Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars

rorr

From the link posted (and this is beyond the discussion regarding the $4.45/gallon gasoline equivalent)

"However, it is important to remember at this point that this figure does not include any of the other end-user costs associated with the manufacture of the 'gallon equivalent' we are considering here (i.e., infrastructure & equipment, labor, debt service, and total mark-up)! We saw earlier that the end-user price per gallon of liquid H2 as produced by water electrolysis used to be about $4, and that it takes 3.584 gal. of H2 to equal the energy in 1 gal. of gasoline. So, much like the electric utilities typically charging the retail customer about 3.5 times their input energy (fuel) cost per kWh for electricity, we could reasonably figure that the end-user price of liquid H2 for our fuel cell cars (should they require it) would actually be about that same factor higher than today's input energy cost, at 3.584 x $4.45 or an incredible $15.95 per gallon-equivalent!!

Fortunately, we haven't taken the relative efficiencies of fuel cells and internal combustion engines into consideration! Although an "ideal" fuel cell would be 83% efficient, in reality practical fuel cells have a net efficiency of about 66%. Assuming for the sake of convenience that the average automobile engine runs at an efficiency of 33% (which is fairly accurate), the end-user price we carefully estimated above is actually reduced by 50% – to a very realisitic net figure of $7.97 per gallon-equivalent."

hmmmmmm, looks to me like they DID take into account the relative efficiencies of both the fuel cell (66%) and the standard ICE (33%). And the final cost was $7.97 per gallon-equivalent.

"That’s completely ignoring the whole environment issue..."

No, actually all of this is completely RELAVENT to the environment issue. What they are saying is that the electricity needed for the electrolysis of water (the 'cleanest' method to produce hydrogen) must come from somewhere. The math is simply showing that the equivalent energy (whether it comes from fossil fuels, nuclear, solar/wind/etc. or little green leprechauns) to produce hydrogen equal to 1 gallon of gas is much more than the equivalent gallon of gas. So, IF the electricity used to produce the hydrogen is from fossil fuels, then you've actually consumed MORE fossil fuels to produce the hydrogen than if you had simply burned the fuel directly in an ICE.

You want to focus on the environmental issues rather than the equivalent costs? Fine. Just ask yourself where the hydrogen comes from. Is it produced from coal gasification or reduction of natural gas? You are still burning fossil fuels even if your ultimate tailpipe emmission is zero. Are you producing hydrogen using electrolysis? Fine - what's the source of electricity.

In short, I've provided the math to back my stand on this issue.

Can ANYONE provide the math to show me wrong?

asdar

(e) thus, the electric power required to electrolyze the hydrogen equivalent to 1 gallon of gasoline is equal to (500 moles) x (0.06587 kWh/mole) = 32.935 kWh, and the approximate cost of that power = (32.935 kWh) x (13.5¢/kWh) = $4.45 per "gallon equivalent",

This is their number and 13.5/kWh is more than I pay.

Then later they come back and try to multiply the actual cost of producing Hydrogen straight out of the socket times 3.5 and more because of end user estimated costs, well that's not right.

The cost of electricity straight up and straight into electrolyzing Hydrogen from water is $4.45 from their own numbers. That's the cost, re-read their numbers. If you want to multiply it by 3.5 you might as well multiply it by 10 or 100 then your phony numbers would be really impressive.

What I was talking about engine efficiencies is that it's not included in the $4.45. They show later that Combustion engines are less efficient but only by multiply the legitimate cost of producing Hydrogen of 4.45 X 3.5 and then dividing out the difference in combustion versus Fuel Cell efficiencies.

It's all BS math and not true. By their own numbers it costs $4.45 for the equivalent to a gallon of gas using home socket costs. The actual equation is using the 4.45

$4.45/2 (their efficiency estimate, not mine) = 2.225/gallon equivalent, from the cost of electricity out of the socket.

They have a vested interest in Hydrogen failing.

rorr

The multiplier was to pay for the additional infrastructure necessary to pay for the equipment, transportation, etc. That stuff ain't free and can't be simply ignored because you don't want to think about it.

Even if you are talking about home socket costs, don't you have costs associated with the electrolysis equipment to convert water to hydrogen? Or do you know of a $29.99 "Mr. Hydrogen" kit you can plug into your wall outlet to produce hydrogen?

"They have a vested interest in Hydrogen failing."

How do you figure? They actually are attempting to offer technology which makes the production of hydrogen more cost efficient. I don't understand what that technology is or how it is supposed to work, but it seems to me that if they want to sell that technology, they would want to have hydrogen suceed.

If you can link to info from another source giving different equivalent costs for hydrogen, I'd be happy to read it.

rorr

The multiplier was to pay for the additional infrastructure necessary to pay for the equipment, transportation, etc. That stuff ain't free and can't be simply ignored because you don't want to think about it.

Even if you are talking about home socket costs, don't you have costs associated with the electrolysis equipment to convert water to hydrogen? Or do you know of a $29.99 "Mr. Hydrogen" kit you can plug into your wall outlet to produce hydrogen?

