I heard on an internet talk radio show (rewsreal with sean kennedy) that some company has devised a kit to turn a gas powered car to run off hydrogen... and they also make solar panels that can convert solar energy to hydrogen (presumably from water via electrolysis)

If any has heard of this, let me know so I can do it.

If you haven't, what are your thoughts on hydrogen powered vehicles?

thay are potentualy verry dangoros as hidrogen is extremly reactive and burns with a transparent flame. crash proof storage tanks would be verry inportent

bio-ethanol or cooking oil is a easer solotion to put into practice. any desael engine will run on raw cooking oil

They would definitely need to devise some sort of safe container, not only because the hydrogen burns quite well, but also because in order to contain enough H2 to fuel a vehicle of today's standards, the hydrogen gas would have to be under considerable pressure.

I personally would stay away from the kit. Hydrogen is still in alpha when it comes to cars.

Close to the topic, toyota made the first hydrogen powered car quite a while ago. Pure hydrogen. But it doesn't use it in a fuel cell engine, the one that is so famous for having water as a by-product. Instead, they burn the hydrogen in a close to conventional way. It is still more efficient than petrol/gas/diesel, but it doesn't reduce emissions by much. What's that about?

Another thing that is over-hyped about hydrogen as an energy source is that it isn't an energy source. It's a storage.

I say that as soon as oil becomes too expensive, people will actually start caring about mileage, and that will start the avalanche

-K

IMO Hydrogen Fuel Cells are way better than the petrol and diesel cars of today. So if you are ever thinking about buying a new car, I don't think that petrol and diesel should even be considered.

though that is slightly complicated by the fact that there are no commercially available/viable fuel-cell powered cars on the market.

Actually they will still only produce water as a product,

Hydorgen + Oxeygen -> Water

2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O

LoL, my bad. How embarrassing. You do still get water.

But the point is, now that that one is used, that you do get less energy out through the conventional combustion than in fuel cells, even if both are technically oxidising the hydrogen in close to the same way.
This is because in the fuel cell engine, the energy is produced directly as electricity, and does not loose energy to heat, friction, etc before it reaches the electromagnetic engine (which doesn't count, since the energy has by that point left the engine).

Now don't you dare disprove that, or I'll have to flee in shame...

that is true, any process that burns has energy loss in the form of heat, fuel cells do not have that problem because there is no heat generated.

My fuel cell tech knowledge is a bit rusty, but from what I remember a potential (voltage) difference is obtained between the oxidizing hydrogen and oxygen. I cant quite remember how fuel cell technology keeps the gases aligned as they form water. One misconception that a lot of people have about Fuel cells is that it is a "new" (and therefore unstable) technology... This is flat out wrong. Fuel cells were first discovered by some guy whos name i cant remember in the 19th century, but weren't put to proper use until NASA started using them in the space program in the 60's.

One issue with fuel cells is where you get the hydrogen, which is a very common element, but not often seen in its pure H2 form. That same issue appears if you plan on burning hydrogen as well. Which is why the solar powered hydrogen generators look so interesting to me.

Biodiesel is definitely preferable to fossil fuels, but they still have the same amount of carbon emissions, though fewer pollutants. Which is why I think the long term solution should be hydrogen, preferable fuel cell based.

definitely. But for the hydrogen, you need some for of energy source to work with. Here in Norway, they are starting with wind power. There's a small area now that gets energy solely from wind - when there is more wind than need of energy, the excess goes to electrolysis, and when there is not enough wind, the hydrogen is stuffed through a fuel cell generator, and sustains the energy level.

That's where I think the strength of hydrogen comes in, rather than transport - at least in the beginning, before there are better ways of containing pressurised hydrogen gas.

Thats brilliant way to go people in Norway!

Where I live (Idaho USA) I have done some grant work for a feasibility study for forest stewardship. The idea was to be able to generate wealth for taking care of the forests through forest thinning (removing small diameter trees which pose a large fire risk, as well as heightened risk for beetle infestation because some areas of forest are overgrown) and making use of the removed biomass. One problem I have with the way things get done in America is that if there is no financial gain, few people are likely to do anything. So to produce viable businesses from ecological necessity is the best way for change. Anyway, one of our proposals was to produce Grid energy by wind turbines offset when the wind was low by generators powered by biodiesel or bioethonol produced from the forest biomass... I definitely like the hydrogen idea better though, but I don't think there is enough wind in the regions the grant covered to use electrolysis.

