Slashdot Mirror
Fuel-Cell Car Racing Series Aims To Spur Green Motoring
Anonymous Cow writes "The world's first international fuel-cell powered motor racing series kicked off in Rotterdam over the weekend. The organisers hope that 'Formula Zero,' like Formula 1, can become a forum for competing technology as much as anything else, helping green consumer cars to become better."
I'm not sure that six tiny fuel-cell powered go-karts going around a 500 meter track is going to help the image of alternatively-powered vehicles.
Do fuel cells really produce no carbon emissions?
Granted, the cars themselves should produce nothing but water, but how do we produce the hydrogen? Does that not require energy? I simply don't believe that all of the hydrogen plants are powered by nuclear or hydroelectric energy.
I am not against these ideas at all, but let's not get carried away. I've no doubt that fuel cells are much cleaner than internal combustion, but provide the real facts, please.
or until they actually drive a electric sports car. I think they'll change their minds then :)
I'm not sure the ipod will ever catch on. No wireless, less storage than a nomad - lame.
While I'm at it, I'm sure that man will never fly. That's the realm of angels and birds.
Oh, hold on, you mean those bicycle mechanics were actually on to something?
It's odd that on a place like Slashdot, it's seen as cool to by cynical, and cynical is seen as non-critically putting down anything that hasn't been out and about for 5+ years. Who would have thought 10 years ago that Formula 1 would be leading the way in development of mechanical (flywheel) hybrid powertrain systems?
Is crushing a suspect's child's testicles illegal?
John Yoo: "No, [if] the President thinks he needs to do that."
Or until Jeremy Clarkson uses one to ride over a delicate ecosystem.
Well, thanks to the Internet, I'm now bored with sex.
From 1982 to about 1990, the Group C prototypes ran with regulations that basically allowed any engine as long as the fuel consumption didn't exceed ~60 l/100 km. Then the FIA fucked up and changed the rules to mandate F1-style engines, ending the series' popularity.
There were a few races that ended in drama as the leading competitor ran out of fuel, but on the whole it was rather successful, with wildly disparate cars running very close races. You saw 7-litre naturally aspirated V12s, 5-litre turbocharged V8s, 3-litre turbocharged flat-6s and Wankel engines.
It'd be interesting to see a revival of this idea. More interesting than a fuel cell-only class, I'd wager.
We all know the BS about ethanol and how it takes more energy (all oil) to just to grow the corn than you get from burning it and that doesn't even include the distillation and shipping costs!
Well, diesel engines have already won Le Mans three years in a row (only been allowed for three years) despite having a smaller fuel tank than the gasoline cars, yet the public opinion is that diesel engines are useless for any kind of fast car and especially race cars.
So no, winning Le Mans in a "green" car is hardly going to change the image.
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
Whoa, troll? Didn't see that one coming! It was meant to be a serious point - uncritically destroying every new technology is no better than hand waving beliefs in "technology will solve all our problems."
The first flight was hardly in a useful plane, yet 15 years of development later, we had large, multi passenger transport planes. Just a point.
Is crushing a suspect's child's testicles illegal?
John Yoo: "No, [if] the President thinks he needs to do that."
Did I say that fuel cell was a dead technology that won't go anywhere?
No. Quite the contrary - I think it is a very promising technology that has great potential.
However, the GP I was replying to said that maybe this will help the "image" of alternatively-fueled vehicles. And frankly, a bunch of tiny go-karts doesn't have much hope of beefing-up the wimpy image of the Insight, Prius, etc.
I think you do not deserve your 'insightful' one bit. Development platforms for a new technology do not have to be related in shape or function to the end product.
The length of the road on which they function has nothing to do with the length that they could be going to on real roads.
These are just abstractions, and in fact simplify the development process considerably. Think about how much more costly this would be if all these experimental vehicles had to conform to regular road standards and had to take a full complement of passengers.
MP3 Search Engine
I'm ok with them using fuel cells just so long as they also include some manner of flammable liquid in the vehicle so that they keep the wrecks interesting.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
cars that look like the prius don't help this.
So if people can see electric cars with real performance that would even surpass the petrol counterpart it should make people more likely to change.
Just a tought, but maybe the major car makers WANT this? It seems to me that they produce ugly,slow cars that won't appeal to the masses with a reason. After all, electric cars need much, MUCH less maintenance and spare parts than a petrol car ... Lets hope the smaller manufacturers see the gap in the market.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
You answered your own question from a point of ignorance. You can't understand why USians are crying about petrol at $5 per US gallon because I don't think you understand what it is like to live here. #1, most of the US population does not live within metropolitan areas well served by public transportation. Most of us *can't* put the car in the garage because it is easier or quicker on the train. The trains don't exist. Moving from the suburbs/country to the city is not easy. It is much easier to whine about the cost of fuel.