"They have a vested interest in Hydrogen failing."

How do you figure? They actually are attempting to offer technology which makes the production of hydrogen more cost efficient. I don't understand what that technology is or how it is supposed to work, but it seems to me that if they want to sell that technology, they would want to have hydrogen suceed.

If you can link to info from another source giving different equivalent costs for hydrogen, I'd be happy to read it.

rorr

...the multiple posts.

asdar

The cost to produce is the cost to produce, and that's $4.45.

Because they can't make $4.45 look bad that multiply it by a factor that they pulled out of their butts.

If they want to try and show a 3.5 factor added to every kilogram of Hydrogen produced then they should give a cost analysis of electrolysis equipment, how long will it last, what's the initial cost, what's the maintenance but they don't because they're just pulling the wool over your eyes.

Am I saying we should jump right into the Hydrogen economy? Not at all, but to throw out some elementary math and then multiply it by 3.5 to make it look worse than it is doesn't sit well with me.

Edit: forgot to add, the company is a commercial producer of electricity. They're countering the Stationary fuel Cell craze. They don't support anything to do with Hydrogen.

rorr

"They're countering the Stationary fuel Cell craze."

Side track, but I've got to ask.....why in the heck would the idea of stationary fuel cells be attractive? :confuse: :confuse: :confuse:

asdar

I got no idea about that. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

The only reason I can think of for stationary Fuel Cells is for places that want to stay off the grid. My dad's cabin can't get electricity and he uses Solar panels and batteries. It might make sense for stuff like that.

rorr

Fair enough (though to be truthful, I would think it would be more efficient from an energy and economics standpoint to simply use standard batteries rather than go through the whole stationary fuel cell route).

I guess I'm at a loss to figure how stationary fuel cells (for individuals off the grid) are somehow a competitive problem for a producer of electricity.

I view hydrogen and fuel cells NOT as a fuel but simply as a different form of battery. One dumps electricity into the system (to produce the hydrogen) and one gets electricity out of the other end (fuel cell). The hydrogen and fuel cell simply gives portability and the ability to refuel quickly rather than go through a recharging process with batteries.

And like batteries, the question becomes how much electricity must go into the system vs. what comes out, and what is this equivalence in fossil fuel.

One thing I can definitely say in favor of hydrogen and fuel cell technology: it may turn out to be the best means available to utilize many different forms of fossil fuel. In other words, it may be more economical to utilize coal, undersea methane, shale oil, or oil sands in large production plants to generate hydrogen rather than try to convert these forms of fossil fuel into a form which can be directly used by a standard ICE powertrain.

So, in a sense, one could see how widespread use of hydrogen fuel cells would actually PROLONG our use of fossil fuels.

How's that for a thought?

asdar

I totally agree. I look at Hydrogen and fuel cells as batteries.

I would agree that they would prolong the use of fossil fuels if that use wasn't already aimed at depletion. I think that nothing we can change now will stop our complete usage of all the worlds oil reserves.

I've never looked at undersea methane, that sounds pretty cool.

ladave

Actually the main efficiency benefit of fuel cells comes from converting chemical energy directly into electricity without going through the unavoidable losses in carnot and other thermal cycles. It's just really tough to make any kind of heat engine more than about 35% efficient, whether it's internal combustion, wankel, sterling, turbine, stanley steamer or whatever, unless you find ways to make use of the waste heat that is at least 60-65% of the energy you invest.

When you use electricity to make the hydrogen, the electricity probably came from a generator attached to some kind of heat engine. So all of a sudden you aren't escaping heat engine inefficiencies after all, you just shoved them over to the Four Corners Power Plant or someplace else besides your own backyard. Even if the electricity happens to be cheap, problems like global warming, toxic air pollution and particulates are not avoided, and they are amplified by transformer losses, transmission losses, inefficiencies in your converter, the energy cost of compressing hydrogen to some thousands PSI, etc. etc.

Making hydrogen from natural gas isn't so great either because NG is a very clean fuel that happens to be in limited supply. It really should be reserved for small-scale heating appliances like stoves, water heaters and home heat because using dirtier fuels and putting pollution controls on every single burner would be a huge PITA. If you are going to burn dirty fuel and contain pollution problems, you want to do a lot of it in one place so you have economies of scale in the work of cleaning it up.

Probably the best fuel cell solution is to make hydrogen from virtually any organic material by gaification. The beauty of gasification is that (1) it takes place inside a container so that all the nasty toxic stuff can be recovered and sequestered instead of sent up a smokestack, (2) if we are willing to pay an energy penalty, carbon can also be sequestered instead of combusting it into carbon dioxide, or we can oxydize the carbon and then sequester the CO2 by pumping it into the ground where it should stay for a few thousand years. (3) practically any hydrocarbon fuel can be used, including sewage, solid municipal waste, agricultural waste or forest waste -- like all those scrubby overcrowded trees cluttering up our forests until drought and lightning cause a firestorm. Might as well get some use out of these waste materials.

