Feul cell cars

[YellowMaranello]

I found this article in a magazine I get and found the link online. here Anyone know how performance will be out of one? Also, I'm just curious, but whats all of your oppinions on these? I think I would rather take the internal combustion engine, probably because I'm just more used to it.

[enginerd]

The performance is just as good if not better from my experience. We tested a new Chrysler minivan and noticed a symptom of broken half shafts. The electric motor produce more torque than the stock engine and transmission could. Range was around 80 miles. I think fuel cells and other technology have a few years to reach the average consumer.

[V.S.]

they've been "almost here" for 30 yrs, so lets keep that in mind. Cars powered by fuel cells could be cool, electric motors having badass torque and all. The main reason, afaik, for their development is that they don't directly pollute. They do however require a fuel, and we still need to produce the vast amounts of hydrogen needed for widescale use of fuel cells, and then build the infrastructure to distribute it.

I see TONS of stuff about all the great uses for fuel cells, but nothing about how to obtain the hydrogen to power them. Its my belief that "fuel cell" is more of a buzzword than a serious technology atm, because as long as coal and oil are going to be burned to produce the electricty that will be used to seperate hydrogen from water, there's no real point.

[ivymike1031]

as long as coal and oil are going to be burned to produce the electricty that will be used to seperate hydrogen from water, there's no real point

I suppose that depends on what you assume about the overall efficiency of the system. If the coal/oil are burned (relatively) efficiently at a power plant, and not too much energy is lost in between that point and when the power hits the pavement, then the system could be more efficient than burning the fuels inefficiently (relatively) at the vehicle. Some would say that you also have more options for handling the pollutants if you produce them all in one location, especially if it happens to be a location that you're not particularly fond of. Furthermore, there are "cleaner" power generation technologies available which may not be particularly well suited to vehicular use, but which can be used effectively in a fixed location. I'd put solar, biomass, geothermal, wind, hydro, and nuclear power (fission and/or fusion) into this category (plus perhaps some things we've not come up with yet).

You've also assumed that the hydrogen would need to come from hydrolysis of water. There are other methods to "produce" hydrogen, such as splitting hydrocarbons into carbons + hydrogens. It is my understanding that water moderated nuclear reactors (and maybe light-water moderated reactors too) produce a significant amount of hydrogen in operation, but I'm not sure whether that comes from mashing up water molecules, or from spitting off excess protons during the nuclear reactions. Either way, nuclear reactors generate some hydrogen, and it might not come from the water.

we still need to produce the vast amounts of hydrogen needed for widescale use of fuel cells, and then build the infrastructure to distribute it.

Fuel cells with built-in reformers get around both of these hurdles by using some clever chemical processes to separate hydrogen from hydrocarbon fuels (CH4 comes with 4 H's, etc), which have a broader supply chain already in place.

[V.S.]

ok you caught me. I admit it is possible to "produce" hydrogen without polluting. I'm just really concerned that nobody seems to give a damn. Fuel cell powered cars are never going to be any good until there is a large infrastructure to supply them. Seeing as how there is soooo much buzz around "fuel cells" in and of themselves, and nothing about the technology thats going to provide them with hydrogen, I do see the topic as more of a buzzword for liberals than a serious technological matter. Its really not enough to develop fuel cells and hope that the hydrogen will just "be there" and the automotive world revolutionized.


How often do you hear of "oil being replaced by fuel cells" in the media? Just think about what that says about the people interested in this issue.

[ivymike1031]

For many people, a fuel cell with an integral methane reformer is still just a fuel cell, which may go a long way toward explaining why you don't hear much about hydrogen distribution.

I can't think of a single instance when someone has said that oil would be replaced by fuel cells, but that doesn't mean it hasn't been said.

It sounds to me like you're looking for reasons to say that the "liberal media" and environmentalists are wrong, without paying enough attention to the technology that they happen to be talking about. Reminds me a bit of the saying "when you point at the moon, some people will just look at your finger." Remember, although there is value in challenging the orthodoxy, just because something is orthodox doesn't mean it's wrong (and "just because you're paranoid don't mean they're not after you"). Would it make you happier if it turned out that fuel cells resulted in the proliferation of nuclear power generation, while simultaneously resulting in the complete elimination of vehicular emissions laws (and smog checks, etc)?

