Hydrogen Fuel Cells Hit the Road

cy

Flashaholic
Joined
Dec 20, 2003
Messages
8,186
Location
USA
Hydrogen Fuel Cells Hit the Road

"it looks like Honda is doing a real test of their fuel-cell car. A family in California is renting the car for $500/mo. Honda is charging them so that they take it seriously - an executive explained that if it were free they might not get the kind of feedback they want. If someone is paying for something and they're not happy - then you're going to hear about it. This is apparently the first fuel-cell car on the road anywhere in the world, according to Honda."

http://science.slashdot.org/science/05/11/02/170221.shtml?tid=126&tid=14
 

Darell

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 14, 2001
Messages
18,644
Location
LOCO is more like it.
There have been fuel cell cars "on the road" for quite some time. I've driven them. At this moment, I know of at least 20 of them in operation within five miles of my current location. This may be the first one in "private" hands, as it were.

Honda actually paid to build a H2 refueling station near the lease-holders home. After the million$ spent, the local fire department will not allow it to open due to safety concerns. Oops.

Ten years ago Honda (and all othe major car makers) put 1000's of EVs on the road in private hands. The car makers got overwhelmingly positive feedback. What did the car companies do with that info? Crush their EV programs. Neat! Of course FCVs are much more attractive since they'll require far more maintenance, will be more expensive to build and fuel, and of course will require "branded" fuel and far more energy than any EV, and even more energy than our current crop of gasoline "hybrids."

OK, show of hands. Who knew what I was going to say before I submitted my post? :wave:
 
Last edited:

yuandrew

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 12, 2003
Messages
1,323
Location
Chino Hills, CA
:rock:

It's been a long time since I've ridden in the Honda EV Plus (Some one I know at my church worked for the SCAQMD in Diamond Bar and gave me a ride twice; he also showed me the EV1 one time)

Even though it was a short trip around the block, both have enough to be used as an everyday car. I always thought the only reason the majority wouldn't accept them has always been the same "where do I fuel or charge them" question.

There are two public EV stations in my community that are now bacisically unused although I have seen a RAV4 EV now and then. My city also once owned a Ford Ranger EV but they recently traded it for a Prius since they found it easier and quicker to just drive down to the gas station to refuel instead of waiting hours to top off the charge. (The only other Alternative fuel vehicle I know used by the city is a Natural Gas powered CIVIC) It seems as if people won't really accept AFVs unless they are able to simply drive to the nearest station for refueling which seem to by why alternative fuels haven't really been accepted by the public.

Hybrid electrics are becomming more common now, Seems like every day, I see another Pirus on the road when I'm heading to classes. My only thing with Hybrids is that even though they have electric motors, you still run them on regular gas. People are just too used to filling up with gasoline.

I've always wanted a Natural Gas vehicles but it is hard to find CNG vehicles now. There is one CNG station at the SCAQMD headquarters in Diamond Bar that I can use on the way home from classes and I could always get a FuelMaker machine in my garage since the natural gas for CNG vehicles is the same gas going to my furnace and water heater.

Hydrogen is what gets all the attention now mostly because it sounds unusual and uses some "exotic" technologies like fuel cells. I feel they are trying to address the refueling issue right now to try to get the general public used to hydrogen; there's a hydrogen dispenser near the CNG station in Diamond bar and one was just built in Chino about six miles from where I live. There is one other problem I've notice with the public addressing hydrogen, most people I've discussed alternative fuels with often think of nuclear weapons or the Hindenburg whenever I mention hydrogen. No one wants to get blown up in an accident or at a gas station but how many times does that happen ?

My opinion on hydrogen though is since it dosen't occure naturally in nature; it has to be "made" either from electrolysis of water or from reforming Natural Gas. Both will take energy and since nothing is 100% efficient at converting energy, it will always take more power to make than what you'll get out. Why not just use electricity or burn CNG directly?

There are still a few questions I've received from others. One question is when people begin production of these vehicles, wouldn't it cause more polution as factories begin opening up and converting the raw materials into parts ?
That seems to stem from a question about EVs when they used Lead Acid batteries and someone asked me about the use of lead and other chemicles in manufacturing the batteries.

Of course the main question people always ask is "Will the general public accept the changes ? Try asking youself the same question.
 

