The split-cycle engine: a leap from the four cycle engine?

[Boba Rhett]

Why yes, yes they do

 

Show spoiler

(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)

 

 

 

Oh God, I took the whole tube orally, what do I do?

[Darth_Yuthura]

Hydrogen isn't a fuel? What? When did it stop being one? Was there a vote? What are you talking about? Hydrogen is a flammable gas that contains energy that can be converted to another type of energy. Petrolium is a flammable liquid that can be converted to another type of energy. Fuel is any material that can be burnt or altered in order to obtain energy.

 

Very well then.

 

Where do they mine or drill for hydrogen? Oh wait... it's found in water, but we can't just extract it without the use of another energy. Hydrogen is NOT more efficient than electricity because you have to invest more electrical energy into hydrogen than you get back.

 

That electricity has to come from another source of energy... hydrogen is not like oil because it has to be produced by investing another energy into it. Oil is the stored chemical energy... that was once solar energy... which was once fusion energy.

 

Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but changed. Oil and coal have potential energy that is stored from the remains of organic materials from ancient times. Hydrogen is not just suspended in its pure state anywhere naturally. It is all manufactured and must get its energy from another source. If there's no solar, wind, coal, oil, or geothermal energy, there can't be hydrogen fuel produced. The same goes for electricity... it requires a base source of energy to be produced.

[ChAiNz.2da]

Perhaps, but oil also still has to be refined to be useful.. what's the difference? I'm sure there's a substantial hit in that process as well? (seriously asking, not mocking the post)

[Darth_Yuthura]

Perhaps, but oil also still has to be refined to be useful.. what's the difference? I'm sure there's a substantial hit in that process as well? (seriously asking, not mocking the post)

 

You get more in return from the oil than you invested in it. The deeper you must drill, the farther you must transport it, and the more impurities you must remove, the energy invested increases and can eventually become higher than the return. Nuclear energy requires energy to mill, enrich, and fabricate. But the reaction returns more than it required to produce the nuclear fuel.

 

Hydrogen is the opposite by requiring more energy to produce than it returns.

[Boba Rhett]

It's more efficient because we have a better way of utilizing it to create locomotion.

over electricity.

 

Electricity has to come from another source of energy? Where did you read that? Oh yes, in my post. I'm not going to bother reiterating what I've already said but I'm fairly certain I made no mention in my previous post of simply wishing the hydrogen into being.

 

And it's a good thing oil doesn't have any extra steps like refining or anything to make it a viable source of energy. Oh wait.

 

You get more in return from the oil than you invested in it. Hydrogen is the opposite by returning less than you used to produce it.

 

There's a finite amount of fossil fuel. There's also many ways to produce the energy required to make hydrogen. There's also a lot of the things that can be used to generate electricity to generate hydrogen which means that for the short run to get the technology off the ground, it doesn't matter if it's not super efficient right away. How many other technologies started off incredibly efficient right from the get go? Not many. The internal combustion engine sure as hell didn't. Not even looking at the other sources, even with the inefficiency of just strictly using coal, we could rely on just that to produce our hydrogen for a long while. Not saying we should, just throwing that out there.

 

Chainz... hold me. ;-;

[ChAiNz.2da]

You get more in return from the oil than you invested in it. Hydrogen is the opposite by returning less than you used to produce it.

 

Only because we have existing processes in place and years of development invested in it I imagine. I'm sure the first time oil was refined it wasn't half as effective as it is nowadays. We still expend tons of energy to explore, drill, extract, transport, refine and ship oil.. but over the years we've streamlined the process that goes in to making the final product.

 

Once processes are set in place for other means (hydrogen, solar, wind, compressed air, etc).. the turnout would eventually spike as more streamlining and R&D measures are taken... or am I missing the point here

[Darth_Yuthura]

It's more efficient because we have a better way of utilizing it to create locomotion.

over electricity.

 

Electricity has to come from another source of energy? Where did you read that? Oh yes, in my post. I'm not going to bother reiterating what I've already said but I'm fairlt certain I made no mention of simply wishing the hydrogen into being.

 

And it's a good thing oil doesn't have any extra steps like refining or anything to make it a viable source of energy. Oh wait.

 

I already knew that! How the **** could you think I didn't know what I was talking about?!

 

(I'm only emphasizing that because you just posted a very smug reply)

 

You don't get my point do you? Hydrogen requires more energy to strip from water molecules than it returns from a fuel cell. Oil requires transporting, refining, and pumping, but you can get more energy from the oil after that process than before you started it. Read my previous post about nuclear fuel as well.

