backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 43 comment(s) - last by rcbondsr.. on Mar 12 at 5:40 PM

Toyota Fine S Fuel Cell Concept

GM AUTOnomy Fuel Cell Concept
Toyota and GM part ways on fuel cell development

GM and Toyota have decided to go their own separate ways when it comes to fuel cell technology. The number one and number two auto manufacturers in the world were unable to come to an agreement on how their intellectual property surrounding fuel cells would be shared.

Without technology partner Toyota, GM will have to carry the burden alone in developing fuel cell systems for its automobiles. With GM's plant closings, jobs cuts and mounting losses on the home front (it lost nearly $6 billion in North American in 2005), it'll be quite a challenge indeed. Toyota, just having recently surpassed Wal-Mart in overall market cap, already has a stack of cash and public mindshare when it come to enviro-friendly vehicles.

Fuel cells are seen as the next logical step in automotive propulsion and will likely reduce our dependence on conventional gasoline, gasoline-electric hybrid and diesel powertrains in the future.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Alcohol
By Goolic on 3/5/2006 10:18:59 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know how aware you in US are but here in Brasil the alcohol tecnology is old, good, and hhightly profitable!

The cars tend to cust about 1000 Brasilian Reais more (about $400USD) but the combustible is cheaper.

The great problem is corosion wich destrois a not prepared motor.

Sorry by the english!




RE: Alcohol
By masher2 (blog) on 3/5/2006 10:53:57 AM , Rating: 2
Alchohol is more expensive than gasoline...unless heavily subsidized by the government. And alchohol also carries a slightly lower energy content, which is why ethanol-blended fuels produce a lower MPG.



RE: Alcohol
By Oxonium on 3/5/2006 12:35:03 PM , Rating: 2
IT's all about scale. Brazil made the investment in ethanol back in the 1970's. After 30+ years of development, it has become economically viable. I'm not sure how long it will take for Brazil to recover it's investment capital but I have no doubt they will. Once you have a production system and delivery infrastucture in place, it should cost about the same to produce ethanol as it does refined oil. It's just a matter of the government willing to make an investment in a technology that may not pay off for decades.

Additionally, fuel cells can be made to run off alcohols. Methanol fuel cells are being explored for laptops. The use of an alcohol fuel cell would solve many of the problems with hydrogen fuel cells.


RE: Alcohol
By nrb on 3/6/2006 8:43:59 AM , Rating: 2
Does the Brazilian system actually use fuel cells, though? I thought it just burned alcohol instead of petrol in an otherwise-conventional internal combustion engine? Fuel cells convert alcohol energy fairly directly and efficiently into electricity which would then power an electrical vehicle - the fuel cell is like a rechargeable battery that is charged by adding more alcohol. This has a lot of advantages: with an internal combustion model you still tend to get particulates and other nasty forms of pollution created, but fuel cells are very clean.


RE: Alcohol
By nrb on 3/6/2006 8:46:17 AM , Rating: 2
Alcohol is also carbon-neutral, of course - the CO2 produced during the fermentation and "burning" process is reabsorbed by the plants that produce the sugar that is fermented to produce the next alcohol batch. So the overall net CO2 emission for the whole process is zero - no greenhouse gases.


RE: Alcohol
By NotFlatusTDM on 3/6/2006 9:53:19 AM , Rating: 2
By that logic, burning fossil fuels is carbon-neutral too. FFs came from plants, you know.


RE: Alcohol
By wien on 3/6/2006 10:23:21 AM , Rating: 2
In the grand scheme of things, yes. But when you pump up millions of years worth of oil, and set it alite over a hundred year preiod, it's not the same by a long shot.


RE: Alcohol
By masher2 (blog) on 3/6/2006 10:29:10 AM , Rating: 3
Correct-- assuming, of course, that petroleum *is* primarily biologic in origin. A fact that has been called into question recently.


RE: Alcohol
By masher2 (blog) on 3/6/2006 9:02:20 AM , Rating: 2
> "IT's all about scale. Brazil made the investment in ethanol back in the 1970's. After 30+ years of development, it has become economically viable...

But today, Brazil produces LESS ethanol fuel than they did twenty years ago. And ethanol costs are still subsidized by the government. Without those tax subsidies, ethanol production would collapse.

