Got a press release announcing that Ford had set some kind of speed record with a hydrogen-powered car. More here.

Neat. But what does it actually mean for mass-market fuel-cell technology?

The comments here were interesting, e.g.:

This contraption is a purpose built record-breaker with no relation to either the Fusion or any planned "production" fuel cell car.

Its a very, VERY impressive piece of engineering, but with a cheesy overlay of marketing in the form of a thin plastic shell that looks vaguely like a Ford Fusion.

So...it's a sign of progress. Just not a sign that the future has arrived quite yet.

Comments

[Bubba]

"This contraption is a purpose built record-breaker with no relation to either the Fusion or any planned "production" fuel cell car."

.....just like a NASCAR version of a Fusion.

Hydrogen as a practical vehicle power source is not going to come about in a long, LONG time.

[John Burns]

What would happen if the government passed a law that said "in seven years time, motor-vehicle racing must be conducted with alternative technology - no fossil fuels allowed."

Don't you think the genius engineers in NASCAR and Formula 1 could solve the issues preventing bringing thisto market a lot more quickly than the car companies?

[Bubba]

"Don't you think the genius engineers in NASCAR and Formula 1 could solve the issues preventing bringing thisto market a lot more quickly than the car companies?"

NASCAR mandates the use of engine technology that is over 50 years old. They still use CARBURETORS, for God's sake!

F1 is known for squeezing an incredible amount of power from a small engine capable of operating at more than 20,000 rpms, but they have no more particular expertise outside of internal combustion engines than anyone else.

Having any government mandate ANYTHING, much less a motorsports engineering standard, is almost ALWAYS a bad idea.

You obviously don't remember (you may not have even been alive)about the seat belt interlock fiasco.

[robert reddick]

On the mandate side I'd be for alternative power for motor boats on drinking water reservoirs.

[Undercover Urbanist]

Remember, hydrogen ISN'T an energy source. It's an energy carrier. Replacing fossil fuels is the usual rationale for supporting a move to a hydrogen economy. But where do we make most of hydrogen from? Natural gas, another fast-depleting non-renewable which is much harder to transport than oil.

Futuristic technology seems great, but building our cities and towns so they weren't so auto-dependent is much easier, and we already know how to do it. Mandating better fuel economy from automakers would help, too. Then the private market would come up with all those ultralight composite materials and better batteries, and eventually we would have legit 40-mpg SUVs.

[John Burns]

You can make hydrogen from water. It's just very expensive. Bring down the costy of that technology 9which requires electricity, if I understand it correctly) and you got yourself clean power.

Especially if the electricity you use to do it comes from wave generation plants, solar plants, drilled geothermal, hydro, or even nuclear (i am not an annti-nuke zealot).