Chrysler Announces Hydrogen Fuel Cell Van

Juanfe writes: "Chrysler group announced a concept vehicle called the Natrium, powered by a sodium borohydride (NaBH4) engine developed by Millenium Cell. NaBH4 can be made from sodium borate -- basic borax, used in laundry detergent. MilleniumCell is a US Company that, not surprisingly, has made strategic agreements with major borax purveyors in the US (which just happens to be thought of as the largest borax reserve in the world). Could this be the start of the end of big oil and the start of the start of big Borax?" superflippy points out that Chrysler's press release is related to the Electric Vehicle Association of the Americas (EVAA) Electric Transportation Industry Conference 2001.

Comments

More on Millennium Cell

[nyquist_theorem]

Not that I expect them to take on the Dubya's oil folks, but Yahoo's Market Guide has some interesting background on the company, Millennium Cell.

The article states that the process of charging up the borax produces pollution, though so does this not (for now) just represent the "make the pollution elsewhere" paradox of electric cars, whereby one uses coal-generated electricity to drive around instead of gasoline, substituting one fossil fuel's energy for another?

Re:More on Millennium Cell

[spanky555]

Great ideas, if they are great enough, can take on anyone - to take as an example something from a speech Guy Kawasaki made to a graduating class: companies that used to cut up ice and ship it worldwide used to flourish...and in some areas, it probably looked like a monopoly that could not be broken - but a paradigm shift occurred.

That all became obsolete when along comes a method to make ice anywhere, and at anytime - but the original companies were focused on the wrong things - better saws, etc., completely missing the point - guess who survived? Then the next paradigm shift came when refrigeration was used...in a free market, the best ideas will eventually win out - they just need to be packaged in the right way, have the right backing, marketed ad infinitum to get the average Joe to notice, etc. Another great example of a paradigm shift that greatly marginalized a former monopoly: IBM almost completely missed the PC boat. I don't really buy that an attractive idea can be held back by a company or group of companies for very long - if the idea is truly viable. If that were possible, IBM/Digital would have held back the PC, and forced consumers to keep buying expensive Big Iron and expensive proprietary terminal hardware, etc. Paradigm shifts happen. Once there is enough momentum, and mindshare, etc., they seem to almost explode with force and get adopted at a rapid pace. Sometimes, it happens almost independently - the phone, for example. Also cryptography and calculus - I think all of these were developed independently at nearly the same time - I doubt this is an accident. If inventors/thinkers/whatever are really "standing on the shoulders of giants" then there reaches a point where it seems like these kinds of things almost naturally fall out of the R&D process. I bet there is some chaos theory about this somewhere, but anyway. I just think it is highly possible we may be on the verge of another paradigm shift...it may take a few decades, but hey, it's a start.

I also won't deny that in many cases Big Brother and Big Oil or other such entites conspire(d) together to keep a certain product alive and well - a great example is diamonds - I don't know about any U.S. government involvement with that specifically, but diamond cartels have done a great job at making people think diamonds are rare or valuable. That's why government should stay, as much as possible, out of business dealings. Eventually, there will be corruption of the payoff type to provide protection for a certain product - campaign funds, lobbying, etc...in a truly free market, this would be kept to a minimum.

Why fuel cells?

[Rolo Tomasi]

I mean it's nice, but much too complicated and expensive. Why not use cheap, existing technology, i.e. combustion motors? They can be fueled by alcohol, methane and even hydrogen (BWM is already series-producing a hydrogen-fueled 750). We could have been driving on methane for decades, but the fact is, the oil companies have a lot to say in most governments, and without fuel, even the most high-tech car is useless.

It's all about the distribution

[wandernotlost]

The biggest problem with this approach is the distribution. Unfortunately, nobody really seems to give a rat's ass about the environment, so they'd rather buy a car that pollutes the air but can use gasoline available at every other street corner than take the risk of having to drive an extra 3 blocks to the new sodium borohydride station. Hell, you can buy a VW Jetta TDI (Turbo Direct Injection, diesel fuel, like you can't get that anywhere) that gets twice the gas mileage of the GLX (unleaded) version, pollutes less, and has performance comparable to their lower end gas models. You don't see the roads filled with TDIs, do you?

