RX8 writes "Canon, Inc., has taken the wraps off prototype rechargeable hydrogen fuel cells, the likes of which may one day power digital cameras, media players, and printers. Canon's demonstrated fuel cells win even more points on the environmental front: while companies such as Toshiba, Sanyo, and NEC have also been working on fuel cells (and had been expected to have developed fuel cell-driven notebook computers by now), those efforts are based on DMFC technology which derives hydrogen from methanol, producing small amounts of carbon dioxide (itself a greenhouse gas) in the process. Canon's cells obtain hydrogen from a refillable cartridge with no toxic byproducts." Canon's Fuel Cell May Drive Portable Gear Log in/Create an Account | Top | 187 comments | Search Discussion Display Options Threshold: -1: 187 comments 0: 180 comments 1: 156 comments 2: 103 comments 3: 44 comments 4: 21 comments 5: 8 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. Mystery Cartridge! (Score:4, Insightful) by Cruithne (658153) on Thursday October 27, @02:38AM (#13887277) (http://www.zionlan.net/) I love the extremely scientific description of the mystery cartridge that has no toxic byproducts.. especially after taking half of the article to describe how the competition is less "green" in great detail! [ Reply to ThisRe:Mystery Cartridge! by Cruithne (Score:2) Thursday October 27, @02:42AMRe:Mystery Cartridge! by m4dm4n (Score:3) Thursday October 27, @04:30AMRe:Mystery Cartridge! by m4dm4n (Score:3) Thursday October 27, @04:38AMRe:Mystery Cartridge! by Agarax (Score:2) Thursday October 27, @01:10PMRe:Mystery Cartridge! by shbazjinkens (Score:1) Thursday October 27, @03:42AM Re:Mystery Cartridge! (Score:4, Interesting) by DrEldarion (114072) on Thursday October 27, @05:36AM (#13887656) (http://www.dealmein.net/) It doesn't have to be electricity... [wired.com] [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Mystery Cartridge! by Allen Zadr (Score:2) Thursday October 27, @10:52AMRe:Mystery Cartridge! by DrEldarion (Score:2) Thursday October 27, @03:38PMRe:Mystery Cartridge! by iamlucky13 (Score:2) Thursday October 27, @01:53PMRe:Mystery Cartridge! by accelleron (Score:2) Thursday October 27, @12:18PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. so where (Score:3, Insightful) by fredistheking (464407) on Thursday October 27, @02:39AM (#13887279) so where do they get the electricity to refine the hydrogen? [ Reply to This fossil fuels for now (Score:4, Funny) by Travoltus (110240) on Thursday October 27, @02:51AM (#13887315) (Last Journal: Friday October 21, @03:06AM) but in the future, as a hydrogen infrastructure matures, the electricity will come from some hydrogen based generator. [ Reply to This | Parent Re:fossil fuels for now (Score:5, Insightful) by weighn (578357) <weighnNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday October 27, @03:07AM (#13887354) (http://localhost:5800/) Most fuel cells technology derives hydrogen from methanol fuel. Canon's prototype uses hydrogen as the fuel. The coolness about these things will be more power from a cell the size of a standard battery and you will recharge them in a few seconds. It can be hard to hear over the clipped-signal of the marketing hype - but I think the jury is still out on the "environmentally friendly" claims. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:fossil fuels for now by JonathanR (Score:3) Thursday October 27, @06:39AMRe:fossil fuels for now by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thursday October 27, @07:16AM Re:fossil fuels for now (Score:4, Interesting) by Muhammar (659468) on Thursday October 27, @08:41AM (#13888143) "technology which derives hydrogen from methanol, producing small amounts of carbon dioxide"The methanol fuel cell produces the same amount of CO2 (or more, per volume unit) as if it was burning normal gasoline. The beauty of fuel cell here shines in comparison with (lousy) energy density, efficiency and recharge rate of a battery.One day we may be driving metanol-fueled cars or planes since methanol is pretty easy to make from coal. When that happens, the platinum-group metals used in fuel cells will not be cheaper than today - new industry uses of paladium and platinum are found every day but there is only very little to go around. Shortage of rhodium, palladium and platinum can be technologicaly much bigger problem than lack of fossil fuels. So my guess is that the new methanol motor will have some kind of good old internal combustion engine in it again. [ Reply to This | ParentPalladium