THE REALITY OF HYDROGEN-POWERED CARS

Bummer that we don't all live in Iceland! Must be nice having *clean* windfall energy in abundance.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Areometer @ Jun 4 2006, 05:34 PM) [snapback]265768[/snapback]</div>

Yes, and cell phone company's will NEVER be able to transfer phone number from other users because it is technologically impossible! oh wait...

H is the way of the future! period.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Jun 4 2006, 11:08 PM) [snapback]265861[/snapback]</div>

Well, the "way of the future" started 16 years ago, and was tossed out as rubbish, so the *new* way of the future could arrive in 20 years. I'm not sure we can afford to just wait for the future when a huge part of the solution we're waiting for is being ignored.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Jun 5 2006, 02:08 AM) [snapback]265861[/snapback]</div>

ok, expert.

Start by explaining where the hydrogen is going to come from.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Jun 8 2006, 07:59 AM) [snapback]267803[/snapback]</div>

water.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Jun 8 2006, 09:11 AM) [snapback]267813[/snapback]</div>

Then explain how you separate H2 molecules from H2O, how much energy is required? What if we use that energy to propel a car instead? Skipping the step in the middle to minimize conversion loss.

 

http://www.darelldd.com/ev/

Hydrogen takes 3X to 4X more energy than BEVs (battery electric vehicles) to propel you the same distance down the road...with LESS range!

Why we would do this is beyond me...THREE to FOUR times more.

I think the conservationist in all of us can see this ain't gonna cut it.

At least plug-ins... more options for EV-onlys, THAT's the future.

Maybe hydrogen for stationary power, but the extraction (yes, you have to "get at" the H), refining, storage, and use are NOT as efficient as having renewable wind/solar (heck, coal for the immediate time) charge a battery and turn the wheels.

cheers,

Curt.

 

H may or may not be the way of the future, but based on current designs, fuel cells are a dead end- unless some genius develops a fuel cell that doesn't require platinum-group catalysts to work, the problem is that we don't have enough platinum on the entire planet to make all these fuel cells- I'd go so far to say that we'd run out of platinum well before we'd run out of oil..

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Areometer @ Jun 4 2006, 06:34 PM) [snapback]265768[/snapback]</div>

I think both the pipe dream and the scam theories are correct.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Jun 4 2006, 11:08 PM) [snapback]265861[/snapback]</div>

I have seen a magazine article from the late 1940s or early 1950s that said by 1960 we would have a helicopter in every garage, this was widely believed. A lot of people from that era also believed that the population explosion would soon end and we would eliminate hunger by the end of the decade. Optimistic people always believed good things about the future but if you want to know the truth listen to the skeptics and the cynics.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Jun 8 2006, 07:11 AM) [snapback]267813[/snapback]</div>

Last time I checked, water doesn't burn.

That's like saying we can get more gasoline from car exhaust.

Nate

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(malorn @ Jun 8 2006, 06:11 AM) [snapback]267813[/snapback]</div>

Why bother with water? We could get it from natural gas. From gasoline! From air. Water just sounds so darn "green" doesn't it? That's where we should get all our electricity too!

Seriously.... let's rephrase the question: HOW do we get the H2?

Show of hands now... who thinks that H2 is a source of energy as is so often reported in the media?

 

Before you pull a "Lord Kelvin", (president of the British Royal Society of Science in the late 1800s), who made the following statements:
"There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now, All that remains is more and more precise measurement."

"X-rays will prove to be a hoax."

"We know that light is propagated like sound through pressure and motion."

Or Bill Gates: "Why would anyone want more than 640k of memory?"

Be careful about what you predict, you may have to eat your own words.
As to hydrogen powered cars. I would point you to the following link

Honda Fuel Cell Vehicle

Honda is not a fly by night auto maker, I take them seriously. This car is scheduled to go into PRODUCTION in the next 3-4 years. Note that it gets 350 miles to a tank of fuel.

It should be noted that both hydrogen and batteries are merely mediums for energy STORAGE. The advantage of hydrogen over batteries is the greatly reduced time it takes to refuel the vehicle. Ultimately, all of our motor vehicle energy comes from the sun. Wind, petrolium and hydrogen as energy sources all come ultimately from the sun, and solar energy is the only energy source we don't have to worry about exhausting (if it goes, we go). In fact the only NON-SOLAR energy source is nuclear, and it IS finite.

 

Fuel cells look good in Iceland only because they have more clean electricity than they know what to do with. They may as well use some of it on hydrogen production, and create less pollution than by burning gasoline. But that's Iceland. The rest of us aren't so lucky. Hydrogen is LESS efficient than gasoline, because it takes so much more energy to make it. The skeptic's point is that we'd be better off using that energy directly. The entire production stream has to be considered for any comparison to be valid.

 

"The key to fuel cell performance is water management; Honda's new system takes full advantage of gravity to efficiently discharge water formed during electricity generation. This improves performance in sub-zero temperatures, further solving the problem of cold-weather startup that has been a key obstacle to the commercialization of FCV's."

Huh? gravity? so it just drains to where? the roadway? Won't low temps STILL effect performance of the fuel-cell if it isn't heated somehow?

Cool lookin' car!!

The home hydrogen thing uses natural gas to 'make' the hydrogen, then u "plug it in" to re-fuel.

Hmmmm, sounds like that's been done before...plug it in at home...without the hydrogen messiness...it's called an EV!!

What's the energy requirement to 'make' hydrogen...using electricity?