Darell

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 14, 2001
Messages
18,644
Location
LOCO is more like it.
yuandrew said:
It seems as if people won't really accept AFVs unless they are able to simply drive to the nearest station for refueling which seem to by why alternative fuels haven't really been accepted by the public.
Quite true. Silly, but true. When GM surveyed the first round of EV1 drivers, the comment that always bubbled to the top of the "great feature of EVs" list is home refuelling. NOT having to drive out of your way to refuel. Drive home, park in the garage and throw the paddle in. Next morning, take the paddle out and you're ready for the day. That you can so easily make your own fuel is just icing on the home-refueling cake!

My opinion on hydrogen though is since it dosen't occure naturally in nature; it has to be "made" either from electrolysis of water or from reforming Natural Gas. Both will take energy and since nothing is 100% efficient at converting energy, it will always take more power to make than what you'll get out. Why not just use electricity or burn CNG directly?
I may have to name my next child after you! Take the energy that would be required to make the fuel for an H2 FCV to travel 1 mile... use it instead to charge my batteries, and I can travel four miles.

There are still a few questions I've received from others. One question is when people begin production of these vehicles, wouldn't it cause more polution as factories begin opening up and converting the raw materials into parts ?
Well, that's an easy one. If we're buying new cars anyway, it isn't going to cost more energy to build an energy efficient car than it is to build a gas hog. We aren't suddenly going to throw all our cars away and start from scratch. We just phase in the new vehicles - something we should have started WAY before now.

Of course the main question people always ask is "Will the general public accept the changes ? Try asking youself the same question.
Self... will the general public accept the changes? Apparently not.

Actually, I think the general public WOULD accept the changes - if they were given the whole story. If they were told of the many benefits of the changes. All they typically want to know today is when will the financial break-even point be reached.
 

gadget_lover

Flashaholic
Joined
Oct 7, 2003
Messages
7,148
Location
Near Silicon Valley (too near)
I love these stories. They are great publicity.

According to the article, the car is worth over 1,000,000 and they are leasing it for 500 a month. Assuming a 36 month lease, they will only have a $982,000 ballon payment to buy it at the end of
the lease.

Unlike other prototype cars which may cost $1 million in R&D to create (out of materials worth a few thousands) the fuel cell car material costs are (so I've heard) over $500,000 due to the precious metals.

I hope someone sees the light quickly.

Daniel
 

idleprocess

Flashaholic
Joined
Feb 29, 2004
Messages
7,197
Location
decamped
I think the hype on fuel cell cars may finally be starting to die out. This has to be the first mainstream press article on the subject I've read that's not gushing with Popular Mechanics 1950s gee-whiz futurism - you know, the illustrated car adverts showing deliriously happy people cruising past in their giant bulgmobiles with 12' fins?

If affordable FCVs were right around the corner (read: ~5 years away) and they were as affordable and (relatively) simple as ICE vehicles, then all the hype would mean something. But they're not. Even if we assume that the major cost issues associated with fuel cell manufacture disappear overnight they still won't make sense because the hydrogen infrastructure has to be built up from scratch - and it's not going to be as cheap as the gasoline infrastructure. You're always going to pay far more "per gallon" for hydrogen than you will for gas.

The major hurdles on FCVs?
  • The sheer mass of platinum required to make low-temperature hydrogen fuul cells
  • The supporting pumps, battery pack, cooling systems, and monitoring/control systems combined are far more complex than the average engine - complexity is the enemy of reliability
  • Even under laboratory conditions, the lifespan of the Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) in a fuel cell isn't as great as the average engine's lifespan ... and I believe that it dereriorates with greater demand. PEMs are very sensitive to contamination as wel.
  • No practical/affordable vehicle fuel cell stack in existence today can supply enough power to meet the peak demands of the vehicle - a supplementary battery pack to "buffer" demand from the fuel cell is necessary for acceleration and high-speed travel. Whether FCVs can operate at high-speed for long periods of time remains to be seen since you're limited to peak fuel cell stack output once the battery pack is drained

Yes, I used the term "cheap" to describe the gasoline infrastructure - hydrogen is a volatile, light gas that evades even the best seals. Since we all know that it would be the end of America to "refuel" at home, we're going to have to build hydrogen fueling stations to maintain those most precious, core American institutions - gas stations and convenience stores.

I have no idea what a "hydrogen" pump is going to cost, but I'm going to guess that it's going to be quite a bit more than a gasoline pump, what with the multiple redundant seals and high pressure required (~10,000 PSI on most prototype FCVs). It's going to take a great deal of energy to generate that kind of pressure - twice - both at the pump and from the pipeline or fuel truck that feeds the "gas station."

