Mazda Hybrid
 

I was wondering if anyone knew of a hybrid that Mazda will make or is in the process of making. I'm reading all these articles on how many companies are now switching to this technology and i just wanted to know when Mazda would cause i definately would buy one.
________
Glass pipe pictures

They certainly should!

Skeptical
 

Although I'm strongly in favor of more efficient vehicles, I'm a bit skeptical about hybrid types. Although it's stepping in the absolute right direction, the ultimate goal here should be Zero emission vehicles. Given that hybrids still use dirty-ass internal combustion, they're still problematic, and beyond that, hybrid vehicles lack the horsepower of current engine standards. Yes, they’re more efficient and responsible (which I respect), but they’re also slow and unresponsive. Cruising around with the power of a 1 litre engine!? Dude, that sucks!

I want a exclusively powered fuel cell electric car that sports power, long range, and efficiency all in one. And, dudes, believe me, an electric car can kick the ass of most gasoline powered cars. And there will be continued improvements to electric that make them faster than any gasoline car.

Anyone ever seen this?

And check out a few videos.

I know there’s a lot that we’ll be losing, at least in terms of traditional engine sounds and the like, but this is where we’re headed, everyone. Electric sports cars that jet us around faster than ever before. With no point of use pollution.

THIS is the car I’m talking about! Not hybrid!

Hydrogen could be used in internal combustion engines, but I doubt it will ever come to be used in a production rotary engine, or any other, for that matter. ICE's are just too inefficient, and the best we'll ever see is maybe around 30% efficiency (that is, 30% of the energy in the fuel is actually used to move the vehicle; the rest is totally lost). Fuel cells that power electric motors, on the other hand, are MUCH more efficient, and I pretty much guarantee that's how our hydrogen based vehicles will be operating.

Basides the energy efficiency, ICE's are way too messy and archaic. Mass moving parts, the need for all of that crappy lubrication to protect those parts, cooling systems, gear/belt assemblies... Shit, when electric comes into full swing people will wonder how we ever got around in such unnecessarily complicated, ancient technology. As advanced as our current gasoline/diesel engines have become, the bottom line is they still use fire to move us around; the oldest human used property in the book. It's like we're in the Dark Ages, or something.

And besides the mess associated with internal combustion engines, if you burn hydrogen you get water vapor as a waste product. Given that, I'd predict corrosion, corrosion, corrosion in your engine after only a short period of time.

So no, we'll never actually burn hydrogen in a piston/rotary driven engine. Too old fasioned and trouble prone! It'll be electric coil motors that jet us around, powered by electricity producing fuel cells.

well, thanks for the input. it was pretty interesting. Mazda should definitely get these alternate powered vehicles in motion.
________
Gabriellaxx

I'm by no means an expert, but have been interested in fuel cell/hydrogen technology for a long time. As most of us probably know, we're a fossil fuel based/dependent society right now. The difficult thing about that is, beyond the fact that it isn't a clean fuel, it's finite, meaning it isn't renewable and WILL run out some day. Our technology to find oil continues to improve so the time when it's gone continues to be bumped ahead of previous predictions, but one day we'll well and true run out.

I've surmised that most of us here on the forum are somewhat younger folks, and there's a good chance that, based thereon, near the end of our natural lifetimes our society will have begun the shift to one based entirely on hydrogen; maybe even completed the shift all together. It could even happen sooner than that, I imagine.

The great thing about hydrogen is the enormous energy released when it's combined with oxygen. The other great thing is its vast, renewable availability. I mean, check it out! We've got an entire ocean of the stuff-- And when we "burn" it it simply yields water vapor again. It's a complete cycle that's really quite beautiful-- I'm not wishing to be too melodramatic, but it's really cool when you think about it.

The only thing we need to do is solve the problem of separating hydrogen from water, which itself takes energy to do in the first place. Once we figure that out, we're all going to be jamming around in fast-ass cars that serve no pollution and are more efficient than any vehicle human kind has ever had.

Heheh, the other weird thing to consider is we'll be going to Radio Shack when we want to mod our cars... :)

I agree with you 100% Protegemaster. I myself am actually studying Environmental Science so this technology has intrigued me for some while. But definitly we as humans should resort to 0 pollution vehicle technology.
________
Wiki Vaporizer

Great thread! Fuel Cells will be the way to go!!! (GM currently testing stand-alone fuel cells for home power!!!)

