Slashdot Mirror
Hydrogen Fuel Cells Hit the Road
caffeined writes "Well, it looks like Honda is doing a real test of their fuel-cell car. A family in California is renting the car for $500/mo. Honda is charging them so that they take it seriously - an executive explained that if it were free they might not get the kind of feedback they want. If someone is paying for something and they're not happy - then you're going to hear about it. This is apparently the first fuel-cell car on the road anywhere in the world, according to Honda."
There have been a few fuel cell cars on the road in Vancouver, BC for a few months already.
"Nyquil - The stuffy, sneezy, why-the-hell-is-the-room-spinning medicine."
California isn't just a small strip of sunny beach on the west coast. I live in the valley and it is raining outside right now. It gets well below freezing in the winter and I often have to scrape the ice off of my windshield before work. It can get even worse if you head up into the Sierra Nevadas.
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be. -PF
http://corporate.honda.com/environment/fuel_cells. aspx?id=fuel_cells_fcxr e_pow.html (chassis)
f irstcat=false&kw=05familyfcx (image gallery)
http://www.honda.co.jp/FCX/ (Flash in Japanese)
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/10/hondas_mo
http://world.honda.com/news/2005/4050629.html (with family)
http://www.hondanews.com/CatID2045?view=p&page=1&
Enjoy!
If the fuel tank were to rupture and explode, it would actually be less dangerous than your current gas tank rupturing and exploding. Plus, the tanks are designed not only to resist puncturing, but to keep hydrogen gas from entering the passenger compartment in the event of a rupture. Numerous real-world tests have been conducted that show these hydrogen cars will perform at least as well as gasoline cars in a high-speed collision.
The Hindenburg went up so fast because the canvas was treated with substances that also happen to be used in rocket fuel. Even so, the passenger compartment itself was unharmed and the passengers survived.
Nothing will explode a la Hindenburg unless it's painted with rocket fuel a la Hindenburg. Pure hydrogen doesn't explode very well (just like gasoline) because you have to get enough oxygen to it fast enough. Hindenburg had the benefit of being painted with a nice solid rocket oxidizer that releases oxygen when it gets hot.
There have been fuel-cell busses running in Vancouver for a few years, too.
Must have something to do with Ballard...
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
more to the point, the air cooled volkswagon beetle engine was designed for cooler european climates. when people began driving them across the hot dry deserts of north america, the flammable bits on the engines (rubber, grime, etc.) would catch fire.
when religion is no longer the opiate of the masses, governments will resort to real opiates.
Er,
a te/807675.html).
For hydrogen to explode, it needs oxygen.
If the tank ruptures, the gas as light as it is would expand throughout the air very very quickly.
This isn't like lighting a balloon filled with hydrogen with a candle and watching the brief poof of flame.
This is like having a candle five feet away from a balloon filled with hydrogen and popping the balloon. That is, if there is a fire involved in the collission.
How often do collisions result in fire? I did a little bit of research into this, but the best I could find was that "crashes with fires are relatively rare" (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evalu
To explore this a little further:
What causes a fire in an automotive accident? Faulty gas tanks and fuel lines. This results in leakage. The vapors (which are MUCH heavier than hydrogen) then get sparked by something. This ignites the vapors, leading back to the fuel tank which then catches fire. I've witnessed car fires before (a few months ago, a car in the parking lot of my apartment complex caught fire). The fire burned for 10 minutes before fire response arrived. In that time, the fire spread from one car to the two cars on either side. It took fire response about five minutes to put the fires out. During this 15 minute time period, the materials that were burning included the interior of the car, under the hood, and the tires. The only violent explosions that occurred were the tires exploding.
I'm theorizing the reason the gas tanks didn't ignite is that gasoline requires a very oxygen rich environment. Gasoline requires a 1.4% - 7.6% concentration in air for it to be explosive. Any less than this and it will merely ignite; any more than this and there isn't enough oxygen for it to explode. It will simply ignite. The pre-existing fire probably used up most of the oxygen near the fuel lines. There was probably a phenomenon similar to what you see with an oil well - a jet of flame from the fuel line. Hollywood car explosions just don't happen.
Now, on to hydrogen.
Hydrogen, being much lighter than air (as opposed to natural gas or gasoline vapors), dissipates very quickly in air. At concentrations of less than 10%, it would require the same ammount of energy to ignite as would natural gas. The main point here, is that hydrogen dissipates so quickly that the concentration would very quickly reach less than 4% (the lower limit of explosivity). The likelyhood of explosions is much less likely than with even gasoline because of this.
Hydrogen Fuel Cells do not use any sparking or arcing componants. Similarly, the engine is a simple electronic engine. If something shorted, it could spark - but there is no combustion inherent in a fuel cell car. This limits the chances of even igniting the hydrogen in the case of a leak.
Fuel cells are also equipped with automatic shutoffs in case a leak is detected. This can't help if the storage tank itself is ruptured, but that would be difficult (Normal air tanks for scuba divers are very difficult to rupture, and tanks used to transport flamable liquid are even more difficult to rupture).
