Honda Car Forum


 

Go Back   Honda Car Forum - Accord Parts Civic Tuning Acura Racing > Honda Acura > Honda 2

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 05 Jul 2013, 02:10 pm
MummyChunk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default GM, Honda to work together on hydrogen fuel cells for 2020-ish

From AB



GM, Honda to Collaborate on Next-Generation Fuel Cell Technologies
Goal is commercially feasible fuel cell and hydrogen storage in 2020
time frame

2013-07-02

NEW YORK General Motors (NYSE: GM) and Honda (NYSE: HMC) announced
today a long-term, definitive master agreement to co-develop
next-generation fuel cell system and hydrogen storage technologies,
aiming for the 2020 time frame. The collaboration expects to succeed
by sharing expertise, economies of scale and common sourcing
strategies.

GM and Honda plan to work together with stakeholders to further
advance refueling infrastructure, which is critical for the long-term
viability and consumer acceptance of fuel cell vehicles.

GM and Honda are acknowledged leaders in fuel cell technology.
According to the Clean Energy Patent Growth Index, GM and Honda rank
No. 1 and No. 2, respectively, in total fuel cell patents filed
between 2002 and 2012, with more than 1,200 between them.

"This collaboration builds upon Honda and GM's strengths as
leaders in hydrogen fuel cell technology," said Dan Akerson, GM
chairman and CEO. "We are convinced this is the best way to
develop this important technology, which has the potential to help
reduce the dependence on petroleum and establish sustainable
mobility."

Takanobu Ito, president & CEO of Honda Motor Co. Ltd. said:
"Among all zero CO2 emission technologies, fuel cell electric
vehicles have a definitive advantage with range and refueling time
that is as good as conventional gasoline cars. Honda and GM are eager
to accelerate the market penetration of this ultimate clean mobility
technology, and I am excited to form this collaboration to fuse our
leading fuel cell technologies and create an advanced system that will
be both more capable and more affordable."

GM's Project Driveway program, launched in 2007, has accumulated
nearly 3 million miles of real-world driving in a fleet of 119
hydrogen-powered vehicles, more than any other automaker.

Honda began leasing of the Honda FCX in 2002 and has deployed 85 units
in the U.S. and Japan, including its successor, the FCX Clarity, which
was named the 2009 World Green Car. Honda has delivered these vehicles
to the hands of customers in the U.S. and collected valuable data
concerning real-world use of fuel cell electric vehicles.

As already announced, Honda plans to launch the successor of FCX
Clarity in Japan and the United States in 2015, and then in Europe. GM
will announce its fuel cell production plans at a later date.

Fuel cell technology addresses many of the major challenges facing
automobiles today petroleum dependency, emissions, efficiency, range
and refueling times. Fuel cell vehicles can operate on renewable
hydrogen made from sources like wind and biomass. The only emission
from fuel cell vehicles is water vapor.

Additionally, fuel cell vehicles can have up to 400 miles driving
range, can be refueled in as little as three minutes, and the
propulsion technology can be used on small, medium, and large
vehicles.

Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 05 Jul 2013, 02:25 pm
jim beam
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: GM, Honda to work together on hydrogen fuel cells for 2020-ish

On 07/05/2013 11:10 AM, MummyChunk wrote:
<snip taxpayer boondoggle>

ok, so how long before the first of these things blows up? and how many
innocent bystanders will it take with it?

and where is the energy for the hydrogen production going to come from?


--
fact check required
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 05 Jul 2013, 07:16 pm
JRStern
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: GM, Honda to work together on hydrogen fuel cells for 2020-ish

On Fri, 05 Jul 2013 11:25:21 -0700, jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>On 07/05/2013 11:10 AM, MummyChunk wrote:
><snip taxpayer boondoggle>
>
>ok, so how long before the first of these things blows up? and how many
>innocent bystanders will it take with it?
>
>and where is the energy for the hydrogen production going to come from?