I'd personally like to have a methane-powered fuel cell in my basement to generate electricity for my home, with the waste heat used to warm the house. During the winter that would cut my heating & electric bills to a small fraction of what they currently are, and the overall system efficiency (house warming + electric generation) should be substantially higher than what can be achieved at a stand-alone power plant (cogeneration excluded), even approaching 100%. Heck, if the system was properly tuned to the thermal needs of my home, the excess electrical production during the winter could zero-out my electrical bill in the summer (assuming that net-use laws in IL could be adjusted to accomodate net electric use on a yearly, rather than monthly or daily, basis).

I'm starting to wonder whether it would be possible to efficiently transmit hydrogen nuclei via an appropriate wire (or charged conduit), and "reconstitute" the hydrogen at the other end by adding electrons? If I'm not mistaken, that idea is somewhat similar in principle to how metal-hydride batteries work.

[V.S.]

I am aware of the promise of the technology. Fuel cells with their own reformers in buildings does seem like a good near-term idea. But there is a lot more being promised. Fuel cell powered cars, if the idea becomes a reality, could also be great. I just get the idea the topic is so highly political that any judgement at this point on the timeframe within which cars can or will be powered by fuel cells is little more than a shot in the dark. I have challenged people on this topic in person, and have had replies such as "when they can use NORMAL hydrogen instead of that h3 stuff" and "its all a conspiracy by the oil companies", etc.

If they do go into widespread automotive use in the near future because of their utility, god bless them. The prospect of a declining oil supply seems very possible to me*. I just refuse to hop on a bandwagon which to me seems to have all the makings of a fad(except that its been going on for decades). Like, remember that other revolution in transportation? IT!

*taking into account political troubles, rising demand, etc, measured in terms of the price of oil

[Steel]

Id much rather have a ceramic engine, and burn alcohol. Hell you dont even need a ceramic engine for that, but still.

[enginerd]

I agree with steel. One main point with fuel cell cars is that the pollution will be isolated to a few spots instead of scattered everywhere cars go. Electric plants would have higher demands placed on them if most cars were electric and produce more pollution.

[V.S.]

What are you talking about enginerd? Pollution isn't going to isolated to anywhere other than the earth. The ozone layer doesn't know where on earth, thousands of feet below, pollution began. The wind doesn't know where pollution can and can't go. and so on. Well, obviously if you have health problems then it does matter a lot if the car infront of you is polluting or not, but "get over it already."

[Steel]

The problem is AFTER we run out of natural gas, and the beatniks are never gonna allow nuclear power to polfirfemigcate, what's left? ah yes, coal, THAT stuff is clean, eh?

I still think that a renewable internal combustion fuel is the best answer. Theres loooooooots of surplus wheat in the U.S. Alcohol burns. Especially in the cermaic engines where you dont need to waste even more oil for lubrimification, And plus, gasoline engines are getting boring, considering any rich brat can lay down money for his "modz". If these newfangled Ceramic engines get popular, then stuff will have to be relearned. Although there will always be a nice in my heart for the 528 Hemi, unfortunatley there isnt enough oil in kuwait to keep one of those things running for a year. Heh.

Just as an added thought guys with the ceramic engines, No lubrication right? No cooling right? Good news for rotary engine buffs. nomore having to cool those beasts or burning oil. And considering the smoothness of this stuff, You dont even need special seals that need replacement. Very nice.

You know.....i wonder how much power a 528 V8 cermaic engine could pump out... or a 4 rotor 2.3 liter. THATS where the future of cars is.

p.s. please pardon my redneck-ese. Im tired. Everything is funny. LOL!

[ivymike1031]

yeah, I'll just get the unobtainium alloy version... it should hit the market sooner. What a sweet engine you could make with unobtainium... it's massless and infinitely strong.

[Steel]

Ha.:silly2:
Well, no actaully, these newfangled ceramic engies use a funny type of silicon Si2 i think its what its called. You can read all aobut it in a link in the "ceramic engines" thread just a few lines down in this forum. Basically, it can withstand temperatures noramlly at 3000K, heats up to its operating temperature within a few secodns doesnt need cooling casue of this, and is "slick as a bar of wet soap to the touch" as i hear. Also engine blocks could be milled in MINUTES, the hard part is putting the stuff together, basically taking Si2 powder and compressing it....a lot.

[ivymike1031]

I read the linked article - my conclusion was that the author should have been writing for Weekly World News.

[V.S.]

I'll wait until I see a ceramic engine stay in one piece while operating before saying anything supportive of the idea.