by tepples (Score:2) Thursday October 27, @12:58PMRe:fossil fuels for now by drinkypoo (Score:3) Thursday October 27, @03:39PMRe:fossil fuels for now by LWATCDR (Score:3) Thursday October 27, @09:55AM Re:so where (Score:4, Funny) by benjamindees (441808) <slashdot@deescTW ... com minus author> on Thursday October 27, @03:17AM (#13887379) (http://slashdot.org/) Christ, no one cares. Can we please stop bringing this up on every hydrogen story?Where do you get the dinosaurs to make your oil/coal? That's just about how stupid your question is.I plan on getting hydrogen from windmills in my backyard. I plan on getting the copper for the windmills from a mine in Mexico. I plan on getting the magnets for the windmills from China. I plan for the water for the hydrogen to fall from the sky periodically.You can get yours out of the little plugs in your wall for all I care. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:so where by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Thursday October 27, @08:44AMRe:so where by PickyH3D (Score:1) Thursday October 27, @08:47AMRe:so where by cetan (Score:2) Thursday October 27, @10:02AM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Re:so where (Score:5, Insightful) by PsiPsiStar (95676) on Thursday October 27, @03:57AM (#13887468) (http://www.management-one.com/) Theoretically, they could get it from nuclear power or from wind power, which is beginning to mature. A machine that runs on gas can only run on gas. A machine that runs on electricity can effectively run on coal, wind, nuclear, or any number of sources produced in a central location and sold across the grid in a market based fashion that helps keep the cost down.So anything that helps products run on electricity more effectively is a good thing. Of course, Canon's stuff wasn't running on gasoline to begin withI haven't been able to access TFA though. [ Reply to This | Parent Re:so where (Score:5, Insightful) by FireFury03 (653718) <slashdot@NOsPAm.nexusuk.org> on Thursday October 27, @04:13AM (#13887505) (http://www.nexusuk.org/) Theoretically, they could get it from nuclear power or from wind powerInfact, wind power should be better suited to hydrogen generation than generation of grid electricity. Generating electricity for the grid has problems since wind is unpredictable so you can't have your wind farms match the current demand on the grid. For hydrogen generation this doesn't matter since you can just adjust the amount of hydrogen you generate depending on how much electricity your wind farm is generating and then _store_ the excess hydrogen, which you can then use during the periods when you don't have enough wind to meet demand directly. Storing hydrogen is much less of a problem than storing electricity.Maybe this is what the future holds for us - use predictable power generation systems (fisson, hydro, tide, fusion and orbital solar arrays) for electricity generation and less predictable (e.g. wind) for hydrogen generation, where the hydrogen can be used in cars and most things that currently contain high capacity batteries such as laptops. [ Reply to This | Parent Why hydrogen? Use it for heat.. (Score:4, Interesting) by xtal (49134) on Thursday October 27, @08:11AM (#13888012) (http://www.nyx.net/~smanley) Don't underestimate the problems with storing hydrogen. It's pesky and diffuses through everything.There's another use of windmill power that requires no fancy conversion electronics, or fancy electrolysis setups. Run whatever horrible waveform you get out of your alternator on a stick into a big old resistor that gets hot. This is cost-effective for me (in a rural setting) to heat my home with now, versus using diesel (heating oil). Nicely enough, periods that use more heat often are much more windy.More interesting would be an engineering comparison on the efficiencies if using windmill-heated steam versus direct hydrogen combustion. Both would be mobile, but the steam could easily drive a turbine.Either way, you'd need millions of windmills to replace the energy consumed daily in the form of oil. It's important to keep that in perspective. There is NO good mass volume alternative to oil in the near future, people should be planning accordingly. Unfortunately, that seems unlikely to happen. [ Reply to This | Parent Re:Why hydrogen? Use it for heat.. (Score:5, Interesting) by FireFury03 (653718) <slashdot@NOsPAm.nexusuk.org> on Thursday October 27, @08:36AM (#13888117) (http://www.nexusuk.org/) Don't underestimate the problems with storing hydrogen. It's pesky and