As we near war w/ Iraq (For oil Reserves, don't let the politcos tell you otherwise), we all need to re-examine our dependence on fossil fuels, along with considering the documented asundry problems associated with their use.

As ProtegeMaster astutely said, hybrids do kinda suck, BUT, Fuel Cells are still in the future - hybrids are now! Certainly for Fleet services, Gov't vehicles, etc., we should do as much as possible to reduce consumption/pollution - hybrids ought to be required for such fleets. (there's already a $2K tax-deduction for individuals)

Yes and you're right P-master, most of the folks here are kinda young and never had the pleasure of the grossly over-powered V-8 American metal of the 60's (Damn, I miss my 'stang), but time moves on - hopefully our technology will budge with it...

And me - I am a Geology geek, and thus vastly consumed, both professionally and personally, by environmental issues

Most Excellent!
 

Most excellent, Fossil Boy!

I'm faculty at the U of O and specialize in Computer Science, but have harbored a deep, lifelong fascination in Geological Science; Volcanology to be specific. I tell you, upon retirement (which is a long way off yet) it’s my intention to go back to school and follow my childhood bliss in learning more about the Geo Sciences. And I beg to differ! I haven’t met a Geologist who isn’t actually cool (as in, not a geek)! Us Computer Science guys, maybe, but not a Geologist! Rocks kick ass!

And here’s another memory for those who weren’t there: Mass line ups at fueling stations in the 1970’s during the energy crisis. I was pretty young then, but I remember it, and it didn’t represent a happy, independent time. To the contrary, it was a serious problem, the root of which was set in fossil fuel dependence.

Inasmuch as we might lose in making the transition (perhaps loving the sound of an internal combustion engine, working on them, etc.), in my opinion we can’t move on to clean, hydrogen based transportation soon enough-- Whether anyone likes it or not, we *have* to make this move, and a more promising technology in hydrogen I have not seen. I think we can consider ourselves lucky to be born into a time wrought in revolutionary transition: The Internet Age, cracking the secrets and curses of Cancer, human gene sequencing, the total transition of human society to hydrogen based energy, etc.. Exciting stuff!

Now if only we had leaders (in the U.S., at least) who didn’t look backwards instead of forward. In my opinion we devote far to many resources to sustaining old-ass, antiquated energy supplies (fueled by equally antiquated mentality and/or lack thereof), and far too little on what is clearly our inevitable energy future. Yee haw-- Nothing like going to war in the name of oil! People in the future will look upon this venture with disgust-- Going into sustained armed conflict over a greasy, scummy mass of crap stuffed in the ground. It staggers the logical, forward thinking imagination, doesn't it?

But I digress, again. Hydrogen, baby!! Woo hooo!

Well said you guys, well said indeed. Like i said before i agree with you guys 100%. We need to move on in terms of technology.
________
Iolite vaporizer butane

Re: Most Excellent!
 

Do it, man! No one's born w/ a rock hammer in their hand! I did Commerical/News TV production for some time until I decided upon a different life...
Computer & Science go hand in hand - unfortunately, many scientists lack the computer skills necessary for them to fulfill their imagination. And most computer programs are too far removed from the scientists to be intuitively useful.
The world of volcanology (and petrology) rely upon models - it is a very intimate connection! You would be valuable, and likely, successful...

Your geo-eco-viewpoints, as w/ boricua's, are IMO, correct. Forward-thinking needs to be be put to use, even if it isn't heeded, YET!

Re: Skeptical
 

Thats a pretty cool car. :D

The bigest thing hindering the development of 'enviro-vehicles' is the big oil companies.
Do you think that they would let a small business take away something that makes them billions of dollars a year? I think until government stops getting kickbacks from the oil companies the best we could look forward to is a hybrid vehicle.

My problems with hybrids and especialy electric cars is you swap out the disadvange of air pollution from bunt gas for the disadvantage of fuel and battery cells that contain far more deadly chemicals, especialy when these cars star getting old and there cells leak into water sheds. I have always been in favor of porsuing cleaner burning chemicals not hoaky electrical cells. plus if we can get ethanol going as a good fuel then the US will be the major source offuel for the world. Form my research ethenol is most abondant from decaying corn and other food products. Would also be a much better use of the food farmers are paid not to grow, god I hate that, and the food the the Govenment just has to burn.

