Are Hydrogen Fuel-Cell automobiles even feasible?

Question

It seems to me that this technology, escpecially when compared to electric powered automobile technology (www.teslamotors.com), is a fairly far-fetched technology to actually implement. Why then, is there such a political push for this solution rather than pursuing an electric solution?

Answer 1

Answering the First Question: Yes, it would be feasible, *if* people were willing to actually invest in a Fuel Infrastructure, which most Big-Oil Dependent Corporations are not. Biomass fuels like Methanol and BioDiesel haven't gained ground in the United States for much the same reason, in spite of getting off the ground in *much* poorer nations than ours like Brasil and India. Big Oil (and by extension Big Terror) has way too much money invested in the current system and in Media Hype supporting the current system to even *consider* letting go and moving on to another fuel.

It's Group Think and Monopoly Think at its "Finest". :p Really. We could switch to hydrogen fueling in less than a decade, or to biomass fueling in less than four years, *if* the Money People dared to set their minds to it. But they *won't*. As in WILL NOT.

They'd rather see Western Civilization die first, post Peak Oil and post-Nuclear Terrorist Strike on American soil.

Second Question: There are legitimate concerns that with straight-up EVs that you'd in essence be running your car on *whatever* ran the power grid, and in some states that still means running the car (indirectly) on high-sulfur bituminous coal, because it is cheap, and because "pollution credit" policies make its use feasible. So switching to a Fuel Cell, hydrogen fueled based system makes sense in this regard.

Hell, switching to a Fuel Cell based system that runs at high enough temperatures to use *propane* or CNG also makes sense (some fuel cells run hot enough to auto-crack propane or methane into hydrogen on the spot....but they aren't zero-emissions *or* as efficient as the current Proton Exchange Membrane tech).

But. The technology has been around for decades. If the Money People were really serious about doing something, they would have done it in the 1970s during the *last* fuel crisis. When gasoline prices were *frozen* by government mandate, mind you.

So....one could argue that this whole "fuel cell/hydrogen economy" argument is nothing more nor less than saying "Well, we won't settle for anything less than a *perfect* answer, and sadly, the *perfect* answer isn't possible right now, and won't be for another two decades or so...."

In other words....it's a slick PR move disguised as science.

It allows Big Business to Carry On with their official policy of sucking up to Big Oil (which IS Big Terror, never forget that), and Doing NOTHING. And at the same time, it makes them Look Good because they can claim that they are "looking for real answers."

Give me a few minutes....let me look up some links here from some previous Answers of mine on this topic. Be right back. ;)

Answer 2

In Who Killed the Electric Car, they mentioned several points against fuel cells.

1. The infrastructure is yet to be implemented, While you could theoretically plug an electric car anywhere, you'd be hard pressed to find an hydrogen cell at your 7-11.

2. They fail in cold weather.

3. They would cost $1,000,000 apiece while an electric car would cost $30,000 to $100,000 apiece.

4. The technology won't be feasible for another 15 to 30 years.

It seems the oil hungry Republicans are excited about fuel cells because they are so unrealistic and far-fetched that they pose no danger to the status quo, unlike electric automobiles. Plus they can pay lip service to constituents by saying they're all about the environment.

Answer 3

As it currently stands, the production process of Hydrogen fuel is just as environmentally toxic as gas, but it's just cleaner when it burns. They are even using fossil fuels to make Hydrogen fuel, so it's really very pointless. There is a political push for this because it seems like an alternative fuel, but it's really not. The same people will be getting rich and the same environmental problems will occur. The lobbyists and politicians are just hoping to pull the wool over everyone's eyes instead of creating a viable electric solution.

Answer 4

Yes. It is feasible.

I personally haven't seen any political push towards alternate energy for automobiles. However, I believe hydrogen is a more attractive alternative because the by-product of combustion of oxygen and hydrogen is pure water.

Although the electric car has no emissions, the plants used to create the electricity give off hundreds of tons of pollution each year. If the demand for electricity increased to power electric automobiles, the pollution would be increased greatly and your electric bill would get much bigger than it is now.

Answer 5

That IS an electric solution. The fuel cells generate the electricity to run the electric motors in the wheels.
The biggest problem will be generating the hydrogen fuel economically (fusion power will do that once it's available) and the infra structure (think gas stations) that will be able to dispense the fuel.

Answer 6

Feasible, yes. Practical, maybe not. There are currently many barriers to cost effective energy storage as hydrogen.

Answer 7

Hydrogen is very dangerous and the atoms are so small they will leak through anything,and is very explosive.A few gallons of liquid hydrogen could wipe out several blocks.

Answer 8

Are you the president of the Al Gore fan club?

Answer 9

Electricity like the Hybrid cars.

Answer 10

not just feasible, BMW has one!