I would like to disagree with some of your comments.
Sure, go ahead. Where would be the fun if we all agreed on everything? ;-)
I can say that using the law of physics for limitations is untrue as well.
For the limitations of energy storage, I think it's true. Hydrogen is liquid at near absolute zero. At absolute zero the molecules in a substance are still, which means that there are no significant spaces between them, and they occupy the space taken up by their size. Liquid hydrogen is virtually incompressible, like any liquid. Although metallic hydrogen may be marginally more dense than liquid hydrogen, it's not going to be much more. It's also a very esoteric material, not really suitable for putting in cars. It is unlikely that hydrogen can exist in any state, adsorbed or otherwise, that much exceeds the density of the liquid form.
There are a number of vehicles around the Colmubia, Mo area that can say that they are not having any problems with power/torque/ speed; and they've had atleast one vehicle doing this for more than 10 years.
And we have hydrogen fuel-cell buses here in London. But they are not ground rockets. They certainly won't outperform an equivalent EV, and I don't believe we will ever see a situation where these will outperform all petrol vehicles.
I tend to look at anything that can help us get away for petrol as a main line fuel as a possibility worth looking at.
I don't. Just because petrol is a bad fuel doesn't mean all other fuels are better. You could build a car powered by plutonium, but you wouldn't want to share a town with one. Hydrogen is environmentally benign, but it is dangerous for the occupants of the car and for passers-by.
Using metals as a battery if you will for storage of the H2 is already happening, the guy who invented the procedure was on "Sunday Morning" who drives his vehicle everywhere. It's not some hacked up 2 seater, it has all the normal gas guzzling addons.
I've never seen "Sunday Morning", but I'm aware of adsorbtion systems for storing hydrogen. The hydrogen is under pressure, which means it will tend to leak. Nothing leaks like hydrogen, because it is the smallest, lightest molecule in the Universe. Hydrogen will leak through solid steel. The hydrogen leaked from this man's car may be small enough to be no big hazard (although if you read about him dying in an inferno, I'll take that back) but imagine a whole underground car-park full of the things. Then imagine some office worker sneaking down there for a crafty cigarette.
As far as Lead-acid units go NiCds and NiMHs have more than twice the energy density per kilo than even AGM or even SLAs can come close to.
Agreed. But I wasn't talking about energy density, I was talking about specific power. A single well-charged lead acid battery weighing 25kg will deliver maybe 10kW for a short time (assume 1000A at 10V). You wouldn't get that kind of power-to-weight ratio out of the petrol engine in most street cars.
Yes, these problems can be solved with things like ultracapacitors, but ultracapacitors also work for EVs.
I will agree with you about the fact that electricity is much easier to transport and the H2 but I wouldn't shut H2 out of the picture.
But I would. There are no worthwhile advantages that fuel-cell hydrogen cars have over EVs. For hydrogen, the infrastructure is more dangerous and more expensive, the range is no better, the technology is more expensive both to make and to recycle, and the total energy used is higher.
The only advantage to hydrogen is for people that are selling hydrogen. And, since hydrogen is made from petrochemical gases, the people that are benefiting from this are our old friends the oil companies.
Their worst nightmare is for us to get the power for our cars from the same place we power our homes. Hydrogen cars is how they prevent that.
Don't believe their hype!
