Seriously thoughtful Electric Cars : BYD

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

I read recently about a gentleman that had developed a new way of turning water into HHO gas that made the process much more efficient. He had built his own portable blow torch cutter thingy-ma-jig that was water powered and then he coverted his car to run on it too.

It may or may not be a scam, but I'd like to see that article.

Still, you're right: We can expect advances in batteries and capacitors a lot sooner than that is likely to be rolled out. Personally, I don't want to wait 20 years... I expect to be in the market for another car in 5-10.

[yvanleterrible]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Baring a major break through in EV's I think I'll wait until hydrogen cars come along.

I read recently about a gentleman that had developed a new way of turning water into HHO gas that made the process much more efficient. He had built his own portable blow torch cutter thingy-ma-jig that was water powered and then he coverted his car to run on it too. He uses something like 5 ounces of water for a 100 mile trip. It's all been tested and verified and doesn't seem to be a scam and now he is currently in negotiations with US car makers and is even working with the US military to develop a water powered Hummer.

Of course it probably wont be for another 20 years until these things are available to the public but since I probably wont be able to afford another car for that long anyway I can wait!

Cheers,
PKFFW

Myth! This story exists in thousands of permutations. Hydrogen extraction from H2O is an energy intensive process. It takes more energy to separate the molecule into components than the recombination produces. Period. Law of thermodynamics. It would be exactly like the mythical perpetual engine.

I don't have space enough to discuss the economics here. All I'll say is that if oil is to fall out of preference as a transportation fuel, those who profit from its sale will wish to fall back on an other source; an other fuel, one they can control and own. The biggest idiocy I've heard is that one company wanted to extract hydrogen from oil!!!!!!!!

Hydrogen will not be as efficient as electrics. They can't get tanks big enough for more than a 100 miles range. The efficiency cycle of hydrogen is even less than that of the ICE which in turn is less than an EV's powered by PVs. Of course the present oil economy will lose benefit from this if ever EVs were manufactured. What would happen to the economy if everyone could manufacture their own fuels? Unthinkable, of course...
With Hybrids they make a more complex vehicle that costs more. Katching!!!
A plug-in hybrid MUST have its gas engine run frequently to keep it healthy. Katching!!!
Service of hybrid vehicles is more expensive

Tell me PKFFW, what kind of breakthrough do you want to happen with electric vehicles to allow manufacture? As they are they can provide more that 90% of one's needs. Isn't that enough for those who want them? Why don't they want us to have them? Why do they stifle anyone who want's to build them? Why do we let them dictate that to us?.........Katching!!!.....

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Not so major as you might think. Right now, parking meters are being rolled out that allow people to use credit cards to pay... and they can build one of those for every parking spot, or one box that serves multiple numbered spots. So there is a way to (A) give each spot a charging point, and (B) accurately charge the individual who uses it. You don't need assigned spaces at all.

Further, lot owners would have an incentive to wire their lots, and make them attractive to car owners (ie, safe, fast-charging, etc) if they received a percentage of the charging revenue.

Cities have started planning for the introduction of EVs. As an example Vancouver has enacted a bylaw that enforces the installation of electrical circuits outdoors next to a driveway, for EV plugging.


On another note. Science students in "X" University( don't remember which) have successfully developed a way to charge a lithium ion battery to a full charge, in 6 minutes!!! With no side effect to the cells. Engineers say that to achieve such a level of charging on an EV sized battery will require nothing less than an electrical generating plant. But the idea is feasible... The solution would be to install charging stations next to electricity generation plants and equip them with gigantic capacitors.

Since this would penalize regions without electrical generation plants I figure they could build small nuclear stations near major highways to charge the long range traveling EVs at 100 mile intervals.
I personally would favor a rental micro trailers system with onboard LiOn batteries. You pay for the KW use + rental. Stop anywhere and hitch up!
That would be an excellent fall back market for all the gas stations.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

On another note. Science students in "X" University( don't remember which) have successfully developed a way to charge a lithium ion battery to a full charge, in 6 minutes!!! With no side effect to the cells. Engineers say that to achieve such a level of charging on an EV sized battery will require nothing less than an electrical generating plant. But the idea is feasible... The solution would be to install charging stations next to electricity generation plants and equip them with gigantic capacitors.

