By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
But, you don’t wait for the last moment to come up with a practical vehicle. R&D takes its own course. And it better.
(1) Pure fuel cell - These cars require a long warm-up time of 5 minutes before you can drive, and are very slow to react to varying power demands (like 0 to 80 mph).
(2) Hybrid fuel cell & battery = These have a battery between the fuel cell & motor, and allow drivers to immediately start and drive the car on pure battery power. Also the battery allows instant power changes (like 0 to 80 mph). The job of the fuel cell is mainly to keep the battery charged.
Virtually all current fuel cell cars are Type 2 Hybrids, because Type 1 Pure Fuel Cells have too many disadvantages.
troy
Although Honda FCX has a similar set up, it is not considered or dubbed as a fuel-cell/electric hybrid. FCX uses ultra-capacitor pack to store energy and provide assist charge to electric motor, but energy from fuel cell is the primary supplier of charge to the electric motor. Recharging of the UC pack is entirely through regenerative braking (fuel cell stack does not play a role in it).
CNG
Gasoline
Diesel
Hydrogen
But speaking of a hybrid, it can be parallel (Civic/Accord/Insight/Prius) or series (diesel locomotives). Some can be both (Honda's prototype scooters from a few months ago).
http://www.hondacorporate.com/fcx/overview.html
In related news, the City of Las Vegas has just leased two FCX cars for $14,400 per year from Honda and will be adding them to the city fleet.
That is historically true, but progress IS being made at making solar receptors perform better:
http://www.gatech.edu/news-room/release.php?id=497
and:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6826186/
- solar cells
- platinum fuel cells
- ultra-high pressure distribution
The latter is dangerous but probably doable.
But the first two items are extremely, extremely expensive. Solar cells are expensive, and the platinum required for fuel cells is almost as expensive as silver. Those are REALLY big hurdles to overcome, and in my opinion, impossible to overcome.
troy
Platinum is at $861 per oz. Over twice the price of gold. It is not going to come down in price because it is needed to produce hydrogen...
But it is NOT cost-effective (parts cost too much)
And it is NOT energy-efficient (too many conversions result in energy waste)
Elaborate. (But not before reading my last few posts).
Solar Powered Cars - in our future?
Renewable Energy were only a talk of the environementalists.
But not anymore.
Nearly
4 million vehicles running on CNG
8 million vehicles running on Ethanol
400,000 Hybrid vehicles are on the road.
Similarly 46,000 MW of Wind energy has been installed.
I guess Solar Power may be more than 5,000 MW.
Similarly Nuclear Power is also becoming popular as their operating efficiency has gone up from 75 % to 85 % and their prices have fallen.
All these may 1 day point to the Hydrogen powered
vehicles which will also have a Plug-in facility.
2004 is a watershed year as the Oil Prices broke
the previous high of $ 42 / barrel (set in 1990).
"Do the math and you figure out we'll have to reduce the cost of that car by 95 percent to gain widespread marketplace acceptance."
http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0501/30/autos-74094.htm
http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/FuelCellToday/IndustryInformation/IndustryInformationExternal- /NewsDisplayArticle/0,1602,5656,00.html
Yeah, this will sell (not).
troy
It's still a long way from ready, but it will get there.....:)
For a fuell cell vehicle to be "practical" in my book, it must meet the following criteria:
1. Availability of fuel (in this case: hydrogen) must be on par with more conventional (gas/diesel) fuel.
2. Vehicle should suffer from no adverse performance hits (in either range, driveability, or power) compared to vehicles powered by conventional fuels.
3. The costs to purchase the vehicle and the fuel should be on par with a vehicle powered by conventional fuels WITHOUT SUBSIDIES.
4. Total environmental costs associated with fuel cell technology (including the environmental cost to produce the hydrogen, environmental cost to manufacture the fuel cells and the environmental cost to dispose of old/wrecked fuel cell vehicles) are no more than the costs associated with conventional fuels.
Personally, I don't expect to see fuel cells in widespread use (which I'll define as 250,000 units on America's highways) within the next 25 years. And I'm feeling generous with that......
The # depends directly on the Oil Prices. If it increases faster, World will move into Nat-gas and from there, Hydrogen is a fairly easy move, since both are gases and can be Compressed or Liquefied.
I agree. I have not figured out the purpose of converting natural gas to hydrogen. It has to be more efficient to just burn the natural gas in a conventional ICE. The CNG Civic is the cleanest car ever tested by CARB. I don't believe they are much closer to a practical hydrogen car than they were 10 years ago.
OK, finally something I can explain to you Gary and get your mind onto more exciting subjects:
The purpose of converting natural gas to Hydrogen for vehicle propulsion is that hydrogen emissions are WATER VAPOR. The Clean is the Thing. That's the absolute purpose. It's a completely valid purpose, nothing bad can be said about it. Water vapor is cleaner than any fossil fuel emission in history.
Thanks much !!!
Yes, the hydrogen emissionsa are water vapor. But exactly WHAT makes you think that is the ONLY emmissions? What do you think happens to the non-hydrogen part of natural gas? Does it just magically disappear in the conversion process? Does it go into a little garbage bag for you to empty every 3 months or 3000 miles?
