Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Transportation Power Technology

Fuel-Cell Car Racing Series Aims To Spur Green Motoring 254

Posted by timothy
from the li-ion-batteries-of-course dept.
Anonymous Cow writes "The world's first international fuel-cell powered motor racing series kicked off in Rotterdam over the weekend. The organisers hope that 'Formula Zero,' like Formula 1, can become a forum for competing technology as much as anything else, helping green consumer cars to become better."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Fuel-Cell Car Racing Series Aims To Spur Green Motoring

Comments Filter:
  • Not pompous enough (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Swizec (978239) on Tuesday August 26, 2008 @09:13AM (#24750203) Homepage
    People aren't going to take green technology seriously until it wins in rally or 24 hour le mans or somethign similarly awesome to win. Having to make a special competition just for green cars seems like, well, these cars are cool and all, but just not actually competitive with already existant technology. This isn't good for the public image.
    • by jamesh (87723) on Tuesday August 26, 2008 @09:18AM (#24750263)

      People aren't going to take green technology seriously until it wins in rally or 24 hour le mans or somethign similarly awesome to win.

      or until they actually drive a electric sports car. I think they'll change their minds then :)

      • by Gordonjcp (186804)

        or until they actually drive a electric sports car. I think they'll change their minds then :)

        Whoosh splutter... 0-60 in 3 seconds, and then the battery goes flat.

        Yeah. Great. Tell you what, I'll stick with my conventional petrol-engined car that gets 32mpg and can travel for 500 miles on a tank that takes a minute to fill. Come and talk to me when you've got the range and ease of "refuelling" of existing vehicles.

        • ...would the gallon of gas have to reach before you'd reconsider something other than that? $10 a gallon, $15? And how about rationing (which I remember occurring before), if it ever got that that, say you could only get a few gallons a week due to some expanded mideast war disrupting huge amounts of the global supply? The reason I ask is I see this sort of sentiment a lot, the 500 mile range drawback, but I am wondering how often people actually drive that sort of distance on a regular basis, say at least

          • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

            by Gordonjcp (186804)

            I'm in the UK, so I already pay around $10 per gallon - which isn't a lot of money at all. I really can't understand why USians are crying about petrol at $5 per gallon, at all. I don't use my car for commuting, because it's much quicker and easier to get to work on the train. I typically drive a few thousand miles per month, most of it long runs where there is very little public transport. I have absolutely no need of a car that can only do very short distances around town, or accelerate from 0-60 in t

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by fprintf (82740)

              You answered your own question from a point of ignorance. You can't understand why USians are crying about petrol at $5 per US gallon because I don't think you understand what it is like to live here. #1, most of the US population does not live within metropolitan areas well served by public transportation. Most of us *can't* put the car in the garage because it is easier or quicker on the train. The trains don't exist. Moving from the suburbs/country to the city is not easy. It is much easier to whine ab

              • by Gordonjcp (186804)

                If you only need a car that can accelerate from 0 - 90 in a reasonable time (why 90? Don't you know that traveling at a slower speed is more fuel efficient? How wasteful of you!) then I propose that we need no more new cars. Heck, even a VW Golf from 1978 had that type of performance and got 35 miles per gallon.

                I don't much care about fuel efficiency, I care about not taking all day to get there. Funny you should say "1978", though, my daily driver is either (depending on which is more suitable for the jo

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by lymond01 (314120)

              Yes, the UK has a well-developed mass transit system, small towns with a variety of stores close together, and walkable cities.

              The US has residential suburbs a couple miles from the supermarket which is a couple miles from downtown which is a couple miles from Walmart. You can consider us well ahead of the curve once Star Trek transporters become the normal mode of travel.

            • by hedwards (940851)

              First off the term is Americans.

              Second off, the UK if you include all the land is smaller than Wyoming or Oregon. If you're just limited to just Great Britain, that's smaller than the state I live in. With a population density of roughly 3x WA.

              Suggesting that when we're paying $4 plus for a gallon of gas that we have those sorts of alternatives, or that putting those sorts of alternatives into place is reasonable, neglects the fact that it isn't reasonable.

