Great advance for the fuel-cell car, no explosive gas on board

[rabosi]

Is that Jason or michael myers in the driver's seat?

[Sammus]

Jason :P

Sad fact of reality in this dimension - there is no free anything, everything comes with a price. Nothing can be or will be 100% efficient.

There are no perpetual motions machines allowed in this dimension.

I read somewhere last year or maybe real early this year that somewhere in Japan they were powering homes with fuel cells - something about the size of a water heater/sm refrigerator. Su[pposed to run a house for a few months. No costs given, no discussion if it was for 12v DC system or inverted AC or any details. This is what its going to take - mass usage, mass production to make costs affordable. I'd hate to think what the fuel cells flying in the Shuttle cost.

I am sorry, but the plan is to take water, split it, recombine it and harness the energy?
If they found a way to split water with less overall cost (energy) then the amount of energy that can be harnessed from a FCV then they just revolutionized the world.
Being as I do not believe that they overcame the problem of the Law of Conservation I think that they are hiding something. If their chemical reaction to produce hydrogen from water uses less energy then you get back from the hydrogen/oxygen reaction to power the car then that energy is coming from somewhere. How often does this chemical need to be replaced? how expensive is it? how toxic is it?

I worked for an automotive company in their fuel cell facility, I think the technology is applicable. But it is not ready yet. Those Honda's will probably spend 10-20% of the time at the shop.
Additionally the lease Honda is charging will not even cover a quarter of the cost of the car, probably much less (when I left the facility I was at the cars would cost 50k if mass produced, but were running around 200k in the quantities being produced at the time).
Also,
Where is the hydrogen going to come from?
The statement that hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe is true but misleading. Almost all of the hydrogen in the universe is in the stars. On our planet the easiest ways to get hydrogen is either cracking natural gas (methane) or electrolysis of water. Both of which are very energy intensive, where is that energy going to come from?

Oh, btw hydrogen is not that dangerous, if the tank is pierced the hydrogen will dissipate quickly. In anything expect the worst accident, a hydrogen car would be safer then a gasoline powered car.
The technology is coming, it will work, I am just sick of all these gimmick to make people think it is viable now and/or it solves all of the problems. The only problem is solves is you do not need gasoline. But you will need electricity to create the hydrogen, and to increase demand for electricity by the amount that would be required you would need coal/natural gas/nuclear. The enviro energies (wind/solar) would require way to much of a footprint.
Honestly an electric car or plug in fuel cell (with larger batteries) would be better suited to fix the transportation issues.

[BrianG]

My thoughts on this topic:

Wasn't there talk that the next generation of Prius would be all electric? Also, there was a new type of solar cell that had more output, was flexible, and was cheaper. Couldn't the body panels be impregnated with such cells to somewhat charge the batteries during the day? They wouldn't fully charge the battery, but could add quite a bit back in...

A while back I was looking at the whole splitting water to get Hydrogen method and I too read that the energy used to split the water was more than you get from the process; a net loss. However, I thought I read somewhere that there was a chemical that could be added to the water to facilitate the splitting process, something like a catalyst? Don't know if the net gain (if any) would still be worth anything...

If I had more disposable income, I'd like to build a "single person city conveyance vehicle". Basically, something like two mountain bikes (for better winter driving) welded together with a bubble in the middle for me. Make it electric of course with enough power to get to ~45mph in the city. Maybe use a 2-speed tranny similar to the two speed setups our R/Cs use (centrifugal clutch) to get a better balance of power and top speed. Make the battery pack/charger removable (briefcase?) to bring inside to charge when home or at the office. Would have to know what the minimum requirements for road driving is though - so probably would be limited there.

Originally Posted by BrianG

My thoughts on this topic:

Wasn't there talk that the next generation of Prius would be all electric? Also, there was a new type of solar cell that had more output, was flexible, and was cheaper. Couldn't the body panels be impregnated with such cells to somewhat charge the batteries during the day? They wouldn't fully charge the battery, but could add quite a bit back in...

A while back I was looking at the whole splitting water to get Hydrogen method and I too read that the energy used to split the water was more than you get from the process; a net loss. However, I thought I read somewhere that there was a chemical that could be added to the water to facilitate the splitting process, something like a catalyst? Don't know if the net gain (if any) would still be worth anything...

