# Spoiler Alert, this car is slow.



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 17, 2016)

Called Rasa, the green vehicle runs on electricity generated by hydrogen fuel cells and gives the equivalent of '250 miles to the gallon', according to its backers.

http://riversimple.com/the-blog/







The two-seater will travel 300 miles (482km) on one 1.5kg fill-up

Named after the Latin for 'clean-slate', the futuristic-looking Rasa has been developed from scratch over 15 years by engineers and entrepreneurs at Riversimple Movement based in Llandrindod Wells in Wales. 






Initial plans are to lease thousands of the vehicles to customers on service contracts for about £500 per month - rather than selling them outright. 







The Rasa uses a hi-tech fuel cell to generate electricity from hydrogen gas stored under pressure in a tank in the boot.
The hydrogen gas undergoes a catalytic reaction inside the fuel cell when it reacts with oxygen - a form of reverse electrolysis – to generate energy in the form of electricity and water, or H2O.
The electricity generated drives motors in each of the wheels and the water simply evaporates into the air, or dribbles onto the road. 
Hugo Spowers, founder of the ecological car firm Riversimple insists hydrogen is actually safer than conventional petrol because it is contained in a pressurised tank. 
'Every aspect of the Rasa has been tailor-made and interrogated for lightness, strength, affordability and safety, to produce a vehicle that will maximise hydrogen as a fuel source and minimise pollution,' explained Mr Spowers.
He noted: 'Customers will never actually buy the car and experience the burden of depreciation - they will simply exchange or return it at the end of the ownership period.'
Experts behind the scheme include former motor industry and aerospace engineers from the likes of Aston Martin and Formula 1 teams.
The futuristic Rasa has been styled by Chris Reitz, one of Europe's leading car designers behind the revamped Fiat 500.
Weighing in at just 580kg - or nearly half that of a small car – the Rasa features a carbon composite chassis and only 18 moving parts in the entire powertrain.

When the vehicle is in motion, hydrogen passes through the small 8.5 kW fuel cell of the size currently used in forklift trucks. 
It combines with oxygen to form water and electricity to drive the motors positioned in each of the four wheels. 
More than 50 per cent of the motion energy produced under braking is recovered and turned into electricity to boost acceleration.
Mr Spowers said: 'The result is a range of up to 300 miles on 1.5 kg of hydrogen, estimated fuel economy equivalent to 250 mpg, and a top speed of 60mph.'
The firm behind the car hopes the first production models, which are built at a boutique factory producing around 5,000 a year, will be on the road by 2018 and is seeking more backers.









Nearly the best advert ever.


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 17, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Nearly the best advert ever.



It's second.  This is the best advert ever:


----------



## Caring1 (Feb 18, 2016)

Haven't BMW already produced a Hydrogen fuel cell car?


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 18, 2016)

Caring1 said:


> Haven't BMW already produced a Hydrogen fuel cell car?




yes , but they didnt do it in Llandrindod Wells....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-35595240


----------



## Beertintedgoggles (Feb 18, 2016)

I fully believe hydrogen fuel cells are the way to clean transportation.  Electric vehicles using batteries are a horrible idea.... many electrical grids are not able to take the load of charging (just look at the rolling brown outs in a lot of places in the summer just due to everyone's air conditioning being used), not to mention the environmental impact from creating the batteries (and the sometimes disposal of them... although yeah, they should be recycled to get the rare earth metals out).  In Southern California, I thought there were some hydrogen stations that get the electricity for electrolysis from solar panels making everything ridiculously green.  Harness the power of the photon from the sun, split water into H and O2, put in car.  The only issue is keeping the hydrogen from exploding in a wreck.  That stuff doesn't burn in a big fireball like gasoline does, it tends to explode and send a shock wave.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 18, 2016)

Beertintedgoggles said:


> That stuff doesn't burn in a big fireball like gasoline does, it tends to explode and send a shock wave.




When i made some hydrogen and blew it up in my backyard i had to promise my wife and kids that i would never do it again, it is incredibly explosive.


----------



## SnakeDoctor (Feb 18, 2016)

Mr Bean car of the Future


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 18, 2016)

@SnakeDoctor 

If the shield was taken off the rear wheels and the styling improved in that quarter, it would be quite a sporty looking machine.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 18, 2016)

Only its mother could love the design of that car.  Dat fugly.