              The cost of running the transit systems in major ci

        • by jacquesm (154384)

          oh, they'll come and talk to you alright, but first they have to do this bit called development. And since this is 'news for nerds' and not 'topgear' I think it has its place here.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by objekt (232270)

        http://www.teslamotors.com/ [teslamotors.com]
        0-60 mph 2.9 seconds
        256 mpg equivalent
        220 miles per charge
        less than 2 cents/mile

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by theM_xl (760570)

          I can't help but note they carefully avoid answering how long it actually takes to refill the batteries beyond 'over night'. That's not going to help much if I find the battery's low when I want to be at home for dinner and find the battery's a bit low.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Endo13 (1000782)

            Remember when cordless drill batteries took an hour or two for a full charge? Maybe not, but I do. Now you can get chargers that do a full charge in less than 15 minutes.

            Typically technology has to start gaining some popularity before there's going to be these types of improvements made.

            Sure, it'll take an overnight charge for now, but that will improve with time. I'd guess they can probably get it down to an hour or two within the next couple years. That's still not so short that you can just stop at a cha

          • by nospam007 (722110)

            >I can't help but note they carefully avoid answering how long it actually takes to refill the batteries beyond 'over night'. That's not going to help much if I find the battery's low when I want to be at home for dinner and find the battery's a bit low.

            Well that's what Ipod and Iphone users do and they don't complain.

            I prefer to switch batteries and put in a fresh one when my phone gets low, but Apple fans don't seem to give a shit so it's a business decision that could work for cars as well I guess.

    • by Tungbo (183321)

      At some point, they will be good enough to compete in regular Formula One race. THAT would really raise awareness. OTOH, to really promote competing technology, the race should include all vehicle designs with zero on-street emission. That would include electric, flywheel or whatever.

    • How about when all Formula one cars get full hybrid powertrains (mechanical regenerative breaking) in 2013? Or how about when BMW and Honda implement hybridisation in 2009, 4 years before the deadline, giving head to head competition between hybrid and conventional drivelines?

      Here's something for you to chew on - people already are taking green technology seriously. Less so in the US than other places, but even that said the majority of the 1,000,000 Priuses sold so far are in the US.

      • by Swizec (978239)
        And yet Priuses aren't all that awesome because of how they're manufactured all over the world and assembled someplace where everything comes by wasting huge amounts of carbofuels.

        The problem, I think, isn't that people aren't taking these green vehicles seriously, it's that they're doing it just because they're frugal and that's the wrong reason if you ask me. Buying an expensive car just because it's frugal doesn't equate to buying an expensive car because it helps the environment.
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by adpsimpson (956630)

          Very true. It's been said that a Prius is delivered with the carbon-emissions equivalent of 20,000 miles already on the clock, due the the extremely high technology and manufacturing costs.

          Assuming it uses 2/3 of the fuel, this 'debt' is only paid off once 40k miles are on the clock. And at 50-60k, you'll need to replace the batteries, at a cost of around $10,000 (and who knows how many carbon-miles that's equivalent to).

          So yes, the Prius isn't the green saviour people maybe think it is. But it is being tak

    • by El Yanqui (1111145) on Tuesday August 26, 2008 @09:26AM (#24750353) Homepage

      People aren't going to take green technology seriously until it wins in rally or 24 hour le mans or somethign similarly awesome to win.

      Or until Jeremy Clarkson uses one to ride over a delicate ecosystem.

    • by Hektor_Troy (262592) on Tuesday August 26, 2008 @09:34AM (#24750469)

      Well, diesel engines have already won Le Mans three years in a row (only been allowed for three years) despite having a smaller fuel tank than the gasoline cars, yet the public opinion is that diesel engines are useless for any kind of fast car and especially race cars.

      So no, winning Le Mans in a "green" car is hardly going to change the image.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by jacquesm (154384)

        Go take a ride in one of bmw's top of the line turbo d's, it'll make you cry. A friend of mine has one and I've *never* ever been in a car that had more torque, a shorter 0-100 time or top speed.

      • by jambox (1015589)
        Yeah they're massively popular in Europe, two thirds of all Audis are sold with TDIs IIRC. I can't remember why the US has lagged on Diesel, I think it's something to do with (bizarrely) emissions standards.

        They do have all the torque if you look at the PEAK figure, however the curve tends to be worse and they often don't rev as high. Therefore you usually get bugger all torque at lower revs, then when you hit the boost you get a huge surge of the twisty stuff, then you've hit the limiter. All within a n
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by RingDev (879105)

          They do have all the torque if you look at the PEAK figure, however the curve tends to be worse and they often don't rev as high. Therefore you usually get bugger all torque at lower revs, then when you hit the boost you get a huge surge of the twisty stuff, then you've hit the limiter. All within a narrow rev band. Cue lots of changing gear.

