Toyota to announce hydrogen fuel cell breakthrough

Hope this helps you:
Burning 1 Gallon of Gasoline Produces 20 Pounds of CO2 - by blinkin - Newsvine

From the article:

Now lets see how much H2O or water is produced:
A H2O molecule has two Hydrogen atoms (atomic weight 1) and one oxygen atom (atomic weight of 16 each). Each Hydrogen atom has a weight of 1, and the oxygen atom has a weight of 16, giving each single molecule of H20 an atomic weight of 18 (2 from Hydrogen and 16 from oxygen).
Therefore, to calculate the amount of H2O produced from a gallon of gasoline, the weight of the Hydrogen in the gasoline is multiplied by 18/2 or 9.
Since gasoline is about 87% carbon and 13% hydrogen by weight, the Hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline weighs 0.8 pounds (6.3 lbs. x .13). We can then multiply the weight of the Hydrogen (0.8 pounds) by 9, which equals 7 pounds of H2O or water and water vapor.

As you can see, 1 gallon of gasoline contains 0.8 pounds of hydrogen and produces 7.2 pounds of H20 when burned.

1 kilogram of hydrogen has the same BTU energy content as 1 gallon of gasoline; 1 kg = 2.2 pounds, so burning it would produce 19.8 pounds of H20

HOWEVER:

We must keep in mind that a Fuel Cell Vehicle is twice as efficient as an ICE vehicle. So, let's say we have a 20 mpg ICE SUV.....it would produce 7.2 pounds of H20 per 20 miles

The exact same SUV with a fuel cell in it would achieve 40 miles per kg of hydrogen. So, it would produce 19.8 pounds of H20 per 40 miles, or 9.9 pounds per 20 miles.

comparing 9.9 pounds to 7.2 pounds, we see that the FCV will produce 37.5% more water vapor per mile than a comparable ICE car.

Not sure if the extra 38% will create a problem with 'black ice'......I don't know what the threshold is for when those problems begin.

 

with the take rate of the public on alternative energy vehicles, and 17 trillion dollars in debt, and gas in the low $3's, i don't know if this is the right time to invest in more alternatives.

 

I think the real problem with FCEVs and extreme cold will be in keeping the exhaust from freezing up. High efficiency means less waste heat to keep the pipes hot. I'm pretty sure the issue has been addressed early on in development already, though.

 

Yes, we're really talking about a very hypothetical problem here.
I would say it would be at least 2050 - if not much later - before there are enough FCV's on icy roads for this to be an issue......and even then, this suggests that the conditions for its formations are rare:
CNN Reports 'Black Ice' is Caused by Car Exhaust

Agreed. Don't see why they wouldn't be able to use resistance heaters on outside of exhaust lines to prevent the issue. This would probably require a slight increase in battery capacity, but the battery does the driving during FC warmup anyhow.

 

I'm sure some EPA committee will decide that water vapor is a pollutant and establish a tax for dumping it along the roadway.

 

Yes in 2009
Toyota hydrogen cars | Cold weather performance

Now the real problem is finding fueling in the cold. Then you have to find a buyer that wants the compromises of a FCV versus a hybrid or plug-in that lives in the cold weather.

 

I would think compressing the hydrogen in extreme cold would be a little more efficient.

 

Who is going to pay for it? You need to produce or truck the the hydgrogen to the station. That takes more energy in the cold. If you have fewer fcv, then you are paying for a lot of overhead per station.

 

2 C8H18 + 25 O2 → 16 CO2 + 18 H2O

Combustion of octane roughly gives "even" products (molar). But molar mass of CO2 is 44 and water is 18...
If we add inert 80% of Nitrogen v/v, and only 20% O2, stoichiometry of reactants be 100N2+25O2.
Products (exhaust) by mass:
100N2 (molar mass 28) = 2.8kg
16CO2 = 0.7kg
18 H2O = 0.3kg

8% water , 18% carbon dioxide by mass.

Fuzzy1, I stand corrected.

 

I know you were speaking in jest, but you do realize that water vapor is a greenhouse gas, right? So technically, the EPA already has the authority to regulate it (based on Supreme Court case EPA v. Mass.)
The reason that no one has ever called for regulation of water vapor (as discussed, it comes out of every car's tailpipe) is that human-produced water vapor is totally insignificant compared to the amount (or flux) of water vapor already in the atmosphere.

Further, if it was found that FCV tailpipe water vapor was causing a 'black ice' problem, then this would be a safety issue under the purview of the NHTSA, not the EPA. In which case, the problem would be solved much more efficiently with regulation, NOT taxation. The regulation could stipulate, for example:
(1) that exhaust temp be elevated (thru electric heating, etc.) so it's too hot to freeze immediately upon exiting tailpipe
-or-
(2) that water vapor in the exhaust be mixed with some sort of salt (or other substance no more environmentally damaging than what's already use on icy roads) prior to exiting the tailpipe (much like exhaust treatment in clean diesels), once again to prevent freezing
Or, some combination of (1) & (2).....whatever is most effective/cheapest for automakers to implement. (Yes -believe it or not- our government agencies actually take input from corporations on how to achieve goals in ways that are inexpensive but still solve the issue the agency is addressing.......e.g., CAFE)

I realize it is politically fashionable to bash government/regulations/EPA/taxes these days, but taking cheap shots obscures the very important purpose these laws and agencies serve.
(Oh, and the EPA does not have taxing authority....it merely makes recommendations. Taxing powers are reserved for congress).

