The hydrogen car is here?

[andyandy]

Top Gear ran a feature on what James May described as "the most important car of the next century", and whilst they like their hyperbole on the programme it did look pretty impressive. Basically it is a fully functioning hydrogen car with decent driving statistics (acceleration etc) which can drive about 300 miles on a full tank of compressed hydrogen and can be filled up in the same way that you would fill up a regular car. Apparently it is currently only available in California. It costs the same roughly as petrol to fill up, has zero emissions and if massproduced has the potential to be cheaper to make than current models. It all sounds almost too good to be true, so what are the downsides (like energy costs in extraction of hydrogen), and does this have the potential to replace the current petrol engine?

(The car in question is a Honda if someone wants to look it up)

[andyandy]

Here we go,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7456141.stm

Japanese car manufacturer Honda has begun the first commercial production of a zero-emission, hydrogen fuel-cell powered vehicle.

The four-seater, called FCX Clarity, runs on electricity produced by combining hydrogen with oxygen, and emits water vapour.

Honda claims the vehicle offers three times better fuel efficiency than a traditional, petrol-powered car.

Honda plans to produce 200 of the cars over the next three years.

One of the biggest obstacles standing in the way of wider adoption of fuel-cell vehicles is the lack of hydrogen fuelling stations.



Critics also point out that hydrogen is costly to produce and the most common way to produce hydrogen is still from fossil fuels.

Analysis of the environmental impact of different fuel technologies has shown that the overall carbon dioxide emissions from hydrogen powered cars can be higher than that from petrol or diesel-powered vehicles.

[balrog666]

They aren't zero emission - they all emit water as the end product (and that's a greenhouse gas! :rolleyes:).
There are no refueling stations and no one is planning on building any.
Hydrogen is generally produced from natural gas, which of course contains more energy in its raw state than just the hydrogen produced.
Safety and insurance issues with hauling compressed hydrogen in passenger vehicles have yet to be addressed.
Long term embrittlement of storage media is also a concern for both vehicles and fueling stations.

Oh, and what do the vehicles cost versus a standard vehicle?

[steve s]

The hydrogen car is here?

Unfortunately the hydrogen refueling stations aren't.

One thing you never hear about when discussing hydrogen is how much it will cost gas stations to add hydrogen pumps and tanks to their station. They'll need to keep providing gasoline for all the IC cars. And the compressed natural gas crowd will want pumps for their CNG. The cost will probably bankrupt many stations.

Steve S.

[rhtufts]

Hydrogen is basically just a battery. Your going to use more energy making the hydrogen than you'll get out of it. Until we build a bunch of new nuclear power plants to electrolyze water hydrogen will remain a distant pipe dream.

oh and getting the hydrogen is just one of the many problems... how do you transport it? where you store it?

.02

[Pantaz]

Hydrogen is basically just a battery. Your going to use more energy making the hydrogen than you'll get out of it. Until we build a bunch of new nuclear power plants to electrolyze water hydrogen will remain a distant pipe dream.

I've wondered about that. Here's one thing I found in a quick search: http://www.energybulletin.net/node/11963


[Natural gas] is steam-treated to strip the hydrogen from the methane molecules. And the steam is produced by boiling water with natural gas. Overall, there is about a 60% energy loss in this process.
. . .
Splitting hydrogen from water requires an even higher energy investment per unit of water (286kJ per mole).
. . .
The energy required to produce 1 billion kWh (kilowatt hours) of hydrogen is 1.3 billion kWh of electricity. (Article is not clear if this is hydrogen from water or from natural gas)

Can anyone confirm or refute these numbers?

More on hydrogen:
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/hydrogen.html

[DC]

They aren't zero emission - they all emit water as the end product (and that's a greenhouse gas! :rolleyes:).
There are no refueling stations and no one is planning on building any.
Hydrogen is generally produced from natural gas, which of course contains more energy in its raw state than just the hydrogen produced.
Safety and insurance issues with hauling compressed hydrogen in passenger vehicles have yet to be addressed.
Long term embrittlement of storage media is also a concern for both vehicles and fueling stations.

Oh, and what do the vehicles cost versus a standard vehicle?

in my old company we had the first refueling stations for Hydrogen cars, BMW and Mercedes have refueling stations for theyr prototypes since more than 10 years.

Also are there plans for several refueling stations in diffrent US states also huge national projects are planned.

http://www.gastechnology.org/webroot/app/xn/xd.aspx?it=enweb&xd=6newsroom/2007/hydrogenfuelingstationstodebutin20073_15_07.xml

and here a list of Hydro refueling stations worldwide. still alot work to do :)
http://www.fuelcells.org/info/charts/h2fuelingstations.pdf

[DC]

Unfortunately the hydrogen refueling stations aren't.

One thing you never hear about when discussing hydrogen is how much it will cost gas stations to add hydrogen pumps and tanks to their station. They'll need to keep providing gasoline for all the IC cars. And the compressed natural gas crowd will want pumps for their CNG. The cost will probably bankrupt many stations.

Steve S.

the costs arent that huge. especially not for big stations.

and sooner or later we have to change to a new system anyway.

[balrog666]

I've wondered about that. Here's one thing I found in a quick search: http://www.energybulletin.net/node/11963



Can anyone confirm or refute these numbers?

More on hydrogen:
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/hydrogen.html


They are easy to confirm from basic physics. The energy lost by removing the carbon is the same energy you get from burning coal.

And it costs energy to do that so I would have guessed at somewhere around 80% energy loss to produce the hydrogen.

[balrog666]

in my old company we had the first refueling stations for Hydrogen cars, BMW and Mercedes have refueling stations for theyr prototypes since more than 10 years.

Also are there plans for several refueling stations in diffrent US states also huge national projects are planned.

http://www.gastechnology.org/webroot/app/xn/xd.aspx?it=enweb&xd=6newsroom/2007/hydrogenfuelingstationstodebutin20073_15_07.xml

and here a list of Hydro refueling stations worldwide. still alot work to do :)
http://www.fuelcells.org/info/charts/h2fuelingstations.pdf


There are plans for subsidized stations for publicly subsidized fleets.

Back to the only point that matters in economics: what do the hydrogen vehicles cost to purchase and maintain versus a standard vehicle?

:rolleyes:

[rjh01]

Why not use natural gas to power cars? Then you do not lose the energy to convert to hydrogen. Also smaller tanks.

Another advantage is that petrol stations are not needed. If you have gas into your house just fill up at home!

[uk_dave]

If you have gas into your house just fill up at home!

But doesn't it have to be compressed in order to make the storage of the quantity required for a reasonable travel distance viable?

[Zeuzzz]

I wonder if the guy who invented this will end up like stanley meyer. The big energy companies were pretty sucessful at killing off the electric car for a good few years. Infact they pretty much still have, theres not a chance in hell I could go to town and get a car than runs off the mains tomorrow, despite the technology being around for decades now.

Energy, Business and Profit is a tough game. And certainly not a process designed for the betterment of society.

Its nearly enough to make you say the c word.

[DC]

But doesn't it have to be compressed in order to make the storage of the quantity required for a reasonable travel distance viable?

yes it has to be compressed.
there are small and relative cheap compressors avaible for homes. they take up to 8 hours to tank up the car.

http://www.fuelmaker.com/

[DC]

There are plans for subsidized stations for publicly subsidized fleets.