diffuses through everything.True, but it's still easier than storing electricity.There's another use of windmill power that requires no fancy conversion electronics, or fancy electrolysis setups. Run whatever horrible waveform you get out of your alternator on a stick into a big old resistor that gets hot. This is cost-effective for me (in a rural setting) to heat my home with now, versus using diesel (heating oil)But that suggestion is only useful for less than half of the year (depending where you live) when you actually need to heat your home. During the summer there's still quite a lot of wind which would be going to waste.Either way, you'd need millions of windmills to replace the energy consumed daily in the form of oil.Indeed, and I don't think anyone (apart from a few nutty greens) would suggest otherwise.There is NO good mass volume alternative to oil in the near future, people should be planning accordingly. Unfortunately, that seems unlikely to happen.Fission is a good alternative to fossil fuels, produces energy in a large quantity and is in many respects less polluting (if only because you seal up the waste and store it instead of pumping it into the atmosphere). Modern fission reactors are also very safe.In the long run, fusion looks promising (especially since the politicians have now stopped arguing about where to build ITER) but still a way offOrbital solar arrays also have a lot of potential - even more so if we get our finger out and set up a moon base since much of the structure of the satellites could be manufactured on the moon and then launched relatively inexpensively with mass drivers. This stuff isn't science fiction - it _can_ be done if the investment is made. Sadly the people in power seem to be happy to blindly burn fossil fuels until we have completely run out. I guess today's politicians are safe in the knowledge that they won't be in power when the shit hits the fan. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Why hydrogen? Use it for heat.. by orasio (Score:3) Thursday October 27, @09:17AMRe:Why hydrogen? Use it for heat.. by Ironsides (Score:3) Thursday October 27, @11:03AMRe:Why hydrogen? Use it for heat.. by StikyPad (Score:2) Friday October 28, @12:12AMRe:Why hydrogen? Use it for heat.. by drinkypoo (Score:2) Thursday October 27, @03:34PMRe:Why hydrogen? Use it for heat.. by Ironsides (Score:2) Thursday October 27, @10:15PMNuclear waste is a resource by PsiPsiStar (Score:2) Thursday October 27, @05:35PMRe:Why hydrogen? Use it for heat.. by Chagrin (Score:1) Thursday October 27, @12:39PMRe:Why hydrogen? Use it for heat.. by benjamindees (Score:1) Thursday October 27, @06:16PMSnowstorms and night.. by xtal (Score:2) Friday October 28, @12:21AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:so where by FridayBob (Score:3) Thursday October 27, @07:42AMRe:so where by benjamindees (Score:1) Thursday October 27, @06:28PMRe:so where by PickyH3D (Score:1) Thursday October 27, @08:44AMRe:so where by caseih (Score:2) Thursday October 27, @10:30AMRe:so where by zippthorne (Score:2) Thursday October 27, @02:11PM2 replies beneath your current threshold. Cleaner? (Score:5, Funny) by physicsphairy (720718) on Thursday October 27, @02:43AM (#13887289) (http://www.freerepublic.com/) those efforts are based on DMFC technology which derives hydrogen from methanol, producing small amounts of carbon dioxide (itself a greenhouse gas) in the process. Canon's cells obtain hydrogen from a refillable cartridge with no toxic byproducts.As long as we're considering small quantities of C02 a 'toxic byproduct' as a greenhouse gas, I would like to point out that that all hydrogen fuel cells generate dihydrogen monoxide as their principle biproduct, which is an even worse greenhouse gas. [ Reply to This Re:Cleaner? (Score:4, Funny) by Chairboy (88841) on Thursday October 27, @02:48AM (#13887305) (http://hallert.net/) True, DMHO vapor has been intimately associated with the "greenhouse effect". Not to mention, high levels of DMHO are found in the bodies of cancer victims. Is this really the stuff we want to be making more of? It's corrosive, for pete's sake!Won't somebody please think of the children? [ Reply to This | ParentOther effects by Chairboy (Score:3) Thursday October 27, @02:52AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Cleaner? by SteveAyre (Score:2) Thursday October 27, @03:37AMRe:Cleaner? by N Monkey (Score:1) Thursday October 27, @04:50AM Re:Cleaner? (Score:5, Funny) by Cruithne (658153) on Thursday October 27, @02:49AM (#13887306) (http://www.zionlan.net/) I