One fundamental flaw in this theory. If a different fuel soure was proffitable they would jump on it in a heart beat. Hell they would beat each other to death trying to get patents out. Imagine how rich a company that owned a patent for refining ethenol would be. Why would a company stop another company from getting rich off of an idea and not try to get rich off of it temselves.Oil companies do work on these things but it hasn't proved profitable yet. They would have to make sure the fuel could be run by most cars, this is in the hands of auto makers not oil companies and that they could produce the fuel for around the same price or cheaper then oil with an abundant supply.

So if you want to help the world discover a way to run the internal cumbustion engine with a more abundant, cheaper and cleaner fuel and you will be a very rich person and just make sure you patent it first and don't sell it off. And when you do call me I want in!

Thats not true. They have tried to hinder any progress in less emission vehicles. I know that they(the oil companies) have many different patents on 70's vehicles engines. I know of one guy in Regina, Canada that built a carborator for a GM vehicle and it was getting35-40mpg. Esso oil came to him offered him a huge amount of money(signed a non-discloser agreement about the money) to sell them his patent.
Also GM themselves have had 'test' vehicles that accidently left their facility and were sold to the public that had awsome MPG.
A guy my Dad knows got any car off of the dealers lot that he wanted because he got one of there cars. The only way GM found out about it was that when the mechanic opened the guys hood it was a completly different engine than what was supposed to be there.
Mid-east oil dosen't want anything else to come into their world. If oil wasn't being used any more what would they do. They have nothing else. Oil is their life blood, and if they loose that...well camel racing just might go international then because there would not be any money for them to do anything else.

Remember I said a diferent fuel not less fuel, of coarse they hate fuel saving devices, the original cat and your examples are all revelvent. It must be diferent. Or any other way to seem more profitable. the middle east doesn't own the major oil companies jsut the pumping and some refineries. Us dollars run the rest although some of these guys have a higher gdp then the US.

Thats funny shit. Anything that hinders a big company will be crushed if the inventor doesn't patent and / or sells out.

Also don't forget the Oil companies aren't shit compared to insurance companies when it comes to getting exactly what they want from the govenment.

Your right. they don't own the oil companies, but any county that has oil on it and is being pumpedby an oil company has to be part of OPEC. Canada which has almost as much oil as the middle east and is part of this little group. They have and will keep trying to keep alternative fuels out of the mainstream until the G8 countries get their act together and force the issue.

I don;t think it will matter what the 8 say, I think the only real possiblity other then alternative fuel is the Mid east shutting down its borders to us, which is very unlikely since they'ed starve. But with the conservationist additued of many americans and canadans and our fear of polluting our land I don't think either contry, by the Mexico has more then both put together, will expand pumping oil on its own soil to the level neeeded to maintain us. Good old fashion Not in my back yard additude, good conversation bro

It is in our National Interest to be self-sufficient. It is in the Oil Companies immediate interest to keep petroleum flowing.

Unfortunately, the Big Oil folks have the financial resources to explore alternative sources, but they have not focused their attention to such...

Why/ Perhaps b/c of simple economics - as a commodity becomes rarer, then it becomes more valuable. Hence Big Oil can stil make $$$ even as oil supplies dwindle. What they are ignoring, then, is the ability to become true Energy Companies. Though they are currently profitable, and the CEO's, etc. have power and money, this won't be true at some point in the future when the focus shifts to renewables/alternate sources. Thus, in some respects, they are cashing in for the immediate moment at the cost of the corporations' health in the future. This is truly a disservice to their stock-holders, IMO.

Further, if you accept my position that it is a National Interest issue not to be dependent upon foreign energy, then, it is evident that Big Oil is not concerned with the US' position. Instead, we are left with a major lobby that influences political decisions. Is it any coincidence that Cheney's last position was with Big Oil and HE was willing to deal with the Iraqi's, as a private citizen/busineesman?