[Boba Rhett]

I already knew that! How the **** could you think I didn't know what I was talking about?!

 

Have you read your own posts lately?

 

 

 

 

As for the rest, I refer you to Chainz' posts.

[Darth_Yuthura]

Have you read your own posts lately?

 

 

 

 

As for the rest, I refer you to Chainz' posts.

 

Yes and I can understand why one would not understand. But even if my posts are flawed, so is your logic.

 

Do you really think that I didn't know where electricity originates? Do you really think that I just learned anything so basic from you? I'm not going to say any more on this, but only because I won't argue about something as pathetic as this.

 

-----

 

This is all getting out of hand.

 

The thread is about the split cycle engine. I'm not going to change my mind about hydrogen w/out sources. If anyone could provide a reliable source that proves how effective hydrogen is as a fuel for the average American vehicle, show that... not your opinions.

 

I don't want to fight on others about the hydrogen issue, but I'm not going to change my mind about it. It's not because I'm arrogant and inflexible... it's because I've seen convincing sources that denied its viability in the US today.

[Darth_Yuthura]

Only because we have existing processes in place and years of development invested in it I imagine. I'm sure the first time oil was refined it wasn't half as effective as it is nowadays. We still expend tons of energy to explore, drill, extract, transport, refine and ship oil.. but over the years we've streamlined the process that goes in to making the final product.

 

Once processes are set in place for other means (hydrogen, solar, wind, compressed air, etc).. the turnout would eventually spike as more streamlining and R&D measures are taken... or am I missing the point here

 

My original point was to explain that the split-cycle engine was a radical concept that allowed for cars to get better milage w/out the extreme cost of batteries, such as hybrids. By using a split-cycle engine, a cheaper alternative to a hybrid vehicle could be introduced.

 

This thread has moved from the comparison between the SCE and other futuristic vehicles. Hydrogen does provide a solution for the limited oil reserves within the US because its base energy could be anything that produces electricity. The problem is that in order to switch to hydrogen, the US demand for energy would increase because of it... more coal plants would have to be built to replace the oil that cars would no longer use. Because of the energy lost through hydrolysis, there would be even more energy demanded to compensate for that loss.

[ChAiNz.2da]

My original point was to explain that the split-cycle engine was a radical concept that allowed for cars to get better milage w/out the extreme cost of batteries, such as hybrids. By using a split-cycle engine, a cheaper alternative to a hybrid vehicle could be introduced....

 

Aaah.. I see. Thank you for the explanation.

Seems I entered this thread on the topic split my bad.

 

So yeah, would probably be best to get back on topic. Apologies.

[Darth_Yuthura]

I will not be so narrow as to believe in only one solution to an issue such as a car's power source. There are advantages to plug-in hybrids that could serve another purpose other than saving gasoline.

 

The US power grid is often stretched during the day and becomes much cheaper at night. W/plug in hybrids, a car could feed off the power grid that otherwise would have been wasted at night. During the day, the cars could be hooked up to the grid and feed electricity back into the system during peak hours. This would allow for owners to make a profit from selling electricity at a premium and buying it at a discount when the car isn't in use. This can't be done w/ split-cycle engines.

[Bimmerman]

I stand by what I said earlier by the word 'efficient.' By having a dedicated firing and compression piston, the engine only gets a marginal increase in efficiency. Some designs of split-cycle engines don't live up to the most efficient 4-cycle engines... but those cannot store potential energy as compressed air. All the air compression immediately is used for the combustion.

 

Bear with me, but do you have any idea how an engine actually works? You cannot have a "dedicated firing and compression piston" in an internal combustion engine. Each piston goes through four stages- intake, compression, expansion(firing the charge of air and gas), and exhaust- two expansion strokes and two compression strokes. It is physically impossible for a car to operate on the combustion cycle without compressing and then firing/expansion-- there can be no dedicated piston to each unless they aren't connected to anything.

 

Sure the engine can use compressed air as a way to store potential energy; but why? From what I understand the engine uses the compressed air to increase the oxygen content in the combustion chamber... there are many other ways to do that exact same thing: turbocharging, which uses energy captured from the exhaust to pressurize the intake charge above atmospheric pressure; supercharging, which uses a belt from the crankshaft itself to pressurize the intake air; nitrous injection, which simultaneously cools the intake air(thus making it denser- increasing the O2 content) and also injects extra oxygen molecules into the combustion chamber.

