Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×
Earth Transportation United Kingdom Science

UK Company Riversimple Plans a Fuel-Sipping Hydrogen Car (techienews.co.uk) 155

TechnoidNash writes: Riversimple has been developing a hydrogen car with the support of a 2 million grant from the Welsh government. The result of their efforts? The Riversimple Rasa. A hydrogen car with a claimed fuel economy of 0.9L/100 km (250 mpg). The Rasa can reach up to 96 km/h (60 mph) and has a range of 483 km (300 miles) on a 1.5 kg tank of hydrogen.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Company Riversimple Plans a Fuel-Sipping Hydrogen Car

Comments Filter:
  • by Freshly Exhumed ( 105597 ) on Wednesday February 17, 2016 @08:02PM (#51531447) Homepage

    Here it comes, the world's newest hydrogen-powered automobile... there she is... the technicians are attaching the hose... OMG!!! OH, THE HUMANITY!!!

    • by Anonymous Coward

      An eco-friendly car must look ugly. You have to show that you are suffering for the environment.

    • If only it looked something like the Hindenburg instead of a 21st century Robin Reliant.
    • by guises ( 2423402 )
      I don't know what you're talking about, that thing's freaking awesome. It's a concept car, so if it ever goes to production it's going to be focused grouped down to another boring run-of-the-mill sedan, but the picture in the article looks pretty unique and interesting.
    • by ignavus ( 213578 )

      Here it comes, the world's newest hydrogen-powered automobile... there she is... the technicians are attaching the hose... OMG!!! OH, THE HUMANITY!!!

      No, it's in Wales. They would say: OH, Y DYNOLIAETH!!!

  • by holophrastic ( 221104 ) on Wednesday February 17, 2016 @08:07PM (#51531467)

    Umm, getting a machine to run on pure hydrogen fuel was never a challenge. Supplying the hydrogen to the machine, especially via the user, now that's the challenge.

    • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Having the vehicle not fall to pieces due to hydrogen embrittlement, also an issue.

      • by dbIII ( 701233 ) on Wednesday February 17, 2016 @08:43PM (#51531633)

        Having the vehicle not fall to pieces due to hydrogen embrittlement, also an issue.

        That's a very well known issue solved by material selection.
        Messing it up would be equivalent to making an umbrella out of sugar.

        • That's a very well known issue solved by material selection.

          This is true. But the materials you have to select are crazy expensive, and increased demand will only increase those costs.

          • But the materials you have to select are crazy expensive

            Carbon fiber is not susceptible to hydrogen embrittlement, and is not expensive. It has enough desirable properties that you would probably choose it for the H2 container even if embrittlement was not an issue.

            increased demand will only increase those costs.

            Not true. Demand increases cost only if the supply is fixed. For manufactured materials like carbon fiber, demand lowers the cost because it increases economies of scale.

            • It also doesn't hold hydrogen well. The microspaces between the fibers usually let hydrogen out quite easily.

              • by dbIII ( 701233 )
                Perhaps the above poster should have written "carbon fibre reinforced plastic" to avoid people making the mistake of thinking that what was suggested was like wrapping the hydrogen up in string.
                Besides, it's not gas bottles here but solid state storage where the hydrogen needs a bit of encouragement to leave.
                • A hydrogen based vehicle economy needs some inexpensive, safe way to ship the fuel in bulk. In most models, this means miles of pipes for getting it to homes or to vehicle fuel centers, and those tend to leak very, very easily. The "carbon fiber" tanks for portable use all seem to have a metal liner, which is how they keep the hydrogen in, because as I mentioned, carbon fiber [composites] tend to leak hydrogen.

                  The metal liner means the liner is subject to embrittlement. I can certainly believe the carbon fi

                  • A hydrogen based vehicle economy needs some inexpensive, safe way to ship the fuel in bulk.

                    Hydrogen can be generated on-site by either electrolysis of water, or reforming of natural gas. There is no need for H2 pipelines.

