View Full Version : Your perception of Hydrogen Fuel Cells vehicle..is that nece

04-15-2005, 12:29 AM
hii guyz, what is your perception of this new technology, the Hydrogen Fuel Cells Vehicle? Would you guyz like to own one if it s reliable and affordable? well, performance might be a big question mark for those car enthusiast..

04-15-2005, 02:20 AM
Sure, why not. There are more and more Hydrogen filling stations coming online. There are likely to be big tax benefits, especially in Europe. THe performance thing won't be an issue for long, especially compared to the long term alternative; no gasoline at all! <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.germancarfans.com/images/forums/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif" BORDER="0">

04-15-2005, 06:49 AM
This is essentially an electric car, with the fuel cell taking the place of the battery. I think cars like the EV-1 have proven that Electric vehicles can be made to have dynamic performance quite similar to that of an average car. The question really is can hydrogen be made stable enough and stored in enough quantities to make a fuel cell viable.

04-15-2005, 10:46 AM
Check out latest Forbes - April 25th. I think Car and Driver or Automobile magazine also followed the hydrogen chain.<p>"Among outside experts there's a concensus that if hydrogen fuel cell cars ever make economic sense, it will be a long time from now.......Nobody in their right mind believes fuel cells could add to the bottom line (of GM, who has made huge investments) in the next two decades......Besides, it's unclear that hydrogen would solve any greenhouse gas or geopolitical problems. Where is the fuel to come from? At the moment it comes from natural gas, oil, or coal, in a process that spits out carbon dioxide......to sell, a hydrogen car needs to go 300 miles between fill-ups. Not too hard for gasoline. A breeze for diesels and hybrids. A blinding headache for hydrogen. This could be the thorniest problem of all. Hydrogen is the least dense substance on the planet, so in order to get enough hydrogen on board to travel 300 miles, hydrogen needs to be seriously condensed.....fuel cell vehicle protoypes, which store hydrogen compressed to 10,000 pounds per square inch.......The most common and cheapest way to get hydrogen is from natueral gas, by mixing it with steam heated to 750 to 1,000 degrees celcius. A two step process, it yeilds not only hydrogen at a projected cost of $4 to $5 per kilogram (equal to one gallon of gas), but also carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas.....Hydrogen can be extracted by sending electrical current though water, degrading it into hydrogen and oxygen. It is a well developed process, but it takes 50 kilowatt hours of juice with at least $2.50 or more (in addition to the transportation or plant costs), to produce one kilogram...Nowadays, demand for electricity is met with natural gas burning power plants that also produce carbon dioxide. The energy guzzling does not stop there. It takes mountains of energy to compress and transport hydrogen (up to twenty-five truck loads to one of gasoline)......A transition to hydrogen would nearly double net greenhouse emissions attributable to passenger vehicles. With so many decks stacked so deeply against GM, why does it even bother with hydrogen? Hydrogen has the virtue of removing the auto industry from the environmental debate, even if it creates the same or more pollution upstream...."if we want to have our market capitalization approach that of other industries, we can't have the car held hostage to the debates about energy dependence, resource usage, global climate change."<p>So there we have it, shift the blame.<p>

04-15-2005, 11:07 AM
hey pcread, r u from europe country? what i know is germany has plenty of hydrogen refueling stations, and the BMW Hydrogen engine(Bivalent engine) is really impress me.. <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://images.zeroforum.com/smile/emthup.gif" BORDER="0">

04-15-2005, 11:31 AM
Let's say the design of the mass production hydrogen fuel cells vehicle seriously impress me, i will buy it(Of coz if it's affordable). For this kind of new technology car, we need to see something unique and awesome from the body styling to the interior design, this is the way to attract more buyers,right? For me i would prefer some futuristic elements in the fuel cells vehicle design without losing the praticality. Well, GM sequel (Crossover) consider acceptable...