 

The split cycle also has the advantage of two modes for using energy that otherwise would have been wasted when the car is idle.

 

1)The air compression piston can function for the purpose of filling the pressurized air tank, but the firing piston does not operate. This is used to convert kinetic energy from the car to compressed air.

 

2)When the car's air tank is filled, the compressed air can be used instead of the compression piston. Because the compression piston isn't operating, the engine can generate more power with the engine not having to compress air in this mode.

 

This is not exactly a more 'efficient' engine, but this design allows for a cheaper alternative to batteries to store excess energy or to obtain better milage.

 

1) Ok, I can see an additional fifth or sixth piston on a four cylinder engine being used to compress air for an air tank. Do you have any concept of parasitic drag on the engine crankshaft? The air compression circuit must be able to create more power than it requires when you feed the compressed air back into the engine, otherwise it is useless and will sap horsepower and efficiency simultaneously. You are right that you are converting rotational kinetic energy into linear kinetic energy into kinetic/potential energy of the air molecules, but that is not even close to a lossless conversion. Heat, friction, sound, all conspire to reduce the gains of the process.

 

2)um....what? "the piston isn't operating?" You do realize it is still rotating in the mechanical assembly, yes? And that it is still creating parasitic drag, yes? The valves may keep it from physically pumping air, but it's still rotating. I understand the idea of pressurizing the air tank and then releasing the air into the combustion cylinder to have a compressed intake charge. Makes sense that way. It also seems identical to a supercharger or turbo charger in terms of compressing the intake charge. The only difference is being able to store that compressed air to release when needed and being able to shut off the engine yet keep compressing air when coasting to a stop....also not groundbreaking; all engines when connected to a real transmission(i.e. a standard manual) do this as long as it is in gear.

 

From what I've read and the videos I've watched, and what I know on the subject of engine design, this seems rather pointless, and here's why:

 

1) you have double the number of cylinders a normal engine would; that adds significant weight, size, and parasitic drag

2)you have the same increase in torque as if you had supercharged the engine, because that is effectively all you are doing--supercharging each cylinder

3) you increase rotational inertial around the crankshaft significantly, which slows acceleration, engine response, and hurts fuel economy, power, and torque.

4) the engine must still be balanced, and considering most split cycles are designed around a narrow angle V (think VW's VR6 engine) with the combustion cylinders in one bank and the air compression cylinders offset in another bank...that will be a nightmare as far as camshafts, balancing, and packaging are concerned, not to mention design, maintenance, and lubrication.

 

The engine theoretically could be good if the above problems are solved; until then it is an example of a theoretical design study. I personally have a very hard time believing that it is a good idea if the professional engine designers haven't done this before; it's not a new idea by any means.

 

Now please, clean up your terminology- "compression piston" means just about nothing.

[Bimmerman]

As for the hydrogen debate that is raging, why is there such a focus on fuel cells? Or hydrogen as a fuel for electric cars?

 

There is not much needed to make an gasoline internal combustion engine run on gaseous hydrogen as a fuel for combustion. It is easier, more efficient, and cheaper than the fuel cell route. And is in series production, and has been since the early-mid nineties.

[Darth_Yuthura]

Bear with me, but do you have any idea how an engine actually works? You cannot have a "dedicated firing and compression piston" in an internal combustion engine. Each piston goes through four stages- intake, compression, expansion(firing the charge of air and gas), and exhaust- two expansion strokes and two compression strokes. It is physically impossible for a car to operate on the combustion cycle without compressing and then firing/expansion-- there can be no dedicated piston to each unless they aren't connected to anything.

 

Go to youtube and put in 'Scuderi Engine' and you'll see a few videos that show how it works. By having a dedicated power and compression cylinder, the engine can run with the power cylinder acting like a two cycle engine. Two pistons fire twice as many times as in the four-cycle engine.

 

And as for the terminology... I'm not an expert on engines that I can designate all the parts, but I do have to use a diagram or use another source's vocabulary. What is the piston which is designated to compress air referred as, anyway? Since you know it's wrong, please tell me what terminology to use and I'll clean it up.