          I drive a diesel ('06 VW Golf TDI) and I am pleased with it's performance. At 45mpg average, it out performs pretty much every other compact car on the market off the line.

          As for the Torque curve, it's perfect for road use. I mean, honestly, how often does anyone see 5k RPMs when driving on the street? The 1.9l TDI pulls strong from 1800 to 4000 RPMs, which is well above what any normal driver is going to be doing and is just fine for spirited driving. Sure, I'd love to cruise around in a Lotus, but running

        • by hardburn (141468)

          "Emissions" isn't just CO2. It's carbon monoxide and nitrates, too. Nitrates cause smog, and CO is a far worse greenhouse gas than CO2. Diesels have little hope of ever meeting California emissions.

          Good news is that with direct injection, we could see gas engines with the compression ratios of diesels. Combined with a flywheel hybrid system, this should kick those pompus Prius owners straight in the teeth.

        • They do have all the torque if you look at the PEAK figure, however the curve tends to be worse and they often don't rev as high. Therefore you usually get bugger all torque at lower revs, then when you hit the boost you get a huge surge of the twisty stuff, then you've hit the limiter. All within a narrow rev band. Cue lots of changing gear.

          On the contrary diesels have massive low rev torque. Look at this graph for the torque of a 2.5 diesel [fordscorpio.co.uk] against one for a 2.0 litre petrol [fordscorpio.co.uk] engine. One of the joys of driving a diesel is that you don't have to change down when going slow on an upward gradient.

          • On the contrary diesels have massive low rev torque. Look at this graph for the torque of a 2.5 diesel against one for a 2.0 litre petrol engine.
            Well, not all petrol engines are created equal, thing is depending on which you prefer low end torque or a high rev limit you can change the bore and the stroke at a particular displacement to maximize one or the other. Of course it is also cheating comparing one engine that is 1.25 times the size of another.

    • These are stunts, nothing more than to attract some advertising dollars. You would be lucky to even hear about it on page 2 of the sports section.

      People will take green technology seriously under two events.
      1. Non-green sources skyrocket in price
      2. Its unobtrusive.

      More of the latter than anything else. The way you get people to go green is to make it a non-event. You just quietly swap out the technology.

    • Having to make a special competition just for green cars seems like, well, these cars are cool and all, but just not actually competitive with already existant technology.

      You could say the very same about different classes of IC engine racing cars in general, though, as they can vary a lot from road-car technology, too.

      In the RC model world, electric has taken over in terms of top performance, and now we have decent electric go-karts, soon they will get big enough for road-car use.

  • Zero Emissions? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by allcar (1111567) on Tuesday August 26, 2008 @09:14AM (#24750223)
    Do fuel cells really produce no carbon emissions?
    Granted, the cars themselves should produce nothing but water, but how do we produce the hydrogen? Does that not require energy? I simply don't believe that all of the hydrogen plants are powered by nuclear or hydroelectric energy.
    I am not against these ideas at all, but let's not get carried away. I've no doubt that fuel cells are much cleaner than internal combustion, but provide the real facts, please.
    • Re:Zero Emissions? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Swizec (978239) on Tuesday August 26, 2008 @09:26AM (#24750357) Homepage
      Why did this get moded Troll? Concerns over just how much energy is being spent in actually PRODUCING these types of green cars are very real and shouldn't be censored just because they go against the current mob mentality.

      My sources may be wrong, but I've read that producing green cars is more wasteful than they end up saving. For now at least, but if we ignore this issue improvement will never be made.
      • Someone got mod-points on a bad hair day and has gone all over this thread with the troll-mod; there is no way the gp, who asked a well worked, polite and very important question, is trolling.

        Please, moderators - "troll" is for posts like "OMGZERS L00zers tihs is teh craps ur all so dum sheeple." Not for "Interesting technology, but how much impact will it really have?"

        • by genner (694963)

          Please, moderators - "troll" is for posts like "OMGZERS L00zers tihs is teh craps ur all so dum sheeple." Not for "Interesting technology, but how much impact will it really have?"

