<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Jun 27 2007, 11:26 AM) [snapback]468934[/snapback]</div>

Jack... you're joking about changing your mind on the last part, aren't you?

"allows the material to store up to 3.31 percent of it's weight in hydrogen at atmospheric pressure and room temperature. If the temperature of the carbon is reduced the hydrogen absorption increases even more. Unfortunately all of this is so far only simulated. The next step will be to try and verify this experimentally. "

Not only is this not very impressive in reality... it is only simulated at this point. We have equally geeky scientists coming up with perpetual motion machines - at least in simulation. Really... there is plenty of potential of advancement for this stuff... but the chance of it being ready for market in our lifetimes is getting slimmer and slimmer. They can't even do it the easy way (shoving it into a tank) yet. How will they pull this off?

Contrary to what it says in the article, and the subject line here, they have not "developed" anything.

H2 IS being used to keep the the gas guzzlers selling.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Jun 27 2007, 02:47 PM) [snapback]468950[/snapback]</div>

tongue in cheek, at least about GM; not very obvious but that was the intent. I WAS curious, though, as to whether it was a breakthrough or not. B)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Jun 27 2007, 01:47 PM) [snapback]468950[/snapback]</div>

Hydrogen is the lightest element, so 3.3% of the carbon weight is a significant amount of hydrogen. I was trying to find some data from Energy Conversion Devices (their Ovonics division also has a method of storing hydrogen in a solid), but it didn't say that type of statistic, and I can't do the math at 6:30 pm.

But you're right, this is a simulated result, they don't say if this is reusable, the cost of this system, and there's still problems with generating the hydrogen in the first place. Other problems exist too like cheap fuel-cells, but generating H2 and storing it are arguably the two biggest, because you could burn H2 in an ICE, if H2 was cheap enough to carry around in a vehicle. ECD has powered a Prius for 200 miles on a tank of H2 using this method, but of course the H2 is not cheap enough for consumers to do this.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nerfer @ Jun 27 2007, 04:33 PM) [snapback]469101[/snapback]</div>

It could be, depending on how much the carbon weighs, I guess. And yet STORING H2 is not the same has holding it and letting it go again. Just because you can suck it all up doesn't mean you can just as easily let it go.

But yeah... we're on the same page here. It could be GREAT. But then so could a photovoltaic cell that was 98% efficient! I know some guys who have plans for those as well... We've got functioning FCVs that we can't even bring to market. Any talk about this kind of "breakthrough" as if it'll help us in the real world is a wee bit premature!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JackDodge @ Jun 27 2007, 11:56 AM) [snapback]468957[/snapback]</div>

Whew. If I didn't already know you, I'd have worried more.

I have trouble classifying any simulations as breakthroughs. Even when something exciting is done in the lab, it is still overwhelmingly likely to never be commercialized, unfortunately. But hey, we do need to keep working away at this stuff.

The DOE had a storage requirement of 4% and there are some working Carbon nanotube prototypes that exceeded the target by a little, if I recall. The theoretical storage capacity is something like 65% for nanotubes... hence an article written about 2 years ago about 5K miles on a tank. The problem, of course, is that carbon nanotube stuff is wildly expensive and I don't no of any manufacturing process for materials of this type, everything now is custom made in the lab, so it's outrageously expensive. Most of my information is pretty dated though (> 1 yr old) because like a lot of folks here, I don't see H2 as a short/mid term solution to our problems. BEVs make WAY more sense from every practical standpoint (cost, range, infrastructure, etc...)

I do think that this sort of research is very worthwhile. It's basic science research that can advance our knowledge in a whole host of areas. Who knows what sort of applications might come from it... That said, we need to realize that it's not going to bear fruit for quite some time, a lot like the quantum dot research going on in the PV world. To quote Jack Aubrey, "... fascinating no doubt, but of no immediate application".

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Jun 27 2007, 07:48 PM) [snapback]469177[/snapback]</div>

Well said!

So what's is Honda doing differently to be able to bring it's Hydrogen car, the FCX, to market in '08?

Apparently, they've overcome some technological challenges & there appears to be only availability of refueling station issue now.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MickeyA @ Jun 28 2007, 12:06 PM) [snapback]469440[/snapback]</div>

From what we've read and heard over the past few years at least, Mickey, hydrogen fuel cell-powered vehicles are a pipe dream that will never be brought to mass production. The technical hurdles are high, even insurmountable, and GM uses the excuse that they don't have enough refueling stations to bring them to market. Nonsense. They could start in one concentrated area of the country, like Chicago for example, and expand outward. They could set one up in each major city and expand out as more cars were sold. No, it's not the lack of refueling stations, rather, it's the fact that the real problems are too complex for the average consumer to even think about, let alone comprehend, and too great for the status quo (GM, Shell, et al) to produce, let alone make money on, so you won't see anything of FCV other than $1,000,000 prototypes ever.

Sorry to mislead, darelldd, it's difficult to drip with sarcasm in plain text sometimes. :lol:

Honda is using a conventional high pressure tank for hydrogen storage.. The FCX is expected to be a very limited production vehicle..