That fact we beat the war drum for Iraq because of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) is fabrication. It is b/c of Oil. Thus if indeed we move forces there, it is only a subsidy for private business, in a sad, and potentially deadly manner, that will cost multi-billions to the tax-payer (imagine if we spent a fraction of that either researching new sources or subsidizing farmers to produce bio-fuels!)

The WMD argument is becoming more blatantly false as time wears on. Interestingly, N. Korea's announcement of Nuclear weapons (WMD) will not be met with the same response simply b/c they do not have any strategic resources that we demand. I find it hard to believe that we will attack Iraq b/c of suspected WMD programs, yet the N. Korea's actual WMD barely raise an eyebrow. Don't forget, the "other" Axis-of-Evil is Iran, who also has oil and are in a position to seize Iraqi oil fields - hence our concern.

All this could be abated by focusing our resources and knowledge into other realms of energy. Brazil produces about 70 % of transportation fuel from sugar-cane. We, on the other hand, grow excessive amounts of grain, a large percentage of which rots or becomes contaminated with aspirillus (?) ( a fungus which is toxic to humans) when stored long-term in silos. There is a much better use of this grain, namely, ethanol.

Keep in mind, that also, by increasing CAFE emmission standards, we would also decrease the demand of fossil fuels for our motor fleet.
Even though states supposedly have rights (via the Constitution) to impose their own regulations, the White House is combatting places like CA and MA from enacting stricter fuel economy because the Administration claims that Clean Air Act is a federal mandate, and can't be made more stringent by the individual states.
Considering that air pollution and energy demands are major national issues, a rational individual would applaud efforts which rectify both problems, simultaneously. Such efforts, though, only negatively impact Big Oil, while improving conditions for every other sector - is it any coincidence, then, which policy we actually follow?

One thing people don't tend to think about with these cars is what is really powering them. Electricity. Well where does that come from, your house, which is tied to the grid, which goes right to the generation station. Which produces energy how? Burning coal. Yup, great, can you imagine the pollution when they build about 100 more of those puppies to power your cars? Ballards is better, as it takes hydrogen from fossile fuels, but it still perpetuates the dependance on gasoline. Nuclear isn't exactly an enviromentally friendly source either. Those of us in the great lakes have hydro, but we maxed that source out decades ago.
Electric cars don't solve the pollution problem they just shift it. The choice has to be made on efficiency. Electrics don't have it on the highway, but gas doesn't have it in the city. The solution, hybrids. Expect hybrids to be around for longer than you think. I would bet that most of us will be dead before you see true electrics outnumber hybrids.
Stocker.

Naysayers Read This!
 

The consistent interests of the Bush family has always centered around oil-- Old George Sr. loved oil; and went to war for it. The next good 'ol boy, George Jr., also has a fascination with supporting his own personal oil interests, as well as his associates in fossil fuel energy companies. THAT, as Fossil Boy noted, is the REAL reason we're (the U.S., that is) talking about Iraq as such a global threat. Anyone who suggests otherwise is either a foolhardy, mindless, lemming (and there is sadly no shortage of them) or an individual who stands to immediately benefit from protecting current energy standards.

The primary problem with the current political administration is their total inability to see beyond the immediate future. Judging from the intelligence level of Bush Jr., that doesn't come as particular surprise, but for the rest-- There has to be many who understand what's truly going on, but serve to benefit from protecting big oil so they say nothing in opposition. It's reprehensible.

Regarding this war cry, there are other grave problems to consider, independent of energy issues-- Given the Bush Administration's unyielding insistence on toppling Saddam Hussein, there also begs the likelihood of WMD response from Hussein. With our forces closing in and defeat imminent (as would surely happen), what kind of idiot wouldn't expect him to actually USE the weapons he has? I pretty much guarantee he'd use them on us-- What would he have to lose? His regime? Control of his country? He'd lose that anyway-- You KNOW there would be a response, and there's a good chance that response wouldn't simply be limited to the battle field overseas-- We'd likely see some kind of hit AT HOME. For the less thoughtful, guess what that would mean? A lot of civilians killed here at home-- And for what? Archaic, finite, dwindling energy supplies!? That's criminal, and history would look upon such an effort with angry, shameful, derision.

Wait for our attack to begin and let's see how long it takes for my above point to become reality, shall we? It's pretty bloody predictable.

