Skip to main content

Add new comment

Nicolas Zart    August 13, 2012 - 4:54PM

In reply to by Aaron Turpen

I think we're still missing a key component of the hydrogen story, compressing it and keeping it cool. Last I checked, keeping cooled meant it lost a third of its energy/density to stay in this state. Remember, it's not an energy source per se, so when we talk about fuel cell, it's more an energy medium. Compressing it? Well that technology is very old, very inefficient and seriously outdated. The real progress needs to happen within these two categories and maybe localized production that can determine how much and how quickly it can produce it. There is only one compound that can actually contain hydrogen to this day and it is extremely expensive to make, even at NASA levels. My point was how can fuel cell technology compete with plug-in hybrids, even if gasoline goes past $7 in the US when PHEVs can already give you + or - 500 miles?

In the end, the more choice, the better it is for our economy but somehow, I still feel burning hydrogen is a better bet, at least so far. At least, NASA seems to think so.

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Comments_filter

  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote cite> <ul> <ol'> <code> <li> <i>
  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.