Slashdot Mirror
Fuel Cell Car Goes Cross-Country
person-0.9a writes "CNN is currently running a story about Daimler-Chrysler's fuel-cell concept car completing a trek across America. The CNN article is more about the trip, but details about the vehicle can be found here."
I keep hearing about "safety concerns" in connection with hydrogen fuel cells, which is fair enough. But is there any real test data available? Have these fuel-cell designs been subjected to the the same kind of destructive testing (drive into a concrete wall at 50kph etc) as normal cars, or are these 'concept cars' too precious to ram into a wall just to see if they do blow up?
I guess the local bums will move away from hanging around the supermarket, and move to the gas stations now.
Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
According to the International Energy Agency, global oil production is set to peak in 2014. For many years now, researchers around the world have been striving to develop alternative methods of propulsion to ensure that mankind remains mobile irrespective of the state of the world's oil supplies. Some of the most promising reports from the field come from research engineers at DaimlerChrysler, who are intending to have a fuel cell auto ready for series production by 2004. The best thing about this item of news is that this car of the future will be every kilowatt as powerful as the ones we drive today, every bit as comfortable and just as much fun to drive.
The facts
To prove their point about the serviceability of fuel cell automobiles, DaimlerChrysler have now built NECAR (New Electric Car) 5. In this Mercedes-Benz A-Class the propulsion system fits neatly inside the sandwich floor, without compromising either seating or
luggage capacity. NECAR 5's 55 kW/75 bhp motor gives it a top speed of over 90 mph and a range of several hundred miles before it has to take more methanol on board.
In the global race to be first to market with a fully serviceable standard production fuel cell model, NECAR can safely be said to be leading the field. "We're aiming for market leadership in this sector as well," says Jürgen E. Schrempp, Chairman of the Board of Management of DaimlerChrysler. "We've got the technology on our side, we're securing the industrial property rights, and we're creating new jobs." At DaimlerChrysler and its partner companies in this venture, over a thousand people are already working flat out on the fuel cell project in Germany alone.
The technology of fuel cell propulsion
In NECAR 5, DaimlerChrysler is banking on the methanol fuel cell - one of several options for passenger car applications. It helps to imagine a fuel cell as a kind of miniature on-board power station, generating the electric current that ultimately powers the car, and there are different ways of operating these power plants. Fuel cells need oxygen, which they obtain from the surrounding air, and hydrogen. So one option is to fit the vehicle with hydrogen tanks. The result is a zero emission vehicle with just water vapor coming out of its exhaust.
Although methanol cannot quite compete in an ecological life cycle assessment with hydrogen generated by solar power, there are good reasons for using this compound as a source of hydrogen for the fuel cell. Emission levels are far lower than with even the most eco-friendly of internal combustion engines, and emissions of pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and soot particulates drop to almost zero.
Compared with an internal combustion engine, overall emissions of carbon dioxide can be reduced by thirty percent, and if the methanol is generated from renewable resources such as biomass, organic raw materials or waste wood, then the overall cycle leads to no additional carbon dioxide being created at all. Today tests are already under way at a plant near Cottbus in Germany aiming to generate 100,000 tons of methanol a year from domestic waste.
Given the variety of ways of producing methanol, the automotive sector would no longer be dependent on the oil-producing countries. And we could finally put a stop to the enormous waste of energy currently practised at oilfields around the world. Instead of flaring off the natural gas which is a by-product of oil production, it could be converted into liquid methanol on site by relatively simple technical means. The American Methanol Institute estimates that if just one-tenth of the flared-off natural gas were to be converted into methanol it would be enough to power some ten million vehicles.
The fact that, even in the long term, adequate volumes of methanol can be produced from a number of different raw materials at low cost is not the only argument in its favor. For unlike liquid hydrogen, methanol can be transported, stored, distributed and handled in much the same way as gasoline or diesel. The only difference a driver would notice when filling up would be the sign saying 'methanol' on the fuel pump. That said, providing a market-wide supply infrastructure for methanol will still call for substantial investment. It is not just a case of rinsing out empty gasoline tanks and tankers and filling them with methanol. The problem is that methanol is more aggressive than either gasoline or diesel - too aggressive for today's tanks, fuel lines and sealants. Aluminum fuel tanks, for example, would have to be replaced with stainless steel ones. But for all the cost involved, the total investment required remains realistic and with the conversion measures in place, it would be 'business as usual' for most of the existing network of filling stations.
The NECAR 5 - tried and tested
According to Professor Klaus-Dieter Vöhringer, the Member of DaimlerChrysler's Board of Management responsible for Research and Technology, methanol has so many practical advantages that he is expecting to see the methanol fuel cell make the breakthrough into series production. "In terms of the technology on board, NECAR 5 is effectively a prototype of the cars that we could be bringing to market maturity in just a few years' time. Our next task at hand is to build test fleets to bring the technology to full readiness for series production. We need to focus on developing the production technology for the various components and bringing costs down to an acceptable level."
One important step down the road to this goal takes the shape of a large-scale project that DaimlerChrysler initiated in California. The California Fuel Cell Partnership is a joint venture involving a number of automakers and public institutions as well as representatives of the oil and energy sectors.
From now until 2003, project engineers will be testing more than fifty fuel cell vehicles in everyday use. DaimlerChrysler alone will have fifteen vehicles on test, with the latest NECAR due to cover some 25,000 miles in the next three years on the streets of California to check out and improve its serviceability.
Clearly, the fuel cell car has made the transition from an object of research to a development project. Now it's up to the developers to teach this infant to walk. But instead of closing the file on the fuel cell, the researchers have turned their attention to the next-but-one generation of fuel cell vehicles.