Actually, research into supercapacitors and ultracapacitors, devices that would be comparable in size to existing car batteries, is already pushing in the direction of fast (minutes, and even seconds) charging, and fast discharge to the drivetrain, making the overall system much more efficient.

If you look at an ICE, you realize quickly that it is a conglomeration of differing energy transfer technologies working together, to make the whole thing work. EVs will be similar, combining different types of motors, batteries and control systems all suited to do one job well... when combined, they will do all jobs efficiently.

[Delta Tango]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Actually, research into supercapacitors and ultracapacitors, devices that would be comparable in size to existing car batteries, is already pushing in the direction of fast (minutes, and even seconds) charging, and fast discharge to the drivetrain, making the overall system much more efficient.

Seconds? Those would be quite some currents...

Today I came across this thing

20 kW motor, range of 200 km, top speed 120 km/h and LiFePO batteries... sounds nice.
Even the design is not too bad.
(there are some other models, scroll down)

I wasn't able to find much data on them online, except for one comment from the guy that drove one of them. He said, I quote, "pieces of shit", but that they did have 8 kW and could reach 100 km/h (he was probably talking about the other model, not the 20 kW one).
The article also said something about the price being around $3000, depending on how many you order.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

Myth! This story exists in thousands of permutations. Hydrogen extraction from H2O is an energy intensive process. It takes more energy to separate the molecule into components than the recombination produces. Period. Law of thermodynamics. It would be exactly like the mythical perpetual engine.

I don't have space enough to discuss the economics here. All I'll say is that if oil is to fall out of preference as a transportation fuel, those who profit from its sale will wish to fall back on an other source; an other fuel, one they can control and own. The biggest idiocy I've heard is that one company wanted to extract hydrogen from oil!!!!!!!!

Hydrogen will not be as efficient as electrics. They can't get tanks big enough for more than a 100 miles range. The efficiency cycle of hydrogen is even less than that of the ICE which in turn is less than an EV's powered by PVs. Of course the present oil economy will lose benefit from this if ever EVs were manufactured. What would happen to the economy if everyone could manufacture their own fuels? Unthinkable, of course...
With Hybrids they make a more complex vehicle that costs more. Katching!!!
A plug-in hybrid MUST have its gas engine run frequently to keep it healthy. Katching!!!
Service of hybrid vehicles is more expensive

Tell me PKFFW, what kind of breakthrough do you want to happen with electric vehicles to allow manufacture? As they are they can provide more that 90% of one's needs. Isn't that enough for those who want them? Why don't they want us to have them? Why do they stifle anyone who want's to build them? Why do we let them dictate that to us?.........Katching!!!.....


Cities have started planning for the introduction of EVs. As an example Vancouver has enacted a bylaw that enforces the installation of electrical circuits outdoors next to a driveway, for EV plugging.


On another note. Science students in "X" University( don't remember which) have successfully developed a way to charge a lithium ion battery to a full charge, in 6 minutes!!! With no side effect to the cells. Engineers say that to achieve such a level of charging on an EV sized battery will require nothing less than an electrical generating plant. But the idea is feasible... The solution would be to install charging stations next to electricity generation plants and equip them with gigantic capacitors.

Since this would penalize regions without electrical generation plants I figure they could build small nuclear stations near major highways to charge the long range traveling EVs at 100 mile intervals.
I personally would favor a rental micro trailers system with onboard LiOn batteries. You pay for the KW use + rental. Stop anywhere and hitch up!
That would be an excellent fall back market for all the gas stations.

Agreed, hydrogen would be poor for mobile platforms, but it would be excellent for non-mobile, larger scale, energy storage. For example, nighttime energy storage for a home PV generation. Weight and space would not be at a premium, and it would be safer (using metal hydrides) that battery storage.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Delta Tango

Seconds? Those would be quite some currents...

"It's not the currents... it's the resistance."

-Fermi to Slizard, Raiders of the Lost Atom

...or something. It has to do with the ability of super- and ultracapacitors to act as superconductors, moving electrons in both directions with very little resistance. That's why you don't need a massive current to do the job.

Super and ultracapacitors are planned to be used to provide quick bursts of power to the drivetrain, from a charge accumulated through batteries and regenerative braking, and allowing low-discharge batteries to take over at cruising speeds. This same system would aid the charging process as well.

