ThinkPad X200 Tablet Save Extra 5%
Car Tech: What do you think of hydrogen fuel cell cars?
- 4/12/07 2:04 PM
What do you think of hydrogen fuel cell cars?
by wcunning - 4/12/07 2:04 PM
Let me know what you think of my arguments for hydrogen fuel cell cars in my column, Why hydrogen will fuel future cars. Do you think hydrogen really is the future, or does it have too many problems to ever be practical?
Click here to read the column.
It was the 100 or so miles to a tank that kills it.
by R. Proffitt
- 4/13/07 7:57 AM
In reply to: What do you think of hydrogen fuel cell cars? by wcunning
The mileage on a tank is currently very short. In fact with most electric cars beating out the range of the hydrogen car on one tank you wonder why not all EV?
EV means no new infrastructure or new fueling stations. But hydrogen and car fueling is REQUIRED to keep the flow of taxes going to "gov" as well as the other usual companies in business.
Watch "Who killed the electric car?" for more clues.
Bob
They were about the same
by Andy77e - 6/2/07 3:57 PM In reply to: It was the 100 or so miles to a tank that kills it. by R. Proffitt
H2 got about 100 miles, the EV got about 90. I'd still go with the EV over the H2. H2 is a scam. I don't like the EV either, but it's still better to be able to recharge at home and not have to drive 50 miles to fill up H2.
Taxes isn't really relevent since we all know the instant EVs become popular (if that ever happens), the government will simply start taxing electricity more.
The next step is Plug-in Hybrids. Hydrogen is way later
by dilchien - 4/13/07 11:17 AM In reply to: What do you think of hydrogen fuel cell cars? by wcunning
While I agree with you that gasoline needs to be replaced AND that hydrogen will be the answer some day, I believe you need to mention that "some day" is still very far off in the future. It's like how today we're being told by the car companies that hydrogen is about 15 years away... but we've been told that by them 10 years ago.
One thing you didn't mention - infrastructure. Just that one point will require at least 15 years. Another drawback to hydrogen is efficiency. You briefly glossed over this in your "Hydrogen Production" bullet. But if memory serves me correct, the overall "well" to wheel efficiency is even less efficient than a internal combustion engine. Currently, the majority of hydrogen is created by converting natural gas and that is creating even more green-house gasses than gasoline. Yes, someday we will be able to create hydrogen from sunlight and water directly and so efficiency won't affect the amount of green-house gasses. But that is still a long time off (after the 15 years of infrastructure setup).
As I've said, I'm all for replacing gasoline combustion engines. But the answer is not YET hydrogen. Hybrids like the Prius are already a good first step. The next one should be plug-in hybrids like the upcoming Chevy Volt (a series hybrid - meaning the wheels are only driven by electric motors). It uses battery energy for the first 40 miles driven (after a night's charge via the plug). Afterwards, the battery is charged with an on-board generator while being driven. With a car like that, 95% of driving (most people's daily commutes) will not be using any gasoline. It also doesn't suffer from the range issues of current pure electric cars. Plus, it's much much more efficient than hydrogen (meaning less cost for the energy). Finally, plug-in hybrids will be available at a VERY comparable price to current cars in the next couple of years. Heck, you can even get one today if you want (buy a Prius and get Calcars to convert it to a plug-in for you for $10k extra).
The hydrogen revoultion might not ever happen. Even if it does, it'll be a long time in the future. Most environmentalists and electric car enthusiasts refer to the possible Hydrogen future as the "Hydrogen Hype". It's like parents (car and oil companies)promising their 3-year old (us) he'll get a bike in 15 years. But by the time he's 18, he'll be able to drive a car.
Hydrogen is useless
by a20052006 - 4/13/07 11:44 AM In reply to: What do you think of hydrogen fuel cell cars? by wcunning
Both fuel cell cars and battery powered cars have one thing in common and it is that they use electricity and electric motors to move. The question is which is a better medium for energy and if you know conservation of energy any conversion from electrical to chemical and back to electrical will cause at least two rather large drops in energy effiency. On the other hand, electric cars use batteries or possibly a flow battery or future supercapacitors which just retain a difference of electrical charge either through chemical or electromagnetic properties. The point is that storing electrical energy in hydrogen atoms is like having a super inefficient rechargeable flow battery. The hydrolysis process for water requires significantly more energy than simply recharging a battery. Although both are chemical based a battery is a proven and developing technology while fuel cells are extremely expensive due to their use of rare metals and their sensitivity to environmental conditions and impurities. I basically don't see the point to hydrogen cars as its just a poor alternative to other methods of storing electricity. I would like to know that if hydrogen is the future of our energy economy then would it be practical to produce all our power with it.
