Why dont we have hydrogen cars?

Question

The technology for the hydrogen fuel cell cars exists and hydrogen is also the most abundant element so why dont we have hydrogen powered cars? I was watching a TV show it showed that a combustion engine can also run on hydrogen so why can't we modify the fuel tank and use hydrogen instead? I herd that it would be costy but in the long run isn't the price still the same. Just wondering

Answer 1

Because oil is too cheap, basic economics.  BMW has had a viable & SAFE hydrogen car since 95.  The supply line has held it off.

Hydrogen will be the fuel of the future, it is just a matter of time.  Imagine all those people sitting in traffic cleaning the air!

It's greatest benefits will occur when we use electrolysis to create hydrogen from solar sources.  Remember that all energy has originated from the sun.

Answer 2

My money is on all-electric vehicles. Get the battery problem nailed and it's a no brainer.

Answer 3

Hydrogin can explode too easily its way too dangorous to put it in cars one drop could cause an explosion.

Answer 4

hydrogen is too flammable.

Answer 5

Hydrogen is the most explosive of all gas. Would u drive around with 10 pints of nitroglycerin in the back. If u have a wreck it will not only kill u but everything in the block.

Answer 6

its about a million a car. there are like three fueling stations.

hydrogen is the most reactive element, so a hindenburg effect is bound to happen if the cars are made cheaply.

the only way to get hydrogen is electrollysis, and the only efficent way to power that is nuclear power.

if we would allow nuclear power, we would have enough electricty for years and years and years.

to answer your question, no its not the same. the tank would have to be air tight, 4H + O2 = H20.

i would look to more efficent fuel sources, or a combination. nuclear is the best, but most dangerous. bio-fuel is weak, but safe. were in an energy crisis untill we discover how to get cold fusion up and running

Answer 7

Creating hydrogen fuel cells is NOT environmentally friendly at all. It costs an enormous amount of energy to make and load them. It is NOT the way to go "green".

Best go electric.

Answer 8

two oilgarchs running country

Answer 9

To answer your questions, There are a couple of car manufactures that do currently offer  Hydrogen vehicles. BMW had a hydrogen BMW 7 series in the mid 90's and now has I a few in the U.S. market that specific people are driving. Jay Leno is one of the Hydrogen 7 series drivers. Honda also just came out with an ugly Prius looking  Hydrogen car that they will lease for $600 a month, without a purchase option for 1 or 2 years. Cost is still a factor and so is the irony that producing and storing hydrogen is still very energy intensive and dangerous. All of those things will over time be overcome. For now there is not enough infrastructure. Also like with anything else, we can't use any one source or that will become scare too. It is now happening with ethanol and now our food source is rising in cost because we are competing with fuel. The other issue is that no one who has any knowledge on the subject really is concerned with the environment. They just want to take advantage of the current market and make as much money as they can! Take Toyota for instance, they make the Toyota Prius and on all there publicity they are quite concerned about pollution and C02. That same company makes the Tundra, Sequoia, Landcruiser, GX and the LX. All of these trucks and suvs have some of the worst fuel economy in their classes. For comparison see Tundra vs Silverado from Chevy, or Sequoia vs Tahoe, ect. Also see my other comments on Hybrids.

Answer 10

Because the most cost effective manner of producing hydrogen is from hydrocarbons, which defeats the purpose of developing hydrogen cars.  Hydrogen is also VERY expensive.  The latter of these two reasons is the primary reasoning behind no hydrogen cars.

If you were to perform a Life Cycle Analysis on hydrogen cars, I think that you would find that currently traditional combustion engine vehicles are more cost effective than hydrogen cars.

Also, hydrogen has a different flash point than gasoline.  That alone makes it difficult to just convert to a different fuel source. It can be done though.  Look at propane.

Answer 11

There are two problems.  

First, the price is NOT the same.  Commercially produced hydrogen is extractedfrom oil--that's the onlly cost-effective method now available.  So a slong as that's the case--using it in cars is pointless (actually, its worse than useless---by the time you finish the processing, you've used  more oil than the car would burn if you left well enough alone).   To produce hydrogen  in a "clean" manner basically means using electricity to split molecules of water. That 's simple to do--but the aoount of electricity required makes hydrogen produced this way WAY too expensive.  

The second problem is storage.  To carry enough hydrogen to give a car a decent range, you nee a fuel tank that can a) store it at at least 5000 psi (about 150 times the pressure in a tire).  And it MUST be ultra reliable.  ANy leak at that pressure would set off a blast equal to at least a hundred pounds of TNT (and probably more).  We simply don't have the technology to build that kind of storage tank yet.

Answer 12

Fuel cells are complicated and must be perfectly made.  They must also stay clean so the fuel must be clean.  When all is said and done it acts like a battery, so why not just improve the battery and run the car off of batteries.  Also electricity is not just made from coal,  it can be made from Hydro and Wind and Solar and Nuclear power.  Even if the electric car that was recharged by a coal power plant it would cause 50% less CO2 emissions on the recharge than the combustion engine that would have moved the car the same distance.  P.S. Batteries can be recycled

Answer 13

The technology exists, but it is literally expensive as h**l. All we really have are prototypes, which run a few million each and are not for sale.

Hydrogen is always bonded to something, like in water or natural gas [the sources of hydrogen fuel], and it costs too much and takes too long to separate it.

You would need to go to a special filling station equipped with hydrogen tanks.

Fuel cells are way better than combustion, I can't remember why, but burning hydrogen just doesn't work well.