If you only need a car that can accelerate from 0 - 90 in a reasonable time (why 90? Don't you know that traveling at a slower speed is more fuel efficient? How wasteful of you!) then I propose that we need no more new cars. Heck, even a VW Golf from 1978 had that type of performance and got 35 miles per gallon.
Anyway, you don't need transportation. But there are plenty of people who do, or at least think they do. Infrastructure doesn't spring up overnight, and given the distances in this country, it is unlike to be a 100% solution when it gets here, but if fuel prices continue to rise I think there will be more public transporation.
BTW, I started taking the bus to work a few months ago. I drive 6 miles roundtrip per day to a commuter lot, then spend 45 minutes on a bus each way. Overall my commute time is 30 minutes longer per day but infinitely more enjoyable. So I agree in concept that people would be better off finding a mass transit option, if one exists, and pushing for one where it doesn't.
This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
"I'm not sure the ipod will ever catch on. No wireless, less storage than a nomad - lame."
Taco's statement has become somewhat infamous, but I have to defend him on this one. He was essentially right (and these words are being typed on a Mac). Simplicity and elegance in function are virtues... lack of meaningful features are not. As such, I've never owned an iPod, as I think it's ridiculous not to put a simple FM receiver and a built in Mic for quick voice recording in modern MP3 players.
When compared to their competitors... Creative's players, Sandisk's Sansa players... hell, even the Zune in some cases... the iPod simply isn't a very good value, unless being part of the crowd appeals more to you than price and features.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Fuel cells are not "a good thing". They're an incredibly expensive boondoggle that's been leaching money from electric vehicles. Let's compare and contrast FCVs with BEVs that use modern automotive li-ions (phosphates, stabilized spinels, titanates, etc).
They're roughly a third the efficiency of EVs. Even if you use cleantech to create the hydrogen, you're still talking three times the coastline covered in wind turbines, three times the desert land covered in solar, three times the rivers dammed for hydro, etc -- not good. Even if your electrolysis was near lossless, as a couple techs in the lab are proposing to do, they're still nearly twice as wasteful as EVs. Even hydrogen from natural gas reformation compared to EVs powered by natural gas power plants is *still* significantly more wasteful for fuel cells ((25% efficiency versus 35%).
Hydrogen is expensive; electricity is dirt cheap. Hydrogen is fundamentally always going to be more expensive because it's such a PITA to handle -- leaks through practically anything, embrittles metals, is corrosive, etc -- and not to mention, poses safety and environmental risks.
Safety? Autmotive li-ions can be abused to heck and back without starting a fire -- discharged to 0V, overcharged, punctured, etc; the electrolyte is generally flammable, but no moreso than gasoline. Hydrogen is an incredibly combustible substance -- burns in almost any fuel air mixture, very vigorously, with a very pale blue, hard to see flame; rapidly evolves deflagrations into detonations in atmospheric conditions; pools under overhangs; can be ignited with less than a tenth the ignition energy of gasoline; enters pipes and tubes and follows them to their destinations, pooling there; etc. Liquid hydrogen is even worse; it acts like a high explosive. Check out NASA's safety guidelines for dealing with hydrogen to get an idea of how much of a pain it is to handle.
Fuel cells are ridiculously expensive. Here, go shopping. A good chunk of that price is due to the price of platinum, one of the rarest elements on the planet, although things like Nafion membranes don't help the price, either. Getting fuel cells for $10/W would be an outstanding price. Your average car will need ~10kW to maintain highway speeds, and more for accel/decel, so you're looking at hundreds of thousands of dollars. Automotive li-ions, except for the titanates, are usually a little over $0.50/Wh in bulk, and are projected to significantly decline with mass production, since they're not raw materials costs limited. A couple tens of kilowatts (a couple hours of driving at highway speeds) means $10-20k currently, and significantly less in the near future. And to top it all off, the batteries last longer, too. Nafion membranes tend to wear out over time in fuel cells, giving them around five years or so in typical FCV usage (some techs are proposed to raise that). And there are other components to break, too -- fuel cells have moving parts (compressors, pumps, etc), support parts (heaters, etc), and so on. Automotive li-ions will generally last for thousands to even tens of thousands (in the case of the titanates) of cycles. We're talking decades. To give an idea of how durable they are, the Volt is going to come with a 10 year warranty on its battery pack, and all of the other upcoming EV/PHEV makers are similarly talking about very long warranties. They should last the life of the car.
As for range, it's roughly a draw. 200-250 miles is a typical range for a FCV that costs hundreds of thous
Rock Us, Dukakis.