The myth of the exploding hydrogen car can be linked to two things: the hindenberg and the hydrogen bomb.
The hindenberg burned, rather than exploded. The color of the flame was wrong for hydrogen to be the propellant. It's very likely that it was the flamable fabric covering the zeppelin that ignited, not a leaking hydrogen tank.
A hydrogen bomb requires special isotopes of H2, and very high temperatures. Neither of which would be found in a car fire or a hydrogen fuel cell car.
For more on hydrogen fuel cell safety: http://sanewsletters.com/FCIR/fcirfctpart1.pdf
In the meantime, stop propogating myth and FUD.
An article on the Honda site says "In December 2002, the city of Los Angeles began leasing the first of five Honda FCXs, which are now used in normal, everyday activities by city officials." ... "While the 2005 Honda FCX is our second-generation fuel cell vehicle (FCV), it is the first to be powered by a Honda designed and manufactured fuel cell stack."
So this is a meaningful trial and a significant step but it is far from the "first fuel-cell car on the road".
here's a pic of a fuel-cell car after a nasty road accident which killed 4 people.
4 0-1128519068.jpg
http://www.visforvoltage.com/forums/uploads/post-
notice the hydrogen bottle. notice it's still whole.
---
Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
You are correct however about the death toll on the passengers. From the Wiki:
Well, before anyone beats me to it:
;) ).
Hydrogen Is Not An Alternative Fuel Source.
Hydrogen is an energy storage mechanism, not an energy source (unless you're talking about fusion
What is it that hydrogen brings to the automobile that makes people want it so much (apart from hype)? A few things.
One, hydrogen vehicles are electric vehicles; thus, regenerative braking and other efficiency issues become much simpler. Two, the fuel is easy to come by (if gasoline were to dissapear, we'd have to use ethanol**) and can be made disjoint from the petroleum industry (relying on grid power), although inefficient by most means of production (for example, generating electricity, then performing electrolysis). Three, the efficiencies of using hydrogen are very high - 70-80% or so; if you produce your hydrogen efficiently (say, from nuclear power thermolysis), you have an overall extremely efficient fuel cycle.
** - To preemptively head off this tinder box before it ignites, ethanol is A) not a net negative energy balance, and B) even if it was, it wouldn't matter. As for (A), only Pimentol (and those he works with) claim this, and his numbers are extremely questionable (relying on archaic conversion efficiency numbers, making unreasonable assumptions about fertilizer and irrigation, etc - I can get into this more if need be). Essentially everyone else who has studied the issue comes up with a very positive energy balance. As for (B), even if it was negative, that's irrelevant. The Nazis turned coal to oil extremely inefficiently, burning far more coal to power it than they produced oil's worth of energy, and yet it drove the Nazi war machine. Most ethanol production today uses natural gas, but that's just because it's currently cheap. If it wasn't, they could use coal heat, nuclear heat, any waste power plant heat - they could even burn ag waste. You're turning something that you can't put into your gas tank into something that you can.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
Ugh. You are confusing a gasoline fuel cell with a hydrogen fuel cell. You'll find they are very different things.
GMC is the only one who refuses to go along with fuel cells.
That is blatantly false. For one thing, GMC is a division of GM. For another, if you actually researched you'd find that GM is footing the largest part of the hydrogen fuel cell research. Honda is busy putting cars out and getting PR, GM is busy investing money in figuring out how to deliver hydrogen to the world efficiently.
Also it should be mentioned that the oil industry owns stock in these American automobile companies so they have a financial incentive to create gas guzzlers.
I don't know about this first-hand, but given the track record of your post I wouldn't take only your word for it.
The hindenburg was painted in cellulose acetate (relatively fire resistant - it took Bain a bloody jacob's ladder, at the right angle at that, to ignite it, and it burned itself out (the very reason why there is so much Hindeburg skin left in the hands of collectors), not cellulose nitrate (somewhat explosive, and occasionally used as a rocket fuel). Its coating isn't thermite, either (the ratio is backwards, and the layers were separated, not mixed as required by thermine, plus coated in a binder). Even if it was painted in rocket fuel, that wouldn't be an explanation either - rocket fuels combust relatively slowly.
Stop and think for a minute here: Hindenburg, like most derrigables at the time, had been struck by lightning several times in the past, and had large holes burned in the skin by it. If the skin was so flammable, why didn't it (and other craft) catch on the first bolt, instead of only when it (and others that burned) were venting hydrogen? Only when the hydrogen was mixed in stochiometric ratios did it (and others go up).
I could easily go on here. The fact that completely differently constructed WWI blimps (with different materials in the skin) burned in exactly the same fashion (the outer skin acts like a glow lamp to the inner hydrogen, which slowly burns from sucked-in oxygen). The fact that the combustion can be visibly seen in the pictures burning along cell lines, despite the fact that the skin was continuous across cells. Etc. I suggest you read up on the subject - the Addison Bain Incendiary Paint theory has been widely debunked.
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
Until you have a clean, renewable source of hydrogen you haven't solved any problem at all by building a hydrogen fuelled car. You've only moved the pollution source, and likely lost energy in the conversion and transportation.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."