2/21    I read an article on FC cars in this months SciAm and I was wondering
        why FC is so hyped in comparison to CNG. AFAIK, CNG is easier to make,
        cheaper to transport and most conventional cars can be converted to
        use it at reasonable price. Are the emissions from CNG cars too high,
        that we have to switch to FC cars or is there another reason? Just
        curious.
        \_ FC=fuel cell, and CNG=compressed natural gas?
           \_ yes.
        \_ I'm all for CNG because it's a readily available technology. BTW
           US doesn't have a lot of natural gas. Iran does. Iran contains the
           world's most abundant natural gas. Go figure...
           \_ You can convert natural gas into diesel.  The world's biggest
              natural gas conversion plant is currently being built on the
              world's biggest natural gas field in Qatar.
           \_ I thought you could make CNG using corn.
        \_ Because we can't pour Billions into CNG research and convince the
           sheeple we are moving towards "energy independence" and
           renewables, but everyone is convinced Hydrogen==unlimited magic
           free energy.
        \_ CNG is cool man. I own NG stock. So this would be a dream come true.
        \_ why are you comparing a fuel to a combustion method?
           \_ An FC is a way of storing energy to drive a motor right?
              CNG is another way of storing energy to drive a motor.
              That is why I'm comparing them. Maybe I'm missing something
              though (definitely possible given that I barely passed 7A/B).
              \_ omgwtfbbq. FC outputs electricity. I don't see a strong
                 correlation between FC technology and motor technology as
                 FC could very well be used for other purposes, and the only
                 reason the two seem to be tied to each other is because of
                 R&D efforts from automotive industry. It's really sad that
                 private sectors instead of government aided R&D is leading
                 this. As for CNG, it's like engine but uses gas instead of
                 petro. You still go through the 4 strokes (intake, compress,
                 combust, exhaust). Again without government installing basic
                 infrastructures to handle either source, neither two will
                 be popular in masses to make the technology more affordable.
                 Fuck George W. Bush, SUV loving conservatives, and oil rich
                 friends. Also fuck John Fuckedup Kerry for not making it
                 clear that he'd support alternative fuel sources and fuck
                 DNC for being so incompetent. Go Ross Perot!!!
                 \_ I was specifically talking about FC as a power src for
                    cars. I've read about FCs for laptops and cellphones
                    where the technology seems like it will work well. For
                    cars it seems like switching to CNG might be better.
                    BTW, there are several places around the bay area where
                    you can get CNG. Also when I was in India I noticed
                    that lots of taxis ran on CNG there. So it seems like
                    there isn't as big a infrastructure issue for CNG as
                    for FCs.
                    \_ FC isn't a "power src". FC can run off hydrogen but
                       could also run off gas/CNG etc. It's a way to get
                       energy out of these fuels. You can also run a combustion
                       engine on hydrogen.