Car Tech forum: What do you think of hydrogen fuel cell cars?

Right now an EV car would be powered off the grid, which of course comes from oil or coal. However cleaner sources of electricity are growing, including solar, wind and hydro. If we can derive all our electrical needs from these sources, then EV cars become a real solution. There also needs to be growth in the battery arena. There needs to be a way to quickly charge a battery when making those long trips.

There are now technologies in the process of being patented & commercialized that provide real-world super capacitors using carbon nano-tubes and nano-scale electrolytes (see http://www.aist.go.jp/aist_e/latest_research/2005/20050203/20050203.html for an example article). If these super capacitors arrive at market as and when expected, you will see batteries that weigh mere ounces capable of storing 10^7 to 10^12 orders of joules of energy with recharge times in the under 100 second range (provided you can get a source capable of flowing that high a level of energy into the unit -- think very heavy wires).

When this comes to commercial fruition (i.e. - when the technology to mass reproduce these units is in place at a free-market commerically viable cost), automotive power systems will radically change, first with the very widespread advent of large-storage hybrid systems** in virtually all vehicles, and more-over, with the removal of in-vehicle gasoline useage (electricity from mass-generated sources instead, whether that means solar, wind, coal, fuel-oils, debris-based-plasma-reduction, nuclear, etc.). This will mean a shift away from a hydrogen (or other liquid-fuel) future as it's currently cast for all but the largest load vehicles (transcontinental cargo ships & most aircraft won't be able to benefit sufficiently).

** Imagine a prius capable of going 500+ miles just on the electrical storage using the same amount of space as the current hybrid battery area before it kicks on it's onboard gasoline motor (provided if you plug it in at home overnight, or service stations offer super-high currency recharge stations to reload it in the shortest possible time). Or having a 800 mile range on a high-performance motorcycle, using the same volume as would be freed by removal of the components needed to store, dispense and contain the explosion of gasoline (and gaining the benefit of reduced mass and increased mass centralization in the process as a result).

These are not future dreams for dreamers, but hard science that has been shown and proven as prototypes with fully functional demonstrators; what is lacking at this instant are the licensing of the technologies, the bulk reproduction methodologies required to mass-produce them (and that will follow given the increadible "need" that this concept has in so many market sectors, including the military-armaments industry who can afford to pay through the nose right now using your tax dollars), plus an infrastructure designed to support fast-reloading on demand at the equivilent of service stations for those on the move.

Cheers,
=-= The CyberPoet

All these "educated" people speak about hydrogen and if it ever comes to pass it will be the same issues we face now with oil, its hard to make expensive, maintenance will be unbearable when the simple answer to the U.S. oil issue is biodiesel; diesel engns are more efficient, newer technology. Jeep/Daimler has a plan in place with Cummins diesel corp to produce a diesel engine that is 40% more fuel efficent than a regular 6 cylkander daimler truck. Which means where looking at 40+mpg on biodiesel. Which can be made from just about any biodegradeable product. The fat from fast foods, oil from chinese restaurants etc. To sit here and waste time with hydrogen or the idiot who thought up ethanol fuel is obsurd. Brazil produces biodiesel, Puerto RIco will soon be producing %100 biodiesel(no petroleum) Willy Nelson is pushing biodiesel in the south. The answer is so easy and every one ignores it.

I'm afraid someone got a little confused. Biodiesel, like petroleum diesel, has more energy per gallon than gasoline. It is Ethanol that has less energy (thus reduced milage) than gasoline.
Biodiesel requires a diesel engine to run and cannot be directly substituted for gasoline. Ethanol can be mixed with gasoline, but for concentrations above 10%, require special adjustments or a "flex fuel" engine that will adjust automatically.
More promising is Butanol, which can be made from the same feedstocks as Ethanol, but has similar characteristics to gasoline and will run in standard gas engines without modifications. Even better, butanol has an energy content similar to gasoline, thus has little effect on milage.

You really don't understand the difference here between hydrogen and gasoline. Gasoline is a source of energy. Hydrogen (on the planet earth) is only a means to transport energy.

Yes, it takes some energy to get the gas and it takes some energy to get the hydrogen but the ratios are very different and will always remain so.

You can thing of getting gas out of the ground as having to grab a shovel and dig up a battery. It takes some energy but what you dig up has energy as well and, eventually, if you build a digging machine, you could power it from the batteries you dig up and the system will run until all of the batteries have been dug up. This is where we are now with gas, it is a large but finite source of energy.

Hydrogen is different. You are still digging up a battery but it is not charged at all. So, after you dig it up, you then have to get on a bike hooked to a generator, pedal and charge it up. You can't build a digging machine and power it from the batteries you dig up because they are always dead. You always have to put energy into the system and what you get out is always less than what you put in. So, when we talk about a hydrogen economy, we are really still talking about either a coal, oil, solar, wind, nuclear or perhaps soylent green economy and we are just using the hydrogen to as a low energy density way of moving the soylent green around.

