So, is the petrol running out and stuff?

[M1k3H]

Maybe eventually, it's still a long way off. I think electric cars will become mainstream before hydrogen fuel cell ones will.

Also, to produce hydrogen you need electricity. You might as well just use the electricity to power electric cars, rather than having all the extra complexity and logistical issues of having to transport and store hydrogen.

The other point is that to make it truely worthwhile you don't want the power stations to be running off fossil fuels....

well, you might need electricity but it is far more efficient to produce hydrogen than to extract oil and use it as a fuel.
the only problem with hudrogen as a fuel for cars is that the catalyst that seperates the electrons from the protons is made from a very expensive material(can't remember which but i'm sure a web search will reveal it.).
also, the electricity produced with hydrogen is a lot, with the only exhaust material being water. So you solve the CO2 problem and the oil problem if we can just discover a material suitable for being a catalyst for hydrogen.
Hydrogen fuel cells are by far our best investment in energy for cars.

 

[Tefal]

You just missed it

aww

 

[Tefal]

Also, to produce hydrogen you need electricity.

No you don't you can produce it thermally too by heating water to over 800 C which is what will be used if it becomes the main mobile energy supply.

 

[woodpigeon4]

Anti 4x4 threads like this annoy me because:
1) I paid for my "chelsea tractor", and continue to pay the vast fuel/tax/insurance bills, contributing more to the country than others who drive more economical vehicles
2) I don't seem to find people complaining when I pull their cars out of mud/snow/water. I lost count of the amount of times I helped people out when it snowed, and funnily enough none of them mentioned the horrific damage I was inflicting on the planet.
3) They're safer and have better visibility
4) In my experience, they're actually pretty ecologically sound (yes, really). The 4x4 my family bought new in 1998 is still going strong today with no servicing, whilst most of my friends have had two or more cars die which then have to be towed, crushed, fluids removed, etc etc which damages the environment. 4x4s tend to be more durable so they don't have to be replaced as often.
5) They're not actually that uneconomical. My subaru forester 4x4 will easily get 35MPG cruising at 70

And finally, because, for me, even living in London, they're the best. Name me another type of car that will get to 60 in 5 seconds, hit 140MPH, tow my classic car and drive through mud/snow/floods without any problem.

 

[Moothead2]

Moot.

Yes?

 

[toxicredcat]

The way I see it the sooner the oil supply is depleted the sooner we'll have to adopt the more 'eco' friendly technologies which don't require oil.
The technology is out there but the supply/demand of oil is far too profitable at the moment for big business' to move away from fossil fuels.

 

[Vonhelmet]

Yes?

You're late. See me after assembly.

 

[Liampope]

aww

Never mind - was just a bunch of diesel tractors walking over everything else.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

and many large estates/saloons aren't any more efficient.
The green bandwagon on chealsey tractors is a complete joke and makes no sense at all.

Really? Varies massively by type

Range rover TDV8, urban 24.6MPG (note thats diesel so will quote diesel for all)
Mondeo Estate 2.2 Duratorque (ie worst mpg) urban 36.2MPG
Merc E class 3.5 litre, urban 34.9
BMW 525d M series estate, urban 35.3MPG
BMW 520d M series estate, urban 45.6MPG
BMW X5 M sport 3 litre, urban 32.5MPG
BMW X5 M sport 4 litre, urban 32.1MPG

Biggest issue really is that most of the time most people dont really need anything more than a 2 litre tops, the 4x4s typically have a much larger engine and are a lot less efficient because of that.
But these are urban figures and make the 4x4 seem a lot better than if you look at say extra urban, the 525d is faster than the X5, its over 10mpg better in extra urban.

So yes there isn't massively massively marked differences, but thats the best cases for comparable accelerating (which I assume is why people have to have 4 litre etc versions) still means they are about 10% worse in urban and over 25% worse extra urban.

Dont get me wrong I have enjoyed my fair share of high fuel consumption vehicles. I am no saint and cant complain about others driving fuel inefficient vehicles, its their choice fine.

If people want them let them have them, fine by me.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

Who brought up the bloody 4x4s anyway, they are a sidetrack, even if everyone moved to 60MPG cars we would only half (approximately) our usage of fossil fuels for motoring and thats not going to make a massiev difference even medium term.

 

[Elixir]

For the record the Range Rover Sport HSE is probably one of my least favourite cars I see on the road. Why take a perfectly good luxury off road car

Quite an odd phrase to use. The "luxury" part of them was never for the off-road side of things, it was always for the land agents etc who occasionally went off-road but the rest of the time had a luxury car. Now people buy them just for the luxury.

Why do people buy Bentleys? Rolls-Royces? The only difference is that Range Rovers as status symbols are more affordable.

 

[Elixir]

No you don't you can produce it thermally too by heating water to over 800 C which is what will be used if it becomes the main mobile energy supply.

That is just cutting out the middle-man in the problem he was suggesting... how do you plan to achieve your high temperatures without fuel?

 

[Tefal]

That is just cutting out the middle-man in the problem he was suggesting... how do you plan to achieve your high temperatures without fuel?

eh?

who said anything about not using fuel

you use power plants but with thermal hydrogen producers instead of steam turbine.

 

[Glaucus]

That is just cutting out the middle-man in the problem he was suggesting... how do you plan to achieve your high temperatures without fuel?

Perhaps certain nuclear reactors that produce Hydrogen or both hydrogen and electricity.

 

[Elixir]

Perhaps certain nuclear reactors that produce Hydrogen or both hydrogen and electricity.

I like seeing someone pro nuclear for once!

eh?

who said anything about not using fuel

you use power plants but with thermal hydrogen producers instead of steam turbine.

The whole topic of this thread is about our use of fossil fuels... the guy you were quoting was suggesting hydrogen isn't the ideal clean fuel everyone worships because you can't produce it without electricity (or as you suggested, other fuels). Unless you're going for an entirely renewable approach, but that's a whole other can of (realistically) unobtainable worms.

 

[Glaucus]

Nuclear reactors that produce hydrogen? There is fusion for helium or fission which is the splitting of a hydrogen atom.
.

You use the heat to split water.

 

[Elixir]

You use the heat to split water.

Again, back to the point of alternative fuel sources which is a whole bigger issue than what our cars run on.

 

[Glaucus]

Again, back to the point of alternative fuel sources which is a whole bigger issue than what our cars run on.

what do you mean.

 

[Elixir]

what do you mean.

Think about how much hydrogen would be needed if all of our cars ran on it... the heat/electricity from current renewable sources would not be sufficient to produce enough. As things stand, we would need the output of fossil fuel power plants. Whether these resources are running out is the topic of this thread.

 

[Orcish-Horde]

Thats interesting, the main issue with that would be.. Who owns the battery?


Edit quote fail... That battery changing station....