My final point in this post, back to fossil fuel vs. fuel cell energy use:

Opponents of fuel cell technology enjoy spouting off about how we still have to find an energy source to generate the hydrogen in the first place, and that energy will often come from the very fossil fuel sources we're trying to avoid. As true as that is, these same people fail to acknowledge the inherent efficiency in hydrogen fuel. As I said earlier, internal combustion engines top out (in the best case scenarios, which never really happens in the real world) at about 30% efficiency. What that means, again, is that only 30% of the actual energy in the fuel gets used for actual motion-- The rest of the 70% is totally lost in heat, driving cheesy fan belts, gear assemblies, etc.. Compare that to a fuel cell/hydrogen driven vehicle, which achieves upwards of 50% efficiency. Given that, it takes far less fuel (read, fossil fuel) to travel the SAME DISTANCE as you'd travel in an old fashioned gasoline engine car. So even though the ultimate source of that energy (for the time being) would come from fossil fuel, we'd be using billions and billions of tons less per year; we're talking astronomical differences. And on top of that, we'll use even less fossil fuel because in a fuel cell vehicle you don't have to keep changing your nasty motor oil, which also accounts for MASSIVE expenditures per year-- Let alone finding ways to dispose of the toxic crap.

Fuel cell technology cannot be beaten by any argument in favor of current fossil fuel practice in any way whatsoever. Period. Hydrogen is superior in every way.

Saddam Hussein is a genocidal lunitic that cares nothing of human life and everyhting about his power. It will be very interesting to see him use WMD on use when were 20,000 ft in the air bombing the hell out of him. We always utilize air attack first to clear the way for the army. We know he will use these weapons on civilians without reason. Remember Bush challenged and Critizesed the Un before taking any real action. Basicly it a poker game wiht the UN. He intends to make them deal with Saddam and actualy back up there demands this time instead of cowardly backing out of any action.

One of the problems with saying we ONLY, I say this becuase perserving oil flow is always an issue, want Iraq for oil is why did we not just keep going after the gulf war? Why if oil was the only thing did we stop. Simple, it wasn't the only reason not to mention over throwing Saddam will in any short term result hurt oil supply numbers. The long run will be determined by those that take over for him afterwards.

Bush very well may be in the pocket of Oil companies, but I trust that more then CLinton and Gore being in Chinas pocket. Sorry had to add that. Anyway hisup coming actions will soon define his abilities. Although a moron in Public speach giving, I believe him to be far more intelligent then may people like to give him credit for.

Korea does bring up an interesting question. Could one of the reasons we are so interested in Iraq right now be becuase it is still politicaly viable to attack anyone in the middle east where as it is no longer viable to do so in south east asia? Bush's dealing with Korea will define what his real intentions are in Iraq.

TO say Big oil profit from attacking him is very interesting since his people pump the stuff. Also which company specificly utilizes Iraqi Oil, Iran oil? Before blaming everyone you need to be exact on the ties.

If a hydrogen fuel cell is 50% efficient but relies on electrical power whcih you said was only 30% efficient then wouldn't the fuel cell only really be 15% efficient? It looses 70% through chargeing by fossil fuel power either in a car or a power plant and then it looses 50% of that energy creating motion.

I agree each state should be able to enforce stricter pollution laws then the fedal laws. But no less leanent ones.
Also I don't really trust california to do anything intelligent after the electrical power crisis those dip shits caused. Conserving energy is fine but it has to be possible to live with otherwise the atemp is foolish.

Ethanol, FUCK electric. Two words . Super stallion. If that bastard can run on Ethanol anything can. Fuel cells as of yet have proven totaly useless on there own. They in no way can be sustained with out fossel fuel in some manner. Not to mention a fuel cell contains chemicals far more toxic then oil. Cut open and dump a few large fuel cells into a water shed. Then your really screwed. Thats not a trade off io can live with and it simply isn't economicly viable.

One simple rule to remember if you can't make money off of it it will never be a useable solution.

Another thing. Hydo power may be to some degree tapped out but. Tidal is only beggining. I hated the beach anyways!

