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

End of Big Oil?

[Bonker]

Hardly...

The U.S. auto industry and the U.S. oil industry are so tight that work has been slowed or delayed for decades on all-electric cars.

While this fuel-cell uses borax derivatives, I would be willing to bet money that any production fuel-cell based vehicles deployed in the U.S. use hydrocarbon-based cells. They're not going to let you just stop filling up every week, after all.

Re:End of Big Oil?

[DerekLyons]

The U.S. auto industry and the U.S. oil industry are so tight that work has been slowed or delayed for decades on all-electric cars.

Sadly, no. The EV and Fuel Cell folks have continuously shot *themselves* in the foot by insisting that the EV/FC will instantly replace existing automobiles rather than finding a niche and growing from there. Poor planning, poor marketing, it kills 'real world' companies as much as it does dot-bombs.

Re:End of Big Oil?

[hawk]

> The U.S. auto industry and the U.S. oil industry are so tight that
> work has been slowed or delayed for decades on all-electric cars.

uh-huh.

You left out "black helicopters," "pough carbuetor," and "trilateral commission" . . .

:)

hawk

Re:End of Big Oil?

[Surak]

I've worked in the U.S. auto industry for nearly 3 years now, and having been born, raised and living in the Detroit area most of my life, the auto industry has been a big part of my existence.

I can tell you that the U.S. auto industry and the U.S. oil industry are hardly in cahoots. The biggest problem is that the companies working on alternative fuel vehicles/electric vehicles/fuel cell vehicles basically keep screwing themselves over.

One problem is that they develop a technology, spending billions of dollars. As soon as it's proven that they can't make cars that are affordable or practical to the general populace, they scrap it and start over, rather than introducing the vehicles to certain niche market segments, learning from that and making improvements, all the while collecting revenue from the people and companies that are buying the vehicles.

Another problem is that they're too worried and too wrapped up in trying to make a vehicle that can be produced by existing manufacturing techniques. The car comapanies don't want to spend the required billions to completely retool all their factories to produce a different product.

Of course you know what the funny thing is? The car companies completely retool their factories every few years ANYWAY and spend those billions ANYWAY, because their current method of designing and building tooling pretty much involves this: if there is a change in the body style (for instance), no matter how insignificant, START OVER and redesign and rebuild the tool FROM SCRATCH. Really. I've worked with the tooling companies for years, trust me. :)

Shhh! Don't tell the car company execs that! They think they have billions invested in their current manufacturing techniques and that they haven't changed in years, when in fact they get completely overhauled every few years.

The car companies really have no loyalties to the oil industry. They're whores. They'll do anything to sell vehicles. And they KNOW that they must develop fuel cell technologies and make them so that they are affordable and practical for the everyday person. Otherwise, they face extinction. I've seen their business plans, and they definitely involve exploring every technology possible, be it borax-derivative fuel cells, solar power, wind power, ethanol, batteries, other technologies. Whatever it takes.

An article from 4 years ago

[Harumuka]

There's an article from '97 describing Chrystler's idea for the hydrogen cell fuel car. Interesting to compare their predictions and the result four years later. Quite thought-provoking.

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

[Dyolf Knip]

The article states that the process of charging up the borax produces pollution, though so does this not 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?

I'm assuming that you are only referring to pollution from generating power to generate hydrogen to run the reaction, not the reaction itself.

In which case, I will point out the huge differences between the little generator in your car and the big generator downtown. The little one must be lightwieght and portable. It has to have a power-to-weight ratio sufficient to cruise itself around town. I don't know about you but I have yet to see a 200MW power station tooling around on the interstate!

Furthermore, not every country thinks fossil fuels are wonderful like the US. France, for all their other shortcomings, generates most of their power with nuclear fuels. Much cleaner than coal. Furthermore, You can use things like that nifty solar chimney going up down under. True solar powered cars are a joke, but if the car charges off the grid and the grid were powered by solar (or hydro, or wind, or tides, or...) then wouldn't that be a very clean car indeed?

There is no such thing as an 'oil company'

[rebelcool]

At least, not anymore.

