Just read an article about Honda discontinuing their hydrogen fuel cell auto this year and several comments were not very complimentary about the technology. What I don't understand is why. From what I understand from reading:
1, H2 fuel cells have no environmental impact, emissions are water vapor
2. The Hyundai version gets roughly 365 miles to a tank and it takes 5 minutes to fill up (like a gas tank)
3. No longer term problems re: disposing of batteries/solar panels with a H2 fuel cell
4. No mining of rare earth metals which certainly has a carbon footprint and since they're 'rare' doesn't that mean they're not 'plentiful'? What do we do when the entire electric grid and all our our autos are dependent on minerals that are scarce and, therefore, extremely expensive?
And not just H2 autos. At the Bush International airport in Houston, all the shuttle buses from the parking lots run on natural gas - again, a fossil fuel, but it burns cleaner than gasoline. I haven't seen any movement to make LNG cars more plentiful.
When one considers the logistical problems of expanding the electrical grid up and down the roadways of America, maintaining the charging stations, having enough charging stations, solving the problem of time to recharge, etc., why aren't H2 and/or LNG cars being touted as thoroughly as EV autos?
In sort of the same vein, why, when the discussion comes around to the electrical grid and reducing the carbon footprint, doesn't nuclear energy ever get mentioned? It has no carbon footprint, has worked for decades in Europe and US and is much more efficient re: nuclear waste now that it was when the current nuclear plants were built.
If we truly want to drastically reduce our carbon footprint, why aren't ALL technologies being contemplated and not just wind and electric?
1, H2 fuel cells have no environmental impact, emissions are water vapor
2. The Hyundai version gets roughly 365 miles to a tank and it takes 5 minutes to fill up (like a gas tank)
3. No longer term problems re: disposing of batteries/solar panels with a H2 fuel cell
4. No mining of rare earth metals which certainly has a carbon footprint and since they're 'rare' doesn't that mean they're not 'plentiful'? What do we do when the entire electric grid and all our our autos are dependent on minerals that are scarce and, therefore, extremely expensive?
And not just H2 autos. At the Bush International airport in Houston, all the shuttle buses from the parking lots run on natural gas - again, a fossil fuel, but it burns cleaner than gasoline. I haven't seen any movement to make LNG cars more plentiful.
When one considers the logistical problems of expanding the electrical grid up and down the roadways of America, maintaining the charging stations, having enough charging stations, solving the problem of time to recharge, etc., why aren't H2 and/or LNG cars being touted as thoroughly as EV autos?
In sort of the same vein, why, when the discussion comes around to the electrical grid and reducing the carbon footprint, doesn't nuclear energy ever get mentioned? It has no carbon footprint, has worked for decades in Europe and US and is much more efficient re: nuclear waste now that it was when the current nuclear plants were built.
If we truly want to drastically reduce our carbon footprint, why aren't ALL technologies being contemplated and not just wind and electric?
