MAY 10

I feel as though it is foolish for them to cut funding on it so they can focus on "more near-term energy saving measures." Because it WOULD be a near-term energy saving measure if they wanted it to be. People will only continue to commit to quick fixes and the closest "solution". You know, like expanding where we get oil from when we're running out rather than looking for cleaner fuel sources that won't run out (that example is from the past, of course, not the present).
It just somehow feels like history repeating itself to me, which makes me uncomfortable, since I was a huge fan of Obama. It really worries me that the government always reaches for the nearest "solution" and tosses aside all others as if they're crap ideas. And with something like alternative fuel sources, I really feel as if they should be putting equal efforts into ALL options instead of having only one plan.
And if history is already repeating itself, won't it just do the same thing again with the electric cars?

Amory Lovin's principle should be mentioned here: people don't want biofuel cars, fuel-cellcars, etc., they want personal transportation. George W. simply wanted a techno-diversion. Auto executives want(ed) government money for development of whatever.

I don't know where the top management at Honda plan to obtain the hydrogen for their cars if they go into production; they sound so confident. And, if the price of the fuel-cell stack can be brought down, low-carbon fuels like methane or methanol can be used. But, ultimately, the question has to re-focus on reduced energy consumption and carbon loading. The answer will be what works most economically, and what people will buy.

[1] As long as fuel cells require significant quantities of rare, expensive catalysts, they will be commercially useless.

[2] Designing catalysts is really, really hard. Especially durable ones.

Combine [1] and [2], and it was always obvious what was going to happen. There was never any point in worrying about producing and distributing hydrogen. The problem was always 77 positions down the periodic table.

hey ecogeeks!
I always was in favour of electric vehicles. they are more efficient (e-motors are) and you don't lose that much energy to convert electricity into hydrogen. But, of course, there is the range issue. That could be solved with hydrogen fuel cells.
But as long as there is no clean way to produce enough electricity to extract this hydrogen, EVs are simply better, in many ways.
But I think it is a mistake to completely shut down all the programs (I know they, didnt do that just yet). But just for now, research in battery and storage technology is just more important. also when you think about wind electricity, it needs to be stored at some point, if production capacity is steadily increasing.
I am convinced there will be a solution. and some day, the breakthrough will come, in both technologies! ;)

I'm glad they have finally knocked that one on the head. Hydrogen has long been misunderstood as a fuel that could power cars of the future. Firstly, hydrogen is like a battery as it is not the source of energy - it is the portable storer of it. It is not the emission free, miracle fuel that produces only water when combusted, instead, It can only ever be as clean as the energy needed to produce it - which in the US is a pretty filthy mix.

There are a lot of valuable lessons from all the money spent on hydrogen research. Primarily, the lesson is that the industry spends the money badly with very little positive effect, whereas academia which continues to be under funded produces the majority of triumphs. Fortunately Obama was produced by the latter, not the former.

The 1978 clip of Jack Nicholson in a hydrogen car is brilliant - it shows we are still just 10 years away from using hydrogen cars 30 years later.

Great questions! We can refine hydrogen from seawater, using electrolysis with energy! Eventually we will do with it with more efficient solar energy. Yes, hydrogen will require extensive infrastructure, storage, and most important of all, the fossil fuel lobbies that keep us hooked on funding for the carbon-based economy!

The hydrogen car was a decent idea to explore but it should have been abandoned ages ago. H2 is just lousy as a fuel, even if it is simple to produce and clean to consume.

heres what I think.

I think my kids will be paying off china for the rest of their lives for the crap obama and the Dems are doing, I'm guessing this is a part of that 1/2 of 1 percent of the budget that Obama cut. Now if the would only cut that budget by more than 1/2 we may actually be a viable country again.

what a effin' idiot. The only thing worse than Bush is Obama.

Considering bush's tie's the oil cartels tells and his administration's history of lying to the American people one cannot rationally rule out the possibility of hydrogn as nothing more than a diversionary tactic

It's possible that things will change in the long run but the same is true for fission and warp speed ..

Hydrogen is not the best energy storage for cars because of all the points cited in the news above. (batteries are better)

but there are not only cars that need clean fuel, what about boats and planes.

I can't see a big long range plane running on batteries, so it's either biofuel or hydrogen.

