Hydrogen or Electric Ft-86
 

So I've just been thinking, what if in the far future a hydrogen powered or electric version of our cars exist. Would you buy it?

In my opinion, it'll be a very fun car. It'll be very similar to a tesla roadster imo. With the electric motors still situated low in the car, our car's COG will still be quite low. On top of that, weight distribution will be better.

Lets ignore mileage for this conversation.

The car will retain its handling characteristic, It'll have that torque people have been thirstin for. Zero Emissions.

So would you guys buy it? Also, which do you guys think is the future, hydrogen or electric?

No trolls please, just want to hear your opinions.

Weight. Tons of tons of weight will be added for batteries. This is very contrary to the basic formula of the car. Do not like.

The Tesla Roadster is about 600 pounds heavier than the lotus elise (probably adds less for the twins). That is rather significant and there's no getting around that for now. That'll actually put our car at about the same weight as the WRX.

But do you think its worth it for the power gain and weight distribution? It will change the characteristic of the car but a good amount of us are already slapping turbos on the car as we speak.

Are you talking EPA mileage or distance the car can travel? An all electric car you and I can afford is lucky to do 75kms a charge. No good for me

Hydrogen, because fuel cells take up a fraction of the space that is needed to power the car, unlike pure electrics. Electrics and hybrids are not the future. Hydrogen powered cars will be driven by electricity, but it will be on-demand as opposed to stored.

I'm talking about distance. I sort of want to keep this conversation theoretical about the future. If you want you can assume it has a range of 250 kms, which makes real life distance about 200 kms

I will still take my gas engine because of the sounds I can make it scream :burnrubber:

How much weight will hydrogen save compared to a battery. I used to be a huge proponent on hydrogen due to convenience, but with supercharging technology, it's not really a valid argument.

Totally agree. But there's something about that whine I love. Also stealthy power is quite sexy at times. Makes it feel like you're flying.

Only if nano-batteries are made affordable..

I wouldn't be able to give you a number, but the bigger the fuel cell, the more current you can generate, and the more power you can make. Pound for pound, given equal power, I think that the fuel cell vehicle (including fuel and cell) would end up being lighter than an electric, but I could be wrong. Need an engineer who is working on these things right now if you want a good answer.

Supercharging is cool, but still not as fast as a hydrogen fillup. Plus the infrastructure necessary for those SC stations is still more than it would take to convert existing stations from petrol to hydrogen (albeit needing more safety equipment, so once again I could be wrong).

I'm all for alternative fuel sources. The problem is simply the platforms offered simply do not tingle my nethers in the slightest. I'm honestly just waiting for the day the world steps it's battery game up, then I'll make the switch for sure.

Seriously though, how is it that we now can produce circuit boards so small you can't see them with the naked eye, but for some dumb reason our battery tech has lagged so far behind that I still have to power my flashlight with four big ass D-cells?

From what I'm learning in my ECE classes is that the reason technology became so microscopic was mainly due to the existence of transistors. Previously resistors were prohibiting us from minimizing these boards. Nowadays CPUs are being limited by silicon.

I'm not too sure about batteries but supercapacitors seem pretty promising.

Moore's law?

It's all about the material they use for making the batteries. Most batteries are made with the cheaper metal: steel, zinc, manganese and potassium. You can only make these batteries so small using these material.

Don't forget about the rare earth metals that makes it expensive and rather bad for the environment

I completely understand that I'm comparing apples to oranges here. I just mean that it's surprising how with all the incredible tech advances we have, we're still using the same battery principles that pre-date most civilizations.

Ok, if this is a strictly theoretical discussion and the car maintains the exact same characteristics then weight, range, etc don't come into play. I don't care if it weighs 10,000 pounds as long as everything remains identical. I would chose whichever would be cheaper to operate and maintain. Which of the choices that is I have no clue.

Oh and just because you said not too:

http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/...20111206025956

electric, but only after battery tech evolves into something a little more practical as far as weight and distance per charge goes.

Your first comments are a little off base. Semiconductor technology has gotten smaller over time because smaller generally means cheaper and faster. It's just the continuous improvement of the transistor technology.

I'm not sure what you mean by CPUs are limited by silicon, and I design CPUs for a living.

The problem with supercaps and batteries is that they simply don't have the energy density of gasoline.

Gasoline: 44MJ/kg
Li battery: 1.8MJ/kg
Super cap: 0.018 MJ/kg

The numbers above are from Wiki, so they may not be gospel, but you get the idea.

If you want to be able to drive your car even moderate distances, you'll need a huge ass battery.

If somebody could come up with a usable battery that is 4x more capable than today Li-ion batteries he would be a gajillionaire overnight.

There has only been incremental improvement in battery energy density over the last several decades.

One thing I like about driving my car is the feel and sound of pistons thumping inside that engine block which you can never get from electric or hydrogen power plants. So, I will always prefer gas engine.

But, that being said, we built Formula SAE electric car when I was in univ and that thing was a rocket....sooo much torque!!! But power source was an issue as you can only run the car for so much before its out of juice. So, if in the neat future, we can figure out better power source, I may consider electric power plant....maybe a small nuclear reactor...lol!!

^^^ was planning on adding to the conversation but no need. This is pretty much it.

They would need to turn that into a real figure for someone like that. It'll happen at some point, I'm positive of it. We're on the cusp of nanotech anyway.

That's what pissed me off about Iron Man/Tony Stark... Dude made a fusion arc reactor that could fit in your pocket, and instead of propelling the world into a new age of clean energy, he simply uses it to power his toys so he can more efficiently bash people's skulls in.

Ahh yeah don't quote me I'm still just a student. I'm image processing intern at an engineering firm where I'm learning how to parallel program. I took a short course to learn more about Cuda and parallel programming and they mentioned that CPU's have been getting smaller and faster but it recently plateau'd since they were getting too hot for the silicon.

If I'm wrong feel free to correct me. Main reason why I made this thread was cause I just wanna learn :thumbup:

Electrically Supercharged!

Added cost - ~$2k
Added weight - None
Added power - lots
Added torque - OMG
Improved fuel economy - who cares!

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/tu...w2200-h1238-no

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C83mb-BI8ZM"] 1 [/ame]

Don't sweat it, everyone needs to learn.

The issue that they were trying to highlight is that they are exceeding the thermal budget for the intended application. It's not an inherent limitation of the silicon. If you have enough money to provide the required cooling, the silicon will run very, very fast. The problem is most people aren't willing to pay for that extra performance.

Like every other engineering problem, it's a trade-off.

Getting back on topic, just like electric cars. Yes, you can power them with batteries or caps, but just don't expect to go very far. Or very fast for very long.

The most efficient options are things like the i8 or Porsche 918. A gasoline power plant that can run at maximum efficiency which provides power to an electrical engine. You can use caps/batteries to store energy and act as a buffer or power smoother so that the gasoline engine runs efficiently.

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....?