| Author | Message | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 259 Registered: 5-2002 |
Martin, I think the surest way for an inventor to end up sleeping with the fishes in the East river is to actually let anyone know that he has invented a miracle engine that runs without gas or oil. If somebody suddenly appeared on national television on every network at the same time, announcing and demonstrating the miracle engine, the combined legal might of every oil and auto company would descend on the inventor and do everything within their power to prevent his invention from seeing any further publicity. The miracle motor would be packed up in a wooden crate and stored right next to the Ark of the Covenant in a giant dusty warehouse surrounded by barbed wire for the next 100 years. | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Intermediate Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 1400 Registered: 2-2001 |
Gas already costs abour 4x as much in Europe & a lot of the world as it does here in the US so maybe the euros r ready for H power now or soon | ||
| Mitch Alsup (Mitch_alsup)
Junior Member Username: Mitch_alsup Post Number: 161 Registered: 4-2002 |
No, the real problem is energy density--gasoline has a very great density of energy--batteries and many other so-called options at this point do not have an energy density within a (coupbe binary) orders of magnitude of gasoline. With the energy density of gasoline, an engine can be highly inefficient (as are piston engines) and still travel a long way on a small amount of cash. With its energy density, high power levels are available and sustainable. With the (lack of) energy density of the various alternatives, one cannot travel very far on a small amount of cash. Of all these alternative vehicles, I don't hear of any that are pressing 400 HP or attempting 150+ MPH capabilities. Cash includes cost to manufacture, cost to buy, cost to maintain, cost of energy, and cost of disposal. Until gasoline get a lot higher (like 4X to 8X) in cost, most of these other technologies will remain relegated to the fringes of automotive designs--however interesting. | ||
| Martin (Miami348ts)
Advanced Member Username: Miami348ts Post Number: 2887 Registered: 5-2001 |
Arlie, LOL we may be on to something here ! I believe the technology already exists to have cars virtually without oil and or oil products just as efficient as todays gas models. The problem is the big $$$ behind the oil. If we create a car that drives 200 Miles on one gallon just as good as the car today but only 15 MpG, there is a big loss for lots of people. Gas stations, the extreme taxes on gas and the collection thereof would come down to almost 0, the supply industry, the ships carrying the crude, the ports unloading the crude, the trucks and truckers carrying the gas from the ports to the stations etc. You would create Millions of unemployed people and Gazillions of $$$ missing in GWB's war chest! just a though. Think about it though how many jobs would be lost in the US alone if that car exists and believe me, it does! | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Member Username: Ross Post Number: 339 Registered: 3-2002 |
and what energy is used to compress the air and then shoot it into the pistons? more of the same....there is no free lunch | ||
| Bill Sawyer (Wsawyer)
Member Username: Wsawyer Post Number: 461 Registered: 2-2002 |
How about compressed air? MIT says they can propel a vehicle to 55 mph using compressed air to power the pistons: http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/wo_harney091902.asp | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 253 Registered: 5-2002 |
UPDATE! The California Air Resources Board announced today the banning of all non-approved amplifiers for the Tubosi factory sound system for electric vehicles. Citing numerous complaints and rampant abuse of illegal, over powered, under the counter amplifiers that boost the sound level of the Tubosi system, the CARB board will most likely set the nationwide standard for approved after market accessories for electric vehicle "image enhancement" systems. | ||
| Martin (Miami348ts)
Advanced Member Username: Miami348ts Post Number: 2866 Registered: 5-2001 |
NEWS JUST IN! Bose will built a sound system that will enhance the sound of the electric motors at each wheel to sound like a F-1 car in today's traffic. They call it a "Tubosi" because of the merger of Tubi and Bose in December of 2014. Ferrari, a subsidary of Eclestone enterprises, has said it will study the effect of the Tibosi on their new F395 model. | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Intermediate Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 1391 Registered: 2-2001 |
Ross thats was impressive & informative, Thanks As for war with Iraq, wars tend to be very unpredictable perhaps the 1st victim will be the stock market, guess I'll stick to stockpiling cash for the moment | ||