[Bimmerman]

I did watch the Scuderi video prior to my earlier responses, so yes I am familiar with the way it is supposed to work. The idea to make it work as a two cycle engine is quite different, and will require a serious amount of work to make it as efficient as a four stroke engine. Two strokes are more powerful for a given displacement but are less efficient, due to the mingling of exhaust and intake gases due to the timing of the camshaft and valvetrain. It is possible to make a highly efficient two stroke, and is commonly done with forced induction such as a turbocharger. The downside to two strokes is that they are significantly less environmentally friendly due to the fact that the fuel must be mixed with oil in order to lubricate the engine.

 

The pistons fire twice as many times, true, and make proportionally far more power than a four stroke would, at the expense of thermal efficiency and emissions.

 

What I don't see is why this is any more superior to a turbo/supercharged two stroke engine in terms of thermal efficiency, or for that matter a five or six stroke engine. Sure it can store energy as compressed air, but you could also make the engine run on five or six strokes, or turbo/super charge it to gain the extra efficiency therein.

 

Researching some more on the topic led me to a diagram of the engine with labeled compression and power cylinders, so I follow you on your terminology. Sorry if my tone has been combative, I don't mean to be. I am by no means an expert, just this is an area I have spent a lot of time studying and enjoy debating.

[Darth_Yuthura]

I did watch the Scuderi video prior to my earlier responses, so yes I am familiar with the way it is supposed to work. The idea to make it work as a two cycle engine is quite different, and will require a serious amount of work to make it as efficient as a four stroke engine. Two strokes are more powerful for a given displacement but are less efficient, due to the mingling of exhaust and intake gases due to the timing of the camshaft and valvetrain. It is possible to make a highly efficient two stroke, and is commonly done with forced induction such as a turbocharger. The downside to two strokes is that they are significantly less environmentally friendly due to the fact that the fuel must be mixed with oil in order to lubricate the engine.

 

Split-cycle has two strokes, but it is not the inefficient version w/higher power/weight ratio. The power cylinder expels the exaust at the end of one stroke and doesn't need to compress the air again... because that's what the 'air compression cylinder' has already done before that.

 

The second stroke happens after the exaust was already been expelled and the combustion takes place. Two cycle engines don't have the second cylinder to compress air, so it mixes compressed air with some exaust from the prior stroke. Split cycle avoids this.

[Astrotoy7]

interesting reading

 

just don't argue please, theres nothing uglier than watching engineering nerds get riled up

 

I hope honda or toyota plan on making a fuel cell hybrid.

 

mtfbwya

[Darth_Yuthura]

interesting reading

 

just don't argue please, theres nothing uglier than watching engineering nerds get riled up

 

I hope honda or toyota plan on making a fuel cell hybrid.

 

mtfbwya

 

Why?

 

I have never come across a station where hydrogen is distributed. I'm sure everyone would prefer the split-cycle engine because it is a huge leap in engine efficiency, but as cheap as standard 4-cycle versions. The SCE is the easiest solution that requires the least modifications to switch from the standard engine.

 

Hydrogen fuel cells will require significant changes from the car to the refueling stations. The SCE is like the electric hybrid at a cheaper price. Would you seriously spend more on a car that's less capable and harder to manage?

[RedHawke]

I was going to stop but a few things need to be addressed.

 

With all due respect, companies would find it's way too expensive to use solar power to produce hydrogen. That hydrogen may have come from a renewable source, but it was not economic and undesirable to investors.

It would seem that real life has passed your information up. The SMUD station prototype is one that can be built into a station like the ones that sit on corners for people to get petrol at like they do now. Hence why they built one.

 

Unfortunately your statements about this are quite untrue when we have a working station right now, today, this minute. To make the stations cheaper... well history shows us that mass production always reduces the cost of an item or system.

 

Despite all the reasons to use solar and wind for energy today, they are simply not economic... because their extreme capital costs result in high interest payments that eclipse the operating costs. That solar power that produced the hydrogen you spoke of... it is not simply propaganda. Although oil companies have all the reason to silence renewable energies, there is not denying that solar and wind bear extreme capital costs and are not always reliable if the weather is bad for conditions.

Your solar power information is over a decade old it seems... solar cells are not as expensive or as unreliable as your information indicated it seems. Heck, you can pick up a system for your home for a very small price compared to a decade ago.

 

How is a working station I use about 2-3 times a week propaganda? Sorry mate, it is something that people need to consider.

 

Not all of these stations have to be solar powered either... but gas stations today do indeed use power, so the change won't add to anything there.

 

In addition, to provide enough hydrogen to replace gasoline, you would essentially have enough of those stations you mentioned to accommodate everyone in the US.