- you could produce hydrogen at the airports, that would need far less infrastructure than building a entire network of roadside hydrogen stations
- hydrogen is lighter than petrol for the same amount of energy, so take off weight would be reduced
- part of the hydrogen would be burnt in turbo-props, some of it would be used in a fuel cell to produce electricity for on board consumption

- a very big compressed H2 tank is not that much a problem in planes.

- there is not the same economics and technical constraints than with cars.

so stop research on hydrogen cars, and start research on hydrogen planes.

same for boats, boats have lots of space available, so a very big, not so high pressure would be possible.

One of the reasons that the hydrogen economy looked so attractive was that it would uphold the same infrastructure of distribution. Everything would run as it did before.

It's the difference between having a centralized system and a decentralized one. Large companies would prefer to distribute the fuel themselves just like our current setup rather than let car owners refuel at home.

Enthusiasm is good, but can obviously be misdirected.

Search my site for 'hydrogen', it isn't news that hydrogen fails, only news that the Federal government has rounded around to seeing it.

The big caution, sadness, here is how long it takes us to drop bad plans. How long will it take for ethanol?

That idea for plains is actually very nice! Especially if we at the same time get rid of the tax breaks for kerosine, so flying gets a normal equivalent price to going by train of car.
Boats are a completely other story, and maybe even harder to tackle, although even now they burn oil waste products, so maybe they could burn some biowaste..

(1)Hydrogen can be produced using all of the renewable energy sources. It can also be produced using waste products and captured as a waste gas.
(2)There have been hydrogen pipelines in the US since the 1930’s. They are owned by the big oil companies.
(3)Refueling stations are a challenge because of funding but there are a number of different options. The commercial stations are no more expensive than current gas stations. Personal stations are starting to come at the market at a $2000 price point.
(4)Prototypes are always more expensive. The Japanese and the Germans are mass producing hydrogen cars that will comparable in price.

Re: the previous comment - one of the major problems of hydrogen battery technologies has always been and remains the difficulties of making a battery actually work, in addition to the requirement for using platinum for most battery designs. We also have to ask the question - do we (as a society) work as hard on a concept that we haven't had proven in action yet or focus more on a source of power that was already implemented in the very era of automobiles with much less advanced battery technology?
Hydrogen may have a place in the future, but it requires a lot more innovation and development to be viable, and would likely be a better choice for larger vehicles like trucks, boats and planes rather than personal use.

Using my Google Reader I read this article right before coming to yours

http://www.ecorazzi.com/2009/05/11/qorianka-kilcher-upgrades-her-hydrogen-wheels-to-a-honda-clarity/

I was a hydrogen powered car enthusiast until I watched the movie "Who Killed The Electric Car". There was an excellent criticism of hydrogen powered cars in that film.

Now, I think even electric cars are a move in the wrong direction.

I'm in favor of compressed air cars. While they only have a range of between 100 - 200 miles ( like electric cars ) they can be re-energized in about 10 minutes on an air compressor. That gets rid of the biggest problem with electric cars...slow "refueling" ( 8 hours to charge ).

Compressed air cars also don't have the pollution, costs and dangers of huge electric batteries.

A few facts for the discussion:

- Fuel cell cars are electric cars with potentially higher efficiencies compared to ICE (already demonstrated in the prototypes)

- Engineers tend to separate functions like storage and conversion

- Hydrogen is gravimetrically best and most versatile chemical energy storage with a positive safety characteristics (Storage + FC still a factor 10 lighter than comparable batteries, even less space consuming)

- Political actions always look for effectiveness within a few years (re-election) and seldom have a strategic background.

I'd like to first state that I have a bit of a different perspective on hydrogen than the average person, as I am participating in GM's Project Driveway (its ongoing fuel cell demonstration/validation project) and have gotten to know decision-makers on both the vehicle and infrastructure sides of the equation. I don't want to respond at the outset to every possible criticism of hydrogen, or this post will simply get way too long and no one would read it :) Rather, if someone has a question/criticism about hydrogen technology, please post, and I will try and respond in a separate post.

Basically, notwithstanding all the (correct) points about the nature of hydrogen (being an energy carrier rather than fuel, being inefficient to manufacture and transport, etc), the ultimate issue is really what the cars/fuel (for lack of an easy term, so please forgive the misnomer) will cost the consumer.