If I had more disposable income, I'd like to build a "single person city conveyance vehicle". Basically, something like two mountain bikes (for better winter driving) welded together with a bubble in the middle for me. Make it electric of course with enough power to get to ~45mph in the city. Maybe use a 2-speed tranny similar to the two speed setups our R/Cs use (centrifugal clutch) to get a better balance of power and top speed. Make the battery pack/charger removable (briefcase?) to bring inside to charge when home or at the office. Would have to know what the minimum requirements for road driving is though - so probably would be limited there.

Not to ruin your pipe dream but:
if it has 4 wheels and goes over 30mph it needs to meet same crash test results as a car...
A trike on the other hand only has to meet motorcycle crash test ratings.

I too had heard of a chemical catalyst, and although I do not know the specifics (we wanted to make fuel cells, a different group worried about fuel storage/delivery) I am guessing the chemical is expensive and possibly carcinogenic (as many organics are).
I have read some on "solid storage" in which the hydrogen is stored in a metal honeycomb kind of tank (hydrogen goes in the pores of the metal, just like how oil is in the pores of bedrock). And it only takes a small amount of electrical shock to remove the hydrogen from the storage matrix, that way if the tank is pierced the hydrogen is still safe. The problem with this system is cost and weight as the metal storage matrix would add several hundred more pounds (these things aren't light).
Right now, the biggest problem with fuel cells is the cost of platinum. With current technologies there is between $1000 to $5000 in platinum in each fuel cell car. If they can increase efficiencies, or throughput of the fuel cell that will go down. Mind you that is just raw material cost, this stuff needs to be processed, coated, assembled, ect.

[What's_nitro?]

Originally Posted by Sammus

We obey the laws of thermodynamics in this house! So unless you can make it 100% efficient it ain't gunna happen :P

Ok, ok. I know there would be SOME losses so I'll change it to "very rarely having to put any fuel into your car".

Hay everyone go to Carver.com it is the coolest.

[BrianG]

Originally Posted by cmcclive

Not to ruin your pipe dream but:
if it has 4 wheels and goes over 30mph it needs to meet same crash test results as a car...
A trike on the other hand only has to meet motorcycle crash test ratings.

I too had heard of a chemical catalyst, and although I do not know the specifics (we wanted to make fuel cells, a different group worried about fuel storage/delivery) I am guessing the chemical is expensive and possibly carcinogenic (as many organics are).
I have read some on "solid storage" in which the hydrogen is stored in a metal honeycomb kind of tank (hydrogen goes in the pores of the metal, just like how oil is in the pores of bedrock). And it only takes a small amount of electrical shock to remove the hydrogen from the storage matrix, that way if the tank is pierced the hydrogen is still safe. The problem with this system is cost and weight as the metal storage matrix would add several hundred more pounds (these things aren't light).
Right now, the biggest problem with fuel cells is the cost of platinum. With current technologies there is between $1000 to $5000 in platinum in each fuel cell car. If they can increase efficiencies, or throughput of the fuel cell that will go down. Mind you that is just raw material cost, this stuff needs to be processed, coated, assembled, ect.

I figured there would be some limitations like that. Do the same rules apply for individuals as for manufacturers? I figured those rules were more for liability reasons, but I'm not gonna sue myself if I crash. Ok then, I'll make it go 29.99mph and/or only have three wheels. A reverse trike (2 wheels in ront, 1 in back) might be better for stability. I just gotta get off my butt and research a little more. But it's kind of a moot point if I don't have the funds to finance my dream.

Here is a different method to use sunlight (along with TiSi2) as a catalyst: http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/85/i41/8541notw4.html

I found out the catalyst I had read about; it was salt and RF waves. After more reading (this article and resulting comments in particular) it seems that burning water is similar to changing lead into gold. Despite the suspected potential, it just isn't going to happen. The article linked above basically says that there is little energy "stored" in water. Even when broken down through electrolysis, that energy does not get bigger just because we're talking about hydrogen. The problem is that the energy we put in is larger than we get out. Period.

Now, if we could harness "free" energy like sunlight (yeah, I know it's not technically free, but I don't pay for it) for the electrolsis, then the energy we get is free as well. but then, why not cut out the middle man and get the energy from the sun directly? More R&D needs to be done to harness all the energy from the sun IMO.