          Yes please mod those as flamebait.......I keed,

      • Re:Zero Emissions? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by The_Wilschon (782534) on Tuesday August 26, 2008 @10:43AM (#24751265) Homepage
        A large amount of the carbon footprint of producing so-called zero emission transportation comes from not yet having zero emission transportation. That is, shipping lines still use diesel engines. Once we've got fuel cell or whatever transportation nailed down, shipping the parts all over the world to assemble more fuel cell cars won't incur such a huge carbon cost because the shipping lines will also be zero emission.

        The other big carbon cost is of course the production of the hydrogen, which is generally AFAIK done using electrolysis, powered by whatever power plants happen to be around, most of them high emission plants. Changing this is not so directly tied to producing the fuel cell cars, but once this issue is fixed, fuel cell (or whatever) cars will approach much more closely to zero emissions.

        In short, the carbon footprint of producing the cars and the fuel is in part a separate issue. Fixing the cars themselves will probably come first, and the rest will follow.
    • by neokushan (932374)

      Does it really matter? You have a point in that carbon must be generated somewhere because at some point there's a coal or gas plant feeding energy into the national grid, which may be used to create a fuel cell, but that energy is going to be produced regardless as to what it's used for.
      At least this technology can ultimately replace a lot of devices that produce a lot of carbon, narrowing down the areas you have to target in order to solve the (supposedly) looming energy crisis.
      Imagine 10 or 20 years down

    • Excuse me, but every time I see any sort of hydrogen powered (burning it or using it for some sort of chemical reactions) car, the source of hydrogen starts off with fossil fuels or using other forms of energy to extract hydrogen from water. We should be careful that we're not causing more pollution in one area just to lessen some in another area - maybe having a net increase in greenhouse gases.

      We all know the BS about ethanol and how it takes more energy (all oil) to just to grow the corn than you get fr

      • by ceoyoyo (59147)

        Hydrogen fuel is an enabling technology. Right now we can produce all our electricity with no fossil fuels if we want to, but transportation, particularly personal transportation is a big problem. Our current expectations for a car pretty much require fuel, and gasoline or diesel are really convenient fuels. Hydrogen is a somewhat less convenient fuel but it CAN be emission free, once we fix our electricity generation.

        So right now we can't support our current lifestyle without burning fossil fuels. With

    • Re:Zero Emissions? (Score:5, Informative)

      by adpsimpson (956630) on Tuesday August 26, 2008 @09:34AM (#24750471)

      Most commercially viable fuel cells contain a first stage catalyst which break down a hydro-carbon fuel (petrol or similar) to produce hydrogen and CO2. Obviously for racing, the extra weight of the first stage is avoided by loading up on pre-prepared hydrogen.

      The difference in emissions is from the efficiency of the whole system - somewhere under 35% for a conventional IC engine drivetrain, and around 85% upwards for a hydrocarbon/fuel cell drivetrain. Meaning far more than twice the power delivered carbon emissions created.

      Longer term, it is easy to replace the first stage with out-of-car hydrogen generation, if and when clean hydrogen becomes cheap and easy to transport. The second stage (the actual fuel cell) remains unchanged.

      As with all technologies, it is an incremental process. However, a >50% cut in emissions is a breakthrough - once cells become viable, stable and maintenance free for long term use (still a number of years off), they will be everywhere. In the mean time, the electric drivetrain components are already being implemented, and constantly improved, in full electric cars and hybrid electric vehicles.

      • Additionally, methanol is increasingly being used in portable as well as automotive technologies as a fuel. Methanol reformers are by now a well-understood technology, and methanol has much less CO2 emission (to energy) than conventional fuel.
        Most importantly, methanol can be generated from biomass, hence creating a zero-emission cycle.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by caffeineboy (44704)

        None of the existing fuel cell vehicle prototypes work this way.

        This idea, properly called on-board reforming, was floated as a way to get around the problem of lack of fueling infrastructure. Unfortunately reformers are fussy, high temperature devices that are not good at load-following.

        Your efficiency numbers are way off too. IC engine vehicles are about 15% efficient and fuel cell vehicles are about 40~50% efficient on a well-to-wheels basis.

        One of the problems is that hydrogen has a very low energy de

    • Re:Zero Emissions? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by vertinox (846076) on Tuesday August 26, 2008 @09:44AM (#24750593)

      Granted, the cars themselves should produce nothing but water, but how do we produce the hydrogen? Does that not require energy? I simply don't believe that all of the hydrogen plants are powered by nuclear or hydroelectric energy.