Email exchange with the author
by Marc1000 - 4/13/07 11:47 AM In reply to: What do you think of hydrogen fuel cell cars? by wcunning
Hello, I missed that there was a forum connected to this column. I'll reprint an email exchange I had this morning with the author.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Cunningham,
You might look at MIT's magazine: http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18301/ Clearly one article is only one view. However, MIT's Technology Review has a whole section on hyrdogen, and virtually all of it is negative. Contrast the views of true scientists and technologists with those of the PR/wishful thinking crowd.
Saying that researchers are looking into different ways to make hydrogen is like saying researchers are looking into a perpetual motion machine. Hydrogen does not occur naturally. It has to be manufacured. The immutable laws of thermodynamics result in the process consuming more energy than it produces. Today, tomorrow, forever. End of story. If scientists manage to make hydrogen by using some sort of molecule-cracking device that changes that, then we won't be using hydrogen. Cold fusion will then be a reality and we will have more power than we will ever need.
I'll repeat: Hydrogen is a battery, nothing more. Where is the energy coming from?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Wayne Cunningham [mailto:Wayne.Cunningham@cnet.com]
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 10:52 AM
To:
Subject: RE: Driving It: Why hydrogen will fuel future cars
I invite you to make your arguments in our forum:
http://forums.cnet.com/5208-7811_102-0.html?forumID=78&threadID=242811&messageID=2457992
And I stand by my statements in the column that 1) researchers are looking into different ways to make hydrogen, and 2) hydrogen fuel cells have been shown to give cars more range than current battery technology.
Thanks for reading CNET Car Tech,
Wayne
________________________________________
Wayne Cunningham
Senior Editor
CNET Car Tech
http://cars.cnet.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Cunningham,
Your article is spot on in one respect: "Critics point out that it takes more electricity to create the hydrogen then it will generate in a fuel cell." This is why hydrogen is not an energy source. The energy still has to come from somewhere. Where?
There has been much written about hydrogen as an "energy source" recently. Virtually none of the articles give any consideration to this fundamental question. Take a look at Wired Magazine's breathless cover story on hydrogen last year. Pages written on the wonders of hydrogen, but like your article not a word on the source of the energy.
Hydrogen does not exist in nature. It must be manufactured. It is the equivalent of a battery, merely a means to store energy temporarily. The only reason to consider it would be if creating, transporting and pumping hydrogen would be more efficient than the alternative means of temporarily storing energy, such as batteries. Is it? Your column says nothing.
Hydrogen cars are the current darling-child of those who don't think very deeply, such as automakers PR departments and politicians. There are few serious scientists who think hydrogen is the answer, except those on the payroll of the above.
You can do better than this.
Hydrogen is not a source
by MarkLatarnik - 4/18/07 9:39 PM In reply to: Email exchange with the author by Marc1000It is a carrier of energy. Until we have enough nuclear, tide, geothermal or hot air coming out of washed out politicians like Al Gore, we are stuck to gasoline
Hydrogen source
by Savile Burdett - 4/19/07 12:59 AM In reply to: Hydrogen is not a source by MarkLatarnikThere is lots of methane hydrate lying around at the bottom of many seas. Professor Rice (see Journal of Energy Resources Technology Dec 2003 and a further paper elsewhere) has shown that this can yield hydrogen and sequestered carbon dioxide returned to the bottom of the sea. Why a fuel cell is needed instead of using it like a conventional gas engine I do not know.
H2 in IC Engines?
by albizzia - 4/21/07 12:06 AM In reply to: Hydrogen source by Savile BurdettWhile suitably modified IC engines will run on H2, they are much less efficient than fuel cells - a serious consideration for an expensive fuel like H2.
Hydrogen is a very bulky fuel. When compressed to 10,000 psi (yes, 5 tons per sq. inch!) H2 has only 1/5 the energy of gasoline, per gallon. Liquified H2 has only 1/4 the energy of gasoline.
BMW built the "Hydrogen 7" with a 30 gallon liquid H2 tank, but it only goes 120 miles on one tank (yes, 4 mpg!). A 16.7 gallon gas tank is included to give a reasonable range, but there is almost no trunk space in the BMW Hydrogen 7.
Quantum tried modifying a Toyota Prius by replacing the gas tank with a compressed H2 tank, but even in a high efficiency hybrid, the range on one tank of H2 was only 80 miles.
Running a car directly on compressed natural gas is more efficient, less expensive and gives better range than running a IC engine car on H2.
How do you keep that 10,000 PSI H2 from leaking?
by R. Proffitt - 4/21/07 7:33 AM
In reply to: H2 in IC Engines? by albizzia
The last report I read was the tank runs dry in about a week.