Even if you could convince people to buy the cars, none of the gas stations will want to take on the expense of converting to the new stuff in the first place.

A solution won't fly unless it's cheaper, easier, AND performs better than what people have now. Unless, of course, Microsoft's marketing people have at it.

Source of hydrogen...

[boopus]

The interesting thing about this article is not that they're selling a fuel cell based car, it's that they seem to have come up with a way to actualy power the fuel cell. For years we have been talking about hydrogen powered fuel cells "that's only byproduct is air and water", while ignoring the large amounts of energy needed to extract the most abundant elemet from the universe. Traditional hydrogen generation uses energy that (surprise) comes mostly from fossil fuels. If they've found a way to use borax instead of fossil fuels, I'll be very impressed.

Unless they've altered the laws of physics, it will still take energy to do this "recharging" of borax that the article talks about, but hopefully this can be more effient than todays batteries, and will at least provide an alternative to oil that does not pollute the air.

It's all about _Regulation_

[Company Man]

1. Being in the auto industry myself... I've formed a few opinions.

1. While consumers drive the introduction of new technology in the auto indusry (i.e., demanding diesel engines because of better gas mileage vs. sticking with good 'ol unleaded because you can get it anywhere), consumers don't even have access to many of the technologies developed by auto companies because our regulatory environment hasn't changed significantly enough to justify the cost of a full launch. That is, lots of great ideas end up sitting unfinished on the drawing board because their projects are killed when the suits don't see a high enough return on their investment based on current conditions (i.e., gov't regulations).

1. To a large extent, the US government uses CAFE standards and other regulations as barriers to entry for more advanced foreign competitors. If GM or Ford were able to beat Honda and Toyota to market with environmentally friendly technology, we would see environmental regulations tighten much faster.

1. As for now, the US auto companies are squeezing the light truck market for what its worth... and devoting little real attention (e.g., attention that produces vehicles/features that actually make it to market) to fuel economy. And until the Big 2.5 make a quantum leap past Japan in time to market with new technology or the US government tightens regulations, we'll continue to see Navigators and Escalades on the roads and dealer lots. The Chrysler soap-box derby machines will scarcely see the outside of auto shows for quite some time.

This is just a fuel tank

[Animats]

This is just another way to store hydrogen. It doesn't make hydrogen. It doesn't make electricity from hydrogen. It's a tankage system for Ballard Power System fuel cells.

The usual issues apply: finding a source for hydrogen, keeping the storage system and fuel cell from crudding up, and getting the system weight and cost down to manageable levels.

It's still at the "concept car" stage.

Re:Energy

[Zachary Kessin]

There are a few ways in which electric cars reduce polution:

1) They generaly don't use any power when they are at idle. So when you are stiting in trafic at least you are not using power.

2) A large Gas-Turbine plant (Running what is basicly a Jet engine) can be more efficant that a Otto engine in a car. For one thing it does not have to go anywhere, and probably gets better maintinace.

And ofcourse it moves the polution to somewhere else. But it would be good if we used less Coal.

On the other had air polution has gone way down over the last 100 years. In 1905 or so My Great grandfather left London where he had go to from Russia because of all the polution from everyone burning coal for heat and cooking.

Dangerous X "made from" innocuous Y

[jet_silver]

Every time I see a "X made from Y" I think of

-Guncotton is made from wood chips
-Sodium cyanide is made from salt
-Hydrochloric acid is made from salt
-Carbon monoxide is made from coal and air

NaBH4 is -nasty- stuff. You don't want to touch it, it will take the water right out of your skin. You don't want water near it until you want the hydrogen. It -burns-, too.

Probably less dangerous than gasoline, but it is NOT as innocuous as laundry detergent.