> "Once you have a production system and delivery infrastucture in place, it should cost about the same to produce ethanol as it does refined oil"

I don't know where you get this idea, but it is wholly incorrect. Petroleum already contains its energy content, pumping costs in a nation like Saudi Arabia are a few cents per barrel (not gallon), and refining costs run a few pennies per gallon.

The energy content of ethanol, however, comes from two sources- sunlight, and fertilizer. And the energy of the fertilizer is, in modern agriculture, from a single source. Petroleum. It takes vast amounts of OIL to grow corn or any other ethanol feedstock in quantity. And more oil to run farm equipment, pump water for irrigation, and process the raw material. Add to that the vast losses in processing feedstock into ethanol, and you have a very complex, inefficient process.

It wasn't until recently that innovations in ethanol production allowed production to reach a "break even" point from the perspective of energy content. Before that, producing each liter of ethanol required more energy than was produced from combusting it...even forgetting about the "free" energy from photosythesis.

We're past the breakeven point today from an energy perspective. But not from an economic one. Ethanol costs far more to produce than gasoline, period. In the future, technology may make this no longer true, but it is true today, and will be for at least the next decade.


RE: Alcohol
By Oxonium on 3/6/2006 6:23:12 PM , Rating: 2
The government of Brazil may still be subsidizing the production of ethanol, but part of the money for those subsidies comes from exporting ethanol. Additionally, these subsidies are operating in a nearly closed system. The ethanol plants receive the subsidies to produce ethanol. The ethanol plants get raw materials from sugar farmers. The farmers and the rest of Brazil buy the ethanol produced for fuel. The people of Brazil pay taxes to the government, which in turn fund the subsidies. Exporting ethanol will add more money to the system, making it profitable.

The production of oil is not a closed system. Oil is purchased from other countries. It is refined in many different locations around the world. This means that the money spent in the U.S. does not necessarily stay in the U.S. It is economically viable because some of the petroleum can be burned for energy in the distillation process.

Ethanol production in the U.S. has a larger hurdle compared to Brazil in that it takes more energy to convert corn into a processable sugar source than it does sugar cane or sugar beet. The most likely source of ethanol will have to come from the breakdown of cellulose, which can come from a number of waste products.

The energy for ethanol production can come from waste material as well. In Hawaii, a lot of electric power comes from burning waste products from the sugar refineries. Those refineries use that electricity for their operations. Again, it's a self-sustaining closed system.

And of course, there will still be a need for some petroleum basd products. Fertilizers, plastics, rubber, etc. will all still need petroleum. But cutting the use of petroleum for fuel will make a major dent in oil consumption. And the chemistry learned along the way may eventually lead to alternative, environmentally-friendly processes for making those fertilizers, plastics, rubber, etc.

Furthermore, I think you missed the whole point of my initial argument. That point is that this is a technology that is many, many years away from being economically viable for the U.S. but the investment must be made now and sustained for the future. Brazil started 30+ years ago, and even though through the 1980's and 1990's some of the citizens of Brazil questioned that policy, they stuck with it. And now it's paying off big time.


RE: Alcohol
By masher2 (blog) on 3/6/2006 6:56:18 PM , Rating: 2
> "The government of Brazil may still be subsidizing the production of ethanol, but part of the money for those subsidies comes from exporting ethanol. "

Um, throughout most of the 1990s, Brazil was the world's largest IMPORTER of ethanol. Implying that profits from ethanol exports are in any way making ethanol production viable is just plain wrong.

> "That point is...the investment must be made now and sustained for the future"

Why? Long before world petroleum supplies dry up, I expect there to be technologies far more viable than burning ethanol directly in autos. Using nuclear power to generate hydrogen as just one such example.


Patent Pending
By Fnoob on 3/8/2006 6:00:00 PM , Rating: 2
Whats truly inane is how you manage to be an authority on everything on every thread on every topic. Do you have time to do anything except post?

Yes I was a physics major, UGA 95.
Yes I realize capacitors store energy.
Yes there is a battery onboard used to charge the capacitors - which discharge to effect electrolysis.
The engine, once running, charges the battery just like in your car using an alternator, or in my case a modified old VW generator.
No its not a perfect design. It loses energy to heat, and the engine is not efficient enough to keep the battery charged for very long (about 3 hours). But nonetheless, it works. It wasnt that hard, and it didnt take me much more than 3 months and about that long to design and contemplate.... The cart gets around pretty good, except at full throttle when the system cant keep up. I'm considering mixing something into the 'fuel' such as hydrogen tetraoxide, or tetrazine.... but these are hard to appropriate and kinda defeat the purpose.