04-15-2005, 02:12 PM
I'm curious. Since hydrogen presently pollutes (via generation of hydrogen and transportation) a great deal more than a gasoline engine, what is the attraction?<p>To be "affordable," car makers need to get cell costs down in the $50 per kilowatt range. If mass produced, car makers presently might be able to get costs to $500 per kilowatt produced. That means a 200hp fuel cell would cost $75,000 + the rest of the car.<p>Cells degrade too quickly at this time, and they can't stand cold weather. They're also really expensive, since they require platinum as the catalyst. The proton exchange membrane that seperates out the hydrogen molecules starts to fall apart after about 30,000 starts and stops, acceleration, temp extremes, and elevations changes. That's not especially durable for something so expensive and vital to the function of the vehicle. If you make the film stronger, you lower the performance. <p>We've got a while to go before storing or generating the stuff makes sense. In that time, perhaps something entirely different will come along.<BR><BR>
<i>Modified by Verdegrrl at 2:21 PM 4/15/2005</i>

04-18-2005, 09:43 AM
hii, verdegrrl, u seem have a lot of knowledge about this technology,thanks for your useful information. can i know your industry background? Currently i am a students doing a research topic about the consumer percerption of Hy-FCV, hopefully you can share more of your comments about about future car designs or even Hy-FCV..do you have any opinion that you would like to share with us?THanks.

04-19-2005, 06:16 AM
verdegirl works in the automotive industry, and from waht I can tell is a very well versed enthusiast (especially of alfa romeos). As for Hydrogen technology, do not confuse a hydrogen powered internal combustion engine (such as BMW uses) with a fuel cell. It is a common mistake made by people (even though both power sources are completely different. I would argue that your average person has a vague understanding of the technology at best. Most people I've talked to can only remember the 9not necessarily accurate) highlights they saw on some tv show. Basically, Not enough filling stations, explosive (storage problems), relatively low pollution.

04-19-2005, 06:52 AM
Both Hydrogen based technologies have two common bottlenecks. Hydrogen production and storage. Yes, getting pure H2 from water or hydrocarbons does take energy and if you assume that is to be done by using fossil fuels, will still produce pollutants. However, these are produced outside the urban environment and therefore don't contribute to air-pollution in towns and cities. And our friend Nuclear is on its way back. <p>Storage is the tricky one. Pressurised containers or liquid Hydrogen aren't viable, but billions are now being spent on researching solid state storage. Hydides or Nanoscale solids are possibilities, basically storing the molecules of Hydrogen far closer together than they exist in the gas form, but without the pressure or low temperature associated with conventional techniques. These new materials act like sponges, holding the Hydrogen safely inside. Don't think the price of storage will stay very high for very long. The sheer scale of applications of Hydrogen storage from cell-phone batteries to satellites is enormous and the cost will plummet accordingly.<p>Filling stations are being built in more and more countries. Especially near large towns, where public transportation operators are branching out into Hydrogen fueled buses, etc. Supply follows demand.<p>BTW retrofuturism, I'm a Brit living in Holland.

04-24-2005, 10:34 AM
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>pcread</b> &raquo;</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> And our friend Nuclear is on its way back. <br> </TD></TR></TABLE><p><A HREF="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1582577,00.html" TARGET="_blank">http://www.timesonline.co.uk/a....html</A><p>Like I said. And France already gets around 80% of it's electricity from nukes.<BR><BR>
<i>Modified by pcread at 10:53 AM 4/24/2005</i>

04-24-2005, 03:43 PM
nuclear power really is the way to go...my uncle worked for a while at the diablo canyon nuclear powerplant in California...

04-24-2005, 06:17 PM
<A HREF="http://science.slashdot.org/science/05/04/24/1931234.shtml?<br>tid=232&tid=14" TARGET="_blank">http://science.slashdot.org/sc...id=14</A> <p>Guess we'll see if they can make enough - of course then you run into the costs of shipping and storing - unless you can convert enough on the spot to power whatever it is that needs energy. Wonder if there is enough power in just water or other hydrogen rich materials and the process compact enough to be portable?