Once you have producer gas or syngas out of a gasifier -- a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide plus other gasses without any energy content -- you can run it through a thermal or catalytic process or possibly bubble it through a bioreactor to extract energy from carbon monoxide to make additional hydrogen and then separate out the hydrogen.

Chances are good that in a decade or so we'll be synthesizing large amounts of liquid fuels via gasification anyhow, so getting out hydrogen isn't much different from getting diesel, ethanol, methanol, gasoline or jet fuel. Once we're on this basis, fuel cells -- no matter what they run on -- can be a lot more efficient than heat engines.

Karen_S

http://www.isracast.com/tech_news/231005_tech.htm

john500

Although the theoretical efficiency of a fuel cell is very high, the actual real-life fuel cells that exist today are about 30-40 % efficient (See the books Fuel Cell Technology Handbook or Fuel Cell Systems Explained). The 3.5 multiplier factor will actually be more like 35 if the US wants to completely change an infrastucture. Again, it boils down to:
1. Find a credible, neutral source (ie a Civil, Mechanical or Chemical Engineering professor or someone well versed in energy).
2. Have them do an energy balance with current capabilities and see if there is a net energy benefit in comparison to the best that a hybrid-internal combustion chamber engine can do (I think 70 mpg would be a fair value to expect for a diesel-hybrid car in a few years - 50-60 mpg is readily attainable in Europe today - look at their vehicle lineup).
3. If someone can use real numbers and no horrendous simplifications or gross errors and prove in a scientific journal that hydrogen is more efficient than gasoline, I'll look it over and then convert if I'm convinced.

asdar

We don't have an endless supply of oil. We can't count on oil, natural gas, or coal to last even a significant amount of time any longer. Just getting the fuel to run our country will be a problem in our lifetime.

That's totally ignoring the environment. If we had a sure supply of oil we wouldn't even be looking into Hydrogen.

The question isn't ever going to be a direct efficiency calculation between gasoline and Hydrogen. The question is what will be our next fuel to power cars after gasoline.

Hydrogen isn't a sure thing, but it is a sure thing that gasoline supplies are running out at the same time that consumption of gasoline is increasing (China, India) and that we need to find some alternative. I'd rather do that now before I'm stuck in a 5 mile long gas line in my combustion engine car.

I'm not arguing that fuel cells are the only possibility, but I will argue that it's worthy of research dollars. I think we should multiply the money spent on fuel cell/hydrogen technology by that 35 instead of trying to fudge up numbers to make it look impossible.

gagrice

but I will argue that it's worthy of research dollars.

How many more billions? We have to accept that it takes some sort of energy to generate hydrogen. Unless we accept nuclear power on a MUCH larger scale, hydrogen is wasted research. There may also be better ways to create fuel from the sun than just inefficient solar panels. Growing crops to make fuel is the most promising on the short term.

larsb

Gary, regardless of how we end up getting Hydrogen for the cars of the future, the

AUTOMOTIVE FUEL CELL TECHNOLOGY

must be advanced so we can make it cheaper and better and near perfect and cost effective so that when it IS perfected, in 7-10 years we hope, the hydrogen infrastructure will have improved ALSO, and there will not be people crying about the "Hydrogen Premium" as in "that hydrogen car will NEVER pay for itself in fuel savings." We neither need nor want to hear that EVER again about a new technology !!! :shades:

In other words, since it's taking so long to perfect the vehicle technology, that time gives us time also to work on the hydrogen harvesting issue.

For example, how many refineries did we have in the early years when automobiles were invented? Get the technology to work, and refinery capacity WILL follow !!

gagrice

We neither need nor want to hear that EVER again about a new technology !!!

You better get used to it. It will get more so with the ever escalating cost of transportation. Hybrids are not coming down in price. Fuel cells are the next EV-1 fiasco. Too much money for too little gain. Get on a bandwagon that has a future. We know how to grow crops that will burn in an ICE. Why are we wasting so much time and money on what many scientists believe is never going to fly? The perpetual motion machine of the 21st century, hydrogen fuel cells.

larsb

quote gagrice-"Hybrids are not coming down in price."-end quote

But they are inevitably GOING TO COME DOWN.

Toyota's top man has told his engineers "cut 50% of the hybrid cost" and you can bet your bottom yen that they WILL get that done.

And once there are a millions hybrids for sale in the USA, say 2012 or so, there will be no such thing as a "hybrid which will not save you money over the comparable gasoline only model in 5 years."

Heard it here first. Hosts, archive this one and send a DVD copy to Gary and to me to re-read in 2012. Thanks !!

Kirstie_H

Rest assured that we keep just about everything in the archives, for your reading pleasure at your own convenience. If 2012 works for you, mark your calendar now

kirstie_h
Roving Host
Host, Future Vehicles & Smart Shopper discussions

rorr

"For example, how many refineries did we have in the early years when automobiles were invented? Get the technology to work....."