At the end of last year, a young DaimlerChrysler researcher by the name of Jens Thomas Müller made a striking impression at a research symposium by zipping around the congress hall in a softly humming go-kart. Although the kart itself was nothing very special to look at, it demonstrated for the first time that a direct methanol fuel cell was in principle capable of powering a vehicle. For in this version of the fuel cell, there is no need to reform the methanol into hydrogen - and this could be where the future of fuel cell propulsion.
To quote the interesting bit from the original story, "The scheme is backed by DaimlerChrysler, which will build the first buses, together with energy giant Royal Dutch Shell and Norwegian industrial group Norsk Hydro."
In case some readers haven't realised, this is the car!
"Even under optimistic predictions, fuel cell vehicles won't be mass-produced until 2010."
Won't this be a little late? Considering the dramatic climate change that's already taking place, I don't know if another 8 years is an option, considering George W.'s disgusting energy policy.
Let's hope better alternative energy sources appear sooner, rather than later.
Last year, DCX was driving a directly powered hydrogen car all around Germany, but you never hear anything more about it.
From what I remember, the car used liquified hydrogen and achieved normal speeds and fairly comparable mileage to gasoline. The only issue was keeping the liquid hydrogen cold.
Initial rear-end crash tests on this car showed that this wasn't any more dangerous than gasoline nor more explosive.
"The Bush administration launched a partnership with domestic automakers in January to develop a system of hydrogen refueling stations and spur the growth of hydrogen fuel cells."
:-)
Considering Bush's background, I think this is interesting. A+ for him. I would say "commendable", but really it's just "sensible". The positive connotations of "commendable" only make sense given low expectations.
- learn mathematics - shoot dope -
Even though this car produces no pollution, what about the two SUVs and a van carrying replacement parts and tools accompanying it?
-- We don't understand software, and sometimes we don't understand hardware, but we can *see* the blinking lights
The article should have said something about the oil companies. I'll bet that most major oil-drilling companies will fight fuel cells with all they've got.
I am well aware that not all oil is made into gasolin and that some fuelcells can convert gasolin and that they could use the excess gas (which comes up with the oil) to power the cells. I am also well aware that it is posible through cracking to reduse the raw oil to more usable components.
Still the oil companies would suffer serious losses and so would some oil dependant contries. This might in turn lead to I price war where oil companies would subsidize traditional cars (especially american motors which uses way too much gas compared to their effect.) The fuel cell cars would then have few economical advantages over gas cars. Who would subsidize them? Green Peace?
Look a monkey!
Other problems will keep the technology from reaching the mass market for at least a decade, experts say, including onboard storage of flammable hydrogen, reliability, durability and cost.
DaimlerChrysler plans to have 30 fuel cell buses working in 10 European cities next year. Ford Motor Co. has a fuel cell Focus, aided by a battery for acceleration, that it plans to lease for fleet customers in early 2004.
So why the heck will take another 10 years to reach mass market? Are they saying that these buses and fleet cars are unreliable, expensive, and ready to blow up?
Well it's interesting technology, but unfortunatly it's been overtaken by events. First of all it's been reported recently that oil supplies will not run out in the near future, possibly not at all, as it's likely that oil is not in fact a "fossil fuel" but remains of methane spread throughout the earth. And secondly it's becoming increasing clear that the environmental issues are just hype and disguised anti-capitalist rants and have little basis in fact. There is in increasing amount of evidence that so called global warming does not exist
The European standards body that does this stuff has its results here and one to note is the abysmal results on this MPV. I quote The Voyager did so badly in the frontal impact that it earned no points, making it the worst of the group by some margin. The body structure became unstable and the steering column was driven back into the driver's chest and head.
So while there may be concerns about these cars if all cars had to get decent scores in these tests that it would ensure that everyone was safe. As it is the gap between the worst and the best is enough to make the fuel inside it only one of the considerations in safety.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
For those of you who don't already know, GM has shown a concept car called AUTOnomy which is fuel-cell-powered too, but has a bunch of other interesting features.
Except there is no evidence of auto emissions having anything to do with climate change.
And for those who are wondering who DCX is, it's simply DaimlerChrysler's ticker symbol.
Hydrogen is quite useful in may ways, but it has a lot of small problems.
1. Its rather bulky to store.
2. It doesn't exist in large quantities in nature, so requires energy to produce.
Would it be possible to use methane or alcohol for a fuel cell, or would this interfore with the way it works?
I swear, besides the NECAR logo it said something about "Nitrogen / electric", but I couldn't find anything about Nitrogen on their web site. I figure going past it at 85mph was enough to blur it.
There was another minivan ahead of me that was passing it at the same time. Imagine my surprise when this guy opened up the back hatch of his minivan on I80 to start filming. (yes it was an actual crew.)
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
And probably won't. The oil industry needs to look ahead and start working, seriously, on providing alternative energy sources. I don't think they will because larges corps only seem to be concerned with today's profits, who cares about 5-10 years from now. That said, it seems to me that if a visionary in the industry jumped in and built the infrastructure needed to distribute methanol they'd be ahead of everyone else and they could clean up while the others caught up. Natural gas is becoming more commonplace at gas stations around me because local/federal governments require it for their vehicles. Maybe a little arm twisting....
.. but when the next Ice age hits, you'll be wishing there was a nice layer of "green house gases" to warm your sorry ass!!
It is not really that disgusting at all. The policy is attacked because it does not give in to certain special interests:
- people who hate SUV's because they can't see over them.... or just get mad when they see someone in a bigger car.