                    • "Electrolysis of water" requires pure water or the system tends to get corroded and plates or degrades the electrodes very quickly with large scale electrolysis. For hydrogen refueling, you still need a stable local reposotory. And local electrolysis is notoriously inefficient, so many of the energy and potential fiscal benefits get wasted. "Reforming of natural gas" is just taking a fairly efficient fuel and wasting energy converting its physical form. Even relatively modest local storage suffers from the

                    • by dbIII ( 701233 )

                      Even relatively modest local storage suffers from the leakage and metal storage embrittlement problems.

                      No.
                      There is a wikipedia article that I linked elsewhere that should help.
                      If that's not enough consider how much plain carbon steel tubing is used downstream of the hydrogen reformer at a fertilizer works using this:
                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process
                      Hydrogen embrittlement was not an issue for the materials used in such a plant in 1913 or since.

                      Your other comments about transport, storage, waste etc

                    • I';m afraid you're leaving out details. The Haber process you linked to was used, _at first_, for hydrogen generation but was switched to methane fairly quickly.The hydrogen is consumed locally quite quickly by the ongoing reaction. The vessels handling the catalytic reactions are exposed to it, but those are active reaction chambers, not storage vessels, and they're at relatively high temperatures and pressures. I would not expect embrittlement at such temperatures and pressures.

                    • by dbIII ( 701233 )
                      It's still used to make hydrogen for purposes such as making fertilizer, such as at the plant where I did some weld testing in 1999.
                      If you are going to nitpick on diversions from the topic it's best to get it right!
                    • The point that hydrogen generated this way is still used elsewise is interesting and wasn't in the Haber process article you point to. Thank your for pointing it out. Is the resulting hydrogen kept in long term storage, or used still hot and mixed with methane from the catalytic chamber? If it's still hot and mixed, then it wasn't kept in pure form for storage.

                      That's the point I'm trying to get across now: just because it's used safely and effectively in quite temporary conditions that differ profoundly in

                    • by dbIII ( 701233 )

                      It also does not mean the problem is a solved one

                      It's a problem that doesn't come up very often, is unlikely to ever come up in a hydrogen car (especially a fuel cell one like in the article due to nothing being very hot) and when it does come up it is easily avoided by proper materials selection. Some of those materials that can be selected are very cheap steels.

                      That's quite a different claim than "it's a solved problem because the Haber process produces hydrogen"

                      You are putting words in my mouth. I gave

                    • by dbIII ( 701233 )

                      but that requires cooperation from the laws of chemistry and physics: they do not care about Gant charts and quarterly progress planning charts

                      Metallurgy is about the former and that's my background before I moved into cluster computing - still no quarterly progress planning charts for me to do as yet.

                      The wikipedia page will help you with the chemistry and physics.

                    • > It's a problem that doesn't come up very often, is unlikely to ever come up in a hydrogen car (especially a fuel cell one like in the article due to nothing being very hot)

                      And I'm afraid this is part of the point. Hydrogen embrittlement also occurs at low temperatures. It's the high pressure containers that seem to suffer the worst problems, not relatively low pressure systems made out of relatively cheap steel, and not some of the finer steels such as

                      > It would probably also utterly horrify you tha

                    • by dbIII ( 701233 )

                      I am sorry to rain on the parade of alternative fuel sources, but one can't simply describe problems as solved when they've not been.

                      There are plenty of problems, especially with storage, but this is not one of them.
                      Seriously - what's with the lecturing on a topic you haven't got a grasp of? Should I cue up a teenager to give you a lecture on databases or whatever you do so you can get how annoying it is? The snark about Gantt charts you sent my way is unfortunately what I have been thinking about your ou

                  • by dbIII ( 701233 )

                    The metal liner means the liner is subject to embrittlement.

                    Then don't use a steel prone to that or use a different material FFS.
                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement
                    I thought I dumbed it down enough with my sugar umbrella comment. If embrittlement is a problem with the design then the designer did not complete the first year of an engineering degree or the equivalent introductory materials science - or for that matter complete a welding apprenticeship.

