Hydrogen Powered Cars!! Repercussion to Oil industry???

They conveniently gloss-over the fact that nearly all of our Hydrogen currently comes from Natural Gas.  "Sustainable" my @ss.   Hydrogen HELPS the oil/gas energy, not hurt it.  It would just move transport fuel-dependency from one oil/gas product to the other.

Take into account energy-density, embrittlement, transport, etc... Hydrogen is currently a dead-end... electric is much farther along, and much more likely to reach "sustainable" more quickly.     And electric, for the most part, is currently not tied to an oil/gas product (although NG is certainly becoming a more important source of fuel for electric generation)

Well we use gasoline currently, not too worried about the hydrogen tanks.  Also not going to impact the oil industry in the near term, but alternative fuels will, over time, supplant fossil fuels for transport.

What he said. I never understood this fantasy idea of a hydrogen based energy system. Complete dead end. Uneconomical, poor energy density, difficult substance, and none existent infrastructure. Pure silliness.

No they won't. Not for the foreseeable future. Electric is the only viable  alternative form now... and in case it isn't obvious, 75% of electricity is generated using fossil fuels. Even if you do convert to electric for the majority of your "commuting" transportation fuel, trucking, rail, and shipping will still require diesel. And that would not be a bad thing because it would be more efficient over all, but let's not kid ourselves on fossil fuels going away. They keep saying we are running out, yet keep finding more.

Electric already has an infrastructure in place. Liquid fuels do too. Not hard to change to a different liquid. But man made fuels are not even close to economical. And hydrogen is at the bottom of all of them. It really is a poor choice.

agree hydrogen is not the answer. Electric cars are/will be the future. While currently most of our energy is produced with fossil fuels in this country, it is not in many countries, and I don't believe it will be 50 years from now (still in my lifetime  )

You know... you would have to do a really huge energy audit to get some real numbers. I'm sure it has been done, but have never seen them.

First, NG had some info a while back that we have enough excess electric capacity at night when everyone is asleep to power all of our electric cars. I do not know what "enough" is, but fine... staggering concept. Except, that means our electric generation runs 100% around the clock... so to speak. But it is more efficient doing that.

All thermal energy sources run best in steady state. Internal combustion engines are very inefficient... like 20%. Turbo diesels are better... but our worse coal thermal plants are 35%. Combined cycle gas turbines are just shy of 60%. And internal combustion engines are even worse during transients... faster/slower starting/stopping.

So just from that alone, yes, it would be much more efficient... meaning energy input vs. energy output... using electric generating units using fossil fuels to power transportation than internal combustion engines.

But, if we are using coal, then no... not "less" pollution. But maybe less emissions of CO2 if that is what you care about.

Yet electricity still does not get us off fossil fuels for transportation... rail, trucking, shipping, air. HUGE users there. For you and me, our commuting... sure. why not?

It is not in many countries because that is what their economic drivers dictate. Do you have any idea why Francs uses nuclear power for 80% of their power... they have no fossil fuels. It's really simple. And that 80% for France, is still less that the 20% we generate here in the U.S.

And alternatives will continue to grow in market share for the foreseeable future...but it will not be taking over base generation even in 50 years. Gas continues steady growth driven by shale gas, it is growing exponentially faster than solar and wind. We have steadily increased generation and now gas is on the verge of overtaking coal.... but it is "replacing" coal. Alternatives are not even a drop in the bucket in that fight. Not even close. But gas will continue to volatile price wise. And we will continue to use coal. And if we decide to go coal gasification, or "syn" gas... then ya... we have enough coal for 250 years.

You "may" see the writing on the wall by the time you die, but you most certainly will not see a transformation. Bet that. I'm certainly not worried about my career.

This always reminds me of my economics professor in College.  He made a bold statement one day that the earth will NEVER run out of oil.  Several people questioned him saying that we will run out of oil because it's not a renewable source of energy.

He simply said, we will never run out of oil because as it becomes more and more scarce, the price will go higher and higher and other energy sources will be much cheaper and become the primary source of fuel.  <lightbulb>

There are several alternate fuel sources out there for vehicles, but none of them are as cheap and easy/convenient to use as oil.  Even the amount of resources being poured into alternative energy is very small if you take out all of the government money being dumped into it.  The reason is that it's simply not viable due to the costs and convenience factor.