- "Limousine environmentalists" who rail against SUV's and "greenhouse gases" while driving one themselves. Al Gore is one of these.
- People who want to force automakers to make smaller flimsier dangerous cars with less passenger and cargo capacity that get more miles per gallon.
- Centers for science in no-ones interest who perpetuate tentative and unproven manmade global warming theories.
The twist to this is that in terms of the fuel infrastructure, the car companies really have little to say about it -- that's up to ExxonMobil, BP, and the other oil giants. So far, I haven't heard any of them really give a response to this alternative fuel choice, but I have to wonder if this is something that they'll fight against (as it would totally change the way they do business), or if any of them will actually work towards supporting fuel-cell cars, and get a jump on their competition.
It's possible, I suppose, that some smaller start-up companies might be able to take off in the future by providing "hydrogen" and "methonal" stations, but given large companies massive desire to maintain the status quo, I doubt any type of transition will be easy to pull off.
At least in the meantime the new hybrid cars are getting more popular, and I'm all for it. 75 miles to a gallon can certainly hold me over until 2010. Matt
note that the countries where the oil lobbiests are not strong actually prodice economical cars, eg. Korea, Japan. look who is seriously pushing the next gen cars, Honda and Toyota. the american companies stage these shows so that they dont look too out of touch.
I want 2D games back.
I don't think so but where are all the safety concerns over petrol?
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
i am for anything that removes the public from dependence on fossil fuel, especially arab\middleeast fuel, i think out dependence on arab oil is why those arabs are so damn cocky they think they can get away with anything since we are dependant on their oil, well the USA & the west need to QUIT buying middleeast oil and let the arabs economy be humbled...
As I see it, most of the people who push for hydrogren powered vehicles don't want to make clean cars, they want to make expensive cars. They seem to feel that if they can just make it a legal requirement that all cars cost US$100K and US$10/kilometer, then we will all happily stop driving cars and go back to walking.
Why do I feel this way? Because the folks who push hydrogen never seem to consider the facts that make hydrogen a poor fuel choice, and never consider that better alternatives exist.
First, let's consider the goals of alternative fuels:
Also, let's review the barriers to adoption of any new system:
Now, consider hydrogen in light of those requirements:
Now, let us consider biodiesel - made from peanut oil, canola, corn, hemp, or whatnot.
So, if your goal is to reduce pollution and dependance on a non-renewable resource, you logically would be pressing for biodiesel. So why do so many of these people push for hydrogen? I believe it is because they want cars to be expensive in the mistaken belief that this will push us toward their utopian ideal of us all living in bark houses, wearing bushes and eating bugs.
www.eFax.com are spammers
Looking at the article and the site I could find no information about the economy of it all
Sure there were numbers about the energy used vs energy wasted when using fuel cells compared to gasoline. But not any predictions about what it would cost per mile/km when it becomes mass market
Will this be an option for regular people (cost of car plus cost of methanol/hydrogen fuel) or will it simply be too expensive?
What about the environment, the methanol/hydrogen fuel has to come from somewhere, what is the cost of producing this fuel? Will we simply be moving the pollution from the roads to the "fuel plants"
What about safety? Some posters have asked for crash tests, I still think it's to early for that since we're talking prototypes here. But can fuelcells be made 'blow-up-proof' at least in theory?
- We are the slashdot. Resistance is futile. Prepare to be moderated -
Fuel cells are great, and I hope they evolve nicely.. it's a pity that it takes so much time to develop them, and so far, they have been most useful in space.
My question is - how will it work in the future? If I remember correctly, one of the reasons that the US government support fuel cells is in order to break the arab oil dependency. How do you think the oil tycoons will react when they'd notice that those fuel cells are endangering their profits? I hope their lobbyists won't make much effect..
Slashdot community, please notice: I am looking for a girlfriend.
Nave H. Weiss
Traveling time was 85 hours over a span of 16 days, an average of about 38 mph, but DaimlerChrysler says the car reached speeds of more than 90 mph.
In other news, late yesterday, state police officials from Nevada arrived in Washington, D.C., for the extradition of the driver of the Daimler-Chrysler fuel cell powered car.
Crime Scene Investigators from Las Vegas confirmed that a vehicle with tires matching those of the unique fuel-cell car was responsible for running over a Wayne Newton billboard near the entrance of the Mustang Ranch.
"We think the testimony the engineers gave to CNN will clinch this case and help to save America from terrorist speeders."
"Provided by the management for your protection."
A fuel cell explosion severely disabled the Apollo 13 mission. Ron Howard made an award winning movie about it several years ago.
Nice to see that they're working with alternative fuels, but if the underlying mechanics of their vehicles still suck (I lost reverse gear in my 1996 Ram 1500 at 38K miles) then what's the point? Even my 2001 Ram 1500 was a lemon (pray you never have to have Chrysler buy back a vehicle..). 6 trips to the dealership to fix a computer problem and the dealership was forced to buy it back.
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
An alternative fuel cell technology extracts hydrogen from hydrocarbons on the way to combustion. These are more likely to see implementation because there is a hydrocarbon deliver infrastructure in place. Probably will start with laptop fuel cell batteries that have triple lifetime over alternatives.
Material scientists have come up with all kinds of nifty hydrogen storage schemes. There are metallic sponges that store hydrogen in dense and fairly safe manner, expecially in an impact accident. I dont not know the economcis of such systems.