MP3 in NH,
i really don't want to tear your arguments apart, but just to clarify one of many things in your argument that are a little muddy: the reason behind the "California energy crisis" was ENRON! they witheld power across the grid and claimed that California residents had to pay more for making them increase their open line capacities. and guess who had a hand in ENRON? good ol' dick cheney... so don't go bashing on california and out "stupidity. sorry for being the center of the technology and research and development for all things modern and convenient.

ok, i gotta take a stab at this one... is it me or is there a DMZ on the 38th parallel between north and south korea? is this because there is a CONSTANT THREAT of a north korean invasion of the south? or are american troops there to stop the south koreans from entering the north to spread capitalism? so with the announcement that north korea is developing nukes, wouldn't it be a little more dire than the attention the current administration is giving it? iraq, on the other hand, will not dare attack any of its other neighbors any time soon. they are still trying to garner anti-american support in the region, especially after the last time they got humiliated. for them to attack another country other than israel would be completely ridiculous and unlikely. and no one in the region is dumb enough to attack israel.

so why are we in iraq? personal vendetta maybe? big bush told TIME magazine he HATES sadaam with every fiber in his body. little bush is just taking care of business for his dad. good boy, isn't he? perhaps his reason is oil maybe? it's definitely not because of the "WMD's". the CIA released a report that said saddaam's use of WMD (if he had any) against americans is highly unlikely but changes to "very likely" if we attacked first. why put american troops at such risks? who knows? he's the genius, not me.

Thats not true. Canada has way more oil on it than Iraq ever will. Iraq only supplies something like 10-17% of the worlds supply. The US gets most of its oil from Canada and Mexico.
The US is allies with Isreal. Who do you think will put a SCUD(nuclear) into there if he gets a chance? Isreal is the only Democratic government in that whole area, and they have been harassed by every country around there since their re-conception.The US is protecting it intrests(Isereal) in the mid-east.

If your really concerned about oil prices and the enviorment. A short term solution would be to use Boi-diesel(seperated canola oil).VW already uses a engine that can use it. If times get tough you could go to the local grocery store and buy a gallon jug and use that.

And to comment on the use of renewable resorces(Hydro power), alot of Saskatchewan is useing hydro plants. There are very few here that burn coal. We are the province of 100,000+ lakes.

from bomber:

i don't know where you are getting your facts from, but the US is NOT getting most of its oil from mexico and canada. canada's not even on the top 10 oil producing countries of the world. iraq is. here's the list of top 10 oil-producing countries:

1) Saudi Arabia
2) US
3) Russia
4) Iran
5) Mexico
6) Venezuela
7) China
8) Norway
9) UK
10) Iraq

interestingly, the US and China import more oil than they export (they consume more than they produce), whereas Saudi Arabia, Norway and Venezuela exports 90% of their oil. see where Saudi Arabia is on the list? do you know where Saudi Arabia is on a map? of the top 10 countries producing oil, 3 are in the middle east region. the US imports more oil than it produces. see a correlation yet?

Never hesitate, i questioned just as much as i stated.

But Enron didn't cuase the Power crisis. California legislation to conserve energy while regulating energy prices along in direct opposition tot he laws of supply and demand. So Enron and the other energy producers said, "We'll show you conservations"

And do know why no one could do anything about it?
Becuase Enrons real CEO was non other then David Lo-Pan Himself!
:eek:

http://www.mazdamp3.com/members/1st%...0NH/lopan2.jpg

actually, it was the DE-regulation of the power industry under gov. gray davis that set off power bid wars. for a while, power was actually pretty cheap. but giants like PG&E and Southern Edison were putting the little independents under. so along comes enron, who is supplying both PG&E and Southern Edison with the bulk of the power, decides to jack up the price ARTIFICIALLY. there was no reason for it except corporate greed. instead of opening the power grid to meet demand (they were more than capable of doing this), they decided to bottleneck the few lines they had open before the power crunch. then on top of that, at its worst, only 1 in 3 power plants were up and running because of "maintenance and upgrades." i guess building a plant that can be 33% more efficient is good... but why do it during the power crunch? oh well... there's big business for you again. ripping off the general public so a few big wigs on top can make billions...