| Mark Eberhardt (Me_k)
Junior Member Username: Me_k Post Number: 122 Registered: 5-2002 |
If somebody tries to sell you a "beyond unity" engine or free energy using magnets your best bet is to hold on tight to your wallet and walk in the other direction. Also, no full cell lasts forever, the component degrade with time, just like a battery does. If you get 5 years out of it your doing good - and that is with pure fuel. As far as I know, all of the hydrogen currently sold is made from oil or natural gas....so a switch to fuel cells means we burn more, not less. | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Member Username: Ross Post Number: 335 Registered: 3-2002 |
this is one of my pet peeve subjects since i am in the energy biz and love cars. hydrogen fuel cell cars are not realistic. the primary problem as lou and other pointed out is that currently there are only two viable sources of hydrogen: one from water and there it costs more energy to take it out than what you get, so no go; the other is from the oil refining process where it currently is used 100pct to make gasoline, so no go there either. maybe sometime far in the future, not in my lifetime, an alternate and cheap source of h2 will come about; until then this is not a viable alternative. the best way to extend our oil consuming habit is the hybrid car. preferably the electric/diesel variety. these can get insane mileage, 50 to 100 mpg depending on useage. if you roughly extrapolate the figures a little....... the usa uses 50pct of the worlds oil, so about 37 million b/d, half of that is gasoline so about 18 million b/d. the cafe standard is about 26.5 mpg, if you throw in all those suv's it probably drops to about 15-20mpg. if the usa fleet moved completely to hybrids (unrealistic i know but just for sake of argument), we would only use 20pct of the gasoline we do today, and this would mean at least 13 million b/d less consumptiuon for the world, which would cause world oil prices to drop by at least half.... ok, now just make the same calc saying the usa fleet goes to 20pct hybrids and you get a 2-4 million b/d drop in world consumption and the price of oil still drops........ as for the possible outcome of the iraqi conflict....if its done quick and without saddam blowing up his own fields, they will be able to double the iraqi output within 1 year, 3 times within 5 years.....oil prices drop in a hurry. if he blows up a lot of stuff, the above will be delayed, but in the end iraq is destined to put out a helluva lot more than today, so prices go down. throw in the excess capacity in the caspian area and russia which will come onto the western market over the next 10 years, and the price just keeps getting lower...... btw, this just keeps knocking the viability of alternative fuels for a loop since price wise they can't compete...... net/net, imho, we are not going to run out of oil to fuel our passions within this century. prices will fluctuate to be sure since it will always be the most political commodity; but we are not running out and ferrari won't be getting into hydrogen fuel cells. | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Intermediate Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 1389 Registered: 2-2001 |
Arlie, the GM version of the hydrogen car uses hydrogen to power electric motors, 1 in each wheel. Not internal combustion. Dunno about MB, Toyota, Honda etc | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 251 Registered: 5-2002 |
I think that the big 3 auto manufacturers and others definately want some kind of hydrogen based system to power their future engines. Why? Because the engine will STILL be an internal combustion engine that THEY will be selling to you. The last thing they want is a totally revolutionary power plant that is designed and sold by some new kids on the block. That means less of the pie for the big boys. And if it happens to run without gas, oil, hydrogen, or some other burnable fuel, then their buddies in the fuel industry can't get their piece of the pie either. So they will reluctantly push a modified internal combustion engine burning hydrogen that is really the SAME OLD THING. Does industry still build radios, TVs, telephones, stoves, boats, record players, and a zillion other products that same way they did 50 years ago? No way. But automobiles are still running around with internal combustion engines pretty much the same way they were almost 100 years ago. The piston in a Ferrari still moves up and down just like the first stationary flywheel engines did over 100 years ago. Only the support mechanisms have changed. Truely revolutionary thinking goes on in the darker, lesser know corners of industrial research. Check out some of the net sites that discuss free energy, super conductivity, "beyond unity" motors. It's not all a bunch of wackos. And it's not all just tall tales of 100 mpg carburetors. But the oil companies still wouldn't mind 100 mpg carburetors because at least it would still be burning gasoline. They want that. A truely futuristic design would be electrically powered and would have no carburetor and would burn no gasoline. They would sure hate that. | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Intermediate Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 1388 Registered: 2-2001 |