          • by dbIII ( 701233 )

            But the materials you have to select are crazy expensive

            Anything other than plain carbon steel or low alloy steel is crazy expensive?

          • This is true. But the materials you have to select are crazy expensive, and increased demand will only increase those costs.

            Tee hee, three replies way off in space, here's the real one. Yes, Hydrogen embrittlement is a real problem. However, it's only a problem where metal is hot, so it is a problem only for certain parts, most especially in ICEs. This vehicle uses a fuel cell. Fuel cells are expensive partly because they have to take issues like this into account, but that's already accounted for.

            Even in an ICE, not all of the parts need to be made out of fancy alloys, just the area where the gas is fed. That's likely the end o

          • by dbIII ( 701233 )

            But the materials you have to select are crazy expensive

            Actually no. Check out your local fertilizer works to see the steel tubing they use to carry hydrogen before it is used to make ammonia.

  • put in like ten of those fuel canisters in there, armor them up nice and heavy so one exploding won't set off the others, double the engine...serious roadtripmobile. Who cares about finding a refueling station in the next state over when you can make a 2000+ mile roundtrip to the station back home?

    • Specific density of hydrogen is 0.07 kg/l. So 1.5 kg of hydrogen is a 22-liter tank, excluding the very thick padding needed for isolation and to take the pressure.

      In comparison, a typical petrol car has a 40-80 liter tank, with negligible padding (usually a rubber bladder inside a sheet metal tank). So that one hydrogen tank is about the size of the normal fuel tank of a compact car. Seeing the size of the vehicle on the images (RTFA if you're curious) there won't be space for a much bigger tank, let alone

  • by Guspaz ( 556486 ) on Wednesday February 17, 2016 @08:16PM (#51531509)

    A car with the range for highway driving, which is incapable of traveling at highway speeds...

    It's got a top speed of 96 km/h, while typically highway speeds here are around 120 km/h with a speed limit of 100... Do you really need a car with almost 500km of range if the anemic top speed effectively limits it to surface streets?

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      A car with the range for highway driving, which is incapable of traveling at highway speeds...

      Hasn't kept the Prius drivers off the freeways, and I could swear I read somewhere that those things will do at least 65...

      • by AaronW ( 33736 )

        The top speed of a Prius is over 100, though it will take a while to get there. I know my '06 topped out at 109MPh.

      • It may not accelerate fast enough for your liking (unless its been driven by a moron who missed the point) but a Prius will happily do 90mph+
        • It didn't sound very "happy" when I tried that, but it does indeed comply. Around 140 km/h was the point where even the tiniest bit of acceleration provoked lots of noise with very high rpms. Fuel consumption higher than my old Mercedes, too. If you like to drive fast, don't buy a Prius for the environment's sake. If you do a lot of city driving, though, they are pretty good.

    • by dbIII ( 701233 )
      Fairly close to highway speed so not bad for a first model. Also remember that the entire point of these things (despite others attempting to bring in their cause) is to reduce pollution at the point where the vehicle is. It's a car for city driving. The pollution is mostly shifted to heavy industrial areas instead of where a lot of people are trying to breath. There is also a bit of a fuel security aspect where the hydrogen can come from whatever source you have around. The Chinese market could really
    • by radja ( 58949 )

      96 km/h is fast enough for the highway. Here in the Netherlands the vehicle must be capable of 60 km/h to be allowed on the highway. Typical highway speed (maximum speed) for trucks is 80 km/h, so any vehicle that can go faster than that is not a problem.

      • 96 km/h is fast enough for the highway. Here in the Netherlands the vehicle must be capable of 60 km/h to be allowed on the highway. Typical highway speed (maximum speed) for trucks is 80 km/h, so any vehicle that can go faster than that is not a problem.