About 3X to 4X times MORE than if you just plugged in an EV. Lithium and up-coming battery technologies have a 300 mile range. No fuel-cell foolishness. Just a battery, motor(s), and control software. NO pressurized 'tank', no water draining by gravity.

Why hydrogen, again (shaking head)?? It doesn't have to be SO complicated, IMO.

cheers,

Curt.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(finman @ Jun 9 2006, 11:33 AM) [snapback]268602[/snapback]</div>

Yeah, but it takes HOURS to refuel the car. What do you do if you have to drive 600 miles? Stay at a hotel while you car is refueled? Travelling only 300 miles a DAY is a very slow way to drive cross country.

 

so's waiting for the hydrogen filler truck...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(David H. Hawkins @ Jun 8 2006, 02:13 PM) [snapback]268250[/snapback]</div>

I just said in another thread that I'm not counting FCV's out. I just think it needs to be noted that we do have an interim solution that's viable for millions of drivers right now! And it has been abandoned lock stock and barrel for the promise (and really, that's all we have no, regardless of what the future reality may be) of Fuel Cell vehicles.

I take them seriously too. I also take Toshiba seriously. Six year ago, the were to have a fuel-cell-powered laptop on the market "in one or two years." I've now heard that same timeframe for the past six years. And here we still are. Fuel Cell cars were to be in the market in the late 60's according to GM (which was a real company back then). And here we still are. Be groovy if Honda puts that into production at some nebulous date in the future. Any guess what the cost might be? When the infrastructure will arrive? Who will pay for it? Where we'll get the energy to make the H2? All hurdles we can cross.... but all hurdles that take time and money while we sit here and burn gasoline.... when we don't need to in many situations.

You could very well have discovered the ONE advantage to H2 over batteries. Want me to list the detractions, or are you aware of them already? And of course you are aware of fast-charging that has been around - and in practical use for 15 years? And that thousands of fast charging stations could be sprinked about the country for the cost of just ONE H2 filling station?

Of course. And that doesn't tell us much of value for this discussion. I'm making electricity from my solar panels RIGHT NOW... that I'll use tomorrow in my main car. If you can't make your petroleum product from the sun to use in this lifetime, I don't see what the point is.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(David H. Hawkins @ Jun 9 2006, 09:12 AM) [snapback]268630[/snapback]</div>

You have fallen into the very common trap of comparing existing battery cars from 10 years ago with pie-in-the-sky future promises of Fuel Cells that don't yet exist. The battery cars you are talking about HAVE been produced. And they HAVE been driven. And the DO work for every day drivers. They're real. And you can clearly see some of their detractions because we're living with them. We can pretend Fuel Cells will be everything dreamy because they don't yet exist in production form, and we can see none of the drawbacks (though we can predict them from current experience with prototypes). And even considering that disjoint of past reality vs. future fantasy, you still are incorrect as far as charge times. Fast charging was developed right alongside the production EVs of ten years ago. And it is in wide use in airport ground support, and several other high-use industries. It exists, it is real, and it reduces charge time down to a matter of minutes. You've got to stop and pee at some point. Might as well charge too.

If you would like to compare apples to apples as closely as possible, you should see this page:
http://www.darelldd.com/ev/docs/acp_ev_vs_fc.pdf

And if you want more detail, you can read the whole paper:
http://www.darelldd.com/ev/docs/carbdetour_eaa.pdf

These are examples of our *reality*. And even then you're looking at a diparagy of seven years in favor of the FCV....

Not every car has to be a long range car, does it? What percentage of American drivers cross the country every month? Year? Lifetime? I've happily owned several cars that I would never consider crossing the country in! In fact, in 25 years of driving, and about 3/4 of a million miles under my belt, I have yet to cross the country in a car! We would do well do get off the kick that every vehicle has to do everything. I wouldn't go camping in my Corvette. I wouldn't cross the country on my 250cc motorcycle, I wouldn't take my wife out to dinner in my work truck. I wouldn't tow my boat with my Porsche. I wouldn't commute in my SUV. There are so many different kinds of vehicles that perform some tasks REALLY well, and there is not one vehicle ever rmade thad that does them all well. What we need is the right tool for the job. And the biggest job that cars do in the US is commute to work. Second is taxi for the kids. For both fo these, an EV is ideal.

There will always be a need for long-range vehicles. At this point, EVs are not the best suited for that job. But then neither are FCV's of course. While you at least COULD fuel an EV almost anywhere in the world, where are you going to find H2 for your FCV? You can do what they've done so far with demonstration FCV drives: Have a diesel-powered tanker truck follow you everywhere with a load of H2.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(finman @ Jun 9 2006, 08:33 AM) [snapback]268602[/snapback]</div>

Very few folks realize what is involved in driving a FCV today (the prototypes, naturally - since there are no production vehicles). There is a complicated, noisy startup procedure, and an equally complicated shut-down procedure (part of which is evacuating any moisture to prevent mold, freezing, what have you. There are so many pumps and plumbing fixtures that it makes your head spin. YOu don't just hop in and drive away in these things (ah...unless you have battery power to allow that). The thing needs to come up to temperature (usually by using battery power, of course) and the sytem needs to flush all the crap out and prepare itself for electricity generation. A FCV at *idle* consumes about as much energy as a battery car comsumes at 30mph. Batteries pretty much run themselves. Fuel Cell stacks don't.

And yes... one of the answers to your question is that it can leave a BIG puddle of water on the floor (about 2C) during the shut-down cycle. Don't you want that on your garage floor every time you park?