It's not the lack of technology which is the problem; it's physics. Simple physics. It takes more energy to produce hydrogen than can be extracted in a fuel cell. Period. Even IN THEORY one doesn't get all the energy back out of the process which went into producing the hydrogen. And that's what makes it different from oil and gas.

You guys need to STOP thinking of hydrogen as a fuel. It is a form of battery. If you insist on using hydrogen to power your cars 10-20-50 years from now, you ALSO better start thinking of where you are going to get all the energy necessary to produce the hydrogen.

PF_Flyer

There was an item that Paul Harvey had, going on about a car that creates its fuel as it drives. He talked about how electricity from the alternator would be used to create hydrogen as the car was runnning. Nice theory, but that would have to be one heck of an alternator, wouldn't it?? :surprise:

Of course, no mention of where the power to run that alternator was coming from. The perpetual motion machine does NOT exist.

larsb

Well, this all depends on "technology advances" which have yet to be completed.

Believe me - every car company would not be working on this if it was a dead end or a stupid thing to do - they have financial responsibilities to their shareholders.

What if someone had told the Manhattan Project guys "forget it, splitting an atom will NEVER create the energy you think it will" ?????

Spreken ze Deutsch ?

rorr

"What if someone had told the Manhattan Project guys "forget it, splitting an atom will NEVER create the energy you think it will" ????? "

There is only one problem with that scenario; a guy named Einstien had the math which showed that, in theory, vast amounts of energy would be released. The Manhattan Project was all about creating the technology to unleash energy which the math said was there.

This is not the case with hydrogen. The MATH, the PHYSICS says it will ALWAYS take more energy to produce hydrogen than can even THEORETICALLY be extracted in a fuel cell. It is NOT a case of not having the 'technology' to do it. The only way to use hydrogen to extract more energy is by fusion. I don't think we'll be seeing any 'Mr. Fusion' powerplants in our cars anytime soon.

As far as the car companies working on this, perhaps they see positive POLITICAL and PUBLIC PERCEPTION benefits? Perhaps they understand that public opinion and polls will force governments around the world into dumping billions in grant money/subsidies into hydrogen fuel cell research. Perhaps they understand that, in time, alternate energy sources will be developed (or nuclear power become much more widespread) which will allow for the 'luxury' of utilizing hydrogen.

larsb

http://www.wired.com/news/autotech/0,2554,69529,00.html

This is very cool. Not practical for cars, but certainly usable for all those hundreds of thousands of 18 wheelers on the road:

Hundreds of semitrailer trucks zipping along North American highways are now powered in part by hydrogen. These 18-wheelers make hydrogen as they go, eliminating the need for high-pressure, cryogenic storage tanks or hydrogen filling stations, which, by the way, don't yet exist.

These truckers aren't just do-gooders. They like Canadian Hydrogen Energy's Hydrogen Fuel Injection, or HFI, system because it lets them save fuel, get more horsepower and, as a bonus, cause less pollution.

"We're saving $700 a month per truck on fuel," said Sherwin Fast, president of Great Plains Trucking in Salinas, Kansas. The company tried the HFI system on four trucks and has ordered 25 more.

"Drivers like the increased power and noticed there is a lot less black smoke coming out of the stacks," said Fast.

HFI is a bolt-on, aftermarket part that injects small amounts of hydrogen into the engine air intake, said Canadian Hydrogen Energy's Steve Gilchrist. Fuel efficiency and horsepower are improved because hydrogen burns faster and hotter than diesel, dramatically boosting combustion efficiency.

"You get more work from the same amount of fuel," said Gilchrist.

This is not a new idea. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory at the California Institute of Technology published research on the uses of hydrogen as a combustion-enhancing agent in the early 1970s. But the ability to make hydrogen on the go is novel.

asdar

More energy will always go into any process to create fuel. Gasoline is harvesting existing fuel. The energy that went into that was more than the energy out, we just don't see it because the earth did the work. Unless we can get the earth to step it up by a few billion years we're going to have to find alternatives.

We don't have a fuel that will last forever, the end of gasoline is near. Coal and natural gas are also finite materials.

Hydrogen isn't a dead end just because it won't be perfect for everything. People that think that it'll be running homes on every street are going to be disapointed.

That doesn't mean it won't be in every car in 15 years. It's already pretty close.

One of the big things about hydrogen is the possibility of future developments in Solar, wind, nuclear and other future sources of stationary energy production.

Hydrogen can be made from any electrical source and it's portable.

rorr

Let's try a different tact:

You apparently believe that, given the proper technology, it is possible to extract more energy OUT of hydrogen in a fuel cell than it took to produce the hydrogen in the first place.

If this were in fact the case, would it stand to reason that one could build giant fuel cells which, with the energy they produced, make their OWN FUEL, and some extra energy to boot?