      Well here is the deal:

      1. Even if you have to use a coal power plant to produce the hydrogen, its extremely more efficient than using petroleum in terms of releasing CO2 in the atmosphere.

      2. And speaking of, this also means we don't have to rely on foreign oil.

      As a small time investor, one of the odd things I've noticed is that currently the Brazilian economy is booming. Most Brazilian stocks are going through the roof. Now it could be that the US and China just aren't doing as good as they used to, but it also dawned on my that Brazil has almost ceased the need to import energy from foreign sources due to its aggressive ethanol campaign.

      Now, IMO ethanol isn't the solution for the US, but anything that reduces the need to pay foreign sources for energy simply keeps the money in the US rather than someone overseas.

      Can't be a bad thing.

      • by zmooc (33175)

        "Even if you have to use a coal power plant to produce the hydrogen, its extremely more efficient than using petroleum in terms of releasing CO2 in the atmosphere."

        I don't think that's true due to the massive energy-losses in transporting the hydrogen. In reality, both approaches are about equal with regard to the amount of CO2 being released. Both are incredibly inefficient at about 25-30% efficiency.

        Currently nearly all hydrogen is made from natural gas so you'll still be dependent on foreign fossile fuel

    • ...or is at least using typical troll tactics. I've seen this before every time a discussion about electric cars or alternative fuels comes up; a clean(er) technology comes along and suddenly it's held to a higher standard.

      So here's the answer: of course you CAN use polluting or non-polluting energy to produce hydrogen.

      From http://www.nrel.gov/learning/eds_hydro_production.html [nrel.gov]

      Hydrogen Production

      The simplest and most common element, hydrogen is all around us, but always as a compound with other elements. To

      • but the questions become: what problem are we trying to address by using hydrogen in vehicles, and is this the best way to address this problem?

        If you are addressing the problem of "criteria" pollutants (CO, NOx, SOx, HC) this is a very good way to move the pollution away from the tailpipe.

        Yes, hydrogen CAN be produced all the ways that you mention above, but IS it? The answer for now is no. Most hydrogen is produced by steam reformation of natural gas. The above methods are either much more expensive (

    • by scorp1us (235526)

      Please see image at this page [nanosolar.com]

      For a breakdown of efficiencies.

      Of course, being Nanosolar, they will have a solar slant, but their thin-film technology is supposed to be light on manufacturing costs. Given that you can go solar direct to drive or battery, why would you want to go through he process of using it to split H and O apart? (And then recombine it?)

  • The old is new again (Score:5, Interesting)

    by hcdejong (561314) <hobbes@xmsnBLUEet.nl minus berry> on Tuesday August 26, 2008 @09:30AM (#24750413)

    From 1982 to about 1990, the Group C prototypes ran with regulations that basically allowed any engine as long as the fuel consumption didn't exceed ~60 l/100 km. Then the FIA fucked up and changed the rules to mandate F1-style engines, ending the series' popularity.
    There were a few races that ended in drama as the leading competitor ran out of fuel, but on the whole it was rather successful, with wildly disparate cars running very close races. You saw 7-litre naturally aspirated V12s, 5-litre turbocharged V8s, 3-litre turbocharged flat-6s and Wankel engines.
    It'd be interesting to see a revival of this idea. More interesting than a fuel cell-only class, I'd wager.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Thelasko (1196535)
      Don't get me started. I've been a long time proponent of this idea. There's really two types of racing, racing to challenge a driver's ability, and racing to challenge technology.

      Currently, motorsports is mostly about driver ability. NASCAR, the most popular form of motorsports in the U.S.A., regulates the cars so heavily it would be simpler to just provide cars like IROC did. [wikipedia.org] Le Mans is probably the most technologically challenging. We have seen some breakthroughs recently with the R10. [wikipedia.org] But it's s
  • Um...yeah. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by gandhi_2 (1108023)
    No matter HOW efficient car racing gets, it is still 100% waste.

    Don't get me wrong: most hobbies, including mine, are a waste of energy. Rather, I / someone gets enjoyment in return for the energy expenditure...but in the end, little / no actual work is done.

    Even if a NASCAR race can be done with 1 gallon of gas...in the end, 1 gallon is gone, and all the cars are where they started.

    • If your theoretical NASCAR race competitors really manage to get 100 cars round a track on 1 gallon, then I'd sure think that was one gallon well used when the same technology gets into my next Matiz.