This does not mean we never will switch to hydrogen. It just means that we will be switching to hydrogen + something else.

I don't think I will live long enough to ever see this concept.

Instead of wasting money on this impractical solution, we should implement steps that can be completed NOW.

Place a federal tax of ten percent on all cars, imported and domestic, that do not meet a combined 20 mpg.

Limit the size of the engines on passenger cars. Cars operating in this country need not go 0-60 in less than 7 or 8 seconds.

Limit the use of unecessary options that increase the weight and lower the mpg (and distract the driver).

Require the use of diesel powered vehicles by all vehicles that are for hire (taxis and limousines, etc.) At the same time require gasoline stations to dispense diesel fuel.

Adjust traffic lights so you don't have to stop at every one.

Enforce maximum speed laws.

These may seem drastic but our use of fossil fuel is is a problem that needs to be addressed not in ten years but now. OPEC should not be able to hold us hostage any longer.

I'm sure others can come up with many more ways to reduce our dependence on fossil fuel.

Let's stop talking about about it and ACT, NOW.

Art Henoch
Dillwyn VA.

We should also place higher taxes on electricity, food, clothes and everything else. In fact lets just ban car completely. everyone can drive mopeds. They are slower, thus safer. we wouldn't need so many big roads, thousands of tiny moped can fill a highway without causing a jam, like cars would. With a top speed of 30 mile per hour, we wouldn't need traffic cops cause no one could speed.

In fact, I'm likeing this idea so much, let's just do away with freedom, and have government dictate every aspect of our lives. They know better than us anyway. Let's force everyone to walk everywhere. No one will ever die in a traffic accident again, because there will be no cars at all. We'll have electricity rations, so you only get power to your home for 5 hours a day. That will save the planet cause we can use less coal in our power plants. Everyone will get the same rationed meal, that will prevent over eating and no one will get fat which saves our government health care millions.

What a great idea. Totalitarian socialist government controls it all. Someone should have come up with this a long time ago.

I must have left it in my other wallet.

400 miles a fill up is nothing. You can retro fit an extra tank in your trunk and get 500 to 600 miles a fill up. Of course you need to buy 40 gallons when you fill up. But I know what you meant:

Yes there is a car like that. I can make it myself. Hope you don't mind a one seater plastic car with a 1 cylindar engine, no cargo space either. It will get to 70 mph, hope you don't mind a 10 minute acceleration rate. Oh btw, don't hit anything cause a stick will disintegrate your car. And God forbid anything hit you, then your just dead.

I run into this all the time. There simply *must be* technology available to do X... why must there be?

Because there isn't. Or I should say, there is, but it's not going to happen. I can get you incredible mileage, but who wants a tiny one seat car that wouldn't survive hitting a speed bump at 20 mph? We can make a plastic car. We can make it weight 500 lbs. But it wouldn't be safe.

We can make a carbon fiber car. Carbon Fiber weights less, and is stronger than steel. But do you have the $100 thousand for it? No, and I don't either.

Ted Turner isn't going to make a perfect car. He maked millions every year from farm subsidies growing corn for Ethanol. He's not going to make a car the will undercut his own income, especially income he gets so freely at tax payer expense.

Further we don't need Ted. We just need government to reduce it's regulations on the Auto industry. Then maybe independent upstarts will spring up, like they do in other countries, and this would cause more competition in areas not yet seen.

See right now I could open a company making cars. But I'd be limited to a set number of cars per year. Then after that, the government would step in and dump 80 tons of regulations and red tape and certifications on me, I'd never be able to build another car. That's a problem. That is why the big six auto makers have so little to worry about.

I'm not worried about GM stopping me from building cars, just the government. And the Government is exactly who would do it.

I have yet to find any politian that follows everything I believe in, but I have to choose someone. The problem is, people in both parties tend to have a big government view. Rarely do I see anyone that has a real constitutional view of government, oh well.

Well it's the human mind that makes me believe there isn't a fix. The problem with humans is, no matter how good they have it, no matter how easy their life is, it's never good enough. Just like dear ol Ted who when asked what does a billionair do, said "I do the same thing as everyone else. Look up the list to see where I'm at, and figure out how to get ahead of the next guy on the list".

Remember where we came from: Covered wagons roaming unpaved ground across a massive country full of wild animals and possibly hostile natives and other unknown dangers, it there was no AC and no heat, and it required months to travel.

Now we complain because our car with electronic climate control, heated seats, power mirror, power locks and windows, with a 6 speaker Bose radio with XM support, going 70 MPH, is just so horrible because it doesn't get 50 mpg.