would like to point out that that all hydrogen fuel cells generate dihydrogen monoxide as their principle biproduct, which is an even worse greenhouse gas. I'd also like to point out that furry cute little rabbits emit both C02 and dihydrogen monoxide... simultaneously! [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Cleaner? by XaXXon (Score:2) Thursday October 27, @05:10AMRe:Cleaner? by G-funk (Score:1) Thursday October 27, @07:38AMRe:Cleaner? by Cruithne (Score:1) Thursday October 27, @05:33PMRe:Cleaner? by Belial6 (Score:1) Thursday October 27, @08:03AMRe:Cleaner? by naoursla (Score:2) Thursday October 27, @11:58AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Cleaner? by General Alcazar (Score:1) Thursday October 27, @02:49AMMods are on crack. by sr180 (Score:2) Thursday October 27, @02:49AMRe:Mods are on crack. by Lisandro (Score:3) Thursday October 27, @02:52AMRe:Mods are on crack. by char1iecha1k (Score:1) Thursday October 27, @03:31AMRe:Mods are on crack. by KH (Score:2) Thursday October 27, @03:38AMRe:Mods are on crack. by socrates09 (Score:1) Thursday October 27, @04:06AM Re:Mods are on crack - but the parent is right (Score:4, Informative) by RAMMS+EIN (578166) on Thursday October 27, @04:09AM (#13887494) (http://inglorion.net/ | Last Journal: Thursday October 06, @08:17AM) ``I love how the moderators around here are on crack. +4 Interesting? Dihydrogen monoxide is WATER.He has made a joke, not written an informative statement...''Regardless of how he meant it, water does have a much stronger greenhouse effect than CO2. See the entry in the WikiPedia article [wikipedia.org]. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Mods are on crack - but the parent is right by smallguy78 (Score:1) Thursday October 27, @06:06AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Mods are on crack - but the parent is right by Red Flayer (Score:3) Thursday October 27, @11:36AMRe:Mods are on crack - but the parent is right by termigan (Score:1) Thursday October 27, @02:04PMRe:Mods are on crack - but the parent is right by Red Flayer (Score:2) Thursday October 27, @02:24PMRe:Mods are on crack - but the parent is right by StikyPad (Score:2) Friday October 28, @12:24AMRe:Mods are on crack. by Red Flayer (Score:1) Thursday October 27, @09:23AM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Re:Cleaner? (Score:4, Funny) by gringer (252588) on Thursday October 27, @03:17AM (#13887380) Oh, don't worry, we'll get there with banning DHMO. A few years ago the Green Party in New Zealand decided that starting a campaign to ban DHMO would be a good idea [junkscience.com].Yes... this really happened.For those interested in this very nasty chemical, I suggest you visit http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html [dhmo.org] [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Cleaner? by FidelCatsro (Score:2) Thursday October 27, @03:49AMRe:Cleaner? by SteveAyre (Score:2) Thursday October 27, @03:55AMRe:Cleaner? by SteveAyre (Score:3) Thursday October 27, @03:58AMRe:Cleaner? by patonw (Score:1) Thursday October 27, @06:00PMRe:Cleaner? by dascandy (Score:1) Thursday October 27, @03:48AMRe:Cleaner? by Young Master Ploppy (Score:2) Thursday October 27, @07:22AMRe:Cleaner? by MancunianMaskMan (Score:1) Thursday October 27, @07:24AMRe:Cleaner? by cafn8ed (Score:1) Thursday October 27, @09:12AMRe:Cleaner? by joeyblades (Score:1) Thursday October 27, @09:38AMRe:Cleaner? by akheron01 (Score:2) Thursday October 27, @11:14AM1 reply beneath your current threshold. Slashdotted? (Score:2) by Cave_Monster (918103) on Thursday October 27, @02:45AM (#13887294) Has that site been slashdotted or the content taken down? I keep getting a blank page and mirrordot doesn't have it either? [ Reply to ThisRe:Slashdotted? by MasterOfDisaster (Score:2) Thursday October 27, @02:52AMRe:Slashdotted? by weighn (Score:1) Thursday October 27, @02:57AMCorrect Links by Captain Chad (Score:2) Thursday October 27, @08:17AM Infotainment (Score:1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 27, @02:45AM (#13887295) I've got mod points but how do I mod the parent down? Another press release packaged as news.... [ Reply to This lobbying investors? (Score:1, Interesting) by l33td00d42 (873726) on Thursday October 27, @03:01AM (#13887339) i get the feeling that such unscientific articles (although i haven't read it; it's offline now) are intented to get the scientifically unenlightened but economically endowed to pump money into their company. it sounds good, buy Canon!and those of us familiar with the laws