I've been evaluating both fuel cell and another technology that is well on its way to mainstream use... biodiesel. http://www.biodiesel.org. This diesel fuel is made from vegetable oil and methonol. It runs on all existing diesel trucks and cars, has a 100% clean production cycle (no fossil fuels required to make it), heck, it can be made with recycled cooking oil! It mixes with petro diesel allowing a easy integration plan (use a little at a time...). Also, its production requires agriculture which equals oxygen... creating a method to take whatever CO2 is produced and convert it.
Now, this isn't as clean as burning pure hydrogen... but is MUCH better than burning gasoline or diesel. It reduces emmissions by more than 50% and eliminates sulfur, odor and reduces the stuff that make smog by a good bit (all this is commonly associated with petro) And when you take a look at what you need to do to produce hydrogen you're looking at producing electricity (fossil fuels/nuclear) or some other chemical process that is harmful. You still end up putting pollution into the air. It seems to me that fuel cells are a way around battery technology, but I feel it is a very inefficient way to do it.
Also, the fuel cell car cost 1 million to build and broke down once? The National Biodiesel Board drove to the nearest Ford dealership, picked up a diesel pickup, filled it with 100% biodiesel and have been driving it around with no problems for 500,000 miles. They just completed there 10th trip across the country! The fuel cell car got up to about 90 MPH... My Jetta TDI (VW) gets up to 90 everyday! The speedometer goes up to 140 and I have no doubts that it can do that. 750 miles per tank, 55 MPG, road rage baby!
So think about it. A fuel source that is renewable, is produced with no waste or by-product, and its growth produces oxygen and cleans the air. Its also a domestic product and is already in use in Europe and the States. It can also be used on all existing diesel vehicles. I say we take all that money we're burning in research and start to build some pumps, fund agriculture and kick start the future!
This sounds great and all in the press release, but it is simply too radical to catch on. We are stuck with gas for a long long time. You have been watching the Sci-Fi channel too much if you think this is gonna happen. Why? The gov't has no reason to back this, a lot of us are heavily invested in oil stocks (including the govt), many [even if ignorantly] will fear the stability and safety of this, and people won't bother because they know they may have trouble finding a Hydrogen Sation nearbye.
Great in theory, not in reality.
They said that 4 fuel filters and 2 belts were replaced on the trip, and say that this could be a normal scenario for an "average" car on a trip of that level? If I took my new grand am 3000 miles, I wouldn't expect to have to do a DAMN thing except put gas in it and get an oil change when I start and when I'm done..
If I have to replace 2 belts and 4 fuel filters, you can goddamn well bet I'll be stopping at the nearest dealer on my way.
which is that it doesn't matter how the hydrogen is created, all the vehicles run off of the same power source.. this means that if petroleum can be cheaply used to make hyrdogen, than it will sell the best.. if it happens that methane can be used cheaply, than it can be.. it would go a far way from divorcing the current "it has to be gasoline, or nothing can run" mono-culture that prevails now.
What I would love to see, is something that used solar or wind power to trickle charge a fuel cell.. so I could just set something up in my backyard.. a distributed source of energy would be less vulnerable to attack than the current system is.
ChuckyG
Same with all "pure" science, which is why tech and engineering are more important.
Actually, there are a few other advantages to running biodiesel fuel:
1. Because of its purity, biodiesel fuel has no issues of sulfur dioxide emissions or particulate emissions. That means with a relatively low-cost catalytic converter a biodiesel-powered vehicle could easily meet the current ULEV and possibly even the SULEV standard for exhaust emissions.
2. Diesel engines by nature if properly implemented can actually offer the same power output of a gasoline engine but consume way less fuel for that same output. For example, GM's amazing Duramax engine for the large pickup trucks has easily as much pulling power as their top-end gasoline engine for that truck, but instead of getting 9 mpg pulling a 9,000 lb. trailer you get 18 mpg!!
3. People forget that when Rudolf Diesel first developed this engine design the primary fuel he used was peanut oil, of all things. That means he knew that using oil extracted from any high-carbohydrate plant it could fuel this car.
In short, with the right policy in place we could take huge tracts of farmland here in the USA and grow any high-carbohydrate crop (corn, wheat, sorghum, alfalfa, sugar beets, sugar cane, sunflower, and rice) and turn a large fraction of the production surplus into the distillate needed for biodiesel fuel. Even a diesel fuel with a 30% biodiesel and 70% mineral diesel fuel mix that has sulfur particles reduced to 80 parts per million could result in cars and light trucks getting 35-45% better fuel mileage, given diesel's natural efficiency.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
I think fuel cells are going to be more important in the near term for stationary power generation.
I love raining on environmentalist's parades. It turns out that diesel particulates are really, really bad for you - much more so than previously expected or understood. One researcher concluded there may be NO safe level of exposure to micro-fine particulates.
e +s afety&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&hl=en&meta=
However, unlike most enviromentalists who ignore things like this (and I'm trolling a bit here, for sure) and worst, I never see quotes regarding what it would take to match any signifigant fraction of current raw energy consumption.
Good reading:
http://www.ems.org/diesel/facts.html
http://www.google.ca/search?q=diesel+particulat
I'll take my CO2 from a fuel cell anyday. It'll all be moot once we start fighting over who gets the last of the oil, anyhow.
..don't panic
I have no degree in chemistry or medicine, but if I have understood things correctly, as a rule of thumb the poisonousness of alcohols increase by the number of carbon atoms in the molecule. By that rule, methanol should be less poisonous than ethanol. It is the by-products of the metabolization of methanol (formaldehyde and formic acid) that are really poisonous.
