Prez Bush endorses hydrogen cars?

My first thought was to divert attention of the upcoming war in Iraq of what people really think we want there.....
BUT, if so, then why not equally develope to the overall useage and complete replacement of home lighting with LED technology?
Instead of a 60w inc. bulb we would only need say a 5 watt luxeon?
Sure there is a distinct advantage to burning hydrogen, its the most abundant cleanest fuel available albeit extremely combustable ( HINDENBURG? )

Why not implement government grants to develope LED technology to everyone?
Myself I was part of a $20 million dollar grant to build a soundwall barrier for so. Calif. highways, I did just that.....

I think there is possible more advancements from us modders than Ledcorp,Lumileds, Nichia combined!

We need to petition congress for studies and funds to use LED in all phases of lighting, from the use of home lighting on to further high output lamps rivalling even metal halides!

Imagine shopping centers lit by hi bay lamps not of hot high current lamps but cooler less current consuming LED's? and I imagine emitters that are even a foot across, replacing headlights,replacing flourescents, lasting no less than 10 years......or longer.

I would have thought a 'natural' gas car would be better: No fuel 'tank' needed, as you ARE the fuel tank - for commuting to and from work, only 1 standard can of pork and beans is needed per day. Eat it for supper, and plug yourself into car in morning. Beans: the Musical fruit and a different kind of driving experience.

Seriously, for hydrogen power, all you need is H2O and electrolysis (sp?), and recombine the H2 and O via combustion. Couple with appropriate machinery, and you have your propulsion method.

Prez Bush might endorse it, but the majority of truck lovin' Americans probably won't.

Hydrogen cars are nice to look at aern't they. Too bad for them to be practical we'd need a national infrastructure and a way to transport ot safely. The equipment on H cars is heavy too--all this to drive an electric motor (In hydrogen fuel cell cars anyway). Making hydrogen from water takes a LOT of electricity.

Wait...hold it..replace all that H equiptment with batteries and an onboard charger and you get an elegent little vehicle called a BEV. One that can charge from any outlet (Electricity, compated to Hydrogen, is a cinch to transport) one that can, given the right type of outlet, charge faster than you can get the Hydrogen for your H car up to pressure and--assuming you took 1000 pounds of H equip off and put 100 pounds of batteries on--probably go farther on a charge than a full tank of H.

Although my Chemistry skills are non-existent, is there anyway we could produce hydrogen or any other clean burning gas for that matter, on the fly. Similar to the way miner's lamps work, using Calcium Carbide + Water to yield acetylene gas? This would eliminate the hazards of storing the gas, esp hydrogen, in a tank. Then you would just have to add the reagents necessary to make the hydrogen (or other) gas to the vehicle. In an emergency, you could just cut the chemical reaction (assuming it's controlled) off. The compressed gas-in-a-tank method just seems like another time bomb to me. I really like Mr. Bradshaw's solution though

Ed.

Originally posted by e=mc²:
Although my Chemistry skills are non-existent, is there anyway we could produce hydrogen or any other clean burning gas for that matter, on the fly.

Click to expand...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">There's metal-hydride storage tank:


"Metal-hydride reversibly absorbs and desorbs large amounts of hydrogen. The hydrogen stored in metal hydride alloy is "compressed" by more than 1,000 times (There is no compression in the conventional sense -- the hydrogen becomes a part of the metal hydride alloy.). For example, a storage tank using metal hydride may contain 100 times more hydrogen than a conventional compressed gas cylinder."

The national infrastructure is exactly why Bush endorses hydrogen. It doesn't put the gas station out of business, it just makes them sell hydrogen as well. As the government can't put corporations out of business, but they can give them billions in tax relief and grants to install a new infrastructure. If this goes forward that is what will happen.

If your car is electric then you just need to plug in, the oil companies can't make as much money on that as some of the electricity might come from renewable sources!

Interested in Darell's answer on why Bush (hey, and the auto industry!) is pushing Hydrogen cars? No, I didn't think so, but tough beans. You're in MY house now!

The argument against EVs are: Cost to manufacture, recharge time, and range and possibly lack of infrastructure. I don't think there are any other important issues that I've heard against BEVs. Big Auto says we, the driving public, don't want these cars because they're too expensive, take too long to charge and don't go very far, blah, blah, blah. So let's just squash the BEV program and REALLY concentrate on H2. To do a good job on H2, we'll need to totally stop all research on BEVs. We'll need about 10 or 15 years of research, and when we unveil it... well, it will probably be 10x as expensive as BEVs, take longer to charge (for 5x more $$ per charge) and will have shorter range. I guess we'll have to abandon H2 and look for that next big thing while we continue burning oil as fast as we possibly can...

Here's the deal guys: A fuel cell car is an EV to which has been added a fuel cell. Take whatever the cost of an EV is, and ADD the cost of the fuel cell. Fuel cell cars will need batteries, ironically, so there won't even be a huge savings there. Fuel cell cars require at least twice the power per mile (because of conversion inefficiencies) than do pure BEVs. Fuel cell cars are less energy efficient than many ICE vehicles. But NOBODY hears this! And I haven't even brought up the impossibility of a hydrogen infrastructure. This stuff is delivered at 9k psi! This stuff is about as energy UNdense as we've ever attempted to use.

