I hope Hydrogen Becomes, more commen
not in the future..
soon!

DJJS

@Steve Hollasch: Agreed
@ninjamurf: Not sure how true that is, would be kinda cool to see that. My question on solar power would be, what's the upkeep cost of all those solar panels? Surely they don't last forever. Not to mention what kind of continuing damage would such an array of panels be? Rain, hail, meteorites, ahole terrorist airplane pilots? If the upkeep cost is more than the energy produced can provide in some sustained way, then the feasibility is out.
There shouldn't be just one technology that we should focus on. All avenues should be explored including solar, hydrogen, geothermic, wind, water power, nuclear, etc. There is no catch all power solution as of yet.

yougottabekidding

The comments calling for solar rather than hydrogen seem pretty odd to me. Solar power is about energy *production*, while hydrogen is about energy *storage*. A hydrogen-powered flashlight makes sense, a solar-powered one does not. A solar power plant makes sense, a hydrogen power plant does not.

We need technological advance in BOTH areas, so saying we should do solar instead of hydrogen (or visa versa) is pointless. These two technologies are complimentary. I could easily imagine a UAV that uses solar power to recharge its hydrogen storage (or other chemical agent for extra-terrestrial exploration).

The final area that needs (simultaneous) development is efficiency.

Steve Hollasch

@dragonphyre: While I'm not ruling out advances in obtaining Hydrogen I would also like to see more on the solar front. I think I remember reading that if you had a 10 mile by 10 mile square of solar panels out in the middle of New Mexico you could run the whole country. Sure we'd have to start producing all that A-grade silicon post haste but it just seems like we could do a much better job of utilizing that big ball of fusion.

ninjamurf

Dude. When I was a kid, I got one of those rubber band airplanes - it looked just like the one in the video only smaller - and (this is were I was SO smart) I replaced the rubber band with TWO rubber bands tied together! The thing went almost all the way across the street! You think I should email them about that?

T-man

Question: How far will this plane take us?
Answer: All the way to the scene of the crash!

yougottabekidding

I can't believe that hydrogen hasn't been used to make any maned aircraft fly before, maybe those efficient Germans will figure something out.

TheAstronot

@dragonphyre: Agreed. Although one would hope that with increasing technology, that the roof of your average apartment building in NY would be able to provide power for that building.

92BuickLeSabre

this is sweet, anything that will reduce our reliance on middle eastern oil is great

Yeah...except this is a UAV, which will probably find most of it's use in our various conflicts in the middle east. Might as well use the oil while we're over there, if you ask me. (ummm...not that I think we should be over there anyway...)

Even if they produce the hydrogen domestically without any oil (say solar-powered electrolysis or something), they've still got to get the hydrogen over to the mid-east. If this government's ability to do stupid things doesn't diminish, transporting the hydrogen from the US to the mid-east will probably require more fuel than a mid-east-gas-powered UAV would have burned, and our reliance on oil will actually end up higher.

EQC

bah... they need to put more research into high speed maglev trains to compete with domestic air flight.

fallenturtle

Hydrogen is NOT the fuel of the future. For these things, okay--I will admit that it works well for these applications. But for cars, boats, and manned aircraft.

It. Is. Not. Economical.

It requires high-pressure tanks, both in storage and shipment, and the energy it takes to seperate out the hydrogen from everything else makes it very, very costly when you compare it with anything else.

No. The future is electricity. Solar power.

I know. People have been saying this for years and it's not here yet. But the thing is that nobody wants to invest in the tech when there is no reason to.

In order to make electricity possible, it needs to be everywhere. All of the roofs on our houses/buildings need to be lined with solar panels. With that kind of square-footage, even the crappiest solar panel technology would be enough to power the whole world.

The areas with the greatest density (NY, LA) would have the other country making power for them. It would require the grid as it is now to be taken down and rebuilt. That is why nobody wants to do it. Nobody wants to be dark (without power) for that long.

dragonphyre

forget planes, get this in my car

greysky

@kevjohn: Sounds about right.

Kaiser-Machead

@Kaiser-Machead: If the FAA has their way, the year 2168.

kevjohn

Nice. I wonder how far off until actual manned flight can use this. For that matter, commercial flight.

Kaiser-Machead

this is sweet, anything that will reduce our reliance on middle eastern oil is great

greysky

@DJJS: It is actually the most common element in the universe that we know. Just not the most commonly used to power anything.

yougottabekidding

These scientists can't keep time.

stat321

@greysky: GM is all over that... Check out the GM Sequel and the Chevrolet Volt. Both coming soon. They're also testing a fuel-cell powered version of the Equinox in several markets this year. Check out "Project Driveway".

@dragonphyre: First of all, fuel-cell vehicles ARE electric. You don't burn the hydrogen, you send it through the fuel cell, turning it into electricity.

It's important to realize that solar and hydrogen technology are a match made in heaven. Solar provides the energy needed to electrolyze water, and hydrogen stores that potential energy for use anytime, even in a tunnel or at night.

As far as the tanks are concerned, the bottom line is: anytime you've got a tank full of something powerful enough to drive a CAR, you've got potential for explosion. Even a wind-up spring (big enough to drive a car) could be lethal to those nearby in an accident.

That said, it's been pretty much worked out. GM's got tanks that you can hit with a locomotive; they just flatten and deform instead of exploding, and there are lots of other safety features in place to keep the worst from happening. So let's have no more "Hindenburg" jokes, OK, folks?

macserv