Do you believe this is possible?

gagrice

What if someone had told the Manhattan Project guys

You are ignoring one big piece to this puzzle. The same entity that paid the bills for the "A" bomb are sponsoring the hydrogen fuel cell research. The US government. Last time I checked you and I are picking up the bill. In the case of Honda the Japanese are probably kicking in a few yen.

The major obstacle is the American mindset. We do not want a nuclear power plant in every neighborhood. The greenies have these pie in the sky ideas that solar and wind are going to generate enough electricity to power the nations cars. I don't know if you remember they started with this research a LOOOOONG time ago and are still scratching their heads while getting paid by you and I.

rorr

Yes, gasoline is simply using energy which originally came to the planet millions of years ago. Yes, fossil fuels are finite. And I've never said hydrogen was a dead end.

All I'm trying to point out is that unlike fossil fuels, one must expend energy NOW to get any energy out of hydrogen. One is NOT tapping into energy that has been stored for millions of years.

The problem I see with hydrogen is that the public will clamor for it NOW thinking it is environmentally friendlier than the evil ICE; not thinking about where the hydrogen comes from. And in an effort to appease these folks, the technology will be advanced and the infrastructure installed to support hydrogen powered vehicls......and the hydrogen will be produced through the consumption of fossil fuels. The consumption of MORE fossil fuel than if it were just directly utilized in an ICE.

Sure hydrogen can be made from any electrical source and it's portable (hmmmm, kinda like a battery). The question is, what powers the electrical source?

gagrice

Every fuel cell currently being researched uses platinum for the electrodes. Every time it looks like there is a new need for platinum the price goes up. You don't think the price of platinum will come down if the demand goes up? $500,000 hydrogen cars are research toys. No one is really thinking that they can build one for less than a couple hundred thou. And at that the range is very short. We were better off with the EV-1 using lead acid batteries.

asdar

I never said anything about more energy coming out of hydrogen than went into making it. Never in one post, but that doesen't mean that it's not useful as a mobile fuel.

Nuclear, solar and wind energy can be converted to Hydrogen but they can't be converted to gasoline. Right now, and I think even in the future, there is no way that I see those being able to supply all the energy needed but electrolyzing Hydrogen from water is a universal way to get a mobile fuel.

You could produce Hydrogen on your exercise bike at home. The good thing about it is that any energy source that can be turned to electricity can be turned to Hydrogen.

Every single one of them will use more energy to create the Hydrogen than will be possible to extract from it.

If you're saying that we should research Hydrogen but it's not there yet then we're in agreement.

There are already fuel cells that don't use platinum. They're just not any good yet. Maybe there will never be fuel cells, but even if there's not it's worth looking at, and it's worth looking at hydrogen in combustion engines too in my opinion.

That's all I was trying to say. The government isn't spending billions every year on this research. They're spending a bit but most of it will be recovered because it's going toward technology that will profit us that doesn't have anything to do with fuel cell cars.

gagrice

The government isn't spending billions every year on this research.

It would be difficult to pin down how many billions of dollars have been spent on hydrogen fuel cells over the last 50 years. The basics have not changed much in that time. It is still very expensive. Most of the research was done in conjunction with the space program. I believe all manned flights have used fuel cells for producing electricity and water. I will be very surprised if they have a car that any of us can afford in my lifetime. Plus the billions it would take to put in an infrastructure to handle hydrogen. To be practical whether you have one car or a million you will need places to fuel them. Unless they build a car with a small nuclear reactor in the trunk. Nothing is impossible.

asdar

Gasoline needed an infrastructure built when it started as well. The gas stations didn't just pop up in a day.

If the technology works the infrastructure isn't even an obstacle in the long term. I know that people add that in but any one time costs work out to zero in the long run.

I know a little about the Fuel Cells they built for the space program and they were a total success. I worked for a company that was involved and there are pictures of the first fuel cell all around.

You can't fairly add that development cost onto the end of the change to Fuel Cell cars, that cost is already accounted for.

The money we've put into research of fuel cells for non-space uses is an issue of it's own but that amount is pretty small and like I said has big mitigating factors.

rorr

"If the technology works the infrastructure isn't even an obstacle in the long term."

Not the technology, the economics.

We have the technology, today, to build fuel cells. We have the technology, today, to produce hydrogen. However, the economics don't currently work. And the economics must work for fuel cell vehicles before you can even consider building the associated infrastructure.

The main reason so much money is thrown at technology is from the hope(?) to make hydrogen/fuel cells economically competitive.

However, I don't think hydrogen/fuel cells CAN be economically competitive until the tried and true ICE is rendered obsolete through ever rising petroleum costs. When this will happen is up for much debate.

BTW - the main reason they used fuel cells in the space program is because of their capacity to generate power per weight far exceeded batteries. They also didn't have to worry as much about cost since they were only interested in building relatively few units and NASA's budget in the '60s was rather large for the day. In that sense, yes, they were a success.

The criteria for fuel cells powering automobiles is somewhat different.

darreltexas

I'm sorry I don't know about the Ballard fuel module, but
I am also wanting to make a light fuel cell car, and I thought you may be interested in what I'm doing.