Rest assured I have every intention of keeping the day job.
But given your disbelief, I suppose a patent wouldnt be a bad idea.




RE: Patent Pending
By masher2 (blog) on 3/8/2006 10:10:42 PM , Rating: 2
> "No its not a perfect design."

Its more than that, its something a child would dream up-- wholly and completely nonsensical.

Let's get your so-called "design" straight. You have an onboard battery holding a large charge. But then, instead of using that electricity directly to power an electric motor, you use to to charge an "ultracapacitor (why?), losing a bit of energy in the process...then discharge the capacitor to electrolyze some water (losing more energy), then oxidize the hydrogen BACK to water, converting the heat BACK into electricity, with even larger carnot losses here. All just to get back to the electricity you had to start with....? Lol.

You expect me to buy this with a straight face? Sorry.

> "Yes I was a physics major, UGA 95."

Being a physics major myself both in undergraduate (Princeton, 88) and graduate school (SINP, Moscow, uncomplete) -- I seriously doubt you've had any classes past basic kinematics. Your posts demonstrate a deep-rooted misunderstanding of several basic concepts.


RE: Patent Pending
By masher2 (blog) on 3/8/2006 10:13:17 PM , Rating: 2
Did I actually type "uncomplete"? My life for an edit function...


RE: Patent Pending
By Fnoob on 3/9/2006 8:25:44 AM , Rating: 2
Well then, since your school is better than mine, you must be correct. I will attempt to explain this to your satisfaction no longer. I am not worthy.


RE: Patent Pending
By masher2 (blog) on 3/9/2006 5:10:03 PM , Rating: 2
Our schools have nothing to do with it. You concocted an obviously fraudulent tale of building some Rube-Goldberg water-powered vehicle; you got called out on it, and now you wish to slink away in embarrasment. So be it.


RE: Patent Pending
By Fnoob on 3/11/2006 8:22:39 AM , Rating: 2
Obviously fradulent, since you are obviously THE authority on whatever you happen to be posting. Hurry, I think there is still a thread left on this site without the benefit of your expertise. Must I create and post the blueprints, a video? How many more posts will it take before I can get the much coveted "begone troll". Perhaps the jet engine project I'm working on now will suffice.... ROTFLMAO.


RE: Patent Pending
By masher2 (blog) on 3/11/2006 9:37:06 AM , Rating: 3
If you want to be believed, you merely have to answer a few questions. First and foremost, if you already have a large electric charge, why waste 90% of it, just to turn electricity into...a lot less electricity. But no...in true conspiacy-nut fashion, the moment you're challenged, you cry foul and run off on a tangent.

If you answer that question, then you can move on to simple things like how you created "ultracapacitors" well above anything made today, able to hold sufficient charge to electrolyze large amounts of water. Like how you charge the batteries to charge them...without running a gas engine and thereby burning much more gas than an ordinary vehicle.
How you manage to capture the water ash from hydrogen oxidation without blowing your Carnot efficiency to hell and back. Etc, etc, ad infinitum.

Or, you can just keep posturing and changing the subject. Up to you...but you're not fooling anyone.


Hydrogen
By Fnoob on 3/6/2006 9:07:43 AM , Rating: 2
Fuel cells, IMHO, are just a way for the industry to say, "see, its too expensive and complex" - in order to maintain business as usual. An internal combustion solution, either hydrogen, biofuels, etc - is a better way to go. (Check out BMW's track car). It requires minimal conversion of existing technology, and provides similar performance. Our government should have invested in hydrogen production back in the 70's gas crisis - then we'd be better prepared today. I can't believe that there isnt a "X prize" for private development into hydrogen production. We cant (shouldnt) wait for the government to deal with this issue - they have every incentive to keep things business as usual. Private industry, with proper incentives, will solve this problem in a third of the time at half the cost or less. I fully expect to be able to pour water into my "car" to make it go -someday in my lifetime.




RE: Hydrogen
By masher2 (blog) on 3/6/2006 9:36:49 AM , Rating: 1
> "Fuel cells, IMHO, are just a way for the industry to say, "see, its too expensive and complex" - in order to maintain business as usual..."

