Fuel Cells

[rhino 0]

GM in $88 million fed fuel cell deal: General Motors Corp. Wednesday said it signed an $88 million deal with the U.S. Department of Energy to build a fleet of 40 hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and further develop the technology. Under the five-year program, the world's largest automaker will spend $44 million to deploy fuel cell demonstration vehicles in Washington D.C., New York, California and Michigan. The Department of Energy will contribute the other half of the investment in the program, under an agreement that expires in September 2009. In a separate commercial agreement, Shell Hydrogen, LLC will support GM by setting up five hydrogen refueling stations in Washington, D.C., New York City, between Washington D.C. and New York and in California. Other program partners include the U.S. Army at Ft. Belvoir, Virginia, and Quantum Technologies in Lake Forest, California. Both will provide facilities for GM to store and maintain fuel cell vehicles. GM said it is also collaborating with the U.S. Department of Defense and would release news on that relationship later this week

DCX commits $70 million to U.S. fuel cell development: DaimlerChrysler A.G. also Wednesday said it had a new agreement with the Energy Department to continue its development of fuel cell vehicles in the U.S. DCX said it would invest more than $70 million under the five-year partnership that also includes BP and other companies. Included will be outreach programs about fuel cell vehicles, the hydrogen economy and the benefits to society of advanced energy technologies. DaimlerChrysler is testing over 100 fuel cell vehicles under varying weather, traffic conditions and driving styles in different locations worldwide, with ambitious plans for more this year. BP recently opened the first public hydrogen refueling station in Southfield, with DTE Energy Co. Another station was opened in a cooperative effort between BP and Praxair at the Los Angeles International Airport. More at www.bp.com/hydrogen.

Ballard promises 'commercially viable' fuel cell by 2010: AutoTech Daily and AutoBeat Daily both reported Thursday that Canada's Ballard Power Systems Inc. says a commercially viable version of its fuel cell technology will be ready for demonstration by 2010. Ballard has been a leader in fuel cell development since it demonstrated a system in a vehicle 12 years ago. The company defines a commercially ready fuel cell system as one with a 5,000-hour operating life that can start at temperatures as low as -30°C, generate power at 2.5 kilowatts per liter and cost US$30 per kilowatt at production volumes of 500,000 units. Ballard's devices can't meet those goals yet, but the company declares them "achievable" within five years. Ballard made the announcement in conjunction with the start of the National Hydrogen Association's annual conference in Washington, D.C.

[billvon 3,120]

I will never understand the fascination with hydrogen.

Sure, it's a nice fuel, but it's like antimatter - we just don't have any. We can make it, but it takes more energy to make it than we get back out of it. If we have the electricity available, it would make more sense to do griddable hybrids. If we have extra oil we could make hydrogen as well, but again - we don't. Heck, if we _had_ extra hydrogen, it would probably make more sense to combine it with atmospheric CO2 and sell it as natural gas! (methane.) After all, many city buses, taxis and even some cars (the Honda Civic GX) run on the stuff.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

I will never understand the fascination with hydrogen.

I heard a nuclear industry huckster talking about hydrogen a while back. His line was that dealing with the unused energy during the normal ebb and flow of power demand raises the cost of nuclear power dramatically. If, however, we have large scale hydrogen production facilities we can use nukes to supply the power for our energy needs approaching the minimum demand valleys, and use hydro/coal/gas etc. to produce the variable quantities above that. This will allow nuclear plants to run at a flat output and reduce costs, making nuclear energy economically competitive. Haven't heard an educated rebuttal.

[billvon 3,120]

>His line was that dealing with the unused energy during the normal ebb
>and flow of power demand raises the cost of nuclear power dramatically.

It would if we had a lot of nuclear plants. Since we don't, most nukes produce at close to full power most the time and the 'swing' is made up by the natural gas plants, which can be throttled a lot more effectively.

The issue with electrical storage actually has more to do with dealing with peak power requirements than dealing with costs due to cyclic operation, although they are both part of the equation. The problem is that you need something like three times your baseline capacity to deal with peaks, and most of that is idle most of the time. If you really want to deal with peaks, pumped storage (i.e. pumping water back up behind dams) is a much more efficient usage of power. I've heard numbers like 80% efficiency from pumped storage.

What nuclear power and hydrogen _may_ have in common is high temperature dissociation. Some new reactor designs (HTGR, AHTR) operate at a high enough temperature to dissociate hydrogen from water chemically. (This would be an auxiliary process to the power generation functions of the plant.) That would provide a stream of hydrogen that could then be used for fuel purposes.

I still think that if we were ever to build such a power plant, it would be more useful to generate methane than hydrogen. It's just as clean, and is easier to store, ship and burn. And we already use it.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

I will never understand the fascination with hydrogen.