Or, what about harnessing lightning? The pulse isn't very big, but there's a LOT of energy everytime a bolt strikes! And since each bolt is up to 200,000,000V and between 30,000A and 300,000A, that's as high as 60 trillion watts, or only 80 billion HP. Too bad there isn't a way to store that kind of power. According to this, lightning strikes US soil about 25-30 million times a year!!

Originally Posted by BrianG

I figured there would be some limitations like that. Do the same rules apply for individuals as for manufacturers? I figured those rules were more for liability reasons, but I'm not gonna sue myself if I crash. Ok then, I'll make it go 29.99mph and/or only have three wheels. A reverse trike (2 wheels in ront, 1 in back) might be better for stability. I just gotta get off my butt and research a little more. But it's kind of a moot point if I don't have the funds to finance my dream.

The wheels/speed are department of transportation rules. If you want to legally put the car on the road (thus have access to the road) it needs to meet those specs.
Also, I saw a few "sport trikes" that looked like racing bikes but with two front wheels. Looked pretty cool.

As for solar power: My opinion is, it is great for the individual, but bad for the general public.
What does that mean? Most people who own homes have enough land/roof to produce enough solar power to meet their own needs. Some light manufacturing (warehouses) and schools, perhaps even malls/walmarts could do it as well. But per kilowatt hour it is to expensive for heavy energy usage companies, and for society as a whole. Additionally, in order to make a real dent in energy, we would have to cover a large amount of the county with solar panels, and they would only work during the day.

Essentially, I see a future where solar and wind supplement hydro and nuclear power for commercial energy production. Perhaps someone will figure out something new, or increase efficiencies, but only some areas are perfect for wind and solar. Almost all of the good rivers have been dammed up for hydro, but a nuclear power plant can be build anywhere (within reason) and if carefully monitored does not directly emit anything into the environment. Plus the waste that is produced can be shipped and stored anywhere (maybe inside a mountain in the middle of the nevada desert?).

[Arct1k]

I always wanted one of these:

http://www.arielatom.com/

[BrianG]

I just have to look up what the rules are. Something small, like a Smart car, but electrical would be a good idea for work commutes, particularly for those who live <15 miles from the office. But even a Smart car is too heavy really. You could lighten a lot by getting rid of the extra seating, climate control system, aesthetic interior trim, etc.

Yeah, I was talking about the individual consumer - I agree, commercial power needs are too high. But if enough individuals utilize alternate power sources, the overall oil-based demands would be MUCH lower, in turn lowering the costs (hopefully) and dependency on those oil tyrants. The newer solar cells are supposedly much cheaper than the ones of old - they're just not out yet. Within a few years of market release, the prices should drop enough to allow most people to afford it. I would think even the government would provide some sort of tax break for this type of thing. Even if you couldn't live totally off the grid, it would surely help. There are just some things that are energy hogs in a house: electric heaters, electric dryers (anything that has electric heating elements really), and some motors (eg: washing machines). But lighting and many small appliances could be powered through alternate means, with the power grid providing supplemental power where needed. And IIRC, power companies are required by law to buy excess power from the individual (something to do with the monopoly laws).

back to the lightning idea, we really should do more research into harnessing that!

[Arct1k]

Geothermal is the way to go for heating...

http://www.climatemaster.com/index/res_geothermal

http://waterfurnace.com/how_it_works.aspx

http://geothermal.inel.gov/

We need more power in the short term, as long as our population is growing and std of living is going up we'll need more power short term. You can't get a nuclear plant even on the drawing board without getting taken to court by enviro groups. This kind of activity pours money into lawyers pockets thus nothing gets done about stopping it or even just restricting it legislatively. It's no wonder its been years since a new one has even been proposed in the US. 30yrs estimated to geta new one thru the court challenges and actually built and making power.

Other countries have or will have a more secure energy future than we will because of this silliness. We're smarter than they are, but we're the ones that'll be sitting here in the dark waiting for the rolling blackout to end.

[TexasSP]

We will just end up paying a fortune to foreign companies for energy because we refuse to drill for/produce/make our own. Oh wait, we already are.......