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

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.

[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?).