GM, Honda, Toyota and others are convinced that they can commercialize their vehicle technology in the 2015 timeframe. That is, have them in showrooms for consumer availability around that time. This is a pretty short time-frame, which means that these commercially-ready vehicle models are being worked on today. I can tell you from personal experience that the fuel cell Chevy Equinox is a fantastic vehicle.

Of course, having a vehicle ready is only half the battle. Infrastructure is the other half. The technology on that end is also available and ready for deployment. Companies like the Linde Group, Air Products and Air Liquide have developed the hydrogen filling station infrastructure at a cost not too dissimilar to new conventional filling station infrastructure.

With regard to hydrogen deliveries, it is an absolute misconception that the transport of hydrogen has to be developed. Companies like the Linde Group and Praxair have been transporting hydrogen on our public roads for decades. It is used in the refining of gasoline, hydrogenation of oils in the foods industry, as well as other applications. If anyone wanted a compressed gas cylinder of hydrogen, you could order one and have it delivered to you (subject of course to whatever permitting might be required for you to have one on your property). As far as cost, the great thing about hydrogen is that it becomes cheaper the more you want to buy (it is cheaper to make/deliver hydrogen in bulk than to make/deliver small amounts for specialty applications). As far as actual cost of hydrogen delivered, if there were thousands of cars, the delivered cost would probably approach $5.00/kg of hydrogen. Please keep in mind that a kg of hydrogen is roughly equivalent to 1 gallon of gasoline (think of it as $5/gallon). However, the fuel cell vehicle gets at least 2x better mileage. So, the actual cost is more like $2.50/gallon. This price is roughly the same as 89 octane gas near me.

As far as the "greenness" of hydrogen, it has the potential of being 100% green. For example, Linde would be transporting 100% green hydrogen, because its source is a byproduct of one of its other chemical facilities.

The real obstacle to a hydrogen transportation system is the initial investment. As there won't be enough cars for a company to actually turn a profit for at least several years (assuming someone was to start investing now in the stations), private investors are not interested. That leaves the government as the only viable source of initial investment funds. The theory is that if a few retail stations in major metropolitan areas are set up, the manufacturers will bring the cars to those markets, and (hopefully) the markets will grow. California is set to try this- it is my understanding that California set aside $40 million to develop some stations.

One other factor that should be considered. Rather than compete with each other, batteries and hydrogen complement each other. The strengths of both technologies perfectly counterbalance each others' weaknesses. For example, batteries can provide a lot of power on demand (think Tesla Roadster). However, the batteries are heavy and take a long time to charge. As a result, a lot of the plug-in EVs like the Tesla and Volt are smaller cars. Fuel cells are much more efficient at providing electricity than the gasoline range extenders, but like to provide a steady stream of electricity rather than bursts on demand. Also, they can be quick-fueled today (appr. 3 minute fills). Ideally, an electric vehicle would rely on its batteries as the primary power source with the fuel cell keeping them charged. The vehicle would need far less batteries, and would not necessarily need to be charged from an outlet. Furthermore, the vehicle size could be scaled as large as you want.

Already this post is larger than I had intended. I hope I don't come across as fanatical- I am really impressed with the state of technology.

Hydrogen isn't much more than a glorified battery, and it takes electricity to make hydrogen, however you choose to make it. We need to focus our energies and money at developing a select few viable technologies for our future. Since we already have so many ICE vehicles, next-gen biofuels make sense at least for a major transition, and electric cars already have the most development and infrastructure. Building an entire new third infrastructure for hydrogen just doesn't make sense right now, let's concentrate on what we can get done.

I think that the real issue here is that politicians wanted a technology that they could stand behind but that was likely to fail. They put minimal support behind it for popularity. When the industry drops support for it in a few years, the politicians don't take the blame. I picked up this theory from one of the Google Techtalks, I think it was podcars.

Trying to replace a modern car feature for feature is a very bad idea economically, because it isn't disruptive. New ideas should be cheaper and support a limited subset of what a gasoline car can do.

I like the idea of plug in electric or electric cars because no Oil companies. The problem I saw with H2 is that it stilled required oil companies. You can charge a car within 3-4 hours with 240 power.

I would estimate that I would need less 40 gallons of Gas a year with a range of miles. This is not the finial answer but we don't have time to wait. H2 is too high risk and the time line too far.