of thermodynamics probably won't penalize them when it comes time to buy a new camera. alas.owing to many recent less-than-science articles, it would be fun if the community could collectively evaluate articles in terms of merit/originality, placing them into single-word/phrase categories such as "lies" or "propaganda" or "dog poop" or "good stuff" or "the holy grail"... [ Reply to This aHA! TFA is a blank page. (Score:3, Informative) by SeaFox (739806) on Thursday October 27, @03:02AM (#13887341) Another press release about a breakthrough that (assuming we actually get it working reliably and cheaply) may possibly dubut in a high end product nobody would buy for sticker-shock reasons in Japan in three years.Really, wake me up when it's actually in a shipping product. I'll be excited then. Until it's working in the real world, it's just vaporware. [ Reply to ThisRe:aHA! TFA is a blank page. by Jensaarai (Score:1) Thursday October 27, @03:39AM Low temperature performance (Score:3, Interesting) by Maskirovka (255712) on Thursday October 27, @03:13AM (#13887365) Would the fuel cell batteries last longer than the current lithium batteries when subject to cold tempuratures? [ Reply to ThisRe:Lifetime is an issue by drinkypoo (Score:2) Thursday October 27, @03:41PM2 replies beneath your current threshold. Energy Density (Score:5, Interesting) by zardo (829127) on Thursday October 27, @03:18AM (#13887385) A hydrogen cartridge wouldn't have the same energy density as an ethnol cartridge, it would have to be pressurized in a strong container, whereas ethnol can be poured into the camera. Sounds like a bad idea from the get go. When are they going to come out with a camera that is powered by the push of the button? They could put a nuclear fuel cell on the camera, but that doesn't make a very handy camera, IMO. No battery at all, now that would be marvelous. [ Reply to This Re:Energy Density (Score:4, Funny) by surprise_audit (575743) on Thursday October 27, @05:38AM (#13887658) When are they going to come out with a camera that is powered by the push of the button? You mean, like the old fashioned manual-wind, shutter-and-film variety that have no electronics at all?? I think they first came out in the 1800s... [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Energy Density by zardo (Score:1) Thursday October 27, @01:00PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Energy Density by eheldreth (Score:1) Thursday October 27, @12:10PMRe:Energy Density by iamlucky13 (Score:2) Thursday October 27, @02:40PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. broken link (Score:5, Informative) by benjamindees (441808) <slashdot@deescTW ... com minus author> on Thursday October 27, @03:24AM (#13887397) (http://slashdot.org/) Try these instead:Canon develops fuel cell prototypes [engadget.com]Canon shows prototype hydrogen fuel cell [infoworld.com]Canon to develop fuel cells for printers, cameras [boston.com] [ Reply to This So now what? (Score:1) by Mashdar (876825) on Thursday October 27, @03:31AM (#13887412) Long ago everyone was happy just breathing oxygen.Now everybody is breathing toxic biproducts like "Nitrogen" and "Argon" and "Carbon Dioxide"...Damned technology...On a side note, I don't get to read TFA because of /. effect, but I am curious, where is the hydrogen coming from that fills the mystery containers? It is not just a middle step between generating free hydrogen putting hydrogen in the cell? I don't see why the process has anything to do with the cartridge.Many thanks for any answers :) [ Reply to ThisRe:So now what? by kingamf (Score:2) Thursday October 27, @03:54AMRe:So now what? by Mashdar (Score:1) Thursday October 27, @04:10AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:So now what? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thursday October 27, @04:36AMRe:So now what? by Patrik_AKA_RedX (Score:1) Thursday October 27, @05:48AM genital safety? (Score:1) by greenplasticyarn (878011) on Thursday October 27, @03:31AM (#13887413) "...While companies such as Toshiba, Sanyo, and NEC have also been working on fuel cells (and had been expected to have developed fuel cell-driven notebook computers by now)"Because I really want explosive materials right on my crotch... [ Reply to ThisRe:genital safety? by Kadin2048 (Score:2) Thursday October 27, @10:09AM Not again (Score:4, Insightful) by squoozer (730327) on Thursday October 27, @03:41AM (#13887432) (http://www.shallowsea.com/index.html) Here we go again. Someone will say that hydrogen is a power source and then a bunch of