Fuel cells may look better after u factor in the cost of the the Gulf War & Bush's coming war with Saddam, All about oil of course Hydrogen may b more expensive but if we can free ourselves from dependance on the Middle Eastern loonies it may b worthwhile | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Intermediate Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 1387 Registered: 2-2001 |
Thanks Mark, thats very interesting. The article I read was discussing how they r trying to drop the prices of all the components. | ||
| Edward G. Salla (350hpmondial)
Junior Member Username: 350hpmondial Post Number: 161 Registered: 2-2002 |
Main Problem; Fuel cells can run forever. ..... But, Fuel cells need "Pure Fuels" or they clog. Replacing the polymer components is then very expensive. Pure fuels cost $$$!!!!!! so, there goes your echonomy. | ||
| Mark Eberhardt (Me_k)
Junior Member Username: Me_k Post Number: 120 Registered: 5-2002 |
Until about 2 months ago I worked for Plug Power. The people there like the people at ford, GM, Honda, ect are working very hard to made a product. There are several basic types of full cells, each with there own problems. The biggest of which is cost, both to build and to operate. A fuel cell using hydrogen can produce electricity at 83% efficiency, which gets people excited. But that is at zero power. The more power you draw, the lower the efficiency, down to about 60% - 40% in a practical system. And the reality is that you can not drill a hole in the ground and pump out hydrogen. You need to make it. There are several ways to do it, but you end up at about 70% efficiency. So .7 times .5 is 35% for you fuel cell system. A modern natural gas power plant is 60%, so you�re not doing a good thing by replacing it with a fuel cell. In a car, on the surface it looks a little better. A gas engine is about 20% efficient. So replacing with a fuel cell at 35% looks good. But when you dig deeper you find that a fuel cell costs about 100 times more to make than a gas engine. Improvements and mass production might get it down to 10 �20 times more. The reason they are expensive is because the materials and parts require a lot of energy to make. You will never come close to saving enough energy over the life of the fuel cell to make up the extra energy consumed to make it to begin with, so again you�ve done a bad thing. JMO | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Intermediate Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 1375 Registered: 2-2001 |
Mark, if u dont mind my asking, who did u work for on fuel cells ? What do u think is/are the biggest stumbling blocks? | ||
| Mark Eberhardt (Me_k)
Junior Member Username: Me_k Post Number: 119 Registered: 5-2002 |
I think the reason propane is much cheaper is there is no highway taxes on it. The last I heard, gasoline was about 70 cents a gallon, the rest is tax. If many people switch to propane, I think you'd find the price up in no time flat. | ||
| '75 308 GT4 (Peter)
Intermediate Member Username: Peter Post Number: 2033 Registered: 12-2000 |
Switch to propane. Okay, so it returns about 90% the efficiency and power than a conventional gasoline engine, but this stuff is avaliable NOW AND CHEAP. I thought about this already - no not the GT4 - but I'd get a Pantera, which has that Ford motor and conversion kits are readily avaliable for it. The only tricky part is finding tanks that would fit nicely in the engine bay... Otherwise, this fuel is literally pollution-free, its cheap, its avaliable in large quantities and engines last MUCH longer when running on propane. | ||
| Paul Newman (Newman)
Member Username: Newman Post Number: 497 Registered: 12-2001 |
Cant wait to see a 360 with a big shiney electric motor under that back glass. Or maybe a solar panel? | ||
| Mark Eberhardt (Me_k)
Junior Member Username: Me_k Post Number: 118 Registered: 5-2002 |
I just quit a job designing fuel cells. I don't think you need to worry about gas going away soon. | ||
| L.C.Plester (Lcplester)
Junior Member Username: Lcplester Post Number: 63 Registered: 2-2002 |
My favourite: Basic formula: "V" & (Cylinder * 12) = V12 Something more advanced: NumberOfGirls=DaysDriven*(LuckyDays-1) / (CashInPocket + V12) And to prove my point: V12 * 8500rpm = 390bhp+NumberOfGirls This clearly shows gas is best  (I�m a computer programmer so only understand these basic formulas ;) | ||
