🚀 go-pugleaf

Philip Nasadowski wrote:

>>I agree that we're talking 10+ years but 
>>there's no future in a hydrogen ICE, it's a pointless device.
> 
> 
> I'd say the same thing of fuel cells, actually.  There's no point to 

Except that they have more potential, unless you start making use of 
more exotic materials like ceramics within the ICE which would allow 
much higher temperatures, increasing efficiencies, but then the same 
technologies could have been applied to fossil fueled engines already 
and we haven't seen them in general use.

> FC's are pure marketing hype.  And honestly, if a hydrogen ICE is 
> cheaper, smaller, more powerful than an FC - and currently, they pretty 

I agree with most of what you're saying, in particular I'm also highly 
sceptical about the hydrogen economy but if we're going that way (and we 
seem to be) a hydrogen ICE is pointless, a small efficient and low cost 
fuel cell is a requirement. Internal Combustion Engines don't (can't) 
provide the efficiency gains required to make a hydrogen economy less 
polluting than an oil based economy. I'm of the opinion that in the 
short term we'd be better off switching to Diesel ICE/hybrids and start 
manufacturing bioDiesel, at least until the next generation of battery 
technologies have reasonable cycle life and cost.

> much are - then that's where things will go if the mythical hydrogen 
> economy ever goes anywhere.  Case closed.  Why spend billions on some 
> theoretical ideal if the existing technology is almost as good and 
> 1/100th the cost.

Because existing fossil fueled internal combustion engines are as 
efficient as a hydrogen internal combustion engine. More efficient since 
you don't have to manufacture the hydrogen.

-- 
UCE probe.
Don't send mail to Amaps.news@archeus.plus.com there's nobody home.
The address captures spammer addresses and /dev/nulls all their mail.
Regards, Colin.Smith at archeus.plus.com