As far as I'm concerned, the single biggest hurdle to fuel cell technology is still the requirement for platinum-group catalysts to make the fuel cell reaction work.. It doesn't matter how safe and compact you can make the hydrogen storage, the technolgy is simply not viable because there isn't enough catalyst material in the world to replace all our automobiles with fuel-cell versions, never mind supplying all the other industries and processes that also require platinum-group metals...

Now if someone could pull an asteroid into near-earth orbit and mine it, then your catalyst worries are over, but until this happens, hydrogen is little more than a pipe dream that will never work for more than a small handful of experimental vehicles..

C4 has nailed it: Honda is using a high compression storage tank. But even before the storage problem is the the fact that H2 does not exist naturally here on earth. It has to to be manufactured, and how that is done determines how clean the fuel really is...

If they move away from PEM fuel cells that may not be true. SOFC and MCFCs don't require platinum, however, they're not ideal for vehicles either (at least not now). These two technologies can be excellent replacements for stationary power generators, as they can run on a variety of fuels (methane, biogas, diesel, etc) and they're quite efficient. The waste heat that they produce can be used to produce even more electricity or heat water, etc.

These are Greek research attention seekers. Nanotubes are a solution looking for a problem, semiconductor to fuel tank.

$$$$ that's the real problem. The cost of FCV's is just to high to ever convince the average consumer to purchase one. Even if they gave the fuel away. Then there's still the MTBF problem with them. Maybe 30 years out but I really doubt it then. I'll be 90 then and no one in my family has ever made it that long, so not really waiting for them to show on the dealer's showroom floor.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Jun 27 2007, 05:09 PM) [snapback]469120[/snapback]</div>

Well carbon weighs roughly 12 hydrogens. So 3.3% of that is about 4/10ths of one hydrogen, however since the carbon is in a solid form it's more densely packed, almost like having a hunk of solid hydrogen in the car...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Jun 28 2007, 12:41 PM) [snapback]469470[/snapback]</div>

So in layman's term: How is Honda going to do it?

http://automobiles.honda.com/images/future...WeekArticle.pdf

What's the price tag on all of that kit? And it still is just a NG reformer, which is really cool, but not a sustainable form of transportation in and of itself. Sure you could electrolyze water for your H2, but this requires a lot of energy, energy that could push an EV many, many miles. There's no discussion of infrastructure, which is necessary from time to time at least. We're much closer to an EV solution there than an H2 solution. Even FCVs have evolved in a few short years into hybrids. It's unclear from the article how large the Lion batteries are, but many of the newer FCV designs have reduced the size of the FC stack and added batteries, which are far cheaper. It would seem that these things would be pretty complex. Whether they're as complex as an ICE (in terms of moving parts and the like, not in the materials science) or not, it would seem that they'd have a fairly involved maintenance schedule. Something that EVs aren't encumbered with.

Frankly, I don't see how these sort of vehicles will survive long term because as they advance, so does battery technology (which is advancing quite rapidly on its own). The higher volumes the cheaper the batteries get. Given the advantages of electricity over hydrogen it seems that EVs are the natural winners over FCVs because of vehicle costs, energy costs, and infrastructure costs.

This long, strange, diversion into H2 powered vehicles needs someone to point out the King Has No Clothes.

1) The EV1 was a success, using battery technology that is now very old. It was GM management that was the failure. The silver lining is that other companies are filling the void. Tesla Motors has a 200 mile (down from 250 after learning prototype lessons) vehicle that is now ENTIRELY limited by production limitations, NOT technology limitations. Does battery technology have to improve to provide electric cars...NO, it is here already. Does the battery technology have to improve to get the average Jane/Joe to consider an electric car....YES. Will battery technology improve? Yes.

2) The only infrastructure not established for the electric car is the battery replacement/upgrade infrastructure. Right now most everyone (incorrectly) thinks of the battery as an integral part of the car. Some auto design will make the change to having the battery supplied as customer selected configuration item. These batteries will be handled not a whole lot differently than propane tanks are handled. (If I trade in my five 10 kWh LiIon battery modules for five 20 kWh ChromiumIon batteries, I can go 600 miles per charge. $300 for each module with the $200 turn in rebate) THINK about this.

3) The energy connection is already in your house. Once you have a vehicle that you pull into your garage, the charge connection is automatically made. (The inventor of this is going to be rich, or already is.). Pulling into ANY fuel station will only be for truckers and antique cars. This energy can be 100% solar....and once oil starts to taper off, probably will be. Getting your fuel for free has already happened for some. It's being delivered to your house every day.

4) The cars are simpler. Electric Motors are 100% mature. Very little technology improvements left. The rest of the car uses exactly the same stuff on your present car (brakes, steering, etc.). Everything else gets put into museums (Engine, Cat Converters, Gas Tank, Oil Filters, Air Filters).

So why is a technology that 1) Requires an expense car, 2) Fill ups that cost $$$, 3) Overhauls to every gas station, 4) Uses natural gas, 5) Will have a lot more failure mechanisms, 6) Can suffer from shortages, 7) requires very elaborate repair facilities, and 8) has huge explosive potential, be considered the answer.

The government spends tax dollars financing this. No smart company spends a cent on this. The marketplace has spoken.