        Here in Utah, the minimum speed on our highways is 45 mph (72km/h), with the posted speed limit on most at 70 mph (112 km/h). Typical speed outside rush hour is 80 mph (128 km/h). This prototype would be an annoyance to other motorists, but wouldn't break any traffic laws due to speed.

      • by gfxguy ( 98788 )
        I have to disagree - you don't want to cruise in a vehicle at it's maximum limit. Your foot would be pressed to the floor, exacting every bit of power you could possibly get from this vehicle, just to keep up (and fail, in most cases) with other traffic. I want a car that can do 120MPH exactly because I want to cruise at 70. This car might be fine in the city, but no one in suburbia or rural areas should even think about it.
    • by gfxguy ( 98788 )
      Yes. Even if I only did city driving, the longer I could go between fill ups - especially since there isn't a hydrogen station on every corner and I might have to drive to get there, the better. But this car is not for me - I commute on highways where the speed limit is 70. I imagine that having a "top speed" of 60mph means that actually going that speed is really going to be pushing the car to it's limit, whereas a "normal" car should comfortably go that speed. I want a car with a top speed of 120mph b
  • Tiny two-seater with a top speed of 60 MPH? Here in Texas that wouldn't even be considered highway-capable. The speed limit on many of our highways is 75 MPH, and I'm not even sure the majority of drivers stay within that. (I try to, usually, but passing with the Tesla Roadster is quite easy. And fun.)

    • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Seems reasonable in most cities in the US that have a large central urban area. You could probably do fine as a city car in Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, NYC. But such a car might be less practical in LA or Dallas. (not practical in Detroit because it lacks machine gun mounts or pepperspray aerosol delivery)

  • I see a lot of detractors chiming in on this company and their claims. To an extent that includes myself. Please keep in mind that whatever reality this does or does not work out to be, it is the science being conducted by this company that matters the most and will bleed into the the future as it is fairly obvious this technology has the potential to eventually be viable.

    Wait.... Fuck a duck. All this science is probably covered ten miles deep in patents and "intellectual property". Never mind. Can anyon
    • by geoskd ( 321194 )

      as it is fairly obvious this technology has the potential to eventually be viable.

      HAHAHA.

      No, No it has virtually no potential.

      According to the wikipedia page, the hydrogen vehicles are at a terrible disadvantage to electric cars because hydrogen generating systems are horribly inefficient, and there is no real infrastructure to support hydrogen vehicles. Building a hydrogen refueling station will cost upwards of a million dollars for the equivalent of a gas station. Compare this with a cost of $1000 to get a level 2 charging station ($10,000 after install costs), $50,000 for a level 3 ch

      • as it is fairly obvious this technology has the potential to eventually be viable.

        HAHAHA.

        No, No it has virtually no potential.

        According to the wikipedia page, the hydrogen vehicles are at a terrible disadvantage to electric cars because hydrogen generating systems are horribly inefficient, and there is no real infrastructure to support hydrogen.

        Is it not amazing? I suspect the same Slashdotters that spew hate and venom when Tesla is mentioned, get all moon eyed when talking about things like hydrogen. I can look outside and see electric vehicle infrastructure all over the place. Deliverable any place there are power lines.

        And this hydrogen delivery system?

        • You have taps in your house right?

          (It's a joke, don't kill me)

          • You have taps in your house right?

            (It's a joke, don't kill me)

            Absolutely!

            And if I ever hear of an EV Jeep, I'm going to get one, and since I love to tinker, plan on charging it solar only when at home.

            Ohhh, two mortal sins in slashdot-land! An EV, and solar.

      • by wjcofkc ( 964165 )
        Okay, let's break down my post and your reply.

        it is the science being conducted by this company that matters

        So here I am not even talking directly about hydrogen powered cars, but the R&D that comes from the research. Further I even state beforehand that this may not work out from an automotive standpoint, merely referring to the science that comes from trying. I even call myself a detractor of what the company is trying to achieve.

        No, No it has virtually no potential.