Every methane molecule has four hydrogen atoms.

"Fuel cells" may include methane reactors, too.

No alternate fueling scheme yet uses less energy overall than internal
combustion engines, but some may be better than others, and hydrogen
and fuel cells are still in the running. Tank full of gasoline is not
really a safe thing to be hauling around all day either, but we find
it acceptable.

In a thousand years or two, when we've definitely run out of cheap
gasoline, some of these alternatives may be important. In the
meantime they provide people with good, clean hobbies.

J.


Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 05 Jul 2013, 08:41 pm
jim beam
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: GM, Honda to work together on hydrogen fuel cells for 2020-ish

On 07/05/2013 04:16 PM, JRStern wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Jul 2013 11:25:21 -0700, jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> On 07/05/2013 11:10 AM, MummyChunk wrote:
>> <snip taxpayer boondoggle>
>>
>> ok, so how long before the first of these things blows up? and how many
>> innocent bystanders will it take with it?
>>
>> and where is the energy for the hydrogen production going to come from?

>
> Every methane molecule has four hydrogen atoms.


not sure what you're trying to say there. if you mean that it's another
form of "hydrogen" fuel, that's like saying water is a fuel because it
contains hydrogen /and/ oxygen. if you mean that methane is an
energetic fuel that is safer, then you're absolutely correct.

hydrogen gas, the H2 molecule, is not just dangerous to transport, it's
difficult to compress and energy intensive to produce.


>
> "Fuel cells" may include methane reactors, too.


if these fuel cells were gasoline reactors [or even ethanol reactors],
them we'd be onto something actually useful. and safe. but they're not.


>
> No alternate fueling scheme yet uses less energy overall than internal
> combustion engines, but some may be better than others, and hydrogen
> and fuel cells are still in the running. Tank full of gasoline is not
> really a safe thing to be hauling around all day either, but we find
> it acceptable.


it's a good deal safer than hydrogen. have you ever seen hydrogen go up
outside of a little "pop" in a test tube? it'll ruin your day. it'll
ruin the day of your relatives too if there's no bits to even bury. did
i mention that hydrogen embrittles many metals?


>
> In a thousand years or two, when we've definitely run out of cheap
> gasoline, some of these alternatives may be important. In the
> meantime they provide people with good, clean hobbies.


there's loads of good cheap fuel about. but we don't want to use it.
instead, we have the devil's own brew of politicians anxious to waste
taxpayer money on crap that they think looks good and buys green votes
[mixed in a with a good dose of sheer ignorance], and an entrenched
energy industry that /doesn't/ want to see them pour our money into
anything that might actually be a serious competitor.

yup, we'll continue to see our money wasted on this crap unless we
either say something and make out like we mean to vote accordingly, or a
few people get killed. which one do you want to be?


>
> J.
>
>



--
fact check required
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 05 Jul 2013, 09:56 pm
Tegger
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: GM, Honda to work together on hydrogen fuel cells for 2020-ish

JRStern <JRStern@foobar.invalid> wrote in
news:sgket8hg6mdri515jb6j4mmj5lj2aceuj4@4ax.com:


> In the meantime they provide people with good, clean hobbies.



Right. Bacteria don't grow well on hydrogen atoms.

By the way, I tried using my hacksaw to cut off the hydrogen atoms from a
methane molecule I found. It didn't go well. Maybe the blade was too dull.


--
Tegger
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 05 Jul 2013, 11:05 pm
JRStern
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: GM, Honda to work together on hydrogen fuel cells for 2020-ish

On Fri, 05 Jul 2013 17:41:19 -0700, jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>On 07/05/2013 04:16 PM, JRStern wrote:
>> On Fri, 05 Jul 2013 11:25:21 -0700, jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/05/2013 11:10 AM, MummyChunk wrote:
>>> <snip taxpayer boondoggle>
>>>
>>> ok, so how long before the first of these things blows up? and how many
>>> innocent bystanders will it take with it?
>>>
>>> and where is the energy for the hydrogen production going to come from?