Yes, what I'm saying here is that Fuel Cell vehicles are the answer to keeping gasoline cars on the road as long as possible while the current administration and big auto *appears* to be solving our energy woes. I'm trying desperately not to sound like a conspiracy theorist here. Yet I can't make the facts add up to anything else.

If billions of dollars were thrown at BEV research, we'd soon have a 300-mile car with potential for a 10-minute charge, that could also be charged from any outlet throughout the world. All the technology for what I've stated exists TODAY. And surprise! We even have working BEVs on the road with the bugs shaken out of them. But it will take money to create a new generation of BEV. That money is currently going ONLY to the unproven technology of fuel cell vehicles, at the obvious expense of BEVs.

Originally posted by Charles Bradshaw:
I would have thought a 'natural' gas car would be better

Click to expand...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Don't fear that I missed the joke. BUT... we already have CNG (compressed natural gas) vehicles that do quite well. And they're more energy efficient than a fuel cell vehicle would be. Natural gas is technically a fossil fuel, but except for extra CO2, it burns REALLY clean. And it costs a couple of hundred dollars in extra goodies to change a gas car to a CNG car. Hmmm.

Originally posted by darell:
Fuel cell cars will need batteries, ironically, so there won't even be a huge savings there.

Click to expand...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Really? I was under the impression that fuel cells *are* the batteries.
I agree about the cost of hydrogen generation though, we have hydrogen generators where I work(small units that are plugged into a standard 13amp socket and are topped up with purified water which is then electrolysed to produce Hydrogen and Oxygen) which are about 2feet x 2feet x 1foot. when they are working to maximum output they are using as much juice from the outlet as it can safely supply.

Alan.

Somehow, the general public think that generating electricity with hydrogen fuel cells is a net GAIN of power. NOPE. Not by a long shot. Just because H2 is everywhere, doesn't mean it is in a usable form. To use it, we must first apply a vast amount of power to it. Only then can we use it as fuel, and full 1/2 - 1/4 of the energy back out of it.

Originally posted by Alchemist:
Really? I was under the impression that fuel cells *are* the batteries.

Click to expand...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Almost. The FC stack is the power source, but the problem is that power can't be pulled out fast enough to accelerate a vehicle. This is why fuel cells are far better suited for static (non mobile) power needs where the demand is more stable. You can get power out of a battery FAST. So fast it is scary (come for a ride in my EV1 some day if you can!). But a fuel cell stack can't keep up with a short burst of heavy draw. A giant capacitor, or batteries will be required for this task

Another need for batteries is storage for regenerative braking. You can't stuff hydrogen back into your tank when you slow down. But you CAN recharge batteries.

Jeepers.... the more I think about this - it almost seems easier to just use batteries in the first place!

It doesn't make sense to abandon battery-based EV research at all. Even if we're going to magically be using H2 in 10 years, we're going to have to spend time developing electric car mechanics.

Here's an idea: Build your EV car lineup now. Have it using batteries, but plan the system so it could quickly be changed over to using fuel cells. By the time H2 fuel cells mature, and the infrastructure is in place, you already have the tooling, parts, experience, and a very well engineered EV with all the kinks worked out. You would be so ahead of the game, your competition would have a hard time figuring out how to even do an EV right. You'd just be adapting your car to a fuel cell - not too hard if you just plan ahead.

Darell - you're running the NiMH packs in your EV1, right? Do you know how much volume and weight they take up? Oh yeah - how much power in a full charge? (V@AH, or W-H)
-Darin

AHHH! Now I understand what you mean. Thanks for the clarification on that Darell.

Somehow, the general public think that generating electricity with hydrogen fuel cells is a net GAIN of power. NOPE. Not by a long shot. Just because H2 is everywhere, doesn't mean it is in a usable form. To use it, we must first apply a vast amount of power to it. Only then can we use it as fuel, and full 1/2 - 1/4 of the energy back out of it.

Click to expand...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yep, If my recollection of physics is correct, your never going to get out more than you put in, and with associated losses, its usually a whole lot less.

Another need for batteries is storage for regenerative braking. You can't stuff hydrogen back into your tank when you slow down. But you CAN recharge batteries.

Click to expand...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I'll have to disagree on that one. In a previous life, I was an engineer, One of the tools I had at my disposal was a water-jet cutter which took tap pressure water and intensified it to 40,000 psi. All this from a tiny unit of about 1 cubic foot. I think with current technology we could use the regenerative braking to electrolyse water and compress the gas into the tank. probably exponentially more inneficient than charging a battery though.

Jeepers.... the more I think about this - it almost seems easier to just use batteries in the first place!

Click to expand...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Agree! Come the spring, I'll be dusting off my electric bicycle(about 15 mile range, farther if I actually peddle ) and using that for 90% of my transportation needs.

Thanks.

Alan

Evan, wait wait...if you had an advanced EV why would you want to make it work with H2? The fuel cell technology (As of now...but still) just adds weight and takes up space...

