Isn't hydrogen and fuel cells just a bunch of BS?

I find it difficult to respond to these sort of comments somtimes (when the answers are somewhat assumed before the questions are asked) but I'll give it a shot.

300 miles. Ten minutes.

[qutoe] Don’t give me well it depends.[/quote]
But of course that depends.

This could have been available years ago if there had been follow-up vehicles instead of just ONE product from each of the majors 11 years ago.

These are real cars. All the features (and more!) of gas cars. Just asking if they have AC is one of those "already answered" questions that make me cringe. AC usage would consume about 2% of your energy pool. For a 100 mile car, it would reduce your range by two miles. For a 200 miles car, you'd be reduced by four miles. Not a show stopper. What I usually tell people is that if I drive ONE mph slower, I will make up the energy deficit of using AC.

We won't change over night. Somehow back in the early 1900's we managed to get gasoline cars into the mainstream - and there were no gas stations. Electricity is everywhere - all we need is an easy way to use it. Part of the program for electric cars would be incenting high-density housing owners to allow for charging somehow. You would also have the option of charging at work or where you shop.

And yet you're missing the point that the number of people who DO have handy electricity where they park is substantially larger than those who don't. We go after the low-hanging fruit first. And as I said - you may not even have to charge at home if you can do it at work.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dipper @ Mar 29 2007, 01:30 PM) [snapback]414310[/snapback]</div>

Yea, that was my fault. I really only care about the science too, but in the end it will be the politics that decide which path we as a country finally go. That said, it is quite possible that we will have some options on which system to use, but I don't think that would be very efficient or what will really end up happening. I brought up the correlation between Hydrogen and Bush/big oil because they are really the only ones i hear pushing for it. Again, that said, I am very impressed that Bush has even bothered to host other alternative fuel vehicle exhibitions at the White House, even if he did exclude Toyota from his future energy planning.

I personally don't follow the "Bush is for it so I'm against it" policy. I have a brain, and I can do my own research, but thanks for putting words in my mouth. If you'll read my post again, you'll notice that I didn't say all Republicans blindly follow Bush, I was merely referring to those who do. And I am the only one on here who has said anything like this, so "you guys" (i assume referring to dems/greenies/tree-huggers/whatever) shouldn't really be a blanket reference.

This is a very complicated discussion. there are a lot of options for alternative fuel. In my eyes, Hydrogen as a personal transportation fuel is the least efficient, and the electric car has already been proven; so why even bother with anything else? Thanks to Darell for putting forth his first hand experience with EVs.

 

Here is some more info on EVs. Including fossil fuel consumption comparison from charging from a 100% coal-powered utility grid.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EV World @ Mar 29 2007 )</div>

 

The original post is correct. Hydrogen may have useful applications as a fuel, and it may have advantages such as reducing air pollution in cites, but it isn't an answer to energy problems or reliance on fossil fuel issues becasue it isn't a fuel. Its a "battery", a way to carry energy around. And as such, it is an answer to the wrong question.

The real question is where do we get our energy from, and that question needs to be answered first. Right now, in the current world in which we live it does not make sense to try to power cars with hydrogen on a large scale for several reasons:

1. We still need a source of energy to generate the hydrogen, which is the first and foremost problem.
2. If we use H to fuel our cars, our transporation system will be less efficient and will require more energy to function because there will be a loss of energy converting to H.
3. In addition, we need to invest a considerable amount of energy and money into a hydrogen infrastructure, which merely gets us back to where we already are with fossil fuels.
4. Currently, fuel cells are outrageously expensive and inefficient. I realize that its likely just a "matter of time" until these issues are overcome, but the question I have is why expend time and resources trying to overcome them if you haven't addressed the first question? I contend that even if fuel cells were "free" they still wouldn't make sense on a large scale unless we have addressed item 1. Its kind of like trying to improve your light bulb technology before you've invented electricity.....

 

Fuel cells are fairly efficient. The efficiency depends upon the type. SOFC fuel cells are somewhere around 65% efficient, which is probably somewhat better than a methane fired micro turbine. In stationary power applications SOFCs are a pretty good choice in certain situations. I agree that in the transportation sector FCs are not a good choice AT THIS time. BEVs are more efficient in pretty much every way. However, we should continue the research (to quote Mr. Burns) because a lot of it is basic science and will pay dividends in ways we haven't even dreamed of yet. But the approach should be balanced. We should fund and promote a variety of technologies instead of putting all of our eggs in one basket. Battery technology is steadily improving and we should continue to fund projects that improve the characteristics of batteries. It looks like a lot of the newer FCV designs are incorporating pretty large batteries.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Mar 29 2007, 05:42 PM) [snapback]414507[/snapback]</div>

That's true. I always assume when people are talking about Hydrogen to power their vehicles, that they mean burn it in a compressor to create kinetic energy. But if Hydrogen is used in a fuel cell to react with oxygen and generate electricity, which in turn powers an electric motor to the wheels, that is an entirely story. I'm no expert on this type of fuel cell; I know they are used extensively in spacecraft, and I assume they need a bit of development to improve efficiency or make them more rugged for use on the road.

 

EV world's CO2 per kWh is 67% of that claimed by EIA (1.4 lbs/kWh vs 2.095 lbs/kWh). Regardless, the CO2 emissions are considerably lower from the EV.

