Toyota plans to sell fuel cell car by 2015

i definitely dont know that BMW is building carbon fiber tanks for Toyota, and neither do you because it was never mentioned anywhere... This seems like Ford/Toyota licensing deal, where they have to show "cross" licensing for the press, but at the end Ford/BMW end up paying Toyota for technology.

 

You acted like you know what the cf tech toyota was taking from bmw. I definitely do not know what is being traded. The main tech that I do know about, is that toyota is going to use some bmw diesel engines in europe. Last I checked bmw was working with liquid Hydrogen, and was pesimistic about fuel cell vehicles.

 

SMR = Steam Methane Reforming
SMR is the standard industry H2 making process used worldwide for H2 manufacture today in refining and chemicals. I do not know what they mean by membrane, but the SMR process typically makes 96% H2 4% CH4 and if you want 100% H2 then you need to membrane or molecular seive (PSA) process to get to 100% as is often the case. The CO2 is removed by amine scrubber which means it is pure form for sales.

 

We know what is written in press releases, and there was never ever a hint of anything about building new tanks for Toyota and to suggest that Toyota is buying technology from BMW to lower the cost of hydrogen vehicles speaks well of his imagination.

What seems to be happening is that BMW does not have R&D to cover all of the new technologies, so is willing to buy batteries and hybrid systems from Toyota, on the other side Toyota will get diesels from BMW in Europe (current ones are not Euro VI ready, and it comes in force in 2014), and some mambo jumbo about developing new car together and using BMW's know-how in carbon fiber to lower vehicle weight.

 

Natural gas is a bad choice.

US imports natural gas so the same trade deficit and energy war issues. US natural gas extraction has gotten ruinously destructive with massive water pollution and destruction of underground aquifers which are needed for the increasing drought.

Best to go solar PV using ocean platforms in sunny areas with the energy source on top and the fuel source on the bottom. With 44% of world's population in coastal areas the fuel source can be very local, lower transport costs.

 

Apology appreciated. I hope I was clear on what specifically I thought was unwarranted. It was NOT the discussion of pros and cons. When one attacks the person making the argument, not the argument itself, that is an ad hominem argument.

 

There are plenty of roofs for putting solar on. There are plenty of parking lots for putting solar on. Both of which are far more local the any off-shore location. Putting electrical systems in the ocean is a horrendous undertaking. Additionally, ocean is useful for food production, desserts would be a third alternative. If you want energy from the ocean, tidal, wave, and off-shore wind would seem better options.

 

...if you are religiously opposed to drilling for oil and gas, then you can make H2 from biomass gasification quite easily and cheaper than off-shore solar platforms.

 

Indeed and one could certainly use it and local utility water to make hydrogen fuel. But for scale and unobstructed and efficient solar and fuel source, the ocean locations make the most sense.

And the shading might well provide some small measure of help in global warming especially for the sea life that grows in the currently cold ocean currents.

Oceans are deserts generally plus no fuel source in the desert.

 

More scientifically, ecologically and strategically opposed to using fossil fuels. I leave religion to those behind the current crusade in the Middle East for oil and Christ.

 

Here's how easy it is to make H2 + CO from wood (YouTube video).
The darn near-impossible thing is solids handling for scaling this baby up for large volume continuous operation. In World War 2 several million cars operated on this principle - the first H2 cars!!

Here's a backyard lawnmower running on H2 from wood:

wood gas generator - YouTube

 

On the contrary, putting solar panels over the ocean would INCREASE warming. And sea life, like all other life needs light for photosynthesis, they REALLY don't need shade.

Water isn't a fuel source. At best it is a material source.

 

Nice, and you can probably convert switch grass too. It would likely take a lot of energy to separate the hydrogen. Can you run it in a car with fuel injectors, or do you need a carb?

You could burn the syngas in a ccgt and make electricity from biomass though.

 

Solar panels would absorb energy that would otherwise heat the ocean resulting in cooler sea temperature. This is going to be minimal though due the relatively miniscule area used for solar panels.

Colder water holds much more O2 and CO2 which is why the colder oceans are the most productive as far as volume of organics. One of the reasons global warming is a problem because it lowers the overall carrying capacity of the oceans which are the main heat sink for the planet.

But again, the area of solar panels would be so small relative to the size of the oceans and concentrated in the hotter sunnier less productive climates as to have little cooling effect.

The water is the fuel source, the H2 and the O2, but the energy source to distill the fuel is the sunlight.

 

Ya know ProxSuns, I cannot decide which is more impressive about you: your ignorance or your attitude.

 

I would have to say my ignorance as there is so much we don't know.

As for attitude, hopeless optimist. All we can really do is keep moving forward.

As for above, always eager to learn more facts. Do you think solar panels would not absorb energy that would otherwise heat the ocean? That colder water does not hold more O2 and CO2? That enough solar panels to provide enough electricity and hydrogen for world's current energy needs would not be small percentage of ocean area?

 

You be the judge...I say you need a carb. It is easy to separate H2 from CO2, and CO is converted to methane by water gas shift. Methane can be separated from H2 by membrane or mole sieves. These are all standard unit processes in an H2 plant. Putting it all on a car is nifty challenge of course.

 

If you are going to adjust to be in-line with reality, you can't use the ideal maximum 60% for the powerplant. You'll need to use the reality (33% per EIA) for electricity as well.

 

Sorry, it should read 2009 FCHV-adv (4,136) weights less than 2009 Highlander HSD (4,508). Fuel cell hybrid weights less than a comparable gas-electric hybrid.

 

Today's reality is there just is not hydrogen infrastructure, it needs to be built. I used the best of today's tech, not future goals, but we can use future goals if you want. Today 61% on the best on-site, future goal 71% when compressed to 10,000 psi. In reality since hydrogen will need to be trucked or pumped that 71% is only achievable in a small concentrated number stations. Use it if you must. Anything we build by 2015 will be lucky to average 60% from the SMR plant to the pump.

The last GE plant I saw go in was 58% efficient from 40%-87% capacity, and 61% from 87%-100%. Below 40% it acts like an ocgt. It can cycle up in 30 minutes. That means if you turn it off its first half hour is likely around 30% efficient. Siemens has a similar ccgt that is designed to work with renewable. These are not ideal plants, these are the new plants getting added to the grid. They are designed to quickly ramp up and down to stabilize the grid for renewables and can be used as peaking plants. For the last 15 years ccgt and wind have been more than 90% of new grid capacity. There will be large retirements of coal this year and 2015. By the time fuel cell cars are on the roads in quantities of even 10,000 - there will be more of a shift to ccgt and renewables. Why would you strap 50+ year old coal plants to charge new plug-ins? We want to replace these and the old steam gas plants with the new more efficient tech. Coal can't cycle well for renewables. EIA estimated that average effciency of ccgt were 45% in 2009, the low efficiency was because they were used as peaking plants.