http://www.autobloggreen.com/2009/06/23/toyota-reaffirms-2015-release-of-new-hydrogen-car/

Anyone know if this is just Honda Clarity PR stunt 2.0 where they are going to be taking a bath, leasing them to SoCal celebs at $600/month so that Honda doesn't steal the green car of the year award again?

I decided to add a poll. I want to see what the forum consensus is.

It is important to remember that hydrogen is not a fuel; it is an energy transport medium.

A new slogan for hydrogen...



Hydrogen: Hard to make, hard to store. Challenge your life.

We need more people to vote; I picked 10 years and the chart now looks silly.

But, I picked 10 years based on the precise question asked; I think we can have affordable (for a given value of affordable) hydrogen vehicles within 10 years. But the infrastructure... that's another kettle of fish of a different color. No way that's happening in 10 years.

I heard Chu answering a related question, recently, and they're de-emphasizing H2 research because they don't think it's at all near-term but they're also, certainly, considering the infrastructure issue, too.

A fuel cell that operates off methanol or methane might be more generally useful. I'm pretty sure prototype methanol fuel cells have been developed. Refueling is fast at normal temperatures and pressures, which is a huge plus. Whether or not the energy delivered could support a vehicle, I don't know.

A new slogan for hydrogen...



Hydrogen: Hard to make, hard to store. Challenge your life.

Hydrogen is EASY to make - it's just EXPENSIVE.

Hydrogen is EASY to make - it's just EXPENSIVE.




Making my slogan: Hydrogen: Hard to make cost effective, hard to store in a cost effective way

Kind of took the zing out of it. I hope you don't mind if I keep it the way it was, same idea.

You may also have nuclear proliferation issues with widespread hydrolysis of water.. you can make heavy water as a byproduct.

You may also have nuclear proliferation issues with widespread hydrolysis of water.. you can make heavy water as a byproduct.





Why? It's many times more efficient and easier to just build a nuclear reactor in your country under the guise of generating electricity. Some countries will successfully argue, “If the U.S. is going to add hundreds of new reactors then why can’t we? If the U.S. came to the conclusion that it was the best solution, should we be denied?” Nuclear proliferation? Forget about that if we decide to ramp up our nuclear industry (with our tax dollars - only way to do it).

Once you have that reactor up and running you are making bomb material every minute the reactor is running. Getting out the plutonium is a well understood process. Simple. Iran will have no problem making a bomb, it's just a question of time.

Oh, one point I would like to make. It only took the U.S. about 7 years after the first atomic bomb was created to explode the first thermonuclear bomb (fusion bomb). Makes the Hiroshima bomb seem like a firecracker. So, you can expect North Korea to beat that 7 years easily (it's not like have to invent it, just read the books on it).

hermperez: "You may also have nuclear proliferation issues with widespread hydrolysis of water.. you can make heavy water as a byproduct."

I don't follow you. Hydrolysis just separates the O from the H. Does it do it preferentially by isotope? If so, we're screwed because hydrolysis is pretty easy to do.