Your conspiracy theories aside, there are real and valid reasons to develop fuel cell technology...and just as many reasons why its not feasible yet today. That's no reason to not work on the technology.

> "I fully expect to be able to pour water into my "car" to make it go -someday in my lifetime. "

Lol, not in your lifetime or the next ten thousand years...not unless we develop nuclear fusion-powered autos. I don't think you quite understand the energy equation here.


RE: Hydrogen
By Oxonium on 3/6/2006 6:45:41 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, there isn't any way to pour water into a tank and make the car go. I hope that the poster was making a joke.

Let's assume you mean that the technology would operate by splitting the water into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen could then be burned or used in a fuel cell for power. One could then assume you could condense the waste water and reuse it. Now you're describing a system of perpetual motion, which is imposible.

Hydrogen has a number of problems as a fuel, and I'm not talking about the Hindenburg factor (which didn't crash because of a hydrogen explosion). Storage, infrastructure, production, and energy density are all major problems that are years away from being overcome. Driving a hydrogen vehicle would actually be safer than driving a gasoline or alcohol powered one. In an accident that punctured the tank, the hydrogen would quickly dissipate to the point that it isn't flammable any more. Gasoline and alcohols pool and ignite easily, making an explosion much more likely with those fuels. The safest and most environmentally friendly fuel at the moment would be biodiesel since you get all the eco-friendliness of alcohol and the energy density and lower flammability of diesel.


RE: Hydrogen
By masher2 (blog) on 3/6/2006 6:59:02 PM , Rating: 2
> "Hydrogen has a number of problems as a fuel, and I'm not talking about the Hindenburg factor (which didn't crash because of a hydrogen explosion). "

Kudos. I don't think most people realize that.


RE: Hydrogen
By Fnoob on 3/8/2006 9:17:25 AM , Rating: 2
Well, actually I wasnt joking. You're correct, I was referring to onboard electrolysis. It's not a far stretch to imagine ultracapacitors making this possible in cars. I realise perpetual motion is impossible, but yes, I did refer to a recycling of waste water back into the system. It could not be considered perpetual, as it will not be a sealed system. Heat will still be lost. And yes, I do understand the energy equation involved - I was a physics major, lol. The most critical part of the alternate fuel debate is cost. Hydrogen production from water is simple - its the separation of the two gasses that is difficult. I have actually built a small combustion engine for a go-cart that avoids this issue. Instead of separating the gasses, the entire charge is fed into the combustion chamber. It requires no (additional) air intake. It runs well now that I've gotten the input pressures more or less correct. It runs for hours on WATER, but yes, it does eventually draw down the battery to a point where electrolysis stops. More efficient conductance, combined with more efficient capacitance and discharge could allow this to be applied to larger, heavier designs. I have a real job and this has been a fun hobby - but I stand by my original statement that this should have been accomplished already by the industry. If I can do this fairly easily, then it's no conspiracy theory to say that the industry wants to keep up the "status quo" for a myriad of reasons. Believe it, or not.


RE: Hydrogen
By masher2 (blog) on 3/8/2006 10:45:31 AM , Rating: 2
> "Well, actually I wasnt joking. You're correct, I was referring to onboard electrolysis. It's not a far stretch to imagine ultracapacitors making this possible in cars"

I seriously doubt you were a physics major if you propose something as inane as this. First of all capacitors STORE energy, they don't generate it. So where is the energy coming from? Ultracapacitors don't "make this possible", they merely push the problem back one level.

Secondly (and worse) -- if you have electrical energy already stored on board, why would you use it to split water...for no other reason than to generate hydrogen, itself used to recreate some of the electricity you used to make it? Lol, its total nonsense.


> "I have a real job and this has been a fun hobby"

My advice to you-- keep the day job.




RE: Hydrogen
By rcbondsr on 3/12/2006 5:40:32 PM , Rating: 2
Oops, I changed the subject.
Fnoob, Please see the post below from rcbondsr.

I would be interested in talking about what you have done.
McAlisters Solar Hydrogen Civilization is interesting, but I think
the efficency of IC is still ahead. My engine will push that up about
25 % ( Not Yet Proven )

rcb


The next logical step?
By The Boston Dangler on 3/5/2006 12:05:45 PM , Rating: 2
There is no way fuel cells are the next logical step in auto technology. That title belongs to gasoline-electric hybrids. There is a worldwide, multi-trillion dollar gasoline infrastructure already in place, and it will not disappear any time soon. How many hydrogen stations are in your neighborhood? The chances of one being built are, approximately, zero.

