NF: Water-fuel car unveiled in Japan

[Guest lundboy]

http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=84561

[Clampet]

They claim 1 liter of water per hour of driving at 80km/hr.

Not bag!

[Spiel]

....Actually your "current avatar" is still a jumping largemouth bass.

[Musky or Specks]

If its true and really works IM buying some stock in that company

[Guest lundboy]

....Actually your "current avatar" is still a jumping largemouth bass.

 

 

You're right, my signature doesn't show up for me I didn't think it was active.

Updated!

Edited June 16, 2008 by lundboy

[Zubris21]

Let's hope the technology gets expanded on, and becomes more available to consumers world wide.

[charlied]

they will then find a way to charge you for water then...LOL

[Musky or Specks]

they will then find a way to charge you for water then...LOL

Ummm they are already doing that

[holdfast]

There's a possible hurricane 18000 miles off the coast of Miami. Water is going up at the pumps

[bucktail]

So what energy source is being used to split the hydrogen from the oxygen in the water??????????

You will have to use a battery as an energy source to power the the electrolysis to generate the hydrogen and oxygen....... so your going to plug the car in....without a huge commitment to nuclear power this is simply shifting the source of energy dependence and greenhoouse gases.

Wind and solar will not supply enough energy to power millions of these as well as industry as we kn ow it and todays power demand..

Any type of water eh........ How do you remove the deposits out of the water after you crack the hydrogen.

What about the energy it will take to produce the distilled water......

Man I am getting sick of bad science.

Edited June 16, 2008 by bucktail

[love2fishhave2work]

Dude, if everyone had your attitude, vision and open mind, we would all still think the world is flat. Someone once told Einstein that he was playing with bad science.

[Guest lundboy]

That's the beauty of hydrogen, it produces more energy than it takes to separate it from the water. Initially you would have to fill the hydrogen reserve tank by plugging it in. After that as long as you don't let the water run out, there should be enough Hydrogen in reserve to keep it running? And the mineral deposits can be dealt with when using plain water it will be maintenance intensive I'm sure. Never the less... short of "Free Energy" which may or may not exist and we will never know of until big oil bites it, this type of technology is a step in the right direction.

[douG]

Bucktail is right. The article talks about a chemical reaction which cracks the water to provide hydrogen to operate the fuel cell. That means that something reacts with the water, and is consumed or changed to something else. This reactant will wear out and have to be replaced.

 

That's the way it seems to me.

[Guest lundboy]

Well looks like it is something totally different than hydrolysis. It is a chemical reaction of some sort.

 

 

http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_...0080613/153276/

[oncogene]

That's the beauty of hydrogen, it produces more energy than it takes to separate it from the water. ...

 

Where u get that idea from, I'm curious...

[douG]

Oncogene is right. The hydrogen fuel cell generates electricity by allowing hydrogen to recombine with oxygen in a controlled way, forming water as a byproduct. You will never get more energy out than you put in, if you use electrolysis as a means of sourcing hydrogen.

 

As the rocket scientists say, TANSTAAFL, or There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

[Spiel]

As the rocket scientists say, TANSTAAFL, or There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

 

 

Whoa, you's getting way to teknikal for me Doug.

[Guest lundboy]

Oncogene is right. The hydrogen fuel cell generates electricity by allowing hydrogen to recombine with oxygen in a controlled way, forming water as a byproduct. You will never get more energy out than you put in, if you use electrolysis as a means of sourcing hydrogen.

 

As the rocket scientists say, TANSTAAFL, or There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

 

You're right... I stand corrected. I thought HHO was different, but it is not any better.

 

"Efficiency

 

Water electrolysis does not convert 100% of the electrical energy into the chemical energy of hydrogen. The process requires more extreme potentials than what would be expected based on the cell's total reversible reduction potentials. This excess potential accounts for various forms of overpotential by which the extra energy is eventually lost as heat. For a well designed cell the largest overpotential is the reaction overpotential for the four electron oxidation of water to oxygen at the anode. An effective electrocatalyst to facilitate this reaction has not been developed. Platinum alloys are the default state of the art for this oxidation. The reverse reaction, the reduction of oxygen to water, is responsible for the greatest loss of efficiency in fuel cells. Developing a cheap effective electrocatalyst for this reaction would be a great advance.