I mean, you ARE aware that there is something else to natural gas besides JUST hydrogen, correct?
Among all the Hydrocarbons, Methane (Nat-gas) is the simplest and least polluting.
Methane (CH4) 1/4*100 = 25 % Carbon & 75 % Hydrogen
Propane (C3H8) 3/8*100 = 37.5 % Carbon & 62.5 % Hydrogen
Octane (C8H18) 8/18*100 = 44.4 % Carbon & 55.6 % Hydrogen
Cetane (C16H34) 16/34*100 = 47.1 % Carbon & 52.9 % Hydrogen
Its worth promoting it first. But the sad part is, it can be transported only through pipeline and not thru Trucks/Trains. Even for Shipping, it should be Liquefied.
Let us expect Phill refuelling device to suceed.
Ooky dooky, sounds good to me.
So, if we agree that H for a vehicle powered fuel cell should come from some other source (Nuke, wind, hydro, etc.) than from the burning of those evil, nasty, yucky fossil fuels, then let's talk about those other sources.
Who pays for those hydrogen generation plants? The taxpayer? Anybody got any ideas of what a nuclear plant would cost to build these days? I haven't. I don't think a nuclear plant has been built in this country in 15-20 years. Are we talking BILLIONS?
Anyone have any idea of how much energy (expressed in kW) it takes to produce the equivalent in hydrogen of 1 gallon of gas?
Its all a future talk, so using nuclear, wind, hydel to generate it is also a future talk.
Nuclear is not built in this country, but lots are built elsewhere in Asia, Europe and with high Oil Prices, lot of Americans are talking about it.
We can?
Nat-gas powered or CAPABLE of being run by nat-gas? How many of these are you counting are dual-fueled vehicles which are actually running of good old-fashioned 87 octane regular? I would honestly be very interested in studies showing how many vehicles are ACTUALLY running on nat-gas.
And one can't just arbitrarily divorce discussion of hydrogen fuel cell powered cars without also discussing (realistically) where all the hydrogen is supposed to come from.
"The use of hydrogen greatly reduces emissions although nitrous oxides are still a problem."
But also found THIS, which says because HFC vehicles produce power at very low temps, they produce zero nitrous oxides:
"Pure hydrogen can also be utilized as an ICE fuel source. Carbon dioxide emissions at the point of use are thus eliminated although there will still be some emission of nitrous oxides resulting from high temperature combustion. The ultimate source of power for a hybrid vehicle would be a hydrogen fuel cell. Although very expensive to produce at present, fuel cells are very efficient in producing electricity and operate at low temperature avoiding the production of nitrous oxides and other emission products. Fuel cells also become more efficient at part load, unlike internal combustion engines, and are thus well suited to powering vehicles which usually only require a fraction of maximum power needs. A relatively small fuel cell may be employed in combination with batteries to counter the high cost of the fuel cell. It replaces the ICE of earlier generation hybrid vehicles."
Still searching for more details...
Found this VERY TECHNICAL document:
http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~rael/Climatic_Change.pdf
Greatly reduces compared to......?
Do they EVER give any numbers consisting of emissions (of whatever type) per mile driven so that the quantitative numbers can be compared to other technologies? Any comparison of the total emissions from the fuel-cell car compared to a gas powered hybrid?
And please remember, this is from a hydrogen cars info site; a site which is PROMOTING hydrogen use. I think that someone would question any non-quantitative emissions statements made by...oh, say.....Chevron, but if non-quantitative statements are made by a "hydrogen cars info site" they are to be accepted at face value?
Nothing I have ever read or heard before has ever said anything but "Hydrogen Fuel Cell" is the cleanest possible propulsion system.
If that's not true, I'd certainly like to know all the facts, but I'm not going to attack the technology until I DO know the facts and the facts support that it is not clean...
And if we are going to talk only about PURE hydrogen fuel cell cars (yep, they're pretty clean), we HAVE to get back to the problem of hydrogen production.
You don't suppose the good boys and girls at Berkeley are ready for a nuke plant in the neighborhood to produce all their nice friendly Hydrogen?
If one questions any new technology, then I suppose it could be construed as being "anti".
Okay then, for the point of discussion, let's all assume I am "anti-Hydrogen". Does that then mean the questions have no merit?
I am not anti-hydrogen, infact pro-hydrogen.
All I said that is commercial CNG tech exists today and we can make a big move to it. As for hydrogen, still companies are doing their research and it will take some more time.
Unlike the Flexfuel vehicle (Gas/E85) which costs only $500 extra, the Bi-Fuel (Gas/CNG) costs $2-3K extra and the person will mostly use CNG to get the ROI.
Its very difficult to find as whether Bi-Fuel vehicle uses CNG fully. As long as it runs on that fuel, it is counted.
http://www.iangv.org/jaytech/default.php?PageID=130
If Oil runs out, the future will have 3 fuels
Nat-gas, Hydrogen, Electricity.