Of course, EV World didn't even bother to take into consideration the emissions related to producing the oil, transporting it, and refining it. That makes the CO2 footprint of the gasoline vehicle higher. Of course they don't need to bring that up because the comparison is already favorable.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Mar 29 2007, 03:28 PM) [snapback]414535[/snapback]</div>

Quite a bit of relevant info on my FC page as well:
http://evnut.com/fuel_cell.htm

Let me know if any of the links are broken. Been a while since I've been to that page.

 

Didn't see anyone mention this yet: hydrogen is a so-called "indirect" greenhouse gas, it increases the potency of other greenhouse gases such as methane. Source.

How much H would be spilled daily if we all start using it for our cars and transporting it to filling stations in huge amounts?

 

Since there are several Prius (around 20) that have already been converted to use hydrogen in their combustion engine, the argument for a fuel-cell becomes even more difficult. What's the point?

Driving the hydrogen highway with a Prius makes a whole lot more sense. Fuel-Cells are still way too costly and no still where near as robust for automotive use. It will take quite awhile before they become practical enough as an engine replacement. In the meantime, battery technology will continue to improve, which makes the plug-in hybrid the solution to be sought for quite some time now. Expecting a fuel-cell anytime soon is totally unrealistic.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(qbee42 @ Mar 29 2007, 02:37 PM) [snapback]414324[/snapback]</div>

[disclaimer: I am not a scientist or auto mechanic]

How would this be true?

My understanding is that an alternator is driven by a belt and the load to the engine of running the alternator is constant, depending only on the speed of the engine, not on the amount of electricity produced. The speed of the engine is determined by how fast the trucker wants to go. Most alternators are oversized to provide current under a variety of conditions. And that any electricity produced above and beyond what is required by the ignition system, headlights, radio, charging the battery, etc can be considered excess that could be used to run the electrolysis unit to provide the hydrogen. I said excess because that is the way it was presented to me. On a news show, maybe Prime Time Live or 60 Minutes, I cna't remember.

I understand the function of hydrogen as a combustion enhancer. Here's a webpage that has a good explanation of the combustion enhancer effect: http://www.hydrogen-boost.com/hydrogeninjection.html.

~buttster

As I was out walking I wondered if producing more electricity might increase the resistance to turning the armorature of the alternator because of magnet forces or "whatever". In this case you might be right, I'll have to do some research.

 

At the moment hydrogen and fuel cells for large scale use in powering transportation infrastructure is little more than a pipe dream.. Yes, you can build a few thousand cars and provide enough hydrogen for them, but think about the millions of cars on the road in just North America alone.. Even if you had all the clean, free hydrogen that you needed, the other issue is the fuel cells themselves.. Current designs still use way too much platinum catalyst and there simply isn't enough platinum on the earth to build the millions of fuel cells needed for vehicles, never mind the other, much more worthwhile uses that platinum is put to, such as production of medicines..

Hydrogen and ethanol are IMO, simply red herrings being dragged around by a bunch of delusioned individuals pandering to various lobbying interests.. They are NOT the answer to our problems..

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(excuseMeButt @ Mar 30 2007, 12:09 PM) [snapback]414872[/snapback]</div>

Actually, the energy required to spin the alternator is dependent on the load on the alternator. You may want to research this more, however, think of the regenerative breaking in your Prius that is used above something like 8MPH.

When you step on the break pedal, the battery is placed across the output of the electric motor which is acting like a power source due to the spinning of the wheels. The resulting load from the battery charging produces a mechanical back force in the electric motor that causes the motor to resist spinning and, thus, slows your Prius. The effect is essentially the same as that of placing any load on an alternator. When you do place a load on any alternator it requires more energy to spin, and that energy comes from the engine of the truck, in this case. The scenario requires more energy than simply spinning the alternator with no load attached. This is one reason why gas mileage goes down in the winter - because extra energy is required to run the heater fan, etc., and this energy must come from somewhere. Ultimately, it comes from the primary energy source of the vehicle.

All the best,
Matthew

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Mar 30 2007, 11:27 AM) [snapback]414926[/snapback]</div>

Most current coal fired plants use pulverized coal, which is just burned. The EIA might have taken that into account but I didn't see any indication of it (doesn't mean they don't have it, of course). Intergrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plants (of which there are only a handful) are more efficient (50+% vs ~33%) and a lot cleaner than traditional plants. They also make it much easier to sequester the CO2.

Actually, Saudi Arabia is the Saudi Arabia of oil. Australia could be the Saudi Arabia of coal.

We also have massive coal reserves. Cheaper to buy it from Oz than to fight them for it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wiyosaya @ Mar 30 2007, 02:02 PM) [snapback]414958[/snapback]</div>

At lunch I was thinking that the alternator might act like a water pump: more output requires more energy to turn the crank. Thanks for your response.

~S

 

I think the real success lies in hyper efficiency. Any fuel we use or the means we use to create it will cause pollution of depletion of resources.

While Hydrogen is nice idea, its but a bridge to more efficient fuel types and inventions.

Becoming more efficient with what you have is truly the step forward, especially if you can be so efficient that the fuel can extracted/created/harvested at a sustainable level.

Did you guys see the air car? Talking about efficiency. It still uses petroleum but such a small amount that it is almost (almost!) inconsequential.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Mar 30 2007, 01:18 PM) [snapback]414971[/snapback]</div>

There are now reports out that question our "massive coal reserves". A soon to be released study by the German Energy Watch Group estimates that the world will hit "peak coal" within 10 years. Some pundits already think that the US has hit peak coal production (consider that coal production efficiency -- amount of coal mined per miner per unit time -- peaked in 2000).