First, I'm making my own fuel cells that make about 0.8 volts and 0.25 amps (no load) from about 2.5 cc of H2 per minute I get out of a compressed H2 cylinder. I expect to have to make from 100 to 150 of them to drive a small Geo Metro, but haven't been able to pin a figure down since I do not know of a combinations of fuel cells, motor and controlling system that will make the car go reasonably fast and up hills. Do you or anyone have any ideas - I'm open to both AC and DC motors. - DarrelTexas

darreltexas

pennywise1

word of the day for anyone wanting to play with hydrogen

"flashabck arrester"

Loads of gass produced with very little electricity, but wow, what a bang

molliboo44

Please fill me in on the details of this process, I cannot find anything about this process.

Anthroquinone/Hydroquinone/Peroxide catalytic reation.

expedition825

I think Hydrogen fuel cell cars are the safest solution to alternative fuels! I say this because it is truly natural, IT comes from water. H2O all the way!

gagrice

IT comes from water. H2O all the way!

Do you have any idea how much fossil fuel energy it requires to get hydrogen out of water? I hate to break it to you, but most of the hydrogen currently being extracted is from Natural gas. It takes about $16 worth to produce the same energy as 1 gallon of unleaded gas. The only feasible way to extract hydrogen from H2O is with thousands of new nuclear generation plants. Do you want one in your back yard?
PS
Welcome to the forum.

rorr

"I think Hydrogen fuel cell cars are the safest solution to alternative fuels!"

Safest? In what way?

Hydrogen is (from my meager knowledge) extremely explosive. Remember the Hindenburg? Also, the only ways to carry any meaningful amount of hydrogen onboard is either in Liquid form (at VERY low temperatures) or at extremely high pressures. Virtually every research vehicle currently under development goes the high pressure route. Think 5000psi. Think explosive fuel. Now think accident. Safest?

Maybe you're thinking 'cleanest'. Well, as gagrice pointed out, it takes energy (in SOME form) to get hydrogen. If your source of hydrogen is water, it takes electrical energy (a fair amount of energy) to seperate the hydrogen from the oxygen. H2O is VERY stable (those elements like each other a lot and they have a very strong marriage). Breaking them up isn't easy. The laws of chemistry, you know. And those pesky laws of chemistry will also tell you that you will spend MORE energy generating the hydrogen than you can POSSIBLY extract in a fuel cell.

So, where do you get the energy (the MOUNTAINS of energy if we converted to hydrogen power in any meaningful way) to get the hydrogen?

stevedebi

"Do you have any idea how much fossil fuel energy it requires to get hydrogen out of water? "

Zero, if you are using nuclear power.

stevedebi

"We don't have a fuel that will last forever, the end of gasoline is near."

Do you have a source for this information, or is it just from the popular notions? Last time I heard, estimates ranged from 75 years supply - to "we've already run out"!

I think it more likely that it may be economically feasible to extract oil for another 30-40 or so years, possibly with less refining by using clean diesel technology.

However, I think Hydrogen is probably the way to go for the long run. If nothing else, we can run ICE with hydrogen instead of gas.

gagrice

Nuclear is a solution. Can it ever be considered safe in the eyes of the public. I don't know. I vaguely remember an article that calculated the thousands of nuclear reactors it would take to generate enough electricity to power a nation of electric vehicles. That does not take into consideration vehicle storage of electricity needed to go somewhere.

I kind of think the direction automotive technology is headed will eliminate the less fortunate in our society from owning a car. There are those in the government that would push that, though would not want anyone to tack it onto their voting record. It would shoot down their base of supporters.

gagrice

I think it more likely that it may be economically feasible to extract oil for another 30-40 or so years

My guess is more like twice that time frame, with new natural gas to diesel processes. Frozen methane has not even been looked at seriously. It will be more costly as time goes on. Another reason to believe that personal transportation will evolve into a rich man's means of getting around.

energyman

IT comes from water. H2O all the way!
The only feasible way to extract hydrogen from H2O is with thousands of new nuclear generation plants. Do you want one in your back yard?
I once heard that electric vehicles would necessitate thousands of more power plants. I would like to discuss this and show that hydrogen usage is really a step closer to efficiency than pure electrical battery usage.

