Originally Posted by Tommycat
Actually, gotta appologize. Somehow I must have misread the first post.
My appologies DY. I thought you were talking about a hydrogen burning car and calling it a fuel cell car(I must have been more tired than I thought... or I need glasses... I am getting older...).
Thank-you. No hard feelings now.
Originally Posted by RedHawke
Some tidbits about Hydrogen production... there is a station constructed by our Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) that is completely off the grid, self-powered and produces its own hydrogen via solar power and water. This station is used to fuel the Hydrogen Fuel cell vehicles that they are currently testing.
This fuel source is viable, and so are the vehicles. I know I used to drive one, daily.
Unfortunately, you cannot really look to one station and call it viable. Your one station... how much did it cost to construct? How much does the hydrogen fuel cost?
A nuclear breeder reactor is MANY times more efficient than a conventional heavy-water reactor, but because it costs twice as much, it is not economically feasible as a conventional reactor. That comes from the interest placed upon borrowed money and a low return on its investment. Even though solar may be free, its capital cost is so enormous that its interest expense almost makes it too expensive to make economic sense.
Although your single station exists and produces zero emissions, it likely was a terrible business investment for those who built it. In America, the first priority is to make the most profit from the smallest investment. The environment often comes second.
I have advocated for the split-cycle engine months ago and made the same argument that before doing a radical shift, the best alternative is to perfect what we already have. The split-cycle engine is a newer version of the internal combustion engine that pushes fuel efficiency from about 30% to 35% + cheaper potential energy storage than electric hybrid.