Did I mention that hydrogen is volatile? Ever seen a demonstration in a chemistry class? Touch a match to a hydrogen balloon - there's no flame, just a little flash, a lound bang, and often singed eyebrows on the part of the instructor doing the demo. That demo is typically done with a 2:1 mixture of hydrogen and oxygen - otherwise there would be even more hydrogen reacting with a mixed atmosphere, which might tend to dislodge ceiling tiles, really injure the instructor, and cause more damage by burning a bit slower.

I feel safer living close to a gas station - where they only have to contain a liquid that doesn't burn so fast, with vapors heavier than the atmosphere - than I would living next to a large store of hydrogen with people coming and going. And the occasional smoker too stupid or self-righteous to stop smoking as soon as he gets within sight of the place.

Barring some unforseen scientific breakthroughs, fuel cells will remain interesting laboratory devices and niche-application power/heat/water supplies. Hydrogen is the ideal fuel only on paper - it has too many problems in practice.

I have to wonder why we're so hopelessly stuck on the idea that vehicles need fuel anyway. Energy is essential to performing work, and fuel is but one way to store it. Engines usually more complex than motors - engines consume fuel to produce energy and do work; Motors do work with supplied energy.
 

jtr1962

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
7,506
Location
Flushing, NY
idleprocess said:
I have to wonder why we're so hopelessly stuck on the idea that vehicles need fuel anyway.
Me too. I suspect one reason EVs have been a hard sell is that the whole liquid fuel mentality is so engraved on the general public. That and the fact that it seems the general public thinks cars have to extraordinarily complex to work. They probably see something as simple as an electric motor with a battery and think this must be lacking in some way because it's so simple compared to a gas engine with a complex mechanical transmission, or a fuel cell.

It also appears the public is obsessed with the idea that cars have to generate their own power (at least in their simple minds it appears that way). Technically the cars aren't generating power but just converting the energy stored in the fuel from chemical to mechanical energy (and doing so very inefficiently I might add). Now if we use this new angle, and tell the public that a battery is just another way to store energy like fuel, and maybe call an electric motor an electric engine, we might make some progress. Perhaps for good measure we should shape charging paddles like gas pump nozzles. Funny thing is those who try home recharging, or refueling if you will, love it and never want to go back. I know if the public got its feet wet with EVs they would love them and all the hoopla surrounding fuel cells would quickly die. Selling EVs shouldn't have to be like drilling a hole in water, not with today's technology.

Also, I almost forgot- :wave: We really have to pity Darell. I bet he repeats the same thing over and over again, and it falls mostly on deaf ears.
 
Last edited:

Bravo25

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 17, 2003
Messages
1,129
Location
Kansas, USA
It also appears the public is obsessed with the idea that cars have to generate their own power (at least in their simple minds it appears that way). Technically the cars aren't generating power but just converting the energy stored in the fuel from chemical to mechanical energy (and doing so very inefficiently I might add). Now if we use this new angle, and tell the public that a battery is just another way to store energy like fuel, and maybe call an electric motor an electric engine, we might make some progress. Perhaps for good measure we should shape charging paddles like gas pump nozzles. Funny thing is those who try home recharging, or refueling if you will, love it and never want to go back. I know if the public got its feet wet with EVs they would love them and all the hoopla surrounding fuel cells would quickly die. Selling EVs shouldn't have to be like drilling a hole in water, not with today's technology.







How about we just fill the tanks with water, and throw in a few chunks of carbide?
 

Darell

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 14, 2001
Messages
18,644
Location
LOCO is more like it.
jtr1962 said:
We really have to pity Darell. I bet he repeats the same thing over and over again, and it falls mostly on deaf ears.
Interestingly enough, this stuff *used* to fall on deaf ears. For years and years nobody could possibly understand why I had issues with this great new "green" technology of FC for vehicles. Today, however, I find more and more people becoming knowledgeable and actually wanting answers for why it is still so expensive and still so unavailable after all these years of promises. EVs were road ready two years after they were "required" by CARB. Since the mid 1960's, GM has been saying that a commercialized FCV was right around the corner. None of the car makers ever wanted to build an EV - but they all did in a short time. Now we have all these car makers who say they DO want to build FCVs... but can't manage to do it after several decades of throwing money at it, and talking the good talk. Something's wrong with the picture here folks. And more and more poeple are realizing it.

The sad state of affairs is that we do need *something* and right now FCV research has completely replaced BEV research at the auto company level... so we basically get nothing. Does this surprise anybody?