| Hubert Otlik (Hugh)
Junior Member Username: Hugh Post Number: 220 Registered: 1-2002 |
Solly, You can obtain H2 simply by electrolytically seperating H20 into its components: ---------------------------------------------- Electrolysis � the passage of a direct current of electricity of sufficient voltage to break the O-H bonds in water. 286 kJ + H2O(l) � H2(g) + 1/2 O2(g) So, we need energy to generate the H2 that�s going to give us energy (not to mention efficiency losses) Heat is another possibility: 131 kJ + H2O(g) + C(s) � H2(g) + CO(g) -- less energy, poorer byproduct. (a lot of heat; 5000 ˚C) more possibilities: Other H2 issues: High volume � 12 L /g at room temperature. Have to use explosion-proof cylinders, which will be heavy. Could cool to liquid H2, but requires �253 ˚C, which would be difficult in your car and cost a lot. Other forms of stored H2: Condensed into nano-tubes; can raise the pressure with little risks; heating the nano-tubes releases the H2. (Very difficult to make, $$) Store as an alternative form: LiH: Li(s) + 1/2 H2 � LiH LiH(s) + H2O(l) � H2(g) + LiOH (possibility; Lithium is $2/g; have to recycle it) -------------------------------------------------- The difficulty is again at the periphery; you have to remember that H2(g) itself is an energy carrier, not an energy SOURCE. So, the problem is polymorphic; 1. you have to obtain H2-requires energy, 2. you have to -for automotive use- store it and cool it, which is both expenisive and energy consuming, and 3. more practical than academic, there is no hydrogen infrastructure, yet, so the introduction of that is another task to be accomplished. But, as I said previously, for the coming decades, we will more than likely see a progressive evolution of the internal combustion engine, not a radical seperation. | ||
| Steven J. Solomon (Solly)
Member Username: Solly Post Number: 399 Registered: 6-2001 |
Diesels have certainly come a long way, but still don't address the oil problem. We would still have to import the stuff. I believe hydrogen is separated from water, not air, as air is mostly nitrogen: Nitrogen N2 78.084 % Oxygen O2 20.9476 % Argon Ar 0.934 % Carbon Dioxide CO2 0.0314 % Neon Ne 0.001818 % Methane CH4 0.0002 % Helium He 0.000524 % Krypton Kr 0.000114 % Hydrogen H2 0.00005 % Xenon Xe 0.0000087 % The key question here is whether the energy realized by using hydrogen fuels is greater than the energy necessary to split water into hydrogen/O2. If it turns out to be so we will have to rely on fossil fuels only for a short period of time, to get the initial batches of hydrogen processed. After that we can use any excess hydrogen energy to split more water and stop relying on fossil fuels. Goodbye Saddam and hello road trips. | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Intermediate Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 1372 Registered: 2-2001 |
Lou yes the E required to seperate H2 from the air or water may require electrical E but it doesnt Have to be from fossil fuels, it could be done just as well from solar, geothermal, nuclear or nuclear fusion | ||
| Lou B (Toby91)
Junior Member Username: Toby91 Post Number: 86 Registered: 4-2001 |
H2 while plentiful in principle is not easy to separate from air. I understand it take an enormous amount of electricity to do this which guess what, comes mainly from burning fossil fuels! Its not clear is there is any net savings. Whats lacking in the whole national energy debate is a complete story of the total energy required for each red hot idea. I think the baseline should be 1 gal of diesel can move 1 3500 lb car at least 50 miles with 4 passengers with luggage in air conditioned comfort with pretty damn low emmisions. Compare everything to this standard. | ||
| Hubert Otlik (Hugh)
Junior Member Username: Hugh Post Number: 219 Registered: 1-2002 |
Solly, The problem is not in altering the engine to burn H2/air, but in storing H2; gasoline is a liquid at RT, a volatile one, but liquid none the less, hence the volumes neccessarry to store a suficent quantity are reasonable. Using a gas in the same way neccessitates, for equivelent volumes, a much larger volume. So, you have to compress and cool it; then however, you have to deal w/ pressurized tanks and/or cooled tanks, and figuring out how to maintain a constant pressure-as cooled liquid hydrogen can quickly evaporate- in the tank. But, power output and performance will not suffer as the basic laradigm of internal combustion would still be utilized, and most modern cars could possibly be retrofitted w/ H2 tanks and injection systems. Currently, BMW already has H2 fueling stations in Munich, Milan, and somwhere here in CA. | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Intermediate Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 1370 Registered: 2-2001 |
