrapped up in the Iraq war and the upcoming elections we've forgotten everything else.

"Fourthly: Is lack of fuel essentially the only thing preventing us from building hydrogen cars? We have the electric motors, and the fuel cell concept, but no where to replenish the hydrogen, correct?"

You've hit upon one of the largest issues with a LOT of the alternative fuel ideas - there is simply no infrastructure for distributing them. The only alternative fuel that has anything close to an infrastructure right now is electricity - another reason why I think that electric cars is the best idea for an alternative fuel.

Yes, there are many places without outdoor electric outlets - but there's a lot more outdoor electric outlets than hydrogen fuel stations!! Besides, there's this useful thing called an "extension cord" - ever hear of it?

Creating new infrastructure for electric cars is also going to be a lot easier than creating it for other fuels. Think about it - you just hire an electrician. There's a lot of people who have a lot of experience working with and installing electrical devices. People who install equipment for hydrogen are, on the other hand, quite rare.

And oh, yeah - here's something that really demonstrates what electric cars are capable of:

http://www.teslamotors.com/

It's a car that gets 0 to 60 in four seconds. Did I mention it also gets 135 miles per gallon? No, that's not a misprint, that's one hundred and thirty five mpg - and it'll kill a Ferrari in a drag race. That is what electric cars can do.

"no it isn't

because you are burning hydrogen some of which is combining with oxygen forming new water."

-Where do we get Oxygen and Hydrogen? Probably from water. Meaning we take out just as much as we produce.

-Even if we are adding water - chances are we'll just be adding it to the oceans, because it doesn't stay in the air very long. It won't really contribute much to global warming, and any effects are much easier to reverse. It's nowhere near as permanent as the other gases.

-Besides, I personally am pushing for the electric car over the hydrogen car .

WWW Link An alternative idea so we can stop argueing about hydrogen.

hand/foot pump?