Back to the only point that matters in economics: what do the hydrogen vehicles cost to purchase and maintain versus a standard vehicle?

:rolleyes:

it only works via subsidizin.

because far to much people "think" only money mathers and killing nature does not cost money.

[rjh01]

But doesn't it have to be compressed in order to make the storage of the quantity required for a reasonable travel distance viable?

That is not a major problem. The owner can have a small electric pump to compress the gas as it is pumped into the car. That way you can fill up the car every few days at home.

[DC]

I wonder if the guy who invented this will end up like stanley meyer. The big energy companies were pretty sucessful at killing off the electric car for a good few years. Infact they pretty much still have, theres not a chance in hell I could go to town and get a car than runs off the mains tomorrow, despite the technology being around for decades now.

Energy, Business and Profit is a tough game. And certainly not a process designed for the betterment of society.

Its nearly enough to make you say the c word.

it is a pretty old invention meanwhile.
alot car manufacturers are testing them for years already.
Australia has Busses that run on hydrogen, i think they are from Mercedes.

It took very long but now finally bring a commercial version to the marked.
Now it needs Governments to subsidize refuleing stations untill a small net is created, the rest will follow later when the demand is bigger.

It was that way with NGV cars in that region. meanwhile you see em pretty often.

The electric car didnt make it (fuell cell cars are actually electrocars) because of the Batteries. But also there alot testing is eeeing done.
in the USA the new Electro driven Mini Copper is beeing tested.
here the batteries have been changed with hydrogen.

The problem is also people. To less of them are ready to pay more or have other negative points compared to normal fueled cars.

[DC]

Top Gear ran a feature on what James May described as "the most important car of the next century", and whilst they like their hyperbole on the programme it did look pretty impressive. Basically it is a fully functioning hydrogen car with decent driving statistics (acceleration etc) which can drive about 300 miles on a full tank of compressed hydrogen and can be filled up in the same way that you would fill up a regular car. Apparently it is currently only available in California. It costs the same roughly as petrol to fill up, has zero emissions and if massproduced has the potential to be cheaper to make than current models. It all sounds almost too good to be true, so what are the downsides (like energy costs in extraction of hydrogen), and does this have the potential to replace the current petrol engine?

(The car in question is a Honda if someone wants to look it up)

the mainproblem will propably be the amount of hydrogen we need to replace all the cars on earth. Also will it creat a huge amount of steam.

[DC]

There are plans for subsidized stations for publicly subsidized fleets.

Back to the only point that matters in economics: what do the hydrogen vehicles cost to purchase and maintain versus a standard vehicle?

:rolleyes:

but to answer your question.

the price is not really known yet.
once it is produced in the same masses we produce normal cars, the price will not be much bigger.
Maintaince is not known yet, large scale tests needed for this.

[GreyICE]

There are plans for subsidized stations for publicly subsidized fleets.

Back to the only point that matters in economics: what do the hydrogen vehicles cost to purchase and maintain versus a standard vehicle?

:rolleyes:

Long term or short term? Also, study economics :rolleyes:

[Soapy Sam]

One way to produce H2 is by electrolysis of water powered by wind turbines. Of course there's a net cost, but the bloody things are already scarring the landscape- put them off shore where they belong. Sure the H2 is just a temporary energy store- a battery if you like- but what's wrong with that?
As for distribution, there are already systems in place for shifting methane and propane around. What's so hard about hydrogen? Yes, there are lots of filling stations around. They weren't always there. If there's a market, you'll be amazed how fast the energy companies create the distribution network.

[balrog666]

Why not use natural gas to power cars? Then you do not lose the energy to convert to hydrogen. Also smaller tanks.

Another advantage is that petrol stations are not needed. If you have gas into your house just fill up at home!


Several bus fleets have been converted to run on natural gas with substandard results.

Subsidized bus fleets = substandard results.

Private companies tend to stay with gasoline or standard diesel engines.

;)

[Ziggurat]

I wonder if the guy who invented this will end up like stanley meyer. The big energy companies were pretty sucessful at killing off the electric car for a good few years. Infact they pretty much still have, theres not a chance in hell I could go to town and get a car than runs off the mains tomorrow, despite the technology being around for decades now.

The technology to build an electric car has indeed been around for decades. But the kind of car it can produce could not compete with gas cars - not on price, not on range, not on safety, not on reliability. While a few people might buy such cars for the novelty or out of a misplaced sense of responsibility, there were never enough people willing to pay more for significantly less to make such vehicles viable. There is some hope that this may change with improved battery technology, but it sure as hell could never happen with the old lead-acid batteries. Energy companies didn't kill the electric car, it has never been viable to begin with.

[DC]

Several bus fleets have been converted to run on natural gas with substandard results.

Subsidized bus fleets = substandard results.

Private companies tend to stay with gasoline or standard diesel engines.

;)

Alot companies realised already that they have to search for an alternative.

NGV didnt do to well for busses. We also build a huge refuiling station for free for our local transportation service, they tested the busses and found that maintaince is slightly higher. But still stick to NGV for a big part of the fleet.

Before the Iraq war, Iran wanted to switch its public transportation servie to NGV. do to the War in iraq everything was delayed.

Rejkavik wanted to switch to Hydrogen. Dunno what the plans are now.

But alot Transortation companys woke up and realised that its time to search for alternatives.

[CORed]

Hydrogen is basically just a battery. Your going to use more energy making the hydrogen than you'll get out of it. Until we build a bunch of new nuclear power plants to electrolyze water hydrogen will remain a distant pipe dream.

oh and getting the hydrogen is just one of the many problems... how do you transport it? where you store it?

.02

Hydrogen is one possible solution for using renewable and/or nuclear energy to run cars. Others are methanol (produced from hydrogen and atmospheric CO2, probably), batteries, compressed air, and getting to more exotic and not-ready-for-prime-time technologies, high speed flywheels and super-conducting rings. Hydrogen gives you better energy per unit of volume of storage than batteries, considerably less than methanol or gasoline.

[rjh01]

The air car video almost had me. Then at the 3 minute mark it started talking about perpetual motion. So sorry the video is junk.

I would love the idea of the air car. If only it was better than the battery car.

[Plagiarius]

In spite of all the other problems, has anyone considered that Platinum is essential for the production of current Hydrogen fuel cells? A costly and finite resource, 80% of the worlds supply of which resides in that political pillar of stability, South Africa. I can't help but see countries begin to vie for it if they aren't already. Most of extracted platinum is earmarked for indispensable industrial processes anyway.

Source: http://www.southafrica.info/business/economy/infrastructure/energy-fuelcell.htm

Like physics states Hydrogen is an energy sink and sadly I cannot see how we are to attenuate to the problem of maintaining our wonderful system of transport that has been built on cheap energy. Call me pessimistic and prove me wrong, I'd be glad to hear.

[drkitten]

I wonder if the guy who invented this will end up like stanley meyer. The big energy companies were pretty sucessful at killing off the electric car for a good few years.


You mean, "largely fictitious"?

Probably not. I'm fairly confident this person is real.

[drkitten]

One way to produce H2 is by electrolysis of water powered by wind turbines. Of course there's a net cost, but the bloody things are already scarring the landscape- put them off shore where they belong. Sure the H2 is just a temporary energy store- a battery if you like- but what's wrong with that?

