I really don't see what all the fuss about safety is about, it's not any more dangerous than petrol. And what's more, you can make hydrogen from water, and if i'm not mistaken it's a reversible reaction so we will never leave the planet - we have an unlimited supply and just need the energy for it.

Biofuels, on the other hand, are doomed to failure. They might sound a little better than petrol for some reasons but in many ways they're worse, and I read in NewScientist that for every vehicle in the UK to be powered by biofueld we would need to cover an area 2.5 times the size of Britain's land mass to grow that amount of biofuel, and there's already a world food shortage!

Hydrogen can indeed be produced through electrolysis of water, but that takes energy. More energy than we can currently get out of the reversal of this process.

A energy source that could be used to produce the hydrogen is fusion Unlike fission, fusion does not produce ridiculous amounts of radioactive waste.

and btw, cars don't generally run on pure biofuel. The (m)ethanol is just added as a supplement to the normal fuel.

A energy source that could be used to produce the hydrogen is fusion Unlike fission, fusion does not produce ridiculous amounts of radioactive waste.

not completly correct, fusion produces a vast amount of nutrons witch qutckly destroy the fusion reactor

It doesn't need to be, not from the start that is. Assuming we use a non-polluting process to load the cells it doesn't matter if the cells in themselves are inefficient. It's still a start, and it might be very useful for smaller machines running on petrol.

It's already been done (at least, they have managed to capture more energy than they put in to heat the plasma, which is a vast improvement), and it is at least better than fission.

Question. What is the environment impact to produce hydrogen? In other words, since hydrogen must be produced some where some how, what would it take to build a facility big enough to produce and to actually produce enough to meet minimum consumer needs?

I have a question too. How much would a Hydrogen Powered Car need to be refilled? More than a normal petrol car? If it's by too much, then it's too much hassle.

Extreme Coder

It depends on how you make it. Hydrogen is, as so many have already pointed out in this thread, an energy storage, not an energy source. If you put wind power or solar power in it, it won't make any inpact on the environment. However if you put oil power in it... well, you know. It'll be just as polluting as oil power.

Ok, what would be the environmental impact to build wind/solar plants big enough to run the hydrogen producing plants?

i thought the oxygen/hydrogen powered car had been developed in the 1960's, but the oil companies bought it and locked the patent away....never to be seen again. it would have produced water as a by product.

I don't believe that for a second. Do you have a source?

I have no idea, but I can only imagine the price tag will be larger than the one on allofmp3s law suit if you intend to fuel every car on the planet with it.

what do you think? i mean, comeon.

What I'm trying to get at, IMHO, we would be trading one source of pollution for another and accomplish very little if anything.

And how much pollution do Hydrogen powered cars produce, in according to the amount of pollution Petrol cars produce?

Extreme Coder

Wops, my mistake.
Still don't believe it though.

the cars would only produce water. problem is the energy to make the hidrogen, witch can be got from oil or electrolasys of water

Exactly. Will the trade off be worth it?

not rilly becose nothing is 100% efisant so it would be better to put the oil straght into the engines, than going oil>heet>motion>electrisaty>hidrogen>heet>motion

It's also a lot easier to control emissions from, say, a power-plant that from every single car on the face of the Earth.

apparently, some irish bloke has recently(about 6-12 months ago) invented some sort of free energy device whereby energy isn't lost after doing work....and defying every known law of physics. he has apparently challenged the scientists to prove him wrong.


note the word: "apparently".