.

Gee Bill, even George Bush knows that the oceans are just full of hydrogen.

Safe too! Quite a few people escaped from the Hindenberg.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Kris 0]

Quote

Gee Bill, even George Bush knows that the oceans are just full of hydrogen.

Safe too! Quite a few people escaped from the Hindenberg.

Wasn't it the aluminum oxide paint they used on the Hindenburg that made it so volatile when it went up? Not merely just the hydrogen itself?

Sky, Muff Bro, Rodriguez Bro, and
Bastion of Purity and Innocence!™

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Gee Bill, even George Bush knows that the oceans are just full of hydrogen.

Safe too! Quite a few people escaped from the Hindenberg.

Wasn't it the aluminum oxide paint they used on the Hindenburg that made it so volatile when it went up? Not merely just the hydrogen itself?

It was aluminum powder, not aluminum oxide, in the paint. But yes, it seems the paint burned first. And, of course, aluminum powder is a component of solid rocket fuel! But the hydrogen did ignite too.

Mixtures of hydrogen and air are explosive between 4.1 to 71.5% hydrogen. This is, I believe, the widest explosive range of any known mixture of gases.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

The problem is that you need something like three times your baseline capacity to deal with peaks, and most of that is idle most of the time. .

I think his point was that if all the cars in North America were powered (indirectly) by electrical plants, the peaks would be, relatively speaking, much less than three times baseline.

[billvon 3,120]

>I think his point was that if all the cars in North America were powered
> (indirectly) by electrical plants, the peaks would be, relatively speaking,
> much less than three times baseline.

Well, no. We use 26QB (quadrillion BTU's) for transportation in the US and about 37QB for electrical generation. Compare that to a typical demand graph and even if we fill in the peaks we don't have enough. We _would_ have enough if we switched to _efficient_ electric vehicles, rather than just replacing the mammoth cars we have now.

But then you run into a second problem, which is that if you try to maintain maximum power output you are going to have to run your peaker plants all the time, which a) aren't designed for continuous operation and b) often burn diesel or fuel oil, which is what we're trying to get away from. If we have the diesel to spare, much better to burn it in cars than in a power plant - it's more efficient that way.

That being said, there is sufficient baseline capacity to support a significant fraction of US cars switching to electric as long as they charge at night. One of my ideals for the near term is to diversify our energy sources so we can weather the loss of any one source. Run electric vehicles off baseline power plants at night. Use the diesel you save to run trucks and cars. Use natural gas and gasoline to run the rest. That way you have four sources of power, and many options. No more diesel? Use a combination of the other three, and add some biodiesel into the mix. No more gasoline? Switch over to electric and natural gas. Electricity shortage? Rely on the other three until you have built enough generation capacity.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Now I've heard an educated rebuttal.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

We _would_ have enough if we switched to _efficient_ electric vehicles, rather than just replacing the mammoth cars we have now.

Unfortunately, I don't see cars getting smaller anytime soon, at least until people choose a vehicle based on its intended use rather than its aesthetic value.


Don't you have a hybrid bill?

[billvon 3,120]

>Unfortunately, I don't see cars getting smaller anytime soon, at least
>until people choose a vehicle based on its intended use rather than its
>aesthetic value.

So make light, aerodynamic, efficient cars that look big. Facades are pretty easy.

>Don't you have a hybrid bill?

Two now, actually. A Prius and a Honda Civic Hybrid. Both get around 45mpg during normal (non-careful suburban) driving; the HCH gets 50-65mph highway depending how I drive.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

So make light, aerodynamic, efficient cars that look big. Facades are pretty easy.

Yeah, but people won't buy it unless it's fashionable.

Quote

Two now, actually. A Prius and a Honda Civic Hybrid. Both get around 45mpg during normal (non-careful suburban) driving; the HCH gets 50-65mph highway depending how I drive.

Nice!, gotta love the Hondas, those things will last forever. A few years back I had an Accord with 140k miles, and only thing I ever had to replace was the starter.

• Quote

[billvon 3,120]

>but people won't buy it unless it's fashionable.

So make em fashionable. Put big fake noses on them that look like fashionable cars. Heck, the nose of most cars nowadays is plastic and empty space.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Safe too! Quite a few people escaped from the Hindenberg.

Once again, those damn engineers and scientists screwing up another design.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[justinb138 0]

Quote

So make em fashionable. Put big fake noses on them that look like fashionable cars. Heck, the nose of most cars nowadays is plastic and empty space.

Agreed. Plastic, empty space, with big shiny pieces and popular logos.

I wish they would make them look more like regular cars. Many of the hybrids kinda look like dork-mobiles, but they're getting alot better with newer designs (especially the civic).