The fact that hydrogen is a LOUSY battery. Terrible energy density. You might as well ship hamsters around and have them run around on their little treadwheels.


As for distribution, there are already systems in place for shifting methane and propane around. What's so hard about hydrogen?

It's a lot trickier; a hydrogen-tight seal is more difficult to make than a propane-tight one.

If there's a market, you'll be amazed how fast the energy companies create the distribution network.

But, of course, without a distribution network, there won't be a market.

I used to work on a video-phone project in the 1980s at AT&T. Never took off. We couldn't sell any, since no one had anyone they could make video calls to. NOW, of course, since the Internet already exists, video phones are doing well.

At best it's a chicken and egg problem and will be very expensive to solve. At worst, it's a deal breaker.

[quarky]

I'm holding out for the helium car...because floating would be so much fun.
I suppose hydrogen would work better for floating, but that nasty Hindenberg event comes to mind.

High speed flywheels might eventually compete with batteries.

[drkitten]

High speed flywheels might eventually compete with batteries.

I'm holding out for genetically-engineered hamsters on low-friction treadwheels.

[quarky]

breeding a smaller human would help, too.

[JihadJane]

I cannot see how we are to attenuate to the problem of maintaining our wonderful system of transport that has been built on cheap energy. Call me pessimistic and prove me wrong, I'd be glad to hear.

I think you are right.

Cheap, abundant energy, car civilisation is temporary. Prepare to say good bye to it!

[GreyICE]

The fact that hydrogen is a LOUSY battery. Terrible energy density. You might as well ship hamsters around and have them run around on their little treadwheels.

Find me a better one, kilo for kilo. Let me see... Uranium, Plutonium, some other radioactive things we can use to initiate fission.

Other than that, you're SOL. Best chemical battery there is, and best atomic one too once we get fusion down. Antimatter kicks its ass six ways by sunday, but if you have a decent way to produce THAT we have other issues.

[bruto]

Efficiency isn't necessarily the most important factor, is it? Cost and availability might trump inefficiency. For example, I'm guessing that if we came up with really cheap ways to generate electricity from the sun, we might well find that for reasons of convenience, speed or range, it would be worthwhile to squander cheap electricity to produce hydrogen or air pressure or something else we hadn't thought of - whatever works best on the road - even if the conversion seems wasteful.

[luchog]

Find me a better one, kilo for kilo. Let me see... Uranium, Plutonium, some other radioactive things we can use to initiate fission.

Fissionable elements are fuels, not batteries. More energy is extracted from them than is used in producing them. This cannot be said for hydrogen. Okay, it might be said for hydrogen extracted from natural gas, but using the natural gas directly is simpler, cheaper, and far more efficient, with no additional burden from carbon or other emissions.

[GreyICE]

Fissionable elements are fuels, not batteries. More energy is extracted from them than is used in producing them. This cannot be said for hydrogen. Okay, it might be said for hydrogen extracted from natural gas, but using the natural gas directly is simpler, cheaper, and far more efficient, with no additional burden from carbon or other emissions. It is? The efficiency of using the same natural gas to charge batteries is currently better than sticking it in your car (unless you have a hybrid). Electrolysis is currently less efficient than batteries, and currently it's a bit tricky. Those are technological limitations.

As for fissionable elements, they're all batteries. You don't really think they spontaneously generated themselves, do you? They're storing the energy they got in the heart of a dying star, before the thing went supernova.

[portlandatheist]

Instead of burning coal to make electricity, using electrolysis to make hydrogen, and driving hydrogen fuel cell cars that use precious platinum in their design..Why don't we make coal powered cars instead? They'll be much more efficient as its expensive (energy-wise) to convert one energy source into another.
Hydrogen stores energy we get from elsewhere. It is clean, but where it comes from may or may not be clean. Solve the energy SOURCE problem first.

[Hindmost]

Hydrogen is basically just a battery. Your going to use more energy making the hydrogen than you'll get out of it. Until we build a bunch of new nuclear power plants to electrolyze water hydrogen will remain a distant pipe dream.

oh and getting the hydrogen is just one of the many problems... how do you transport it? where you store it?

.02

Plans for nuclear plants to make hydrogen are being developed right now...It would take a bunch of them to replace gas, but it is feasible with a bunch of money and infrastructure. A pebblebed reactor is being designed.

glenn

[DC]

car civilisation is temporary. Prepare to say good bye to it!

it does indeed look like that will happen.

Lucky i never was part of that car civilisation.

I am used to public transportation already :)

[GreyICE]

Instead of burning coal to make electricity, using electrolysis to make hydrogen, and driving hydrogen fuel cell cars that use precious platinum in their design..Why don't we make coal powered cars instead? They'll be much more efficient as its expensive (energy-wise) to convert one energy source into another.
Hydrogen stores energy we get from elsewhere. It is clean, but where it comes from may or may not be clean. Solve the energy SOURCE problem first.

Err, no. First, efficiencies of scale. Don't think efficiency of a car engine is the same as that of a power plant, for it most certainly is not.

Second, coal engines farking blow.

Third, that's a terribad idea. Just on so many levels.

Fourth if we develop an efficient, highly portable battery, then we've effectively solved half the problem of renewables.

[portlandatheist]

Err, no. First, efficiencies of scale. Don't think efficiency of a car engine is the same as that of a power plant, for it most certainly is not.

Second, coal engines farking blow.

Third, that's a terribad idea. Just on so many levels.

Fourth if we develop an efficient, highly portable battery, then we've effectively solved half the problem of renewables.

I apologize for being overly sarcastic. Obviously, a coal powered car is bad idea. Given our current energy resources and technology, it makes vastly more sense to run our vehicles on natural gas, a well established technology as opposed to using our natural gas to make hydrogen, currently the best method we have of creating hydrogen, and driving hydrogen powered cars. The idea just doesn't make any sense at this point.

[DC]

I apologize for being overly sarcastic. Obviously, a coal powered car is bad idea. Given our current energy resources and technology, it makes vastly more sense to run our vehicles on natural gas, a well established technology as opposed to using our natural gas to make hydrogen, currently the best method we have of creating hydrogen, and driving hydrogen powered cars. The idea just doesn't make any sense at this point.

NGV is just an interim solution.
also Hydrogen from Natural Gas is just an interim solution.

Oil is running out, and so will Natural Gas.

there is no solution in sight that can replace all our gasoline driven vehicles.
would we use Nuclear Power for driving cars (electric cars with batteries) we would run out of Uranium in a few decades.

we have to much induvidual transportation.
everyone is driving around about 1 ton of metal and plastic to get its 100 kilo flesh moved from A to B. and we may OC not miss airconditioning, a stereo with hug subwoofers and so on.

and now that China and India might follow our sick idea of induvidual transportation, things get alot worse alot faster.

[Ziggurat]

there is no solution in sight that can replace all our gasoline driven vehicles.
would we use Nuclear Power for driving cars (electric cars with batteries) we would run out of Uranium in a few decades.

Not with fast breeders and a thorium cycle.