Top speed: 60 MPH.  It can't even reach the speed limit on a lot of Interstates in the USA.

£500 per month is a LOT of dosh for what you get.  For that kind of money, you could get a very well equipped pickup or car on lease and have plenty of money to spare to buy fuel.

Ladies and gents, I think we're looking at the future DMC-12 (market failure leading to a bankrupt company).



Beertintedgoggles said:


> I fully believe hydrogen fuel cells are the way to clean transportation.  Electric vehicles using batteries are a horrible idea.... many electrical grids are not able to take the load of charging (just look at the rolling brown outs in a lot of places in the summer just due to everyone's air conditioning being used), not to mention the environmental impact from creating the batteries (and the sometimes disposal of them... although yeah, they should be recycled to get the rare earth metals out).  In Southern California, I thought there were some hydrogen stations that get the electricity for electrolysis from solar panels making everything ridiculously green.  Harness the power of the photon from the sun, split water into H and O2, put in car.  The only issue is keeping the hydrogen from exploding in a wreck.  That stuff doesn't burn in a big fireball like gasoline does, it tends to explode and send a shock wave.


If here were as many hydrogen vehicles on the road today as there were oil burners today, what would happen to atmospheric levels of oxygen?  The atmosphere would become a sync of oxygen just as it is for carbon dioxide from oil burners.

If there's going to be a massive market consumption of atmospheric oxygen, there needs to be a massive market production of atmospheric oxygen as well and a balance must be deliberately maintained.  Wator vapor is a greenhouse gas too.

Additionally, when the power used to perform electroylisis overwhelmingly comes from natural gas or coal and it takes a lot more energy to split compounds than it does to burn oil, it's not necessarily an enviromentally friendly technology until the grid changes.


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 18, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Only its mother could love the design of that car.  Dat fugly.



Kinda resmbles a modern, slightly enlongated version of the Citroen 2CV doesn't it?

But can it outrun a Ferrari traveling at 65?  Nope.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 18, 2016)

Yeah, the Citroen is 20% better by that measure.   I played with that car in Test Drive Unlimited 2 and OH MY GOD!   Veyron in 1st gear runs circles around it.

I know Ford and GM dabbledin hydrogen powered cars more than a decade ago and they've overwehlmingly abandoned the idea.  If this is seriously the best Rasa can do, it's no wonder they did.


----------



## Beertintedgoggles (Feb 18, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> If here were as many hydrogen vehicles on the road today as there were oil burners today, what would happen to atmospheric levels of oxygen? The atmosphere would become a sync of oxygen just as it is for carbon dioxide from oil burners.
> 
> If there's going to be a massive market consumption of atmospheric oxygen, there needs to be a massive market production of atmospheric oxygen as well and a balance must be deliberately maintained. Wator vapor is a greenhouse gas too.
> 
> Additionally, when the power used to perform electroylisis overwhelmingly comes from natural gas or coal and it takes a lot more energy to split compounds than it does to burn oil, it's not necessarily an enviromentally friendly technology until the grid changes.



??  True when creating the hydrogen from water the byproduct is oxygen but when the fuel cell creates the energy it does so by combining it back with hydrogen again.  So all is really happening is you are using hydrogen to transport the potential chemical energy (Energy + water = hydrogen + oxygen --> (fuel cell reverse electrolysis in car) = electricity for motors + water (hydrogen again attached to that nasty oxygen).   And if we want electric cars to take the burden of replacing fossil fuels then the electrical grid will already need to be tapped (using coal / natural gas / diesel plants).  It's true that wind and solar can't possibly power all the energy needs of the cars on the road today but at least with hydrogen fuel cells you don't need the batteries which are one of the biggest polluters in a "green" vehicle.  Also with hydrogen, you can fill up in minutes instead of hours with current battery technology.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Feb 18, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Only its mother could love the design of that car.  Dat fugly.
> 
> Top speed: 60 MPH.  It can't even reach the speed limit on a lot of Interstates in the USA.
> 
> ...



While I agree that hydrogen cell vehicles don't yet have legs, you've cited one of the most idiotic arguments I've ever seen to try to counter the point.


2H2O + energy = 2H2 + O2  ; the reaction in reverse is 2H2+O2 = 2H2O + energy
This is electrolysis in a nut shell.  That means that hydrogen produced by electrolysis wouldn't need to have massive oxygen generation, you would only need to run the process in reverse to produce water.  I haven't the slightest clue how you've come to the conclusion that we'd need oxygen generation, but it's fundamentally a misunderstanding of chemistry.  As far as atmospheric concentrations, the atmosphere is about 21% O2.  If the atmosphere has a mass of about 5.15*10^18 kg and if there are 6 billion vehicles (~1 per person) each one would have to permanently store more than about 620,000 kg of H2 us to alter the atmosphere by 1% (very quick math here, and being generous to the counter point).  That'd be (ballpark) 5.15*10^18 / 6*10^9 / 16 / 100.    

The whole argument that water is a green house gas is also flawed.  Let me be clear here, your own argument from another thread basically obliterates the logic here.  The water cycle has no problem dealing with excess water vapor, by precipitating it out as rain.  If we could theoretically have a hydrogen based economy the immediate impact wouldn't be greenhouse related, but massive increases in precipitation.  Whether that's a long term impact, I would prefer not to discuss (that's 100% speculative, and isn't particularly worth wasting time upon).  This is why I've asked for consistency in the past, because it's impossible to see you holding completely opposite beliefs and not seriously ask about objectivity.  In one instance any green house gas is an issue, in another only extreme gasses are even worth talking about.



What I'm whole heartedly behind is that electrolysis is fundamentally flawed as we do it now.  The power input is largely from "non-green" sources (coal, oil, and natural gas).  The process requires metals and purified water, both of which are insanely intense on natural resources and obfuscate their true cost.  None of this even touches on the fact that a pressurized hydrogen tank invariably leaks.  Storing hydrogen in something as long lived as a car is basically producing a time bomb.  Eventually you'll park in an enclosed area, the minor leakages will amount to catastrophic gas density, and your compressed hydrogen gas will be the bomb that kills you.  This is why we waste energy on a pilot light with gas stoves, and the same technology has yet to be demonstrated on consumer vehicles.

As far as the history, the people I knew who worked on the projects (and there are still a few "reach" programs that are active) know they're a joke.  Solar power can't provide power consistently enough to power electrolysis.  Natural gas and gas powering electrolysis, to power hydrogen engines is stupid because they're less efficient than just using a combustion engine.  Hydrogen is crazy dangerous, and they can't dope the gas with anything (like natural gas is doped with sulphur compounds) because it'd influence electrolysis.  For every solution you develop there's another fundamental hurdle that is nearly impossible to avoid.  The only solution I've ever seen with any promise is a single piece carbon storage matrix, that stores hydrogen.  The thing is that the prototype for that system costs more than most houses.  At a certain point we just don't have the technology to overcome problems.  Hydrogen fuel cells are currently that technology, promising but too expensive to be a real option.  

I'd applaud the Rasa, but it's another good idea that is so fundamentally flawed that it's a joke.  Next we'll see some idiot claiming that the solar roadways will power it.  Please, somebody suggest that next.  It'd be like a turd sandwich topped with a gall stone olive.


----------



## Beertintedgoggles (Feb 18, 2016)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> I'd applaud the Rasa, but it's another good idea that is so fundamentally flawed that it's a joke. Next we'll see some idiot claiming that the solar roadways will power it. Please, somebody suggest that next. It'd be like a turd sandwich topped with a gall stone olive.


Piezoelectric roadways will power it....


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 18, 2016)

Water vapor is only precipitated when the atmospheric conditions allow for it.  Here in Iowa, we can get very long stretches of very high humidity because there's no systems passing through to remove it.  During those periods, water vapor contributes hugely to warming.  Greater than 90% of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor.

What a hydrogen powered future does is exhange oxygen (not a greenhouse gas) for water vapor (a greenhouse compound).  How is that better than the current model?

The majority of the O2 produced from electroylsis would have to be vented to the atmosphere because it's effectively a waste product.  If it is not vented to the atmosphere, it compounds the problem of atmospheric O2 decreasing.