In the second page of the article says that there's (or will be, don't recall right now) a factory in Germany that will produce 100.000 tons of methanol every year ... from domestic waste!
:-)
Hey, it's just like Doc's car in "Back to the Future"!
My weblog in spanish
Hell, I'd be amused to death if DC brought fuel-cell cars over to the States in the demonstrated form of an A-Class Mercedes-Benz....yet another European car that *might* have a decent chance around here if the stupid automakers would just try it out.
More likely I suppose, we'll see it in the more upscale models....
I'm currently in the market for a small car to use mainly for commuting to and from work, mostly highway driving. No public transportation system nearby, and a small motorcycle isn't pratical in Ohio. I looked into some of the so-called "eco-friendly" cars that are available today, but was turned-off by how ugly most of these are. So far I've found the Toyota Prius, Toyota RAV4-EV, Honda Civic Hybrid, and the Honda Insight. I understand that optimizing aerodynamics is important for efficient energy usage, but a few of these cars would be decent looking cars with a few minor changes. The Insight is very CRX-like if they got rid of the wheel covers, the Civic Hybrid looks very similar to the standard Civic except for the odd colors, the RAV4-EV uses an old body style rather than the sleek body of the r-estyled standard RAV4, and the Prius has a pretty decent style but is rather small. With only a couple thousand dollar difference between a standard small car and an "eco-friendly" model, I think there'd be increased consumer interest in these vehicles if the manufacturers focused a little more on giving these cars a more standard style that blends in a bit on the road rather than giving them an unattractive design just for the sake of making them stand out or having some space-age look to them.
Tip: The "Chrysler" is silent.
And remember kids: Never trust a computer you can actually lift.
It's getting better, but it's not there yet.
The quicker it get's adopted, the faster progress will be made in the power of these cars.
55 kW is not enough for me. My car has about 154 kW and that is not even enough.
One bonus about new technologies' power output is that it is more linear, which is better for performance and the longevity of the car!
I currently have a Porsche 911, and doubt a new card would outclass it. I'm quite sentimental that way... If only Porsche brought one out too... -grin-
"The car broke down once, as the team approached the Nevada border on the first day. Water got into a connector that had to be replaced, which cost the team about a day of traveling time. The team also replaced two belts, four fuel filters and a plastic bottle that contains cooling water. "
It needed THAT many repairs on a 4,000 mile trip? Unacceptable. They've got a ways to go. Yeah, you might have some of those repairs normally on a 4,000 mile trip, if your car already has 60,000 miles on it.
I know it has no where near the effect as CO2 or CO but i do seem to remember from my high school studies on the greenhouse effect that the greenhouse gases are Aerosols (CFCs HFCs ect.), O3 (ozone gas), Carbon gases (Carbon-monoxide, carbon-dioxide), H2O (Water Vapor). As I said earlier that water vapor has no where near the effect per-volume as Carbon gases, and if these types of cars became wide spread it would still equate to a reduction in greenhouse gases. BUT with everyone driving one of these cars water vapor emiting cars, there will be a hell-of-alot more water vapor in the air resulting in more clouds, more rain, more storms, more flooding. Has anyone else come to this conclusion?
While he was driving it the fuel processor controller crashed and the car came to a halt. The German DC engineer sitting in the back seek then had him follow a ignition key sequence to reboot it.
Wow, that's impressive. I wish I could drive across the US at 38mph. Wierd, it seems like that would take 3 years, since Just driving across town at 38mph seems to take all day.
I don't know of any proponents of alternative fuels who want the cost of cars or driving to go up. That's nonsense, IMHO, and seems to be a rationalization to explain why more people do not advocate your beliefs.
But what I really want to talk about is that there is another reason to push for alternative fuels and propulsion systems:
Reduced dependence on foreign (non-US) sources of oil.
As I see things, at the current rate of consumption there are not enough US-based sources of oil to provide for the long term needs of the country. Adding new sources, be it Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico, etc. is simply a short term band-aid. We need to do something more drastic: namely reduce (and eventually eliminate) our dependence on oil based propulsion systems.
To accomplish this, I think that we need to start doing serious work on two things:
1. Alternative energy sources. Perhaps bioDiesel is a good candidate. This won't happen over night, so we had better get started now.
2. More effience use of oil-based propulsion. A gasoline-based fuel cell systems seems like a positive alternative, because it could use the existing infrastructure (gas stations, pipelines, etc). This can start happening as soon as the technology is perfected.
I think that the US should launch an effort, not unlike the Apollo moon program, to develop these new technologies and infrastructures. But as long as the White House is full of former oil company executives (Bush and Cheney) I fear that the odds of this happening are slim.
/Don
I am sure once they get serious development started they will work out the reliability factors. What I am concerned about is how useful the car will be. The prices for hybrids and alternative fule cars are going to have to come way down to get me interested. I would consider buying one to get me to work if it was in the $8-10K price range. Unfortunatly if you have any more than 2 kids you need larger vehicles like vans and trucks. The alternative fules are not going to be practicle for the US family untill it can take me, my wife and 4 children to grandma's, or the beach, complete with luggage and other accessories. I just do not see this happening with the cars they are producing today.
I work at one of the big three, the fuel-cell program. Our 5000psi tank can withstand impact from a gunshot. It is a nice design, metal casing enclosed in composite layers. If the tank ruptures, it is designed to leak slowly. Doing a fully integrated vehicle crash test is part of the plan.
