It’s already here…but the insane, poorly thought out, rush to EV’s will certainly shelve it.
You could literally fill your “fuel tank” with water, drop in the catalyst, collect/compress the hydrogen and pump it into the engine…no high pressure storage tanks and a major accident results in 25 gallons of water spilled on the road.
Incorrect. Catalysts lower the energy peak needed to start a reaction, they don’t eliminate it. This catalyst would work in conjunction with electrolysis, as noted in the article:
"The voltage required to produce hydrogen is also lower than with platinum or ruthenium catalysts, making the process more energy efficient. "
Lol…yes, I certainly oversimplified the process…it’s not like dropping an alka-seltzer tablet into water.
It still looks very promising. I wonder how much hydrogen is in 25 gallons of water and if you could efficiently extract it in the vehicle with a catalyst; there would be no need for high pressure storage, or at least the need would be for a much smaller tank than “filling up” with hydrogen instead of water. I envision moving the catalyst in and out of the water as needed. If the process is slow, it could “recharge” the tank overnight. Would a be very clean grocery getter vehicle.
It can’t work in a car. It takes more electrical energy to split the water than you get in the fuel cell. Otherwise you’d have something like a perpetual motion machine. This new technology only applies to generating hydrogen when fed electricity from some generator.
I’ve been hearing about a new breakthrough of extracting hydrogen from water for years. I’ve yet to hear of one viable system being manufactured.
Isn’t this a free market. Companies are driving this so-called “Rush” to EV. This administration wants to end Ice vehicles. But that doesn’t mean manufacturers have to use EV. They can use hydrogen. But auto manufacturers seem to think it’s not viable. - with the one exception of Toyota. In order to have hydrogen vehicles the auto manufacturers need be on board. Or do you propose this is funded by the government.
And there are many risks with hydrogen that have not been solved yet.
Correct, but you MUST meet the 49mpg CAFE by 2026. You can’t do that with ICE.
Hydrogen just isn’t ready and the government isn’t pumping 100’s of billions into the necessary hydrogen infrastructure.
Government imposed CAFE standards are a “conspiracy theory”?
It’s in the distant future
You do realize the 2026 cars are on the drawing boards TODAY…it takes 2 to 3 years for big changes to existing models and 3 to 5 years for new models.
Because there is no viable solution yet. Let me know when that’s available.
Strawman argument again. Really? Never said it was. You conspiracy about EV’s being mandated when I’ve shown that manufacturers can use hydrogen if they choose to. They don’t think it’s a viable solution. That’s why hydrogen vehicles aren’t being developed. What a tool. When and IF they solve many problems with hydrogen then maybe. EV is here now. EV vehicles have been around for over 100 years.
What? They can use a technology that isn’t ready and won’t be ready to meet the CAFE standards. Commiting to hydrogen would be suicide for the US auto manufacturer.
Where’s the “free market”?
Sure sounds like the government TELLING/FORCING auto makers to build a certain type of car…
Biden administration wants US automaker pact to build 40% EVs by 2030
The Biden administration’s revised fuel economy and emissions standards could include an industry-altering pledge from US automakers. According to a Reuters report Thursday, the White House has asked each US automaker to commit to 40% of the vehicles they build to be electric by 2030. In other words, the Biden administration wants to see General Motors, Ford and Stellantis (formerly Fiat Chrysler Automobiles) phase out more fossil-fuel-powered vehicles in favor of new EVs.
The auto manufacturers did not stop working on EVs when the previous administration relaxed requirements. How can you make a reasonable argument for the current administration placing an unfair burden on auto manufacturers when it’s business as usual for the auto builders?
+1
The design, development, and testing time span–prior to introduction–for new vehicles is such that none of the current EVs have suddenly appeared on the scene. The manufacturers (ALL of them, both domestic and foreign) have been working on these designs for many years.
Just a point of clarification about hydrogen as an energy source. Hydrogen’s energy isn’t the entire hydrogen atom. All the energy available —for currently imagined automobile use – is contained in its single electron. Not every hydrogen electron has the same amount of energy. The one’s connected to a gasoline molecule have considerably more energy than the ones connected to a water molecule. The hydrogen electrons connected to a water molecule have to somehow have their energy increased to the level of one connected to a gasoline molecule. This requires an corresponding energy input, catalyst or no catalyst. In nature, the sun provides the energy, by growing plant material. Gasoline’s energy is actually millions of years of stored solar energy. If humans used that energy over the same time scale, likely would be no problem at all. But we humans hold to the philosophy that whatever is available should be used right away. Otherwise somebody else may use it first.
A few nights ago, I watched an episode of Top Gear on which they drove a Toyota Mirai.
As much as they liked the car, they commented that there were only 12 hydrogen fueling stations in The UK. So, unless the network of fueling stations can be expanded, hydrogen is not currently very practical.
OK in the sake of sanity and putting this to bed …
The energy generation from hydrogen is from combination with with the oxyen molecule yielding H2O, no electrons are involved.
The generation of Hydrogen can be accomplished by the elecrolosis of water or the catalitic conversion of fossil fuels, both requiring energy.
Generation of electricticty or the generation of hydrogen both require the generation of electricity either by fossil fuels or nuclear BUT both pollutants are more easily caputured at a plant than at a specific vehicle.
The exception is Solar or Wind electric generation but both presents their own problems with reliable/on demand production and energy storage.
The problem with new technology has always been money so even the Wright Brothers first stop was to appoach the Department of Defense with a request to fund development their new fangled “Flying Machine”.
Simply put, we’re way past the development of the Wright Brothers Flying Kite as evidenced by GM’s announcement that future orders of their EV has exceeded their ability to produce, demand for environmentally friendly vehicles has exceeded supply.
The people have already voted with their dollars in support of an environmentally friendly lean energy alternative so the onus is now on the energy suppiers,
Can and will the electric suppliers offer a competitive supply of clean electricity to support the existing demand?
My experience has been that in the Free Market, “Where’s the demand someone will always find a way to supply it”, faster and cheaper.
Nothing like the lure of an avalance of dollars to incentivise innovation.
Propane is a hydrocarbon fuel just like gasoline and natural gas. When I worked at the steel mill we had LP lift trucks, but they all operated outside. We had battery operated lift trucks for indoor work.
True enough, but how much energy is needed to make hydrogen fuel from petroleum compared to making it from water? Also, if making hydrogen fuel from petroleum, what happens to the carbon that’s a major component of the petroleum? If that carbon is released into the atmosphere, seems like not much in the way of environmental difference to just burning the petroleum.