Not if the conversion was made for the sake of tax credits by fleet operators. After they've received the tax credits, they've made the ROI. They'll then use whatever works better for them. It may by CNG; it may not.
"If Oil runs out, the future will have 3 fuels
Nat-gas, Hydrogen, Electricity."
Two points: Oil won't "run out" in our lifetimes. It may get so expensive that other fuel sources make economic sense, but it won't just "run out". Do you have any idea of the reserves we have IN THIS COUNTRY in the form of shale oil? Would you believe more (much more) than the total amount of recoverable crude in Saudi? The problem is that RIGHT NOW it is not economical enough to recover the shale oil. And the environmental cost to recover shale oil is high. But, as the price of crude goes higher and higher, then it DOES become economical enough to recover shale oil. So no one is going to "run out" of oil anytime soon.
Second, assume we have "run out" of oil. Where do you suppose that we will get all of our hydrogen and electricity then? Will all the anti-nuclear forces shut up and stand idlely by while we begin building plants again? I kinda doubt it. Even if we started today, I don't think we could build a new nuke in 10 years. When was the last time we built any hydroelectric dams in this country? Many activists want some current dams removed for environmental reasons (I wonder how many of them also want their hydrogen fuel-cell car NOW). Wind? They're building wind generators as fast as they can all over west Texas just to keep up with current increases to demand. I don't anticipate a lot of excess capacity there to be used for hydrogen production in the foreseeable future. If oil "runs out" how long do you think nat-gas lasts when the natural conversion is from fuel-oil heating in the NE over to nat-gas? Not to mention all the power plants currently running on fuel-oil converting over to nat-gas?
Sorry for the rant. I just think that some are regarding tailpipe emissions (and tailpipe emissions only) as the Holy Grail without giving a lot of thought to other considerations.
Yes, sooner or later oil as use for a feedstock in ICEs for private passenger vehicles will no longer be economically viable. But, I think that point is so far out in the future (WAY beyond 25 years) that societal changes in ways we simply cannot forecast will have as much to say about it's replacement as anything else.
http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/afv/gas_vehicles.html
Just out of curiousity: how does a CNG equipped vehicle compare to a gasoline fueled hybrid with comparable performance/people carrying capacity? For example: do you know roughly the expected emissions from a CNG equipped Focus compared to a gasoline-driven Toyota Prius?
Actually, Gary, a PZEV Prius or PZEV Escape is cleaner than a SULEV Honda GX, which is the EPA Emission Certification listed on the website you referred us to.
So, in correcting Gary's statement:
If you are REALLY SERIOUS about pollution and willing to pay a bit more to be REALLY GREEN, get yourself a PZEV Prius or PZEV Escape Hybrid.
( Just funnin ya Gary - CNG is indeed cleaner than Hybrid in almost all situations....unless you compare a SULEV CNG versus a PZEV Hybrid...)
http://www.myphill.com/
I just talked to the people at myphill. The price is $3400 plus installation. Not sure if they can collect road tax on that. Makes the Civic GX a good commuter vehicle rated at 32 mpg combined.
PS
EPA claims the CNG engines last up to 3 times as long as a gas or diesel with less oil changes.
I did read an article a few months ago that talked to a lady who owned one as her personal car, but it did not say if she bought it fleet or not. Here's the article:
http://www.canada.com/montreal/montrealgazette/news/driving/story.html?id=05c2cce6-7ca8-43- 80-a27b-dd58859bb920
The Honda Civic GX is limited in it's range between fillups though, to something around 200 miles. So it's even more of a compromise than Hybrids - but cleaner for sure, unless SULEV....
It would not be a good car to take off cross country in. You would get to Yuma and may not find a station that sells CNG. The price from dealers is jacked up to match gas prices. It may be a while before it is widely available. It takes a while to refuel at home. Like several hours. That is why they suggest letting it refuel at night. If you are commuting less than 200 miles round trip it may be a good alternative.
Get more information about the Phill system, as well as updates on when the Civic GX and Phill will be available for home use.
http://automobiles.honda.com/models/civic_gx_bonus.asp?ModelName=Civic+Sedan&bhcp=1&Browse- rDetected=True
- H2 made with Solar Electric = emits toxic chemicals collecting the sand & processing into cells.
- H2 made with Nuclear Electric = emits nothing, but leaves behind radioactive waste that will last 10,000+ years.
- "Reformer" Fuel Cell (the technology favored by American carmakers) = emits CO2 and left-over/unused gasoline or diesel or natural gas.
.
Also, there's still a question of *energy balance*. I hear many people say, "Ethanol uses more energy to make, than you gain from burning it." The exact same argument applies to Hydrogen production.
Troy
Electrictroy's insightful last sentence pretty much sums up hydrogen in my opinion. In principle, the end user will not pollute anything but water. However, getting the hydrogen to the end user with the existing technology will create an equivalent amount of CO2 as burning gasoline or diesel (i.e. there is no benefit other than a potential shift in the power of the energy brokers). If a super-efficient photovoltaic device were made commercial and the issue of hydrogen storage are addressed, then a serious debate about switching to hydrogen can take place.