>>
>> Every methane molecule has four hydrogen atoms.

>
>not sure what you're trying to say there. if you mean that it's another
>form of "hydrogen" fuel, that's like saying water is a fuel because it
>contains hydrogen /and/ oxygen. if you mean that methane is an
>energetic fuel that is safer, then you're absolutely correct.
>
>hydrogen gas, the H2 molecule, is not just dangerous to transport, it's
>difficult to compress and energy intensive to produce.
>
>
>>
>> "Fuel cells" may include methane reactors, too.

>
>if these fuel cells were gasoline reactors [or even ethanol reactors],
>them we'd be onto something actually useful. and safe. but they're not.


The Honda ones have not been, and maybe the methane reactor idea
doesn't really work (yet?), it's just another idea floating around out
there, I thought I'd throw in. Googling ... OK "methane reactor"
seems to be used to run the other way around,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction

But I'm pretty sure I've read of people trying to carry around the
hydrogen on hydrocarbons and still reacting them without combustion to
directly produce electricity in a fuel cell. Maybe it just doesn't
work. After all, you still need to do something with the carbon, and
it's hard to imagine doing the hydrogen one way and the carbon
another. Still, ya never know.

>> No alternate fueling scheme yet uses less energy overall than internal
>> combustion engines, but some may be better than others, and hydrogen
>> and fuel cells are still in the running. Tank full of gasoline is not
>> really a safe thing to be hauling around all day either, but we find
>> it acceptable.

>
>it's a good deal safer than hydrogen. have you ever seen hydrogen go up
>outside of a little "pop" in a test tube? it'll ruin your day. it'll
>ruin the day of your relatives too if there's no bits to even bury. did
>i mention that hydrogen embrittles many metals?


Yeah, the embrittlement is not a good thing, those sneaky little
atoms. Yes, I've seen hydrogen blow stuff up, and we had the
Fukishima reactor buildings blown to smithereens from the stuff, too.

>> In a thousand years or two, when we've definitely run out of cheap
>> gasoline, some of these alternatives may be important. In the
>> meantime they provide people with good, clean hobbies.

>
>there's loads of good cheap fuel about. but we don't want to use it.
>instead, we have the devil's own brew of politicians anxious to waste
>taxpayer money on crap that they think looks good and buys green votes
>[mixed in a with a good dose of sheer ignorance], and an entrenched
>energy industry that /doesn't/ want to see them pour our money into
>anything that might actually be a serious competitor.
>
>yup, we'll continue to see our money wasted on this crap unless we
>either say something and make out like we mean to vote accordingly, or a
>few people get killed. which one do you want to be?


Honda and GM want to build a hundred cars every ten years to try out
the idea, it's OK by me.

J.

Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 06 Jul 2013, 12:43 am
jim beam
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: GM, Honda to work together on hydrogen fuel cells for 2020-ish

On 07/05/2013 08:05 PM, JRStern wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Jul 2013 17:41:19 -0700, jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> On 07/05/2013 04:16 PM, JRStern wrote:
>>> On Fri, 05 Jul 2013 11:25:21 -0700, jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 07/05/2013 11:10 AM, MummyChunk wrote:
>>>> <snip taxpayer boondoggle>
>>>>
>>>> ok, so how long before the first of these things blows up? and how many
>>>> innocent bystanders will it take with it?
>>>>
>>>> and where is the energy for the hydrogen production going to come from?
>>>
>>> Every methane molecule has four hydrogen atoms.

>>
>> not sure what you're trying to say there. if you mean that it's another
>> form of "hydrogen" fuel, that's like saying water is a fuel because it
>> contains hydrogen /and/ oxygen. if you mean that methane is an
>> energetic fuel that is safer, then you're absolutely correct.
>>
>> hydrogen gas, the H2 molecule, is not just dangerous to transport, it's
>> difficult to compress and energy intensive to produce.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> "Fuel cells" may include methane reactors, too.

