Posted on 06/02/2014 5:09:45 AM PDT by thackney
FUEL CELL TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM
https://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/fct_h2_fuelcell_factsheet.pdf
basic summary at the link
Which happens to be the number one greenhouse gas.
Hydrogen molecules are tiny and are going to leak constantly into the atmosphere, for example at the refueling point. Because hydrogen is lighter than all other atmospheric gasses it floats up into the sky where it then reacts with the ozone layer, eating it. Hydrogen may work for small scale projects but is never going to work as a mass market fuel.
To do that you are way beyond chemo/electrical and into atomics. So, it takes allot of hydrocarbons to equal atomics. Hydrocarbons are renewable, a point missed by most.
‘The next Big Q: will Toyota’s reputation for quality will help sales and speed the adoption of the technology, after all the only emissions are water vapor (H2O)’
I guess we can all look forward to the EPA declaring water vapor a greenhouse gas or some such bullhockey. If it works well the Feds will not allow it. Bear in mind they are intent on the destruction of the middle class and after they are done with us it will be the top 5%’s turn. Only the political true believers will be left unscathed to prosper, in this brave new world. IMHO.
‘I have been an advocate of hydrogen as a fuel for over forty years; either in a fuel cell or in an internal combustion engine’
I believe it will come down to a horse or shank’s mare. Since horses give off gases and solid waste the EPA will promptly make them illegal. I guess shank’s mare will soon be the only option, except of course for our government overseers.
In a fuel cell, the energy from making water from hydrogen and oxygen is converted instead into an electrical current, through an ion exchange. This exchange is made possible by the use of a catalyst, usually involving one or more metals in the platinum series on the periodic chart.
Here's why I say hydrogen is an energy-storage medium, not a fuel. There's ain't large deposits of hydrogen underground, like there are hydrocarbons. Since it takes energy to release hydrogen (reducing an acid with a metal isn't useful for the large amounts you need for powering cars), you're really just storing the energy used to release the hydrogen, and then releasing it later in the fuel cell as electricity.
I had a brain gear slip in my earlier post; I conflated steam reformation with the Fischer-Tropsch process (for making ammonia from natural gas and nitrogen). Sorry about that.
Today, if a piece passes the spell check, it’s good to go.
Most electric car batteries don't use lead and acid. They use lithium and an alkali electrolyte.
So, yeah, what are you going to do with all that lithium? Have to recycle it, I guess. It's valuable.
And lithium, like hydrogen (same column of periodic table) required lots of energy to liberate. Where does this energy come from? Natural gas, coal, and nuclear electricity.
Fuel cell vehicles ARE electric, just not battery electric.
Yes. That's another problem. Cryogenic tanks on board a car? What happens in a crash? Worse yet, highly pressurized H2 on board? In a crash, *****BOOOOOOM***** no more passengers.
Shifting costs and shifting blame is what commie-libs do best. Just like their electric cars have "zero emissions", their government-subsidized healthcare plan "bend the cost curve." My a$$ it does. Just another cost-shifting scheme.
Well, then you have been blinded for 40 years. Hydrogen is an energy-storage medium, not a fuel. Where can you drill for hydrogen? Even if you skim it off a gas giant, or the Sun, you need energy to compress it, cryogenically store it, and bring it back.
Hydrogen as a fuel is a fool's errand.
Agree 100%.
And the gas turbine is the most efficient engine to burn it in. Use that as an APU to generate electricity, and have an electronic "transmission" to motors on all 4 wheels, and NOW we're talking. That is more efficient than any piston engine. Of course, it has drawbacks, like anything: a giant spinning rotor at 50,000 RPM. But carbon-fiber shields have been made. It could be made to work, better than batteries or fuel cells powered by hydrogen.
Correct. And at 45 megajoules per kilogram, gasoline rules the energy density of any battery or fuel cell.
Strictly speaking tho, it's difficult to beat nitromethane-based power conversion...
Electrochemically, that is TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
Nuclear energy, in joules per kg, exceeds chemical energy density by an order of magnitude. Of course, it's radioactive, so that comes with some drawbacks. That's why the interest in low-energy nuclear reactions (read: cold fusion, though there are low-energy fission reactions, too).
OK, so how many of these fuel cells does it take to power a 4 door passenger car with the equivalent of a 4 cylinder 150 HP gas/diesel engine?
One day it will be economically feasible. It will probably begin with high end models to start with. GM was working on turbine cars back in the 50's. So it may not be that much in the future before the first production models become available.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.