Interesting concept that's been around for a while. That claim of 97% is pretty staggering. Of course, that maybe just % of fuel burned prior to the exhaust stroke. The ICE (internal combustion engine) still wastes considerable energy created from the explosion in the form of heat (thrown away via radiator) and friction (generates more heat and creates work for the engine).
I think the whole hydrogen thing comes down to an infrastructure issue -- and that breaks down into physical, political, and economic issues.
Lots o' issues to overcome before hydrogen can be used anywhere along the line for transportation.
Harris - the beauty of this is no hydrogen infrastructure is needed since it produces hydrogen on demand.
Did anyone understand the last page of the Montreal Gazette article? I seems like the test in the Jeep didn't show a big improvement in fuel efficiency, just an improvement in emissions. Am I interpreting that right?
FlatGreg, I believe you interpreted it correctly. However, any fuel efficiency gain is good news and emissions improvement could be a huge deal.
However, it's my understanding that the company is planning on buying up carbon credits and selling them which could mean that in exchange for the better emissions on cars, other industries will be able to buy up allowances for high pollution and our net problem doesn't change.
When I read the Gazette article, my head tilted to one side, too.
I think perhaps the author made some slight ordinal error in the test result description. I got the impression, from the conclusion, that he/they feel the H2N-Gen passed comfortably. If it had failed one test and passed the other, I don't think they'd have wored their conclusion as positively as they did ("...the H2N-Gen passed.").
In any case, very intriguing. I hope it's not another case of cold fusion!
Commenting by HaloScan