There is no fix for this. Look how far cars have come, and all we do is complain and demand more. Even if they did come up with electric cars that required 5 seconds to charge and could go 800 miles a charge, there would still be people complaining.

And lastly, and I'll never understand this. Why do we run to government every time? What exactly has government ever done, other than in the military, that has worked? Name something government set out to do that it has accomplished? You really want government to take over what kind of car you drive? Don't you remember the Yugo?

You are talking to the wrong guy about half empty or half full. My glass is cracked and completely empty.

I'm confused about the USPS. You seem to imply it is not run by Government. That's confusing to me. As far as I know, every dollar they get is authorized by government to this day. If this is not true, then explain. What happened, and when did it happen?

What I really meant by my statement is, what great thing have they set up to do, that has worked? Like the war on poverty? War on drugs? The great society? Health care? Social Insecurity? War on hunger?

You talk about corporate welfare, and I agree that's bad. But most of the budget is lost on food stamps, welfare, subsidies, social insecurity, Medicare, Medicaid, HUD section 8, and the dozens of other entitlements.

O! You realized government research grants don't work. Nice. Here, figure this: If government offers money, there will be someone to take it no matter what. Example: in the mid 90s government offered money to research batteries. If I'm not mistaken, GM got the grant. Does GM make batteries? No. But hey if government is offering money, why not? So they researched batteries, never intending to use it. When the grant ran out, they sold what little information they got to a battery company, and said thanks for the grant.

I wish more people would figure this out. Government handing out money is always always always bad. "But it's for RESEARCH!" no... it's for votes and corporate donations to a political party. Well meaning, uninformed Americans vote for X because he supported "research" and X got thousands donated to him by the company that got the grant.

Figure it out, if Government was offering money to research farts as an energy source, I'd take the money, hire a researcher, and take a vacation until the grant runs out, and then fire him. If the American people are dumb enough to vote someone in office that will hand out their hard earned tax money, there will be people to take advantage of it.

This is the first I've heard of this USPS private corp deal. I'll have to look into that.

For now though, your information on budget seems a little off.

The budget was spent on the following things:

37% Social insecurity, Medicare, other retirement
20% Social programs
10% Physical, Human, and community development

24% National Defense, Veterans, and foreign affairs
2% Law enforcement and general government

7% Interest on the debt

Social security, Medicare, and other retirement: These programs provide income support for the retired and disabled and medical care for the elderly. (this is an entitlement)

Physical, human, and community development: These outlays were for agriculture; natural resources; environment; transportation; and community development; and space, energy, and general science programs, ( from this point on, everything is an entitlement) --> aid for elementary and secondary education and direct assistance to college students; job training; deposit insurance, commerce and housing credit.

(at least half of this is entitlements, the rest could be considered "corporate welfare", but it's things people want. Agricultural subsides make ethanol affordable. If they didn't spend money on alternative fuels, everyone would be mad, but that is corporate welfare, and everyones mad about that. So it's American stupidity. Make up your mind)

Social programs: About 14% of total outlays were for Medicaid, food stamps, temporary assistance for needy families, supplemental security income, and related programs; and the remaining outlays were for health research and public health programs, unemployment compensation, assisted housing, and social services.

(all of these are entitlements except health research and public health programs, which are corporate welfare. If they didn't give money to these big corporations "for health research" everyone would be mad, but since they do, everyone is mad about corporate welfare. Again, American stupidity, make up your mind)


So let's recap. 26% of the budget was spent on national security, law enforcement, general government, veterans, and foreign affairs. All of which are what government is supposed to do. While another 67% went to things that are not constitutionally supported spending, namely entitlements. Finely another 7% was spent on the debt incurred by borrowing money to pay for the other 67% of unconstitutional spending.

26% Government is constitutionally supposed to do
74% Government is not constitutionally supposed to do.

Now how much was corporate welfare compared to entitlements? It doesn't divide up by that, so we have to make some logical guesses.

There's only 2 spots for corporate welfare. Social programs, and "physical, human, and community devolopment".

Social programs states the 14% of it went to entitlements. That leave 6%, of which, half of the outlays where listed as entitlements like assisted housing and unemployment comp. So only about 3% could be corporate welfare. Then the other group, about half of their 10% of expenses, were entitlements. Since it isn't broken down, I will take a wild stab at about half of the funding was corporate welfare.