[GreyICE]

I apologize for being overly sarcastic. Obviously, a coal powered car is bad idea. Given our current energy resources and technology, it makes vastly more sense to run our vehicles on natural gas, a well established technology as opposed to using our natural gas to make hydrogen, currently the best method we have of creating hydrogen, and driving hydrogen powered cars. The idea just doesn't make any sense at this point.
It doesn't AT THIS POINT. However electrolysis has a theoretical efficiency much, much, much higher than what we're currently getting, it's a matter of getting the salt composition for ideal electrolysis down. That's finicky lab-test trial/error garbage that consumes years or decades (see: superconductors).

Once perfected, a good electrolysis technique makes hydrogen a great battery.

[CORed]

I wonder if the guy who invented this will end up like stanley meyer. The big energy companies were pretty sucessful at killing off the electric car for a good few years. Infact they pretty much still have, theres not a chance in hell I could go to town and get a car than runs off the mains tomorrow, despite the technology being around for decades now.

Energy, Business and Profit is a tough game. And certainly not a process designed for the betterment of society.

Its nearly enough to make you say the c word.

I don't think "big oil" killed off the electric car. The lack of power and range of electric cars compared to liquid fueled cars did. Even with a similar range, the liquid fueled car has an advantage, because it takes a few minutes to refuel the liquid (or gas) fueled car, and a few hours to recharge the battery. I do know about the Tesla electric car, which has achieved pretty impressive power and range for an electric, but at a cost that is out of reach of most people.

No question we are going to have to replace oil as automotive fuel some time in the not-too-distant future due either to global warming or declining supplies of fossil fuels. I think it will be replaced by some kind of fuel manufactured using renewable and/or nuclear energy. It could be hydrogen. It could be methanol (my money's on methanol). It might be used to power a fuel cell. It might be burned in an internal combustion engine (fuel cells have the edge in efficiency, ICE's have the edge in cost of manufacture).

Almost certainly, some form of liquid fuel (or maybe hydrogen) will be needed for aviation. I don't see any battery-powered system achieving the necessary power-to-weight ratio to even get off the ground, let alone carry passengers or cargo.

[Mark6]

One way to produce H2 is by electrolysis of water powered by wind turbines. Of course there's a net cost, but the bloody things are already scarring the landscape- put them off shore where they belong. Sure the H2 is just a temporary energy store- a battery if you like- but what's wrong with that?

The "wrong with that" is that hydrogen makes a lousy battery. It takes too much volume, requires high pressure tanks, and has very spectacular failure mode. High pressure gas in a moving vehicle is never a good safety feature, even if said gas is not flammable. Using electricity to synthesize ethanol -- or even liquid hydrocarbons, -- out of water and CO2, and then burning it in internal combustion engines is both safer, and requires a lot less new infrastructure.

[CORed]

Hydrogen is basically just a battery. Your going to use more energy making the hydrogen than you'll get out of it. Until we build a bunch of new nuclear power plants to electrolyze water hydrogen will remain a distant pipe dream.

oh and getting the hydrogen is just one of the many problems... how do you transport it? where you store it?

.02

Yes, hydrogen is really just a means of storing and transporting energy. But, if you are going to use nuclear or renewable energy to power cars, you're going to need something. I don't think a nuclear reactor in every car is too workable; I don't think you can scale one down enough, and even if you could, worrying about radiation spills with every traffic accident doesn't seem too desirable. Directly powering cars with solar or wind isn't too practical either. So What do you use?

Batteries? definitely a possibility, but power and range of cars will suffer.
Hydrogen? Still inferior to gasoline or diesel in energy/unit volume of fuel (how much worse depends on whether you use compressed or liquid hydrogen), but better than batteries. Also, in the transition period, you can make it from fossil fuels, albeit with a significant efficiency penalty

Methanol? This could work, if you can make it from hydrogen and atmospheric CO2. It's not clear if this is going to be viable, yet.

High speed flywheels? Superconducting rings? These are kind of blue-sky right now. They might work eventually, but we're not there yet.

[CORed]

It doesn't AT THIS POINT. However electrolysis has a theoretical efficiency much, much, much higher than what we're currently getting, it's a matter of getting the salt composition for ideal electrolysis down. That's finicky lab-test trial/error garbage that consumes years or decades (see: superconductors).

Once perfected, a good electrolysis technique makes hydrogen a great battery.

Electrolysis isn't the only way to make hydrogen from water.

Thermal decomposition, possibly with a catalyst, photo-decomposition and even biological means are also possibilities.

[CORed]

Err, no. First, efficiencies of scale. Don't think efficiency of a car engine is the same as that of a power plant, for it most certainly is not.

Second, coal engines farking blow.

Third, that's a terribad idea. Just on so many levels.

Fourth if we develop an efficient, highly portable battery, then we've effectively solved half the problem of renewables.

If we're going to make hydrogen from coal (I agree, bad idea), we can do it more efficiently (or make methane or methanol) through gasification reactions than by burning it in a power plant and electrolyzing water.

[CORed]

Several bus fleets have been converted to run on natural gas with substandard results.

Subsidized bus fleets = substandard results.

Private companies tend to stay with gasoline or standard diesel engines.

;)

But doesn't it have to be compressed in order to make the storage of the quantity required for a reasonable travel distance viable?

Yes it does. I think there have been prototype home compressors built for CNG cars. I don't know how much they cost. Of course, not everybody has natural gas piped to their homes. A lot of people in the Eastern US heat with fuel oil (usually delivered by truck and stored in tanks in the yard or home) and many in rural areas use propane (also delivered by truck and stored in outdoor tanks) for heating.

[CORed]

I think you are right.

Cheap, abundant energy, car civilisation is temporary. Prepare to say good bye to it!

I don't think that's necessarily true. Energy will be more expensive in a renewable energy economy (otherwise, we'd already have one), but I don't think cars are ever going away. They are just too useful and convenient. Cars will no doubt get smaller, and be used less frequently, but I don't believe for one minute that oil is the only possible source of energy, for cars or for other uses.

[DC]

Yes it does. I think there have been prototype home compressors built for CNG cars. I don't know how much they cost. Of course, not everybody has natural gas piped to their homes. A lot of people in the Eastern US heat with fuel oil (usually delivered by truck and stored in tanks in the yard or home) and many in rural areas use propane (also delivered by truck and stored in outdoor tanks) for heating.

I have been working on such home compressors several years ago. It was in 2000 already far beyond prototype status.

http://www.fuelmaker.com
http://www.fuelmaker.com/Products/NaturalGasRefueling/ProductSpecifications/files/FMQ-2%20Operating%20Issue%203%20Jan-99.pdf

[mhaze]

Instead of burning coal to make electricity, using electrolysis to make hydrogen, and driving hydrogen fuel cell cars that use precious platinum in their design..Why don't we make coal powered cars instead? They'll be much more efficient as its expensive (energy-wise) to convert one energy source into another.
Hydrogen stores energy we get from elsewhere. It is clean, but where it comes from may or may not be clean. Solve the energy SOURCE problem first.Even, even better , we could just run our cars on trash using wood gas principles.:)

[WildCat]

Why not use natural gas to power cars?
Because we use it to heat our homes and adding tens of millions of cars burning NG will surely drive up the price.

[rjh01]

Because we use it to heat our homes and adding tens of millions of cars burning NG will surely drive up the price.

That is not a valid reason. It only means that gas is currently cheaper than petrol.