        Here you are speaking directly of c

  • The looks remind me of old Saabs
  • by Anonymous Coward

    that is pretty steep.
    in 5 years you pay the price of a brand new bmw 5 series and you own shit.

    7000€ to own it and 5€ per 1,5 kilos of hydrogen, that what i would call interesting.

  • 0.9L per 100km

    483 km range

    1.5kg tank

    483km/100km * 0.9L = 4.347L

    1.5kg/4.347L = 0.345kg/l

    Density of liquid hydrogen = 70.8kg/m^3 = 0.0708kg/l

    Density of gaseous hydrogen = a whole lot less than liquid hydrogen at any achievable pressure. I think getting to 0.35kg/l would require something like 7000 atmospheres.

    So, what do they plan on putting in that 4.347-liter tank that holds 1.5kg of hydrogen? Room-temperature superconducting liquid hydrogen metal? If so, I hope they publish some papers on how they stabili

    • There's been a lot of work on storing and retrieving hydrogen from solid storage over the last couple of decades - so if you don't think of it that way and instead think of it as just a gas bottle the numbers would indeed make zero sense. I think "New Scientist" had had a few good articles on it over the years.
    • Maybe I'm missing something, but they say 1.5kg tank, not 1.5kg of fuel.

      4.347L * 0.0708kg/l = 0.308kg

      Which leaves approximately 1.2kg for the metal to enclose the tank...

    • I think that 0.9 liter is the petrol equivalent of the hydrogen, as normally those fuel efficiencies are given based on hydrocarbon fuels.

      Part of the problem is that 0.9 liters of hydrogen at atmospheric pressure and room temperature has far, far less energy density than 0.9 liters of liquid (and cold) hydrogen, which still has far, far less energy density than conventional petrol or diesel fuels.

    • If I could carry same cargo as my Yaris I would and pay $16K (CDN)

    • As it's including all repairs and fuel, it's pretty competitive to petrol based cars.

      That's even before going into all the additional benefits like the rather cool and off-beat looks making it a talking piece, the zero-emission part (besides being an obvious environmental benefit it's an issue in certain cities that have pollution taxes or severe restrictions on emissions), and the fact that you can brag about having something very special that no-one else has.

      • As it's including all repairs and fuel, it's pretty competitive to petrol based cars.

        Made up numbers.

  • they got a grant. good for them
  • Hydrogen cars are joke. Anyone around long enough will remember how stupid the CNG trend was. Putting on my tin foil hat it always seemed to me that hydrogen powered car were quietly promoted by big oil as they knew they would never be adopted but did help shift the focus and money away from EVs.

    Jump forward to today and we have practical EVs that make that hydrogen car look like a poor joke. Really the only issue now with EVs is the cost/performance ratio and as that continues to improve so will the
    • Anyone around long enough will remember how stupid the CNG trend was

      Umm. LNG is taking off in a big way. Cummins, Caterpillar and all the other diesel manufacturers are pushing dual fuel engines. New emissions regulations are moving marine engines to running LNG in port:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

      http://hhpinsight.com/marine/2... [hhpinsight.com]

      • by geoskd ( 321194 ) on Wednesday February 17, 2016 @10:39PM (#51532141)

        Caterpillar and all the other diesel manufacturers are pushing dual fuel engines.

        Of course they are. It is a fairly trivial change to go from gasoline to LNG or even hydrogen. They can adapt the existing designs.

        Going form gasoline to electric motors is a whole different game altogether. Instead of a host of mechanical engineers (and almost all engineers in the transportation industry are mechanical engineers), you need a cadre of electrical engineers. This basically means laying off a large percentage of your engineering workforce, many of whom are barely more than glorified autocad draftsmen, and replacing them with electrical engineers. Because this would be a whole new discipline for the manufacturers, they would have all kinds of hell trying to get product to the market, and would have to hire top electrical engineers or risk having the project fail. It would quickly mean higher costs and lower margins for the manufacturers. Why on earth would they sign up for that if they didn't have to. Electric vehicles are great for consumers (although the technology is not quite there yet), and great for electrical engineers (especially power systems engineers), but bad for established companies, and especially bad for mechanical engineers (A typical IC engine vehicle has 10,000 moving parts, of which 98.5% are in the engine, or are related to the IC engine).