[billvon 3,120]

>Many of the hybrids kinda look like dork-mobiles, but they're getting
>alot better with newer designs (especially the civic).

Yeah, after looking at the prius for two weeks now, I have come to the conclusion that it is definitely funny looking. Yet there's still a 9 to 12 month waiting list. I noticed that the star of "alias" is driving one on the show now; they even worked it into the scripts of several shows including "west wing" and "alias." Maybe people are finally starting to see the oil crisis as a serious problem.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Yeah, after looking at the prius for two weeks now, I have come to the conclusion that it is definitely funny looking.

They're a little funny looking, but not near as bad as the first ones that came out (The Insight I think). Doesn't the prius come with bluetooth stuff too?

Quote

Yet there's still a 9 to 12 month waiting list.

Is there a list becuase of high demand or limited production? I'm not sure which one...

Quote

I noticed that the star of "alias" is driving one on the show now; they even worked it into the scripts of several shows including "west wing" and "alias." Maybe people are finally starting to see the oil crisis as a serious problem.

Hopefully their popularity will increase as they get more media exposure. It's going to be interesting to see what the manufacturers are going to do with the hybrid technology in the next few years.

[billvon 3,120]

>Doesn't the prius come with bluetooth stuff too?

Bluetooth, voice recognition, GPS mapping with a dead reckoner and voice prompts, a true keyless system . . . it's eerie to have a car give you recommendations on mexican food.

>Is there a list becuase of high demand or limited production? I'm not sure which one...

Both. The big problem now is battery availability. They're ramping up as fast as they can; Toyota is opening a new US plant soon to meet the demand.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

with a dead reckoner

Could any one explain what that is? Bill?

[billvon 3,120]

>Could any one explain what that is? Bill?

A gyro and wheel tick sensor. Basically notes heading changes and distance traveled and estimates your new location. So you could drive around in an underground parking lot for half an hour (or on the highway under boston) and the system will still know where you are. It gets inaccurate after a while; the GPS is used to recal it.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Probably got spyware in it too, for use by the authorities or for sale to your wife.

[dorbie 0]

You can't beat the price of oil as a great motivator for alternate sources of power.

As has been pointed out the issue is not the production of energy from burning Hydrogen but it's storage and distribution (although I once saw a whacky report that speculated about huge natural hydrogen deposits under North America
Hydrogen burns clean unlike hydrocarbons.

2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O

The appeal here is obvious, it's also readily made from water through electrolosis, this stores the energy at the point of manyfacture and you're not affecting the gasseous content of the atmosphere if you use solar, wind or wave energy to drive the electrolosis. The O2 made at the electrodes is offset when the H2O is produced at the point of consumption.

Kallend's right hydrogen is volatile, but it's also friging clean and readily made. I find the claims w.r.t. the Hindenburg slightly bizzarre. I've seen the theories and the documentary on the fact that it was made of volatile coatings, but I don't fully buy it. It smacks of the scientist with a favorite bone he won't let go. Sure it had aluminum in the doping, but it wasn't rocket fuel as was claimed, it had aluminum powder, aluminum needs to get fucking hot before it burns in air, hydrogen doesn't. The hydrogen was the source of most of the energy and burning on the hindenburg, it's dangerous stuff.

Some countries pump natural gas (mainly methane I think but it's a mix) all over the country into every home, and there are very occasional leaks and misshaps but it works, they add an artificial distinctive odor so you can smell a leak (that's right natural gas tends to stink because they add the smell). I've lived in several houses with piped hydrocarbon gas, it's probably not as volatile as Hydrogen but it ain't no picknick if you get a leak either. The point is you should be able to smell it before concentrations get dangerous.

The whole point of a fuel cell is to store and bind the hydrogen safely with a high energy density and still catalyse or burn it efficiently. Otherwise you'd just have a tank of pressurized gas in the car and inject it / burn it in cylinders. So the H2 is dangerous is the whole point of the technology, we can burn raw H2 today, it ain't difficult, it ain't high tech. Heck they have Methand powered cars already (with a big gas cylinder in the trunk). Just ask the cops in Dallas :-).... Ironically one of the reasons I think they did this was a spate of Ford Princess vehicles exploding in rear enders.

More alternates will be explored like oil from crops, wind, wave solar, but a lot of these have issues that hydrogen solves. You need some energy distribution standard, and Hydrogen might be a good efficient clean option.

[derivative 0]

But that's just if you burn hydrogen in an oxygen atmosphere. If you burn it in a car with "normal" air from the outside, you still get some NOx emissions because normal air is 78% nitrogen. However, these emissions are much less that what you get burning gasoline.

...the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, and make it possible.
- T.E. Lawrence

[rhino 0]

As long as we get off of this gas kick we are on.. No more oil I say!