These stations can easily replace the current gas stations, since there are clearly enough of stations for gasoline vehicles it wouldn't be a problem to simply replace them, even have the stations be half-n-half for a time.

 

There are very few hydrogen stations as it is and setting something like that up would be an extreme measure. That requires a significant amount of time to implement.

Extreme? I'm sorry but you are wrong here. So was it to build all those gas stations my friend...

 

When Henry Ford started mass-producing automobiles in the US, there were no gas stations, petrol was sold by the quart... and from corner drug stores to boot!

 

In the meantime, gasoline is the predominant fuel in America and we can't look that far into the future if our current needs are not met. Hydrogen is still in its infancy and is not logical in any degree at this time. Instead of a revolution to take place over a short period like with nuclear power, we should use what we have more efficiently and make the transition when it is ready.

This is exactly what the oil companies want you to believe... transitions need not be painless, and "ready" is an operative term, we are indeed ready today.

 

Now there is an interest that wants us to believe otherwise, because the change would threaten their profit margins.

 

Hydrogen is a drastic revolution. The split-cycle engine is a simple solution with drastic effects for today's needs.

I have never stated that the split cycle engine was a bad thing, however your postings about hydrogen is what I felt needed to be addressed. Much of what you have stated about the alternatives are exactly the propaganda we have been warned about that the oil companies have written to discredit these new technologies. That's my point.

 

Unfortunately for these new technologies good information on them is harder to come by as the opposition has such an incredible marketing machine already in place.

 

Why?

 

I have never come across a station where hydrogen is distributed. I'm sure everyone would prefer the split-cycle engine because it is a huge leap in engine efficiency, but as cheap as standard 4-cycle versions. The SCE is the easiest solution that requires the least modifications to switch from the standard engine.

 

Hydrogen fuel cells will require significant changes from the car to the refueling stations. The SCE is like the electric hybrid at a cheaper price. Would you seriously spend more on a car that's less capable and harder to manage?

I address this above, change doesn't have to be painless, nor should it be.

 

Honestly when was the last time you saw a stable as a common place to have in every town or city? Times change. So can we.

 

There is not much needed to make an gasoline internal combustion engine run on gaseous hydrogen as a fuel for combustion. It is easier, more efficient, and cheaper than the fuel cell route. And is in series production, and has been since the early-mid nineties.

From what I understand that whilst cleaner, it still gives off a carbon emission. But it surely is something to continue to look into.

 

Either way, I wish to impress upon everyone that all the new efficient technologies talked about here in this thread are good things... and all should be invested in further.

[Astrotoy7]

Why?

 

mainly because I like the idea of not using oil

 

Sure the SCE is a nifty idea. but there have been many nifty engine ideas over the years. Not all of them take off. Why this happens is totally beyond the scope of my knowledge of the automotive industry!!

 

@RedHawke... are Honda still working on home fueling stations...I'd love that

 

mtfbwya

[Astor]

Firstly, let me say that I know absolutely squat about engines, and related technology.

 

I have never come across a station where hydrogen is distributed.[/Quote]

 

That's not to say that there aren't any, or that there won't be any.

 

 

I'm sure everyone would prefer the split-cycle engine because it is a huge leap in engine efficiency, but as cheap as standard 4-cycle versions.[/Quote]

 

That's a very big assumption for anyone to be making. Simply because it's more efficient doesn't mean that people will automatically use it.

 

The SCE is like the electric hybrid at a cheaper price.[/Quote]

 

Given the amount of times i've seen you extoll the virtues of this engine, I have to ask: you're not selling the damn things are you?

 

Would you seriously spend more on a car that's less capable and harder to manage?

 

Personally, I don't own a car, and walk or ride everywhere, but if I did own a car, I might to remove complete dependency on a fuel that's going to disappear within the next century.

[Darth_Yuthura]

mainly because I like the idea of not using oil

 

Sure the SCE is a nifty idea. but there have been many nifty engine ideas over the years. Not all of them take off. Why this happens is totally beyond the scope of my knowledge of the automotive industry!!

 

@RedHawke... are Honda still working on home fueling stations...I'd love that

 

mtfbwya

 

So do you like the idea of paying a significantly greater sum of money on something that instead runs off coal and natural gas? Hydrogen comes from the US power grid... it's got a significant carbon footprint because behind it comes whatever pollution was caused to produce the electricity for the hydrolysis process.

