Oh well, I'd better tell Toyota and Audi that they are wasting their time. Beats me how those idiots ever get to make anything that works.Yeah, about that:
Doesn't look like their hydrogen strategy has worked out.
As for NASA, using ridiculous stuff like hydrogen as rocket fuel and in their fuel cells - no wonder nobody really believes they flew to the moon.Oh I know something about that. Liquid hydrogen is MUCH denser than compressed hydrogen. It's also EXTREMELY inefficient to manufacture. First you have to make the hydrogen. This is not particularly hard. Then you have to liquefy it. This takes an ENORMOUS amount of energy. Bet you thought water had a high heat capacity, well, hydrogen, it's much worse. And in the overwhelming majority of cases, that heat of liquefaction is wasted.
This means that liquid hydrogen is extremely inefficient to manufacture. And it has nothing to do with cars. It has to be stored in vacuum containers, and even then long-term storage requires active cooling. Even aeroplanes would have difficulty handling it and would have to store it in the fuselage, wing tanks have too much surface area, it would boil off too quickly.
So, no, not the same thing at all. Even with the extra density from liquefaction it's only marginally worth it even for rockets. The main issue is the remarkably low density of the hydrogen, makes the tankage extremely heavy for rockets. There's a sizeable fraction of the space industry that claim that hydrogen is an expensive mistake even in rocketry, still, and you'll note that the Falcon 9 doesn't use it.
Electric pumps are a decent choice:Are you suggesting that they would fly better with an electric motor?As for NASA, using ridiculous stuff like hydrogen as rocket fuelTheir vehicles run about 5 inches per gallon.
Did you somehow think they were relevant?
They use lithium ion batteries for power.
The following users thanked this post: charles1948