04-27-2005, 12:15 AM
<br>The problem for hydrogen-powered vehicles is that hydrogen is not an energy source -- it is an energy storage medium, much like a battery. Thus, the energy must still be generated somewhere. Now, if there were widespread nuclear plants generating cleaner and presumably lower cost electricty, then there is the potential to produce hydrogen in a clean, cost-effective manner. This still doesn't include the storage costs and challenges, or the operational deficiencies of a fuel cell versus internal combustion.<p>I think that a middle-ground solution may be the use of hydrogen as an internal combustion fuel. BMW has gone this route with their research, as has Mazda with a hydrogen-powered rotary. However, without a cheap and clean way to produce hydrogen, there's not much point. <p>Electric cars have much the same problem as fuel cells -- diminished performance in cold temperatures, high battery costs, limited battery lifespan, limited range, inconvenient refueling, and the consumption of fossil fuels and generation of greenhouse gasses in the production of electricity.<p>It's my opinion that our research dollars are better spent in further refining the efficiency and cleanliness of gasoline and diesel combustion engines, and in creating lighter, lower-drag chassis to put them in. Consumer choice is a major factor as well, with large and rather wasteful vehicles being highly desireable not only in North America, but in all corners of the globe.<p>If the average owner of a V8 engined SUV would instead choose a moderate sized vehicle, like a Mazda 3, and if government regulators would open up rules to allow for low-speed, ultra-small city cars, along the lines of the post-war microcars built in Europe during the 1950's, a lot of the market and environmental pressures created by high levels of gasoline consumption would be abated.<br>

05-02-2005, 02:37 PM
I was reading somewhere about new storage devices for Hydrogen that contain the gas in a solid form mixed with another content in the fuel tank. It acts like a sponge and when needed its released into the system as needed. There was some talks about it being used in Cell phones and laptop computers also. So no need to recharge the battery, just fill up and go. They also suggested that a reformer unit that could be ran off your house power supply could generate more hydrogen. so no need to go to pumping stations.<p>I think I found some of that info on this site<br><A HREF="http://science.howstuffworks.com/fuel-cell.htm" TARGET="_blank">http://science.howstuffworks.com/fuel-cell.htm</A><p>also found this awhile back, Hydrogen fire and gas fire<br><A HREF="http://evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&storyid=482" TARGET="_blank">http://evworld.com/view.cfm?se...d=482</A><p>here's some more to read.<br><A HREF="http://www.unitednuclear.com/h2.htm" TARGET="_blank">http://www.unitednuclear.com/h2.htm</A>

05-04-2005, 03:28 PM
Fuel cells, although not feasible in the near future(IMO high performance batteries would do a better job and the infrastucture is already avalable) are showing some promising advancements. For example many companies are working on taking the super expensive platinum out of the fuel cell equation..info (not all fuel cells need a catalyst, only the low temperature Proton Exchange Membrane types need it, in high temperature application the heat does the job of the catalyst.) <p>I read recently of a new catalyst thats just as good as platinum, but a whole lot cheaper. It uses a porous nananickel membrane to replace the usual thin film platinum catalyst. This development definitely would drive down the cost of fuel cells. <p>The chemistry is getting more stable and durable. Some people are even opting for high temperature fuel cells that use waste heat to heat up a hidride container that holds solidified hydrogen. On the part of hydrogen generation there's a system under development that uses a roof mounted system , which holds water and uses solar energy to split the water into H2 and 02 creating a home refueling station .....can't remember the website , but would post it when I find it.<p>All this development arises from humungous spending from governments and private investors, but they've all missed the point. For Automobiles, the most efficient way is electric. A complete cycle calculation would reveal that fuel cells actually pollute more than current gasoline. Development of batteries would make EVs more viable and thaere closer to realisation than Fuel cells. To my I see fuel cells as a waste of funds for now. People don't want to invest in new battery technologies because it does not sound as excitinf as fuel cells do. Leaving the battery industry stagnant for so long. More funding into battery research would yield greater benefits both for us and the environment. <p>