A more valid reason is that cars need to be manufactured that can use NG. This is not easy to do.

Plus not many places you can fill up with NG except at home? This would be a problem for holidays. Maybe motels could start filling up cars.

[DC]

That is not a valid reason. It only means that gas is currently cheaper than petrol.

A more valid reason is that cars need to be manufactured that can use NG. This is not easy to do.

Actually to update your car to use NG isnt that complicated and it is not that expensive.



Plus not many places you can fill up with NG except at home? This would be a problem for holidays. Maybe motels could start filling up cars.

there are networks, but still relatively small, you could go on vacation in Europe or South America :)


ETA: in the USA there seem to be only one NGV car avaible :/
the Honda Civic GX


Natural Gas Vehicle Cost Calculator

http://alternativefuels.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=alternativefuels&cdn=autos&tm=49&gps=280_266_756_407&f=00&su=p284.9.336.ip_p706.12.336.ip_&tt=2&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/vehicles/natural_gas_calculator.html

[DC]

Find Alternative fuel refuleing stations near you

http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/stations/find_station.php

[WildCat]

That is not a valid reason.
Yes, it is. You don't let people freeze to death so that wealthy people can feel smug about driving a low-emissions vehicle. NG is already very expensive, and people do freeze to death (or more commonly die in a house fire when the space heater they use after their gas is cut off burns the place down) because they can't pay their gas bill.

NG shouldn't even be used for power plants IMHO.

[technoextreme]

The "wrong with that" is that hydrogen makes a lousy battery. It takes too much volume, requires high pressure tanks, and has very spectacular failure mode. High pressure gas in a moving vehicle is never a good safety feature, even if said gas is not flammable. Using electricity to synthesize ethanol -- or even liquid hydrocarbons, -- out of water and CO2, and then burning it in internal combustion engines is both safer, and requires a lot less new infrastructure.

There are gas tanks that you can chuck down the Grand Canyon and the worst that can happen is absolutely nothing. It's not like you can't store the hydrogen in another chemical which is a problem at the moment but not one that can't be solved. You can use methanol and ethanol but ideally you want some type of chemical that you can easily extract hydrogen from without sending it through the fuel cell. Methanol and ethanol provide slower kinetics.
Yes, it is. You don't let people freeze to death so that wealthy people can feel smug about driving a low-emissions vehicle. NG is already very expensive, and people do freeze to death (or more commonly die in a house fire when the space heater they use after their gas is cut off burns the place down) because they can't pay their gas bill.

NG shouldn't even be used for power plants IMHO.
The vast majority of natural gas sources are not tapped. You would have a decent argument if they were.

[WildCat]

The vast majority of natural gas sources are not tapped. You would have a decent argument if they were.
The argument stands. NG is excellent for heating homes, and the infrastructure to deliver it is already in place. You don't divert that to fueling automobiles without greatly boosting the price.

And while the "vast majority" is not tapped worldwide, the vast majority is tapped in the US. It's not like we're about to build a NG pipeline halfway across the world to where the untapped resources are, and there's really no other way to ship it economically.

[technoextreme]

the vast majority is tapped in the US.
Nope. You are falling for the trap of thinking that Im talking about conventional sources of methane. I'm talking about source of methane that can be found in almost every single municipality and if you don't you have more serious problems than having no natural gas to heat your home. You have problems with disposing of trash. Methane is naturally poduced in garbage dumps. The ironic fact is that if we don't harness the energy it becomes a contributor to global warming. Im pretty sure we have also had this discussion involving the dairy industry producing copious amounts of methane too.

[bruto]

Find Alternative fuel refuleing stations near you

http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/stations/find_station.phpI did that, and came up with a pretty good reason for doubting that natural gas is going to be my alternative fuel at least for a while. Try it yourself, with zip code 05743. If you go out to a hundred mile radius you'll find a couple of NG facilities available only about 75 miles away. All the others are non public.

Out in the boonies we just don't get natural gas. We don't get it for heat and cooking either. This is not to disparage NG as a good fuel, but the infrastructure for getting it into cars is simply not there for us country folk.

[CORed]

A more valid reason is that cars need to be manufactured that can use NG. This is not easy to do.

It's actually not at all difficult to make a car that runs on natural gas. It's not even all that difficult to convert a car from gasoline to natural gas However, as with any fuel changeover, you run into the chicken-or-egg problem. Nobody will buy the car if there are no fueling stations available, and nobody will build the fueling stations if there enough cars that use the fuel to make it profitable. It's not insurmountable, but it almost requires either a significant price difference between the fuels, or a government mandate to change.

[TjW]

Find me a better one, kilo for kilo. Let me see... Uranium, Plutonium, some other radioactive things we can use to initiate fission.

Other than that, you're SOL. Best chemical battery there is, and best atomic one too once we get fusion down. Antimatter kicks its ass six ways by sunday, but if you have a decent way to produce THAT we have other issues.

But for terrestrial applications, the "kilo for kilo" comparison is meaningless. The "liter for liter" comparison is far more useful. How much energy in a liter of hydrogen at STP? How much energy in a liter of gasoline at STP?

[portlandatheist]

Oil is running out, and so will Natural Gas.

And using Hydrogen is going to help how? Additionally, Uranium can and will last a lot longer than a few decades.

[balrog666]

The argument stands. NG is excellent for heating homes, and the infrastructure to deliver it is already in place. You don't divert that to fueling automobiles without greatly boosting the price.

And while the "vast majority" is not tapped worldwide, the vast majority is tapped in the US. It's not like we're about to build a NG pipeline halfway across the world to where the untapped resources are, and there's really no other way to ship it economically.


Natural gas was so abundant a hundred years ago that many cities used the excess in street lamps on every corner and never even charged for it. Since then oil wells have routinely burned off NG whenever it got in their way.

Now street lights are all electric lighting because the low hanging fruit of NG has been utilized, exploited and and used up. Accelerating the usage of NG will only make the inevitable (Peak NG) crash even worse.

[rhtufts]

I think the future will be electric cars. The charging grid is already in place. All we need is for batteries to get a little better and a lot cheaper. Here are two recent innovations that make me very hopeful.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/09/30/Toshiba_shows_prototype_fastcharging_laptop_batter y_1.html

"SCiB, or Super Charge Ion Batteries, are designed to recharge to 90 percent capacity within 10 minutes, and will last longer and endure more recharge cycles than current lithium-ion batteries."


http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2008/january9/nanowire-010908.html

"The new technology, developed through research led by Yi Cui, assistant professor of materials science and engineering, produces 10 times the amount of electricity of existing lithium-ion, known as Li-ion, batteries."

Of course we would have to ramp up our electricity production as electric cars become more popular. I'm hoping we go nuclear.

.02
Russell

[GreyICE]

But for terrestrial applications, the "kilo for kilo" comparison is meaningless. The "liter for liter" comparison is far more useful. How much energy in a liter of hydrogen at STP? How much energy in a liter of gasoline at STP?

Kilo for kilo is meaningless? Wow, I'll tell that to all the people who are busy trying to reduce car weights to improve fuel efficiency. "Y'all can go home now, your work is meaningless."

Actually, the size of the gas tank is far less meaningful. If it triples in volume... so? It won't even do that, since fuel cells are topping chemical engines, and electric engines kick the ever loving crap out of ICE.