The simpler two-electron reaction to produce hydrogen at the cathode can be electrocatalyzed with almost no reaction overpotential by platinum or in theory a hydrogenase enzyme. If other, less effective, materials are used for the cathode then another large overpotential must be paid.

The energy efficiency of water electrolysis varies widely with the numbers cited below on the optimistic side. Some report 50–70%, while the theoretical maximum efficiency of the electrolysis of water is between 80–94%. These values refer only to the efficiency of converting electrical energy into hydrogen's chemical energy. The energy lost in generating the electricity is not included. For instance, when considering a power plant that converts the heat of nuclear reactions into hydrogen via electrolysis, the total efficiency may be closer to 30–45%."

[bucktail]

Didnt want to sound like a spoil sport but every 6 months someone comes out with this idea in a new flowery dress.

When the US used to be the innovators in science they would have been the head of a real project llike this http://www.iter.org/ instaed of late joiners.

The wind and sun may help but a massive investment in technology like this is required if we are to get out of this energy hunger the whole world craves.

the ITER project was almost hosted in Darlington...... keep your fingers crossed they can get past the break point of energy in verses energy out. It really is mankinds only future for a cleaner environment.

Edited June 17, 2008 by bucktail

[oncogene]

You're right... I stand corrected. I thought HHO was different, but it is not any better.

 

"Efficiency

Water electrolysis does not convert 100% of the electrical energy into the chemical energy of hydrogen. .. the total efficiency may be closer to 30–45%."

 

Good someone is actually willing look into it

 

So far, I don't think we really have any technology or new energy source that can replace oil at all.

Claiming hydrogen fuel or bio-fuel as the next new energy source is like saying re-chargeable batteries is a new energy source.

 

And u know what's the irony? How do industries generate hydrogen these days, you think? It's not by electrolysis obviously as that's inefficient and expensive. Instead, hydrogen is extracted from a chemical process using....... da da da ..... fossil fuel and natural gas!

 

Same with bio-fuel... commercial farming depends greatly on pumping fertilizers... and where do fertilizers (nitrogen) come from? nitrogen fixation using hydrogen, fossil fuel and natural gas!

 

You'r not gona go independent of oil energy by switching to other energy forms that are also dependent on oil. All these do are just going around in circle and end up using the same existing energy sources we have been using already.

 

 

Didnt want to sound like a spoil sport but every 6 months someone comes out with this idea in a new flowery dress.

 

lol so true

Edited June 17, 2008 by oncogene

[Guest lundboy]

Not only that but plastics, and even "soaps" (which are really detergents) including shampoos etc. are all made from petroleum. Since WWII soaps were no longer produced from fats and lye which is more natural, and healthy. They were changed to detergents and mass marketed. You can buy natural soap but it's expensive and limited availability.

 

So getting off the dependance on petroleum has been pretty much guaranteed to be almost impossible. It's a shell game at best right now.

 

I guess with this new "water car" it's too early to find out if it's chemical reactants are created from petroleum. Doesn't really matter because to build the rest of the car, the plastics and energy to create it are all based on petroleum energy somewhere up the chain.

 

People are only looking at the ability to reduce their out of pocket expense on buying gas to get around. If something like this takes off, what do you suppose will happen to the price of water... since they are already talking about water shortages? There are towns in South America that aren't even allowed to collect rain water for personal use and run the risk of huge fines, because the water infrastructure has been "sold off" to big internationals that control the water rights forcing the people (these are poor people) to put about 50% of their income towards water.

Edited June 17, 2008 by lundboy

[splashhopper]

they will then find a way to charge you for water then...LOL

 

"they" already have.. check out the cost of a 1l bottle of water vs a litre of fuel

 

However, if this car runs on regular Tap water (with some kind of special filter on the car) we will have a winner.

 

I know for our family, we don't "NEED" to have all kinds of horsepower to get our family around.

 

We have a 2005 Toyota Echo that is getting close to 40mpg COMBINED and my old work van( 99 dodge Caravan with tow package in it) that hauls the "stuff" when we need to.

 

 

The sooner we get these wanna be cowboys and their big trucks off the road cause they "need em" for an inch of snow in the Big City, the sooner alot of this demand on fuel will lessen.

 

I sure hope the emerging economies in China and India don't follow North America's "lead" for conspicuous consumption on these fuel hogs.

Edited June 17, 2008 by splashhopper