pedants will jump on him / her claiming that it's not a power sources it's a power store as it uses more energy to create it. Then there will be an argument over what constitutes a power source. Does that about sum up the discussion? [ Reply to ThisRe:Not again by shmlco (Score:2) Thursday October 27, @03:52AMRe:Not again by Vudu Child (Score:1) Thursday October 27, @07:47AMRe:Not again by linzeal (Score:1) Thursday October 27, @11:35AMRe:Not again by birge (Score:2) Thursday October 27, @01:33PMRe:Not again by squoozer (Score:2) Thursday October 27, @02:33PMRe:Not again by birge (Score:2) Thursday October 27, @02:39PMRe:Not again by G-funk (Score:2) Thursday October 27, @08:22PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. A letter from the hydrogen-powered future (Score:3, Interesting) by roesti (531884) on Thursday October 27, @03:52AM (#13887453) Please often ask me, a Slashdotter from the future who owns a plethora of electronic gadgets powered by hydrogen fuel cells, how you fill one of these cells up when it's empty. Where does the hydrogen come from?Well, some people have their own hydrogen-generating machines. Of course, these run on electricity; see, the generation of hydrogen costs more energy than the hydrogen contains - that is, it has an EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) less than one. Whatever you're processing to make hydrogen, you have to use up energy to get the reaction happening. Even if you wanted to do this, every home in the industrialised world would need a hydrogen-generating machine that ran on electricity - the manufacturing of which would cost enormous amounts of energy and materials, even if it worked at generating energy.In some places, hydrogen is generated in big power plants and delivered "on tap" to your home or office. This might sound dangerous, but then again, people had gas stoves once, until natural gas production peaked and the price tripled overnight. Again, you'd need to retro-fit an enormous amount of infrastructure in which to deliver the hydrogen - the laying of which would cost enormous amounts of energy and materials, even if it worked at generating energy.In any case, we need to do something. I mean, we've got all these gadgets - the manufacturing of which cost us enormous amounts of energy and materials - and they're all powered by billions of hydrogen fuel cells - the manufacturing of which cost us enormous amounts of energy and materials. Even though the average electronic device consumes ten times its weight in fossil fuels during its manufacture [un.org], and even though the generation of hydrogen costs twice as much energy as the resulting hydrogen contains [culturechange.org], people still bought into this sham in droves, believing that it's better for the environment.In reality, it's made the problem more widespread because we demand more energy than ever before, and it hasn't solved anything because we haven't really found a new source of energy with which to replace fossil fuels. Made me think twice about buying that hybrid car, too [lifeaftertheoilcrash.net].You try telling people this was a bad idea, though. They'll look up from their plates of raw vegetables and mugs of rain water, and tell you to keep your big mouth shut. [ Reply to ThisRe:A letter from the hydrogen-powered future by Kelvie (Score:3) Thursday October 27, @04:10AMRe:A letter from the hydrogen-powered future by Comen (Score:1) Thursday October 27, @05:01AMRe:A letter from the hydrogen-powered future by broggyr (Score:1) Thursday October 27, @07:36AMRe:A letter from the hydrogen-powered future by TheLink (Score:2) Thursday October 27, @06:04AMRe:A letter from the hydrogen-powered future by utexaspunk (Score:2) Thursday October 27, @09:10AMRe:A letter from the hydrogen-powered future by Kadin2048 (Score:2) Thursday October 27, @11:00AM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:A letter from the hydrogen-powered future by complete loony (Score:2) Thursday October 27, @07:02AMRe:A letter from the hydrogen-powered future by ShadowFlyP (Score:1) Thursday October 27, @08:38AMRe:A letter from the hydrogen-powered future by cr0sh (Score:2) Thursday October 27, @01:10PMRe:A letter from the hydrogen-powered future by roesti (Score:2) Thursday October 27, @06:54PMRe:A letter from the hydrogen-powered future by grqb (Score:3) Thursday October 27, @08:54AMRe:A letter from the hydrogen-powered future by Bob3141592 (Score:2) Thursday October 27, @10:04AMRe:A letter from the hydrogen-powered future by roesti (Score:2) Thursday October 27, @07:10PM