 

If all our cars can run on hydrogen... and there are enough stations required to support all of them... and they all use solar and wind power... then I would support that. The problem is that there is a HUGE capital investment that must be made. You would have to be able to build enough solar cells to supply the power to replace all the gasoline that cars currently use. The problem is that if those cells were to be implemented, the costs would be astronomical. Why do you think the US isn't switching to renewable energy more quickly than we are?

 

Switching to hydrogen requires that everyone be willing to make huge sacrifices. I would be willing to go through with it, but most Americans aren't willing to make such sacrifices. And this would only work if EVERYONE is willing to spend huge sums of money for the solar power cells needed to power their vehicles. A home uses less energy than a car... and solar cells for the average home is about $20,000. If you assume a car requires more energy and you lose some for hydrolysis... that would push the price WAY higher than most are willing to spend.

 

And before anyone mentions that the electricity is free, remember the interest on capital that exceeds the price of just buying electricity from the power grid. Solar cells are not good business investments, but they are the best solution for energy in the future. The problem is whether people are willing to make huge sacrifices, or prefer to keep buying gasoline w/out any sacrifice or extra costs.

 

I also admit that I made many definite assumptions that were not backed by fact. The split-cycle engine has not yet proven itself, but it has proven to be a better solution to electric hybrids on a best-value base.

[RedHawke]

I also admit that I made many definite assumptions that were not backed by fact.

Yes, yes you have... about hydrogen, solar power, what a smart business investment is, the definition of 'fuel', etc.

 

@ Astro, I understand that most all the vehicle companies making an effort in these kinds of HFC vehicles are all looking into these home hydrogen systems. They really look cool, and likely pay for themselves really fast as if you stay in your local area you would almost never need to go out and get hydrogen.

[Darth_Yuthura]

Yes, yes you have... about hydrogen, solar power, what a smart business investment is, the definition of 'fuel', etc.

 

@ Astro, I understand that most all the vehicle companies making an effort in these kinds of HFC vehicles are all looking into these home hydrogen systems. They really look cool, and likely pay for themselves really fast as if you stay in your local area you would almost never need to go out and get hydrogen.

 

You misunderstand... I'm not admitting that I'm wrong. I'm admitting that I don't have the sources to prove my point that anyone else can access. That DOES NOT mean I'm wrong... it just means that you can say "your theory doesn't hold water."

 

If you had said that, I would not be replying again. But because you assumed I admitted that I was wrong, I'll correct that now: I have made some absolute statements that aren't backed by sources. There are many statements that were indeed correct, though. I just need to verify the statements.

 

I have a minor in business education, so I know about the economics behind what I speak of. The problem is that I can't use myself as a reference.

 

I am still not convinced that hydrogen fuel cells are better than the SCE. I simply need concrete sources to prove it. If you want to prove me wrong, get your own sources to challenge my statements.

 

That's a very big assumption for anyone to be making. Simply because it's more efficient doesn't mean that people will automatically use it.

 

Given the amount of times i've seen you extoll the virtues of this engine, I have to ask: you're not selling the damn things are you?

 

Personally, I don't own a car, and walk or ride everywhere, but if I did own a car, I might to remove complete dependency on a fuel that's going to disappear within the next century.

 

No I'm not selling them. I was just trying to inject a new subject. I find the split cycle engine to be an ingenius design. I think that before people consider buying electric hybrids, the SCE would likely prove the best solution on a best-value basis.

 

As for using a clean energy like hydrogen, there comes great pollution from the powerplants that provided the electricity that produced it. If you want to use solar as the source of power, then it also means buying enough cells to capture the energy, installing new stations, and having car companies drastically modify their factories to produce a very different kind of automobile. SCE would be a means of extending our future supply of gasoline with minimal changes to car designs and construction of new fuel stations.

 

Hydrogen DOES have its advantages, but as of today, they are far from ready to be used on a massive scale. Instead of a radical new idea, we can improve upon what we have. That's much easier and cheaper than hydrogen. And the easier and cheaper something is, the more economic it becomes.

 

Example: The US had started using nuclear energy in the 1950's and over 100 are operating in commercial powerplants. Although it was a revolutionary energy, it was riddled with flaws that made the plants more expensive, longer to build, and had many other rough edges. The reason why France didn't suffer the same fate is because they perfected the designs before they ever started building nuclear reactors.

 

Every American reactor was a disappointment because the technology wasn't ready. Hydrogen is far from ready... so before we start repeating history, we need to perfect the technology so it's economic before we commit to using it.