>>
>> if these fuel cells were gasoline reactors [or even ethanol reactors],
>> them we'd be onto something actually useful. and safe. but they're not.

>
> The Honda ones have not been, and maybe the methane reactor idea
> doesn't really work (yet?), it's just another idea floating around out
> there, I thought I'd throw in. Googling ... OK "methane reactor"
> seems to be used to run the other way around,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction
>
> But I'm pretty sure I've read of people trying to carry around the
> hydrogen on hydrocarbons and still reacting them without combustion to
> directly produce electricity in a fuel cell. Maybe it just doesn't
> work. After all, you still need to do something with the carbon, and
> it's hard to imagine doing the hydrogen one way and the carbon
> another. Still, ya never know.


there are things like butane fuel cells,
<http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/fuel-cells/loser-another-fuelcell-charger-flunks>
so i don't think the carbon is the problem, it's the contamination with
all the other gunk that's in gasoline. and, as i said before, the oil
industry has absolutely zero interest in an alternative converter
technology that might be more efficient than current combustion.


>
>>> No alternate fueling scheme yet uses less energy overall than internal
>>> combustion engines, but some may be better than others, and hydrogen
>>> and fuel cells are still in the running. Tank full of gasoline is not
>>> really a safe thing to be hauling around all day either, but we find
>>> it acceptable.

>>
>> it's a good deal safer than hydrogen. have you ever seen hydrogen go up
>> outside of a little "pop" in a test tube? it'll ruin your day. it'll
>> ruin the day of your relatives too if there's no bits to even bury. did
>> i mention that hydrogen embrittles many metals?

>
> Yeah, the embrittlement is not a good thing, those sneaky little
> atoms. Yes, I've seen hydrogen blow stuff up, and we had the
> Fukishima reactor buildings blown to smithereens from the stuff, too.
>
>>> In a thousand years or two, when we've definitely run out of cheap
>>> gasoline, some of these alternatives may be important. In the
>>> meantime they provide people with good, clean hobbies.

>>
>> there's loads of good cheap fuel about. but we don't want to use it.
>> instead, we have the devil's own brew of politicians anxious to waste
>> taxpayer money on crap that they think looks good and buys green votes
>> [mixed in a with a good dose of sheer ignorance], and an entrenched
>> energy industry that /doesn't/ want to see them pour our money into
>> anything that might actually be a serious competitor.
>>
>> yup, we'll continue to see our money wasted on this crap unless we
>> either say something and make out like we mean to vote accordingly, or a
>> few people get killed. which one do you want to be?

>
> Honda and GM want to build a hundred cars every ten years to try out
> the idea, it's OK by me.


but they're being fed /our/ money to do it - that's /not/ ok by me. i'm
ok with funding academic research, but not just handing it over to the
black grasping hole that is anything into which g.m. [and their partner
du jour] wants to vacuum our tax dollars. g.m. never does anything with
our money except overpay its executives and move jobs to china.


--
fact check required
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 06 Jul 2013, 01:34 am
JRStern
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: GM, Honda to work together on hydrogen fuel cells for 2020-ish

On Fri, 05 Jul 2013 21:43:56 -0700, jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>On 07/05/2013 08:05 PM, JRStern wrote:
>> On Fri, 05 Jul 2013 17:41:19 -0700, jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/05/2013 04:16 PM, JRStern wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 05 Jul 2013 11:25:21 -0700, jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 07/05/2013 11:10 AM, MummyChunk wrote:
>>>>> <snip taxpayer boondoggle>
>>>>>
>>>>> ok, so how long before the first of these things blows up? and how many
>>>>> innocent bystanders will it take with it?
>>>>>
>>>>> and where is the energy for the hydrogen production going to come from?
>>>>
>>>> Every methane molecule has four hydrogen atoms.
>>>
>>> not sure what you're trying to say there. if you mean that it's another
>>> form of "hydrogen" fuel, that's like saying water is a fuel because it
>>> contains hydrogen /and/ oxygen. if you mean that methane is an
>>> energetic fuel that is safer, then you're absolutely correct.
>>>
>>> hydrogen gas, the H2 molecule, is not just dangerous to transport, it's
>>> difficult to compress and energy intensive to produce.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Fuel cells" may include methane reactors, too.
>>>
>>> if these fuel cells were gasoline reactors [or even ethanol reactors],
>>> them we'd be onto something actually useful. and safe. but they're not.