[Delta Tango]

Well, since I=Q/t, where I is current, Q is electric charge and t is time, it is obvious that in order to charge a capacitor twice as fast as you would usually, you would need twice the current.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

Myth! This story exists in thousands of permutations. Hydrogen extraction from H2O is an energy intensive process. It takes more energy to separate the molecule into components than the recombination produces. Period. Law of thermodynamics. It would be exactly like the mythical perpetual engine.

That's disappointing to hear. I had thought the whole "takes more energy to sepereate the hydrogen than you get from burning it" thing was simply a matter of the processes we currently use to seperate the hydrogen. Didn't know it was a fundamental law of thermodynamics that there is no possible way to achieve a net positive amount of energy.

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

I don't have space enough to discuss the economics here. All I'll say is that if oil is to fall out of preference as a transportation fuel, those who profit from its sale will wish to fall back on an other source; an other fuel, one they can control and own. The biggest idiocy I've heard is that one company wanted to extract hydrogen from oil!!!!!!!!

I'm sure those who profit from fuel will do anything they can to continue to do so.

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

Hydrogen will not be as efficient as electrics. They can't get tanks big enough for more than a 100 miles range. The efficiency cycle of hydrogen is even less than that of the ICE which in turn is less than an EV's powered by PVs.

Someone mentioned earlier in the thread that petrol ICE efficiency is somewhere around 30% and I've heard diesel is close to 40%. In 2008 an Australian team from the University of Melbourne presented plans for a hydrogen engine with 40% efficieny and said they believed they could get better efficiency than that. So Hydrogen is not so very far behind ICE's and may end up even better. As for hydrogen storage tanks, that still is a problem however with more efficient engines there would be less need for large quantities of hydrogen to be stored.

The fact Norway(I think, but it might be the Netherlands) are building a national highway network dotted with hydrogen fuel stations leads me to think the idea of hydrogen fuelled cars can't be totally unworkable.

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

Of course the present oil economy will lose benefit from this if ever EVs were manufactured. What would happen to the economy if everyone could manufacture their own fuels? Unthinkable, of course...
With Hybrids they make a more complex vehicle that costs more. Katching!!!
A plug-in hybrid MUST have its gas engine run frequently to keep it healthy. Katching!!!
Service of hybrid vehicles is more expensive

Again, agreed, I'm sure those who profit from fuel consumption will do all they can to continue to profit from it. Nothing new in that idea.

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

Tell me PKFFW, what kind of breakthrough do you want to happen with electric vehicles to allow manufacture? As they are they can provide more that 90% of one's needs. Isn't that enough for those who want them? Why don't they want us to have them? Why do they stifle anyone who want's to build them? Why do we let them dictate that to us?.........Katching!!!.....

I never said anything about wanting a breakthrough to allow manufacture. By all means, let there be electric cars. I've got no problem with that. Let all who find EV's suit their needs buy one. I've got no problem with that. If one comes along that suits my needs at a price I can afford I will even buy one. Presently, they do not. The type of breakthrough I would be looking for is one that allows a car to do what I want it to do. What 95% of other people do with their cars doesn't interest me.

Another thing to consider is whether EV's are really all that better for the environment. As has been pointed out, PV cells currently can't possibly be used for full recharging requirements. Even if they can in the future they require that there never be a cloudy day when you want to charge your car. Mother nature is unlikely to be so accomodating. Therefore electricity produced in other ways is going to be needed. Pretty much every electricity production today is "unclean" in some way. And those production methods that are clean are not available in such quantities needed to recharge all these electric cars. So we are swapping one type of harmful emmissions for an increase in another type. Will the trade off be better for the environment? I don't know.

EV's would reduce relience upon oil which is a good thing but they shouldn't be considered the pancea for all the worlds ills.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[yvanleterrible]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

I never said anything about wanting a breakthrough to allow manufacture. By all means, let there be electric cars. I've got no problem with that. Let all who find EV's suit their needs buy one. I've got no problem with that. If one comes along that suits my needs at a price I can afford I will even buy one. Presently, they do not. The type of breakthrough I would be looking for is one that allows a car to do what I want it to do. What 95% of other people do with their cars doesn't interest me.