I don't really see where you get off deciding kilo for kilo is less meaningful. Last time I checked, transportation limits on 18 wheelers weren't done in VOLUME.

[pipelineaudio]

Actually, the size of the gas tank is far less meaningful. If it triples in volume... so? It won't even do that, since fuel cells are topping chemical engines, and electric engines kick the ever loving crap out of ICE.

ICE is still winning the drags, but I got a chance to see an electric vehicle offroad on some pretty hellacious climbs. The ease in which the electric motor was controllable with a hand throttle was amazing as well!

A motor that doesn't require shifting (especially in the mud!) is such a boon offroad its scary. I wonder if solar cells will ever get good enough also to take advantage of the time an offroader may be sitting parked in the sun

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=jHR3a7mCiEk&feature=related

MOPAR's new JK Unlimited electric concept jeep is already turning some heads. http://blogs.4wdandsportutility.com/6301275/offroad-news/jeep-unveils-prototype-electric-wrangler/index.html

As soon as they get a more offroad friendly 2 door and replace some of the armor I'd expect them to do very well.

We've got a lot of jeeps out here running hydrogen and LPG, but they are limited to running near areas with these types of stations available

[TjW]

Kilo for kilo is meaningless? Wow, I'll tell that to all the people who are busy trying to reduce car weights to improve fuel efficiency. "Y'all can go home now, your work is meaningless."

Actually, the size of the gas tank is far less meaningful. If it triples in volume... so? It won't even do that, since fuel cells are topping chemical engines, and electric engines kick the ever loving crap out of ICE.

I don't really see where you get off deciding kilo for kilo is less meaningful. Last time I checked, transportation limits on 18 wheelers weren't done in VOLUME.

But I notice you didn't answer the question. G'wan, look it up, what could it hurt?


My reasoning -- that is, where I get off in deciding kilo for kilo is less meaningful for terrestrial applications, is this:

I divide terrestrial applications into two types: stationary, and vehicular.

For a stationary application, as far as I can see, the mass of the fuel doesn't matter a bit, but it's more convenient if it doesn't take up most of the installation.

For a vehicular application, the mass of the fuel itself does matter, somewhat, since it will be accelerated by whatever prime mover it uses.

But in a practical comparison of different fuels what's important is the contained mass of the fuel plus it's container. And that is related to the density of the fuel.

The contained mass of the fuel + fuel tank is not likely to be a whole lot less for hydrogen in an automotive application.
The hydrogen can be at high pressure, and thus need either something expensive like carbon fiber, or something relatively heavy like steel to contain it.
Or the hydrogen can be liquid, in which case it will require a dewar.

Neither one of those is likely to be as light or as cheap as the thin shell of sheet metal required for gasoline or diesel.

In addition, since the ignition energy of hydrogen is so low, I would expect any reasonable engineer to put some extra structure in to protect the hydrogen storage, since it's a lot easier to ignite than gasoline or diesel.
It has, in fact, been known to self ignite from the static charge built up from a high pressure leak.

I'll agree with you that a small weight change can make a tiny difference. Go look up the thread on "Does driving with the minimum amount of gasoline in the tank increase your mileage". It's the same argument, and I agree it must have some effect.

But to answer your question, if the size of the fuel tank increases, the car loses utility. Part of the reason that NG conversions are not all that popular is that the tank takes up a good portion of the trunk. Hydrogen's energy density is worse than NG. If you don't need your trunk, then maybe this isn't a problem for you.

I sure hope you can show me the data on this amazing car-sized fuel cell that will "kick the crap" out of IC engines on efficiency.

My research is a few years old, so maybe you can. But a few years ago, the really efficient fuel cells were non-portable, high temperature, and used a bottoming cycle turbine to increase the efficiency.

I couldn't find anywhere a direct statement or measurements of energy efficiency of automobile-capable fuel cells. I saw a lot of "up to 86% efficient" numbers, which is the upper limit for fuel cells, just as the Carnot limit is the upper limit for heat engines. I suspect that, as with heat engines, the practical implementation of portable fuel cells does not actually reach the theoretical maximum efficiency. I therefore interpreted this as marketing hype, since if I had an 86% efficient fuel cell, I'd be showing the measurements to anyone who would stand still long enough to focus on them. In fact, if I had something that was actually significantly better than an IC engine, I'd make the measurements easy to find. I might not be advertising exactly how I achieved it, but I'd sure be showing the results.

I finally lost interest and stopped looking. If you can give me a pointer, I'm still interested enough to capitalize on someone else's work.

None of the problems with hydrogen are insurmountable. I'm sure fuel cell development will continue. Cars can, have and will be built.

In my opinion, the hydrogen fuel cell has been The Next Big Thing since 1869.

And it always will be.

[technoextreme]

In addition, since the ignition energy of hydrogen is so low, I would expect any reasonable engineer to put some extra structure in to protect the hydrogen storage, since it's a lot easier to ignite than gasoline or diesel.
It has, in fact, been known to self ignite from the static charge built up from a high pressure leak.
To say that there is only two ways to store hydrogen is a false dichotomy. If any of the research I've read about hydrogen fuel cells pans out you would be able to store the hydrogen in a manner where you can hit it with a 50,000 volt arc of electricity and nothing would happen. It probably would be heavier than a tank of gas but it will be safer in the regard that the fuel will not go anywhere even if you beat on the tank with a sledge hammer.
I couldn't find anywhere a direct statement or measurements of energy efficiency of automobile-capable fuel cells.
That's because no self respecting engineer would design a car to solely run off a fuel cell. In fact your entire argument is really an argument from ignorance. Any self respecting chemist knows the reason why fuel cells are not widely available is not because of efficiency but because of lifetime. PEM fuel cells simply don't last as long as they should to be useful in any practical purpose.
I couldn't find anywhere a direct statement or measurements of energy efficiency of automobile-capable fuel cells. I saw a lot of "up to 86% efficient" numbers, which is the upper limit for fuel cells, just as the Carnot limit is the upper limit for heat engines. I suspect that, as with heat engines, the practical implementation of portable fuel cells does not actually reach the theoretical maximum efficiency. I therefore interpreted this as marketing hype, since if I had an 86% efficient fuel cell, I'd be showing the measurements to anyone who would stand still long enough to focus on them. In fact, if I had something that was actually significantly better than an IC engine, I'd make the measurements easy to find. I might not be advertising exactly how I achieved it, but I'd sure be showing the results.
Your thinking of molten carbonate fuel cells which is uterly useless for cars unless you want to vaporize them. And that 86 percent is only obtained if you recapture wasted heat which in general is a good idea for all fuel cells. They are being used as power plants. Research DMFC and PEM fuel cells for the ones you want to put in a car.

[TjW]

To say that there is only two ways to store hydrogen is a false dichotomy. If any of the research I've read about hydrogen fuel cells pans out you would be able to store the hydrogen in a manner where you can hit it with a 50,000 volt arc of electricity and nothing would happen. It probably would be heavier than a tank of gas but it will be safer in the regard that the fuel will not go anywhere even if you beat on the tank with a sledge hammer.

That's because no self respecting engineer would design a car to solely run off a fuel cell. In fact your entire argument is really an argument from ignorance. Any self respecting chemist knows the reason why fuel cells are not widely available is not because of efficiency but because of lifetime. PEM fuel cells simply don't last as long as they should to be useful in any practical purpose.

