Sailboat Mfg's should be jumping on that as a Marketing slogan.
Big letters on every piece of advertizing
FREE FUEL FOR LIFE .............

Is it just me or is that Jason Vorhees driving that thing?! <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

I hear there is a NEW car that requires no fuel at all!

about the cars that run on water....
their inventors always seem to end up "poisonned" to death :P

Realizing that there's a sucker born every minute is no breakthrough.

How the heck can you get energy from breaking down water into hydrogen and oxygen, and then burning them to form water again? Forget all the silly "membrane electrode assembly" hocus-pocus. This is a perpetual motion machine of the first kind, and therefore a scam. The details are irrelevant.

Again... What is up with Jason driving the thing?! Even if you didn't figure it out that the "technology" is b.s., surely the driver in the hockey mask would tip off something! <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

Oh! I thought exactly the same thing!!

Cars that run on only water? The new form of transportation for the undead?

I don't have time to look into it right now but my big question is what's the net energy output for hydrogen? Do we put in 1kW to get 0.8kW of hydrogen energy? If so, then we're in the same spot as we are with ethanol. Ethanol production has a terrible energy conversion ratio. I suspect that hydrogen is similar. even if our cars are cleaner then we're just moving the emission source one step up the ladder (more coal burned at the power plant) and going from one non-renewable fuel source to another.

I'd like to see breeder reactors make some headway. The amount of fissionable material on the planet is limited but.. with those, they produce more fuel than they use. Essentially we would be able to get to a point of "free" energy. I have serous doubts a/b most the "green" energy sources these days b/c of their NET ENERGY OUTPUT. i.e. how much energy did it take to make the windmill v/s it's output.

Every critical analysis of hydrogen combustion or fuel-cell use in cars has made the mistake (IMO) of placing a fossil-fuel energy source-well at the base of the calculations. Some of these studies have been revealed to have been funded by... *gasp* fossil fuel companies.

In just the last decade, hydrogen efficiency from grid-to-motor has been climbing rapidly. I would never argue that we could go to a hydrogen economy tomorrow and realize a reduction in pollution and eliminate a dependancy on fossil fuels. I would argue, however, that the technology has already demonstrated remarkable potential; enough to entice every major car maker to start building fuel-cell cars and trucks. I would also argue that we could advance the technology in a dramatic fashion by declaring it a national goal (like landing on the moon) and investing substantial federal money - you could even legitimately claim that we should use national security funding since we're talking about reducing or eliminating the need for us to be in some volatile parts of the world.

I am just finishing reading the new book "Censoring Science" by Mark Bowen about Jim Hansen, NASA climatologist and its primary global warming scientist at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. There are several comments made therein about problems with a hydrogen economy based on fuel cells, specifically the damaging effect of inevitably leaked hydrogen on our critical ozone layer in our stratosphere. ("Tromp et al., Potential Environmental Impact of a Hydrogen Economy on the Stratosphere", Science, vol. 300, pp.1740-1742. 2003).`By the way, Dr. Hansen has so far been successful in fighting off Swift-Boat type attacks from his own NASA administrator, Sean O'Keefe, a political appointee and good friend of VP Dick Cheney.`As an author of multiple publications in Science, I recommend thorough and serious study to interested readers.

Lets just put sails on cars and be done with it!

We were just talking the other day here at work about how inspirational the goal to get to the moon was for the country. How every person who's job had some tie to it - be it the accountant working for the company than made the micro-switches - felt like part of the program. Wouldn't that be inspiring to see us stand up to a challenge like that as a country ... might just breath life into our automakers in the distant future too.

few things:

I don't believe there is a "dark side" of the moon. There is a "far side", but the backside of the moon sees the light of day, too. The rotational period of the moon is almost exactly that of the orbital period it around the earth.

Second, I think the most efficient means of producing hydrogen was the electrolysis of water. Either solar or nuke makes it cheapest. Even if we burn coal, if you do it on a grand scale, there's more efficiency than on the small scale (think power plant vs. home heater)

Lastly, I think the most efficient use of hydrogen is the hydrogen cell, not combusting it. Too bsd that the current technology on hydrogen cells is not where it needs to be (cost or reliability) for general consumer use.

Honda just delivered Jamie lee Curtis, among 4 others I guess,a hydrogen web page

Three general problems (well, four if you think about it):
- range. 280 miles? You need quite a few H2 stations if that's all you can travel on a tank

- weight/efficiency. I think that car's using compressed hydrogen which is extremely expensive per unit of energy. Those tanks also weigh an extrordinary amount. Oh, and I guess if one crashes, what happens to that compressed H2 tank if it is ruptured (I think "owie" might be an understatement. While the production cost of hydrogen is low, it is expensive to store and transport hydrogen in cryogenic liquid or highly compressed gas. Transporting hydrogen in these forms requires expensive new infrastructure: tanks, pumps and delivery vehicles. Low-cost pipeline delivery is not possible

- cost. aside from the compressed H2 issue, that fuel cell probably ain't cheap. Efficiency goes down as water collects on the membrane, and can short out the dang thing. Hopefully, there is some way they've fixed that issue. Also, I think there is a lot of platinum in the fuel cell, which (last I checked) isn't really that cheap

- source. Right now, the majority of H2 produced is from NATURAL GAS (a fossil fuel). So, this "green" technology may not be so green after all...

It is a step in the right direction. And, if the new H2 technology does pan out (Hydrnol by Asemblon - check it out.. Hrdrnol info ), we could really get off the fossil fuel highway.

I saw some numbers for H2 efficiency as fuel for ICE engine (Internal Combustion Engine- conventional OTTO). I think it said like 7 miles per gallon equivalent. apparently pretty bad.... <img src="http://www.catsailor.com/forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />