Since you seem to find my citing referances of professionals as BS... please list your qualifications for Chemical Engineering...... what do YOU do for a living??? Of course you will probably lie.....

It costs 5,000 USD to manufacture a fuel cell engine.... that is not really all that sky high now is it....

I've been through advanced Organic, and I suspect your knowledge of chemistry is merely that of 'parroting of cites.'

It probably is..... regardless he is far more concerned with making me look stupid than dealing with the facts and the topic of debate.....

IE his "liquid gasoline does not burn" statement---- take away liquid gasoline from the equation and you no longer have the gaseous vapors produced by the hydrocarbons which estimated are C8H18---- as such you will not have combustion.... there is a reason they call gasoline a flammable LIQUID...... without the liquid you do not have fuel.... without the fuel you do not have combustion.. hence---- gasoline burns..... of course if you want to be anal and suggest that the liquid is stored in an airtight container.. IE no oxygen is present you could stipulate that it is not flammable.... yet it does still remain that even in that state it has the potential to be so..... hence it is still a flammable LIQUID.....

Only gases are flammable. THIS is common knowledge in chemistry. It was a trick question to get you to reveal your level of knowledge of basic chemistry. Mission accomplished, as it were.

Cite.

A car is more than an engine. An engine's cost is more than the initial outlay.

Do you have a factual rebuttal to offer or just this trolling?

I really can't take credit for that.

It is called being anal..... gasoline is a flammable liquid.... kerosene is a flammable liquid..... there are many flammable liquids..... yes they produce the gasses which produce the ability when mixxed with oxygen to combust yet without those liquids to produce said gasses you would not have the potential for combustion.... but all you have proven with your above statements is that you are far more concerned with providing your own self evidence of my stupidity..... sorry to say that you have not done so....

try an experiment.... put some gasoline in a small bowl.. take it outside.... toss a match into it.... if the match goes out quenched by the liquid I will bow to your most worthy knowledge that gasoline is not a flammable LIQUID..... if it goes boom I am proven right.....

Why should I cite... so yuo can offer more of your "parroting" statements..... you certainly do not give credence to my cites so I will not waste my time doing so.....

Are you contemplating your answer??

How about non sequitur, its a fantastic rebuttal.

You miss the point. Well, one point was to check on your knowledge level. That point we see.

The other point is that if you can store the fuel in LIQUID form, that is generally safer than if you're forced to store it in gaseous form, under high pressure. So the "only gases burn" item was not pedantry, but is important in this discussion.

Yes, you're right, your post was non sequitur. Thanks for being candid.

Since you're assuming my deceit up front, is there any point?

Because your cites are pie in the sky hopes, and none address the monstrous cost and logistical issue of replacing hundreds of millions of vehicles of one kind -- with the fueling, repairing, and parts infrastructure -- with another, entirely different, kind of vehicle.

None addresses engineering concerns: safety (above and beyond making sweeping claims), longevity, repair issues, reliability -- and all these factors not just of the vehicles but the whole support structure.

Not to mention that the process of MAKING the H2 itself is inefficient and costly, energy-wise, thus dictating a LOT more nuclear plants to be made. I'm in favor of nuclear power, but that's a lot of plant management, waste disposal and other issues going completely unaddressed. And solar isn't a facile answer here.

Switching an advanced civilization from one fuel source to another is a huge undertaking, and all the risks and details are being ignored and handwaved away.

And the entire basis for the argument is that a handful of prototypes are being made. But technological difficulties are due to the scale. Anything can be made to work, briefly, in laboratories and in demo units. The real engineering and manufacturing difficulties emerge when you have to make, support, repair, fuel, and maintain a hundred million units. Those issues come with scale. History is replete with prototypes that exist for decades before they become economical to deploy.

These are basic engineering concerns, and as long as your puff piece articles ignore or pooh-pooh those concerns, they can be dismissed out of hand as frivolous.

All fallicies, already been exploded.

(Sodium burns in water)

Total none sequitur and because you don't agree with me, a leftist statement.

Self documenting.

15Billion$$ would start it on its way..... even though Diesel is the life blood of our economy(((IE--- almost all cargo within the United States is shipped via Semi-Trucks including the all important groceries))) we only have 5,000 truck stops and less than 1 in 6 gasoline stations have diesel..... we already have hydrogen fueling stations in place in california and new york..... which are fabulous experiments doing very well.... Auto manufacturers are poised to start production on feasable models and some predict that by 2010 they will be mass producing hydrogen powered vehicles which are hybrids...... kind of like the gas-electric hybrids right now in existence.... also fuel cell technology is not new as I havwe stated..... the first fuel cell was built in the late 1800's.....