Another nail in hydrogen's coffin is the fact that the efficiency and pollution are in fact, terrible. It takes way more energy to crack hydrogen into a usable form, than the amount that could possibly generated on our end. Where does the energy for hydrogen cracking come from? In the US, most commercial power is generated from oil-burning plants.

So, do you still want to burn 3 gallons of oil, to get the equivalent of 1 gallon of oil in hydrogen, at an astronomical cost? Did I mention the Hindenburg factor?




RE: The next logical step?
By abakshi on 3/5/2006 12:44:43 PM , Rating: 2
Gas-lectric hybrids have several problems of their own. They add a layer of complexity -- a whole lot of equipment, which comes at a cost, in many ways. The drive motors, control circuitry, and batteries add significant cost, reduce the usable life of the car (10 yr battery life, significant replacement cost), and pose serious safety threats (e.g. see how fire departments now have to deal with hybrids like the Prius, etc.) - high voltage lines running through car, with no auditory indication that the car is on. In the case of the Prius, with its keyless system, the car could actually turn on by itself after a crash if key is anywhere in the vicinity.

Other technologies like modern diesels (and diesel-electric hybrids I guess), ethanol, and eventually fuel-cells, are a more natural and beneficial route. For example, today's diesels provide more power than gas engines (greater torque) and are far more efficient, and will soon give out less emissions of nearly every kind. And they don't have all the additional baggage of hybrids.


RE: The next logical step?
By TomZ on 3/6/2006 8:43:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Gas-lectric hybrids have several problems of their own.

Each technology has plusses and minuses. Yes, a hybrid of course adds some complexity, but has the benefit that the engine runs at a relatively fixed running point. This allows it to be optimized for fuel consumption and emissions. Current traditional engines have to run at all combinations of speed and load, and thus are typically calibrated far from their most efficient operating point, i.e., they typically run inefficiently.

In the US at least, 10 years for a car is more than what consumers expect. So if you are asserting that a hybrid is only usable for 10 years (I haven't heard of this before), I don't see this as a problem.


RE: The next logical step?
By IsDanReally on 3/6/2006 2:03:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In the case of the Prius, with its keyless system, the car could actually turn on by itself after a crash if key is anywhere in the vicinity.

I highly doubt this is true. Any car I've ever known has had a fuel disconnect switch built into it. My hybrid has one that disconnects both the fuel pump and the high voltage battery. I would be surprised if Toyota didn't do this as well, but someone with the owners manual would have to provide that info.


RE: The next logical step?
By cpeter38 on 3/7/2006 9:45:50 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, gas electric hybrids probably have the most promise from a cost standpoint. However, they need to be Direct Inject gas engines. That technology is much more viable than diesel electric (cheaper engines, very similar fuel effieciency). Diesel electrics are only a short term answer due to the requirements for particulate filters, stronger mechanical structure, etc.


RE: The next logical step?
By masher2 (blog) on 3/5/2006 1:12:00 PM , Rating: 1
> "In the US, most commercial power is generated from oil-burning plants."

You, sir, are very wrong. In the US, 50% of commercial power comes from coal, 19% from nuclear, 19% from natural gas, and 6% from hydroelectric. Less than THREE percent comes from oil.




Science Asides ...
By pixelslave on 3/7/2006 3:20:25 AM , Rating: 2
I do not know enough on the science behind all previous posts -- but I do know the economical and financial part of this story. The title should better be rewritten as "Toyota Abandon GM on Fuel Cell Agreement" I remembered reading an article that what Toyota learned from the hybrid engine development can help them designing a fuel cell engine. This news sounds like Toyota discovered that GM has more to gain from the deal than it does, and with not enough money and a tons of financial restructuring to deal with, GM probably couldn't make it up by bringing more money to the table. Thus, the agreement is canned.




RE: Science Asides ...
By Oxonium on 3/7/2006 11:18:44 AM , Rating: 2
GM doesn't really need Toyota's help. Sure Toyota has had 10+ years of experience building hybrids, but that doesn't directly transfer over to fuel cell technology. The only parts that would carry over are the electric motors, controllers, and wiring. The fuel cell itself is very different from an internal combustion engine. From my understanding, GM wanted to push forwad with fuel cells but Toyota has enjoyed so much success with hybrids, they decided to further invest in that technology.