        People talk about an oil industry conspiracy to kill off electric vehicles, but the reality needs no such complex explanation. The simple truth is that the existing companies are not capable of building cost effective electric equipment, so they don't. It takes an upstart in the industry, like Tesla motors, to come along and force the industry to keep up or die. My prediction is that the electric revolution will kill upwards of 50% of the established auto manufacturers, and a similar effect will be seen in industrial and construction equipment soon thereafter.

      • by amorsen ( 7485 )

        LNG isn't CNG isn't LPG.

    • by dbIII ( 701233 )

      Anyone around long enough will remember how stupid the CNG trend was

      All the busses and most of the taxis run off it where I live. The taxis that do not are hybrid electric cars however.

      Hydrogen does directly compete with electric cars and is not competing very well but it is still too early to dismiss it out of hand. Batteries suck a vast amount less than they used to but they are still disappointing.

      it always seemed to me that hydrogen powered car were quietly promoted by big oil as they knew they would

      • by ukoda ( 537183 )
        For buses where all the operational parameters are known I can see CNG working. Here in New Zealand in the 1980s there was a huge push for CNG with government support and subsidies. The average New Zealand car was, and still is, around 1600 to 2000cc. Not much power and CNG made that worse. I used a company L300 van running CNG. It took longer to fuel, ran a shorter distance on a tank, handled worst due to the extra tank. The L300 was not powerful to start with and there is a lot of hills in Wellingto
        • Not surprisingly after about 5 years the public had had enough of all the hassles and limitations and stopped installing CNG in vehicles and the 20% of stations selling it rapidly fell to zero again.

          Aside from the buses, My little city has one CNG dispensing station. It already has many more EV charging stations. I've never seen the CNG station in use.

          Back to hydrogen. Look at the performance and cost curves of batteries, extrapolate over the next 10 year and it is clear EV will out perform IC vehicles in more and more cases. I have used an EV when I was living in China, I loved plugging in at work and never having to visit a gas station. I have electricity at home so I am EV ready, when I can afford one. Where is that hydrogen I would need going to come from if I went down that path? EVs are so simple, is a hydrogen solution going to be able to match that over the long term?

          I don't think it's logic or anything like it. It's something visceral. Something that makes reviewers fake problems, and people standing up for their fraud. It's people claiming no infrastructure when its obviously there. Its declaring EVs as fatally flawed when one catches fire, and ignoring that petrol fueled ones do. They hate em.

          • by dbIII ( 701233 )

            My little city has one CNG dispensing station

            And in mine it's at every place where fuel is sold due to it being in use for years as the fuel of choice for taxis. Anecdotes are no substitute for a general case. The refineries here have been selling it for decades while the ones in other places have even just been setting fire to it as a waste product.
            It's a chicken/egg situation where once there is a market it is commonplace and if there is not it is rare, such as in your city.

        • by dbIII ( 701233 )

          extrapolate over the next 10 year

          Other wild guesses are just as good as that very wild one. Both options have some promise and some viability - anything more than that is currently fortune telling.
          The most likely situation is a mix of technologies.

          • by ukoda ( 537183 )
            What wild guesses? I have watched EVs for about 40 years now. My father ran a fork truck manufacturing company so I was driving EVs before ICs. I have watched them slowly improve to the point they now compete directly with ICs and I have watched the range double every decade. With the intense focus on EVs I think it safe to extrapolate that the battery capacity will continue to improve and cost will continue to come down and at some point in the next decade EVs will exceed ICs in performance.

            Hydrogen
            • by dbIII ( 701233 )

              What wild guesses?