Your thinking of molten carbonate fuel cells which is uterly useless for cars unless you want to vaporize them. And that 86 percent is only obtained if you recapture wasted heat which in general is a good idea for all fuel cells. They are being used as power plants. Research DMFC and PEM fuel cells for the ones you want to put in a car.


I was going to go through this point by point, but since you're only skimming my posts to the point where you're being condescending about my point that I could get efficiency numbers for stationary plants, but not for the stacks they'd actually put into vehicles they were hyping, it doesn't seem worthwhile.

[luchog]

It is? The efficiency of using the same natural gas to charge batteries is currently better than sticking it in your car (unless you have a hybrid). Electrolysis is currently less efficient than batteries, and currently it's a bit tricky. Those are technological limitations.

Huh? This is gibberish.

The net cradle-to-grave energy efficiency derived using natural gas to power an engine designed to run on natural gas is far higher than than the net cradle-to-grave energy energy efficiency derived from cracking natural gas to create hydrogen to power a fuel-cell engine. With absolutely no net gain in reducing the level of free carbon resulting from the process.

As for fissionable elements, they're all batteries. You don't really think they spontaneously generated themselves, do you? They're storing the energy they got in the heart of a dying star, before the thing went supernova.
So, by that definition, there's no such thing as a "fuel", it's all just "batteries". Petrol is a battery, coal is a battery, solar energy is a "battery", etc. Congratulations, you've just redefined this discussion into pure nonsense.

Let's stick to English definitions, please. In fact, let's drop these misleading analogies entirely.

There are two types of technology for producing portable forms of energy suitable for powering a vehicle: fuel, which in it's natural state releases energy directly by means of an exothermic chemical reaction; and storage, which stores the energy produced by a secondary generation method, and transfers that energy to the vehicle. Storage technologies inherently introduces energy-loss inefficiencies into the chain.

Right now, hydrogen is very much a storage technology, since it requires a secondary energy source to create (in the case of electrolysis), or is derived from a primary energy source that could be used directly for the intended purpose; and in both cases results in less energy available for powering the vehicle. It may be necessary in cases where the primary energy source lacks sufficient portability, such as solar, geothermal, or nuclear on the scale of anything smaller than a battleship or x-plane. In the case of a primary fuel like natural gas or propane, it introduces unnecessary inefficiencies without providing any tangible benefits. The fuel can be utilized directly, with no additional practical technological or efficiency burden to portability (indeed, there's considerably less burden with natural gas or propane used directly); and no increase in undesirable end products.

Now, if you want to engage in some sort of ludicrious reductio ad absurdum, then you can claim that all technologies are purely storage, since they all originate, ultimately, in solar energy; or, beyond that, from the energy inherent in matter interacting on a fundamental, sub-atomic (quantum mechanical?) level. But that's useless hairsplitting and complete irrelevant to the context in which this discussions is ostensibly happening.

[luchog]

Electrolysis isn't the only way to make hydrogen from water.

Thermal decomposition, possibly with a catalyst, photo-decomposition and even biological means are also possibilities.
None of which are currently capable of creating hydrogen in commercial quantities; nor is there any indication that a commercially viable process will be available within several decades. Biologically generated bio-diesel has a much higher probability of being viable.

[luchog]

It's actually not at all difficult to make a car that runs on natural gas. It's not even all that difficult to convert a car from gasoline to natural gas However, as with any fuel changeover, you run into the chicken-or-egg problem. Nobody will buy the car if there are no fueling stations available, and nobody will build the fueling stations if there enough cars that use the fuel to make it profitable. It's not insurmountable, but it almost requires either a significant price difference between the fuels, or a government mandate to change.

Actually, the conversion to a dual-fuel vehicle (petrol and CNG or Propane) is so trivial and inexpensive, that that chicken-and-egg problem is non-existent. The only problem is that infrastructure for providing the CNG or Propane is extremely limited, and no one wants to invest in upgrading it; particularly since the upgrade potential is also very limited, and not viable for a substantial percentage of the population.

[GreyICE]

But I notice you didn't answer the question. G'wan, look it up, what could it hurt? Given that I did, I will take reading comprehension for 500, Bob.


My reasoning -- that is, where I get off in deciding kilo for kilo is less meaningful for terrestrial applications, is this:

I divide terrestrial applications into two types: stationary, and vehicular.

For a stationary application, as far as I can see, the mass of the fuel doesn't matter a bit, but it's more convenient if it doesn't take up most of the installation. Huh? Most fuel comes through pipes (see: Gas). Weight is as big of an issue as volume - not much. Mostly the issue is cost, and generators are damn expensive, no matter what they use.

For a vehicular application, the mass of the fuel itself does matter, somewhat, since it will be accelerated by whatever prime mover it uses.

But in a practical comparison of different fuels what's important is the contained mass of the fuel plus it's container. And that is related to the density of the fuel. It is? Proportionally, please tell me the mass of a 20 gallon gas tank, a 10 gallon gas tank, and how they matter relative to the mass of the fuel.

The contained mass of the fuel + fuel tank is not likely to be a whole lot less for hydrogen in an automotive application.
The hydrogen can be at high pressure, and thus need either something expensive like carbon fiber, or something relatively heavy like steel to contain it.
Or the hydrogen can be liquid, in which case it will require a dewar.
So it's not a big advantage for hydrogen = disadvantage?

Neither one of those is likely to be as light or as cheap as the thin shell of sheet metal required for gasoline or diesel. Which is a one-time cost.

In addition, since the ignition energy of hydrogen is so low, I would expect any reasonable engineer to put some extra structure in to protect the hydrogen storage, since it's a lot easier to ignite than gasoline or diesel.
It has, in fact, been known to self ignite from the static charge built up from a high pressure leak. But hydrogen fires are far less dangerous then gasoline fires (no explosion, no spread). I think you are overstating the dangers deliberately.

I'll agree with you that a small weight change can make a tiny difference. Go look up the thread on "Does driving with the minimum amount of gasoline in the tank increase your mileage". It's the same argument, and I agree it must have some effect.

But to answer your question, if the size of the fuel tank increases, the car loses utility. Part of the reason that NG conversions are not all that popular is that the tank takes up a good portion of the trunk. Hydrogen's energy density is worse than NG. If you don't need your trunk, then maybe this isn't a problem for you.
Strawman. NG conversions are conversions. Not redesigns. A redesign is totally different. You're deliberately creating a strawman argument.

I sure hope you can show me the data on this amazing car-sized fuel cell that will "kick the crap" out of IC engines on efficiency.
I said electric engines kick the crap out of ICE. Do you really need to see this, or is this strawman part deux?

My research is a few years old, so maybe you can. But a few years ago, the really efficient fuel cells were non-portable, high temperature, and used a bottoming cycle turbine to increase the efficiency.
There are currently no commercially available fuel cells that work in cars.

