Fuel cells: is the future now?

www.fleetequipmentmag.com ^ | 01-19-2011 | By Carol Birkland

[Hodar]

Well, water is the most common molecule on our planet, and water is H2O. However, the energy required to liberate the Hydrogen from the water is very high - so we usally consider that Hydrogen as 'bound'. It takes more energy to break the atom free, from what we get for it.

Knowing this, effort is expended to liberate Hydrogen from molecules that are much more losely bound. That's why we burn gasoline in our cars instead of water. The hydrogen in gas, diesel and other fuels is much easier to liberate than in water.

So, yes the Hydrogen in water is 'free'; but you spend >$10 in energy getting it liberated for the $1 you get out of it.

[norwaypinesavage]

"The most sensible solution is to co-generate hydrogen from water with the huge amount of unused electricity generated by nuclear power plants."

All of the nuclear plants in the US today are running 24/7/365 with just a short downtime for refueling. The priority for trimming power goes windmills first, then hydro, natural gas, coal, and finally nuclear. It has to do with ease of dumping excess power. Where is this "huge amount excess nuclear power" you speak of?

[Dr. Thorne]

Statement World's 1st "green" Class 8 Truck

Zero emissions
Zero CO2
Zero Fossil Fuels
Zero Noise Pollution
Zero Carbon Footprint

Presentation - Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach
Vehicle - Hydrogen powered Tyrano
Status - Pre-Production Prototype vehicle. Demonstrations in Q4 2010
Weight - 80,000 lbs (GVW)
Propulsion - Electric Drive with Hydrogen Fuel Cell
Fuel / Storage - 20 to 40 Kg of Gaseous Hydrogen
Range - Standard drayage range: 200 miles over 8 hour shift. Extended range: 400 miles over 8 hour shift.
Horsepower - 400-536 hp
Torque - 3,200-3,300 lbs.-ft. available. Torque is electronically limited to the maximum transmission torque input.

Source, link www.visionmotorcorp.com
Financial $40,000 Federal tax credit, state incentives avaiable
Contact: sales@visionindustriescorp.com

[thackney]

There is not unused power from nuclear power plants. They are base loaded plants.

[norwaypinesavage]

"You are confusing a Hydrogen engine, with a Fuel Cell."

Actually, YOU are confusing a practical fuel cell with an ideal fuel cell. There are a number of challenges of producing a fuel cell that can be used by the general public. Remember Apollo 13? Its problems were all because of a faulty fuel cell. There are many serious issues to solve before a fuel cell can receive, store and deliver as much energy as a 20 gallon fuel tank.

[Hodar]

Granted, there are issues to be solved.

However, as we solve them - we will find that we may wind up getting 2x as much energy out of that same 20 gallon fuel tank, as we presently get today.

Personally, I believe we have pushed the internal combustion engine about as far as we can go. The Fuel Cell (and there are 22 models that I’m aware of) can use a wide variety of fuels. Obviously, the ‘cleanest’ would use Hydrogen - but, this does technology does appear to be a worthwhile investment.

What is going to be an unfortunate, but time tested and proven method - is the Gov’t leading the way. NASA did an admirable job, back in their heyday. The spinoff technologies they created more than paid for the investment.

I’d like to see the military use funding to do research on this. Get tanks that can double their range between refueling, where the supply lines we need could be farther apart, or have a reduced amount of fuel they would have to carry. If a tank went to a 200 mile range, instead of 75 miles - this would extend our fighting capabilties.

I am not a fan of Hydrogen Fuel Cells. Strapping two pressurized bombs under my family, then driving down the highway seems too dangerous for serious consideration. The tanks I have seen are 8 ft long SCUBA type tanks - pressurized to 3000psi. Not counting the flamability, even if it were just air - 3000 psi released in a collision will be explosive and will likely kill the occupants simply from the shock wave.

[fight_truth_decay]

Question:How will the CA H2 Net be funded?

Initial risks and investments will be shared between industry and government through a public-private partnership. Specific mechanisms for funding will be developed in conjunction with the Legislature.

The current pace to develop hydrogen-fueled vehicles and products is hindered by the need to solve the so-called “chicken-or-egg” question: which should come first, commercialization of vehicles that run on hydrogen, or building of the fueling stations that dispense it? Who should take the initial risk with expanded investments: hydrogen producers or vehicle manufacturers? What is the appropriate role of the government? Past experience with clean, alternative fuels in California has helped answer these questions: the early risks must be shared in order for a technology to progress. -CA H2 NET BLUEPRINT PLAN

And we know Calforina HAS NO MONEY!!!so..