As for safety, just remember that hydrogen can be just as dangerous as gasoline. The rules are just different - people are just more familiar with gasoline. Gasoline leaks to the ground, hydrogen escapes to the top and into space. Gasoline refueling infrastructure has the risk of spilling and fuming. Between cooking gas and hydrogen, if they fill up a room, even though hydrogen contains 3 times more energy per mass than cooking gas, energy per volume is less at room temperature.
As for hinderberg thingy... watch how it exploded. The hydrogen flash-burned instantly. What burned long enough to kill the victims is the canvas itself! It is laced with aluminum to reflect the sunlight but underneath it is an iron oxide compound. Aluminum + Iron Oxide = Solid Rocket Fuel.
See you around.
I believe hydrogen is more dangerous because it is a gas. Like methane, if leaked to air, it mixes and forms fuel-air explosive. The air temperature is usually too low for gasoline to do that, and always too low for diesel fuel to do so.
There is also empirical evidence. The very low direct usage of hydrogen as fuel doesn't mean there is no evidence of risk, because millions of tonnes of it are used each year for other purposes. About a thousandth as much, in terms of energy content, as petroleum and natural gas.
My idea of a safe fuel.
Two reasons: Expense and infrastructure.
To be economical, the savings of increased fuel economy have to be great - i.e. the cars are driven a LOT, and fuel costs become significant.
In addition, the article mentioned that the car could not refuel at normal gas stations - This isn't a problem for buses and fleet vehicles. (Fleet vehicles are the most likely ones you'll see running on propane or CNG. I know my school had a decent number of propane/CNG vehicles. This is because they were driven around all the time, BUT never strayed more than a few miles away from "home base")
Buses are the best example, though... I believe GM is focusing on buses for their initial hybrid electric projects. One of their spokespersons basically said that converting a single fleet of city buses (For a large city, such as NYC) to hybrid technology would remove more harmful pollutants from the air than over 100,000 compact passenger cars. (Maybe not quite that much, but it was a pretty large number...)
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Honda's new hybrids may look great for them, but overall, it's feel-good policy and marketing.
Unlike Honda, American manufacturers are actually addressing the issues of environmental impact, not making it look like they are when they're not.
Few people are going to buy the Civic HEV or the Insight. In 2-3 years, GM will probably have as many hybrid electric city buses as Honda has sold subcompact hybrids. I believe GM's estimates were that converting one large city to hybrid buses would save more fuel and reduce emissions more than *thousands* of Honda subcompacts. Why?
Because the buses are much larger (need the boost in fuel economy more), and run much more often (Hours on end, as opposed to a Honda owner commuting 15-60 minutes each way to work and running errands around town.)
Ford is taking a similar approach, although oriented slightly more towards the consumer - Their first hybrid release will be the Escape HEV, I believe slated for a 2004 release. If there's any class of consumer vehicle that can benefit from the mileage improvements of a hybrid, it's an SUV... This is evident in the fact that for the past 2-3 years, the HEV competitions in this country have had rule changes from custom "concept" bodies (Insight), to using an existing SUV chassis and making it into something that doesn't guzzle gas like a fratboy chugs cheap beer.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
A car like this could provide electricity for your home while parked there.
According to the article, the maximum power output of the car's fuel cell is 55kW, which is much more than the peak consumption of most homes (That is 500 Amps @ 110V).
Obviously, this could not be used for all home energy, as some devices (like refrigerators) run while the householder is not home, but it would let many people reduce their dependency on fixed electricity grids.
Where it would be especially useful would be for homes in the back country, especially holiday homes. The home owner would no longer have to choose, between finding a place close enough to mains power infrastructure that electrify could be installed, or virtually camping in very primitive conditions without electric light, TV, AC or refrigeration. By plugging their home into their fuel cell car, it would be possible to own a very isolated holiday cottage, without access to any wired services, and still have modern comforts.
Of course, I don't expect cars to replace conventional electricity infrastructure anywhere when an existing reliable system exists, but I think it will become important where there is none, or mains electricity is unreliable or expensive.
Call me paranoid, but could someone just check and make sure that's not a coating of aluminum doping compound? Thanks!
Oh, yeah, it's not easy to pad these out to 120 characters.
Hydrogen fuel cell technology was OK'd by the Bush administration for one reason -- hydrogen fuel stations around the nation charging us for the fuel.
Other energy sources, such as electric, could possibly be refined to be rechargable and reusable for considerable distances and have rechargable batteries that last 3-4 years with the same development curve.
I don't think Hydrogen is the real choice here -- electric is -- but the US Gov't wants a renewable resource that will still make them the biggest profit. Don't be fooled -- we are getting ripped off.
don't say 'Daimler-Chrysler', you'll piss ze germans off.
The car is interesting, but the real work is all in the fuel cell. It's kind of like Dell saying, "We made this super fast computer, and it's rated at 5 gigaflops" without mentioning who made the CPU, motherboard, etc, etc.
I did some poking around - Ballard made the fuel cell, and here is their press release summary page:
Ballard Powers DaimlerChrysler's Fuel Cell Vehicle on a 3,000 Mile Drive Across the United States
If it was the 4-speed electronic (A604, later called the 41TE or TH), no wonder... Usually Chrysler was known for excellent engineering (This has changed since the DCX merger - The incompatibilities of German management with an American company have destroyed almost all of what was once good about Chrysler), but the A604 was one of Chrysler's biggest blunders ever. Throughout its life, it's been plagued with problems. Chrysler solved the early problems, but new ones seem to have other ones.
Good news is that a lot of the problems with the 604 aren't major - Incompetent mechanics (AAMCO, for example) will often prescribe a rebuild, for a problem that would be $50 to fix with proper diagnosis.