Slightly off topic - Hybrid Cars

[Embedded Geek]

I'm dubious about fuel cells for the same reason electrics haven't caught on - the infastructure to refuel at a public "gas station" isn't there (as many /.ers have pointed out). My wife and I have been looking at an alternative: A hybrid car.

We were leaning towards Toyota's Prius, although Honda makes one too (the Insight, I believe). Can't speak for Honda, but Toyota is very serious about this, selling them cheap at about $25K (and you get to deduct $2000 on your Federal income taxes. Some states give you incentives, too). Obviously, they're hoping to make it up on market share (not like the dot-coms, I hope!) and maintenance. We test drove one and it was nice, with the pickup of a small V6, but it was uncanilly quiet -- your brain thinks you're coasting even when you're cruising or accelerating slightly. AT 50+ MPG and the tax deductions, we were hoping to come out ahead instead of maintaining our '94 Corolla.

...until our company laid my wife off. Damn recession. Still, the Prius is a pretty cool car. ;)

NABH4 is NOT super safe

[chriscmp]

Check out this MSDS

And I'm still not sure where we're going to get all that hydrogen. In the US most of it is made with steam reformation of Natural Gas. This releases all the C02 from the methane into the atmosphere, and isn't particularly efficient either. Creating H2 with electricity is also possible but highly inefficient even when compared to the lowly lead-acid battery. Finally, where do we get our electricity from?... Oil and Coal. Back to where we started from. Watch out for the shell game folks!!!!

Still we have to do something about our oil gluttony. I think some better fuel efficiency standards would probably be the best thing.

yes, it is possible

[Tom Giventer]

Upgrade kits aren't available yet, AFAIK, but are certainly possible. (Here's a golden oportunity for aftermarket car part companies!).

1) converting a carburator-equipped conventional car:

remove gas tank, gas filter, carburator;
replace with Hydrogen-on-demand unit with special adapter to replace carb with catlyst unit.

2) converting a fuel-injected conventional car:

remove gas tank, gas filter, fuel-injector system;
replace with Hydrogen-on-demand unit with special fuel injectors that handle hydrogen. The Electronic Control Unit would probably also have to be modified or replaced.

3) converting an electric car:

remove batteries, replace with Hydrogen-on-demand unit and fuel cells.

Re:Get over 'Dubya's Oil folks' stuff

[joedoc]

Who says they aren't? Maybe they'd be tumbling even lower by now. It's not all in the hands of the White House anyway, but they sure do try to do their part to help out the oil biz.

The idea that's it inherently wrong to support fuel energy producers/distributors is insane on it's face, no matter who the president might be. The fact that GWB's family was in the oil business just makes it seem...errr...suspicious.

We all need to face one fact: until the energy needs of this nation are met in some other way, consistently and inexpensively, we will need oil to keep our economy moving at any pace.

All one has to do is consider, just for a mmoment, the inability of this nations's infrastructure to obtain the fuel necessary to transport goods and people (planes, traines and automobiles) and provide the electrical power to just survive in some basic fashion. That includes keeping food cold and fresh, keeping people on life-support systems alive, keeping our schools and job sites lit and, and allowing all of us here to sit on our arses and submit this stuff.

One can blindly blame the support of some politician towards oil companies for the lack of movement in developing new fuel sources. What I don't hear in this space is how the pressure from envionmental groups have nearly forced us into the dark ages, destroying our ability to build and operate nuclear power plants in this nation, the use of which would have gone a long way to reduce our need for fossil fuel.

Yes, I know the down side to that concept, especially in regards to disposal. But, we've come a long way technologically since the early days of nuke power, and there are other civilized nations (France, for example) who have been using it safely for nearly 40 years. Politicians in this nation are so frightened of the envionmental groups that they dare not breathe a word of support, lest they be accused of creating another China Syndrome or Chernoybl. Which is what 90% of this country views as the reality of nuke power, anyway.