Natural gas and electric are the closest things to viable alternative fuels, but the battery charge times and range make for limited use vehicles (local commuting) only which most American's don't want.  Natural gas has other problems with limited fuel stations and weird nuances such as variable amounts of usable fuel available due to temperate and NG/propane mixtures etc. 

My business partner is a huge alternative energy nut and has two natural gas cars.  They are super cheap to operate because the fuel costs next to nothing, but he's had to be towed home at least three times in the winter due to running out of gas going to work and back.  He has a fueling station at his house.

I'm kind of babbling on, but as to the OP pretty much no alternative energy will have any impact on oil until oil becomes expensive enough to overcome the inconvenience and costs of alternative energy.  That day will likely be long after we're gone.

Don't forget, that fossil fuel number is an average, but power plants differ a lot based on the region you live in.  We see a lot of Teslas up here in the Seattle area, which, ok... yeah it's mostly tech folks with a lot of money.  But take a look at our power distribution:

http://www.seattle.gov/light/fuelmix/

So those cars are nearly emissions-free.

Even aside from all that, *braking* is pure wasted energy, as you know from triathlon.  Hybrids and electrics recover a portion of that energy, which is why they get much better mpg in city driving.  That's a benefit no matter how you charge it.

Batteries still have a lot of room for improvement.  Li-ion is heavy... when they get Li-air batteries working in a car, you'll see the efficiency and range both jump up.  It's exciting to see these ideas start reaching out of the science labs.

Isolated exceptions still do not make a rule. The entire N.W. is mostly hydro power. That does not change what the rest of the country's profile is. I'm not against electric transportation. It's just that all too often people do not look at the whole picture, only a small piece. You have to look at the whole thing.

I'm not disagreeing.  Just saying that it's good to have a variety of options because the pros and cons can be different for each person / region.  Batteries work poorly in very cold climates, for example.

Cool.

lulz.  "emissions-free"  

I think we're moving in the right direction... but we're not even CLOSE to emissions-free in ANYTHING.  It's important that we not sit around patting ourselves on the back at this point. 

What does this group think about the potential of algae-based bio-fuel?

Did you all see this?

We have the best solution... fossil fuels. Nothing is as cheap, easy, and effective as fossil fuels... period. End of discussion. There are hundreds of ways to convert energy, there are a few that are better than the others, but none can compare to fossil fuels. And it does not really matter what "could be"... it matters what is. Every single alternative cost more. And fossil fuels are the blood of our lives. It touched every facet of human productivity. so when you look at comparable alternatives, the cost differences become huge. 

Right now, many think we "need" something different... but the fact is we "want" something different. When and if the day comes where price for fossil fuels becomes prohibited, then, and only then, will things change. And... it would be my guess they would change rapidly... if there was a need. Science experiments in the lab had to make sense in the real world... and right now they don't.

Well stated, there truly isn't a need at this point.  It's great that people are innovating and when the alternative sources become more economical/practical I'll be the first to use them all.  Until then, I'll use my cheap gas.  

Internal combustion engines are very very inefficient. Even getting them more efficient... leaves them very inefficient. There is no magical cure yet to be discovered. The energy cycle of ICE is what it is. But we got to this place because resources were so great... it just didn't matter. Also, we had a lot less people using them. Even now at 6 billion people plus, we are producing incredible amounts. Yes they are finite, we still have a lot. 

Electricity is a good way to transmit energy. Line losses are very small actually. Loss from the entire distribution system is very small comparatively. Real losses from thermal cycle are huge. But again... 250 years worth of coal. There are other ways to power commuting, but shipping and the military are huge users. 

But even then... when there is a ECONOMIC need, there will be solutions. And before fossil fuels take their last dying breath... we most certainly will be wringing the very last efficiency gains that we can out of it. Until it becomes cost prohibitive to do that... and the more expensive alternatives look better. But what are you going to power flight with? What, the container shipping fleet is going to go nuclear? We will still be burning something.