>Now, to Lather's point, about "artifical subsidies". By that, Lather, do you mean the
Clinton Administration's program, designed to stimulate basic research, and called the
Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV)? If not, what do you have in
mind? What about the European and Japanese car companies, which have been in the
forefront of FCV research? Has their research been subsidized,"artificially" or otherwise? <
The PNGV and its predecessors come to mind, yes. As for Europe and Japan - I have no information, so I'll concede ignorance here. But I'll withhold my judgment until I see a technology demonstration vehicle in the minivan or delivery van weight class.
I am fascinated by points 7 and 9 in the above paean to hydrogen cars.
Hydrogen's energy density is lousy. While hydrogen is head, shoulders and groin above any other fuel in energy per weight (either by direct combustion or electrochemically) there is no way to get more than a small weight amount into a decent-sized storage vessel. (At the very high pressure of 3000 psi, a ten-gallon tank will hold less than a pound of H Two gas. Liquid hydrogen is too difficult to handle except for specialty apps like large rockets.) So - what kind of "incredible mile ranges" are we discussing? For a real car, not a one-man teardrop. If I can impose upon you, please provide a link or a citation describing particulars - this one is counterintuitive to me, and if I'm wrong "I gots ta know".
Point 9 about safety and ease of handling is - well, controversial. Hydrogen has some unique hazards - I mentioned them earlier. I DO think it has its place - low pressure gas lines to cities and homes would be a clean, comfy way to make heat and power. Bit of an infrastructure investment, of course. |