The US Strategic Oil Reserve (an example of hoarding a fuel) holds 650,000,000 m3 of oil.  Crude oil has a density of about 900 kg/m3.  You do the math; it's a massive amount.  Imagine storing the equivlent in hydrogen.  Of course that's impractical due to safety considerations but never doubt human ambitions.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Feb 18, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Water vapor is only precipitated when the atmospheric conditions allow for it.  Here in Iowa, we can get very long stretches of very high humidity because there's no systems passing through to remove it.  During those periods, water vapor contributes hugely to warming.  Greater than 90% of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor.
> 
> What a hydrogen powered future does is exhange oxygen (not a greenhouse gas) for water vapor (a greenhouse compound).  How is that better than the current model?
> 
> ...



I don't even know where to start.  Perhaps going back to basic science is the way to address this.


A part of me wants to get preachy, and start covering 5th grade basic science.  Dewpoint, humidity, and the water cycle would be great.  Another part of me wants to cover chemistry; partial fraction of water, density, nucleation, and the like.  I could give you another page of scientific answers as to why a landlocked region of relatively flat topography gets muggy in the summer time, but if I did that I'd be assuming you were an idiot.  If you don't understand that, then I am just going to laugh about our previous discussions.

My last tangent could be about the diffusion of extremely high concentration materials into much lower concentration areas (such as 100% heated water vapor into an atmosphere less than a fraction of a percent water vapor).



I'm not expending that effort.  Here's what I'm going to say.  We have oceans.  We have the Great Lakes.  The proposal for hydrogen fuel cells is taking the most abundant chemical compound on the Earth's surface (H2O), converting it into the most abundant compound in the universe (H2) and the second most abundant component of our atmosphere (O2), then using the chemical potential energy at will to access the stored energy.  As O2 is 21% of the atmosphere, and you carry around the H2, there's no problems.  Venting O2 after electrolysis might create areas where O2 concentrations are temporarily higher, but the atmosphere is already 21% O2.  It's like conductors are in the tech industry.  You add electrons at one end, and take them from the other end of a conductor.  Electron speed inside the conductor is very slow, yet copper functionally allows data to be sent along its length much quicker than the electron flow.  Likewise, I might burn O2 over 20 miles, despite adding all of it back into the atmosphere in one place.  I'm not afraid that driving home one day I'll suddenly hit a pocket of air where the concentration of O2 is 0 and choke.

Let's say that your point about storing Hydrogen was tenable.  The amount of water in the Great Lakes is 5439 cubic miles.  Tell me, is 5439 cubic miles greater than 650,000,000 cubic meters....the answer is yes by a comically wide margin.

Let's say what you actually meant to ask is how would we have energy reserves.  That'd be a viable question, assuming you were completely against nuclear energy.  Between wind, solar, and nuclear energy (with the vast majority focused on nuclear) we'd be able to, on demand, convert safe water into usable fuel virtually on demand.  The principle of an oil reserve is preposterous, when your fuel can literally be made at will.  We kill two birds with one stone here; we remove storage of a dangerous substance and we get to focus more efforts on providing clean water for the populous.  



What about greenhouse gasses?  Again, you've managed to make a backward point here.  How do you think fossil fuels work now?  Atmospheric oxygen is added to hydrocarbons, producing CO2 and H2O.  Octane, the component you want in gasoline, is C8H18.  Note that Octane has no O2, so fossil fuels generate the greenhouse gas CO2 and H2O.  Your railing against hydrogen fuel cells is stupid, if you embrace a fossil fuel right now as a "better" solution (which I actually do, under the caveat of "right now").  Really, 620,000 kg of H2 for everybody would be more than enough fuel to power the car for a lifetime. 

But what about energy density.  Heck, fossil fuels store more chemical potential energy than hydrogen and oxygen.  Wow, that'd be a viable point if you converted chemical energy into mechanical or electrical energy during combustion.  Surprisingly, you don't.  Combustion uses the pressure from super heated gasses to produce mechanical energy.  They take in cold gasses, and spew hot gasses at above atmospheric pressure.  This effectively means that even with a higher chemical energy per unit volume of mass that fossil fuels produce power so inefficiently that Hydrogen is capable of the same effective energy output, even if actual energy output is far lower.



Let's be real here, parts of your argument is face palmingly stupid even if we agree on the conclusion.  I honestly tried to understand where you're coming from, but if you apply the smallest amount of logic the points all break down into an unintelligible mass.  I'd continue to argue the point, but if you don't get it yet a page of math will only make me desire grain alcohol to stop the pain.  I'm done providing three page answers, because nobody cares.  I'm done defending my points with concrete examples and logic.  The last few weeks here have taught me that putting forward that much effort is rewarded by some jag-off telling you that you should condense everything into two sentences.


----------



## xorbe (Feb 18, 2016)

Hello there, original Honda Insight.


----------



## dorsetknob (Feb 18, 2016)

Looks like it was designed by a team of welshmen and sheep who owned a citroen ds
and ate too many of those funny Mushrooms
pic citroen ds


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 18, 2016)

In the atmosphere, if oxygen isn't bound to hydrogen, it is bound to carbon.  Before plant life existed en masse like it does today, carbondioxide was in abundance while O2 was scarse.  Electroalysis is not something that occurs very often in nature (lightning strikes are about it).  H20 predominently stays H20 in nature.  We're talking about taking something that is abundant in liquid and solid forms breaking it down into its respective components and then recombining them to form it's least common natural state: gaseous.  That's going to have an impact on the atmosphere because it becomes a sink for human activity, just like it is now with carbon dioxide and methane.

The mass of Earth's atmosphere is 5,100,000,000,000,000,000 kg.  There are 22,712,470,704,000,000 kg worth of water in the Great Lakes.  225 Great Lakes and you have the _entire_ atmosphere.  That should put water versus atmosphere into perspective.

My point is that we're doing the same thing we've done (treating the atmosphere as a sink) but just substituting one greenhouse gas for another.  In my book, that's not much of an improvement.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Feb 18, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> In the atmosphere, if oxygen isn't bound to hydrogen, it is bound to carbon.  Before plant life existed en masse like it does today, carbondioxide was in abundance while O2 was scarse.  Electroalysis is not something that occurs very often in nature (lightning strikes are about it).  H20 predominently stays H20 in nature.  We're talking about taking something that is abundant in liquid and solid forms breaking it down into its respective components and then recombining them to form it's least common natural state: gaseous.  That's going to have an impact on the atmosphere because it becomes a sink for human activity, just like it is now with carbon dioxide and methane.
> 
> The mass of Earth's atmosphere is 5,100,000,000,000,000,000 kg.  There are 22,712,470,704,000,000 kg worth of water in the Great Lakes.  225 Great Lakes and you have the _entire_ atmosphere.  That should put water versus atmosphere into perspective.
> 
> My point is that we're doing the same thing we've done (treating the atmosphere as a sink) but just substituting one greenhouse gas for another.  In my book, that's not much of an improvement.



You're being an idiot, or a troll.  I'm honestly not sure which.  I can't be any more clear, because you can't make one coherent point before spinning off into crazy town.  Your "point" is as substantial as aerogel.  I'll bold the response that is most relevant, so you can skip reading all of this.


*You asked about the petroleum reserve, and said that the strategic reserve of fuel was this certain size.  I told you that the Great Lakes could be converted into several times the volume of the strategic reserve.*  You've now decided that this means I proposed turning the entire Great Lakes into gas.  You're either an idiot trying to make me wrong by saying something patently stupid, or trolling.  You somehow missed that part where I said that doing so would be stupid, because we've literally already got the material safely stored in the Great Lakes.  *You don't store volatile hydrogen, you store harmless water and make it fuel as needed.*  The amount of Uranium required to match the energy stored in all that oil would fit into a single football field.

You then go on to prove that 225 times the mass of the Great Lakes is our atmosphere...  *Why?*  The only way that would matter is if our planet was hot enough to have a water vapor atmosphere.  Of course, that would mean humanity couldn't have evolved, and that metals would likely not form because the aqueous atmosphere would oxidize them so fast that it wouldn't be funny.  This tangent is so far beyond any sense of reason that I don't know what to say.