    • Even if a NASCAR race can be done with 1 gallon of gas...in the end, 1 gallon is gone, and all the cars are where they started.

      Well, in that case, you shouldn't watch the movies or TV as often they use gasoline to power their cars as well. I'm not even a fan of NASCAR, but it's legitimate entertainment, which does have a effect on the technology we use as an important part of our infrastructure. If you want to eliminate all non critical uses of gasoline, start with your own life, then if you can stand it, move on to your family, friends, and associates. Then, if anyone is left in your life, you might be on to something, write a

    • So? No reason it can't be efficient enough to make a real difference -- doesn't have to be perfect.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by potat0man (724766)
      and all the cars are where they started.

      and a bunch of people had a hell of a time.

      You're making no point here at all. YOU came from dust and will someday be dust again and ultimately will have gone nowhere and, in the end, lots and lots of gallons of gas are gone.
  • by jollyreaper (513215) on Tuesday August 26, 2008 @09:49AM (#24750651)

    I'm ok with them using fuel cells just so long as they also include some manner of flammable liquid in the vehicle so that they keep the wrecks interesting.

    • Would a small, but very high pressure, tank of hydrogen add the required spice?

      Might only go off in 2% of crashes, but boy, you'd better duck when it does ;)

    • by dargaud (518470)
      Some of the latest F1s carry flywheels to store kinetic energy while braking around corners. I think that's gonna make for some interesting explosions (think shards a high way up or drums bouncing through the closest city at high speed).
    • Given how many laptops and iPods have gone up in flames, shouldn't it be obvious that you don't need flammable liquids to have cool, flaming carnage?

  • F-Zero eh? (Score:2, Funny)

    by VTMarik (880085)

    Today it's fuel cells, tomorrow it becomes hovercars, then next thing we know we're racing down a magnetic track against aliens and clones of ourselves.

    The future is now!

  • F ... Zero? (Score:2, Insightful)

    Granted, this is a step in the right direction. I'm all for anything green and this will a good initiative. Having said that, when you talk about racing, you'd expect to see cars and not go-karts. That's what gets the adrenalin pumping in men and replaces their shriveled you-know-what's. Men in little go-karts racing around in a bumper track is not going to get people excited about practical fuel cell technology.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by JayAitch (1277640)
      you'd expect to see cars and not go-karts.
      I'm thinking this is a result of the expense and interest in the technology. The expense to build one of these cars is greatly reduced by making it a go-kart. If this type of race can raise interest you then get your big players and corporate sponsorship to fund R&D in big boy cars.
    • Guess you've never actually driven a true, high-performance go-kart. Driving is a lot more fun that watching.

    • by smoker2 (750216)
      Yeah right, but at least those "go-karts" can go round *corners* and in both directions too ! Calling anything on a banked oval "racing" is ludicrous.
  • There is nothing green about the Happy Motoring Society, as it enables and supports the suburbs and exurbs, which are the ,single greatest misappropriation of resources in human history [ted.com] and are not sustainable.

    There is nothing Green or Sustainable about Industrial Society, or even civilisation itself, as all such efforts entail the inevitable draw down and destruction of irreplaceable natural resources. [wikispaces.com]

    So before you all go rushing off to buy your fuel cell cars to shlep you to your job enabling the mind

    • by ceoyoyo (59147)

      "There is nothing Green or Sustainable about Industrial Society, or even civilisation itself, as all such efforts entail the inevitable draw down and destruction of irreplaceable natural resources. [wikispaces.com]"

      I hope you will be very happy in your cave. And please remember to take your excessive capitalization with you.

    • Personally I prefer to hope for technological solutions like nuclear power and decentralized society (or re-centralized in arcologies), instead of massive population purges.
    • Did they let the Unabomber out of jail, or simply give him some Internet access?
  • At least we'll learn one thing: How fuel cells react in high-speed collisions and wrecks. This could actually be useful to know.
  • I race go-karts. Honestly, they would be the last platform I would want to test a huge fuel-cell system on. I would think something that could provide a safety cage, maybe, and a more resilient chassis.

    Don't get me wrong, racing karts are lot of fun. There are few things in life as exciting as going 75 MPH 1 inch off the ground into a 90 degree turn. If they wanted to say, "Like Formula 1", maybe they should have gotten some old F1 chassis that can be found for cheap used.

There is no distinction between any AI program and some existent game.

Working...