The hydrogen car uses actualy hydrolize to work. The trouble comes that for hydrolize they need fresh, clean and iron free water for the simple reason that they split the hydrogen from the two oxigen atoms. The hydrogen car combines the hydrogen with two oxigen atoms. They need huge buildings to produce hydrogen fast. This buildings will produce fresh water by using destilation. To split the water atom they will need huge quantities of energy. They will be forced to change the gas stations al ower the world which I think is prety hard not imposible.

I don't think that the hydrogen fuel cells will resolve the problem resolve the problems completly. They really are as DarthCaedusMorgan writes. But they don't provide enough energy for the car and even if they are as eficient as a Li-ion batery they're size is huge. At least for of these cels can be put in a car. And en electric car has thousands of smal Li-ion cells.

In a reactor they use U-235 whisc is much more reliable than the U-238. The trouble comes that only a wery smart part of the uranium is U-235 so they are forced to produce it at high costs.

It will take a long time to use fusion reactors in cars and mobiles. Now these reactor is consuming more energy than produces and is huge. If they succed it will take some time until they will make it smaler to fit on the car.

The bikes have some chance but it will be a problem when we will have to travel a long distance fast.

clarification H2O, 2 hydrogen 1 oxygen

Nuclear Car ^

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YO4XM8AKrMA <--- More Nuclear Cars

Iceland is already starting to convert to fuel cells

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/09/18/driving.iceland/index.html

Fuel cells can be heavy, but so are batteries. One of the benefits of hydrogen compared to Li-ion is that tank weight doesn't scale linearly with volume - a tank of twice the capacity doesn't weigh twice as much. Batteries do have that problem.

Conversion of gas stations isn't a huge issue, they would need to convert for either case. That is actually an argument for biofuels - they are designed to use existing infrastructure. Many if not most people are not going to be able to put a charging station in their homes for electric cars anyway.

By the way, for those who don't know. DO NOT use E-85 in a vehicle not expressedly designed for it. Ethanol is considerably more corosive than gasoline, and it WILL eat the crap out of your entire fuel system. Your mechanic will make fun of you behind your back, as it's blatantly obvious when this happens. My brother is a mechanic, I have a million stories like this

Hmmmm...  What I've been told, is if you've got a car built after 1990, you should not worry about corrosion and occassionally using a low ethanol blend (E5, E10) is good to keep your fuel system clean, the ethanol dissolves hard fuel chunks that can slowly form in your tank after years. AFAIK the problem with E85 in a car that is not designed for it is that it has different combustion properties than normal 95 octane petrol. In order to run on E85 properly the the engine management software should use different fuel/air ratios.

Hi!

Bikes will be for upper class. We mundanes will use shoes. If we get lucky to have them at all.

BR,  Iztok

No silly, the upper class will use us to carry them on our shoulders! After all, they wouldn't want to get a cramp riding to work now would they?

@DarthCaedusMorgan

Thanks for corecting me I was quiet tired when I wrote that so I didn't realised the huge mistake which I tiped.

@Alway

That looks quiet painful.   Let's hope we dont't get to that point.

Hi!

C'mon, this is the 21st century. Wheel's already invented. We'll also not carry the top class around, that's so undignified. We'll be drawing their rikshas. 

BR,  Iztok

(Edit: fixed spelling "wheel")

Wow, no comments on this one? I'm impressed.

That one's my personal favorite.

Tesla Roadster baby yeah! The batteries now are prohibitively expensive, but if the industries get into it, prices will drop

Oh I saw that roadster, it is awsome, but there is like a 2 year waiting list right now.

Um vegetable oil comes from food and that not an option period.

Basicly option B that you provided on the list does not work at all period due to the need to produce mass quantity of food required to fuel all vehicles, which will be pointless and that food can be used to help africa and other places start having a real functioning economy and no one starving. This option should not be considered in any way from this point foward and if someone wants to consider it, it should be for helping Africa back on its feet.