As Patrick Bedard of C& D always likes to point out, electric cars merely move the pollution from the tailpipe of the car to the powerplants smokestack. The H fuell cell will require enegry to make, making that energy from high tech fusion reactors would b awesome cus fusion reactors have no radioactive waste nor do they belch smoke into the sky | ||
| L.C.Plester (Lcplester)
Junior Member Username: Lcplester Post Number: 62 Registered: 2-2002 |
To my knowledge, storing Hydrogen is one of the main problems. Tank will have to hold the high pressure because Hydrogen can explode easily. Tanks will have to be accident proof as well. BMW will propably be the first to come out with Hydrogen car, they are already advertising their results here in Europe. Another thing to take in consideration is, that we need someone like Shell to help distribution the new fuel. Shell was the first in UK to start distributing LPG (liquid petroleum gas), and now they must have couple of hundred stations offering LPG. Without distribution network no one will buy Hydrogen cars. I still don�t think diesel is the future, although it contains more energy than gas. | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Intermediate Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 1369 Registered: 2-2001 |
I'm no scientist either but the Scientific American article states that the hydrogen fuel cell is split by a very high tech Proton Exhange Membrane. The electrons go to power the electric motors, 1 per wheel, the protons pass thru the membrane to recombine with passing electrons & oxygen then this is displaced as the fuel cells waste product, water. Cool stuff. I bet it doesn't sound as good as my Forghieri flat 12 with a Tubi though | ||
| Manu Sachdeva (Manu)
Member Username: Manu Post Number: 440 Registered: 2-2002 |
People have hypothesised about this before - the key argument being that cars MUST become more fuel efficient - was reading about a possible future Ferrari diesel engine: Can't remember the details exactly but something like a 7.5 Litre Diesel engine with twin turbochargers in a V12 configuration coupled with a sequential 7-speed gearbox delivering 20mpg under hard driving and giving something like 450bhp @ 5000rpm - however the Torque would be MONSTROUS - as much as 750lbft or more.... sequential 'box there to keep the engine working hard but the Torque would mean that the car would be shockingly fast all the time. | ||
| Steven J. Solomon (Solly)
Member Username: Solly Post Number: 398 Registered: 6-2001 |
I'm no mechanical/chemical engineer either, but if internal combustion engines run on a mix of air (80-90%) and vaporized gasoline (10-20%), and the spark plugs ignite and burn this mixture, why couldn't an engine be modified to burn a hydrogen/air mixture? Any scientists out there want to comment? Burning hydrogen to power a generator to produce electricity to be stored in batteries to then power an electric motor seems so inelegant and indirect. | ||
| L.C.Plester (Lcplester)
Junior Member Username: Lcplester Post Number: 61 Registered: 2-2002 |
William, to my knowledge this is the only this size of reactor ever, of this new technology. Previous experiments have all been done in labs and never in this scale. I got the info from news about two-three weeks ago. Ok, I admit I�m not scientist, so I checked the proper word. It�s "International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor ITER", and it�s going to cost us 3.5 billion Euros (around the same in dollars). They are going to start building the plant in 2004 and it should be ready 2012. ITER is a cooperation project between EU, Japan and Russian Federation. Shouldn�t affect Ferrari powerplants, so its harmless I prefer my Ferraris with V12 | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Intermediate Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 1366 Registered: 2-2001 |
ACtually there have been many experimental fusion plants in europe & Japan, even the US. Perhaps what u r refering to LC is the first experimental commercial fusion plant ? | ||
| Hubert Otlik (Hugh)
Junior Member Username: Hugh Post Number: 218 Registered: 1-2002 |
Arlie: I call bullshit; permanent magneiic sources require extenal energy sources; two systems to power one, hydrogen may be 'archaic' in prinipal, as it was used to blow up what once was a japanese providence, but the utility of H gas is amazing; the reaping's in efficency and simplicty would be stagering; anything 'induced' would look 'archaic' and superimposed in comparison. -hubert | ||
| Hubert Otlik (Hugh)
Junior Member Username: Hugh Post Number: 217 Registered: 1-2002 |
Solly, Again, you are spot on, regarding MEOH. However, ethanol or EtOH nowbeing added to CA gas supply has shown to be enviromnetally harmful- the corn crops from which it's derivied en masse are actually poluting the environment- while emissions efficent; the harvesting of EtOH actually porduces volaile hydrocarbons-active in UV and resonace, hence greenhouse gases- and is actually eating into it's environmental justifiabilty as a fuel additive. | ||
