3 ms·

I believe fuel cells will work when they can use methane, butane or propane cheaply. I already use an NGV(natural gas) car. Using fuel cells means you can get

I believe fuel cells will work when they can use methane, butane or propane cheaply. I already use an NGV(natural gas) car. Using fuel cells means you can get 60%-70% efficiency instead of 40% of thermal engines because you don't have Carnot't limit. Also, with natural gas lots of people will be able to charge on their home. Lots of people have natural gas pipelines in their houses in Europe. Today you can use this fuels only on fixed places, but over time we will be able to use it on cars. But I don't believe this will happen soon. And when it happens it will probably use at least a small battery for getting the benefits of it:regenerative braking and instant responsiveness.

mhurron 12y ago
Isn't using any hydrocarbon going to give you the issue with pollution that gasoline does? You're not really solving any problems simply changing what hydrocarbon you choose to burn.
- korethr 12y ago
  IMO, that would depend on the form the waste carbon is produced in, which would influence how it is disposed of. Taking a common hydrocarbon such as propane, and stripping all the hydrogens out of it will produce pure carbon. Last I checked, carbon tends to be a solid at standard pressure and temperature. AFAICT, the concern about carbon pollution is it ending up in the atmosphere in the form of gaseous compounds and messing with the complex feedback loops that regulate the climate. Solid carbon isn't going to do that very well.
- Htsthbjig 12y ago
  "Isn't using any hydrocarbon going to give you the issue with pollution that gasoline does" Not really. A fuel cell converts an hydrocarbon to C02. That's it. A thermal engine like a diesel creates particles like this: http://www.epa.gov/region1/eco/airtox/diesel.html http://www.epa.gov/region1/eco/airtox/diesel.html And the high temperatures creates nitrogen oxides that create acid rain. When you start a car, the catalyst converter needs 5 to 10 minutes to get enough temperature for starting to work.
- Htsthbjig 12y ago
  "You're not really solving any problems simply changing what hydrocarbon you choose to burn." You are solving lots of problems: 1-Lots of countries in the world have natural gas(or coal), but very few have oil.Just not depending on the petrodollar is a big plus as it would made countries more self reliant. 2-Reserves of natural gas are way higher than of oil. 3-If efficiency doubles, you need to spend half of it. 4-You can synthesize it artificially if you have C02, water, and energy.
- jessaustin 12y ago
  Hydrocarbons are not a monolith. Each different process using each different fuel produces a different mix of exhaust. This is why some (not all!) global warming aficionados prefer natural gas to coal, as they allege the former produces less warming than the latter. (I think we can stipulate that it produces less particulate pollution and smog.)
murbard2 12y ago
Make that methanol. It can be produced very cheaply from natural gas, it's easier to store and distribute, and you can even use it in existing casr with a fairly cheap conversion.

mhurron 12y ago

Isn't using any hydrocarbon going to give you the issue with pollution that gasoline does? You're not really solving any problems simply changing what hydrocarbon you choose to burn.

korethr 12y ago
IMO, that would depend on the form the waste carbon is produced in, which would influence how it is disposed of. Taking a common hydrocarbon such as propane, and stripping all the hydrogens out of it will produce pure carbon. Last I checked, carbon tends to be a solid at standard pressure and temperature. AFAICT, the concern about carbon pollution is it ending up in the atmosphere in the form of gaseous compounds and messing with the complex feedback loops that regulate the climate. Solid carbon isn't going to do that very well.
Htsthbjig 12y ago
"Isn't using any hydrocarbon going to give you the issue with pollution that gasoline does" Not really. A fuel cell converts an hydrocarbon to C02. That's it. A thermal engine like a diesel creates particles like this: http://www.epa.gov/region1/eco/airtox/diesel.html http://www.epa.gov/region1/eco/airtox/diesel.html And the high temperatures creates nitrogen oxides that create acid rain. When you start a car, the catalyst converter needs 5 to 10 minutes to get enough temperature for starting to work.
Htsthbjig 12y ago
"You're not really solving any problems simply changing what hydrocarbon you choose to burn." You are solving lots of problems: 1-Lots of countries in the world have natural gas(or coal), but very few have oil.Just not depending on the petrodollar is a big plus as it would made countries more self reliant. 2-Reserves of natural gas are way higher than of oil. 3-If efficiency doubles, you need to spend half of it. 4-You can synthesize it artificially if you have C02, water, and energy.
jessaustin 12y ago
Hydrocarbons are not a monolith. Each different process using each different fuel produces a different mix of exhaust. This is why some (not all!) global warming aficionados prefer natural gas to coal, as they allege the former produces less warming than the latter. (I think we can stipulate that it produces less particulate pollution and smog.)

murbard2 12y ago

Make that methanol. It can be produced very cheaply from natural gas, it's easier to store and distribute, and you can even use it in existing casr with a fairly cheap conversion.