The hydrogen dream was always a pipe dream without even a pipe to move the unavailable hydrogen thorugh to its nonexistent destination. It has been a distraction and a waste of time and money.

Good riddance. Hurrah for EVs and PHEVs!!!

To learn more about the folly of hydrogen, visit climateprogress.org and search the archives for "hydrogen"

We think everything should be looked from a more global perspective at this point. Given the current economy, it is wiser to concentrate on technologies that already work well enough, and make them better. In this instance, the electric battery has already proven itself, and the infrastructure is pretty much there.

As far as using hydrogen as a medium to recreate electricity, it make little sense. Hydrogen is used for the space shuttle and their boosters, and we see a future with airplanes. Hydrogen has no real "energy" of it's own. With FCVs, it is used as a medium for conducting electricity. It acts as an expensive middle man. Making it is energy intensive, pollutes more than creating electricity stored in batteries. As long as it is made this way, with no infrastructure, it makes little sense. Even as a medium to re-create electricity in a car, it's a round about way of re-inventing the wheel.

As a scientist friend of ours said, it's like keeping the fire going in a chimney with lead acid batteries. If we put enough money into it, it can work. But there are other more viable and less polluting solutions that work right now.

The problem with hydrogen fuel cells is that, if you were incrementally improving current technology based on increasing cost of energy (gasoline, oil) fuel cells are the last thing you'd do. First, consumers would buy vehicles with more efficient engines, then smaller engines, then smaller vehicles, then maybe diesels, then mild hybrids, etc. Somewhere down around item #20 you'd start to encounter fuel cells, but more likely in the form of trickle charging for a serial hybrid architecture like Volt. The big auto companies were, in effect saying, let's just keep business as usual for as long as possible while we develop a boatload of highly patented, absolutely impossible to privately maintain technology. I don't count this technology out by any means, after we work through the much cheaper solutions available, but also bear in mind: in the mid-90s automakers claimed fuel cells were just 5 years away, if only we would stop requiring them to build battery EVs...

Nice comment, EricR.

Question: what about the scarcity of catalyst material for the fuel cell? I've read that there's nowhere near enough platinum in the world to replace our road transport fleet with fuel cell vehicles.

The main driver in hydrogen was big oil, hydrogen was another fuel they could supply to the masses and make money. They do not want to see us convert to electric vehicles.

TB, thanks for the question. I raised the same concern with GM engineers, and at a recent symposium, a DoE official answered the same question. My understanding is that platinum is currently being used as the catalyst (others are being researched, but I believe platinum is likely to be used for near term commercialization). However, the amount of platinum needed has dropped considerably with successive refinements of the technology (think about the initial high cost of catalytic converters for conventional vehicles, but with increases in efficiency, the precious metal content has been reduced along with the cost). I can't give you a specific on how much platinum is being used, but my understanding is that it is a very thin layering. Neither the DoE scientist nor the GM engineers I have talked to thought that it presented a serious cost/availability obstacle to large scale commercialization. To give you an example, GM engineers are currently perfecting the 5th gen fuel cell which is half the size of the one in the Chevy Equinox FCEV.

Artificial Photosynthesishttp://newscenter.lbl.gov/pres...synthesis/

“Photooxidation of water molecules into oxygen, electrons and protons (hydrogen ions) is one of the two essential half reactions of an artifical photosynthesis system - it provides the electrons needed to reduce carbon dioxide to a fuel,” said Heinz Frei, a chemist with Berkeley Lab’s Physical Biosciences Division, who conducted this research with his postdoctoral fellow Feng Jiao. “Effective photooxidation requires a catalyst that is both efficient in its use of solar photons and fast enough to keep up with solar flux in order to avoid wasting those photons. Clusters of cobalt oxide nanocrystals are sufficiently efficient and fast, and are also robust (last a long time) and abundant. They perfectly fit the bill.”