| L.C.Plester (Lcplester)
Junior Member Username: Lcplester Post Number: 60 Registered: 2-2002 |
The first experimental Fusion Power Plant will be ready here in Europe in 12 years time (if I remember correctly). I�m not sure, but I believe the country was Denmark. The new station will have almost zero emissions (if it works ;). There was a similar project in US, but the Department of Energy cut the funding  Oh well... | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Intermediate Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 1365 Registered: 2-2001 |
Steve thats what I heard the Japanese & the Euros have tamed stars , pretty wild, some real Sci-Fi stuff | ||
| Horsefly (Arlie)
Junior Member Username: Arlie Post Number: 249 Registered: 5-2002 |
The idea of actually burning an explosive fuel to power an engine of the future is an oxymoron. The true engine of the future will use some sort of electric generator that operates with a "beyond unity rating". Something with superconductors, or a derivitive of permanent magnet electric generators. Burning hydrogen gas to make power is an archaic proposition when you consider the actual propulsion systems that are currently in operation in secret skunk works like Area 51 and other industrial research facilities. | ||
| Steven J. Solomon (Solly)
Member Username: Solly Post Number: 397 Registered: 6-2001 |
There is actually a running fusion plant?? Incredible. Everything I ever read suggested that these would never be viable due to low power output (power derived less than that necessary to split H2O into hydrogen/O2). Clinton/Gore funded a lot of stuff, for some reason concentrating on solar power and storage media. It's the car manufacturers looking forward that really put the bucks into fuel cell technology. Storage of hydrogen in a car is difficult as you will basically be sitting on a few hundred pounds of the stuff while driving fast. I don't even want to think of the fireball if you hit a tree. But this is probably workable. Old standby from my 1978 Organic Chem class is methanol derived from corn or other plants. Cheap, renewable, but corrosive as hell to fuel system. | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Intermediate Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 1364 Registered: 2-2001 |
while we r on the subject of Hydrogen, I believe the Japanese & the Euros now have experimental Nuclear Fusion powerplants that actually put out more energy than they produce Within 20 years they will probably run their countries on Fusion power, which invloves Hydrogen. That is way cool!!! The US started fusion research but pretty much gave up on it, Bad choice | ||
| Hubert Otlik (Hugh)
Junior Member Username: Hugh Post Number: 216 Registered: 1-2002 |
Solly, Only set back w/ hydrogen, lately, is storing it in a space effiecnt manner; the volumes neccesiated by a complimentary hydrogen 'gas tank' require some inventive engineering and delivery methods. But, you are 100%, H looks to be the fuel source of the future; unless some devises a brilliant synthesis toward 'cheap' organic fuels. | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Intermediate Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 1363 Registered: 2-2001 |
Steve I definately understand about the powers that be wanting to maintain the status quo that favors them. OPEC must be having nightmares about Hydrogen's future The car that GM is designing uses a fuel cell to power electric motors though, seems GM favors that route instead of an Internal Combustion Hydrogen engine. Dunno about the other Cos. So did the alternative energy research during the Clinton years ever pan out to anything or was it a blind alley ? | ||
| Steven J. Solomon (Solly)
Member Username: Solly Post Number: 396 Registered: 6-2001 |
Interesting topic. I have been following fuel cell development for the last few years and believe it has incredible potential. Clinton had a huge federal budget for alternative energy development research, which has since been quietly cut to nothing by the Bush (Cheney) administration. Problem is that Bush, Cheney and their cronies are heavily dependent on oil for their personal fortunes. So are the major oil players who have paid for the rights to drill, bought land and built enormous, expensive drilling/refining/transporting infrastructures. They have to get their money out, with a profit, and won't really pursue other ideas until the last drop of oil has been sucked out of the earth. Hydrogen is highly combustible (remember the Hindenberg?), has more energy per given volume than gasoline, and is infinitely renewable and environmentally sound. There is no reason a Ferrari engine could not be developed that looks, sounds and performs like the current V-8's and V-12's but uses hydrogen as the fuel. Then we can kiss all the Middle East problems goodbye and drive to our heart's content. | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Intermediate Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 1362 Registered: 2-2001 |
