The problem with fuel cell cars.

[christi]

These cars, as I understand it use hydrogen and produce only carbon dioxide and water at the tail pipe.

What they never tell you is that the hydrogen has to come from somewhere. They have to use electricity to make the hydrogen.

Guess where the electricity comes from ?

Burning fossil fuels.

I bet that the overall environment impact of driving a Lupo 3L is lower than a hydrogen car.

------------------
1996 Passat Tdi estate (wagon (variant))
See my Peugeot / Passat site

 

[Mik]

Your point is valid, but you forget who is making the argument: the environmentalists are looking at the future of power production, not the present.

Several of the environmental advocacy groups tout solar, tidal, and wind power as the only acceptable means of power production. When viewed in that light, production of hydrogen through these 'zero-emissions' technologies is an obvious ecological benefit.

The problem comes when applying that thinking to the larger-scale world. Solar may be zero-emissions, but it is not zero-impact. A solar array takes up a great deal of space, space that cannot be used for anything else. Biomass may be ecologically low-impact, but as energy economies become more reliant on it, it displaces other uses of land. Some of these difficulties are discussed in a portion of a Frontline program entitled "What's up with the Weather?".

Planning for the future is good, but relying on the future to provide for you is magical thinking. Fuel cells may become viable in the future - but I'm not going to sign on to demand they be available and cheap in the next five years with the one hand and throw away my TDI with the other.

The argument of the 'shiny happy future' is one that's tough to counter, as you must rely on the much less glamorous present. Perhaps you can remind people that futurists once predicted flying cars, home nuclear furnaces, and robot butlers...

=Mik

 

[MacGyver]

In furtherance of what Mik said...
I like the idea of solar and other, however that is an excellent point on not zero impact. The only way I would totally advocate solar is with changes. I remember reading articles a few years ago about the development of solar shingles and siding materials. Excellent. That would help the impact since this is already used space. Are they available? Are they cheap? Not right now, and who knows if they'll make it to commercial market in my lifetime.
Then what? Hydrogen generation at home? Make sure you post those no smoking signs...
Solar is ideal for generating hydrogen, low voltage high current. No loss inverting it either.
But right now you'd have to drive a million miles a year to make this worth it. I'm hoping for 'greener' cheaper simpler transportation and living in general. Until that happens I'll roll through reality in my TDI. Once fuel cells are impact free from A-Z, bring em on.

 

[Dante]

It reminds me of the critiques of capitalism advanced at The Evergreen State College when I attended. The hippies were always comparing their ideal systems with a real one. Never mind the actualresults where their theories were tried.

[This message has been edited by Dante Driver (edited July 28, 2000).]

 

[mickey]

"Zero Impact?" Here's a suggestion: Sterilize every human being on the planet. Let's just legislate ourselves out of existance. Man, I'm learning to HATE environmentalists!

-mickey

 

[Crazy Cat Lady]

Don't confuse real environmentalists with environmental bureaucrats. The problem is their bureaucracy not their environmentalism. I doubt if any one of them practices what they preach.

Some people try to live as "greenly" as possible and consider themselves environmentalists. NOTHING that we do is no impact.

Let's give that sterilization thing a try, starting with the bureaucrats.