With an engine that size, he can probably run a scooter 5 mph for 200 miles with 10 liters of water. Add a 200 lb rider and he’ll go half the distance. 
There is a fundamental truth which always runs true: you can’t get something for nothing.
When somebody declares a magical system that gives free energy it is, of course, running on snake oil. The cheapest form of ‘free’ energy comes from Sterling engines. These devices use temperature differential to do work (move a force through a distance). That energy is only free because you don’t have to pay for it, but it is derived from e.g. the Sun or some other energy store such as hot rocks or glacial ice or water.
The reason gasoline engines produce power is because the gasoline is burned, and in the process produces waste products (water and carbon-dioxide) and of course heat. The heat is used to create large pressure differences (a force) and the pressure is then released (movement) into a convenient receptor … usually a rotating mass of some kind.
The process is horribly inefficient. The most efficient diesel engines recover about 40% of the energy available in the fuel they burn. Gasoline engines are worse because they tend to operate at lower pressures, but gasoline engines make up for it by processing a much greater volume of air and fuel, usually in an environment arranged for maximum power rather than maximum efficiency.
This focus on maximum power is conveniently in favour of the guy selling you gasoline …
LOL.
Try driving a Tesla from LA to NY.
Where to charge the batteries.
The delay time in charging in trip delay.
Repair if needed along the way. Wonder of they have a mechanic in Battle Mountain Nevada that has seen a Tesla.
Etc., etc.
I suppose it remotely possible that “the oil companies” put a lid on some great new engine, but I doubt it. Great ideas are hard to suppress, and the oil companies all getting together to do it seems very unlikely. More likely is that it wasn’t such a great idea, whatever it was, like the wankel rotary engine.
Secondly, you’re right about hydrogen. Hydrogen is a fascinating element, but as a fuel it has too many features inferior to something like gasoline. You can carry around a huge amount of energy in a gallon can of gasoline, for that same amount of energy in hydrogen you need a very beefy pressure vessel holding hydrogen at 2,000 psi or so, a very dangerous and clumsy alternative.
Hydrogen is a very useful and reactive chemical, and it will always be more valuable in that role rather than as a fuel. If you’re looking for something superior to fossil fuels, electricity and batteries has a lot more promise.
If you look at generating hydrogen from water then using it as a fuel cell, the inferiority of it is clear. (1) You separate water into hydrogen and oxygen using electricity, shitloads of it. (2)Then you have a fuel cell that reacts hydrogen and oxygen to make water and electricity to drive a motor.
Or, you just use the electricity in step (1) to drive a motor. Which one looks simpler and less expensive?
Interesting article. I was aware (but had forgotten) that Toyota had released their patents for Hydrogen technology for use by other vehicle manufacturers.
The use of that statement is fundamentally misleading. The article compares Hydrogen to oil, coal and natural gas without understanding that the ‘fossil fuels’ are in fact stored energy from sunlight which was captured, by plants, many years ago.
There is another solution coming to market around now. Comparatively cheap fuel calls are available which will operate from Hydrogen, Methane, natural gas and almost any combustible vapour. The technology is new and work to extend the lifetime of the cells is ongoing. They are already finding application in domestic combined heat and power units, and emergency power supply systems. Some big-name players are already heavily invested.
Out of context like that I suppose…
But nevertheless, hydrogen fuel vehicles have been explored, but likely aren’t going to do well competing with electric cars any time soon.
I tried to generate a ‘US’ web address, maybe it will figure it out automatically, but if not scroll down to the Supercharger installation map and click on the ‘North America’ page.
https://www.tesla.com/en_GB/supercharger
Approximately 40 minutes on a Supercharger. If you are using the higher capacity battery in your vehicle you should reasonably exceed 250 miles between stops. At a moderate cruising speed that is at least 3.5 hours between stops and definitely pushing the safe maximum driving time before taking a comfort break.
Finding said charger is easy, the vehicle will start suggesting charging points as the battery depletes. The onboard ‘App’ will generate driving instructions for how to locate the charging point.
Google the common faults. They seem pretty reliable.
So … are they still operating the Cannonball Run ?
I’d be surprised if these are comparatively cheap. These ceramic transport membranes are not cheap, and they foul with the junk in air like sulfur, NOx, particulates. They run hotter than hell and are stacked up, they need sealing methods good for high temperatures and bumps in the road.
Don’t hold your breath on this one. They may be suitable for commercial power generation in stationary power plants, but size is a problem there.
LOL, go for it and try the trip.
My vehicle gets 38 MPH. Bought it used for 8K 2 years old.
And how much did that electric vehicle cost that uses electricity that is generated by coal?
The Tesla is a great toy for around town.
1 Like
They are manufactured on a steel substrate.
They are intended for commercial and domestic use.
Combined heat and power units for domestic hot water and electricity generation have been / are being trialled in the UK.
It will probably come to nothing …
It will give shitloads of hot water I’ll bet. Let’s see how it goes. That’s why they do trials. The hard part of these things is, it may be a great idea but it’s got to beat conventional stuff in a big way - otherwise it’s just an interesting dead end.