              Extrapolating over ten years. Generally a very bad move in a changing situation and just asking for ridicule in ten years time.

  • It's really too bad that hyrdogen [thenewatlantis.com] is such a ludicrously impractical fuel.
  • by labnet ( 457441 )

    Ahhh my eyes, why do they hurt so much...

    • I agree, it's only a car in the barest possible sense. I should imagine that it can reach 250mpg with a 2-stroke gas engine or even more with a cyclist powering it. I don't see where the innovation is, other than in creatively finding a way to bilk the people of Wales (I guess that means the people of England if it involves payment for anything) out of $2MM.
  • GM's last transmission was a $1.3 BILLION development.

  • by ukoda ( 537183 ) on Thursday February 18, 2016 @01:25AM (#51532709) Homepage
    In the past I have used the Chinese e-Scooters and found them great fun, and at about USD $400 very practical in China. Unfortunately the performance and quality wouldn't cut it in most first world cities.

    A few minutes ago the guys from Gogoro turned up here (a major Tawian factory) showing off their SmartScooter. The guy's English wasn't great but I gather it is about a 6KW motor with a top speed of 95kph. I rode up the street, the performance feels like somewhere between a 125 and 250cc motorcycle. At about USD $3K it looks like a very practical and affordable city vehicle. At that price I think I would buy one tomorrow for my city commute if they sold them back home.

    Looking at the shape of that hydrogen car I suspect the SmartScooter has more carrying capacity too. Sorry hydrogen, you are too late to the party, your not fooling anyone around here with your vaporware.
  • by EdgePenguin ( 2646733 ) on Thursday February 18, 2016 @05:17AM (#51533293) Homepage

    Whoever wrote this is (willfully or otherwise) ignorant of the driving conditions on UK motorways. Driving at 60mph is basically impossible - you either have to get in the slow line behind the lorries and go slower, or get in the middle or fast lane and drive ~80mph. Yes, the speed limit is technically 70mph. In most part of the country, nobody gives a crap.

    So the range is nearly irrelevant; the car is unsuitable for motorway driving so you won't be taking it any distance at all.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      UK driver here. Most of the time I do 70, changing lanes to keep as far left as possible. Never touch 80 unless it's an emergency to avoid an accident, and that's what most other drivers do too. There are asshats who want to do a constant 90+, but they stick to the right hand lane.

      Sometimes I do 65 or even 60. I have an EV, and occasionally need to stretch the range. Doing 65 is no problem at all, in fact it's easier to do about 62 (100kph) which is the speed many trucks seem to stick to. 65 means I have to

  • by DirkDaring ( 91233 ) on Thursday February 18, 2016 @08:46AM (#51533775)

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/02/12/3621136/tesla-elon-musk-hydrogen-dumb/

    As Musk explains:

            “Hydrogen is an energy storage mechanism. It is not a source of energy. So you have to get that hydrogen from somewhere. if you get that hydrogen from water, so you’re splitting H20, electrolysis is extremely inefficient as an energy process. if you say took a solar panel and use the energy from that to just charge a battery pack directly, compared to try to split water, take the hydrogen, dump the oxygen, compress the hydrogen to an extremely high pressure (or liquefy it) and then put it in a car and run a fuel-cell, it is about half the efficiency, it’s terrible. Why would you do that? It makes no sense.”

  • Riversimple Rasa? Seriously? Why not be honest and go with Limpwrist Milquetoast?

    Nut up, and buy the old Marauder name off of Ford.
  • I've got an EV, and roof mounted solar. For the amount of driving I do (about 200Km a week) an EV is perfect and I make the fuel. There's no transporting, storage or anything. I make the fuel and it goes into the car's battery ready with a full charge any time I need it. Hydrogen is just another way to keep us paying for fuel. If I need to go further than 150Km and there aren't fast charge stations at the destination or along the way, I'll rent a petrol car. Hydrogen is not the future.

And on the seventh day, He exited from append mode.

Working...