Artificial photosynthesis for the production of liquid fuels offers the promise of a renewable and carbon-neutral source of transportation energy, meaning it would not contribute to the global warming that results from the burning of oil and coal. The idea is to improve upon the process that has long-served green plants and certain bacteria by integrating into a single platform light-harvesting systems that can capture solar photons and catalytic systems that can oxidize water - in other words, an artificial leaf.

an "artificial leaf" that can be installed just about anywhere to offset CO2 emissions and produce a renewable fuel. wouldn't that be awesome?

we just need to focus efforts towards the proper technology:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_...032508.php

Artificial photosynthesis moves a step closer
Jülich scientists synthesise stable catalyst for water oxidation


Jülich, 25 March 2008 – Jülich scientists have made an important step on the long road to artificially mimicking photosynthesis. They were able to synthesise a stable inorganic metal oxide cluster, which enables the fast and effective oxidation of water to oxygen. This is reported by the German high-impact journal "Angewandte Chemie" in a publication rated as a VIP ("very important paper"). Artificial photosynthesis may decisively contribute to solving energy and climate problems, if researchers find a way to efficiently produce hydrogen with the aid of solar energy.

Hydrogen is regarded as the energy carrier of the future. The automobile industry, for example, is working hard to introduce fuel cell technology starting in approximately 2010. However, a fuel cell drive system can only be really environmentally friendly, if researchers succeed in producing hydrogen from renewable sources. Artificial photosynthesis, i.e. the splitting of water into oxygen and hydrogen with the aid of sunlight, could be an elegant way of solving this problem.

However, the road to success is littered with obstacles. One of the obstacles to be overcome is the formation of aggressive substances in the process of water oxidation. Plants solve this problem by constantly repairing and replacing their green catalysts. A technical imitation depends on more stable catalysts as developed and synthesised for the first time by a team from Research Centre Jülich, member of the Helmholtz Association, and from Emory University in Atlanta, USA. The new inorganic metal oxide cluster with a core consisting of four ions of the rare transition metal ruthenium catalyses the fast and effective oxidation of water to oxygen while remaining stable itself.

"Our water-soluble tetraruthenium complex displays its effects in aqueous solution already at ambient temperature," enthuses Prof. Paul Kögerler from the Jülich Institute of Solid State Research, who synthesised and characterised the promising cluster together with his colleague Dr. Bogdan Botar. Catalytic measurements were carried out at Emory University. "In contrast to all other molecular catalysts for water oxidation, our catalyst does not contain any organic components. This is why it is so stable".

Botar explains the next step: "Now the challenge is to integrate this ruthenium complex into photoactive systems, which efficiently convert solar energy into chemical energy". So far, energy is still obtained from a chemical oxidant.

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/news/s...=123118409

The ultimate goal of this research is to have buildings serve as their own power stations. Given the ready availability of both cobalt-phosphate catalysts and solar-generated electricity, it would be possible to use any excess daytime electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. These products could be immediately stored and then recombined at night with fuel cells to power buildings as well as plug-in ground vehicles.

Realization of this goal is still a long way off, but Dr. Nocera is excited to continue his breakthrough research. He has already contacted vendors to manufacture new components for expanded testing and in the near future would like to demonstrate the saltwater-desalinization utility of the process as well.

By funding research scientists like Dr. Nocera, AFOSR continues to expand the horizon of scientific knowledge through its leadership and management of the Air Force's basic research program.

the government need to fund this research on a larger scale. it is very promising and seems to be a lot more practical that straight electrolysis.

Read "The Hype About Hydrogen" by Dr. Joseph Romm.

I believe that hydrogen fuel cells, in conjunction with electric vehicles will be the future. The reason? Simple.

Hydrogen produces heat. When you're moving in the summer, you don't care about heat, but in the winter, YOU REALLY CARE. Nobody is going to drive in a cold car. That's the beauty of gasoline engines, but it's wasteful. The ability to produce hydrogen inside a bank of fuel cells to produce heat is far more efficient than trying to make heat from battery power.

Secondly, a small amount of hydrogen in a car will give the car additional range, making people feel more secure when going on trips or when the power goes out.

Hydrogen in itself is extremely easy to make, the infrastructure doesn't have to be on the road, it can be placed at home - for the most part. Would the cost be prohibitive? Probably not. The main problem with hydrogen is that it's explosive, which makes car wrecks a nightmare. But if a small protected tank of hydrogen is in the car, I believe it's a viable addition to battery power.

I guess someone had better phone and tell these guys that Hydrogen cars is a thing of the past. They seem to have missed the memo.
http://www.dnv.com/moreondnv/research_innovation/fuel_fighter/index.asp

Hydrogen is a bad fit for cars, or more specifically, isn't as good as batteries. Batteries are better developed, have fewer safety concerns, and have a better infrastructure. In terms of potential batteries are better as well.