Being the clever industry they are, the oil companies LONG ago realized they were dependent on a limited resource. Indeed, the reserves wouldnt make it out of the 21st century.

Hence they all now refer to themselves as 'energy companies', and work with all sorts of things, not just oil.

Its in their best interests that things start moving off fossil fuels, given their limited supply, and people move onto things like hydrogen, which is pretty damn common. And they know this.

You'll still be getting your fuel from them in 20 years...it just might not be gasoline anymore.

Ballard Power Systems

[slave2technology]

It looks like the actual fuel cell used is made by Ballard Power Systems. From Millenium's home page: "We have a joint development agreement with Ballard Power Systems, initiated in October 2000, to further develop our hydrogen generation system for use with Ballard's portable power fuel cell products."

Millenium makes the system that turns the sodium borohydride into hydrogen, then Ballard's fuel cell turns the hydrogen into electricity.

I want one.

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

[nyquist_theorem]

Have I seen gas prices in the United States lately? Hell no. I'm nowhere near your country, nor am I a citizen of it. I am, however, aware enough of international politics (and your domestic politics) to understand just how connected your President is to the oil industry both domestically and internationally.

Are you trying to suggest that the present depression in US gas pricing provides any evidence for or against the suggestion that US President Bush is involved in the oil business?

To attempt to drag this stuff back on topic and away from Republican American ethnocentrism, let me try this:

I would humbly suggest that this venture will face significant opposition from the traditional energy (nee oil) companies.

You're right tho, facts don't get points unless they're relevant or related to the discussion. Otherwise we could all get our 50 karma by posting mathematics formulae, now couldn't we?

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 will change the industry forever!

[jjeffries]

For example, engine output power will now be rated in scores of mule teams.

Safe? Nope

[SpacePunk]

Here's a couple of links.

http://espi-metals.com/msds's/sodiumborohydride. pd f

http://physchem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/SO/sodium_borohydr id e.html

Here's what the article says about Sodium Borohydride...

"To solve those problems, Chrysler's system stores hydrogen in sodium borohydride powder, which is nonflammable and nontoxic"

Here's what the data sheets say...

"Stable, but reacts readily with water (reaction may be violent). Incompatible with water, oxidising agents, carbon dioxide, hydrogen halids, acids, palladium, ruthenium and other metal salts, glass. Flammable solid. Air-sensitive."

"Toxic by ingestion. Risk of serious internal burns if ingested. Harmful if inhaled and in contact with skin. May cause burns or severe irritation in contact with skin or eyes.
Toxicity data
(The meaning of any abbreviations which appear in this section is given here.)
ORL-RAT LD50 89 mg kg-1
SKN-RBT LD50 4000 mg kg-1
IPR-RAT LD50 18 mg kg-1

Risk phrases
(The meaning of any risk phrases which appear in this section is given here.)
R15 R25 R34."

Looks to me like big business is full of shit yet again.

-

k5 is still down I see.

[On Lawn]

The U.S. auto industry and the U.S. oil industry are so tight that work has been slowed or delayed for decades on all-electric cars.

This makes a good story for movies in need of a bad buy but I've not seen any reason to believe it. As a matter of fact, no one in the industry (except the water injected carburator guy thats been in urban lore since the 40's), has ever accused big oil of maligning or hedging their work.

Its time to get out of fantasy land and into real life. Theres to many problems that need solving to get worked up over movie plots.

While this fuel-cell uses borax derivatives, I would be willing to bet money that any production fuel-cell based vehicles deployed in the U.S. use hydrocarbon-based cells

Its possible that this is a notion of the past. However, hydrocarbon fuel cells are non-puluting to California standards. So, I have no problem with it. After all, the energy has to come from somewhere no matter what transport agent is used.

Dubious distinction

["Zow"]

the US (which just happens to be thought of as the largest borax reserve in the world).

Humm, I had no idea we were viewed this way by the rest of the world. . .

"Hi, I'm from the United States."

"Oh, yes, big land of Borax!"

"Well, um, sure, I guess. . ."

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.

Re:Huge water tank?

[spiral]

>So does this mean you need a huge water tank?

