The reality is that it's a systems engineering problem: what engine/fuel/infrastructure combination is the optimal solution, considering physical and political (=economical) constraints. The cost of just about any physical device is almost entirely driven by production volume barring the necessity for some wildly difficult material cost (which IS a consideration for some fuel cell devices, but not necessarily the critical one).
As far as access to oil goes, let's see now...$55 billion and 300 American lives for Gulf War I....eventually $200 billion for GWII....did I forget 3000 people dead on 9/11? How much DOES it cost for us to be involved politically and economically in the Muslim world? And what would it be worth to get off oil as the primary fuel?
And one last. Why is it that people who have no problem believing that me and my fellow Aerospace Engineers can build a Space Based Strategic Defense System to knock down incoming nuclear re-entry vehicles (which we most certainly CAN do), but believe that we are incapable of coming up with a transportation system that gets us off of oil?
The reality is it's a physics problem. You get less energy out than you put in.
Space Based Strategic Defense System? I believe it can be done, but bragging about it beforehand is a little out of place.
Neither would I find calling myself an aerospace engineer a point of pride given the lack of any meaningful space transportation infrastructure.
And if you think Hydrogen is the ticket off oil, no wonder our space industry is non-existant. Where do you think the hydrogen will come from?
Maybe the Easter bunny can fart it out.
Lot's, but that doesn't change the fact that Hydrogen is not a primary fuel.
Great question. I've always wondered why people who believe the great scientific minds are correct about global warming and the risks of low level pollutants don't believe great scientific minds when they tell us that genetically engineered foods are safe.
I still have nightmares about my airbag killing me in my daily commute, but at least I don't worry about white guys in white vans sniping me at the gas pumps anymore.;-)
The reality is that it's a systems engineering problem: what engine/fuel/infrastructure combination is the optimal solution, considering physical and political (=economical) constraints. The cost of just about any physical device is almost entirely driven by production volume barring the necessity for some wildly difficult material cost (which IS a consideration for some fuel cell devices, but not necessarily the critical one).
It's not really a systems engineering as much an economics problem. But your thinking is a great argument for fossil fuels, they are the cheapest energy source per joule. The best infrastructure on the ehicle is an ELECTRIC DRIVETRAIN, there is practically NO ADVANTAGE to fuel cells over ICES and MANY DISADVANTAGES, namely cost and robustness (what happens when your feull cell stack freezes)? The only way to beat oil in the car is to have an energy source that COSTS LESS. Only nuclear power has even a hope of acheiving that, and only if it supplying electrons - to ELECTRIC CARS - hydrogen is far too indirect.
And you go through ALL THAT TROUBLE and STILL find that hydrogen is awfully hard to store, with low energy density/volume. WHY FIGHT NATURE? The natrual solution is to have a liquid energy form... In other words, if oil didnt exist and we were looking for a great energy carrier, mankind would invent gasoline as the perfect one for vehicles
And one last. Why is it that people who have no problem believing that me and my fellow Aerospace Engineers can build a Space Based Strategic Defense System to knock down incoming nuclear re-entry vehicles (which we most certainly CAN do), but believe that we are incapable of coming up with a transportation system that gets us off of oil?
Aeorspace Engineers are quite capable of designing large passenger jets that fly over MACH 1. That alone doesnt make the Concorde pay its own way.
People are more likely waiting for someone to do it instead of talking about doing it. I guess that the "doers" are waiting on someone (the government?) to start passing out free money to get them interested.