What I see as the usefulness of hydrogen is the very low side effect cost of conversion from hydrogen to electricity and back. The only substantial cost of conversion is electricity loss. That is substantial but for certain applications the reward outweighs the cost, such as storage of energy from daytime solar for night time power.

Another useful aspect of hydrogen is it's scalability of storage. Big big tanks tied to average size burners/turbines are cheap in comparison to massive batteries.

What these advantages line hydrogen up for is utility scale power storage. There are other solutions vying for this space, such as molten salt or pumped water, but I think hydrogen has greater potential. Unlike using hydrogen in cars, the know-how already exists for using hydrogen for power storage, it's simply never been built to scale, basically because such things don't become applicable until you have large amounts of uncontrollable but variable power sources. Solar is an example, wind also is, but hydro is not because dam engineers (mostly) control when water flows and when it doesn't. The best you can do with solar/wind is predict when it will shine/blow, but you can't control it.

These anti-hydrogen comments are LIES. Just think about it: why would electricity made from water, the only waste product of which is also water, be bad? Battery companies, oil companies and coal companies (the evil 3) spend more money than you can imagine, on lobbyists and shills to write and say anything they can come up with to stop hydrogen energy from happening.
Water is everywhere and it is free and it is where hydrogen lives and that is why the Evil 3 bribe politicians, print millions of erroneous articles and blogs and put laws on the books to try to delay or stop it. The Evil 3 causes war, cancer, lung disease and inflation. Recent nanotechnology allows hydrogen to be extracted from water very efficiently without CO2. Oil companies own the world and they will do anything to stop hydrogen from coming. Even if H2 was not efficient, but now it is, isn’t it worth anything to get rid of the cancer that is killing our kids?

Hank I'd like to point out number by number from your article some misconceptions.
1. There's currently no cheap way produce the fuel.
Making Hydrogen is easier than making beer. you can make it with as low as 120v 15amp, with a copper and aluminum leads.
2. There's no good, cheap way to transport it.
no need to transport it you make it at the point of sale.
3. Gas stations would have to be completely overhauled with new expensive infrastructure. No so see examples from Iceland, Norway, Japan and German.
4. Hydrogen-powered cars remain an order of magnitude more expensive than gasoline cars
google the new Mazda rotary engine.

Why doesn't any even mention Hydrogen as a lifting gas?

While I am definitely more in favor of the electric engine as a short term answer to alot of problems, EricR has made some really viable arguments for the further development of Hydrogen as a fuel.

One of the major drawbacks to hydrogen are the platinum electrodes, but there are other Electrolysisnew innovative Electrode materials for Hydrogen.

I love the idea of eventually having hydrogen-cell/electric hybrid vehicles as this is the best of both worlds and solves all major issues.

I smell a rat and, after smelling so many rats in the Cheney/Bush administration for 8 long years, I know a rat when I smell one!
Besides, the writer of this article, being a probable member of the Far Right Wing Fascist, NeoConservative political movement, is bound to be an excellent propagandist on the order of Carl Rove and Rush Limbaugh.
It seems to me that the writer of 'Hydrogen in the Past' might well be on the payrolls of Big Oil and Big Energy and Big Texas Natural Gas, since the writer is surely in a great hurry to dismantle our fledgling Hydrogen Fueled revolution.
The only way to get the attention of greedy corporations and power companies is by speaking their language, which is MONEY, and by denying them MONEY by BOYCOTTING their products and services to the best of our ability!
Americans all over our nation are finally pulling together to throw off the yoke of Big Oil and Big Power by consuming less gasoline than ever before; now, we are traveling an average of one billion miles per quarter less every year; we are using less electricity at home; and we are consuming less in the market place!
Still, Oil Speculators continue to force the price of crude oil higher when our demand for oil is flat-lining nationwide; greedy Wall St.Thugs continue to purchase whole shiploads of oil by the billions of gallons with the sole intent of holding these ships in storage until they can force the price of crude falsely high again.
I say put the greedy thugs out of business by either refusing to consume entirely when possible or consuming at minimum levels only when necessary!
DRIVE ON AMERICA! WE CAN DO IT!

I need that car. Does that mean the cost of water is going to sky rocket...