Storage appears to be an issue in some tanks.
Bob
Liquid H2 evaporates
by albizzia - 4/23/07 12:42 AM In reply to: How do you keep that 10,000 PSI H2 from leaking? by R. Proffitt
The BMW Hydrogen 7 uses liquified H2 stored in an insulated 30 gallon dewar flask, not a pressure tank. Although it is very well insulated, the entire 30 gallons will evaporate in less than 2 weeks. It's like having a petrol tank that leaks 2 quarts fuel every day!.
GM is the one using the 10,000 psi carbon fiber tank, it doesn't leak as much, but H2 molecules are so tiny and the pressure is so high, leaks are still a big problem.
agree
by wiredtonight - 7/29/09 8:44 PM In reply to: Liquid H2 evaporates by albizziai would have to agree with the bmw hydrogen. i wonder if i can see a car like that in the bmw münchen. i'm looking forward to it in visit in Germany.
A couple nits and a lot of potential
by Renegade Knight - 4/13/07 2:08 PM In reply to: What do you think of hydrogen fuel cell cars? by wcunning
First the energy cost to make hydrogen isn't negated by solar power. That's a clean power source but it still has a cost that has to be factored into the bigger picture.
CFCs. The key probelm with those was that they were stable. They did not react with air and dust etc. at the lower levels of the atmosphere. When they got high enough to interact with Ozone UV light broke the molecule apart relasing the chlorine. That free Chlorine then becomes a problem. If Hydrogen did react at lower levels like CFC's dont'. It's not so much a problem.
Lastly, I like the concept of a closed system. Water to Hydrogen/Oxygen, to Water all in the car. Plug it in and let the system cycle. Stick a solar panel on the roof of a car if you don't need to travel much and you would never even need to plug the car in at all. If it ever leaks...fix the leak pour in water and you are back in business.
I think the real future will be a mix of things. We will probably always have frenchfry grease to recycle. We will always have electricity to plug in a car. Fuel cells are viable. Then the real issue becomes the right car for the job. Commuting may be one kind of car. Long back country trips another. The Work Truck another still and so on.
In theory.
by Andy77e - 6/2/07 4:59 PM In reply to: A couple nits and a lot of potential by Renegade KnightThey claim the chlorine became a problem. I have yet to read any real documented proof of this. However it doesn't matter, the companies got the money, the politicians got the votes and donations from the companies, and the consumer got the bill and a warm fuzzy feeling. So everyone got what they wanted and CFCs are banned. Well, other than me and like minded who didn't want the bill and didn't get any warm fuzzy feelings.
Anyway... the closed system concept won't happen in our life time. I sort of like it, but I'll be long dead before that comes around. The issues are: The tank containing the hydrogen would have to be presure sealed, unless the system pumped the hydrogen out of the tank.
If the tank is presure sealed, it can't be plastic because it would have to handle presure in the 10K psi area. However salt water plus electricity is very bad for metal, which means a high breakage possiblity. Water has to have salt in it because pure water doesn't conduct electricity. It's actually the salt that conducts it.
The only way to avoid this is to pump the hydrogen out of the tank into a temporay storge tank. This means the car would need 2 seperate tanks, adding a lot of expense, and weight which reduces mileage.
So the tank alone is a problem. Further, the amount of time and electricity to do this on a small scale is excessive. Converting water to hydrogen is a very very in-efficient system as we know it now. The shear amount of power needed would be far more than what energy is needed for oil fuels. Imagine doubling or tripleing your electric bill. Plus, if the hydrogen is pumped into a high presure tank, that pump will also add much to the electrical demand.
Solar panels to do this is a joke. You'd need a solar panel large enough to cover a hummer, and it would still take a week or more to make enough power to go 100 miles on hydrogen.
Even using the power grid, the amount of time needed to do it is also high. Simply plugging in your car for the night may not be enough time.
Then after all this, the amount of water in the electrolysis tank would have to be significant, and more than needed. The reason is that during the seperation process if all the water was used, the salt would crystalize on the metal conductors and the tank itself. This is bad. Causes corrosion, can damage. So the water must never be used up to the point it causes that. Further the amount of hydrogen would have to be significant to go anywhere. So the tank would also have to hold that much water as well. That's vast amount of weight which will harm mileage again.
All in all, great concept, not going to happen any time soon. Technology will have to advance a lot to get over those issues.
Salt?
by Renegade Knight - 6/4/07 10:42 AM In reply to: In theory. by Andy77eAll you need are ions, any Ion would do (including H+ and OH-) ...Salt is merely one source. However a lot of good points.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
|
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