Now that I read more of the article all the big players r lining up for fuel cells, seems Daimler-Chrsyler & GM r leading the pack but Toyota, Honda, Ford, VW, & others r working on them also, probably 15-20 years before they take over. I'll be almost 60 by then, Maybe I'll give my 512TR to my son or nephew & get myself a nice dignified MB or Bentley then | ||
| Bart Boonacker (Sharky666)
New member Username: Sharky666 Post Number: 3 Registered: 9-2002 |
I don't hope that the sound of an V12 will be lost, because that sound is just about the best sound in the world. If they're gonna build in a fuel cell, and I say IF, I hope that the sound will come from dolby surround boxes, because it would a to big of a loss. But for the upcoming 10 years I don't think that Ferrari will put in fuel cells, because for as far as I can see, the engine and sound is part of Ferrari's style. Don't think that Enzo would wanted it | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Intermediate Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 1361 Registered: 2-2001 |
I wonder how Bush's war plan with Iraq will impact gas prices. Lets hope they open the Afghan pipeline soon so they can start sending that Ruski oil to the US. Meanwhile BP AMoco stock sounds like a good bet, they have the largest oil reserves in the deep sea. If war does break out between the US & the middle east do u suppose their will b a 2 year wait for a Honda Insight instead of a 360 Modena ? | ||
| Terry Springer (Tspringer)
Member Username: Tspringer Post Number: 283 Registered: 4-2002 |
The consumer likes high powered sports cars that brake and handle like racecars. The consumer is willing to pony up big $$$ for them. Therefor, they will always exist. No telling what kind of engine they will have, but I would put my money on them offering more performance not less. I remember in the late 70's and early 80's the car magazines moaning that the performance sports car was dead or dying. How wrong could they get. TODAY is by far the best time in history for speed! | ||
| Edward Gault (Irfgt)
Intermediate Member Username: Irfgt Post Number: 2009 Registered: 2-2001 |
Honda has a new virtually pollution free piston engine that is powered by.....Gasoline. | ||
| Hubert Otlik (Hugh)
Junior Member Username: Hugh Post Number: 215 Registered: 1-2002 |
I think if, within the next few years, we can slow the use/abuse of our natural resources and perhaps open up a few new sources -like Russia's reserve's- and possibly change the face of auto market; eg, restrict or ban suv's, and engine configurations that inheratly have poor effiecency; maybe we'll even see a more global introduction of diesel engines? A diesel sports car? Peuegot's got to thinking: http://www.fantasycars.com/1/2002/PeugeotRC/peugeotrc.html All in all I believe it won't be an absoloute eradication of the internal combustion engine; at least not in our lifetime, but a definite revamping; most plausible would be the more rampant hybridization of fuel cell, combustion, and gas electric engines. However, BMW has been doing very interesting work w/ Hydrogen as an alternative fuel source; and it's actually possible to make more powerful motors w/ this fuel source, b/c it's more energetically viable than our current organic batch, but harnessing and developing the technology are and have been the sticking points. | ||
| Ron Thomas (Ronsupercar)
Member Username: Ronsupercar Post Number: 321 Registered: 5-2002 |
Like you said William, the majority or the cars, not all...I can't see Ferrari giving in to this. | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Intermediate Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 1359 Registered: 2-2001 |
Just picked up the new Scientific American where they r discussing the future of the Fuel cell. I have only glimpsed at it so far but what I understand is that within 15 years the majority of cars will run on fuel cells, WTH r we gonna do ? Besides that GM & Daimler Chrysler are feverishly working on perfecting the fuel cell, GM has a "Skateboard" design where the entire fuel cell & all the running gear go under the car. You can then choose what body u want on it, anything from a sports car to an SUV. They may sell different wheelbase skateboards or a variable WB skateboard. Gonna b interesting to see how Ferrari steps up to this challenge, whats gonna suck is the loss of a great 12 cyl engine, Maybe they can include a CD of a 250GTO or 57 Testa Rossa with every model that u can blare from speakers behind the car What do u guys think of this development & future Ferrari engines | ||
| Anonymous |
poker casino poker 824 |