To quote Scotty, you cannae change the laws of physics!

Energy storage in capacitors is really quite shitty. Batteries are better because there is a chemical component.

Personally, I'd look for micro-nuclear as the long term option.

Damn. You need to watch the "Iron Man" anime by Studio Madhouse then. That's the entire plot of why Tony Stark goes to Japan to build a power plant.


Anyways, I would go for hydrogen because it's the Mirai ("Future" in Japanese). :P
However, it's mostly because there are no outlets for plugs and cables in my apartments garage.

As opposed to the most plentiful element in the entire universe, Hydrogen?

Seriously, are you considering a small nuclear reactor as opposed to the much-less-dangerous simplest element known to man?

Hydrogen is pretty benign when it's all close and cuddly with oxygen in the form of water.

It's very bangy when it's all by itself as a gas. Also, it takes a lot of special care (= $$$) to turn it into liquid form, which is what you would need to do to make it an effective gasoline replacement. Also, still very bangy.

A very small nuclear reactor could be housed in a virtually indestructible casing and would be capable of powering your car (or your next 5 cars) for years.

Somebody else can do the math, but my guess is the amount of Uranium you'd need to power a car is probably pretty small.

People get all emotional about nuclear safety and forgot how dangerous combustible materials are. Just ask the town in Quebec that got wiped out by the tanker derailment how safe oil is.

Look, not to tout education, but I have a bachelors in Ceramic Engineering--I know full well the pros and cons of hydrogen. I also know that it is easily stored in its H2 (two hydrogen atoms, as is its natural state) and has been, and used, safely for close to a century.

Your statement above about easily contained in an indestructible container could easily be applied to a hydrogen fuel container as well, without the same imminent danger posed by an inevitable breach (there is no such thing as indestructible).

I think some people think that Hydrogen auto-ignites when it comes in contact with air--in fact, it doesn't, under most situations. Expose it to an ignition source (spark, flame, etc) and yes, it will be very "bangy," but I think in the long term, hydrogen is safer and wouldn't require a federal emergency response if a hydrogen car was in an accident (news flash, hydrogen cars are on the road, and have been in accidents--no explosions). Let alone the amount of safety precautions a nuclear car would need. And added weight. And fissionable Uranium isn't the cheapest stuff either. I could go on...

I'm not saying Hydrogen isn't a viable solution, I'm just saying it's not a slam dunk. The cost to make it and it's distribution safe is not small.

And the same is true for nuclear. I just think it's an option that is getting short shrift because people are irrationally afraid of it.

I wouldn't be comfortable fueling up my car with uranium o.o

Don't forget the environmental/energy costs that go into mining and refining fissionable material enough for it to be used as a fuel. There's really no free lunch.

My guess would be that you would buy a "fuel pack" that would last for several years.

Another positive! No more filling up! :D

Haha yeah that sounds amazing, but I bet it'll run as hot as hell

Agreed, but if nobody ever looks at it, it will never happen.

There was a lot of buzz around "neighborhood nukes" a while ago, i.e. a small nuclear generator that would power just a few hundred houses or so.

The idea being that because they are so much smaller, it is easier to make them a lot safer than the big plants. I'm just extending the idea to cars.

What would we do with all that nuclear waste from the spent components...? Bury it? Leave it deep under water? Fire it into space....?

Pretty sure we're already doing that

Valid question. That needs to be addressed as part of the solution.