Chrysler's other automatic tranny design (A413/A670/31TH - All the same internals, slightly different housings) is regarded as nearly indestructible, a point proven by its popularity with Chrysler hot-rodders (http://www.thedodgegarage.com/) - Racers won't *touch* the 604, tho.
Sadly, Chrysler isn't what it once was, even a few years ago, thanks to Daimler.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Why is eveyone waiting? Bio-diesel is available now, today. It is non-toxic and bio-degradable and 100% compatible with diesel engines. Sure it is not the cure, but a transition fuel available now, not 10 years from now. And you can make it in your kitchen...see biodiesel.org
Traveling time was 85 hours over a span of 16 days ,... DaimlerChrysler says the car reached speeds of more than 90 mph.
I have images of a subcompact full of sleep-deprived, coffee-fueled engineers on the interstate shouting, "Let's take this hydrogen rocket to the moon! Yeee ha!" as they pin the speedo needle.
Everytime I hear about an auto maker using fuel cell technology, it always is a hydrogen based one.
No one ever mentions the many other safer? systems like Zinc Air.
It just seems that replacing the mega Oil companies with mega Hydrogen companies doesn't sound like much of a change (other then being good to the environment)
The Zinc Air companies seem to have a better solution in many ways. I just can't see why all the auto makers want to go with another explosive compound that requires special handling and containment vessels.. Maybe they own shares in the "New" gas stations of the future ?
Time travel is possible. We are quickly heading for 1984.
In other news the CEO of DaimlerChrysler found dead today shot behind the ear with a .22 bullet.
Police say it's a mystery as to who would have motive to commit such a horrible crime. Back to you John....
Get your Unix fortune now!
Silicon as energy carrier has an advocate in N. Auner, Institut für Anorganische Chemie, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt. There is a synopsis. It seems idiotic to me.
To the continued existance of the oil industry.
Thus, we must stop the, if we expect to keep the oil industry jobs going.
We should also support the DMCA, because the MPA and RIA both *deserve* to geep their jobs going, since they've been there so long.
While we are at it, we need to find a way to require that all cars, no matter what their actual fuel, have horses hitched to the front of them, so that horses don't become unemployed.
Remember! Resist the future!
I'd like to see some yield figures for biodiesel production. What quantity of diesel could be expected per acre of hemp? My gut feeling on this is that the US alone consume way more fuel than could reasonably be produced on all arable lands, not considering that you wouldn't want to grow hemp on every empty spot of real estate anyway.
Someone turns a fuel-cell discussion into a Bush-bashing party, uses an obviously biased web site as a reference, and it gets modded as 'Insightful' on /.
Oh, the shock.
In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
AUTOnomy is just a dog and pony show for the public so they can say they're working on green transportation. GM has no intention of making anything like that. It cuts into profits too much.
I would like one of these for my home where I could recharge at night at off peak rates. Any idea if the efficiency is good enough to make this cost effective?
Also, I have a sister living in the USVI where power goes out regularly and voltage fluctations have burned out a few computers and tv's. Not to mention that the hurricanes sometimes knock out power for days.
There is no oil shortage, and cars causing global warming is a myth.
The only thing we really need to do is get rid of all federal gasoline taxes. Americans pay much more than the real value of the stuff.
California is requiring zero-emission cars in just a few years.
The reality of 1/6th of the US population suddenly needing hybrid and fuel cell cars means that this battle is already over - and gasoline non-hybrid cars are already on the way out.
It is highly likely that the 12 Western states that are already on track to have 10-15 percent alternative energy by 2012 while the rest of the nation can't get 5 percent (or so they claim) by 2025 will adopt fuel cell and hybrid cars faster than the other half of the nation.
The market will win, unless the administration distorts it with subsidies for old technology vehicles.
-
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
All this hydrogen has to come from somewhere. You can't find it in big pools under Texas, you have to make it. You can either extract it from petrochemicals (which won't scare the oil companies too very much), or you can breakdown water in to H2 + O. Be using electricity. Which is generated in large part by, say it with me, petrochemicals.
So missing the whole whole Big Oil fighting fuel cells angle here.
When we can switch over to fusion, then we'll talk.
What were you expecting?
There are a couple of problems with biodiesel. The first is the sheer land area needed to grow enough crop to extract the necessary amount of fuel (also add the manpower to harvest and process it). The second is that Carnot's Law, where by burning a fuel to extract energy you can only get a maximum of 40% efficiency (fuel cell theoretically you can get 100%). This makes biodiesel a good intermediary fuel to help wean us of fossil fuels whilst we get the hydrogen economy in place, but not a long-term solution. Finally watch out if you have an older car. From memory (please correct me if I am wrong) biodiesel will ruin any rubber seals in the engine but this is not a problem in newer cars which only use plastic seals. There are lots of interesting articles on biodiesel at Future Energies magazine.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
First let's look at your hydrogen comments:
# Hydrogen is hard to contain - you either use expensive cryogenics, or you have to use zeolite entrainment to contain it. It weakens steel containers by diffusing into the container and migrating to the ever-present microfractures and expanding them (hydrogen embrittlement)
There is plenty of research going on in this area, which are going in two different directions. The first is in using new materials for reinforced containers, and the second is storing the hydrogen within another material, such as boron, and using a catalyst to release it on the fly as you need it. Both are making good progress.
# You have to make hydrogen from something - you therefor have to have some other energy source. Either that source is burning carbon in some form, or it's splitting atoms. Wind and wave are cool, but not universally available nor do they have the power density to meet all needs (not to say that they shouldn't be harvested....)