Another thing to consider is whether EV's are really all that better for the environment. As has been pointed out, PV cells currently can't possibly be used for full recharging requirements. Even if they can in the future they require that there never be a cloudy day when you want to charge your car. Mother nature is unlikely to be so accomodating. Therefore electricity produced in other ways is going to be needed. Pretty much every electricity production today is "unclean" in some way. And those production methods that are clean are not available in such quantities needed to recharge all these electric cars. So we are swapping one type of harmful emmissions for an increase in another type. Will the trade off be better for the environment? I don't know.

EV's would reduce relience upon oil which is a good thing but they shouldn't be considered the pancea for all the worlds ills.

Cheers,
PKFFW

Very nice reply and thank you for being so tactful. I'll do my best to return the respect.

First off when I read your preceding post I must admit I saw in it all the symptoms of misinformation I usually encounter in most discussions on the topic. I can see you've also been programmed by a certain lobby's malfeasance and insistence on preserving their turf for them alone till the end. Not your fault. Just a victim of efficient PR.

A well designed car is not what we've been trained to think it is. We have to make the effort to think differently. Electric IS the solution because it leaves no residues. It will not be cleaner if the source of the electricity is not from a clean source. At the risk of repeating myself, an EV must be sold with its power source. This power source must be the most natural possible. There are many; Solar PVs, wind generators, micro hydro plants, wave power, anything that has the less impact possible. Of all the choices given, the one that stands out is solar. Why? It's been calculated that if every roof of every manmade building was covered with PVs, their impact would not change what the actual buildings already have had so far and that the power they would generate would be 4 times the amount of power the whole of this planet's humans need...
PVs still continue to work on cloudy days at slightly lower efficiency. When an installation is calculated for an array of PVs with a precise duty to perform, tables are used for sunshine averages and the correct number of panels + contingency is installed. The overproduction is sold back to the grid and vice versa when you need it.


There are two types of hydrogen vehicles. Hydrogen combustion and fuel cells. There are only two companies insisting on burning hydrogen in an ICE. Mercedez and BMW. This way of using hydrogen is wasteful because of the low 30/35% efficiency of ICEs. The other, fuel cell, is the more promising but it's really far away from the tangible goal of an autonomy of 300 miles. And their main propulsion is ... the electric motor...
The biggest trucks that we use in mines have electric motors.
The newest and most efficient propeller systems on huge ships are driven by electric motors.
Many trains use electric motors.

It's the source of power used to drive an electric motor that is critical.

Hydrogen has difficulties to contend with such as containment. Hydrogen being one of the smallest particle goes through most materials like wind through a bug screen. The best tanks let a small part of their difficultly production content loose every day. With that in mind, it has to be used as soon as possible. Flammability? Skip... well, it's not worse than petrol...

The idea of any panacea is only good for binary people, it's impossible in reality. They've almost reached it with oil but where is it getting us?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Studies have concluded that if all gasoline vehicles were replaced with electric vehicles that ran on power produced at oil- or coal-burning power plants, the amount of pollution created by those power plants would be less than the amount of pollution from the same number of gasoline engines. So, even if we used the same power source (oil), we would still be cutting down on the pollution of the planet.

Obviously, switching from large single-passenger vehicles to smaller vehicles and public trans would create even less emissions.

Yvan is right that we all need to rethink our needs, and learn to give up on some of our wants, for the good of all. We cannot afford to be unyieldingly sefish about our personal needs, and let everyone else change. Large single-passenger vehicles, self-driven, highly dangerous and heavily polluting, were fine for another era, but for the industrialized world, that era has passed.

It's time to graduate to the next iteration of car--which I wish I could call, for the sake of this discussion, Car2.0... but I feel we've been driving Car Series 2 (Hybrids probably bring us up to Car2.7 now) since the aftermath of WWII, so I guess we're going to Car3.0 now.

And if you think there's a lot of difference between your present car and a Model A Ford, wait'll you see Car3.0...

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

Very nice reply and thank you for being so tactful. I'll do my best to return the respect.

Considering your following remarks I can only assume you are being facetious and/or sarcastic here.

I believe I was tactful and, more importantly, not insulting towards you in my reply.

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

First off when I read your preceding post I must admit I saw in it all the symptoms of misinformation I usually encounter in most discussions on the topic. I can see you've also been programmed by a certain lobby's malfeasance and insistence on preserving their turf for them alone till the end. Not your fault. Just a victim of efficient PR.

Alot of assumptions there but thanks for being so "tactful" by not coming right out and calling me an ignorant brainwashed fool which your remark clearly implies I am.

Simply because I did not realise a single apparent law of thermodynamics does not mean I have been programmed by the oil companies to believe whatever they tell me.

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

A well designed car is not what we've been trained to think it is. We have to make the effort to think differently. Electric IS the solution because it leaves no residues. It will not be cleaner if the source of the electricity is not from a clean source.

Granted electric leaves no residues if the power source from which the electricity is produced leaves no residues. That will clearly not be the case in the foreseeable future.

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

At the risk of repeating myself, an EV must be sold with its power source.

At prohibitive cost for starters and for seconds, as has been mentioned previously, even if the car is covered in PV cells and a car port covered in PV cells were sold with the car it is very unlikely with today's combination of EV and PV cell technology that the car would be completely self sufficient. In the future that may change and is just one of the breakthroughs I would be waiting for before thinking of purchasing an EV.

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

This power source must be the most natural possible. There are many; Solar PVs, wind generators, micro hydro plants, wave power, anything that has the less impact possible.

Yes the power source must be the most natural possible. However, in todays world it will not be.

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

Of all the choices given, the one that stands out is solar. Why? It's been calculated that if every roof of every manmade building was covered with PVs, their impact would not change what the actual buildings already have had so far and that the power they would generate would be 4 times the amount of power the whole of this planet's humans need...

Well I'd be sceptical of those calculations. Further, since not every building is covered in them I fail to see how that would help power EV's sold today.

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

There are two types of hydrogen vehicles. Hydrogen combustion and fuel cells. There are only two companies insisting on burning hydrogen in an ICE. Mercedez and BMW. This way of using hydrogen is wasteful because of the low 30/35% efficiency of ICEs. The other, fuel cell, is the more promising but it's really far away from the tangible goal of an autonomy of 300 miles. And their main propulsion is ... the electric motor...
The biggest trucks that we use in mines have electric motors.
The newest and most efficient propeller systems on huge ships are driven by electric motors.
Many trains use electric motors.

I never said EV's are no good or not useful or not in use today so I'm not really sure why you are listing all these uses of EV's.

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

It's the source of power used to drive an electric motor that is critical.

Yes it is and that was exactly my point about whether or not swapping one form of emissions for another is of real benefit environmentally.

In todays world, EV's get their power from the power grid. The power grid produces the overwhelming majority of its electricity from unclean sources.

In the future maybe that will be different and maybe it wont.

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

Hydrogen has difficulties to contend with such as containment. Hydrogen being one of the smallest particle goes through most materials like wind through a bug screen. The best tanks let a small part of their difficultly production content loose every day. With that in mind, it has to be used as soon as possible. Flammability? Skip... well, it's not worse than petrol...

I never said hydrogen was perfect. I simply said I think I'll probably wait until it is an option unless something drastically changes with EV's.

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

The idea of any panacea is only good for binary people, it's impossible in reality. They've almost reached it with oil but where is it getting us?

I suppose the idea of a panacea is only good for binary people or those who insultingly and evengelically argue the merits of their preferred option over any other.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

I never said hydrogen was perfect. I simply said I think I'll probably wait until it is an option unless something drastically changes with EV's.

I suspect you'll be waiting a long time for hydrogen to become feasible. Its troublesome storage problem means it will not be feasible to carry large amounts of hydrogen on-board a single-passenger vehicle for quite some time... leaving you with a vehicle that will get less of a range than some current EVs are capable of.

You'd be better off going with the compressed air car that is being developed today. It, and practical EVs, will be here much sooner than hydrogen cars (by an order of 3-5 decades, I'd imagine).

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Studies have concluded that if all gasoline vehicles were replaced with electric vehicles that ran on power produced at oil- or coal-burning power plants, the amount of pollution created by those power plants would be less than the amount of pollution from the same number of gasoline engines. So, even if we used the same power source (oil), we would still be cutting down on the pollution of the planet.