Right now GM has a gas/hybrid partnership with DaimlerChrysler and BMW with VW/Audi, Porsche, and Hyundai/Kia all seriously evaluating the technology produced. This has brought forth some interesting technologies such as putting the electric motors in the transmission to make it easier implement across several vehicle lines. BMW has demonstrated hybrids that use ultracapacitors instead of batteries, which are smaller, lighter, quicker to recharge, and can provide better energy density. With the success this partnership has shown, I wouldn't doubt that BMW and DaimlerChrysler are the "other partners" GM is looking at.

DaimlerChrysler and BMW have been researching hydrogen for decades and GM has been developing fuel cells for at least 10 years. The combination of these companies could pay off bigger than GM/Toyota would have.


RE: Science Asides ...
By pixelslave on 3/8/2006 1:50:52 PM , Rating: 2
>> GM doesn't really need Toyota's help.

All sounds good until you look at GM's financial -- on average, it's losing (yes, losing, not spending) 12 million US dollars every day during the first quarter. With money going away at this rate, I HIGHLY suspect they can keep investing into the research of a product that's years away.

Sure they can look for other partners, but it doesn't change the fact that GM will not be a favorable partner to other automaker because of their financial troubles. As you point out, BMW and Chrysler has been developing fuel cell for at least 10 years, what do you think they would want from GM when everyone in the world knows that it's in serious trouble. Frankly, I think they would ask for terms that Toyota won't even ask.


RE: Science Asides ...
By Oxonium on 3/9/2006 7:41:15 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I never said that BMW and DaimlerChrysler are working on fuel cells. They aren't. They're research has been focused on using hydrogen in internal combustion engines, which are far less efficient than fuel cells. GM and Honda are the only ones who have made a serious effort in researching hydrogen fuel cells. Which is why I think GM won't have any trouble finding a partner. The wealth of knowledge they've accumulated would be very attractive to other automakers who would rather license the technology from GM rather than develop it on their own. And GM, needing the money, would likely set very generous terms.

This is not unlike Ford and Nissan licensing Toyota's hybrid technology. It was cheaper for them to license from Toyota than to play catch up and develop it on their own.


Well
By GhandiInstinct on 3/4/2006 10:53:22 PM , Rating: 2
Another loss for GM including the 6 billion.

what we need is all manufacturers to focus on fuel cells, so we don't have 500lbs cars vs 3000lbs on the highway crashing into each other.





!
By Kilim on 3/5/2006 12:09:36 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, it is nice when tyhey can design a car that looks "normal." The Ford Escape and Honda Civic keep their appearance.

I always had a problem with the design of the ghetto booty of the Toyota Prius. Nice car, though.




Ugly cars of the future
By Regs on 3/5/2006 12:38:46 PM , Rating: 2
Looks like Hollywood made those cars or they were taken from the movie "Demolition Man". How about just sticking one of those cells in a '69 chevelle?




onboard Hydrogen system
By rcbondsr on 3/12/2006 5:34:16 PM , Rating: 2
Very cool - I am interested in this kind of project, I just got Solar Hydrogen Civilization by
McAlister.

I am also working on an extra efficient IC engine, and hope to have it running this summer.

I would be interested in talking to you about what you did ( NDA ok if you think
you have a patent hidden in there )

I was thinking of trying to convert an old lawn mower to hydrogen for education as
Mcalister reccomends, and trying your way would be interesting.

Thanks
rcbondsr@gmail.com




Wooow
By ktlewis02 on 3/4/06, Rating: -1
RE: Wooow
By brystmar on 3/4/2006 11:58:26 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah seriously. Let's hope that the upcoming v1.2 patch to the fuel cell spec fixes this...


RE: Wooow
By middlehead on 3/5/2006 12:12:25 AM , Rating: 2
The last bill Congress passed to encourage fuel cell development, gay design was a hidden clause.


RE: Wooow
By Jedi2155 on 3/5/2006 12:39:51 AM , Rating: 2
I think they look much cooler than what is available now...and I'm not gay or a woman.


"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson

DailyTech Poll
Do you use copy/paste on your smartphone? 




14 Comments







botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki