Ruminating but someone please answer.
If the by product of a fuel cell system vehicle is water in the emissions then it follows that all Motorways and trunk Roads will be awash so therefore a potential hazard.
Further, where is all this water that will be produced go to.
DVD
|
IIRC then the hydrogen will be produced by 'cracking' water in the first place.
Won't this also mean the end of the tax and road fund banding for cars according to CO2 emissions?
|
..........so J.
Once started, the water produced is fed back into the engine for the hydrogen in it to be cracked, which produces water, which is then fed back in ad infinitum.
LAD was not wrong when he predicted a perpetual motor?
(Excuse the levity. just had my morning pill)
DVD
|
I assume that electricity will be needed to 'crack' the water to produce the hydrogen?
Perhaps the power used will be registered on a meter in the car when the fuel cells are recharged. This will be noted by the owner and a form sent to a central office who will bill you for the 'motoring electricity' used.
P.
|
Yep, you need some power to make the hydrogen (more in fact than you will get back as usuable power). We will still be burning the same amount of fossil fuels (unless we convert to hydrogen produced from totally renewable energy sources). No doubt the government will think of a way of taxing it if they see their cash cow about to walk out of the byre door!!
Richard
|
|
|
|
Not quite.
They will conveniently forget that water vapour isn't technically a gas.
And equally conveniently remember that it's the main cause of the greenhouse effect.
|
|
|
|
Further, where is all this water that will be produced go to.
I think that a lot of the water will come in the form of vapour (very fine particles) and will not condense and form on the roads but act more like clouds.
If this is so will that mean the country is permanantly cloudy and raining?
|
We are a long way from using fuel cell cars yet. As has already been said above, it takes electricity (or at least some form of energy) to crack the hydrogen atom into hydrogen and oxygen. Unfortunately, electrochemical reactions are not 100% efficient and you don't get something out without putting something in. So it actually takes more energy to crack the water molecule than is released by combusting the resultant hydrogen for fuel. To do this using traditional energy sources, e.g. power stations burning oil, coal or gas, means that we run out of natural resources more quickly than we already are. Nuclear energy is not really a sustainable option in that the more we rely on it, the more likely we are to poison ourselves with the radiation by-product (ooh, let's just bury it under the sea, so that when it leaks into our seafood and our swimming water at the beach, we won't know until the sickness starts).
Therefore, hydro-electric, wind, solar or wave power is the way to go if fuel cells and electric vehicles are to be used. But this is true for all of our energy needs, not just those of motoring which only represents a small proportion of what we consume.
|
|
Oops, wrote "crack the hydrogen atom" when I should have said "crack the water molecule". Possible reason is that I was watching the Simpsons before hitting the post button. D'oh!
|
If petrol costs going on for £4.00 a gallon, and it takes 8 gallons to flush the toilet, when cars are running off water {fuel cells}, then based on the above posts, it'll cost around 30 quid to spend a penny !!!
Paul {Forest of Bowland}
|
|
|
|
|