Except it won't be. Do you have any idea how much food rots in government warehouses in the US alone? The quantity of food we produce globally is more than enough to feed everyone, everywhere. But like I said before, there is neither the will nor the means to efficiently transport that food to the places that need it. World hunger is not a supply problem - it is a transportation problem. (well, it's a supply problem at the local level, but at the global level it is a transportation problem).

@pigeonpidgeon,

  Yeah I knew every bit of that and agreeing with you, I just stating that since the intiative of the US goverment trying to find some solution to car fuel crisis and they though ethanol would be great idea except it takes a lot of food to produce little fuel, basicly the input to output energy ration is very poor compared to gasoline and diesel fuel. I've also found studies on polutant from ethanol that are just as worse as gasoline.

Well I just see a way in the tv in a science show that a company has found a way how to transform the industrial rubber (like the cars wheel) into fuel for cars. I don't know what kind of fuel I mean etanol, gasoline, or other car fuel. I know only that they are burning the rubber on high heat in smal tightly sealed chamber and the result is that fuel. They say that in this way they can recycle the cars 95% not just around 60% or 75%. This sounds werry intresting.

Well I can see a problem with that already. The majority of rubber today is produced synthetically from - you guessed it!- petroleum. Being able to recycle tires into fuel would be nice, but it would be a tiny splash in the water; the mass of tires discarded every year is miniscule compared to the amount of fuel used each year...

For all the people talking about using uranium, manny scientists today belive we will run out about the same time we run out of Oil. Due in large part to china, and yes this is true saw it on history channel. You can look it up if you want.

You've seen it on TV!? Well then it MUST be true!

Hey, I've also seen this documentary about us never being to the moon. It was on TV, dude!!!

There were manny scientists discusing it on moddern marvels about how nuclear power came to be and where it is going. So sut up and dont critisize me if you dont bother looking up the info.

I don't have to bother, I have it all in my mind. So no, I don't think I'll sut up any time soon.

Plus, the whole idea of a nuclear powered car is a bit... frightening. I mean, some philosophers believe that the worth of a civilization can be gauged by how much destruction of that civilization can a single average individual wreak, but to me that's just getting it ass-backwards.

Sorry, I wasn't refering to vegetable oil. My mind was in the gutter when I saw 'cocking oil' so I was thinking of something else entirely. Now I see my attempt at humor isn't recognized as such in this high brow discussion. No problem.

I'm with you on this one Charvel1.  I didn't even know it was possible to run a car on this....stuff.  I'll just leave it at that.  It's too easy.

So...Waterworld over Fallout...that's a toughy.

I just saw a video about our dependence on oit, and our economy, to change or fuel source i suggest you all watch this video call FUEL (2008), it very self-explanatory and makes a lot of sense that w should do this and shove it goverments face all 300 million of us, we can actually do about 30% of this plan right now.

While a morale suggestion, it's probably misinformed or at least misguided.  Farm subsidies tend to indicate that we (the USA) can produce quite a bit more cooking oil (which, to clear up someone else's error, is vegetable oil) than we do currently.

And no, it's not required that aid go to Africa or some other continent that you consider to be in need of help.  Best I can tell, most or all of the food sent to (for example) Somalia got diverted by that country's citizens.  Also, I'd like to point out that the US has some hungry people, too.  But these considerations are entirely besides the point.  History shows that just because a nation or group of people can help, it doesn't mean that we do.  My guess is that about a thousand national and international projects, organizations, and interests would come ahead of any donation of vegatable/cooking oil to Africa.  One possible example of a higher priority (according to the resource owners') project would be the application of cooking/vegatable oil as energy source.

Since I'm in the US, a country that has a farm subsidy program that can lead to tax dollars being diverted to farmers to stop growing food (in order to keep prices up), then I'm ok with considering vegetable oil - or cooking oil if you prefer - as a possible solution.  Anecdotal evidence available to me would indicate that it's at least viable for further evaulation.

But I'm still a fan of that whole 'oilgae' thing.