Um, just follow the reaction:

NaBH4 + 2 H2O ----> 4 H2 + NaBO2

Now, burn the H2:

4 H2 + 2 O2 ----> 4 H2O

So, we end up with MORE water than we started with. The other point to consider is that the conversion process is happening on the demand. You don't convert the entire tank of NaBH4 into H2 instantly, that would defeat then entire idea of "storing" the hydrogen.

Is it worse than Gasoline?

[jcr]

I don't see anything you've cited that indicates that the stuff is likely to blow up in a wreck. Gasoline is toxic, too, especially here in California where the air-quality geniuses have demanded that it include the carcinogenic MTBE.

I'd also point out that you don't often encounter palladium, ruthenium and other metal salts on your daily commute.

-jcr

We should constantly verify our perceptions...

[neibwe]

Unlike some other conspiracies, the automobile/oil industry ones have some interesting history. I'd say it's more like interesting food for though, and it's not from some paranoid kook either --I'm not one to believe in paranoid conspiracies, new age cures, faith healing, visits from intelligent extra-terrestrials, mysticism, etcetera. I do however believe in sunshine (anti-backroom) laws, fair competition (through iron handed regulation if necessary, and good public policy.

Michael Parenti in Democracy for the Few (6th Ed.)[1] writes about some disturbing observations. The energy frugality of mass-transit was so "undesirable" to the oil and auto industries" that "[f]or over a half-century their response has been to undermine th nation's rail and electric-bus system."

The undermining of Los Angeles's 1935 "75-mile radius" "3,000 quiet, pollution-free electric trains [carrying"80 million people a year" was carried out by:

"General Motors and[emph. mine] Standard Oil, using dummy corporations as fronts [through which they] purchased the system, crapped its electric cards, tore down its transmission lines, and placed GM buses fueled by Standard Oil...By 1955, 88 percent of nation's electric streetcar network had been eliminated by collaborators like GM, Standard Oil, Greyhound, and Firestone. In short time, they cut back city and suburban bus services, forcing people to rely increasingly on private cars. In 1949, General Motors was found guilty of conspiracy[emph. mine] in these activities and fined the devestating sum of $5,000."[23]

He follows up with the influence of cars, extended references of death rates --"2x accumulated number of Americans killed in all the wars ever fought by the United States"", urban air pollution, massive automobile land use, "$300 billion annual subsid[ies]", while "...mass transit--the most efficient, cleanest, and safest form of transporting goods and people" is abandoned. (p. 106)

I believe the money used "to subsidize automobile use" can be viewed, from one perspective, as an example of an economic freeloader. As auto companies undermine mass transit, thus using public dollars (which they only pay a fraction of) to fund expensive automobile public infrastructure.

I particularly like how he states that "[g]iven the absence of alternative mods of transportatoin, people become dependent on the automobile as a way of life so that their need for cars is often as real as their need for jobs." The economic burden of autos is pretty high for most americans. It's not like a $1000 tv, or $300 bike. It's a monthy loan payment, and then it's a bi-annual insurance payment, and finally its massive social/tax/healthcare cost from the "46,000 people killed" and "2,000,000 people injured" in traffic accidents. It makes wonder if the Segway could make a dent into this automobile entity we all have to live with?[24][25]

_____ >Parenti's footnotes<
23. Jonathan Kwitny, "The Great Transportation Conspiracy,"in Cargan and Ballantin (eds.), Sociological Footprints, 2nd ed. (Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1982)
24. Bureau of Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States 1992 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1992); Andrew Kimbrell, "Car Culture: Driving Ourselves Crazy,"Washington Post September 3, 1989. Kimbrell notes that fatality statistics may be too low since they do not include deaths that occur several days after accidents or off-road.[2] he points out that motor vehicles kill easily one million animals each day, making road kills second only to the meat industry. More deer are killed by cars than by hunters.[3]
25. Kimbrell, "Car Culture" >/Parenti's footnotes<

_____
1. "a major voice among political progressives"...Ph.D from Yale...lectures frequently at college campuses across the country." --[from back cover]
2. My grandfather died because of accident related complications =(
3. Animal rights activists will have a hard time stopping consumers from driving though, considering how car ownership is ingrained. And/or how convenient it is.