I think a misconsception here is that Fuel Cells require elctricity and hence need to be "charged"..
There is a BIG difference b/n electric cars (which need charging from sources of whatever origin) versus Fuel Cells which actually create their own electricity from combining Hydrogen and Oxygen to produce Water vapor and a free electron. Yes, some hydrogen sources, currently, rely upon fossil fuel, but, the goal is for Hydrogen Fuel. Hydrogen can be isolated from the photo-dissociation of water - and as well, hydrogen is also the most common element in the universe. Thus, it is most likely a limitless source of enregy, one we're likely to use at some point..

I am a little confused, hence the questions. I know every hybrid today requires the gas engine to recharge its electric motor. As for fuel cells although Hydrogen is aboundant, in pure elemental form is not.
Is pure Hydrogen required?
Where does it come from?
The cell must use a fuel of some kind, what is it?
Is that mixture aboundat?
Is that mixture ecologicly sound?
Is the by products ecologicly sound?
Is the fuel cell itself ecologicly sound for when the car gets T-boned and explodes?
This brings up, is the mixture, being that hydrogen is very reactive, a bomb?
If the cell was to be ruptured what would be the ecological effect?

Great Questions, man! For fuel cells, the goal is to extract hydrogen, then, "Stip" an electron from this hydrogen by passing it through a membrane while combining it with O2 to make water (the chemical reaction is what pushes the hydrogen through the membrane)- the free electrons = electric current.
There are several pathways for this - some using hydrocarbons (petroleum) for the hydrogen source, but these still have emissions (though as noted by ProtegeMaster, the efficiency of energy potential of fuel v. output is much better than internal combustion). Hydrocarbons are indeed a more stable fuel than pure hydrogen, BUT....
The pure hydrogen pathway allows for less emissions (though water vapor IS a greenhouse gas, too), but then we must extract the hydrogen..
This can be done via chemical reactions which cost energy, but also can be done via solar energy athough not as efficiently, (but who cares since it is solar-powered).
Yes, for pure hydrogen, then, fuel delivery and stability of on-board tanks are concerns. But then again, fuel stability is an issue with liquid gasoline, too - i.e. Ford Pinto, Crown Victoria, etc.
This is an engineering issue, which likely could be resolved if money and research resources were directed towards this goal as opposed to making wonderfully exothermic devices (bombs) which only waste energy on all accounts.
Hydrogen IS ecologically sound - it rapidily bonds to form water (or explodes - yee-haw!). Neither scenario is toxic, though explosions are never kind to those in the immediate area!
Further, maybe the on-board fuel could be managed in a solid phase - though I certainly am no chemist!
The use of hydrogen has long been explored, from the days of the Hindenberg (oops) to use of hydrogen peroxide for V2 rockets in WW2. Thus it's manufacture, storage and delivery are relatively well-understood, it is just a matter of effort and desire to make this a reality.

NOw if memory serves isn't one of thebiggest problems with nuclear energy that it contaminates and make the water radioactive that is used in the process.
What is the potential a fuel cell may have a similar issue?

NUKE!

Hopefully that wil get Nukes attention to inform me on this one.
It seams like anytime ions are messed with it not a good thing.

The thing thats always had my attention was ethanol.
Can everyday cars run on it will little adjustment or does it require a specific engine?
Fuel cells and the like are fine but are unlikely to be popular in any short term becuase already produced and bought cars can't use them.

Still seems like the first step has to a cleaner buring fuel that can be used in any cars without power or reliablity loss.

Dude, IONS are good!! (mostly) - Unstable ISOTOPES are the evil ones since they decompose and release radiation (keep in mind there are many STABLE isotopes such as O18, and O17 which you breathe everday along with O16).
So Fuel Cells deal with hydrogen IONS - these are harmless, all we did was steal an electron from H atom!
Nuclear energy, is another issue - and involves the nuclear forces that bond Neutrons and Protons of the atom's nucleus. Quick Chem. 1 review - elements are defined by the # of Protons. Protons (P) + Neutrons (N) = Atomic Mass. Atomic Mass can Vary for an element due to different #'s of N and these are the various isotopes for a particular element. Ex) O16 has 8 P and 8 N; O18 has 8 P & 10 N.

Hydrogen Fuel cells are dealing only with the elctro-static nature of elements, creating ions - and stealing electrons to create an electric cuurent! There Are NO nuclear issues at all behind this!