But thanks jtr. A little pity is always welcome. :) Sometimes it can get pretty lonely out here!

and... Nicely said, Idle!
 

yuandrew

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 12, 2003
Messages
1,323
Location
Chino Hills, CA
Did I mention that hydrogen is volatile? Ever seen a demonstration in a chemistry class? Touch a match to a hydrogen balloon - there's no flame, just a little flash, a lound bang, and often singed eyebrows on the part of the instructor doing the demo. That demo is typically done with a 2:1 mixture of hydrogen and oxygen - otherwise there would be even more hydrogen reacting with a mixed atmosphere, which might tend to dislodge ceiling tiles, really injure the instructor, and cause more damage by burning a bit slower.

I feel safer living close to a gas station - where they only have to contain a liquid that doesn't burn so fast, with vapors heavier than the atmosphere - than I would living next to a large store of hydrogen with people coming and going. And the occasional smoker too stupid or self-righteous to stop smoking as soon as he gets within sight of the place.

I've made hydrogen gas by reacting hydrochloric acid and magnesium strips then collected it in an inverted test tube and ignited it; it just made a 'little' *pop*. The next day, my teacher showed us how to make hydrogen again but using electrolysis this time. We put both electrodes into one inverted test tube to get a stichometric<spelling?> mixture of H2 and O2 and when ignited, it made an even louder POP! than just burning it in air.
Hydrogen is lighter than air; in our experiment, you had to keep the test tube inverted and light it fast otherwise it would basically just escape resulting in no ignition. Most gas stations are outdoors and hydrogen gas will just mix with the air and float away (I hope) The only danger of explosion is if you were to vent hydrogen into an enclosed room or building and add an ignition source, in which you'll get a big explosion (same with blowing out all the pilot lights in a stove then turning on the gas and letting it build up in a house


Bravo25 said:
How about we just fill the tanks with water, and throw in a few chunks of carbide?

Many years ago, (1970s?) my uncle told me he heard of this "pill" that was suppose to replace gasoline. You would put some in your fuel tank and add water and the "pill" was suppose to convert the water into fuel.

Anyway, in Popular Mechanics (forgot what issue) I found out the "pills" actually contain Calcium Carbide. They will react with water to form acetylene which is then supposed to fuel an internal combustion engine (at least until the high temperatures and corrosive combustion byproducts eats up the cylinders)
 
Last edited:

idleprocess

Flashaholic
Joined
Feb 29, 2004
Messages
7,197
Location
decamped
yuandrew said:
I've made hydrogen gas by reacting hydrochloric acid and magnesium strips then collected it in an inverted test tube and ignited it; it just made a 'little' *pop*. The next day, my teacher showed us how to make hydrogen again but using electrolysis this time. We put both electrodes into one inverted test tube to get a stichometric<spelling?> mixture of H2 and O2 and when ignited, it made an even louder POP! than just burning it in air.
Hydrogen is lighter than air; in our experiment, you had to keep the test tube inverted and light it fast otherwise it would basically just escape resulting in no ignition. Most gas stations are outdoors and hydrogen gas will just mix with the air and float away (I hope) The only danger of explosion is if you were to vent hydrogen into an enclosed room or building and add an ignition source, in which you'll get a big explosion (same with blowing out all the pilot lights in a stove then turning on the gas and letting it build up in a house
A balloon full of hydrogen is a few hundred times the volume of an inverted test tube, and mixes quite well with the atmosphere when the balloon ruptures.

Hydrogen's light weight is a good thing and a bad thing. Good since it dissipates rapidly, bad since it will seek to escape upward and is far more difficult to contain than other gasses. If hydrogen fueling stations use the gas station model, they'll have large quantities of the stuff in storage under high pressure. At least gasoline vapors are heavier than air and tend to stay low ... thus underground storage is fairly safe assuming no idiot smokers.
 

cheapo

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 5, 2005
Messages
3,326
rnald schwartzenegger has owned a hydrogen powered HUMMER H2 for a couple of years now.

-David
 

Darell

Flashaholic
Joined
Nov 14, 2001
Messages
18,644
Location
LOCO is more like it.
cheapo said:
rnald schwartzenegger has owned a hydrogen powered HUMMER H2 for a couple of years now.
And to this day, it has not driven under its own power ANYWHERE, as far as I'm aware. It has been trucked to sevearal H2 filling stations for photo-ops. Best case scenario is that it would eventually be able to have about a 10 mile range.

I couldn't be more excited! :sick2:
 

cheapo

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 5, 2005
Messages
3,326
I have seen him drive it on some show on TV.

-David
 
Top