Wind can not be deployed unilaterally, because some area's don't get enough, so a wide span of renewable energy techniques need to be deployed...

back on topic...

There are other ways to get hydrogen then from a gas tank. I don't remember what the chemical reaction that is responsible for this is (because I am an Electrical Engineer, and not a chemist), but methanol is an excellent source of hydrogen clean enough for fuel cells, requiring a significantly smaller amount of energy to produce the hydrogen then you would get out from the fuel cell. Methanol is as easy to transport and store as gasoline, so that could be a solution.

Apart from that though, what other forms of transport fuel would you be in favor of apart from Hydrogen?

But you also need to produce the (m)ethanol in the first place, and this usually comes from fractional distillation of crude oil. So it still relies on fossil fuel. Another disadvantage is that methanol is composed purely of carbon and hydrogen. When the hydrogen is removed, you have carbon left over, which then bonds with oxygen in the atmosphere, forming carbon dioxide. And we're back where it started :/

Rather than supporting alternative energy sources, I'm in favour of using less of them in the first place, using whatever means you can apply to your life. This year, the household made a 25% cut on the electricity consumption, for example.

That, and supporting birth control All humans' problems ultimately stem from population density and overpopulation.

There was a fuel cell powered tractor in 1959 to show off this technology but progress has been slow.

From what I've read even the humble lead acid battery is currently far more efficient for energy storage.

More electricity would be need to produce hydrogen to power vehicles than electric vehicles powered by more conventional batteries. So from an electricity cost/greenhouse gas point of view it appears there are currently better alternatives than Hydrogen.

This was very disappointing to find out as this is not the picture painted by the popular (non-technical) press.
Despite this I would expect to see quite a lot more money thrown at Hydrogen powered vehicle research to try to over come these limitations.

Hydrogen vehicle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Hydrogen fuel cells are theoretically more efficient than internal combustion engines, achieving efficiencies of 50-60%."

The Fuel cell entry in wikipedia also has some interesting information on this area.
Fuel cell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

hydrogen is not any more dangerous than gasoline.

the only reason hydrogen is considered dangerous is because of some stupid flying craft that was painted with flammable paint which ignited.

to top it off, they then filled it with pressurized hydrogen. if it were gasoline it would be just as stupid and dangerous.

anyway, hydrogen was the fuel automobiles originally ran on; gasoline came later. i read that somewhere, i'll try to find a reference of this...

its a gas, things will only burn wen in a gasios state so its more dangoros than petrol becose petrol has to evaporate furst before it can burn

Liquid hydrogen can also be used. It's not as efficient, though (read the wiki page). There's a hydrogen pump at a petrol station not too far from me. Only for the publicity, of course...

that's suicide. the freezing temperature of hydrogen is so low that if you got a drop on your shoe it's goodbye foot.

so far the cleanest storage methods in my experience has been nickel metal hydride bonding...

Hydride Basics

I suppose you meant condensation point. Yes, that in itself is low. All I can say is that they sell it straight into your tank. Most likely it's mixed with other stuff. I'll see if I can find out what...
I was actually just reading the article about it in the paper the other day (about two years old - we still had the paper for some reason...), but I don't think they mentioned anything too technical in it.

/me heads off to google...

-K

hmm, that's an improvement. the only other worry would be if something were to go terribly wrong in the vehicle, like a collision or nasty mechanical failure?

I doubt we'd see these type of cars in the market in before 5~10 years(atleast worldwide, some countries don't go with the flow that easily). But even though, burning Hydrogen does sound a bit dangerous though...

Extreme Coder

There is nothing wrong with burning Hydrogen. Burning is just oxidising, aka adding pure oxygen. You do the same in a Fuel Cell generator, in a slightly different way, but the principle is the same. There's not that much difference between pure hydrogen and some of the stuff they add to petrol anyway...