Department of Energy did in Dec. 2010 launch a $74 million funding program to support R&D of fuel cell technologies for stationary and transportation applications.

The conversion from gasoline-powered internal combustion engines to hydrogen powered combustion engines is agreed upon by most scientists and engineers to be a particularly easy transition.- Source

President Bush when he was in office allocated approximately $2 billion in hydrogen highway research funds. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was pushing to get 200 hydrogen filling stations built by 2010 stretching from Vancouver, British Columbia, all the way down to Baja, California (but has fallen short of this goal because of a poor economy and lack of political will).

Entrephreneurs: The United States is currently home to major fuel cell manufacturers and start-ups, fuel providers, as well as hundreds of component suppliers and end users involved at one point or another on the development and manufacturing spectrum. Fuel Cells 2000 estimates that there are more than 630 active companies and laboratories in states involved in the fuel cell and related fuels industry, investing an estimated $1 billion a year.

We need NEW industry and jobs--who am not to say this won't be another form of industrial revolution like our last Telecom/Internet revolution which the US is the best at [Apple, Google... etc]?

..or we can just drill for some more oil someplace and/or remain dependent. However, I suspect oil/gas products will still be around, they not going anywhere.

[fight_truth_decay]

Correction: Calforina ? California..sorry

[Prokopton]

There is not unused power from nuclear power plants. They are base loaded plants.

It is true that most nuclear power plants are base loaded precisely because if they were designed for peak load they would not be able to easily "throttle down" and would produce excess power. Because of this, utilities must have additional, less efficient power plants to add power to the nuclear plant when load is greater than base. If a nuclear plant was built in conjunction with a hydrogen production plant, the nuclear plant could be built to efficiently provide peak power without any additional generation from other plants necessary, and when off peak, which is most the time, the excess power could be used to produce hydrogen.

[e_castillo]

“India’s leading automaker, Tata Motors”

Darn. The call center business must have been very good to them. Must be nice to have so much money.

[#1CTYankee]

I work at UTC Power, (which is mentioned in the article) we have been making fuel cells for cars and buses for years, they are very efficient and cost prohibitive. Federal and state funding are the only way we can sell these and make any money is with these tax payer substitutes.

We also sell 400 KW fuel cells for business and residential use, they are cost prohibitive even with state and federal grants.

The hydrogen used to fuel the buses sold here in Connecticut is purchased form Praxair, the hydrogen is hydroelectrically produced at Niagara Falls and trucked to the fueling station at our facility in South Windsor.

The 400 KW fuel cell cracks the hydrogen from natural gas, the byproduct is CO2, water and heat. The efficiency is much greater(up to 90%) than grid delivered electricity and allows the excess power to be sent back to the grid and sold back at the wholesale price.

Our biggest customers are the "green" countries overseas, their governments are financing these power generating facilities since they view them as much more green than oil or coal.

As the price of oil rises these power plants will eventually become cost effective and no longer require Government subsidies to generate sales.
The whole thing is at present nothing more than a delusion of the greens and the left, it does whoever keep me employed and so I keep my opinions to myself and hope we can generate enough sales to keep me employed

BTW ,the buses and cars use PEM technology and the power plants utilize phosphoric acid.

Warning advance,any replies to this post need to be kept on a very limited technical level, I am not an engineer.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

How does stripping hydrocarbon fuels of their hydrogen to make the hydrogen fuel, make this a “Zero fossil fuels” and “Zero C02” vehicle, since one of he massive reactions to making the fuel is CO2? And the base requirement to make the fuel is Oil or Natural Gas.

Oh, and what do we do with the “leftovers”? We are therefore wasting the energy that Oil offers, spending more energy to break down the oil to make just a fraction of the energy that barrel of oil produces.

In other words, Pixy Dust Technology, cutting our noses off to spite our face.

[BuddhaBrown]

“Tata Motors”....”hee hee hee hee”.

Yes, I too was picturing the stripper with the little electric fans glued to her nipples.

[#1CTYankee]

“Tata Motors”....”hee hee hee hee”.

Tata toured our factory about a year ago, not sure if that was possible development of fuel cells for their cars or off loading business overseas, I'm guessing the prior since we have developed fuel cells for hyundai, toyota, BMW and others.