Comments on: Ronn Scorpion Hydrogen fuel supercar

By: Marrock

Marrock — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 21:44:47 +0000

@General X: The term "zero emission" is a misnomer, a hydrogen fueled engine still gives off water vapor as an exhaust gas, while hardly harmful you still need a way to get rid of it. @thecowsays: By the time something like this is a viable form of transport, cars will either be thought controlled or driven by some form of central traffic computer. They'll also have it rain beer every saturday night, marijuana will be legal, along with prostitution, And the economy will be so strong by then there will be no real need for money, everything will be free. Hey, as long as we're visiting fantasy land might as well go for the hat trick, no?

By: thecowsays

thecowsays — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 18:12:31 +0000

apparently when they say “zero emissions”, emissions must be supergeek code for steering wheel, because I cant seem to find and type of directional control mechanism in this picture…

By: borandi

borandi — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 16:05:50 +0000

@wookie_x: And guess what, we have the ultimate energy source for all of that. You’ve at least seen the sun, right? That makes the energy required for hydrogen creation and manipulation no longer a problem. It’s all to do with the storage at the minute.

Loughborough have developed a Hydrogen powered bike, with a range of 100 miles – mainly limited by the storage. Google ‘Hydrogen Bike Loughborough’, or see the video on the BBC (if it lets you).

By: General X

General X — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 08:00:56 +0000

Why does this “zero emissions” car have four tail pipes?

By: Stosh

Stosh — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 05:10:22 +0000

It looks like it was designed in 1995

By: wookie_x

wookie_x — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 04:53:30 +0000

Hydrogen powered cars are a horrible, but not for the reasons I’ve read here so far. The problem isn’t exactly storage (though that can be problematic). The problem is the amount of energy required to actually PRODUCE the liquid hydrogen. You have to use energy to separate the hydrogen gas from whatever compound it’s locked in. Then you have to use more energy to either cool or compress they hydrogen until it’s a liquid for transport or use. You then have to spend even more energy to keep it cold or you’ll have loss at the storage site. All of this leads to a very low energy efficiency. If these problems can be overcome, great! Use it. Until then, my money is on biofuels like biodiesel, or on biodiesel/electric hybrids.

By: elzarcothepale

elzarcothepale — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 04:32:03 +0000

it’s like, I want to have sex with it, but I know it won’t respect me. . .

By: Puulaahi

Puulaahi — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 04:26:37 +0000

I’ll buy a 100% electric once they drive faster than 30 MPH and have a decent battery shelf life before charging again. The current electric cars cannot drive cross country or on the freeway or even non residential areas.

By: squada

squada — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 03:31:11 +0000

anyone noticed the car is HORRIBLE!!!! I just wouldn’t buy it, who cares what it runs with… or the obscene price…

By: Marrock

Marrock — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 03:26:15 +0000

@reboot: Who said anything about an explosion?

As I recall, the Hindenburg also made a really nice nightlight and that was full of hydrogen.

Hydrogen is a dead end as a fuel primarily because there’s no real distribution network like there is for other fuels that can be adapted for alternatives, like biodiesel.

Another factor is the amount of energy it takes to crack water into hydrogen and oxygen in amounts that would make it a viable fuel.

Electrics are a possibility but then you still run into the costs of generating the electricity you’d need to fuel it.

Personally, I’ll stick with my bike, my fuel might cost a bit more per gallon, or pound, but I get much better mileage.