>>
>> The Honda ones have not been, and maybe the methane reactor idea
>> doesn't really work (yet?), it's just another idea floating around out
>> there, I thought I'd throw in. Googling ... OK "methane reactor"
>> seems to be used to run the other way around,
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction
>>
>> But I'm pretty sure I've read of people trying to carry around the
>> hydrogen on hydrocarbons and still reacting them without combustion to
>> directly produce electricity in a fuel cell. Maybe it just doesn't
>> work. After all, you still need to do something with the carbon, and
>> it's hard to imagine doing the hydrogen one way and the carbon
>> another. Still, ya never know.

>
>there are things like butane fuel cells,
><http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/fuel-cells/loser-another-fuelcell-charger-flunks>
>so i don't think the carbon is the problem, it's the contamination with
>all the other gunk that's in gasoline. and, as i said before, the oil
>industry has absolutely zero interest in an alternative converter
>technology that might be more efficient than current combustion.


There's this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom_Energy_Server

It runs on methane, but maybe you could crack octane to methane on the
fly? I dunno.


>>>> No alternate fueling scheme yet uses less energy overall than internal
>>>> combustion engines, but some may be better than others, and hydrogen
>>>> and fuel cells are still in the running. Tank full of gasoline is not
>>>> really a safe thing to be hauling around all day either, but we find
>>>> it acceptable.
>>>
>>> it's a good deal safer than hydrogen. have you ever seen hydrogen go up
>>> outside of a little "pop" in a test tube? it'll ruin your day. it'll
>>> ruin the day of your relatives too if there's no bits to even bury. did
>>> i mention that hydrogen embrittles many metals?

>>
>> Yeah, the embrittlement is not a good thing, those sneaky little
>> atoms. Yes, I've seen hydrogen blow stuff up, and we had the
>> Fukishima reactor buildings blown to smithereens from the stuff, too.
>>
>>>> In a thousand years or two, when we've definitely run out of cheap
>>>> gasoline, some of these alternatives may be important. In the
>>>> meantime they provide people with good, clean hobbies.
>>>
>>> there's loads of good cheap fuel about. but we don't want to use it.
>>> instead, we have the devil's own brew of politicians anxious to waste
>>> taxpayer money on crap that they think looks good and buys green votes
>>> [mixed in a with a good dose of sheer ignorance], and an entrenched
>>> energy industry that /doesn't/ want to see them pour our money into
>>> anything that might actually be a serious competitor.
>>>
>>> yup, we'll continue to see our money wasted on this crap unless we
>>> either say something and make out like we mean to vote accordingly, or a
>>> few people get killed. which one do you want to be?

>>
>> Honda and GM want to build a hundred cars every ten years to try out
>> the idea, it's OK by me.

>
>but they're being fed /our/ money to do it - that's /not/ ok by me. i'm
>ok with funding academic research, but not just handing it over to the
>black grasping hole that is anything into which g.m. [and their partner
>du jour] wants to vacuum our tax dollars. g.m. never does anything with
>our money except overpay its executives and move jobs to china.


On the scale they operate, employing a few mad scientists on a long
shot, isn't unreasonable. Even DARPA throws a few kilobucks every
year for full reports on some of the nuttiest stuff out there, or at
least there was once a report (in IEEE Spectrum) of them funding some
zero-point energy project to the tune of $50k, again more for the
report and to cover their bases, and for the laffs.

