On 6/26/2010 6:45 AM, George wrote:
> On 6/25/2010 8:27 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On 6/25/2010 5:49 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>>> On 6/25/2010 10:43 AM, Krypsis wrote:
>>>> On 26/06/2010 4:23 AM, dsi1 wrote:
>>>>> On 6/25/2010 8:13 AM, sf wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 23:47:51 -1000, > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not a big fan of hybrid technology - it's way too complicated.
>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>> important part is that it's an intermediate step between gas and all
>>>>>>> electric cars. Internal combustion and hybrid cars and fuel cell
>>>>>>> cars
>>>>>>> are not the future - all electric is. Well that's just my guess.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not claiming hybrids are the future, but they are an excellent
>>>>>> transition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with you there. Without them, the acceptance of all electric
>>>>> would have taken a lot longer. The next couple of years will be big
>>>>> years for all electric.
>>>>
>>>> I've heard that line since I was a little tacker! It isn't here yet and
>>>> I doubt it ever will be. The hybrid compromise will be around for a
>>>> long
>>>> time yet and I know I won't be around to see widespread acceptance and
>>>> use of full electric cars, even if I reach 100 years of age.
>>>
>>> Well, a lot would depend on what your current age is now, wouldn't it?
>>> It's a rather odd attitude considering all the movement going on at this
>>> point in time. You must be confusing this with flying cars - those won't
>>> be coming out until at least 2017. :-)
>>>
>>> My guess is that a hundred years from now, people are going to find it
>>> difficult to believe that we had to go to stations to fill up our cars
>>> with such a dangerous, explosive, liquid fuel. The very idea will
>>> probably scare them half to death - unless, of course, they're using
>>> molten nuclear materials for their fuel. OTOH, they could be using
>>> wolf/dog hybrids to power rubber wheeled sleds through a
>>> post-apocalyptic landscape filled with zombies. :-)
>>
>> In other words people a hundred years from now will live in a smaller
>> world where someone in Hartford doesn't date someone in New Haven, for
>> example (electric cars don't have the range for that).
>>
>> I think that in the long run efficiency will be sacrificed for utility
>> and they'll just make and burn hydrogen, which eliminates all of the
>> shortcomings of battery electrics and with a suitable carburetor works
>> fine in conventional gasoline engines besides.
>>
>>
> Where will we get the hydrogen from? The usual method is electrolysis of
> water. The oxygen-hydrogen bond is strong and takes energy we will get
> from where to break it?

Nuclear, solar, geothermal, whatever floats your boat. In fact this is
one area where solar would make a good deal of sense, since in hydrogen
production there's no need to store energy for a night time load, you
just shut down the works when the sun goes down.

However in the current hydrogen market "the usual method" is steam
reforming of natural gas.