Electric vehicle assumptions
6.6kW to charge EV1 for 3 hours to charge for 300-400 miles.
~4.2 billion average miles driven daily in 2002 in the US (US Miles Driven).
~600 million vehicles on the road in the US

Everybody charges at the same time – this will never be the case because this would assume that every car only goes 7 miles a day and that everybody’s charge timer is set for the same time.
600,000,000 cars * 6600 W = ~4 TeraWatts
2000MW plants
4,000,000,000,000 / 2,000,000,000 = 2000 nuclear power plants

Only those with low batteries charge (all at the same time!)
4,200,000,000 / 350 = 12,000,000
12,000,000 cars charging * 6600 W = 79.2 GW
2000 MW plants
79,200,000,000 / 2,000,000,000 = 396 nuclear power plants

Currently the US has almost 1 TeraWatt of capacity in lectrical pwer generation.
Currently the US has ~100 nuclear power plants (Palo Verde in Arizona has the largest capacity at 3700MW Palo Verde Plant Info) and account for 10% of US power generation capacity, but 20% of actual power generation due to high availability and virtually non-existent basic material costs with high fixed cost (makes economic sense to run all the time). US Energy Production

Realistically it would likely require about 500 nuclear power plants, but that is if all the vehicles were electric. We only need enough alternative fuel vehicles to curtail fossil fuel usage to a sustainable level of demand. Currently the demand for fossil fuels steadily increases at a high rate while supply increases at a much lower rate. This equates to higher prices. If demand decreases while supply remains constant then oil companies struggle especially in the Middle East where their economies are not as diversified as they are in the United States.

As compared to purely electric vehicles much better results can be found with direct Hydrogen production from nuclear plants. Most articles I have read assume that it will take either a fossil fuel to derive hydrogen or electrolysis. This is not the case – Sandia National Laboratories has a process that uses thermal energy from a reactor and several catalytic steps that produces hydrogen directly from water not fossil fuels. This process if fully deployed would have energy efficiency equal to or better than electricity production and distribution. The process of thermal hydrogen production from water is much better than indirect hydrogen production from water, thermal reactor heat – electricity – electrolysis for hydrogen.

The problem is that if you look at planned power plant construction, nuclear plants have not been on the list since the final part Palo Verde came on line in 1987. Planned Power Plant Construction
During the cold war and even now with all the non-proliferation efforts people are taught to fear nuclear anything. The fact is that I would rather have a thousand nuclear power plants in my backyard than I would have a single coal power plant. Coal pollution and environmental friendliness have a horrible history. On the other hand if you look at the type of nuclear power plant disasters I believe the toll is much smaller including Chernobyl which was a horribly designed reactor that was destined for a major accident (incidentally Russia still has two similar reactors in operation – they just relay on use controls making sure an accident never happens). The modern type of reactors that are being deployed in places, such as France with their super Phoenix reactor, they are a passively safe system which means all electronics could fail and the operators could walk away and it would still fail in a safe and controlled state without radiation leakage due to first principles of physics. By the way 3 mile island (the worst US nuclear reactor incident) also had a safety barrier system that prevented radiation leakage. Unfortunately the way in which it failed it was unrecoverable. Radiation leakage was very small and almost at background levels when it failed.

Sustainable energy supply creates price stability and this equates into a healthy and predictable economy.

Other energy sources include ethanol see Ethanol
Hydrogen application in a vehicle drive train: Fuel Cells

gagrice

The question is: Can we build a hydrogen fuel cell car that will compete price wise with an ICE vehicle? The last I read the fuel cell Civics that are in trial use are about $100k to build. I have read hydrogen equivalancy prices in the area of $16 for equal energy to one gallon of gasoline. Hydrogen fuel cells are not the safest things in the world. I would lean more toward a battery powered car and more nuclear power plants. Charging overnight during the lightest demand is feasible. A car that would go 100 miles between charges would satisfy 75% of my driving needs.

energyman

I agree with you on the economic viability, but things are changing and they are changing much faster than I had ever anticipated. I always thought oil would power cars. Now we see ethanol and hybrid electric cars. These are wonderful solutions to stabilizing the fossil fuel market in the near term. Long term I see Uranium (nuclear energy) once again supplied by the earth in amazingly plentiful quantities as being a more long term solution. Ultimately fusion would be nice, but I do not see any significant breakthroughs making it feasible in my lifetime (or my children's lifetime). On the other hand I see significant breakthroughs in nuclear technology, electrical battery technology and, and hydrogen production which make these options much more feasible. I do not see ethanol, oil, coal, or any other currently used energy source as being replaced. I just think these sources will become expensive due to scarcity and environmental restrictions. On the other hand I see nuclear reactor technology seams to have already over come the environmental hurdles (not the political/popularity hurdles) to make them feasible for future use. Essentially hydrogen storage in a car and sent to the fuel cell is a battery. The question I see is which one is economically and politically feasible (hydrogen or electricity). I don't know but my card right now are leaning toward electricity with a role for hydrogen in heavy-duty vehicles or tractor trailors. And likely the outcome will be a combination of all these energy sources but at a higher rate than we currently pay, but at a more stable price due to competition between the energy sources. Some say that fuel cells and hydrogen on board a car are dangerous. Problem is that many of the battery technologies being looked at are also dagnerous, not to mention I drive to and from work every day sitting above 12 gallons of highly flamable and explosive liquid (gasoline). It seems that most safety issues can be overcome with enough care taken to the design. Just look at our nuclear reactor safety history and then at how dangerous it seems to have a moderated atomic bomb going off. I found an article on the method that has been developed at the National Laboratories to directly produce hydrogen from the thermal energy of a reactor and water here: Sulfur Iodine Cycle. Also there is one on the hydrogen economy here: link title.

gagrice

Interesting articles:
I had no idea we already used that much hydrogen. I did know that Alaska has a very large anhydrous ammonia facility in the Kenai area. They have large natural gas deposits. Must be how they produce the fertilizer. I don't expect to be driving around in a fuel cell vehicle in my lifetime. Maybe my grand kids.

plawler

Well... maybe not safest, but a heck of a lot safer than gasoline.