J.

Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 06 Jul 2013, 10:58 am
jim beam
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: GM, Honda to work together on hydrogen fuel cells for 2020-ish

On 07/05/2013 10:34 PM, JRStern wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Jul 2013 21:43:56 -0700, jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> On 07/05/2013 08:05 PM, JRStern wrote:
>>> On Fri, 05 Jul 2013 17:41:19 -0700, jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 07/05/2013 04:16 PM, JRStern wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 05 Jul 2013 11:25:21 -0700, jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 07/05/2013 11:10 AM, MummyChunk wrote:
>>>>>> <snip taxpayer boondoggle>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ok, so how long before the first of these things blows up? and how many
>>>>>> innocent bystanders will it take with it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and where is the energy for the hydrogen production going to come from?
>>>>>
>>>>> Every methane molecule has four hydrogen atoms.
>>>>
>>>> not sure what you're trying to say there. if you mean that it's another
>>>> form of "hydrogen" fuel, that's like saying water is a fuel because it
>>>> contains hydrogen /and/ oxygen. if you mean that methane is an
>>>> energetic fuel that is safer, then you're absolutely correct.
>>>>
>>>> hydrogen gas, the H2 molecule, is not just dangerous to transport, it's
>>>> difficult to compress and energy intensive to produce.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Fuel cells" may include methane reactors, too.
>>>>
>>>> if these fuel cells were gasoline reactors [or even ethanol reactors],
>>>> them we'd be onto something actually useful. and safe. but they're not.
>>>
>>> The Honda ones have not been, and maybe the methane reactor idea
>>> doesn't really work (yet?), it's just another idea floating around out
>>> there, I thought I'd throw in. Googling ... OK "methane reactor"
>>> seems to be used to run the other way around,
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction
>>>
>>> But I'm pretty sure I've read of people trying to carry around the
>>> hydrogen on hydrocarbons and still reacting them without combustion to
>>> directly produce electricity in a fuel cell. Maybe it just doesn't
>>> work. After all, you still need to do something with the carbon, and
>>> it's hard to imagine doing the hydrogen one way and the carbon
>>> another. Still, ya never know.

>>
>> there are things like butane fuel cells,
>> <http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/fuel-cells/loser-another-fuelcell-charger-flunks>
>> so i don't think the carbon is the problem, it's the contamination with
>> all the other gunk that's in gasoline. and, as i said before, the oil
>> industry has absolutely zero interest in an alternative converter
>> technology that might be more efficient than current combustion.

>
> There's this:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom_Energy_Server
>
> It runs on methane, but maybe you could crack octane to methane on the
> fly? I dunno.


as i understand it, you can have these things use lots of different
hydrocarbons directly, no need to crack. the question is, how to deal
with the crud that comes with it. if you use methane gas, you don't
fill the reactor with nasties that poison it - so do you see where this
is going? refineries could produce "clean" fuels that can be directly
distributed and used in reactor cells using the traditional gasoline
production and distribution model. but they don't. and they won't.
like i said, they're not going to do a single damned thing that would
reduce their sales, even by a fraction of a percent.