You know what tech we do have?

nickel batteries with like a 99% charging efficiency [Hydrogen only gives maybe 30% of its energy back]

Cheap electricity bascially anywhere in the US, readily available. Plug in a battery car and charge it overnight, drive anywhere.

Hydrogen cars are not really great. They're sort of like gas cars, but in the sheep's clothing of being electric [Which they are, if they're fuel-cell based]

Answer 14

Hydrogen cost much to much to make fuel and most of the time oil or NG is used. This is a great hybrid car but not yet.

We have the technology to move past the carbon debate. We do not have time to go through the government red tape. With oil on the decline, we have to make massive changes, swiftly. But we have to take the time to get it right. We can not do this twice, or three times - like in the past; we have to put our money in the best return on investments and where we get multiple benefits. We have had most of this technology for 20 years but have not implemented it. We know what is cost effective; we know where we need better technology. Without governments mandating renewable resources that do not harm the environment, we are doomed. The fossil fuel depression with global warming will be the worst economic downturn in world history. But this is not doom and gloom; we have the ability to fix our mess and enough time. Solar Concentrating Electric Power Plants, wind, wave, small hydro-electric, geothermal, and nuclear energy are what we need. We must have a pollution surcharge where we pay the real price (health effects, global warming and cleanup) for oil, natural gas, coal, cigarettes, cooling towers, cars, trains and airplanes. Raising the price of fossil fuel today gives us more time to solve these problems and helps pay for the 20 Trillion Dollars worth of renewable energy over the next 10 years. Remember knowledge is power and this information is very powerful. Humans have 50 trillion dollars worth of stuff that runs on cheep oil, natural gas, or coal.

I attended the Focus the Nation at Sierra College on 1-31-08. The event was the 2% Solution, a 2% reduction over 40 years to solve global warming. Oil is a nonrenewable resource and we are running out-but not soon – anyone now want to pay $30 per gallon for gas. The problem is the oil will be gone in less than 30 years at present rates of consumption without projected increases and shortages (gone at least to run cars, heat homes, power electric plants or air travel). The 2% Solution is ok for the USA for a 10 year plan to cut 20%, but I would prefer a 5% Solution over the next 10 years for a 50% reduction. At the same time, we have to be building renewable energy so at the end of 10 years we can cut an additional 20%. With the peak of oil in the 1970’s, peak NG in the 1990’s, having mined cheep coal, the peak of ocean fishing in the 1980’s, and the peak of uranium in the 1990’s, humans must stop procrastinating and make real changes to keep earth sustainable including in the energy debate, finance and regulation. Over the next 90 years carbon dioxide is projected to skyrocket as human’s burn more fossil fuels, but we have to come up with what will take its place and cleanup our mess. One of the big problems we have is at some time Yellowstone will blow its top again, as the magma move closer to the surface, creating a nuk winter. After that we will not have to worry about the destruction of the ozone layer, global warming or pollution.

Many of mankind’s advancements cause earth surface to warm, destroy the ozone layer, kill off endanger species, heat cities, and in some way cause more dramatic destruction.  Blacktop and buildings (roads, roofs and parking lots-heat cities), deforestation (air pollution, soil erosion), duststorms (increase hurricanes and cyclones, cause lung diseases), fires (cause pollution, mud slides, and deforestation), refrigerants (like CFC's) and solvents (including benzene destroy the ozone layer raising skin cancer rates) and plastics; cars, airplanes, ships and most electricity production (causes pollution including raised CO2 levels and increased lung and other diseases); these human problems we must fix to keep life on earth sustainable! Humans have destroyed half of the wetlands, cut down nearly half of the rain forest, and advance on the earths grasslands while advancing desertification which increases duststorms.

The result is:  change is on the way, we just do not know what changes (where and when). Look beyond the hype, beyond the weather, beyond a quarterly report and beyond today. President Bush has made a choice of energy (ethanol) over food and feeding the starving people around the world; this is a choice China has rejected. The fact is Bush wants to buy food from out side the USA to send to starving people since our grain is not available. Now what USA Presidential candidate is giving you the facts so you can make an educated decision of which one to vote for?

But with that we must understand we have never seen what is now happening before. CO2 has never lead to temperature change, but temperature change has led to increases in CO2. The models have to be made as we go along with current evidence! But again adding a small amount of CO2 to the atmosphere enlarges the earths sun collection causing warming; increase water in the atmosphere and it forms clouds cooling earth but sometimes causing flooding. Even natural events are warming earth and causing destruction. The sun has an increased magnetic field causing increases in earthquakes (more destruction), volcanoes (wow, great destruction), and sun spots. Lighting produces ozone near the surface (raising air pollution levels). The USA Mayor's have taken a stand and I believe are on the right track, we can have control and can have economic growth. The sun is available to produce energy, bring light to buildings and makes most of human’s fresh water. Composting is the answer to desertification. New dams are the answer to fresh water storage, energy and cooling earth by evaporation, we need many small ones all over (California needs 100 by 2012 and we are far behind).

That is why I founded CoolingEarth.org, a geoengineering web sight where you can learn more about earth, the atmosphere, and how to sustain life on earth’s surface. Watch for changes in the sight coming soon.

Answer 15

The same reason the electric car didn't go over.  The oil companies didnt want the public to be able to drive down the road without putting gasoline in their vehicles.  So they bought out all the electric companies.

Answer 16

Hydrogen goes BOOM too easily.

Answer 17

Who on earth told you that old batteries are radioactive?

They're not.  

Unfortunately, it appears that people are now learning how the world works from hysterical journalists on TV shows, not in school where they should.