I couldn't find anywhere a direct statement or measurements of energy efficiency of automobile-capable fuel cells. I saw a lot of "up to 86% efficient" numbers, which is the upper limit for fuel cells, just as the Carnot limit is the upper limit for heat engines. I suspect that, as with heat engines, the practical implementation of portable fuel cells does not actually reach the theoretical maximum efficiency. I therefore interpreted this as marketing hype, since if I had an 86% efficient fuel cell, I'd be showing the measurements to anyone who would stand still long enough to focus on them. In fact, if I had something that was actually significantly better than an IC engine, I'd make the measurements easy to find. I might not be advertising exactly how I achieved it, but I'd sure be showing the results.

Automobiles do not have Carnot theoretical efficiency. They have Otto.

I finally lost interest and stopped looking. If you can give me a pointer, I'm still interested enough to capitalize on someone else's work.

None of the problems with hydrogen are insurmountable. I'm sure fuel cell development will continue. Cars can, have and will be built.

In my opinion, the hydrogen fuel cell has been The Next Big Thing since 1869.

And it always will be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_FCX_Clarity

[technoextreme]

I was going to go through this point by point, but since you're only skimming my posts to the point where you're being condescending about my point that I could get efficiency numbers for stationary plants, but not for the stacks they'd actually put into vehicles they were hyping, it doesn't seem worthwhile.
No I was being condescending because you are a horrible researcher. 40-50% is the efficiency you are looking for. It could be higher it could be lower because the efficiency of the cell is like having an engine without the pistons and unlike a car the waste heat from a fuel cell is pretty useful. Im pretty sure thats where the 85 percent efficiency comes from because you kick the energy efficiency back up by using the waste energy elsewhere. Your right that fuel cell cars are just hype right now.

[TjW]

Automobiles do not have Carnot theoretical efficiency. They have Otto.

Are you sure you don't want to reconsider this statement?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_FCX_Clarity

As I said, The Next Big Thing. Really Soon Now, we'll all be driving hydrogen cars.

[TjW]

No I was being condescending because you are a horrible researcher. 40-50% is the efficiency you are looking for. It could be higher it could be lower because the efficiency of the cell is like having an engine without the pistons and unlike a car the waste heat from a fuel cell is pretty useful. Im pretty sure thats where the 85 percent efficiency comes from because you kick the energy efficiency back up by using the waste energy elsewhere. Your right that fuel cell cars are just hype right now.

So would you give me a pointer to the data and show me just how horrible I really am? Then I can smack my forehead and say "Oh, wow, I should have looked there."

I found data for stacks that weren't appropriate for cars. What I couldn't find was the data for the cars that were being hyped. This is actually my point. It's been my point all along.

Now, I admit, I did not spend hours at the university library following up on every single reference I ever heard about. It was a casual interest, and I followed up on it in a casual way.

But perhaps you can explain to me why it isn't casually available. These were research projects, so it's hard for me to believe the data wasn't taken, especially since fuel cell cars were being touted as far more efficient than the nasty old IC cars.

But I never saw a single line like: "IC engines are about 20% efficient in turning their fuel into useful energy. This car is 40% efficient."
Nope. It was always: "IC engines are about 20% efficient, but fuel cell cars have the potential to be up to 86% efficient."

I can certainly understand why a private developer might not want to disclose how they're achieving their results. But why hype a project and not disclose positive results?

[GreyICE]

Are you sure you don't want to reconsider this statement? Sure. An automobile engine does not have carnot theoretical efficiency because it does not use a carnot cycle. It has otto cycle theoretical efficiency.

And you're really hoping you can look smart by ignoring my points and doing mr. question man.

Reconsideration item: I used to think you were worthwhile to talk to.

As I said, The Next Big Thing. Really Soon Now, we'll all be driving hydrogen cars.:rolleyes:

Don't let me intrude on your preconceptions.

[TjW]

Sure. An automobile engine does not have carnot theoretical efficiency because it does not use a carnot cycle. It has otto cycle theoretical efficiency.

And you're really hoping you can look smart by ignoring my points and doing mr. question man.

Reconsideration item: I used to think you were worthwhile to talk to.
:rolleyes:

Don't let me intrude on your preconceptions.

Really? I didn't know that. Be sure to announce this at every opportunity.
There are many fools out there (like me) who somehow became convinced that every heat engine, of which Otto cycle engines are a subset, is subject to the Carnot limit.
So you'll be doing the world a service. Really.

[GreyICE]

Really? I didn't know that. Be sure to announce this at every opportunity.
There are many fools out there (like me) who somehow became convinced that every heat engine, of which Otto cycle engines are a subset, is subject to the Carnot limit.
So you'll be doing the world a service. Really.
No I won't, because engineers are a lot smarter than this. Otto cycle efficiency is (insert correct greek symbols):

n = r^(1-y)

where y = Cp/Cv

Carnot cycle efficiency is n = 1-Tc/Th

Carnot efficiency is very useful for comparing different heat engines operating under different cycles, but you want to be shooting for Otto for automobiles, unless you think they're going to get any ground with the Stirling engine.

[Ziggurat]

Really? I didn't know that. Be sure to announce this at every opportunity.
There are many fools out there (like me) who somehow became convinced that every heat engine, of which Otto cycle engines are a subset, is subject to the Carnot limit.
So you'll be doing the world a service. Really.

Otto cycles are subject to Carnot cycle limits, but the Carnot efficiency equation is not very useful for describing their efficiency. Because they use compression, the high temperature part of the cycle is not some fixed temperature, but is instead a variable that depends upon the compression ratio (as well as the starting temperature). The Otto efficiency equation he posted takes this into account, and is indeed what you should be using to calculate the efficiency, not the Carnot equation you posted. So GreyICE was right, and your criticism of him was not warranted.

[DC]

I did that, and came up with a pretty good reason for doubting that natural gas is going to be my alternative fuel at least for a while. Try it yourself, with zip code 05743. If you go out to a hundred mile radius you'll find a couple of NG facilities available only about 75 miles away. All the others are non public.

Out in the boonies we just don't get natural gas. We don't get it for heat and cooking either. This is not to disparage NG as a good fuel, but the infrastructure for getting it into cars is simply not there for us country folk.

hi

well that is indeed a problem. the best alternative will fail if you cant refill :)
it was the same in europe. But when governemtns get convinced and push to creat a network, then its going pretty quickly. the NGV refuelling stations are not so rare anymore around here.

Now there is a network. and more and more people go for NGV. and more refueling stations will get interested in providing the new service.

in the end it will not be the best alternative that will "win". it will be the one with best lobbying.

[DC]

about , Natural Gas should not be used to drive around.
I partially agree with that.

but on the other hand, we burn gasoline that is made from Oil. whish is alot more usefull when we make plastic from it. It is an idiotic waste to burn it to drive around.
we using up the Oil reserves so fast without thinking about tomorow or future generations.

Humans and their cars.....

[neutrino_cannon]

Why not use natural gas to power cars? Then you do not lose the energy to convert to hydrogen. Also smaller tanks.

Another advantage is that petrol stations are not needed. If you have gas into your house just fill up at home!

It's been done.

Out behind my dad's house is an old tank used on a gas to propane conversion vehicle. At one time it was cheap enough to be an attractive idea. Prices changed and nobody does it anymore.

Anyway, I fully expect a lot of money to be thrown at the idea of hydrogen-powered cars before anyone realizes that it's a rather silly idea (probably right around the time someone perfects an electrical storage system better than Li-ion), and all of that research will be applied to aircraft applications, where hydrogen starts looking a lot more sensible.