Now, let's veer back into the worse parts of crazy town, because you really are getting there.  What does a combustion engine do, chemically?  Let's assume octane is gasoline, and find the equation:
*2C8H18 + 25O2 = 16CO2 + 18H2O *
This means that a car currently produces two greenhouse gasses, CO2 and H2O.  What does hydrogen produce, H2O.  You're not trading one greenhouse gas for another, you're eliminating one of the greenhouse gasses from the equation entirely.  If that isn't clear enough, the impact of water vapor is literally so small that most reputable sources don't provide a value for its impact http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/ClimateChange/Pages/Greenhouse Effect.aspx.  *What you're telling me, in short, is removing CO2 from the output list is somehow going to not only not be a good thing, but that the water vapor from hydrogen gas undergoing reverse electrolysis is actually magically more impactfull than the heated water produced by combustion.  WTF?*


Jesus Christ, you've got to be intentionally obtuse about the water to believe it's a really substantial greenhouse gas.  I'm not sure if this is politically motivated double speak, but you can't really believe that gasseous H2O can be in the air with any real frequency, can you?  It makes up what, 0.001% of the atmosphere?  If it reaches saturation it simply falls out of the sky, and enters the oceans.  *Seriously, this was 5th grade for me http://water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleatmosphere.html. * Water isn't of great concern because its highly polarized nature, and surprisingly high boiling temperature, meaning that it can't stay suspended in our atmosphere very well.



Please stop preaching history and incorrect science as though they were gospel.  Oxygen doesn't selectively bond to carbon and hydrogen magically.  If it did, I'd love to see you breathe.  Those balanced equations earlier show how the process occurs.  Electrochemistry is funny that way.  Bringing up the history of Earth is an immensely stupid cop-out, when you don't have a viable argument today.  Electrolysis would be conducted by humans, which means balanced chemistry.  The hydrogen and oxygen is separated by some method (again, one of the hurdles that hasn't fully been addressed), and the resulting two gasses would be vented and stored respectively.  How the process naturally occurs is a pointless discussion, and you asking to have it is perplexing.  *Again, 620,000kg of H2 per person would have to be stored in order to change atmospheric composition from 21 to 22% O2.*  You could argue that the additional dry air would force a greater evaporation of water, because % composition of vapor would decrease slightly, but instead of that you argue that somehow reverse electrolysis produces water and that hydrocarbon combustion doesn't.  I can't even understand how such a stupid thing could come from your head without immediately inciting a face palm.


If you'd like to come to the table, bring something worth it.  I've managed to interpret your ideas, and give you the benefit of doubt (really, asking to bottle up hydrogen gas as a direct comparison to a limited resource like petroleum is insane).  What I've received in turn was a bastardization of my statements, the likes of which is nearly insulting.  Allow me a final response, you want hydrogen to be fundamentally broken.  To believe that is to hold an idea so stupid as to relegate you to idiocy.  Hydrogen power is not fundamentally broken, it's a technology that is better in most ways than what we have now, yet the technological and engineering hurdles make it immature and incomplete today.  I called it fundamentally flawed earlier, because they have not yet addressed some underlying issues.  Flawed means you can improve, broken means something cannot be put together into anything useful.  I chose words carefully, for this exact reason.  If you want to bastardize a reason why hydrogen is flawed today, despite the valid concerns that can be raised, fine.  Just don't use bogus math and science to make this seem like a broken idea.  If there was a viable (read: safe and long lived) and cost effective hydrogen storage device then tomorrow there'd be plenty of hydrogen cars on the road.  


So we're clear, the difference here is the same as cell phones had in the 90's.  You either get a brick, or have 10 minutes of calling.  Once lithium replaced nickle cadmium everything changed.  Hydrogen needs a new storage technology, and it is viably better than combustion in every single way.  The joke amongst those people I cited earlier is who'll blow up a prototype first.  They laugh because there's no way to sell a hydrogen car if they can't insure that the cars are at least as safe as what we have now.  If I walked into GM tomorrow, and demonstrated a stable and cost effective hydrogen storage device, those people would be developing the tooling for the production hydrogen cars before the day ended.  They'd have the first production models into dealerships within a month.  Being able to say 0 emissions, and effectively tell the EPA to shove it, would mean the end of the combustion engine in the US.  Right now, the projects are shelved because storing hydrogen is an unanswered problem.


----------