So we end up with:

26% Constitutional spending.
59% Unconstitutional entitlements
8% Unconstitutional corporate welfare
7% To pay for the above unconstitutional spending

Bottom line: There is corporate welfare, and it is not good. But Entitlements, unconstitutional government hand outs to citizens makes up far more of the budget and it's costing even more, because we have to borrow money to do it.

that is the only real solution... the car is a dieing tech whether you extend its life or not.

i have been following fuel cells ever since i worked in the direct energy conversion group at GE in 1962. we were then supplying fuel cells for power for the gemini space capsule, and since then fuel cells have provided power for all the space vehicles. they may yet for autos, but it has been much longer than 50 years( GE had worked on them long before i was employed there). i despair of ever seeing them as practical everyday power sources in my lifetime. possibly if we really decided they might be useful and common, we could put our national resources to work as we did with the manhatten project. 'git'er done' as it were. right now , though there is great hope, there is seemingly only piecemeal work. i may be wrong and probably am but i do not know of any other technology that has so much theoretical promise that has languished so long.

First, not only is over 95% (probably closer to 99%) of all hydrogen currently produced from fossil fuels, but I believe you have a fundamental misunderstanding with this comment: "While that is true, it also takes energy to create a gallon of gasoline."

If I invest 1 BTU of energy into finding oil and then refining it into gasoline and diesel, then my energy return is around 6 or 7 to 1. In other words, I can turn my 1 BTU investment into 7 BTUs of fuel. If I invest that BTU into hydrogen via electrolysis, then I end up with less than 1 BTU.

Where hydrogen could make sense via electrolysis is if you had excess electricity available. This could be via solar panels in the middle of the day, when you may produce more electricity than needed. Or, wind power or nuclear power might be able to do the trick. But the key is to have more electricity available than is actually needed, preferably from a renewable source.

But there are multiple big hurdles for hydrogen to overcome before we get to that point.

Cheers,

Robert Rapier
R-Squared Energy Blog
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/

I am encouraged to read so many good posts that actually have this issue nailed.

Original Article:
"...Critics point out that it takes more electricity to create the hydrogen then it will generate in a fuel cell. While that is true, it also takes energy to create a gallon of gasoline. Oil has to be pumped, transported, and refined. Electricity for electrolysis can come from clean sources, such as hydro or solar, which negates the energy cost argument."

The Critics have nailed it in this case. You suggest hydro or solar. As others have already pointed out, consider the costS of manufacturing these hydro power plants, wind mills, and solar panels and whatever. What about the repair and maintenance costs? What about the pollution generated from all that manufacturing? As was mentioned, naturally present hydrocarbon fuel has a much higher yield or return on energy than these "alternative" sources for power. Not only would we have to manufacture all these new plants, we would need far more of them. To come even close to being able to generate the power consumed in the U.S. in one year would require an immense grand national project and billions of dollars dumped into building such an
"alternative fuel" infrastructure.

Lets not forget your original motivation for switching to alternative fuel and power is because of pollution. Building new infrastructure for new types of power on a huge scale would create huge amounts of pollution more than we are now.

There are maybe three general fuel SOURCES of energy available to us on this planet. (1)Solar energy, (2) Fossil Fuels (chemical energy), and (3) Nuclear (not chemical... way, way more yield). Those are our choices. Read them again - there are no other true sources for energy. Hydrogen must be pulled from other materials or processes that cause pollution and use energy. Solar is nice but you have to build huge expensive solar plants that generate more pollution/yield than using oil or gas or coal. Hydro, I guess we could attempt to stop the flow of the river by lining it up and down with hydro plants. Would that even be enough? Again, more pollution to manufacture them too, never forget that point. Anything we create uses energy and generates pollution.

If we really want high yield/pollution energy, we need nuclear, nuclear, and nuclear. Fission is a bit dirty, but it would be better than what we are doing now. I am all for keeping our earth clean, but lets not let all the emotional tree-hugging cloud our logic and dive off into senseless, wasteful ventures that solve nothing. If we can ever master fusion or even the holy grail of power, cold-fusion, we will have lots of relatively clean power far into the future. Oh yeah, China is building new coal or oil power plants like one a week or something crazy like that. One day we are going to wake up and think huh oh, I think we missed the boat.

We are so busy feeling we cant make good decisions for our futures, and for our kids futures. And all this liberal scare tactic, were all gonna die propaganda is killing us, and they love it because it puts them in a position to save us from certain destruction. All they need is your vote and all your income via taxes and they can save your very soul, end racism, create world peace, and save the world. If they are so smart, why have they not solved all of these problems yet? I am getting sick of being promised the world by these clowns in Washington and then they just take away more freedom and more money. They fight for the next great cause or crusade, I am supposed to be amazed by their great deeds and miraculous achievements.

Lets go for the immediate solution of becoming oil independent we should start drilling off shore and remove some of the more ridiculous regulations holding back the oil companies. Get costs of gas under control. Then we should start building nuclear plants enough to provide for our entire country. We would use our existing power grid to distribute it and eventually be far less dependant on oil. Once we have this power source, we can find ways of using it in cars via fuel cells or the like. I might add this should not happen until the cost of gas overtakes the costs of converting to hydro fuel cells.