Darell's EV1 uses Lead Acid packs. The Rav4 EV uses NiMh. The Lead Acid gives better performance (Vroom vroom...er...uhh...tire squeal...[scilence]) but the NiMh gives better range. In the EV1 anyway. NiMh may have done metter in the EV1 if it had better air flow for the batteries.

Sabby,
I understand your point - however, given current battery technology, it may only be possible to get the extended range needed for long distance trips through the use of a "fuel", vs. charging. In reality, I'd much rather just see better batteries - it makes more sense to avoid a step in the process.

Interesting about the PB vs NiMH...I figured that NiMH could pump more current. I was hoping to get an idea of energy density between the two technologies.

-Darin

Originally posted by Saaby:
Evan, wait wait...if you had an advanced EV why would you want to make it work with H2? The fuel cell technology (As of now...but still) just adds weight and takes up space...

Click to expand...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Actually the fuel cell technology reduces the weight quite considerably(even as of now). The batteries are only required for the initial "kick" of acceleration. Also, if you do not want the prodigious acceleration of the EV1, it is not necessary to use batteries or a capacitor at all. Peugeot/Citroen have a 30KW fuel cell powered motor in one of their test cars and it works just fine (kind of).

Do a google search for fuel cell car, and you will see that there is already a lot of work going on in this field.

Thanks.

Alan.

darell,

I have to disagree to some extent on the way you are distinguishing between fuel cells and batteries. Both of these are 'electrochemical cells', converting chemical potential energy into electrical power.

A hydrogen-oxygen fuel cell and a nickel metal hydride battery have lots in common.

There is no basic physics reason why having your electrolysis and your electrochemical energy production inside a single container (the battery) should be any more or any less efficient that having these two operations separated (the fuel cell).

Differences will be in energy density and power density. Your point about fuel cell car needing batteries is correct, although these would likely be batteries optimized for power density rather than energy density (since the fuel cell provides the long range energy), and might even be supercapacitors.

Another significant difference is the energy distribution infrastructure. As you note, using H2 power would mean H2 fuel distributors; it keeps the gas companies in business.

Yet another difference is the _source_ of the H2. As I said, if the H2 is electrolytic, then fuel cell versus battery should be pretty darn similar. But now we have to look back at where the electricity comes from. If the electricity is renewable or nuclear or hydroelectric, then battery versus fuel cell again remain similar in terms of efficiency. However if the _primary_ fuel is a fossil fuel, than H2 distribution suddenly becomes _much_ more efficient.

The reason is that you can chemically create hydrogen by reacting water with a fossil fuel, with much greater efficiency then burning the fuel to create heat to generate electricity to run and electrolyzer.

Finally, a hydrogen fuel cell car would essentially be an electric car, in all but the electricity source. Hydrogen fuel cell car development would enhance pure EV development.

However, having read through the SOU speech, I don't recall that Pres. Bush mentioned either the source of the hydrogen, nor the use of fuel cells. One could build a hydrogen powered ICE car, which would be somewhat cleaner than gasoline powered cars, and which would be an attractive money sink for government pork research, but which really isn't such a great idea.

-Jon

Originally posted by Alchemist:
Actually the fuel cell technology reduces the weight quite considerably(even as of now).

Click to expand...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Hmmm...take a long, hard look at your user name and then understand why I don't believe you

The NiMh batteries weigh less and provide more range. They are far more dense--PB just provides more kick. Howabout an EV with a combo system? A few PB batteries for when you want to go...now and then NiMh for the rest of your driving.

Originally posted by Saaby:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Alchemist:
[qb]Actually the fuel cell technology reduces the weight quite considerably(even as of now).

Click to expand...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Hmmm...take a long, hard look at your user name and then understand why I don't believe you

The NiMh batteries weigh less and provide more range.]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Umm, the ones I've played with have a higher energy density than any NiMH cell I've ever seen. Ask NASA, they were using hydrogen fuel cells in the 60s for the Gemini and Apollo spacecraft.
Fuel Cells

Howabout an EV with a combo system? A few PB batteries for when you want to go...now and then NiMh for the rest of your driving.

Click to expand...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Now your talking

Thanks

Alan.

Originally posted by evan9162:

Darell - you're running the NiMH packs in your EV1, right? Do you know how much volume and weight they take up? Oh yeah - how much power in a full charge? (V@AH, or W-H)
-Darin

Click to expand...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Ryan has it right. Lead Acid in the EV1, NiMH in the Rav. The EV1 has about 900 pounds of battery with approximately 60 Ah at 380V. I can't remember what the Rav has off the top of my head.

By the time H2 fuel cells mature, and the infrastructure is in place, you already have the tooling, parts, experience, and a very well engineered EV with all the kinks worked out. You would be so ahead of the game, your competition would have a hard time figuring out how to even do an EV right. You'd just be adapting your car to a fuel cell - not too hard if you just plan ahead.

Click to expand...

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I like Ryan's response on this. Why would anybody want to screw up a perfectly good EV only to add $100,000 worth of hardware that would decrease the vehicle's performance and range? More on this later...