Interesting. As I stated in my first post, I did not know if this would be the case or not but it is still an issue worth considering.

Whilst "less polution" is of course better, I don't think this should cause all research into other options that may end up producing "no pollution" to be ceased or completely ignored.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Obviously, switching from large single-passenger vehicles to smaller vehicles and public trans would create even less emissions.

Yvan is right that we all need to rethink our needs, and learn to give up on some of our wants, for the good of all. We cannot afford to be unyieldingly sefish about our personal needs, and let everyone else change. Large single-passenger vehicles, self-driven, highly dangerous and heavily polluting, were fine for another era, but for the industrialized world, that era has passed.

Firstly, I do not take your comments regarding selfish people expecting others to change whilst they themselves refuse to, personally.

However, I'm a fire fighter. I like to think my choice of profession would indicate whether or not I'm generally "selfish". My specific role within the brigade is to travel to various stations around the state and fill in for anyone who is on leave. I must carry all my protective equipment(including helmet, boots etc), change of clothes, bedding, lunch, study materials and any personal items I may need. The total weight of all this is quite significant and the space required for storage is also quite significant. Often I may be required to travel 100's of kilometers to a station to work for the day then travel home.

That's just my work requirements for my car. In my private life I have family I visit on a regular basis that live 600km round trip away, my wife's family lives 300km round trip away and a brother spending some time as a guest of the state who lives 700km round trip away. None of these people live near a train line. Driving from one side of Sydney to the other to visit friends can be over a 100km round trip.

Now, if you could come up with a way in which an electric car would suit me, especially for my work requirements, I'd be happy to hear it. I might even be interested in buying it if it wasn't 3 times the cost of a petrol driven car.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

It's time to graduate to the next iteration of car--which I wish I could call, for the sake of this discussion, Car2.0... but I feel we've been driving Car Series 2 (Hybrids probably bring us up to Car2.7 now) since the aftermath of WWII, so I guess we're going to Car3.0 now.

And if you think there's a lot of difference between your present car and a Model A Ford, wait'll you see Car3.0...

I couldn't agree more, I'd love to see Car3.0 come along. I'm just not convinced the one and only answer is the electric car and that all other means of propulsion should be summarily dismissed from the discussion.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

I suspect you'll be waiting a long time for hydrogen to become feasible. Its troublesome storage problem means it will not be feasible to carry large amounts of hydrogen on-board a single-passenger vehicle for quite some time... leaving you with a vehicle that will get less of a range than some current EVs are capable of.

You'd be better off going with the compressed air car that is being developed today. It, and practical EVs, will be here much sooner than hydrogen cars (by an order of 3-5 decades, I'd imagine).

It may never happen, but if someone ever devises an economical and energy efficient way to break the covalent bonds between hydrogen and oxygen--thus enabling fuel to be stored as water and released as needed--that person will make a mint!

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

I suspect you'll be waiting a long time for hydrogen to become feasible.

That may very well be the case. Or it may not. Who knows. Maybe I will be forced to buy another car sooner due to mine breaking down. Maybe EV's will change such that they suit my needs within the next 12-18 months. Anything could happen.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Its troublesome storage problem means it will not be feasible to carry large amounts of hydrogen on-board a single-passenger vehicle for quite some time... leaving you with a vehicle that will get less of a range than some current EVs are capable of.

Hence why I mentioned the man who had apparently developed a more efficient way of getting HHO from water and using it in his car and cutting device and who was in talks with the US military and car manufacturers. However, yvanleterrible was kind enough to point out my idiocy and general brainwashing in believing that this device may be workable because it breaks a fundamental law of thermodynamics. Though I'm unsure why car makers and the US military didn't know it was impossible to begin with. Anyway, I guess hydrogen is just totally and utterly unworkable and should be abondoned at all costs before the oil companies get their hands on any of the technology and start forcing us to pay for water instead of petrol as that is the only foreseeable outcome of the entire Hydrogen as a fuel source scenario.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

You'd be better off going with the compressed air car that is being developed today. It, and practical EVs, will be here much sooner than hydrogen cars (by an order of 3-5 decades, I'd imagine).

The compressed air car suffers pretty much the same draw backs as an EV for my needs.

Cheers,
PKFFW