>
>
>>>>> No alternate fueling scheme yet uses less energy overall than internal
>>>>> combustion engines, but some may be better than others, and hydrogen
>>>>> and fuel cells are still in the running. Tank full of gasoline is not
>>>>> really a safe thing to be hauling around all day either, but we find
>>>>> it acceptable.
>>>>
>>>> it's a good deal safer than hydrogen. have you ever seen hydrogen go up
>>>> outside of a little "pop" in a test tube? it'll ruin your day. it'll
>>>> ruin the day of your relatives too if there's no bits to even bury. did
>>>> i mention that hydrogen embrittles many metals?
>>>
>>> Yeah, the embrittlement is not a good thing, those sneaky little
>>> atoms. Yes, I've seen hydrogen blow stuff up, and we had the
>>> Fukishima reactor buildings blown to smithereens from the stuff, too.
>>>
>>>>> In a thousand years or two, when we've definitely run out of cheap
>>>>> gasoline, some of these alternatives may be important. In the
>>>>> meantime they provide people with good, clean hobbies.
>>>>
>>>> there's loads of good cheap fuel about. but we don't want to use it.
>>>> instead, we have the devil's own brew of politicians anxious to waste
>>>> taxpayer money on crap that they think looks good and buys green votes
>>>> [mixed in a with a good dose of sheer ignorance], and an entrenched
>>>> energy industry that /doesn't/ want to see them pour our money into
>>>> anything that might actually be a serious competitor.
>>>>
>>>> yup, we'll continue to see our money wasted on this crap unless we
>>>> either say something and make out like we mean to vote accordingly, or a
>>>> few people get killed. which one do you want to be?
>>>
>>> Honda and GM want to build a hundred cars every ten years to try out
>>> the idea, it's OK by me.

>>
>> but they're being fed /our/ money to do it - that's /not/ ok by me. i'm
>> ok with funding academic research, but not just handing it over to the
>> black grasping hole that is anything into which g.m. [and their partner
>> du jour] wants to vacuum our tax dollars. g.m. never does anything with
>> our money except overpay its executives and move jobs to china.

>
> On the scale they operate, employing a few mad scientists on a long
> shot, isn't unreasonable. Even DARPA throws a few kilobucks every
> year for full reports on some of the nuttiest stuff out there, or at
> least there was once a report (in IEEE Spectrum) of them funding some
> zero-point energy project to the tune of $50k, again more for the
> report and to cover their bases, and for the laffs.


absolutely - give the money to a few uni's doing relevant [or even
nutty] research, where it'll get spent on academic research. and have
them publicly publish the results. DON'T give it to g.m. who will throw
it away on management bonuses and keep the results in house - if g.m.
want to fund their own research and keep it in house, then they're
welcome to - if they want /my/ money, then /i/ want to be able to see
the results.


--
fact check required
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 06 Jul 2013, 11:33 am
Pawalleye
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: GM, Honda to work together on hydrogen fuel cells for 2020-ish

On 7/5/2013 8:56 PM, Tegger wrote:
> JRStern <JRStern@foobar.invalid> wrote in
> news:sgket8hg6mdri515jb6j4mmj5lj2aceuj4@4ax.com:
>
>
>> In the meantime they provide people with good, clean hobbies.

>
>
> Right. Bacteria don't grow well on hydrogen atoms.
>
> By the way, I tried using my hacksaw to cut off the hydrogen atoms from a
> methane molecule I found. It didn't go well. Maybe the blade was too dull.
>
>

Hydrogen cell technology will eventually happen but, probably not for
another 25 years. I have a young friend who is working with this
technology and he does not see it happening for this 25yr. I fail to
see from a chemical perspective where any methane comes from. the
research is focusing on fracturing water.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FCX Clarity: Hydrogen - The Next-Generation Fuel skylight Honda FCX 0 01 Sep 2010 10:00 am
Hydrogen Fuel Cars - Do They Exist? virig Honda 3 0 29 Sep 2008 06:48 am
Honda FCX Hydrogen Fuel Cell Car skylight Honda Videos 0 22 Jun 2008 07:40 am
Honda article earlier today about develpment of new batteries or fuel cells? Only saw headline & darrellenash Honda Technical 3 15 Aug 2007 04:46 pm
Honda article earlier today about develpment of new batteries or fuel cells? Only saw headline darrellenash Honda Technical 2 15 Aug 2007 04:44 pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:14 pm.


Attribution:
Honda News | Autoblog
Powered by Yahoo Answers




Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2 © 2011, Crawlability, Inc.
HondaCarForum.com is not affiliated with Honda Motor Company in any way. Honda Motor Company does not sponsor, support, or endorse HondaCarForum.com in any way. Copyright/trademark/sales mark infringements are not intended or implied.