It can be using solar power, which is available everywhere. Wind and wave can be used to produce hydrogen, which can then be shipped or piped anywhere in the world like any other fuel. Heat can be used but it doesn't need to be burning carbons, it could be the excess electricity from a CHP (Combined Heat and Power) station.
# There aren't hydrogen stations on every corner. Until there are, anyone driving a hydrogen car will have to plan any long trips very carefully. True, this would correct itself if enough people drive H2 vehicles, but they won't drive them until the stations exists, but the stations won't be built until the cars are bought....
There weren't LPG (Liquid Petroleum Gas) stations on each corner before it was invented, now they are available everywhere in the UK. Stick a solar array in the garden and connect it to an electrolysis kit and you might be able to produce enough hydrogen to get to work each morning (I haven't tried calculating this one). You can certainly buy ones off the shelf today that plug in the mains (and no that doesn't necessarily mean you are just pushing back the burning of fossil fuels back to the power station, there are electricity companies these days that supply 100% Green electricity).
# Hydrogen requires a special engine to burn - either a fuel cell, or a modified internal combustion engine. If you DO take a trip and screw up your planning, you are stuck.
Screw up your planning? That makes no sense. Do you mean break down? In which case you use your insurance, though since fuel cell engines have few moving parts the chances should be slim.
# Hydrogen engines DO reduce the low-altitude pollution - no unburned hydrocarbons, and fuel cells produce little NOx and no SOx
If we skip straight to pure hydrogen as a fuel, then there will be zero pollution.
# Fuel cells are expensive right now. They might get cheaper later, however
There is no 'might' about it.
As regards biodiesel, the major problem is that it doesn't scale. Can you imagine the surface area needed to produce enough crops to then extract sufficient energy to then drive all the world's cars? Secondly it _does_ need energy to extract the fuel: machines are needed to go harvest the crops, then to process them, not forgetting the transport of all the workers needed to operate these machines.
Still, well done on opening up the debate. You can learn much more about the merits of fuel cells and biodiesel at Future Energies magazine.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
-VRROOOOOOOM!!! SCREEEECH!!
**16 YEAR OLD DRIVE-THROUGH ATTENDANT** - "Welcome to Exxon/McDonalds drive-through, may I take your order?"
**DRIVER** - "Uh, yeah. 5 gallons of fryer grease, please."
**DRIVE-THROUGH ATTENDANT** - "Would you like to add a burger and shake for only 2 dollars more?"
I wish my lawn was emo, so it would cut itself.
How was this 'overrated' when it was posted with a score of 1?
Hydrogen can be stored in solid metal - no, really, there are alloys that you can stash the stuff in - or carbon nanotubes. Either method produces safer storage than your standard automobile gas tank full of gasoline vapor (liquid gasoline is not particularly flammable - so your petrol tank is pretty safe except when it's nearly empty).
As I understand it, the NECAR5 cracks the hydrogen from methanol right next to the fuel cell membrane face. So technically, it's not a hydrogen fuel cell at all - it's a methanol fuel cell. Which is cool, OK, I'm not criticising the technology, just trying to make an important distinction. The NECAR5 has no on-board hydrogen storage whatsoever and thus there are no real issues of hydrogen safety - the issue is methanol containment, which is a whole 'nother problem.
I tried to buy an American-made electric car (and I mean, I seriously tried for several months - faxes, phone calls, dealership visits, etc.) but GM refused to sell or lease me an EV-1 because I don't live in California.
Then, they discontinued the vehicle because "there was no market demand".
So, I bought a Toyota Prius, and I'm very happy with it. It's a great car, and perfect for my family on trips as well as my daily commute.
At least once a week somebody stops me and asks me how they can get a Prius (it's a four month waiting list, and you have to make the purchase on the web, but it's really very easy and you don't have to haggle with salespeople). I usually let them give it a test drive, if I've got time.
Ballard has been shopping fuel-cell powered buses for metropolitan centers for around a decade, I think. GM's lame attempt to appear progressive in the bus market is pretty pathetic, just as it's pretty ridiculous to flame Honda for trying to make better, more economical cars.
The Toyota gas/electric hybrid Minivan will be an excellent replacement for soccer-mom SUVs. The proven Prius hybrid power train (the Prius has been on the road for five years in Japan now) is unlikely to be challenged by GM's gold-plated version 0.1 entry.
Honda's system uses the excellent CVCC (Controlled Vortex Combustion Chamber) gas engine to get even better mileage than the Toyota, but it suffers from an inferior hybrid system that basically runs the gas engine all the time when the vehicle is in motion. (By contrast, my Prius can make it up to 35 miles/hour using pure electric propulsion on a good road.) As soon as Honda finishes fine-tuning their hybrid to match the efficiency of the Toyota, they can potentially get even better mileage - possibly in the neighborhood of 60 mpg (my Prius gets about 48).
i am for anything that removes the public from dependence on fossil fuel, especially arab\middleeast fuel, i think out dependence on arab oil is why those arabs are so damn cocky they think they can get away with anything since we are dependant on their oil, well the USA & the west need to QUIT buying middleeast oil and let the arabs economy be humbled...
Probably offtopic, but the whole mid-east oil dependency reminds me of a love/hate relationship: you cannot live together and you cannot quit either . And you are right: if this relationship ends, both sides will probably be better off. Currently it is bad on the Arabs because of American interests push a foreign culture onto their own. It is bad for Americans because they are being hated for that and the Sept 11 events show how bad it has become.
I certainly hope my country does not become central to American interests - we got enough home-bred problems to deal with...