 

Lets have a little less announcing, and a whole lot more building....... just sayin!

 

I thought water vapor is basically steam.

Fuel cell is about 67% efficient. That means 1/3 of H2 energy would go out with the way of steam as exhaust.

Residential FC reuse that heat as water heater and efficiency up to 90% has been achieved.

Put it in automotive term, FCV in winter will not take efficiency hit like BEVs and ICE do.

 

They likely will see that efficiency hit.
They run on battery until the fuel cell is warmed up, which will now take longer.
The air supplying the oxygen is going to be cold, so more energy counteracting that cooling on the fuel cell.

No, steam is water vapor that is above water's boiling temp. Water doesn't need to be boiling to evaporate and become humidity. The water vapor fuel cells emit is coll enough that ice formation in exhaust pipes was an issue in early prototypes. I believe most of the heat generated stays in the stack.

 

Hey, a pat on the back!

Toyota was quick to note that unlike pure battery electric vehicles which can see reductions in driving range in extreme temperatures, fuel cell vehicles’ performance stands up to freezing temperatures.

I continue to get range of about 300 miles despite the cold and blasting the heater. The vehicle performed flawlessly.

—Mark Schiller

Green Car Congress: Toyota fuel cell hybrid drivers report no problems with single digit East Coast temps

 

Kudos to Toyota for breaking the laws of physics;-)

 

Great news! You'll need that cold weather range while looking for an hydrogen station.

In seriousness, it isn't immune to the efficiency robbing affects of the cold. The 300 mile range is in a vehicle Toyota USA estimates to have a 400+mile range.

Engines, fuel cells, and batteries are all going to take longer to warm up to their efficient operating temps. It hurts this crop of BEVs simply because they have short ranges to begin with, and then get a another whammy in not generating waste heat for cabin climate control.

It's just something to consider when looking at BEVs and living in areas with winter. The prevalence of gas stations just meant that people never thought about it, not that it wasn't an issue for ICEs and FCEVs.

 

OK I'm a little skeptical, I thought toyota claimed the range of the fchv-adv was much higher
Toyota Shows Off FCHV-adv Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle With 431 Miles Range : TreeHugger

Two toyota press releases. The current one claiming 300 mile range in cold is the range of the fchv-adv. The old one claiming that the range of the fchv-adv is 431. I suspect 431 had an easy route, and that it degraded either over time as the fuel cell aged, or because of the cold to 300 miles. Not that this matters much. The market toyota is going to sell its fuel cell into is much warmer california, and there are no hydrogen stations to complete trips far into other states. The estimated range of the "production" toyota fcv is 310 miles.

I suspect it just was a clueless toyota pr person that wrote a misleading press release. Unfortunately all the car makers do it.

I suspect since the fc gives off heat, that a fcv range will be reduced less in cold than a bev, but..... you can preheat bevs off grid power which is a benefit for those living in cold climates.

 

I agree completely. Simple misleading statement which we see all to often from all auto makers.
I also would guess at this point that the FC vehicles would loose less range than BEVs do, but a bit more than gas cars.

It will be interesting when we see the reality.

 

One interesting test is being made with Fed Ex and Plug Power.
Sprint, FedEx Invigorate Hydrogen Fuel Cell Tests - Forbes

This doesn't require much infrastructure, since the trucks can all fuel at a central place where the price of trucked in hydrogen doesn't matter much, as they are primarily using power from the plug, bringing costs down. Since the trucks have a big battery, and drivers can plan their routes, they can use a much smaller fuel cell than would be needed if it had to provide the bulk of the power.

Plus if it works out its good PR for fed ex and plug power.

It removes all the hydrogen challenges
1) Infrastructure - not needed as its a single depot
2) Cost of Hydrogen - can be high, today's prices as electricities low cost is the majority player.
3) Cost of fuel cells - low for the truck since it only needs to charge the battery at a slower rate than even vehicle steady draw (this is 1/10th the capacity of the toyota fcv stack)
4) Cost of tanks - Still a challenge, but if I read the other stories right, they only need tanks for 100 miles because of the battery and the truck routes. This would be only 1/3 the cost of tanks for 300 miles.

 

So, in Toyota's FCV model, it's basically an EV, using the fuel cells and back up 21kw battery as the 'fuel' source? Is there also a 'generator' as found in current conventional hybrids, in the FCV?


Turn off signatures in Tapatalk Tapatalk