Actauly steling an electron is very much a nuclear issue. I know the chem stuff so worry about me fallowing to a higher level. Ions have to remated with something otherwise they are fairly stable. however Hydrogen isn't stable without an electron nore are a hole lot of other ions.

Whats the actual chemical reaction equation here?
Another question what size does a fuel cell have to be to generate the same horespower as a combustion engine?
Obviously engine size varries so I supose a percentage would be most appropriate.

When you dissolve salt in water, you're making two ions! Na+ and Cl- why? B/c these atoms already lost their electrons (and no nuclear release either). Turns out, electrons love to hang out in pairs, and better yet, these pairs get together in various shells that are most delighted when either completely full if possible, but if not, then completely empty (i.e valence states). Electrons are NOT Involved in nuclear matters - they are the basis of electricity, since so many elements lose electrons and the environment is chock full of them (lightning!)
The chemical reaction for hydrogen fuel cells is 2H + O = H2O, but the whole aspect of this is that the hydrogen is forced through a semi-porous membrane that is only the diameter of the Hydrogen Nucleus (H is #1 on the Periodic Table), so therefore, to bond with the O2, which it wants to do, the H must lose its e-, to b/c an H+. The flow of e- from this reaction provides the electric current.
I am not sure what size the cells must be (I am not an engineer), but I do know they will be small enough for cars. the power the car actually achieves is dependent upon how well the electric motor performs, and I think that issue has already been addressed...

I familair with the forming of water and electrons and all that fun. My questios is based on that There is a bigger chemical reaction needed then just H + 02 unless that sall that is in the fuel cell. I have a feeling 1 its not pure hydrogen at all but a chemical process producing it then a reaction with another chemical forming yes water but there is always a left over substance. What is it? I realize Sodium and clorine are ionized when salt is mixxed into a water solution and remain harmell but this is not so for all reactions. If the the waste product is ionized thenit will combine with other compounds to stabalize. It is that reaction and that waste that is of importance to me as it is the unknown peice.

The bonding of H to O is the concept behind fuel cells. Due to the issue of pure hydrogen being uncommon and highly reactive, some designs use hydrocarbons as a fuel. But as ProtegeMaster said, the fuel cell design, even using fossil fuels, harvests potential chemical energy more efficiently than internal combustion, which loses energy in the forms of heat, friction etc. The hydrocarbon fuel cell model still releases Co and CO2, but, b/c of better efficiency, less pollutants are emitted.
However, the other scenario is the hydrogen fuel cell, using only pure hydrogen, which emits no pollutants other than water vapor. The issues here are supply and delivery.
I suppose this will indeed be a H2O+ molecule because of electron loss, but that ought not be a problem. Most problem elements are cations (postively charged), and thus would not bond with it anyway. Sulfur already mixes with water to form H2SO4, so that shouldn't be any different.
Perhaps with an increase in positively charged water, we could expect a sceanrio of increased rainfall but with less lightning discharges...
In terms of output at the wheel, you ought to check the link on p1 or 2 of this thread that highlights the potential power of an electric car - it seems to be quite impressive!

Still not quite what I am looking for. Its the chemicals that are needed to be broken down to supply the cell I am Interest in and there reaction can only be shown by the chemical equation they create. There must be alot more then just 02 and hydrogen involved here.

http://www.fuelcells.org/fcfaqs.htm#government

You may like this site, see Bush isn't a complete jackoff.

It seems to me, then, you are seeking a means to justify oil. What you are looking for is a way to discredit fuel cell technology, or am I misinterpreting you? As I said ealier, solar photo-dissociation of water produces free hydrogen - no nasty chemicals involved at all! (and yes, there are numerous other means by which to isolate hydrogen, chemically)
You had earlier dissed hybrids b/c of the batteries - and this is exactly what Bush et al convey. The point being is that hybrids are still much better, environmentally, than internal combustion, though the battery issue would require a committment from the manufacturers to actually reclaim and recycle/dispose of the components.
I would prefer the fuel cell, but, until the infrastructure is in place, hybrid vehicles (in which some models produce their electricity from the friction generated in the brakes) are what is currently available on the market.
Check the web, and I think you'll see that even the US Military has a keen interest in hybrids and fuel cells - producing an efficient, quiet, and low-thermal image power plant would prove quite valuable in combat...