Because it is under such high pressure (although it's more like 7,000 psi) at the slightest crack in the tank the hydrogen will all escape very fast into the atmosphere where it will dissipate (up since it is lighter than air).

Many real-life tests have demonstrated the safety of pressurized hydrogen storage. Simulated 55 mph crash tests left the car totaled, but the hydrogen tank intact. To prove the safety of its hydrogen vehicles, BMW tested its hydrogen tanks in a series of accident simulations that included collision, fire and tank ruptures. In all cases, the hydrogen cars fared as well as conventional gasoline vehicles. And hydrogen-fueled cars are designed to preclude the possibility of leaked hydrogen collecting within the vehicle.

But what if the hydrogen does somehow ignite in a car? Tests conducted at the College of Engineering at Miami University aimed to find this out. 3000 cubic feet per minute of hydrogen was leaked from a vehicle tank and set alight. Over the course of the burn, temperature sensors inside the vehicle did not measure an increase of more than 1 or 2 degrees centigrade anywhere inside the vehicle. The temperature of the surface of the outside of the vehicle did not climb above that of a vehicle sitting in the sunshine!

When a carbon-based fuel like gasoline burns, glowing hot soot particles transfer the heat to its surroundings — potentially including you. But because hydrogen contains no carbon, it burns cleanly without a residue of hot soot, producing little radiant energy. This means that a victim would have to be practically in the flame in order to get burned. Your gasoline powered automobile is probably several orders of magnitude less "safe" than a hydrogen fuel celled vehicle.

There are many legitimate arguments against hydrogen... but fuel tank safety is probably not one of them.

agalas

Here is something to consider with nuclear, even the fast breeder reactor like the Super Phenix in France. It takes a lot of money and energy to enrich u-238 to 3.5% U-235 that is needed to sustain a fission reaction and release the necessary neutrons to generate fissionable plutonium 239 from non fissionable U-238. How much energy? Well lets look ar Iran's exploits for an example.

Iran is planning to build an installation with 54,000 centrifuges for enriching U-238. The state department claims that 54,000 centrifuges could generate enough u-235 for a nuke, (or to power Iran's 1 mega watt reactor).

Now lets look at how centrifuges work.

http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/ur-enrichment.html

The spinning of centrifuge cascades is the most efficient means of generating sizable amounts of U-235, (Diffusion is slower, but even cascades take a while).

So obviously, if the US started up dozens or hundreds of plants, we would need a lot of enrichment, probably from centrifuges, which spin at approximately 50,000 rpm. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/04/12/MNGIVI7RTH1.DTL)-

Imagine the energy needed to spin 54,000 centrifuges at that velocity, non stop for 16 days.

I am not positive on this, as I could find no calculation online, but would not this energy requirement decrease nuclear reactor efficiency considerably?

And lets not forget that Uranium is a rare element, that is always decaying. Once its gone, mined out of the earth by us, its gone forever, like oil.

In the end Hydrogen is the most efficient means of moving cars, which is what we are talking about. Unless some new batteries are invented that allow electric cars to be practical, hydrogen will have to take center stage, (Bio-diesel is a pipe dream, where will we find enough land to grow 30 billion barrels worth of soy/corn/ect and still feed 7,8,9 billion people?)

The key to hydrogen production is tapping into the massive quantities of free energy provided by the earth.

-Hydro electric
-Geothermal
-Solar(Parebollic Solar trough electric generators can generate 100% current US consumption, if they covered 12% of Nevada. Spread this out over other regions, and you could generate 2-300% of current consumption, according to the National Renewable Research Lab, part of the DOE.)
-Wind, 6% of US land is worthy of wind farms, this could generate 150% current consumption. This doesn't count offshore farms, which could be a lot more.
-tidal plants, ocean currents and waves could provide mind boggling amounts of energy and there is a lot of ocean to tap.
-thermal differential tech: I read in Popular mechanics a while back about some guy in Hawaii working on a means of tapping into thermal variances in water by piping cold, deep water to the surface. I can't quit recall how it works, but I believe its like a massive sterling engine. Given the various large temp differences around the globe and inside it, this could also provide a massive amount of energy.
-Fusion: the holy grail, may never happen but if it does, energy concerns become a thing of the past. We will be able to produce h2 and desalinate water, and keep our lights on all night with complete impunity.

Lets remember the main point, America and the world will always want/need cars and trucks. This requires a means of powering them, regardless of energy efficiency.